G. Edward Griffin

Today I just read a fascinating short series of articles written by G. Edward Griffin. It can be found here: http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/futurecalling.html

After reading the article, I must say that I was frustrated, to say the least. In the past, I had an awareness of the shortcomings of our nation in intercepting the Japanese during Pearl Harbor as well as the questionable premises that got us involved in WWI. The War on Terror truly seems an overreaction to 9/11 when one considers the tens of thousands of innocent lives our nation has taken (even if inadvertently) in our quest to control Iraq and Afghanistan. Most Americans have a bad feeling about the way that our wars are being conducted, even if they agree with the war in general. This article clarified the many reasons behind many Americans' gut instincts that tell them something is wrong with the War on Terror. The number of military suicides alone should be saying something. But, oops!, don't count on Fox News or CNN to tell you much about that. It is shameful that our dedicated soldiers are having to cope with permanent mental and physical debilitation as the result of a dubious war.

In my personal experience, it has been very useful to understand and attempt to predict actions based on motivations and intent. Simply knowing causes and effects is often not enough, especially when dealing with governments and politics. This is simply because politics inserts a number of interests that often seek to confuse situations so that actions can be covered up and research can be misdirected. Although the facts of events are absolutely important, there are often many "facts" that are purveyed as facts in order to confuse the issue. Thus, when confronted with conflicting information, it is absolutely essential to view things through the lens of history and through an understanding of human nature and motivation.

Griffin's articles describe facts of numerous events, but these facts are at least somewhat at odds with the "official" story that we are often taught. So who is correct? As Griffin rightly points out, proof is something of a moving target, since the level of evidence required to prove will vary from person to person. This cannot be helped, but is to be accepted when attempting to argue any point. As is the case in legal cases, the standard of proof may vary between "more probable than not," "beyond all reasonable doubt," and "clear and convincing evidence." So be it. I would say that we should just keep the gravity of the situation in mind. Situations that are particularly grave should certainly be further investigated if there is even a shadow of a doubt that the "official" story is true in both substance or in spirit, in my opinion.

It is with this mindset that I read Griffin's article. Taking into account the information I already had about the many wars that America is in, including the current one, I can easily embrace the strong possibility that mistakes on our part were what allowed some of the past atrocities to occur. The question is, was there a motive? Although Griffin does not perfectly make a connection between banking and corporate elites and the wars we have, the times of our day speak loudly enough to show that private interests are often the controlling factor in our government's actions. Can the private interests be part of an at least somewhat cohesive plan to further consolidate worldly power? Why not? Certainly the vast majority of those that have risen to high positions in the world have had a set plan that involved cooperation and collaboration with many others. What then would stop them from together pursuing the ultimate quest: globalized control of the world?

So then we arrive at that point where many dismiss the thoughts as "conspiracy theories." If it is the case that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist, then can it not be possible that the greatest trick the conspirators ever pulled was convincing the world that all of their plans were mere "conspiracy theory" pish posh only worthy of cheap tabloids in grocery stores? Something tells me that the connotations of 'conspiracy theory' form a dangerous blockade to what should be interest in understand some well developed theses. Although the theories are not espoused by academia, I can see the merit in at least perusing alternative viewpoints - just as academia suggested I do.

All I have to do though, is understand human nature. It is not difficult for me to spot a liar. It is not difficult for me to understand the motives that other people have. And it is not the least bit hard for me to pick out the people out there that behave in a truly moral, truly selfless manner. So why would I believe one politician over the other if both appear to be self-interested, bigoted individuals that treat me as a means to their end?

It's been said that the key to happiness and success is to both see and accept things the way they are and to behave accordingly. Becoming severely emotional, fearful, or unduly hopeful are recipes for disaster as they cloud are judgment and keep us enslaved to our own whims.