|
By RICHARD MOORE
[HEARING — DAY 1]
Presented before the GRAND JURY of LIBERTY
On this FIRST DAY of HEARING
- OUTLINE OF INDICTMENT -
The PEOPLE v NWO Et Al
Defendant 1 - NWO ("Corporate Globalist Elite")
Defendant 2 - MEDIA ("Corporate Mass Media")
Defendant 3 - GOVT ("National Government Leadership")
Accomplice 1 - POLICE ("Police Forces")
Accomplice 2 - FUNDAMENTALISTS ("Christian Fundamentalist
Movement")
Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between
civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection, [U.S.] Defense Secretary William
S. Cohen says.
The nation’s defense chief told the Army
Times he once considered the chilling spectre of armored vehicles surrounding civilian
hotels or government buildings to block out terrorists as strictly an overseas phenomenon.
But no longer.
It
could happen here, Cohen said he concluded after eight months of studying
threats under the Pentagon microscope.
—
From Staff and Wire Reports, The Times of the Ark-La-Tex, 15 September
1997
I found the above statement on the
Internet, not MEDIA. The statement may seem
incredible to many, but it should, I suggest, be taken as a real and ominous
warning.
"It could happen here" turns out to be a more apt phrase than Mr. Cohen may have
intended — the historical overtones of "dictatorship" and
"fascism" which ring from it are not to be lightly dismissed.
With the USA in the forefront, the following trends
— long familiar in the Third World — are beginning to spread slowly but surely
to the West generally: the erosion of civil liberties, growing POLICE powers,
paramilitarisation of POLICE forces, widespread surveillance of citizens, and an
increasing political emphasis on stricter laws and more aggressive law enforcement. These
trends add up to the establishment of a comprehensive police-state infrastructure: the
physical and legal apparatus of a paramilitarised society.
We do not yet have paramilitarised societies in the
West — except perhaps as limited to certain urban enclaves — but the essential
foundations for more general deployment are falling steadily into place. This development
— despite what MEDIA-inspired "common wisdom" might indicate — cannot
be explained away as being simply a natural response to the problems of crime, drugs, and
terrorism: the enforcement-intensive approach, it turns out, is not particularly effective
in addressing these social problems — as their continuing growth demonstrates.
There is a more credible explanation for the
establishment of police-state infrastructures, and there are sound reasons to expect that
actual paramilitarised societies will become common — and these have to do with the
NWO’s GLOBALISATION agenda.
As the nation state declines and power shifts to
global bureaucracies, and as social conditions worsen due to runaway "market
reform", more and more citizens are beginning to feel disenfranchised. Rather than
being participants in a democracy, they are increasingly feeling like cogs in an
out-of-control corporate machine. As more citizens come to feel both politically
disenfranchised and economically insecure, and as unemployment and poverty become more
pervasive, police states are likely to become increasingly necessary in order to maintain
civil order.
From the perspective of a foresighted and cautious
NWO planner, provisioning for paramilitarised societies would be every bit as necessary as
eliminating corporate regulations and making sure free-trade treaties get pushed through.
One may fairly ask however, whether "NWO planners" really exist, whether they
are that foresighted, and whether they have that much influence over GOVT. This INDICTMENT
presents evidence for an affirmative answer to each of those questions.
The top leaders (GOVT) of nearly every major
democracy are outspoken advocates of globalisation, market reform, reduced corporate
taxation and regulation, and sovereignty-surrendering free-trade treaties; in short: GOVT
acts as a NWO agent. The NWO agenda is a corporate agenda; GOVT and MEDIA often
COLLABORATE in selling and implementing the NWO agenda.
The NWO agenda is also a coherent agenda: it
proceeds not in fits and starts, but as a broad sweep of initiatives that are
professionally promoted and managed in international forums as well as in each nation and
in the global MEDIA. If a more potent framework for managing public order is perceived as
necessary for the preservation of order under globalism, it would not be surprising if
MEDIA and pro-NWO GOVT were to play their supporting roles just as faithfully as they do
in all other aspects of globalisation. "Market reform" is the rhetoric selling WEAKER
GOVT (toward corporations); while "war on perpetrators" is the rhetoric that
sells STRONGER GOVT (toward PEOPLE).
GOVT and MEDIA, not surprisingly, give no public
credence to the possibility of an encroaching police state; the typical television viewer
would presumably dismiss such a "fantasy" as being either the paranoid delusions
of militia cult members or perhaps the rhetoric of populist demagogues.
GOVT and MEDIA do however make sure none of
us ever forget about the dangers of crime, drugs, and terrorism. Each brick in the
police-state wall — each new POLICE power or discarded liberty — is heralded as
a necessary tool in the "war" against perpetrators.
The fact that everyone’s rights are
being signed away, and that perpetrators are not likely to be deterred by these
"wars", fails to make the headlines or editorial pages. But a steady diet of
police dramas and terrorist thrillers conditions people to respond favorably if real
POLICE are seen to have big guns, itchy trigger fingers, and a disdain for constitutional
"technicalities". "Judge Dredd" and "Dirty Harry" have
become heroic prototypes in the public mind.
These important developments cannot be discussed
intelligently without facing squarely the whole question of CONSPIRACIES. Because of a
widespread (and MEDIA reinforced) tendency of people to dismiss anything that sounds
remotely like a "conspiracy theory", this INDICTMENT devotes some attention to
conspiracies as a topic in its own right. The evidence will show unarguably that
conspiracies occur all the time and that they occur at the highest levels of GOVT, MEDIA,
and NWO. The interesting question is not whether conspiracies occur, but rather how
they can be generally recognised, and how their objectives can be identified in each
instance.
From the perspective that conspiratorial behavior is
simply a recognisable part of standard operating procedure among our elite
"leadership" (DEFENDANTS), the various threads of this INDICTMENT stand out as a
coherent tapestry of police-state social re-engineering. There turn out to be a whole pyramid
of conspiracies going on, with only the top echelons necessarily cognisant of the whole
picture. Individual MEDIA reporters, POLICE officers, and GOVT officials may be simply
behaving according to the culture they find themselves in, but as one looks up the chains
of command, the evidence of conscious deception and coherent planning becomes increasingly
clear.
If the installation of police states are indeed
underway in democracies, it is only to be expected that covert activity would be involved:
what GOVT official or NWO executive would want any suspicion of such an agenda becoming
public? Not only would a major PR problem arise, but the public would then begin to view
"war on perpetrators" rhetoric from a disturbing new perspective: a dangerously
informed one.
I am an American, and I refer in this INDICTMENT to
armed militias, the Christian Coalition, the Bill of Rights, etc. as if those were part of
every reader’s political environment. I apologise to the JURY for this U.S.-centric
perspective, but in fairness it’s the American model which is being pushed down
everyone’s throats by globalisation, and the picture from "the belly of the
beast" may be more relevant than you think, however safe you may think you are in
your corner of the world at this moment.
Section 1: The erosion of civil
liberties,
and why that’s important
1.1 The Bill of
Rights: political
empowerment is what it’s all about, not laxity toward crime
The Bill of Rights, like the rest of the U.S.
Constitution, was born out of the American Revolution, the ending of arbitrary monarchical
rule, and the embracing of a bold new political philosophy based on individual liberties
and the "rights of man". The Bill of Rights arose not from any liberal attitude
toward crime — punishments were prompt and harsh in the early days of the nation
— but rather from a hard-won knowledge of how the democratic process operates —
what guarantees are necessary to enable a free people to act together and take command of
their own sovereign destiny without undue GOVT interference.
Newly enfranchised Americans knew from first-hand
experience that to operate as a politically free people, they must have the right to speak
their minds publicly without fear of GOVT reprisal; they must be able to gather with
fellow citizens and publicly air their grievances; their property must be safe from
arbitrary confiscation; juries must reflect their own communities, rather than being GOVT
stooges. Every one of the ten Rights arose out of oppressive experience which Americans of
all stripes believed had gone beyond the limits of appropriate GOVT power, at least in a
country that wanted to become a democracy.
The Bill of Rights is a minimum set of guarantees
designed to enable an aroused citizenry to stand up and voice their concerns with
political intent, especially when that intent is not welcome in GOVT circles. The
Bill of Rights was intended to facilitate legal political activism — to enable
future generations to organise effectively and peacefully against unpopular GOVT policies without
having to go through another bloody revolution.
As we shall see, in considering how various of the
guaranteed rights have already been eroded, that many of the dramatic episodes in American
history could not recur: they would no longer be legal. The massive labor struggles, the
radical agrarian populist movement, the civil-rights movement, the anti-war movement of
the sixties — all of these involved heavy-handed opposition from hostile GOVT.
But Bill of Rights guarantees — even when
frequently ignored by overzealous officials — proved strong enough for the democratic
process to eventually operate, and those Constitutionally protected activist episodes can
now be credited with achieving much of the social progress that all Americans have since
come to count as part of their shared heritage. Popular political uprisings are the last
recourse of peaceful democratic change, and that recourse is precisely what the Bill of
Rights was meant to protect.
It is noteworthy that all of these past traumatic
historical episodes were survived quite well by the nation — often with extremely
frustrated administrations in power — without the Bill of Rights ever being fatally
undermined. And America has always had its fair share of crime and lawlessness as well
— from the Wild West to the Prohibition mobs, the GOVT has often had to deal with
violent and frequently organised criminal activity. But only since NWO globalism has
captured control of GOVT, has diminished Constitutional rights suddenly become
"necessary" to preserve public order.
1.2 AMENDMENT 1:
under attack by FUNDAMENTALISTS
AMENDMENT 1,
U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the GOVT for a redress of grievances.
A state religion was correctly perceived by
early Americans as being an anti-democratic institution: religious doctrine, which is not
subject to democratic process, could all too easily find expression in GOVT policy —
a phenomenon dramatically demonstrated today in the fundamentalist Muslim countries. The
Founding Fathers, many of whom were avowed atheists, were clear about wanting a definite
separation between church and state, as reflected plainly in their language above.
The FUNDAMENTALISTS today openly challenge the
separation clause of AMENDMENT 1 — they claim, contrary to plain historical fact,
that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, and are increasingly succeeding
— with the complicity of MEDIA coverage and sympathetic members of GOVT — in
acting as a de facto state religion.
FUNDAMENTALISTS are not a religious crusade —
they are a radical political movement; they seek not to promulgate an understanding
of Christian faith, but rather are seeking, with increasing success, to impose their own
repressive values on everyone else — the very thing AMENDMENT 1 was intended to
prevent.
FUNDAMENTALIST activists, for example, were highly
influential in the passage of the recently passed "Computer Decency Act" —
a heavy-handed censorship bill which critics saw as "abridging freedom of speech and
the press" on the Internet, and the Supreme Court ultimately overturned it on that
basis. New replacement legislation, re-worded in an attempt to circumvent the adverse
ruling, is already making its way through the halls of Congress.
1.3 GOVT and MEDIA
complicity:
outlining the case for a NWO-inspired,
anti-constitutional CONSPIRACY
The FUNDAMENTALISTS have been functioning, knowingly
or not, as convenient shock troops for AMENDMENT 1 destabilisation. Their strident demands
for GOVT-enforced "family values" provides a convenient pretext for GOVT to chip
away at AMENDMENT 1 guarantees without ever needing to publicly admit that AMENDMENT 1 per
se is on the GOVT chopping block. Congressional critics of Constitutional degradation, and
there still fortunately are some, are effectively silenced by fear of electoral reprisals
by the well-disciplined FUNDAMENTALIST voting block.
It is important to note that the FUNDAMENTALIST
Christian ideology itself has not changed appreciably since colonial days: there has
always been a strong puritanical, libertarian-fearing streak in American politics —
ever since Queen Elizabeth I first encouraged puritan emigration to the colonies.
What’s different now is (1) an influx of support and funding for the movement from
right-wing sources that have their own reasons for wanting its political agenda
promulgated, (2) abundant sympathetic MEDIA treatment of FUNDAMENTALIST viewpoints, and
(3) a sympathetic reception for that minority ideology in GOVT.
The "FUNDAMENTALISTS vs AMENDMENT 1"
scenario hints at a pattern that will be noted often in this INDICTMENT. Whenever our
NWO-oriented GOVT and the collaborating MEDIA seek to chip another shaving from the
Constitution, they always succeed in identifying some societal constituency (above, it was
the FUNDAMENTALISTS) which needs only a nudge of encouragement in order to play a
supporting role — without necessarily being aware of the larger game being played.
As the constituency gains in stridency, MEDIA makes
sure that voice becomes an official part of "public debate", and GOVT cooperates
by responding to the "rising public sentiment" in press conferences, lending it
additional authenticity in the pubic mind. Over time the general public perceives that
"political pressure is building", and when the Constitutional retrenchments are
finally implemented, it is generally accepted as a "politically understandable"
GOVT response rather than a threatening GOVT initiative. Those critics who
point out the opportunity for GOVT abuse are dismissed as being either paranoid, soft on
perpetrators, or — worst of all — doctrinaire "liberals".
This formula works all too well, and is
well-designed to leave very few "tracks" of conspiratorial evidence: the members
of the constituency, for their part, are merely pushing their sincerely felt political
agenda, in respectable democratic fashion; MEDIA are simply reporting what appears to be
news, with no more apparent spin than any of their other stories; GOVT seems to be
responding as it should to public sentiment, although with perhaps a bit more dispatch and
effectiveness than for run-of-the-mill legislation.
The evidentiary case for good-faith behavior all
around — even if misguided — seems on the face of it to be sound. The case for
nefarious intent, on the other hand, is initially indicated only by circumstantial (yet
significant) evidence: the unarguably and permanently diminished Constitution, the
measurably increased GOVT powers, the all-too-convenient public acquiescence in the
outcome, and the long-term material benefit to maintenance of public order during the
ravages of NWO globalisation.
Given such a brilliant formula, and in the face of
ongoing MEDIA misinformation, a heavy burden of proof falls on any prosecutor who seeks to
convince a JURY that the corporate NWO agents at the head of our presumed democracy are in
fact guilty of intentionally embezzling democracy and freedom from the Constitutional
coffers, so that their New World Order can be conveniently installed and sustained.
Even to describe the crime accurately, identify the
perpetrators, and present the motivation — long before any evidence can be offered
— it becomes already difficult to express the case in a way that doesn’t sound
daft or paranoid, given the depth to which public consciousness has been influenced by
MEDIA’s selective version of reality.
For example, most people I talk to in daily life
(including on the Internet) have alarmingly little appreciation for how substantially our
civil liberties have already been forfeited — never mind why. The full
implications of recent legislation and court decisions are simply not well
publicised.
Most people know an Anti-Terrorism Bill was passed following the Oklahoma bombing, for
example, but few realise that it sanctions virtually unlimited surveillance of the
American public (among other radical provisions) and substantially erodes...
AMENDMENT 4,
U.S. Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not
be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or thing
to be seized.
Similarly, the political import of these civil
liberties — whether lost or not — is vastly under-appreciated: MEDIA have
(over a period of decades) successfully linked "rights" inexorably with
"criminals" in the public mind. The fact that those rights were proudly fought
for by our officially venerated national heroes, and that for two centuries the
nation’s GOVT and PEOPLE have cherished those rights — this once universal
knowledge seems to have simply vanished (Orwellian style) from public awareness, as
reflected in MEDIA reality.
Even if the details of the Anti-Terrorism Bill were
to be pointed out to typical citizens, along with the language of AMENDMENT 4 — most
would be likely to respond that "technicalities shouldn’t be allowed to assist
criminals in hiding evidence from law-enforcement agencies".
Very few would realise that criminals adapt quickly
to refinements in POLICE tactics, and that in the long run it is law-abiding political
activists who will be left most vulnerable to being harassed by unrestrained GOVT
snooping. Even fewer people would also realise that such political activists have made
substantial contributions to American social progress ever since 1776, when a group of
them signed the Declaration of Independence and launched the Revolution.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
OF THE GRAND JURY:
At this end of DAY 1 of HEARING, the basic scope of
this INDICTMENT has now been laid down:
The general nature of the "crime" has
been stated (GRAND THEFT of Constitutional liberty);
The primary DEFENDANTS (NWO, MEDIA) have been
named, and their motives outlined (maintaining social order under NWO globalism);
Some initial INJURY claims (re/ AMENDMENT 1, 4)
have been shown to the JURY;
Some lesser ACCOMPLICES (FUNDA-MENTALISTS, POLICE)
have been named;
One conspiratorial pattern has been outlined
(recruitment of disaffected FACTION as patsy ACCOMPLICE);
The special difficulties of prosecuting this case
while the DEFENDANTS (esp. MEDIA) are still at large has been noted;
On DAY 2 of HEARING, remaining INJURY claims and
ACCOMPLICES will be named; presentation of details of case will begin.
Thank you for your attention.
[END OF DAY 1 - TO BE CONTINUED]
Richard
Moore, an expatriate from Silicon Valley, currently lives and writes
in Wexford, Ireland. He currently runs the Cyberjournal "list"
on the Internet. Email: rkmoore@iol.ie,
http://cyberjournal.org
Address: PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland.
|
