Speak to the people
First, I wish to say thank you for your courage and dedication to getting truth out to the world.
In this quote from one of your weekly reports, a major question comes to mind:
“According to senior Pentagon and Asian Secret Society sources, a decision to establish a de facto World government is also being negotiated at the highest levels. This would not be the Khazarian plan for a totalitarian New World Order controlled by Khazarian gangsters. Instead, it would involve democratically revamping the existing international architecture so that real-world peace and prosperity would be possible for the first time in human history.”
My question comes from what seems to be a contradiction, and also from the stated goal of “democratically revamping the existing international architecture.”
1. The contradiction is suggested by the idea that anything negotiated “at the highest levels” to establish a de facto World government cannot possibly be democratic. Who makes up the “highest levels” that would be even partially inclined to choose a democratic process that gives power to the masses? And, any World government created by people who have risen to the highest levels in the current world driven by competitive beliefs and win/lose psychology can only be a continuation of the up/down mentality that creates and sustains “highest levels” that by definition cannot relinquish their power and design themselves out of their power positions.
BF: That is a good point. The thing is, though, I have to deal with the real world and the existing power structures, because pragmatically it appears to be the only way to make things happen. However, the analysis by the Swiss group showed that the top of the power structure consists of 700 people, and that means we outnumber them by 10 million to one. Pressure from the bottom has forced these people to the negotiating table. Many of the worst top power holders have also now been eliminated, so the remainder now “see the light.”
2. “Democratically revamping the existing international architecture” presents a daunting challenge: how to democratically do anything of such magnitude? The “demos”—the people—are to be allowed/trained to vote on all elements of the new architecture? Where on earth is there one working example of democracy? There is none, and yet you envision a global democracy that can decide/vote on what institutions they want to replace an architecture they do not understand with new institutions that are strange to them and beyond the comprehension of a majority of humanity?
BF: What we are witnessing is real-time, live democracy in the form of the Internet. The battle is to keep that forum open and free. Ultimately, I support the idea of a meritocracy. This would be something like a Eurovision song contest where anybody can try to get to the top and everybody can see who got there and why.
Personally, I admire your idealism. In this case, however, I long to read your down-to-earth, nuts-and-bolts recommendations on how the above dream can be accomplished.
My view is that only a grassroots movement that is the opposite of anything the “highest levels” can possibly conceive or implement to a humanity exhausted by such elitist “solutions” can bring about real change. I hope your writing and interviews begin to reveal you are willing to talk to the man in the street and the mother in the kitchen so they understand what they can do with their neighbors and their community to create their own new world.
Looking to any more “solutions” to be handed down to them by the powerful just continues their sheep mindset and hastens the day when their only course is open revolt.
BF: Believe me, I started this process by talking to “the masses,” and I came to the conclusion the masses are good at expressing discontent when they can feel things are wrong. However, when it comes to solutions, it is easier to criticize someone for spilling a glass of milk than it is to put the milk back in the glass. Hopefully, meritocracy will allow for the selection of widely accepted and respected people who have solutions.