Sunday, August 12, 2012

False Political Choices of "The Dark Knight Rises"

[Commentary: one of the goals of politics is to get you to unquestioningly accept the idea that to "solve" your problems, there are only two choices available, both political ; either "tweedle-dum, or "tweedle-dee".  As one of the main propaganda organs of the state, Hollywood's main agenda is to reinforce that very idea in the viewer. The third Batman movie  from director Christopher Nolan is a perfect example of the attempted selling of what is politely termed "a false dichotomy", or a bold-faced lie, or brainwashing, by any other name, as pointed out by the reviewer Jeffrey Tucker.  Here's hoping that you are intelligent enough to see through the lie. Regards, onebornfree, & The Freedom Network

"Before the third of the Batman trilogy hit theaters, I had heard that The Dark Knight Rises was a film without hope, with a long and dreary narrative that never loosens its grip. It leaves the viewer without a sense of answers.

I saw it and left confused. It saw it again, and left confused again. All the while, I kept wondering if this interpretive effort would pay off. Maybe it’s just another movie and lacks the ideological signifcance of the other two.


I too had read several reviews that had condemned the film from a left-wing point view, arguing that it took at cheap shot at the Occupy Wall Street movement, suggesting that it consists mainly of brainless menaces who are easily manipulated by a strongman leader. The filmmakers deny this.

Regardless, this was probably the best political feature of the film.

However, the merit of its warning about left-wing populism was seriously compromised by the portrayal of the Gotham cops as saintly guardians of the social order. Neoconservatives loved this part of the film, made all the better to them because the prisons are full and Gotham is ruled by a civilian-led authoritarian regime of tight law and surveillance — the neocon dream come true.

What’s going on here? Why is the movie so full of mixed messages and, in the end, so unsatisfying?

Finally, it hit me. And this will be perfectly obvious once you hear it.

The problem is that the film gives Gotham (and us) a choice between two forms of despotism, one “left wing” and one “right wing,” and asks us to choose the lesser of two evils. We can have one of two systems: bureaucratic/authoritarian or revolutionary/dictatorial. The idea of a self-managing society is just out of the question. The film biases that choice by showing one as offered by the evil villain and the other by a corrupt, yet stable status quo.

Do you see now? Dark Knight Rises replicates the choice that the present political system presents to us. We look at the choices and throw up our hands, knowing full well that neither really offers answers to the problem. Watching this film is like watching the Sunday talk shows that feature two flavors of the same poison. It’s the State of the Union address and the response to the State of the Union address, neither of which tells what’s true or gives us a way out.

It’s the two sides of the street fights between the Occupy protesters and the cops. It’s the left versus the right. It’s Republicans versus Democrats. It’s “law and order” versus revolutionary dictatorship. It’s Italian fascism versus Soviet communism. It’s the two sides of the Spanish Civil War. It is also the choice faced by old Rome in its late stage: rule by a corrupt oligarchy of the Senate or a cruel imperial dictatorship of Caesar.

It is the choice given to every nation in its late stages. No truly informed citizen believes that this is all that should be on the menu. But Dark Knight Rises doesn’t show us another way. It never shows us the option of a self-managing society where people are permitted to shape their own destinies apart from the will of two gangs of political elites. Whoever wins the great struggle over Gotham’s future, the results will be imposed from the top down.

The result is that viewers are left with a sense of hopelessness in the same way that the current political climate denies people authentic hope. Whatever happens will come from the center and top, leaving the rest of us unfree to manage our own lives, keep and use our own property, mind our own business and cobble together our own human associations. In The Dark Knight Rises, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not even distant memories.

The film opens with Bruce Wayne/Batman in a long period of retirement, living alone in his mansion during eight years of stability in Gotham. But what is this stability, really? It’s not prosperity, because the homes for orphans are full and they can’t get jobs once they are too old to live there. The prisons are jammed with supposedly violent thugs and the leaders of organized crime, swept off the streets thanks to a new draconian law that unleashed government power.

The new law is named after martyred district attorney Harvey Dent. In the first scenes of Gotham, the city is celebrating Harvey Dent Day. The police are in firm control of the city, as led by the police commissioner and the political powers of the city. From the perspective of the elites, nothing is wrong. Life is blessedly boring. Crime has fallen so low that police joke about soon having to chase down people with overdue library books.

Is there corruption? Of course. This is Gotham. In fact, the corruption is so deep and pervasive that the saintly district attorney after whom the present order is named is a lie. He is actually the villain named Two-Face — a perfect metaphor for every member of the political class. In his tenure, he said one thing and did another. People thought he was doing good, but he was secretly doing evil. Even the best men of the current regime in Gotham are willing to spread the lie of the greatness of Dent, solely for the purpose of maintaining government power and immunizing the power structure from criticism.

The strongman dictator Bane sees the vulnerability of this seemingly stable system. He perceives that people are seeking something, some form of liberation, and that he can use this political impulse to solidify his control over Gotham on his way to plotting its final destruction. He recruits the unemployed to work under the city in the sewers to plot his takeover.

Bane has plenty of people willing to risk death to work for him, both because they are desperate and because Bane offers a radical alternative to the present order. Meanwhile, the city elites go on about their daily tasks, completely oblivious to what is happening beneath the surface.

At the appointed hour, Bane initiates shock and awe in the form of massive explosions throughout the city. At the football game where a large portion of Gotham’s citizens are gathering, Bane blows up the field, and announces to everyone that he is the new leader of the city. Their elites have failed and now a people’s revolution is taking place.

“Gotham, take control,” Bane says, “take control of your city. Behold, the instrument of your liberation! Identify yourself to the world!”

The rich are looted. The prisoners are set free to become armed gangs in the Bane regime. Show trials are established on the model of the late stages of the French Revolution. Guilt is presumed and everyone is sent to die, to the cheers of the workers and peasants. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie cower in their homes in fear.

This is when the Dark Knight rises to set the world right again. His most-loyal allies in this army are the massive number of police who had been recruited during the years of seemingly crimeless stability.
As audience members, we are being asked to cheer for Batman because he opposes the bloody and ruthless Bane, who is a Stalin-like figure. But the best possible result that Gotham can get out of this is a restoration and intensification of the previous fascist system of police, prisons, rule by corrupt elites and mandatory obedience to Gotham’s version of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

As a result, it is hard to cheer. The choice is left or right dictatorship. It is Occupy versus the cops. It is Stalin versus Mussolini all over again. It is Hoover versus FDR. It is the Democrat despot or the Republican despot.

This is the dreadful choice that political systems all over the world have set up. You have to decide, based on your cultural identity and ideological preferences, what form of top-down rule you desire. There’s Plan A or Plan B, but no Plan C. There are two types of prison cells, but there is no way out of the prison itself. Our choices are not really authentic choices. All of us are inchoately aware that whatever the results are, we will not be freer than we were before.

One of the most-compelling images of the film is a prison that is considered the worst prison in the world. It is buried deep in a hole. You can look up 200 feet in the air and see the light, but there is no way that ordinary people can climb out. This is a chilling image of where most people in the developed world are today. We look up and we see a far-distant light, and that light is called liberty. But we don’t see a way to get there.

This much we can see. There is no Dark Knight who will save us. We must save ourselves. "

Jeffrey A. Tucker Article Original Source 

Other recent onebornfree "Batman- The Dark Knight Rises" articles:

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Is The US A Free Country?

[onebornfree commentary: to answer my own question: "No, it is most definitely not". The question for you, the individual is: "what can I do about this state of affairs- should I seek freedom via the political process, as most might suggest, or should I ignore all political "solutions" and seek other ways of restoring my own freedom"? Personally, myself and others in the Freedom Network would suggest that ignoring the political process entirely is the way to go, for reasons I will not get into here.] 

US Government Proposes Law Making it Illegal for Them to Kill You

 by Simon Black

Last Friday, US Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 6357, a bill which aims to ‘prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens’ by the federal government. In other words, in the Land of the Free, they need to pass a law to prevent the government from indiscriminately murdering its own citizens.

Now if this doesn’t give one reason to pause and consider the distortions of liberty that have taken place in western civilization, I don’t know what will. Think about it:

Does a free society send government hit men to eliminate anyone they perceive to be an enemy of the state?

Does a free society have hundreds of police agencies, each with the authority to deprive a man of his life, liberty and property in their sole discretion?

Does a free society have hundreds of thousands of laws, codes, rules, regulations, and policies which effectively criminalize nearly every aspect of one’s existence?

Does a free society lead the world in prison population?

Does a free society hunt down criminals and terrorists by treating its citizens like criminals and terrorists?

Does a free society tell its citizens what foods they are / are not allowed to consume?

Does a free society steal your money at gunpoint to buy bombs that they drop by remote control on brown people in faraway lands?

Does a free society debase its currency and plunder the purchasing power of its citizens?

Does a free society saddle unborn generations with obligations they never signed up to bear?

Does a free society award near total control of the economy, the money supply, and everything tied to it, to a tiny elite few?

Does a free society brainwash its citizens into believing that they live in a free society? (at least the Chinese know they’re not free…)

Ask yourself, are you really living in a free society? Are you free? If not, why not? What else could possibly be more important?

It takes courage to answer honestly. But once you realize the truth and begin to see the system for what it is, it can be a liberating and life-changing experience.

You’ll find that there are places where you can live free in this world. There are ways to preserve your dignity, your privacy, your livelihood. You’ll find that you can build great camaraderie and mutual trust with like-minded souls because you share the same values, not the same color passport.

My guess is that you’re reading this because you’ve already started down the road to freedom. But you might feel alone… intellectually isolated in a sea of automatons.

You’re not alone. More and more people are waking up every day and beginning to realize the incredible fraud that has been perpetrated against them. When enough of them figure it out, this system will be finished.

That’s why I fundamentally believe that today is one of the most exciting times to be alive since the French Revolution. And we’re just getting warmed up.

If you have any friends or loved ones who still exemplify that self-deluded, bombastic serf mentality, I encourage you to pass this along to them… and challenge them to answer honestly.

Original Article Source

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Are Military Oaths Meaningless?

[ This article was published  at this blog to benefit members of  The Freedom Network: An International, non-political, leaderless informational exchange network of individuals who seek more personal freedom in an unfree world.]

Military Oaths Are Meaningless 

By Roger Young :

Members of the US military often point to the oaths they take upon enlistment as proof they will never violate the rights of Americans. They insist they are committed toward "defending" the Piece of Paper (also known as the US Constitution) and thereby also defend the individual rights that this document claims to protect. But is it wise for the free individual to rely on such an oath being kept?

Since World War II, the US military has participated in numerous illegal, unconstitutional wars. The pace of participating in such actions seems to grow by the year. It has almost become difficult to keep up with them all. When considering such actions, I begin to question just when are these individuals going to begin keeping their oath? I have yet to see any mass resistance by members of the military against any of these illegal actions. 

I have read numerous accounts that such mass resistance will finally occur when soldiers are ordered to confiscate the weapons of, and/or fire upon, their own people. But why should I believe such an assertion? Members of the military, with very few exceptions, have followed all orders to fire upon, kidnap, and confiscate weapons from civilians in other countries all over the world. Is it that much more of a challenge for them to also execute such action against people in their own country?

How can the US Military "defend" the Piece of Paper while at the same time murdering foreigners in illegal wars of empire, thereby violating the restrictions contained in that very Piece of Paper? They have admittedly participated in criminal acts. Therefore, they are criminals. Why should I believe unrepentant criminals?

The US military claims to defend individual liberty. But how can one who willingly lives as a military slave have any appreciation of liberty? I assure you, people willing to kill on command lack any conscience about violating someone’s liberty. Why should I be willing to believe, when given the order to kidnap or kill me, they will ignore this order?
Please remember the following truths:

These people wear the uniform of the regime.

These people work for the regime.

These people are paid by the regime.

These people follow the orders of the regime.

These people actively protect the regime.

Why should I trust them? Given these truths, why I should I be assured that they have my best interests in mind just because a collection of words called an "oath" have passed out of their mouths?

And just who do they give this oath to? They, of course, give it to the corporate entity known as the United States of America- a political organism. It is not directed toward me, a human organism. Nowhere in this oath does it mention obeying orders from me or "officers appointed" by me.

Oaths are merely words that disappear into the vapor. They are meaningless unless backed by action. One such action would be to truly defend this Piece of Paper against "all enemies foreign and domestic" by ignoring the non-existent "foreign" enemies and concentrating on the "domestic" variety. May I suggest a mass, peaceful resistance or petitioning directed at those who initiate such threats.

However, I would be ecstatic if they all chose a less drastic, but no less courageous, form of action. If they really want to keep their "oath," they should immediately begin resigning in droves, deserting, or seeking conscientious objector status.

Protections of my life and liberties can never come from the same institution that directly threatens my life and liberty. You don’t protect yourself, your countrymen, and your families from the mafia by becoming part of the mafia. You first free yourself from the system entirely.

If members of the US military truly want to impress upon me their dedication and devotion toward protecting my life and liberty they need to forget about any sacred pledges and concentrate on action. Complete disengagement, by whatever means from the US Death Machine, will more successfully convey that dedication than a book full of oaths.

Copyright © 2012 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


Thursday, August 2, 2012

Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror

[onebornfree commentary: here is a good article which instead of  claiming "government conspiracy!" about whatever, simply just lists instances where various governments have actually admitted to "false flag" terror events for political gain, to start wars etc. etc. One of the goals of The Freedom Network is to make people more aware of the nature of their own government and of all governments, so that they can then successfully lead happier, more fulfilling and more peaceful lives despite governments and their unrelenting attacks on our freedom.]: 

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

For example:
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)

  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:
    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.
And this is not just ancient history:
  • Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Were The "Batman Shootings" a Government Staged Psyop?

[Onebornfree commentary: of course it is too early to tell , but clearly the alleged event has all of the earmarks of a staged event for political gain, it is even possible that nobody was actually killed, and that actors were involved-who knows. The main lesson here is to not believe any of the mainstream media accounts to date, nor even to necessarily believe the alternative press conclusions to date, more information will only become available later on to give a clearer picture, as has happened with other events, including 9/11. Regards, onebornfree]

Overwhelming Evidence Mounts Indicating Colorado Shooting Staged. 


July 28, 2012

It is now clear the Colorado shooting is a staged event. It mirrors previous shootings, including the assassination of Robert Kennedy blamed on the drugged patsy Sirhan Sirhan.

Recently produced evidence reveals that Sirhan was not the shooter and he was framed. In a federal court last November, lawyers argued that Sirhan “was an involuntary participant in the crimes being committed because he was subjected to sophisticated hypno programming and memory implantation techniques which rendered him unable to consciously control his thoughts and actions at the time the crimes were being committed,” according to court papers.

Holmes’ Psychiatrist Worked for Pentagon

New damning details on the Colorado shooting now surface on a daily basis. The latest is that the highest honors neuroscience student James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist. Holmes was a patient of Dr. Lynne Fenton at the University of Colorado. Fenton worked for the Air Force in Texas and was known for dispensing dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, according to the Washington Post.

The doctor’s background came to light after the corporate media reported Holmes allegedly mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to her before the attack. “Among the images shown in the spiral-bound notebook’s pages were gun-wielding stick figures blowing away other stick figures,” Fox News reported.

This is an obvious attempt to hastily arrange a backstory on Holmes and portray him as a murderous psychopath. It is a key element in the narrative portraying him as a lone wolf, which is the preferred government story when it conducts false flag operations for political gain and to manipulate public opinion.

Mind Control and MKUltra

Supposed Oklahoma City bombing mastermind Timothy McVeigh was under the “care” of Dr. Louis Jolyon West of UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute following his arrest. “Dr. West is a sinister creation of the [CIA's] mind control fraternity. Among other totalitarian projects, he has studied the use of drugs as ‘adjuncts to interpersonal manipulation or assault,’ and employed pioneers in the field of remote, electronic mind control experimentation at UCLA,” writes Alex Constantine.

“The CIA’s use of mind control to create killers is a matter of historical record. MK-ULTRA was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence that came to light in 1975 through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti insists that the program is ongoing and has not been abandoned,” Paul Jospeh Waton wrote on Friday.

Judge Imposes Gag Order to Prevent Release of Information Contradicting Official Narrative

The judge presiding over Holmes’ case has imposed a gag order in the courtroom. District Court Judge William Blair Sylvester has also ordered the University of Colorado not to release his school records after the media filed a request for the documents. The gag order was issued after video from the courtroom showed an obviously drugged James Holmes. The order “bars attorneys from publicly commenting on matters including evidence, whether a plea deal is in the works or the results of any examination or test,” the AP reported.

The effort is an attempt to prevent the media and researchers from discovering the obvious – James Holmes is a patsy and possibly the victim of mind-control. He does not fit the profile of a mass murderer who understands weaponry and paramilitary equipment. "He’s not on anybody’s radar screen — nothing," a police officer told the New York Times. "This guy is somewhat of an enigma. Nobody knows anything about him."

Shooter or Shooters Obviously Military

Following reports that the shooter resembled the Joker character from Batman, witnesses said he “was in full riot gear… He looked like he was from a SWAT team” and “was dressed from head-to-toe in SWAT gear… with Kevlar. He looked like one of the cops. That’s what was really confusing to us.”

Following criticism of the official narrative that the unemployed former student could not have possibly afforded to buy expensive weapons and paramilitary equipment – it is said the weapons and ammunition alone cost around $15,000 — the corporate media floated the story that he was the recipient of grant money from the National Institutes of Health. The NIH explained the grant included a "$21,600 stipend per year in 12 monthly installments to help defray living expenses while they pursue their academic research training experience."

Millions of Americans Do Not Believe Official Narrative

The Colorado shooting story is unraveling like the Fast and Furious story before it. Millions of Americans do not believe the official narrative and find the explanation that a shy neuroscience student suddenly turned into a mass murderer implausible. Many also find it suspicious that the event occurred as the globalists at the United Nations are putting finishing touches on a treaty that will eventually ban all firearms and effectively disarm every American.