In 1984 there are four types of people, based largely on social rank … In reality there are four types of people understood according to our reaction to information. Idiots do not question substance or relevance. Zealots question in line and in accordance. Elitists question in order to advance power and finance. Patriots question curiously and openly, often enough in prevention of exploitation. –from The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism
It is impossible to say what transpires in secret institutional meetings. Perhaps secret meetings are concerned with the orchestration of world peace, cures for disease and the eradication of poverty. Heck, maybe they are deciding when the best time would be to release their perpetual motion machine! But I doubt it. Whatever the subjects, whatever the group, they believe commoners do not need to know. And that in itself is a problem.
The notion of secret institutions and secretive decision-making are in direct opposition to the stated objectives of our free and open society, which employs institutions to serve its needs. For this reason, institutional secrets simply should not be. Institutions make plans within conceptualizations that do not recognize the individual, but which view a society as a single entity that must be controlled and influenced, dividing people according to their location, race, income or other conjured demographic reasoning – thinking which always benefits an institution, never an individual.
The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. –John F. Kennedy
After Hurricane Katrina, when the levees broke in New Orleans, many individual paramedics and rescue institutions were sent to New Orleans to help people. However the Police Chief from the nearby city of Gretna ordered the blockade of a bridge leading out of New Orleans, without explanation. Evacuees were met with a roadblock, shotgun fire and turned around, forced to remain in the dangerous confines of New Orleans. Was this a preplanned or an impromptu decision? What benefit could it have created for the individuals affected by such disastrous flooding? Either way, institutional thinking led institutional heads to regulate these circumstances in a way that contradicted the best interests – and the will – of the individuals.
Those who believe they are elevated above others because of their role, race, social position, relation to a bridge, or other conjured concept are ignorant – and their ignorance is strength to the institutions they serve. The fact is that ignorance serves to perpetuate institutions; the ignorance of their own representatives and especially of those outside those institutions. And while institutions may serve those who serve it in the short term, ultimately commercial and government institutions will always operate from a place of self-protection, striving only for the commercial profit or political power for which they exist.
Institutions act to keep information in order to gain and maintain power. Institutionalized secrets are never needed unless gaining and maintaining power are the priorities. If happiness and benevolence were planned by our institutions, the people would let them accomplish whatever it is that they plot! Secrets would not be necessary. Secrets are necessary only when malevolent operations are planned and revelation of the whole truth threatens the plan.
Today, the unknowns surrounding the secrecy of institutions cannot remain secret, for actuality cannot be hidden. Through our observation of actuality, keeping secrets, in reality, gives them away. To keep a secret requires concealment and half-truths, and such behavior reveals that one is operating covertly. Within institutions, such covert behavior reveals not just another lying politician or corporate head, but an elitist.
The Act of Concealment
Institutional secrets are only ever kept for elitist gains. Ultimately, information in a free and open society should be shared.
For argument’s sake, suppose elitist secrets were benevolent. Rather than keep benevolent information secret, they would likely tell the world in order, to cast away any suspicion and to gain political acclaim. Politicians are popularity-seekers after all. Information would likely leak. Unless one is under the proverbial thumb of an evil authority, there would be no reason to keep a secret from a society that would benefit the individuals in that society. Ultimately, to withhold information, even about apparently benevolent activity, in itself indicates malevolence.
But a secret about something malevolent is another, more obvious form of wickedness. Keeping secret information concerning active malevolency is an exponentially greater wrong. These secrets – such as wartime activity and the nuclear destruction of our environment – are perhaps easier to keep, because institutions would admit guilt by the revelation of their malevolency. No doubt, secrets are more closely guarded by institutions when their release means one’s own demise.
The very act of concealment suggests a dark agenda. No matter what the motive, withholding information is still withholding information, and in a free and open society, that notion is repugnant.
Political, religious and corporate institutions separate themselves from ordinary people by having more power, clout, connections and wealth – all mechanisms of a man-made economic structure of power and control. But most importantly, institutions maintain power over information. In the age of information, they separate themselves, like the “nobility” of the past, by keeping information to themselves and revealing (through the media they control) only what they want you to know. And by withholding such information, they reinforce the “pyramid system” in our society – to their advantage – for information is power, and individual ignorance is strength to institutions.
Individuals are entitled to secrets, but not institutions nor institutionalized representatives – at least they shouldn’t be. The actions of institutions concern us living, breathing individuals and must therefore operate transparently, to ensure the interests of the individual are met over those of institutions. Public officials must become open and accustomed to constant oversight and overview. There should be no secrets about public policy, and no information that the “nobility” of the NWO (Nether World Oligarchy) should have access to over others. Such an imbalance in information availability creates an imbalance of power.
The fact that institutions don’t share information – and in the case of the Fukushima meltdown, actively conceal it – is proof that they put the priorities of profit and power above those of God, family, country; above principle, individual and terra firma. If corporations had to share transparent information about their operations, then they would be forced to build the best interests of our society into their structure and true progress could be achieved. Instead we only find out after they destroy a river system for a mining operation or poison our oceans in the name of “safe and clean” nuclear power.
More importantly, institutional concealment is today is being sanctioned by our “legal” systems. What about the ideals that paradigm documents the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence intended to promote? Why are institutions today afforded rights that were once called the Divine Right of Kings – laws that do not apply to them, laws that provide institutional exception instead of restraint?
Proponent or Opponent?
All institutions exist as a potential proponent or opponent of individuals, and must therefore be subject to the open investigation of the public.
Perhaps, the secrets of our institutions are reminiscent of a plan like John Lennon’s song Imagine. Perhaps the elite live in exclusiveness simply to remove them from distractions, allowing them to concentrate on the betterment of humankind? Or perhaps – just perhaps – they are planning on instituting a global system of feudalism, where the People work for the elite, for hamburgers and soda pop, with valium (or fluoride!) in the water to keep people ‘happy’ and docile.
Why not quell questions and speculation about the function of today’s secret institutions by opening the doors on their secret meetings? Why not open the doors on closed congressional debates? On the annual Bilderberg Conference? If there were no secrets, there would be fewer questions, assumptions, ‘conspiracy theories’ and protests. The simple answer is – they would rather be shown to be keeping secrets than to have those secrets revealed.
It is well enough that the power of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. –Henry Ford, 1922.
It is obvious, when you dissect the function of secrets that they always support malevolency, and secrets always lead to more secrets. The truth is like an elegant meal, it is ninety percent presentation and ambience. The fact that secret organizations exist is enough to question and act on. It does not matter what those secrets are, that they have secrets is enough to make institutions appear suspect, if not guilty, of treason.
It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am. –George Washington, a high level Freemason.
The term Jacobinism refers to the French Jacobin Club that sparked the Reign of Terror rebellion during the French Revolution. Today, the term is used to mean any extremely violent and secretive club. The Jacobites of Scotland and England similarly rebelled and tried to oust the King with their own royalty. The Jacobites fought against the new royalty from Hanover, George I, in attempts to return the former royalty back to power. The Jacobites were unsuccessful, but many battles occurred between 1688 and 1745. Today, Jacobite cliques all bear one thing in common: secretive, manipulative operations.
If the ideas discussed within secret groups were beneficial to more than a small percentage, they would not be secrets in the first place. To conduct meetings in secret makes the discussions ‘conspiracies’ by definition, nefarious on some level, and definitely elitist. How else do you think they maintain power, even in the face of mounting social unrest? If it was well known that ideas detrimental to individual freedoms were discussed, their ability to covertly control the shape of our society would be threatened. Their need to keep their manipulative operations secretive inspires thorough secret-keeping, as it is far easier to keep a secret if revealing it means your dissolution and demise.
Institutions keep secrets from brothers and among brothers. The institutionalized hold onto secrets because it is the right thing to do for them or their crew. Just watch our political leaders or corporate CEOs in action; they are all well practised at concealment. Elitist institutionalized officials and those within ordained authorities are all trained to keep secrets, to withhold and twist information in the name of “public relations.” And unless it suits them to do otherwise, their secrets will remain so.
Many institutionalized persons exist in such a state of duality that they may always be lying, but never believe as much. Zealots choose the evil that is supportive of their cause, institution or belief. The false reality they create for the purposes of concealment becomes, in their minds, reality. They perpetuate the status quo, instigating support for their institutions by create a sense of fear in the community around the ideas of change and the “unknown.”
Similarly, many people exist in such a state of duality that they distrust the motives of political, corporate and institutional leaders overall, but still believe their individual lies. Many, while distrusting of institutions in theory, even adopt the ‘conspiracy theory’ rhetoric on their behalf in practice.
In our society, there are four roles that emerge from interactions between institutions and individuals. Idiots ignore evils in total and continue their overall support for the status quo and whatever institution, refusing to question their apparent reality. Zealots ask questions in line and in accordance only with the prescribed social paradigm. Elitists keep secrets to enhance the power of their own institutions, flipping, distorting and influencing the perception of others, twisting good and evil in support of their own selfish agenda – whatever it may be. Patriots question curiously and openly, and do so in prevention of exploitation and injustice.
Institutional secrets exist to empower institutions, through the unequal distribution of information. Secrets create slant. Those privileged to the information have an advantage over everyone else.
Just as liberty must be offered to all or none, what is a right for one must be right for all. Everyone deserves an equal playing field without slant or systematic disadvantage.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of poverty and all forms of human life. –John F. Kennedy
The Complete Patriot’s Guide
Ethan Indigo Smith’s book The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism: Its Theory and Practice is an insightful exploration of history, philosophy and contemporary politics.
An inspiration for positive, peaceful individual action, The Complete Patriot’s Guide is pro-individual in its perspective and, although political, discusses our society and its institutions from neither left-wing nor right-wing perspectives, exploring metaphors and symbolism relative to the fictional work of George Orwell through real history, philosophy and contemporary politics. Layered with insight, it is in part a literary exploration of 1984 by George Orwell and what has become known as the book within the book: The Theory and Practice to Oligarchical Collectivism.
The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism is available now on Amazon.
Crossposted from Wake Up World.
Support Ethan Indigo Smith
Ethan Indigo Smith travels from Mendocino to Maine to make positive impact and raise consciousness.
What is success? Practically everyone has a different answer to this question. When I first began writing success was selling a book or two. Now I realize that even if I were to sell enough books to buy a car, or a house, or amass wealth, it would be a surface level form of success. A higher form of success would be to generate positivity and help people, to participate in raising consciousness. Another next level of success, for me, today, would be to raise the collective awareness of nuclear experimentation and the oligarchical industries that mine, refine and burn earthen elements, endangering all life in the process.
Read more about how to support Ethan’s travels.
Content posted to MyMPN open blogs is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.