Posted on June 14, 2014
by Jerry Alatalo
So, how are men and women around the world reacting to revelations brought forward by Edward Snowden and other so-called “whistleblowers”? What has been the effect of the way he’s been treated after basically trying to do something about unconstitutional spying on every America citizen, as well as a good percentage of people communicating over the Earth’s fiber optic cable systems – 80% owned by United States business organizations? Have people gone silent like potential, new whistleblowers have in essentially closing out any contacts with journalists for fear of harsh retribution?
Who knows how many people have decided to “cool it”, “bite my tongue”, and stop communicating information they’ve come across through various means which is important for all people to become aware of. This is a situation for people that becomes difficult to deal with, because many are feeling reticent after the Snowden revelations about total information gathering by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) – of everybody.
From a moral and ethical standpoint, men and women who’ve considered this reality regarding their levels of interactions with others both in the United States and around the Earth over the internet is an important issue. First of all, there is this thing called a “crime of omission” which describes a way in which people lie by withholding truth from others. Any person who’s spent considerable time on the internet is well aware that there are certain facts presented on websites that aren’t being reported on the corporate news outlets, so decisions of a moral and ethical nature which need to be wrestled with is whether or not to disseminate important facts.
The moral and ethical dilemma persons who’ve come to think twice about their extent of truth sharing is one which now must be squarely faced. Taking a little time to think about possible scenarios where morality and ethical choices matter is a good exercise when trying to make sense of government spying and personal choices in reaction. One can imagine situations from the trivial and minor to more consequential and effecting many people, and possible times for decision.
Imagine that there’s a family in Illinois which includes a mother, father, two sons aged 15 and 17, and one daughter aged 11. The parents have agreed to accommodate the mother’s nephew aged 16 for a few weeks from June 15 until after the July 4 holiday. The nephew will travel by plane from California to Illinois for his stay, and the siblings are looking forward to spending time with their cousin. The California teenager brings a bag of weed with him, gets caught with it by the local police department when the group of four – three siblings and the cousin – are driving erratically after consuming the grass.
Nothing comes of it, the police take the weed, and the young driver/stoner is given a ticket for driving left of center while partying. The parents were informed of the legal problem and now they, since the Cali cousin is their responsibility, must decide whether to tell his parents or not. Besides the young man’s pleas to not tell his parents in California, the Illinois parents have become aware that the NSA sees everything communicated, and they are wary of using the word “marijuana” on the phone, over Skype, or in an email to the mother’s sister and brother-in-law in California.
So, they tell the Cali cousin to tell his parents of the legal event, and the marijuana, when he returns to California after the July 4th holiday. He promises to do so.
After the cousin returns to California, he fails to tell his parents about the Illinois incident, goes out with friends while driving the family Buick, shares beer and weed with the friends in the vehicle, crosses the center line while travelling 80 mph, and the head-on crash kills all four friends in the Buick – as well as the young parents and their two toddlers in the Toyota Camry on the other side of the center line.
The parents from Illinois fly to California for the grim funeral event. After arriving at the home of the California parents and beginning their three-day difficult stay, the sisters try to console each other after the profound tragedy. “I never knew he smoked marijuana. We would’ve warned him never to drive while high, because of the danger.” The sister from Illinois replied, “He never told you about the incident over the July 4th holiday?”
“No, what incident?”
After some months the California couple had managed, as well as could be expected after such a tragedy of enormous proportion, to return to whatever shreds of normal life they could muster. To help deal with their overwhelming sense of loss and guilt, they joined with other parents who had lost sons and daughters to drunk and drug-influenced car crashes and spoke to many high school students about their experiences.
The husband and wife had good jobs at separate banks in their home city in California, the husband by one of the so-called “too-big-to-fail” bank corporations, and the wife by a local credit union. Both had earned degrees in finance/accounting; he was an investment banker and she an accountant. The wife had a personal blog where she shared money tips and light life stories about the family’s ups and downs for average Americans, and had gained a good following of over 1,000.
Her contacts/followers were from nations around the world, and now and then she would receive comments about the “privately owned Federal Reserve” as well as private central banks around the world. As time passed, she was given sources of information about the international banking systems, including books and authors, documentaries, related articles, etc.
Her first astonishing experience on monetary issues came when she learned that the United States Federal Reserve was a privately owned institution, not a government/public one as so many in America believe, but owned by the wealthiest banking families on Earth. She found out that the United States’ War of Independence was about control of America’s money, where America’s founders and citizens fought against the British monarchy/aristocracy for freedom from their monetary system of debt-slavery.
She read American history not found in the history books in high schools and learned that, since 1776 and America’s Declaration of Independence, a constant battle between powerful and wealthy monarchs/banking family dynasties has been ongoing, over control of the nation’s monetary system. She saw that money created by private central bank corporations is called “banking money” and money created by the government is interest/debt free “sovereign money”; that sovereign money was what the original Americans fought for against the British aristocrats’ banking money.
She learned that the Federal Reserve, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Bank for International Settlements (the central bank of the world’s central banks) were all private corporations owned by the wealthiest people on Earth, and that through history these powerful institutions came to control the economies of nations (“customers”) through debt. Various nations would take large loans for infrastructure projects, military purchases for defense against neighboring countries, economic development, etc. Sometimes democratically elected leaders would become pressured or even threatened to “play the game”, by doing so become wealthy, or, by deciding to not take part in “the game”, suffer his nation’s destabilization, his assassination, or outright military invasion – regime change/coup.
She learned that wars were fought almost all of the time for reasons other than bringing “democracy and freedom”, but for control of, and profits from, other nations’ natural and publicly owned resources.
As nations fell into deep debt from loans made by these banking institutions owned by the world’s wealthiest people, arrangements were devised to “help” the in-arrears nations and their people to pay down the debts.
These “arrangements” would include privatization of public-owned assets like mining companies, utilities, state-owned banks, energy/oil resources, industries, and/or other resources publicly owned by the populace. Other measures “recommended” to leaders of in-debt nations are “economic adjustment” and/or austerity, where public spending becomes reduced drastically to make sure debts are repaid. Austerity measures most often take the form of reduced spending on education, healthcare, wages, public employees, pensions, and various social programs designed to help the people.
She learned that ten international banks – a cartel – controlled all twelve branches of the Federal Reserve:
N.M. Rothschild of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy
Goldman Sachs of New York
JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York
She learned that 80% of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve is owned by powerful banking families:
Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans, and Kuhn Loebs of New York
Rothschilds of Paris and London
Lazards of Paris
Israel Moses Seifs of Rome
She came to think that, because the tremendous power that private interests had concentrated through controlling the monetary systems of nations and the wars fought for greed and lust for power of a handful of small groups, public control of money creation and measure would improve quality of life for people everywhere. She saw that nations/people which did not want to “play the game” faced overwhelming negative consequences for their opposition, up to and including invasion and destruction of their country through horrific violence and war.
In 2014, she noticed that more people around the Earth were coming to decide not to “play the game” anymore, and that they had begun to join to create power-decentralized, equitable economic, financial, monetary frameworks. She noticed that those who had through the centuries built vast fortunes and power, who had decided to use immoral, unethical, and murderous means to acquire monopolistic control of tremendous swaths of the Earth financial and natural resources, had become privately concerned about the world’s people who were “pushing back.”
She saw that, just as she had gained information over the internet which led her to truths about how the world is controlled economically, militarily, financially, and through public relations of corporate media organizations owned by the monopolists, men and women around the world were becoming aware as well – and demanding change on Earth. She could see that, because the people who had acquired phenomenal wealth – the greatest wealth inequality in the history of the world – were fearing a real paradigm-changing push by humanity, the relatively small groups who “ruled” the world were taking military action to keep up their grip of control and prevent significant change.
She felt a moral and ethical obligation to prevent escalation of power-maintaining, devastating – and extremely harming to millions of innocent men, women, and children around the Earth – violence and war.
She now faced an enormous personal struggle that struck at the core of her existence. She and her husband were both in their mid-forties, they both were employed in the banking field, they had three high school age children who would need to attend university, and the NSA would find everything she communicated in her efforts to prevent a world war. She would risk everything through her communicating what truth she had come to know; by publishing her truth to over 1,000 friends at her blog.
She thought about her sister’s silence, who feared to tell the truth about her son’s marijuana event in Illinois due to NSA collection of all Americans’ electronic communications, and how if she had simply told the truth perhaps eight people would still be alive today. She compared that tragedy to what she was now considering – perhaps the deaths of 8 million people – and found that it was impossible to remain silent.
Man with the burning soul
Has but an hour of breath.
To build a ship of Truth
In which his soul may sail,
Sail on the sea of death,
For death takes toll
Of beauty, courage, youth,
Of all but Truth.
– John Masefield (1878-1967) Britain’s poet laureate from 1930