http://vimeo.com/63749370
It's a great and well researched documentary, illustrating how the Fabians and the Frankfort School finally came into power through Obama, paving the way for their destructive agenda. However, there's a very disturbing undertone in this documentary, which could limit the number of viewers by driving them away, and that would be a real pity indeed. The film happens to be loaded with creationism, to an extent that morality would not be possible without 'god'. It caused me to write the letter below to the producers, but unfortunately, nobody has bothered to send me a response. So here it is:
Dear producers of 'Agenda',
First of all, hats off to a great documentary, detailing how the Fabians and the Frankfort School aim to destroy Western Civilization. Combined with William Lind's "History of Political Correctness", this documentary clearly shows the timeline in Western decay, which already started shortly after the instigation of the Constitution, where former Founding Fathers already tried to circumvent it as soon as they became president, but which really was put into force when democrat Woodrow Wilson arranged for unlimited funds for governments by creating the ability to borrow from the FED, and then later used those funds to have the local Austrian/Hungarian conflict escalate into WWI, laying the groundwork for WWII.
There are, however, some points I'd like to address, which impact the documentary's outreach in a negative way. One is the overtly and excessive pleas for religion (more specific: christianity) to be restored. It will cause intended viewers, who really do need to become aware of the documentary's facts, but who are not necessarily believers, to switch off, missing the important facts which are presented.
At one point, the message is even as strong as stating that without religion there can be no morality, but that's ridiculous. As you indicate towards the end of the film that islam is a problem, you seem to reserve that stance for christianity only, which already indicates this is an arbitrary point of view. Religion is a belief-system, not a fact system. To 'deny the existence of god', as it is put somewhere in the film, is not to deny a fact. Hence religious people have no right to force their religious rules onto non-believers, vice versa. Live and let live. Freedom is mostly awarding liberty to others, not just claiming it for oneself. Most people who say to support liberty only support it while others hold on to the same ideals as they do themselves, other opinions should be forcefully suppressed.
The whole idea of liberty is that everyone should be free to live as they please, according to their own standards, with ONE guiding rule: the identical freedom of others should not be infringed. I do not have to like the way my neighbor lives, as long as he does not infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (including property rights), it is not my business to try and change him. Enter the non-aggression principle (NAP, which is not at all a non-violence principle, violence is allowed in self-defense, the only legitimate use of force). It should be obvious that a 'nanny state' will always break the NAP.
The christian political parties in The Netherlands do not even support the primary commandment: Thou shalt not steal; they are quite happy to rob Peter to pay Paul, after doling out a handsome retainer to themselves, of course. Even while that commandment is the only one you really need: even murder is stealing, in its most essential form: the stealing of one's prime property, one's life.
I'd also like to make a statement on homosexuality. While the documentary seems to condemn it, there's nothing to condemn. Homosexuality in itself is an abberation of nature, an abnormality, and should it be accepted for what it is, it would not be any significant factor in society. The issue here is the exploitation of homosexuality, in alternative lifestyles, gay parades and such displays that portray homosexuality as something desirable, support adoption of children by gay couples, etc. But in a society which would matter-of-factly accept homosexuality for what it is, an abberation, gay people would not be forced to uphold a false mask, marrying and reproducing (homosexuality is genetically inheritable) just for the sake of keeping up appearances of 'normality'. They would live their lives just like other people, have jobs, not 'exhibit' their 'abnormality', like heterosexual people do not 'exhibit' their 'normality'. They would just be ordinary people, blending in with everybody else.
Finally, I was caught quite by surprise by the popping-up of 'other problems, like islam' towards the end of the film, which are then agreed upon. But islam, while being a tyrannical ideology, has never been an issue for the West, until it was purposefully imported by the Western governments to break Western culture an civilization. Islam is an instrument of the Cultural Marxists, as is Climatism or the financial crisis. It struck me that the author, who laid down so clearly the intentions and instruments of the marxists, would fail to recognize this as part of the very agenda he is documenting.
The battle is not so much 'right' vs. 'left', but collectivism vs. individualism. When individual rights are respected, the rights of the 'groups' these individuals 'belong to' are automatically also respected. It does not work the same the other way around. Both 'right' and 'left' are collectivist in nature. That is what has to change. The problem is: how? Collectivists have taken over the institutions that allow them to wield power. Because they can make and (selectively) enforce their arbitrary 'laws', opposition is severely hampered. The only way to ensure this can never happen again is to eliminate those institutions, by educating the people that as long as 'bad people' exist, it's a very bad idea to create institutions like a 'government' where these people can employ their 'badness' with impunity.
Your documentary is a very useful instrument in this (difficult) education, and I think it is a real pity that part of the audience will be scared away by the excessive role that is reserved for religion, as religion is just another collectivist power system, about which many wars have been fought. The notion that morality can only come from god is a mistaken one, and history has abundant proof of that mistake. I am not religious, but there's nothing wrong with my moral compass. I know enough religious people who do not support the NAP, would like their beliefs to be forced onto everybody by state power, and hence need their compass looked after.
1 comment:
@ Joe
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just do not accept the notion in this documentary that one cannot have moral values without being religious, and specifically being christian, as for islam the producers seem to have other standards.
There a numerous religions, which have different rules, different gods, different 'laws'; i.e.: which are incompatible which one another. If morality comes from religion, than you will have to favor one religion as being moral, rendering the other immoral.
You can see the problem with that, as morality becomes arbitrary this way, morality becomes the result of an arbitrary choice.
If, however, one defines morality as bases on non-agression and property rights, as libertarianism does, morality is universal and applies to all, regardless of being religious or atheist.
Religions are collectivist in nature, like all power structures. Rights are individual by definition. Believers voluntarily subject themselves to religious rules which (in part?) violate their individual rights. That's fine. But they do not have a right to subject others to those rules, as that would violate the NAP.
Hope this clarifies my stance. I do not want to outlaw religion, but there should be a total separation of religion and state.
Unfortunately, I have not received any response from the producers, as I think it is a discussion worth having.
Post a Comment