An Open Letter to Amy Goodman
Sean M. Madden's open letter to Amy Goodman is in response to the following January 23rd Democracy Now! headline:
Economics Journalist Robert Kuttner on the "Most Serious Financial Crisis Since the Great Depression": "This is the Result of Rightwing Ideology and the Political Power of Wall Street"
Is it? Or is it the result of a one-world ideology shared amongst the elite of the so-called Right, the so-called Left, and not just Wall Street but an internationalist cabal of financiers, industrialists and in-pocket politicians who game everything from world financial markets to governments to the media, left, right and center? Conspiracy-deniers, read on and follow the links provided herein to refer to David Rockefeller's own admissions of just such a one-world internationalist cabal.
Dear Amy,
So many who are actively engaged in the search for truth in these turbulent times, as opposed to the overwhelming generality of "journalists" like yourself, have seen the (sociopolitical)economic collapse coming for ages.
Where were you?
The fundamentals were always there: finite energy resources peaking globally; a house-of-cards stock market dependent upon the myth of perpetual economic growth to fuel equity gains; a consumer society kept ignorant and deliberately divided in very large part by way of unspeakably cynical media obfuscation; endless military, covert and economic warfare designed to bankrupt the United States while transferring its (our) formerly great wealth into the hands of war profiteers who place politicians on a pedestal from which we are, ostensibly if not truly, free to choose every couple of years; a housing market which resembles the stock market already mentioned and which is, likewise, propped up by financial fraud; and, finally, unsustainable national and consumer debt levels meant to cripple the country and its people.
Where were you, Amy, to inform the public of these glaringly obvious fundamentals? Why were leading thinkers on such topics precluded from your programming, folk like Catherine Austin Fitts, Richard Heinberg, et al.?
You deign to give your goodhearted listener-viewer-readers the symptoms, never the fundamentals which would empower them. But isn't this exactly your role as a foundation- (and perhaps intelligence agency-, though as these share the internationalist foundations' one-world mission this is but a trivial distinction) funded media star? That is, to add yet another layer of obfuscation to keep Americans firm in their blind belief that the media is doing its job.
I learned this week that even your fellow phony progressive Gloria Steinem was funded by the CIA from her earliest days, and it would seem she remains unrepentant. Who'da thunk it from the Smith College-educated lefty?
But so goes the divide and conquer imperative.
Own (or create) both sides of any story and set one side against the other, at least in appearance, and so via this modern-day bread-and-circuses game of deception, keep the masses under heel.
One final fundamental which would empower your faithful followers if they were to do their own research:
The same high-finance internationalists who give us the sort of "philanthropic" foundations which fund Democracy Now!, Pacifica Radio and a host of other gatekeeper-of-the-left media outlets are, in the time-honored tradition, carrying out yet another (cf., 1929) "pump and dump" of the stock market -- brought about via the classic boom-bust business cycle deliberately cast by bankers and their Federal Reserve -- to loot the people.
In closing, here's (in Bill Moyers' words) "the unelected if indisputable chairman of the American Establishment" and "one of the most powerful, influential and richest men in America" who "sits at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists and politicians whose reach encircles the globe", thanking servile "journalists" like yourself:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.~ David Rockefeller, Baden-Baden, Germany, 1991
Given the reach of Democracy Now!'s programming into the hearts and minds of millions of well-meaning Americans who think they're getting the real deal from you, and which of course makes your programming all the more insidious in its effect, there's little doubt that David Rockefeller must be oh-so-pleased to have you in hand as well, as he and his Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg cohorts conspire to fulfil their vision of a one-world fascist tyranny by way of which they intend to lock in their power and profits by locking out democracy, national sovereignty and the world's people, including, yes, we the people of the United States of America.
For this cabal's loyalty lies beyond nationhood and patriotism, the latter being expedient in its pettiest form, however, as a means to keep the masses at their beck and call. Their loyalty lies, instead, in direct contraposition to the American dream and a world free from an elite cadre of power- and profit-obsessed tyrants.
Where, Amy, does your loyalty lie?
Sean M. Madden
— — —
Sean Madden was for many years an avid supporter of Amy Goodman and her Democracy Now! program, much as he was, many more years ago, a supporter of National Public Radio until, that is, he realized that "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" left him with a rather smug feeling of being highly attuned to all such things while keeping his noggin dangerously devoid of truth. He has brought countless listener-viewer-readers to DN!; however, he now recognizes it as yet another layer of the onion. Sean is a UK-based American who guides himself and others in mindful living, meditation and writing. He blogs at his iNoodle.com and MindfulLivingGuide.com.
posted by Sean M. Madden at 8:05 PM
12 Comments:
I have no idea why you would waste time attacking Amy Goodman. Anybody could use your exact argument that you are a ploy to splinter the left into attacking the left. What level of integrity will ever meet your criteria?....and how will we know to believe it? Amy Goodman has done some pretty amazing things in waking people up to the fact that things are not as they seem.
I see no reason why anyone should be above being challenged, but I wonder what Sean's motivation was for writing this open letter.
If it's to influence Amy Goodman, it seems unlikely to do so in the way I presume he would like (i.e. to change her coverage to something more in keeping with his priorities).
If it's to influence her viewers, listeners and readers, what does he want them to understand they're being denied?
I agree that most media, "independent" and corporate, do little to remind people that the cosmetic differences between parties like the Republicans and Democrats, or Labour and Conservative, are almost irrelevant compared to their similarities, particularly when it comes to which principles will be mortgaged for the sake of power.
But does he really think this global order is sustained by a widely advertised meeting with closed doors? Couldn't these people just phone each other?
What's at the core of the onion, Sean?
I may be wrong, but I think the quest to unmask the biggest conspiracy of all is a misguided one. It surely only exists because so many interests converge quite naturally, not because some cabal sits in a room pulling strings. Even if a small number of people have immense power, they don't control everything.
If you think they do, and that Amy's failure to say as much is the reason people should tune out, I would have expected to see more evidence to support the argument in a damning indictment such as the one you wrote.
All that said, I agree that we should all be open to criticism.
Regards,
Daniel
Thank you, Bruce and Daniel, for your comments, and to those of you who have written to me via email.
Bruce, your points are well taken.
I agree that Amy has done much to wake people up to U.S. imperialism, for instance. That's good. But to the extent that her coverage is aimed at the symptoms rather than the roots of the problems, the larger impact, I think, is to forge another layer of protection between the people and those individuals and institutions who have an outsized influence on our lives. Also, perpetual symptomatic reporting causes many to feel angry, powerless and despairing.
With regard to your initial point, readers cannot know whether I, myself, am pedaling yet another layer of obfuscation, further splintering the left. (An important aside: I don't consider myself to be on the left or right, a progressive or a conservative. Rather, I see this dichotomous language, itself, as being dangerously divisive and is exploited as such. I realize, however, that many of Amy's fans do consider themselves to be progressives and that DN! is a progressive program.) That is why it is critical that we take a proactive stance and seek out information for ourselves. Otherwise, we are wholly dependent upon our faith in trusted persons or media outlets to furnish information which is crucial to achieving and maintaining any semblance of democracy.
Interestingly, I have often wondered whether Daniel's voluminous criticism on various progressive message boards (e.g., Media Lens) is just that, an attempt by someone who seems to have an abundance of time on his hands to argue for argument's sake, or perhaps to splinter discussions.
Readers should know that Daniel and I have shared much correspondence on the topics of politics, media analysis, conspiracy theories, etc. We, ultimately, reached an impasse.
Daniel is a former New York Times and Reuters foreign correspondent who is presently working for an investment management firm in London. Readers may find this relevant given David Rockefeller's statement included within my letter in which he thanks the New York Times and other such media outlets for their decades-long cooperation with the cabal's objectives. Also given Rockefeller's explicit statement that "[t]he supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
But, of course, no conspirators have total control of a situation. I would have thought this would go without saying.
However, individuals do strategize toward common objectives, oftentimes in secrecy or without disclosure. This occurs in every government administration and within at least every publicly traded corporation.
In other words, conspiracies happen despite the fact that we've all been well-conditioned to not utter the word or anything which would suggest that they exist, to say nothing of being widespread.
What, after all, do intelligence agencies do if not conspire, extralegally and in secret?
But, ultimately, this seems a silly subject to debate. David Rockefeller herein admits to the charges. Furthermore, and more generally, to think conspiracies don't happen would be to suggest that we're all floating within a world of happenstance.
Human agency exists. Are we to believe that nations, wars, laws, financial markets, mandates and directives simply emanate without purpose from government and corporate offices, for instance?
Also, Daniel, I don't think that the cabal has achieved (or will ever achieve) total, puppet-like, control. Is the achievement of absolute, total control the point at which we can say that a conspiracy has occurred?
Rockefeller, in thanking servile journalists, has admitted to the cabal's achieving at least some measure of success thus far. It is also interesting to consider that he finally feels it safe (or perhaps expedient), after decades of public disavowals, to state the obvious in his memoir.
Nor do I think the cabal's influence is limited to, say, an annual Bilderberg meeting. As reported in a January 2000 Forbes article about David Rockefeller's rolodex, "Rockefeller spends less than half the year at his home in New York City. The rest of the time he's traveling, either for Chase or such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or Rockefeller University."
Why would we assume that the influence of some of the world's most powerful individuals would only rise up at an annual meeting?
Daniel, as I have shared with you (via in-person conversations and extended email discussions) quite a lot concerning my personal philosophy and my meditation practice (in which you have also received third-party training), you should know that I see the world as being infinitely complex and interdependent. That is, that all phenomena, in Buddhist terminology, co-originate, or mutually condition one another.
So let us not assume for argument's sake -- particularly in our case whereby we have shared so much and so much more refined argumentation -- overly simplistic and tired points of contention, or to rerun the whole gamut of our one-to-one discussion thread from Step One.
Life's too short.
To preclude the necessity of having to state more of the obvious, no, I don't believe Amy Goodman nor David Rockefeller are evil incarnate, nor that we can drive all blames into one, toward them as individuals.
The world and its goings-on are complex and multifaceted. That is not to say, however, that some individuals do not have far greater means than most to influence the thoughts and actions of others. Few would deny David Rockefeller's outsized power and proven propensity to influence individuals or society as a whole towards his publicly stated aims. And Amy certainly isn't without considerable voice and influence. The one-hour Democracy Now! program is broadcast on over 650 television and radio stations, five days a week. Her nationally syndicated column and her bestselling book give her further reach into the public consciousness.
As public figures who seek to influence, they are open, as am I, to criticism. I harbor nothing personal against Amy Goodman or David Rockefeller. I like Amy as a person, and I think would get on quite well with her. Rather, I think it important that their work be held up for scrutiny, a naturally democratic process which it is obvious from David's statement contained in my letter he sees as a process in opposition to the internationalists’ aims.
Speaking of which, readers may find this article on David Rockefeller, part of a larger piece on "Rockefeller Internationalism", to be of interest.
Sean
This post has been removed by the author.
I actually wrote the following in response to another blog that reprinted Sean’s Open Letter. After reading the comments on this post, I think that some of my objections may have been addressed. I am still posting it for a couple of points that I feel may have been missed.
***
Having heard the actual Democracy Now! broadcast, I have to disagree with Sean's harsh assessment of Amy Goodman and the program in question. Without going over the actual transcript, I have a distinct memory of Amy’s guests placing a fair amount of bipartisan blame, tracing the beginning of the problem squarely back to the lap of President Carter. I thought that the program’s excoriating the conservative philosophy that really descended upon us with Reagan was on the mark. The true failure of liberalism has been in its willful seduction by the conservative Capitalist ideas that have taken over both parties and precipitated the present crisis and many more soon to come. I applaud Amy for bringing this larger perspective to light. She has not been shy in the past in bringing such voices to her listeners/viewers. I really get tired of all this convoluted Alex Jones, deep conspiracy crap. There is a conspiracy here and it is open to all with eyes to see. Its name is Capitalism the conspirators are the rich and powerful and its bipartisan attraction is good old fashioned greed. ‘Nuf said.
Peace,
Bob
Amy is a Z, I believe. The perfect mole. God, those Z's (the core of the onion) really know how to rule the unconscious masses. I was a devote recruit of the Amy Army and would have gone on a suicide mission with her to propagate life, liberty and the pursuit of a sustainable world. But then I began to connect the dotes. And after close scrutiny, I found her agenda to be quite terrifying. She's good, she's very Good, man!
I am somewhat amused by the attack and defense of Goodman. I think it all misses the point. All this crap (I am using that term deliberately) that we are having to put up with from the left and the right, is a product of 5000 years of human history. Nothing new under the sun one might say.
In essence, we are dealing with a civilization model. Until that model is changed, actions and thinking will not change. A lot of history to back up that statement. You might want to take a look at a different way of living, the Sng'oi of Malaysia. Not advocating it, but there are alternatives to what we have now.
I have been leaving some comments on this here and there, first to Carolyn Baker on whose site I first saw it. I'm not sure why I am wasting my time with it but I think because I have lately been so impressed with how good Democracy Now is compared to any other news broadcast that I am aware of. Sean, you jump from simplistic ideas to the "infinitely complex" rather too easily, I think. You talk about Amy Goodman as being so influential but the program is really marginalized. Would you have their audience even smaller by having them attempt to focus on the cabals of the super rich? If there is a better daily news program where we can get a sensible idea of what is going on in the world, please let me know about it. I don't have time to go on much here but I will say that your jumping off point, that headline about right wing ideology causing financial crisis was a good story. Did you hear it? It is absolutely absurd to jump from that headline to these comments about the Democrat/Republican nonsense. Why don't you do the news program that exposes the real root of all evil? I will listen to it with interest if it is any better than a silly chart showing arrows from Ford Foundation to Democracy Now. There is a book that was a best seller in the 60s, "The Rich and The Super Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg. It has a good section on these Foundations and other means of how the rich avoid taxes etc.
Erik,
Indeed, I see that you have been leaving your irrelevant criticism of my open letter to Amy Goodman at various websites which republished it. I qualify your response as irrelevant for the same reason I said so elsewhere. For those who would rather not travel the link to find out why, I'll state why here as well: Nowhere in my open letter or within my follow-up comment above do I make any mention of either Democrats or Republicans. Therefore, your criticism, here and elsewhere, is meaningless. Perhaps you should slow down, read more carefully, and keep your reasoning powers engaged long enough to understand what a writer writes before jumping to conclusions that exist only in your head -- particularly in cases where you feel compelled to offer not only criticism (on multiple websites) of a writer's words but also of their thinking, generally, as you do in the comment linked to above in which you entitled your post, "Madden's Muddle".
Consider this friendly advice.
Regards,
Sean
P.S. If you prefer foundation funding facts in narrative, versus visual, form, I suggest that you read Bob Feldman's many fine articles on the topic. Here's one which specifically addresses Democracy Now!, republished on iNoodle.com.
Dear Readers,
Eric Larsen (not to be confused with Erik Murray, addressed above) has linked to this open letter to Amy Goodman within Part 2 of his NOTES FROM A DYING NATION.
However, this is not the reason for my posting this comment. Rather, it is to call readers' attention to Larsen's unfolding work, generally, and this second part in particular, because he therein includes a discussion of the one-world ideologues who are (as opposed to Murray's false assessment) a key subject within my letter.
I heartily recommend Larsen's latest piece, both for one-world-conspiracy skeptics, or those who reject the possibility out of hand, as well as for those who have moved beyond skepticism and remain open to learning more about the Bilderberger's, et al. who have, by their own admission, been busy for many decades designing and inflicting their one-world fascist tyranny on us all.
I am also presently reading Larsen's A Nation Gone Blind: America in an Age of Simplification and Deceit (2006, Shoemaker & Hoard), which I also intend to review. For now, however, I can say, unequivocally, that we would all do well to listen to and to seriously contemplate what Larsen is working so hard to tell us.
Sean
Dear Sean,
Are you kidding me? I referred to Democrat/Republican idiocy. You said "so called Left and so called Right". I think we agree on this notion and I dare say Amy Goodman also understands. Your response was not "friendly advice" but that's okay. The "Madden's Muddle" post wasn't very nice. You can call me meaningless and I can call you senseless. I guess it just boils down to how we each choose to think. If you think you should publish negative opinions about Democracy Now to spread the word about what is really going on then that's what you will do. The internet certainly is filled with crazier stuff. I just don't understand but maybe I am not considering it in the proper context, that is, you might be beyond caring about the things Democracy Now reports on.
Honestly, I do find the elite conspiracy stuff interesting and wouldn't mind hearing some of it on Democracy Now but I don't see how it is realistic to expect it of them, necessarily. I think I made enough relevant and sensible comments. You didn't respond to any of it. I wonder, did Amy Goodman respond at all to your "open letter"? I am curious as to how they would respond to the funding issues you bring up.
Why do say, "Murray's false assessment"? I have made no assessment of the one world government conspiracy idea. I have said I am interested and I encourage you to bring it to light. I will check out the writer you refer to. Does he explain how Democracy Now type reporting serves the interests of super rich? Is the corporatocracy an imaginary enemy? How many times do the ideas of good and bad flip back and forth before we arrive at the truth? Where can I find a thread I can follow about how the illusions are maintained and to what end?
I truly wish you luck in finding the truth and I am sorry if, through my lack of understanding, I have been offensive. I have no intention of making further comment on your writing.
Cheers,
Erik
Erik,
Frankly, it is not a good use of my time to respond to someone who, again, not only does not take the time to read carefully what another person writes prior to hastily writing a response, but who neither, apparently, takes responsibility for his own written words.
I'll let readers judge your comments on their own merit. But I will offer this response, again, as a friendly gesture to encourage you to slow down before jumping to hasty, false conclusions. I do so because I do believe that you mean well, but are simply too hasty.
In response to your comment on another site (and which I linked to in my previous comment, here, as well), I stated the following: "Your criticism of my purported muddled thinking lacks relevance given that your statement above that "this idea of Democracy Now being about supporting Democrats" is nowhere included or suggested within my letter to Amy Goodman."
In your original comment here on iNoodle.com you state that "[i]t is absolutely absurd to jump from that headline to these comments about the Democrat/Republican nonsense".
Again, nowhere did I say anything about the Democrats or Republicans, period.
But this is what you allege in your comments, here at iNoodle.com and elsewhere, and to which I have responded. This (i.e., your assessment that the Democrats and Republicans were the subject of my open letter), also, is the false assessment that I spoke of in my previous comment, and which you asked about in your reply. If you would have carefully read my sentence which includes the parenthetical statement concerning your false assessment (particularly in conjunction with my previous comment addressed, specifically, to you), you would have perhaps realized that this is what I was referring to, without my having to take the time to explain. Perhaps, too, you wouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that I was suggesting that you had made a false assessment concerning, as you say, "the one world government conspiracy idea".
If you would slow down and read more carefully, you would perhaps have also noted that I did not say that you were meaningless. Rather, and this is a crucial distinction, I said that your criticism was meaningless.
With regard to the various other questions you asked in your last comment, I would kindly suggest that you do your own homework. Why would you expect me to answer questions concerning Bob Feldman's or any other article which I suggested you read without, first, taking the time, yourself, to read the article?
Throughout our comment thread your careless criticism has served to further discredit -- inasmuch as it so closely resembles other such careless critiques -- those responses which criticize writings like mine that address unpopular topics without first having performed sufficient research to be qualified to offer relevant criticism on such topics.
In closing, Erik, although you may choose not to believe this, I offer you this comment with good intentions. As Eric Larsen says in his writings (and of which you can gain a relatively quick summary by way of his self-interview which I published recently to iNoodle.com), we have become lazy thinkers, and perhaps you think this of me, though many others who are better qualified to judge think otherwise. However, if we are to regain any semblance of self-governance, we must all work hard to think, to write and to, otherwise, communicate clearly.
It is with this intention to help you do so that I have invested the time to write this comment in response to yours. If I didn't care, I would simply have ignored it as I have other comments included herein.
And thank you for maintaining an open mind concerning, and a genuine interest in, the larger topic at hand.
I wish you well in your research endeavors, encourage you to share your findings with all of us, and invite you to please feel welcome to continue to offer (careful) criticism of my own work.
Yours sincerely,
Sean
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home