How collectivists create their own opposition and how not to be fooled by it *

Freedom Force
by G. Edward Griffin, published 2005 September 21

Most of us find it difficult to believe that there are others who want to deceive us. We can accept that there may be a few crooks and sociopaths at the outer edge of society, but surely no one high in politics or finance or the media would ever do such a thing. The reality, however, is that many leaders in these fields follow an agenda which they believe is so important that deception is a reasonable price for its advancement. That agenda is a New World Order based on the model of collectivism. (For an explanation of what that means and the history of its development, see The Future is Calling – Part One on the Freedom Force web site at

One of the most common deceptions in our time is the offering of false leadership; in other words, leading one’s own opposition. Collectivist strategists realize that, as the New World Order unfolds, there will be public opposition to many of their programs. They reason that it would be stupid to wait for this to spring from natural forces, because then it might become too powerful to overcome. Instead, they anticipate this turn of events and create their own opposition so they can control it at every step of the way. They put forth leaders who are covertly loyal to their own camp or they support useful public figures who are susceptible to flattery, blackmail, and financial reward to insure that they follow the party line. In either case, these people must behave as genuine opposition leaders. They must be bold in stance and vigorous in activity. Their facts must be accurate, and their complaints must be valid. Otherwise, they will not appear as leaders, and no one will follow. But they will never offer real solutions and they will never win the contest. It is rigged boxing match. The winner is always selected by those who pay the loser.

The best way to understand this strategy is to observe it in operation, and a good place to begin is with the Federal Reserve System. For those who are familiar with the creation of the Fed, it will be remembered that the Federal Reserve Act was an outgrowth of a public outcry to “break the grip of the money trust.” The financiers who constituted the money trust did not wait for a genuine grassroots movement to take hold. Instead, they covertly led the crusade against themselves and drafted their own so-called reform legislation. They created an institution that was offered to the public as a government agency to break the grip of the money trust but which actually consolidated their power and expanded it. This was a classic example of offering false leadership and leading one’s own opposition.


The Money Masters is a video documentary based upon a 1998 book by the same title written by Bill Still. It is an excellent production with sound history and professionally created images. It tells the story of our debauched money system in an entertaining and convincing manner. There is just one problem with it. It offers a false solution – which is to say that it offers no solution at all. The alleged solution is that we should abandon our present fiat money system and adopt another one very much like it. Yes, it advocates fiat money! The proposal is that we should take the power to create money-out-of-nothing away from those big, bad bankers and turn it over to those nice, trustworthy politicians where, supposedly, it will be used for the benefit of “the people.” It is naïve to think that politicians are any more trustworthy than bankers. It is equally naïve to think that, because politicians are elected, they will protect the people they represent. The reality of present-day “democracy” is that politicians serve special interests with financial clout, not voters. With enough money, votes can be purchased through media exposure. Politicians with the largest campaign budgets are almost always the winners. Turning over control of the Fed to the politicians would change nothing but the outward appearance. The solution is not to politicize the Federal Reserve. It is to abolish it.

The problem with money created out of nothing is not who does it but that it is done at all. The solution to fiat money is not more fiat money. It is real money based on tangible assets, and none has yet been discovered that serves as well as gold or silver. The assertion in The Money Masters that wooden sticks were successfully used in England as money is grossly misleading. Tally sticks were occasionally used like government-issued script that could be applied to the payment of taxes, but at no time in history were they ever used as a medium of exchange for substantial economic transactions. To propose that we now can live with fiat money based on that myth is a non-solution that is irrational and dishonest.


In this regard, Money Masters is like William Greider’s book, Secrets of the Temple, which was offered to the public in 1987 as a scathing exposé of the Federal Reserve System. Greider’s history was excellent, but his conclusion was fatally flawed. After having proved that the Fed was conceived as a weapon of the banking elite against the common man and having shown that this is exactly the function it has always served, his conclusion was, not to abolish the Fed or even to make serious changes to it. His “call to action” was simply to stop worrying about it. The Fed has made mistakes, he said, but we have learned many lessons along the way. All we need now are wiser men to run it! That is exactly the kind of powder-puff solution that made his book acceptable to the giant publishing house, Simon and Schuster. It is no solution at all. The elite do not care what we know about a problem if we don’t do anything about it. They are quite good at putting forth their own opposition – writers 3 like Greider – who will sound the alarm and rally the troops but lead them exactly nowhere.


In 1999, Liberty International Entertainment released a made-for-TV documentary entitled The Monopoly Men that echoed a similar message. That’s not surprising inasmuch as Bill Still was one of the writers and also appeared as an oncamera expert. The program contains a great deal of accurate and hard-hitting history showing that the Federal Reserve, through its power to create fiat money, has operated virtually as a conspiracy against the American people. The solution? More fiat money, of course – only this time it should be under the management of politicians, not bankers.

The collectivist bias of the writers and producers is revealed in a segment featuring socialist, Huey Long, in which he passionately advocates redistribution of wealth as a solution to the economic ills of society. Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of fiat money (called Greenbacks) in violation of the Constitution is presented as an act of statesmanship. Greenbacks were politically expedient as a means of extracting money from Northern taxpayers through inflation to pay for the Civil War, but it was blatantly unconstitutional, as were many other features of the Lincoln administration, such as the arrest of citizens without charges and trial by military courts without juries. This dark period of American history is hardly what should be offered as a blueprint for our future.

And there are numerous other flaws that mar this otherwise excellent production. For example: the erroneous acceptance of the word democracy as a virtuous form of government and the perpetuation of the myth that JFK was assassinated because he opposed the international bankers. The real danger, however, is that, because this program is professionally executed and contains a great deal of accurate history, many viewers will be lulled into uncritically accepting its nonsolution of politicized fiat money. It is a classic example of false opinion leadership.


In the year 2000, Simon and Schuster published another book in this same genre, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert Stinnett. It is a block buster of facts and previously hidden documents proving beyond any doubt that FDR, Secretary-of-War Henry Stimson, General George Marshall, and many others high in the Roosevelt Administration secretly plotted to cause Japan to successfully Attack Pearl Harbor as an excuse to bring the United Stated into World War II supposedly as a victim of an unprovoked attack. So, what was Stinnett’s conclusion? Was it to condemn these men for their treachery? Not at all. It was that this act was justified because it helped put a stop to Hitler in Europe. In other words, to halt totalitarianism in Europe, it was necessary to adopt totalitarianism in America, and to do so was an act of great statesmanship! Once again, Simon and Schuster provided the American people with a false opinion leader. What’s the point of getting all frothed up over a president lying to the voters and deliberately causing thousands of Americans to be killed if we are then to decide that he was a hero for dong so?


In 2004, Simon and Schuster continued the tradition with a book entitled Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke. This is an excellent overview of certain aspects of George W. Bush’s abuse of the Presidency. It verifies that, prior to 9/11, he disregarded warnings of pending terrorist attacks and, after 9/11, launched an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. There are no surprises here. Almost all of this information had managed to seep through to the public in spite of media loyalty to the White House. It was this information (plus a lot more never mentioned by Clarke) that caused Bush’s popularity ratings to decline sharply. Clarke added very little to the knowledge base except that he had been an insider with first-hand involvement.

The book’s true agenda is revealed by the author’s solutions. He accepts totalitarian measures in the U.S. as necessary for homeland security and indirectly supports the expansion of UN power as a desirable goal on the path to world order. However, the real “solution” that jumps from almost every page was the need to replace Bush in the November 2004 elections. That made a lot of sense, but who would take his place? The fact is that Bush would have been replaced by John Kerry. (Clarke’s book didn’t go to press until after Kerry had become the frontrunner of the Democrat Party.) This was no solution at all. Kerry was a member of the CFR and, although he might have made minor alterations in Iraq, we can be sure that he would have continued to follow the CFR blueprint for world government based on the model of collectivism. In fact, in his campaign speeches, he told us that he would. When he refused to allow a challenge to the validity of Bush’s victory in the Ohio elections – as Al Gore previously had prevented a challenge to Bush’s victory four years previously in Florida – it was silent testimony to the fact that the boxing match had been rigged. These men had been paid in some way by the king makers to lose, not win. It was not yet their turn.


That leads to the greatest example possible of leading one’s own opposition. It is the deception of a two-party political system. The net effect of Against All Enemies was to implement a strategy described by Professor Carroll Quigley, President Clinton’s mentor when he was a student at Georgetown University. In his book, Tragedy and Hope, Quigley explained the value of allowing people to believe that, by choosing between the Democrat and Republican parties, they are participating in their own political destiny. To a collectivist like Quigley, this is a necessary illusion to prevent voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but not so different afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics: The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.


When Against All Enemies hit the bookstores in March, there were several obvious clues that it was following the Quigley formula. The first was that it was given incredibly favorable coverage in the mass media. It was on the network news and received front-page coverage in almost every major publication. No book publisher could purchase that kind of exposure at any price. No author who offered genuine opposition to the CFR agenda would ever receive such a favorable and extensive media blitz. If you understand the degree to which CFR members control the media, you would know immediately that Clarke’s message was given the green light by that group. They were leading their own opposition. If Kerry had created a landslide at the polls, they were perfectly prepared to dump Bush, because they would win either way. Bush, of course, was not without resources. If the U.S. had sustained another large-scale terrorist attack prior to the election, the public would have rallied behind him. As it turned out, that was not necessary. The race was very close, and it was easier to rig the computerized voting machines in Ohio.

Clue number two was that the activist group, MoveOn, chose this book for national promotion and fund raising. MoveOn was created as an organization to defend President Clinton during his impeachment, and its focus has always been to promote the Democrat Party. It is very selective in its choice of issues. Partisan loyalty is paramount. MoveOn serves the same function for the Democrat Party as Rush Limbaugh does for the Republican Party. They both attack the opposition but seldom say an unkind word about those on their side of the aisle. MoveOn would have us believe that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. Republicans want war and Democrats want peace. Republicans are indifferent to human suffering and Democrtats are humanitarians. Republicans are out to destroy the planet and Democrats want to preserve it. Republicans are racists and Democrats love everyone. Republicans are corrupt and Democrats are honest. It’s so simple that even the most uneducated person can understand it – which is the whole point. These stereotypes are easy to sell to a population that is unhappy with present leadership. MoveOn is the Democrat Party cheerleader. It directs public indignation against Republicans so as to “throw the rascals out” every now and then without changing basic policies. It implements the Quigley Formula perfectly, although most people who support that organization are probably unaware of the function it serves.

The third clue was that Against All Enemies was published by Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster. As mentioned previously, Simon and Schuster is the same company that published Secrets of the Temple and Day of Deceit. I am not aware of any of its hundreds of titles that seriously challenge the goals of the CFR. It would be foolish to expect this book to alter that pattern.


Four months before the 2004 presidential elections in the U.S., film producer, Michael Moore, released a feature-length documentary film entitled Fahrenheit 911. It was a powerful condemnation of the George W. Bush Administration with particular focus on the war in Iraq. Moore compiled an amazing collection of video clips showing Bush and key members of his Administration in off-guarded moments and in situations where a lack of sincerity was glaringly evident. The story that emerges shows the Bush family closely allied with Saudi princes and the bin Ladin family in business ventures that profit from war production and from the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. It hammers hard on the human suffering caused by a war, not to destroy a terrorist stronghold, but to gain access to oil resources and lucrative government contracts. Moore’s creative talent was applied with precision and resulted in what may become a new genre of political filmmaking. The effect was devastating to Bush and his supporters who were left with little defense except to claim that the production was biased and that certain statements were not correct. This is my analysis of Fahrenheit 911:

1. The program is biased, and certain statements are not entirely correct, but the important details are true.

2. In addition to profits from oil resources and war contracts, there is a second motive that also drives U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is the creation of a New World Order based on the model of collectivism, and it is supported with equal vigor by leaders of both major political parties. Mr. Bush and his team are deeply committed to that goal. Fahrenheit 911 gives no attention to that agenda and even goes so far as to claim that it plays no role in these events. That theme was advanced in a statement from one of the on-camera experts who said, “This has nothing to do with conspiracies or political agendas. It’s all about oil and making money.” That is the party line of the Democrat Party, and it obscures the fact that Democrats and Republicans share that important goal.

3. Omission of this bi-partisan agenda makes it possible to deliver the message that America’s problems in the Middle East are caused by greedy, warmongering Republicans who are in power and that the obvious solution is to replace them with humanitarian, peace-loving Democrats. This message was implied throughout the film, but it broke through in clear language when a young soldier said, “I used to be a Republican, but when I get back home, I’m going to work hard to get Democrats elected.” If the film had acknowledged the New World Order agenda of the Bush Administration, it would have led to the fact that leaders of the Democrat Party, including its presidential candidate at that time, John Kerry, share the same vision, and the partisan message would not have been possible.

4. The content of the film and the timing of its release made it clear that it was conceived as a covert campaign tool for the Democrat Party. It implemented the Quigley Formula in every detail.

Inevitably, the mind turns to the question: Was this the intention of Michael Moore? My opinion – no, that is too strong a word – my suspicion is that Moore probably was not consciously implementing the Quigley Formula. However, there are powerful economic factors that would have compelled him to follow it in any event. Anyone who has done as much research into this matter as he has must have come across voluminous information about the political agenda. However, if any of it had appeared in his film, it would have been unacceptable to the Democrat Party. Without the enthusiastic support of that powerful sector, there would have been small chance for film distribution and even less for box-office success. Financial success does make a difference, even to Michael Moore.


Not to be outdone by Democrats, the Republicans responded to Fahrenheit 911 with a campaign film of their own. Following the same formula used by Michael Moore, the production appeared, not as an official creation of the Republican Party, but as the private release of an independent filmmaker, Brad Maaske. It was, however, a covert campaign film for the Bush Administration. The name of the production was Weapon of Mass Destruction; The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein. The theme was not, as one might expect, that President Bush was correct in telling the American people that Hussein possessed WMDs, but that Hussein, himself, was the WMD. That’s an interesting twist, and one that has considerable merit, although not sufficient in my opinion to justify a full-scale war in which tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and thousands of American soldiers are killed and maimed.

As the title suggests, this is an anti-Hussein propaganda piece. I use the word propaganda in a non-judgmental sense, merely to say that it was designed to create revulsion and hatred in the mind of the viewer – which is easy to do when the subject is a megalomaniac and butcher like Hussein. The goal of the film was to close the minds of viewers to all considerations except one, and that was to justify any action that is perceived as a means for releasing Hussein’s victims and punishing him for his crimes. All other issues were ignored.

It’s easy to fall prey to this passion, but before doing so, we need to ask: Why Saddam and not the leaders of China or Russia or North Vietnam or many other places in the world where the leaders have been equally despotic and even more threatening to the United States? Are we now to invade these countries also? If not, why not? There are no answers to these questions except those that require us to consider other leadership agendas; agendas that are far less humanitarian than the one advertised. But, of course, the film does not raise those questions.

There are many facts presented in Weapons of Mass Destruction that are true, and many opinions with which most of us can agree. However, since it was a political campaign film, its purpose was, not to tell the whole truth about the war in Iraq (or any other issue), but only those parts that made the Bush Administration look good. The story line is based on the unquestioning acceptance of the official version of how and why 9/11 occurred. We are asked to uncritically accept the supposition that terrorists attack the US “because they hate America’s freedom.” There is no hint that the Administration may have encouraged the attacks and then allowed them to happen for the purpose of using a war on terrorism as an excuse for other agendas, such as creating an American dominance in the Middle East, gaining control over that region’s oil reserves, and building a global government based on the model of collectivism. If one blindly accepts the official version and ignores the evidence to the contrary, then this film makes simplistic sense: Hussein was evil; the terrorists attacked us; the terrorists in some way probably were connected to Hussein; therefore, the war was justified. As Brad Maaske says in the film: “Did we have the right to go into Iraq, and was the war worth it? After listening to the experts and leaders that I trust, I know that it was worth it.” That is the official line of the Republican Party. However, if one is not convinced that the experts and leaders are worthy of trust, the film is extremely disturbing because of what it omits.

The Quigley Formula is a strategy for leading one’s own opposition. Those who execute this strategy are experts at rigging boxing matches in which both fighters are on their payroll. It is important to understand, not only the Quigley Formula, but the strategy of false leadership which it implements, because that strategy is used in many other forms as well, especially in the creation of opinion leaders in the media and activist leaders in organizations offering themselves as opposition to those in power. Those who would defend their freedom must not be fooled by this strategy.

End of Nations - EU Takeover and the Lisbon Treaty