Several years ago, I asked myself a simple, yet profound question. Of course, pursuing the answer to this question lead to more questions than answers. That's usually what happens when good questions are asked. I was in college and had finished up a semester in statistics. In my "History of American Economics" class we were studying inequality in the distribution of wealth and income in the United States. I learned that the top 1% of the population "earns" over half the income of the entire country. I remembered from statistics that a set of data points should distribute themselves normally in what's called a "Bell Curve". You have probably heard this term used in the context of a grading curve. I will try to explain this as simply as possible. Here's how it works:
Say you have measured the height of 100 individuals who work in your office building. The 100 individuals measured were chosen randomly.
You found that the mean (average) height of the individuals measured was 67 inches. Most people are not exactly 67 inches tall, but a majority of them hover around that 67 inch mark.
From here you use a formula to figure out what the average deviation from mean is 3.5 inches. This means that on average, people were either 3.5 inches taller or 3.5 inches shorter than the mean height of 67 inches. This average deviation from the mean height is what's called the standard deviation.
When we plot these data points we will find that they are distributed normally per the chart below. We call this a "Bell Curve". The data takes on the shape of a bell because when you randomly measure the height of a person working in this office building you have a higher chance of choosing someone who is exactly the average height for the sample (67 inches) than you would any other height. The farther you get away from the mean, the lower your chances of finding somebody in your sample corresponding to that height.
For the sake of our example:
Point C represents the median height of 67 inches
Point B represents 1 standard deviation less than the median, which in this case would be 63.5 inches
Point D represents 1 standard deviation more than the median (70.5 inches)
Point A represents 2 standard deviations less than the median, which in this case would be 60 inches.
Point E represents 2 standard deviations more than the median (74 inches)
Now what we find in a "Normal Distribution" is that 68% of the people measured will be between 63.5 inches tall and 70.5 inches tall.
95% of the people measured will be between 60 inches and 74 inches tall.
5% of the people measured will lie outside of the range of 60 inches tall and 74 inches tall.
We find this same pattern over and over again when we measure things in nature or in the social sciences. Data tends to distribute itself as a bell curve when measuring human physical strength, IQ's, heights, or weights. This pattern is also found when measuring natural phenomena like the height of trees in a forest or the weight of fish is a school, or the wingspans of birds in a flock.
Manufacturers look at these bell curves often when performing quality control. Say you run a machine shop that makes bolts for aircraft. Each one of these bolts needs to be 3 inches long. Because humans are not perfect, and machines are built by imperfect humans, it is safe to say that machines cannot be perfect. Therefore, the shop's operations managers need to regularly perform quality control checks on their machines. They would take a random sample of their bolts and make sure that the data points corresponding to the length of each bolt are normally distributed. If the data turns out not to be normally distributed (that is... a skewed version of the curve we plotted in the example above when we measured the heights of a random sample of people in a given office building), then the operation manager will shut down the plant and perform a diagnostic check on each and every machine before they start operations again. The reason why they would take such drastic action is because when data does not fit a normal distribution it implies artificial influence affecting the properties of the items being measured.Now that you understand this idea of normal distribution, let's ask the question...do we see a normal distribution in data points when we are measuring household incomes? The answer is a resounding NO! It's not even close. Take a look:
This data was taken from the 2005 US Census. The red area represents those in the bottom quintile. The median income is about $50,000 and the standard deviation is about $35k. This forces the curve so far to the left that we have to incorporate negative incomes in order to give the data a curved a shape, otherwise the curve would take the shape of an "L". Also, this scale only goes up to 395,000. If we stretched it out to a couple of billion dollars, the graph would take on an even more profound L shape.
It's even worse when we look at incomes worldwide, and it's worse than that when we look at the distribution of wealth worldwide.
I think you know where I might be going with this, but I will ask the question bluntly.
If the economy wasn't manipulated or fixed in any way, wouldn't we see a normally distributed bell curve in the income distribution data of the population? Of course we would!
Since incomes are not normally distributed, we know that there must be an artificial influence forcing an unnatural amount of people into the poorer side of the curve.
Instead of a natural distribution , we see this...
LCurveFlier2003
I want to make clear that when I say "natural distribution of income" I am not implying an "equal distribution of income". An equal distribution of income is just as unnatural as the distribution of income we have now. What I am saying is that if we did have a free market where everybody competed on a level playing field then we would see a more "natural" or "normal" distribution in the data.
This subject opened up a Pandora's box for me because I had proven to myself that there is an artificial influence causing this shift of the distribution curve to the left. What is this artificial influence? Who is involved? How do they exercise control? How is the economy manipulated to benefit those people representing the right side of the curve (the elite)? What mechanisms are used? What disciplines are involved? Which organizations are involved? How long has this been going on? Why does it seem that nobody notices?
Author Gary Allen sums up this conspiratorial view in "None Dare Call It Conspiracy":
"When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the "accidental theory of history" preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department "stumble" from one Communist-aiding "blunder" to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an "intellectual" who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook! "
I figured that I should start my research by examining the right hand side of the curve.
Gathering Information
In my study of the elite power structures that seem to control the outcome of events that affect our lives, I have come across such a vast amount of information that contradicts the standard version of reality forced upon me by the media, that it has become overwhelming. There is so much credible information out there illuminating the engineering of human events that it becomes hard not to be blinded by the shear immensity of it. Of all the books, articles, essays, videos, and interviews that I have studied, none seems to put all of the pieces together in a clear way on their own. It's not for lack of proof or credible sources, but quite the opposite. Such an astonishing amount of supporting information exists that it is almost impossible for an individual to put it all together in one source. That's when it hit me. Using this blog space, we can do a fairly good job of compiling sources (articles, books, videos, documents, ect.) in one location in a dynamic way. The problem with books is that once it's printed, you can't go back and add new information. The same holds true with articles and videos. Here, we can work together to constantly add sites and sources to further our pursuit of the truth.
What I have created here is not meant to be a work authored by me. Why bother? I have no credentials or inside connections. What I can do to contribute to the truth-seeker movement is organize the credible information in a way that provides continuity in these subjects and allows the audience to participate. This is a project begun with the intent to never be finished. Only with your help and the help of others can we put the pieces together.
When sifting through all the sources that I have encountered it has always been difficult to tell which parts of the work is purely authors' speculation and which parts aren't. When I first started researching I had a hard time figuring out what was a credible source of information and what wasn't. It's funny when you start thinking about how information is disseminated. Why do we consider anything written in a textbook to be true? Where did the textbook author get their facts from? An author quotes the work of another author who has more credibility than himself and footnotes it. Should the footnote automatically label a statement as being true? Why? What if the footnote references an author with fewer credentials and less notoriety that the author who is using the quote? In that case wouldn't the author's speculation be more legitimate than the quote of a lesser authority on the subject? Anyway when you get down to it, authors use each others' works extensively and usually give credit where credit is due. The original idea that is repeatedly quoted throughout time came from somebody's mind and was transmitted through written or spoken word to be disseminated as fact.
In my study of the elite power structures that seem to control the outcome of events that affect our lives, I have come across such a vast amount of information that contradicts the standard version of reality forced upon me by the media, that it has become overwhelming. There is so much credible information out there illuminating the engineering of human events that it becomes hard not to be blinded by the shear immensity of it. Of all the books, articles, essays, videos, and interviews that I have studied, none seems to put all of the pieces together in a clear way on their own. It's not for lack of proof or credible sources, but quite the opposite. Such an astonishing amount of supporting information exists that it is almost impossible for an individual to put it all together in one source. That's when it hit me. Using this blog space, we can do a fairly good job of compiling sources (articles, books, videos, documents, ect.) in one location in a dynamic way. The problem with books is that once it's printed, you can't go back and add new information. The same holds true with articles and videos. Here, we can work together to constantly add sites and sources to further our pursuit of the truth.
What I have created here is not meant to be a work authored by me. Why bother? I have no credentials or inside connections. What I can do to contribute to the truth-seeker movement is organize the credible information in a way that provides continuity in these subjects and allows the audience to participate. This is a project begun with the intent to never be finished. Only with your help and the help of others can we put the pieces together.
When sifting through all the sources that I have encountered it has always been difficult to tell which parts of the work is purely authors' speculation and which parts aren't. When I first started researching I had a hard time figuring out what was a credible source of information and what wasn't. It's funny when you start thinking about how information is disseminated. Why do we consider anything written in a textbook to be true? Where did the textbook author get their facts from? An author quotes the work of another author who has more credibility than himself and footnotes it. Should the footnote automatically label a statement as being true? Why? What if the footnote references an author with fewer credentials and less notoriety that the author who is using the quote? In that case wouldn't the author's speculation be more legitimate than the quote of a lesser authority on the subject? Anyway when you get down to it, authors use each others' works extensively and usually give credit where credit is due. The original idea that is repeatedly quoted throughout time came from somebody's mind and was transmitted through written or spoken word to be disseminated as fact.
In the immortal words of Mark Twain:
Click here to download the newest version of Real Player
To download videos using Real Player, just hover your cursor over the video, right click and select "Download This Video to Real Player".
My intent is not to present to you information to be consumed as unquestionable fact. I want to encourage the opposite. Question everything presented. Just because I choose to post something to these blogs does not mean that I whole-heatedly believe it myself. Even the content that I find credible and trustworthy needs to be questioned and I look forward to studying audience interpretations of the material presented. The last thing I want to do is to encourage anyone to accept anything on blind faith. These blogs were started as a means of pursuing truth only. I don't intend to present any material as inalienable fact.
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing"
Most of what we call "credible" sources consist of documents, quotes, interviews, documentaries, and the speculation of authoritative figures. My own speculations will be in green font, so you will know to question the green statements more than anything else you encounter. I also encourage you to download every video that I have posted. The newest version of Real Player will allow you to download every video clip posted throughout these blogs.
Most of what we call "credible" sources consist of documents, quotes, interviews, documentaries, and the speculation of authoritative figures. My own speculations will be in green font, so you will know to question the green statements more than anything else you encounter. I also encourage you to download every video that I have posted. The newest version of Real Player will allow you to download every video clip posted throughout these blogs.
Click here to download the newest version of Real Player
To download videos using Real Player, just hover your cursor over the video, right click and select "Download This Video to Real Player".
Mission
My intent is not to present to you information to be consumed as unquestionable fact. I want to encourage the opposite. Question everything presented. Just because I choose to post something to these blogs does not mean that I whole-heatedly believe it myself. Even the content that I find credible and trustworthy needs to be questioned and I look forward to studying audience interpretations of the material presented. The last thing I want to do is to encourage anyone to accept anything on blind faith. These blogs were started as a means of pursuing truth only. I don't intend to present any material as inalienable fact.
Please remember to never base your belief systems on the ideology or opinion of any person or organization that does not take into account the fact that they may be wrong. Having said that, here is my disclaimer...there is a possibility that my opinions are based on faulty logic. These blogs are designed as a platform for truth-seekers to start or continue their own investigation into these subjects and my hope is to inspire truth seekers to come to their own conclusions. Hopefully, you will be exposed to information that you have never been exposed to before.
Here's a quick clip on how the media conditions human consciousness. I chose to insert this clip here in the introduction because I think it keeps with the spirit of this project which is to expose the audience to subjects that they may have never been exposed to before and to encourage critical thought and open dialogue.
To give you a taste of what you are in for I think it is fitting to start out with these quotes from J. Edgar Hoover, former president Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy. From there you can decide how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists"
-J Edgar Hoover (1956)
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)
-JFK In his speach to the American Newspapers Association in 1961
Here's a quick clip on how the media conditions human consciousness. I chose to insert this clip here in the introduction because I think it keeps with the spirit of this project which is to expose the audience to subjects that they may have never been exposed to before and to encourage critical thought and open dialogue.
To give you a taste of what you are in for I think it is fitting to start out with these quotes from J. Edgar Hoover, former president Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy. From there you can decide how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists"
-J Edgar Hoover (1956)
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)
-JFK In his speach to the American Newspapers Association in 1961
