Claimed Quote: This is an accurate quote, however it's missing context. It's actually about communism, in the 1950s. It also might not have been written by Hoover, as many of the atricles attributed to him are now thought to have been ghost-written by FBI employees. Here's the original source with some context (many thanks to The Elks Magazine for photocopying the relevant pages from their archive). The quote is on the first column of the last page. https://www.metabunk.org/images/1956 Elks Hoover OCR.pdf The full article is an interesting read, given the historical context of the time. The American Communist party had disassociated itself from Soviet Russia, after the excesses of Stalin were revealed, in part though the "secret speech" earlier that year. The membership eventually slipped from 80,000 to around 5,000. Approximately 1,500 of those were in the employ of the FBI. Hoover boasted that he effectively financed the US communist party, so he could spy on it. The last paragraph is interesting, in that it reveals the strong Christian bias of Hoover. I was momentarily delighted to see him mention skepticism, until I realized it was playing third fiddle to "monumental" faith. The whole paragraph is an interesting illustration of "faith" - which amounts to belief without evidence. One must ascertain for oneself what the facts are, and simultaneously have unquestioning belief in certain claimed facts. This harkens forward to the modern conspiracy theorist's oft repeated call of "do some research" often being closely paired with "nothing you can say will make me change my mind". This quote was interesting to research as it comes from a very obscure article, that, until now, did not appear to have been re-printed anywhere other than the 1956 Elks Magazine. So how did it make it's way into modern conspiracy culture. The attributions are a variation of the following: There seems to be almost no other record of this in Google Books before around 2001, when it crops up in conspiracy circles. Jerreld L. Newquist, was an apocalyptic preacher and writer. There's a longer version of the quote in Our Immediate Responsibility by Ezra Taft Benson. Our Immediate Responsibility. BYU Devotional, October 25, 1966. And an even fuller (but still edited, and with no context) quote can be found here, in this online version of "Prophets Principles and National Survival" This is verified in Google's scan of the 1964 version. The quote crops up again in the John Birch society newsletter, American opinion, 1966, Vol 9, Page 82. But it seems to has simply skipped though history from the original 1956 article in Elks, via Newquist in 1964, a few reprints in the years after, then it was rediscovered, and went viral in conspiracy culture when it could be easily spread via the internet. One interesting reference is from an FOIA request. A citizen wrote to Hoover asking about L. Ron Hubbard, and he received a form letter, along with the following anti-communist literature, #2 of which was this article from the Elks Magazine. The "bunk" in the usage of this quote is the suggestion that it applies to something other than communism. Hoover was rabidly anti-communist, to the point of paranoia. While he may have though there was some conspiracy within certain levels of american government, that only referred to communism. If anyone was engaged in conspiracy it was Hoover himself via the COINTELPRO program and his infiltration of the US Communist Party.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Hoover knew something about communism, and who was really behind its spread around the world, that you don't know? That 'communism' meant something different to Hoover back then than it does to you now? With regard to the quote in question, it seems to me Hoover was trying to communicate something on a much deeper level. You just have to read between the lines. This particular portion of the quote: [EX=https://www.metabunk.org/images/1956%20Elks%20Hoover%20OCR.pdf]The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.[/EX] This statement does not, in my view, fit the ordinary, garden-variety view of the international communist conspiracy at that time. The American people weren't "handicapped" by the idea of a communist conspiracy, nor did they see it as so "monstrous" that they couldn't believe it existed. By 1956, the American people had grown accustomed to the idea of a "Red Scare" and communist infiltration, as they had been subjected to it for decades. The quote only makes sense if you understand the greater context of communism and the people in our own midst pursuing it and for what ends.
Hoover is not saying that people think it's monstrous. He's pretty much saying the opposite, that they don't see how monstrous it is, partly because it's SO monstrous (in his opinion) that they can't believe it could be so bad.
Right, because Hoover knew what the international communist conspiracy really was, who was supporting it, and what the ultimate goal was, while the American people didn't. He could try to sit down and explain it to the American people, but they wouldn't believe him. They would be "handicapped" by what he was saying because it was so unbelievably "monstrous". That's what he was really communicating, or trying to communicate, in that quote. He was probably handicapped by it himself, as are most people who learn about this stuff. Two videos that should be watched and understood to provide a little context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GhPsJCXPqY
I already made my point. The videos just provide further, more detailed context to those interested in learning more.
Juror No. 8, I think you did a good job making you point succinctly, and thanks for posting the YouTube links above. Both videos are excellent, and the importance of the material has nothing to do with when they were recorded. To anyone who is interested in learning the deeper elements of this conspiracy, and who is not afraid of the truth, both videos are highly relevant and revealing. The interview with Norman Dodd is remarkable on a number of counts, not least of which is his recounting of how the major foundations (and the elite banking interests behind the foundations) were not only determined to get the US involved in major wars and to keep those wars going longer rather than shorter, but also to take control of the American Historical Association and how history is taught in the US. This is just one technique which has been so effectively used by the elites to keep the public in the dark about the much larger conspiracy which Hoover may or may not have been referring to (I suspect that he was). Anyway, all of the material in both videos, though never taught in schools or discussed in the mainstream media for obvious reasons, is easily verified by numerous other sources. The Dodd material in particular is backed up by the excellent book Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene Wormser who was one of the legal counsels for the Reece Committee. Another good illustration of the corrupting influence in academia is in the documentary Inside Job, and only a fool would trust the mainstream media to accurately recount the role of its elite ownership in the broad sweep of important historical events. It's no wonder the vast majority of Americans are so comprehensively clueless about the subject matter; they are systematically taught untruths, and have been for well over a hundred years.
I've meant to find and buy a copy of that Foundations book you referenced for a number of years, but have never gotten around to it. I've read many excerpts from the book online, but no matter how many times I read it, I find it shocking and horrifying. That's one of the reasons I find that Norman Dodd interview so powerful. I can really relate to what Kathryn Casey must have gone through in finding out what she found out. Her reaction to the revelations of the Reece investigation bears out Hoover's description of those who encounter this conspiracy: Anyway, since you referenced the top-down corrupting influence over the academe, I was wondering if you've ever read this particular Huffington Post on the Federal Reserve's efforts to control and dominate the teaching of economics in America? It's pretty fascinating and explains why there's no real critical discussion of the Federal Reserve within the establishment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
I completely agree about Kathryn Casey. Learning the deeper story has been shocking for me even though I've been highly suspicious for years. For someone like her, who had no suspicion going in, and then suddenly experienced the near equivalent of finding herself in Satan's private office with no advance warning, it's understandable that she was shaken to the core. This is exactly what Hoover was talking about: very few people will ever be confronted with such comprehensive evidence; the vast majority will get just a glimpse at most, then recoil with horror. After that, the idea of coming back to learn more is just too terrifying. Having one's world view turned completely upside down is something not many people can handle. The elites have been well aware of this for centuries, and it's definitely a big part of the problem. Waking up is hard to do. Therein lies the brilliance of Hoovers words, regardless of whether he really wrote them. He probably had help, but at the very least I'm sure it's how he really felt. Few people were in a better position than him to know. As for poor Kathryn Casey, she really didn't have a choice, she was just suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a totally shocking situation. It's nice that Carroll Reece made the effort to find a different job for her, and very sad the fate she ultimately suffered. I was not aware of the Huffington Post article, but that's also a VERY revealing quote along similar lines, I'll definitely read the whole story. Thanks for posting. I'll also send it along to a political scientist friend of mine who I've been debating with for years over these very topics. As recently as yesterday he was telling me that just can't subscribe to "conspiracy theories" because in his view political scientists, historians, and economists usually get things right. Ha!!! Yeah, sure. I'll definitely pass the Huffington Post article along to him, as well as Hoover, Dodd, and Sutton. Thanks again, good stuff!
I'm curious, how do you mean this? What made you suspicious and for how long? You're probably dealing with someone who is a lost cause. At the very minimum, every clear-thinking, alert, and even just somewhat intelligent adult should, at the very least, have figured out by now that something is very, very wrong in this country. Even if they can't figure out what it is specifically, or put any of the pieces of the puzzle together, they should at least be a little bit "suspicious", as you earlier put it. Any adult who is still not yet at that stage, this late in the game, is pretty much hopeless. No problem.
@Juror No. 8, sorry for delayed response. I guess I started developing a capacity for suspicion pretty early, I remember noticing hypocrisy and lying on the part of certain adults when I was a kid. Before long I realized that it seemed much more common with people in various positions of pseudo authority, so a very healthy skepticism of "authority" was part of my world view by the time I became a teenager. After that, the initiating blockbuster event was seeing the Zapruder film for the first time, a real WTF?!? moment to say the least. Next was seeing the video of Eisenhower's fairwell speech, then a huge curiosity about that period of history. What was this military industrial complex all about, why was Kennedy killed, and who was behind it? I became a full blown history addict, and started working my way backwards from the Cold War era to WWII, to the Great Depression, to WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution, to the founding of the Fed in 1913, to the ongoing efforts over the 124 years prior to that to make the US central bank permanent, and so on. There were fingerprints of elite manipulation, lies, enormous elite benefit, and horrible public detriment in every major event I looked at, especially wars, economic upheavals, and related events. After studying countless major crises which appeared to have been caused by elites, for elite benefit, covered up with lies, and paid for by the public, it became clear that the mainstream media and even the "education" system were indentured servants to elite interests. By the 1990's I a was certified skeptic of all official stories and mainstream explanations, and, as part of the history habit, well versed in historic false flag operations. When Oklahoma City took place, I was immediately suspicious on several counts, and when 9/11 happened it was obvious the very first day that we were being lied to. I had actually read the infamous PNAC document before 2001. Then the outrageous lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq, the stunning crackdown on civil liberties, the inexorable march to global "integration" and eventual one world government, the continuation of all the same policies under Obama, and the utter failure of "the fourth estate" to hold anyone to account. The entire system is a fraud, and the joke is on us. Lately my historical studies have gone much further back, and just when I thought I could no longer be surprised, it's become clear that certain religious developments from over two thousand years ago played an enormous role in the tumultuous events of the 20th century, especially the development of Communism, and they continue to have a huge impact right up to the present day. That's a very long, fascinating, and dismaying story which I won't even begin to go into, but it does make me wonder if Hoover was aware of the deeper issues. His remarks can be interpreted either way. But just the basics of the true elite power structure of the past hundred years, which completely dominates politics, controls the world, and is planning a very dark future for anything resembling democracy, is something which not only ordinary people are oblivious to, but even highly "educated" people are ignorant of. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so terrifying. And you may well be right that my friend is a lost cause. I'll keep working on him since our friendship goes back to childhood, but so many like him, especially those with a lot of "education" under their belts, really do still trust the mainstream. Hopeless is right! Oy vey...
The fact Hoover was able to amass so much power, and hold it for such a long time indicates to me that he was a "Team Player" for the Empire. Usually all threats to the human farming model are extinguished or co-opted as soon as they arise.
That's a terrible bit of sophistry - and I mean terrible because it's bad, not because it's good! You're putting words in J (or is that 'gay'?) Edgar Hoover's mouth. I'm sure he'd have liked a bit more than that - but you're talking about some gay, cross-dressing FBI chief who's in his closet jumping mad because of reds under the bed, you couldn't write it - it sounds like a farce, because that's what it is. Aren't you glad you're now American?
What?! Surely not! I can't believe it No! Not evil! It's a load of J's hot air. Hysteria, I think they call it. He's probably talking about the introduction of hair gel to challenge Brylcreem.
I found this because when i saw the quote used on something regarding a conspiracy theory, i suspected it had been taken out of context. However it is a very interesting quote especially the last bit, his observation about what people will refuse to believe, is very telling, and the reason the quote has been misappropriated so much is that it is true, and if one takes the view even communism was part of the grander global plot, especially the scare mongering about it in the U.S in an almost identical way to the war on terror, as if it was a standard tactic, to paraphrase, within a conspiracy to monstrous for the public to believe
Gah this thread is so frustrating I had to register just to comment about it. I too came to this thread from someone in a youtube comment using the quote to insinuate a conspiracy entirely different from communism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld5tERIBvsg&feature=related quite the opposite in fact.) The quote caught my eye for its hyperbolic use of rhetorical fallacy. Well done and thank you to Mick for revealing the true origins and context of the quote. Only for following posts to completely miss the irony of it. Can we not all agree that on the evidence of history and overwhelming general consensus, that there was none and nor has there ever been a global, all-powerful and insidious communist conspiracy? Therefore, the fact that this quote has been applied out of context to various other alleged conspiracies indicates not its inherent truth but on the contrary, its capacity to rhetorically convince someone of a falsehood. Machiavelli in the latest post is repeating just such a fallacy, even with the evidence of the quotes context staring him in the face, he co-opts it to refer to "the grander global plot", which I am quite sure Hoover did not mean at all given what we know, and which I presume communism had sweet bugger all to do with (grander global plots typically being about money and a capitalist ruling elite). It is also sweetly ironic that conspiracy theorists use this quote as evidence that people are simply unable to comprehend the monstrosity of their given conspiracy, whilst it is an existent conspiracy only because hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of people already do comprehend it. The human mind (let alone the American) is eminently capable of conceiving of some monstrous, all-encompassing and invisible threat, and does so, frequently, and in many many established and verified cases, fallaciously so. The truth in this quote, if there is any, I would argue refutes all conspiracy theories. And that truth is that the human mind is incapable (currently) of comprehending all the myriad complexities and mitigating factors that cause things of significant consequence. To my mind, this is the only thing say the global financial crisis and the rise of communism have in common. They came about from so many complex socio-economic, psychological and unique individual factors that to boil them down to a conspiracy agreement between a select few is disingenuous in the extreme.
@Gavrilo_Princip to quote you, "Gah this thread is so frustrating I had to register just to comment about it." But in response to you....I, too, was "like her, who had NO suspicion going in, and then suddenly experienced the near equivalent of finding herself in Satan's private office with no advance warning, it's understandable that she was shaken to the core." I've lived a safe little life....married happily 25 years, three daughters, Jesus centered home, just.....normal and boring....NEVER expected THIS....BUT after the TRAVESTY of an election(please don't respond to that---not interested in your opinion if you disagree with that...I've done TOO much research on the liberal left...but NEVER expected it of conservatives)...just IMAGINE my surprise when I heard PAPA GEORGE BUSH STATE we WOULD have a One World Order, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g , THEN, son, George W. call it New Order of the Ages, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-obJ8lYWc , then, Obama.......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJkS-bAJv8&NR=1&feature=endscreen . Say what you will, but THIS IDEA WAS HITLERS...who btw, was affiliated with the radical muslims....
Have you considered that people are simply describe things as "new" because they are changing? That they actually have no idea that "new world order" is supposedly a conspiracy? If the world changes (which it always does) we get a "new world order". That's all.
I don't "chose" to believe anything. I believe what is best supported by the evidence. "Choosing" a belief is nonsensical. I don't see any evidence for chemtrails, or the existence of a god. This does not mean they don't exist. It just means there's no evidence that they exist.
I was about to write something less elegant myself, not having enough hair to tear out. Thanks, Gavrilo. P.S. And Mick.
Thanks for the link to the Huffingtonpost site. It was very helpful. I connect the Dots now. Also, I had a feeling that the Hoover quote had to do with the FED more then Communism...
Then why does he keep talking about Communism? Did you read the full context of the quote? https://www.metabunk.org/images/1956 Elks Hoover OCR.pdf
Yes, I read it. In my humble opinion, is that the FED itself is comprised of NOT Jewish, but Communist Russians. (although Jewish Communists clearly could be happening?) The Russian Communists would obviously help the Jews, if it helped there own causes. They use Israel, and support their Zionist government, as if hiding under a Mother's skirt. It's a way to get the micro-scope off of them? And distract the people with Communism, as your money has been systematically destroyed since the year after the Titanic sunk! 1913 created USA FIAT Monopoly Money, that was spent around the whole World, buying Corporations and Properties, using fake money. The World Bank, and the I.M.F., and the 2 other arms, so to say.
What the heck? Your reasoning is not making any sense to me. The Fed is not made of of Communists of any type. What is your fascination with mentioning Jews in this? What is important with money is is it able to purchase products that one needs and wants. The only 'fake money' is counterfeit' money.
From the Huffington post, The pharmaceutical industry has similarly worked to control key medical journals, but that involves several companies. In the field of economics, it's just the Fed. The only reason I brought up that sentence, is that education has beed manipulated in both cases. And too make it even worse for the Public, is the use of Fluoride, in the drinking water for many decades, and a large amount of other Evil tampering with the F.D.A.'s permision. Such as Flu Shots, and Vacines, GMO foods, etc., etc. If Fluoride makes us unable to think straight and be aggressive when necessary, then we the Public are fighting more the Communism, in my humble opinion. We are not fighting Satanism as well...
The Huffington post is NOT always accurate. I have found several article there that needed to have been better vetted before publication. There is a LONG thread here debunking Fluoride. Please read it. Fluoride does not control us, that is pure bunk. You seem to worry about a lot of things, that science has proven to be useful and helpful to people and animals.
Caireen, perhaps you would not even know if Fluoride has effected you, or anyone you know, for that matter? There are tons of scientific evidence about the damages of "Fluoride" Perhaps you should look at other sites? Just a suggestion, Historically, most cases of acute fluoride toxicity have followed accidental ingestion of sodium fluoride based insecticides or rodenticides. Currently, in advanced countries, most cases of fluoride exposure are due to the ingestion of dental fluoride products. I really don't want to hear back from you, about the safety of Vaccine shots. Please spare me. Thank you.
But if can affect you negatively, that effect must be detectable? What test should she take to see if she's been affected?
It is interesting, it seems that Geronimo wants to make statements and not have them challenged. I would like to know about any test to prove this. Heck, I can find my IQ scores from when I tested into Mensa, some 25 yrs ago. If it is making me dumber, wouldn't a new IQ test show that? If so, I wish I had my scores from when I was in college in the early 70s, when I tested into Mensa. It would be fun to be a triple 9
It all comes down to the "If.." at the start of your statement really, doesn't it - quite an important word. Perhaps you should actually establish that that is the case first? Then of course you need to establish that there is actually any such thing as Satan in order to have Satanism. If you can show those then the 3rd step is to show that one causes the other...... I look forward to your analysis.
Actually, if only by the lack of a 'Debunked' heading that particular thread, I'd say no conclusion has yet been made, even within this site. If you'll take a look at the thread mentioned above, you'll see a series of studies cited which seem to have detected them. The value of these studies are of course debated by proponents of fluoridation (who point out the lack of adequate controls while evading the fact every study which came out pro-fluoride lacked the same controls) but no one's disproved or dismissed them. That aside, dental fluorosis is a major problem for kids in the USA. People say its 'just' cosmetic, and maybe having so much fluoride in your system that it screws with your teeth from the inside-out has no other negative effect on any other organ in your body, but growing up with just one brown blotch on your front-tooth can have a major impact on how people see/treat you, and your self esteem. Imagine being a kid and able to see on people's faces when they notice it, maybe refraining from smiling in the hopes that they wont. Does that represent brain control? No. But it's a clear example of how a program the worth of which is under increasing debate has a very real, very measurable negative effect on the lives of some of the people upon whom it is imposed. Ludicrous statement. Like saying god must be proven before the existence of Christianity can be entertained.
This data is for Mensa minded Cairenn... Einstein never took an IQ test (they are a fairly recent development) so no one knows what his IQ is. But the fact that he was brilliant in some fields doesn't mean he would have had a high IQ. There are people, called 'idiot savants' who are incredibly brilliant in one field, but hopeless at other things. For some reason, mathematics is often the field of special intensity - they can calculate numbers in their heads that you or I would have trouble entering into a computer, and solve them faster than the computer. They can tell you what day of the week any date in history was, or project it forward into the future. But they may not be able to figure out how to get across town on a bus. So IQ, no matter how high it is, doesn't always indicate brilliance. And your personal IQ can and does vary over your lifetime, so it isn't a set number. It is used as a guide, however. IQs of under 80 are generally deemed to need assisted living conditions, those with IQs over 135 are MENSA level. These are people who sit around and do math problems for fun and find sudoko and crosswords much too easy. Some people with high IQs are not especially socially adept, because they can't undestand how other people (with lower IQs) have such trouble understanding things that come naturally to the. Others with high IQs are wonderful, kind and caring people. So there aren't really any generalizations you can make about people with high or low IQs.
A minor correction, nobody can do math faster than a computer. That idea derives from comparing mental mathematicians with people using a calculator, but that includes input time. A small modern computer such as an iPhone 5 is rated at about 600 megaflops, which is 600,000,000 mathematical operations per second. The big computers now are measured in petaflops (1 peta = 1,000,000 mega).
I only mentioned Mensa, because YOU implied that I was being 'dumbed down' by the fluoride in my water. If it was, then my IQ should be declining as I aged. Now, it would seem real easy, to me to prove that fluoride was damaging IQs, by tracking IQ scores through life. We were NOT discussing how 'socially adept' folks are, we were discussing intelligence. Why the distraction? Now offer some proof that fluoride is reducing our IQs.
