Former President Bill Clinton Calls for a Return to Big 3 News Networks?
By Staff News & Analysis - December 23, 2011

Bill Clinton said it a month ago at a luncheon I attended: "There is too much information on the internet. The only way a website gets ahead is by disseminating polarizing information for its own profit. Free speech needs to be more consensus driven. We need to go back to the Big 3 networks." … Paraphrase – Dilence Sogwood/DB feedbacker/ 12.22.2011

Dominant Social Theme: Too much information is bad for society.

Free-Market Analysis: Bill Clinton (left) wants to return to the days when three big television networks explained the Way the World Worked.

According to "Dilence Sogwood," a financial-industry DB feedbacker, Clinton spoke at a luncheon he attended and made these and other provocative points. What Clinton is revealing in these speeches he is giving around the world is that there is a historic struggle going on between free-market thinkers and those, like Clinton himself, who are attempting to maintain and justify the status quo.

We have no direct or corroborating evidence that Dilence Sogwood's statements are accurate; however, we have a history of his feedback going back nearly a year. In that time, we have never had a sense that he was anything other than a feedbacker who wished to share information about freedom, investing and elite social themes.

For purposes of this article, we will treat them as legitimate "sourced" statements. His feedback on Clinton's luncheon talk is important in our view because it provides a window into how Clinton and others who work for the Anglosphere elites are grappling with what we call the Internet Reformation.

The statement mentioned in Sogwood's feedback (above) is especially startling because in making it, Clinton reveals himself as pure utilitarian. He also reveals inadvertently the pervasiveness of the Anglosphere power elite control in the US.

The Big Three media networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) did not exist on their own but were supported by a vast corporate network that included virtually every large company and government agency germane to the 20th century. Clinton is not just calling for a renewed social compact; he is demanding a full-fledged return to the status-quo ante. More on this below.

It is the Internet that is upsetting the power elite's status quo and making it increasingly difficult for them to realize their long-held dream of total world government. This one-world order is to be run by a handful of self-selected elites.

These intergenerational, familial elites control hundreds of trillions of dollars apparently via central banks around the world. This is part of the world's current "secret government." The way the world is run (and is to be run) is via mercantilism; the great families are to continue to control government (and money) behind the scenes.

To realize this strategy is not easy. It cannot simply be done by brute force. Because government is an essential part of world control, the Anglosphere power elite needs to ensure government's expanding power as well as its credibility. If a credible argument cannot be made for government, then the elites cannot rule.

And so circulating around the globe are charismatic "helpers" like Bill Clinton, funded via book contracts, foundation donations and speaking engagements with all the resources they need. They are in perpetual motion, building up a consensus for the mercantilist system that the elites intend to fully impose. They are the paid helpers – enablers – of the world's elites.

One could argue, in fact, that Clinton has become the new David Rockefeller, when it comes to the US. Such men are valuable because they are able to muster support, cogently, for the state and the power elite that runs it behind the scenes.

Tony Blair is another one. Once they have proven their worth and skill by winning and maintaining high political office, these individuals are essentially employed by the powers-that-be to spread the elite's dominant social themes.

The points that Sogwood provides us are in line with those made in many other Clinton speeches. But they are interesting because they are provocative and perhaps "edgier" than the statements that Clinton ordinarily provides at large public forums where he is recorded and filmed. From what we can tell, this was a private luncheon and not reported (at least not extensively) by the media.

What it tells us is that Clinton and other elite associates and enablers don't have any real idea about how to turn the tide away from the enlightenment that has occurred as a result of a technology that is as fundamental as the Gutenberg Press itself.

The Internet is radically changing the context and belief structures of the time, as we have predicted many times before. How do we know the Internet is in a sense winning the day? In part because the arguments being mustered against the free-market orientation of many in the alternative media are far more convincing than the arguments of the elite's paid apologists.

It is true, of course, that the elites can try to force the planet's billions to go along with their schemes, but pure force is most likely a recipe for long-term failure. It is absolutely imperative to build a believable (moral) argument for the system that the elites want to impose.

Clinton and others like him are most important to this effort. They are in a sense the foot-soldiers of global governance. Here is a full summary of the points Clinton made, sent to us from Sogwood on Dec. 8, along with our comments:

• Too much Internet news. It divides people for profit. Must get back to the Big 3 networks.

This is an astonishing sentiment and one that is immensely revealing. It reveals a perspective regarding news and information that is profoundly patrician. What Clinton seems to believe is that the purpose of information and education is not to enlighten but to contribute to social harmony.

The trouble is that someone must still DEFINE the constitution of such harmony. If people don't have the requisite information, then how are they supposed to do so? The unspoken conclusion is that "people" won't have to worry about it. Bill Clinton and others will do the job for them.

Which leads to another reasonable question: Where are Clinton and the rest of his elite circle getting THEIR information and their view of the world? Somebody, somewhere, must define what an "undivided" society is and to what views it will subscribe. Clinton's idea apparently is that he will, and you won't.

• The free market doesn't work. Look at all the science that NASA spills out. Look at the success of Brazil (wait, what?). We need public-private partnerships (fascism).

This is an interesting comment because it shows the paucity of examples available to Clinton when he wants to make a point about the dysfunction of the free market. In truth, there are no (or hardly any) free markets in the world today. But free markets are the solution, not the problem; they are the antidote to what the elites have in store.

Clinton points to NASA as a good example of a mammoth bureaucracy that "spills out" science. But there are legitimate questions surrounding every aspect of NASA's science, from its moon landings to its use of questionable data to support so-called global warming.

The former US president points to Brazil as a success story within the paradigm of a public/private partnership. But Brazil's economy is central banking driven. The success that Clinton refers to has to do with monetary stimulation driving a boom that will eventually turn into a bust. To use Brazil (or any of the central-banking-run BRICs) as an example of the free market at work is fairly tenuous, in our humble view.

Clinton calls for public/private partnerships but it would seem this is basically just a way of justifying government control (or at least guidance) when it comes to the private sector. In fact, the marketplace does not need "guidance." It is hard to think of any significant advances that were initiated by government; it is hard to think of any industries that were driven forward successfully by government.

• The Tea Party is the reason the Congress has a 10% approval rating (said as if it were a fact).

The initial Tea Party was an outgrowth of US libertarian Congressman Ron Paul's ability to reach more and more people via the Internet with his free-market, anti-military empire arguments. While the Tea Party has in a sense been taken over by mainstream, elite-oriented politicians, this has not affected the underlying paradigm at work.

It is true that the Tea Party has probably contributed to the low esteem in which Congress is currently held. But this a ramification of education and reality, not the result of some sort of propagandistic trick. We would argue the Internet has merely revealed the fundaments of so-called democracy throughout the West, and the results are predictable.

• We need bold leadership in Europe to end this crisis. The problem is populism. Leaders of rich countries have to transfer wealth, and leaders of poor countries have to transfer sovereignty.

This is some statement! It is truly a recipe for government control of every part of one's life. Greece is to give up freedom; the Germans are to give up money. In this way, the EU itself is to be saved and the empire further entrenched.

Whether Clinton's proscription will work in the era of the Internet is questionable, however. It is certainly not a solution to anything except the elite's problem of how to generate regional building blocks from nation-states on the way to world government.

• Bush was as much a big government guy as he [Clinton] was. (Presented as if we all buy into the left-right paradigm).

It is true that President George W. Bush was a "big government guy." The Internet has helped make it very clear to people that political parties throughout the West are simply two or three fingers of the same fist.

What is more interesting is that, in making such a statement, Clinton may be seen as a touch defensive over "big government." Perhaps he was simply trying to make the point that all solutions essentially lead back to large government and its (ruinous) methodologies. He was, in other words, trying to stress the inevitability of the current system.

We have looked at other Clinton speeches online. He is obsessed with making the point that communitarianism ("it takes a village") is the way that people relate best to each other. He may be correct but we would argue that the sort of communitarianism that he is discussing works best in groups of 150 or fewer people.

What Clinton and other elite surrogates are doing is trying to build "villages" of hundreds of millions – and then billions – of people. It is a ludicrous argument; what works for relative handfuls of people has no utility in such fantastic populations.

Nevertheless, Clinton will keep trying. You can see how they take these small "c" verities and attempt to expand them grandiosely here, "Do Mandela's Elders Violate Human Rights?" and here "World's 'Elders' Claim All Is Well in Ivory Coast."

Our thanks to Dogwood for the summary of Clinton's private remarks. What they seem to show most clearly is how seriously the power elite take the "struggle of ideas" and how little intellectual firepower it can muster in their defense.

After Thoughts

This should be encouraging to anyone who has used the Internet to educate himself or herself about the advantages of freedom and the true prosperity that can only be discovered via free markets and the human action they allow and support.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap