by starroute » Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:08 pm
I do keep wondering about Griffin. When his name came up on one of the blog threads, I did a quick google and found comments from, I think, Hopsicker and someone else raising questions about him. But when I posted them, someone responded that Griffin was as straight a shooter as there is in the 911 movement, so I let the matter drop for the time being.<br><br>It kept niggling at me, though, so I did a little more googling on Griffin. What I found made him seem strongly New Age, in the rather dubious elite-connected style that was extensively discussed here a ways back, and certainly didn't do anything to allay my doubts. It seems highly unlikely to me that "Masonry" is a relevant charge -- but there's certainly something questionable about this guy.<br><br>For example, I came agross a page at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id25.html">mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id25.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> dated October 3, 2004, which begins:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>After reading my article “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement” (at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html">mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id24.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> ), author of the New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 book, David Ray Griffin, sent a response to me which he copied to several others. Below, I’ve copied his response in full. Also copied below is my reply to David Ray Griffin, along with a Postscript to the 911 Truth Community.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>I do not know the background of this dispute or anything about the author of the website. However, it struck me that Griffin's letter was definitely weasely in a number of places and that the site author had some cogent criticisms. For an example of the latter:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Although you speak therein of the creation of a global government as being the answer to the world’s problems in very altruistic terms, we are not in agreement on the nature of the world’s problems, the underlying premises. You and all of your previously mentioned friend/writing/project partners (with whom you noted in your recent 911 video presentation you must share generally everything with, beliefs, etc., in common) spread the underlying odious and specious premise created always initially by those in control of the world’s resources, which I do find even worse than creepy (what I referred to in my prior piece so eloquently as “Malthusian crap”) – that even were the resources of the world to be distributed equitably among the masses of humanity, there are soon to be insufficient resources in the world for everybody. With this premise, we are, as Brian Salter wrote “being pre-programmed to lie down and fail to resist genocidal depopulation and precipitous global "downsizing" by fatalistically absorbing the idea that the earth can't support the current population anyway." This Club of Rome-like Malthusian crap is more recently pushed by things like the ROCKEFELLER, et al., supported Earth Charter Initiative.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Or this:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There have been other advocates of a one world governmental authority who do not rely on such detestably false premises. See, for example, R. Buckminster Fuller’s seminal book “Critical Path”, in which a global logistical authority seems to be suggested, but only to distribute the abundant resources always available to afford every person on the planet with a high quality standard of life. But you and your cronies are not one world gov’t advocates of this type. So, thanks anyway for the references you have provided to your & your project partners’ work (which I am sharing with others by posting your reply to my website), but that’s the reason I have no interest in delving into your altruistic sounding theories of global governance, or your project partners perhaps somewhat different global governance plans, because they all follow a ‘sustainability’ script written by the same elites who control the world’s resources. (Below I have a postscript to the 911 Truth community containing many links about the elite’s ‘sustainability’ myth.)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>And this:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, before I encountered your work David, I had assumed that theologians studied various religions or were on a quest for some sort of divine truth. You, however, are consciously seeking to mold an entirely new religion (by pulling and transforming bits and pieces from the religions that already exist) to further your goals. You even ask me in your reply: “Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--those of traditional theism--have been good enough?” Your sort of calculated synthetic creation of a religion is something I do find to be very creepy:<br><br>“Our efforts toward global governance must be two-pronged: at the same time as the case is being made for the necessity and possibility of global government, people in various religious and philosophical traditions need to be interpreting those traditions, probably through a combination of retrieval and reformation, so as to reveal and emphasize their support for this transition to world unity. . . My major project at present is, in fact, to develop a theology for a new world order . . .” (from your chapter in the library book cited at beginning).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>I'd really like to see some further exploration of Griffin and his associates by someone with more background on this than I have. The fact that what I quoted above also bears on the argument about scarcity which has been ongoing at the blog lately makes it particularly interesting.<br> <p></p><i></i>
