1
Reflections on 'conspiracy theories' :
Originally Posted by Rumata
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...t-winner/page2
The world is divided into two kinds of people: Those who do and those who don't divide the world into two kinds of people.
Now having gotten our smashing opening out of the way, let me point out that the world is divided into two kinds of people, those who are 'conspiracy theorists', and those who believe that conspiracy theorists should be committed to the loony bin rather than to their theories. Furthermore, there is a very good reason for this division: Most of the people who are the devils in the conspiracy theorists' antihagiography are not only those who are responsible for the things that conspiracy theorists complain about, but they have the power to ensure that the mass media portray conspiracy theorists as stupid, ignorant and deluded; and since it is the mass media from which most people draw their information and opinions, it is little wonder that most people's beliefs strongly reflect the media slant.
But conspiracy theory is not just a way of tweaking the Establishment's nose. Rather it is an attempt to connect the dots which tie together a lot of events, both historical and contemporary, that at first seem to have no connection. Like anything else, conspiracy theories are sometimes wrong, and perhaps often so. But just because a particular theory is wrong is not evidence that there is not a conspiracy. True, it is up to the conspiracy theorists to prove their case, but the fact is that there is already a strong case for conspiracy theory which was made by one of the greatest conspiratorial plotters of all time, Franklin Roosevelt, the man who arranged America's entry into WW2 by clandestinely waging economic warfare against the Japanese (and military warfare against the Germans) in hopes of provoking them, and who then had the Hebraic chutzpah (Roosevelt was from a Jewish family) to call his coup a 'day of infamy', which it certainly was, though not quite the way it is usually taken. The case which Roosevelt made for conspiracy theory was his declaration that "In politics, nothing happens by chance."
But there is yet another and even more powerful reason for recognizing the general validity of conspiracy theory -- human nature. More specifically, men strive for power over their fellows and have been known since time immemorial to ally themselves with others in hopes of obtaining this power. While this may not always quite rise to the level of 'conspiracy', it remains an unfulfilled dream of every man -- conspiracy theorist or not -- to rule the world; so it is safe to assume that men who have already amassed considerable power may do more than dream in this regard. Beyond this, it is clear that most efforts to obtain power involve work 'behind the scenes', and it is usually not much of a stretch to describe such work as 'conspiracy' even in cases where the work is not -- in the words of Alexander Woolcott describing his favorite activities -- illegal, immoral or fattening.
But if this is the theory behind conspiracy theory, it is only reasonable to recognize that its principal foundation is fact. More to the point, it is conspiracy theorists who invariably have a much better grasp than their critics of the facts about any given event for which they postulate a conspiracy -- critics who are invariably far too busy calling their opponents 'conspiracy theorists' to bother studying the facts. Indeed, it has always been the facts -- tied together in logical ways, of course -- which have been the greatest recruiters for the conspiracy theory cadre; and thus the only thing which prevents conspiracy theory from spreading is ignorance of those facts -- an ignorance which the major media cultivates with the care that dirt-poor Afghan farmers cultivate their opium poppies in hopes of obtaining maximum payment from the CIA.
But there are facts other than those about particular events which make conspiracy theory more than just a theory. I refer, of course, to a little book entitled Report from Iron Mountain, whose provenance has often been said to be a spoofer, but whose text is far too detailed and credible to support such an assertion, and whose authenticity has been verified by a major Establishment figure, John Kenneth Galbraith, who has asserted that he is one of its authors. Very simply, the Report is an effort to plumb the requirements of stable government, and its conclusion is that Perpetual War and other Great Projects are a necessity for keeping a nation united, and thereby subject to control by a centralized elite. In short, here we have men at the highest level seriously recommending planned catastrophes in order to keep their buddies and themselves in power. Under such circumstances, dismissing conspiracy theory as the offspring of crackpots is little better than insanity.
But if conspiracy theory is wrong, it will most likely be judged to be so because its opponents will argue that the programs which it regards as conspiracies are principally liberal programs, and that such programs -- while embraced and advanced by many people -- are either the working-out of natural events which no human effort could stop, or else are simply the efforts of a liberal political establishment to execute its appointed agenda; and from this it follows that 'conspiracy theory' is at worst nothing more than an innocent product of 'working together'. I acknowledge that this view has merit, and indeed I do not necessarily reject it; but what I am not willing to reject is what conspiracy theory admonishes us to do, namely, to 'connect the dots' so it becomes clear that events which many regard as isolated and unrelated are actually woven together into a tapestry which -- intentionally or not -- is rapidly becoming a shroud for Western civilization as a result of its effect of smothering the ideals of freedom and individual responsibility which the West has nurtured for so long.
Now as the reader undoubtedly knows, there is a name for this tapestry -- the New World Order, or NWO for short. This phrase has been around since the Enlightenment, and indeed is intimately associated with the establishment of the American republic; for it resides in one form ("Novus ordo seclorum, or 'New order of the ages') on the Great Seal of the United States, and thus appears on the back of our one-dollar bills where the Seal is depicted. While the historical role of this phrase has been regarded as sinister by some, who believe it is part of an conspiratorial Masonic influence, there have also been contemporary connections of a sinister nature, inasmuch as the phrase has been used by -- among others -- Adolf Hitler and George HW Bush.
The connection of the NWO and the Enlightenment is not accidental, because as we noted above, the programs of the NWO are primarily liberal ones, and it was as a result of the Enlightenment -- the period of history beginning about 1648 with the publication of Copernicus' earthshaking work -- that liberal ideas began to develop. These include equality (the phrase "all men are created equal" appeared in our Declaration of Independence), democracy (i.e., that rulers should rule at the pleasure of the people, and not by the 'divine right of kings'), human rights (i.e., limitation on government powers: The notion of 'unalienable rights' also appears in the Declaration), tolerance (free speech and different religious practices were given an imprimatur by the First Amendment), the elevation of scientific investigation over religious revelation (something still resented by many present-day 'conservatives') and the world's two major economic theories, capitalism (first ideated by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations) and socialism (a bastard child of 'equality'). There were numerous major benchmarks for the influence of liberal ideas in the century following 1776, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), the American Revolution (July 4, 1776), the founding of the Illuminati (May 1, 1776), the French Revolution (1789), the Communist Manifesto (1848), the Revolutions of 1848, the Seneca Falls feminist conference (1848) and the abolition of slavery in the civilized world (Britain and its possessions (1840s), Russia (1850s), and America (1860s)); and ever since this period -- and particularly as a result of the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution and the opening of the Americas -- liberalism has flourished.
Now it is apparent from the above discussion that -- however much liberalism may be involved in ushering in the NWO -- it is certainly not all bad. So what then separates 'good' liberalism from bad? To answer, it is necessary to realize that liberalism began as an effort to provide what in the modern-day idiom would be called 'power to the people', i.e., to move from the condition of a centralized power controlled by an elite to a decentralized power controlled by the individual. We can see this manifested in the ideas of liberalism discussed in the last paragraph. For example, equality, democracy, human rights and tolerance are all intended to avoid dominance by a political elite; and the elevation of science over religion -- while not necessarily 'intending' this -- has the effect of undermining the religious elite. As to socialism and capitalism, both of these (and especially socialism) were intended to avoid the power of an elite: Capitalism by spurring self-responsibility and individual initiative that spring from the incentives of a free market, and socialism by legally forbidding an elite to develop. Unfortunately, however, both capitalism and socialism contain within themselves the seed of centralized power and elitism. As for capitalism, Marx observed that this system tends toward monopoly; so that while the economic landscape may begin as diverse and decentralized, it invariably becomes pockmarked by large corporations which gobble up their small competitors, and which either bankrupt or merge with their big competitors in order to control the supposedly-free market. Likewise, socialism and its variants constitute a system of control by a centralized elite for the purpose of preventing the emergence of monopoly, but the very existence of such an elite automatically defeats the purpose of socialism, which was to keep an elite from emerging; and this means that the Marxian theory which claims that the elite will 'wither away' is not merely false, but a fraud, and indeed a cover for the elite which wants to remain in control.
What is known as liberalism in the present day retains the motive of 'power to the people', but is basically a set of programs either requiring centralized power for their execution, or else intending to institute or aggrandize centralized power -- something which is of course the exact opposite of what liberal ideas originally intended. Accordingly, liberals are advocates of Big Government, and see this as a blessing because of their belief that centralized power is more effective in solving society's problems. Present-day liberalism is opposed by libertarians and (occasionally) conservatives, who see Big Government as a threat because of its actual historical record, and who in any event fear the social homogenization which centralized authority brings -- a fear induced by a desire to preserve freedom, individuality and cultural diversity. Ironically, liberals have hijacked the concept of diversity by speaking of a multicultural society as 'diverse'; but the reality is that a 'diverse' society will either homogenize -- in which case it will no longer be diverse -- or else it will fractionate, in which case it will no longer be a society. In fairness is should be noted that liberals have attempted to preserve diversity in at least one way by preserving animal and plant species; but while liberal efforts have been useful in raising awareness of the encroachment of man on natural habitats, the liberals have come across as absurdists in their attempts to preserve such species as the spotted owl and snail darter, which are either ecologically trivial, or else are on the verge of an extinction which cannot be prevented, but only postponed.
It is clear from the above discussion, then, that the NWO is just another name for the effort -- whether 'conspiratorial' or not -- to centralize power in the hands of a global elite, and that the cheerleaders -- or secret agents -- of the NWO are the liberals. In fairness it should be pointed out that centralization is not totally without merit in the case where there exists a planetary threat, as from fanatical muslims with nuclear devices who are determined to either convert the world to their brand of Islam or else convert it to cinders. Another and perhaps more likely threat is one from outer space, where a Klingon culture bent on conquest may require a central authority to oppose it. Still, the probability of these types of situations is remote, and thus the justification for a centralized world authority is less than justified, at least based on the facts as they have been presented to us. For this reason, I consider the NWO a severe threat, and an object worthy of every effort to defeat it.
So what then is the Plan of the NWO -- or, if you prefer, what are the programs which liberals are working together to bring about, and which will almost certainly lead -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- to centralized control and a totalitarian world government Below I offer a list of the principal ones, noting in each case the ostensible good purpose, and the actual bad effects. Please note that I am not saying that all the effects of these programs are bad; rather I am saying that these are the bad effects (or some of the major ones), and that such effects at
the very least fairly scream for a serious re-thinking of these programs.
Racial Integration
* Ostensible good purpose: To give blacks equal educational and economic
opportunity.
* Actual bad effect: Because blacks are inferior in intelligence to whites, blacks remained -- in spite of integration -- low on the educational totem pole, and thus on the economic one. This was unacceptable to liberals, who used a two-pronged attack to 'equalize' whites and blacks: First, they lowered educational standards, and second, they decreed affirmative action, race-norming and other race-conscious 'remedies' which raised undeserving blacks into otherwise-unachievable positions.
Result: Resentment of blacks by whites because of undeserved race-based rewards; and resentment of whites by blacks who were assured by liberals that they were 'equal' and were being held back only by 'white racism' -- an excuse blacks readily accepted to protect their egos from the ugly facts of inferiority. Lowering educational standards has the additional effect of making people ignorant of their history and traditions, thereby helping to destroy white
culture. It also has the effect of making people less competent in life, and subject to being more easily manipulated by their 'leaders'.
Third-World Immigration
* Ostensible good purpose: To help needy Third-Worlders and to provide America with 'diversity'.
* Actual bad effect: To displace the white population and its superior culture with less intelligent minorities and their Turd-World cultures; to fill America with people who are easier to control and are willing to accept lower pay than native-born Americans, with the result that the latter lose their means of livelihood; to raise the crime rate to monstrous proportions and make whites fear for their safety.
Race-Mixing (Encouraged by both integration and immigration)
* Ostensible good purpose: To break down what liberals regard as an artificial barrier between people and to allow nonwhites to enjoy the benefits of white culture.
* Actual bad effect: Extinction of the white gene pool, and the unique culture -- superior to all others in virtually every way -- which whites have created; downbreeding of average Western intelligence, and the qualities of creativity and initiative which go with it; increasing the opportunity -- and hence the incidence -- of interracial crime, and the tensions which invariably accompany it.
Women's Rights/Feminism
* Ostensible good purpose: To open options -- primarily employment options -- for women in jobs that have been traditionally held by men.
* Actual bad effect: To upset the traditional and biologically-determined male-dominant/female-submissive sex roles and to encourage women to work, thereby exacerbating male-female tensions and making it more difficult for men and women to have successful marriages and raise children.
Children's Rights and 'Family Services'
* Ostensible good purpose: To keep children from being abused by parents.
* Actual bad effect: To intrude the government into family matters; to put families at risk from ‘tips' submitted to the authorities by nosy neighbors; to make it possible to break up families at the whim of caseworkers or because parents resist intrusion or are 'odd'.
Sexual Minority Rights
* Ostensible good purpose: To free the sexually deviant from arbitrary restrictions.
* Actual bad result: Spread of serious diseases by homosexuals, thereby putting heterosexuals at risk, particularly by restricting the reporting of such diseases to authorities; spreading sexual deviance; emboldening deviants and thus exacerbating conflicts between deviants and normals.
Sexual Liberality
* Ostensible good purpose: To remove unnecessary barriers to sexual fulfillment
* Actual bad effect: To make people think that sex is merely casual recreation that may be engaged in with anyone without restraint, rather than the basis for the monogamous long-term relationship required for raising a family and finding complete emotional fulfillment.
Result:
Marriages fall apart or do not take place; children receive lifelong
emotional scars as casualties of broken homes or uncommitted parents.
Religious Liberality
* Ostensible good purpose: To avoid the mental straitjacket of foolish and narrow religious dogmas; to allow people to profit from their own reflection and study.
* Actual bad effect: To undermine traditional morality and leave people without clear moral principles, thereby making them easily corruptible.
Result: Every kind of personal relationship, from marriage to business contract, becomes unpredictable, and society gradually erodes.
The Nanny State/Extinction of Privacy:
* Ostensible good purpose: To make the world safer and fairer by keeping tabs on everyone's behavior
* Actual bad effect: To inject the government into citizens' personal lives; to extinguish privacy and dissent; to create so many laws and regulations that it is virtually impossible to keep from breaking them every time one turns around, thus creating a nation whose citizens' creativity and hard work are smothered by a fear of rules and regulations and the expense -- both emotional and financial -- which they entail.
Politically-Correct Censorship
* Ostensible good purpose: To protect people's feelings, especially minorities
* Actual bad effect: To insulate minorities from proper criticism, to prevent necessary political debate, and to frustrate and enrage whites who see minorities getting away with murder -- literally -- yet not being held accountable.
High Taxes/'Soak the Rich'
* Ostensible good purpose: To make incomes and property more equal, and thereby to lessen envy and the conflict which it engenders; to engage in great projects that benefit society.
* Actual bad effect: To discourage productive people from making use of their talents, and thus to rob society of the benefits they could provide; to keep people poor, and thus keep them from having resources to challenge a tyrannical government or even to reflect on their treatment; to make great projects difficult or impossible, because of the natural inefficiency
of government.
Environmental Laws
* Ostensible good purpose: To preserve the natural world, and thereby provide renewable benefits to society.
* Actual bad effect: To improperly restrict the use of private property; to make ecological preservation less likely by substituting command-and- control laws for private economic incentives; to tar environmentalism with preservationist absurdities; to raise prices of trees and other natural products.
Animal Liberation
* Ostensible good purpose: To treat animals humanely.
* Actual bad effect: Higher prices for animal products with the ultimate goal of outlawing them.
War on Poverty, Drugs, Cancer, Smoking, etc
* Ostensible good purpose: To eliminate various bad things from human experience.
* Actual bad result: To waste large amounts of taxpayer money via government inefficiency; to penalize harmless or helpful activities which the government does not sanction; to discourage self-responsibility.
Government-Funded Science
* Ostensible good purpose: To encourage scientific discovery by means of funding that only the government can muster.
* Actual bad result: To inhibit politically-unacceptable scientific projects; to pressure scientists to conform their conclusions to political dogma; to cause inflation in scientists' salaries.
Gun Control
* Ostensible good purpose: To make things safer.
* Actual bad result: To disarm law-abiding citizens while having no effect on criminals, and thereby to increase crime; to make it much more difficult for citizens to resist tyranny by leaving arms only in the hands of government.
Voting Rights
* Ostensible good purpose: To make sure that 'the people' -- and especially minorities -- have their say in who they are governed by.
* Actual bad effect: To encourage people to vote by race; to make people think they have an influence on their government when it really doesn't matter what candidate is elected, since all are pre-selected by the ruling elite and are all purchased by the special interests anyway, and since votes are probably manipulated by computer.
Group Conflicts Generally
* Ostensible good purpose: To give every group their 'rights': racial, religious, sexual, smokers, cappers, fatties, shorties, oldies, dummies, animal rightists, etc, etc, etc.
* Actual bad effect: To keep groups fighting among themselves so they will not see who the real culprit is, namely, liberals and (ultimately) those behind the NWO.
The Constitution as a 'Living Document'
* Ostensible purpose: To keep the Constitution up-to-date by Supreme Court 'judicial lawmaking'.
* Actual bad effect: To render our Constitution meaningless and our Constitutional rights null and void; to change America from a nation governed by laws to a nation governed by mostly-unelected judges.
National or World Bank
* Ostensible good purpose: To make currency uniform and thereby facilitate national and international trade
* Actual bad result: To give the bankers the right to print their own money without restraint on a worldwide basis, thereby helping to centralize power in a major way while allowing the bankers to confiscate other people's money through inflation, and to stage booms and busts that allow them to confiscate other wealth; to eliminate financial privacy and tax havens worldwide; to create a cashless society where all transactions can be tracked and dissenters can be stopped by canceling their bank accounts.
United Nations/World Government
* Ostensible good purpose: To enforce peace
* Actual bad effect: To eliminate national diversity; to increase the distance of government from the people who are governed, and hence decrease its responsiveness; to eliminate the different preferences of different peoples for different types of government and culture; to make world dictatorship and tyranny possible while reducing the chance that any nation would have the means to act against it.
From the above points, it is clear that the fight against the NWO involves a fight against liberalism and liberal programs. If this fight is to be successful, however, there is yet another fight which must succeed, namely, the fight to preserve the white race. This is because it is only whites, as a group, who have the wherewithal -- both the intelligence and resources -- to fight this battle successfully. It is interesting, however, that the fight to preserve the white race is so critical to the fight against the NWO, because the fight against liberalism -- which is likewise critical to the fight against he NWO -- is also a racial fight, to wit, it is a fight against that group -- or at least its leaders -- who are the engine of the liberal juggernaut, and that group is a racial one -- the Jews. It is not just that Jews are almost entirely liberal (as I understand it, 85-90% of Jews vote Democratic) or that their leaders are and have always been the leaders of the liberal camp; it is also that they command tremendous resources, including the principal funding of both major parties and the domination of the mass media, aka 'Jewsmedia'. This is nothing less than a stranglehold on America, and thus the West; tho the Jews are almost as strong in other countries as they are in America. All this is not to say that the Jews or their leaders are ultimately responsible for dragging us into the New World Order -- or Jew World Order, as some have called it -- for there are several other groups -- the Illuminati, the Masons, the Round Table, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateralists, the Skull & Bones society, the '300', the Vatican, the Jesuits, Opus Dei, and probably many other groups -- which may well be involved. It is rather to say that Jews are the wellspring of liberalism and the dominant force in the world's greatest power center -- Washington DC -- and this clearly puts them in the forefront of movement toward the NWO.
In conclusion, it is notable that an essential part of the liberal program is to encourage group conflict, but it is also notable that there is one group conflict that liberals never encourage -- the Jew-gentile conflict. Perhaps now it is clear why.
Epilog: Quo Vadis
There is one thing we must concede about Jewish dominance of Western civilization: The Jews are dominant because they learned how to work the system better than anyone else. So the question then becomes: If we don't like Jewish dominance, then how are we going to change the system to keep this kind of thing from happening again? (Don't say 'Enforce the laws' -- nobody is seriously claiming that Jewish dominance is the result of lawbreaking.) One answer is to throw the Jews out, as has so often been done by European countries. But even if this were politically possible, this doesn't really change the system -- it is just a confession of the system's vulnerability; and it has the additional disadvantage of denying us the benefit of Jewish competence, energy and achievements. Or to put the problem another way, what has happened with Jews could happen with some other group. And in fact there are other groups which have learned to work the system -- the big corporations being the most obvious example, though of course some of those are dominated by Jews.
More generally, the problem is this: As we have already made plain, every liberal reform has been undertaken for the purpose of avoiding dominance by an elite, i.e. -- to bring 'power to the people' -- but every liberal reform has failed: socialism, capitalism, democracy, etc, etc, etc. So what then are we to do? Frankly, I don't know the answer. I don't even know if there is one. Perhaps we are fated to repeat an infinite cycle of buildup and breakdown of civilization on the order of Spengler's Decline of the West because there simply is no solution except periodic revolution of the kind that returns society to Square One. I suspect, however, that if there is a solution, it will be found in the direction of using technology to make people or small groups self-sufficient and thus impervious to dominance. But whatever the solution, it is a problem that deserves the attention of the best minds without delay.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks