Exclusive to STR
June 4, 2007
Conspiracies and plots typically refer to nefarious covert schemes that the good, common folk would consider evil. Agendas are more overt, but can be just as evil. Co-conspirators and plotters are largely denigrated while the organizers of agendas are believed to be less harmful because they operate "out in the open." One person's agenda for saving the world is another person's plot to rule the world. The old saying, "The truth lies somewhere in between" can be applied to the examination of most popular conspiracy theories. A sense of humor helps, too.
Anybody bringing attention to an agenda not in the best interests of individual liberty will draw much knee-jerk criticism. Speaking out against a stated agenda leading towards the centralization of political and financial power within the hands of a few individuals can get one labeled as a "conspiracy nut." Too bad, because a world without "conspiracy nuts" would not only be boring, it would be more dangerous for those who laugh at them. Speaking truth to power is as unpopular today as it ever was.
The perspective and personal beliefs of individuals are the determining factors as to whether a person sees a savior or a demon behind actions and events. The authoritarian collectivist will confidently state that the Official Truth has been determined by our betters and it is our duty to accept it and move on. The cynical skeptic will skirt nihilism to refute every statement uttered by propaganda organs. I would like to say that most people are halfway in between. But alas, the term "sheeple" is too appropriate for the masses. Thus, those people who look into the abyss are all the more needed for a healthy public discourse.
The moral imperative of truth-seeking should in itself be sufficient to inspire people to consider alternative explanations to Official Truths about actions and events. But the entertainment value of questioning known liars who are in effect professional plotters, conspirators and organizers of complimentary agendas has significant value to the curious citizen. Shouting down, ridiculing and attempting to marginalize the theories of non-believers is what often gathers the most attention. Checking out what the noise is all about usually leads to some interesting reading.
The purpose of the state is to legitimize coercion in order to redistribute property (including the fruits of your labor). The state is, of course, then the arbiter of Official Truth today. In the recent past, it was the Church as decided and administered by clergy in the name of God. Today it's the State as decided and administered by politicians in the name of Democracy. Same form, different labels. The so-called "watchdog media" trusted by so many to provide the "tough questions" are nothing more that licensed lapdogs doing tricks for scraps from the table. The Internet is changing this dynamic.
Heretics to the ruling order must be burned at the stake. Machiavelli wrote The Prince in the early 1500s, and it is still considered a valuable treatise for understanding those who wish to obtain and maintain political power. The popular term "Machiavellian" is a testament this. Yet the popular perception seems to be that modern rulers have been rendered altruistic through the magic of the democratic process. At the very least, power may corrupt the leaders of easily duped foreigners, but good 'ol American voters would never elect leaders that acted "Machiavellian." Only extremists could believe that, right?
The most generally held perception about conspirators is that they "want to overthrow the government." This isn't because the state originates all conspiracies, plots and agendas for exploitation, assassination, retribution and domination; but because it is the universal vehicle for those groups and individuals that wish to do these things. Eliminating the state won't end the conspiracies, plots and agendas of psychopaths seeking to exploit, murder, and control us, but it will remove the primary tool used to execute those plans. This unfortunately puts anarchists in a uniquely vulnerable position when the Official Truth Enforcement Agents (who typically over-react to any perceived threat) are considering possible violent responses to the principled arguments of anarchists.
People who believe in conspiracies often take on a religious fervor comparable to statist myrmidons seeking acceptance of their theories. Indeed, many conspiracy zealots are inspired by the belief that if we just catch the "bad apples," then the state can be purified and "work like it's suppose to." They don't understand that the state is working exactly like it's supposed too. Maybe not like you were taught in civics class or the way some philosopher kings dreamed it would work, but like it always works.
The lack of credible evidence concerning conspiracies that by definition are not revealed is the source of the insinuation of insanity (nuts). A leap of faith is typically involved because it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove a conspiracy. Some people do achieve a state of insanity seeking the truth where it cannot be found. It may even exist, but it will never be revealed. Thus the nut label gains its snicker value. Maintaining a sense of humor can help keep people from going off of the deep end.
The generally accepted view described above leads to guilt by association for more rational individuals who question officially sanctioned conspiracy theories. Those who accept state propaganda as pure and unadulterated truth group all who question that authority into the nut category. "How could our elected leaders ever do anything but what is best for us? Sometimes they may do bad things, but it is for a greater good, and we don't need to know the details; we must trust our leaders." Therefore, those who seek to challenge the Ministry of Truth must be wary to not have their credibility tainted by association with the "extreme" persons who unconditionally challenge state storytellers. Still, I prefer the "nuts" who seek the truth to the drones who unconditionally accept the word of authority as gospel truth.
The reason for this is simple: Seeking the truth is an ideal that I hold dear, while I abhor authority based on the use of force. From my perspective, and based on my beliefs, it is the drones who are insane, for they have based their "truth" on a leap of faith in the authority, an authority based on a monopoly on the use of force at that. They have transferred the personal responsibility of determining the truth to others. This is beyond intellectual laziness; it is foolish because the persons who wield that authority have no compunction whatsoever exploiting those who surrender that responsibility. Questioning this lack of personal responsibility should be a priority for those who believe in personal responsibility for truth seeking. A society that wishes for liberty requires people who question official "truths," be they right or wrong.
I consider myself a "big picture" kind of guy. Although I have found reading various popular 'conspiracy theories' about such specific events as the JFK assassination and 911 interesting, it is the publicly stated agendas of respected psychopaths that I find most intriguing. This is because the sheeple don't appear to need to have the intent to control and exploit them hidden from them. On the contrary, the more honest leaders are about taking liberty away, the more successful they are.
Even though it is a commonly accepted (by the American People) practice for the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders and overthrow foreign governments, the thought that the CIA would perform a palace coup at home to install a President more friendly to their interests is beyond gall. LBJ may be a power-hungry son-of-bitch, but he would never go along with anything like that even if it was the only way he could ever realize his biggest dream. There are countless examples of the United States Government not batting an eye to kill civilians overseas (you know: collateral damage) in the process of furthering "national interests." Yet these same murderers somehow grow angel wings if it is suggested that they might have a hand in doing the same thing "here at home."
Personally, I'm sure the Official Truth on both of these events is a Big Lie, but also think that we will never know "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Whenever any event involves the government exonerating itself with a phony investigation called a Commission, you can be most assured that their scapegoats, revealed missteps and recommendations to make sure that "it never happens again" reveals an Official Truth that is a Big Lie. The smoke and mirrors are everywhere in spite of Occam's Razor. But these deceitful episodes do not trouble me near as much as the voluntary acceptance of tyranny in the name of saving the (insert favorite universal epitaph: planet, species, world as we know it, Western Civilization, etc.)
I also don't worry much about various religious groups conspiring to take over the world such as Zionist, Opus Dei, Mormon, Scientologist, Religious Right Wing and Islamic. They probably all are, along with some Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Satan Worshipers and Anabaptists. So what? Seeking religious hegemony over the earth is one of the oldest dreams still alive that can never come to fruition. Mystical inspiration is a mother of irrational behavior, but to fear what can never be is an incredible waste of time even if there is no shortage of zealots seeking that unattainable goal.
It is worth noting how much the same people who fear a religious group made up of people with relatively little wealth, limited education, archaic tyrannical laws, little political power and even smaller influence in media decisions are heralded as the Official Great Conspiracy Threatening The World, also see the wealthiest, most educated, most politically powerful and influential ownership group in media today as completely benign (even though they claim to be "God's Chosen People"). Today you can get elected, sell books and go on TV spouting all kinds of maniacal gibberish condemning Islamo-Fascists, but get drunk and slur out one sentence about "Jewish Influence" and you will be hounded to no end. Can you say AIPAC?*
Throw Christian Crusaders into the mix and it's easy to see how these fault lines have come to fore. These religious groups may all have various players plotting, conspiring and setting agendas contrary to love, freedom and liberty, but they should not cause too much fear, for they cancel each other out. Further, there are too many "moderates" and others within these religious groups who see how insane their own "extremists" are. These conflicts are the source of much trouble, but the threat is way overblown.
The threats that I believe are biggest involve people begging to be enslaved for their own good. The problem is that these collectivists conscript the rest of us into the road gang paving the road to hell. Though documented by the words of those who publicly organize these agendas, too many people simply ignore the warnings as being simply business as usual. These include forced government education [5], central banking [6], empire building [7], one world government types [8] and global warming [9].
The James Bond character has been instrumental in romanticizing the roles of government assassins (license to kill, you know) as well as infantilizing the roles of nefarious groups of disgruntled elite. The fictitious S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is imprinted into the psyche of many people as the model for conspiracy theorists bogeymen organizations, complete with sharks under the floor and a rigid hierarchy of numbered personnel. Of course, powerful and influential elites meet every day in boardrooms, restaurants, private homes and clubs, at seminars and educational events. Some are even "secret," or at least not advertised. They are just typically boring, vague and seemingly unimportant.
It is important to understand the difference between control and influence. Further, to lead trusting people in a direction that goes over a cliff by deceit is just as bad as throwing people who resist over a cliff. The moral implications differ little between force and fraud. The loose mixture and levels of control and influence are difficult to see clearly as it is easy to loose sight of the forest as you examine more and more trees. There are influential persons who hold positions in banks, corporations, foundations and political offices that may not control much, but they influence a lot. When these financially and politically powerful individuals find common goals that will enrich them, they will coordinate their influence into action. Power does corrupt, you know.
As a thought experiment, briefly check out the six following web sites and articles:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf [10]
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/03/06/bank-of-america-going-green/ [11]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457_pf.html [12]
http://stopglobalwarming.msn.com/ [13]
http://www.affbrainwash.com/archives/022092.php [14]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18135618/ [15]
I don't think that it takes a whole lot of imagination to see how these seemingly unconnected events are related. I certainly don't believe that a Number One instructed his various henchmen to organize and maintain these efforts. Indeed, my point is that there doesn't have to be.
Global warming has taken on a life of its own independent of reasonable thought, much less a central command structure. The "science" has been shot down effectively by anyone who does just a little research and has a fundamental grasp of logic, but it is considered unassailable by the mainstream media. Like central banking, government schools, the FDA, socialist security, the war on drugs, war on terrorism, gun control and on and on, the coming war on weather will be organized through the state apparatus. Those who disagree will be trampled in the stampede by those who follow the crowd. Marching orders are not necessary for a herd of cattle: they just follow the rest of the herd. The same can be said for sheeple.
When financial elite, political elite and media elite all profit from an agenda that purports to be "for the people," then you can bet that the working man is about to get screwed big time. Any naysayer identifying individuals involved in implementing various portions of that agenda will appear as a heretic: a denier. Recognizing where such an agenda most naturally will lead to sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. But in my humble opinion: The discovery of a way to profit off a state-enforced redistribution scheme known as Carbon Credits has pretty much ended debate about the issue on Wall Street and K Street, in Hollywood and in Washington, D.C. It's all over but the shouting as Global Warming is now the sacred Official Truth.
I don't blame Dr. Evil, Dick Cheney, Osama Bin Laden, Karl Rove, the Rockefellers or the Clintons for the road to hell we are being led down. No, I blame the state. Because if not for the state enforcing artificial privileges and redistributing stolen property, none of them could touch me or my property in their holy crusades. The acceptance of the state as a legitimate criminal gang by the sheeple can be challenged today because of the internet. At least I'm nutty enough to think it can. And we don't need a secret cabal or egomaniacal leader to do it. Just speak the truth.
*Vice President Cheney at a recent AIPAC policy conference is reported to have said: "We are the prime targets of the terror movement that is global in nature, and yes global in its ambitions. The leaders of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East , extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia." (Sounds like the VP is a conspiracy nut to me!)
[16]
