[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Conspiracy Theory and the National Question Conspiracy Theory and the National Question by Robert Locke Like most sane people, I have generally regarded conspiracy theory as an intellectual rat-hole that distracts from the real issues. But I have recently been forced to the conclusion that it is an encrustation of fantasy around real truths that cannot safely be ignored. I’m not about to tell you Martians shot Kennedy, so hear me out. To reach the bedrock of truth under conspiracy theory, one must dig away layers of nonsense and clarify some confused questions of political philosophy. But eventually, truths emerge without which it is impossible to understand the recent history of this country and the ongoing efforts to betray it. Separating Fact From Fantasy The first step in distilling sense out of conspiracy theory is to throw out all the wholly ridiculous stuff, like extraterrestrials. The second is to clarify the error of political philosophy that makes conspiracy theory seem a priori ridiculous: the idea that the conspiracy itself is the motive power behind the political events associated with it. This is the classic image that is quite rightly the sticking point for most people: a luxuriously-appointed room, in New York, Washington or Geneva, filled with impeccably dressed men who hold discussions and then give orders that are somehow, mysteriously, obeyed around the world. This was the thing I could never find believable. If the Illuminati, Jews, or Trilateral Commission secretly control the world, how do they force people to do their bidding? How many divisions has the Council on Foreign Relations? In reality, political conspiracies have no force on their own, but must be understood as vehicles for powerful people’s pre-existing political objectives. The real question is not, How does conspiracy X acquire power over the world? But rather, How is conspiracy X a useful vehicle for already-powerful people who want more power over the world? Wouldn’t You Conspire In Their Shoes? The fundamental question that must be asked of anyone who would dismiss the very possibility of political conspiracies is this: Do you deny that cynical powerful people who want certain things get together with other cynical powerful people who want the same things and coordinate their actions? Once one frames it this way, it’s obvious that they do. And why shouldn’t they, if they have any expectation of thereby getting something they want? But why do the desires of cynical, powerful people produce conspiracies, rather than, say, political parties? The next question is, Do you deny that there are people in politics who want things they know they will be less likely to get if the public knows about it? The answer to this question is obvious, too. But the next one is the real clincher: Isn’t the ultimate dream of cynical, powerful people to rule the world? Well, for people on a sufficiently high level, of course it is. What greater prize is there, particularly since it confers all the lesser prizes like money, prestige, and control of the culture? Christianity understands this: ruling the world was one of the three temptations the devil offered Jesus, so the desire to rule the world is a Satanic temptation, even when it would be Jesus doing it. (Luke 4:5-8) Judaism does, too: the Tower of Babel story condemns one-worldism. (Genesis 11:1-9) Islam, on the other hand, explicitly favors world conquest. The fundamental reality that underlies all the conspiracies you read about, however wrong on specific facts or distorted by eccentric obsessions of the authors, is this: There exist cynical, powerful people who want to rule the world, they know they would be resisted if this were publicly known, so they set out to do it by covert means. Conspiracy theory is the attempt to discover those means. It is by its nature rife with errors, weirdness, and a lot of outright nonsense. But at bottom, it is not only not false, it is absolutely essential for serious conservatives, or indeed for anyone who doesn’t want to live under the tyranny that a world government would inevitably be. So we must hold our noses and get to work analyzing it. Why World Government? Why do the aforementioned conspirators desire a world government? Because that is what one needs to rule the world, obviously. Their arrogance – and they are the most arrogant people alive – causes them to assume that they, along with their friends and other "people like us" that they’ve met over the years at conferences in Switzerland and similar venues, will run such a government. Naturally, they would prefer they personally run it. But to some extent, world government is another "beautiful idea" and covert religion, like Marxism, that so entrances men’s minds that they will work for its realization at some distant point in the future by other people, just for the sheer satisfaction of feeling themselves a part of a transcendent good that brings meaning to their lives. A Conspiracy or a Class? Some who sympathize with the basic thesis here argue, however, that this should all be described not as a transnational conspiracy to rule the world but in terms of a transnational class with this objective. On the left, there exists a class that John Fonte has termed "transnational progressives." On the (nominal) right, there exists a transnational corporate elite that may disagree with the socialistic agenda of the former, but can agree on its hostility to the nation-state. The key difference between the two is whether they’d rather sell out American sovereignty to the UN or the WTO, but given that they obviously intend to merge these two organizations at some point, this doesn’t mean much in the long run. This analysis is true as far as it goes, but it is insufficient as an account of politics because it is not enough for a class to merely exist and want things for political events to happen. It must explicitly organize to get these things. It must cultivate establish institutions, disseminate ideas through media, raise and distribute money, cultivate personal relationships, and back candidates for office. If this involves complete or partial concealment of the means or the end, then one may at least refer to it as "covert action." The term "conspiracy" is somewhat loaded, but if one can refer to the Bolshevik revolutionaries as conspirators, then it is appropriate at least part of the time. Because there simply is deception going on, for the simple reason that world government is an unpopular idea that usually must be concealed to be advanced. There are secret understandings, hidden agendas, private relationships of cooperation behind a façade of disagreement, undisclosed transfers of money, and deliberately-propagated public myths about important political questions. The term "conspiracy" is perhaps too brittle, too redolent of outright Mafia activity, to be the perfect one for the things it describes, but it is the best available. Call it a "partly-covert international political network" if you prefer. Or think of politics as a cube with three axes: one between ideologically-intentional goals and unintended consequences, one between organized activity and unorganized events, and one between publicly-admitted actions and concealed ones. Politics obviously covers every conceivable mixture and degree of these qualities, but constitutes a conspiracy only when it is ideologically-intentional, organized, and covert. This is one corner of a very big cube. But it is real. Make no mistake about that. Not everything these people do to further their objective is conspiratorial, as parts don’t have to, or can’t, be kept secret. It’s just that what the public doesn’t know is, by definition, the part that needs to be talked about, because it constitutes new information and results in a different picture of contemporary politics. I call it the Covert Coalition to Rule the World or CCRW. A Conspiracy or an Ideology? Some argue that the essence of the thing is not a conspiracy but the worldwide playing-out of an ideology. Obviously, ideology is of incalculable importance in politics generally, but this explanation begs the question of why the ideology in question is adopted by the key political players. If one ignores the CCRW as a factor explaining why the political classes of the West and elsewhere adopted certain ideas, there is some explanation for why, but not enough. So much of what they have done at best gratuitous, and at worst inexplicably contrary to their interests, if one does not assume a conspiracy to create world government. It becomes banally obvious if one does. Remember that the CCWR does not always use the same ideology, as the ideology that will cause people to do what it wants varies from society to society and changes over time. Obviously, the ideology must lead in the eventual direction of submission to world government, so it cannot adopt just anything, but the CCWR can be very tactically flexible in the short and medium term. If authoritarian nationalism helps China globalize the world economy, the CCRW will do everything it can to reward China for practicing it. If Islamism helps Moslem guest workers destroy the Christian identity of the West, it is useful. If libertarianism makes Americans more willing to sell their country off for profit, good. If socialism makes Europeans more accepting of the bridle of the state, all the better. The CCRW is very cunning and highly unprincipled about everything except about its own core principle. As Barry Goldwater put it, speaking of one particular CCRW instrument, "the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to Communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy – it's all the same to them." (With No Apologies p.278) In analyzing this question, remember that the CCRW is not possessed of some magic button it can push to make a society adopt a certain ideology. It is not gifted with occult means of causation and everything it does must operate through ordinary human institutions. But it has numerous collaborators in the media, the publishing industry, the universities, the teachers' unions and elsewhere which transmit the ideology it wants transmitted to the public. A perfect example of this would be the Rockefeller Foundation's use of Teachers College at Columbia University to propagate the progressivism of John Dewey to the teaching establishment. Some have argued that this conspiracy exists but is not a conspiracy because it is actually quite open. But this openness is highly selective, and tends to consist in parts of the conspiracy not subject to public wrath, or not expecting their words to be widely publicized, admitting what they want, not in the president of the United States announcing on national TV that his agenda is the liquidation of America. Furthermore, this objection tends to come from people who say "X happens, but it’s no secret" and then deny that they have just admitted that X does indeed happen. Logic does not permit one to use this argument to pooh-pooh the notion of a conspiracy and then claim nothing dangerous is going on. The Dangers of Excessive Skepticism In response to blank skepticism about the very idea that political conspiracies take place, one word: Lenin. One cannot wish the conspiracies out of history. One can only make a coldly precise evaluation of which happened and which didn’t. Boris Yeltsin admitted after the end of the Cold War that the USSR had been conspiring against the US and that Joe McCarthy had been substantially right about Soviet penetration of the State Department. What more proof do you want? It can be risky to demand an excessive standard of evidence. One can make infinite mischief by demanding airtight mathematical proofs of historical facts, as Holocaust-deniers have discovered to their amusement. One should always demand the highest standard of evidence that is feasible given the available data, but not forget that the questions in dispute in the history of political conspiracy are not different in essence from other historical controversies that must deal in incomplete evidence, like "why did the Roman Empire fall?" or "why did the Industrial Revolution occur in Britain?" It is intellectually respectable to say that one knows some historical fact with 75% certainty, if one is honest that one has only this amount of certainty and willing to reverse one's position should countervailing evidence surface. Set the threshold of proof too low, and one admits nonsense; set it too high, and one rejects truths, resulting in different nonsense. Skepticism is not the guaranteed safe option, as the omelet-faced skeptics of the McCarthy era have discovered. One must reject arguments like "this is the kind of thing redneck gun nuts in Idaho believe, therefore it is false." Not only does this snobbery lack any actual logic, but redneck gun nuts figured out that world government was a real threat ten years before I did, so my Ivy-educated Manhattan-dwelling hat’s off to them. They just need to cull the sense from the nonsense in what they believe: I don't think the black helicopter thing is real. The biggest warning sign of genuinely nutty conspiracy theory is that it depends upon the author knowing facts which he could not possibly know. I admit that there is not the space in this article to exhibit a dispositive pile of evidence for my thesis, but I trust the reader will admit that my case does not depend upon magical or impossible knowledge of things that go on in other people's minds or behind locked doors. My argument here fundamentally turns upon known basics of human nature and the fact that the hypothesis that there is a CCRW explains the known historical data better than the hypothesis that there is not. The best evidence of a conspiracy always comes from defectors from it. We have the following from Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CCRW tool the Council on Foreign Relations for 16 years who quit in disgust: "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common – they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States." (The Review of the News, April 9, 1980, p.37) In piecing together the historical record of the CCRW, one should not look to assemble a perfectly seamless web. One should recognize that the conspiracy moved by fits and starts, that it contained dead ends, and that not all pro-globalist political activity has been contained within it. And always remember that self-interest and ideology are its driving forces, not secret handshakes. Why Is Conspiracy Theory So Weird? The weirdness of conspiracy theory often repels normal Americans. But they need to think their way past this if they are to grasp the political truths that it conceals. So why is it weird? For a start, understanding the CCRW means understanding that the received version of much 20th-century history is false. This is a weird idea. But stick tight to the trail of evidence, because it is ultimately less weird that the myriad inconsistencies in received history. For a second, the conspirators realized a long time ago that they could not totally conceal what they were doing and that a certain amount of their project would inevitably be uncovered. One of the ways to protect themselves against this was to deliberately adopt a certain amount of weirdness so that when the truth was reported, people would dismiss it as weirdo conspiracy theory. And they don't even have to make an effort to achieve this clown-suit camouflage, as genuinely weird people, mainly secular ideological dreamers and devotees of religious cults, are naturally drawn to it as a way to promote their own obsessions. There is an interesting book by Gary Kah, The Demonic Roots of Globalism, on the religious aspect. I take no position on the theological implications. Finally, there is something fundamentally weird about the desire to rule the world, period. There is something inhuman about it, something that bespeaks a soul not satisfied with the ordinary rewards of politics, even at the high levels of power that serious globalists enjoy, and that craves an extreme, perverted, satisfaction. This is most obvious in the man most famous for wanting to rule the world: Adolph Hitler. Most globalists are less colorful than he was, but they share his deeply perverse longing for godlike power. One Conspiracy or Many? There is not, and historically has rarely or never been, one single and perfectly unified conspiracy to rule the world. There has been at certain times a relatively unified conspiracy whose principal opposition was those opposed to world government for either moral or selfish reasons, and at other times rival factions of conspirators whose principal opposition was each other. The present day would seem to be in the former category, the Cold War in the latter. The CCRW is fragmented and split along lots of different lines, and this tends to slow down its progress somewhat. But it also makes it all the more deadly, because the different fragments do agree on the desirability of world government and their diversity enables them to penetrate different sections of world society. The CCRW of Third-World Marxist thugs is not the CCRW of Wall Street. But it doesn’t have to be, as they agree on the ultimate goal even if their immediate contributions to it are different and sometimes even contradictory. Political Conspiracy Resolves Key Historical Puzzles Taking political conspiracy seriously enables the rational explanation of a lot of otherwise-puzzling historical facts. For example, one of the strangest things the historical record discloses is that the Bolshevik revolution was financed and promoted by Western banking interests. (There isn’t the space to go into details here, but Google it and you’ll see.) Superficially, this is bizarre, and has led to all sorts of odd conclusions by conspiracy theorists, like the Nazi theory that Marxism was just a cover story for the pursuit of power by Jews like the Rothchild bankers. (I trust you realize by now that the desire for ultimate power is too universal to be confined to one group, so the idea that the CCRW is "a Jewish conspiracy," "a Freemason conspiracy," or anything similar is just silly. If Jews had such a conspiracy going, how could they possibly keep all the other greedy people in the world from demanding in on it?) However, this odd historical fact is perfectly understandable if one grasps that the Bolshevik revolution was expected to be a good little collaborator of the overall globalist conspiracy, intended to deliver Russia into its hands as a kind of giant social-democratic Sweden, but that it got greedy and branched out as a rogue faction that wanted to rule the world on its own. If one looks at such things as the Rockefellers’ endless attempts to further détente by such actions as the money lent the USSR by their Chase Manhattan Bank, it’s clear that certain elements of the globalist conspiracy never really gave up their dream of wooing the Bolsheviks back to the fold. Once one grasps this game, certain otherwise-bizarre utterances by prominent figures immediately fall into place. For example, former Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither asserted that he and his associates were making, "every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union." (McIlhany, The Tax-Exempt Foundations) The CCRW uses other political movements as its tools all the time; it gets into trouble when it tries this with fanatics, like Marxists, Islamists, or Nazis, who are so obsessed with their own ideology that they refuse to do what they're told. Some of its smarter elements realize this, but they have to work with the available materials. We Won The Cold War. Oops! This also all explains why American conservatives suffered the rude disappointment of seeing the fall of the USSR immediately followed not by the political Elysium they expected but by the unexpected emergence of an ideology perhaps worse, because more cunning, than Marxism: globalism, which emerged with astonishing rapidity, full-grown, without the years of gestation it takes to develop ideologies of similar scope. But of course, globalism was on the ultimate agenda all along, but had been downplayed for the duration of the Cold War, which was more effective to depict to the American public as a struggle for American ideals. I explored the similarities between Marxism and globalism here in this article in The American Conservative, though I had not yet realized, when I wrote it, that globalism is not only the successor to Marxism but its predecessor and sponsor. The exact form globalism takes at any given moment in history changes. In the 1940's, globalists were usually called "one-worlders." Like any major quasi-religion, it has its sects, its schisms, and its heresies. Open globalism is the ideology of those elements of the CCRW who believe that America's will to defend her independence has rotted so deeply that secrecy about their agenda is no longer necessary. Clinton Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, who announced that "in the foreseeable future, all nations will answer to a single authority," (Time, July 20, 1992) is clearly in this category. Those CCRW members who believe secrecy is still necessary must be very annoyed with him, but I must thank him for letting the cat out of the bag, fattening up the paper trail I need to convince people the drive for world government is not imaginary. Barry Goldwater certainly didn't think it was imaginary. He once asserted, speaking of the notorious Trilateral Commission, that, "What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved… As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future." (With No Apologies, p. 285) This dream is not even kept secret by its more enthusiastic promoters. One Singaporean bureaucrat asserted of the creation of the World Trade Organization that, "We are writing the constitution of the global economy." Which is a rather chilling thought for any American devoted to the idea that our economy already has a constitution. Open globalism seems to be cresting, as Harpers has just announced from the left in a cover story, so we probably have a temporary respite coming. But people like this do not give up easily, so we must anticipate attempts to fake a "death of globalism" that will just be cover for attempts to take it underground in one piece. There, it will continue to work in secret and await another chance to emerge into the open. Factions in the CCRW With the Soviet faction gone, the principal split in the CCRW today is between EU-centered and US-centered factions, the principal issues dividing them being the extent of economic socialism and the use of American military power. This divide is fundamentally, of course, over who will be top dog in the envisioned world government and is not enough to derail either side from this objective. The EU is essentially an attempt by one faction of globalist conspirators to weld together Europe so that the resulting superstate under their control can dominate the world. This explains why the nominal government of Europe is so destructive of Europe’s real interests in such things as guarding its ethnic integrity: it would gladly sacrifice Europe’s white Christian identity if that made it easier to expand the empire and swallow Turkey, for instance. Weaknesses of the CCRW As their mistake with the USSR shows, it is a mistake to assume the globalist conspirators are all-knowing and perfectly shrewd, as some conspiracy theorists do. It is in fact a hallmark of mad conspiracy theory to posit such perfection, or to suppose the conspiracy all-powerful or possessed of political leverage outside the scope of politics as practiced by other men. They are not supermen, and they make mistakes like everyone else. They are real people. They have phone numbers. A related error is to puzzle over which part of the CCRW – the Communists? the Trilateral Commission? European bankers? – is the real puppet-master behind all the rest. The CCRW isn't structured that way. Some of its parts have more influence over the rest than others, but there's no overall dictator, no pyramidal org chart. The links between the pieces are complex, web-like, tangled, ambiguous, and often unstable. Charts that claim to show who "controls" whom are only valid when applied to specific parts of the CCRW, like the old Comintern, that really did operate under that kind of political discipline. Some parts are content with their roles, some are constantly scheming to upgrade them, others have bitter rivalries with parts they dislike, and a few are just trying to milk the conspiracy without serving it. What glues the CCRW together is not a secret subordination of all the parts to a hidden master, but the common lust for ultimate power, the common globalist ideology designed to make this possible, and the sharing of institutions that serve these ends. Is this efficient? No, thank heaven. But its very inefficiency gives it great resiliency and cunning, as it can afford to try a dozen incompatible approaches to anything it wants and then just abandon, with full deniability, those that don't work out. Another error is to assume that anything related to a component of the CCRW must be ipso facto evil and globalist. These people are bright enough to muddy the waters, so they certainly allow some non-traitors to join, for example, the Council on Foreign Relations. They love window dressing. Just because someone is a member does not "prove" he's a part of the CCRW; as with many organizations, there are "in on the game" members, clueless members, and members who know what's going on but have made their peace with it. But this doesn't stop the conspiracy, as what counts is the overall agenda and effect of the organization. As Lenin said, two steps forward, one step back. Remember that many people serve the CCRW by working within policy structures that it established but don't realize what goals they are serving. There is no voodoo to what the CCRW's true insiders are doing, no occult causality. They are just highly-placed, sophisticated about the realities of political power behind the rhetoric of democracy, well-funded, numerous in the upper reaches of world society, and animated by a desire capable of corrupting ambitious and talented people. And they are determined: the factor of sheer will in a world where 99% of people are passive consumers of politics cannot be underestimated. Tony Blair, Quintessential CCRW Conspirator Their less-intelligent followers sometimes cannot distinguish tactical lies from actual truths. For example, serious in-on-the-game globalists like Tony Blair know perfectly well that Islam is ultimately incompatible with globalism and must one day be destroyed, but a lot of his half-witted followers have swallowed the tactical myth, designed to soften up Western societies, that it is a tolerant religion destined to form a picturesque part of a multicultural New World Order. Others have drunk so deeply of tactical anti-Americanism, designed to serve the EU / US rivalry, that they miss the fact that rogue states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq are also incompatible, in the long run, with a world government. Rational globalists like Blair want to destroy such rogue states, which are a threat to any political order – conservative, Marxist, Islamist, Bonapartist, globalist – other than themselves. Blair's ultimate dream is, of course, to reconcile the US and EU factions, with him in the key brokerage position between the two that would naturally lead to his being the only party acceptable to both sides and thus the natural leader of the whole thing. Lady Thatcher described him as "possessed with a doomed ambition to rule Europe." I think she may have underestimated. The Historical Specifics I hope this general picture of the CCRW has convinced the reader that the idea is not crazy. Unfortunately, because history is a matter of specific facts, requiring many words to recount, I cannot go into detail here about the specifics of the CCRW. But I can give a sufficient sketch that the reader should be able to fill in the details from other sources. Probably the best analysis is that of Rev. Pat Robertson in his book The New World Order, which makes a well-researched effort to reconstruct a coherent history of the various parts of the conspiracy, where they came from, and what they wanted. The United Nations Exposed, by John Bircher William F. Jasper, is also quite good, as is the classic None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. Forgive these writers for being a little too fond of the overtly conspiratorial aspects. We can mostly ignore pre-20th century conspiracies. There were indeed some freakish intellectual relatives of the French Revolution, like the Bavarian Illuminati, who invented, as an ideological fantasy, an aspiration to create a world government. But since nobody in that era actually had the global reach necessary for a world government – which they certainly do today – one should treat these fantasies of the philosophes as mere intellectual prefigurations of the real thing, like the 17th-century communists, though there are intriguing connections between the dreamers and the doers who came later. The Usual Suspects One of the classic mistakes of nutty conspiracy theory is to over-emphasize the role of explicit institutions in driving the CCRW and try to reduce it to an organization chart. But if the reader will bear this in mind, the classic organizations that have been identified as its key instruments are: Political entities: 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 2. The European Union. International Organizations: 3. The League of Nations. 4. The United Nations. 5. The European Court of Justice. 6. The International Criminal Court. International Economic Organizations: 7. The World Trade Organization. 8. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 9. The International Monetary Fund. 10. The World Bank. 11. The North American Free Trade Agreement. 12. The Western Hemisphere Free Trade Agreement / Free-Trade Area of the Americas. 13. The European Central Bank. Membership Organizations & Conferences: 14. The Council on Foreign Relations. 15. The Trilateral Commission. 16. The Bilderberg Group. 17. The Club of Rome. 18. The Royal Institute of International Affairs. 19. The World Economic Forum. Foundations: 20. The Ford Foundation. 21. The Carnegie Endowment. 22. The Rockefeller Foundation. Corporate interests: 23. The Morgans and their associated companies. 24. The Rockefellers and their associated companies. Other: 25. The Rhodes Scholarships. Ancillary institutions, largely useful as perching-places for members of the CCRW, include the Goldman, Sachs investment bank, the old Chase Manhattan Bank, (run into the ground by David Rockefeller's use of it as a piggybank for globalist schemes and eventually taken over by less-prestigious rival Chemical Bank) the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group investment banks, the Kissinger Associates political consulting firm, the Brookings Institution, the Institute for International Economics, the Institute of Pacific Relations, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Rand Corporation, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time-Warner. This is not meant to be a complete list, only to give an idea of what kinds of people these are and how they operate. Bear in mind that many of these organizations serve other purposes than just the CCRW; they are not necessarily empty shells and may even do a many good things, if only to protect their reputations. For an organization to be an effective tool of the CCRW, it does not have to be a 100% pawn: it just has to get done something that the CCRW wants done. The percentage of subordination to CCRW objectives can vary over time. Senator Jesse Helms summed up their game as follows: "All of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a new world order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called New World Order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles… The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism." (Congressional Record – Senate, 15 December 1987, p. S18146.) Cecil Rhodes, the Founder Given that the essence of the CCRW is the lust for power, and that the possibility of extending this desire to its logical conclusion in world power is obvious and thus not the invention of one man, it would be a mistake to identify the CCRW too explicitly as being "founded" at any given point by a specific person. The best way to think of the various explicit pieces of the CCRW is as conducting wires of a static electric charge that had already built up and was looking for some way to be discharged into action. There was a gathering consensus in the elite strata of world society that the age of true world power was arriving, and that those who did not organize to be cut in on the take might be excluded. It could easily been other people and other institutions. It is clear that in the late 19th century, the technical feasibility of a world government was beginning to dawn on thoughtful minds that observed the success of the world-spanning British Empire and the ongoing march of technology. It is thus no accident that the classic account of the specific and organized conspiracy starts the 20th century with Cecil Rhodes, the fabulously wealthy Anglo-South African diamond magnate. He conceived of an Anglocentric globalist conspiracy which would recruit the best and the brightest Anglo-Saxon gentlemen to rule the world. Rhodes dreamed of a British Empire that would retake the United States, rule the former Spanish Empire in the New World, and reached his logical conclusion in his famous quote "I would annex the planets if I could." (Last Will and Testament, 1902) Rhodes launched his plan at the zenith of Britain as a world power around 1900. At this time, Britain was a plausible platform to base world government on. Unfortunately, she soon after declined as a power and the conspiracy had to change its strategic base. The pressure of rival globalist conspirators forced the undoing of the Anglocentricity of Rhodes’ conspiracy, but subsequent conspirators found this relic of the British Empire (as it has found many others, from the English language to Lloyd’s of London) useful and absorbed it without missing a beat. Various parties to the Rhodes conspiracy, such as Lord Milner, were instrumental in the birth of the next stage of the CCRW. The degree to which this conspiracy attracted serious support from the ruling classes of the time is an ambiguous and complex topic. Naturally, the conspiracy started small and seems to have gained important adherents only over time. Think of it as a gathering snowball. And remember that any given collaborator of the conspiracy may not have supported, or even understood, its entire agenda, and yet still have been a useful collaborator. Many people have joined the conspiracy, and still do, simply to advance their careers, though their lack of interest in its real goal does not prevent their service from being useful. Making America A Tool of the CCRW The American wing of the conspiracy received its financial and organizational impetus from the House of Morgan (the bank that eventually devolved to the Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan & Co, and Morgan Guaranty Trust of today.) Apparently this bank, which overwhelmingly dominated American finance at the time, to the extent of being able to bail out the Federal Government more than once and function as a de facto central bank before the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, saw immense opportunities for profit in the manipulation of American foreign policy. The core problem faced by the American wing of the conspiracy was that turn-of-the century America was, if not absolutely isolationist, instinctively reluctant to involve herself in the dangerous and expensive foreign adventures from which 3,000 miles of ocean had exempted her. For America to be made an instrument of world government, she had to be somehow inveigled into the international arena. WWI gave this conspiracy its first great opening as the conspirators pushed the US into WWI by deliberately provoking Germany into supplying the "incidents," like the sinking of the munitions ship Lusitania, that would produce the same reaction in the American public that followed Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The goals: in the short run, Morgan could recoup the money he had lent to the British and French governments. In the long run, that the US would be catapulted out of its relative isolationism and into a dominant position in world affairs. To administer the foreign policy of the new globalized America, J.P. Morgan Jr. financed the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 and sat on its inner council, the Round Table. It is important to understand that such economic interests are a part, though not the whole, of the motivations of the conspirators. Some members of the conspiracy are purely economic agents. Many are not. The key is that whatever they see in it for them, they cooperate. The chosen instrument to administer the clean-up after the war and provide an idealistic gloss to this scheme: Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations, predecessor of the UN. Unfortunately for the globalists, America in 1920 retained enough republican virtue to reject this scheme to denude her sovereignty. Unfortunately, the League was not so much the linchpin of the globalist plot as its fig-leaf, so this was not enough to derail the conspiracy. The Soviet Experiment Backfires The Soviet experiment was the first great mistake of the globalist conspirators. The details of how Lenin was financed by the Anglo-American globalists and their German collaborators will not fit here, but suffice it to note for that the record suggests that the key players in this were Wilson adviser Colonel Edward House, Jacob Schiff on Wall Street, banker and government adviser Max Warburg in Germany, and German Foreign Affairs Minister Count Brockdorff-Rantzau. Google any of these names and you will dig up pieces of the puzzle, some of them reliable history and some not. Remember not to get too caught up in the specific cloak-and-dagger mischief and stay focused on the overall agenda. The German Problem The key problem the globalist conspirators faced in this period was Germany, which teetered in the years immediately after WWI on the edge of joining the Bolshevik faction of the CCRW. There was an attempted Communist revolt in Germany in 1919 which was only put down in the short run by military force and in the long run of the 1920s by the extension to Germany of a gravy train of cheap credit by the United States. Unfortunately, this cheap credit was made possible by an expansionist monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve Bank (itself established thanks to pressure from the CCRW) that resulted in the piling-up of money in the NY Stock market. This boom, which bears an eirie resemblance to Allan Greenspan’s creation of cheap credit in the 1990s to bail out a later phase of globalism, which I have written about before, ended the way such booms generally do. The subsequent depression brought about the collapse of the German economy and the election of Adolph Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in 1933. At this point, the globalist conspiracy was confronted with its worst nightmare, a possibility inherent in globalism simply because the desire to rule the world implies a rivalry over who gets to do it. The original conspiracy had split into no less than three rival factions: a Bolshevik faction, a Nazi faction, and an Anglo-American faction. Given the combination of lingering British imperial might and American economic power, the Anglo-American faction was clearly the strongest, but it was deeply afraid of the other two. The Anglo-American faction reached the only logical conclusion: back one of the others to destroy the third and deal with the remaining player afterwards. There was some debate in elite Anglo-American circles over whether to back the USSR or Nazi Germany – this was the real substance of the appeasement movement, not an ideological fondness for Nazism – but eventually simple geographic fact, combined with Hitler’s brazenness compared to Stalin’s caution, made it clear that Germany was the more immediate threat to Anglo-American interests and their hands were forced by events. The result, of course, was the elimination of Germany as a superpower and 40 years of Cold War between the American-led bloc and the USSR and its satellites. The key foreign policy arguments of the Cold War were clothed in the high moral tones of being "staunchly anti-communist" vs. being "soft on Communism," but from the perspective of the globalist elite within the American and European establishments, they were fundamentally about the choice of whether to gently coax the Bolshevik elite in Moscow back into the unified globalist conspiracy, beat it back in, or kill it outright and divide up the corpse. Although this elite is deeply riven by internal disputes like this one, which was eventually settled by the intuitive geopolitical genius of President Reagan, it almost never wavers from its deep long-term commitment to world government, by it or its successors, some day. Global Socialist Conspiracy or Global Capitalist Conspiracy? I am often asked, "isn’t the socialistic orientation of such globalist organizations as the EU and UN at variance with your claim that it’s a big capitalist conspiracy?" Well, no, because I never said it’s a big capitalist conspiracy. The conspiracy contains both socialist and capitalist elements. Both socialism and capitalism, as has long been recognized by devotees of each, contain within them an intrinsic imperative to become global. Whatever else they may disagree on, they agree on this. With the USSR out of the picture, "socialist" just doesn’t mean what it used to. Despite the rhetoric of both capitalists and socialists, almost every nation now has, in reality, a mixed public-private economy and there just isn’t a death-grapple over socialism vs. capitalism. Even the nominally-capitalist US has a GNP that is 35% government. This is rising, even under a Republican president, and what isn’t government is often so regulated that it might as well be. So everyone in the conspiracy agrees on a mixed economy, and the disagreements over what the proportions should be, while occasionally bitter, are not enough to override the common interest in world government. At some point, one just has to grasp that power is more fundamental than money. The rich capitalists who support the CCRW would obviously mind, somewhat, if 10% of their wealth were taken to fund the socialistic schemes of their socialist partners in world government, but not all that much. The difference between owning a billion dollars and owning 900 million is just not that great. At that level of wealth, the marginal utility of money is so low that 10% (or 20% or even 30%) is a relatively small price to pay for something much more fascinating than mere money: power, which conspirator Henry Kissinger indiscreetly admitted is the ultimate aphrodisiac. If you look at the ease with which somebody like Dick Cheney, let alone the polytechniciens of France or the elite bureaucrats of Japan, moves from public to private sector and back again, it’s clear that the people at the very top of the pyramid aren’t distinguished by their wealth as such, but have the kind of expertise and connections that would place them at the top of the system whether its economy was dominated by the public or private sectors. These Talleyrands just don’t care. The Significance For The National Question What is the significance for the national question of understanding that there is a CCRW and that it has been manipulating everything it could for a century? For a start, it makes clear the core problem with much of the political leadership of the Western nations: Their real loyalty is to the CCRW. For example, the bizarrely self-destructive behavior of President George W. Bush, which has defied heroic attempts to explain how he could possibly believe the absurd things he does, is banally logical once one grasps that world government is his real core agenda. His weird attempts to merge the US first into Mexico by immigration and then into the rest of the Americas by WHFTA / FTAA are an obvious next step in assembling a world government by aggregating increasingly large regional units, an agenda described by one conspirator, Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezhinski, thus, "We cannot leap into world government in one quick step… the precondition for eventual globalization – genuine globalization – is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move towards larger, more stable, more cooperative units." (State of the World Forum, Sept. 28, 1995) And this also makes clear why he doesn't care that he's destroying not only the Republican Party but the real America: he has absolutely no ultimate interest in either, period. And if Hispanicizing America makes it easier to blend it into the larger regional entity, so much the better. Do you really think it's an accident that his father was so big on the "new world order?" At a certain point, if we are gullible enough to fall for such men, we deserve what we get. The standard explanations for their behavior, stupidity and devotion to liberalism, are ridiculous. These men are politically-sophisticated enough to acquire the highest offices in the land; they are anything but stupid. And their liberalism vanishes in a heartbeat when it contradicts their interests. They know exactly what they are doing and why. One simply cannot understand contemporary politics without reference to the CCRW. Why Conservative Politicians Betray the Conservative Cause Once one grasps that the CCRW is what most of our top leaders are really loyal to, even if nominally conservative, it is obvious why it is a lost cause to expect them to genuinely care about the things real conservatives care about, like restraining the growth of government or upholding traditional moral values. What earthly use could they have for such things? Most of them are an impediment to what they really want. At best, they will pretend to care so that the gullible Republican yeomanry will go on voting for them, excusing betrayal after betrayal and shrugging off its ill-defined sense of puzzlement that contemporary politics doesn't quite add up. The "conservatism" of someone like George W. Bush is a set of artful gestures designed to harvest the votes of a certain section of the public and further the dominance of his own (American, Republican) faction within the CCRW. Nothing more. Our CCRW-collaborating leaders want America to move towards the kind of bloated, heavy-handed state that most of the world suffers under, to make it easier to merge our system with the rest. They want the substitution of state power for social structure that moral breakdown brings. They want us to have a demotic, globalized, lowest-common-denominator culture. They want us to despise our historic identity. They want to surrender American sovereignty as fast as is compatible with angling for the dominance of the American faction within the larger CCRW. They want ethnic chaos (euphemized "diversity") in America for several reasons: 1. To destroy America's sense of itself as a distinct nation with a distinct identity apart from other peoples. After all, if we are not a distinct nation, why should we have a distinct government? If we are just a line drawn on a map, why not draw that line anywhere? 2. To destroy America's attachment to its history and thus to its heritage as a free nation. 3. To create the mass society of alienated individuals and warring tribes that can only be governed by the kind of undemocratic tyranny that a world government would inevitably be. 4. To strengthen, in their eyes, America's claim to be the center of the coming world government by enabling it to claim to contain all the world's ethnic groups and to have "transcended" ethnic identity. 5. To profit from cheap foreign labor. Grasping the existence of the CCRW also suggests the real agenda of the notorious neocons may in fact be different than commonly supposed by their critics. CCRW analysis implies they want to use America's global dominance, while it lasts, to hammer the most recalcitrant countries into shapes more suitable for eventual incorporation into a world government. They know perfectly well that this dominance cannot last forever, but they don't care, because they don't even want America to last forever. This explains their utter insouciance about the fact, which they cannot possibly fail to grasp, that their policies are unsustainable, because tending to deplete the American power they utilize, as by destroying America's industrial base through free trade. This suggests, interestingly, that Israel, too, is just another dispensable tool that will be discarded when no longer useful. This makes sense of the fact that the supposedly Likudnik Bush administration has drawn the line at Israel doing anything that would interfere with the drive for a borderless world, like build the security fence. When the time comes to dump Israel, the sincerity or lack thereof of individual neocons will be irrelevant, as the crucial question is whether they will be listened to by the rest of the CCRW, which gave them their power and can take it away. CCRW analysis also sheds a very different light on the question of the elite’s attitude towards racial matters. It suggests that the elite changed its mind about key racial questions not due to moral suasion, as establishment history has it, but because it decided that a policy of white racial dominance had ceased to be efficient to its attempt to rule the world and had become a liability. In the pre-WWII era, the principal means by which the elite sought to incorporate the non-Western world into its global rule was by the European colonialism it had inherited. With the victory of the USSR in WWII and her adoption of anti-colonialism as a strategy against the Western faction of the conspiracy, this form of domination became a liability. What Should Be Done? Above all, the CCRW must cease being the obsession of eccentric conspiracy theorists and must be assimilated to the worldview of mainstream conservatism. For this to happen, conspiracy theorists must jettison the mad excrescences of their theories and concentrate on building up the paper trail that documents the existence and actions of the CCRW. So vast an enterprise cannot be documented overnight, but documented it must be, coldly and factually, without voodoo and without hysterics. It would be unpardonably arrogant of me to suggest that the test of real conservatism is agreement with my own theory. But I cannot help observing that if there is a CCRW – and I let the reader be the judge – and if it deliberately infiltrates the conservative movement in order to sabotage opposition by redefining conservatism into forms that offer no resistance, then we may expect hot denials of these truths in certain quarters, may we not? Or perhaps squirming and smooth talking designed to neuter the idea. So second, conservatives must cease being gullible about their leadership. The CCRW collaborators in the Republican Party must go. The first step for this must be the abandonment to defeat of George W. Bush, followed by the recreation of the Republican party as a right-wing populist and nationalist party. Third, insofar as the CCRW is a matter of specific institutions, these institutions must be destroyed. The United States must begin by withdrawing from the United Nations. Insofar as organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations are guilty under the law of conspiracy to commit treason, they should be prosecuted. Robert Locke resides in New York City. He is a former columnist for http://FrontPageMag.com and a sometime contributor to http://Vdare.com, The American Conservative, American Engineer, The Post-Autistic Economics Review, http://Think-Israel.org, Orthodoxy Today, View From The Right, http://HireAmericanCitizens.org, Narodni Myslenka, and Suomensisu.fi.
Poster Comment: One man's look into the abyss.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#2. To: Tauzero (#0)
Fabulous article, brilliant. There can be no doubt that there is a NWO Elite conspiracy. This article ties all those curious macro-aspects of world events into a unified, sensible whole. Bush has to be, must be, an integral part of that conspiracy. Otherwise his supremely destructive behavior (in re the culture, middle class and economy) must go unexplained -- the man is not stupid, vociferous commentaries to the contrary from the Left notwithstanding. I'm truly grateful that you turned me on to this article.
There are no replies to Comment # 2. End Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||