PDA

View Full Version : The Virtual Conspiracy




spacehabitats
08-06-2008, 03:57 PM
(I apologize in advance for the long read. I have worked on this article/post for weeks. I think it tackles a very important topic that is central to the mission of the CFL and to our challenges in implementing it as a grassroots organization.

Since I posted this on DailyPaul I have gotten very favorable comments from those brave enough to actually read it.

Thank you in advance for your patience.:))



“Is there a Conspiracy?” That is the question that is plaguing so many intelligent, concerned people today. As we see our once proud nation brought to its knees economically, as we see our soldiers being butchered at the hands of a phantom enemy, as we see our liberties here at home being eroded daily, as we stand by helplessly watching our elected leaders betray our interests; it seems a question that is inescapable.


“Is there a Conspiracy?”


The question may take different forms and certainly has many objects of interest. It may be asked regarding international banking, the events of 9/11, mainstream media bias, global-warming, assassination, electric cars, and on and on Ad infinitum. But throughout all of these controversies and mysteries what remains consistent is the fact that the problems which prompted the question in the first place often get placed on the back burner, sometimes indefinitely. Well-intentioned people stop looking for solutions to problems and start looking instead for people to blame. If they detect the scent of conspiracy, they become obsessed with identifying the conspirators and then uncovering evidence to convince others of their theories. “The truth is out there” becomes the siren song leading them down bewildering paths of confusion and obfuscation. One can hardly blame them. Popular culture, novels and movies all encourage us to believe that if we can only find that one elusive clue, that crucial piece of the puzzle, the “smoking gun”; then and only then will Truth and Justice prevail. In our zeal we even turn on one another; competing and debating in the hope that we will be able to batter the world, and each other, into agreeing with our theories.


As a recovering paranoid I would like to share the wisdom I have attained concerning the nature of conspiracy in the hope of allowing at least some of you to avoid “hitting bottom”. Brothers and sisters, I am here to set you free! I will explain how there can be a secret global conspiracy, bent on world domination, that is totally invisible and, in a conventional sense, impregnable. But I will also tell you how we can fight it and eventually regain our freedom!
The answer to the question, “Is there a conspiracy?” is a resounding, “Yes!” There, wasn’t that easy? And now you may go on with your life. What, you say, that isn’t good enough? You need to know who is behind the shadow empire. You need to expose their corrupt cabal for what it is? You need to know what they knew and when they knew it? You need to bring the guilty parties to justice?


Actually what you need is to read “The Illuminatus! Trilogy” by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. This circa 1970 masterpiece of psychedelic, satirical fiction ties scores of conspiracies (from “who killed Kennedy” to the “23 synchronicity principle”) into a grand tapestry of drugs, sex, historical fact, myth, and confusion. For page after page the authors lead the reader through an endless, serpentine maze, leaving a trail of “tantalizingly almost relevancies” as clues and, ultimately, leaving the reader breathlessly awaiting a resolution that never comes. This is high art (pun intended) that mirrors the “real world” without trying to explain it. One of the “lessons “ of the trilogy is that not only is the struggle by honest people to discover the truth behind the conspiracy futile, it is an essential part of the conspiracy! When conspiracy theorists, or people posing as conspiracy theorists, fail to turn up compelling evidence for their pet theory, or, even worse, make accusations or assertions that later turn out to be demonstrably false, they play into the hands of the conspirators. Not only have they wasted their time, they have undermined the credibility of anyone who agrees with them, anyone they agree with, or anyone that is working to find a solution to the problems created by the conspiracy.


I know that this last part is a little less obvious, but please bear with me. “Divide and conquer” is the essential strategy of all unholy conspiracies. An often unrecognized fact is that most people are basically good. A corollary is that bad people are always outnumbered and continually run the risk of being ganged up on and defeated by sheer numbers. I think this is the main attraction for conspiracy theorists. We feel that if only we could expose these vermin for what they are, the public would rise up and get rid of them once and for all. It is a very seductive thought but one that sadly has never seemed to work. Watergate brought down a president, his administration, and even sent some of his cronies and co-conspirators to prison. The poisonous legacies of President Nixon (and his puppet-masters) live on, however, continuing to undermine the Republic: the Federal Reserve Note, unquestioned legitimacy of the undeclared war, deficit spending, a “moderate” Republican Party. We won the battle and lost the war.


In answering a question about conspiracy during a debate, presidential candidate Ron Paul, gave a very cogent response. To paraphrase, there is no secret conspiracy, the groups that people associate with conspiracy (Council on Foreign Relations, for example) do exist and they do believe and promote ideas that undermine American sovereignty. Also they do and are creating institutions and passing laws to incrementally move America, and the world, toward their vision of an all-powerful global government. Some see his answer as an evasion. On the contrary, his answer was a simple statement of facts. He then quickly and legitimately focused on the real question, whose side are we on? Of these competing philosophies and ideologies, of these visions of the future, which do “We the People” choose?


So in answer to the question, “Is there a conspiracy?” I must answer, “Of course not.” How could there be a global conspiracy that spans decades and involves thousands of people without leaving an obvious trail of evidence? Is every news commentator in on the deal? If so, when are they inducted into the inner circle? And what could keep all of them, every last one of them, from ever telling the truth? Even if one confines the question to just the United States, the theories become grotesquely complicated. Where does it stop? Where does it begin? How are people recruited? How are they kept from defecting? How are they silenced if they do? Are all political party officials in on the conspiracy? Does that include John from down the street who chairs the county committee? Does it include all politicians? How about the city councilman, state legislator, our congressman, senator, every president? Isn’t it easier to believe that George Bush, and every president since Howard Taft, is simply stupid, greedy, or short-sighted? Such a sweeping Conspiracy theory is obviously ridiculous. It is simply impossible.


So to return to the question, “Is there a conspiracy?” Yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy. There are people in this world who wield money and political power to further their own ends. They do so in secret, when it serves their ends, or, more usually, hide in plain sight. They are very adept at covering their trail and have almost infinite financial resources to do so. Their relationships, meetings, organizations, and even policy papers have been well documented. But you will never be able prove that a conspiracy exists, because there is no fact or piece of evidence so compelling that it will convince the public at large. There will never be a “smoking gun” because there will never be a defection by anyone in a position of true leadership.



But that still does not explain how the conspiracy could extend its power so deeply into our society without tipping its hand.


As an answer to this paradox, I would propose the theory of the “virtual conspiracy”. The sad truth is that there is “none so blind as he that will not see”. And it is just too painful for most of us to believe that the men and women we have trusted as our leaders are either co-conspirators or witless tools in the hands of malevolent powers. Add to this the fact that those who have wrested control of the news media and public education have attained control over the only weapons we have to liberate ourselves; language and information. George Orwell described the process quite eloquently in his classic novel, 1984. By controlling and degrading the language, the tyrannical masters of his dystopia were able to insure their power forever. By substituting the truncated language “Newspeak” for English, they established a world in which words such as “liberty”, “freedom”, and “rebellion” no longer existed. Without the words, the concepts which they represented disappeared from thought. In the world of 1984, “revolution” was, quite literally, unthinkable.


How does that apply to our world? “They” do not have to bribe or coerce their minions into obedience. They do not have to worry about secret contracts that could be uncovered or loyalties that could switch. By the time a journalist, economist, lawyer, or politician has risen through the ranks he or she has already been transformed into an intellectual eunuch. Not stupid, oh no. These are intelligent, well-mannered, educated, and sophisticated zombies. They “know” that certain things are true, and are contemptuous of those who do not share their “enlightened” world view. For example, they pity the unwashed masses that do not understand why a nine trillion dollar debt is nothing to worry about because it is such a small percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. They smile knowingly and shake their heads at the ignorant peasants that don’t realize the dangers inherent in a currency backed by precious metals, or that fail to see the benefits of losing their jobs to Chinese peasants. They can only look on with pity at those who do not see the benefits of helping humanity finally transcend these barbarous loyalties to nations, ethnic groups, or family.


The Conspiracy is even more insidious, however. Membership in the virtual Conspiracy is not absolute, it is relative. Almost anyone can be a member of the virtual conspiracy to some degree or even on some occasions.



For example, when I use the term “letter carrier” instead of the “sexist” word, “mailman”, I am promoting the idea that our gender neutral society is somehow superior to the one in which I was raised. It implies that we have “advanced” to the point where a male is no longer the assumed breadwinner. I am doing my small part to erase from our collective consciousness the time when a husband and a father were not only an essential part of the family, but were also capable of supporting a family with a single income. In using the euphemisms of politically-correct speech, instead of the more straightforward, accurate, or archaic terms that have been expunged from “polite” language, I am encouraging the mind numbing effects of the Conspiracy’s Newspeak. It may have been a slip of the tongue on my part, or, more likely, I may have made a conscious decision to avoid the hassle and controversy associated with speaking plainly or honestly. Nevertheless, I have reinforced (in the mind of my reader or listener) the prohibition against logical thought in proscribed areas. I have tacitly admitted certain assumptions about history and our society that have become the secular religion. I have become a tool of the Conspiracy.


So, finally, the boundaries between the witless tool of the conspiracy and a true puppet master become blurred. The distinctions, for practical purposes, become meaningless. The true conspirators, the “inner circle”, must be pleased to see the “paranoid” conspiracy theorists charging across the political landscape, accusing one hapless victim after another. Like the bull charging after the cape of the matador, they become exhausted, discredited, and eventually humiliated. Simultaneously, they antagonize and discredit both themselves and their potential allies. Anyone observing this spectacle is unlikely to feel anything but pity or contempt for the “bull”. Such a scenario works so well to the conspirator’s ends that if the conspiracy theorists did not exist , the conspirators would be compelled to create them!


Faced with such a daunting foe, what then are we to do? Well, we can stop wasting our time and energy attempting the impossible. As sensible and attractive as it is to “Know thy enemy”, we need to set our priorities and pick our battles. We do NOT need to be able to define and describe in detail the workings or members of the virtual conspiracy. We do not need to determine who knew what and when they knew it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck; IT’S A DUCK!


I propose that we approach the Conspiracy with a technique called “reverse engineering”. Software developers, given the exact specifications for what a program will do, can produce another program that will reproduce its behavior exactly. In the end, it does not matter if every line of code is identical. If it looks like a duck, it’s a duck. And for our purposes, I propose that we can do the same with the Conspiracy. We need to observe “it” and the behavior of all relevant players in light of the competing goals of individual liberty and global fascism. If someone or something moves our nation or world toward slavery it ultimately does not matter if they are consciously evil or simply stupid; “they” are part of the virtual Conspiracy. With enough data we can produce an intellectual model, a replica that will allow us to predict “its” behavior and fight it at every turn.


If the forces of evil are using the events of 9/11 to undermine our personal liberties, bankrupt our nation, and destroy the middle-class; do we REALLY need to know whether the Conspiracy caused it to happen, let it happen, or is just taking advantage of a serendipitous event? Can we not vigorously oppose all of these developments on their merits? Do we really want to make our cooperation with other like-minded patriots contingent on their agreeing with our interpretation of a grainy video of an imploding skyscraper?


If John McCain has been known to make critical votes to undermine the sovereignty of America, if he consistently espouses policies that are harmonious with a New World Order of global fascism, if he attacks and smears those who would defend our Constitution; do we REALLY need to show that he has ties to unscrupulous international bankers or is a member of the Bilderberg Group?


We do not need to document secret oaths, laundered money in offshore accounts, Masonic rituals, or black helicopters. We do not need to become super sleuths, prosecuting attorneys, polygraph operators, or forensic demolition experts. If it looks like a “duck”.... we need to get a better “shotgun”.


We should all strive to become better educators, authors, organizers, recruiters, and, yes, politicians. We do need to realize that we are all tainted by the virtual conspiracy, but that very few of us are consciously working to further its ends. We do need to become masters of discerning the policies, practices, and rhetoric that move us away from liberty. We do need to become relentless at exposing these things to public scrutiny. And when enough of us have done our homework, networked, and paid our political dues; it will become obvious who we can trust, and to what degree.

hypnagogue
08-06-2008, 04:27 PM
Yes and no. I agree that far too much time is wasted on pure speculation on subjects which may never been conclusively provable. However, that's no reason not to call attention to the things which have become blatantly obvious. The truly important thing is to say absolutely nothing more than you can prove.

Personally, I doubt the notion of "The Conspiracy." Rather, I see it as the natural influence of power seeking power. There are many different groups, with many different agendas, and their effects coalesce into a movement towards centralization of power, and the impotency of the common man. There are myriad reasons to desire such a condition, and movements to induce such a state have been around since civilization began. This isn't some new conspiracy; it's the eternal human struggle against domination. I believe, we do not fight some grand plot, but instead, human nature.

Broadlighter
08-06-2008, 05:31 PM
Fine article.

For me, the simplest way to discern the machinations of the virtual conspiracy is to have your philosophic foundation firmly built.

Why do we oppose the conspiracy? Simple, because we love and believe in freedom. What is freedom? Freedom is doing anything you want to do as long as you don't harm or kill anyone or encroach on their property.

Maybury's 2 laws: "Do all you agree to do; don't encroach on any persons or their property."

Ron Paul, "Freedom doesn't divide us. It brings us together. And it isn't agressive."

These are yardsticks to measure what's going on in politics and world affairs. Whether by design or unconsciousness, our nation's leaders fail to measure up to those simple standards and its up to us to make them measure up.

Take economics for example. When I read John Maynard Keyne's Wikipedia entry, it became very evident that here was man who just assumed the economies were meant to be controlled, managed and guided from a central vantage point. He claimed that the gold standard was archaic and said its value was based on arbitrary judgements. His whole premise is based on totalitarianism. This kind of thinking continually permeates our politics. Economies need to be controlled, managed and guided. Well, if you consider just what economics really are - the basis for all human interaction and if you love freedom, YOU HAVE TO REJECT THE KEYNESIAN ECONOMIC PREMISE. Human freedom and rights isn't in the picture here. Control, central banking, big government are all a priori elements in his theory.

Sadly, this is what is taught in our major universities. People who go onto careers in finance and government take this with them.

WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE THIS STATUS QUO! and this means being vigilant and forceful in our rejection of the assaults on our freedom.

Ayn Rand once wrote to a colleague of hers that one needs to check one's premise. Without it, you're just another cook who gives the conspirators fuel to their fire.

eOs
08-06-2008, 05:48 PM
Really really really good writing. I agree with pretty much everything you've touched on.

And if you read that, you might have time to read this. This is an article taken from mises.org which defends rational praxeologists.



[This article originally appeared in Reason, April 1977, pp. 39–40.]

Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy theorist" himself.

It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.

Let us take an easy example. Suppose we find that Congress has passed a law raising the steel tariff or imposing import quotas on steel? Surely only a moron will fail to realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors. No one would level a charge of "conspiracy theorist" against such a conclusion. But what the conspiracy theorist is doing is simply to extend his analysis to more complex measures of government: say, to public works projects, the establishment of the ICC, the creation of the Federal Reserve System, or the entry of the United States into a war. In each of these cases, the conspiracy theorist asks himself the question cui bono? Who benefits from this measure? If he finds that Measure A benefits X and Y, his next step is to investigate the hypothesis: did X and Y in fact lobby or exert pressure for the passage of Measure A? In short, did X and Y realize that they would benefit and act accordingly?

Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events — at least in government —are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.

There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict.
..> ..> ..>..>

These reflections are prompted by the almost blatant fact — so blatant as to be remarked on by the major newsweeklies — that virtually the entire top leadership of the new Carter administration, from Carter and Mondale on down, are members of the small, semisecret Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to propose policies for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, and/or members of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. The rest are tied in with Atlanta corporate interests, and especially the Coca-Cola Company, Georgia's major corporation.

Well, how do we look at all this? Do we say that David Rockefeller's prodigious efforts on behalf of certain statist public policies are merely a reflection of unfocused altruism? Or is there pursuit of economic interest involved? Was Jimmy Carter named a member of the Trilateral Commission as soon as it was founded because Rockefeller and the others wanted to hear the wisdom of an obscure Georgia governor? Or was he plucked out of obscurity and made President by their support? Was J. Paul Austin, head of Coca-Cola, an early supporter of Jimmy Carter merely out of concern for the common good? Were all the Trilateralists and Rockefeller Foundation and Coca-Cola people chosen by Carter simply because he felt that they were the ablest possible people for the job? If so, it's a coincidence that boggles the mind. Or are there more sinister political-economic interests involved? I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live.

-credited to mises.org

brandon
08-06-2008, 07:09 PM
Excellent article.

Many of the active members of my local meetup have decided to spend the majority of their time searching for the one elusive, irrefutable piece of evidence that will enlighten the masses to the grand conspiracy they see going on. I have grown quite disillusioned with them and their techniques. I have often tried to explain to them that our time will be far better spent opposing the philosophy of the "conspirators" and presenting the public with the philosophy of liberty as an alternative.

They disagree. They think if they can just pass out enough copies of Alex Jones's movies that everything will be solved.

I am going to show your article to my meetup if you don't mind, because it is something I have wanted to say for a while, but in words better then I have ever thought to use.

Nice Job!

spacehabitats
08-07-2008, 03:21 PM
Yes and no. I agree that far too much time is wasted on pure speculation on subjects which may never been conclusively provable. However, that's no reason not to call attention to the things which have become blatantly obvious. The truly important thing is to say absolutely nothing more than you can prove.

Personally, I doubt the notion of "The Conspiracy." Rather, I see it as the natural influence of power seeking power. There are many different groups, with many different agendas, and their effects coalesce into a movement towards centralization of power, and the impotency of the common man. There are myriad reasons to desire such a condition, and movements to induce such a state have been around since civilization began. This isn't some new conspiracy; it's the eternal human struggle against domination. I believe, we do not fight some grand plot, but instead, human nature.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

That is the explanation that many give for Bush and McCain.

Unfortunately they are far too consistent, effective, and relentless in acting to accomplish the goals of the global fascists.

I am compelled to believe in a core of conspiracy as much as I would like to believe in random greed and ignorance.

spacehabitats
08-07-2008, 03:24 PM
Fine article.

For me, the simplest way to discern the machinations of the virtual conspiracy is to have your philosophic foundation firmly built.

Why do we oppose the conspiracy? Simple, because we love and believe in freedom. What is freedom? Freedom is doing anything you want to do as long as you don't harm or kill anyone or encroach on their property.

Maybury's 2 laws: "Do all you agree to do; don't encroach on any persons or their property."

Ron Paul, "Freedom doesn't divide us. It brings us together. And it isn't agressive."

These are yardsticks to measure what's going on in politics and world affairs. Whether by design or unconsciousness, our nation's leaders fail to measure up to those simple standards and its up to us to make them measure up.

Take economics for example. When I read John Maynard Keyne's Wikipedia entry, it became very evident that here was man who just assumed the economies were meant to be controlled, managed and guided from a central vantage point. He claimed that the gold standard was archaic and said its value was based on arbitrary judgements. His whole premise is based on totalitarianism. This kind of thinking continually permeates our politics. Economies need to be controlled, managed and guided. Well, if you consider just what economics really are - the basis for all human interaction and if you love freedom, YOU HAVE TO REJECT THE KEYNESIAN ECONOMIC PREMISE. Human freedom and rights isn't in the picture here. Control, central banking, big government are all a priori elements in his theory.

Sadly, this is what is taught in our major universities. People who go onto careers in finance and government take this with them.

WE HAVE TO CHALLENGE THIS STATUS QUO! and this means being vigilant and forceful in our rejection of the assaults on our freedom.

Ayn Rand once wrote to a colleague of hers that one needs to check one's premise. Without it, you're just another cook who gives the conspirators fuel to their fire.

And the Conspiracy has as its main mission to define the "premises" for society.

If we continue to cede to them that ability uncontested, then we have lost before we begin.

spacehabitats
08-19-2008, 12:02 PM
Bumping to see if there are a few more hardy souls brave enough to read this.

spacehabitats
10-24-2008, 12:27 PM
bump from time to time for no particular reason.

sevin
10-24-2008, 01:21 PM
Interesting. This is really in line with how I've been thinking lately. For a while I believed there was one central group that's been controlling the world for the past couple hundred years. But if they've been in control so long, why haven't they been exposed, why has no one defected?

I no longer think there is one small group influencing everyone. Instead I think there are a number of conspiracies by a number of different groups. Sometimes their plans work, sometimes they don't. Oftentimes I think the leaders and people we see on television--whether their intentions are good or bad--are acting out of ignorance.

The whole thing is so complicated, there's just no point in trying to hunt down the "powers that be." There are all sorts of "powers" with all sorts of agendas. Like someone said above me, we're not fighting a global conspiracy, we're fighting human nature, which unfortunately is prone to evil.

Instead of looking for the smoking gun, we need to try and have a positive influence on the people around us by presenting the concept of liberty as an alternative.