Some may rationally ponder that how is it, that such a long running global conspiracy for world government as outlined in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy for World Government”, can be kept alive across centuries and across geographies. This brief paper examines that question.
Noam Chomsky had once observed an insightful nature of such “conspiracies”, as the open shared natural goals stemming from the very nature of its definition, which could therefore, no more be termed a conspiracy than both GM and Ford endeavoring to maximize their profits at all cost be termed a ‘global corporate conspiracy’.
I have always added to that, the equally un-remarkable observation that a hungry lion anywhere in the world pouncing upon a lamb is similarly no global conspiracy by the world’s lions to eat up all the lambs on the planet. That is just the nature of the bestial predators when its “might defines right”. The higher cerebral concepts of “right”, “wrong”, “moral”, immoral”, etc., do not even exist among any primal predators, for these only behave according to their nature. Pious platitudes, if they could be argued by the lion or the snake for instance, would in fact only be disseminated to the lambs and the mice to make them an even easier morsel to acquire!
The only thing that occasionally deters such exercise of primacy is a collective natural response like the one observed in the “Battle at Kruger” park. Indeed, the quest for the holy grail of extracting voluntary servitude from the masses of mankind is the key idea of cultivating a willingly compliant public in order for the illuminated ones becoming their stewards for life. In Bertrand Russell’s’ timeless characterization, to extract voluntary servitude such that: “a revolt of the plebs will become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”
Thus we observe that from Plato to Nietzsche, from the philosopher-king to the ‘ubermensch’, all have argued the necessity of ruling upon the sheepish masses as the ‘divine’ imperative of the “enlightened ones”. Indeed, Zbigniew Brzezinski even sub-titled his seminal book “The Grand Chessboard” with its egotistical subtitle “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, merely extending that idea of ‘ubermensch’ rule from the most “enlightened ones”, to the most powerful sole-superpower!
The same theme exists among the “Chosen Peoples”, to deem their primacy upon the goyem their inherent nature, their divine destiny. The ‘ubermensch’ are suckled these lessons in their mothers’ milk to acquire those imperatives across generations in perhaps the same way as the generations of corporate executives and CEOs who inherently know that they need to continually enhance the valuation of their company’s stock performance in a capitalist system.
So, when these ‘divine’ ubermensch creatures who are beyond good and evil, behave in their primal predatory natural manner across time and space, across evolution or creation, are they being “conspiratorial”?
In the Chomsky-Ebrahim nomenclature, perhaps not.
In the Ron Paul nomenclature, it is merely a shared “Conspiracy of Ideas” in which “CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists”, and that, it is only “an ideological battle” wherein:
“some people believe in Globalism, and others of us believe in national sovereignty; and there is a move on toward a North American Union just like early on there was a move on for a European Union and it eventually ended up. …
These are real things, it’s not somebody made these up, it’s not a conspiracy, they don’t talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there has been money spent on it …
So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy, it’s a contest between ideologies; whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move in the direction of international government, more UN. You know, this country goes to war under UN Resolutions. I don’t like big government in Washington. So I don’t like this trend towards international government …
In the United States’ legalese nomenclature, breaking of a “federal statute” by at least two or more persons working in collusion (and when caught), is defined as “criminal conspiracy” and “federal crime”. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, it is criminal whether or not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself. A conspiracy need only be proved by “circumstantial evidence”“if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence”: even
Conspiracy: “in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy. Other controversial aspects of conspiracy laws include the modification of the rules of evidence and the potential for a dragnet. A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.”
According to such legalism, smart conspirators, if powerful enough, could affect the enaction of conducive federal statutes, or prevent the enaction of adverse ones, that would enable them to get away with many morally reprehensible systems and acts. The Federal Reserve System for instance, falls into this category. A legalized extortion racket to enslave the public in perpetual debt for the issue and supply of their own national currency. Similarly, bootlegging is a federal crime one decade, a respectable business the next! And internationally, it is the enaction of laws under WTO which defines what is criminal and what isn’t – not the raping and harvesting of developing nations that goes on under its conspiratorial rubric!
Thus suffice it to say, the word “conspiracy” even has legal semantics, albeit rather limited. It is limited because it is easy to circumvent an abhorrence and call it legal when the king makes the laws.
But the multitudinous connotations of this word do not stop there. It also has a ‘tin-hatted’ or ‘kookish’ implication in furtherance of the devilish art of political science based state-craft. This was indeed implied by Congressman Ron Paul in his afore-quoted speech when he stated regarding the North American Union: “These are real things, it’s not somebody made these up, it’s not a conspiracy, … So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy, …”.
In fact, some of the best cloaking devices for clandestine covert-operations and hidden agendas have been invented by the most brilliant minds – here is one exposition for instance from Ezra Pound: “invent two lies and have the public keep arguing which one of them might be true”. Another is by Leo Strauss – the erudite teacher of the majority of the neo-cons – called “Noble Lies”. A third by the White House, often referred to as “plausible deniability”, okay may be it was invented by the DIA, the grand-daddy of all intelligence agencies. This thinly-veiled euphemism for deception to protect the leadership if things go badly in covert-operations became public knowledge during the Iran-Contra scandal, the televised coverage of which had gripped the American nation for months, including myself. And this wasn’t just a rogue operation with ad hoc deniability cover by patriotic agents as most in the public are led to believe. Deniability is official government policy vis a vis any covert operation dating back to President Truman’s signing of NSC 10/2. That directive made the introduction of “plausible deniability” a requirement for CIA’s clandestine operations in case they were ever blown while still active. Below is an excerpt from “Note on U.S. Covert Action Programs”:
‘Management of Covert Actions in the Truman Presidency
The Truman administration’s concern over Soviet “psychological warfare” prompted the new National Security Council to authorize, in NSC 4-A of December 1947, the launching of peacetime covert action operations. NSC 4-A made the Director of Central Intelligence responsible for psychological warfare, establishing at the same time the principle that covert action was an exclusively Executive Branch function. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) certainly was a natural choice but it was assigned this function at least in part because the Agency controlled unvouchered funds, by which operations could be funded with minimal risk of exposure in Washington.1
ClA’s early use of its new covert action mandate dissatisfied officials at the Departments of State and Defense. The Department of State, believing this role too important to be left to the CIA alone and concerned that the military might create a new rival covert action office in the Pentagon, pressed to reopen the issue of where responsibility for covert action activities should reside. Consequently, on June 18, 1948, a new NSC directive, NSC 10/2, superseded NSC 4-A.
NSC 10/2 directed CIA to conduct “covert” rather than merely “psychological” operations, defining them as all activities “which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”
… The Special Group and the 303 Committee approved 163 covert actions during the Kennedy administration and 142 during the Johnson administration through February 1967. The 1976 Final Report of the Church Committee, however, estimated that of the several thousand projects undertaken by the CIA since 1961, only 14 percent were considered on a case-by-case basis by the 303 Committee and its predecessors (and successors). Those not reviewed by the 303 Committee were low-risk and low-cost operations. The Final Report also cited a February 1967 CIA memorandum that included a description of the mode of policy arbitration of decisions on covert actions within the 303 Committee system. CIA presentations were questioned, amended, and even on occasion denied, despite protests from the DCI. Department of State objections modified or nullified proposed operations, and the 303 Committee sometimes decided that some agency other than CIA should undertake an operation or that CIA actions requested by Ambassadors on the scene should be rejected.’
Lastly, among the already well-known tools of Management of Covert Actions for statecraft, we also have the “limited hangout” and “modified limited hangout” conspiracies to mislead the public in case “plausible deniability” for governmental wrong-doing doesn’t work. This modus operandi of accepting partial mea culpa for something less consequential in order to mask the more egregious crimes was amply demonstrated by Richard Nixon during the waning years of his presidency. A good description of it with excerpts from the Nixon tapes planning the red herrings is on Wikipedia.
Calculated omission is perhaps the most crafty tool of public persuasion in the general statecraft of deception as it naturally relies on ignorance – for who can have complete knowledge of every subject? Aldous Huxley aptly recalled the Churchillian term for creating such a chasm between facts and fiction as lowering an “iron curtain” around the public’s sense of perception:
‘The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.’ (Aldous Huxley, 1946 Preface to Brave New World, 1931)
Keeping thinking peoples plausibly occupied lest they discover the real levers of power is much more complicated than mere manufacturing consent among the masses. The latter are generally quite amenable to simple propaganda, to the big lie, and appeal to the irrational mind and subconscious fears (or needs), with repetitious reinforcement. That diabolical science of mass persuasion is already well understood, thanks to the pioneering work of Edward Bernays and the Mighty Wurlitzer, not to overlook Goebbels and Hitler, as the engineering of consent among the majority. Hitler categorized them into type-1, “those who believe everything they read; … when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”
The minority of thoughtful peoples however, also often the people of conscience, pose a different problem. According to Hitler, the type-3, “those who critically examine what they read and form their judgments accordingly. … Hence the trash that newspapers are capable of serving up is of little danger–much less of importance–to the members of the third group of readers. In the majority of cases these readers have learnt to regard every journalist as fundamentally a rogue who sometimes speaks the truth. Most unfortunately, the value of these readers lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength, an unhappy state of affairs in a period where wisdom counts for nothing and majorities for everything. ” If not craftily waylaid, this third group of people stand to acquire some real comprehension of the otherwise carefully hidden from the masses in plainsight, conspiratorial forces which actually shape their world.
These rebels – referred to as the ‘malcontents’ by H. G. Wells in his famous book “New World Order” – can also figure out that the visible rulers whom the public elects with such gravitas every so often to run their country on their behalf in a momentous celebration of ‘democracy’ which in reality only affords the demos the choice between twiddledee and twiddledum in a carefully choreographed Hegelian Dialectic, are actually not their public servants. To hide the fact that these elected psychopaths are really still only the errand boys and girls of an invisible ruling-oligarchy, manufacturing dissent to mislead the energies of the handful of thinking and conscionable peoples has become a necessary instrument of statecraft.
This deception typically entails manufacturing dissent chiefs who can craftily take their respective flock, by a circuitous route, to the same pastures as the mainstream public. I.e., the net impact of their celebrated dissent in derailing the manufactured consent among the masses being exactly zero. These crafty dissent-chiefs, fortunately enough, are also rather trivial to identify. Their main modus operandi appears to be to oppose power while still echoing its core message!
These traffickers in ‘truth’ – i.e., absurdities – will often truthfully describe the visible puppetshows and bravely challenge empire on what is already known and overt, such as its criminal bombings and maiming of other nations. But they will also, for instance as in this war on terror, also echo one or more of the primemover axioms of empire which ab initio enables empire’s “imperial mobilization”! Namely, that some ‘Ali Baba’ magically pulled off 911 from his almighty perch in the Hindu Kush, that Islamofascism is a genuine threat to mankind, that Al Qaeeda is out to impose its will on the West and is being aided and abetted from Pakistan-Iran nexus, etc. Because these dissent-artists hector empire in its killing of innocent civilians, they often attract big audiences among the type-2 category people identified by Hitler, “those who no longer believe anything;”.
But they also attract some type-3, fortunately only temporarily, since fabricated dissent is trivially exposed to those unencumbered by blind-faith in power and its many incantations. See Weapons of Mass Deception for more in depth deconstruction of Manufacturing Dissent.
And for the most recalcitrant among the ‘malcontent’ unwilling to subjugate their own common and political sense to the devil’s science, exclusively the type-3 of Hitler’s classification whose value “lies in their intelligence and not in their numerical strength”, new modalities to discredit them are are continually constructed. The latest being mental illness.
As reported in the Washington Post, if “there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk”, most assuredly there will be legal entitlement to be a non-conformist, i.e., an independent thinker:
‘Today’s DSM defines “oppositional defiant disorder” as a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.” Symptoms include “often loses temper,” “often deliberately annoys people” or “is often touchy.” DSM omits this symptom: “is a teenager.”
This DSM defines as “personality disorders” attributes that once were considered character flaws. “Antisocial personality disorder” is “a pervasive pattern of disregard for . . . the rights of others . . . callous, cynical . . . an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal.” “Histrionic personality disorder” is “excessive emotionality and attention-seeking.” “Narcissistic personality disorder” involves “grandiosity, need for admiration . . . boastful and pretentious.” And so on.
If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a “disorder” akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, “disabilities” include any “mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities”; “mental impairments” include “emotional or mental illness.” So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk. (See above, “antisocial personality disorder.”)’ — George F. Will, The Washington Post, February 28, 2010, Handbook suggests that deviations from ‘normality’ are disorders
It should now be self-evident that while a conspiracy is still active, or while mileage is being extracted from a clandestine operation that is on-going, or to hide or spin some other egregious wrong-doing, all analytical and deconstructive references to it must be squashed or dismissed, inter alia, by labeling such analysis as kookish “conspiracy theories”. Its advocates to be variously labeled as fools, idiots, and mentally deranged. And when these “conspiracy theories” are eventually blown, to have the multiple cover stories ready for “plausible deniability”, including some version of “limited hangout”, using the ubiquitous Mighty Wurlitzer’s message machine.
What are these deception of statecraft if not real conspiracies to mask real clandestine covert-operations and wrong-doings?
Thus, if it is axiomatically asserted that there is no such thing as a real conspiracy, then that really works wonderfully in the interest of the cloak-makers because it makes one forget the perspectives of history.
And this complex Machiavellian deception game behind alleging ‘kookishness’ bears exposing fully: invent two or more lies, not just one, and keep the good hearted well meaning peoples in the “populist democracy” occupied debating which one of them might be true, for it would hardly matter what conclusions they reached. And wherever they ended up, to perhaps yank one of the lies from underneath them by conclusively showing it to be false thus conveniently demonstrating a baseless “conspiracy theory” in order to keep that notion alive in the public imagination. This consequently delegitimizes in the public mind serious researchers’ efforts in uncovering any covert-operation while its secrecy is of paramount necessity. Afterwards, after faits accomplis, after statute of limitations expiring, it makes little difference if historians and con-fession artists make a pecuniary gain peddling what is inconsequential history to the newer evolving realpolitik du jour. The recognition of this self-evident truth of the matter and its utility to Machiavellian statecraft was boldly narrated even in the New York Times (Ron Suskind, Oct. 17, 2004):
‘“That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”’
Cass R. Sunstein of Harvard Law School, the man who is today President Obama’s Information Czar in the White House, in his 2008 paper titled “Conspiracy Theories”, called this process of the creation of diabolical red herrings, introducing “beneficial cognitive diversity” through “cognitive infiltration”. The paper has to be read in its entirety in order to be appreciated for its brazen and open appeal to Machiavelli for conducting statecraft when thinking people remain unencumbered by its mere propaganda spin.
So many complex semantics for the simple term “conspiracy theory” – it’s not just mere nomenclature – that this overview of its usefulness to statecraft was necessary in order to situate anything with such a bombastic title as “The Capitalist Conspiracy”, in its proper social-political-legal-conspiratorial context.
And an equally insightful and rational response to this question of long enduring conspiracy for world domination, is added to the motivational mix by G. Edward Griffin in the video below:
“After a man has far more money than he possibly can spend for pleasures, what is left to excite him? For those with the ruling class mentality, the answer is power – raw power over other human beings. Money can buy such power only to a point, beyond that, politics is the sport, and world politics is the ultimate game.”
Thus, Griffin aptly noted: “The New World Order Is Not New”, but a common objective borne of natural inclination to primacy which apparently transcends time, space, geography and race. It naturally increases in its scope in proportion to the vistas of power it acquires. And it automatically attracts to its cause the coterie of sycophants and useful idiots essential in realizing its overarching agendas. It is helped along, as W. Cleon Skoussen uncannily observed in his commentary in “The Naked Capitalist”:
‘The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.’ (pg. 6)
Subsequent manipulation of global events through statecraft machinations become trivial when one has already taken over the state’s machinery through its many essential instruments of policy-making. The same instruments today are behind the formulation of coercive policies for ostensibly addressing the myriad global crises plaguing mankind today – from Global War on Terror to Global Financial Collapse to Global Epidemics to Global Warming to Global Food Shortage to Global Water Shortage etceteras – and for which, the solution posited, is of course Global Governance:
‘I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible. A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force. So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might. First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.’ ( Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government, Financial Times, December 8, 2008 )
Right out of the box of user manuals for the “end run around national sovereignty” made available to the world through the benevolence of the Council on Foreign Relations:
“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.
The question is whether this more modest approach can do the job. Can it really bring mankind into the twenty-first century with reasonable prospects for peace, welfare and human dignity? The argument thus far suggests it better had, for there seems to be no alternative. But the evidence also suggests some grounds for cautious optimism.” (Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road To World Order, Foreign Affairs, April 1974, 558-559)
In summary, the upshot of it all is that it becomes a moot point what label one might give to this empirical predatory behavior wrapped in deception. Zbigniew Brzezinski even openly proclaimed its pertinence to statecraft in the very first sentence of his book mentioned earlier: “Hegemony is as old as mankind”. And Nicolò Machiavelli very perceptively outlined its recipe in The Prince whose modern reincarnation in murderous play on the Grand Chessboard has been to convince people of absurdities to get them to acquiesce to the atrocities and spendings of hegemony.
The undeniable fact remains that world-government has been a long historical passion of oligarchs! The quest for the hegemony of the entire world has been their natural enduring conspiracy for world government. Its new religion is secular humanism. Its new imperative is population reduction. Its primal modus operandi is deception, which, in its harbingers’ own words, is to create “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece [by making it] look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’”. And it is finally coming to its grand fruition in our own time with continuous newer myths and crises creation which span the gamut from ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Global War on Terror’, and more recently from ‘Global Swine Flu Pandemic’ to ‘Global environmental disaster due to oil spill’, each new crisis and myth leading to enacting new legalisms for incrementally eroding more national sovereignty while ushering in more police-state. In keeping with the “conspiracy theory” paradigm of statecraft, most useful idiots are kept busy mindlessly chattering on about “conspiracy theories” and “Islamofascism” in perfect echo with the Machiavellis. Enjoy Ed Griffin’s narration in The Capitalist Conspiracy video, made in 1972!
The Capitalist Conspiracy
Further Study References:
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 17, 2008 - Updated April 22, 2008. The abominable shared fates that unite Iran (“Bush and Iran,...
by Zahir Ebrahim Written April 26, 2008 - Revised May 2, 2008. Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in his Hearing...
by Zahir Ebrahim March 31, 2007: I wrote this essay as the Preface to "Prisoners of the Cave" during 2003. That was four years ago....
by Zahir Ebrahim It appears that a majority of conscionable peoples opposed to their nation's war mongering for “imperial mobilization” in...
by Zahir Ebrahim Sunday April 06, 2008. It is à propos to begin this brief observation in 2008, on a cloudy Sunday morning while...
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites