Eyes Rolling Hard

 

The only thing more insane than a right-wing conspiracy theory is a left-wing conspiracy theory.

A right-wing conspiracy theory (RWCT) is at least based on people doing research, examining history, seeking evidence and trying to draw conclusions from seemingly random and disparate events. Left-wing conspiracy theories (LWCT), on the other hand, "me too" emotional reaction to things they don't understand and refuse to learn about.

For example, an RWCT might posit that an obscure CIA memo in 1957, led to the Joint Chiefs taking such-and-such an action, which created thus and such agency that fomented the Capitol riots in 2021.  No problem.  I can look up the documents, read the transcripts, check the salient facts and allegations, and come to my own decision.

An LWCT sees no historical connection to anything, other than it is all evil Patriarchy, offers no documentation other than an article in the sacred New York Times, tells the reader how to feel about it all, assigned some random highly-edited facts, then demands that you believe it without any critical thinking, because the person espousing the theory is the only credible source for the information.

I've been quiet here for some time because I honestly can't separate the wheat from the chaff.  Firsst, we have to determine what is pure lie, what is part lie and what is true (not Truth, mind you).  Then we have to assemble the pieces like a giant jig-saw puzzle and see if we can make out a coherent image.  Then we apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to discern cause and effect.  If we begin to see a Big Picture, then we assume that we are on the right path, while at the same time trying to digest the profound implications of that Big Picture.

It's all very complicated and it is so easy to get bogged down in the minutiae.  To visualize the situation, we can think of it as a giant jig-saw puzzle, where ever piece is itself a separate jig-saw puzzle.  In other words, it's a fractal puzzle.  Fractals are usually mind-boggling to look at, but they are often very simple formulae and once you grasp the correct key, the lock bends to your will.

Nature abhors centralized power.  When we look out into her bowels, we see not one planet, but quadrillions; not one star, but trillions; not one galazy, but billions.  Nature has scattered her power over unimaginable time and distance.  Taking over an entire planet or solar system would hardly rate as an footnote in Nature's Handbook of History.

Bringing this grand vision down to a human scale, there has been a millennia-mong effort to centralize the worldly powers under one fist.  The Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, Mongols, Mandarins, Greeks, Romans, Maya, Aztec, and hundreds more all tried to conquer their worlds.  They rose to incredible power and complexity, and then in a flash, they vanished.

I trace the current effort at empire to a single Papal Bull issued by Boniface VIII, called Unam Sanctam, published in 1302.  Essentially, the Roman Church laid claim to the entire Earth and all creature in, on and over it, in trust for the return on the Christ to claim His worldly kingdom.  This one document launched the Age of Exploration.  Expeditions were funded and sent to the ends of the Earth to map the Church's domain, quantify it's flora and fauna, and plant flags in anything that would sit still long enough to get a painting of it.

Oh, and pick up any gold and silver lying around to fund more of it, while you're at it.

This worked pretty well for a couple of centuries, based partly on the element of surprise (wait, where'd these guys come from?), and partly on superior war technology (wait, is that a metal sword?).  But a crucial event happened a little over a century after Bonnie the 8th staked his claim.

In Mainz, Germany, in the early 1400s, a guy named Johann Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg had the bright idea to combine a wine press with his inventions of moveable type and oil-based ink, and overnight torn a gaping hole in his world.

That invention led to something called the Age of Enlightenment, which had the audacity to posit individual humans were their own sovereigns and could only be ruled by central authority by their consent to hand over limited powers to others.

This set off a wave of revolutions and independence movements across the entire globe, which peaked in the decade after World War II, but to a certain extent still simmers today.  With that, the Holy Roman empire finally died, along with the European royal houses whose power was entirely based on fealty to Roman.

Human nature being what it is, though, the collapse of one empire only creates the desire in some folks to create what they think will be a bigger, better empire that won't make the same mistakes as all the others, and put this group of greedy individuals in charge.  And it worked for 80 years or so.

In the wake of World War II, the United States (not the united States) was the only major power left with an intact power structure and currency.  Some folks saw this as an opportunity to recreate the world in the Enlightenment Image (nationalist-populist), but some other folks saw the opportunity to milk the world for their personal benefit (socialist-democracy).  The two have been battling it out in a low-level war behind the scenes ever since, with the latter having the upper hand with better propaganda.

But something changed.

In the 1960s, the US military created the ARPAnet, an electronic matrix of computers across nearly any physical space, with each terminal having a unique identifiers called an IP address, that allowed the military and their weapons developers to trade information quickly and secretly.

Folks thought this was pretty nifty and by the 1990s, the World Wide Web took root.  Suddenly, folks didn't need to access specific libraries with rare books and information, they could point and click and never leave the comfort of their couch/desk/dinner table.  If Gutenberg torn a hole in the world, the internet ripped it wide open.

This seemingly innocuous invention has done more to undermine global power structures than any combnation of events in all of human history.  There can be no elites when everyone has access to the same information.  There can be no centralized power structures when every individual with a terminal is just as powerful as any other.

Prove it? Wikileaks, GameStop, Bitcoin, the hundreds of sites that reproduce high-resolution scans of ancient and obscure documents (such as Unam Sanctam), YouTube, and on and on.

Oh sure, there are major efforts underway to censor various individuals, outlets and information, but information is a slippery thing.  The tighter you squeeze it, the more oozes through your fingers.  Like trying to block a river, eventually the water will find another way out - over, under or around, and in the end evaporation.  The breach in elite control occurred decades ago and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Except conspiracy theories.

Recent years have seen the weaponizing of conspiracy theories.  We have seen the Qult and now the Insurrection, the Jews, the Jesuits, Black Popes and helicopters, Clubs of Rome and 300, Masons, Templars and Nazis.  All of these are distrctions.  These theories intend to keep folks focued on a single puzzle piece, while attempting to hide all the others.

The problem is, the internet is an insurmountable force.  For every bubble of secrecy inflated, there are thousands of pins salivating for the opportunity to pop it.  As the self-appointed elite try to build ever more exotic locks, the plebes build ever more sophisticated picks.  The demise of the system we have all gown up under is dying, and there is no palliative that can stop it.

The thing about our modern world is that we can pick any random point in time and space, and no matter how far back or forward we go, it is all the same - a fractal.  It seems, though, that we have reached a point where the Big Picture is going non-linear.  Truly, there is nothing new under the Sun, and as people scramble for answers, they find only different scales of the same problems.

It seems we have reached the end of usefulness for the current paradigm.  One of the axioms of critical thinking is that when you come to a dead end in one line of reasoning, you must change your perspective to find solutions.

The centralization of power and the specialization of knowledge in the the current paradigm is the poison pill that has lurked at its heart for centuries, the One Great Secret that no one was supposed to know.  But the Secret is out: we have reached the logical end of this line of reasoning.  There is no way to put a plaster on the current paradigm and keep it hobbling along like a beater car that has reached the end of its structural integrity.

Whether we want it or not, we are faced with the imperative to change or perish.  Like bacteria in a Petri dish, we have mined all the nutrients in our environment and must now change our environment or the colony collapses.  The environment is not just a reference to our physical surroundings, but a mental and spiritual realm, as well.

For myself, I leave the closed minds to fight over the bleached bones of yesterday's meal.  I choose to find a new and better source on which to dine - preferably one whose bounds are limitless and equally accessible by anyone willing to let go of the dry and nutritionless detritus the old world.

Behold, for I make all things new - Revelation 21:5

Carnies And Rubes, Part 1

WARNING: The following will most likely trigger a lot of folks.  I am about to discuss The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.  If that scares you, please turn away now.

If it doesn't scare you, then you should be very aware that I do not consider Zionists to be Jews of any stripe.  The Jewish cover is designed to deflect anger and blame as a ruse to protect the guilty.

Who the guilty are is a matter of heated debate, though I personally believe that they are a delusional branch of the Bavarian Illuminati, a movement originally based on Enlightenment philosophy, but bent far out of shape by those who would rule the Earth and make it in their own image.

I will further warn the reader that I had a most profound and disturbing revelation when I first read The Protocols in the early 1990s, such that my father offered to call a priest, which I recoiled from since it was obvious to me that the Church was the problem, not the solution.  My reasoning should become clear(er) forthwith.

I will begin by justifying why I think the Protocols represent the actual agenda of a real group of people.

I implore readers to overcome their pre-programmed response to this topic and read the Protocols (linked above) dispassionately for what they are: a plan for world domination that is eerily predictive.  Do not let the language and jargon fool you, this is not a Jewish plot, but has been used to achieve certain goals right under our noses, while at the same time demonizing anyone who sees it with a number of trigger terms, such as "anti-Semite".  This has NOTHING to do with Semitic peoples nor Jews specifically.  It is, in fact, a Roman Catholic conspiracy.

The Protocols were reportedly found sitting on a park bench in Odessa, The Ukraine, in the 1890s.  In any case, they were first published in Russia in 1903, and later translated into multiple languages.  I further believe that the name "Elders of Zion" and the liberal use of the word "goyim" in the document were chosen specifically as a smoke screen should (as is the case) these plans ever be brought to light.  It may also be that the "Elders" were Christian fanatics trying to create the Biblical conditions for the Second Coming, and thought of themselves as actual heirs to the Jewish prophesies of the Old Testament.

Whatever the truth may be, my goal is to examine the claims within the document regardless of any other concerns.  I will state emphatically that I do not believe this document represents any religious or ethnical group, but is in fact the political agenda of some secret society based on warped interpretations of Enlightenment philosophy.

All that being said, it is vital that we remember this document is the product of the late 19th century, long before mass media, the internet, pop culture, and the like.    In other words, it is highly unlikely that a 19th century document could be so prescient with regards to modern society unless it was influential enough to bring about the conditions stated.

The only group able to influence society at such profound levels in so many diverse locations was and is the often-referred to "banksters".  If we accept that as a premise, then the most logical group to hold accountable are the Knights Templar, or whatever they became after the persecution in France in the 1300s.  I hold the modern banking system up as Exhibit A in this regard, along with the SWIFT clearing system and the financial markets.

In this case, we also can no longer lay the blame at any Jewish group, and the Templar's connections to the Holy Land and the Crusades would further support the idea of usurping Old Testament language and names as a cover to deflect blame.

Anyone who has studied historical conspiracies for any amount of time knows that a key factor is the publication of the conspiracy in the open, especially in such a way as to be able to deny and/or ridicule it.  Even a cursory study of Mother Goose's Nursery Rhymes or L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, or Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland knows that it is quite easy to publish satire as children's stories or allegories, and then laugh off any attempt to charge conspiracy.

The genius of "the Elders of Zion" is that they specifically chose terminology that would cast the eye of suspicion in the wrong direction.  What's more, they were even able to set up a system of "anti-Semitism" that would punish anyone from seriously considering the contents of The Protocols.  I have to admit it is quite an ingenious camouflage.

If the reader is still with me, and I admit this topic may scare many people away, then we are ready to analyze the astoundingly predictive assertions that are contained within The Protocols.  If it makes it easier, the reader is encouraged to substitute the word "Zion" with "Carnies," and the word "goyin" with "rubes".  The meaning and intent will be the same.

(to be continued)

Paging Dr. Caligari

READER NOTE: for those enjoying our slightly different take on the Trump Revolution, be sure to follow us on Twit-ter (@RadioFarSide) and the Farcebook page (Life on the Far Side) for additional commentary and background stories.

It's been an exciting week here at the Far Side Global Headquarters (FSGHQ).  It's not often we get such enormous globules of juicy news like those served up the past few days.  One gets the sense that we have witnessed a major turning point in world events, though it is, 1) difficult to discern these things when one is in the middle of the events, and 2) it remains to be seen whether or not Trump will honor his promises, since he is holding his first-ever elected office.

We here at the FSGHQ would like to go on record right now to say that, sorry folks, Trump will be a major disappointment and probably a disaster.  To see our track record on this score, please check the 2008 archives, where we called Obama's legacy to the letter.  Though not on this blogsite, we did the same for Bush the Younger.  It's easy to do, just say the same thing about anyone who gets elected.  It will always be true, because the System cannot be repaired from the inside, regardless of the intentions of the person/people involved, but we already covered that earlier this week.

It seems appropriate at this point to recall a sign my dad had on his desk in the Texas Senate: "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember your first thought was to drain the swamp."

One comment we have encountered frequently of late is that, "Donald Trump is the MOST divisive presidential candidate EVAH!"  We surmise that history is not one of these folk's strong points, since George C. Wallace was not all that long ago.  It should also be noted that he was a Democrat.

If we sound like we have a bit of glee in our voice, then you would be reading between the lines correctly.  We love moments like this, when a major chunk of the world's population is stunned into silence - and no one was killed.  A rare moment indeed.

To us Far Siders, huddled deep in the jungles of Borneo, the truly amazing thing was not just Trump's win, but that the Republicans got majorities in the House and Senate, and took a good number of gubernatorial posts, as well.  This wasn't just a vote against Hillary, this was a complete repudiation of the Democrats and their agenda from top to bottom.  The stale old red/blue map hardly has a blue smudge on it.  Even some of the traditional Dem strongholds went red.

This wasn't a win, or a landslide, it was a rout.  This was a good, old fashioned "throw the bastards out" kind of election.  It was Nixon in 1972, although the election map looks a lot like 2008, with a couple of key states turned red.  Clearly, the Klinton Kampaign was counting on a repeat of 2008/2012.

What they hadn't counted on was two things: 1) Scandal Fatigue - a newly defined psychotic state in which voters are just fed the hell up with business as usual, and 2) Ma and Pa Kettle getting exceedingly tired of being shat upon by the System.  It would seem that there is an upper limit to how much Politically Correct Brain-Bashing the general population will take, and gay marriage, queer toilets and gun confiscation look to be the lines in the sand.

So, going forward, what can we expect?  I'm going to lose some people here, but stick with me for a moment.

When so many people are stunned by the results...and I mean 9/11 kind of stunned, and memes like "miracle" and "divine intervention" start cropping up in diverse places, my spidey sense starts tingling.  Folks, at the risk of sounding like a true tin-foil kind cap character here, suppose the Trump victory were a real psy-op, one which Trump himself may or may not be aware of, and one for which the clues have been dropping like flies since at least the summer conventions.

First of all, by every standard metric, Hillary should have won the election.  It was in the bag.  What wasn't covered by normal historical voting habits was covered by extensive vote fraud.  God knows there are enough videos out there about ballot-box stuffing and computerized vote switching.  But all the cloak-and-dagger stuff surrounding WikiLeaks, Dr. Steve Pieczenik and murdered DNC IT hackers just smacks of a psy-op within a psy-op.

This Steve Pieczenik character really disturbs me.  As Robert, one of our long-time readers and mind-blowing correspondents so aptly put it, the deep state has a spokesman now.  His sudden appearance in the closing days of the election, bearing tidings of "soft" coup/counter-coup within the ranks of the US government just smacks of psy-op.

What I'm trying to sputter out here is that suppose the Trump win were a "miracle," with "divine intervention" behind it.  In other words, suppose some faction of the deep state counter-rigged the election to ensure a Trump victory.  In fact, suppose Trump's entire meteoric rise to political stardom and one of the first presidencies since the Revolutionary War days without ANY prior political experience was completely manufactured by some group in order to achieve some goal.

Let's imagine for a moment that Trump is completely unaware of all this.  Instinctively, I believe he is, or rather was until the last few days.  He probably actually thought he was achieving all this on his own volition, but at some level he must be thinking, "What the fuzz was that?"  For the moment, I have to assume he is ignorant because this scenario spins rapidly out of hand if I don't.

The scenario I have built in my head is that Hillary truly represented some nefarious faction that was truly mounting its final take-over of the US government.  This is not far-fetched, since I already believe that Hillary's private server(s) were purposely completely unprotected to give certain groups unfettered access to all the juicy information stored thereon.  I further believe that at least one of the groups given access were the bankster class, who used inside info to rig and hedge markets in their favor, and that Hillary's outrageous "speaking fees" were actually a relatively innocuous means of paying her a cut of the profits from such dealings.

Among the (apparently) many groups who had access to the Hillary Server would have been nearly every group of spooks with any technical savvy on the face of the Earth.  Though the American electorate and the US Congress weren't able to get access to her email, just about every other government on Earth had copies of the Hillary files.  This would have alarmed a significant number of folks in the deep state, both because of her cavalier handling of secrets, but also because of the who/why behind it.

Even before Hillary announced her candidacy, a rather foregone conclusion to anyone conscious, the revelations of her inside dealings began to leak out, with the New York Times picking up the story on 2 March 2015.  From there, the story snowballed, with investigations running in all directions.  However, when the FBI/DOJ openly colluded to clear Hillary of wrong-doing, the WikiLeaks started up, and Julian Assange has made it murkily clear that the leaks were coming from within the US intelligence community, of which there are 17 discrete agencies.

The DNC/Hillary cabal appear to have mistakenly thought that an IT staffer was behind all the email leaks, and rubbed him out.  This hit might have also been a warning to whomever else was involved that you better stop now.  Didn't work, obviously because the real leakers knew that the DNC/Hillary cabal were on the wrong track.

Regardless of why the staffer got waxed, the DNC/Hillary cabal thought they had shut it down.  Just to be sure, though, they had shut down the FBI investigation a few days before and had James Comey publicly announce, "That's all, folks!"  In effect, it was a big "move along folks, nothing to see here."

Well, that didn't kill the story, because several branch offices of the FBI and NYPD didn't stop their investigation.  They were sitting on a treasure trove of 600,000 email found on the laptop of Hillary's closest adviser's husband's laptop.  They had to shut that down too, so once again Comey was wheeled out to "reopen" the investigation, and then one week later shut it down again, with another more ephatic "MOVE ALONG!"

At exactly that moment, this character Steve Pieczenik popped up claiming to, in effect, be the spokesman for the deep state.  He proceeded to fire-bomb the internet with all kinds of wild inferences regarding the inner workings of the DNC/Hillary cabal.  At the same time, WikiLeaks let go of some of its juiciest tidbits, revealing the long-suspected child-sex ring that operates internationally at the highest levels of power (it's a means of ensuring loyalty among the elites).

Meanwhile, all the polls, and I mean the public and private ones, had Hillary winning.  She had done remarkable work installing her network of fraud in the election system and the polls were designed to carefully steer folks to assume that her win on election day was a foregone conclusion that everyone was aware of through voter sampling.  Hell, even the EXIT POLLS were wrong!  Hillary's cabal must have figured out something was up, though, because they cancelled the celebratory fireworks the day before the election.

For all intents and purposes, the election appears to have been rigged, but not in the way that everyone thought it would be.  The Soros-owned voting machines were carefully programmed to give the desired response, but in a show of technical bravado, the deep state had hacked the hack, and carefully seeded a Trump victory into the returns.

That's right, folks, it was an op within an op within an op.  The coup conspirators thought they had successfully pulled off yet another stolen election, only to find that the stolen election had been stolen.  Honestly, is it more plausible that the gods personally steered the election results, or that various factions within the deep state are at war and out-maneuvering each other in cyberspace?

You can see why I have to believe Trump is ignorant, or at least just now figuring this out, because the scenario gets really nasty really quickly once you start figuring in his complicity.  And it gets worse the farther back in time you assume he was actively involved.

What is really worrisome now is that Hillary's concession speech was too measured, too cool, too calm.  Someone who has spent 40 years carefully crafting her image and weaseling into the inner circles of power doesn't just quietly and calmly go into oblivion.  No, she has at least one solid back-up plan, and we ain't seen her end game yet.

My biggest question now is not whether or how it was done.  That much seems obvious to me, at least.  No, the Big Question is what exactly are the motives of the counter-coup faction(s)?

Yes folks, all the indications are that we have tumbled down a very deep rabbit hole and the slow war that has been brewing behind the scenes since at least the JFK assassination is finally spilling over into the daylight.  Whether you believe in conspiracies or not, you have to admit that divine intervention and miraculous victories are better explained as coup/counter-coup.

Reader Robert chose an even better, if a bit more arcane metaphor.  He selected the 1920 German film Das Cabinet des Doktor Caligari as his framework for understanding whatever just happened.  I must say I can't think of a better one.

Doc, we have a Code Blue!

The Great Horse Race

US Election 2016 has been a priceless sitcom of galactic proportions!

Who would have thought in May of last year that we'd such classic comedy skits as "Donald Trump's Penis Size," "High-Heeled Boyz," "Cruz Control," "Jeb's Misfire," "Bernie Loves Hillary," "Up In Smoke," and now "Klinton Karma?"  The entire spectacle has been like watching a Seinfeld highlight reel.

Did anyone else notice the scene of Hillary with the little girl outside Chelsea's apartment looked just like that scene from the classic movie Frankenstein, where the little girl offers a flower to the monster?  I can't make this stuff up.  Or has anyone else thought about the whole health thing as being a graceful out for Hillary once she realized that she couldn't beat Trump?  This should lead to hours of entertainment as the alt-left and alt-right square off on whose conspiracy is the correct one!

But now the serious finale is ready to air.  What happens if a candidate is incapacitated or dies at the last minute before election day?  It's a valid question, given that the top two contenders are septuagenarians and one is publicly falling apart.  This has never happened in the 227 years since the first presidential election, though a couple of presidents died shortly after taking office.

William Harrison died of (ahem) pneumonia a month after being sworn in.  Zachary Taylor got a little over a year on the job.  James Garfield barely made three months before being shot, while William McKinley got a year and a half before receiving the same fate.  Warren Harding got a couple of years before being poisoned by his wife for cheating, or was it a heart attack?  Barely a month into his fourth term, FDR died of a cerebral hemorrhage, just before attending the founding of the UN.

After being sworn in, there is a Constitutional process for replacing a president; however, until now no major party candidate this close to the election, nor president-elect has died.  Thus, such an event would set off a lot of hand-wringing and rancorous hysterics.  The US would be thrown into uncharted policy and procedure territory at a time when social and political upheaval are at historic highs.

At this point, less than two months before the general election, and after a rather acrimonious primary season, for one of the major party candidates to be eliminated would throw the nation into a tizzy.  Accusations would fly.  The affected party would panic trying to regain its posture and standing.  The public would split along lines of grief and elation.  The media would be salivating over the anticipated ratings and readership boost.  The sitting president would be sorely tempted to postpone or cancel the general election, which would cause even more anxiety.  In short, such an event would cause complete and utter chaos.

If the sudden loss were of a president-elect, there would still  likely be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but in this case, Congress would likely vote to follow the Constitutional line of replacement, with the new president (former vice president) selecting a new vice.  If the Electoral College has not yet met, it would fall to it to select the new president, fulfilling its original role, and if it couldn't get a majority, then the rules call for a secret vote in Congress.  There would still be howls of protest, but nothing like the sheer madness that would reign in the next few weeks.

In any event, these scenarios have suddenly become a real issue.  The once derided 'conspiracy theory' of Hillary Clinton's health has, like most 'conspiracy theories,' been borne out.  The question is now what the DNC will do about it, if anything, and how the American public will react either way.

From the elite point of view, is does't matter.  They really don't care who gets in the office, because they know that the problem is not who runs the system, but the system itself.  It is designed to perpetuate itself, and as long as people think they can reform it from within, there will never be changed.  The system is designed to take whatever energy and effort the people direct towards it and dissipate it.  That is what it does and that is why the elites always win, no matter who is elected.  Think of the Roman Catholic Church.  It has remained almost unchanged for 2,000 years because it is a self-perpetuating and self-healing system that survives whomever is made pope.

This is why I say Trump supporters are doomed to disappointment.  Clinton understands the system, and at a certain level, so do her supporters.  Trump and his followers, though, actually think they can change things by 'fixing' the system.  You see, no matter who wins, they are constrained by the rules of the system, which ensure that the outcome always perpetuates the system above all else.

There is nothing wrong with the system.  It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and it will continue to do it as long as it is intact.  The only way to reform the system is to utterly and completely destroy it and replace it with something else.  The problem is that there are likely not enough educated people left who could design a functioning system that would be any better than what already exists.

And so I retreat to my oft-cited position of being a political atheist.  I realize that the system cannot be fixed because it is not broken, insofar as the system is concerned.  I also know that no matter who is elected, the results will always be the same.

Instead, I sit back with a heavily dosed gin and tonic, lots of lime, and watch the antics.  It's a horse race.  Sure, I may win a few bux or lose a few, depending on the winner, but the horses still run in a circle.

War Among The Clouds

First, the Russians are invited by Syria to clean up the US mess.  Then the Panama Papers.  Then Deutsche Bank admits manipulating gold markets and threatens to spill the beans on its partners in crime.  Then a call to release classified 9/11 documents and the Saudis threaten to crash the US economy and expose even more conspirators in 9/11, even as the royals are going bust themselves.  Voterless elections in the US to ensure the Unchosen don't get too near the reins of power.  Meantime, the Russians are ramping up sub deployments, China sends fighter planes to it spiffy new islands, and the US prepares to dump a load of waterbots in the South China Sea.  Now, Brazil has impeached its president in what appears to be yet another attempt at "nation building" on the part of the bankster class.

By the way, ever wonder why so many folks are getting upset that CHINA is laying claim to a chunk of the South CHINA Sea?  It's got their name on it.

And let's not forget Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was framed for wanting to forgive third-world debt; Iceland, who jailed a bunch of bankers and then let them out again; the long list of mysterious banker deaths; and France, who has now indicted a Rothschild.

Does anyone else get the feeling that there is a war going on in the lofty regions of the global elite structure?

The thing is that most of what affects the vast majority of humans takes place far above in the cloudy realms of Mount Olympus.  Since the moment we mere humans submitted ourselves to "leaders" and "government," we have allowed ourselves to be impoverished, sent to our deaths, manipulated and lied to, and generally kept in the dark and fed shit.

Honestly, can you name anything a government has EVER done that benefited anyone but the highest shadows behind the public face of power?  I guarantee that anything you can list involved robbing one group at gunpoint to pay another, because governments can do nothing without taxes, and taxes are collected by the threat of grievous bodily harm and confiscation of property.

Higher still, though, are the folks who transcend governmental power.  They hold no allegiance to a nation.  They are subject to no laws.  They manipulate world affairs like a massive chess game.  And they keep their minions in check with a complex system of protection and threats.

When you really start looking at it, we are living in that Orwellian world where friends and enemies are interchangeable and based on some well-hidden agenda, of which we mere mortals are not allowed to be informed.  Today, we are at war with Eurasia and East Asia is our friend.  Tomorrow, we love Eurasia and are at war with East Asia.  That's the way it's always been and will always be.  Shut up and believe what you are told.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to figure out who to trust, and perhaps that is the point to all of this.  Humans being skittery and weak on the whole crave "authority" and control, so we feel that some part of our lives can be predictable and "safe."  It's as if we have been programmed, not just at the mental level, but at the cellular and even DNA level.  One begins to suspect that humanity was manufactured to be subordinate and deferential.  As Agent Kay so profoundly put it in Men in Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Every center of power, no matter how benign and enlightened it creators are, always devolves into tyranny.  Power and wealth (hardly separable) always corrupt.  There is no denying it and no excusing it.  We are born to serve someone and we do not seem to be complete without that force in our lives, since we keep inflicting it on ourselves.

In the end, when you take all of human history into a single tapestry, you can begin to discern some force guiding the strands, dictating the colors, manipulating the warp and woof.  Only it knows the final picture it wants and only it can load the shuttle.  The vast majority of humans dismiss its existence as "conspiracy theory" and the musings of disturbed minds, because the ramifications are too disturbing and too huge to contemplate.  We prefer to live with the comforting illusion that we control our destinies and, for the most part, have a say in our leadership.

If one thing positive can be said for Donald Trump, it is that he has touched the live wire of control.  He has exposed some aspects of the "Hidden Hand."  Because of him, "they" have shown us a few cards, but because of the massive campaign to silence Trump, most of us look past these remarkable achievements.

The take-away here is that there is a "they."  It does and has always existed throughout our history.  It is there in the shadows for those who overcome the programming enough to perceive it, though few seem ever to grasp the true nature of it.

To pull one more bit of wisdom from Men in Black, the character Zed sums up the situation brilliantly and succinctly with, "You'll dress only in attire specially sanctioned by MiB special services. You'll conform to the identity we give you, eat where we tell you, live where we tell you. From now on you'll have no identifying marks of any kind. You'll not stand out in any way. Your entire image is crafted to leave no lasting memory with anyone you encounter. You're a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don't exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. You're no longer part of the System. You're above the System. Over it. Beyond it. We're "them." We're "they." We are the Men in Black."

Oh sure, like all good comedy, it sugar-coats the truth to make it easier to swallow, but it is nonetheless still there.

"They" live, and "they" are pulling the strings of our lives.  All you need is a little perspective.

The Aluminum Beanie Club

As one might imagine, I am often accused of "believing in" and "promoting" conspiracy theories, a label of which I am quite proud, all the more so because the people using that term know absolutely nothing of what they are saying.

The term conspiracy theory, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, originated in 1909.  The full entry is here:

mid-14c., from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from conspirare (see conspire); earlier in same sense was conspiration (early 14c.), from French conspiration (13c.), from Latin conspirationem. An Old English word for it was facengecwis. As a term in law, from 1863. Conspiracy theory is from 1909.

Combined with the meaning of theory, I stand accused of investigating "conjectures of agreement."  To that, I plead guilty.  It is rather a badge of honor, really.  It means, with all clarity, that I engage in open-minded research into the origins and purposes of 'groups who agree.'  Why and how this term came to have such power over the minds of so many people is itself a conspiracy theory.

A recent experience with a friend of mine brought this issue back to my mind.  I had posted an article by Zero Hedge concerning some topic I've forgotten now.  This friend twisted off on me, saying that Zero Hedge was written by people using pseudonyms and spouting conspiracy theories.  I assume this was an attempt to discredit the source and myself.  I replied that Mark Twain used a pseudonym and Julius Caesar's assassination is a conspiracy theory, and both are taught in institutions of higher learning.  There was no reply.

The fact of the matter is that all groups who engage in unified action where outsiders can only speculate as to the reasons and methods behind said action is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.  In effect, everything the US Congress does leads to conspiracy theories, since no one seems to have a clue as to why they do what they do - quite possibly even the members themselves.

Arthur Schopenhauer famously observed that, "All truth passes through three phases.  First, it is ridiculed.  Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  This succinctly describes the evolution of conspiracy theories.

Case in point, another friend, who for many years has, at times ridiculed, and at other times angrily castigated me for stating that I left the mass media/news industry because it was full of 'spooks' (CIA operatives).  Recently, I shared an article offering proof that the CIA had, for many years, manipulated the arts and media as a means of engaging in psychological warfare.  This friend laughed it off saying that everyone knew that.  I just sat back in my chair and stared at the screen for a time.

A great many years ago, I and a lot of other people were going off about the use of black helicopters in domestic covert operations without public knowledge.  I had personally seen them and was rabidly trying to tell folks (this was back when I actually thought I could wake people up), but the resistance was formidable.

A dear friend of mine, who happens to be both a lawyer and a pilot, finally threw down the gauntlet and said he was going to talk to his buddy who "pushed tin" for a living.  His contention was that no aircraft, even military, could operate in the US without an N-number/tail number.

About a week later, I got an email from him - the tone was rather subdued - that yes, indeed, there were black helicopters operating within the US and that the N-numbers and other identifying meaks were painted on in infrared paint, so they could only be viewed with night-vision instruments.

Nowadays, everyone knows there are black helicopters.

It is so Orwellian that it spooks me sometimes.  Recall that Winston Smith made the point that Oceania had not always been at war with Eastasia, but that at some point in the past, had been at war with Eurasia, yet everyone among his associates didn't seem to remember that Oceania's mortal enemy changed over time.

So it is with conspiracy theories.  When one tries to discuss them in rational conversations as a means of understanding the motivations behind the news headlines, one is met with angry walls of disregard.  Yet, later when the "authorities" decide to acknowledge these conspiracies, suddenly people don't remember ever having been violently opposed to such "obvious" facts.

Keep in mind that the people I mention here are reasonably intelligent and educated.  They know how to formulate an argument and debate.  Yet, when it comes to things that are commonly labelled "conspiracy theories," their normal mental processes and educational backgrounds seemingly shut down.  Their natural curiosity and inquisitiveness appears to short-circuit and they react, not with reason, but with emotion.

It's rather scary, really.

In the scientific method, one speculates that two events are related by some unknown cause and effect.  The method then proceeds to hypothesis, where a specific set of circumstances creates the supposed relationship.  The hypothesis is tested to establish whether the two events can be recreated using the surmised circumstances. Eventually, the theory is dismissed or accepted, and if accepted, may proceed to the tautology stage.

In all things, even with tautologies, we must be careful and mentally rigorous.  As the physician William James rightly noted, "If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, it is enough if you prove that one single crow is white."

It is important for both sides of the conspiracy theory argument to keep in mind that established beliefs can be upset with a single fact, and we mustn't close our minds to new information if we truly seek truth.  On the other side, we mustn't be so willing to dismiss accepted information that we overlook the obvious.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is too broad and meaningless to be useful in most things.  It is so glib and generalized that it tempts even developed minds to dismiss new information because it seems too fantastic or falls outside our realm of acceptable reality.  The intelligent person must purge themselves of this installed trip wire in order to maintain an open mind.

On the other hand, those who investigate such things must not be too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  In the immortal words of Sigmund Freud, "A cigar is sometimes just a cigar."  In the rush to ascribe nefarious motives to everything in our socio-political world can be a dangerous road, as well.

Many of us are too busy or intellectually slack to follow up the seemingly steady stream of messages coming to us from both sides.  One side wants us to dismiss everything and fall in line with the Standard Model of Life, the Universe and Everything.  The other side wants us to toss it all in favor of a seething, roiling darkness to be found under every stone turned.  Both extremes are most likely wrong, and somewhere in the middle is the correct path - the Golden Mean.

Conspiracy theories do present an opportunity for the intellectually curious, though.  Since so many people dismiss these types of things out of hand, one can add significantly to the conversation, even on a hobbyist basis.  The amateur sleuth can provide valuable information to support or refute conspiracy claims by just using time constructively, rather than turning on the teevee, and so so without emotional outbursts and paranoid rantings.

It is important to distinguish between "believing," "thinking" and "knowing.".  To believe in a conspiracy means that one is acting on faith without proof.  To think a conspiracy exists is to admit a preponderance of evidence.  To know something is to be in possession of clear evidence in fact.

Make it a game.  The next time you hear or read something that you want to file under 'conspiracy theory,' instead make a note to go look it up and put a little time into understanding the reference.  This little game has the potential to completely change your view of the world - your weltanschauung.

But perhaps that is why people are afraid of conspiracy theories.

Flat Earth For Flat Heads

I regularly receive clusters of emails from readers either promoting the Flat Earth Theory, or asking my thoughts on it.  A quick search of YouTube and other sites reveals a vast amount of work attempting to convince folks that the Earth is really flat, and that we have all been deceived for thousands (yes, thousands) of years.

The Round Earth Theory begins with the Greeks in 600BC, when they speculated that the Earth was round as a philosophical maxim to preserve the Grand Perfection of the Universe.  Later, a fellow by the name of Eritosthenes in the first century BC.

Eristosthenes noticed that sunlight shining down water wells in Greece and Egypt at the same time on the same day had different incident angles.  Using the angles he derived from these observations, he was able to determine that the Earth was a sphere of 250,000 stades, which happens to be about precisely 10% too large.  Turns out he was fooled by the Egyptian government (naturally) which added 10% to its measurements of land for tax purposes.

Other Greeks, such as Claudius Ptolemy, not only determined the the Earth was round, but that it orbited the Sun.  Yes, the heliocentric theory far and away predates Copernicus.  The Greeks weren't Jews or Christians back then, so they didn't have a theological imperative to have the Universe revolve around the Earth.

The Round Earth Theory was further proved by Galileo Galilei and his infamous telescope.  He watched several moons orbit an obviously round Jupiter, and that Mercury and Venus had phases like the Moon, meanings they were spheres orbiting inside the Earth's orbit, while the other planets did not have crescent phases, meaning they were outside the Earth's orbit.

Magellan, who was the first documented person to circumnavigate the globe in the early 1500s, put the final cap on the argument.  Setting out from Europe heading west and returning from the east. Furthermore, there were a whole host of constellations (not to mention the Magellanic Clouds) that couldn't be seen from the northern hemisphere.

There was little doubt after that, though photos of Earth from space, obtained for the first time in the 20th century, proved beyond doubt that our planet was round.  These photos view Earth from every position in the Solar System between the orbits of Mercury and Saturn.

Despite this long history of proofs, the Flat Earth Theory re-emerged in modern times in the 1800s, and has had several incarnations and reboots since then.  These groups re-interpret, or more commonly, misinterpret scientific data to prove that the Earth is flat.  The more extreme versions of the theory propose a vast conspiracy to make people think the world is round, though I have yet to find a viable reason why this would be important.  While I am open-minded about such things, I prefer a bit more compelling evidence to take them seriously.

Like all things that deny reality, the Flat Earth Theory is rather easy to disprove, and the proof is rather pragmatic, as well.

Modern microwave communications quite easily disproves a flat Earth.  Microwave technology is Line of Sight (LOS), meaning that the transmitter and receiver must be at the same levels or the signal will miss the target.  On a flat surface, a microwave signal at wattages used in video transmissions - such as live news feeds - can travel quite a few miles and remain coherent.

On the curved surface of the Earth, the beam will eventually intersect the ground level if the receiver is more than 5 miles away. Microwave LOS transmitters therefore use tall towers spaced at regular intervals, called repeaters, to take the signal and resend it to the next tower.  If you look closely at these towers, you will notice white vertical boxes mounted facing in various directions.  Those are the transmitters.  The round objects, usually with a conical cover on them, are the receivers.  If you were to climb the tower with a pair of binoculars and stand behind any one of them (not recommended for health reasons), you would see about half of the next tower above the horizon with the paired transmitter or receiver facing directly at you.

In none of the videos I have watched on Flat Earth have I seen this very simple test mentioned, probably because it is rather hard to refute.  LOS is LOS, and on a curved surface, the line will eventually intersect with the ground.  Believe me, if communications companies could spend a lot less on those towers, they would.  Grand conspiracies crumble in the face of economics and profits.

Having spent a significant part of my life aligning, bouncing and aiming microwave transmitters, I can attest that the world is round.  I accept that some footage of Earth from the Moon missions may have been faked for a number of good reasons, but a flat Earth is definitely not one of them.

One has to wonder why such theories get promulgated so easily.  I can envision a conspiracy to promote these kinds of things to create an air of lunacy around the whole area of inquiry.  The point of this exercise, though, is to highlight the fact that often nonsensical theories like this are promoted in order to discredit the whole category of alternative inquiry.  People will usually not persist in things that will get them ridiculed.  However, discoveries are frequently made by people who step beyond the boundaries of accepted knowledge, and all it takes, really, is a willingness to change your perspective.  Many of the household names today were crackpots in their own time.  No one is laughing now.

By the way, if you are not sure that men landed on the Moon, then look no further than the dust kicked up by the Lunar Rovers.  Yes, they really landed on the Moon.  The big question is, who exactly were the men who went there?

UPDATE: Top 10 Greatest Conspiracy Films Of All Time

At long last, we revive our ever-so-popular Top 10 Films lists.  Being a film maker and well-versed in film history (and real history for that matter), we can't resist the opportunity to list the biggest conspiracy flicks ever committed to acetate (celluloid went out decades ago silly), and that we really like too.

Some of these selections are completely fictitious, yet they bear an uncanny resemblance to real history that happened subsequent to the film's release.  Some are fictionalized versions of real conspiracies that folks are afraid to talk about in real life.  And some are just plain true and have been well known for centuries, if not millennia.

We note that the word 'conspiracy' comes from the Latin con spirare, which simply means "to breathe together'.  Thus, anytime two or more people come together for a single purpose, it is a conspiracy.  'Theory' just means that it's an educated guess based on the facts at hand, but that has yet to be proved.  When you dissect the term 'conspiracy theory', you find that a lot of people and organizations put forth conspiracy theories, including governments, and as you watch these great flicks, you'll notice that government figures prominently in many (if not all) the great conspiracies of history.

So strap yourself in, get out your tin foil hat, and warm up the Netflix.  Here comes 20 hours of pure conspiracy that will leave you so paranoid that Edward Snowden won't even get you up any more.

Yes, Virginia, there really are conspiracies.  After all, if there weren't, why would criminal conspiracy be against the law in most civilized nations?

========================================================================

Conspiracy Theory (1997)- We lead off with the conspiracy film to end all conspiracy films, and the one that answers the question, "What in the hell happened to Mel?"  Richard Donner plays god to Mel Gibson in the story of a man driven to madness by the certain knowledge that government is creeping into every corner of our lives.  And guess what?  He's right - not only in the film, but everything the character spews breathlessly trying to get people to see has become common knowledge now.  It's one of the things we love about conspiracy theories - they are usually true in most respects - but no one remembers that it was loonies like Mel that told us about it.

Body Double (1984)- This is a quirky and really fun flick, if for no other reason than to see Melanie Griffith nude!  Brian de Palma, that wizard of weird, brings us a convoluted tale with dozens of plot twists that keep your brain spinning as you try to keep up with who is the bad guy and who's the good.  Even at the end, it's not really clear in the cloud of moral ambiguity.  And did we mention Melanie naked?

Executive Action (1974)- Before Oliver Stone had even graduated film school, there was a definitive film exploring who killed JFK.  Master tale-teller Dalton Trumbo (Papillon) explores the complex conspiracy behind one of the most shocking events in modern history.  A complex consortium of business, military and social interests come together to rid themselves of one of the most radical presidents since Lincoln.  Burt Lancaster and Will Geer head up a fine cast of cold, calculating individuals who order the death of presidents for breakfast.

The China Syndrome (1979)- Before Fukushima, everyone thought that run-away meltdowns would go from west to east.  We've since found out that this should have been called the New York syndrome.  James Bridges inhabits the God chair and bullies Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon into some fine performances as they race to make the world aware of the coming catastrophe.  When we watch this one, we wonder why reporters like these don't really exist.  You'da thunk when this movie came true three years ago, someone would tell us.  It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

The Stuntman (1980)- This is one of those rare films that shouldn't be good, but it is.  Richard Rush is the deity on the set and Peter O'Toole is the deity on screen, turning in a masterful and nuanced performance that is frequently overlooked.  The story is a complex web of overlapping conspiracies that leave the audience breathless at the end and wondering if anything really got resolved.  After all, in Hollywood, nothing is what it appears to be.

All the President's Men (1976)- This was the defining conspiracy of the 1970s, and it brought down an American president and his entire administration.  It also launched the career of Hilary Rodham Clinton, who's a walking conspiracy in and of herself.  Allen J. Pakula plays God to Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, who are playing ace reporters Woodward and Bernstein, and who haven't done a damn thing since Watergate, which is yet another conspiracy.  It's a great story and the style of this film is obviously the inspiration for JFK, complete with shadowy "Deep Throat" feeding all the right information at all the right times - a conspiracy that has yet to be unveiled.

Capricorn One (1974)- If you believe the Moon landings were faked, this movie will thrill you.  If you don't believe it, then this film may change your mind.  Peter Hyams writes and lords it over the set, with Eliot Gould playing (yet another) intrepid reporter who's on to the big story, but it's so BIG and there are so many folks trying to kill him that he's having a bit of trouble getting the word out.  Granted, this flick is about a Mars trip, but one look at the spacecraft, suits, etc., tell you this is a thinly veiled tale about Kubrick, Disney, NASA, and the trip to the Moon.

Z (1969)- Americans tend to think they invented conspiracy theories, and that all the mayhem in the 60s was their exclusive domain.  Costa-Gavras mounts the God chair to tell us differently.  This based-on-a-true-story is a French telling of events in Greece in the 60s, with political assassinations, cover-ups, plots, and intrigue.  Most Americans don't know this film, which is fine.  Keeps copies in stock for us film afficionados.  However, for those brave souls who know that films are made in the rest of the world, too, this makes a fine double feature with JFK, so you get a little broader picture of how the world was back then.

The Third Man (1949)- It's a toss-up as to whether this film should be #1.  This is a great film in every way.  Story by Graham Greene, Carol Reed in the God chair, Orson Wells and Joseph Cotton chasing around on set, some great lines, and a soundtrack that sparked a craze for zither music back when, how can you miss?!  This is film noir at it's moody best, with conspiracies run amok in post-war Vienna, and three victorious governments all competing for who gets to take credit for crime busting.  In fact, the bureaucratic mess that runs through the whole story is a whole conspiracy in itself, before we toss black markets and war profiteering into the fire.  A great film on any list, but right at the top of this one.

Julius Caesar (1953)- Let's see: greatest conspiracy in Western history, written by William Shakespeare, lorded over by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, starring Marlon Brando, James Mason, John Geilgud, Greer Garson, and enough quality acting to fill four films - and you wonder why this tops the list?  Imagine the Senate getting together to plot the death of not only a president, but a living god, by thrusting knives into his all too human flesh, which spawns one of the most famous questions in all history, gives us the name for an entire month and makes the Ides of March a cultural singularity.  This is the definitive film version, which is why Olivier, Brannaugh and Gibson never attempted to tackle it again.  This is the conspiracy that gave birth to a thousand conspiracies!

Honorable Mention: With so many good conspiracies out there, it's hard to make a list of just 10.  We have to throw Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much somewhere in this list.  Both versions (Hitch liked it so much he made the film twice).  The first one has Peter Lorre at his nasally best, while the second has Jimmy Steward sputtering and Doris Day chirping.  If you want a fun triple-header for a lazy Saturday afternoon, Netflix these two with Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn in the comedic send-up, called Foul Play.

So there you have it.  If we added something you don't like, or forgot something you think should have been here, just remember how much you paid for this list.  These are the flicks that have entertained us for decades, and stay fresh even after dozens of viewings.  Like good books, you wear out copy after copy over the years.  Thank God for MPEG4!

Happy Viewing and hope to catch you lurking around this site again some time soon.

Sampai jumpa!
==========================================
Reading our list inspired long-time LFS fan Robert to pipe up with his own list.  Of course, we couldn't agree more with his choices, with the exception of Minority Report, just because we hate Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise - double whammy.  Have a look:

Hello Bernard:
When you talk about media I stop still and listen carefully. As a media observer myself, your post on conspiracy movies inspired some thought, so I check my collection of DVDs. For the most part your list of best conspiracy films corresponds to mine with a few exception and additions.
1.) "Seven Days in May." Military coup d'etat frighteningly prescient for Obammy times since he has fired over two hundreds command level officers in some kind of unexplained purge.
2.) "Conspiracy Theory." Loved that movie. I was a victim of microwave experiments in the Army in 1958.
3.) "Manchurian Candidate." Both new and  old versions are good. Both Meryl Streep and Angela Lansbury's character as Mrs. Shaw was extraordinary. The mind controlled operative, Raymond Shaw, used to take down a government makes me think of all the drug-induced mass shootings these days that invoke more and more social controls.
4.) "The Island." An updated clone of "The Clonus Horror" (1979) where it's the politicians that want immortality via a top-secret cloning conspiracy to harvest body parts for themselves.
6.) "Executive Action." In my mind the JFK assassination is the first coup d'tat. Baby Bush's selection the 2nd, and the results of 9/11 the final.
7.) "Enemy of the State." A real foreshadowing of the NSA, DHS, and NDAA goons out of control takeover.
8.) "Three Days of the Condor." A secret CIA within the CIA manipulating sovereign countries around the world for exploitation.
9.) "Minority Report." Pre-crime, facial and cornea recognition, robotic transportation systems, drones of all sorts are getting truer all the time. This is about using scape goats in a future society to support a corrupt system. Nothing new here. I sure like Max von Sydow a lot more in the old Bergman films.
10.) "The Matrix." A great metaphor for waking up.
11.) "The Third Man." Wartime black-marketer Harry Lime (Orson Wells)  amid footage of bombed out post war Vienna. It begins at a funeral and ends at a second funeral for the same person. Full circle.
There are more as genres criss-cross, but, for me, these films are my favorite ones with messages about conspiracy.

 

Most Likely Kill You In The Morning

Few people stop to think just who conspiracy theories are really serving.  Those folks who do bother to think about conspiracy theories (CTs) at all generally come down on the side that whatever has been condemned as a CT is the thing the Powers That Cower (PTC) don't want you to believe.  In fact, most CTs are purposely planted forbidden fruit used to get most folks from looking at certain information, and those that do to be lost chasing their tails and doing the work of the PTC.

One great example is the "One World Currency" (OWC) theory.  This one has prophecy, religion, economics, and fear all rolled up in a tight little ball, and practically no one sees the obvious: we are being manipulated into hating the one thing that could save us.

Let's look at the elements first.  At the top of the list is 'currency'.  A currency is nothing more than some object, commodity or symbol-laden piece of paper to which everyone gives a value.  All a currency allows me to do is conduct business without barter.  In other words, I can make and sell shoes to the candlestick maker without having to take candles in exchange.  He can give me come currency that I can use to buy things I need, including some candles if necessary.  If the currency is accepted in foreign countries, then I have an international currency that expands my options to buy and sell things.

In this regard, the US dollar, gold and silver, and increasingly the renmimbi are global currencies.  Gold has been for thousands of years and is accepted by most people everywhere.  It's perfect as a currency: practically indestructible, doesn't corrode, weighs the same everywhere, and has a reasonably limited supply.  But it is heavy, and so paper currencies came into being, of which the US dollar is the all-time champion of magic paper.

Now you throw in some prophesy.  Let's see...how about the Revelation of St. John?  You tell everyone for a century or two that the "mark of the beast" means a one-world currency.  This immediately gets all the Bible thumpers on your side fighting the one-world currency.  None of them ever stop to think that gold has been a world currency for thousands of years. This gets so ingrained in the culture that even the not-so-religious start thinking one-world currency is bad.  It's not the only example, but it's a prime one.

Now, you're an international bankster.  You are completely useless to society.  You produce nothing and provide no real service that people really need.  All you do is find creative ways to insert yourself into the middle of every commercial transaction and take money for it.  Sweet gig if you can get it.

One of your biggest and oldest scams that has reaped millions in cash for doing nothing is foreign exchange, or 'forex'.  You've been at it for years.  You had all the Jews exchanging money for sacrifical animals at the Temple and taking a profit for no real product or service.  It was so bad that even Jesus lost his temper and started whipping the lot of you.

Now, does it serve your purposes to have a one-world currency, or as many different ones as possible?  If there's a single global currency (gold for instance), how would you collect your fees for exchanging money, when there is no need for exchange?  If this wasn't such a lucrative business, then why are there 75 exchange booths at the international gates of any airport?

To play the game, you first start spreading your 'custom' interpretation of the Bible prophesy to get everyone all on alert against one-world currencies.  Then you get central banks installed in as many countries as possible and start pulling gold out of circulation and replace it with magic paper.  You call gold "the yellow dog" and ridicule those who buy and/or horde it.  You beat down the price to make folks think it's pretty worthless as currency.

Finally, you start playing with the relative values of all the different currencies so that you are not only taking profits from exchanging currencies every time someone crosses a border, but you are using the differential exchange rates as a means of cashing in, as well.  Thus, you throw all your money into the euro and the relative price starts to climb.  When you hit your targe value, to turn it back into dollars (or whatever) and pocket the difference.

One-world currency is the last thing international bankers want, and they have played with our perceptions and beliefs for a century or more to ensure that you reject the one-world currency idea that would literally break their backs by ending one of their oldest and richest scams.

It's all a huge rip-off and the whole 'conspiracy theory' was manufactured to keep us sheep from looking at the truth.  After all, if the banksters could get us to actively fight against the one thing that coudl really harm them, then think of all the time and effort we would save them!

It's all kinda like the Dread Pirate Roberts scam in The Princess Bride:

Well, Roberts had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. So he took me to his cabin and told me his secret: "I am not the Dread Pirate Roberts," he said. "My name is Ryan. I inherited this ship from the previous Dread Pirate Roberts, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from was not the real Dread Pirate Roberts, either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Patagonia." Then he explained the name was the important thing for inspiring the necessary fear. You see, no one would surrender to the Dread Pirate Westley. So we sailed ashore, took on an entirely new crew and he stayed aboard for awhile as first mate, all the time calling me Roberts. Once the crew believed, he left the ship and I have been Roberts ever since. Except, now that we're together, I shall retire and hand the name over to someone else. Is everything clear to you?

And that's how the game is played.

A Theory Of Conspiracies

The nature of intellectual inquiry is to observe physical phenomena, formulate an hypothesis as to cause and effect, set up experiments that control as many variables as possible to test the hypothesis, then put forth an theory that attempts to explain the phenomenon.  At every step, the tests are falsifiable, so that a positive result of the process gives us fair assurance that what we believe we see is indeed true.

The reason for this system to have been developed is because our senses can be fooled.  Any magician will attest to that fact.  Also, just because we observe two things to be in close proximity does not mean they are related by cause and effect.  Seeing the same two people in an elevator on a regular basis does not mean that one followed the other.  It may be a coincidence.

At this point, let's define some terms.

A conspiracy is two or more people acting together to create a certain outcome.  In recent years, it has taken on nefarious connotations and implies some kind of evil or illegal intent, but the pure meaning of the word is simply, "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result."  In fact, the word is derived from two Latin words, con meaning 'wtih' and spirare meaning 'breathe'.  In other words, it means 'to breathe together'.

A theory is the result of testing an idea.  We suspect that the two people we regularly see together in the elevator are related somehow.  We observe their behavior over time and notice that they appear together nearly every day at the same time, getting on and off the elevator together at the same floor, both wearing ID cards for the same company, and theorize that they work together and have a common interest, such as coffee break, that brings them together at the same time.  The theory is still falsifiable, as we still know nothing of their relationship other than objective observation.  But it does give us something to go on.

We can continue to collect observations, such as seeing them sitting together at the coffee bar, arriving at or leaving work together, etc., that continue to confirm or deny our theory.  Under the rigors of logic, if we can falsify any part of our theory, we must throw the whole thing out and start over.

Using our model of the two people on the elevator, we now have a conspiracy theory.  These two people are associated in a certain context and we have reason to believe they have a common purpose.  As we continue to observe them, we either add evidence to our theory of falsify it.

This is a very simple example, but it serves to clarify things a bit.  In the real world, there are a lot more variables and actors involved.  Of course, the larger the proposed conspiracy, the greater the burden of proof becomes.  After all, the Big Bang and Relativity are still theories after a century of investigation, since the number of variables to test are a bit daunting.

By the same token, the JFK assassination involves several competing conspiracy theories.  Most agree that there is overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy (two or more people acting together); however, the actors involved gets a bit murkier with lines of evidence pointing in multiple directions.  This does not falsify the conspiracy theory, only set up multiple lines for investigation.

The theory of relativity implies a great many related phenomena and each must be researched and tested as part of the whole.  If the theory is dependent on certain phenomena, then falsifying any one of them negates the entire theory.  If, however, something is only a corellary, then falsifying that one thing does not collapse the whole.

In the JFK matter, some corollaries have been falsified, but the overall theory of a conspiracy has only strengthened over time.

To prove a conspiracy, we only need to prove that two or more people have been involved.  The banking system, 9/11, 7/7, and many other phenomena have very obviously been shown to be conspiracies.  By their very nature, they involve multiple actors working together in common cause to create the phenomenon.  For this reason alone, it does not matter who puts forth the theory, it is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'.

A theory does not depend on who originates it,  Whether from a government agency or private individual, a theory is, by its nature, testable by objective means.  The Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission both put forth theories.  The first denied a conspiracy, which has been falsified by testing.  The second put forth a conspiracy that has failed upon further investigation.  In both cases, the failure of the dominant theory has left a vacuum for other researchers to fill, and they have in copious numbers.

The problem arises when a dominant theory is falsified.  If Einstein's relativity theory were to be falsified, then it would leave a huge gap in modern theoretical understanding of the Universe.  New theories would have to be examined and a replacement found that would provide new ground for investigation.

A conspiracy theory is not wrong or subversive on its face.  No one denies that Julius Caesar was killed by a conspiracy of senators, including his best friend and confidant Brutus.  To be sure, at the time that conspiracy theory was just as outrageous as some competing theories of the JFK assassination and 9/11 events are today.  However, time has proved it out.

'Authorities' have, in recent years, tried to discredit theories by labeling them 'conspiracy theories'.  They have attempted to smear independent researchers and investigators by labeling them as such.  Furthermore, they use the term to inhibit independent investigation into those events they do not want exposed.

Galileo offered proof that not all objects in the Universe orbit the Earth.  Copernicus resurrected the heliocentric theory.  Both men were soundly denounced by 'authorities' who did not want reality upsetting their apple carts.  By definition, these 'authorities' were conspiracies acting to limit knowledge and truth, and to prevent the undermining of their privileged positions.

We may conclude, then, that 'authorities' who act to squelch independent investigation and theories are themselves involved in conspiracies.  The scale of the collusion does not negate the fact.  When multiple individuals point the finger of accusation at 'conspiracy theories' because the truth would undermine their 'authority', then they are, by definition, conspirators attempting to limit free and open discourse.  Ipso facto, they negate their own 'authority' on the matter.

I propose that any topic which the 'authorities' attempt to hide by calling it a 'conspiracy theory' should make us pay more attention, not less.  Whenever a group, especially those in positions of 'authority', work so hard to discredit open inquiry into certain events, then that is evidence of a conspiracy, not only to cause something to happen, but to hide the truth.

We should then consider it a badge of honor to be accused by 'authorities' of being 'conspiracy theorists'.  The label alone means that we have touched upon some truth that causes them fear, and the fear stems from a feeling of guilt on some level.

So much of what we take for granted now started as a 'conspiracy theory'.  Massive banking fraud, black helicopters, false flag terrorism, and any of a dozen other topics were once relegated by 'authorities' to fringe elements and tin-foil-hat theorists.  Even such things as a heliocentric solar system and moons orbiting other planets were once dangerous ideas, but dangerous only because the truth upset the apple cart of the powers that were.

Truth is not always pretty, but that does not make it any less true.  Labels aside, the quest for truth is a vital and necessary part of our advancement as a species.  Every dark age in history has been caused by a conspiracy of authority to hide truth.  If we allow authority to stop free and open inquiry into truth, then we are dooming ourselves to yet another century or two of darkness and regression.

It is time to redefine 'conspiracy theorist' as one who is at the forefront of saving humanity!