Editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy!
April 19, 2009
Zahir Ebrahim
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.” -- Columbia Encyclopedia
Ah – but what if the “criminals” were to write the laws and the statutes themselves? Then, the conniving and conspiring isn't legally defined as a crime, nor the “criminals” called criminals. In fact, most are called bankers (emperors previously), and their instruments today, foundations (fleets previously)! Isn't that just peachy?
If only Al Capone, “an Italian-American gangster who led a crime syndicate dedicated to smuggling and bootlegging of liquor and other illegal activities during the Prohibition Era of the 1920s and 1930s” (Wikipedia), had learnt that sooner.
A very learned man defined this conspiratorial state of affairs way back in antiquity, around 410 AD, very succinctly as follows:
- “When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.'” -- Augustine of Hippo, in The City of God against the Pagans, page 148
And a much simpler man in far more convoluted times also rather straightforwardly expounded upon the same matters because the plebeians du jour weren't quite willing to accept any oligarchic emperorship directly, legal or not. Divine sanction for rulers had been eliminated in the West since the Renaissance, and new conquerors had to play along with plebeian norms because “Nowadays 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.” (Mein Kampf). Thus, more complex scheming by the wolves seeking world emperorship had to be orchestrated upon the sheepish “crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”
And so, in 1971 AD, he observed:
- “Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the "hidden picture" within another picture in a children's magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: "Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?" Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once we see the "real picture," it stands out like the proverbial painful digit.
We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the "hidden picture" in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along. Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can't quite put their fingers on it.
Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren't sure what. We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the world-wide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the fires of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong. Yet, despite high hopes and glittering campaign promises, these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.
FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation's well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove that we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.
Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the "conspiracy theory of history." Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history -except those who have taken the time to study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the "accidental theory of history" preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department "stumble" from one Communist-aiding "blunder" to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an "intellectual" who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook!
Why is it that virtually all "reputable" scholars and mass media columnists and commentators reject the cause and effect or conspiratorial theory of history? Primarily, most scholars follow the crowd in the academic world just as most women follow fashions. To buck the tide means social and professional ostracism. The same is true of the mass media. While professors and pontificators profess to be tolerant and broadminded, in practice it's strictly a one way street-with all traffic flowing left. A Maoist can be tolerated by Liberals of Ivory Towerland or by the Establishment's media pundits, but to be a conservative, and a conservative who propounds a conspiratorial view, is absolutely verboten. Better you should be a drunk at a national WCTU convention!
Secondly, these people have over the years acquired a strong vested emotional interest in their own errors. Their intellects and egos are totally committed to the accidental theory. Most people are highly reluctant to admit that they have been conned or have shown poor judgment. To inspect the evidence of the existence of a conspiracy guiding our political destiny from behind the scenes would force many of these people to repudiate a lifetime of accumulated opinions. It takes a person with strong character indeed to face the facts and admit he has been wrong even if it was because he was uninformed.
Such was the case with the author of this book. It was only because he set out to prove the conservative anti-Communists wrong that he happened to end up writing this book. His initial reaction to the conservative point of view was one of suspicion and hostility; and it was only after many months of intensive research that he had to admit that he had been "conned."
Politicians and "intellectuals" are attracted to the concept that events are propelled by some mysterious tide of history or happen by accident. By this reasoning they hope to escape the blame when things go wrong.
Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can't be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn't work, these "objective" scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.
However, the most effective weapons used against the conspiratorial theory of history are ridicule and satire. These extremely potent weapons can be cleverly used to avoid any honest attempt at refuting the facts. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of. Rather than be ridiculed most people will keep quiet; and, this subject certainly does lend itself to ridicule and satire. One technique which can be used is to expand the conspiracy to the extent it becomes absurd. For instance, our man from the Halls of Poison Ivy might say in a scoffingly arrogant tone, "I suppose you believe every liberal professor gets a telegram each morning from conspiracy headquarters containing his orders for the day's brainwashing of his students?"
Some conspiratorialists do indeed overdraw the picture by expanding the conspiracy (from the small clique which it is) to include every local knee-jerk liberal activist and government bureaucrat. Or, because of racial or religious bigotry, they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally "Jewish," "Catholic," or "Masonic." These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspiratorialists are screwballs.
"Intellectuals" are fond of mouthing clichés like "The conspiracy theory is often tempting. However, it is overly simplistic." To ascribe absolutely everything that happens to the machinations of a small group of power hungry conspirators is overly simplistic. But, in our opinion nothing is more simplistic than doggedly holding onto the accidental view of major world events.
In most cases Liberals simply accuse all those who discuss the conspiracy of being paranoid. "Ah, you right wingers," they say, "rustling every bush, kicking over every rock, looking for imaginary boogeymen." Then comes the coup de grace-labeling the conspiratorial theory as the "devil theory of history." The Liberals love that one. Even though it is an empty phrase, it sounds so sophisticated!
With the leaders of the academic and communications world assuming this sneering attitude towards the conspiratorial (or cause and effect) theory of history, it is not surprising that millions of innocent and well-meaning people, in a natural desire not to appear naive, assume the attitudes and repeat the clichés of the opinion makers.
These persons, in their attempt to appear sophisticated, assume their mentors' air of smug superiority even though they themselves have not spent five minutes in study on the subject of international conspiracy.” -- Chapter 1
And are you among them? Are you like those who say: “Don't confuse us with facts; our minds are made up,”? If so, Gary Allen had you in mind when he wrote the preceding brilliant passages in None Dare Call it Conspiracy.
The poor fellow had searched in vain then, in 1971, “scouring the length and breadth of America in search of hundreds of thousands of intellectually honest men and women who are willing to investigate facts and come to logical conclusions-no matter how unpleasant those conclusions may be”, just like the “philosopher Diogenes scoured the length and breadth of ancient Greece searching for an honest man”.
I too seek, but surely not in vain, many a million honest plebeians worldwide who would overturn this fait accompli, by no longer claiming as their opiatic excuses, “hope”, “god is running the world - so how can I challenge its mighty plan”, etceteras. The faces of the same earthly devils revealed by Carroll Quigley in 1966 and expanded upon by Gary Allen in 1971 – who echoed W. Cleon Skousen before him (1970), and presaged Eustace Mullins after him (1985) – all laughing their way to their banks as you go hungry and homeless, have become plainly manifest to all and sundry in 2009!
Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy to take over the world!
Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy more pre-ponderous a prime-mover for all crimes against humanity in the past 250 years than Alexander to Hitler combined.
Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy in which the conspirators “have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business, ... provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and ... do it globally.”
Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy which could yet be busted in a fair court of law because some laws and statutes against “criminal syndicalism” still remain on the dusty old Constitutional and Criminal Law books which have escaped co-option. Eustace Mullins argued in 1985 that the following legalism could be used to hamper and decommission the prime-instruments of the conspirators in the United States and throughout the world:
- “Despite its present hegemony, the World Order of parasitism realizes that it is always subject to being dislodged, which, in effect, would mean its destruction. Therefore, it is necessary to control not only the channels of communication of the host, but his very thought processes as well; to maintain constant vigilance that the host does not develop any concept of the danger of his situation, or any power to throw off the parasite. Therefore, the parasite carefully instructs the host that he exists only because of the “benign” presence of the parasite – that he owes everything to the presence of the parasite, his religion, his social order, his monetary system, and his educational system. The parasite deliberately inculcates in the host the fear that if the parasite happens to be dislodged, the host will lose all these things, and be left with nothing.
Although the World Order has control of the legal system and the courts, it remains vulnerable to any enforcement of the pre-existing body of law which the host had formulated to protect his society. This body of law forbids everything that the parasite is doing, and forces the parasite to maintain a precarious existence outside of the law. It the law were to be enforced at any time, the parasite would be dislodged. The existing body of law clearly forbids the operation of criminal syndicates, which is precisely what the hegemony of parasitism and its World Order is. Criminal syndicalism denies the equal protection of the law to citizens. Only by acting against criminal syndicalism can the state protect its citizens.
Corpus Juris Secundum 16: Constitutional Law 213 (10) states : “The Constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech does not include the right to advocate, or conspire to effect, the violent destruction or overthrow of the government or the criminal destruction of property. 214 : The Constitutional guaranty of the right of assembly was never intended as a license for illegality or invitation for fraud – the right of freedom of assembly may be abused by using assembly to incite violence and crime, and the people through their legislatures may protect themselves against the abuse.”
The assembly of any World Order organization, such as the Council on Foreign Relations or any foundation, is subject to the laws against fraud (their charters claim they are engaged in philanthropy), and enforcement of the laws against criminal syndicalism would end the institutions through which the World Order illegally rules the people of the United States, the illegal conspiracies and the introduction of alien laws into our system by the foundations instructions to Congress.
We have already shown that the Rockefeller Foundation and other key organizations of the World Order are “Syndicates”, which are engaged in the practice of criminal syndicalism. But what is a “syndicate”? The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word stems from “syndic”. A syndic is defined as “an officer of government, a chief magistrate, a deputy”. In 1601 R. Johnson wrote in Kingd and commonw “especiall men, called Syndiques, who have the managing of the whole commonwealth.” Thus the Rockefeller Foundation and its associated groups are carrying out their delegated function of managing the entire commonwealth, but not for the benefit of the people, or of any government except the secret super-government, the World Order, which they serve. The OED further defines a syndic as “a censor of the actions of another. To accuse.” Here too, the syndicate functions according to its definition – the syndicate censors all thought and media, primarily to protect its own power. It also brings accusations – as many American citizens have found to their sorrow. Not even Sir Walter Raleigh was immune. When he interfered with the international money trade, he was accused of “treason” and beheaded.
The OED defines a “syndicate” as follows : “3. A combination of capitalists and financiers entered into for the purpose of prosecuting a scheme requiring large sources of capital, especially one having the object of obtaining control of the market in a particular commodity. To control, manage or effect by a syndicate.” Note the key words in this definition – a combination – prosecuting – obtaining control. The scheme does not require “large capital” – it requires “large sources of capital”, the bank of England or the Federal Reserve System.
Corpus Juris Secundum 22A says of Criminal Syndicalism, “In a prosecution for being a member of an organization which teaches and abets criminal syndicalism, evidences of crimes committed by past or present members of the organization in their capacity as members is admissible to show its character.” People v. LaRue 216 P 627 C.A. 276. Thus testimony about John Foster Dulles financing the Nazi Government of Germany, his telegram starting the Korean War, and other evidence can be used to indict any member of the Rockefeller Foundation in any state or locality in which the Rockefeller Foundation has ever been active in any way. Since these organizations are all closely interlocked, and there is so much available evidence of their illegal operations, it will be relatively simple to obtain criminal convictions against them for their criminal syndicalist operations.
Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law 185 (10); Conspiracy and Monopolies : “Where the statute makes mere membership in an organization formed to promote syndicalism a crime, without an overt act, this offense is indictable in any county into which a member may go during the continuance of his membership, and this is true although such member comes into a county involuntarily. People v. Johansen, 226 P 634, 66 C.A. 343.”
Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law sec. 182 (3) states, “A prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S, may also be tried in any district wherein any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is performed. U.S. v. Cohen C.A.N.J. 197 F 2d 26.” Thus a publication by the Council on Foreign Relations promoting the stripping of sovereignty of the United States of America, mailed into any county of the U.S.; the county authorities can bring the Council on Foreign Relations, or any member therein, to trial in that county,and any action by any member of the Council on Foreign Relations in the past is admissible as evidence, such as starting World War Il, subsidizing the Nazi Government, or subsidizing the USSR.
Criminal syndicalism can also be prosecuted according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46, Insurrection and Sedition : sec. 461 c. “Sabotage and syndicalism aiming to abolish the present political and social system, including direct action or sabotage.” Thus any program of a foundation which seeks to abolish the present political or social system of the United States can be prosecuted. Of course every foundation program seeks to accomplish just that, and is indictable.
Not only individuals, but any corporation supporting criminal syndicalism can be prosecuted, according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46 462b. Criminal Syndicalism. “Statutes against criminal syndicalism apply to corporations as well as to individuals organizing or belonging to criminal syndicalist society; evidence of the character and activities of other organizations with which the organization in which the accused is a member is affiliated is admissible.”
Not only can the members of the World Order be arrested and tried anywhere, since they function worldwide in their conspiratorial activities to undermine and overthrow all governments and nations, but because their organizations are so tightly interlocked, any evidence about any one of them can be introduced in prosecuting any member of other organizations in any part of the U.S. or the world. Their attempts to undermine the political and social orders of all peoples make them subject to legal retribution. The People of the U.S. must begin at once to enforce the statutes outlawing criminal syndicalist activities, and bring the criminals to justice.
Being well aware of their danger, the World Order is working frantically to achieve even greater dictatorial powers over the nations of the world. They constantly intensify all problems through the foundations, so that political and economic crises prevent the peoples of the world from organizing against them. The World Order must paralyze its opponents. They terrorize the world with propaganda about approaching international nuclear war, although atomic bombs have been used only once, in 1945, when the Rockefeller Foundation director Karl T. Compton ordered Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.” -- Eustace Mullins, World Order, pages 276-280
Yes. Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy which orchestrated 911 to create the pretext of 'war on terror', and which can be traced back to the prime-movers by following the money trail.
But None Dare Call it Conspiracy among the conspirators themselves! Their mouth-pieces however now openly advocate “world government”, as the only solution to manage all the global crises from the global 'war on terror' to the global financial collapse, to global warming!
And verily, many Dare Call it Conspiracy based on all this self-evident empiricism! Are you among them, NOT EVEN TODAY?
###
Editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them? April 19, 2009 by Zahir Ebrahim
