Conspiracy in Philadelphia

Samuel Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia because he "smelt a rat". The American Covenanters identified the rat & boycotted the new Constitution.

One of them, the Rev. Samuel B. Wylie of Philadelphia, wrote Two Sons of Oil to chronicle the U.S. Constitution's offenses against Christ and His laws. It took more than a century for someone to detail the conspiratorial coup that produced the nation's foundational legal document.

In 2004, Gary North republished the last third of his Political Polytheism under the title Conspiracy in Philadelphia. Here is a brief excerpt giving the author's rationale:

This book is my attempt to explain this historical anomaly: a significant break in history that did not seem to be a break at the time. It still doesn’t. I explain it in a way that Dr. Dreisbach does not. He defends the traditional view of Protestant Christians in the United States. They have believed, from 1788 onward, that the United States has been a Christian nation under its Constitution. This is an odd belief on the face of it, since the United States Constitution’s sole reference to God is indirect: the words, “the year of our Lord,” referring to 1787. If this is the sole judicial basis of the Christian American national civil covenant, then the case for America as a Christian civil order rests on a very weak reed.

You download a free .pdf copy of the book by clicking on this link:
Conspiracy in Philadelphia

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery

A host of American Christians have violated the First Commandment by an idolatrous veneration of the U.S. military. Man's sinful condition renders defensive warfare necessary, but Americans have for generations justified their wars of convenience and conquest by self-righteously wrapping themselves and their "cause" in the flag (see Isaiah 64:6).

What they do not understand is that they are playing right into the hands of those who seek to enslave them. In an article found in Chalcedon Report, Samuel Blumenfeld quotes from Norman Dodd's Congressional report on tax exempt foundations:

In 1908 the trustees [of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace] had raised this question. "Is there any way known to man more effective than war, assuming that you wish to alter the life of an entire people?" They discussed this question academically and in a scholarly fashion for almost a year and came up with the conclusion that war is the most effective means known to man, assuming that you want to begin concentrating power in government and abandon the dispersion of authority contemplated by the Constitution. They then raised Question No. 2: "how do we involve the United States in such a war?" This was in 1909. . . . The trustees answered the question this way: "We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States."

. . . . That tied in with prior information our committee had uncovered indicating that the hand of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had already become a powerful policy-making force inside th eState Department. ("WHO ARE "THEY"? THE SHADOWS BEHIND THE SCREEN, June 1994, pp. 26-27)

The idea that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace settled on war as a means to its ends bears a chilling resemblance to the Orwellian "War is Peace".

Since World War I, the power elite have focused their major efforts to control the State Department through the Council on Foreign Relations, and after World War II, their militaristic interests coalesced into the Military Industrial Complex.

Altthough the institutional expressions were new, the elite understood the role of war from the beginning. The following excerpt from "A Covenant with Death" by William N. Grigg chronicles that fact:

As Bruce D. Porter explains in his valuable book War and the Rise of the State, each American military conflict, beginning with the War for Independence, has expanded the domestic power and redistributive reach of the government through what he calls "Titmussian linkages" between veterans and their dependents on the one hand, and the central government on the other. That somewhat inelegant phrase refers to the work of socialist British academic Richard Morris Titmuss, "A vigorous advocate of social welfare reforms" and, therefore, of the militarization of society in the interest of expanding the welfare state.


In fact, as Timuss noticed and Porter points out, the very "origins" of the welfare state are found in the military. Veterans and their dependents, who are guaranteed pensions and various disability, health, and housing benefits provided the first permanent clients of the redistributionist state. Both world wars abetted the breakdown of family norms, and offered valuable field experience for promoters of sexual emancipation and related social "reforms." And the WWII-era conscription of millions of men, and the recruitment of their wives into war-related industries, led to the enactment of the first federal child care legislation.


That the military would abet the growth of a huge and ever-expanding welfare state would not have surprised James Madison, who famously denounced war as "the parent of armies; and from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."


What Madison lamented -- the centralizing effect of war, particularly in propagating debt -- the execrable Alexander Hamilton frankly celebrated. Porter points out that Hamilton was delighted by the lingering debts accumulated by the colonies (and later states) during the War for Independence; he pressed for Congress "to assume the full debts, believing this would turn the debts into a potential `cement' of the Union. This, in the American case, as in the Dutch case before it, war debts helped consolidate a fractious polity by binding creditors across the nation to the fate of the central state."


The Empire Hamilton Built is racing toward the unpleasant end that awaits all imperial projects: Incurable, undisguised insolvency, the ruin of the official currency, political collapse, and -- most likely -- internal schism. At some point the Power Elite will probably call most of the troops home from their far-flung garrisons, not because our rulers will have renounced aggression, but rather for the purpose of putting down internal resistance. This, too, was foretold by Madison in the Constitutional Convention, when he warned that "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense [against] foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home."

"War is a Racket" -- Smedley Butler

The following is a quote from Brasscheck TV:

If you know your history, you know that in 1934 there was an attempted coup in the United States that was thwarted largely due to the efforts of U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (ret.)

Look it up.

Among other things, Butler was only one of 19 people ever awarded the Medal of Honor twice and the only person to be awarded a Marine Corps Brevet Medal and a Medal of Honor for two different actions.

After it dawned on him how his heroism and the heroism of the troops under his command had been misused, he wrote a book called "War is a Racket" which I can virtually guarantee you never heard about in school.

I recommend that you go to this link and watch the video (a recreation of his "War is a Racket" speech.

Confiscatory Taxes=Slavery

RPC sent me the link to this video a few weeks ago. The speaker is an indigenous American (not a native American, please -- native simply means you were born here).

Although I do not agree with his evident evolutionary presuppositions, he has something important to say.

The More Things Change . . . , 2

Remember how Candidate Obama was going to end the war in the Middle East? How he promised to start withdrawing troops immediately upon assuming office? How he was going to stop the unconstitutional arrest and detainment of suspected terrorists without benefit of counsel or trial?

Perhaps our presidents all come from the Bizarro world, where everything is opposite. Or . . . perhaps presidents from both parties take their agenda from the same ruling elite.

In any case, here is a refreshingly honest assessment of President Obama's speech on "Indefinite Detainment" as presented on MSNBC:

Thanks to RPC for sending me the link to this report.

The More Things Change . . .

The more things change, the more they stay the same. According to a commonly accepted urban legend, the Republicans are the party of big business and the Democrats are the party of the common man.

These observations made by Gary North in a recent issue of Reality Check demonstrate that both parties cater to the ruling elite.

Obama's free ride here is going to continue. The well-organized corporate interests that supply each President with his advisors want the taxpayer-funded subsidies. Goldman Sachs provided Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury (Rubin) and Bush's (Paulson). Kissinger & Associates gave Timothy Geithner his first job. He rose to become the second most powerful official in central banking: president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Nobody notices. Nobody complains. I mean nobody significant.

The Obama Deception

If you haven't seen this video yet, it presents a lot of material all in one place. I don't agree with all of Alex Jones' conclusions (e.g., that the present financial crisis was part of the conspiratorialists' plan), but I think this two-hour film is informative & shows the two-faced, I mean two-party system for what it is: a sham.

Swine Flu & Big Pharma

The news programs have crackled with the news a "possible pandemic" of swine flu. Don't worry, though, the gov't will make Tamiflu available to treat those infected. At a profit to the drug industry , of course.

The kicker is that the virus appears to have been engineered in a lab. The big question is whether it was a gov't facility or a pharmaceutical one. Oops, I forgot that most pharmaceutical developments are partnerships between big gov't and big pharma.

Oh well, in the mean time, here is some good information & advice from Health Sciences Institute:

Don't Panic: 7 FACTS About 'Swine Flu'

With all the sensationalized news about the so-called swine flu flying around, I figured we'd better set all the facts straight.

1. So far, only 82 cases of so-called swine flu have been definitively identified worldwide, mostly in Mexico (26 confirmed, 7 deaths) and the U.S.(with 40 confirmed, no deaths). (Though about 1600 suspected cases, including 159 deaths, are reported in Mexico.) That does not add up to a pandemic swine flu outbreak.
2. This virus has nothing to do with swine. In fact, it hasn't been seen in a single animal. And you can't possibly get it from eating pork.
3. No existing vaccines can prevent this new flu strain. So no matter what you hear – even if it comes from your doctor – don't get a regular flu shot. They rarely work against seasonal flu…and certainly can't offer protection from a never-before- seen strain.
4. Speaking of this strain, it doesn't seem to have come on naturally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), this particular strain has never before been seen in pigs or people. And according to Reuters, the strain is a 'genetic mix' of swine, avian and human flu. Was it created in a lab? We don't know yet.
5. The drug companies are getting excited…and that's never a good thing. According to the Associated Press at least one financial analyst estimates up to $388 million worth of Tamiflu sales in the near future – and that's without a pandemic outbreak.
6. Let's not forget that Tamiflu comes with its own problems, including side effects like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, fatigue, cough…the very symptoms you're trying to avoid. And let's not forget that Japan banned this drug for children back in 2007, after links to suicidal behavior.
7. Vaccines for this flu strain probably won't have to jump through all those annoying hurdles like clinical trials for safety and effectiveness. That won't, however, stop the government from mandating the vaccine for all of us – a very likely scenario. And if the vaccines are actually harmful…killing people, for example…the vaccine makers will be immune from lawsuits.

Your best defense – your only real defense in any flu season – is a bulletproof immune system. You can learn about the best ways to strengthen yourself in the HSI archives.

--Michele

How the Executive Branch Functions

Below you will find an excerpt from an essay by Gary North that appeared in a recent edition of Reality Check. Dr. North's succinct and graphic style boils the power politics behind the President's Cabinet down to a few paragraphs.

A President's cabinet is mostly for show. A few of the senior positions are about representing the Powers That Be, meaning the Establishment.

The Secretary of the Treasury is the seat for the big banks and financial institutions. These days, this is the Goldman Sachs slot.

The Secretary of State is the seat for one of the factions in [the] Council on Foreign Relations. Today's position is filled by a rival politician whose husband was vetted by the CFR in 1992. The main person who promoted him in early 1992 was the legendary Washington party-giver, Pamela Harriman, the former wife -- among many others -- of the late Averill Harriman (d. 1986), one of the six "Wise Men" in modern American foreign policy. She had even
been the daughter-in-law of Winston Churchill for a while.

The Attorney General is vetted by the lawyer's guild. He may be a politician-lawyer, who receives a reward for faithful partisan political service, or he may be a faithful lap dog
during the first term of a President's Administration.

The other positions are more openly payoffs to special- interest voting blocs. Think of the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Labor. Big business vets the first; labor union
leaders screen the second. Guess who vets the Secretary of Agriculture? What about the Secretary of Education? And, lest we forget, what about the Secretary of Defense? You get the
idea.

Most of these people are selected for show. They convey the impression to voters that each group is represented in the Administration. Each group is represented, meaning each group's
full-time organizational agents is represented. This representation has to do with voting blocs every four years. Neither political party alienates any of these agents completely.
It is a matter of shifting departmental budgets at the margin.

Each administers a gigantic bureaucracy that is protected by Civil Service. These subordinates cannot legally be fired. They survive every Administration. They keep the system running according to whatever makes life easier for bureaucrats.

A department Secretary can change almost nothing. He acts as a spokesman -- one might say "shill" -- for the bureaucrats who are officially under him, but who are operationally over him
because they control the flow of information to him. His main task is to make sure the department's budget grows each fiscal year. The President wants this, and so do the bureaucrats. So do the special-interest groups whose interests are represented by
the department.

Each Secretary goes out on the rubber chicken circuit lecture to give carefully vetted speeches to local and regional conferences held by the special-interest group. He or she is
supposed to keep the special-interest group in line behind whatever the Administration is doing to expand the power of the special-interest group over the American people. This means
getting its fair share -- plus a little more -- of Federal budget. Like the children of Lake Wobegone, each department is expected to do better than average, budget-wise.

Tragedy and Hope: The Conspirators Exposed

In 1966, a professor at Georgetown University published a long, scholarly tome entitled Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. This 1300 page volume would have been destined to collect dust on the shelves of university libraries but for one thing.

It seems that this Establishment scholar who trained aspiring foreign service appointees claimed that a secret international society played a large part in shaping the events of recent history. He claimed firsthand knowledge of the secret group, and he detailed its founding and organizational structure.

Here is a key passage that appeared in the books, pamphlets and newsletters of conspiratologists in the late 1960's and early 1970's:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

That era produced two influential right wing books that quoted extensively from Quigley's work: None Dare Call It Conspiracy (NDCC) by Gary Allen and The Naked Capitalist by W. Cleon Skousen. The strength of these books lay in their exposure of the inner workings of the power elite in America.

Knowledge alone will not defeat an adversary that wields unimaginable power and wealth. That knowledge must lead to the right kind of action.

The weakness of these books lay in their call to political action that pretty much confined itself to writing letters to congressmen and voting the rascals out. That's a naive approach to oust a group that controls the national candidate selection process for both political parties.

NDCC in particular blanketed the conservative movement of the early to mid-1970's, and I think led to the grassroots support for Ronald Reagan over the CIA, Trilateral Commission candidate, George Bush. Reagan punctuated his nomination by immediately choosing Bush as his running mate. (Under the present system, NO ONE gets to run as a major party presidential candidate without making deals.)

High Level Conspiracy against Gold

Gary North's latest issue of his e-letter Reality Check begins as follows:

THE GOLD WAR: WILL YOU LOSE IT?

If you own gold, you are in a war. You are under assault. You had better figure this out early.

There is a full-scale war against you. The politicians and central bankers who are conducting this war against you are determined to see that you lose money on your investment.

I have written a detailed report on this: "The Gold Wars." You can download it free of charge here:

http://www.GaryNorth.com/GoldWars.pdf

The reason why you are under assault is because you have demonstrated by your purchase of gold or a gold-related investment that you do not trust the monetary policies of your nation's central bank. If you are an American, this means you do not trust the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve System. You have taken a step that confirms your lack of trust in the government and its central bank. If you think the government and the central bank will sit quietly, while millions of citizens buy gold as a way to hedge against government and central bank policies, you are terminally naive.

A PERPETUAL WAR

Governments and central banks for almost a century have done whatever they could to keep citizens from using gold as a way to hedge their economic futures against the taxation policies of the government and the inflation policies of central banks.

The war escalated a few days after the outbreak of World War I in August of 1914. At that time, central banks authorized commercial banks to cease redeeming paper money for gold at a fixed rate of exchange. For most of the world, that prohibition extended during the war, after the war, during the Great Depression, during World War II, up to today.


If you want to read the rest of this issue, Dr. North's Reality Check usually is posted here:
Gary North Archives
I don't see it there yet, but there may be time lag between publication of the newsletter and posting in the archives.

I do recommend that you download and read the Gold Wars.

Is This an Accident?

Watch this video:


Okay, so the "friendly, peaceful" Muslims have over 30 paramilitary training camps in th USA. But when the Missouri State Police profile terrorist militia groups, what do they look for? Ron Paul bumper stickers, anti-abortion literature and anti illegal immigration material.

Here's an article by Chuck Baldwin (who was also targeted in the Missouri report):

"My Response"

Do you honestly think that this upside-down view is an accident? Is it mere happenstance that people with strong Biblically-based principles are painted as potentially dangerous while the Muslim militants' "Constitutional rights" are cited as the basis for letting them continue?

This is just another example of Psalm 2:2-3. I guess Scriptures like this are what make me a conspiratologist.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (Psa 2:2-3)

Ruling Class: A Biblical View

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. (Pro 22:7)

The problem is not that we have a ruling class. A ruling elite is present (and necessary) in every society. (Not a popular view among Christians who subscribe to a belief in "democratic" ideals)

The problem goes back to a time when Christians ceded rule to Enlightenment humanists. They [we] have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.

The Great Commission (Matthew 28:17-20) clearly shows that the King intends for His people to exercise dominion over the nations for the purpose of subduing them to His reign. Significantly, the methods He taught His disciples in order to accomplish this are not primarily political.

Christians take dominion through a Redemptive Message and obedience to the Royal Law. I call this two-pronged approach Gospel words backed up by Gospel deeds.

About 1660, Christians began to lose sight of their mission's primary objective: to lead the nations into obedience to Christ. They began to interpret the faith in primarily personal terms: soul-saving and pietism. They forgot that evangelism and pious living are means to an end, not ends in themselves.

But when Christians began to think of their faith in strictly personal terms, dominion over society became an unnecessary -- even repugnant -- idea.


To be continued

The Network of Public Opinion

The network that shapes and influences public opinion includes the media and the school systems. Noam Chomsky recognizes that the tools of propaganda were developed by the liberal left. He seems to think that they are wielded by the conservative right.

What Prof. Chomsky does not seem to realize is that the ruling class uses the network to further its purposes. He sees the commercial media as essentially conservative, while conservatives see the media as liberal.

I see the media as the public face of the the Establishment. At any rate, I hope you find the following excerpt thought-provoking.

The Elite Ruling Class: Milieu for Conspiracy

A "social class" is a network of interacting and intermarrying families who perceive each other as equals and have distinctive lifestyles and attitudes which differentiate them from other classes. (G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? (1978 edition), p. 12)

There is, then a ruling social class in the United States, and this sociological fact should be the starting point for economic and political analysis at any level. This ruling class includes about .5 to 1 percent of the population, owns about 20-25 percent of all privately held wealth, receives a highly disproportionate share of the yearly national income, controls major banks and corporations, formulates economic and political programs through a series of policy networks, and dominates -- at the very least -- the federal government in Washington, D.C. and city government in New Haven, Connecticut. (Domhoff, op. cit., p. 175)

G. William Domhoff's sociological works reveal a truly empirical study that defines and traces the power inherent in America's upper class. He shows that they sit on boards of large banks and corporations and thus exercise control over even more wealth than they actually own.



You can find a summary of Domhoff's research here: Power in America

Other authors, like Stephen Birmingham, E. Digby Baltzell and the Konoliges have chronicled one aspect or another of the upper class. Domhoff has produced the empirical evidence that the upper class constitutes a true ruling class in the USA.

His book, The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America exposes the processes and institutions that provide the upper class conduits of influence and power. Campaign contributions represent only one of those channels.

Academician Noam Chomsky also sees that an elite class rules America. While I do not agree with either Domhoff or Chomsky in their leftist/liberal perspectives, I do appreciate their observations of the present state of affairs.

Here is Chomsky's assessment:

Common Problems with Conspiracy Theories

People on the fringes of society tend to gravitate toward movements critical of the established order. That explains why you find so many obsessive and unstable people among the ranks of conspiracy theorists.

That fact alone makes it easy for those with a stake in the established order to dismiss and/or discredit conspiratorialists as weirdos and nut-cases. Ad hominem attacks are easier and more effective for influencing the masses than research and reason.

Although I know that -- should I become important enough to be noticed -- those spokespeople will tar me with the same brush, I want, for clarity's sake, to differentiate my position from that of a significant portion of the conspiratorialist community. I will give the three most grievous errors that I believe one will find in conspiratorial presentations.

Here they are:

1) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as Jewish. I suppose "Worldwide Jewish Banking Conspiracy" makes for better pamphleteering than, say "Worldwide Episcopalian Banking Conspiracy". I, however, think the latter is much closer to the truth of the matter than the former.

Jews are neither more nor less given to conspire against others than Sicilians, Irish Catholics or Saudi Arabians. The fact that Jews are disproportionately represented among international bankers is an interesting product of historical development, but not necessarily indicative of some broad plot of Jewish design.

2) Seeing "THE Conspiracy" as centered in one, all-powerful organization with historical continuity (Illuminati, Freemasonry, Papacy, etc). There are three parts to this view, which I deal with as follows:

---- One organization -- Whether the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the CFR or any other group, I do not see the powers-that-be confined to any one group. My research indicates that power is distributed among a distinct network of individuals and institutions (more on that later).

---- Historical continuity -- Here you find the conspiratorialists' view analagous to the Papists' apostolic succession. Since power is not confined to just one organization or institution, the argument that there is a discrete, coherent organizational conspiratorial continuity from ancient times to the present is moot.

Individuals and institutions, however, may borrow ideas and principles from contemporary and historical organizations because of a commonality rooted in philosophy and exercise of power.

---- All-powerful group that plans & controls all events of significance -- Conspiratorialists commonly attribute near omnipotence to the inner circle of the cabal. Although the power networks of this world wield a vast amount of power, they cannot and do not control all the details of all world events.

Observers conclude that insiders micromanage world affairs when they see the power brokers profiting and consolidating power in the midst of national and international events. , However, the reality is that their wealth, influence and their access to information allow them to turn even unexpected situations to their favor.

3) UFOs, Area 51, space (or interdimensional) aliens and the like. These are way outside the scope of my worldview. I heard an interview of one researcher who performed a background study of all the people who had claimed to be abducted by aliens. He said the list included people from all walks of life & religions, EXCEPT what he referred to "walk-the-walk born-again Christians". 'Nuff said.

So, if I reject these commonly-held aspects of conspiracy theories, what does my theory look like? That's a topic for another post.

The Conspirologist

Conspiratologist is a term coined by the character Jerry Fletcher (played by Mel Gibson) in the movie Conpiracy Theory. As he used it, it refers to people who explain various events in terms of their respective conspiracy theories.

In that sense, I am a conspirologist. I believe that major political and economic policy decisions in the US are made out of public view, by a ruling elite. This is not necessarily conspiracy, it's just power politics.

Within the network of the ruling elite, however, you will find factions. Members within these factions can and do conspire against other factions and against those who might upset the established order of power.

Yesterday, my youngest daughter and I watched the movie Conspiracy Theory, again. It struck me that the writer had more than a passing knowledge of what I think of as the more sophisticated approach to conspiracy.

Gibson's character explained that the conpiracy has two main factions, the investment bankers (IB) and the military industrial complex (MIC). The IB, he continued, want (or say they want) stability, while the MIC want (or say they want) security.

The character concludes by saying that the factions oppose each other, but it's more complicated than that, because on some levels they cooperate. And when there's a war, they both sit back and profit.

At that point, I paused the film and commented to my daughter that this was a fairly good summary of how our country operates. It succinctly, yet accurately describes the true currents of economic power that have run the machinery of government in America -- at least up until the recent banking crisis.

I hope, in subsequent posts to flesh out this bare-bones conspiracy theory, so that you may have an idea of how these powers have affected the flow of our nation's history from the beginning.