Conspiracy, History and Democracy.


If you charge that corporations, bankers, and industry cartel/union groups control the U.S. government, a collective majority of Americans will nod their heads in agreement. These are usually referred to as “special interest groups”. Claiming that special interest groups control the government is widely acceptable. Nearly everyone agrees that special interest groups play are far larger role in the political process then given credit for in the mainstream media.

The aforementioned groups have, in general, only one interest in mind: money and self-centered economic benefit. This is usually achieved by collaborating with politicians to keep out competitors through the long arm of taxation and regulation favorable to one special interest in the industry over all others. Following the money demonstrates this in action. I have written about this here. Modern historians and mainstream figures have no problem accusing corporations and banks of co-opting the political process. Most Americans have resigned themselves to understanding it as a basic component of the American political system. I agree that corporate interests play a huge role in co-opting the political process. Nearly all business regulation (including the Minimum Wage) is, in-part or in-whole, designed to favor one or some members of an industry over all others. This is done in the interest of economic gain on the part of the special interest and the politicians involved: One corporation over the others, one bank over the others, unionized workers over non-union workers.

It is acceptable to accuse special interests of co-opting the political process for economic gain… but what if said interests have more than just economic gain in mind? What if the underlying motivations of said groups go beyond economic gain as the end, but just a means to a further end? What if the interests are after something deeper than just mere money and economic gain?

This leads into the bizarre paradigm of mainstream socio-economic and political discussion in America. Accusing “special interest groups” of co-opting the political process for economic gain is entirely acceptable; but go any further and accuse groups of working for something deeper than just economic gain, and you become labeled a “conspiracy theorist”, which is basically synonymous with “crackpot” in the public eye. As soon as you insinuate that money itself is not the end, but a means to the ends of ideology, then you are instantly relegated to the backside of American media and discussion. You’ll never be taken seriously again unless you openly repudiate the conspiracist view of history.

You could accurately call me a supporter of the conspiracist view of history. I believe that important parts of American history have been under the influence of special interests that go deeper than just money. For example, one of these groups is the Federal Reserve. I have discussed this here. The individual bankers comprising the original Federal Reserve may have been largely interested in money; but the major players in founding the Fed – Woodrow Wilson, Nelson Aldrich, and Edward “Colonel” House – were after more than just a cartelization of the U.S. banking industry. They had deeper goals in mind. Control of the monetary system was not the ends, but the means to the end. All 3 of these men (Wilson, Aldrich, and House) were staunch American nationalists, progressives, and believers in manifest destiny of a world dominated by American empire. The mostly free monetary system in the U.S. at the time did not lend itself well to a government vying for major worldwide power. They knew that the government needed control over the monetary system in order fund it’s own militant expansionism. In 1913, they got their wish, and the era of American Empire was born.

The Federal Reserve makes for a particularly interesting example, because it is a quasi-government and fully establishment institution. Establishment institutions, in the context of conspiracy, are nearly untouchable in mainstream discourse. Pinning conspiratorial aims on individual bankers is one thing, but accusing an Establishment institution to be a product or perpetrator of conspiracy is totally unacceptable. Making such claims in mainstream discourse will surely get you blacklisted from all “respectable” academic and political establishments. The only semi-mainstream political figure that has questioned the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve was former Congressman Ron Paul. As far as I can tell, he has literally been the only one, and he was correspondingly pushed to the fringes of mainstream political discussion. His views were consistently marginalized by mainstream Democrats and Republicans.After Ron Paul, there is nobody else. There are no mainstream political figures that openly question the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve.

I frequently draw attention to the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission as modern groups of conspiratorial aim. Consider this: the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller as a “think-tank”,  was initially comprised of numerous individuals who would later go on to hold powerful positions in the U.S. government: Jimmy Carter, who would become President; Zbiggy Brzezinski, who became National Security Advisor; Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, who both would become Chairmen of the Federal Reserve. Am I the only person who thinks it strange that these individuals, members of the Trilateral Commission in the early 70s, would all go on to hold top positions of political power within 10 years? Does it not seem strange to anyone that Jimmy Carter catapulted from being a wholly unremarkable Senator, to becoming Governor and later President after attaining membership in the Trilateral Commission bankrolled by the fabulously wealthy Rockefeller family? Was it all just coincidence? Maybe it was; or maybe, it wasn’t… maybe there was something more at play. Making this suggestion instantly generates jeers of being a “conspiracy theorist”, and seemingly destroys credibility. I imagine many of you reading this article have probably written me off as a crackpot by this point. So be it; but I don’t think it’s too outrageous to suggest that some politicians and government bureaucrats may have more than just voters to thank for their career successes.

There is a distinct reason why politicians and mainstream academicians are so overwhelmingly hostile to the conspiracist view of history: It challenges the supremacy of democracy. Modern America holds the notion of “democracy” as holy above all else. It is a major tenet of what I call “The Church of the U.S. Government”. The belief holds that democracy is the be-all, end-all of society, and that anything “democratic” is inherently just and righteous. It is the people’s will, and therefore perfect in some way. Anything that challenges the notion of democracy as the ultimate ideal of noble sovereignty is violently opposed by all mainstream political and academic figures.

Claiming that special interests co-opt the political process for the sake of money is acceptable, because it assumes that voters will react negatively when the scheme is exposed, and the special interests will be quashed by the power of righteous democracy in the next election. However, claiming that special interests co-opt the government out of deeper desires to actually shape humanity and society is a huge no-no, because it implies that these interests can alter the beliefs of voters and hijack democracy itself. In short, this says that democracy is an illusion.  

Democracy is regarded with a religious fervor by mainstream academicians and political figures. It is only spoken of in the most glowing of terms. Wars in America are started on the basis of “spreading democracy”. Claiming that democracy can be hijacked by powerful interests who want to intrinsically shape voters and society threatens to undermine the public’s trust in a system that legions of politicians and bureaucrats are so desperate to maintain. This is why the conspiracist view of history is so overwhelmingly repudiated by mainstream figures: they rely on the notion that their jobs and relevancy are products of the holy and inherently-just democratic process, as opposed to the result of shadowy interests operating behind the scenes. That view throws the legitimacy of their jobs and relevancy into question. Therefore, subscribing to the conspiracist view of history, thereby questioning the legitimacy of American democracy, is genuine blasphemy to them. It is the most severe of political and academic sins.

There are interest groups out there which operate on the basis of more than just money. The Progressives of the early 1900’s were one such group. The Council on Foreign Relations is their modern equivalent. These people seek political and commercial power not just for money, but to alter mankind itself. They are not interested in the foundational ideals of democracy, which are self-determination and freedom. They are interested in co-opting the power of democracy to shape humanity to their liking. They pursue monetary and political power to attain this goal, and they manage to put questioning their motives outside the bounds of acceptable mainstream discourse.

I think The Usual Suspects said it best: “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: