Authored by Bert Olivier via The Brownstone Institute,
The term, ‘conspiracy theory’ became part of common parlance during the ‘Covid era,’ but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the ‘conspiracy theorists’ in question, namely those people who saw through the ‘pandemic’ scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the ‘conspiracy’ is probably less clear. When I ask individuals what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So what is it?
In his book, HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (2003) – followed in 2006 by Weather Warfare – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the ‘High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),’ and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the ‘Conspiracy.’ Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP, but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the ‘Conspiracy’ is concerned. His answer to the question about its ‘what?’ is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):
Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and ‘global villagers’ to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic ‘conspiracy’ of the evil few or a broad ‘consensus’ of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives…
To grasp why Smith employs the term ‘deadly’ with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems, and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a ‘one solution for all’ system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.
The idea of a ‘League of Nations’ that was floated after World War I was but one embodiment of this movement. Today’s United Nations (UN) was built on the League of Nations concept. The UN was created primarily to end war—by ending nations. The logic is that if there are no nations, then there can be no wars between nations. This was clearly stated in the United Nations’ ‘World Constitution’ with these words: ‘The age of nations must end. The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms.’
While 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant, would have applauded the aim of terminating wars between nations, he would certainly have been less enamoured of the idea that sovereign nations would have to relinquish their sovereignty in favour of a wholesale assimilation into an encompassing world government. His reasons were clearly stated in the second of the ‘Definitive Articles’ formulated in his essay on ‘Perpetual Peace:’ ‘The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.’ For Kant this is essential for lasting peace, insofar as such a federation, where states would be subject to federal laws, is comparable to a state with a republican constitution, which is governed according to laws that are external to the (often disorderly) will(s) of citizens themselves.
Unless such a federation of nations (as opposed to a ‘state’ of nations, where all member states would comprise only one ‘nation of states’) were to be established, the rights of every member state would not be guaranteed, parallel to the way citizens’ rights are guaranteed in a republican state. In other words, every member state, together with its citizens, would be at the mercy of what the overall ‘world government’ decides. Particularly the words (in the excerpt, above), ‘to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms,’ sound outright ominous.
The New World Order (NWO) is but one name given to this push to create a true world government. Many supporters of the NWO espouse a philosophy called technocracy, which is rule by experts, scientists or technicians. It is not democratic in any sense by which Americans understand the term. One very famous advocate of the New World Order is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and other presidents. He called his version of technocracy ‘technetronics.’ In his book, ‘Between Two Ages,’ Brzezinski wrote: ‘The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.’
This ‘technetronic’ union of nations would call for the desovereignization of all existing countries. This new ordering would reduce the United States of America to a mere regional government—perhaps the ‘United States of North America.’ The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is widely seen as one stepping stone to the NWO. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was quoted by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate in 1993 as saying: ‘NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order.’ The Common Market in Europe and the European Union (EU) are similarly seen as bridges to an eventual United States of Europe, which in turn would be just another region of the United Nations’ global state (or ‘global plantation’ as some detractors have called it).
It is an understatement to claim that technocracy is ‘not democratic in any sense by which Americans [or anyone else; B.O.] understand the term.’ Strictly speaking, technocracy would go further than merely using technical means to govern people, such as surveillance equipment, water cannons, or armoured cars for crowd control, or tasers to neutralise resistance; in the true sense of the word technocracy, technical devices, such as AI-robots, would be the means of governance.
Even this does not go far enough, because it suggests that some other agents, presumably human, would be the true power behind the robots, whereas technocracy in the extreme or ‘pure’ sense would entail the autonomous power to rule of the robots themselves, such as the machines in James Cameron’s Terminator films, or the Cylons in Ronald D. Moore’s Battlestar Galactica. I need not point out that the valorisation of AI by members of the globalist cabal puts them squarely in the company of those who would welcome technocracy; in what capacity it is difficult to say. Would they go as far as to surrender human oversight and control to the machines? Sometimes Noah Juval Harari – Klaus Schwab’s advisor – seems to suggest that they would.
Seen in this light, it makes complete sense that Brzezinski is quoted as saying that the ‘technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society,’ which ‘would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.’ This is possibly the most important reason for ordinary people to resist the Conspiracy as characterised by Smith. Why? His use of the term ‘unrestrained’ to qualify ‘traditional values’ is symptomatic of an implicit belief that voluntary restraint on the part of people living in society is somehow undesirable, in contrast with which ‘restraint through being controlled’ by others – the so-called elites – is desirable. Keeping in mind that these ‘elites,’ minus any traditional values that function as guardrails within which civilisation develops, could foist just about any whim on people, who would presumably be ‘controlled’ in such a manner that they would have no say in the matter.
Does that sound familiar? Isn’t that precisely what one witnessed during the Covid era, and could justifiably expect to occur again if another event, not ‘restrained by traditional values,’ should be (ab)used to implement the same kind of controls as before? That this is no idle speculation is evident from a recent warning, issued by the high priest of the supposed ‘elites,’ Klaus Schwab himself, that climate change will be the ‘next big virus,’ accompanied by ‘restrictions worse than Covid.’ From the article one may gather that Smith’s depiction of the ‘Conspiracy’ – although in a different context – rings true where Schwab and the WEF are concerned: they prioritise control of ordinary mortals above everything else. Hence the usual pattern of disruption followed by severe measures of restriction.
Moreover, again as the article in question avers, Schwab habitually uses ‘veiled threats’ and ‘apocalyptic rhetoric to emphasize the need for global coordination, often promoting the centralization of power under elite institutions including the World Economic Forum.’ Unsurprisingly, the ‘crises’ that the ‘elites’ – that is, the Conspiracy – conjure up, are utilised as openings for them to strengthen and consolidate their control over the rest of us, predictably employing ‘fear-based programming, while reshaping society according to their vision.’
Another instance of the same old saw is encountered in the recent report of a WEF doctor – yes, they never stop, do they? – warning that avian flu, an outbreak of which is perceived as being imminent, has been estimated as capable of killing ‘52% of the population,’ simultaneously calling on the Biden administration to commence ‘a mass vaccination ‘campaign before President Donald Trump is sworn in next month.’ The most interesting thing here is the estimate, by the WHO, according to the doctor concerned, that ‘the mortality rate is 52%,’ reflecting a precision that boggles the mind, considering that the strain of bird flu regarded as being dangerous to humans has, as far as I can ascertain, not ever killed the number of people that allowed such a judgment to be made.
This does not mean that avian flu does not hold a significant threat for human beings, as I have argued before, but it is imperative to distinguish between deliberate fear-mongering and the real McCoy, lest one fall for precisely the kind of ruse they need to get lethal needles into arms.
As may be gathered from the above – Smith’s observations about the ‘Conspiracy’ as well as the instances I have adduced to validate these – it is not at all far-fetched to claim that there are persuasive indications of the growth of organisations hellbent on the construction of a one-world government. Calling these, collectively speaking, the ‘Conspiracy’ – while perhaps sounding paranoid – makes sense to the degree that (as some of Smith’s observations show) such a projected government would not be willing to share democratic power with ordinary citizens; on the contrary, it would rule in a totalitarian fashion. This has already been abundantly demonstrated by events over the last five years, as well as ongoing occurrences of the kind I have referred to.
