This is my confession letter. I am a conspiracy theorist. Being a conspiracy theorist, I have allowed myself to contemplate some pretty silly, some pretty far-fetched, but always some interestingly plausible theories. In this search, I have discovered some very intriguing facts.
My allegation is that we have a cabal of very powerful people who control the world, and they are incredibly patient. So patient, that they may never see their plans come to fruition. They will probably die before their plans produce any results.
Who on Earth would have that kind of patience? As far as I know, there are only two institutions known to man that would have that kind of patience. Both of these institutions pass power from parent to child. I mean, who else would bother with such an endeavor if they couldn’t see the results for themselves? They would be passing this onto their offspring, their posterity.
You probably already know who I’m going to say, but the two are monarchs and crime families (mafiosoes). That’s, of course, why we call them crime families, am I right? Because they “keep it in the family.” “Blood is thicker than water,” they say. I’ll go a step further though. It’s my allegation that they’re one in the same thing. A monarch is a mafioso. It’s just that we allowed some clown named Walt Disney convince us otherwise. I mean, the whole knight’s code of honor and chivalry, were they ever so noble? I sincerely doubt it. In other words, our ancestors had a degree of disinformation to contend with, just like we do today. These mind games have been going on for a very long time. Sure, no one today would fall for Divine Right of Kings, or at least, I hope not. If you would, then I have some beachfront property to sell you in Kansas City.
Seriously, when you look at the monarchs, why are they allowed to still exist? Tradition? Honestly, that’s a silly answer. Silly, as in absurd or ridiculous! What does that institution do for mankind? If you suggest they benefit humanity — in the least — then I’m probably going to have to accuse you of “being on the take.” Economic Power is Political Power. Money, in many regards is people’s deity. Traveling around the world — regardless of culture — you can hear the praises of money and the prosperity it brings. One question: Is there an alternative to money that anyone has considered? After seeing Wal-Mart’s distribution model and the ability to track everything manufactured, distributed, and sold, why couldn’t we have a Resource-Based Economy instead? I mean, if you want to relate value to some object, why not just remove fiat currency (paper or some precious metal — or e-currency, for that matter) out of the equation?
I’m sorry, I’m getting ahead of myself, but what I and others have discovered is startling. What we found is that our supposed closest ally, the United Kingdom, is actually our worst enemy. What we found was that while they may have told us that the 20th Century was the “American Century” and the 21st Century was to become the “Chinese Century,” it’s all a ruse. It’s all a façade… an illusion. The fact is that the British never lost or gave up supremacy. After winning the Great Game which pitted them against their cousins — the Romanov family in Russia — for supremacy in central Asia spanning from about 1814 to about 1907, they then set their sites on controlling the entire planet.
How did they so completely and utterly defeat their cousins? They embraced their cousin’s enemy — the international banking cartel. If money is power, then the source of power is the source of money. The banking sector in Europe has been plagued by organized crime since its inception. There were attempts to rein in abuse, but it’s my assertion that the monarchs are also mafiosoes. The monarchs simply thought they could control the bankers, but after the Rothschild family achieved so much dominance within the international banking cartel, their ambition seemed to dwarf any predecessor. While the Lombards and the Venetian bankers come to mind, it was the Rothschild family’s ascendance to power where we really witness an almost unlimited yearning for control… and getting it. Perhaps the timing was right.
One last question before I continue: Why were the original spies of the OSS (predecessor to today’s CIA) mostly recruited from the Ivy League schools: Harvard (founded 1636) and Yale (founded 1701) and Princeton (founded 1746)? Answer: Notice that they are all older than the nation itself (Great Britain recognized American independence in 1783). If I were a Loyalist and I wanted to stay in America after the American Revolution, where is a convenient place to hide? As an Elite, I could maintain my elite status at one of these institutions, could I not? They are perhaps the closest people we have to American nobility. They do not have title, but they do have fancy honorifics before or after their names. What better way to show my prestige or that I am somehow better than YOU!?! This is why these institutions of higher learning were targeted by our enemies. They could be persuaded that they were part of something bigger than themselves and that the best way to go about it was in secret, thereby giving credence to the “Illuminati” narrative. Many enlightened individuals probably were recruited to our enemies’ cause by such a narrative.
Let’s take a second look at Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense.” There are two distinct lessons learned about government attained from this treatise. First, is that governments evolve. Yep, that’s right, I said, “evolve.” Paine didn’t use the word “evolve” but he is clearly the father of “Social Evolutionism” some 83 years before Biological Evolution (Darwinism). Within a matter of paragraphs, you can clearly see a progression from Anarchy (the “natural state” discussed by John Locke — i.e. “every man for himself” or that we are our own gods or regulators outside of society… we answer to no one but ourselves.) From Anarchy we progressed to Direct Democracy (assembling beneath “a tree”) and then as society gets too big the natural progression leads to a Representative Democracy (or a Republic). This is where the founding fathers said, “Stop!” They wanted to minimize government because they didn’t trust government. Why? Why didn’t our founding fathers trust government? Think it was related to the king? Sort of. The real reason they distrusted government was because of Paine’s second lesson. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry were all acolytes of Thomas Paine.
The second lesson from Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was within the first few sentences of the pamphlet. He makes the distinction between “government” and “society.” He said that society was based on our wants, right? We associate with people with similar interests and ideas. We gravitate toward those people with similar hobbies. We socialize with those most like us. We both join the same book club or work in a similar field.
However, he goes on to say that “government” comes from our need to “restrain our vices.” What does that mean? In other words, as people come together to form societies, disputes arise. Arguments and misunderstandings are bound to arise. People cannot seem to rise above their vices — their jealousy or their greed. James Madison summarized this rather eloquently when he said, “If men were angels, there would be no need for government.” In other words, Paine was saying that the reason we invented government in the first place was to serve as a referee, a “dungeon master,” or a rule keeper. Today, we divide the role into three distinct roles: legislative (writing the laws), executive (policing the laws), and the judiciary (interpreting/mediating/arbitrating the law). So, in essence, Paine was saying that the reason for government was to serve as mediator and arbiter of society… to help resolve disputes between people within society so we could tolerate one another.
Since the founding fathers were looking to write a just constitution based upon equity (a word thrown around much too much lately) they decided to stop on the Republic. This way they could minimize government. Henry David Thoreau captured their sentiment decades later when he said, “That government is best which governs least.”
However, Thoreau seems to have forgotten some of American history. Paine can also be said to be the world’s original “Utopian Socialist.” By the time he wrote “Agrarian Justice” (1797), he had already evolved government — within his mind — beyond simply “arbiter” and “mediator.” While the founding fathers stopped at the Republic, he (Paine) continued to ask questions. Questions like, “Can government assume other roles within society?” “If so, which roles?” and “Who will care for those who cannot care for themselves? …like the veterans returning from war badly maimed, the widows and/or orphans of those veterans who didn’t return from war. In “Agrarian Justice,” Paine — not Auguste Comte or Henry de Saint-Simon — was asking such questions — evolving government further beyond the paradigm given the American founding fathers.
Our founding fathers were aware of this evolution. In fact, many of Paine’s acolytes tried to balance their beliefs in limited government with this continuance of evolution in government. This is evidenced by the actions of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison once they had assumed the role of president. They seemed to acquiesce to “the Federalists” although they also fiercely distrusted the “Loyalists.”
However, this is still further evidenced when you consider that Robert Owen’s address to Congress in both February and March 1825, was attended by both Jefferson and Madison. You see, the whole evolution of government was being grappled with by our founding fathers. They were Utopians. I don’t mean they were committed to the ideology of “Utopian Socialism,” on the contrary, I think they were genuinely seeking a way to legitimately pursue Paine’s theories further. They were quite literally seeking Utopia, but they weren’t really sure how to pursue it. How to incorporate corporations into the equation escaped them. The problem for America is that we sacrificed our political evolution for our economic evolution. We gave more precedence to our economic evolution than we gave to our political evolution. I personally think this was a result of Loyalist/Monarchist meddling. In other words, the Information Warfare that we find ourselves immersed in today is a direct result of the British never giving up. They found a way to reintegrate America back into the British Empire. Today, the United States of America is part of the British Empire.
They told us that the 20th Century was the “American Century.” They also told us that the 21st Century was to become known as the “Chinese Century.” Propaganda, all propaganda! They were attempting to condition us into accepting this assessment, but it was never an assessment but a planting of an idea. The British monarch — and the international banking cartel that hides in their shadows never surrendered supremacy. They simply chose allies (read minions) who could help them manage their holdings. Today, these masters and minions are held together by one simple ideology — that they are the Elite and somehow better than the rest of us. Thus, it is up to them to progress the world along their agenda and plans because they know what’s best for the rest of us. Whether they all genuinely believe the ideology is irrelevant because the aim is also to hold power. “As long as the ruling Elite pursue their plans, and as long as I remain loyal to their cause, I will be handsomely rewarded,” some may say. Sadly, this means some acquiesce merely to survive. People should be held accountable for their actions and decisions.