The ultimate government conspiracy

[Charles Drago]

Dear Richard,

These multi-color exchanges tend to get unwieldy, but I'll give it one more go -- this time in blue.

Dear Charles,

just some of my meandering thoughts.….

In your comments (I tried to recapture the red) you stated:

And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled.

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

I have to question what appears to be your basic presupposition. What are you regarding as the “system” and what about it is “working so very, very well”?

I define the "system" as the social/political/economic basis for the concentration of power and wealth among the few, and their control of the many by the maintenance of mass delusions regarding the efficacy of current "democratic" systems. Better yet, let's use your description:

I think I agree with the first part of the goal you are describing here; that is, that there have been efforts to “reinforce false senses of functioning of democracy”. I admit I make the assumption (not unfounded, actually) that the ‘overlords’ (heavens, what can I call that group who are the puppeteers?) via the CIA, et. al. (as one group already acknowledged to have done this in the past and presumably still doing it) control and manipulate the media in this nation. And it is the media who help bolster and reinforce the false belief that democratic processes still have a role in the running of this place. They reinforce what Heinberg (probably not original with him) has called the ‘consensus trance’. Also, democratic processes at the local level do appear to work somewhat and further support the illusion that democracy extends up into the national level. Which it does not.

Okay ... We're on the same page so far. But then ...

I do not believe ‘hate laws and detention centers’ are straw men. To think that they are would require one to believe that they are irrelevant and unnecessary from the puppeteer’s point of view. Since my underlying assumption is that one goal, at least, entails a draconian restructuring of society and diminution of individual freedom, the existence of camps and thought control laws (so called) easily fit into that agenda.

I have no problem in acknowledging that "hate laws and detention centers" likey have been created as both contingencies to deal with possible societal upheavals as you describe them below AND as straw men as I previously use the term.

I'll never forget the late Bud Fensterwald's great lesson: All intelligence operations have at least two objectives.

Some other factors also seem to be relevant here as well. I’ll simply list some without elaboration. Peaking resources is one (that governments have been well aware of for a long while now and which, many believe is the major factor underlying current geopolitical turmoil), global warming (pro/con) is another. The overpopulation of the planet another. The looming end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a huge factor as is the exodus of manufacturing from the U.S. (not an accident, I believe), the astounding debt of the U.S., potential collapse of the U.S. economy, creation of the NAU, destruction of the middle class, problems with global food production, the desires among elements of our country to maintain and enhance global hegemony, the threats of pandemics … and the list goes on. Mass starvation and population die off are thought by some (see Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels) to be almost a certainty as oil/natural gas-based fertilizers, oil-based pesticides and the production of and use of machinery (takes oil to make ‘em and oil to run ‘em) become less available (if the peak oil folks are correct). There are no substitutes for oil and natural gas in these processes. A hectare of land with all that stuff can support, say 40 persons. Without it, only 10. A dire set of circumstances for the world population if folks like Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, Pfeiffer and others are correct.…. - a 4 - to - 5 billion die off?

Turmoil at home is also likely to occur if further war is waged in the middle east and central asia.… Bombing Iran (which appears to have never left the table), confrontations with Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are also looming. NATO’s attempt to secure the mineral resources of Kosovo for the industrial and financial interests of the west and the continuing efforts to control the Caspian Sea Basin’s petroleum and natural gas reserves … and all the other resources in Central Asia certainly raise the specter of more ‘endless’ war. How would Americans react?

Well argued, fair enough. But again, the viewpoints we express are not mutually exclusive.

The internet is a fragile bulwark at best. See Mike Whitney’s article regarding the Pentagon’s ‘Operation Information Roadmap’ based on information obtained by the BBC's FOIA request to get a glimpse what is currently happening and more that certainly could occur at the whim of the militarists in Washington.

It may be that enough folks will become aware to alter things. Maybe 911 truth (for example) and the increasing awareness of factors (and others) as noted above will help provide resistance to the hegemonists.… but that may well be wishful thinking. My dark suspicion is that the folks moving the agenda we see evolving have thought long and hard as they strategize - they’ve had many many years to plan - they aren’t dummies I would guess - .… and the rest of us are woefully behind the curve. We shall see.

Again, agreed.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

Could you explain this a bit more and perhaps flesh out the definition of ‘controller’ control’.

I'll try. Just look around. Or to attempt to make my point in the form of a question: What have we done for ourselves lately?

Or as I noted previously:

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

I did not agree with the ‘straw man’ hypothesis you presented initially, thus I don’t agree with the derivative; i.e., that these things exist to inflate our egos.

Not solely, I'll agree.

I think some folks may like to imagine they are threats but that is just bravado. Even Alex Jones (here, now I have referred to him) who you might think would exemplify that, more frequently seems to border on a variant of despair.

I too have noted the melancholy chord structures of Jones' -- and others' -- favored arias.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

I have attempted (in my sleepiness) to argue, the forces moving the world towards calamity have little to do with ‘how we have threatened them’ per se. Some motives appear to have to do with how ‘they’ want the world to be. (see Georgia’s Stonehenge and the writings thereon as one example …. but there are many many other examples.… many much more hideous)

There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue.

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

As I noted above, it is not that ‘we’ are a significant or substantial threat. But ‘useless eaters’ are, well, useless. And by definition unwanted and unnecessary. We use too many resources. ‘Uselessly’. And to the degree that we do not go along with the program... an irritant mainly, but the hungrier we get.… potentially dangerous.

Indeed. Pass the potatoes.

I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show.

Might there be a third alternative?

-------------------

[as an aside, you may wish to read,

Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business

By Matthew Rothschild

I've read it. Highly recommended to all.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

“And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary. “

I haven’t been “dispatched” anywhere Mark, I’ve been busy with other matters. Oh and speaking of undocumented claims are you making any progress in turning up ANY evidence in support of your ‘Ford was Fisher’s puppet’ theory yet? It’s been well over a month since I asked you to provide some.

You misinterpret my words once again. I was referring to the cricketing terminology whereby the batsman dispatches the ball to the boundary, which was analogous to the way Richard dealt with you. I was not implying that you had gone anywhere (heaven forbid).

As for Fisher/Ford, I haven't forgotten it. Sometimes I'm busy with other matters, too. Urgent requests for information from you are a low priority for me, you know, with you being a shill and everything. It's burning you up, isn't it?

How could a billionaire industrialist like Fisher, with a deep love of Israel and a keen interest in politics, possibly exert any influence over a simple minded politician like Ford, a fellow native of Michigan, who Fisher also apparently 'discovered'? Yes, it's such a reckless accusation isn't it.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Richard Welser]

Charles,

Rather than repost all of the discussion I thought I would reply more succinctly.

You were generous in you comments and provided insight to me. We are very closely in agreement. Having read about multiple objectives as such in Tarpley's book (even though I have some other difficulties with him, he has done some really good work) I should have remembered. Thanks for 'remembering' for me. I fully concur that the straw man argument may - also - be (in an expanded version, encompassing many many events) in effect ( and who knows what circles in circles exist). I do not have data to argue that it does not. I think my disagreement ... and it really should not be called that, I suppose. is one of emphasis. I do not think the straw man issue plays as big a role. But I could be wrong inasmuch as I have not considered that issue much. So I will.

But I do know about Bernays, Dulles, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra, and the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap' and in my cynicism believe that there are very elaborate psyops, cointelpro, disinfo and misinfo permeating the net and the world. 911 was a wake-up call for me in that respect. To imagine that straw men, as such, and many other strategies of deception, are occurring is certainly not outside being considered.... as stated,

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are,

what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.".

William Blum

I also know that there are some who seem to express bravado in their resistance to (whatever) but that is their defense against a grinding sense of impotence. Most I know, though, do not feel like much of a threat to anything. I detect in them .... and in me, I'm afraid, a sense of hopelessness that we (I) nevertheless rail against.

So, like I said, mostly a matter of emphasis

I'm responding sort of randomly ... you said,

There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue.

That is a great area of speculation. Really fun. If I am interpreting what you said correctly. Rigorous Intuition is a great site for such as well as some really 'rigorous' discussion. I recommend it. Even though like anyplace it has its ups and down.. Check out their "dump" or archive of source information etc. On all kinds of things.

The next response...

"I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show."

Might there be a third alternative?

I think this is really a most important question. I feel remiss because I began David Griffin's discussion on a better form of world organization in '9/11 and American Empire' and thought he was describing what might work and still respect folks' independence (and nations). But then I got distracted (adult ADD) and started reading somebody else.... Ilam Pappe, I think. And then, believe it or not, my black Lab ate the book when I left it within her reach.... at least a good portion of it. She also 'ate' several medicare payments sent to my front door mail slot when this was my address for them then...... :-)

But anyway, I think your question would be a great topic for a thread. Really constructive. At least feeling like we're doing something productive.... rather than simply documenting the slide into fascism.

So, anyway, I've really enjoyed our discussion. Thanks.

btw, another great quote is:

"The name of the game is "Find Your Adversary". Your adversary's game plan is to convince you that he does not exist." -William S. Burroughs

--maybe they are beginning to lose on this one ??

[Len Colby]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

“And I like the way you dispatched Len to the boundary. “

I haven’t been “dispatched” anywhere Mark, I’ve been busy with other matters. Oh and speaking of undocumented claims are you making any progress in turning up ANY evidence in support of your ‘Ford was Fisher’s puppet’ theory yet? It’s been well over a month since I asked you to provide some.

You misinterpret my words once again. I was referring to the cricketing terminology whereby the batsman dispatches the ball to the boundary, which was analogous to the way Richard dealt with you. I was not implying that you had gone anywhere (heaven forbid).

So I missed your reference to a sport understood (according to a secret CIA study) by 0.08 – 0.17% of the world’s population that never lived in the 20 or so countries where it’s popular, ooh my shame.

Where you trying to say he ‘hit me out of the park’ to use baseball terminology? If so that was hardly accurate as well.

As for Fisher/Ford, I haven't forgotten it. Sometimes I'm busy with other matters, too. Urgent requests for information from you are a low priority for me, you know, with you being a shill and everything.

Urgent request? That better describes when David, your ‘brother in arms’, asked me the same question 2 – 3 times in less than 24 hours. I asked you for documentation at the end of December, about 6 weeks ago, I repeated the request about 2 - 3 times since. I saw that you made the same claim previous which SHOULD indicate you’ve looked into it, you implied verification could easily be found on the Net. Odd then that you haven’t been able to cite any.

It's burning you up, isn't it?

It bugs me, but to say “it’s burning me up” is a bit of an exaggeration. What bugs me is that the claim seems to stem from your preconceived notions rather than any evidence.

How could a billionaire industrialist like Fisher, with a deep love of Israel and a keen interest in politics, possibly exert any influence over a simple minded politician like Ford, a fellow native of Michigan, who Fisher also apparently 'discovered'?

Wow the Strawman from Oz strikes again, I never said it wasn’t possible, just that you haven’t turned up any evidence that was the case. You understand the difference between something being possible and being true don’t you? It’s possible that a lone ex-Marine with a rifle COULD have killed a US President driving in convertible in front of the building he was in but that doesn't that's what hapened.

Yes, it's such a reckless accusation isn't it.

Yes, it’s reckless unless you can produce evidence that it’s true. A well known member of this forum was accused of sexual harassment, the only details I know are that he was suspended (without pay IIRC) by his employer for a month or so. I could make all sorts of plausible and possible claims about what he did but that would be reckless without any evidence .

I will reply furthur on the other thread.

[Len Colby]

Charles,

[...]

btw, another great quote is:

"The name of the game is "Find Your Adversary". Your adversary's game plan is to convince you that he does not exist." -William S. Burroughs

--maybe they are beginning to lose on this one ??

Richard, shall I take it that you've abandonded your claim about Wolf and Primakov?

[Charles Drago]

Richard,

Most enjoyable exchange. One more go-around may be in order. This time I'll anticipate St. Patrick's Day and opine in green.

But I do know about Bernays, Dulles, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra, and the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap' and in my cynicism believe that there are very elaborate psyops, cointelpro, disinfo and misinfo permeating the net and the world.

They're making more lemonade out of the immense IT lemon, methinks.

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."

-- William Blum

You sure know how to cheer up a crowd!

I also know that there are some who seem to express bravado in their resistance to (whatever) but that is their defense against a grinding sense of impotence. Most I know, though, do not feel like much of a threat to anything. I detect in them .... and in me, I'm afraid, a sense of hopelessness that we (I) nevertheless rail against.

I'm a charter member of this club. But what choice do we have as moral, thinking human beings but to fight on?

There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue.

That is a great area of speculation. Really fun. If I am interpreting what you said correctly.

My point was/is that beyond acquisition and preservation of wordly wealth and power lies the spiritual impulse. For the ur-materialists it may emerge, at least in part, from fear of death as the great equalizer. And so the ultimate side is chosen -- darkness or light.

I direct your attention to and unabashedly recommend Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy.

The next response...

"I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show."

Might there be a third alternative?

I think this is really a most important question. I feel remiss because I began David Griffin's discussion on a better form of world organization in '9/11 and American Empire' and thought he was describing what might work and still respect folks' independence (and nations).

But anyway, I think your question would be a great topic for a thread. Really constructive. At least feeling like we're doing something productive.... rather than simply documenting the slide into fascism.

Just because I've raised the question, don't presume that I have even the faintest idea of how to answer it.

So, anyway, I've really enjoyed our discussion. Thanks.

My sentiments exactly. You're quite welcome.

Charles

Edited February 9, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

Richard,

You should consider the following caveat, which I wrote and post whenever I perceive the need to do so:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

[Richard Welser]

Richard,

You should consider the following caveat, which I wrote and post whenever I perceive the need to do so:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

I shall, of course, take your advice to heart.

m.

[Len Colby]

.. ["Why would Homeland Security hire former Stasi chief Markus Wolfe and former head of the KGB General Yevgeni Primakov" from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan05/Whitney0121.htm ]

So Richard,

Do you still stand by this claim? Or are you willing to admit that there is no credible evidence to support it and it is almost certainly false?