Go back to Introduction - Part 1, The Eden Cult

Elias Canetti, in Crowds and Power, speaks of this dynamic. From p.292 of the 1978 Seabury edition:

“Secrecy retains its dual character in all the higher manifestation of power. It is only a step from the primitive medicine-man to the paranoiac, and from both of them to the despot of history. In him secrecy is primarily active. He is thoroughly familiar with it and knows how to assess its value and use it on any given occasion. When he lies in wait he knows what he is watching for and knows, too, which of his creatures he can use to help him. He has many secrets so that they guard one another. He reveals one thing to one man and another to a second, and sees to it that they have no chance of combining them.

“Everyone who knows something is watched by a second person who, however, is never told precisely what he is watching for. He has to record each word and movement, and by full and frequent reports, enable the ruler to assess the loyalty of the suspect. But this watcher is himself watched and his report corrected by that of yet another. Thus the ruler is always currently informed on the capacity and reliability of the vessels to which he has confided his secrets and can judge which of them is likely to crack or overflow. He has a filing system of secrets to which he alone keeps the key. He would feel endangered if he entrusted it entirely to anyone else.

“Power is impenetrable. The man who has it sees through other men, but does not allow them to see through him. He must be more reticent than anyone; no-one must know his opinions or intentions”

The fascinating innovation of the syndicate, then, is that no one individual is entrusted with all the secrets, or is individually in power, and therefore no one in the syndicate sees through the arrangement, the purpose, of the other members. They are subordinated not to a despot, but to a despotic system of ideas. They monitor each other for compliance, and report to each other infractions they detect.

A member of the syndicate who defies its commandments in an obvious and visible fashion, or defies any key commandment, or who consistently defies commandments, is ejected whenever it is feasible to do so without causing net injury to the interests of the syndicate (most vitally, to its covertness). Ejection is by social ostracism, denial of insider privileges and immunities, sometimes by various forms of deliberate and punitive economic, legal, and political harassment, oppression, and deprivation, and on rare occasions, by assassination.

The ejection of people who recognize the broadest goals of the syndicate, and of people who overtly communicate its methods and goals - in short, of sentient individuals - tends to expel ideas that lead to such awareness and communication. In time, the syndicate becomes a collection of people and ideas that scrupulously precludes the possibility of conscious awareness of syndicate methods, goals, and consequences. The cult becomes ever more cryptic, ever more effective at defying investigation and exposure, ever more thorough in evading accountability. In short, the secrecy of broad syndicate programs is secured by depriving the whole of the syndicate of conscious awareness thereof. This is key to the success the syndicate enjoys, however modest and temporary it is. It has an ironic corollary, however. In time, members of the syndicate lose the ability to discern what is and is not permissible and advisable to openly articulate. They make statements that reveal grave syndicate secrets. These statements can be collected and compiled (as in this compilation) to document the nature of the syndicate in the words of its own members.

Because decision-makers in the syndicate never bring unfettered conscious examination to bear on the matters before them, their decisions exhibit the dream-like semi-logic of the subconscious. Irrationality is fundamental to the process, and the syndicate cannot withstand relentless accountability to reason. Political science, properly, is largely an investigation of human psychology in the sphere of social control.

President Woodrow Wilson wrote (in The New Freedom, 1913) of the Western establishment:

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Overwhelmingly, the “power somewhere” to which Wilson refers is the cryptic cult (with its powers of censure and disfranchisement) populated by the very people expressing fear. It is an ironic and sad state of affairs. Wilson continues:

“They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares.”

The syndicate has leaders of a sort, and some

“[...] For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's [sic -AMPP Ed] ascendancy. [...]” -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 1813

of these are investigated below, but actual enforcement is by the foot soldiers of the syndicate - ordinary business executives, government employees, academicians, professionals (e.g. doctors and lawyers), etc.

*

America's domination of modern invention and innovation is a consequence of precisely the individualistic trends and processes the syndicate seeks to undermine. As always, the syndicate hopes to perpetuate its position of privilege by holding back the tectonic drift of culture. In so doing they make the seismic cataclysm of revolution inevitable. It is buildings that kill, not earthquakes, so timely exit is the key for those determined to survive.

Misled by hegemons and their minions, most of the world's population readily enlists in the syndicate program. This program is dominated by collectivism, in general, and socialism, in particular - sponsored by billionaires determined to prevent others from becoming billionaires or otherwise threatening their billions. Most people understand they do not individually have the potential to compete economically, in a fair contest, with the prodigious producers among the world's population. Motivated by primitive instincts which drive them to view their position in the world relative to that of others in the world, rather than by the quality and virtue of their position in itself, they are easily led to support movements and policies that selectively oppress those prodigious producers. Nonetheless, the producers - that small minority - are intractably more able than all the rest combined, no matter how the rest organize themselves.

In the contemporary model, the non-producers (an overwhelming majority whose values are shaped principally by the state-controlled education and mass media apparatuses) vote in referenda and elections to empower the despots (give them the political capital) to impose progressive income taxes and other institutions of naked theft and oppressive regulation. This is democratic socialism (or equivalently, economic democracy). As the despots

'They're trying to kill me,' Yossarian told him calmly. - 'No one's trying to kill you.' Clevinger cried. - 'Then why are they shooting at me?' Yossarian asked. 'They're shooting at everyone,' Clevinger answered. 'They're trying to kill everyone.' - 'And what difference does that make?' -Joseph Heller, in Catch-22, 1961

and their constituencies conspire to enslave the producers, the producers in time deny their products to the rest, recognizing that such service is aid and comfort to their enemy. They will instead apply their talents to the mounting of resistance, sometimes resisting in novel ways no one has yet conceived. The despots compound the economic catastrophe of producer boycott and rebellion by imposing policies that arrest or retard production itself, and through intellectually and morally destructive schooling, reduce the number of producers. Having brought desperate poverty to nations where in living memory there was broad prosperity, the despots will lose the support of their constituencies. Without a constituency, or the services of the producers, their regimes will collapse by default. Though further transient despotic regimes may follow, eventually the producers will prevail, to the benefit of all but the despots (who are pathological and plainly evil). The syndicates of the despots and their majorities of fools are fleeting bankruptcies.

This social fragmentation is uncanny. Prominent examples of American cults are the environmentalist extremists, the animal rights extremists, the New Agers, the pro-life extremists (no abortions for anyone) and pro-choice extremists (state-subsidized abortions for everyone), the centralist-statist-authoritarians (which includes the near entirety of the government bureaucracy, much of the law enforcement community, and some of the military community), the entitlement cult (addictees of food stamps, welfare payments, tort awards, favoritism through so-called affirmative action, the “reparations” movement, etc. - lawyers are prominent in this cult), the fundamentalist American protestant Christians (e.g. the Christian Coalition), Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, the black power movement (NAACP etc.), the nationalist socialist populists (e.g. Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani), the Scientologists, the Moonies, the Mormons, the radical feminists, the paleoconservatives (as represented by e.g. The American Conservative), the Randites and LPUSA types, national union labor, the white power / white separatist movement, the Hispanic power / Hispanic separatist movement (La Raza etc.), various organized regional or national urban gangs many of which are ethnically homogeneous, the Clintonites, the Michael Moore true believers, the market cowboy cult (Wall Street et al.), the soccer mom cult (closely related to the New Age and centralist-statist-authoritarian cults), the metacult (e.g. Subgenii), and on and on so that most of the population is consumed. What these and the rest of the nation's cults have in common is that they are founded on false premises (indeed, are constructed within a Hegelian epistemology, and in most cases, exhibit a Hegelian power structure), and left to their own devices will eventually fail.

America possessed, and in practice largely still possesses, a potent combination:

1. a constitution explicitly recognizing, for each individual citizen not convicted of a crime: freedom of speech, of assembly, and of armament, the right to fair and impartial treatment before the law, sovereign private property rights, and exemption from involuntary servitude
2. a constitution forbidding subordination of the nation's government, or any part thereof, to any foreign power (i.e. international court, parliament, etc.)
3. a vast military and economic might
4. a citizenry that is habitually inventive, to an economically disruptive degree

Thus America was, and to a great degree is to the present day, uniquely problematic for the syndicate. (1), (2), and (4) are simply contrary to their perceived interests, as will be explained in much greater detail below, and (3) makes control of America of paramount importance to them simply in order to safeguard their hegemony. America is thus a distinguished target in their machinations.

The national character of the United States is to neither dominate nor be dominated (with the obvious exception of slavery before emancipation). This character has been eroded by urban and suburban culture, by the welfare state, by corporatization, and by the old national security establishment (particularly before the George W. Bush Administration consistently deprecated expedient patronage of corrupt regimes, though that Administration continues such patronage in practice, notably with Egypt (direct aid) and Saudi Arabia (favorable arrangements in sales of military materiel)), but it nonetheless survives recognizably. For other nations, notably those in Europe, the idea of a nation militarily and economically capable of imperial domination and the exacting of tribute, but refraining from doing so, is alien. People in these nations (and most others, of course) therefore at once distrust, fear, and admire the United States, not quite understanding, but believing it to have identified a formula for relatively unaccountable domination while maintaining prosperity and political stability. Sadly there is a grain of truth in this point of view: the US establishment certainly seeks to dominate the international stage, and to a large degree, does so, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The syndicate in particular hides behind the curtain of the nation's unreliable electoral institutions.

The vital pillars of the syndicate regime are:

• the tort law system (non-contract civil suits)
• the compulsory citizen jury and the jury-culling racket
• the military draft (except in the US, where the draft had to be abandoned for political reasons and to bolster US military strength)
• the national income tax and the withholding system (also state and local, in some jurisdictions)
• tax exemption for academic, religious, and charitable institutions
• Federal Reserve style central banking (fiat currency, central authority on loan policies) and fractional reserve banking (by inferior banks)
• government borrowing and bond issues
• non-employee stockholders
• mergers and acquisitions of companies that compete with each other
• single entities holding stock in companies that compete with each other
• transferable copyrights
• transferable patents
• government-operated primary schooling free to attendees
• government-licensed, government-regulated broadcast (including satellite) and cablecast corporate empires that monopolize the modern mass media
• the winner-take-all, gerrymanderable electoral system (there are slight variations on this in some states/provinces and countries)
• constant community patrolling and policing by government agents

Many of these pillars are also supported or at least tolerated by the neoconservative establishment, but there are notable deviations. Tort reform is a well-known cause célèbre of the neocons (and also of conservatives), and now (writing on 2005-Feb-17) GWB is about to sign into law a first round of it, bumping large class action suits automatically into the federal court system (where preposterous awards are practically unobtainable). Another area of stark difference is central banking: Greenspan advocates gold-backed currency (traditional fractional reserve banking). It was neocon bad ass Donald Rumsfeld (while a member of the House of Representatives from Illinois) who spearheaded the all-volunteer military in Congress in the 1970s. The neocons (including Bush 43) have for years been floating a plan to convert the national income tax to a national sales tax, although this would in any case be an absolute fiasco in practice. They have also made copiously clear their rejection of traditional government schooling, with their promulgation of voucher and school choice programs. Unfortunately, they seem to be unrepentantly aligned with the other pillars, but we should optimistically look at this as room for improvement.

Long ago, the entrenched syndicate parlayed these pillars - each of which, without exception, is a dangerous corruption as practiced - into economic and political hegemony, now fraying but still substantive. They will resist, at great cost, changes that threaten them, and will abandon one only if thoroughly convinced that they will lose some or all the others if they do not. In the endgame of liberty - and liberty always has the last word - the pillars of the establishment may crumble in a precipitous succession, as a desperate syndicate more readily abandons one to temporarily safeguard the others. This is a vicious cycle for them, however, since many of these pillars mutually reinforce, so that the collapse of one makes the others more vulnerable.

*

The syndicate leaders' vision is to transform world political and legal reality so that the historic role of the nation-state is played by largely sovereign transnational corporate trusts, to which nation-states are subordinate. Their envisioned seat of world government is not a United Nations but a United Trusts, a transnational oligarchy ruling from behind closed doors. This is the role for which Bilderberg fancies itself suited. Revealing this rather directly, David Rockefeller (in Newsweek International, 1999-Feb-1) said “[...] somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.”

In order to empower a global banking, managerial, regulatory, and surveillance infrastructure, they cultivate economic interdependence at scales from the household to the multinational region, to a degree that cannot be justified by appeal to overall efficiency or profit advantages. This inherently makes markets less free, since want is exchanged for need, needy buyers and sellers cannot withhold their business when market conditions are hostile to them - a particularly thorny situation when either the buyer or the seller commands a monopoly position. A splendid illustration of the dividends of overwrought interdependence (in this case largely motivated by immediate market opportunities and advantages) is the Northeast blackout of 2003-Aug-14, in which cities as far-flung as Cleveland and Detroit, Toronto and Ottawa, and NYC and Hartford, went black simultaneously, along with many of the power plants in each of those regions. Speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, on September 14, 1994, David Rockefeller said “But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.” Indeed, the organization's quarterly publication is called The InterDependent, and indeed, such forces are at work, and will eventually prevail, one way or another.

Consider the Webster's dictionary definition of dependent: “1: hanging down 2a: determined or conditioned by another 2b: relying on another for support 2c: subject to another's jurisdiction 2d: SUBORDINATE”. The syndicate envisions an arrangement of universal mutual slavery. To the syndicate, freedom is largely or wholly alien. John D. Rockefeller exhibited this pathology when he declared “The combination is here to stay. Individualism has gone, never to return.” He simply could not conceive of the alternative. With the income tax, Rockefeller and his cohorts installed an engine of subsidy for the collective: a corporation never dies and so is never affected by inheritance taxes, whereas an individual cannot pass his fortune (or more to the point, his farm or his business) on to his children without forfeiting nearly half of it to the state - which is to say, often the farm or business cannot be passed on at all in an economically workable form, and so the heirs must liquidate the estate (with the vital spoils bought up by corporations). And of course, the tax code provides direct monetary rewards to people for making other people dependent on them - the larger the number of “dependents” entered on the tax return, the larger the deduction in tax liability.

Central to the syndicate vision is the economic and eugenical regimentation of world society. The plan, in summary, is paternalistic, feudalistic, oligarchical, techno-industrial world government. Most Bilderberg affiliates of record pursue this agenda unwittingly, and were it laid out for them clearly and concisely, they would find it congenial in most of its aspects. The most dreadful aspects of the vision - eugenical regimentation and feudalism - are not explicit or conscious Bilderberg programs, but instead are consciously pursued only by the nuclei of the syndicate - notably, the House of Rockefeller and their ideological and methodological inheritors. Affiliates consciously innocent of these visions would shudder and briefly balk if their conscious proponents - the syndicate leaders - presented them plainly. However, most would in short order recognize the congruence of the visions with their own sensibilities, and embrace them, as did their counterparts in the indigenous establishments of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Indeed, the Nazi eugenical program was borrowed whole cloth from the movement in America, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, etc., promoted most specifically by the nuclei of the Anglo-American syndicate. For a contemporary echo, consider that Adam Carolla, cohost of Loveline (distributed via Viacom's MTV and Westinghouse's WXRK (K-Rock east, home base of Howard Stern) and KROQ (K-Rock west, home base of Loveline) - note that Viacom and Westinghouse (CBS) have merged into a single corporation) openly and repeatedly maintains (in the program, over the air) that the state should have the authority to decide who is and is not permitted to procreate.

The recent institution of genome patenting implies that the patent holder in some way owns the individual with that genome, since that individual is obviously practicing the patent. This is a remarkable corruption, at least in concept, and a generous (and decidedly unlikely) interpretation might in principle allow the patent holder to kill the individual at the patent holder's caprice, since this is the only way the patent holder could halt unauthorized practice of the patent. A more established institution in the same vein is civil commitment, which operates like civil forfeiture, with a reduced burden of proof, only the object seized by the state is an actual living human individual. Civil commitment is an extraconstitutional mechanism by which private citizens licensed by a committee of executive appointees cause the forcible imprisonment of individuals charged with no crime, with subsequent judicial review based principally on standards promulgated by the private American Psychiatric Association in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the “DSM”).

The syndicate's vision is substantially implemented, in each of its facets, today. They now seek only to make their control more precise and complete, its exercise less unwieldy and risk-laden, and its instruments and infrastructure more permanent and unchallengeable. This is their breathtaking conceit, which they will maintain until the moment of their empire's disintegration is nearly at hand, and quite unstoppable.

An important theme of the syndicate model is corporate specialization, in which a company's domain of production is narrowly circumscribed. Such an arrangement is often attained by a series of spin-offs (vertical disintegration) and mergers of competitors (horizontal integration), with the objective of securing a monopolistic turnstile at a key nexus of the economy. Such monopolies force other companies to become dependent, and are themselves completely dependent on other companies, since their raw materials must be supplied to them by other companies, and their products are not useful in and of themselves but instead simply serve to supply other companies with raw materials. The end effect is that the economy is made into a single fantastically inefficient corporation managed by the state through regulation, in which each nominally sovereign corporation is just a department, and all interaction between de facto departments is within the state's regulatory purview. Since these interactions between departments often traverse national boundaries, often it is the global state (currently, principally the WTO) that is empowered. The machinery of regulation is itself controlled by various committees.

The effect of the patent system is like the effect of corporate specialization. Inventions are systems, and systems have components. If an inventor's palette of available components is curtailed by patent encumbrances, he is disempowered. He must choose among various obsolete components on which the patents have expired, unless he is working for an immense multinational corporation with an armada of lawyers and a vast portfolio of patents and patent-sharing agreements. This grossly impedes innovation. What impedes innovation reduces the tools available to the scientist, reducing his prospects for breakthrough discovery. This, in turn, reduces the knowledge available to inventors, reducing their prospect of conceiving breakthrough inventions. Of course, patents are accessible only to large corporations, because even if an individual obtains a patent, the cost of detecting infringement and defending the patent in court (a process without which the patent is meaningless) is prohibitive. The total dynamic dramatically diminishes prospects for prosperity.

Committees are a central feature of establishment organization, and committees were a particularly ascendant feature of power structure in the twentieth century. There are all sorts, some rather recent inventions, others dating to antiquity. Legislatures, juries, panels of justices, and the whole of the voting citizenry, are all committees described in the US constitution. Executive commissions and panels, such as the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Federal Reserve Board of Governors and associated Federal Open Market Committee (which are actually an especially innovative type of committee, comprising state and non-state members) are another type of committee, a type popularized in the twentieth century. Industry councils that consider, adopt, and promulgate standards, such as the International Standards Organization and American National Standards Institute, are another important type of committee popularized in the twentieth century. In the eighteenth century, a pivotal type of committee was incepted: the corporate board of directors. This type of committee ascended to dominance in the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, the multinational multilateral multisectorial council of eminent persons was incepted, and it ascended to dominance in the twentieth century, with the incorporation of the Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute for International Affairs, and eventually, of Bilderberg.

Committee organization serves the purposes of establishments as follows:

• Dissent is squelched by the law of large numbers.
• Activists are pacified by the (often mistaken) sense that they have exerted influence, and that there is nothing more to be done.
• Arenas are created wherein unadorned and immediate peer pressure encourages the enshrinement of consensus, coordinating action, with dominant members positioned to veto undesirable consensus, so that the will of the dominant members is implemented without their issuing explicit or accountable orders or proclamations, and without the sense that there is a corporeal center to the will imposed on the members.
• The accountability of any individual member is reduced, and the actual command hierarchy is camouflaged. Dominant members largely sidestep vulnerability to direct attack, and in many cases, can more freely exercise authority to their own ends.
• Dominant members gather intelligence on the stances of other members, and on those the other members are responsible for or represent.
• Organizational change and action are retarded, which with the aforementioned intelligence, allows dominant members of an establishment to anticipate political events, and exploit or protect against them through more agile non-committee channels.
• The continuity of the status quo power structure is safeguarded by redundancy and fault tolerance.

Many of these common features of the committee system are clear weaknesses. Some of its gravest weakness are immediate corollaries of the features enumerated above. In particular, the squelching of dissent tends to squelch vital wisdom. Most members of committees sport pedestrian intellects or hidebound outlooks, and are distrustful of and frightened by the small minority that alone has the intellectual and psychological wherewithal to anticipate, prepare for, and surmount through inventive strategy, rare or unprecedented contingencies (particularly those with a broad macroeconomic or sociological character). This phenomenon can be seen in its logical extreme in the syndicate's unshaken dedication to their vision (paternalistic, feudalistic, oligarchical, techno-industrial world government), implicitly or explicitly rejecting the dissenting wisdom enumerated in this document and in countless other books, articles, speeches, and statements.

One sure seed of any establishment's demise is found in a particular dynamic closely related to the weaknesses of the committee system explored above. Current leaders of an establishment choose to promote, and invite into their inner circles, people they believe will not threaten their positions - sycophantic Doberman types (think Henry Kissinger). This reverse-meritocracy is continued generation after generation. The result for the establishment is the same as would befall a baseball team whose management relentlessly signs players they believe will not overtake the batting average of any current player, or a university whose management recruits students and professors they believe will not overtake the achievements of the current crop. A side-effect is that (for example) most Rockefellers are not really in the corporate House of Rockefeller, though many or most still reap certain dividends from a certain level of association.

*

In the West, establishments protect their interests by cultivating public support or indifference for an operational facet (manufacturing consent through the media-democracy engine), far more than by conspiratorial secrecy, skullduggery, and foul play. Feeling insulted, and often sensing impending humiliation and mental bankruptcy, the indoctrinated public rejects the revelations of wise dissenters. Many forms of corruption come to be considered unthinkable, so that the very act of accusation is itself the confession of a transgression against the standards of decency (effectively, of “thought crime”) often treated more harshly than the corruption itself.

The mass media machine is commissioned (in the case of broadcast media, under state license) to divide the public into three particular categories:

• those who support the establishment program,
• those who do not recognize that there is an establishment program, and
• those who recognize that there is a program, and disagree with it, but are powerless to act against it, either because of personal demoralization, or due to social marginalization and opposition by those in the first two categories.

Many or most individuals are in all of these categories, depending on the particular aspect of the particular establishment program at issue.

The mass media commands the attention of the public for many reasons, but the definitional constant is that each person knows many other people will pay attention, so that by paying attention, information can be gathered that is useful as a common cultural language. The mass media can thus be used to force-feed propaganda, and still pay for itself through advertising.

In the syndicate school, laws, policies, and systems are emplaced that are sufficiently flexible that they can be made to imitate just and robust systems, or at a moment's notice, be wielded as vehicles of tyranny, without breaching their letter, at the discretion of the syndicate. The preeminent examples of such institutions are the tax systems and the money system. Were the syndicate able to manufacture democratic consent for a 100% tax on all income above $100,000, or a 1000% excise tax on all cars above $100,000, a legislature could simply enact it, without running afoul of the letter of the law (the Constitution as amended) though clearly abrogating its original spirit.

Even more odiously, the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee (FOMC), in combination with the Treasury Department (and eventually, the whole of the federal government), can at its leisure create an arbitrary amount of money by a simple vote, causing all the money in private hands to be instantly and proportionately depreciated (this is inflation), and redistributing the influence of that money to the federal government where it can be exercised arbitrarily. The FOMC also sets the interest rates that federal government bonds bear, and the interest rates banks pay each other for loans, and can set them to any value that suits their whimsy. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has the statutory authority to remove any banking officer in any bank in the country, on the pretext that the officer has run afoul of the Fed's arbitrarily enacted proper operating procedures - particularly, on the grounds that he has improperly extended or failed to extend a loan.

As chairman of the Fed's Board of Governors, and FOMC chairman, Alan Greenspan presided over this machinery of arbitrary currency creation, interest rate manipulation, and loan availability manipulation. Greenspan is a proponent of fixed redemption value gold-backed currency, a relative monetary bedrock, and the policies he pursued in conjunction with the other members of the FOMC had the objective of making the Federal Reserve currency behave roughly as though it were a gold-backed bedrock currency in a free, profit-driven market. Of course, in reality it is far from that, and it can be (and has been) bent to bitter ends whenever the reigning establishment has deemed this a useful tactic. Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, openly admits it, tongue in cheek and meaning well: “Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” (2002-Nov-8, at a celebration of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday)

In general, the statutory and regulatory corpora are littered with laws that are sufficiently vague that their application is inherently discretionary, since appropriately interpreted many of these laws are broken by nearly everyone nearly every day. Laws are made so esoteric and arbitrary that the difference between legal and illegal conduct becomes a trivial matter distinguishable only on the basis of prosecutability, fines, and prison terms for the latter, tending to frighten citizens away from whole realms of conduct (for example, anything to do with firearms). Put more succinctly, these laws discriminate between behaviors that are indistinguishable in spirit, annihilating legal coherency.

*

Unjust laws tend to persist because their victims actually defend them. A man whose drug dealing business has been more hazardous because of the drug regulation regime, or who has indeed served a four year prison term for illicit possession of cocaine with intent to sell, will in fact tend to vigorously oppose the proposition that others ought not to bear the same risks and suffer the same potential penalties for the same conduct, even though he is promoting the same further risks and penalties for himself. Here, the investment principle also undergirds his obstinacy: the man feels that he has four years of miserable incarceration invested in the status quo regime, so as he sees it, an abolition of that regime would render his four year investment worthless and meaningless. In reality, the investment is worthless and meaningless either way.

A man who has gone to substantial trouble and expense to diligently prepare for, apply for, often bribe and scheme for, and finally obtain a permit to operate a licensed business, engage in amateur or broadcast radio activities, or carry a concealed firearm, will similarly tend to oppose the proposition that the regulated conduct is not within the legitimate domain of regulation, or that the form and substance of the regulation is illegitimately restrictive or obstructive, even though in so doing he perpetuates a regime that may in the future capriciously deprive him of his right to engage in the affected conduct.

A man who has for years paid various taxes and fees, some onerous, will tend to vigorously oppose the abolition or gross curtailment of the tax regime that has been bleeding him, even though it would mean a great reduction or elimination of his own bleeding. A final example, though not an example of unjust laws at work, further hints at the psychological dynamic at work here: if a man is offered his choice of two forms of raise in pay, one in which he and all his coworkers enjoy an increase in pay equal for each to the same proportion of his current pay rate, and another in which he and those at the same pay grade enjoy a smaller actual raise in pay but the remainder of his coworkers experience none, he will tend to choose the latter, even though his wages are lower in the latter scheme than in the former.

What is this madness that makes men act against their own apparent plain interests? In each case, the absolute merit of the scheme at issue (in terms of the regime's tendency to foster the creation and perpetuation of wealth, both for the self and at large) is completely ignored. The only view considered is the advantage of the regime to the individual making the evaluation relative to the advantage it bestows on others, sometimes only in terms of appearances, and particularly influenced by the judgement of the human brain's primitive, instinctive, phylogenetic fairness engine, which balks at any arrangement that it perceives would allow another to enjoy an advantage one does not or has not oneself enjoyed, and directs the individual to attack the beneficiaries of any such arrangement.

The current movement within the international establishment to bully tax havens into mimicking the tax hells of Europe and North America is an example of this dynamic on grand display. Even simple inborne characteristics that are advantageous, such as intelligence, strength, or handsomeness, are attacked as unfair. This primitive fairness doctrine evolved as it did because long term fecundity during the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of the genus homo was driven not just by absolute fitness but also largely by the appearance of relative advantage (the appearance that one is fitter than another), particularly because of the human sexual dynamic.

In some cases, uncolored if shortsighted reason may account for a man's allegiance to a status quo regulatory regime. On 1863-Jun-25, in a letter to fellow members of the syndicate, Rothschild Brothers of London expressed this view with respect to fractional reserve banking, one of the preeminent regimes of the status quo: “The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.” Once a man learns to operate and profit within a regime, he will tend to oppose the abolition or reform of that regime per se, preferring what he perceives as the sure profits of the status quo to uncertain if potentially greater profits in another one (often, his perception is deluded). This is dramatically obvious in the realm of conventional banking, organized crime, and illicit drug dealing, in which the players (including the law enforcement community and weapons manufacturers) would be ruined or severely attenuated if the regulatory regime were scrapped. But it can also underlie the conservatism embodied in all the other examples mentioned above.

The nuclei of the syndicate traditionally disfavor, and seek to render extinct or servile, those who are handicapped (particularly for reasons of heredity), and those who are not racially Caucasoid. They furthermore desire to restore the subordination of women. The programs primarily at issue are “affirmative action”, the great many anti-discrimination statutes which effectively mandate discrimination against able Caucasoid males, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the accelerating “reparations” movement. The “reparations” movement is particularly odious and fraught with imminent hazards, because it seeks to make racially Negroid or Capoid citizens the direct beneficiaries of the institution of slavery that is the income tax. However, even such mundanities as the spectacle of preferential parking places for the handicapped trigger the brutal and pitiless verdict of the phylogenetic fairness engine. By these programs, the nuclei of the syndicate seek to recruit each Caucasoid male so that in the future he will cooperate in exterminating or enslaving the target groups (there is, of course, no agenda to exterminate women, but only one to enslave them). The vision here is simply the global implementation of the “racial hygiene” and male chauvinism implemented in Germany under the National Socialists (for an example of the latter, consider the Lebensborn program), but with modest amendments.

The Nazis (Göbbels, in particular) were able to recruit intense anti-Jewish sentiment among the non-Jews of Germany because (absent anti-Semitic persecution) Jews are economically disproportionately successful (because disproportionately clever) people, greatly advantaged in the intensely influential spheres of banking, finance, industry, media, government, law, medicine, and academia. In the words of Thomas Edison, “I wish they [the Jews] would all stop making money” (cited by Neil Baldwin in Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, appearing in an unsent draft of personal correspondence, and mentioned by Baldwin in his appearance on C-SPAN Booknotes (taped at the Miami Book Fair International on 2001-Nov-18, aired on C-SPAN2 2001-Dec-8)). The non-Jewish Germans who embraced Göbbels's doctrine did so because they felt (subconsciously) it was unfair for people to enjoy the advantages over themselves that the Jews enjoy (in their perception). It is actually of little political consequence that the Jews' advantage is to a degree real (statistically), whereas the advantages bestowed by “affirmative action” and the ADA (etc.) are whole cloth artifices imposed by unnatural laws. The syndicate, aware of the effectiveness of Göbbels's tactics but concentrating on a larger target population, has concocted a system that will motivate the requisite sentiment. As noted above, the bulk of the syndicate is ignorant of this coercive eugenical agenda - it is the exclusive province of its nuclei, and even then, often exclusively in their subconscious minds.

The capacity to create wealth is itself an advantage, and most of that capacity is concentrated in a small minority of exceptionally able people. If policy is single-mindedly shaped to enforce equilibrium and equitableness by the principles and dynamics of the “fairness” doctrine explored above, the result is already well known. In the words of Winston Churchill, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Since these principles and dynamics are intrinsic, inevitable, and ubiquitous, the only way to avoid the misery of socialism is to abandon the objective of equilibrium and equitableness of this form. In short, human society is not fair by these rules, and an attempt to make it fair by them leads to ruin.

*

The syndicate employs an old and effective method: lead others to error, then exploit their errors. In a market, any time a participant systematically errs - systematically deviates from pure self-interest - another participant who identifies that pattern of error can profit from it. Expanding this principle to the world stage, the syndicate works tirelessly to lead people to systematically abandon self-interest, so that it can profit from their error. This collection of essays and articles can be viewed as a documentary of the errors of the syndicate, and it is part of my program to expose and exploit these errors, hastening the extinction of the syndicate through social processes.

All modern political establishments initiate cultural trends, and foster behavior, through three principal mechanisms: (1) by the mass media, which displays (with actual and fictional positive and negative examples) and defines (with humor and commentary) desired behavior, and creates the expectation that conformers will be socially and economically rewarded and deviants penalized, (2) by the education system, which explicitly and implicitly inculcates beliefs, thought patterns, and behaviors, in people during their formative years, and (3) by the visible social and economic hierarchies of society, through which behaviors are propagated through transitivity of authority. The manner in which the mass media and the education system instill behaviors is discussed extensively below. The manner in which social and economic hierarchies do so is fairly straightforward. The visible establishment councils are subjected to the behavior of nuclear (core) establishment leaders - in the US arm of the syndicate, such people as David Rockefeller - who either deliberately cultivate or involuntarily exhibit the behavior. An entertaining and literal example is a top management meeting with Bill Gates: many people at the table emulate his characteristic, somewhat strange, rhythmic rocking. The behaviors of nuclear establishment members such as Rockefeller are often deeply influenced by nuclear intellectuals such as Henry Kissinger; thus often it is intellectuals who are at the apex of the influence pyramid. Those in subordinate positions emulate those in higher positions, completely aside from any explicit directives. In particular, systems of reward and punishment are emulated. Banking hierarchies are highly formalized, and propagate behavioral directives by extending loans to the compliant and withholding them from the deviant. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has the authority to remove any banking officer that it determines to be non-compliant. Finally, the state legal system is the definitive authoritarian hierarchy of behavior coercion. The banking and legal hierarchies are both preeminent instruments of control for the establishment, which they wield almost entirely as their own.

When a superior determines to encourage, discourage, demand, or forbid among his subordinates a mode of action, thought, or awareness, those modes will tend to be encouraged or discouraged among everyone below him in the hierarchy. If that superior is a leader in a nucleus of the syndicate, then these modes will tend to be encouraged or discouraged throughout most of society. In this case, only those not within the conventional hierarchy of civilized society escape the brunt of the behavioral tyranny. Authoritarian hierarchicalization is a memetic amplifier for people in higher echelons, and an attenuator for those in lower echelons. The memetic gain factor is not intrinsically correlated with the actual memetic aptitude of each individual; whatever characteristics favor ascension to higher echelons are the characteristics common to those positioned for high memetic gain factors. The characteristics are arbitrarily dictated by those who are already in the upper echelons of the hierarchy, and once those who exhibit them have ascended, the characteristics are themselves efficiently spread through society.

The neo-orthodoxy and concatenated censorship-by-category of “political correctness,” briefly and still occasionally a subject of conscious contemplation and public commentary, has been so thoroughly consolidated that its dictates are now silently, automatically, and ubiquitously enforced, usually at a subconscious level. Free thought and speech are perilous indulgences. The intellectual totalitarianism of Political Correctness, having burrowed below the surface, is in many settings no longer challengeable. Political correctness is part of a larger system that is an effective stand-in for explicit totalitarianism: adherents become intensely intolerant of certain behavior, and anomolously tolerant of other behavior, based on whether the establishment (through the media) has expressed approval or disapproval of the behavior. The type of behavior is only half of the formula; the identity and position of the person exhibiting the behavior is also crucial. Bill Clinton gets applause for acts for which others are incarcerated. Another important function of the institution of Political Correctness is to instill a habit of thinking in patently degenerated patterns. This is demoralizing, and makes people manipulable and meek.

Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher (for example) is a vehicle promoting not ideological rebellion, but lock step orthodox authoritarian political correctness, usually with an outnumbered, besieged, harried representative of the opposition (conservative, libertarian, or some combination thereof), who is invited only to serve as an exhibit of how not to think. [Note 2001-Oct-2: Bill Maher is, of late, truly politically incorrect, and moreover, speaking some hard truths. Of course, his show lost all its sponsors and went off the air. -AMPP Ed.] The institution of Political Correctness is typical of syndicate thought control strategies, in that it constitutes a predominantly subconscious meme complex. It is obeyed, enforced, and transmitted, largely absent the scrutiny of rational consciousness. Such subconscious social constructs are the meat and potatos of Hegelian culture, but they cannot survive the scrutiny of relentlessly rational consciousness. In this context, mystic faith is a wall that places a cognitive model outside the scrutiny of rational consciousness. The designers and refiners of religions work to assure that adherents are discouraged from penetrating this wall by a bevy of confusing and painful thoughts lurking just beyond. General domain meme complex evolution causes those meme complexes with these characteristics to thrive.

Multiculturalism (by which I mean, the premise that a behavior within a particular culture is morally virtuous by dint of being recognized and treated as such within that culture - cultural and moral relativism, Hegelian anthropology) has become a religion - or more specifically, a cryptic sort of cultural suicide cult - unto itself. Moral relativism is a crucial enabler for subsequent religious indoctrination, since its adherents discard the moral and cognitive absolutes which are an individual's preeminent mechanism of defense against the madness of religion. But there are more insidious instruments of mental censorship, preeminent among which is the cult of expertise.

In a mundane way, the great variety of specialized periodical magazines and cable/satellite TV channels in America work to encourage narrow specialization and focus of attention in avocations (typically, to the total exclusion of activities that are significant in the exercise of power - CSPAN notwithstanding). But far more significant is the culture's insistence on specialization in one's vocation.

People in the professions, in industry, and in academia, are expected to direct their attention to a specialty, to refrain from concern or involvement with matters outside their specialty, and to view with disdain and suspicion those who do not similarly refrain. This is the modern form of the “command mystery” in common use by religions through the ages. Society commands each of its members to treat technicalized subjects outside their specialty as intractable mysteries.

People who conform to these rules cannot but be cogs in a machine they do not understand. They are intellectually interdependent. They cannot possibly discern the identities and methods of the syndicate, and haplessly serve it. Thus, the whole of society is finely compartmentalized. Underscoring this intellectual compartmentalization is the epidemic of specialized vocabularies. Each field invents its own selection of buzz words, specialized definitions, and often whole morphological and syntactic methodologies. The professional and academic world is thus divided into tribes that largely lack mutual intelligibility. Four striking examples are medicine, law, computer technology, and the military.

Evidently, specialized language is appropriate in each of these cases, and there are inherent difficulties in interdisciplinary communication. It also must be conceded that the technique of specialization itself is effective at enabling certain types of innovation and productivity - though multiple specialization should be the norm, rather than the exception. But returning to the four examples cited above: the prodigious use and abuse of Latin in medicine and law, and the prodigious invention of semi-English terms and acronyms with unobvious meanings in computer technology and the military, often go far beyond the level of specialization warranted by practical considerations. In many instances, in these and other fields, it seems the very intent is to obfuscate. Moreover, the very rigidity of these specialized languages tends to constrict thinking.

With freedom thus crushed between the quiet hammers and hidden anvils of political correctness and the cult of specialization (among other systematic constraints), the pacifier of an ersatz liberty becomes necessary. This, precisely, is the role of sexual and drug liberalism (among other such pacifiers) - to toss the slave a bone. Contraception and abortion, crucial in enabling sexual liberalism, are such liberties - this, even though real autonomy in such matters is clearly a human right. More mundanely but just as germanely, office “casual Friday” has evolved into fulltime casual in many businesses, and to casual attire even in positions that involve face to face interaction with the public.

John Ralston Saul (RIIA affiliate) notes in Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, “These acts of personal freedom are irrelevant to the exercise of power. So in lieu of taking a real part in the evolution of society, the individual struggles to appear as if no one has power over his personal evolution. Thus victories won for these individual liberties may actually be an acceptance of defeat by the individual.” Note that any just system, in which freedoms impacting the exercise of power are recognized, will nonetheless recognize these personal freedoms too.

Saul calls the system of specialization and encyclopedic formulism “the rational approach,” but this is a non-starter. Clearly, in refraining from concern for matters outside his specialty, a person abandons rationality.

The true rational approach necessarily involves grand integration, and necessarily deprecates any form of degenerate censorship - the abandoning of a train of thought for reasons other than the determination of logical invalidity or of practical absolute or relative inconsequentiality. The counterpart to degenerate censorship is degenerate distortion (as faith, mystical ideation, etc.), in which a train of thought is continued beyond, and logically predicated upon, a premise that is known to be logically invalid. A vital secondary form of degenerate censorship occurs here, in which people refrain from recognizing logical invalidities. This is the central mental phenomenon of faith. Accidental mental errors can yield results identical to degenerate censorship or distortion, but since there is no intent, in general no campaign of distortion ensues, and the error is subsequently corrected. Deliberately fostering or practicing degenerate censorship or distortion, on the other hand, is a campaign of evil.

Typically, an adherent of a religion, when asked why he believes a particular tenet of faith, will say something amounting to a denial of a reason for doing so. But this is not correct. These tenets are believed because the adherents are instructed (commanded) to believe them by other people. This is why they believe the strange things they believe - for example, immaculate conception (Catholicism) or infestation with the souls of aliens that died millenia ago (Scientology).

*

The syndicate cloaks itself in cultural camouflage, employing tactics for which it almost seamlessly maintains plausible deniability. Subtle, ubiquitous, often implicit propaganda fosters a broad public acceptance and embrace of the authority of the syndicate, and of the syndicate's definitions of good and evil, preventing the public from seriously contemplating the reality that the syndicate is itself quite often evil by its own definition. The syndicate, and even the new neoconservative establishment, reiterate the mantra that the President of the United States is “the leader of the free world”, but a free world has no leader, since a person can be a leader only if he has followers, and followers are not free. The President of the United States is simply the most obvious spearhead of the authority of the establishment. Except when he acts to reign in parts of the government below him and the establishment to whom he owes his office (something he does at his peril), he gathers strength at the expense of the world's freedom.

Generally, an errant public attributes the results of the syndicate's meddlesome actions to happenstance, or to motives viewed as essentially innocuous or virtuous. The design is irrefutably evident only in the pattern of results, or by actually showing proof of meddling. The public has been systematically conditioned to ignore such patterns, and to condemn those who draw attention to them (e.g., by dismissing them as “conspiracy theorists”). Thus, controlling access to and dissemination of information that constitutes proof of meddling suffices in large part to protect the syndicate program from exposure. The compartmentalization of the syndicate's covert apparatus assures that those exposures which do transpire cause only limited damage.

The Eden Contract       You will have a handsome house, and a state of the art entertainment system fed with a constant stream of enjoyable music, movies, and television shows. You will have fine food and drink, as much as you can eat, whatever sort you want. You will drive a fancy car with a fancy sound system - or you will let the car drive itself, with its built in navigation system. You will have a spouse who understands you and brings you pleasure. You will have ready access to euphoric drugs that have no ill health effects. Your medical needs, and those of your whole family, will be met whenever they arise, with the latest technology. You will have little reason to fear assault, robbery, or rape, as the number of such criminals will be nearly zero. Your children will all be educated, so that they too will be happy and raise families. Your security, and that of your whole family, extends seamlessly from the cradle to the grave.       You will have all this. You will be entitled to it. You will have a right to happiness - not a right to the pursuit of happiness, but a right to happiness itself. You will have a right to healthiness - not a right to the riskiness of life, but a right to the surety of health.       You will work at a job you enjoy, with people whose company you enjoy, for 32 hours a week.       In exchange for the above, you will surrender your freedom. You will have no freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor the right to peaceably assemble. You will have no right to keep and bear arms. You will not be secure in your person or house from capricious searches by the state. You will be permitted to travel only when and where the state authorizes you to. You will have no right to start or run your own business, nor to be your own boss. You will be forbidden to invent or create in ways the state deems disruptive, and you will be forbidden to bear more or less children than the state has authorized. You will be forbidden to read, view, or listen to anything that has not been authorized by the state.       If half of your countrymen enter this contract before you do, you will be automatically entered into it yourself.       If your entitlements do not bring you happiness, you will be institutionalized in order best to bring you and your family happiness, and if this too fails, you will be mercifully euthanized, having proven yourself among the lebens unwertenleben (lives unworthy of life). If you use your property to exercise the rights and freedoms you have surrendered, or that your countrymen have surrendered on your behalf, you will be relieved of that property. If you persist in exercising the rights and freedoms you have surrendered, it can only be because you are unhappy, so you will be institutionalized in order best to bring you and your family happiness. If this fails, you will be mercifully euthanized. This offer is for a limited time only. Act now, operators are standing by.       The fine print: soon after the whole world is governed by this contract, the world economy will collapse catastrophically, the great cities will be laid waste, and almost everybody - including nearly all those who voluntarily entered this contract, and their descendents - will die of disease, starvation, or violence.       (Note that much of this contract has already been entered by or imposed on each resident of the Netherlands.)

Society is arranged so that the behaviors desired by the establishment are, in the short to medium term, more convenient, more profitable, or simply more likely to meet with success, than the alternatives.

The syndicate is working, with great success, to elevate convenience, ease, and painlessness, to the rank of supreme guiding principle. They exalt the path of least resistance, and deride laborious endeavors. This attitude is foremost in Buddhism and in the various religions that have Buddhism as their ancestor. Alice Bailey's Theosophy, and New Age in general, feature it centrally. There are many immediately apparent fatal flaws with this doctrine of ease, but the following suffices: those who determinedly remain on the path of least resistance never embark on the path of greatest prosperity - indeed, they simply ignore prosperity. The syndicate itself promotes the doctrine because it minimizes the effort needed to direct the behavior of the doctrine's adherents, and minimizes economically disruptive and challenging activities by them.

The media and education apparatuses are used to manipulate popular perception in a manner that discourages undesired behavior and encourages desired behavior, and laws and corporate policies are subtly - or sometimes, blatantly - formed to alter the relative profitabilities of behaviors. Media campaigns leverage particularly off the tendency of people to be concerned with others' unreasoned opinions; this tendency is, of course, encouraged. Over time, a majority of the population comes to abandon the undesired behaviors and exhibit the desired behaviors, without having been forced to.

Once the cooperation of a majority of the population has been secured, a campaign is often waged to enact a prohibition of the undesired behavior, often incrementally through increasingly onerous impediments. These measures will have no effect on a majority of the population, since most have already abandoned the behavior. They are thus not inclined to actively oppose a campaign for prohibition. Once the prohibition campaign is underway, the media and education campaign is subtly changed, from one primarily intended to manipulate people into abandoning the undesired behavior, to one primarily intended to manipulate people to view those who engage in the undesired behavior as a threat. This secures the support for prohibition among a majority of the population. The minority that resists the campaign for prohibition is ostracized and vilified, and in some cases actively harassed and persecuted by the state, allied private corporations, and the community, annihilating its last vestiges of political capital. If and when an actual prohibition is in place, the people who continue to practice the prohibited behavior tend to be unsavory types, with little to lose, who resort to risk taking to find a niche and advantage. These people act as scarecrows, enhancing deterrence of the prohibited behavior.

These campaigns may be staged to pursue a separate, pre-existing goal, or they may be staged for their own sake, since they inherently marginalize the non-compliant. The citizen disarmament campaign is an example of the former, whereas the anti-tobacco campaign is largely an example of the latter. In the citizen disarmament campaign, an additional tactic is evident. During the twentieth century, large politically influential portions of the population were barred by law from keeping or bearing arms, and these disfranchised subpopulations now aggressively support the disfranchisement of the rest of the population, because they perceive the intact franchise of the rest as an unfair advantage.

Frequently, no explicit prohibition is necessary. Through the concatenation of ostensibly non-prohibitive impediments, the undesired behavior can be made practically impossible. This technique is particularly effective in suppressing complex economic and political activities. Compared to explicit prohibition, it has the advantage that supporters of the effective prohibition can technically - though disingenuously - claim that the undesired behavior is “perfectly legal.”

Many of the syndicate's strategies are so complex and subtle that few are capable of understanding them even as a purely intellectual exercise. Moreover, some of their strategies strike the layman as plainly outlandish, with their actual effectiveness evident only to serious economists and sociologists.

The Kissinger Doctrine, set forth in Henry Kissinger's Harvard dissertation, can be summarized as the premise that the cultivation of conflict at the borders and margins of a nation and society make the central mass of that nation and society more susceptible to political control. It is a revisitation of some of Nicolo Machiavelli's ideas. This principle has been extended to the cityscape and the cultural landscape. Housing projects are erected in close proximity to business districts, so that a short stroll from the headquarters of the major insurance companies in Hartford, the major financial firms in New York, Boston, and Chicago, the major centers of cultural dissemination in New York and Los Angeles, and the major centers of government in New York and Washington DC, are frightening war zones where hoodlums packing junk guns sell crack cocaine to children in broad daylight. In all of these places except Hartford, the emotional impact of the arrangement is heightened by regulatory regimes that obliterate the capacity of the law abiding individual to defend himself - every one of these cities except Hartford effectively outlaws carrying handguns, and many other weapons besides.

Male Americans are made to feel they are under siege by female Americans (particularly in the courtroom) and white Americans are made to feel they are under siege by non-white Americans (particularly through affirmative action programs). Burgeoning hate crime laws provide special protection for everyone except healthy white heterosexual males. Moreover, on the margins of white male society are groups of militant, racist, extremist hate groups (typically nationalist socialist and/or Christian fundamentalist), who are everybody's enemy, but strategically act to box in mainstream white male Americans. The effect of this is to duplicate the psychology of the Kissinger brush war doctrine. Those who work in the urban institutions of power more readily consent, and are more easily controlled in general, because of the psychological effects of the nearby war zones. White males in general similarly grant their consent (to tyranny) more readily and reliably, because of the myriad threats encroaching on them, and the sense of a cultural sheer cliff face just beyond the bushes (and indeed, the Bushes).

The stock markets are used to camouflage and orchestrate economic manipulation, though only publicly traded companies are directly subject to this mechanism. The vested management of a publicly traded company find their paper wealth multiplying when they act in a manner that receives the approval of the syndicate, and find it withering when the syndicate disapproves. Stock markets are largely Hegelian systems, in that the thing being traded is social and economic influence (or, in sufficient quantities, control), not an actual good or service with intrinsic value, and the price a market participant pays for a share of a particular stock is a function of what he believes other

His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county. -Joseph Heller, in Catch-22, 1961

market participants will pay for that share in the future. This makes share price imminently susceptible to manipulation through a variety of mechanisms, including mass media outlets, particularly those specializing in business and finance. The often capricious and always manipulative stock ratings (strong buy, buy, hold, sell, etc.) by large banks and trading houses allow these financial magnates to command the obedience of elected boards of directors, since they quite reasonably fear shareholder mutiny if a lowered rating depresses the stock price. Moreover, the trading houses can combine participation in the options markets with appropriately timed rating announcements, to generate profit (further amassing of influence) with almost no risk.

Using the mass media, civilization is placed within a cultural feedback loop filtered as directed by the establishment (any establishment, but chiefly the syndicate). Over the course of decades, culture drifts in the directions they intend. At any given instant of the progression, there is a substantial supply of program generators (script writers, directors, producers, talent, song writers, performers, artists, etc.) who, due to their immersion in the previous generation of establishment-filtered programming, readily produce programming consistent with the establishment vision of next generation culture. It is to their products that the masses are exposed. The course of cultural evolution appears to be largely organic, but is in fact nothing of the sort.

As noted above, the statutory and regulatory codification and implementation of copyrights and patents is directly inconsistent with the ostensible enabling clause in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution. Copyright law generally makes accumulation and verbatim recapitulation of news and public affairs programming (text, spoken, and audiovisual), without explicit consent of the copyright owner (which is in most cases an incorporated entity), impractical or illegal. In general, corporations and institutions that promulgate heavily censored views and propagandized interpretations of current events (this includes the syndicate mass media, in detail - on TV, everyone but the Fox News Channel) will never be held accountable if they can avoid scrutiny for a month after the initial program has passed out of circulation or program cycling (one month is the approximate temporal window of consciousness of ordinary citizens for matters outside their personal spheres). These corporations and institutions own the copyrights on the material at issue, and vigorously exploit all available legal avenues to prevent distribution of stale programming - blowback (presentation of propaganda to other than the intended target audience), and propaganda that is now either transparently dishonest or manipulative, or manifests alignment with a now-disfavored position. The Church of Scientology uses this method to the utmost extent, so that their absolute control of who is in their audience (who receives the propaganda) is protected zealously by the full weight of the government. Reprints of articles appearing in the Hearst newspapers lauding Hitler and Naziism are not a common sight, though in a few years when the copyrights expire, perhaps they will be. On the other hand, the duration of copyright protection is being steadily lengthened in a legislative campaign, and might conceivably become eternal, shortly before the regime collapses entirely.

The copyright racket is at its most rank in the case of scholarly and professional journals, constituting the detailed technical record of humanity's scientific, technological, and social endeavors. Most journals are now published by a handful of for-profit transnational conglomerates: Macmillan and its Nature Publishing Group, Elsevier, Springer-Verlag (a division of Bertelsmann), Oxford University Press, Harcourt Brace & Company's Academic Press (and several other subsidiaries) (in mid-2001, Harcourt merged with Elsevier), Blackwell Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and in the professional association category with similarly offensive pricing and policies, the American Institute of Physics and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (the Association for Computing Machinery and the American Association for the Advancement of Science appear to be exceptionally reasonable compared to their abusive corporate peers). It is inherently dangerous for control over the promulgation of most formal, citable intellectual communications to be concentrated in the hands of a dozen or so global corporate behemoths. To find out the publisher, editors, vital statistics, and home page of a particular journal, use PubList.com.

It is normal for journal subscriptions to cost over $500 per year, individual issues to cost over $50, and individual articles (sometimes as few as three pages) to cost over $10. Some journals cost over $1500 per year, and these extortive prices are most common with unique journals serving a particular specialty. The most grotesque examples are truly astounding: the Brain Research journal suite from Elsevier is currently over $17,000 per year, and Academic Press routinely charges a flat fee of $35 per article reprint, including single page commentaries. Though these prices are obviously oriented toward institutions, even institutional libraries are choosing to let lapse subscriptions to punitively priced and seldom-used journals, so that only plutocratically endowed syndicate bastions such as Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, and institutions that make a decision to fully support a particular specialty to the exclusion of many others, can intimately participate in a particular area of specialized scholarship. Observe that hyperspecialization of journal subjects combine with onerous barriers to access to strongly encourage hyperspecialization by researchers and research programs, unnecessarily exacerbating the cult of expertise in an area of occupation that already intrinsically suffers from a great deal of intellectual tunnel vision.

Articles that appear in scholarly journals are authored by academics whose salaries and research are in most cases underwritten to varying but significant degrees by public funds. They are then refereed and edited, usually on a volunteer basis, by other academics with similar funding. Correspondence, and often, reprint requests, are directly with the academics, whose postal and email addresses appear with their work. Some journals charge authors a per page fee to have their material published; consequently, these journals are required by law (18 USC §1734) to mark each scholarly article as an “advertisement”. The authors assign copyrights on their works to the publishers (something not permitted by the US constitution), even though they are seldom if ever remunerated in any way by the publishers for their contributions. Scholarly journals are not like the mass media at all: most regular readers are also contributors. The journals have positioned themselves as gatekeepers to exploit the cautious conservatism of the academic community, but add almost no value. In many cases, the academic authors and editors even do the typesetting (using LaTeX, for example), leaving almost nothing for the publisher to do at its own expense.

The trouble for the scholar is that publication in a journal of record is a professional requirement. It won't do to simply email a PDF version to all the scientists who have an interest, since directly distributed articles can't be cited (except as “personal communication”) and aren't likely to be read (since there is no peer review filter). Moreover, a paper must as a practical matter cite all recent and seminal papers from journals of record that impinge on the topics broached by his own paper, and to do so intelligently the author must in fact have access to all the journals in his area, so that effectively each journal is a monopoly - the fundamental effect of copyrights is to enforce monopolies on information, after all. Ostensibly to facilitate access, the major journal publishers announced (in 1999) an initiative to make their full content available and searchable through a single unified interface on the Internet. Though (unsurprisingly) this has yet to come to fruition, in fact the prospect of a unified cooperative subscription service exacerbates the problem by effectively combining the existing conglomerates into a single superconglomerate, a total world monopoly on formal intellectual communication.

It is in principle very easy for the scholars who author, referee, and edit a journal to simply abandon the publisher and operate independently, using contract printing services (probably segmented into geographic regions to minimize mailing expenses), distributing articles immediately and freely over the Internet, and encumbering the articles with none of the copyright claptrap that impedes research and education. The only thing that stops them is their cautious conservatism, and on the part of a few (in the long tradition of priests), a desire to maintain a status quo in which access to authoritative scholarship is an elite privilege.

An alternative tactic is being pursued in a petition campaign by a sizeable group of scientists (over 26,000 as of this writing, including myself) at The Public Library of Science. For a sample of what the petitioners have in mind, visit the Highwire Press Free Online Full-text Articles site (there are other free full-text article sources but they are relatively diminutive and narrow).

The application of copyright law in the music industry is similar to, but a hair less outrageous, than in the academic journal industry. Courtney Love explains the situation in detail.

The most pointed objection to the copyright system is quite simple: it cannot be enforced without a totalitarian police state in which people are forbidden to use any information-processing equipment not approved by the state. Indeed, a trend in this direction has been growing ever since the DAT copy control (the Audio Home Recording Act and SCMS) fiasco of the 1980s. Supercopyright-enforcing hard drives and removable media drives (“Content Protection for Recordable Media”, CPRM) are being aggressively promoted by a broad industry consortium (“4C Entity” - IBM, Toshiba, Intel, and Matsushita) right now. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) can be naturally interpreted to mandate this type of hardware under threat of prosecution for a federal felony. Once an infrastructure of centrally controlled storage and transmission systems is deployed, it will inevitably become an instrument of informational (hence absolute) tyranny.

*

The media reiterate the cult of heroic martyrdom ad nauseam. Society is taught to believe that one cannot pursue heroic virtue without devastating sacrifice. In this view, the brilliant artist starves in a hovel, the brilliant inventor dies penniless and bitter, the political revolutionary dies young and violently, and most

Democracy in America (from Democracy in America (1832), book 2, by Alexis de Tocqueville. translated by Henry Reeve)       I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.       After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described, might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom; and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite; they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.

generally, those who distinguish themselves by excellence are rejected and eternally assailed by society. We are to believe that the pursuit of excellence is made all the more noble by the bearing of slings and arrows from the hulking bulk of ordinary humanity. The syndicate holds up Socrates (founder of the dialectic method) and Jesus Christ as preeminent examples, but in fact the former committed suicide, and the latter used premeditated martyrdom as a political weapon. Both chose death over exile, and neither pursued or attained heroic virtue.

The fact that the brilliant, heroic, virtuous, and excellent, are often in fact rejected and assailed with slings and arrows, certainly encourages acceptance of the principle of heroic martyrdom. Nonetheless, the principle is simple hogwash. There is nothing noble in the bearing of hardship as such, and indeed it is ignoble to accept any more hardship than is inherent to attainment of one's ends. The revolutionary can attain his ends without sustaining the slightest bodily injury, and indeed, be quite intact in every way on the days his goals are realized (c.f. The Fate of the Signatories). Nothing more is needed than careful attendance to strategy and detail, and diligent application of the very intelligence and vision that are the universal hallmark of the heroic innovator.

*

Many people find themselves either in constant motion from city to city, or find those they care about to be in constant motion. Many find their families and communities in a seemingly constant process of disintegration. This discombobulation is at least partly an obvious consequence of the syndicate's pressure to breed artificially extensive interdependence and mobility. In response to the inconstancy of their personal environment and connections, people embrace the artificial and impersonal constancy projected by the syndicate mass media, and offered by corporate careers, and adopt it as their native culture, defending it with patriotic fervor.

Using the mass media and various other influence methodologies, society is atomized into myriad special interest islands - examples of which were provided above, identified as “Prominent examples of American cults”. This is the political equivalent of the intellectual cult of specialization discussed above. A particular special interest island prioritizes a particular narrow cause, and subordinates all other causes to it. Thus there are animal rights islands and abortion ban islands that commit arsons, bombings, and murders, in pursuit of their narrow causes. There is the cryptographic libertarian island, which does not concern itself with firearms liberty. There is the firearms libertarian island, which does not concern itself with psychoactives liberty. There is the psychoactives libertarian island, which does not concern itself with cryptographic liberty. The fragmentation continues ad nauseam. The consequence of such a dislocated political landscape is that an overwhelming majority is apathetic or hostile on any particular issue. In a majoritarian democracy, this directly facilitates the incremental destruction of all liberties.

Culture is engineered to lull and shock the population into a continuous intellectual and moral stupor, through scripted campaigns of collective mental trauma piped through the mass media, and by the studious excision from the mass media of ideas, individuals, and production styles, that might jolt the viewer or listener intellectually or morally awake and into independent, politically significant action. Cohesion among the nation's citizens borne of common experience centers on the largely dysfunctional and destructive product piped through centrally controlled mass media conduits.

In these conduits, in places of business, and in public areas, unclothed humans, sexual behavior exposing sexual organs, and representations thereof, are segregated exactingly so that they are accessible only to adults. The motives behind this immense apparatus of censorship are various, and prominently include misbegotten pseudomorality and the congeniality to the syndicate of any regime that creates authority and facilitates verification of obedience and punishment of disobedience, particularly in a domain associated with strong emotions. However, the most significant effect, and possibly underpinning deliberate motive, is that the apparatus maximizes the psychological trauma associated with adolescence.

In a natural society, children and adults alike view the human body and sexual behavior as inherent and integral components of daily life, but not consuming or political components. That is, there is no mystery to sexuality, and it is not wielded as a weapon. Moreover, nakedness is commonplace in entirely non-sexual contexts, albeit only in domestic contexts (clothing is even older than our species).

Of all social domains, sexuality is accompanied by the strongest emotions (though rivalled by mortal confrontations, some of which can be viewed as social). The emotions at issue (both with sexuality and with mortal confrontations) are, particularly, those mediated by the hypothalamus and amygdala, and these brain organs are quite uniform and predictable in their dynamics across the species. These dynamics are neither contemplative nor strictly rational. Thus, if the influence of these organs over the thought and behavior of an individual is heightened, the individual becomes more predictable. This uniform predictability makes him more manipulable, since subjecting him to certain stimuli can be confidently predicted to lead to certain behaviors.

Almost all the neurophysiological correlates of puberty are in the hypothalamus and amygdala. Regardless of external stimuli, the influence of these organs over the rest of the brain changes abruptly at this time. However, if the individual experiences a parade of novel stimuli that are particularly significant to these organs with their new sensitivities, then the influence of the organs becomes disproportionate, and the conscious, reasoning portion of the brain is overwhelmed. This, somewhat at length, is the preeminent purpose for censoring such stimuli until the age at which susceptibility to them is at its peak. If the stimuli were familiar, then the impact of them on the individual would be greatly attenuated, since the reasoning brain could set them in familiar context and thereby manage the experience. This would make him less predictable and less manipulable, an unattractive scenario for the syndicate. Moreover, the pre-pubescent mind is quite capable of a dispassionate contemplation of sexuality, developing cognitive models that are reasoned and declarative. By censoring the evidence necessary for the development of these models, the models cannot be developed, depriving the individual of an important tool whereby emotional manipulation might be resisted.

The establishment's immense apparatus of sexual censorship actually tends to draw attention to the narrow organismic system of sexuality, and makes it appear to be a realm inextricably associated with organized institutional authority (useful in manufacturing consent for coercive, state-administered eugenical regimes). Nakedness comes to be considered inherently sexual. Establishment media don't avoid the sexual domain, they inflate it. Their censorship is that of a government document radactor with an Exacto knife, removing only the arbitrarily conventionalized narrow, literal trappings of sexuality. Non-adults hear an incomprehensible bleep, or see provocative behavior or attire that is meaningless to them, while the meanings are transparent to adults, and tend to distract consciousness.

Those on the cusp of understanding (or stuck at the corresponding stage of emotional development) recognize a taboo, and tend to indulge in the taboo in ostensible defiance of authority and self-assertion. The taboos particularly at issue are profligate sexual activity, and profligate sexual language. Most obviously, these people tend to litter their conversations with a profusion of curse words with literally sexual meanings. This form of verbal ornamentation is widely displayed (and therefore encouraged) in the mass media, wherever non-adults are excluded, sexualizing conversation regardless of the topic. In fact, people are misled to view sexuality as an avenue of politically significant rebellion. This suits the establishment just fine, since such silly acts come to naught - well, perhaps, come to STDs. Regarding licentious behavior, a comparison is instructive: in parts of the world where the significance of alcohol-containing beverages is not inflated (France, for example), teenage binge drinking is a rarity, whereas in America (where, often as a result of deliberate and callous machinations, alcohol has evoked such political passion that constitutional prohibition was attempted) it is commonplace.

The domain of mortal confrontations, broached above as a domain whose emotional correlates rival those of sexuality in their intensity, is grotesquely exaggerated in the mass media, with little meaningful censorship. The emotional sway of this domain is without regard for age and maturity, therefore relentless and ubiquitous profusion of representations of mortal confrontations is the most effective strategy in this domain for those intent on pummeling the population into predictable amygdalo-hypothalamic behavioral patterns.

“Reality” shows like real tv (on Rupert Murdoch's Fox) condition viewers so that they see dreadful danger in nearly any activity more adventurous than couch-bound sedentation. As a consequence, the policies they support will value safety above all. Safety is achieved with regulations and enforcement mechanisms that etch away at individual freedom, and total safety is only possible through the total destruction of individual freedom.

The syndicate configures society so that there are many examples of behavior that produces both reward and punishment, accompanied by directly conflicting propaganda. For example, euphoric drug use is promoted explicitly and implicitly by dramatic and comedic programs distributed by mass media, but in non-fictional settings the mass media demonizes non-prescription psychoactive drug use, and of course the War on Drugs makes drug use both medically and legally dangerous. Psychoactives lend themselves particularly well to this tactic, since they are inherently contradictory - their use is rewarded directly through chemical action on the brain, but is punished directly by producing morbidity. Thus, the nuclei of the syndicate work to maintain a steady and ubiquitous supply of black market psychoactives.

As broached above, society is awash in renditions and promotions of sexuality of every variety, in television, movies, music, on the stage, in print, and on the Internet, encouraging an embrace of and preoccupation with sexuality - often aggressive, predatory, abusive, perverted, or inappropriate sexuality. But in the workplace, the actual setting of most people's waking hours, sexuality of any variety is now routinely punished with draconian measures, principally through sexual harrassment law. This mechanism has been expanded so that virtually any conduct (particularly including simple exercise of free speech) that anyone might deem offensive and might consider to have any sexual content, even if only by implication, is actionable grounds in court, often yielding a financial bonanza for whoever brings the suit, and financial ruin for whoever the suit is brought against.

A more general example is the contradictory promotion and demonization of independent thought and action. The 1990 movie Pump Up the Volume directly promoted so-called pirate radio (unlicensed micropower amateur transmission on the broadcast bands), but national authorities (the FCC, US Marshals, FBI, etc.) routinely conduct armed raids on these transmission facilities. In yet another obvious example of cultivated contradiction, the state operates lotteries and, through the mass media, promotes them, but also operates programs that seek to cure people of gambling problems, and indeed sometimes produce or sponsor propaganda that demonizes gambling. In a

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. -Joseph Heller, in Catch-22, 1961

spectacular inconsistency, the state punishes those who operate or participate in lotteries that differ from the states' only in that they are not operated by and for the pecuniary benefit of the state. The effect of these systems is to tear the unwary apart mentally.

Through a torrential, pervasive, orchestrated campaign of mental assaults, a propensity to embrace the irrational in general, and novel religions of mystic faith in particular, is manufactured among a population made desperate and hopeless. The utopian vision of the syndicate - in particular, of socioeconomic stability and unconditional happiness, elevated to absolute preeminence - does not allow for authentic substantive purpose (“meaning”) in the lives of men. The syndicate concluded that a fraudulent purpose - the dictates of a religion - must be emplaced, to mitigate a disruptive search for meaning.

A religion has been largely formulated and is being refined and promulgated by minions of the same syndicate leaders who orchestrate the campaign of assaults. It is called New Age or Maitreyanism, and it is based on the theosophy of Alice Bailey and Helen Blavatsky, and to a great extent, on Buddhism and Hinduism, and on the Hebraic Kabbalah and Babylonian (Mesopotamian Semitic) religion, from which the modern theosophists chiefly drew.

Clearly, we are in a new age. Never before the modern industrial era was it possible for any two people on earth to communicate with each other faster than conscious awareness, or for any person to travel anywhere on earth so fast that he needn't eat or drink on the way, or for a superweapon to strike anywhere on earth in less than 20 minutes. The problem is not with this new age of incontrovertible global interconnectedness. Rather, the problems are religion and interdependence.

*

Because only people of autonomous aptitude and reasoned principle are equipped to resist peer pressure, psychomanipulation, blackmail, reputation assassination, bribery, and enticement to vice, they and their principles are particularly under incessant multifaceted siege. Put simply, the syndicate seeks to deny people the courage of their convictions. Moreover, society incessantly pressures and incentivizes its members to involve themselves in corruption - to participate in economic processes that wreak havoc on the environment and on disfranchised sectors of the citizenry, to lie, to abuse the legal system, to betray friends and neighbors, all with a view to fostering guilt and the camaraderie of the corrupt, and annihilating self-respect and the possibility of adherence to personal principle, and indeed, of maintaining individuality. Because of the income tax and Federal Reserve systems, and the breathtaking campaign of evil the US government pursues, anyone who earns a living or uses ordinary money is either a party to evil and corruption (unwittingly, grudgingly, or willingly), or a tax evader exposed to the real possibility of deprivation of property or incarceration and its concomitant gruesome risks and degradation. One can't even be an economically disconnected subsistence farmer with occasional barter activities, since property taxes must be paid in Federal Reserve funds (contrary to the letter of the US constitution, Article 1, Section 10). One might rent land by barter, but then one knows the owner will sell the product in order to pay the property taxes. These dynamics tend to deprive people of their humanity and individuality, and endow them with the morality of animals - which is to say, deprive them of morality in toto. The animal rights movement is probably driven in large part by a subconscious fear of these dehumanized people that they could, without moral inconsistency, be treated as animals. All this, notwithstanding the 13^th amendment to the US constitution, which reads “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Businessmen are led to believe that evil is part and parcel of, and inseparable from, success in the business world. For example, as Driscoll et al. recount in The Ethical Edge: Tales of Organizations That Have Faced Moral Crisis 5 (1995), a mid-1980s front page story in the Wall Street Journal declared that business ethics is “an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms like jumbo shrimp.” Legally required fiduciary responsibility is mathematically incompatible with the principal moral dictates of all the major religions (including Marxism, of course). Because businessmen feel they are evil because of this conflict, they then easily do things that are actually evil (betraying investors, causing or permitting environmental devastation, annihilation of individual freedoms under the corporate boot, etc.) believing they are not giving up anything they haven't already given up. Similarly, many casual free market proponents describe themselves (jokingly) as “right of Genghis Khan”, equating liberal economics with wanton slaughter, rape, and pillaging.

*

Systems of subsidized employment - most obviously, employment predicated on the Americans with Disabilities Act or on so-called affirmative action - are appealing to the syndicate because the beneficiaries of the policies are beholden to the system, realizing that they have not fully earned their position through aptitude for the task at issue. These are Hegelian systems within which characteristics wholly unrelated to aptitude, and arbitrarily designated by the syndicate, influence who works in what position. In fact, at some level, the beneficiaries feel beholden specifically to the syndicate. This system, obviously, is very appealing to the syndicate. Its effects are like those of the reverse-meritocracy described above in the context of the committee system.

Systems of subsidized housing, education, and health care, appeal to the syndicate because they inflate the cost of the subsidized services, making them less accessible to those who are not beneficiaries of the subsidies, or more often, forcing them to expend a greater proportion of their influence (typically, their monetary income) on the service, leaving them with less influence to expend in a manner that is politically and economically significant in the exercise of power. Of course, subsidies also put the subsidizing entity in a position to select beneficiaries in a manner that promotes the perceived interests of the syndicate. Observe that the particular identity of the subsidizer is immaterial - the effect is the same whether the state or a private entity is responsible.

The public's perception of the world is manipulated not through the fabrication of news (except in campaigns of propaganda supporting campaigns of national warfare), but through selective omission, the staging of events, psychomanipulative fiction, and consuming distractions (spectator sports et al.). By scrupulously avoiding publication of demonstrable falsehoods, news providers secure public confidence, which they then expend in the aforementioned campaigns of propaganda.

In terms of production values, the signals propagated by the mass media are so whipped and blended and contoured that they are utterly unreal - this describes the rigid formats that uniformly dominate commercial and corporate radio broadcasting, the linguistic and conceptual style of syndicate print media (see for example Orwell's Politics and the English Language), all the movies showing in a typical cinema, the on-the-record presentations of major politicians and bureaucrats, and of course, very nearly every second of television broadcast or cablecast.

This numbing cultural saturation became a momentary subject of public contemplation in the wake of the great blackout of 2003. Joshua Glenn, writing in the "Ideas" section of the Sunday Boston Globe on 2003-Aug-17, wrote in an item titled "Blackout studies":

ON THURSDAY, CNN's Wolf Blitzer reported from unlit Manhattan that “people almost have a festive atmosphere. They're pretty happy about it.”

Why do New Yorkers whistle in the dark? Ideas put this question to historian Jim Sparrow, director of the Blackout History Project (http://blackout.gmu.edu), which seeks to reconstruct the “social responses” to New York's massive power outages of 1965 and 1977.

Sparrow replied that “the general experience of modern life is numbness -- perhaps in New York most of all -- and when the lights go out everyone is shocked out of that state.” Although anxious, New Yorkers are “delighted to see the stars over the city, to have their televisions go dead, and to experience a spontaneous sense of community.”

The syndicate employs the full palette of their political control apparatus, in a grand public works project to transform the popular mind. The final consequence of this campaign is that many ordinary people (in the US, think Democrats) dedicate much of their mental energy to the apprehension of the desires of the syndicate, and much of their action to the fulfillment of those desires. In this frightening, eager yet stealthy obedience, people abdicate their individuality and become automatons devoid of reasoned discrimination and consistency. They vote for the candidates they think the syndicate wants them to vote for. They spend and invest their money the way they think the syndicate wants them to. Subconsciously, this “intelligent obedience” is declarative reality. This secret is hiding inside the mind of every American Democrat, and quite a few Republicans besides.

Syndicate leaders have organized their establishment into a cryptic hierarchy, in which most people - particularly including those within the syndicate - do not know where the top of the power pyramid is. This tends to protect those at the apex from those who would dismantle the system, but perhaps even more importantly, it throws off the trail those who seek to occupy the apex themselves. There are very few indeed among the whole lot of aggressive climbers of corporate and bureaucratic ladders who understand what and where the apex really is. And since it is hardly the case that all power is concentrated at the apex, it is easy to fail to recognize it when looking right at it.

To protect their capacity to operate under the radar of popular awareness, the syndicate promotes and encourages the impression of a linkage between themselves and an encyclopedia of conspiratorial absurdities. In this way, many of the people who might otherwise provide a reasoned account of the identities and methods of the syndicate are bamboozled, and wind up sounding like, or in fact being, lunatics.

In particular, stories of government involvement with extraterrestrial visitors and paranormal phenomena thwart the efforts of many to distinguish the real from the fictitious. Chris Carter's “X Files” and “Millennium” and the Art Bell Show were/are inheritors of a prodigious legacy of programs that encourage this confusion. More than simply acting as intellectual equivalents of radar chaffe and heat flares, these programs deflect blame to an unaccountable and incomprehensible reified other, or in some cases, to everyone on Earth. Since this type of paranoid conspiratorial pseudscience programming is naturally appealing to some writers, producers, and commentators, the syndicate need only covertly grease the path to assure some of this programming is budgeted and distributed for maximum effect. In the particular case of shows by Chris Carter and Art Bell, the involvement is more direct: whether or not they understand the connection, these shows dramatize conspiracy myths promulgated by heretofore fringe organizations that are funded by Laurance Rockefeller (David's brother, until 2004 the only other survivor of the “Fortunate Five” Rockefeller brothers).

In 2004, the big budget wide release movie The Day After Tomorrow was another installment in this series. Dr. Jeffrey M. Masters, Chief Meteorologist at The Weather Underground, explains: “The laws of meteorology get seriously abused here. Consider the book the movie is based on, The Coming Global Superstorm, by Whitley Streiber and Art Bell. Whitley Streiber is a UFO expert and author of the best-selling 1985 book Communion, a non-fiction account of his abduction by extra-terrestrials. Art Bell hosts a nationally syndicated all-night radio show, Coast to Coast AM, which specializes in UFOs and the supernatural. They argue that a sudden climate shift would create such strong atmospheric instability that an incredible "superstorm" must result.”

The eternal stream of paranormal-themed productions serves another role. If a phenomenon is "paranormal", it is intrinsically insusceptible to rational modelling (science), and undermines any system that is incompatible with the existence of such phenomena. Of course there are many phenomena for which scientists have yet to articulate models - the "paranormal", however, precludes any such articulation ever, even given an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of memory with which to probe the phenomenon. The syndicate has always found the premise of the "paranormal" useful, even indispensable, precisely because it purports to dispense with the final utility of reason. Reason is the last refuge of the mind, and its only completely reliable companion. People persuaded to surrender this refuge are fundamentally undermined in their capacity to pass consistent and practical judgement on the soundness of social trends and influences, and so are much more vulnerable to organized manipulation - particularly through the influence of the mass media, and the actions of the state and their employers.

*

Organizationally, businesses no longer center on such activities as design, production, and sales (i.e., the creation and dissemination of wealth). Instead, a typical business today is an organization whose apex mission is to scam the rest of the economy into redistributing money (i.e., influence) to it, by whatever means works and is within the means of the organization. Morover, the mission a typical new

The Gulag Archipelago (The Gulag Archipelago (1973) p.13, by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn) [...]       And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the down-stairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of a half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur - what if it had been driven off of or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.       If .... if... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! (Arthur Ransome describes a workers' meeting in Yaroslavi in 1921. Delegates sent to the workers from the Central Committee in Moscow to confer on the substance of the argument about trade unions. The representative of the opposition, Y. Larin, explained to the workers that their trade union must be their defense against the administration, that they possessed rights which they had won and upon which no one else had any right to infringe. The workers, however, were completely indifferent, simply not comprehending whom they still needed to be defended against and why they still needed any rights. When the spokesman for the Party line rebuked them for their laziness and for getting out of hand, and demanded sacrifices from them - overtime work without pay, reductions in food, military discipline in the factory administration - this aroused great elation and applause.) We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward. [...]

business identifies is almost invariably a plan to weave itself into the existing economic architecture, in such a way that they are made inextricable to the business of others, yet add little or no wealth to the economy. Microsoft is a preeminent realization of this strategy of economic manipulation and interposition. The institution of the franchise is another.

The expenditures of a typical member of the public fall into four categories: (1) taxation, by which influence (money) is assigned to the state within various extortive regimes (this includes Social Security), (2) material subsistence and means of earning, including food, utilities, housing/mortgage/rent, automotive, insurance (often extortive), etc., (3) frivolous luxuries and indulgences, including resort vacations, dining in expensive restaurants, extravagant entertainment and recreation equipment and facilities, etc., and (4) donations, often to one of the syndicate's strategic foundations or organizations, often to charities that diffuse wealth among the poor (i.e., in a manner which is irrelevant to the exercise of power), and almost invariably to one, the other, or both. When a member of the public invests wealth in government bonds, he delegates control over that wealth to the state. When he invests in the stock market, he delegates control to corporations. When he invests in managed funds, he delegates control to financiers. When he deposits money in checking and savings accounts, he delegates control to bankers. In a wide variety of settings, he delegates control to lawyers.

The inconsistencies that characterize the fiscal mindset of the ordinary American are many and grave. Americans widely distrust and resent taxes, the state, corporations, financiers, bankers, lawyers, and the mass media, yet they engage in behavior that perpetuates and amplifies their extent and power. They tolerate or support the bell-ringers who collect money ostensibly slated for distribution to, and perpetuation of dependency among, those who have not earned it and will not likely make of it anything good, believing (without thinking) that the bell-ringer wields a towering moral authority. But the same person who drops a dollar into the charity can would not likely consider dropping a dollar into the can of a towering but starving intellectual dissident, even though he recognizes the effectiveness of the dissident, agrees with his views and objectives (particularly, diminution of taxes and of the corruption and oppressive power of the state, corporations, financiers, bankers, lawyers, and the mass media), and thus has a personal interest in materially assisting him. Often, he reflexively condemns those who want to be paid for doing serious dissident political work, calling them “sell-outs” and other such invectives. The good at heart, apparently, are expected to be bluntly superhuman. He asks, rhetorically, what he will receive in exchange for his payment, knowing full well - at least if he gives it a moment's thought - that he will receive the material and emotional advantages bestowed by the activities of the dissident, which are almost surely worth far more to him than is the money that could constitute a contribution. On the other hand, he knows he will receive nothing whatever in exchange for his payment to the Salvation Army or other such charities, but he does not consider that this impairs the virtuosity or rationality of the donation - likely because he has not given it any serious thought. His donation buys him influence over his peers (who have also not seriously thought about the charity arrangement) because he can impress and shame them, and this is reason enough that he doesn't think past it.

All those who oppose the syndicate agenda and want to see changes, and who control wealth (wield influence) in excess of that necessary for the maintenance of a comfortable and sufficient lifestyle, but who fail to exercise that wealth (influence) in a manner likely to bring about those changes, are unwitting facilitators.

*

It is well to observe that the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence community components are engines of conspiracy. Espionage, insurgency, and covert action in general, are treasonous conspiracies from the perspective of the target nation (whose laws are broken), and counterintelligence is in large part the art of concealing and camouflaging these conspiracies. (The other large part of counterintelligence is the art of tricking one's adversaries into serving one's own interests, by manipulating the information that reaches them.) The regimented systemic compartmentalization endemic to the intelligence community is perfectly suited to conspiratorial strategem. It should come as no surprise that the intelligence community, with its Rothschild and Rockefeller ancestry (partly by way of the Nazi intelligence apparatus), is central to the syndicate program.

Establishments orchestrate changes in laws to suit their intentions more than they break laws outright. They are fluid, changing their boundaries to include or exclude people and ideas as dictated by establishment leadership. In the case of the syndicate of the US, the names of these leaders are not secret, just largely unadvertised. In fact, the syndicate is first and foremost a collection of ideas, and any individual within the syndicate is disposable.

Fundamentally, the syndicate is driven by fear, power lust, malice, and Thanatos, seeking nothing but the consolidation and perpetuation of the power structure they command, in terminal pursuit of total order. In the process, they seek, among other nefarious goals, to transmogrify the constitutional government of the United States into a fascistic oligarchy, by inexorable increments. The core of the syndicate pursues world hegemony partly as a morbid pathological game for their titillation and amusement.

One might wonder how it is that this degenerate vein of humanity has attained a position of such influence in human affairs the world over. Indeed, this vein runs back for many millennia. The answer is straightforward. These degenerates pursue purely Hegelian objectives, within a purely Hegelian operating system. Their influence is entirely a matter of appearances. Serious individuals - and there are few if any serious individuals among the whole of the syndicate leadership - simply do not concern themselves with Hegelian rubbish. Serious individuals commune with reality on its own terms, avoiding intermediaries whenever possible. Serious individuals do the thing itself, whatever that thing may be, with little regard for the opinions of others on the matter. Serious individuals thus appear less influential but are in fact more influential (because the things they build are real and robust under the pressure of universal physical principles), and the syndicate - the degenerate power brokers - appear more influential but are in fact less so (because the things they cause to be built are corrupt and collapse under the pressure of universal physical principles).

It is my hope that by laying bare the agenda, strategy, tactics, and operational particulars of these power brokers, the reader will recognize and gain immunity to their propaganda, and be emboldened to fight them, to conceive and implement novel counterstrikes, to undermine their power base, to hurl them from their thrones, to make the world hostile for the power brokers and a sanctum for freedom lovers and innovators. It is also my hope that those readers who oppose evil will come to recognize and condemn the habitual accommodation of evil that is the mainstay of the popular mindset.

The only thing necessary to ensure the prompt defeat of the syndicate's inevitably self-destructive plan is to reject the vices they promote, and to promote and adhere to the principles they disdain: honesty, rationality, and individual autonomy. They rely utterly on the cooperation of others. Without it, their empires are annihilated. Their reliance inexorably intensifies, as they adopt ever more complex technologies integral to their methods of social and economic control. This trend shows no signs of abating. As a consequence, in the foreseeable future, the syndicate will find itself unable to maintain social and economic control, and will lose its empire -- though first their empire has to be thoroughly installed and consolidated, a development still well in the future as of this writing, if it is to happen at all.

The syndicate and its constituents are really a conspiracy of incompetents. Those technologists who are willing to work to maintain syndicate hegemony lack the mentality - individually and working together - necessary and sufficient to keep the complex machinery of control working. And it is complex indeed, and fundamentally quite vulnerable. Machines have fairly short lifespans, even if not subjected to the abuse that always accompanies erosion of competence. The ability to produce replacement machines relies, in the final analysis, on a thorough understanding of those machines and how to fabricate them — including fabrication of all the machines needed for fabrication and upstream supply of components, starting from raw ores, raw fuels, and recycled junk.

The requisite practical expertise becomes unavailable to the syndicate for two main reasons.

The first is a straightforward consequence of human psychology, itself responding to the natural laws of economics: when a social climate prevails in which the rewards of public virtuosity, originality, lucidity, and industry, are steadily eroded (e.g. through taxes and regulations that frustrate entrepreneurship), indeed often inverted into punishment (e.g. through exposure to liability and infringement prosecutions and lawsuits with personally and/or economically catastrophic penalties), then there is a corresponding erosion of the supply of public virtuosity, originality, lucidity, and industry. Without them, the technological infrastructure of empire steadily erodes away to nothing.

But it is also because any technologist who has the intelligence and technical insight to keep the technology of hegemony working - indeed, even many bureaucrat who have the intelligence and social insight to keep the apparatus of hegemony working - has the insight to know he is better off if he lets (or indeed makes) it fail, and the skills to camouflage his efforts to that end without grave personal consequences (as Hitler's nuclear scientists apparently did). He knows the hegemony is at his expense. He knows that, without their oppressive hegemony, he and those like him will enjoy greater material success, wield more influence, and indeed have better procreative prospects. In short, he knows he will be more prosperous without the regime. For a vaguely similar example, compare FreeBSD and Linux (among other freeware Unix flavors) to Microsoft Windows (any flavor). Microsoft is a syndicate corporation, with tens of thousands of often extravagantly compensated employees, and a $279 billion market capitalization (as of 2005-Feb-17). Windows is their flagship product. Yet a bunch of loosely collaborating academics and independent contractor types scattered around the world, operating on a shoestring budget, have delivered operating systems with superior reliability and security, and in some cases superior functionality and performance. Most of these people would never consider working for Microsoft - they could if they wanted to, in a minute, and they choose not to, because they know it would suck and the paycheck and stock options wouldn't make up the difference.

Whether you are in government, industry, banking and finance, law, education, academia and consulting firms, or the media, and even if you know yourself to be at this moment a member of the syndicate, you are in a position to make a difference for the better, by doing the right thing at the right time, or by refraining from doing the wrong thing at the key time. It is in your interests to do so: the syndicate program abuses and imperils the members of the syndicate as much as those they are pitted against. For example, police officers are sent on fool's errands, treated as disposable commodities whose deaths on the battlefields of the War on Drugs or the on-again, off-again War on Guns are part of the program, useful to the syndicate because they enable manufacturing of consent and yearning for even more aggressive policing.

It's also good to remember that the cognitive capacities that enable one to be effective as a second hander power broker also enable one to be effective as a first hander wealth creator.

The syndicate leadership has planned a gradual, incremental tightening of the noose. Their efforts will be thwarted peaceably, before they reach maturity, if they carefully abandon them of their own accord, or if others in positions to do so insistently and carefully loosen the noose through personal, often covert, campaigns of virtue, or indeed if the carpet is simply pulled out from under their feet by an awakened electorate that sees through the dissimulations of the syndicate. If the syndicate persists, their eventual and total collapse is an absolute surety, but is not likely to be peaceable. The syndicate's hidebound inhibition of change causes that change to be released all at once, under great pressure, in the seismic social event called revolution. Put differently, the syndicate extinguishes small natural political fires, and forbids the culling of dead and dying cultural and economic wood, making epic social conflagration inevitable. The particular advantage of the latter metaphor is that the syndicate has literally imposed precisely this school of forest management, with precisely these results.

Here are a couple brief thoughts regarding the approach, arrival, and passage of the Gregorian year 2000. First: the occasion is purely numerological, having no inherent meaning whatever. Thus, it is wholly unsurprising that most of the thinking associated with this occasion is mystical in character. Second: that this occasion left nothing more than the usual hangovers and party messes underscores the determination of the syndicate to adhere to the incremental approach described in detail above, which the syndicate considers to be proceeding at a good clip. The danger of the syndicate running amok is greatest when they perceive that incrementalism is failing them - particularly, that it has reversed course, so that the lot of society is improving, if feebly at first, contrary to the perceived interests of the syndicate. This is when they are most prone to foment extremist (Hegelian) revolution (the radicalization of the political left is well underway, and Howard Dean is symptomatic). The public is led to expect unrealistically rapid improvement, and their disappointment is transformed into zeal for revolution.

The syndicate program is not quite a traditional conspiracy. As in many, its members do not all know each other, have sometimes conflicting conceptions of what is to be done, and have sometimes conflicting agendas. From here, the distinctions mount. It is a largely “open” conspiracy, in that much of its membership, structure, methods, and operations, are matters of public record, however scattered and obscure. Its manner of coordination is atypical. Two nuclei - the core of the Wall Street clique (orbiting the House of Rockefeller) and the core of the European financial clique (orbiting the House of Rothschild, at least historically) - coordinate the global establishment program by waging psychological warfare on the rest of the syndicate, telling each member no more than is necessary for him to fulfill his envisioned role, often with explicit recognition neither of his role, nor of the unarticulated rules that govern him. Thus, the overwhelming bulk of the syndicate does not know, but only suspects, that it is part of and in service to “a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it” (repeating the Woodrow Wilson quote that first appeared in the opening paragraphs of this document).

Modern American civilization is substantially shaped and controlled by the House of Rockefeller and a handful of others, the inheritors of the empire of influence and ideology founded by Mayer Amschel “Rothschild” Bauer (1743-1812), John Davison Rockefeller I (1839-1937), John Pierpoint Morgan (1837-1913), Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), Cecil John

Cecil Rhodes

Rhodes (1853-1902), and a few of their contemporary cohorts. This control apparatus is largely directed at the highest (global) level by affiliates of the Bilderberg group, founded in 1954 and dominated by the House of Rothschild and by their collaborating, ascendant, far more visible rival, the House of Rockefeller. However, increasingly the House of Rockefeller seems to be wielding influence independent of Bilderberg. Though most of my discussion herein is generic in character, requiring no reference to particular individuals, it is important that these individuals be identified so that they can most effectively be opposed. Also, be careful to recognize that there is not a single individual among the whole of the syndicate whose understanding of the syndicate program approaches that manifested by this document. The syndicate is itself an evolved and distributed social and mental disease, a collosal hapless subconscious suicide pact.

Bilderberg is the most powerful of the surviving descendents of the Round Table, a secret society founded in an 1877 will by the spectacularly chauvinist Cecil Rhodes. Rhodes was financially supported by Lord Rothschild and by Alfred Beit of de Beers (a Rothschild agent), and his vision was directly inspired by proto-Nazi John Ruskin, a professor of fine arts at Oxford. Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) maintains (in his voluminous 1966 tome, Tragedy and Hope) that the Round Table was formally organized as a semi-secret multinational anglophile society starting in 1908, and that its unifying principle was the oligarchical federation of the English-speaking world - evidently, the political, economic, and cultural reconstitution of the British Empire. This initial goal has evolved into the goal of oligarchical world federation.

Despite the disproportionate influence of David Rockefeller and the Rothschild-influenced agenda he subtly conveys at each meeting, Bilderberg is a true committee, and the actions of its affiliates are driven by consensus which all involved can influence and none involved can dictate. Affiliates are not commanded. Their cooperation is secured through dialogue, incentives, and hints. As Earl Long, late governor of Louisiana memorably put it, “Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary.” Affiliates are chosen partly on the basis of their compatibility with this modus operandi. Affiliates of Bilderberg, and of the other major committees, establish symbiotic, often exclusionary relationships among the organizations they command or influence; the dividends of affiliation are enormous.

The vast constellation of committees, foundations, thinktanks, academic centers, action groups, and media outlets, acts as a concept laundry, concealing the origins of Rockefeller and Rothschild agenda-driven concepts in the same way that a money laundry conceals the origin of money. With the concepts laundered, they appear to be to a degree organic, the product of natural political evolution and consensus. They are nothing of the sort, of course.

Unknown to the vast majority of Bilderberg, TLC, CFR, COA, and RIIA affiliates of record, at least in its specifics, is a parallel apparatus of covert action, closely intertwined with the intelligence community (Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, etc.), law enforcement community (Department of Justice, Secret Service, American Society for Industrial Security, etc.), certain select secret societies (Skull & Bones, etc.), criminal and labor syndicates (AFL-CIO, etc.), cults (Scientology, Unification Church, Nightstalkers and Delta Force, SEALs, etc.), and the middle and lower ranks of various industries (including the top leadership of some front and niche firms, and organizations such as International Executive Services Corporation). This apparatus protects and facilitates the activities of the affiliates, with the subtly menacing promise of accountability. Many of the visible council affiliates harbor vague, largely unarticulated suspicions of the existence of this parallel apparatus, and some even suspect its relationship with the first families of Bilderberg. A small proportion of affiliates deliberately and explicitly collaborate with the parallel apparatus, which like the councils is dominated by the Houses of Rockefeller and Rothschild. The Rockefellers generally attend to command and control outside Europe. The parallel apparatus is largely unknown to most members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities proper, despite its thorough penetration thereof, and despite the fact that a very high proportion of intelligence and law enforcement activities are the covert bidding of the syndicate. Certain dimensions of the Rothschild-Rockefeller agenda are pursued directly via this apparatus of covert action - particularly, those that are manifestly unsavory or criminal.

In some contrast to Bilderberg and the other councils, this parallel apparatus constitutes an explicit, intricate, fluid, highly compartmentalized set of sometimes interlacing command hierarchies. Bilderberg proper is a command hierarchy only within actual corporate hierarchies, and is of course neither significantly covert nor compartmentalized. The total Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus is structured in such a way that those who, by design, are public leaders and subject to public scrutiny - corporate leaders, for example - are generally given no obvious reason to perceive the apparatus as coercive or as a conspiracy. Those who are, by design, essentially hidden from public view - including most of the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and obviously, secret societies and criminal syndicates - are directly exposed to the coercive and conspiratorial character of the apparatus, but have no political capital with which to threaten it. There are a few positions of both threatening political capital and strategic criticality occasionally necessitating candid coercion and explicit knowledge of the apparatus. Major union leaderships and the presidency are prime examples. Uncooperative occupiers of these positions are periodically murdered by operatives of the apparatus, or in the case of the presidency, allowed through neglect to be murdered by an emissary from the ever-present stable of crazed assassins. Many in this stable have a tangled history with the intelligence community.

The Houses of Rothschild and Rockefeller, whose central occupation is international banking and finance, by themselves constitute the greatest concentrations of political and economic power in the world. These houses do not, of course, consist solely of hereditary namesakes. Henry Kissinger is a key member of the House of Rockefeller, just as George Soros is a key member of the House of Rothschild. Moreover, there is no sharp boundary between the two houses. Nelson Aldrich was a darling of the House of Rothschild, and became a member proper of the House of Rockefeller. The present-day fortune of the House of Rothschild is of unknown magnitude, perhaps the equivalent of many trillions of dollars, and the present-day fortune of the House of Rockefeller has been estimated at over a trillion dollars, and is likely soon to surpass that of the House of Rothschild if it hasn't already. These fortunes can be measured in dollars, even though they are largely not held in dollars, because dollars are tokens of influence, and influence is the substance of these fortunes (thus, their fortunes are in reality insubstantial). J. D. Rockefeller I, the consummate collectivist patriarch, has been reported by mainstream media as the richest man to ever live, at an estimated $189 billion in 1998 dollars. The tale of the Rockefeller patriarchal dynasty is one of malignant evil. The tale of the Rothschild patriarchal dynasty is quite similar. Their collaboration has been a campaign of evil tantamount to, if not surpassing, that of the Vatican in its most militant and intolerant periods, or the Aztecs with their deathly spectacles - if those spectacles had been played out on a global scale. This compilation is a documentary of Rothschild and Rockefeller machinations - of the spectacles of death they have played out on a global scale, and the spectacles they have yet in store.

Campaigns of socialization and feminization have rendered Europe economically moribund at a rate that outstrips the effects of those campaigns in the United States. This has altered the balance of power further toward the United States, which has been able to consolidate its position as the global power center. Third world economies do not Euro-ize, they Dollarize. Since Europe is the realm of the House of Rothschild and the United States the realm of the House of Rockefeller, the balance of power between the two houses has changed, and the Rockefellers are ascendant. If they have not already, they will soon find themselves kings of the mountain. Ironically, it is precisely because the Rockefellers have lagged in their campaign to socialize America, that they now find themselves ascendant.

The alcohol prohibition campaign (1917-1919) was another key early component, and was largely underwritten by John D. Rockefeller II. (It was repealed in 1933 when FDR came to the White House). The economic collapse of 1929 was also key, and was orchestrated by the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus through strategic monetary policy manipulations - enabled both through the instrument of the great private investment banks they control, and through the instrument of the Federal Reserve system they had emplaced and control. One of the Hoover Administration's parting shots at the heart of the economy was to press Congress to raise the marginal income tax rate from its 1925-1931 maximum of 25% over $100k, to 56% at $100k and 63% over $1m for tax year 1932, at which rate it would remain until hiked much higher during the FDR years.

In 1933, after being elected through the support of the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus, Franklin Delano Roosevelt - under their direction - used executive orders and a cooperating, overwhelmingly Democrat-populated Congress to abrogate the gold standard, order confiscation of all monetary gold in the hands of citizens, and implement Marxist socialism as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the FDIC, the FSLIC, the Social Security Act, and the Wagner Act (which legitimized and empowered cartel-style unions). The centerpiece National Industrial Recovery Act was tossed out by the Supreme Court two years after its enactment, since it was so unconstitutional that plausible deniability was infeasible. Also in 1933, the US entered diplomatic relations with Stalin's Soviet Union. For tax years 1936-1940 inclusive, income tax rates topped out at 79%, and by 1942, at 88%. Then came the rise of Hitler, sponsored by the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus, handing FDR the opportunity to declare far more intrusive command economic policies, again by executive order. Toward the end of the war, income tax withholding was introduced. With these measures in place, the United States had by the early 1940s become a Marxist nation, with centrally controlled prices, production, and employment, and explicit implementation of nearly every point on Marx's plank, and many more Marxist policies besides.

But America was still unbroken in spirit. The plan wasn't working very well. When WWII ended, the United States was standing alone and exultant, and much of the Marxism FDR had put in place was abandoned. What was left was the income tax and withholding system, Social Security and Medicare, the FDIC and FSLIC, the Federal Reserve, the Wagner Act, the Federal Communications Commission, the public school system, and some subsidy systems. Well, they - the syndicate - worked with what they had. Wartime income tax rates (marginal rate of about 90% on income over $200k, starting in 1942) were left in place through tax year 1963, despite annual inflation running as high as 14.65% (1942) and averaging 3.7% from 1942 to 1961 inclusive, 204% cumulatively, so that from 1942 to 1961 taxpayers wound up climbing brackets until they were paying the marginal rate associated with twice their 1942 income. The marginal tax rate would stay at 70% above $100k (or $200k for joint filers) through tax year 1976, and at 70% with slightly adjusted thresholds through tax year 1981. Thus, the threshold for the highest bracket was essentially unadjusted from 1942 until 1976 and subject to token adjustment (just 7.7% from 1977 to 1981 inclusive), despite annual inflation from 1974 to 1980 averaging about 10% (another halving of real dollar value) and cumulative inflation of 454.14% from 1942 to 1981.

The S&L debacle in the 1980s kicked the FSLIC and the taxpayer between the eyes, the Federal Reserve orchestrated years and years of inflation, the major unions have become indistinguishable from organized crime and are wielded as weapons, the FCC presided and presides over the concentration of control of the media, and the public school system has become a very effective machine for destroying the minds of youth and conditioning them to demand handouts, display obedience, and reject honesty, reason, patience, industry, and principle.

Of course, there have also been some other operations of major importance over that period. The Soviet Union (a Rothschild-Rockefeller regime from the start) engaged the US in an artificial (insofar as it was Hegelian) political and military contest that would last for decades, taking a terrible toll on the US. This artificial contest served as an excuse for rising income taxation, and made for pervasive witchhunt and siege mentalities. It was psychologically and socially oppressive and divisive in the extreme.

The Korean War and the Viet Nam War were both part of this artificial conflict with the USSR. These artificial wars (orchestrated by the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus), with their conscriptions, geographic and intuitive remoteness, and in the latter case, campaigns of internal strategic sabotage, atrocities, debauchery, and traumatic stress, acted to cut the national morale and self-image into ribbons and erode military readiness incalculably. In the case of Viet Nam, conscription was essentially an assembly line for basket cases, as ill-prepared raw recruits were flown in to the maelstrom of the South East Asian theater for one year stints, at the end of which they were replaced by another batch of similarly ill-prepared raw recruits.

The Drug War (a Rothschild-Rockefeller operation from the start) is another artificial war which has had an effect at least as grave as that of the Viet Nam War. The Viet Nam War is in fact directly related to the Drug War, since the Rockefellers' opium operations at that time were in the Golden Triangle. Today, the Taliban's Afghanistan has been added to the lineup of Rockefeller heroin heavy hitters [obviously this was all written many, many years ago, but nonetheless, plus ça change... -AMPP Ed. 2009-Feb-14]. The Drug War is a war on America by the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus. The orthodoxy - that the Drug War is a war on the Rothschild-Rockefeller apparatus (called “drug traffickers” and the like, identified and pursued only as high as local processing, distribution, and paramilitary operatives) by America - is absurd, since America's government is controlled by the apparatus, and the War has made more drugs more available and more ubiquitous (police sweeps just move street-level pushers from neighborhood to neighborhood assuring total coverage, and criminalization tends to socially isolate addicts, perpetuating their plight).

If the syndicate's plan - featuring the annihilation of the constitutional government of the United States - ever culminates, it will be their last gasp. As soon as the results of their plan cross the threshold from the plausibly deniable to the unmistakeable, active opposition will become the domain of most of society's strongest members, rather than the vocation of a handful of courageous and visionary fringe dissidents. And when the above scheme unfolds, no one should feel that repayment of the nation's debts, or adherence to the nation's treaty obligations, is a matter of honor. The debts and treaty obligations were incurred through fraud, are owed to the defrauders, and are hence null and void. (US constitution, Amendment 14, Section 4: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”)

With the whole world rendered a feudalistic morass, the motive power of free men in free nations will no longer be available for transfusion into the morass, and the whole will collapse in a fit of violent realization. The power of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers will be wholly relegated to the dust heap of history, and thenceforth - with luck - their kind will not be let to ascend for centuries, or perhaps ever again. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Go on to Introduction - Part 2, A Theory, and The Hegelian Dialectic