 
### The Red Pill

### By M.E. Brines

### Smashwords Edition

### Copyright 2013 by M.E. Brines

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this ebook with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this ebook and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

### * * *

### Removing the Theoretical from Conspiracy Theories

If you're familiar with the _Matrix_ movies the meaning of this work's title is pretty clear. If not, then be warned. If you swallow this pill it will forever change your way of looking at the world. As Morpheus said in the movie:

This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

So make your choice. And if you choose wisely, rather than expediently, you'll get something tall and cool to wash it down with, then turn the page....

### * * *

Your eyelids are heavy. Lethargy steals over your limbs. As breathing slows, you realize you're looking down on your comatose body. Your soul seems light – too light.

Too late you realize it's caught up in a spiritual breeze. You drift away, to another time, another place.

### * * *

It's the middle of the 19th Century and you find yourself in the body of the heir to a vast fortune. A quick glance around the room shows gold leaf trimming the ceiling and doilies on the furniture, all upholstered in leather or velvet – very plush. The mahogany wainscoting gleams.

You look down. The body is a little different from what you're used to, but comfortable, and you soon begin to forget what you were before.

Standing, you walk – a little unsteadily at first but with growing confidence – to the window. Beyond the lacy curtains stretches a wide lawn dotted with sheep. You think, lawnmowers haven't been invented yet, and then wonder why you thought that.

The idea of lawnmowers is soon forgotten as you recall the vast estate. It could be near Paris, or London, upstate New York or perhaps Long Island. Your ancestors made a fortune in shipping or banking or perhaps it was those newfangled railroads? Doesn't matter. Father and Grandfather worked long hours. Some shrewd investments, a lot of work and a little luck turned a pittance into a fortune. And now it's all yours. But what to do with it?

You turn from the verdant vista to the nearby desk, laden with papers. A silver inkpot on the corner holds a drooping quill pen that shows much use. Your father's desk. The one he died at, laboring in service to the family fortune.

Shaking your head you turn away. No, that's not for you. What's the point? The whole magnificent enterprise is already staffed with well-trained and expensively paid managers. It basically runs itself. All you really have to do is cash the checks. Your father was a fool to spend so much time micromanaging it. But he probably did it out of habits ingrained when the business was small and he was its driving force, the brain. It was his baby.

Now, of course, the corporation is a multi-headed monster that cannot be stopped by the death of a single man. And if the managers don't prove up to the task, if the company falters, it won't affect the family fortune – your fortune. These days the family business can be divested with a quick message to your Wall Street broker – _has the telephone been invented yet? What's a telephone?_

No, your fortune has grown beyond the bounds of a single "family business." With competent management wealth becomes eternal, unless it falls into the hands of a drunken spendthrift. Which is why father left it all to you rather than your younger brother Heathcliff. You nod, grinning. Heath still isn't back from the horse track. You probably won't see him when he comes crawling in just before dawn, reeking of whiskey – only the very best scotch, of course.

You find yourself standing by the sideboard, drawn unconsciously to the glitter of brightly colored liquors and sparkling cut glass. With a chuckle you turn away, deep in thought. You have a fortune, more than a mere king's ransom, but what to do with it? Dissipation is not your style. Perhaps following in your grandfather's footsteps?

But the thought of starting a business seems so pointless. Why? To what end? More money? Money was the motivation for old Granddad, but you've already got more than even Heathcliff could probably waste in a lifetime, given the limits of the human liver. Why bother? Where's the challenge?

Your gaze happens upon a portrait of Aunt Mildred. You smile. Yes, Auntie Mildred and her charities – the soup kitchen, the missionary hospital, the home for unwed mothers.

That last one brings a smile to your face. _Wonder how many of her clients were put into that condition by Heathcliff?_

No, there's no challenge there. Nothing worthy of your talents. Trying to help the poor is like trying to drain the sea. There are always more. You shake your head. Granddad was poor but he didn't stay that way long. If these people had any talent or brains neither would they. But they don't. They're idiots, like Heathcliff. They need a minder, somebody to organize them, a manager.

Your eye roves across the bric-a-brac decorating the room: swords crossed over the family crest painted on a shield, more old portraits, a Chinese vase, finally settling on an Egyptian sarcophagus propped in a corner. The inner coffin that once contained a mummy, brought back from one of Uncle Chester's expeditions. His hobbies were more expensive than even Heathcliff's, although much more respectable. The image of the Pharaoh on the cover stares back at you from twenty feet and two thousand years. You nod appreciatively.

Now that's a job with a challenge. He wasn't just the father of a nation, he was their god.

After a moment's idle daydream you laugh at yourself.

You would decide to want the only thing in life you can't have.

You turn away from the sarcophagus and look upon the desk, laden with contracts to be signed, reports to be read, the dry kindling generated by your father's – yours now – business interests. A business your great-grandfather could never have imagined his family owning.

He'd have thought it impossible.

One corner of your mouth creeps upward in a sardonic grin.

The resources he used to create this fortune are insignificant compared to those now available to me. I could start Granddad's original business ten times just out of what Heathcliff blew at the track today. Who's to say what's impossible?

You ease yourself into a green leather wingback chair in front of the fireplace. As you eye the image of pharaoh your mind is racing. You've never felt this way before. Is it lust at the thought of the adulation of the adoring masses?

No. The masses are asses. They're there to be used by their betters, just like the servants who have waited upon you since your birth. No, it's not the thought of bringing peace and prosperity to the people that stirs your heart, it's the thought of controlling that much power – the power of life and death over an entire nation.

And why stop there? Why not the whole world?

But how?

A hand to your chin as you ponder a question you realize will chart the course of your life. You've discovered your purpose. And as you ponder and schemes begin to coalesce, your eyes follow the hypnotic movement of the flames in the fireplace. As they dance and shimmer your eyelids grow heavy. Lethargy steals over your limbs....

### * * *

Put yourself into the shoes of our mythical 19th century conspirator. He (or she) wants to be the god-emperor of the world and enjoy power beyond the imagination of any man since Caesar. And if this sounds far-fetched, that a wealthy individual would scheme to make himself absolute ruler of a nominally democratic republic – isn't that exactly what Caesar did? His conspiracy was so successful his family name became synonymous with "all-powerful dictator." His fame spread worldwide. Czar and Kaiser are direct translations of that family name and mean "all-powerful emperor" in the languages of nations that Caesar never ruled.

It's already been done. Why not again? And this time perhaps more successfully? Caesar, after all, did not long survive his success, being assassinated by his political opponents. His nephew, Augustus, managed to pull it off, but only after winning a civil war. And eventually the family lost control a few generations later when others hijacked the imperial throne using Julius Caesar's proven techniques.

So imagine you're a fabulously wealthy Victorian-era mastermind. You've already got money. You want power. And if that's your goal, why stop at anything less than the very pinnacle? That of pharaoh or one of the ancient Persian emperors. The kind of power even modern kings no longer enjoy. But how to get to a palace from your stately mansion?

If you cultivated the right contacts you might be able to stage a coup like Caesar did. But that didn't turn out so well. To achieve your goal you need to not only control the government, but at the same time prevent the inevitable opposition from organizing successfully against you. And the best way to avoid opposition is to remain invisible.

### The Fundamental Rule of Conspiracies

The problem with secrets is, as Ben Franklin once put it, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead." No secret is absolutely secure for any length of time. Sooner or later it gets out. Maybe not all the details, but enough.

The most frequent objection against the idea of the existence of a powerful cabal dominating government and the economy (or at least the one I hear most often) is that such a widespread, powerful conspiracy couldn't possibly remain secret. Which is entirely true. But that doesn't mean such a conspiracy couldn't exist. It means if one does it won't remain secret for long. The whole idea behind "conspiracy theories" is that the hidden existence of such a secret conspiracy is finally being revealed. Logically this should be considered a point in the conspiracy theorist's favor, yet for some reason it's commonly understood to be prima facie evidence of the very opposite. We shall soon learn why this is and who is behind it.

When organizing a conspiracy the important thing isn't that no one knows what you're up to, **but that no one** **takes action** against you. So how do we ensure this? It'll be a long time before we have enough power to simply quash our opponents. Until then how do we keep them from moving against us?

We ensure if anybody does learn of our conspiracy, they don't believe it. And we do this by making the idea unbelievable that anybody would do what we're doing. We ridicule this idea whenever and wherever the subject comes up. We have our flunkies and sycophants do the same. (And being fabulously wealthy we can afford a lot of flunkies and sycophants.) We do the same thing as in that old fairy tale _The Emperor's New Clothes_ , except we're not telling the truth; we're discrediting the little boy.

The best way to do this is to pursue and publicize the most ridiculous conspiracy theories we can find. There are always nuts who believe rubbish. Not "little boys" who see that the emperor has no clothes, but people who believe the moon landing was faked on a Hollywood soundstage. Poisonous chemtrails. Secret NASA bases on Mars. The Earth is hollow, or flat, or both. We need to search them out and build them up. Ensure their crackpot theories are heard as widely as possible. And the crazier the theory, the better. Because when someone stumbles upon the truth about our activities we want to be able to point to the "little boy" and say, "He's a nut, a conspiracy theorist. Probably believes the earth is flat, too. Only idiots believe conspiracy theories."

This is the fundamental rule of our conspiracy: the idea anyone would attempt to do what we're doing is absurd, stupid, silly, ridiculous. No rational person can possibly believe such things. They're the fevered imaginings of paranoid delusional extremists, lunatics, whackos – the very definition of conspiracy theorists. They most certainly are not and cannot be the rational actions of determined and very wealthy power-seekers.

Sure, we take the obvious precautions. We don't advertise our plans. We keep closed-mouthed about the why, even as we take actions that eventually become known. A few believable cover stories that explain away our actions to divert attention, coupled with concentrated scorn for anyone who sees through our lies, should do the trick. Especially as our power and influence grows, unseen in the shadows. Nobody will resist if they don't know they're in a fight. You can't lose the game if nobody even knows it's being played. And eventually our power will grow to the point it won't matter if there is any opposition. We'll simply crush it. Those obnoxious conspiracy theorists can have convenient "accidents" and disappear. Don't crazy people need to be locked up "for their own safety?"

### The Conspiracy

So how do we take over a country and then tomorrow, the world? The trouble is there's already someone enjoying the power you want to take for yourself. And they're not going to just stand around doing nothing while you go about replacing them. That was the problem Caesar never found a solution to and why he ended up dead. For Augustus, winning the resulting civil war was plan B, and a near-run thing, too.

Depending whether our hypothetical conspirator is European or American makes a big difference here. European conspirators are faced with an entrenched ruling class of nobles still holding power from medieval times. Is direct action to overthrow and replace them with a new ruling class what we want? This is exactly what happened in the French Revolution when the king and nobility went to the guillotine and Robespierre and his gang took power in their place. The problem was Robespierre didn't keep his power (or head) much longer than Caesar.

Once Robespierre was out in the open and exercising that power, the other power-hungry factions combined against him. He shared the king's fate. And those who seized his power continued to squabble over it until Napoleon's coup swept them all away. Again proving, as Augustus discovered, that in a no-holds-barred political struggle, military assets trump politics. But Napoleon didn't hold onto the power, either.

The only way to grab the power – and keep it – is to make sure your rivals are too weak and scattered to challenge you for it. So before we take power we have to neuter any and all potential opposition. And this is true whether our conspirator lives in America or Europe, only the identity of the opposition changes.

In Europe the nobility are an easy target. They suffer the same public disadvantage we're trying to avoid. Everyone sees them as being in power. They flaunt their ancient privileges. The masses hate them and the intellectuals will probably bring them to scorn with little help from us. With the examples of America and the French Revolution, the idea of popular democracy will spread, and that's exactly what we want.

But Democracy? Isn't that exactly the opposite of our goal? Don't we want an absolutist state with us at the top? Of course. But we can't get there from here without a few intermediate stops. Not if you don't want to end up like Caesar and Robespierre.

And by democracy I don't mean the type of government those upstart Americans have. A representative republic is the _last_ form of government we want. Now, you might be asking  what the difference between a republic and a democracy is. If you rely on Wikipedia you won't see any difference and that's thanks to our valiant efforts in muddling the definition. No, for us the very real difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between delicious cheese and deadly cyanide.

While they both involve elective governments, a democracy operates under the principle of majority rule. Whatever the majority decides goes. A republic has elections but also constitutional guarantees for the out of power minority. A democracy can vote to have a pesky individual like Socrates put to death "for the good of the community." This "tyranny of the majority" is exactly what we want so we can utilize this to our advantage. Therefore when we get the opportunity to influence the new democratic constitutions that replace our "archaic feudalism" we want to ensure there are no real guarantees for political minorities, no restraints on what a popularly elected government can do.

Liberty, fraternity and equality are our watchwords. Liberty is a sham. We don't mean it. Fraternity and equality are the important words. Looking out for each other and making sure we're all equal – in other words, giving the government power to interfere in everyone's affairs "for the good of society." And what's good for society? Why, whatever the People say is good. And what do the People say? Whatever we damn well tell them to.

We want elections, with the widest franchise possible. Include women, non-property owners, the poor, whoever. Hell, if you can manage it, why limit it to citizens? Let everybody vote. It won't matter in the end anyway. But the more that can vote, the harder it will be for those who lose to oppose government action. The People have spoken! Who are you to deny the Voice of the People! Never mind it's our lips doing the talking for our puppets.

You probably suppose we'll take over by controlling one of the political parties and use that to establish one-party rule and impose our rule on the nation. Nope. That doesn't get rid of opposition; it merely forces it underground, making it stronger and more determined to destroy you. A one-party state leads directly to a chain of events we know leads to potential failure. All you've done is challenge the rest of society to a civil war. You're right back with Napoleon and Augustus relying on the military to keep you in power. And that never lasts. Opposition is immortal. No matter how many individuals you put to death, you can't kill it. You have to _emasculate_ it.

If you destroy it, someone else will pick up the torch of revolution and run with it. You **want** an opposition your opponents can rally around, but one that's ineffectual, that can't really oppose. A tame opposition, controlled and manipulated by your lackeys, who talk opposition but whose actions don't accomplish anything effective. We want lots of activity but nothing of consequence. And if we can ensure the actions of the opposition manage to enflame the public at large, so much the better. The perfect opposition confines their activity to camping out in public parks with badly spelled protest signs, debating points of order in endless meetings with an occasional foray to break the windows of local businesses or spread feces on patrol cars. Anything but actually marching on the Bastille.

While we accumulate real power and get our hands on the levers that control society, we want our tame opposition to look like buffoons, extremists, terrorists, racists, homophobes. They're not crusaders championing a balanced budget for the sake of our children, they're uncaring penny-pinchers who want to kick grandma to the curb so they can give a tax rebate to millionaires. We want to frame their opposition not on the basis of individual liberty and limited government but on emotional issues like abortion, homosexual rights, class warfare; anything that divides people, because divide and conquer is our strategy. If they're divided - we stand. United we fall.

Controlling one party is not enough. Generally in any democracy there are two major and possibly a slew of minor parties. If you take over only one of the major parties and use it to push your agenda (leaving out the fact that in the end you mean to take absolute control of everything) everyone who opposes you will coalesce around the other major party. The bad thing about elections is **voters get a choice**. And if they don't like your plans (and the closer you get to your goal the less they will) they're going to choose somebody else. You don't want this to happen.

No, what we want is a multi-party democracy where we control all the choices. If we control the leadership of both major parties then it doesn't matter if voters turn out the party in power. Our people in the "opposition" keep the plan rolling. Of course, you have to vary the plan a little between the two parties. You can't just run mirror images of your platform. Voters aren't stupid. Well, they are, but not stupid enough to fall as easily as that. So it's best to cultivate a spirit of "bipartisan compromise" – unless of course, you're dealing with "extremist" politicians who aren't working toward _your_ goals.

But how exactly do we get control of both parties? Getting one is easy. With enough bags of cash we can start our own if we don't just co-opt an existing one with a platform conformable to our needs. But how does one go about taking over the other one? After all, the other party is **the opposition**. They stand against what our other party is for. The two are incompatible. And any politician who works for us supporting (for example) "liberal" legislation would have a hard time getting re-elected in a "conservative" party, at least as long as the candidates are selected the old-fashioned way in backrooms by cigar smoking party loyalists.

This is why we want candidates selected by primary elections. We support our chosen candidate, backing him with sacks of cash and the praise of our paid sympathetic media. And, for example, if we have a "liberal" senator running in a party that's supposed to be "conservative" we call him a "moderate." Then it naturally follows the others running against him are extremists. And everybody knows extremists are dangerous.

If our man faces any serious opposition from others in his party, (remember, we'd just as soon the other party won – supporting this guy is just a fail-safe) we fund and encourage other weak candidates to join the race. What we want is as many "conservative" (i.e. "real") opposition candidates as possible to run in the primary against our single selected "moderate" candidate. The goal is to split the opposition vote between multiple candidates while our "moderate" scores big. They'll all face the concentrated scorn of our tame media and the other party, while our "moderate" gets a free pass, or at least he avoids as much as we can shield him from. And if we can get the others all mud-slinging at each other, so much the better.

And in a presidential race we can stretch the primaries out as long as possible to repeat this process so even as more and more weak candidates drop out, it's always our man who's done the best. By the convention he'll be the undisputed front-runner. In this way we can ensure that in an opposition party that ought to be firmly against our policies, we'll always end up with the candidate least likely to actually oppose us. And even if he gets elected we don't count on him to actually accomplish much more than hold the line, to prevent any of our plans from being rolled back in the event our party loses power. It might take a while but if you never take a step back, even going slow will get you to your destination. All you need are the right people in office carrying out your plan.

And we don't even need **all** the politicians in both parties. That's expensive to arrange and entirely unnecessary. All we really need are the influential ones: committee chairmen, the Speaker, President of the Senate, and enough of the rank and file to pass our legislation.

### Rivals

This brings up another problem. As soon as we start to influence politicians, the first thing we'll find is other rich people like us doing the same thing, but not necessarily with the same goal in mind. Most of them probably just want to maximize profits for their business, win a few lucrative government contracts, or act out some self-righteous philanthropic fantasy with somebody else's money. Those people are no danger to us. They could even be temporary allies in our long, lonely climb to the pinnacle of power. You vote for Senator Whats-his-name's bridge named after himself and he appoints your stooge in charge of the Federal Reserve, that sort of thing. If he wants to trade you domination of the entire economy for a brass plaque with his name on it, that's his loss.

No, what I mean by "problem people" are other people _just like you_ – trying to make themselves pharaoh. Face it – you're not going to be the first rich kid who comes up with this idea. And you won't be the last. This is a far greater threat to your ambition than any number of idiotic voters.

The answer to this comes easily to anyone brought up in the household of a wealthy corporate industrialist. Faced with competition from other businesses you can't buy out, you form a cartel with them. If you can't beat 'em – join 'em.

Cartels dominate an industry or market by controlling all the production. It's simple supply and demand. If you control the supply – you can demand whatever you want for it. Cartels begin as an agreement between a few major producers, who then set about buying out or ruining their competitors.

But the monopoly they create never lasts, and not because government regulators bring them down. (That's like expecting puppets to regulate their puppeteer.) No, the huge profits cartels bring in attract interest from other wealthy investors, who enter the business seeking a slice of the fat monopoly pie. The first few might get bought off or ploughed under by undercutting their prices. But sooner or later the costs of keeping out the competition eats up the profits from the monopoly and it's no longer economical to maintain the cartel. So, how does this apply to our conspiracy?

First, we have to form a cartel with the biggest fish, the others who are too powerful to ignore or destroy. Sharing absolute power is better than not having any. And besides, it's going to take us a while to achieve complete success. By the time that happens things will change, perhaps in our favor. So our little conspiracy grows by adding a few more families.

This is why I discount the stories of the New World Order going back to the Illuminati in 1776. A tiny, impoverished band of occultist intellectuals simply doesn't possess the resources necessary to accomplish anything beyond a lot of alcohol-fueled speculation in the back room of a tavern. A far more reasonable birthing place for a world-spanning political-economic conspiracy would be a fraternity at some swanky university only rich kids can afford, like Skull & Bones at Yale.

One common objection against conspiracy theories is that no group of conspirators could possibly agree to "control the world" – that any such attempt at cooperation would be doomed to failure by human nature. But nobody makes this argument when people put forth the theory that oil companies collude to raise the price of gas. And we find it entirely believable when James Bond's nemesis Ernst Blofeld runs S.M.E.R.S.H. with an iron fist.

In any organization, those at the top establish the policy and the rank and file carry it out. And even the senior conspirators don't have to agree all the time on every detail to get the job done.

We already have historical examples of political conspiracies that often operated in a semi-chaotic manner with numerous internal plots and disagreements but that still managed to control major nations and carry out major plots.

At Nuremberg in 1946 the surviving Nazis were convicted of a "conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity." Yet those conspirators who came within an ace of conquering the world often had disagreements among themselves, sometimes settled by murder and assassination. Ernst Rohm was head of Hitler's Stormtroopers but ran afoul of Himmler's SS and ended up dead. In the middle of the war, Rudolf Hess disagreed with the plan to invade the Soviet Union and defected to Britain. According to Albert Speer's memoirs there was constant infighting among the Nazi elite. He was convinced the head of the Air Force had assassinated his predecessor as Minister of War Production. We see the same thing among our conspirators today as the neo-con politicians in the Republican Party squabble with their progressive democrat colleagues. Even among like-minded leftist progressives the  Clintons are said to despise Obama's clique. And the Rockefellers turned on Nixon, using the CIA to bungle Watergate and implicate him in a scandal that forced his resignation. The Kennedy brothers may have been assassinated in another such falling out over political spoils. But as long as the rivalry is kept to a low level conspirators can smear their rivals or even murder them and still advance the agenda of the organization. And in fact when each high-ranking member's goal is ultimately to seize all the power for himself, what else should we expect?

The entire history of the high ranks of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union gives further examples. But even while purging each other they managed to defeat a Nazi invasion and conduct a decades-long Cold War.

But the conspiracy can't keep adding new people all the time. Power is like a pie - the more who share it, the smaller each individual's piece. Therefore, as soon as our conspiracy takes form we need to close the membership. And since any rich kid with more ambition than sense may end up with similar ideas, the best way to avoid diluting the membership even further is to keep new families out of the pool. The best ways to do this are estate and income taxes.

Income taxes tax income. (Duh.) But what most people miss is what they **don't** tax: wealth. If you're already rich you'll pay no tax unless you make more income. And since we'll be writing the laws, we can make sure they're convoluted enough and so full of loopholes we can ensure **we** won't be affected, but anybody who might ever hope to become rich will have another hefty obstacle to overcome. And estate (inheritance) taxes add another hurdle.

Once we've formed our cartel to organize our political power monopoly we can begin our campaign. We need to take control of the government, indirectly, of course, so no one can organize against us. And then we utilize the power we gain to systematically undermine the power of all other groups in society. Our goal is to get to a point where we have such a monopoly of power and have so undermined and weakened the underpinnings of society that no one can oppose us. Then, and only then, can we emerge from the shadows and take our rightful place at the top of the pyramid.

### A Political Program

To do this in a democracy we need to get votes. The trouble is you can't get people to vote for you to be god-emperor. We have to promise them something they want that we can then use to implement our real goals. So what are we for?

Progress. Everybody wants progress. It's good. The future is always thought to be better than today. How can anyone be against progress?

And how do we define progress? Whatever is going to help us achieve our goal, of course. So what's our Progressive political program, then?

If you remember, we need to take action to ensure we don't get any more potential rivals by making sure it's virtually impossible to achieve the level of wealth we currently enjoy. So an income tax is at the top of our list. A "progressive" income tax, of course, because only the "evil rich" could be against progress (or plausibly threaten us.) Add to that an estate tax to keep families from accumulating wealth across several generations.

And a national banking system – that we control, of course – that controls the nation's money supply. As Nathan Rothschild (who may have even been the actual grandfather of our mythical original conspirator) once said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who writes its laws."

The essential parts of our program should be to concentrate all power into as few loci as possible and then ensure we control those. In laymen's terms, we put all the eggs in one basket and then steal the basket. In essence this means transferring the power from hundreds of elected representatives to as few people as possible. We turn law making by elected representatives into rule making by faceless bureaucrats. Politicians can get voted out of office. But bureaucrats can work unceasingly toward our goals for their entire careers. Through the power of bureaucracy, states and local governments lose their independence. They must follow regulations laid down by our men in the bureaucracy, who in turn follow the dictates of the man at the top who is our puppet.

That's important. We don't want to be seen as ruling directly. This way we can do unpopular things and when that vitalizes opposition, we can pull out a new puppet, a "reformer" who'll take the place of our scapegoat, defanging any real possibility of change and keeping the process going. By the time the idiot voters figure out they've been had, we just introduce a new "reformer" and do it all again. The Hope and Change shuffle. As long as we keep the attention of the opposition on the "failed policies" of our former puppet and not on who was pulling his strings, all we need are a few minor changes to keep the ball rolling with no one the wiser.

But a program that seeks to impose income and inheritance taxes, a central bank and taking power out of the hands of elected representatives isn't going to get us many votes. In a democracy, the masses have the votes. We need something to wrap our core program in to get the masses (who are asses) to vote for it. We need a program that persuades the masses to vote for us rather than somebody else, something that doesn't inhibit our real agenda. Something they can get excited about, preferably something that galvanizes them against our rivals.

Marxist socialism is perfect for us. We don't want to call it that, not in America anyway. But "helping" the poor is a perfect cover for taxes that drain our possible rivals. And the poor who get free stuff from us will naturally vote for more. All we really need is 51% of the voters, maybe less if we can gin up some lame-duck third party to split the opposition. We just need to form an alliance between the various have-nots of society (who can't possibly threaten us) whereby we are seen as getting them what they deserve from the "rich and powerful." This strategy will work especially well in Europe, where the ancient nobility already owns so much. It's more difficult in America where going from rags to riches is more commonplace. But once we gain some power we can begin to rig the system through expensive regulations that benefit big business (us) over our smaller rivals.

Laws that break up "potential" monopolies destroy our rivals before they can become rich. And they don't affect us. What do we care if there's one oil company or three when we own the controlling shares in all of them?

Complex regulations on business, whether for pure food and drugs or environmental protection, to ensure equal opportunity or any other reason, give us the ability to hamstring our competitors with regulations so complex and convoluted that nobody'll notice when our bureaucrats write in exceptions for our companies or tailor regulations specifically to harm particular rivals.

So we want to have a political program of Marxist socialism (although we'll call it Progressivism or something nice) that attracts the mass of voters by buying them off with loot stolen from the "rich" – who are basically anybody who has more than our idiot supporters. We can call them the 1% although they're really more like the 49%.

### Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste

Once we're elected to power, never let a crisis go to waste. In an emergency, people go for "solutions" they might never agree to without the pressure of looming catastrophe. In a crisis you can push through all sorts of interesting treats hidden inside emergency "solutions." Every crisis requires a solution – and while the solution you propose may not fix the problem, it can sure enhance your power or undermine that of the opposition. But who is our opposition? Who must we defang?

Let's ask ourselves who would rise up if we stepped out of the shadows right now and attempted a coup like Caesar's? Who would oppose us? People who stood to lose if we succeed, which, considering the stakes, is pretty much everybody else. So all of society as it currently stands is our potential opposition, and to achieve your ambition we're pretty much going to have to destroy society as we know it, neuter it and harness it to our yoke. But how do we get our opponents to dance to our tune or face ruin? Normally this sort of tyranny provokes resistance.

But there's one situation where people let the government tell them exactly what to do and accept that they'll be punished if they don't comply - government regulations. Anybody who resists is seen as self-serving, a "cheater." Bureaucrats aren't seen as tyrants. The rules are for the common good – don't you care about the environment? (Or insider trading or the handicapped or pure food or auto safety or national security or preventing terror attacks or... just keep filling in the blank as long as you like.) People who resist are bad. They aren't noble underdogs defying the unjust and abusive powers of an oppressive tyrant. They're cheaters and swindlers who deserve fines or jail. Nobody has sympathy for "tax evaders" even if the taxman just took most of their paycheck. Just as you portray those who are against your aggressive wars of conquest as "unpatriotic" or "draft dodgers" you can smear your opponents who resist the very regulations intended to destroy them and their way of life.

And don't forget the encouragement you can give your supporters by exempting them from certain regulations. Those tax loopholes exist for a reason. Use them!

The more numerous the rules and the more complicated you make them, the weaker your opposition gets. They have to spend money on compliance and if that isn't possible (or if you make it prohibitively so) they have to spend it on lawyers. You can strangle your competitors and force the survivors to do things your way. If the regulations are complicated enough, nobody can actually comply with them all. Then  everybody's guilty of something. At that point, enforcement demonstrates your **real** power. Who gets fined? Who gets jail time? Who gets off with a warning and who simply gets ignored? It's all about control, about domination. Why not enjoy some right now? It's fun and you can use it as a weapon against your political enemies.

Catholic Church leading the fight against you? Force them to deal with a contraceptive mandate. More lawsuits, chaos and control. Wee! They have to pay their lawyers. Yours are paid for by tax money – your opponents' tax money. So you get your enemies to pay to fight themselves. What could be better?

States rights getting in your way? Tax the bejeebers out of them but give the money back in "revenue sharing." Everybody'll vote for that. It's free money paid for by some other schmuck. Then you can threaten to withhold highway funds (or educational funds or whatever) unless they accept more control by you. So much for a federal system with states rights. Everything that's not forbidden is compulsory and run from Washington by your puppets.

Keep taking from one group and give to another. Keep everybody fighting. You want the homosexuals to hate the Christians. The blacks to hate whites. Hispanics to fight Republicans. The poor to want the rich despoiled. The rich to hate "welfare queens." You want the pro-life crowd choosing to choke the life out of the pro-choice crowd and vice-versa. And everybody hates the banks. Every man's hand turned against his neighbor in a virtual civil war where the government (which you control) is the only thing holding the country together.

Who can oppose you when things are like that? They're too busy fighting Wall Street, or the military-industrial complex, or standing for or against immigration or gay marriage to organize a common front against their **real** enemy – you. And if somebody figures it out, a little nudge from your tame media ensures no one takes them seriously. After all, it's just "a conspiracy theory." Everybody knows what that means. _Koo-koo_.

Eventually you can't keep all the plates spinning anymore. They fall and society crashes into chaos. And who'll be standing there with  100,000 heavily armed Homeland Security troops with armored personnel carriers to restore order? Pharaoh.

Look at the hoops you get people to jump through at airport security because they know they have to put up with it or miss their flight. What can you get away with when you control all the food and water and medicine and are the last word in deciding whether someone gets any or is locked up as a "domestic terrorist" or simply shot? It will be at that moment you realize you've achieved your goal. You'll be as puissant as the very pharaohs of old with the power of life and death over every one of your peasants who will do exactly as you command ... or perish.

Any who oppose you are automatically Enemies of the People, threats to the common good, terrorists who must be destroyed, gladly betrayed to you by their friends and neighbors who beg to be employed on your projects – for there is no other work.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us 'make us your slaves, but feed us.'" – Huxley, _Brave New World Revisited_

At that point who can organize against you? States and municipalities have been subordinated to your federal control. Churches destroyed or browbeaten into compliance. The media tamed. Political parties emasculated. Families demolished and then redefined. There's nothing left between the individual and the awesome power of the State – your power – the power that will crush any opposition, like a boot stomping a human face – forever.

**" _After all, most civilized and semi-civilized countries known to history had a large class of slaves or serfs completely subordinate to their owners. There is nothing in human nature that makes the persistence of such a system impossible. And the whole development of scientific technique has made it easier than it used to be to maintain a despotic rule of a minority. When the government controls the distribution of food, its power is absolute so long as they can count on the police and the armed forces. And their loyalty can be secured by giving them some of the privileges of the governing class. I do not see how any internal movement of revolt can ever bring freedom to the oppressed in a modern scientific dictatorship...."_**

\- Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society

### * * *

### But Really Now....

Wikipedia defines conspiracy theories as "ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational." But as we've seen, the idea of a cabal of fabulously wealthy individuals organizing a political cartel to seize power over the western world is very logical and reasonable. In fact, it's difficult to believe such a conspiracy wouldn't exist, given the logic of it. Why wouldn't the Rockefellers or the Rothschilds try it?

Consumers routinely believe the rich conspire to evade taxes, and that oil companies conspire to defraud them at the gas pump by manipulating oil prices. But big corporations are owned and controlled by _individuals_ , extremely wealthy individuals. Why is it any less reasonable that the wealthy billionaires who own those corporations, who'd conspire to make a few extra millions wouldn't try for anything more? Especially when people like George Soros exist.

Soros is the real-life avatar of James Bond's super-villain Ernst Blofeld. He made his fortune during World War II dealing in the confiscated possessions of Hungarian Jews murdered in Nazi concentration camps. When the communists arrived at the end of the war on the coattails of the Soviet Red Army, Soros fled to London and made another fortune dealing in currencies. Five times he's triggered market collapses by manipulating foreign currency markets. He's known as "the man who broke the Bank of England" (although his heavily-edited Wikipedia article insists he is merely a great philanthropist.) And he's claimed he caused the collapse of at least two governments. He's personally banned from Hungary on vote fraud charges,  which he is also suspected of doing in the US. Most importantly he was quoted in  "Soros, The Life, Times & Trading Secrets of the World's Greatest Investor" that " **it's not easy being god**." This is man who not only has the right attitude, but the wealth, the connections and, if you follow the news, the history of someone following our conspiratorial blueprint.

But motive and opportunity do not prove a crime has taken place. Does such a conspiracy exist? Is there any actual evidence? Let's look back over our conspiratorial blueprint and compare it to American history and see if anything matches.

Around the turn of the 20th Century a new force arose in politics: the Progressives. Championed by Teddy Roosevelt, a scion of a wealthy New York family, he was elected vice president on the Republican Party ticket in 1900 but advanced to the presidency upon the assassination of McKinley by a "crazed anarchist loner." As president he oversaw a unique and massive increase in Federal power, introducing the first federal regulations on business by establishing the Food and Drug Administration. He also created the national park system and introduced the idea of a daily press briefing as well as direct election of senators, which eliminated the representation of states in Congress and weakened the power of the states vs. the Federal Government. He disarmed potential rivals by reorganizing 46 formerly independent state militias into the Federally-controlled National Guard. He broke up large industrial conglomerates, an activity that became known as "trust busting." His foreign policy diverted from the traditional American avoidance of entangling alliances and promotion of neutrality to a very activist "walk softly and carry a big stick." While he did cut himself a very big stick, building several new modern battleships, the "speak softly" part was never actually practiced. He was a big advocate for America having a major voice in world affairs and intervened constantly in those of weak Latin American nations. Even though he won a second term, he was never very popular with the Republican establishment, who looked askance at his populist Big Government programs. In 1908 the Republicans selected Taft as their candidate and Roosevelt was out.

Four years later, Roosevelt decided to run for an unprecedented third term. Rejected by the republicans, he formed his own party, which he called – the Progressive Party.

The  Progressive Party campaigned for government regulation of large industrial "trusts," for a "progressive" income tax, an inheritance tax, for public referendums and the recall of politicians to "strengthen democracy," and for more federal regulation of the economy.

Roosevelt lost the election but siphoned off enough Republican votes that the Democrats won the presidency for only the second time since the Civil War. The Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson, ran on a platform essentially the same as the Progressive Party.

President Wilson's chief adviser was Colonel Edward M. House. In 1912 House had been the author of an obscure novel, _Phillip Dru: Adminstrator._ The book was a thinly disguised plan for a "conspiracy" (as the author himself termed it) to establish dictatorial control of America through "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In the novel they elect a president by infiltrating and manipulating the primaries so their candidate gets the nomination through "deception regarding his real opinions." The conspirators then manipulate both the Democrats and Republicans to achieve world government. The book didn't really do well. (Good thing for the conspirators.) But the plan in it did.

For the next eight years Wilson ran the country pretty much like a taciturn, less flamboyant Roosevelt. The personality was different but the program was the same. The Progressives got everything they wanted including the establishment of the Federal Reserve banking system, a _privately owned corporation_ that has a monopoly on the printing of money. (No, Virginia the Fed is **not** a government agency.)

Yes, a privately owned corporation prints our money, not the Treasury. If you don't believe me, pull a dollar out and look at it. It says it's a " **Federal Reserve** Note." The Treasury Department prints "Treasury notes." (If you ever find one, it's worth more than its face value as a collector's item.) A **privately owned corporation** not only prints our money, it has the sole right to set interest rates and to decide how much money is in circulation. And in the hundred years since it was established it's never been audited. By anyone. Ever.

Corporations by law have to publish their financial statements for their stockholders. And every business in the country from Walmart to the little ma and pa dry cleaners on the corner has their books examined, by the IRS if nobody else. But the Federal Reserve doesn't have to show anybody anything. And they don't pay taxes.

When World War I broke out, the Progressives realized it was the crisis they needed. After ensuring re-election in 1916 by promising to stay out of the war, five months later Wilson led us into it, the first foreign, European war the US had ever been involved. And as if to spit on Washington's grave, as soon as it was over Wilson attempted to create the League of Nations, a _permanent_ alliance between world powers "to prevent war." (So much for avoiding entangling alliances.)

Wilson did much more than that. Jailing those who were outspoken against the war, nationalizing the railroads and shipping companies (which is how Wells Fargo got out of the transportation business and into banking) and segregating the formerly desegregated armed forces.

In 1919 at the end of the war Colonel House was sent to meet with a British group called the Round Table to form a joint organization to promote the League of Nations and the idea of world government. Their main selling point was it would ensure world peace, and after four years and thirty million dead, people longed for an end to war. British millionaire Cecil Rhodes, who'd made a fortune in gold and diamonds in South Africa, established the Round Table. (Yeah, Rhodes was the guy Rhodesia was named after. And the guy who was directly responsible for the Boer War and the expansion of British imperialist power throughout south and central Africa.)

Rhodes' goal was stated in his will, "The extension of British rule throughout the world... the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible...." To this end he established the Round Table Society based on the organization of the Jesuits and the Masons, which is incidentally also the same type of organization Adam Weishaupt selected when he formed the Illuminati in 1776.

Rhodes third will in 1888 left his fortune to his personal financier, Lord Rothschild (yeah, those Rothschilds) to accomplish (as the will carefully stated) "the written matter discussed between us."

Writer H.G. Wells, a founding member of the Fabian Socialists, was also involved in the Round Table. His novel _Things to Come_ pretty much summarizes their sales pitch. Either turn over all power to an enlightened group of social scientists or else there will be more world wars until civilization is destroyed. Wells repeated this threat in his novels _The Time Machine_ and _The Last War_. With the fate of civilization at stake, a group of progressive scientists will simply have to take control for the good of humanity. (Curiously the same moral as taught in the Star Trek storyline.)

The Fabian Socialists' symbol was a wolf in sheep's clothing. They are named after a particularly tricky Roman general, Fabius, who employed subterfuge to defeat his much stronger and more numerous enemies. Their plan was to establish a Marxist socialist government over the British Empire by tiny steps over a long period, sort of like how it's said you can boil a frog by not raising the temperature of the water too quickly so the frog is cooked before he realizes what's happening. And it only took the Fabians fifty years to boil the British frog. The United States took a bit longer.

The Masons, Templars and Illuminati, really **all** secret societies, are organized in circles within circles where the amount of the conspiracy actually revealed to members depends on their level of initiation. Those at lower ranks **think** they know what's going on, but as they prove trustworthy (and useful) and they rise in the hierarchy, new levels of "truth" are revealed to them. Only those at the very top really know everything or have any real power. At the lowest levels the entire operation is concealed behind a façade used merely to deceive outsiders and screen potential new recruits. The fact that doctrine changes with the level of initiation confuses outsiders, making it difficult to tell what the actual teachings are. This is exactly the organization of ancient mystery religions from the time of Hermes Trismegistus to the medieval Gnostics to modern Rosicrucians.

Rhodes' society was established in 1891 and run for Lord Rothschild by Lord Alfred Milner (a key financier of the Bolshevik revolution.) By the end of the First World War the front organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had local groups in each of the British dominions. The American branch was called the Council on Foreign Relations (since a "Royal" institute would reveal its foreign connections.) It was a front for J.P. Morgan & Company, who were also behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve. The chief agent in the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was Colonel House, supported by notables such as John Foster Dulles (a Morgan banker who eventually became US Secretary of State) and his brother Allen, who eventually became head of the CIA.

Also represented in the Council on Foreign Relations were the Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loeb & Company, Brown Brothers, Averell Harriman and the Warburgs, all eminent financial powerhouses. During the First World War while American and German soldiers slaughtered each other on the Western Front, one of the Warburg brothers ran the US Federal Reserve while his brother ran the German equivalent, the Reichsbank, which also incidentally provided the money given to Lenin and the Bolshevik revolutionaries the German Government transported from Switzerland to destabilize Czarist Russia in 1917. (But as we all know, there can be no conspiracies.)

In time the Council on Foreign Relations has become the Establishment with more than half its members either holding government positions or acting as "consultants." Every Secretary of State since 1940 but three have been members – and the party affiliation of the administration has made no difference.

But the Council on Foreign Relations had only just been established in May of 1919. It hadn't yet achieved the power or influence it would someday have. Wilson overreached when he tried to get the US into the League of Nations. Wilson's plan (or maybe it was House's – he was the actual author of _Phillip Dru, Administrator_ , not Wilson) for creation of a League of Nations that could be morphed into a world government failed spectacularly after the US Senate refused to ratify the treaty.

The conspirators' failed because they hadn't emasculated the opposition. For one thing, Progressives no longer dominated the Republican Party as they had in Teddy's day. Opposition against the imperial actions of President Wilson coalesced behind the Republican Party, giving them a landslide victory in the 1920 elections.

The prohibition of alcohol was the high tide of Progressivism. And although they managed to keep that from repeal until 1933, providing criminal gangs their first real chance to make millions and establish themselves (creating another "crisis" to expand federal power through the establishment of the FBI) the Progressives languished in political exile throughout the Roaring Twenties.

But the conspiracy had been delayed, not defeated. The Council on Foreign Relations worked diligently to regroup and push ahead. But they needed a new crisis to exploit. Something to weaken the resolve of their opponents. Something to justify a massive increase in Federal power.

To this end, in the 1920s they created an enemy by financing the Nazis through the Warburg-controlled Mendelsohn Bank and the J. Henry Schroeder bank. Meanwhile the Council on Foreign Relations infiltrated the State Department, concentrating on the career diplomats and senior bureaucrats who remain the same even as their bosses change with the new administrations. (After all, if you need crises to exploit, the best way to ensure a good supply is through the manipulation of a country's foreign affairs.) Eventually they regained control of the Republican Party through Herbert Hoover, whose administration did what it could to promote Progressive causes.

When the market crashed in 1929 the Federal Reserve tightened credit, exactly the opposite of what conventional economic theory taught to prevent the spread of bank failures. Between that and the tariff war created by congressional progressives, they turned a minor cyclical recession into the Great Depression, a perfect crisis to exploit for the return of the Democrats to power with another Roosevelt. (Two Roosevelts, fabulously wealthy cousins, both elected as president from **opposite** political parties but supporting the **same** Progressive platform, who'd have thought it could happen? But since conspiracy theories are silly, it must just be a coincidence, right?)

But again the conspiracy got set back because the conspirators lacked patience. Roosevelt tried to immediately establish an unconstitutional federal agency (the NRA) that could set prices and wages throughout the country and that would effectively give him control of the economy. The Supreme Court struck it down. With his true agenda revealed, opposition rallied against the "imperial" president. And although he established Social Security and the foundation for welfare entitlements and  the rest of our current Federal Bureaucratic Behemoth, his attempts to establish government-controlled health care failed.

But on the plus side, the coming of World War II permitted the creation of a military industrial complex, an unholy symbiosis of government and private industry that allowed billions to be conveyed to selected industries and enabled the government to interfere in countries all over the world by manipulating foreign policy crises to suit its needs.

State Department Publication 2349, _Report to the President on the Results of the San Francisco Conference_ in tracing the history of the United Nations states, "it was clear the United States would be confronted, after the war, with new and exceptional problems... a committee on Post-War Problems was set up before the end of 1939...." before it was even a world war yet. They were already planning to solve "post-war problems" two years before the US even got into the war and well before the Germans had attacked anyone but Poland.

All of the committee members except one the State Department appointed to work toward the post-war establishment of the United Nations were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This committee was the group who actually designed the United Nations. And when the UN was founded, the American delegation to the conference included 47 members of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Nope, no conspiracy here.)

But at the end of the war the death of Roosevelt and the loss of control of the Republican Party (again) halted the tide of Progressivism. But nothing ever got rolled back. When peace broke out and threatened the existence of the military industrial complex, a new enemy was quickly found.

With the Soviet Threat the Progressives could browbeat Republicans into expanding government control in the name of winning the Cold War even while Democrats expanded domestic control in the name of social progress. Thus was established the duality that still reigns today: Progressive Democrats push the domestic agenda, while the progressive Republican establishment pushes an aggressive foreign policy, both pretending to oppose the other when Election Day rolls around.

The Progressives had learned their lesson. By the early 1960s the Republican Party was firmly in progressive hands. The last real conservative candidate was Goldwater who was thoroughly smeared by the media as a lunatic warmonger. Since 1964 every Republican candidate talks about conservative, small government ideas during the election but somehow never gets around to practicing them once elected. Anything established by democrat progressives stays in place, progressive republicans marking time until progressive democrats regain power, when the march to oblivion resumes where it left off.

Democrat Jimmy Carter gave us the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Instead of abolishing or reducing them, "conservative" republican Ronald Reagan increased their budgets and Bush added "No Child Left Behind." After Democrat LBJ gave us Medicare, "conservative" George W. Bush gave us part D. And while Obama takes flak for bailing out banks, the process started under President Bush a month before Obama's election. Our two major political parties are like the separate hands of the same person – they appear to move independently, and they appear to be opposite mirror images, left and right, but they're both really connected to the same brain.

And just as we would expect if the conspiracy were organized around family fortunes, there are now an increasing number of family political dynasties. The Bushes are not atypical. The son, George W, was a recent republican President of the United States and governor of Texas. His father was President, Vice President and head of the CIA. _His_ father was scientific advisor for the democratic Roosevelt-Truman administrations, in charge of all scientific research during World War II. He knew about the Manhattan Project years before Harry Truman did. (Conspiracy buffs might also note he's also one of the infamous "Majestic-12" who supposedly concealed the truth about UFOs and the Roswell Incident.) And _his_ father is the senator who sponsored the bill to create the Federal Reserve back in 1913. All were members of the Skull and Bones fraternity in their Yale undergraduate days. (Probably those are all just coincidences, because we know there can be no conspiracies, right?)

I could also mention the two senators Gore from Tennessee, father and son, President and Senator Clinton, and many other senators and congressmen who seem to follow each other as if government is a family business, including various Kennedys, Pryors (Sens. David and Mark), Dingells (Reps. John Sr. and Jr.) and Shusters (Reps. Bud and Bill.) Jeb Bush for president, anyone?

The goal of the Council on Foreign Relations is to abolish the United States and its constitutional guarantees of liberty in order to incorporate it and as much of the rest of the world as possible into a one-world government, a New World Order they control. And they aren't secretive about it. You can subscribe to their magazine _Foreign Affairs_. They have a web site that promotes these agendas (although they tend to concentrate on discussion of the means and avoid blunt talk about the very messy ends they intend.) They have such contempt for the masses they even publish their membership list on-line. It's full of senior government officials, corporate CEOs, and wealthy families. This isn't the 1% -- this is the inner circle that owns the 1%. Members include the CEOs of Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Chase, the Bank of America, General Electric, Big Oil, influential foundations and think tanks like the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations, the Rand Corporation, the major TV networks and New York publishers.

Famous members include Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower (who ran against each other for President on opposite party tickets,) Richard Nixon and JFK (opponents in the 1960 election,) Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford (who ran against each other in 1976,) Robert and Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Zbigniew Brezinski, William F. Buckley Jr., George Will, Mario Cuomo, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, Walter Mondale, Caspar Weinberger, George Shultz, and Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Go on their web site and see for yourself.

But should we really be concerned about a "club for the rich and famous?" I mean, really, what sort of influence could such an organization have? An organization with only 4,700 members that has had members at senior levels in every US administration since Herbert Hoover? Whose members run all the major corporations, Wall Street trading houses and banks? That self-declares it has the purpose of " _informing (or steering) the public debate ... engaging decision-makers in_  Congress _, the executive branch, and the_ diplomatic community _... and working to reach_ _consensus_ _on how to deal with critical foreign policy challenges._ "

No. Nothing to see here. Just move along.

But this demonstrates how less than five thousand can "control" a nation of 300 million. Those who mock conspiracy theories heap scorn on the idea a few insiders control the media,  deciding what movies get made and which books get published (and more importantly, which ones aren't) and what stories get the front page and which ones end up on the cutting room floor. They mock this, laughingly pointing out, "The media doesn't get a memo from the Trilateral Commission every Monday that includes the agenda for the week." And this is true. They don't get written instructions. But the old story The Emperor's New Clothes demonstrates how the system actually works.

The Insiders don't tell their minions what to do. They just set the agenda. Then they steer " _the public debate ... engaging decision-makers in_  Congress _, the executive branch, and the_ diplomatic community ...." Remember, the conspirators occupy the absolute pinnacle of the social pyramid. They're the publishers, network news anchors, studio heads, corporate CEOs, senior government officials, wealthy trendsetters.

They don't tell every newspaper editor what to print. They don't have to. Not when a handful of publications like the New York Times and the Huffington Post set the topic of discussion for a whole nation's talking heads. They call the Times the "newspaper of record" for a reason. Nationwide almost every newscast on every channel opens with the same top story. Local newspaper headlines are all similar, not because somebody tells editors what to print but because they all look to the same few influential "sources." Anybody who might become influential who isn't in "the club" is ruthlessly mocked and discredited. It doesn't matter if they were governor of Alaska or a former vice presidential candidate. If they get "off the reservation" they must be destroyed, or at least neutralized. There can be only one trendsetter.

When Vogue devotes an issue to a photo spread of the emperor's new clothes, the fashion editor of the Cincinnati Plain Dealer or the Podunk Daily News isn't going to be the one to point out they don't see them. And if they did, and somehow managed to retain their job, everybody except "lunatic conspiracy theorists" would dismiss them as ignorant, uninformed, stupid, racist homophobes or face being dismissed as such themselves. And for the same reason, the elites in the media who do stick to the approved message  don't care how bad their ratings get. They know the "truth" and if the masses don't get it, then the masses need to get educated, and what better way to do that than by watching MSNBC?

The all-important part of **control without coercion** is to set the terms of the debate beforehand. If you establish (without debate or evidence) that something is a problem, then the debate isn't about whether the problem exists, but which solution do we implement? This is exactly like asking your spouse on Friday afternoon, "Which movie do you want to see?" It completely sidesteps the question, "What should we do tonight?" The course is settled. The only debate is the final details. You make it seem as if there was a choice, a discussion, when the choice was already made before the discussion even started.

We don't discuss whether global warming exists or not – only what to do about it, which, given the cause is "settled science" and undebatable, the solution is pretty obvious: more government control.

We don't discuss whether or not the government should bail out selected private businesses – it's already settled they're "too big to fail." The only issue is how much tax money we give them.

The question is never "should we be involved in manipulating the internal affairs of other countries," but how do we arrange sanctions and military action to achieve a favorable regime change. It's unquestioned that Mossadegh, Guzman, Castro, Diem, Khomeini, Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad or Ahmadinejad has got to go. The only question is how. It's no wonder the North Koreans and Iranians want nuclear weapons. It's the only way they can possibly defend themselves against our meddling. (Maybe.)

In the last century we've gone from a foreign policy of avoiding entangling alliances and "good faith and justice towards all Nations... peace and harmony with all" (from Washington's Farewell Address) to something not unlike that practiced by Adolf Hitler. But it's okay because when we bomb or invade and occupy countries that haven't attacked us, or overthrow sovereign foreign governments and replace them with "our" people it's for "good purposes." Hitler was trying to control the world. Our government just wants other nations to do what we tell them. Haven't you heard? The US Navy is a global force for good.

###  The Bilderbergs

And what happened to the rest of the Round Table? All those European members of our international conspiracy?

After World War II they began to meet annually for consultations, to coordinate strategy on forming a single European government. The first recorded meeting was held in May 1954 at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oostebeck, Holland. But just as one would expect from a "secret" society organized like the Masons or Illuminati, the important business happens in private meetings after the general conference. Only the inner circle attends those. And maybe it's just an accidental coincidence that everyone ever identified as a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

You might assume if the high-level international movers and shakers of finance, politics and industry meet to discuss government policy that the press would be all over them like paparazzi at a Hollywood premiere.

 Not a chance. As far as the official lame-stream media are concerned, these meetings are a non-event. If they're mentioned at all (and they usually aren't) it's only in connection with some "conspiracy nut" badgering the poor celebrities at their "vacation hideaway," as if those who might reveal collusion between the wealthy ".0000001%" and high level government officials setting public policy are on a par with obnoxious paparazzi. (Remember what I said about  smearing the little boy who doesn't see the Emperor's new clothes?)

But in the middle of the American primaries of 2008, when Hillary and Barack were hot on each other's heels, they both attended the annual Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia on June 5th. On the 7th Hillary suddenly dropped out of the presidential race, asking her followers to support Barack for president. She may not be a member, but she obeys their orders quite well.

### Things to Come

We understand their goal: a worldwide totalitarian state with Them in control. And we can see what they've achieved so far. They're close. But what are their plans for the final stages?

They understand that a good crisis will grease the skids for pushing us toward their New World Order. And we've seen they're not above creating a crisis when they need one. They want a worldwide government, something that goes against nationalism and culture and all recorded history. They've tried twice through world wars to push humanity into granting power to a global elite in the name of world peace. But even after tens of millions of dead and the detonation of two nuclear weapons at the end of World War Two, people didn't buy it. But society did move closer to the goal. They need another push to get the ball across the goal line. And exploding nuclear bombs provide a lot of push.

Expect another world war, probably starting in the Middle East over Iranian nuclear ambitions. If the government of Iran gets atomic weapons they  will use them on Israel. The only question is whether anyone will stop Iran before that. But with Russia and China helping them, and Europe and America standing by impotently until they do, that doesn't seem likely.

 It's in the Conspiracy's interest for Iran to get nuclear weapons (although not for the Conspiracy to be seen as having armed them.) A limited nuclear war would be a perfect crisis to push for global government. Russia and China are currently outside their control. Another world war will give them an opportunity to gain control of them as World War II gave them control of Germany and Japan. A Third World War as successful as the second would put them on the very cusp of global domination.

But while the Conspiracy, through their manipulation of the State Department and other agencies can undoubtedly provoke a third world war – our foreign policy seems designed for just such a purpose, building up our enemies and antagonizing our traditional allies – is it reasonable to expect an "American" victory?

I personally can't imagine how the US could lose. Our opponents would be Russia and China, plus an assortment of third world pestholes like Venezuela, North Korea and Iran. At current rates US defense spending is  41% of the entire world. (Nazi Germany at the height of its power in 1944 was only 14%.) Combined with Europe, Israel and the rest of our likely allies we'd have over 70% of the entire world's armaments versus China (8%) and Russia (4%) and their miserable Third World allies.

Does this make more understandable the actions of western governments in virtually ignoring Iran's nuclear efforts and actually building North Korea the reactor they made their bomb with? We're tying our hands behind our backs to give our opponents half a chance so the enemy will eventually conclude an attack might actually be their last, best chance for victory. And if they get in a few nukes on us before losing, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The farmer doesn't care. Just don't tell his chickens.

My own thoughts (having produced and marketed a commercially available  military game on the subject) are that Iran has progressed past the point where conventional air strikes could stop their nuclear program. Everything's too well dug in, or dispersed. Many installations are deep beneath mountains. Their uranium centrifuges are dispersed in thousands of basements all across Iran's major cities. A few conventional air strikes can't do the job. To knock them out would require the use of nuclear weapons.

A widespread nuclear attack on Iranian nuclear installations would kill 20 million Iranians. And worse, the prevailing winds blow east, into Pakistan. Pakistan is not only an Islamic nation, but they also already have nuclear weapons. They're not going to stand idle while millions of their citizens die from Israeli radioactive fallout. So Israel will have to hit them, too, to forestall the inevitable nuclear retaliation.

Killing fifty million people with nuclear weapons will make Israel an international pariah. This is why Israel hasn't attacked Iran. And they're not likely to act until the alternative is another Jewish Holocaust.

Iran will eventually get The Bomb and they'll use it. They've publicly stated numerous times their intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But they won't target Jerusalem. It's Islam's third holiest city. But Tel Aviv is fair game. If I were the Iranian commander I'd put a bomb in a container ship and detonate it just off the coast in a surprise attack. Why send a missile they might shoot down?

So Tel Aviv drowns in a radioactive tsunami and Israel responds by killing 50 million Moslems, probably more since, once they bomb Iran and Pakistan all the other Islamic states are going to go ballistic, so might as well get your licks in first. Besides, the world is going to consider Israel worse than the Nazis anyway. Might as well make a clean sweep of their enemies. And then the US will then occupy the Middle Eastern oil fields – I mean, launch a "humanitarian operation to render aid to the desperate victims of Israeli aggression."

Russia and China will have to back their allies or lose all influence. And even if they're smart enough to just cut them loose and walk away, the conspirators need to cow them. They'll do like they did when they wanted the US to get involved in Vietnam or occupy Iraq. They'll fake a Russian attack or throw out false intelligence – whatever it takes to convince the average New York Times reader that those damn Chinese had it coming.

The Third World War will mean more death, more destruction and the eventual defeat of the anti-western coalition, but not until the West's economy and society are both fundamentally transformed by the necessities of winning the war. The conspirators will end up with complete control. They won't let this once-in-a-civilization crisis go to waste. But what's the future of radical Islam?

In the West, religious wars came to an end after the Thirty Years War in the seventeenth century left Europe in a shambles with almost as many dead as World War II. After the Peace of Westphalia, religious wars went out of style and freedom of religion spread through the West. We'd learned a state religion just wasn't worth the bloody cost of forcing everyone to agree. By the time World War Three is over, the Islamic world will have learned the same grisly lesson and the War on Terror will end.

The defeat of the Russian-Chinese-Islamic coalition in the Third World War would leave whichever faction controls the West as the unchallenged rulers of the planet. But believe it or not, this is a major obstacle to the final fulfillment of the conspiracy. Although they've pushed the idea through the Star Trek franchise that after a series of terrible wars (the Eugenics Wars, Third World War and the Post Atomic Horror) the world will be united in a new Golden Age, there's really no reason to establish a global government to enforce world peace if all the global enemies of peace have already been defeated. To retain their power they still need another enemy, preferably an enemy that comes with a threat they can unite the entire world against. And if the entire world is to be on one side, united in a military alliance that grows into a global government, the enemy can't also be part of that world. The enemy has to be ... extraterrestrial. After World War III the next (and final step) in the global conspiracy will be to unite the world against an alien threat.

Ah, see. It took us a while but we finally got around to UFOs. Now get ready to learn the true secret of the Roswell Incident, and of the government cover-ups.

In 1961, the Kennedy administration ordered a secret study to determine what problems the United States would face if the Cold War ended. The study group consisted of 15 experts in various academic disciplines. Meetings were held in an underground nuclear survival retreat called Iron Mountain and the report they issued was titled the Report from Iron Mountain.

The study lasted five years, long past the death of JFK. In its conclusion it read: "Because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the establishment of this Group, and in view of the nature of its finding, we do not recommend that this Report be released for publication... such actions would not be in the public interest. A lay reader, unexposed to the exigencies of higher political or military responsibility, will misconstrue the purpose of this project, and the intent.... We urge that the circulation of the Report be closely restricted to those whose responsibilities require that they be apprised of its contents...." In other words, restricted to high-level Conspirators with a need to know. Fortunately, the report was leaked by one of the experts, who seems to have had a conscience.

The report is horrifying reading, very blunt and it confirms everything known about the tactics, purpose and goal of the conspiracy. It's so damming that after it was leaked it was immediately attacked as a fabrication, then as a ridiculous spoof of government reports. (But aren't spoofs supposed to be funny?) Today if you research it, most sources repeat those standard lies. But I urge you to get a copy and read it for yourself. And if you doubt our government could authorize such a diabolical study, consider these were the same folks who marched conscript soldiers through atomic test sites so they could study the effect of radiation and who deliberately infected citizens with syphilis so they could study the effects.

According to the Report from Iron Mountain, war has some definite benefits (at least to the ones in charge.) War "provides the only critically large segment of the total economy that is subject to complete and arbitrary central control." It provides the only reason for centralized government and the power of the state, for the rule of an elite over the masses.

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable internal political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its "legitimacy," or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, or reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of a society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer.... On the long-term basis, a government's emergency war powers -- inherent in the structure of even the most libertarian of nations \-- define the most significant aspect of the relation between state and citizen.... it has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes.

What gives the war system its preeminent role in social organization, as elsewhere, is its unmatched authority over life and death. It must be emphasized again that the war system is not a mere social extension of the presumed need for individual human violence, but itself in turn serves to rationalize most nonmilitary killing.... it is essential to an understanding of the important motivational function of **war as a model for collective sacrifice**

The existence of an accepted external menace, then, is essential to social cohesiveness as well as to the acceptance of political authority. The menace must be believable, it must be of a magnitude consistent with the complexity of the society threatened, and it must appear, at least, to affect the entire society.

Of the many functions of war we have found convenient to group together in this classification, two are critical. In a world of peace, the continuing stability of society will require: 1) an effective substitute for military institutions that can neutralize destabilizing social elements and 2) a credible motivational surrogate for war that can insure social cohesiveness. The first is an essential element of social control; the second is the basic mechanism for adapting individual human drives to the needs of society.

The war system makes the stable government of societies possible. It does this essentially by providing an external necessity for a society to accept political rule. In so doing, it establishes the basis for nationhood and the authority of government to control its constituents. What other institution or combination of programs might serve these functions in its place?

... an effective political substitute for war would require "alternate enemies," some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose; in fact, the mere modifying of existing programs for the deterrence of pollution could speed up the process enough to make the threat credible much sooner. But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

Now you know the reasoning behind the conspiracy among climate scientists to falsify data supporting "Global Warming." The threat of catastrophic Climate Change provides an excuse for all-encompassing governmental power over all aspects of life. But as the authors of the report calculated more than fifty years ago, it's really no substitute for a good world war.

Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the "last, best hope of peace," etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by "creatures" from other planets or from outer space.

**Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain "flying saucer" incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind**. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a "need" for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.

However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that **one must be found** , of credible quality and magnitude, **if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration**. It is more probable, in our judgment, that **such a threat will have to be invented** , rather than developed from unknown conditions.

And they've been working on that.

Flying saucers have been seen by literally tens of thousands of people all over the world since they first appeared in 1947. Many reliable witnesses including scientists, airline pilots, police and military officers have reported them. They've been tracked on radar and intercepted by the Air Force. By their own admission, the US Air Force alone has lost at least two aircraft in dogfights with them. And this is just the evidence available to the general public. Who knows what sort of juicy stuff is lying around in a vault somewhere with a big red TOP SECRET stamped on the top of the page?

According to a 1991 poll [ _Alien Abductions, Fact or Fiction?_ , Tamara L. Roleff, editor, 2003, pg138] aliens have abducted nearly four million Americans - about 2% of the population. Another study in 1994 at Rutgers University by doctors Westrum and Goertzel [ _The Source_ , _Journey Through the Unexplained,_ Art Bell and Brad Steiger, 1999] determined as many as 8.7 million people may have been abducted. Your odds of joining this group are better than one in fifty.

Abductees report being kidnapped and terrorized. They are often subjected to painful examinations. Thousands report being raped or sexually molested. Some women have been used to incubate hybrid alien offspring. Many abductees have reported being told by their captors that the alien race was dying and needed to collect genetic material from humans to "revitalize" their race. [ _The Source,_ pp95-97]

But what's behind these UFOs? Where are all those flying saucers coming from? Are they really from another planet? If these aliens really are ambassadors from other worlds, why don't they just land on the White House lawn and ask to see the President? They're usually only seen at night, in isolated areas, by small groups of observers. Saucer pilots don't get interviewed on the TV news.

Learned scientists, occult experts and popular authors who are interviewed on creepy late night radio programs almost universally agree that ancient reports of fairies and demons are simply primitive accounts of encounters with travelers from outer space. The standard doctrine is "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." [Arthur C. Clarke]

But what is never examined is that the reverse is also true. Magic can be mistaken for advanced technology. Perhaps the fairies and demons that once plagued mankind **are** up to their old tricks, just now disguised as extraterrestrials. But could present day accounts of UFOs actually involve encounters with demons?

Which is more believable? That literally thousands of aliens have traveled to this planet in flying saucers over the last 70 years from other worlds for no better purpose than to act like a bunch of drunken frat boys on spring break, buzzing cop cars and air force jets, abducting and molesting young women and playing destructive pranks on cattle and crops? What are we, the interstellar equivalent of Fort Lauderdale? Do those sound like the actions of an advanced, highly developed alien race?

But how can we determine the truth?"

"For a good tree does not bring forth corrupt fruit, neither does a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit," Gospel of Luke chapter 6, verse 43.

Christ taught that you can see past lies to the heart of a person by looking beyond what they **say,** to examine what they **do** – the content of their character, their "fruit." And what "fruit" are UFOs known for? Any investigation of the phenomena since 1948 reveals certain constant themes: cattle mutilation, crop circles, and abductions. People who've been abducted report being terrorized, molested, and even raped. And when aliens do find sympathetic victims to talk to, they always push New Age themes: meditation, visualization, and constant hostility to Christianity and the Jews.

Now, if we lived in the 16th Century, it'd be obvious to everyone what was behind the phenomena. After all, what would explain harm done to crops and livestock, as well as people being terrorized and molested by creatures that are only seen after dark and in isolated places? The bulbous-headed gray aliens typical of UFO sightings even LOOK like traditional depictions of imps.

These creatures do not act like explorers investigating a new world. Our own history demonstrates how explorers would act. Five hundred years ago the Europeans discovered a New World and sent over shiploads of people to explore it. The French came to trade trinkets to the natives for furs they could sell for a higher price back home. The English came to settle. The Spanish came to conquer, loot, and enslave the natives, converting them to Catholicism by force.

UFOs do none of these things. In sixty years they've made no attempt to trade their supposedly advanced technology for our resources, not even in exchange for cattle spleens. They haven't come to homestead. And their petty attempts to harass and molest a few isolated individuals hardly constitute a campaign of conquest.

The only thing you might say they've done is to try and convert us to their religion, since they've quite often shared their occult philosophy with people they've contacted. So much so that if you want to find books about alien abductions and contacts with extraterrestrials the best place to look for them is in the New Age or occult sections of libraries and bookstores.

But the generation that believed in God and demons and who were familiar with the apocalyptic prophesies in the Bible has passed on. In modern, secular 21st century America we're too sophisticated to believe in such things. Somehow it's far more reasonable to believe creatures from another planet traveled billions of miles to harvest our cattle spleens.

There **is** a UFO conspiracy. The government **has** covered up what they know about them. And what they know is – aliens are demonic spirits and UFOs are piloted by demonic-human hybrids for the purpose of deceiving humanity.

Now, at this point some of you may be saying you don't believe in God or demons or little green pixies. But what's important isn't what **you** believe, but what **the conspirators** believe because that's what they're going to act on. But even assuming demonic spirits exist, why would the conspirators want to ally with them?

The Conspiracy is organized in the manner of traditional occult groups with progressive degrees of initiation and access to revelation and power. All occultism is based on the idea of hidden secrets, knowable only by a special, initiated elite. Becoming one of the elite is through a process known as illumination or enlightenment – the elite understand secrets hidden from the masses. (Occult is Latin for hidden.) Every conspiratorial group from the Rosicrucian Order to the Illuminati to the Masons and beyond bases their organization, principles and practice upon this idea.

The concept originates with Gnosticism, an ancient philosophy that teaches a duality between the lower, base world of matter and a superior spiritual realm that can only be achieved by passing through various levels of enlightenment through the accumulation of knowledge. The word "Gnostic" comes from _gnosis_ , the Greek word for knowledge. Gnostics teach that the Creator, whom they term the Demiurge, made the universe, then corrupted it by polluting it with fleshly matter and carnal desires. To achieve perfection one must understand the dualistic nature of reality and through progressive stages of illumination, rise above it to the spiritual plane, thus achieving spiritual perfection and mastering our innate god-like powers. The Demiurge is seen as a cosmic killjoy who wants to maintain a monopoly of knowledge and power by keeping us ignorant. (Although the Gnostics themselves do the same, reveling in their mastery of knowledge denied the unwashed masses.)

Luciferianism adds to this the idea that Lucifer, the Demiurge's chief lieutenant, rebelled against his policies. Their "patron saint" is Prometheus, who in Greek mythology stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind, a reference to Lucifer defying God and bringing knowledge of the occult to Humanity.

The first recorded example of this idea is given in Genesis chapter 3:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then **your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods** , knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-5)

We can see from the text that Lucifer in the guise of a serpent tells Eve that not only is God a liar, he's trying to keep Humanity ignorant because through knowledge they can become as powerful as God himself. This has been the basic foundation for occultism ever since, regardless if the teachings see Lucifer as a historical personage, like Gnosticism, or treat him as merely allegorical, such as various atheistic varieties of Luciferianism such as Thelema.

Even religions as diverse as Wicca and the Mormon Church incorporate this idea. Wicca has the Demiurge, but substitutes as the hero the Goddess and the Great Horned One, saying that Christians have slandered him as Satan or the Devil. He's really a good being just trying to help Humanity. The Mormons in turn have Lucifer as God's second son, Jesus' spirit brother. He's the villain in the Bible only because his idea for saving Humanity (giving us knowledge) was rejected by God in favor of Christ's plan for self-sacrifice. But at higher levels of initiation "Temple" Mormons become enlightened as to the real Luciferian philosophy behind the church's publicly Christian façade.

Any path of occult study, regardless of where it starts, is based on the idea that knowledge is power and restricted to a select enlightened few. All paths in the occult world, right-hand or left, have the same goal: enlightenment. They all lead to the same end: the glorification of the practitioner over his Creator and fellow beings.

Everyone can agree that black magic is bad. But those who seek occult wisdom rarely see themselves as black magicians. While Thelema teaches "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law," Wicca modifies this with "as long as it harms none." But the whole point of studying the occult is to become one of the enlightened few, an elite with power over one's circumstances and the rest of the world. Occultism exalts one's own desires. Thelema itself is an English transliteration of the Greek word for Will.

The whole reason for mastering the occult is to gain power. And as we know, power corrupts. Many occultists believe that "white" magic is possible, that one can employ occult powers for good. But who defines what is good? A love potion (and most Wiccan spell manuals are full of them) seems good for the one administering it to their chosen one. But what choice does the victim have being forced to love someone they did not choose?

And when magic is used for revenge – isn't that harm? But suppose the other fellow struck the first blow? Wouldn't striking back just be helping restore the karmaic balance? Yet many times people give offense without intending it, sometimes without even knowing they have done so. (One reason why Christ taught to turn the other cheek.) The first blow struck against you might not have been an intentional attack, but an innocent mistake. Your "retaliation" then starts the blood feud that now both of you feel justified in continuing, each claiming the moral high ground. Anyone who has any experience with kids on a playground has seen this a dozen times.

In ancient times pagan magic users accompanying their tribe into battle used their magic powers to attempt to ensure the victory of their tribe. But warfare is zero-sum: one side wins and the other loses. Magic isn't about justice – it's all about victory.

Occultism isn't about doing the right thing – it's about getting **your** way. Satanism and Thelema are unashamed about stating this. The central tenet of Thelema is "Do **what thou wilt** , is the whole of the Law." But if you remember, Wicca has exactly the same slogan, just adding, "as it harm none" as a caution at the end. But it's still all about what YOU want. Just don't hurt anybody. (But what if that's what I want?)

Deep down every other form of occultism is the same. The key doctrine of every occult system is visualization, a system akin to daydreaming where the practitioner makes their wishes come true by visualizing that they are. The principle is **thought creates** , therefore if you believe in something hard enough, it will become true. This is illustrated by the New Age principles of Affirmation and Prosperity Consciousness. But if you strip away all the mystic mumbo-jumbo, the essential idea is figuring out what **you want** and then imagining it is so.

Occultism is based on the foundation that among all of Humanity there are only a few who discover these hidden truths. They're a select, an elite. And being a member of an elite means you stand above and beyond the "unenlightened masses" who are little more than sub-humans. You know best. You are by definition superior. This is the type of thinking that established the camp at Auschwitz.

Christ taught, "greater love hath no man than he who lays down his life for another." Then he demonstrated his own love by doing just that. Christ is love incarnate. This is why we see thousands of hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities built and maintained worldwide by Christ's followers obeying his commands to feed the hungry, heal the sick and clothe the naked.

But how many Rosicrucian hospitals are there? Or Gnostic orphanages? The only Wiccan-endowed school exists in fiction books about teen-aged wizards. The occult isn't about love, or doing unto others. It's all about achieving the power to get your own way. The father of the occult, Lucifer, stated as his goal, " **I will** ascend into heaven, **I will** exalt **my** throne above the stars of God: **I will** sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. **I will** ascend above the heights of the clouds; **I will** be like the most High." (Isaiah 14:14-15) Lucifer is selfishness incarnate and occultism is his philosophy, an obvious draw for anyone attracted to power on a global scale.

The Luciferian philosophy that permeates the upper ranks of the conspirators teaches that Lucifer is a teacher and friend, a rescuer and guiding spirit that leads them to their own personal exaltation as gods through occult illumination. The Conspiracy's rank and file may be primarily secular humanists, or even well meaning but deluded people with COEXIST stickers on the bumpers of their cars, but those at the top are Luceferian through and through. But while that explains why they would seek power through an alliance with demonic entities, why would they try to deceive mankind by having those demons masquerade as extraterrestrials?

First, as we've seen, they need an extraterrestrial threat to justify a world government. In the absence of any real extraterrestrials, " **such a threat will have to be invented**."

Second, by having "advanced extraterrestrial alien races" pushing New Age teachings the non-religious more easily accept them. In this way ancient Hindu meditation techniques and crystal gazing become "scientific." This is obvious from any examination of the teachings of UFO-based cults like _Raelism_.

Thirdly, it catapults these demons and their human minions into natural positions of leadership over the world. If they merely came as "angels" with an "updated revelation from God" a new cult might arise, but the majority of humanity would just ignore them. We've seen that scenario unfold historically numerous times already. Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith come with new revelations given to them by angels. But while they had varying degrees of success, neither came close to sweeping the world. But First Contact with an "advanced alien race" would be unprecedented. And if "God" turns out to be an alien, even atheists would be swayed. (Haven't you seen the movie Prometheus?)

Kenneth Boa, the author of " **The Return of the Star of Bethlehem** " states, "These [alien] beings, many people (may) eventually decide, must have solved all their internal problems, so they ought to be able to show us how to live peacefully together as well.... Chances are that there would be a mass movement to accept the claims of the UFO and its aliens at face value."

And if they are so advanced and come to help us, why shouldn't we adopt their teachings? Perhaps place them in positions of leadership, as advisors to the UN Secretary General, the controller of the World Bank, etc.

Some New Age leaders expect just such an event. One of the most famous New Age intellectuals, Sir Arthur Clarke, even wrote a novel about it in the 1950s called "Childhood's End."

Clarke is a New Ager's New Ager, one of the originals back in the 1950s that really brought that ancient philosophy forward and remade it into a modern, outwardly 'scientific' creed suitable for the 20th century. He's also one of the foundational authors of the science fiction genre, the author of _2001: A Space Odyssey._ If you've seen the movie you're already familiar with the idea of aliens interfering with human evolution. The plot in _Childhood's End_ involves the final step in that process. Humanity's childhood is at an end; the aliens who created us return to take us away to our true destiny as gods of the universe. Curiously, in the book the aliens actually look like the popular image of demons, even having little horns. The Christians in the book believe it's all just a demonic plot; but they're the villains in the story, trying to prevent humanity from achieving their true destiny. Eventually the rest of mankind is not deceived by the stupid Christians and they spontaneously evolve, achieving godhood in an afternoon and fly away to their great future among the stars, leaving the despoiled and polluted earth to the ignorant Christians, a clear lesson for the reader to reject Christianity and embrace the New Age teachings of our alien creators.

If this seems far-fetched, consider the standard plot of science fiction First Contact movies from the 1950s on. The idea is constantly presented that while most people scoff at the idea, a few 'enlightened ones' know 'the truth is out there' and that someday everyone will believe when it is finally revealed. There's dozens of movies with this theme, everything from the original 1951 _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ to 2008's remake of the same title. Our skeptical, unbelieving society that scoffs at the Word of God as a fable and Jesus as a myth eats this stuff up.

Many of these movies such as _Mars Attacks,_ _Invaders from Mars,_ and _Independence Day_ promote the idea that the aliens will be hostile. The Conspiracy needs this to make their extraterrestrial threat plausible. Other films depict them as messianic saviors come to rescue us: _The Day the Earth Stood Still, ET, Starman,_ and _Close Encounters of the Third Kind._ This juxtaposition of good aliens / bad aliens prepares us for the classic "Good Cop / Bad Cop" routine employed by corrupt police agencies. The Conspirators will tell us if we don't have a united world government (under their control) we can't join the Galactic Federation and will have to face the evil Reptilians on our own. Then anyone who resists their New World Order is not a freedom fighter but a traitor to the entire Human race! Their world dictatorship will be established as a result of the revelation of the "truth" about UFOs.

### What difference at this point does it make?

It's fairly obvious by now that our current president's tyrannical actions are not just something he threw together after he got elected. The movement to centralize all power in the executive branch and do away with the US constitution and sovereignty, submerging us into a one-world government controlled by a wealthy few goes far beyond Obama or the Clintons. Those families get their marching orders from a higher source and enjoy their wealth and power because they follow those orders. Once you understand this you'll never look at current events the same again.

But before despair sets in and you begin to seek another pill to relieve your now uncontrollable anxiety, consider – what can we do about this situation?

The Conspiracy has more than a century head start on us. They control vast wealth, resources and influence. These people manipulate history to create enemies to maintain a permanent crisis for them to take advantage of. They financed the Bolshevists, Hitler and Al Quaida in order to further their goals, which seem to include the enslavement of mankind followed by a massive reduction in the numbers of humanity to a "manageable level" (500 million if the Georgia Guidestones are any indication) in a new Dark Age made even more protracted by the light of  perverted science (to paraphrase Churchill.)

But there are only a few of them. The CFR only lists 4,700 members in the whole world and those numbers really haven't changed much in decades. They aren't recruiting. (They don't want to share their power any more than necessary.) And the ones at the top who really run this conspiracy undoubtedly number even fewer, against more than six billion of us. (You can see now why they want to cull the herd by more than 90%.)

The best thing we can do is to be that little boy, pointing out the Emperor has no clothes and shouting their secrets to the mountaintops. If enough people knew and believed the evidence for what they are up to, the conspiracy could never succeed. Their nightmare is that scene at the end of Frankenstein where the mob of villagers comes for the doctor with torches and pitchforks.

But I have to be honest. I don't see things ending like that. The Conspirators are supremely influential, super wealthy and well prepared. They're entrenched in government, finance, the media and education and they're  ruthlessly dedicated to becoming all-powerful by any means possible. And it doesn't look good for the opposition. We're weak and poor and disorganized, intentionally separated by the enemy's divide and rule tactics and disdained and ignored by the masses who've been trained to see us as conspiracy nuts and wackos. As things stand, without some drastic change they're going to win.

There's too many of the masses who really are asses, who'd rather know what the Kardashians are up to than the Conspirators. The enemy has money and power on their side and lots of it. Contrary to what some might think, they don't "control" the world. If they did they could be much more direct. They wouldn't need to discredit us, they'd just march us off to the crematoria. But that day is coming and too soon for my liking. Our situation is like that in the movie _The Matrix_. What we need is a Neo, a messiah to unite and save us. But where do we find one? Where would we even look?

But just as in _the Matrix_ where Agent Smith was after Neo before he even met Morpheus or swallowed the red pill, the Conspirators know who their most dangerous enemy is, even if we don't. Their vulnerability is revealed by their  absolute hatred of traditional Christianity. They don't seem to care about other religions. But Christianity must be destroyed. Their educational "reforms" seek to eliminate all traces of Biblical Christianity from schools.  New regulations threaten courts-martial for US soldiers, including chaplains, who  openly practice Christianity. They constantly attack churches and Christian morality, even when it makes no difference to them gaining power, even when it makes that task more difficult. Why?

Ask yourself: why are Progressives so consistently  hostile against Christianity and just Christianity? For more than a century they have fought against it, sometimes promoting secular humanism but always striving to eliminate the influence of Christianity. They attack the public celebration of Christmas and Easter but not holidays of other religions. They've taken Christian prayer out of school and ruthlessly eliminate bible studies from the curriculum, yet promote Eastern meditation and yoga. They're all for diversity as long as it doesn't include Christianity. Even Islam gets a pass. Conservative Christian groups are added to  Homeland Security's watch list even as they ignore Islamic groups that practice terrorism. Why?

Understand first that Islam does NOT worship the same god as Christians and Jews. Allah is nothing like Jehovah. Christ taught a God of love. Mohammed taught one of domination. Where the Bible declares the equality of all mankind including women:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

The Koran declares the servants of Allah are more evolved than other humans and that unbelievers are hardly better than animals. Women are seen as inferior, even to infidel men.

**Koran 3: 110** Ye are the best of peoples evolved for mankind enjoining what is right forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith it were best for them; among them are some who have faith but most of them are perverted transgressors.

And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like livestock; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless. Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (Koran 8:55) They are the worst of creatures. (Koran 98:6) ...he is like the dog; whether you pet him or scold him, he pants. Such is the example of people who reject our proofs. (Koran 7:176)

The Koran provides in chapter 4, verse 34 the proper way to deal with disobedient wives, which includes neglect and beatings, while the Bible advises:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. ... let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself.... (Ephesians 5:25-33)

Islam considers Jesus as merely a prophet and not even the greatest of those (that's Mohammed) while Christianity is entirely based on the idea Jesus is the actual Son of God. Those two beliefs are mutually incompatible and if you have any doubts on this, the Koran specifically states many times that Allah has no son and such a thing is not even possible. (Koran chapter 6:101, 17:111, 18:4-6, 23:91 etc.) Thus the Koran specifically attacks the cardinal belief of Christianity, not just once but many times. Islam and Christianity are NOT compatible and do NOT worship the same God.

But comparing their accounts of the Apocalypse demonstrates the most revealing proof of the actual relationship of Islam to Christianity.

In Islam they await a messiah, the Mahdi, who will someday return, unite the world under his rule and lead the Faithful in a Holy War against the Jews and Christians who will be eradicated from the Earth, after which will dawn a new age of peace and prosperity.

Without a close examination, this appears at first glance to be rather similar to the End Time events predicted by the Christian Apostle John in the biblical book of Revelation. But the Devil's in the details – literally.

Biblical prophecy indicates at the end of time a spiritual leader will arise and unite the world under his personal dictatorial rule. He will then proceed to persecute Jews and Christians, martyring them by the millions. So far this sounds exactly like the account in the Koran. The difference is the identification of this world ruler. In Islam he is their Messiah, the Mahdi, the chosen of Allah. In the Biblical account he is the Antichrist, a false messiah ginned up by Satan. His domination is temporary, with rebellion by the Kings of the East (the Chinese?) and other difficulties culminating in the Second Coming of Christ, the real Messiah.

Islam's ultimate hero is Christianity's greatest villain, a false Christ designed to deceive the world and seize ultimate power in a worldwide empire. Notice this is exactly the same goal as the Conspiracy.

But that must be just a coincidence. Why would a bunch of secular socialists seeking absolute political power even bother with Christianity? What threat could a religion possibly be to them? Stalin once disdainfully dismissed the power of the Catholic Church with, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Yet they still attack Christianity with a fanaticism reminiscent of medieval religious fervor. Why?

To provide an insight into their thinking look at what the Nazis did. During the war, trains transporting Jews to the death camps received top priority, even over trains bringing troops and supplies to the fighting fronts. The Nazis were fanatical about destroying the Jews because according to their worldview, the Jews were their **real** enemy. They were the ones who were out to destroy Germany. They were the ones who had tainted humanity's bloodlines with genetic poison. Even though to those without that worldview it made more sense to stop killing Jews, and transfer the resources and manpower absorbed in that to the fighting fronts, the Nazis kept on killing Jews to the very last day of the war, even ordering an accelerated pace as the Allies closed in. This makes no sense unless you understand their worldview. To them, the Jews were **the real enemy**. The advancing Allied forces were just the physical manifestation of a far more dangerous International Jewish Conspiracy that could only be defeated by exterminating all Jews. The current conspiracy's antipathy toward Christianity makes no sense either, unless it reveals the mindset of the inner circles of the cabal that Christians are their primary threat.

Remember that even though the conspiracy is outwardly secular and socialist the highest leaders are not actually Marxists. That's just a front to deceive the masses to get the support of the 51% in enslaving the 49% before extending the net to the rest of the "useful idiots."

The Conspiracy's ruling inner circle knows their primary enemy is Christianity because they are motivated by a Luciferian worldview. Gnostic philosophy is at the heart of any study of the mystery religions upon which all secret societies are based. Any deep examination of the inner beliefs of the Masons or Illuminati demonstrates this. This is why Rockefeller Center is decorated with a giant gold stature of Prometheus, the "patron saint" of Gnostic Luciferianism. (For more complete discussion of this subject read _Circle of Intrigue_ by Texe Marrs or _Freedom on the Altar_ by William Norman Grigg.)

Every major world religion has a tradition that at the End of Days a major religious figure will return to unite the world: Islam's Mahdi, Christianity's Second Coming of Christ, the Jewish Messiah, the Maitreya Buddha, Krishna, the Cosmic Christ. That the conspirators intend to  highjack these traditions and unite all religions as one under the leadership of their World Dictator is also clear from the nature of the propaganda and has been planned as far back as 1951's _The Day the Earth Stood Still_.

In the original film the alien comes with a message of peace, is killed by those who reject his message, is resurrected and returns to spread his message of peace, unmistakable parallels to the life of Christ. In place of miracles of healing he demonstrates his god-like power by making the world "stand still" in a worldwide electrical blackout

The remake is an undisguised environmentalist propaganda piece with an implicit threat of global Armageddon if we don't get ourselves a world dictatorship that can force us all to be as green as our alien masters want us to be.

In the movie _ET_ , the alien has the power to heal with a touch and also comes back to life after being killed by an evil government conspiracy, even emerging shrouded from a tomb-like autopsy chamber. Then after being seen by his closest friends, he escapes with an implicit promise to return someday -- ET: the cosmic Christ.

These are just a few examples among dozens. The main theme of _The X-files_ presented the same ideas. It's almost as if somebody somewhere really, REALLY wants to get this particular message across to as many people as possible.

The Conspiracy is actually engaged in laying the groundwork for the Antichrist's empire. That's their end game. That's why they hate and must destroy Christianity. They know that is their only real enemy, the only effective opposition. The revelation of the "truth" about UFOs will simultaneously give the Conspiracy the external threat they require and establish the religious credentials for their false messiah.

Back in the 1950s a deception on such a grand scale would never have worked. With World War II just over and the Cold War raging, paranoia ruled supreme. Everyone would have been asking inconvenient questions, and with most of the US population still adhering to traditional Christianity, too many would have seen right through the lies. But today 36% of  Americans believe in UFOs, compared to only 26% that attend church regularly. And most of those churches are more like vapid social clubs than the training facilities for biblically educated disciples they used to be.

Meanwhile the level of Biblical ignorance among American "Christians" has reached epidemic proportions. According to the Barna Research Group, _the majority_ of American _Christians_ today (not just people who attend church but people who profess a personal relationship with Christ) believe that the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves," that if a person is good they can earn their way to heaven, and that neither the Holy Spirit nor Satan are real, living entities, but are only symbolic of good and evil.

According to a Gallup poll 74% of adult Americans say that they have made a "personal commitment to Christ."from _Awakening the Giant_ , by Jim Russell, page 13] Yet the divorce rate for "Christian" couples is no different than anyone else. In this supposedly "Christian" nation [ a third of the population is infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs.) Murder rates are higher now than they were during the "wild west." And we slaughter more people EACH YEAR through legalized abortion than the Nazis killed in their death camps during an entire world war. Do these statistics sound like we live in a country where the vast majority of people really understand what it means to be a disciple of Jesus?

Meanwhile 96% of youth drop out of church after graduation and Wicca has become the fastest growing religion in America. Why? Because our kids are seeking something spiritual, something to dedicate their lives to, while church offers potlucks and musical pageants. They want to be disciples, not spectators. They want their Christian "service" to actually make a difference and to be something more than merely handing out bulletins or manning an information kiosk on Sunday morning.

The Apostle Paul prophesied two thousand years ago that there would be such a falling away, followed by the revelation of the Son of Perdition, the Antichrist, who proclaims himself to be God.

Now we beseech you, my brothers, **with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him** , [the Rapture]

that you should not be soon shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word or letter, as through us, as if the Day of Christ is at hand.

Let not anyone deceive you by any means. For **that Day shall not come unless there first comes a falling away, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself forth, that he is God**. (Second Thessalonians 2:1-4)

Paul warned Christians not to be deceived, for Christ will not return until there is a massive falling away from the faith and the Antichrist is then revealed. The modern epidemic of Biblical ignorance and declining church attendance is actually a sign of the nearing Apocalypse. All we're waiting for at this point is the revelation of the man of sin (the Antichrist) who we can identify because he will sit in the temple of God (which has also not yet been rebuilt in Israel) and declare himself to be God. But at the proper time all this will be revealed, and those Christians who remain alert and do not fall for the deception will know the truth.

The arrival of the "aliens" will be the catalyst for the ascension to power of the Antichrist (who better to negotiate a First Contact than a World Ruler?) It will be the culmination of the Greatest Lie in History, the one that began in Eden with "did God really say...?" [Genesis 3:1-5]

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, so that all those who do not believe the truth, but delight in unrighteousness, might be condemned. (Second Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The Conspiracy is actually engaged in laying the groundwork for the Antichrist's empire. That's their end game. That's why they hate and must destroy Christianity. They know that is their only real enemy, the only effective opposition. The Conspirators know this (or at least the inner circle does) and understands therefore that they must eradicate Christianity from the earth for their Infernal Master to gain ultimate victory.

Our problem is a spiritual one and so is the solution. The only way to successfully oppose this Luciferian conspiracy is to align ourselves with the Forces of Good, trusting that our Creator will carry us through to the end. Christ's return will be our victory.

### This **cannot** possibly be true!

Now, many readers will no doubt be enraged right about now. The author woke us up to a terrible danger, and then prescribes a nonsensical solution like something out of a bad sci-fi movie mixed up with a bunch of hooey from the bible, which everyone knows is just a bunch of fables made up by religious nuts in order to fool the credulous. This whole conspiracy theory thing can't possibly be true.

Why? Because logic and evidence don't support the conclusion? Or because it's **not allowed** **to be true** because then you'd have to re-evaluate the foundation you've based your entire life upon?

That frustration/hunger/dread/guilt/anger/embarrassment/anxiety" you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance, caused by simultaneously holding two or more conflicting ideas, beliefs, values or world views. That "disequilibrium" leads people to do something to reconcile the discrepancy in their thinking. This ought to lead to reconsidering their discredited worldview. Unfortunately, that would mean accepting they've been wrong or deceived. It's far easier to gain relief by simply rejecting the evidence.

But convenience is not how Truth is determined. If you doubt this ask someone who's been diagnosed with cancer. America, the whole world, is dying from something worse. It's not cancer - it's slow poison. And our murderer is standing by, spoon in hand, ready with your next dose.

You can put this book down and stick your tongue out for your "medicine" like a good little peasant. Or you can let the red antidote pill have its full effect by reading on – it's your choice.

I warned you when we started you had no idea just how deep that rabbit hole went. You're the one who wanted to understand the hidden truth behind the façade we call reality. Well, here it is. There's a huge, well-funded centuries-old conspiracy seeking to enslave the human race. Oh, and there's also a creator-god who really exists and wants you to join his anti-conspiracy conspiracy.

"Yeah?" You say. "Show me some proof. And it better be good if you want me to actually believe all this bible BS."

All right. Sit back and have another sip of that cool beverage you swallowed the red pill with and I'll show you all the evidence you need. Whether you accept it is up to you. But you can't change the Truth. It remains what it is whether you accept it or not. That blue pill is very tasty going down, but it leads to ignorance, slavery and death.

But ask yourself: what's more important, to maintain the façade of your current worldview in spite of the evidence, or to conform your thinking to the Truth behind Reality? Does the evidence determine your worldview or is the evidence you accept determined by your worldview and not the quality of the evidence? I know which way of thinking the Conspirators want you to employ.

And don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to get you to pledge allegiance to the Pope and the Church for which it stands. Don't filter your spirituality through earthly organizations run by other humans no less fallible than you. Organized religion is a crock. Go to the source and see for yourself what Jesus expected of his followers.

Jesus didn't come to start a new religion. He wasn't a priest, and neither were any of his disciples. The clergy of his own time conspired to have him put to death because he threatened their power and place in society. (See John 11:47-48)

Jesus' followers were overwhelmingly working class men and women: fishermen, housewives, tax collectors, prostitutes and slaves. He didn't tell them they needed to go through the priesthood to get to God. In Matthew chapter 7, verse 12 Jesus summed up **the entire message of the Bible in a single verse:**

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

It was the Jewish lawyers and priests who complicated matters. Because if laymen could understand the law, if laymen could reach God without the intervention of the clergy, then why would we need clergy?

If you continue reading in the same passage (verses 13-29) you'll see being a member of a church, any church, will not satisfy your Creator. Religion will not get you into heaven. Jesus never taught one word about church. The Roman Emperor Constantine and his mother invented that hundreds of years after Jesus' death.

At the end of his life, only three days before his crucifixion, Jesus taught the parable of the sheep and the goats. (Matthew 25:31-46) The goats were thrown into everlasting fire not because they weren't church members in good standing, but because they didn't _do_ unto others.

That parable was a repeat of the same lesson presented at the beginning of his ministry in chapter seven, verses 12-29. On that occasion Jesus went out of his way (in verse 22) to mention that being religious and claiming to have done "many wonderful works" in his name did not save them from the flames.

Jesus taught salvation is _not_ collective; it is individual and based on _your_ obedience, not on the people you fraternize with on Sunday morning. It's based on the hungry **you've** fed, **not** how many times you've been served communion. It's based on the naked **you've** clothed, **not** the little cross hanging around your own neck. We weren't created to sit around in church all day singing hymns, but to comfort the broken-hearted and visit those who are sick or imprisoned. But you won't hear this lesson in Sunday School.

When a lawyer asked him what the greatest commandment of the law was, Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. **On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets**." (Matthew 22:37-40)

"Truly the yoke of Christ would be sweet and his burdens light, if petty human institutions added nothing to what he himself imposed. He commanded us nothing save love for one another." – Erasmus of Rotterdam

### For those Who Demand Proof

But how can we **know** if Jesus truly was the Son of God he claimed to be and not just some nutty carpenter with delusions of grandeur who turned out to be one of the most influential people of all time? I fully agree with skeptical readers who want to see some proof. I'm a seeker of Truth, but also a real skeptic. Before I believe anything, I want to see some evidence. So let's take a look.

If Jehovah, the God of the Bible really were our Creator, how would such a creator-god communicate with his creation? Sending messengers is problematic. Anybody can SAY they have a message from God, but how can that be verified?

Fortunately there is a way to authenticate such a message, and not by using specious logic or convoluted philosophical arguments.

A creator-god is by definition, not part of his own creation. He stands outside it and is not subject to natural laws and limitations. Therefore, the best way for such a being to provide verification for his messagers is to include violations of those natural laws: signs and wonders, miracles and prophecies that a mere poseur could not duplicate. Deuteronomy 18:22 says,

"When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him." NKJV

But it all depends on the veracity of the original message. After all, it doesn't require any supernatural power to make a correct prophecy, if it isn't made until after the event. So, can we trust the accuracy of the Bible? Was it ginned up by a series of medieval Papal councils or does it date back to Classical times?

In existence today there are more than 5,300 known complete ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, plus over 10,000 in Latin and at least 9,300 others, plus more than 24,000 manuscript portions of the New Testament.

"No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 surviving manuscripts. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates only from the 13th century." [Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, page 39.]

"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations of it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or another of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world." - from F.F. Bruce in The Books and the Parchments, as quoted in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell, page 43. For a more detailed study of this issue that author provides 35 pages of detailed examples with five more pages of footnotes.

This is exactly what one would expect if our Creator used the Bible as a means to convey a message to His creation. But what is that message?

To sum up a more than two hundred page document, the Bible says it is both a history of how the world was created, and also a series of separate messages from the Creator via prophets to various individuals, nations and governments throughout history. The messages culminate in the arrival of God's own son.

Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God. [in Matthew 27:43, Mark 14:61-64, John 5:17-18, John 8:58, John 10:20-33, John 14:1, John 14:9, etc.] But what credentials does he have to make such a claim?

The Old Testament was written over a millennium and contains hundreds of prophecies of the coming messiah. New Testament authors appealed numerous times to such prophecies as authentications of Jesus. For example:

Romans 1:1-4 "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God (2) (which He had promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures), (3) about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, (4) who was marked out the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead...."

The life of Jesus fulfilled over 300 of these prophecies - THREE HUNDRED. And most of these aren't prophecies that Jesus or his followers could have decided to fulfill. For example, Jesus had no control of where he was born, his parent's decision to flee to Egypt when he was an infant, or Herod's massacre of the innocents. And what about the visit of the Shepherds in Luke chapter 2 or of the Magi in the second chapter of Matthew? These are things he had no control over.

Jesus also fulfilled other prophecies that were beyond his control if he were a mere faker. The Bible declared the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but that he'd also be from Nazareth (where Jesus grew up,) and from Egypt (where he lived for a while after his parents fled when Herod ordered the murder of all baby boys in Bethlehem.) It prophesied in Deuteronomy (written in the 15th century BC) he'd be crucified, long before  crucifixion was invented in the 5th century BC, and that none of his bones would be broken, in spite of the fact that breaking the victim's leg bones is standard procedure in execution by crucifixion. And we haven't even begun discussing his miracles.

Even if one simply cannot accept the Bible (the ancient work of which we have the most and best records) then accept the words of Josephus, a first century historian (who was not a Christian) who wrote of Jesus that he was a man of God and a miracle worker that many at the time claimed was the Jewish Messiah. This was not something ginned up by a papal council five centuries later.

Through prophecies and miracles God has provided authentication of his message to anyone who chooses to accept it. The only remaining question is whether the receiver is willing to adjust their hypothesis to match the evidence, or simply reject the evidence on the basis of a pre-conceived belief. Many people reject such "supernatural" evidence as "unscientific." But is it?

Peter Stoner, Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College calculated the probability of a single man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. Professor Stoner then encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation that verified his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

After examining only eight different prophecies it was conservatively estimated the chance of a single man fulfilling all was only one in 10 to the seventeenth power. (For those unfamiliar with scientific notation, that's ten with seventeen zeros after it: 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000)

To illustrate how large the number is, Stoner gave this illustration:

"If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom."

And this is the probability of fulfilling **only eight prophecies** not the more than 300 that Jesus actually fulfilled.

Dr Harold Morowitz, a former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated the probability of the chance formation of the simplest, smallest life form known, is about 1 in 1 times 10 to the 340,000,000. Dr Carl Sagan, who happens to be an evolutionist, estimates even greater odds against the simplest of life forms taking shape on our planet by chance. According to him, the odds are more like 1 in 1 times 10 to the two billonth power.

Therefore, it is 339,999,983 times more likely that Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible a message direct from God, than of the chance formation of the simplest life form on this planet by evolution. Which worldview is more scientific?

Unfortunately, most people were not reasoned into their current worldview through logical argument and carefully weighed evidence. And they're not likely to be reasoned out of it, either. Regardless what people say and think, emotion plays the primary role in this.

Reconsidering your worldview is terrifying. It shakes the very foundations of your life, the anchor of all reality. It's far more comforting (and easy) to simply dismiss the troubling evidence and just move on. And I expect most readers will do just that.

But if you've read this far, it's too late to spit it out now. The Red Pill has immunized you. As time passes, and the Conspiracy draws closer to their goal and the events I've predicted come to pass before your eyes, you will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the carefully constructed façade they've brainwashed you with. Eventually you will embrace reality. But it's up to you whether you choose it willingly or have it forced upon you.

Don't be deceived. The coming Third World War is **not** Armageddon. It's only the first tick of the clock on the countdown to Armageddon. But luckily for us, the end of this world doesn't mean the end for those of us in the Resistance... it's just the beginning.

Free your mind from the illusion they've crafted to enslave you. Join us and The Truth shall set you free!

### ###

### If you liked this book (or at least appreciated having your belief-system thoughtfully challenged) **please leave a comment or review**. These are vitally important to getting others to read this book.

### You might also be interested in reading:

### The Truth About Conspiracy Theories

### For those who still desire further information see my pamphlet

### How to Tell a Lie

### Find out for yourself – is the Bible a dead letter or a message from your Creator?

### Discover The Key to Happiness

### For a more complete examination of how Jesus taught his disciples and what he expects from them read: Revolutionary Discipleship.

### Read my book Jesus is Only Coming Twice to understand exactly how the end game of the Council on Foreign Relations will play out. The plan the conspirators are carrying out today was foreseen twenty centuries ago.

### Visit MEBrines.com

### Follow **M.E. Brines** on Twitter.

### Friend him on Facebook (while you still can)

### Or view his author page.
