It is statists who clinge to the notion of some kind of great transparency or accountability in the government monopoly on force, to some kind of notion of the state’s legitimacy. When I was still a minarchist, I thought CFR, Bilderberg, etc. were a big deal. Once I stopped, I realized that they are part and parcel with the state monopoly.
Yes, evil stuff is happening, but No, conspirators are not the problem - the state monopoly is. All power-seekers go the state, because it is the monopoly. It’s the elephant in the room; the conspiracies are just the tumors on that elephant. “New world order” - the conspiracy theory to end them all - just means an even bigger state. There’s nothing new about it, it’s just a bunch of (international) oligopolists trying to become monopolists. It’s tumors vying to take over a herd of unacknowledge elephants, and merge them into one giant one.
You hit on it. The folks that see these conspiracies even if they exist do not see the forest because of the trees. The best example is the origination of the Federal Reserve, it was a conspiracy between the heads of the US Government and several large banks. But the rest of the congress and the president both had to pass the law and then the courts had to uphold it. So the point is that the conspiracy is not the evil part. It is the law making body that is the center of evil, the conspirators are simply taking advantage of the situation.
That’s a very interesting way of looking at it. I too- used to think that all the power lie in those groups before I started studying anarchist philosophy. I tend now to look at it as the way the state comes to power. These groups are just power backers of the state. They are mainly results of the state. As you said- they’re basically what results when you have statism. If you look at history- similar groups- have always seem to come to power… who want to rule the world. Much of it lies on as you said the monopoly of the state. AJ, I would agree with you on that.
If you don’t mind I would like to issue an apology if I disrupted the board in that other thread. All I was really trying to do was to talk about the federal reserve’s history. I was only also trying to explain the theories about David Rockefeller, and, why he is talked about so much. I wasn’t trying to shift the board’s focus from economics to conspiracy economics. I think however- I would agree that these groups (the bilderbergers, CFR, and the trilateral comission, the billionaire club), happen because of statist doctrines. And, they are the natural tendency of statism… for when you have the state having a monopoly of power- the criminals and liars of the various states would naturally tend to want to come together. I see it that communism was a global philosophy, and, now statism is a global philosophy so you have all these statists coming together with their control issues and they do things that there… to exert their power… etc.
Not to mention, the variety of unsubstantiated claims made concerning these events makes it very easy to discredit anybody opposing them. These people have cried “wolf” so many times that nobody will listen when somebody comes along who can actually provide some evidence.
I say we take this reasoning to the “oh noes! the Federal Reserve is a private company!!” folks and use it to get them to AnCap (but maybe leave out the hardcore conspiracy folks who haven’t seen the big picture yet - wouldn’t want to ruin whatever popular credibility we have).
Bill Still’s The Money Masters and Alex Jones’s Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement are terrifying documentaries for statists, especially if watched in that order. The Money Masters is to my knowledge entirely true (and a great history piece), but it advocates fiat money and trust in the government. These documentaries leave people with their worldviews shredded to pieces, but still not seeing the elephant (or gun) in the room. Like most of this material, it raises way more questions than it answers, leaving people with this awful feeling of confusion and general dread.
I think we can capitalize on this, and purge some conspiracy theorists from the libertarian population - two birds with one stone.
I’ve been wanting to see a comic-style illustration of “The Evolution of Thought on the Federal Reserve”:
Reverence. New York Times. “Greenspan is a genius!”
Conspiracy fright. The Money Masters. “It’s a CONSPIRACY!! The Fed is PRIVATE!!!1”
Subtle conspiracy. G. Edward Griffin (Creature from Jekyll Island, Freedom Force, minarchy). “Oh, so the fact that it is quasi-public lets it play both ends - be public when it gets flak, but private with it gets an FOIA request. Pretty tricky. Vote for Ron Paul…”
Understanding state monopoly. Mises.org, Rothbard, AnCap materials. “[what we’re saying in this post]. Enforced monopolies are the real problem.”
Why call it “conspiracy”? Most of this is just interest groups that are working towards common goal of an political, economical or ideological nature. You’ll get this already on very low level in societies. What is so funny about getting this on higher levels as well?
Whether one has a n object labelled “the state” or whether this is a group of “insurance and protection companies” that is dominant in a “anarcho-capitalist” is actually quite irrelevant. Power is power. Doesn’t matter how it’s justified, managed or attributed.
Let me answer that. People call them conspiracies still because we didn’t know that these groups existed before. So many, as, I think another user put it- cried wolf, kind of really hoping they existed. No one believed these people. I don’t know what we should presently call them right now. The reason they’re called conspiracies is not because of the fact that they’re weird groups and that they exist… but… because they were at first theorized about, and, only read about, by people who didn’t know about them- but only theorized about them because they were a group of global elites meeting together that was talked about. Now thanks to the internet we know more about these groups, but, I feel that we like to call them conspiracy theories still. Just because these are conspiracies- doesn’t mean they’re not true though. The main reason though why people call them conspiracies is because of what I pointed out, already, which is that they were at first conspiracy theories long before they ever went mainstream, and got publicity from the press.
Exactly, or, as I have said: the state is the disease, and what are usually referred to as conspiracies [i.e the usual suspects] are just symptoms of the disease.
Once you have the disease, [i.e. the state] , the symptoms are inevitable and can not be eradicated/suppressed, which is why, for example, trying to get rid of the fed is a waste of time.
As a symptom of the state, if it were possible to get rid of the Fed, something else equally as bad- or worse- would inevitably replace it.
911 Media Fakery
At the same time however, the level of hysteria [much of it from “moderators”], directed at my initial post /thread in these forums; a post which happened to mention my unswerving belief , based on pure science, that no planes struck either WTC 1 or 2 on Sept 11th 2001, and that all the evidence, when closely examined, points to massive fakery on the part of the government and the media, was something to behold,if not downright laughable, given the claimed “anarchistic , never believe anything the state tells you” posturing of many posters in these forums.
So although I agree with your observation in principle, unfortunately many here will use/take that position as nothing more than a convenient argument to try to shut down any threads which raise subjects [such as conspiracy theories] that they, in their infinite wisdom, deem are not up for discussion [" I don’t like it therefor its irrelevant"].
Would that include yourself?
P.S. I know of only one other anarchist 911 “no-planer” like myself. However interestingly enough, although as you observed, conspiracy theorists are almost to a man statist in their ideology, they seem, for whatever reason, a little more likely to at least consider the idea of media/government video fakery on 911, whereas your average self-proclaimed “anarchist” on these boards appears to have swallowed the official story hook line and sinker.
On conspiracy message boards, I get incredulity or stunned silence if I point out that if you have a government in the first place then this[ conspiracies via special interests inside and outside governments] , is what you inevitably get, whereas here, on the other hand, and on other so-called “anarchist/libertarian” type forums I generally encounter iboth ncredulity and downright hostility for merely suggesting that a close, unbiased look at all photographic evidence in the light of basic high school physics must lead to a conclusion of gigantic media video fakery on 911, so as far as I am concerned “anarchist/libertarian” types are in general no better, or worse, than the average “conspiracy nut”.
Both have massive blind spots, one with regard to the actual nature of government, and the other with regard to the level to which governments will go to wage wars.
The conspiracy theorists are nothing but apologetic Statists. Unable to conceive of a State-less society, they desperately cling to absurd ideas about how the “government of the people” is hijacked by a bunch of special interest indviduals. For the socialists, it’s wall-street Capitalists/Central bankers, etc…. For the mini-archists, it’s a bunch of Socialists/Central bankers, etc.
By the way, shame on “Campaign For Liberty”! They seem to be formally propagating conspiracy type theories. If anybody receives their letters in the mail asking for donations, they keep referring to “banksters” or government bureaucrats and “banksters”. This is the perfect example of how, although I truly admire Ron Paul, his movement is also playing the pathetic “apologetic for the government” card
So, there’s no such thing as lobbying. There’s no privileged banking ‘industry’. There are no subsidies or bailouts. There are no tariffs to protect the politically connected. There re no regulations promoted by big players to stifle competition, etc, etc, etc.
Those things exist only in the heads of nutty conspiracy theorists…I get it.
In a state monopoly, everyone connected with the monopoly becomes a de facto part of it - to the extent to which they are connected with it.
The “banksters” may indeed be the most powerful part of the monopoly, so I can see the reasoning. But yes, the CFL is intending that the “banksters” are THE bad guys. I just say they are the most powerful, or among the most powerful, of them. The bankers would be nothing without legal tender laws and the monopoly on enforcement of them, but they have the influence to keep those laws enforced, so they stay.
When there is enforced monopoly, all connected with it become it - to the extent to which they are connected with it.
It’s not that there aren’t any special interests behind all of this. It’s that the conspiracy theorists imply that those special interests are the cause, thus, the government is hijacked. The government is obviously not hijacked. The sole purpose of the government is exactly that, to provide a legalized channel for theft, and empowering all those who are in the government or close to it. It is its inherent nature no matter who is put in charge.
What else is the meaning of “The Fed has no accountability” nonsense!?
Actually, yes it does! Congress can destroy it as quickly as it created it. Since when is micro-management by it’s alleged “consumers” a criterion for having accountability? By this logic, the entrepreneurs in a free market have no accountability either since we obviously do not have a direct say in their business and managerial decisions. Or for that matter, since government bureaucrats are not overseeing every one of their decision. Obviously, this is absurd, we all (most of us) know very well that the profit & loss system is what makes the entrepreneur accountable to the consumer. But by playing the game of “the Fed has no accountability” so we need HR1207 they are falling right into the hands of the socialists! There can never be accountability without profit & loss. For Ron Paul to suggest that we can have oversight by a bureaucratic process is, I think, a terrible educational lesson. Since when are politicians and bureaucrats accountable?
All this HR1207 is doing is sending the wrong message about how the problem stems from lack of political oversight. I also don’t buy the lame excuse about how if the Fed is audited, it will lead to its destruction. Since when does a failure of a government agency (or licensed monopoly) lead to its abolishment ? Most likely, the Fed will simply be restructured and expanded at our expense.
I agree with all that. If congress the State wanted the Fed that part of itself gone, it would have it gone. But of course it doesn’t want it gone since it’s the ATM machine, and it will just use the audit as an excuse to expand - under the pretense of reform (as you said).
We really need to tell them this! It’s a crystal-clear way to see the situation, so it’d bring in a lot of new people I am sure. As I say, the conspiracy crowd is scared and confused so they are ripe for the plucking. We’ll get them in here and show them the rational way, and get them to make AnCap go viral (there I go again…)
If I may add to this thread- I believe that conspiracy theorists don’t want complete elimination of government. They don’t want for the government to rule over everyone or for corporations to rule over everyone. They want a limited government. Conspiracy theorists are patriots. They try to attack what they see are the problems of the state. There are many times when they’re not quite right- and- they’re willing to accept when they’re wrong. I would say that it’s like me- I’m an anarchist- a truth-seeker. I know that we have a government now and we should hold them accountable. I, like them, search for the truth. I can really relate to a lot of the ideas that conspiracy theorists have and I rationalize them. They don’t want any one group to have complete and total power. They also aren’t quite ready to do away with government completely. They’re not people like you see in movies like V for Vandetta. And what not. So… conspiracy theorists care little about theories- well they do care a lot- when they’re wrong… I’m talking about political theories which they don’t care much about. They rather are against corruption. They find things out long before the mainstream press do. They don’t like it when the mainstream press brainwashes the masses. Etc. Etc. They’re not statist apologists. They just don’t like the corruption and the lies.
which are an inherent feature of a Government. So that makes them statist apologists. I never said they were big government apologists. If you like, they are small government apologists.
Don’t forget that you do also have the Big government apologists with their Global Private Bankers theories who want to nationalize the Fed and have a “democratic money” system, or a democratic printing press.
I would counter that and say that most of the conspiracy theorists are just really representative government apologists. They want a government that can be representative of the people. You have your different types of people in there in the conspiracy theory movements… but… all they really want is a representative government.