modeled after 19th century Prussia and was designed to condition children toward obedience and subordination? Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was once quoted to have said during one of the famous debates with Stephen Douglas “I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race” in regards to the inability of whites and blacks to commingle in society? Did you know that U.S. Army is actively looking into “reeducation camps” for domestic political dissenters? Did you know that the National Security Agency has almost 20 trillion communication transactions by Americans on file with 1.7 billion being collected everyday according to the Washington Post? Did you know that the initial fluoridation of the nation’s socialized drinking water supplies was in due part a payoff to the Aluminum Corporation of America as fluoride is a major byproduct of aluminum production? Did you know that Franklin Roosevelt once called Benito Mussolini “admirable” and admitted to being “deeply impressed” with what the father of contemporary fascism accomplished along with ignoring the murderous atrocities committed by “Uncle Joe” Stalin, as he referred to him, while extending a crucial lend-lease deal that kept the communist country afloat economically? And did you know that in the latest thwarted attempt of a Yemeni terrorist to use an enhanced underwear bomb, the would-be bomber was actually a CIA double agent?
These are facts not often mentioned within the learning lessons of modern day schools or closely examined by the media. To the layman they may come off as radical despite their historic reality. The notion that the common understanding of history is somehow wrong or deliberately deformed to fit a pre-defined narrative fit for public consumption is, by itself, regarded as crazy talk.
The very mentioning of uncomfortable truths is typically given a slanderous term: that is conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theorists are made out to be anti-social beings who engage in cherry picking information and distorting relevant facts to fit their own view of the world. But while twisting reality does occur in some cases, that shouldn’t amount to ignoring what goes against the grain of orthodoxy.
Economist Ludwig von Mises saw history as a subject to be studied with the application of “specific understanding.” That is interpreters of history should strive to understand why the decisions and value judgments of historical figures “originated in the mind of the actor.” Though constant, predictable behavior is an impossibility for beings naturally able to choose, that shouldn’t stop observer of history from attempting to understand the rational for historical behavior.
Libertarians, such as this author, recognize the state and the coercive role it plays in an otherwise free society. Those who occupy its offices of conduct have chosen to provide services through predatory legislative decree over the volunteerism which defines the non-public sector. They have opted for the threat, or utilization, of jail bars instead of swaying whom they serve by means of harmonious persuasion.
Recognizing that men act not out of simple greed or benevolence but to achieve the ends they seek is vital to understanding the role of the state and the mindset of those who question its motives. Many are quick to demonize business for profit seeking despite the fact that no business can survive in the marketplace without selling its wares at a price to cover costs. By the same token, those who look to government as the great provider of human virtue disregard the very fact that every service rendered by public officials has its roots in the private sector and has at one point in time been provided for in the market.
This is the basis for conspiracy theory; specifically that which has the distinction of being unfavorable to government. Such theories are merely the application of the axiom that men act purposefully and that their spoken motives are not always the real intention behind their behavior. Economist and historian Murray Rothbard made the distinction between easily identifiable conspiracy theory and that which needs to be pieced together using the “specific understanding” principle. On steel tariffs, it appears quite reasonable to assume that “the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors.”
But when considering the object behind public works projects, it may take a bit more imagination to see all the human factors involved. It isn’t out of the ordinary for many economists to propose government-financed public works in the midst of a recession. Actually, one dominant school of economics prescribes such a remedy during any instance of an economic slump. The question of importance is who really benefits from public works projects? Proponents usually hold that everyone benefits by having their tax (stolen) money pay for road repair, new bridges, or enhanced infrastructure. But is it that farfetched to assume that public works are actually “promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes…”?
This isn’t paranoia of the tinfoil hat variety. It is the application of a firm understanding of human nature and the ability to hypothesize the real intentions of germane parties.
And just as Mises recognized “the inevitable trend of history is toward more and more socialization,” this author challenges the reader to defy that Leviathan’s appetite for power and control has been tamed. The world is currently witnessing the slow breakup of the Eurozone. The technocrats in charge want a political union alongside the existing currency union. Germans and citizens of the countries not awash in enormous public debt are pushing back as they understand the loss of sovereignty and inevitable inflation that will be employed by the European Central Bank. Those who saw, and still see, the Eurozone as the great experiment in centralizing a vast geographical area under the governing authority of just an appointed few remain unwilling to let it go. Their interests lie with the behemoth state.
Even the so-dubbed New World Order isn’t that much of dreamt up absurdity when considering the beneficiaries of such a domineering political apparatus. It also doesn’t help the denouncers of NWO speculation that the term and concept have been alluded to, or outright named, by highly connected and elite individuals such as David Rockefeller, former President George H.W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, and former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In 1992, former President Clinton’s Deputy Treasury Secretary of State Strobe Talbot told Time Magazine:
In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.
To dismiss all conspiracy theory without thorough consideration is to put blind faith in those who are in the best position to abuse both physically and financially. It is another form of subservience so desired by the whip brandishers of the state.