Conspiracy Theory, Liberalism
and the Jews
What About the New World Order? A learned and remarkable piece of writing...
By John Bryant (email@example.com)
The world is divided into two kinds of people: Those who do and
those who don't divide the world into two kinds of people.
Now having gotten our smashing opening out of the way, let me point out
that the world is divided into two kinds of people, those who are
'conspiracy theorists', and those who believe that conspiracy theorists
should be committed to the loony bin rather than to their theories.
Furthermore, there is a very good reason for this division: Most of the
people who are the devils in the conspiracy theorists' antihagiography are
not only those who are responsible for the things that conspiracy theorists
complain about, but they have the power to ensure that the mass media
portray conspiracy theorists as stupid, ignorant and deluded; and since it
is the mass media from which most people draw their information and
opinions, it is little wonder that most people's beliefs strongly reflect
the media slant.
But conspiracy theory is not just a way of tweaking the Establishment's
nose. Rather it is an attempt to connect the dots which tie together a lot
of events, both historical and contemporary, that at first seem to have no
connection. Like anything else, conspiracy theories are sometimes wrong,
and perhaps often so. But just because a particular theory is wrong is not
evidence that there is not a conspiracy. True, it is up to the conspiracy
theorists to prove their case, but the fact is that there is already a
strong case for conspiracy theory which was made by one of the greatest
conspiratorial plotters of all time, Franklin Roosevelt, the man who
arranged America's entry into WW2 by clandestinely waging economic warfare
against the Japanese (and military warfare against the Germans) in hopes of
provoking them, and who then had the Hebraic chutzpah (Roosevelt was from a
Jewish family) to call his coup a 'day of infamy', which it certainly was,
tho not quite the way it is usually taken. The case which Roosevelt made
for conspiracy theory was his declaration that "In politics, nothing
happens by chance."
But there is yet another and even more powerful reason for recognizing the
general validity of conspiracy theory -- human nature. More specifically,
men strive for power over their fellows and have been known since time
immemorial to ally themselves with others in hopes of obtaining this power.
While this may not always quite rise to the level of 'conspiracy', it
remains an unfulfilled dream of every man -- conspiracy theorist or not --
to rule the world; so it is safe to assume that men who have already
amassed considerable power may do more than dream in this regard. Beyond
this, it is clear that most efforts to obtain power involve work 'behind
the scenes', and it is usually not much of a stretch to describe such work
as 'conspiracy' even in cases where the work is not -- in the words of
Alexander Woolcott describing his favorite activities -- illegal, immoral
But if this is the theory behind conspiracy theory, it is only reasonable
to recognize that its principal foundation is fact. More to the point, it
is conspiracy theorists who invariably have a much better grasp than their
critics of the facts about any given event for which they postulate a
conspiracy -- critics who are invariably far too busy calling their
opponents 'conspiracy theorists' to bother studying the facts. Indeed, it
has always been the facts -- tied together in logical ways, of course --
which have been the greatest recruiters for the conspiracy theory cadre;
and thus the only thing which prevents conspiracy theory from spreading is
ignorance of those facts -- an ignorance which the major media cultivates
with the care that dirt-poor Afghan farmers cultivate their opium poppies
in hopes of obtaining maximum payment from the CIA.
But there are facts other than those about particular events which make
conspiracy theory more than just a theory. I refer, of course, to a little
book entitled Report from Iron Mountain, whose provenance has often been
said to be a spoofer, but whose text is far too detailed and credible to
support such an assertion, and whose authenticity has been verified by a
major Establishment figure, John Kenneth Galbraith, who has asserted that
he is one of its authors. Very simply, the Report is an effort to plumb
the requirements of stable government, and its conclusion is that Perpetual
War and other Great Projects are a necessity for keeping a nation united,
and thereby subject to control by a centralized elite. In short, here we
have men at the highest level seriously recommending planned catastrophes
in order to keep their buddies and themselves in power. Under such
circumstances, dismissing conspiracy theory as the offspring of crackpots
is little better than insanity.
But if conspiracy theory is wrong, it will most likely be judged to be so
because its opponents will argue that the programs which it regards as
conspiracies are principally liberal programs, and that such programs --
while embraced and advanced by many people -- are either the working-out of
natural events which no human effort could stop, or else are simply the
efforts of a liberal political establishment to execute its appointed
agenda; and from this it follows that 'conspiracy theory' is at worst
nothing more than an innocent product of 'working together'. I acknowledge
that this view has merit, and indeed I do not necessarily reject it; but
what I am not willing to reject is what conspiracy theory admonishes us to
do, namely, to 'connect the dots' so it becomes clear that events which
many regard as isolated and unrelated are actually woven together into a
tapestry which -- intentionally or not -- is rapidly becoming a shroud for
Western civilization as a result of its effect of smothering the ideals of
freedom and individual responsibility which the West has nurtured for so
Now as the reader undoubtedly knows, there is a name for this tapestry --
the New World Order, or NWO for short. This phrase has been around since
the Enlightenment, and indeed is intimately associated with the
establishment of the American republic; for it resides in one form ("Novus
ordo seclorum", or 'New order of the ages') on the Great Seal of the United
States, and thus appears on the back of our one-dollar bills where the Seal
is depicted. While the historical role of this phrase has been regarded as
sinister by some, who believe it is part of an conspiratorial Masonic
influence, there have also been contemporary connections of a sinister
nature, inasmuch as the phrase has been used by -- among others -- Adolf
Hitler and George HW Bush, the current president's father and a man
associated with many sinister events.
The connection of the NWO and the Enlightenment is not accidental, because
as we noted above, the programs of the NWO are primarily liberal ones, and
it was as a result of the Enlightenment -- the period of history beginning
about 1648 with the publication of Copernicus' earthshaking work -- that
liberal ideas began to develop. These include equality (the phrase "all
men are created equal" appeared in our Declaration of Independence),
democracy (ie, that rulers should rule at the pleasure of the people, and
not by the 'divine right of kings'), human rights (ie, limitation on
government powers: The notion of 'unalienable rights' also appears in the
Declaration), tolerance (free speech and different religious practices were
given an imprimatur by the First Amendment), the elevation of scientific
investigation over religious revelation (something still resented by many
present-day 'conservatives') and the world's two major economic theories,
capitalism (first ideated by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations) and
socialism (a bastard child of 'equality'). There were numerous major
benchmarks for the influence of liberal ideas in the century following
1776, including The Wealth of Nations (1776), the American Revolution (July
4, 1776), the founding of the Illuminati (May 1, 1776), the French
Revolution (1789), the Communist Manifesto (1848), the Revolutions of 1848,
the Seneca Falls feminist conference (1848) and the abolition of slavery in
the civilized world (Britain and its possessions (1840s), Russia (1850s),
and America (1860s)); and ever since this period -- and particularly as a
result of the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution and the opening
of the Americas -- liberalism has flourished.
Now it is apparent from the above discussion that -- however much
liberalism may be involved in ushering in the NWO -- it is certainly not
all bad. So what then separates 'good' liberalism from bad? To answer, it
is necessary to realize that liberalism began as an effort to provide what
in the modern-day idiom would be called 'power to the people', ie, to move
from the condition of a centralized power controlled by an elite to a
decentralized power controlled by the individual. We can see this
manifested in the ideas of liberalism discussed in the last paragraph. For
example, equality, democracy, human rights and tolerance are all intended
to avoid dominance by a political elite; and the elevation of science over
religion -- while not necessarily 'intending' this -- has the effect of
undermining the religious elite. As to socialism and capitalism, both of
these (and especially socialism) were intended to avoid the power of an
elite: Capitalism by spurring self-responsibility and individual initiative
that spring from the incentives of a free market, and socialism by legally
forbidding an elite to develop. Unfortunately, however, both capitalism
and socialism contain within themselves the seed of centralized power and
elitism. As for capitalism, Marx observed that this system tends toward
monopoly; so that while the economic landscape may begin as diverse and
decentralized, it invariably becomes pockmarked by large corporations which
gobble up their small competitors, and which either bankrupt or merge with
their big competitors in order to control the supposedly-free market.
Likewise, socialism and its variants constitute a system of control by a
centralized elite for the purpose of preventing the emergence of monopoly,
but the very existence of such an elite automatically defeats the purpose
of socialism, which was to keep an elite from emerging; and this means that
the Marxian theory which claims that the elite will 'wither away' is not
merely false, but a fraud, and indeed a cover for the elite which wants to
remain in control.
What is known as liberalism in the present day retains the motive of 'power
to the people', but is basically a set of programs either requiring
centralized power for their execution, or else intending to institute or
aggrandize centralized power -- something which is of course the exact
opposite of what liberal ideas originally intended. Accordingly, liberals
are advocates of Big Government, and see this as a blessing because of
their belief that centralized power is more effective in solving society's
problems. Present-day liberalism is opposed by libertarians and
(occasionally) conservatives, who see Big Government as a threat because of
its actual historical record, and who in any event fear the social
homogenization which centralized authority brings -- a fear induced by a
desire to preserve freedom, individuality and cultural diversity.
Ironically, liberals have hijacked the concept of diversity by speaking of
a multicultural society as 'diverse'; but the reality is that a 'diverse'
society will either homogenize -- in which case it will no longer be
diverse -- or else it will fractionate, in which case it will no longer be
a society. In fairness is should be noted that liberals have attempted to
preserve diversity in at least one way by preserving animal and plant
species; but while liberal efforts have been useful in raising awareness of
the encroachment of man on natural habitats, the liberals have come across
as absurdists in their attempts to preserve such species as the spotted owl
and snail darter, which are either ecologically trivial, or else are on the
verge of an extinction which cannot be prevented, but only postponed.
It is clear from the above discussion, then, that the NWO is just another
name for the effort -- whether 'conspiratorial' or not -- to centralize
power in the hands of a global elite, and that the cheerleaders -- or
secret agents -- of the NWO are the liberals. In fairness it should be
pointed out that centralization is not totally without merit in the case
where there exists a planetary threat, as from fanatical muslims with
nuclear devices who are determined to either convert the world to their
brand of Islam or else convert it to cinders. Another and perhaps more
likely threat is one from outer space, where a Klingon culture bent on
conquest may require a central authority to oppose it. Still, the
probability of these types of situations is remote, and thus the
justification for a centralized world authority is less than justified, at
least based on the facts as they have been presented to us. For this
reason, I consider the NWO a severe threat, and an object worthy of every
effort to defeat it.
So what then is the Plan of the NWO -- or, if you prefer, what are the
programs which liberals are working together to bring about, and which will
almost certainly lead -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- to
centralized control and a totalitarian world government? Below I offer a
list of the principal ones, noting in each case the ostensible good
purpose, and the actual bad effects. Please note that I am not saying that
all the effects of these programs are bad; rather I am saying that these
are the bad effects (or some of the major ones), and that such effects at
the very least fairly scream for a serious re-thinking of these programs.
* Ostensible good purpose: To give blacks equal educational and economic
* Actual bad effect: Because blacks are inferior in intelligence to
whites, blacks remained -- in spite of integration -- low on the
educational totem pole, and thus on the economic one. This was
unacceptable to liberals, who used a two-pronged attack to 'equalize'
whites and blacks: First, they lowered educational standards, and second,
they decreed affirmative action, race-norming and other race-conscious
'remedies' which raised undeserving blacks into otherwise-unachievable
positions. Result: Resentment of blacks by whites because of undeserved
race-based rewards; and resentment of whites by blacks who were assured by
liberals that they were 'equal' and were being held back only by 'white
racism' -- an excuse blacks readily accepted to protect their egos from the
ugly facts of inferiority.
Lowering educational standards has the additional effect of making people
ignorant of their history and traditions, thereby helping to destroy white
culture. It also has the effect of making people less competent in life,
and subject to being more easily manipulated by their 'leaders'.
* Ostensible good purpose: To help needy Third-Worlders and to provide
America with 'diversity'.
* Actual bad effect: To displace the white population and its superior
culture with less intelligent minorities and their Turd-World cultures; to
fill America with people who are easier to control and are willing to
accept lower pay than native-born Americans, with the result that the
latter lose their means of livelihood; to raise the crime rate to monstrous
proportions and make whites fear for their safety.
Race-Mixing (Encouraged by both integration and immigration)
* Ostensible good purpose: To break down what liberals regard as an
artificial barrier between people and to allow nonwhites to enjoy the
benefits of white culture.
* Actual bad effect: Extinction of the white gene pool, and the unique
culture -- superior to all others in virtually every way -- which whites
have created; downbreeding of average Western intelligence, and the
qualities of creativity and initiative which go with it; increasing the
opportunity -- and hence the incidence -- of interracial crime, and the
tensions which invariably accompany it.
* Ostensible good purpose: To open options -- primarily employment options
-- for women in jobs that have been traditionally held by men.
* Actual bad effect: To upset the traditional and biologically-determined
male-dominant/female-submissive sex roles and to encourage women to work,
thereby exacerbating male-female tensions and making it more difficult for
men and women to have successful marriages and raise children.
Children's Rights and 'Family Services'
* Ostensible good purpose: To keep children from being abused by parents.
* Actual bad effect: To intrude the government into family matters; to put
families at risk from 'tips' submitted to the authorities by nosy
neighbors; to make it possible to break up families at the whim of
caseworkers or because parents resist intrusion or are 'odd'.
Sexual Minority Rights
* Ostensible good purpose: To free the sexually deviant from arbitrary
* Actual bad result: Spread of serious diseases by homosexuals, thereby
putting heterosexuals at risk, particularly by restricting the reporting of
such diseases to authorities; spreading sexual deviance; emboldening
deviants and thus exacerbating conflicts between deviants and normals.
* Ostensible good purpose: To remove unnecessary barriers to sexual
* Actual bad effect: To make people think that sex is merely casual
recreation that may be engaged in with anyone without restraint, rather
than the basis for the monogamous long-term relationship required for
raising a family and finding complete emotional fulfillment. Result:
Marriages fall apart or do not take place; children receive lifelong
emotional scars as casualties of broken homes or uncommitted parents.
* Ostensible good purpose: To avoid the mental straitjacket of foolish and
narrow religious dogmas; to allow people to profit from their own
reflection and study.
* Actual bad effect: To undermine traditional morality and leave people
without clear moral principles, thereby making them easily corruptible.
Result: Every kind of personal relationship, from marriage to business
contract, becomes unpredictable, and society gradually erodes.
The Nanny State/Extinction of Privacy:
* Ostensible good purpose: To make the world safer and fairer by keeping
tabs on everyone's behavior
* Actual bad effect: To inject the government into citizens' personal
lives; to extinguish privacy and dissent; to create so many laws and
regulations that it is virtually impossible to keep from breaking them
every time one turns around, thus creating a nation whose citizens'
creativity and hard work are smothered by a fear of rules and regulations
and the expense -- both emotional and financial -- which they entail.
* Ostensible good purpose: To protect people's feelings, especially
* Actual bad effect: To insulate minorities from proper criticism, to
prevent necessary political debate, and to frustrate and enrage whites who
see minorities getting away with murder -- literally -- yet not being held
High Taxes/'Soak the Rich'
* Ostensible good purpose: To make incomes and property more equal, and
thereby to lessen envy and the conflict which it engenders; to engage in
great projects that benefit society.
* Actual bad effect: To discourage productive people from making use of
their talents, and thus to rob society of the benefits they could provide;
to keep people poor, and thus keep them from having resources to challenge
a tyrannical government or even to reflect on their treatment; to make
great projects difficult or impossible, because of the natural inefficiency
* Ostensible good purpose: To preserve the natural world, and thereby
provide renewable benefits to society.
* Actual bad effect: To improperly restrict the use of private property;
to make ecological preservation less likely by substituting command-and-
control laws for private economic incentives; to tar environmentalism with
preservationist absurdities; to raise prices of trees and other natural
* Ostensible good purpose: To treat animals humanely.
* Actual bad effect: Higher prices for animal products with the ultimate
goal of outlawing them.
War on Poverty, Drugs, Cancer, Smoking, etc
* Ostensible good purpose: To eliminate various bad things from human
* Actual bad result: To waste large amounts of taxpayer money via
government inefficiency; to penalize harmless or helpful activities which
the government does not sanction; to discourage self-responsibility.
* Ostensible good purpose: To encourage scientific discovery by means of
funding that only the government can muster.
* Actual bad result: To inhibit politically-unacceptable scientific
projects; to pressure scientists to conform their conclusions to political
dogma; to cause inflation in scientists' salaries.
* Ostensible good purpose: To make things safer.
* Actual bad result: To disarm law-abiding citizens while having no effect
on criminals, and thereby to increase crime; to make it much more difficult
for citizens to resist tyranny by leaving arms only in the hands of
* Ostensible good purpose: To make sure that 'the people' -- and
especially minorities -- have their say in who they are governed by.
* Actual bad effect: To encourage people to vote by race; to make people
think they have an influence on their government when it really doesn't
matter what candidate is elected, since all are pre-selected by the ruling
elite and are all purchased by the special interests anyway, and since
votes are probably manipulated by computer.
Group Conflicts Generally
* Ostensible good purpose: To give every group their 'rights': racial,
religious, sexual, smokers, cappers, fatties, shorties, oldies, dummies,
animal rightists, etc, etc, etc.
* Actual bad effect: To keep groups fighting among themselves so they will
not see who the real culprit is, namely, liberals and (ultimately) those
behind the NWO.
The Constitution as a 'Living Document'
* Ostensible purpose: To keep the Constitution up-to-date by Supreme Court
* Actual bad effect: To render our Constitution meaningless and our
Constitutional rights null and void; to change America from a nation
governed by laws to a nation governed by mostly-unelected judges.
National or World Bank
* Ostensible good purpose: To make currency uniform and thereby facilitate
national and international trade
* Actual bad result: To give the bankers the right to print their own
money without restraint on a worldwide basis, thereby helping to centralize
power in a major way while allowing the bankers to confiscate other
people's money thru inflation, and to stage booms and busts that allow them
to confiscate other wealth; to eliminate financial privacy and tax havens
worldwide; to create a cashless society where all transactions can be
tracked and dissenters can be stopped by canceling their bank accounts.
United Nations/World Government
* Ostensible good purpose: To enforce peace
* Actual bad effect: To eliminate national diversity; to increase the
distance of government from the people who are governed, and hence decrease
its responsiveness; to eliminate the different preferences of different
peoples for different types of government and culture; to make world
dictatorship and tyranny possible while reducing the chance that any nation
would have the means to act against it.
From the above points, it is clear that the fight against the NWO involves
a fight against liberalism and liberal programs. If this fight is to be
successful, however, there is yet another fight which must succeed, namely,
the fight to preserve the white race. This is because it is only whites,
as a group, who have the wherewithal -- both the intelligence and resources
-- to fight this battle successfully. It is interesting, however, that the
fight to preserve the white race is so critical to the fight against the
NWO, because the fight against liberalism -- which is likewise critical to
te fight against he NWO -- is also a racial fight, to wit, it is a fight
against that group -- or at least its leaders -- who are the engine of the
liberal juggernaut, and that group is a racial one -- the Jews. It is not
just that Jews are almost entirely liberal (as I understand it, 85-90% of
Jews vote Democratic) or that their leaders are and have always been the
leaders of the liberal camp; it is also that they command tremendous
resources, including the principal funding of both major parties and the
domination of the mass media, aka 'Jewsmedia'. This is nothing less than a
stranglehold on America, and thus the West; tho the Jews are almost as
strong in other countries as they are in America. All this is not to say
that the Jews or their leaders are ultimately responsible for dragging us
into the New World Order -- or Jew World Order, as some have called it --
for there are several other groups -- the Illuminati, the Masons, the Round
Table, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the
Trilateralists, the Skull & Bones society, the '300', the Vatican, the
Jesuits, Opus Dei, and probably many other groups -- which may well be
involved. It is rather to say that Jews are the wellspring of liberalism
and the dominant force in the world's greatest power center -- Washington
DC -- and this clearly puts them in the forefront of movement toward the
In conclusion, it is notable that an essential part of the liberal program
is to encourage group conflict, but it is also notable that there is one
group conflict that liberals never encourage -- the Jew-gentile conflict.
Perhaps now it is clear why.
Epilog: Quo Vadis?
There is one thing we must concede about Jewish dominance of Western
civilization: The Jews are dominant because they learned how to work the
system better than anyone else. So the question then becomes: If we don't
like Jewish dominance, then how are we going to change the system to keep
this kind of thing from happening again? (Don't say 'Enforce the laws' --
nobody is seriously claiming that Jewish dominance is the result of
lawbreaking.) One answer is to throw the Jews out, as has so often been
done by European countries. But even if this were politically possible,
this doesn't really change the system -- it is just a confession of the
system's vulnerability; and it has the additional disadvantage of denying
us the benefit of Jewish competence, energy and achievements. Or to put
the problem another way, what has happened with Jews could happen with some
other group. And in fact there are other groups which have learned to work
the system -- the big corporations being the most obvious example, tho of
course some of those are dominated by Jews.
More generally, the problem is this: As we have already made plain, every
liberal reform has been undertaken for the purpose of avoiding dominance by
an elite, ie -- to bring 'power to the people' -- but every liberal reform
has failed: socialism, capitalism, democracy, etc, etc, etc. So what then
are we to do? Frankly, I don't know the answer. I don't even know if
there is one. Perhaps we are fated to repeat an infinite cycle of buildup
and breakdown of civilization on the order of Spengler's Decline of the
West because there simply is no solution except periodic revolution of the
kind that returns society to Square One. I suspect, however, that if there
is a solution, it will be found in the direction of using technology to
make people or small groups self-sufficient and thus impervious to
dominance. It may also perhaps be found by utilizing some of all of the
many suggestions I have put forward in my book Handbook of the Coming
American Revolution. But whatever the solution, it is a problem that
deserves the attention of the best minds without delay.
Appendix: Is the NWO a Conspiracy or a Natural Event?
As I noted in the essay above, one can argue that the movement
toward a NWO is natural, and therefore does not require a conspiratorial
explanation for its existence. Ultimately, however, the question of
whether the NWO is a conspiracy, a 'working together', or merely the
inevitable working-out of natural social forces, is not of primary concern
to those who oppose it, since none of these possibilities is likely to
change their opposition or their tactics, at least given the current state
of knowledge. But even if the question of conspiracy vs naturality is not
of vital importance, it is still of some interest; and for this reason I
present below an assemblage of arguments on this topic as they apply to
many of the aspects of the NWO previously discussed. I must emphasize that
these arguments are irrelevant to my thesis in the main essay; and I
present this Appendix merely as a sort of thought exercise. In fact, I
would probably have never bothered to assemble these arguments except for
the fact that I began my approach to the topic of the NWO in this way, and
only realized after completing this work that it did not represent the way
in which I wished to treat this topic. Here, then, are the arguments of
conspirologists vs naturalists on a clutch of topics:
* World Government: The last century has seen a significant centralization
of power, from leveraged buyouts of major corporations and the power-grabs
of the federal government to the attempts at regional and world government,
including military alliances such as NATO and SEATO, economic alliances
such as the European Union, and of course the League of Nations and the
United Nations. Conspirologists have seen these events as a conspiracy of
the rich and powerful to extend their power over the entire globe.
Naturalists, however, explain these developments by observing that men
naturally seek power, and will act in concert with other men to aggrandize
their power. They also note that technology has caused the world to
'shrink' as a result of the increase in 'connectedness' which has been
brought about by the technology of communications and travel; and this
enables powerful men to extend their influence to regions which were once
inaccessible due to cultural isolation and physical distance.
* The breakdown of religion: While conspirologists often attribute this to
'the communist conspiracy', ie, 'Godless communism', the naturalists
explain this as an increased understanding by people at all levels of
sophistication that the phenomena of the world are not controlled by a
string-pulling god sitting on a throne in his heaven, but are the result of
natural laws that govern all phenomena. The result of this has been to
undermine Old-Time Religion, whose central belief was an omnipresent and
omnibeneficent personal god who was continually looking over man's
shoulder, and occasionally intervening in our affairs if we prayed hard
* The breakdown of morality: Conspirologists have attributed the lapse in
moral standards over the last half-century to 'the communist conspiracy'
aka 'Godless communism', since morality has traditionally had a religious
basis, and communism has posed as an enemy of religion. Naturalists,
however, argue that the breakdown of religion has come about because of the
rise of science, and the consequent displacement of religious faith with a
faith in 'the miracles of modern science'. As an aside it may be noted
that, with the exception of Yours Truly, few philosophers have addressed
the question of a nonreligious basis for morality, and the result -- at
least so far -- is that morality has been put into the hands of lawmakers
by default. Law, however, is a poor substitute for morality, not merely
because it is unsystematic and often contradictory, but also because
politicians are, in Will Rogers' words, "our only native criminal class".
* Sexual morality: Because the Sexual Revolution is usually associated
with the political radicalism of the 60s, conspirologists often see it as a
leftist attack on marriage and the family, and thus an attempt to break
down society. Naturalists, however, argue that the Sexual Revolution is a
product of two major forces: the withering away of religion and the
advances of technology. In particular, naturalists argue that the
development of reliable contraception and venereal prophylaxis in
combination with the failing power of religion to compel adherence to
restrictive sexual norms has removed the principal barriers to promiscuity,
and this has quite naturally resulted in a great deal more of it.
* The rise of liberalism: Since liberalism is just a softened form of
communism, conspirologists have an excellent reason to attribute its
widespread popularity to the 'communist conspiracy'. There is also ample
reason to attribute liberalism to organized Jewry, not merely because the
Jewish establishment has pursued liberal programs with such single-minded
devotion, but because liberalism is wrecking American and Western
civilization, and Jews may well see this as suitable revenge for their many
centuries of persecution by whites, as well as a means for helping Jews to
seize power. Naturalists, however, argue that there are two major forces
which have helped bring liberalism to the fore. One of these is a revolt
against the abuses of capitalism, which indeed preoccupied Marx and many of
his contemporaries, including Charles Dickens, Thomas Hood, George Bernard
Shaw, Robert Owen, Edward Bellamy, Jane Addams, and many other thinkers and
activists of the period -- abuses which we rarely see today, but which were
widespread 150 years ago. The second force fueling liberalism,
particularly in the present day, is abundance, and the guilt feelings which
invariably accompany it: The greater wealth which people possess, the more
guilt they are likely to feel; and this explains the seeming contradiction
of mostly-wealthy liberals turning the poor and oppressed into what black
libertarian scholar Walter Williams calls their "mascots".
* Breakdown of the family: The elimination of the family unit was one of
the social restructuring goals of the French Revolution, and Marx, whose
work was influenced by this event, included it in the program of his
Communist Manifesto. Furthermore, family breakdown has been exacerbated by
certain liberal programs, including feminism -- which has denigrated
housewifery -- and welfare -- which has removed the necessity for men to
support the children they father, and has thereby freed them for extra-
familial sexual pursuits. Clearly, then, conspirologists have good reason
to lay the breakdown of the family at the feet of liberalism and the
communist conspiracy. In contrast, however, naturalists argue that family
breakdown has been a natural product of several modern phenomena. One of
these is the increasingly rapid changes in society, which have resulted in
older people being 'left behind' by new developments with which they are
constitutionally unable to deal, and which have produced a 'generation gap'
of profound proportions. A second is the impact of television, which has
become the principal source of information for children in their formative
years, with the result of diminishing parental responsibility and
influence. A third is the fact that the family is no longer an economic
unit, whereas in the 19th and early 20th century when most families engaged
in agriculture, the economic participation of all family members was not
only a necessity, but drew the family together by means of a mutually
shared endeavor. A fourth natural factor in the breakdown of the family is
industrialization, which not only has permitted farmers to increase their
productivity significantly, thereby destroying agricultural jobs and
forcing many young people to move away from their extended families in
search of work, but also has created industrial jobs in urban areas which
have acted as a further magnet to draw away the members of farm-based
* Drug abuse: In his dystopian novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
described a futuristic society which was dependent on an all-purpose
ataractic-cum-analeptic drug called soma. In real life Huxley was an early
experimenter with psychedelic drugs, and evidently perceived their
potential social impact. This perception has been shared by the CIA and
other government agencies, which have experimented on people using these
drugs, and seem also to have engaged in a program of breaking down black
society by encouraging drug use among blacks, who seem particularly prone
to addiction because of their limited intelligence and self-discipline and
inability to control impulsive behavior. Clearly, then, recreational drugs
represent a feather in the conspirologist's cap, particularly in the
context of a New World Order which is looking for something to make its
minions more obedient. Naturalists, however, can argue that recreational
drug use -- and abuse -- can also be assigned to natural causes,
particularly to such things as the search for enlightenment in a non-
religious age, and the search for enjoyment in a time of (often-boring)
abundance and leisure.
* Feminism/Women's liberation: Conspirologists have argued that there is
substantial reason to believe that "women's lip", as it used to be called,
is a plot by the Jewish establishment to destroy the family and exacerbate
the tensions between men and women in view of the fact that virtually all
of the most influential feminists have been Jewish. Naturalists, however,
have argued for other causes. In particular, liberalism -- itself
attributable in part to natural causes -- may be seen as a source of the
feminist impulse in that women until only recently were a legally inferior
class, hence in some sense oppressed, and therefore were appropriate grist
for the guilty liberal do-good mill. Beyond this, today's work is
principally information processing rather than physical work, and since
this is something which women in general can do as well as men, it opens up
opportunities for women, and thus a desire in at least some women to be
* Racial integration and legal equality: Conspirologists have noted that
as early as the 1920s the American communist party adopted a program of
racial equality as a way to break down American society with racial strife,
so there is little question that integration and legal equality for blacks
was a plot against America. Naturalists have pointed out, however, that
racial equality, like feminism, has its roots in liberalism which itself
has natural causes as well as artificial ones. The racial equality impulse
would of course include Third-World immigration, which the conspirologist
would naturally label as yet another attempt to break down white Western
society and America's culture of individual freedom; but since it is rooted
in liberalism, this also gives it natural causes.
* Educational dumbing-down: Conspirologists argue that the dumbing-down of
public school students is an attempt by the New World Orderlies to make
their minions less able to resist their power. Naturalists, however, argue
that dumbing-down is a natural result of liberal sentiment -- itself partly
natural -- which seeks to make students equally dumb when they aren't
equally smart. This, of course, is a complete perversion of the
educational process; but it is not beyond liberal sentiment to do this kind
of thing, as indicated by the liberals' interpretation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, whose purpose was to give blacks and whites legal equality,
but which has been perverted by liberals into giving blacks special
* Too many laws: Conspirologists argue that the overabundance of laws
along with their complexity and vagueness is intended as a snare to be used
against anyone who will not dance to the establishment's tune, since laws
of this nature can be used selectively against whatever target the
prosecutor chooses. Naturalists argue, however, that (a) the older a
system gets, the more laws it will create, (b) the more complex a society
gets, the more complex its laws must naturally become, and (c) vague laws
are just one of the human failings of lawmakers; so the overabundance,
complexity and vagueness of our laws have other explanations than a
* High taxes: The conspirologist argues that high taxes grow out of an
attempt by the NWO to keep people poor so they cannot resist their rulers;
but a naturalistic explanation is that they are the product of liberalism's
nanny state, which seeks to be all things for all men and redistribute
* Wars and Great Projects: The Report from Iron Mountain expressed the
belief that, in order to keep a society from breaking apart, there need to
be wars or other Great Projects, and conspirologists would certainly argue
that this is the main reason for our government's pursuit of such things as
the War on Drugs, the War on Cancer, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the
Balkans War, space exploration, and lots of other recent money-eating and
largely-useless endeavors. A naturalistic explanation, however, would
count these things as being exactly what they ostensibly were -- to protect
the interests of the American people.
* Concentrated media control: Because the major media are largely in the
hands of Jews, conspirologists would argue that this constitutes a Jewish
plot to brainwash the populace and bring it under Jewish hegemony. A
naturalistic explanation would hold, however, that Jews happen to be good
in the entertainment and media fields, and their dominance is not a plot
however much it may reflect their worldview.
* Government science: Conspirologists would argue that the fact that most
scientific investigation is under the control of the government because
government makes most of the grants shows that government wants to control
scientific outcomes for political purposes. A naturalistic explanation,
however, is that government funds science because science is extremely
important for a nation that wishes to be world leader, and that private
money simply cannot fund the programs that the nation needs.
[Birdman writes to Henry Makow:]
>>To: Henry Makow
>>From: John 'Birdman' Bryant
>>I put a permanent link on my website today to your excellent article "Is
>>Iraq the Start of the Third World War?" which deals with what many call
>>the New World Order. Because of your interest in this subject, I am
>>sending you an article on this general subject which I very recently
>>prepared and which you may find of interest. I am using it as this week's
>>Weekly Letter, and your comments are solicited.
On 10/9/02 at 8:56 PM Henry Makow wrote:
>Thanks for putting up a link to my article. I appreciate the recognition
>I'll just comment on the part of the article that jumped out at me. I am
>just beginning to get a look at the Illuminati and I think you might be
>surprised that your views about the Jews are similar to the Illuminati
>leaders, especially the Nazis ones. The Jews who belong to the Illuminati
>and pull the strings are all Satanists, I believe. They are using the
>Jews who are as deceived as anybody. Better to direct the blame at the
>Illuminati than at the unwitting instrument they use. The same applies to
>their other non Jewish instruments. A lot of people have been deceived.
>They want us to blame the instrument and foster conflict and hate. We can
>defuse them by refusing to hate. I am as critical of the Jewish role as
>you are. I am not afraid to expose it But let's blame the people who are
>actually doing evil. Let's not blame people like me for example who was
>born Jewish, never much liked it (so far), and am on YOUR side. I am doing
>my best to learn about the Illuminati threat to all mankind and wake
>It's great to have a debate with a white supremacist. I have been reading
>David Duke's book and identify with a lot of it. But he is making the same
>mistake you are. The instruments of the lluminati are not happy. The key
>is to convert the Jews to Christian values by loving them. Isn't that what
>Christianity is about? Human brotherhood? Evil doers are not happy. God is
>better than Satan. What do you think!?
Thanks for your response. I will include your comments in my weekly letter.
My take on your criticism is this: We have to oppose those we actually see doing bad things. We can see this in the case of (for example) the ADL, Mossad, AIPAC and Israel; it is less clear in the case of the CFR/Bilderbergers/Trilateralists, is rather uncertain when we get to the Jew in the street, and as for the Illuminati, well, we don't even know for sure whether they exist (yes, there's an Illuminati website, but ....) As for 'converting Jews by loving them', well, let me just say that I think the situation requires something a bit more complicated than that. But I am glad to see that we hold some major views in common. -j
I just want to add that while I think that whites have as much right to
maintain their racial /cultural characteristics as Jews if they so wish, I
don't believe in white racial superiority any more than I do in Jewish.
That's just a recipe for conflict. I believe we are all equal in God's eyes.
God loves humanity and wants us to love each there.
Your letter below, plus your earlier remark that 'It's great to have a debate with a white supremacist" indicate you have me mischaracterized, which a careful reading of my page should correct. I should have remarked on it earlier.-j
On 10/10/02 at 9:32 AM Henry Makow wrote:
>"Actual bad effect: Extinction of the white gene pool, and the unique
>culture -- superior to all others in virtually every way -- which whites
>have created; downbreeding of average Western intelligence, and the
>qualities of creativity and initiative which go with it; increasing the
>opportunity -- and hence the incidence -- of interracial crime, and the
>tensions which invariably accompany it."
>Can you elaborate on how I have mischaracterized you? What do you think of
>Duke, "My Awakening" ?
'White supremacist' (or 'supremist') is used in two ways, as I understand it: (1) To mean that whites are a 'superior race', or (2) to mean that whites ought to be dominant over all other races BECAUSE they are a superior race. I don't use these terms to describe myself because 'superior race' is ambiguous. Jews, for example, as 3% of the population but winner of 25% of the Nobels, and with an average IQ 15 points higher than whites, might rank as a superior race by some standards (if you called them a race).
Both these are to be distinguished from saying whites have a superior CULTURE. I was not aware that anyone would disagree with that (ie, that white Western civilization is superior to all others in virtually every way), and that is what I am saying in the quoted paragraph.
I think it would be improper to compare white and Jewish culture, because Jews do not have a single culture. We could compare Israeli culture with white culture, but the Izzy culture is inferior -- it isn't even self-sustaining, but parasitic (I am using 'culture' in the broad sense which includes economics and government). We could even say that Jews do not have a culture (in the broad sense) because they are not a nation or group of nations.
We could compare Jewish and white culture in the narrow sense (eg, art, literature, intellectual advancements, traditions, music), but whether whites or Jews are superior in this sense is perhaps more a matter of taste than anything. Many would say that the cultural destructiveness of Jews would make it inferior; others would say that Jews have not produced much in the way of culture, but rather have imitated whites. (For example, no one plays violin better than Heifetz, but no Jew has ever written any music to compare to what Heifetz plays.)
On another topic, I enjoyed 'My Awakening' and thought it was good in virtually every way, which is not to say I am not skeptical of the Duke in some ways.
I hope this clarifies my views. -j
[Henry did not reply]
************************************************************************************* LET'S STOP KIDDING OURSELVES! 9-11 was a Zionist spanking on our
collective American bottom! A Boeing 757 DIDN'T pierce through six walls of the
Pentagon (impossible + no aircraft debris), a late model cruise missile did the job;
the Twin Towers DIDN'T collapse due to heat (impossible), demolition charges
did the job; there were NO Arab hijackers (the jets were guided electronically);
and the Zionists/Judeo-Christians now in control of the United States are traitors
to the U.S. Constitution... as well as being mass murderers.This has been a Zionist
WAG THE DOG operation from the start, deadly serious for our elected leaders
WHO KNOW WHO'S GUILTY, and an Arabian Nights charade for Mom and Pop
in Littletown, U.S.A.! So let's start figuring out what we can do about it! firstname.lastname@example.org