Catholicism and Communism (Socialism?)

[KyivAndrew]

No, I do not believe the Cold War was necessary, and I feel that it has in fact damaged our pursuit of liberty and cultural growth, since it emphasized a backward-looking jingoism and authoritarian attitude which persists today. As William F. Buckley stated “We should accept a totalitarian beuracracy within our shores,” in order to win the Cold war. This attitude was and is tragically common, and we have unfortunately become beholden to the idea that America must not be America in order to win. We should see that this is a self-defeating attitude and we shall instead become the very enemy we despise.

I accept the analysis of Mises and Rothbard regarding the Cold War, that the Soviet system, being an economic basketcase and inherently weak and unworkable, would have inevitably failed. It is only because we fueled its flames, with our foreign aid directly, and through the UN indirectly, as well as through our foreign policy, that we kept the Soviet Union alive long past its due date and it expired long after the foundation of its system had started to fade.

No, imho, with respect to the Cold War, I believe you are wrong. As someone who had family “enslaved” so to speak in the Soviet Union, the argument that the Soviet Union would have ultimately collapsed (a view shared by that dove Strobe Talbott) is a straw man. I am not sure if you are familiar with the works of Jean-Francois Revel, but he once coined the phrase that while the Soviet Union may be a corpse, it was a corpse that was more than willing to take the entire world down with it into the grave. Lenin himself promised that should the socialist experiment fail, the communists would close the door on the entire world.

Harvard historian Richard Pipes always stressed that the Soviet Union intrinsically sought world hegemony, powered by its belief in Marxist teleology and Russian imperialism. The fact was that in the years between the two World Wars, the U.S. did not seek any entanglement with the Soviet Union. It was only after the Second World War, when Stalin’s brutality (millions upon millions of deaths in the Gulag and the Ukrainian Famine), that the U.S. realized that the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the U.S. and to the world. Recall the Soviet Union was an atheist state which believed in NO morality other than that which would advance its cause, no matter what the human cost.

With the attainment of nuclear weaponry, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces’ Command actually planned meticulously for a first-strike capability against the U.S. to take America out before an advance on Western Europe (the writings of Red Marshalls Sokolovskii and Grechko bear this out). I cannot stress enough that the Soviet Union was an existential threat to the U.S., to the U.K. (which you praised), and to the entire free world. The economic basketcase argument does not hold well, when in reading the memoirs of such Red luminaries as Marshall Ogarkov from the 1980s, one realizes that Gorbachev and the Red elite collapsed under the weight of attempting to keep up with Ronald Reagan’s SDI program, an external factor that caused its collapse. Without Reagan, the Soviet bear could have gone on threatening the world for at least two generations more with its military, perhaps to fatal effect, no matter the economic inefficiencies, a fact attested to by many Soviets themselves. Pope JP2 and Reagan were absolutely right on the nature of the Cold War, and I stand with them on this one.

The Soviet Union was truly an “evil empire” and the nemesis of all free peoples in the last century and could have easily have won the Cold War had the U.S. never entered the fray as you suggest. I am quite certain that the U.S. chose the right course and did God’s work in putting an end to that evil monstrosity and freeing hundreds of millions of Christians and others from the Red yoke.

 

[human_being]

Out of just random curiousity, what rules and regulations do these huge agencies implement that would reduce society to turmoil and chaos if we did not have them? Surely, our Founding Fathers, as intelligent as they were, would have foreseen at least some of the pitfalls that any of these agencies claim to rectify, and put them in the Constitution? Can most people say these agencies have such a positive effect on their life that they can name them off the top of their head? What does Commerce do? Labor? Interior? I am interested in your thoughts on this, because I frankly just see huge wastes of money, but you may have another point of view I have not considered.

Look forward to your response!

I had one experience with the dept. of Labor in my life.

When I was younger I spent a summer building houses. I worked for a small subcontractor. It was public housing that we were building. Towards the end of summer the contractor stopped paying the subcontractor for some reason or other. Our boss had us keep coming back to work telling us that the check would be here tommorrow. So we kept coming back to work, building houses, in hopes of getting paid.

After over 2 weeks we never got paid(about 10 of us,some with wives and small children at home). And we quit working. It is very difficult for one who makes a small paycheck to begin with to make a boss pay him. And most people just give up. They don’t have money for lawyers and wouldn’t even know what legal agency to call. Heck, maybe they can’t even afford a phone and can’t call anyone. But I did. But it took alot of action on my part to get the money that was owed me. First I tried to get my money from the contractor who I figured was getting paid from my labor. That got me nowhere. Then I called the Dept. of Labor. I told them what happened and after 2-3 phone calls and 7months later I finally got my money. I could wait the 7 months but what about the guys with young children? The Dept. of labor got my check for me. The contractor just laughed at me when I tried to get it myself. He knew I couldn’t afford a lawyer. The other guys probably never got the 3 weeks pay they were owed.

I can’t support the crowd who thinks that small businesses should rule our economic system because I’ve seen enough experiences in my life that I can’t support their dog-eat-dog undercuting anything-for-a-buck tactics. I think they treat there employees much worse on a large scale.And I think alot of it goes unreported. I cannot agree to less regulations on businesses nor on the abolishment of agencies that oversee alot of things where abuses tend to occur. I can only once again use the unions as an antidote to the Dept. of Labor. Unions will make sure there employees are treated and payed fairly with minimal involvement with the gov’t. Therefore making a need for gov’t less. The unions and companies deal with there problems in-house. Non-union people have to use the dept. of labor or the courts.

 

[human_being]

Out of just random curiousity, what rules and regulations do these huge agencies implement that would reduce society to turmoil and chaos if we did not have them? Surely, our Founding Fathers, as intelligent as they were, would have foreseen at least some of the pitfalls that any of these agencies claim to rectify, and put them in the Constitution? Can most people say these agencies have such a positive effect on their life that they can name them off the top of their head? What does Commerce do? Labor? Interior? I am interested in your thoughts on this, because I frankly just see huge wastes of money, but you may have another point of view I have not considered.

Look forward to your response!

I don’t know much about the dept’s of commerce or the interior. I’m not a huge fan of the founding fathers. But I do not doubt that there are huge wastes of money in alot of the agencies you mention. Maybe they need cleaning up but not abolishment,in my opinion. I’m also not very studied in the constitution.

 

[human_being]

So,
In Socialism,
The “all-knowing mother company” is the government,
Which is not accountable to anyone.

The all knowing mother company is accountable to lenders and stockholders. And the stockholders of today seek only profit.Not the common good of the people nor the dignity of the worker. A company that has done so well even though it is tied to a very good union contract should not be bought just to be taken apart and sold and destroyed piece by peice. The guys who built that company deserve better. There is no care for the dignity of the worker in this action. I work with guys who came from alot of companies that this was done to. And the result is alot of people who are very indifferent and pesimistic about the company and the american way of doing business. We all just wait for the next company to close. It’s more profitable for the stockholder. No stability,no security,no sense of closeness or community… Just constant expectations of starting out on the bottom of the list at another company sooner or later… And the later it gets,the older you get and looking at starting over usually means starting over with the hardest jobs and the lousiest schedules…I’ve heard it stated that capitalism fosters the desire to go onward and compete…By constantly closing companies it destroys the spirit of desiring to compete,not much different then socialism and communism.

 

[human_being]

, withdraw from WTO,

I found this on the vatican site as I was quickly browsing. It is a Vatican response as the watchdog of the WTO. I didn’t read it thoroughly and there are probably others. I don’t have a clear opinion on it because I didn’t make time to read it fully. But I think I tend towards a bit more of a protectionist attitude than the church or freemarketeers subscribe to.
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/documents/rc_seg-st_20030910_ethics-intern-trade_en.html

 

[Psychotheosophy]

The all knowing mother company is accountable to lenders and stockholders. And the stockholders of today seek only profit.Not the common good of the people nor the dignity of the worker. A company that has done so well even though it is tied to a very good union contract should not be bought just to be taken apart and sold and destroyed piece by peice. The guys who built that company deserve better. There is no care for the dignity of the worker in this action. I work with guys who came from alot of companies that this was done to. And the result is alot of people who are very indifferent and pesimistic about the company and the american way of doing business. We all just wait for the next company to close. It’s more profitable for the stockholder. No stability,no security,no sense of closeness or community… Just constant expectations of starting out on the bottom of the list at another company sooner or later… And the later it gets,the older you get and looking at starting over usually means starting over with the hardest jobs and the lousiest schedules…I’ve heard it stated that capitalism fosters the desire to go onward and compete…By constantly closing companies it destroys the spirit of desiring to compete,not much different then socialism and communism.

So,
Capitalism guided by greed,
Leads to a creation of a kind of socialist-like ruling class,
Who are unwilling to surrender its power,
Must be held accountable by a democratically elected government,
With term-limits?

How does this system fail?

 

[EnchantedEve]

No, imho, with respect to the Cold War, I believe you are wrong. As someone who had family “enslaved” so to speak in the Soviet Union, the argument that the Soviet Union would have ultimately collapsed (a view shared by that dove Strobe Talbott) is a straw man. I am not sure if you are familiar with the works of Jean-Francois Revel, but he once coined the phrase that while the Soviet Union may be a corpse, it was a corpse that was more than willing to take the entire world down with it into the grave. Lenin himself promised that should the socialist experiment fail, the communists would close the door on the entire world.

Harvard historian Richard Pipes always stressed that the Soviet Union intrinsically sought world hegemony, powered by its belief in Marxist teleology and Russian imperialism. The fact was that in the years between the two World Wars, the U.S. did not seek any entanglement with the Soviet Union. It was only after the Second World War, when Stalin’s brutality (millions upon millions of deaths in the Gulag and the Ukrainian Famine), that the U.S. realized that the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to the U.S. and to the world. Recall the Soviet Union was an atheist state which believed in NO morality other than that which would advance its cause, no matter what the human cost.

With the attainment of nuclear weaponry, the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces’ Command actually planned meticulously for a first-strike capability against the U.S. to take America out before an advance on Western Europe (the writings of Red Marshalls Sokolovskii and Grechko bear this out). I cannot stress enough that the Soviet Union was an existential threat to the U.S., to the U.K. (which you praised), and to the entire free world. The economic basketcase argument does not hold well, when in reading the memoirs of such Red luminaries as Marshall Ogarkov from the 1980s, one realizes that Gorbachev and the Red elite collapsed under the weight of attempting to keep up with Ronald Reagan’s SDI program, an external factor that caused its collapse. Without Reagan, the Soviet bear could have gone on threatening the world for at least two generations more with its military, perhaps to fatal effect, no matter the economic inefficiencies, a fact attested to by many Soviets themselves. Pope JP2 and Reagan were absolutely right on the nature of the Cold War, and I stand with them on this one.

The Soviet Union was truly an “evil empire” and the nemesis of all free peoples in the last century and could have easily have won the Cold War had the U.S. never entered the fray as you suggest. I am quite certain that the U.S. chose the right course and did God’s work in putting an end to that evil monstrosity and freeing hundreds of millions of Christians and others from the Red yoke.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Sorry, I messed up the last post. Computer error.

Okay, another challenging post. I shall do my best.

KyivAndrew, I appreciate your warm views of former President Reagan and the late Holy Father. However, I stand by my position. My contention that USSR would not have survived if we had not aided and abetted it still stands, and to drive the point home I shall further elaborate on it.

The US breathed life into Soviet lungs from the very begining, both privately and publically.

To wit:

1. As early as June, 1918, the State Department had circulated a memorandum from the War Trade Board, calling for “closer and more friendly commercial relations between the United States and Russia.” Subsequently, the Russian emissary, George Lomonossoff, received a $10,000 grant upon arrival in Washington that year.
2. Private interests encouraged this when, with government backing, the Chase Manhattan Bank sponsored the founding of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, which financed and arranged Soviet raw material imports to the U.S. government, and also facilitated the sale of Soviet bonds in the US.
3. The US aided and gave technological assitance to the building of the Kama River truck factory, at a cost of $5 Billion, throughout the 1970’s. Export-Import Bank also issued finance of upwards of $86.5 million as of 1971, and this plant manufactured trucks that went to North Vietnam during the war.
4. Direct cash loans to the Soviet Union from 1946-1970 from the US government alone, not taking into account FDIC backed loans from US banks, exceed $19 million. The US also made extensive loans to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, China (over $5 Billion), and East Germany.
5. Lend-Lease program which gave extensive assistance to Soviet Union, included military and food aid. Examples include 2,680,000 tons of steel 170,400 tons of aluminum 29,400 tons of tin 240,000 tons of copper, 330,000 telephone sets and some one million miles of cable, 2,000 radar sets, 5,000 radio receivers, 900,000 tons of projectiles and explosives, 3,786,000 tires, 49,000 tons of leather, 18 million pairs of shoes, more than six million tons of provisions, three million tons of gasoline, 900,000 tons of chemical products, and 700,000 trucks. More general info can be found here:
   historynet.com/russias-life-saver-lend-lease-aid-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm
6. The US government sponsored numerous programs and supported US private trade of heavy artillary and military equipment with the soviets during the entirety of its existence. The US government, if it really considered the USSR an enemy, could have implemented the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, but never once did with regard to the Reds.
7. An example of a non-military assistance was the Stalingrad tractor factory. Built entirely in the US, it was then shipped and rebuilt in US-made prefab steel buildings. At the time its production was 1/3 the entire Soviet output in tractors. This factory also manufacture parts for the PT-76 tank, given to the Reds to use in Vietnam.
8. W. Averell Harriman, while debriefing State Department officials in 1944, reporting discussions with Stalin, he said “Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about 2/3rds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union had been built with United States help or technical assistance.”
9. In the ten year period between 1959 and 1969, The US approached the Soviets about exchanging space information and technology, including joint missions, at least 18 times, resulting in at least one program in 1962 to exchange meteorlogical data.
10. In a final example, fuel consumption, a major component of industrial growth, was mover forward in the Soviet Union by the building of refineries by US companies, including Universal Oil, Badger, Lummus, Alco, McKee, and Kellogg.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of US aid and support for the Soviets, even when actively opposing and fighting us with the very tools and supplies we furnished them with! This is not even mentioning Soviet bailouts from the UN, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. We could go on, but I think the general direction is clear. The USSR would have tanked without American and other Western aid, and we kept the beast alive when many times it should have naturally failed. Gulags, famines, and punishing wars did not work to their favor. I believe that Mises and Rothbard were right: Soviet economic planning was bad, their economies a joke, and their long-term viability small.

If the Reds in the USSR were a threat, it is only because the US and its allies made and maintained it as one. To say otherwise is to say communism works, even if in a limited way, and if that is true than the Cold War was a competition between systems, not a way against evil.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Hello again human being, I shall now attempt to respond to your good posts.

Regarding the Department of Labor:

Sorry, non-sequitor example. Your own argument shows you had recourse to other means beside the Department of Labor to get your legitimate pay. Even in a free market regime, the government has the job to enforce legal contracts, of which compensation is one. If a government agency is necessary in your view, the county or municipality can easily handle it, on a much smaller scale. Why must the federal government? Do you really think you get your money’s worth on a $55 billion agency? For non-government, a union as you state is a great alternative and some lawyers work on commission. I am sure in your example you could have just gone to small claims and not needed a lawyer. I am sure there are other examples I cannot even name. Why is the Federal Labor Department the only way?

Regarding the Deptarment of Transportation.

I believe the deregulation you are referring to is the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which deregulated fuel pricing and routes. I am not clear how it relates to the rest of your point. Somehow the existence of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration made it seem pretty regulated to me, but that could just be me. That being said, there seems to be a certain anti-small business tone which appears to be going in an unsavory direction. While you may be right about small companies, and since we have no concrete evidence of this it remains only conjecture, the Department of Transportation still is not the sole solution. Higher insurance rates on unsafe trucks and drivers maybe? Consumer information campaigns of trucker companies to avoid? Lawsuits? If these small companies, who are “cutting corners to make a buck” (overtaxed?) are as bad as you say, would they not crash more often? Would not there service be less reliable? Would people not then avoid these companies? If these trucks are unsafe, how can the company afford the overhead of buying new trucks for bad drivers?
Maybe the company would be motivated by consumer demand for safer trucks. If people do not buy their services, how do they remain in business? Companies (like Walmart) only get huge because people continue to spend their dollars there, and as long as people continue to do this they have no impetus to change their ways. We have only ourselves to blame. Again, our we really getting $72 billion dollars worth out of this?

As a last comment, you may not like the Founding Fathers, but they risked their lives and with public ratification, set up a Constitution which legally defines the powers of this government. Nowhere in the Constitution do these agencies appear, and never has the Constitution been amended to give the government the power to create them. We may not always be crazy about what is in the Constitution (I, for one, would get rid of the Post Office) but it is the legal regime we live under, and the government is bound to its defined powers until the Constitution is changed to say otherwise.

By the way, thank you for your responses!

 

[KyivAndrew]

If the Reds in the USSR were a threat, it is only because the US and its allies made and maintained it as one. To say otherwise is to say communism works, even if in a limited way, and if that is true than the Cold War was a competition between systems, not a way against evil.

With all due respect Enchanted, I will have to disagree with the potency of your examples. American assistance given in 1918 to Russia was partly to the Whites, and partly because the U.S. was still fighting the Germans in WW1, and the Brits and the U.S. wanted Russia to continue the fight. Investment in the 1920s was done because it looked like the Reds might have been willing to abandon communism with their N.E.P. (New Economic Policy) in the 1920s.

On World War Two, yes the U.S. made an incredible contribution in providing technology, equipment and material to the Soviet Union because both the Soviets and the U.S. were fighting a common enemy - Hitler.

Nobody said, at least not I, that communism “works”. However it could accomplish certain military goals pretty well within a command economy, that is making its citizens serfs to produce as much weapons as possible for the Red Army (by some measurements half the Soviet G.D.P. went into arms production). It was, in the words of Raymond Aron, an economy founded on a pyramid builder Stalin. Not efficient but the pyramids (i.e. missiles, tanks, etc) do get built. And of course, this type of system is evil with no regard for human life or liberty.

However, even Hayek realized the command economy could become a militarized economy (though quite inefficient) and I recall reading with some surprise in his works that in transitioning from a command economy to a free market the transition should be slow in order to take root. This was news to me because back in the 1990s I bought Jeffrey Sach’s argument for shock therapy hook-line-and-sinker, that the quicker the transition the better. Hayek had other thoughts.

In a previous post you quoted Welch approvingly. Well, didn’t Welch actually believe that President Eisenhower was a communist (prompting one wag to observe, “Ike’s not a communist, he’s a golfer”). Just out of curiosity, wasn’t Welch part of the John Birch Society, and if so, what are your personal opinions of the John Birch Society if I may ask?

Since we both mentioned actions done during WW2 (i.e. Stalingrad), is it your opinion Enchanted Eve that the U.S. made a mistake in going to war against Hitler? O.K. I agree I’ll have to disagree with you on your view that the Cold War was unnecessary, but what is your view of the American War against Nazi Germany? Was the U.S. right to fight Hitler and should it have?

Looking forward to your answers. God Bless.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Looking forward to your answers. God Bless.

Forgive me, I should have clarified. George Lomonossoff was an emissary of the Bolshevick regime specifically, not the Whites, whom I know the US also backed. With regard to the 1920’s, there is documentation I did not post which shows that government officials were aware of the intentions of the Red regime, regardless of N.E.P, and felt we should support them regardless. You must also concede in fairness that I cited examples from long after Stalin had died, and we were in a “Cold War” with them. My overall contention was still addressed: We aided and abetted a regime we supposedly opposed, on a large scale, all the while building up a regime at home to supposedly fight them. These two opposing actions to not coexist peacefully, and is a sign that I do not think the authors of the Cold War were sincere or genuine it this regard.

I did not say you thought communism worked, however, I was trying to contend that to believe the Soviet regime was a threat all on its own is to give the systemt more credit than it it due, and that this is at least the most obvious contention.

Also, with regard to World War II aid, the USSR received amounts in aid far greater than any other ally, including Great Britain, which I think only reinforces my feeling that they would not be able to stand on their own two feet otherwise. Personally, If were the US, I would have regarded the USSR with the same suspicion with which Italy was viewed when it turned in 1943, since they had been buddies with Hitler prior to the war, and even partook of the partition of Poland which started the war to begin with! Very strange we assisted such an “ally” to that degree!

I would again contend that most of the Soviet’s achievements in armaments are in large part thanks to us. As I said in the last post, I could cite more examples of us helping them, and I will if you want me to. It is already well known they got nuclear power from us by way of espionage. Of course, the Soviets would have to have addressed the worker part of the command economy themselves, which they did handily.

I agree with Hayek on transition. Slow and steady wins the race!

Actually, no, Robert Welch, in his 1958 book “The Politician,” about Eisenhower, did not say Ike was a communist. He did, however, say that Eisenhower was an agent of what he then called the communist conspiracy, since at the time he thought the Reds governed the entire conspiratorial ediface. He later revised this when he came across more evidence that communism was only part of a larger goal, and not the goal itself. Eisenhower, by actions and omissions, seemed to favor their direction, in his view, which is why he felt he was an unofficial agent.

I personally have very high opinions of the John Birch Society, but I may be rather bias since I am a member. And yes, I will gladly answer objections with regards to it.

World War II is kind of sticky, because on the face of it we were justified in declaring war on the Empire of Japan for being attacked. However, that being said, the Roosevelt administration did everything in its power to interfere with, meddle with, and generally annoy the Axis powers, so whether we would have been caught up in the war if this had not occured is unfortunately now only an academic point.

Again, thank you for the great post!

 

[Nino]

'democracy ’ is a fraud…to say that 51 people can order 49 around without the say so of the ruling class is almost funny. Jesus complimented the servent who invested the coins of his boss and condemned the servent who just buried the coin for safekeeping…Jesus also complimented the boss who hired workers for the harvest and paid them as he saw fit,not as they saw fit…'I can do what I want with what is mine" pertaining to wages. I am practicing holding two empty pails over my shoulders held together and balanced by a long pole…this way I can go to the marketplace and get my days share and not burn any fuel…also I am practicing looking over and smiling back at my betters who will be driving past me in their huge limos nodding with approval at me,doing a short jog in the gutter where we the masses belong! Imagine how cold and wet and stormy this spring would be if not for earth warming…our rulers are never wrong…today over the loudsspeaker in the town square we were told.'today 2+2= 5…we all nodded and when allowed return to our hovels…we love you big brudder!!!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Anyone who believes in the principles of love is a terrorist.

I know a lot of such ‘terrorists.’

There can be no compromise with evil, no matter how much some people are pushing for it.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Actually, no, Robert Welch, in his 1958 book “The Politician,” about Eisenhower, did not say Ike was a communist. He did, however, say that Eisenhower was an agent of what he then called the communist conspiracy, since at the time he thought the Reds governed the entire conspiratorial ediface. He later revised this when he came across more evidence that communism was only part of a larger goal, and not the goal itself. Eisenhower, by actions and omissions, seemed to favor their direction, in his view, which is why he felt he was an unofficial agent.

What “conspiratorial edifice” do you speak of, Enchanted Eve? Ike was an “agent” of who exactly? Communism was “only part of a larger goal, not the goal itself”? What is their goal?

Looking forward to you answers. God Bless.

 

[EnchantedEve]

What “conspiratorial edifice” do you speak of, Enchanted Eve? Ike was an “agent” of who exactly? Communism was “only part of a larger goal, not the goal itself”? What is their goal?

Looking forward to you answers. God Bless.

Forgive me, but I am going to word this response very carefully and precisely, since this is such a delicate topic to discuss. I shall attempt to render the John Birch Society’s (JBS) view on this subject, based on my years in it. This is NOT an official rendition of the view.

I. The Conspiracy, as to its nature.

The Conspiracy, in the view of the JBS, is a group of deliberate, pre-meditative, and conscious individuals, who seek to increase their power in concert with one another in order to enhance their personal, political, and spiritual fortunes on earth, in accordance with and by way of certain goals.

II. As to its goals,
The ultimate goal of the Conspiracy, incredible as it may seem, is complete global control of all financial, political, economic, and otherwise valuable systems for their own personal gain, under their personal control and direction, for their sole benefit, by means of their own philosophy.

III. As to how to indentify it,

There is no one Conspiracy. It is not communism, or nazism, or any dissident groups. It is most visible in the overlapping organizations to which many of the world’s power elite belong, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Freemasons. All of these are a means to an end, and are the main conduit of conspiritorial activity, but are not THE Conspiracy itself. The true nature of the Conspiracy, due to its very nature, may be at present unknown. We can only make educated guesses based on their actions. Ike, in this sense, was an agent of this conspiracy because his beliefs and actions coincided with the goals and ideals of the Conspiracy, thus making him its agent, even if unwittingly.

IV. The general manner in which the conspiracy seeks to achieve its ends,

The Conspiracy uses these means as the vehical to it goals, but recall that these decline and increase in importance based on the current situation:

Political: Collectivism, centralization, creation of, funding of, and suppression of dissident groups.
Cultural: Militarization, undermining religious authority and traditional family values, and cultural warfare.
Economic: Reducing private property right, regulating and controlling enterprise, taxing and levying common societal transactions.

V. The Conspiracy victorious, its ramifications and effects.
Briefly, in a conspiracy controlled world, 1984 and Brave New World would overlap. Some of what may occur (and is occuring) Local governance, the principal of subsidiarity, private enterprise and property would all fade away. The central, global state, governed by international commisions, shall decide all matters on earth. Religious, patriarchal, familial, and local authority would be supressed. Religious and spiritual practice would disappear, being the sole real challenge to conspiritorial power. The people, as a replacement, would be and are fed a steady stream of porn, drugs, cinema, television, alcohol, and the like, for their personal and unlimited pleasure and indulgence, to kill dissidence and breed docility. Supression of dissidents would be total, and the justice system as we know it would be gone.

In this vein, there are two views of history.

1. The Accidental View: Things just happen, for no or sporadic reasons, and change is the result only of the natural movement of time and society into the future. We are hopeless victims in the march of time.
2. The Conspiritorial View: All or most major events, even seemingly “sporadic” ones, are in fact planned and arranged, to achieve a certain end, at society’s expense. It is not always clear when this happens, but when it does it is readily apparent and evidential.

This is just a brief introduction to the concept of conspiracy. Hopefully, I have been clear in my conveying of this concept. If you have any more inquiries, feel free to ask me!

Thank you.

 

[MindOverMatter]

III. As to how to indentify it,

It is most visible in the overlapping organizations to which many of the world’s power elite belong, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Freemasons.

What about the white-house?