Technocracy, Fear-Mongers, and the Conspiracy

The term, ‘conspiracy theory’ became part of common parlance during the ‘Covid era,’ but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the ‘conspiracy theorists’ in question, namely those people who saw through the ‘pandemic’ scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the ‘conspiracy’ is probably less clear. When I ask individuals what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So what is it?

In his book, HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (2003) – followed in 2006 by Weather Warfare – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the ‘High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),’ and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the ‘Conspiracy.’ Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP, but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the ‘Conspiracy’ is concerned. His answer to the question about its ‘what?’ is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):

Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and ‘global villagers’ to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic ‘conspiracy’ of the evil few or a broad ‘consensus’ of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives…

To grasp why Smith employs the term ‘deadly’ with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems, and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a ‘one solution for all’ system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.

The idea of a ‘League of Nations’ that was floated after World War I was but one embodiment of this movement. Today’s United Nations (UN) was built on the League of Nations concept. The UN was created primarily to end war—by ending nations. The logic is that if there are no nations, then there can be no wars between nations. This was clearly stated in the United Nations’ ‘World Constitution’ with these words: ‘The age of nations must end. The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms.’

While 18^th-century thinker Immanuel Kant, would have applauded the aim of terminating wars between nations, he would certainly have been less enamoured of the idea that sovereign nations would have to relinquish their sovereignty in favour of a wholesale assimilation into an encompassing world government. His reasons were clearly stated in the second of the ‘Definitive Articles’ formulated in his essay on ‘Perpetual Peace:’ ‘The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.’ For Kant this is essential for lasting peace, insofar as such a federation, where states would be subject to federal laws, is comparable to a state with a republican constitution, which is governed according to laws that are external to the (often disorderly) will(s) of citizens themselves.

Unless such a federation of nations (as opposed to a ‘state’ of nations, where all member states would comprise only one ‘nation of states’) were to be established, the rights of every member state would not be guaranteed, parallel to the way citizens’ rights are guaranteed in a republican state. In other words, every member state, together with its citizens, would be at the mercy of what the overall ‘world government’ decides. Particularly the words (in the excerpt, above), ‘to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms,’ sound outright ominous. […]

— Read More: brownstone.org