I was asked: So what are you going to do about the conspiracy?

I was to quit The Unz Review for good, but they have many interesting articles and I very much like some of the commenters there, so did not yet stop following this forum. Last time I read Unz, one commenter, @ploni almoni, asked me a question:           

            “It is obvious that 9/11 was not a natural event, but man made. It is obvious that the airplanes story is phony and cannot explain it. And ludicrously stupid. It is obvious that besides insurance fraud, stock market fraud, there was political fraud. And that governments and their handmaiden the media are involved, at city, state, and federal level. The psy-op involved a phony Naudet Bros documentary for television, just as the Kennedy assassination involved a controlled Zapruder film. So what are you going to do about it?”

            Yeah, well, we agree that the conspiracy exists, I have tracked its history and it seems to be true, but what in the world does this commenter think I could do about it?

            Maybe Ron Unz could run again for the governer position, but I doubt even a governor could do much to about this problem. But if we give enough time, say 50-100 years, then maybe it will change. The way to change things is to first find a solution and later, with much luck, get some people adopt the solution and realize it. Usually everything goes wrong with these new fine solutions. Karl Marx wrote a book and some people later realized it. It was a nightmare. And besides, without help from the conspiracy the marxists would not have got to the power, so Marx was not working against the conspiracy. He was a co-conspirator.

           For readers of The Unz Review it is fairly clear what the conspiracy is. Many of the articles and commenters mean one specific ethnic group. I actually do not think it is an ethnic group as such, it is a group of international financiers who have strong ties to a specific ethnic group, but all, or most, members of this ethnic group are not in any conspiracy. However, for finding a solution to a problem it is better to present it in a generic way and for that reason I will consider a tightly knit minority group which happens to have a prominent position in international finance and among these financiers is a small closed group that I call the conspiracy. It is not really a conspiracy in the sense of a conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar. It is more like a lobby or a club advancing its own interests and realizing its own goals. It is irrelevant in the generic case if these goals are messianic or something else, but realizing these goals requires power. Thus, this group, the conspiracy, tries to take over the system.

            Actually I assume it already has taken over the system, the USA, if we want an example. Finance itself is the most powerful tool the group uses. The party that gives loans has power over the party that takes them. This power is so strong that it can stop the party who took the loans from paying them off and so the national debts grow.   

            The second sector that is taken over is media. Using funds from international finance the group has bought a dominant part of mass media which gives it the power to decide what the general public thinks. By controling mass media the group can decide what politicians are elected in elections because denial of media coverage or negative media coverage is a so powerful threat that most politicians have to make a deal with the group. In this way, and through donations, the group controls all major parties.

            The third most important sector that the group has taken over is the academy. This may seem strange since in the original Masonic theory of a takeover the third sector to be controlled is education: shaping the way people think from early youth. For instance, the evolution theory is taught to people in the school and so they believe it. Religions always try to reach the young minds. But this conspiracy I mean in this post does not work anymore in this Masonic way. The main effect it wants to enforce in education of young minds is that they are unaware of the existence of the conspiracy. They should be offended even to hear somebody claim that there is any conspiracy. They should connect such people with Nazis and lunatics. They should believe in everything that the controlled media and academia says.

            The third working tool of the present conspiracy is academia because in this way they can better control what the potential leaders of the opposition can think. Manipulating young minds is not so important, they believe what they are told. It is the brighter minds that they have to stop from revealing the truth – or being believed by anybody. The control of academia has two aims. One aim is stopping the intelligent opposition: whoever from those circles would oppose them will find that he cannot anymore publish anything in forums that this group promotes as the respectable ones, he will not find research funding, and very possibly will not find work. Only in this way can scientific absurdities be protected from being unmasked.

            The second aim of controlling the academia is even more important: by promoting certain universities as top educational institutions the conspiracy can infiltrate the most important positions where people are chosen by merits and not by votes. Merits sound fine, it is like people were rewarded for how good they are, but this is not so. Merits can be given to those who play along because merits in this case are publications and positions. The conspiracy has bought scientific publications and applies black lists. They can deny merits from those they do not like. Naturally, nobody in the academy would dare to say this aloud because the result of such claims is obvious to intelligent people, and how could you prove it? I am quite sure that if asked, nobody in the academia would agree that there is any control. The academia is as free as the free press. Only in totalitarian countries there is control, not in a democracy. But then, there are the scientifically impossible explanations that in some way cannot be shown wrong by this same academia.

            The down side of the control of academia is that it is too easy to notice that there is a certain bias towards some groups of people. This bias is so visible in prizes given and in top positions. The conspiracy has to keep up the myth of their superior genetic intelligence in order to justify the visible bias. As there is no scientific basis for this superiority claim, it does sometimes cause questions. But fortunately such doubters can be discredited. They are just envious having themselves much lower intelligence.

            So, that is the setting of the hypothetical takeover by a conspiracy. More details are not needed in this generic problem setting. Only three sectors of a society are controlled: finance as the starting point, media by buying it, and academia by infiltration. Using these three sectors the conspiracy can place its people to the government and control all major political parties. It has nearly total control.  

            And now the question for you (or me) is how to break this control.

            Let us first discard two traditional solution attempts: isolating the minority group or expelling it, and we can add the mythical genocide to the list of unworking solution proposals. These solutions had some chance of success at the time when money loaners were small scale usurers. In those old days money loaners needed a physical contact with the population and denying it did have some effect. Today there are no such small scale usurers. Modern international financiers are not bankers of the savings bank type where people deposit their savings to banks and banks give them loans with some reasonable interest. International financiers do not need money from people. They have already collected lots of money and they either give it out as loans with interest or they invest it by bying shares of profitable business in stock markets. Both can be done from any place in the world and a physical contact to the customer population is not needed. The investors live in some far away country, maybe in London or New York, and are protected by top lawyers. Usually it cannot be shown that they break any laws: normally they do not because they raise to power people who pass such laws as they want. Therefore they usually cannot be arrested and sentenced.

            Investors have a positive role in enabling new business by bringing in capital. The problem with them is that some other things they do have a negative effect. One is creating booms and depressions for the purpose of gaining on changing stock market prices: if the change can be predicted, which is the case if you cause the change, it is possible to earn on changes.

           Many conspiracy theoreticians in the Internet point out to the role of a central bank: if the central bank is controlled, it can be used to create changes. This is of course true, but I think this particular threat is overstated. So, what is a central bank? As a national economy grows, there is needed more physical money and the central bank prints more money and lends this physical money to banks with interest. These customer banks lend it to people. The central bank takes an interest on this printed money because in that way the central bank can, by changing the interest rate, decide how much money is in circulation. Lowering the interest rate adds money to the economy speeding it up and increasing inflation while by reducing the interest rate has the opposite effect. If such a central bank is controlled by the conspiracy, this group of financiers can decide the interest rate of the central bank. As a result the conspiracy has some control over the economy, but there are limits to this power as a central bank has the obligation to keep the value of the money within a narrow range. Controlling the central bank does not add much power to these financiers because they any way dominate the finance world. Maybe there were some bubbles created through the central bank, but it is not the main way to cause stock market changes. It is much better to have the USA start or join a war.

           Some of these conspiracy theoricians also mention fiat money as an evil invention, but the problem is not in fiat money. Indeed, it is riskier to use gold coins than fiat money because somebody can steal gold from the coins by remelting them with some less valuable metals. It happened in the Roman Empire. I remember being taught in the school that the somebody who debased coins were certain Roman caesars. Today I doubt this school wisdom: caesars did not need to debase coins, they could simply raise taxes. It must have been money lenders or merchants through whose hands flew large amounts of coins: remelting does not make sense unless there is a large volume of coins. But if you have access to very many gold coins, you can collect lots of gold.

            In addition to debasing coins, money lenders wanting to create economic recessions could remove gold from circulation by not giving it out. Thus, gold coins were not a safe solution. Silver was maybe a bit better as it is not so rare as gold, but basically paper money is the best against these risks.

            There is also the alternative where paper money is guaranteed by gold in the coffers of the central bank. Also this solution has problems: there usually is a shortage of gold and for that reason the central bank cannot print enough paper money and economy suffers from lack of money. Such a shortage can be created: if the currency is in gold base, then pulling paper money out of circulation creates this shortage, no need to get the gold to your hands. The central bank cannot issue more paper bills as it does not have more gold reserves.

            Thus, there are some things the conspiracy can do with the central bank, like speeding up the economy, but fiat money is not the culprit: it is safer than gold backed money. The real problems with international speculators have been different, not fiat money but in creating wars and revolutions, speculating against national currencies, buying and breaking up companies, building Ponzi schemes and the like.

            How to fix it?

            Most problems with international speculators could be removed by passing laws, provided that such laws could be passed, which typically is not the case. Laws restricting capital movements accross countries and listing of companies in foreign stock markets can cut these investors from their customers and in a less restrictive version laws can tighten controls on this sector. For instance once very common usury was stopped by laws that forbidded taking excessive interest. Pulling the market and Ponzi schemes are usually illegal and in principle could be stopped by law enforcement. While there have been other solution proposals, like nationalization of banks and insurance companies, I think new laws are the best approach to this problem.

           Media control is a more difficult issue. The state naturally can set up its own media and think that their news are more truthful, but state owned media is seen as state propaganda. Besides, if all parties are controlled by the conspiracy, the state media would be as controlled as the so called free media. Grass roots media, like internet blogs, is not so controlled, but it is in vain to think that such efforts could challenge main media power. Let’s take my blog as an example. I may have one frequent and highly valued reader and then there are occasional hasbaras who do not like my two posts on Ashkenazi Jews, especially it irritates them that I think the Palestinians were there before European Jews and the the Ashkenazi IQ is not sky high. You do not start a world revolution with such a support basis. The Unz review has more readers, but half of them are hasbaras. The fact is that control of main media cannot be nullified. It will decide how the general public thinks. What can be nullified is how this media control reflects to the governing politicians. In a direct democracy people vote for candidates and as the opinions of the people are manipulated by media, the result of direct democracy is that who controls the media controls the politicians.

           But i just said it. It is so in a direct democracy of the type we have, the type that Masons set up as they wanted secretly to control democracies. Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy. The alternative is not a totalitarian state or an old style monarchy. There are many ways to give the people a way to decide how the country is run. It can be by a vote, but there are many ways to design the voting process. Some, like the one we use, are totally vulnerable to manipulation by controlled main media. I already wrote about this and suggested a different voting solution.

           In one earlier post I presented one simple variant of a democratic system that cannot be as easily controlled. In that election system a country is divided into very small units, say a street in a city. Voters elect one candidate from their unit. Then the candidates of ten units select one from their group. In the next stage ten of these candidates select one of their group to the following stage. After ten or less stages this mechanism gives the final representatives to the parlament or presidency. In each stage the candidates are required to get to know the other candidates in their group and to discuss with them personally. Bribing this system is rather challenging because the chances of any of the candidates of passing all stages is rather small. One would have to bribe very many people who have a very small chance to become elected in the final stage, and therefore they have much less motivation to make a deal; that is, the deal cannot promise them to be elected. This system would still elect natural politicians as representatives, but as the election is by influencing small groups there might be less favoring of leaders of masses. Actually, I believe that the most intelligent people work better alone or in small groups than when talking to masses. Our politicians are leaders of masses simply because the voting method is as it is: when asked to vote for people you do not know you vote for publicity figures because they are not totally unknown to you.

            That is so far my best idea for fixing the media control problem, but there can be still better democratic election systems which are difficult to take over. One alternative system I once considered was simply taking a random sample. If the sample is large and well selected, the result is as good as through a general vote. It does not much change the power of a single vote. In a country of 5 million voters each vote has the power 1/5 million, that is, your vote means almost nothing. If the system is replaced by a random sample of 10,000, you still have the probability of being selected to the sample and if selected your vote has the power 1/10,000. That is also almost noting. Clearly, a single vote means almost nothing and what counts is the distribution of opinions in the whole population. One may say that gallups often give slightly different results than the vote and therefore a sample is not exactly correct as an indicator of public opinions, but this is not so. If the elections were postponed by one month, the result would also be slightly different. There is no special merit in the exact public opinion in a specific time. A random sample gives as good results as a vote. However, except for lowering costs this random sample method is not superior. It has the same vulnerability to mass media as the normal voting system. That is why I propose the system with stages. It is a variant of the elders, a very old system used in the tribal times. As it is very, very old, it may be quite good.  

           Finally let’s move to the academy takeover problem. In order to tackle it, there should not be private universities. All universities should get fair funding from the government. This is because donations are a main way of the takeover in these institutions. Secondly, there should not be any consideration of impact factors of publications. Using them gives too much power to owners of the publications. Indeed, one should decrease merit based evaluation using external merits and emphase personal experiences, because they are often more reliable. The academia does not yet realize that there is a takeover effort and that blinds it. A milder form is to threaten private universities that they will be closed unless they find a solution to the problem they create. Surely they would find a satisfactory one and one would not need to stop their teaching and high level research for such a minor takeover problem.

            Would these help and do I have a solution that I could give to @ploni almoni?

            No, I do not think so. Let us say that I have given it some thought, but have not yet solved the problem. Yet it is true that most problems can finally be solved. It only takes more time and effort and it takes very much time and luck before the solutions are implemented if they ever are. But it is good that it takes time. Nobody wants any new nighmarish social experiement like Communism turned out to be. It is not so terribly bad today, why try to fix it too fast.