Address letters to JRNyquist@aol.com
Subj: MAJOR REPLY FOR NYQUIST/The Secret of Victory
Date: 10/25/01 11:13:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: truthorelse@hotmail.com
Mr. Nyquist's articles are often interesting and somewhat compelling but strange. In "The Secret of Victory" the reader is left feeling somewhat paralyzed, and in his recent "Not All Conspiracies are Created Equal," he tries to lump the John Birch Society with the KKK and argues, in essence, that there's no significant master planning behind America's decline.
But the evidence runs contrary to the observations of Mr. Nyquist, who in these two columns essentially leaves the reader with the idea that, apart from sundry scandals and individual treasonous acts, there's a lot of inevitablity to a terrible attack against America.
Now let me clarify that this may be true in a sense. We have let too many bad things go by without a fight and disaster becomes more likely because of it. Also, however, by failing to acknowledge the full extent of conspiratorial design against the West (as Gary Allen and JBS have so masterfully exposed) Nyquist would have us try to preserve our country without a complete assessment of our dilemma. We can, with the right prognosis, avoid a major disaster altogether if we inform the people efficiently and properly about the Council on Foreign Relations' one-worlders and other fifth columnists within the country who, through CFR policy-making roles in our federal government and through United Nations policies and operations, have pumped money into China and Russia and other despotisms to save them from the inevitable ruin that socialism brings if left to its own devices.
To answer Mr. Nyquist's question of whether I'm ready for the next disaster, the answer is "I don't know." But I do know that I'm not ready to concede that a major disaster is inevitable. The one-worlders in the Commission on Global Governance, at the UN and elsewhere are becoming more and more candid about their designs in their own words and publications. But Mr. Nyquist apparently doesn't get it.
Mr. Nyquist, please read "A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations" by globalist Lincoln Bloomfield, available at
www.jbs.org or www.getusout.org
or www.thenewamerican.com.
Mark Anderson, Niles, MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anderson,
First off, I never lumped the JBS with the KKK. What I propose is more subtle and therefore more difficult to grasp. Political theorists must take into account that conspiracy ideology largely stems from 19th century anti-liberal Catholicism and anti-Semitism. To be more specific, it was originated by a French clergyman who said the Masons were behind the French Revolution. Due to the machinations of Napoleon's secret police, this same clergyman later added Jewish conspirators to his theoretical mix. Various versions of this Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory have appeared ever since, and can be found in the writings of reactionaires, traditionalists, racists and Nazis.
Conspiracy theory, as such, has evolved and morphed under American political circumstances to become what we know today as the theory of "Insider" conspiracy (involving the CFR and Trilateral Commission, along with every other elite organization on the planet). Any student of Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory can see that today's John Birch Society
(and its off-shoots) directly borrows from 19th-century antecedents whose ideas have long since been discredited. Elite clubs, associations, banks or international bodies are
now plugged in place of the former "baby-eating black-souled Jewish Cabalists" of anti-Semite lore.
Quite naturally there are conspiracies, movements, parties, factions, plans and battles. And there is a rich sociological literature for helping us to understand how these work. Yet the conspiracy theorists ignore this
literature, falling into one error after another. The truth is, there is no "grand design" in the way that Robert Welch or Gary Allen proposed. To reduce history to a coterie of scheming villains is to falsify reality in the most grotesque fashion. No historical scholar of merit, and no philosophers or sociologists of any reputation regard Robert Welch or Gary Allen as "masterful" in anything. And there is good reason for this. Welch's conspiratorial works are deeply flawed, and the flaws appear more obvious to a trained eye. (And please spare me a quotation, in
contradiction from that miserable third-rate historian and bore, Professor Carroll Quigley.)
Is there a conspiracy? Was Quigley right?
Citing mountains of bland fact is no substitute for good analysis and understanding. And that is what modern conspiracists lack. It is the reason they are brushed aside. It is the reason their thinking is not taken seriously by
scholars and deep thinkers on the right or left. Layering thick footnotes in a text, as Robert Welch liked to do, proves nothing. Lining up facts in a selective way does not make a strong case when your analysis and understanding remain weak. Those with more extensive knowledge readily spot the falsifications and blunders that Welch, Allen and Quigley
made.
Like all ideologists, Mr. Anderson, you imagine we can, "with the right prognosis, avoid a major disaster" if we only "inform the people efficiently and properly" of the nefarious conspiracy. The John Birch Society has been attempting to do exactly this for over four decades. But alas, the Birch Society's failure is palpable because the conspiracist approach alienates the
best minds -- those who've read the classics in history, politics and philosophy. People of advanced understanding see directly through conspiracism. They recognize the anti-Semitic antecedents. They notice where certain footnotes
come from. They also see how conspiracy theory misses, bypasses, reduces and falsifies the real heart of the modern crisis. And that is also the reason the Birch Society has solved nothing. No genuine solution is possible if you have falsified and over-simplified the problem.
My criticism of conspiracy theory grows more harsh as I look back to the
conspiracy theorists I have known. The spiritual essence behind conspiracy theory is a kind of right wing Bolshevism, which is predicated on an unconscious hatred of the rich,
famous and powerful. This unconscious hatred gravitates toward conspiracy theory because such theory
demonizes those of enviable position. It thereby soothes an inferiority complex by promising relief through "effective action" (which has never proved effective).
People active within government and big business generally laugh at these conspiracy theories. They laugh because, knowing reality firsthand, they know how ridiculous and untrue the
allegations of conspiracism are. Consider their reaction to the founding father of American conspiracism, Robert Welch, who listed Dwight David Eisenhower as a traitorous conspirator and a virtual communist in his book, "The Politician." One of our best conservative philosophers of the time, Russell Kirk, was bold enough to mock Welch's assertion, saying that Ike was a golfer, not a communist. William F. Buckley also mocked Welch's outlandish views.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Birchers have denounced Buckley as a henchman of The Conspiracy," referring to his membership in a Yale fraternity known as "Skull & Bones."
In my view, it is silly and tiresome to list influential persons as members of a nefarious plot. Conspiracy theorists may, after this fashion, vent their spleen against those who are rich and powerful. But this impotent cry of revenge against rank and privilege is more communist in its spirit than conservative. Let us remember that we cannot all be captains of industry, financiers or politicians. Most of us have to work for a living and leave the big mistakes to people with names like Bush, Kennedy and Rockefeller.
JRN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: Comments
Date: 10/26/01 4:57:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: truthorelse@hotmail.com (Mark Anderson)
To: JRNyquist@aol.com
CC: DCJames1@aol.com
A further reply from Mr. Anderson:
I emphatically disagree with you, and, with respect, you're more baffled than I thought. Let's talk a little about "the way it is." First of all, your chatter about Catholicism and Masonry is the theoretical wing of conspiracy research, where some facts mingle with speculation, along the lines of early 20th Century writer Nesta Webster. But the French Revolution, I'm sorry, is clearly documented: Robespierre, Mirabeau and others in what were known loosely as the Jacobins carried out the reign of terror, which included assaults on Catholic provinces (mass drownings, sundry executions). All of this is well documented history, not theory or speculation. Your assessment is needlessly complicated and speculative. "Fire in the Minds of Men" by a former and very reputable Librarian of Congress clearly documents Adam Weishaupt's group as simply an early incarnation of collectivist, Anti-God radicalism whose later incarnations were variants of communism and facism. There is a clear lineage, established by many historians and scholars, from Weishaupt to similar radical movements later on that became increasingly hostile to Western ideas. In terms of conspiracy, your standards for what constitutes one are so high that almost nothing would qualify. Two kids planning to steal a box of candy bars is a textbook definition of a conspiracy. All it takes to conspire against a country is for a relatively small number of well-connected but very amoral people to make economic and political arrangements (GATT, WTO, NAFTA, sell weapons and secrets to China) that enable them control the destiny of nations (to a certain degree, not completely) and manipulate certain avenues in ways that would likely lead to tyranny for the masses and power and control for themselves. Again, all you have to do, it terms of more modern thought processes, is read things like "The Hard Road to World Order" by elitist globalist Richard Gardner in the April 1974 Foreign Affairs, or "A World Effectively Controlled by The United Nations," which, take note, was written all the way back in 1962 by Lincoln P. Bloomfield, who to this day is still semi-active in CFR and related circles. In other words, the globalists have made their designs clear within limited circles and the information eventually was discerned or leaked out. So you don't need to believe Robert Welch or Gary Allen or Carroll Quigley (even though Quigley, regardless of his caliber, was in a POSITION to know the inner-workings and linkages from Cecil Rhodes' roundtables and the plans of the Milner group, which lead to the formation of the CFR and the RIIA in England). As the years go by, the globalists are beginning to reveal their hand and are becoming increasingly audacious (see Strobe Talbott's "Birth of the Global Nation" in the July 1992 (or is it '93?) Time Magazine issue.
Even if you don't agree with "Conspiracism" (which isn't a word, at least not yet), I would hope you'd agree to remove US membership from United Nations for reasons I need not elaborate on. Ron Paul's bill, HR 1146, would do just that. Perhaps on that we can agree.
And by the way, Bill Buckley recently admitted that if he were to go through college all over again, he'd be a socialist/communist (he mentioned a particular stripe of communism that I can't recall). Buckley is a sophist, not a scholar of any real substance, unless being a cryptic socialist all these years is somehow considered an intellectual achievement.
M. Anderson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JRN Replies:
Dear Mr. Anderson,
In mentioning Nesta Webster you affirm my previous points. Did you know that Webster's original work was anti-Semitic? After World War II and the holocaust she rewrote her "World Revolution" book in order to excise all references to the Jews. This is remarkable because anti-Semitic propaganda (like that forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion) had been at the core of her original thesis.
The fact that you mention Webster, and rely on her as a source, goes to support my previous objections to conspiracy theory. Name any group of villains you choose and line up the facts to prove they are working with Hell for the destruction of the world.
In this context you seem to think that the French Revolution proves the existence of a grand conspiracy. But the atrocities of the Revolution do not prove any such thing. The wicked course of that Revolution was outlined in advance by Edmund Burke, who relied on historical and philosophical knowledge to arrive at his conclusions (which proved to be accurate). He did not propose there was a conspiracy. He said that revolutionary ideas have a destructive character and will lead, in the end, to terror, anarchy and military dictatorship.
He also pointed to the character of the revolutionaries themselves, who were
described as lawyers!
I am well aware of the Illuminati and the role that various societies and clubs played in events of that time. Fringe groups and cults with delusions of grandeur have always existed. Their existence is not proof of their efficacy, their unity or their continuity. In fact, the historical record shows that such groups are always splintering, feuding and regrouping.
But you are eager to believe in something grand, monstrous and secret. The truth is, collectivism goes back before Plato. Communist ideas are very old. Are you going to say that Plato was a member of "the conspiracy"? I had a Bircher friend who insisted Plato was a "conspirator." This is the kind of foolishness that turns thinking people against conspiracy theory.
The fact that ideas have "lineage," as you call it, has to do with the fact that readers in the 20th century
were influenced by writers in the 19th, and writers in the 19th were influenced by writers in the 18th! This is not a conspiracy. It is
the natural progression of ideas, for better or worse. If I used your own lineage methodology and turned it around (as some have done), I could say that the Birch Society is part of a grand anti-Jewish plot that began in the early 1800s. For without the anti-Jewish and anti-Masonic writings of the 19th century your conspiracy theory would not exist today.
What I object to is not the thesis that people are conspiring, it is the notion that there is a conspiracy that stretches back centuries, which includes all the great names and great powers. This theory and its literature makes itself ridiculous. This is the way many of us feel.
Conspiracy theory, as such, has intellectually hurt the conservative cause.
JRN