| |
Welcome
To the site of Ultimate Conspiracies
Here's
my current synopsis
Check out my globalization paper on future social revolutions.
Conspiracy
Preamble:
Global hegemony in this
day and age is becoming increasingly difficult to define. There is no
single American that has not been acculturated with some aspect of globalism.
Just about everything we buy is produced in another country. Of those
products we buy in the stores of our thrifty dreams is the reality of
which we are unaware is the fact that the majority of the items sold to
us in major retail outlets across the country are the products produced
by non-unionized sweatshop laborers. It is no coincidence that the most
common locality of such origination, is the country, China. It is no mystery
either,that China'sadmission to the WTO will make a few executives very
wealthy and at the sametime such an act could verywell bring an end to
the traditional backbone of the american economy, the blue collar, manufacturing
base. The saying, "american made," now seems so Passe.
Now many Americans will
ask themselves how can this be so bad? I am saving money, isn't that the
most important thing? The reality is that corporations have locked us
into a dependency cycle whereby we are saturated with cheap inexpensive
items fed to us through kaleidoscopic mediums of popular culture, television,
and pop culture, whereby the singlehanded most often preoccupation of
Americans, is to either spend money on these useless shoddy foreign made
trinkets, or to save enough money to inflate the shopping budget at Target.
Globalism and its synonym,
corporatism has been an ongoing phenomenon. Those who have championed
globalized free trade, which is the essence of globalism's ideology, due
so also, under the ideology of democracy, and the supremacy of capitalisms
ability to foster freedom. However, history is resplendent with examples
were the extremes of communism and capitalism have not promoted freedom,
rather subjugation of the masses, under an elite aristocracy.
This is not surprising
when you consider the fact that both communism and capitalism formed out
of the experience of colonialism, in previous centuries. The ideals and
ideologies of both doctrines were thus formed by the imperialist's worldview,
in which a lexicon of knowledge and power were predefined, and predetermined
the analysis of the discourse of knowledge and power to fall under the
bias of colonialism, proper.
With colonialism you had
the formations of disciplines that defined how we as people viewed the
world. For example, the field of anthropology was invented by Napoleon
in his desire to have readily identifiable intelligence regarding the
lands he brought under his dominion. In fact you can also say that Anthropology
began with Napoleon's conquest of Egypt. With these disciplines you had
the development of an ethnocentric approach to progress, and the triumph
of monolithic monotheism over feudalistic third world tribalism.
With the formation of Anthropology
and its evolutionary predecessor the neoclassical revival that characterized
the 18th century enlightenment's proto-discourse of modernity as the benevolent
conquest of the "child races", or what Marxist's would call historical
materialism, both are part and parcel, the same idea, the ensuing result
was a development of the modernist aesthetic, which essentially created
an evolutionary discourse of how the power elite came to dominate. Furthermore
in the evolutionary discourse of power there came a need for a justification
for that dominance, i.e., a masked form of benevolent dictatorship, an
educational system to indoctrinate the masses by superimposing a monolithic,
political, economic, and social structure, in which access to the levers
of power, required an acculturation and an altering of beliefs, by the
individual so initiated into the circle of power so that such an individual
in order to have access to power and authority had to have the same view
as that view which is held by the power elite.
It is easy to disregard
the fact that we live with colonialism everyday. However, we do so at
our own peril. The families of the elites who sit at the councils and
tables of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, the majority of whom, are in fact
the descendants of colonial conquerors who subjugated the masses of the
19th century , in other lands and now recently, though indirectly through
pure economic reason seek to subjugate and render the citizenry of the
united states to the status of economic serfdom, as well.
These people dominate the
world economic and political system. They are neither elected nor are
they answerable to the democratic process, since ownership of key vital
resources that dictate the global economy, such as oil, armanments, i.e.,
the multinational media-military industrial complex and agribusiness are
firmly within their control. These people are answerable only to their
own economic self-interest. It is true when the person coined the phrase
that egalitarianism only exists at the top. That this utopian equality
among the top 2 % who control 98 % of the wealth, that suchn tremendous
power exists in the hands of those unseen that are the true power brokers
of the globe. So with this emerging phenomenon called globalism, it becomes
increasingly more difficult to discern the sovereign territoriality of
government's ability to guarantee that citizenship will not be exchanged
for subjecthood, in the interests of a wavering economic future, a future
dominated by commissions and multinational corporations , rather than
true participatory democracy, the ideal America emerged with after the
end of World War II, of which such ideology was the guiding light of the
Cold War, of which we now stand at the turning point, where we ask ourselves:
How much power is enough to satisfy these people, and how much longer
are we going to allow these people to dictate global policy soley for
their own interests, and not in the interests of the people who actually
do the labor?
The Cold war was not about
the fight to preserve Democracy and capatilism from the unfettered evils'
of Communism. During the ColdWar American agricultural subsidies to the
Soviet Union actually increased. After World War II, The military command
and control structure sought to perpetuate global conflicts between major
core states by proxy, amongst peripherary satellite states as means to
create profit by creating an antagonistic bipolar system, of which intraregional
conflict was sustained between the major superpowers by contractural demands
brought upon them by their arms suppliers.
Now that 911 has happened We Have fully entered a new Orwellian age
where freedom and privacy have taken a back door to national security.
The Conspiracy has been in the planning for ages and only became visible
when Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex he helped
to create. We did nothing. Corporate America sold us on consumerism and
disposable culture.
Our government created
a military industrial complex and then later through cabalistic intrigue
managed to eventually own most of the media. One need only to look at
NBC and CBS for examples of media enterprises owned by defense contractors.
This military industrial complex is already infamous for paying 8 dollars
for a bolt. Now this complex wishes to expand and exponentially pass the
costs onto the overconsumed consumer by seeking to further an agenda of
world domination by maitenancing a system of terrorist oil and American
power.
Furthermore our "elected
leader has an ideology to support that power, i.e., the trojan mask of
patriotism and unquestioned infalliability of the wisdom of partisan foreign
policy. How ironic is it that our president was in business with the brother
of a terrorist mastermind. His father also actively supported Saddam Hussein
as late as seven months before Desert Storm.
"Normal
relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our long-term
interests and support stability both in the Gulf and the Middle East,"
-NSD
26 George Bush, 1989-
Dick Cheney's
former company Haliburton Oil also was involved with Iraq in trading oil
for spare parts as early as 2000. For the Full story visit the Financial
Times
We'll be in Iraq soon enough, again
|
|
