Some Dare Call it Conspiracy By Zahir Ebrahim

Editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy!

Are You Among Them?

Holding a mirror to the blind

Abbreviated version published April 19, 2009

Expanded version October 16, 2013

Zahir Ebrahim


Conspiracy: in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act. At common law, the crime of conspiracy was committed with the making of the agreement, but present-day statutes require an overt step by a conspirator to further the conspiracy. Other controversial aspects of conspiracy laws include the modification of the rules of evidence and the potential for a dragnet. A statement of a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible against all conspirators, even if the statement includes damaging references to another conspirator, and often even if it violates the rules against hearsay evidence. The conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence. Any conspirator is guilty of any substantive crime committed by any other conspirator in furtherance of the enterprise. It is a federal crime to conspire to commit any activity prohibited by federal statute, whether or not Congress imposed criminal sanctions on the activity itself.Columbia Encyclopedia [1]

Ah – but what if the “criminals” were to write the laws and the statutes themselves? Then, the conniving and conspiring isn’t legally defined as a crime, nor the “criminals” called criminals. In fact, most are called bankers (emperors previously), and their instruments today, foundations (fleets previously)! Isn’t that just peachy?

If only Al Capone, “an Italian-American gangster who led a crime syndicate dedicated to smuggling and bootlegging of liquor and other illegal activities during the Prohibition Era of the 1920s and 1930s” (Wikipedia), had learnt that sooner.

A very learned man in the far simpler times of antiquity, around 410 A.D., captured this state of affairs of the imperatives of power most succinctly as follows:

– “When the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: ‘the same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.’ — Augustine of Hippo, in The City of God against the Pagans, page 148

And a much simpler man in far more convoluted times of modernity also rather straightforwardly expounded upon the same matters because the plebeians du jour weren’t quite willing to accept any oligarchic emperorship directly, legal or not. Divine sanction for rulers had been eliminated in the West since the Renaissance, and new emperors had to play along with plebeian norms because “Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.” (Mein Kampf). Thus, more complex scheming by the wolves seeking world domination had to be orchestrated upon the sheepish “crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”

And so, in 1971 AD, he observed:

– “Most of us have had the experience, either as parents or youngsters, of trying to discover the “hidden picture” within another picture in a children’s magazine. Usually you are shown a landscape with trees, bushes, flowers and other bits of nature. The caption reads something like this: “Concealed somewhere in this picture is a donkey pulling a cart with a boy in it. Can you find them?” Try as you might, usually you could not find the hidden picture until you turned to a page farther back in the magazine which would reveal how cleverly the artist had hidden it from us. If we study the landscape we realize that the whole picture was painted in such a way as to conceal the real picture within, and once we see the “real picture,” it stands out like the proverbial painful digit.

We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book we will show you how to discover the “hidden picture” in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and television. Once you can see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along. Millions of Americans are concerned and frustrated over mishappenings in our nation. They feel that something is wrong, drastically wrong, but because of the picture painters they can’t quite put their fingers on it.

Maybe you are one of those persons. Something is bugging you, but you aren’t sure what. We keep electing new Presidents who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the world-wide Communist advance, put the blocks to extravagant government spending, douse the fires of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into the hoosegow where they belong. Yet, despite high hopes and glittering campaign promises, these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaign. It is considered poor form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and coincidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

FDR once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” He was in a good position to know. We believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor. We shall attempt to prove that we are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance. This small book deals with that planning and brilliance and how it has shaped the foreign and domestic policies of the last six administrations. We hope it will explain matters which have up to now seemed inexplicable; that it will bring into sharp focus images which have been obscured by the landscape painters of the mass media.

Those who believe that major world events result from planning are laughed at for believing in the “conspiracy theory of history.” Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history -except those who have taken the time to study the subject. When you think about it, there are really only two theories of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the “accidental theory of history” preached in the unhallowed Halls of Ivy which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? Why does our State Department “stumble” from one Communist-aiding “blunder” to another? If you believe it is all an accident or the result of mysterious and unexplainable tides of history, you will be regarded as an “intellectual” who understands that we live in a complex world. If you believe that something like 32,496 consecutive coincidences over the past forty years stretches the law of averages a bit, you are a kook!

Why is it that virtually all “reputable” scholars and mass media columnists and commentators reject the cause and effect or conspiratorial theory of history? Primarily, most scholars follow the crowd in the academic world just as most women follow fashions. To buck the tide means social and professional ostracism. The same is true of the mass media. While professors and pontificators profess to be tolerant and broadminded, in practice it’s strictly a one way street-with all traffic flowing left. A Maoist can be tolerated by Liberals of Ivory Towerland or by the Establishment’s media pundits, but to be a conservative, and a conservative who propounds a conspiratorial view, is absolutely verboten. Better you should be a drunk at a national WCTU convention!

Secondly, these people have over the years acquired a strong vested emotional interest in their own errors. Their intellects and egos are totally committed to the accidental theory. Most people are highly reluctant to admit that they have been conned or have shown poor judgment. To inspect the evidence of the existence of a conspiracy guiding our political destiny from behind the scenes would force many of these people to repudiate a lifetime of accumulated opinions. It takes a person with strong character indeed to face the facts and admit he has been wrong even if it was because he was uninformed.

Such was the case with the author of this book. It was only because he set out to prove the conservative anti-Communists wrong that he happened to end up writing this book. His initial reaction to the conservative point of view was one of suspicion and hostility; and it was only after many months of intensive research that he had to admit that he had been “conned.”

Politicians and “intellectuals” are attracted to the concept that events are propelled by some mysterious tide of history or happen by accident. By this reasoning they hope to escape the blame when things go wrong.

Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can’t be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn’t work, these “objective” scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.

However, the most effective weapons used against the conspiratorial theory of history are ridicule and satire. These extremely potent weapons can be cleverly used to avoid any honest attempt at refuting the facts. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of. Rather than be ridiculed most people will keep quiet; and, this subject certainly does lend itself to ridicule and satire. One technique which can be used is to expand the conspiracy to the extent it becomes absurd. For instance, our man from the Halls of Poison Ivy might say in a scoffingly arrogant tone, “I suppose you believe every liberal professor gets a telegram each morning from conspiracy headquarters containing his orders for the day’s brainwashing of his students?”

Some conspiratorialists do indeed overdraw the picture by expanding the conspiracy (from the small clique which it is) to include every local knee-jerk liberal activist and government bureaucrat. Or, because of racial or religious bigotry, they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally “Jewish,” “Catholic,” or “Masonic.” These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspiratorialists are screwballs.

“Intellectuals” are fond of mouthing clichés like “The conspiracy theory is often tempting. However, it is overly simplistic.” To ascribe absolutely everything that happens to the machinations of a small group of power hungry conspirators is overly simplistic. But, in our opinion nothing is more simplistic than doggedly holding onto the accidental view of major world events.

In most cases Liberals simply accuse all those who discuss the conspiracy of being paranoid. “Ah, you right wingers,” they say, “rustling every bush, kicking over every rock, looking for imaginary boogeymen.” Then comes the coup de grace-labeling the conspiratorial theory as the “devil theory of history.” The Liberals love that one. Even though it is an empty phrase, it sounds so sophisticated!

With the leaders of the academic and communications world assuming this sneering attitude towards the conspiratorial (or cause and effect) theory of history, it is not surprising that millions of innocent and well-meaning people, in a natural desire not to appear naive, assume the attitudes and repeat the clichés of the opinion makers.

These persons, in their attempt to appear sophisticated, assume their mentors’ air of smug superiority even though they themselves have not spent five minutes in study on the subject of international conspiracy. — Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Chapter 1

And are you among them? Are you like those who say: “Don’t confuse us with facts; our minds are made up,”? If so, Gary Allen had you in mind when he wrote the preceding brilliant passages in None Dare Call it Conspiracy. [2]

The poor fellow had searched in vain then, in 1971, “scouring the length and breadth of America in search of hundreds of thousands of intellectually honest men and women who are willing to investigate facts and come to logical conclusions-no matter how unpleasant those conclusions may be”, just like the “philosopher Diogenes scoured the length and breadth of ancient Greece searching for an honest man”. (Ibid.)

I too seek, but surely not in vain, many a million honest plebeians worldwide who would overturn this fait accompli, by no longer claiming as their opiatic excuses, “hope”, “god is running the world – so how can I challenge its mighty plan”, etceteras. The faces of the same earthly devils first uncovered after World War II by Eustace Mullins who had dared to reveal the existence of the omnipotent financial oligarchy in The Secrets of the Federal Reserve under the tutelage of Ezra Pound (1952) [3a] ; subsequently formally revealed by professor Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope (1966), who also worked assiduously to downplay the two centuries long role of the House of Rothschild as damage control on Mullins’ unvarnished exposé ; Quigley’s seminal work nonetheless, from an establishmentarian historian and professor of generations of United States state department foreign service diplomats no less, was subsequently commented upon by Gary Allen in None Dare Call it Conspiracy (1971) ; who in turn echoed W. Cleon Skousen’s concerns in The Naked Capitalist (1970) and presaged Eustace Mullins’ follow-on book that further exposed the role of the House of Rothschild in orchestrating World Order (1985) ; followed by multiple trilogy of most remarkable books by professor Antony C. Sutton of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, investigating the connections between America’s Secret Establishment [3b] financing Wall Street and World Wars (1983) ; and also the inexplicable funding and building of the communist war machine by super capitalist corporations in the United States under the watchful eye of their government while their nation was sacrificing its own young men in Korea and Vietnam to fight communism, aptly titled National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (1973) ; subsequently summarized in The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986) ; all laughing their way to their private banks fashioning World Order with successive Hegelian mind-fcks inflicted upon the world as you, most gullibly, and altogether ignorantly, are willingly made to pay for their self-ascribed primacy imperatives in your own blood, sweat and tears.

The diligent study of the few references cited in just that one preceding passage trumps a combined Ph.D. in political science and modern history from the top universities in the United States — where one encounters almost none of it under a Kafkaesque conspiracy of silence in the name of “freedom of the academe”; the freedom to remain silent on some of the most inconvenient conspiratorial facts of modern history.

Caption Click to Download PDF:  AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT By Antony Sutton 2002

Caption Hegelian mind-fck – Professor Antony Sutton of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University explains Hegelian mind-fck, ahem, the Hegelian Dialectic of the conspiracy (cause and effect relationship) of history: “How can there exist a common objective when members are apparently acting in opposition to one another? Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither “left” nor “right.” “Left” and “right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change. The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of “left” and “right” presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems. The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, neither left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change. In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State. He finds freedom only in obedience to the State. There was no freedom in Hitler’s Germany, there is no freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the New World Order. And if it sounds like George Orwell’s 1984 – it is. In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.” — Antony C. Sutton, AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT, 2002, pgs. 37-38.
(click on bookcover to download free PDF of the book)

Some of these sociopathic front faces have become plainly manifest to all and sundry in the 2008-2009 banksters’ bailout by the US government, and other EU governments, to extortionarilly increase their respective national debt – or should have been.

However, the tortuous reality of the West’s most vaunted “freedom of speech” gift to civilizations throughout the world is that most Western academicians, news media, politicians, technicians and scholars of empire pretend to hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil when it comes to publicly mentioning the easily identifiable names of the superrich financial oligarchy who Machiavellianly orchestrates World Order through world wars and global crises.

To the vast majority of these super learned scholars, academicians, and the who’s who in America of course, the oligarchy (when its existence is not outright denied that is), the state, the White House, the Pentagon, the revolving door between the military-industrial complex and the state, the United Nations and its subsidiary global organizations such as WHO, WTO, et. al., – all “history’s actors” by their own admission [4] – at worst merely harness all these natural crises of greed, capitalism, and blowback of the unbridled exercise of hegemony, as godsend. But surely, they do not conspire, precipitate, orchestrate, game-theorize, plan, steer, or aid and abet them. These are the persistent advocates of “surprise” of this and that crisis which tends to beset humanity with a frequency which, as Gary Allen too rationally observed in None Dare Call it Conspiracy, defies the statistical odds of purely random event due to either happenstance or uncoordinated acts by history’s actors.

But Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy to take over the world by making “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece”! [5]

And Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy more preponderant as a prime-mover force for all crimes against humanity in the past 250 years than the forces wielded by Alexander the Great to Hitler combined.

Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy in which the conspirators“have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business, … provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and … do it globally.” [6]

Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. The following short passages from Carroll Quigley’s 1200 page ode to the International bankers underscore the base axiomatic reality of the conspiratorial web of control of the oligarchy:

The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” — Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, Chapter 20, pg. 324

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world.” Ibid. pg. 326 [7]

But how can a long running global conspiracy to fabricate such World Order stay under public wraps this long, and how can a handful of oligarchs orchestrate and control world events from generation to generation – even if one finally admits to the oligarchy’s existence since they openly proclaim it themselves? Apart from the obvious conspiracy of silence by notable opinion-makers and fashioners of the public mind, the perceptive observations made by W. Cleon Skousen in his commentary on Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope lends some insight into that question:

‘The real value of Tragedy and Hope … [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.’ — W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, pg. 6 [8]

The efficacy of the conspiracy of silence, ‘by simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an “iron curtain” between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals’, as observed by essayist Aldous Huxley, is formidable not only in the art of propaganda warfare, but also for hiding unpleasant facts in plain-sight. [9] Lying by omission is ubiquitously practiced today not just in establishmentarian scholarship, but also by the popular “moral agent” intellectuals cultivated by the establishment for the benefit of shepherding the handful in society who tend to dissent with the establishment’s view of its primacy imperatives, and who are themselves protected for their “vigorous” dissent, in so far as it is made to appear to the plebes that they live in “free democratic societies”, by the so called “freedom of speech” and “freedom of academe”. [10]

Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy which could (perhaps) yet be busted in a fair court of law because some laws and statutes against “criminal syndicalism” still remain on the dusty old Constitutional and Criminal Law books which have escaped co-option. Eustace Mullins argued in World Order (1985) that the following legalism could be used to hamper and decommission the prime-instruments of the conspirators in the United States and throughout the world:

“Despite its present hegemony, the World Order of parasitism realizes that it is always subject to being dislodged, which, in effect, would mean its destruction. Therefore, it is necessary to control not only the channels of communication of the host, but his very thought processes as well; to maintain constant vigilance that the host does not develop any concept of the danger of his situation, or any power to throw off the parasite. Therefore, the parasite carefully instructs the host that he exists only because of the “benign” presence of the parasite – that he owes everything to the presence of the parasite, his religion, his social order, his monetary system, and his educational system. The parasite deliberately inculcates in the host the fear that if the parasite happens to be dislodged, the host will lose all these things, and be left with nothing.

Although the World Order has control of the legal system and the courts, it remains vulnerable to any enforcement of the pre-existing body of law which the host had formulated to protect his society. This body of law forbids everything that the parasite is doing, and forces the parasite to maintain a precarious existence outside of the law. It the law were to be enforced at any time, the parasite would be dislodged. The existing body of law clearly forbids the operation of criminal syndicates, which is precisely what the hegemony of parasitism and its World Order is. Criminal syndicalism denies the equal protection of the law to citizens. Only by acting against criminal syndicalism can the state protect its citizens.

Corpus Juris Secundum 16: Constitutional Law 213 (10) states : “The Constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech does not include the right to advocate, or conspire to effect, the violent destruction or overthrow of the government or the criminal destruction of property. 214 : The Constitutional guaranty of the right of assembly was never intended as a license for illegality or invitation for fraud – the right of freedom of assembly may be abused by using assembly to incite violence and crime, and the people through their legislatures may protect themselves against the abuse.”

The assembly of any World Order organization, such as the Council on Foreign Relations or any foundation, is subject to the laws against fraud (their charters claim they are engaged in philanthropy), and enforcement of the laws against criminal syndicalism would end the institutions through which the World Order illegally rules the people of the United States, the illegal conspiracies and the introduction of alien laws into our system by the foundations instructions to Congress.

We have already shown that the Rockefeller Foundation and other key organizations of the World Order are “Syndicates”, which are engaged in the practice of criminal syndicalism. But what is a “syndicate”? The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word stems from “syndic”. A syndic is defined as “an officer of government, a chief magistrate, a deputy”. In 1601 R. Johnson wrote in Kingd and commonw “especiall men, called Syndiques, who have the managing of the whole commonwealth.” Thus the Rockefeller Foundation and its associated groups are carrying out their delegated function of managing the entire commonwealth, but not for the benefit of the people, or of any government except the secret super-government, the World Order, which they serve. The OED further defines a syndic as “a censor of the actions of another. To accuse.” Here too, the syndicate functions according to its definition – the syndicate censors all thought and media, primarily to protect its own power. It also brings accusations – as many American citizens have found to their sorrow. Not even Sir Walter Raleigh was immune. When he interfered with the international money trade, he was accused of “treason” and beheaded.

The OED defines a “syndicate” as follows : “3. A combination of capitalists and financiers entered into for the purpose of prosecuting a scheme requiring large sources of capital, especially one having the object of obtaining control of the market in a particular commodity. To control, manage or effect by a syndicate.” Note the key words in this definition – a combination – prosecuting – obtaining control. The scheme does not require “large capital” – it requires “large sources of capital”, the bank of England or the Federal Reserve System.

Corpus Juris Secundum 22A says of Criminal Syndicalism, “In a prosecution for being a member of an organization which teaches and abets criminal syndicalism, evidences of crimes committed by past or present members of the organization in their capacity as members is admissible to show its character.” People v. LaRue 216 P 627 C.A. 276. Thus testimony about John Foster Dulles financing the Nazi Government of Germany, his telegram starting the Korean War, and other evidence can be used to indict any member of the Rockefeller Foundation in any state or locality in which the Rockefeller Foundation has ever been active in any way. Since these organizations are all closely interlocked, and there is so much available evidence of their illegal operations, it will be relatively simple to obtain criminal convictions against them for their criminal syndicalist operations.

Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law 185 (10); Conspiracy and Monopolies : “Where the statute makes mere membership in an organization formed to promote syndicalism a crime, without an overt act, this offense is indictable in any county into which a member may go during the continuance of his membership, and this is true although such member comes into a county involuntarily. People v. Johansen, 226 P 634, 66 C.A. 343.”

Corpus Juris Secundum 22, Criminal Law sec. 182 (3) states, “A prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S, may also be tried in any district wherein any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is performed. U.S. v. Cohen C.A.N.J. 197 F 2d 26.” Thus a publication by the Council on Foreign Relations promoting the stripping of sovereignty of the United States of America, mailed into any county of the U.S.; the county authorities can bring the Council on Foreign Relations, or any member therein, to trial in that county,and any action by any member of the Council on Foreign Relations in the past is admissible as evidence, such as starting World War Il, subsidizing the Nazi Government, or subsidizing the USSR.

Criminal syndicalism can also be prosecuted according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46, Insurrection and Sedition : sec. 461 c. “Sabotage and syndicalism aiming to abolish the present political and social system, including direct action or sabotage.” Thus any program of a foundation which seeks to abolish the present political or social system of the United States can be prosecuted. Of course every foundation program seeks to accomplish just that, and is indictable.

Not only individuals, but any corporation supporting criminal syndicalism can be prosecuted, according to Corpus Juris Secundum 46 462b. Criminal Syndicalism. “Statutes against criminal syndicalism apply to corporations as well as to individuals organizing or belonging to criminal syndicalist society; evidence of the character and activities of other organizations with which the organization in which the accused is a member is affiliated is admissible.”

Not only can the members of the World Order be arrested and tried anywhere, since they function worldwide in their conspiratorial activities to undermine and overthrow all governments and nations, but because their organizations are so tightly interlocked, any evidence about any one of them can be introduced in prosecuting any member of other organizations in any part of the U.S. or the world. Their attempts to undermine the political and social orders of all peoples make them subject to legal retribution. The People of the U.S. must begin at once to enforce the statutes outlawing criminal syndicalist activities, and bring the criminals to justice.

Being well aware of their danger, the World Order is working frantically to achieve even greater dictatorial powers over the nations of the world. They constantly intensify all problems through the foundations, so that political and economic crises prevent the peoples of the world from organizing against them. The World Order must paralyze its opponents. They terrorize the world with propaganda about approaching international nuclear war, although atomic bombs have been used only once, in 1945, when the Rockefeller Foundation director Karl T. Compton ordered Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.” — Eustace Mullins, World Order, pages 276-280 [11]

Yes. Some Dare Call it Conspiracy. A conspiracy that orchestrated Operations Canned Goods Redux on September 11, 2001, to create the pretext to “goose-step the herrenvolk across international frontiers” (Robert Jackson at Nuremberg when hanging the Nazis for the same crime, 1946) disguised as global ‘war on terror’ against a perpetual enemy that remains as illusive and un quantifiable as the indomitable Irish gnomes. A conspiracy which can as surely be traced back to the prime-movers by following the trail of money, as following the trail of how could WTC-7 catastrophically collapse in a near gravity free-fall into its own footprint and to which no projectile was shown, or claimed, to have hit as the probable cause, unravels the entire 9/11 terrorist event as nothing but a more refined version of Operation Canned Goods. That self-inflicted covert-ops was originally executed by Adolf Hitler on the eve of World War II to create a hard propagandistic pretext to invade Poland, boldly proclaiming to his generals in the mountains of Bavaria to not worry whether or not it was deemed plausible internationally: “The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters, but victory.” That was the Third Reich’s unassailable hubris which launched its first baby-step towards the German Lebensraum. Its successor’s Lebensraum today, infected by even greater hubris as the conspirators giddily ride upon the super militarized back of the sole unchallenged global superpower, is World Government.

But obviously, None Dare Call it Conspiracy among the conspirators themselves! We can observe how their assets and agents across the board engineer public opinion by continually echoing (manufacturing consent), or broadly retaining (manufacturing dissent), all the presuppositions spinned by the Mighty Wurlitzer [12] whether respectively playing protagonist or antagonist of the establishment. [13] Their mouth-pieces now openly advance arguments for world government as the Financial Times did in its op-ed: “And now for a world government”, [14] as the only realistic solution to manage all the global crises from the global ‘war on terror’ to the global financial collapse, to global warming! The CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) has a Global Governance monitor in place to track how far global governance has penetrated its legalized tentacles in the guise of fighting global crises into the once sovereign nations of the world.

At the end of it all, it will appear just like H. G. Wells, the early twentieth century British novelist and Fabian scholar of the Anglo-Saxon oligarchy, self-servingly presaged it. In his 1940 book New World Order, he described the “happenstance”: “There will be no day of days then when a new world order comes into being. Step by step and here and there it will arrive, … No man, no group of men, will ever be singled out as its father or founder. For its maker will be not this man nor that man nor any man but Man, that being who is in some measure in every one of us. World order will be, like science, like most inventions, a social product, an innumerable number of personalities will have lived fine lives, pouring their best into the collective achievement.”! [15]

The global police state – “to get people actually to love their servitude” [16] – presently under construction, upon its completion would appear to have been the most natural and unavoidable outcome of the scientific modernity. It would arguably be justified by the new scholars of the new Reich as a necessary evil in maintaining World Government, just as Fabian philosopher Bertrand Russell did in the mid twentieth century. In his 1952 book, Impact of Science on Society, Russell speciously argued its inevitability just like his predecessor H. G. Wells had done, but with more philosophical panache and sophistry: “There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” [17]

Without disclosing his own connections to the controlling oligarchy behind the scenes, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the first executive director of the Trilateral Commission founded by New York banker David Rockefeller in 1973, [18] and former President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor (1976-1980), came closest to bluntly admitting the drive for the standardization of human beings under an inescapable fabric of perverse social control being a manufactured product of the oligarchy. In his seminal 1970 book Between Two Ages – The Role of America in the Technetronic Era, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly confessed to the mal existence, in the rapidly expanding Technetronic Era, of behind the scenes “temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all the people”. That, in fact, “Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control.” [19]

Dr. Brzezinski went on to self-servingly admit in that most revealing book which few learned opinion-makers and scholars in the world, never mind in the fiction reading capital of the world, the United States of America, have evidently bothered to read: “Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control.” [20]

Antony Sutton concluded the holistic real intent of all the preceding quoted verbiage thusly in his equally most unread revelatory book Trilaterals Over America:

Whatever the Trilateral Commission members may claim, our finding is that the objective is a New World Order with Trilateralist in control. This would be a planned New World Order with no individual freedom and no constitutional protections. These so called “wars” on problems are designed to mold the outcome of the problem towards New World Order objectives, not to solve the problems.” Antony C. Sutton, Trilaterals Over America, pg. 129 [21]

This wholly open conspiracy for World Order of the oligarchy that is a priori designed to look like “happenstance”, is intended to not just singularly culminate in a one-world global police-state, it is also intended to culminate in the “Zion that will light up all the world”! [22]

Verily, Some Dare Call it Conspiracy based on all this self-evident empiricism! Are you among them, NOT EVEN TODAY?


Evidently, the most useless act in all creation may be to hold a mirror to the blind!

That unfortunate truism heralds the dawn of the New Age of Ignorance, the age of Jahiliya, in which university education, advanced academic degrees, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, etc. all flourish, but where None Dare Call It Conspiracy.


[1] Legal definition of Conspiracy, Columbia Encyclopedia,

See Zahir Ebrahim’s investigation into the concept of conspiracy in: Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory,

[2] Gary Allen, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, 1971,

[3a] Eustace Mullins, the original research conducted at the Library of Congress under the direction of both Ezra Pound and Henry Stimson, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, 1952.

[3b] Antony C. Sutton, AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT, 2002,

[4] “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed senior White House advisor (in all likelihood Karl Rove) for president George W. Bush Jr., The New York Times, October 17, 2004,

[5] “In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.” Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road To World Order, The Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs April 1974 issue, pgs. 558-559,

[6] “We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally. … We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business, … There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, … For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader, … Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history.” Baron David de Rothschild, quoted in The first barons of banking by Rupert Wright, UAE, November 6, 2008,

[7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope – A History of the World in Our Time, 1966.

[8] W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 1970.

[9] Aldous Huxley, Preface (circa 1946) to Brave New World, 1931, Harper, pg. 11.

[10] Zahir Ebrahim, The Dying Songbird, September 15, 2013,

[11] Eustace Mullins, The World Order, 1985.

[12] Zahir Ebrahim, A Note on the Mighty Wurlitzer – Architecture of Modern Propaganda for Psychological Warfare,

[13] Zahir Ebrahim, The Dying Songbird, September 15, 2013,

[14] Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government, Financial Times, December 8 2008 , ;

Zahir Ebrahim, Response to Financial Times Gideon Rachman’s ‘And now for a world government’, December 11, 2008,

[15] H. G. Wells, New World Order, 1940, Ch. 12, WORLD ORDER IN BEING,

[16] “You can do everything with bayonets except sit on them! If you are going to control any population for any length of time you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion. An element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of the Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: that we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people actually to love their servitude! This is the, it seems to me the ultimate in malevolent revolution shall we say.” Aldous Huxley, 1962 speech at UC Berkeley, minute 04:06,

[17] Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society, 1951, pg 37,

See related excerpt on Bertrand Russell’s advocacy of population reduction, among the top ten driving axioms of World Order, in Mis-quoting Bertrand Russell on ‘BLACK DEATH’ from ‘The Impact of Science on Society’, pgs. 114–118,

[18] “The Trilateral Commision was founded in 1973 by New York banker David Rockefeller, then Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, and Harvard University academic Zbigniew Brzezinski, later to become National Security Assistant to President Jimmy Carter.” Antony C. Sutton, Trilaterals Over America, opening passage of first chapter.

[19] “Life seems to lack cohesion as environment rapidly alters and human beings become increasingly manipulable and malleable. Everything seems more transitory and temporary: external reality more fluid than solid, the human being more synthetic than authentic. Even our senses perceive an entirely novel “reality”—one of our own making but nevertheless, in terms of our sensations, quite “real.” More important, there is already widespread concern about the possibility of biological and chemical tampering with what has until now been considered the immutable essence of man. Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control. Man is increasingly acquiring the capacity to determine the sex of his children, to affect through drugs the extent of their intelligence, and to modify and control their personalities. Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, ‘I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.’”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages – The Role of America in the Technetronic Era, 1970, pg. 12,

[20] Ibid. pg. 97.

[21] Antony C. Sutton, Trilaterals Over America, pg. 129, closing passage of last chapter, Chapter Twelve titled: Conclusions.

[22] Shadia Drury, quoting Harry Jaffa: ‘The same sentiment was echoed by the doyen of contemporary Straussianism, Harry Jaffa, when he said that America is the “Zion that will light up all the world.”’, noted in the interview titled: Noble lies and perpetual war: Leo Strauss, the neo-cons, and Iraq,

Witness the singularity of the un-secret conspiracy between the drive towards World Government and the drive towards Eretz Yisrael in “The Promised Land” that is never mentioned by even the most vigorous antagonists of the Zionist State, both Arab Palestinian, and the so called “liberal” Jewish, in Zahir Ebrahim, Undoing the Theft of Palestine – Oligarchic Primacy in Palestine, October 16, 2013,

Bibliography note: All the cited books can still be found on the internet free of cost as of this writing.

– ### –

About the Author

Zahir Ebrahim, a justice activist, formerly a Silicon Valley systems architect (see engineering patents at ), founded Project in the aftermath of 9/11. He was, mercifully, most imperfectly educated in the United States of America, which might explain how he escaped the fate of “likkha-parrha-jahils” mass produced from its vast manufacturing consent complex with all his neurons still intact, and still firing on all cylinders. Bio at ; Email: ; Verbatim reproduction license at Project website .

New Source URL:

New Mirror URL:

Source PDF:

Original Source URL:

Original Mirror URL:

First Published April 19, 2009 | Expanded October 16, 2013 11:45 pm 8339 23

Editorial: Some Dare Call it Conspiracy! Are you among them? By Zahir Ebrahim