conspiracy theory of the day: north american union

Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 in conservative, consorship, corporatism, eliminationist, extremism, fascism, GWOT, immigration, Iran, Iraq war, propaganda | 0 comments

Watch the video, my comments are below. (hat tip: bizbuzz)


Been reading about the North American Union for awhile, and the new currency the “Amero”, it’s been on television, on Lou Dobbs and elsewhere. And, as the dollar slides into oblivion, it seems more and more plausible, and the appearance of a dastardly plan seems more and more obvious at first glance. But, there are other things to consider. If it uses fear to motivate, then beware.

First of all, I have strong opinions on unified conspiracy theories, which the video proffers. It assumes that there is a group of rich people sitting in a room, who are connected in some way, who share holiday meals together or go to the same church or to the same club, who are all colluding towards a “one world government” and doing all these things behind the scenes to end our lives of liberty, control us all and keep us happy with reruns of American Idol and truck loads of Twinkies. And, it doesn’t work like that. It’s more about social movements and media than about conspiring in groups.

Endeavors such as the NAU function like a movement, a mob of like minded people who are working towards common goals, in this case the creation of a unified finacial system. (Whether you agree with the concept of a unified world financial system or not is up for debate.) It works more like how people decide all at once to start using the internet, or go to YouTube. One person to one person and on and on. Like a mob. That’s how the one world government thing is working. Like a focused flash mob. Because that is how media and the transference of ideas works, and the NAU is an idea, while it isn’t being promoted via the mass media, is still a form of media, an idea, that is conveyed from person to person, and has a genesis that goes back to World War 1. It is primarily a financial movement, not a political one. The two are intertwined by their incestuous relationship, there is no doubt. Which is a very important distinction.
The banking movement has always been more of a mob than a group of white guys sitting in a room smoking Cubans and having sex with underage homeless teens while carving up the roles of the workers and deciding how to spend the workers pensions.

Look at how the EU went down over the course of three decades. It was a movement, but it was primarily financial. It was all about establishing the Euro in member countries.. And, where was all the totalitarianism that the unified conspiracy theorists predicted would occur when the EU was instituted? Where is it? Did the constitutions of nations fall because of it? Did the people of Europe lose their liberties because of the establishment of the EU? No. They didn’t.

The NAU, like the EU, is essentially solidifying financial arrangements that already exist anyway. It’s making them official and sanctioned by a government, in this case one it creates itself, which gives it the ability to establish legal sovereignty and thus protection under certain international laws.

But, the ratification of new constitutions which would override established constitutions and thereby scuttle the rights of the people is not something easily done. Look at what happened with the attempted ratification of the EU constitution. It failed because so many nations felt it infringed (either too liberal or too conservatively) upon their national sovereignty and constitutional independence and the rights of the people. Another mob arose to confront the first mob. And, they did battle. It’s a form of democracy, open source, and sometimes unruly.

The video above dives into the paranoid fantasy that there is a group of privileged people in a dark smoky room that has decided to scuttle the US constitution and bill of rights (which is being hammered at by the Bush Administration anyway) and it’s a done deal. And, the reality is: like what occurred in the EU, the scuttling of the US Constitution is an event that would require more than the establishment of the NAU and a new currency. It’s tacit fear mongering in the video. It’s propaganda meant to use fear as it’s primary tool of conversion of thought. It’s a media virus meant to scare.

Fear is a powerful force used to propel emotional reactions in favor of intellectual ideas. Fear alters the media landscape in ways that aren’t apparent to those who watch media without
a critical eye. Fear fosters an emotional response first and foremost and that means that any real consideration of the issues involved – from the presentation of the propaganda (what’s it’s primary motivation? are the facts correct? is it presented in a logical manner or a fallacious manner?) to the discussion and debate of the ideas within- is left forgotten in the dust of the initial emotional reaction.
That’s the primary function of propaganda. To disrupt the thoughtful consideration and discussion of ideas and media and replace it with an emotional response that squelches discussion and consideration.

From this view point, the primary movement that is afoot in the world today is a corporate financed right wing Christian based extremist movement that wants to establish an American Empire.

The primary mistake in the video that I see is that it attempts to connect this movement to the One World Government one, as if they are one and the same, and that is incorrect. They are two movements that are vehemently opposed to each other on a number of fronts but work together out of necessity.

The video assumes that when David Rockefeller (who is a member of the banking establishment) tells Aaron Russo about an “event” that will occur (9/11) that Rockefeller knew this because of his involvement in the banking “one world government” movement. And, that assumption is erroneous. It’s incorrect. Like many people, Rockefeller was aware of the extremist movement that had been ballooning under the surface – of right wing corporate based pro-war, pro-American Empire movement. Hardcore extremist believers in the privatization of the military forces of the USA and it’s allies, who wished to solidify their power and economic reach by the creation of a situation that is irreversible, one that creates the inevitable need for the US and it’s corporate military personal to be in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. A permanent private corporate military presence in the Middle East to replace the lost US military bases which were abandoned in Saudi Arabia due to internal pressures within that totalitarian regime. (Not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian oil reserves are nearing the end of their long term usefulness.)

Does the banking and one world government stand to gain from the establishment of a permanent US presence in the Middle East? Of course. Money creates strange bedfellows to be sure.

Think for a moment what type of reaction would occur in the USA – on the left and the right – if the NAU were established and it was even perceived – whether it was true or not- that the establishment of the NAU would scuttle and US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the popular uproar?

The assumption that this information is being kept under raps in order to foment a totalitarian regime is a bit over the top. Like most things of this nature, the press is asked to not react and not assist information until it is more documented and understood. The same thing was done in the establishment of the EU.

Informed citizens around the world understood in the early 80’s that the EU was going to be established. It wasn’t an issue that was widely understood or seen in the media worldwide until the early 90’s. Was there a conspiracy there to take away the rights of Europeans and control their lives? Doesn’t appear to be does it?

It’s easy to see conspiracy in emotional contexts based in fear. What we don’t know can hurt us. At least in our minds.

The real issue here is how much control do we want banks to have in our world? Is the creation of economic unions in our best interests?

And, as far as liberties are concerned: As long as we remain vigilant and fight for what we believe in, and stay informed and aware, our rights should remain secure.

Any and all affronts to our rights will be met and challenged. That much is clear.

%d bloggers like this: