top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Conspiracy theory

Updated: Aug 19, 2023



*


I was once told that the term “conspiracy theory” was invented by the CIA to stop people thinking too hard about the Kennedy assassination, with any alternative explanations dismissed as “conspiracy theories”—but the term dates back to about 1940 (in its modern sense), so it can’t be that.


Indeed, the “Kennedy assassination” is a leftist meme to cover up for the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the USSR and was a member of Fair Play for Cuba—i.e. it’s a leftist defence mechanism in operation, because if Oswald was anything he was a Communist and yet he killed their liberal Irish knight in shining armour, Kennedy.


The technical definition of “conspiracy theory” is “an explanation of an event or situation involving unwarranted belief that it is caused by a conspiracy among powerful forces.” It’s “unwarranted” that is the operative word—it’s subjective or intuitive, there’s no agreed standard as to what “warrants” conspiratorial thought or not. What you consider “unwarranted paranoia” might be because, to me, you engage in “blasé wishful thinking”.


In our current system, the arbiters of what is “unwarranted” belief will be the media and the education systems—those with the “warrants”, credentials and status—and so if they suspect that white people conspire to deny jobs to black people that is warranted but if you claim that the 2020 election was rigged that is “unwarranted”, a conspiracy theory. However, at the objective level, there is no test as to whether a belief is “warranted” or not.


Technically, the term “conspiracy theory” goes back to the 1890s—where it was used in a history book to refer to a conspiracy by English aristocrats and Southern slavers to start the Civil War (a left-wing idea, incidentally—it’s about laying the blame on the Confederates and foreigners for the war’s start). There’s also a collateral use in law, a use that continues into the 1960s at least, that refers to a specific type of criminal conspiracy—about whether or not you can be charged as being in “a conspiracy” to transport women over state lines, for example; it doesn’t relate to the term as popularly used.


**


Why are conspiracy theories generally associated with the right, though? Because the right is into responsibility—responsibility is a right-wing idea. Right-wing people like to say things like “the people responsible for this situation have names and addresses!”—although it’s really whistling in the dark, since no one will actually do anything about it, the phrase sums up the basic right-wing position; people are responsible for this situation, individuals are responsible.


The left, by contrast, always speaks of “a system”—it’s due to “white supremacy” or “capitalism”; and, technically, even “the bourgeoisie” or “the whites” are not responsible for their actions in the system—they’ve just ended up, by historical caprice, playing the role “boss” (in fact, they’re also victims—everyone is a victim for the left). It’s pseudo-scientific, because it takes the subjective human factor out of politics—we live in a “crisis of late capitalism” but nobody is responsible for that crisis, anymore than anyone is responsible for the orbits of the moons of Jupiter.


If you think someone is responsible, if you think you’re responsible for your own life, then when some negative human event is imposed upon you from outside your immediate sphere of control some person or group of people is responsible. “No, no—see, it’s much more complicated than that,” says a college professor, ready to show his “multi-variant factors”, since he feels strong negative affect at the idea anyone might be “responsible” for anything—it brings on the “bad feels”, and he always thought he wouldn’t feel those behind the ivy-covered walls.


This means folk explanations for events will have a conspiratorial element derived from common-sense everyday experience. Colleague X went to lunch with Boss B and then, a week later, was promoted. Coincidence??!!! I think not. “In light of her excellent annual review last year, I am please to announce…” Bullshit! I don’t buy it. But the paperwork is impeccable!! You can write whatever you like on the paperwork, HR just do whatever Boss B says.


“Complex multi-variant facts, complex multi-variant factors,” you whisper to yourself, gently rocking backwards and forwards in a primitive self-soothing mechanism found among chimps held in long-term captivity—and university professors. “Nah—what I reckon is that there’s a private Whatsapp group where all this is decided with Boss B’s mates. I’ve seen it on his phone. He closed it quick when I came by but I saw…” “Bullshit!” “I’m telling you, there’s a Whatsapp group where all this is decided…”

***


So “conspiracy theory”, in its contemporary sense, takes off in about 1940; and its spirit was noted by Daniel Bell in his 1960 hit book The End of Ideology:


There is, as well, in the American temper, a feeling that ‘somewhere’, ‘somebody’ is pulling all the complicated strings to which this jumbled world dances. In politics, the labor image is ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Big Business’; while the business stereotype was ‘the New Dealers’…”


You notice how the university professor already wants to “problematise” this idea that there are some “hidden string-pullers”—string-pullers on Wall Street and in the FDR Administration. Who had a lot of influence on Wall Street and in the FDR Administration? The Jews.


Daniel Bell was a Jew, as was his colleague, Hofstadter, who studied “the paranoid style in American politics”. So what is a “conspiracy theory”, in the sense the term exploded in about 1940? It’s a folk theory developed by ordinary American Gentiles, the whites, to explain why their country seems at one level to be a white society and yet at another everything in it is orientated to kill whites.


It has to be a folk theory because the media and academia, the areas that would put the same intuition on a rational basis, are dominated by that group (i.e. the Jews) whose influence the theory is intended to explain.


Bell goes on, in the next section, to critique the supposed influence of “the Italians, the Irish, and the Jews”—he pooh-poohs the idea that there is any link between “the Italian-American community” (legitimate businessmen) and the mafia. It just so happens, says Bell, that Italians are now prominent politicians in many cities—but the idea that this is because they’re in cahoots with the mob is sheer “string-pulling” fantasy.


To make this case, Bell uses reductio ad absurdum—he basically says, “Oh, so you think all the Italians in Chicago get together every week and make decisions about what’s going to happen in the city—what an irrational, kooky, far-out conspiracy theory; it’s paranoid and preposterous—or are they using their ‘Italian mind rays’ to communicate with each other?”.


Of course, he doesn’t know or isn’t interested to find out that there’s such a thing as ethnocentrism—Italians, Jews, and the Irish have high ethnocentrism; when they recognise “their type”, like the gays (in fact), they help them out; it “comes natural”. The Nordics, being less ethnocentric, don’t automatically help a man “because he’s English”—they just see an individual.

What makes Bell nervous—you can positively smell the reaction formation on his pages—is that if people start to think about “string-pullers”, he knows that his own ethnic patronage network, the Jewish one, will come in for scrutiny.


People might say, “Hey, if there was actually fair competition for these positions, none of these people would have these jobs…” Indeed, perhaps Bell owed his own position, the way he was boosted in the 1960s as a “celeb public intellectual”, to just such a patronage network in publishing and the media.


Bell was an “event” figure like, well, like Yuval Hariri today. When you went to your Mad Men style cocktail party, circa 1962, you said, when politics came up, “Oh yes, it’s the end of ideology—totally, we’re in a post-ideological age,” and the Martinis would clink and everyone would nod sagely. Today, people take a draw on their raspberry vape and say “Politics? It’s all post-human today. Read Hariri”.


You sometimes see the archeology of pop intellectuals in older teachers and parents who just remember catchphrases from their youth. So you say, “What do you think about politics?” And they’ll say, circa 2001, just before retirement, vaguely remembering what was cool in their college dorm, “Well, it’s a post-ideological age.”


****

So conspiracy theories emerge, mostly in America, because the ordinary American seems to live in the country that runs the world—and yet everything in the country seems to hate him and want him dead. This creates confusion, and that confusion needs to be explained somehow—since official explanations don’t seem to be congruent with lived experience.


The reality is that they live under Jewish National Socialism—Zionism is Jewish National Socialism (literally, it combines nationalism and socialism—the homeland with communes, the kibbutzes); and America is run by Jewish National Socialists—has been since 1945, when conspiracy theories took off (no coincidence). To ask “why is everything in America so anti-white” is like asking “why is everything in the Warsaw ghetto so anti-Jewish?”.


American victory in WWII creates a problem here. Americans are justifiably proud they won WWII—and yet post-WWII everything in their country seems designed to destroy ordinary Americans; they seem to have won and lost at the same time.


The logical and parsimonious explanation is that Hitler was right: your country is run by an alien race that wants to destroy you. However, because people are socialised into naïve patriotism and the view that Hitler’s position was “absolute evil”, and because the staff who run the shop “out front” seem to be “you”, and because the narcissistic wound would be too great to admit you cannot say it is so.


Americans know the truth at the intuitive level but they hit cognitive dissonance, particularly on the right. The right is composed from naïve patriots—so they’re proud that America won WWII, for example; yet they also suspect Hitler might be right on the intuitive level, but if that is so then what they’re proud of is actually bad and everything they fought for was wasted (they are total suckers).


This creates cognitive dissonance (“It’s good we won, the Greatest Generation—but it’s bad we’ve won”)—and that’s why conspiracy theories achieve this contrived form, like the classic Lyndon Larouche version: “It’s the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the British Royal Family, and the Vatican.”


It’s all to avoid the simple and parsimonious explanation—obviously, this is not a problem for the left because racial explanations are inadmissible on the left full-stop (although left-wing people sometimes start to get cognitive dissonance too, as reality intrudes—nevertheless there aren’t really left-wing conspiracy theories, or they’re very marginal).

This is why you get people who say: “Klaus Schwab is a Nazi—he’s behind a eugenic plan to depopulate the world.” Klaus Schwab’s mother is actually Jewish, as it happens. The problem is that the ordinary person only understands the “idiom of democracy”, that’s what’s normative to them—so “the bad guys” are always Nazis or racialists, somehow (just as a Christian in 1560 would always suspect “the Devil” and “sin” when all was not at ease).


Actually, in a sense it is “the Nazis”—they’re Jewish National Socialists. So they do want to depopulate the world, of non-Jews—they do seek a eugenic policy; and, the Jews being a mixed race, that means to make the world more mixed race. Obviously, “eugenics” is a value judgement—there is no agreed objective basis for what is more or less eugenic; in practice, what you consider as “eugenic” will be what is more like you (if you have healthy and normal instincts).


Yet the ordinary citizen can’t quite make the leap—so he explains it as being “the Nazis” or “Nazi-like”. Another way to put it would be so: National Socialism is codified Germanic ethnocentrism, wherein the world is organised to maximise the reproductive success of Germanics; Jewish National Socialism (Zionism) is codified Jewish ethnocentrism, wherein the world is organised to maximise the reproductive success of Jews. We live under the latter, and once you understand that all the policies so implemented in the West make sense.


You can’t step out of ethnocentrism, remember—beliefs that tell you that you can, like Marxism and Christianity, have been invented by another race (the Jews) to destroy you (to reduce your ethnocentrism to make you weaker). So we live in Zionism world—Zionism is the same as National Socialism, just for Jews, and all decisions taken by Western governments flow from that. In that sense, people who say “Klaus Schwab is a Nazi” are correct mutatis mutandis.


To understand how people actually are, watch the video below of this primitive shaman in Venezuela—all people are always like that, what he does here is what Hollywood does on an industrial scale:



*****


But most Western politicians aren’t Jewish…No but the Hitlerites let Jews lead little governments called “the Jewish Councils” in the ghettos which facilitated the extermination program, even provided the police force to do it. Current conditions aren’t as severe for Europeans as Auschwitz—because it’s a different extermination strategy—but men like Macron or Blair are “capos”, they’re just the Aryan equivalent to the Jewish Council that facilitates the transports because they like power, money, or because they’ll get killed last.

To expand the theme, why has there been mass immigration into Europe and America post-WWII? If you study history you find that, whoever they work for, when subordinate, whether Muslims or Christians, the Jews tend to “open the gates” on the societies they serve—whether in Spanish Toledo or Crusader Jerusalem.


So what’s the parsimonious explanation for mass immigration? America is the world’s most powerful country, half the world’s Jews live there and enjoy prominent positions there, hence “the gates of Toledo” are open again. Simples.


The leopard doesn’t change its spots. The only Western countries—countries in the Western sphere—not to be subject to mass migration have been Israel (protect the homeland) and Japan (non-existent Jewish population). The countries with the largest and most influential Jewish populations—US, France, and England—have been the most subject to mass migration.


Similarly, Israel bans gay marriage and inter-racial marriage; although much is made of “gay pride parades” in Tel Aviv, that’s paint—you have to look at the actual structure (the homeland is protected—the outer colonies, outside “Jewish National Socialism”, are plundered and destroyed).


Aside from cognitive dissonance, the “conspiracy theory”, as a convoluted folk explanation, exists because the Jews don’t exercise power but rather extreme influence. It’s the difference between a wife and a husband—a husband has power, a wife has influence (occult). In a correspondence between FDR’s mother and another woman, she spoke quite frankly about the “psychic fences” women must construct to hold a man—same thing.

The same goes for how Jews operate—they cannot achieve true autarky, as the Germans aspired to, because they are a dependent feminine race, not martial like the Germans (so no instant extermination); hence their strategy proceeds through psychic manipulation and “slow extermination”, mixing of populations and promotion of interracial relationships through their media influence.


******


The Jews have come to paramount influence in the West because computer models show that the group with greater ethnocentricity will always defeat the group with lower ethnocentricity (more individual). Once institutions like Harvard dropped ethnocentric defences and admitted Jews it was inevitable the Jews would dominate these institutions, not through merit but because they would secure their network more efficiently than other groups (if you read any work by a Jewish scholar you will find he almost only quotes other Jews).


To understand Jewish ethnocentrism, consider the case of Spinoza in the 17th century—because he left Judaism and critiqued it he was subject to an assassination attempt and severe social shunning. The Jews, like their sub-religions, Christianity and Islam, don’t tolerate you if you step out of line. That has been bred into them, that’s why they out-compete less ethnocentric groups.


The Irish and the Italians have about the same level of ethnocentricity but they’re not as intelligent as the Jews—so can’t dominate elite institutions (like Biden, they end up as front-men stooges for the Jews sometimes).

The problem with ethnocentrism, even if interlarded with intelligence, is that it has little regard for the truth—the first priority is to protect the clan, the patronage network (the truth goes out the window—as with Bell, keen to claim there were no “string-pullers” on Wall Street or in the FDR Administration). Yet most breakthroughs are made by intelligent individualists who go against the clan consensus—that’s why most breakthroughs in the world have been made by Northern Europeans.

On the other side of the Atlantic, once the English aristocracy lost its influence, being a group with high ethnocentricity, England could be fully dominated by the Jews—a situation helped by the fact that many Anglos are Masons, which is actually an initiatory religion designed to help the Jews construct their Temple (even if you think it’s a “laugh” or a way to “get ahead”, if you become a Mason you will be directed by supra-personal forces to achieve this objective—certain “opportunities” will appear before you, “luck” will provide you with certain paths; and these paths help to build the Temple).


With Europeans now almost totally areligious, the last shred of protection offered by the conferred ethnocentrism found in Christianity is removed—so Europeans, as total individuals, are completely vulnerable to predation by other groups. Personally, I think that Christianity, as with Marxism, was a magical weapon constructed by the Jews precisely to spiritually disarm Europeans (it takes a long time to eliminate a rival tribe)—but I appreciate most people will not follow this line of thought, which most would truly relegate to the realm “conspiracy theory” (except the shaman above, the shaman above…).


So the massive increase in the notion “conspiracy theory” post-1940 just represents the moment America became dominated and controlled by an alien racial group. Ordinary people don’t understand why everything is “against them” even though “Murica” is the most powerful country in the world and won WWII—so the conspiracy theory is formulated to explain the situation but in terms that don’t allow the psyche to experience the narcissistic wound that Americans don’t run America and that WWII was not fought for their benefit (too traumatic to contemplate).


A further factor is that there is some ambiguity over whether the Jews are white in popular culture—since in the democracy race must be understood as a cultural artefact, most people go by “skin colour” and cultural signifiers. However, if you read novels like Malamud’s A New Life (1961), you will discover that not only do Jews see themselves as different from Europeans—they have a strong dislike for them, with that novel being a revenge fantasy about how a Jewish professor destroys a white Gentile’s life.


However, due to the fact many people are socialised not to see race and, even if they do, see Jews as “white”, conspiracy theories increase in plausibility because these account for the facts in a way that still counts the Jews as “white”—and so seem more acceptable to the person who adopts the theory, as well as being socially acceptable (just about).


Hence you can say it’s “the Trilateral Commission and the inter-dimensional aliens and the British Royal Family and the Rothschilds and the Vatican” and you’re kind of safe—both safe from public criticism and safe in your own psyche (because you don’t feel powerless then, you can still feel “Murica, powerful”). If challenged, “But you mean ‘the Jews’ when you say ‘Rothschilds’!” you can always reply, “No no, there are obviously some Jews in the conspiracy—but it’s as much the Royal Family, who have always hated American, as it is the Jews.”


The reference to “inter-dimensional aliens” is also an intuition that institutions like Freemasonry are initiatory cults that put you in touch with forces beyond space and time—but such ideas, in a materialist age, can only be spoken of as “other dimensions” (perhaps related to quantum physics) or “space aliens”, so as to accommodate the modern mind (and then, only barely, for people who fully “follow the science” just can’t countenance this at all).


It’s a recurrent theme in academic studies that “conspiracy theories”, however so presented, are “anti-Semitic”—well, that’s because these constitute folk attempts to describe Jewish influence and, to an extent, power over America (and, by extension, the West itself). Meanwhile, academics, Jewish academics like Daniel Bell, say to Americans, rather like a wife to her husband, “I haven’t seen them,” as he searches for the slippers she’s hidden in a fit of fem-rage.


















189 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page