The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited
Murray Rothbard writes: Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy theorist" himself.
It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (15)
Well, given that David Rockefeller admitted to conspiracy at the end of his biography, I guess we could take his word for it.
The key is that he thinks he is actually altruistic and "illuminated" whereas the rest of us are ingrates because we don't appreciate being led with a ring in our noses.
Conspiracy is when a group of people are promoting an agenda that they know would be widely opposed if widely understood. They desire secrecy to shield themselves from opposition.
Ridiculing conspiracy is a means of protecting conspiracy, and the surest sign of conspiracy. I thought of trying to take over the world with a conspiracy when I was in high school. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person in the world who has come up with that idea, let alone acted upon it.
Published: February 15, 2008 10:07 AM
David,
I don't think you are alone in your idea.
"Pinky and The Brain" will run circles around you ? :-D
Published: February 15, 2008 10:42 AM
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get you.
Published: February 15, 2008 12:08 PM
here's a question for the peanut gallery...
did Nathan use insider info after Wellington defeated Napoleon or is that a myth?
Published: February 15, 2008 12:39 PM
Nathan was one of the Main Peanuts, so use of insider info can not be dismissed.
Published: February 15, 2008 12:56 PM
"They" actually sued a author/journalist for writing that. "They" eventually lost in court.
(I suppose you mean the Rothschild family.)
Published: February 15, 2008 1:23 PM
There is a conspiracy to make me believe that I am paranoid!
Published: February 15, 2008 2:06 PM
Just out of curiosity, where would religion fall in this discussion?
Published: February 18, 2008 3:31 AM
From the post, "Surely only a moron will fail to realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors."
Having seen the factories in China that produce steel and dump it in the US, I'd say the efficient foreign competitors you laud are in violation of basic human rights and subscribe to indentured servitude, not efficiency . Likewise, state intervention allows prices to be artificially lowered through state supply of raw goods, not innovation. Given the dramatic loss of domestic steel production in the US, have you created a conspiracy of your own, in claiming the doubtful existence of an effective domestic steel lobby?
This "moron" finds your example "ignorant". Add "crass" for using a term of mental capacity in the pejorative rather than clinical sense. ..add "defeated and irrelevant" for the quotation marks around "public good".
Published: March 4, 2008 2:48 AM
Exactly, how dare you question the good motives of lobbyists!
Published: March 4, 2008 9:42 AM
@Inquisitor - True to your nickname, you've got a flair for torture...quit whipping that lobbyist strawman above and try hitting us with insight and rigor?
Published: March 4, 2008 2:40 PM
I fail to see how questioning the motives of lobbyists must necessarily lack insight and rigour. Especially when they are the ones who often have the most to gain...
Published: March 4, 2008 7:40 PM
Ali,
"Having seen the factories in China that produce steel and dump it in the US, I'd say the efficient foreign competitors you laud are in violation of basic human rights and subscribe to indentured servitude, not efficiency ."
But exactly that's what won't make the competitive in the long run. Slave labour is always inefficient - it can drive down the costs of one given product but harms the national economy as a whole.
Published: April 1, 2008 5:04 AM
Ali,
"But exactly that's what won't make the competitive in the long run. Slave labour is always inefficient - it can drive down the costs of one given product but harms the national economy as a whole."
Do you have any examples of the inefficiencies of slave labor? I was under the impression that it has long been used as a catalyst for empire rather than a nail in the coffin.
Published: April 3, 2008 3:30 PM
I'd say it's hard to prove that countries like China use 'slave labour'. Does it only seem like 'slave labour' relative to Western countries? If in reality Chinese workers aren't slaves but are doing very cheap labour tasks that don't require expensive work conditions or equipment then their labour might be priced at the correct level. Whereas Western work conditions for menial work are disproportionate to the work required and as such is unnecessarily expensive hence companies choose China as their destination for affordable labour work. Actually I think it has already been pointed that there's no real reason for anyone to be doing menial labour work in the West, or least expect anything other than a barebones paycheck for it.
Published: April 3, 2008 5:10 PM