Z125942

The Scientific Coup d'état

Federal government, that American association rouses, as of late, suspicion and contempt from
the general population of America. As the approval rating of an inept congress, even more so than the
lame-duck president we currently are suffering, sinks into the teens, one may wonder why we pay their
salaries. A more pertinent question arises, “Does our society benefit from this mammoth federal
government? And if such is not the case, then who is benefiting?” ***There is no doubt that being the
lone superpower in the world has it's repercussions which seem to be huge deficits, many lobby groups,
foreign entitlements, foreign entanglements, and a self-important impetus that we need to police the
world. The period of time in American history to be put under scrutiny will be from the sixties with the
election of John F. Kennedy and the Civil Rights Act, until present day, which generally has the
condition stated earlier. Hopefully, this investigation into the degradation of American federal policy's
throughout the last half century will determine that the American federal government is not working for
the commonwealth of its nation, attempt to identify the root causes of the cognitive corruption, and
offer a plausible solution.
The common theme which binds the latter half of this last century of the second millennium in
the Age of Pisces, is the Federal government's apparent insistence that it no longer needs approval from
the American people to commit the country into an armed conflict with another sovereign nation. Not
one so called war has been given a formal declaration by will of the people through their
representatives in congress. This fact befuddles the sincere American, because such a life altering issue
of deciding to go to war should rest with the people who will directly or indirectly fight it, of course if
this nation is representative of its people. Any other process of going to war is not American, smacks of
Empire, and should be vigilantly rejected, for a free people needs no coercing in defense of their nation.
One such action by way of the Federal government was the Vietnam war. This tumultuous time in
America was met with nuclear annihilation, the Kennedy assassination, massive civil rights rallies,
perceived communist expansion and the Vietnam war, a colonialistic war fought by Americans for
French interests. Furthermore, in light of declassified government documents about the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, which was used as justification for the escalation for that war, revealed that it was a complete
fabrication. If a revelation such as this is any indication for the tactics that the Federal government will
resort to, to get what they want, what are the limits of their tenacity? An argument made for the
interventions of the Federal government is that those implementing policy believe that we should be the
police of the world. If this is truly the policy of such lawmakers, why isn't that issue brought up on the
campaign trail or at least the main stream media for that matter. Consequently, all throughout the last
half of the century, America has been installing military bases throughout the Earth and presently we
have military presence in 131 countries. So considering this, what are the purposes of these
installations, why are they considered a benefit to the American people, and if it isn't a benefit to them,
to whom and for what are their purpose?
Conspiracy, it is a discussion, association, or agreement between two or more people to break
the law. Currently, there is a faintly publicized national discussion regarding, to be frank, an
international political conspiracy actively working to subvert American law and integrate the United
States, as well as the world, into a global interdependent system guided by the principals of the
conspirators. The truth regarding whether such a conspiracy exists remains unresolved, however, given
the small amount of main stream media debate on such a topic arouses suspicions of the curious. The
current folly of American media, if not society in general is, it's rejection of such a notion on the basis
that it's too large of a project to even possibly be plausible, dismiss it, and those proposing such things
as delusional, paranoid, irrational, or simply “nuts”. But, what they fail to address is the proof that
brings about such conclusions. The conspiratists cite memoirs of David Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, and
various other individuals who expressed interest in controlling governments through authoritarian
means. Their ultimate argument stems from their belief that in the eventuality of critical population
mass, the people of the world will be forced to depopulate or risk starvation. Such arguments against
the current form of government we enjoy are numerous. One such article summed this ideology up in a
Reader”s Digest article, written by Laurence Rockefeller, the brother of David Rockefeller, entitled
“The Case for a Simple Life-Style.” The article reads, “In total, [population explosion] all adds up to a
new pattern of living.... If we do not follow it voluntarily and democratically, if may be forced upon us.
Some economists and analysts argue that, if we continue consuming resources as we are now, the only
way to bring about a balance between demand and supply will be through authoritarian controls. Robert
Heilbroner, the distinguished economist, is particularly pessimistic about the capacity of a democratic
and capitalist state to impose the discipline necessary to survive in a world of scarcity.”(Opinion
pg.96) However, such an argument begs the question that our country or world is indeed overpopulated.
Statements like that really brings to light the contempt that certain elitist groups have towards the rest
of humanity and, at least for the vigilant, rouses suspicion against what these so called leaders have in
store for American future policy.
The founding fathers have explicit confrontation between ideologies between classes and left us
words to remind us about the corrupting nature of power. Benjamin Franklin, when asked if this new
country is in fact a republic replied, “Yes, If you can keep it.” But, by what means do the people need
to use to combat such a corruptive force? The first step is to out those who would attempt to subvert the
constitution. Another such individual who is vocal about the intentions of the upper class, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, happened to be Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, the creator of an international
elitist think-tank, the Trilateral Commission, and currently now, stands as presidential candidate Barack
Obama's foreign policy advisor. Zbigniew has written about the internationalistic push towards global
government and the methods employed to reach such a goal and in so far exploiting a possible threat to
liberal democracy, “the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society
would b e dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior
scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not
hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and
keeping society under close surveillance and control.”(Zbigniew pg.252) Even more telling is his
detailed description of the difficulties of the push toward global governance. “Movement toward a
larger community of the developed nations... cannot be achieved by fusing existing states into one
larger entity. It makes much more sense to attempt to associate existing states through a variety of
indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty.(Zbigniew pg.296) As well as
the reason for founding the Trilateral Commission. “Movement toward such a community will in all
probability require two broad and overlapping phrases. The first of these would involve the forging of
community links among the United States, Western Europe, and Japan.” Looking at this statement, one
wonders the nature of these “community links” are. Now realize that this conspiratorial push towards
global government isn't necessarily breaking any law, however, their influence is seeking to create
incremental change towards that goal. Technically, it is not a conspiracy, but, simply a closely
regulated, seldom reported, ideology. The influence they exert is in their own utopian best interests, and
not of the general American population.
Such subversion is not new in history, for instance, during the height of the Great Depression in
1933, a well known and well liked military general at the time, Major General Smedley Butler of the
U.S. Marine Corps, was approached by three people with the biggest bribe ever offered to an American.
Those three included Grayson Mallet-Provost Murphy, a director of Guaranty Trust, Robert S. Clark; a
JP Morgan banker who inherited a fortune from Singer Sewing Machine Company; and John W. Davis,
the 1924 Democratic nominee for President and chief attorney for JP Morgan and Company. The plan
offered to Butler was to “seize the White House with a private army, hold Franklin Roosevelt prisoner,
and get rid of him if he refused to serve as their puppet in a dictatorship they planned to impose and
control.”(Archer pg. ix) The bribe offered was the choice to become the first American dictator, and
that they had 3 million on hand and could get 300 million if the case may be. Butler being true to the
ideals of America refused and exposed the plot. Because of the plot, congress created the McCormack-
Dickstein Committee to investigate Butler's charges. An interview conducted by Jules Archer, author of
the book, Plot to Seize the White House, talked to the Chairman of the committee, John J. McCormack,
about the validity of creating an American dictatorship:
Archer: Then in your opinion, America could definitely have been a Fascist power had it
not been for General Butler's patriotism in exploding the plot?
McCormack: It certainly could have. The people were in a very confused state of mind,
making the nation weak and ripe for some drastic kind of extremist reaction. Mass frustration
could bring about anything.
In light of this often glossed over history, the precedent of a coup d'état was established. This much is
clear, to impose an authoritarian American government, the plotter requires wealth, influence, and a
self-important contempt for the liberal version of American democracy. Searching for suspects, these
are the traits to look for.
The main ideal attributed to the erosion of American democracy and subsequently the American
quality of life, can be attributed to a national belief in a strong centralized national government. The
purpose of our constitutional government, “To secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity.” is one
such clause to substantiate big national government. Furthermore they believe that a such a government
is the only way to achieve such a goal. So, arguments like this are more suitably explained as a
ideological battle between those who believe centralized planning versus those who support local
planning is the most effective way to achieve said clause. It is quite strange that amidst all of the
conjecture and jokes about Washington D.C. as being a wasteful despotic city, filled with corruption
and conspiracy, that the American people fail to address the notion or have the confidence that their
local governments could manage it better. “The founding fathers would be astonished to observe how
politicized our society has become, with every matter on which people differ becoming a federal issue
to be resolved in Washington. Jefferson warned, "when all government domestic and foreign, in little as
in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render the powerless the
checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the
government from which we separated."(Paul pg. 95) Strong centralized government however, is an
asset for defense when it's sole purpose is to manage the military and not all of the other government
programs, designed to help the populace but more often than not has unintended consequences. FEMA
for instance, during the Katrina disaster rejected help from concerned people willing, for the simple
bureaucratic fact that they lacked the proper credentials. Amazingly, they even had the lack of vision to
refuse the help from the long established Red Cross for the same reason, they wanted control of the
situation. The generosity of Americans remains to be unparalleled in the world, and one wonders the
efficiency of local versus national aid. Individuals need to be granted the liberty to assist their fellow
neighbor in times of dire need.
So, because of our big government, there needs to be a countervailing argument that counters
the notion that the movement from a smaller federal government to a larger one is a progressive action.
There needs to be an appeal of the seemingly American consensus that believes those in Washington
need to impose the will of the majority onto the whole of the country. This in turn, opens the door for
the will of the majority, to be turned into the will of the minority, by slight of hand through propaganda,
spin, and slander. But, amidst all of the conflict between the will of the majority and minority vying for
self-interested benefits for their constituents, where does that leave those who want to simply be left
alone and be ruled not by the majority, but by law, the essence of a republic? It was Patrick Henry who
eloquently spoke out against a big centralized government, “If we admit that this consolidated
government, It will be because we like a great splendid one, some way or another we must be a great
and mighty empire. We must have an army, and a navy and a number of things. when the American
spirit was in its youth. The language of America was different. Liberty sir, that was the primary object.
But, now sir the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, was about to
convert this country in to a powerful and mighty empire. Such a government was incompatible with the
genius of republicanism, there will be no checks no real balances in this government.” Academia is a
pivotal part of this push against authoritarianism and is in need of thinkers and leaders who understand
what liberty means. This is what is needed for social peace and economic prosperity. Give voice to
wisdom of the ages that enable Americans to point to a future where liberty transcends above all the
ideologies that seek to kill the human spirit. Liberty to run ones own life is not granted by their
respective governments, it is granted by their creator, and arguments to the contrary argue for what this
country initially attempted to erase from this Earth.

References
Archer, Jules; The Plot to Seize the White House; New York; Hawthorn Books, Inc; 1973
Brzezinski, Zbigniew; Between Two Ages; New York; Penguin Books, 1976
Paul, Ron; The Revolution: A Manifesto; Grand Central Publishing; 2008
Rockefeller, Laurence; American Opinion; September 1978