Tom DeWeese: The Truth About Conspiracy Theories

The Truth About Conspiracy Theories

By Tom DeWeese

January 12, 2007

What is a conspiracy theory? There seems to be a lot of them, because every time I write about another government program or policy, the denials begin, as someone starts smirking "conspiracy theory" and calling me a fringe whacko. It's getting tiresome.

Another name they like to throw around is racist if I happen to write something about government programs designed to take my money to give to someone else. "Racist."

And if I happen to question environmental policy, then I'm a lackey of big business, who wants to pave the Earth. The term they use for radicals like me is the "astro-turf crowd."

To sum it all up, apparently, I'm a fringe radical, racist whacko who wants to destroy the Earth. Wow. It's got to be a heavy burden having someone like me lurking in society. I'm sure there are lots of laws in the works to protect those who never get involved in anything, from being harmed by my rude questioning of our dedicated public servants.

The funny thing is, in forty years of political life, I have never once advocated passing a law or imposing a regulation or rule to make anyone do anything. I have spent my life just trying to get others to leave me, my family, and my property alone. Whacko, indeed.

Of course, the other side of the conspiracy theory charge is the denial by those actually carrying out the policies I'm questioning. Just ask them if they are doing anything wrong. Of course not. The policy in question, they say, is just a minor adjustment to correct a program for the benevolence and safety of us all. "The Republic is safe," they laughingly say into the television camera as a reporter questions one of my charges. They all have a good laugh over the silly conspiracy theories that keep springing up on the Internet. That in itself, may be a good reason to regulate the Internet, to keep us all safe from the rantings of whackos.

Sometimes I listen to such arguments or read an article defending policies I've questioned, and they make it sound so innocent, so benign. I think to myself, well, maybe I am wrong. Maybe these really are just good public servants whose polices aren't really a threat to anyone.

According to them, the U.N. has no teeth to make policy stick, and is no threat to any nation's sovereignty; the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is not the beginnings of a plan to create a North American Union, just a few steps to grow the American economy and improve trade; America's public education system is really the best in the world, there is no effort to use the classroom for anything but good old-fashioned reading, 'ritin', and 'rithmatic; There is no effort underway to create a national Big Brother surveillance system, the Patriot Act is just a tool for helping law enforcement fight terrorism, and the Real ID Act is not a national ID; and the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club really just want to help protect the environment, not restructure our entire economic and social system.

I really would love to have all of these things be true. I would be happy. There would be no need for me to keep fighting such battles. It is very stressful, you know. I don't like being the one who spoils the mood at a party every time someone asks me a political question, and then doesn't like my answer. I would gladly shut the doors of the American Policy Center forever. I could spend my life doing what I really want to do; write fiction books; open a printing company; be a disk jockey on the radio; operate a tourist business sailing a catamaran off the coast of Jamaica. So much I would rather do than deal with the lying sleazeballs who have one purpose in life - to take my liberty to build power for themselves.

The fact is, these policies and goals do exist. I'm just guilty of exposing them. By the way, I don't call them conspiracy theories - they do. These are simply policies which I believe are wrong - because they endanger my liberties. It's an issue of political philosophy and one's view of the proper role of government. And, so, I exercise my right to oppose them.

They are the ones trying to hide their actions. I've always wondered, if someone believes they are doing the right thing, why do they want to hide their actions? Aren't they proud of their accomplishments? Don't they believe everyone would support them? Instead, they cloak them in secrecy, and lie, when the light is shown under their rock. That's why they become conspiracies.

Let's take just a very few of today's current "conspiracy theories." To make it really easy for everyone to comprehend the true purpose of the policies in question - I'll use their words as much as possible.

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the United Nations is working to impose global governance, and is a threat to national sovereignty. Just ask any proponent of the U.N., and they will tell you that the U.N. has no ability to do so. They cynically laugh at the suggestion that the U.N. even thinks of such things. The U.N., they say, just wants to "promote human rights, improve governance and democracies, and feed the poor." No conspiracy here. Just good old-fashioned compassion.

The Truth: The U.N. has held countless international conferences dedicated to the purpose of implementing global governance. Each of these conferences, from the Earth Summit in Rio to the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, have produced policy documents and treaties designed to bind nations to global economic and environmental policies. Do they spend millions of dollars on these exercises simply to offer suggestions on how independent nations should act? Of course, not. Here is what leading spokesmen for support of U.N. policies really think of sovereignty.

"Nationhood as we know it will be obliterated, all states will recognize a single global authority... National sovereignty wasn't such a good idea after all..."

Strobe Talbott, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Clinton Administration

"It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful."

Maurice Strong, co-chairman, U.N. Commission on Global Governance.

"A system of world order - preferably a system of world government - is mandatory... The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty..."

Walter Cronkite, A Reporter's Life.

Of course, when I say they say these things, I'm called a nut. Go figure.

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the Bush Administration is creating a North American Union. "They" all shake their heads at this one, with smiles on their faces, and they simply say no, there is no effort to create a North American Union. The Bush Administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership is not using a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report as a blueprint for the plan, and certainly not, there are no plans to throw out the dollar for a common North American currency called the Amero. The SPP, says the "Myths and Facts" section of the SPP web site (put there to calmly put down those darn conspiracy theorists) is not an agreement nor is it a treaty, In fact, no agreement was ever signed," the document proudly states.

The Truth: On March 23, 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin met at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas, in what they called a "Summit." After the meeting, the three heads of state then drove to Baylor University to announce their "signing" of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Today, 20 working groups operate out of offices in the Commerce Department preparing policy papers, memorandums of understanding, and trilateral declarations of agreement, laying the foundation for how the agreement will work. Each working group has a counterpart in the other two nations. The Bush Administration refuses to release the names of the members of the working groups. Members of the groups and top Administration leaders, including the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security have attended top level meetings in Canada and Mexico to discuss SPP policy such as "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Yet, all of these very expensive meetings and travel expenses, paid for by the Administration, have never been authorized by the U.S. Congress. Officially, Congress has never been informed of the activities of the SPP, nor have they been approved. It's all been created behind the scenes with the use of the President's Executive Order pen.

A key participant in the organization of the SPP is Dr. Robert Pastor, a member of the CFR and author of a 2001 book entitled Toward a North American Community which outlined in detail the creation of a North American Union, including the creation of a common currency he called the Amero.

In May, 2005, the CFR published its own version in a report called "Building a North American Community." Pastor had a guiding hand in writing that report as well. Yet, the Bush Administration continues to deny there is any connection to Pastor's book, or the CFR report, even though Pastor is a major player in the implementation of the SPP.

We are supposed to believe that a man who has written passionately to advocate a North American Union, and travels the world advocating its establishment, now quietly sits in SPP meetings, but does nothing to help promote or implement his ideas. It's even harder to explain the nearly identical language in the SPP documents and Pastor's book. No conspiracy here, just good old-fashioned civil servants trying to make the government run better. Logic and the ability to read and to mentally process such information is simply to be suspended. Any other conclusion is simply to be denigrated as a conspiracy theory.

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the public education system is more interested in employing behavior modification techniques to mold children's values, attitudes, and beliefs, rather than teaching them solid academics. Innovations, new ideas, technology, a community working together, focus from a federal department of education, more money, higher standards, all have been put in place over the past 20 years to assure "no child is left behind" in our drive for educational excellence. Corporate leaders have been recruited to help assure that our children are getting the best education in the history of the nation. Awards are given to those dedicated, selfless community volunteers, who are making a difference. Pats on the back and smiles assure us, all is well, as test scores are going up.

No one today in public office, has a more condescending smile when challenged about the lack of knowledge in our children. Teachers are instructed by the NEA to report anyone using the term "dumbing down." For they must be right wing whackos determined to undermine the precious public school system.

The Truth: Today's children are academically stupid. Ask any child basic questions about the Constitution and the uniqueness of our system of government; ask them to answer basic math questions without the use of a calculator; ask them to diagram a sentence, or find on a map nations mentioned everyday in the news. Most can't do it. They have little knowledge of history, civics, geography, or math.

But ask them about global warming, ozone holes, and the evils of business, and they will have a lively discussion. The reason - that's what classroom time is spent on. Situation ethics and behavior modification to instill in our children attitudes, values and beliefs which reflect a specific outcome - a political outcome designed to lead our children toward the "proper" attitude for living in a global village as global citizens.

Consider these quotes from education reformists.

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane, because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future."

Chester Pierce, Harvard University - to a 1973 Education Seminar in Denver.

"We must stop being curriculum based..."

William Spady, father of Outcome-based Education school "reform"

School to Work is one of the three major "reforms" shoved on the public school system to create "excellence." Does it educate our children, or just create a training process to dump kids into dead-end jobs? Let the experts tell you.

"Educated employees have higher turnover rates, lower job satisfaction, and poorer promotion records than less-educated employees."

David Hornbeck, STW proponent.

"Most employees under this model need not be educated. It is far more important that they be reliable, steady, and willing to follow directions."

Lauren Resnick, Member of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).

And, that is why your children are stupid. But anyone who questions such stupidity is called a fringe whacko.

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act are creating a Big Brother Society. Any member of the Bush Administration will tell you it's all about fighting terrorism and protecting the great freedoms of this nation. No conspiracy, just making sure the government has the necessary tools to protect us.

The Truth: In the name of fighting terrorism, we are witnessing a new kind of government "urban sprawl" oozing out of Washington, D.C. into every back alley, bedroom, and underwear drawer in America. In short, we are witnessing the birth of a powerful multi-billion dollar surveillance lobby consisting of an army of special interest groups, Washington lawyers, lobbyists, and high-tech firms with wares to sell.

The personal rights of American citizens are the farthest thing from their minds as they seek to fill their pockets, while enabling government to monitor and control our lives to a degree unheard of prior to 9/11. This army seeks riches from the federal trough as it pushes for laws and regulations to spy on and control the lives of law-abiding citizens.

"Follow the money" pretty much sums up the truth about any issue. There is money-a-go-go flowing in the name of national security. The Washington Post has reported that one powerful D.C. law firm, Powell, Golden, Frazier and Murphy, has put together a homeland security unit of 50 lawyers. They will seek government contracts for their clients, and one can bet they will spend a great deal of effort lobbying for more intrusive laws to help build the surveillance industry.

IBM has opened a "Government Solutions Shop." Unisys Corporation has established a similar exhibition for inspection by federal surveillance planners, called the "Homeland Security Center for Excellence." Both corporations are racing to cash in on the billions of dollars for facial recognition systems at airports, and high-tech ID cards.

The Chamber of Commerce has hired a former deputy assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to act as a liaison between the Chamber and businesses seeking homeland security contracts.

The target of all of these corporations, lawyers, lobbyists, and special interests is the massive Department of Homeland Security. This one agency, comprised of 22 combined federal departments with 170,000 employees, has the ultimate power in the nation. Under the Patriot Act, this one Cabinet Secretary has the power to send federal law enforcement agents into private homes without a search warrant. Records and materials may be taken from homes, computer records searched, phones tapped, and e-mails monitored, without legal protection of rights.

And the Homeland Security Department, which is being so heavily lobbied by the surveillance industry, has the power under the Real ID Act, to mandate ID requirements including biometrics scans such as finger-printing, retinal scans, or facial scans. With so much high tech money pressure, does anyone have doubts what Homeland Security will recommend for a national ID?

Of course it's only paranoid, fringe fanatics who could oppose such important protections, in this dangerous time of terrorist threats.

They say it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that the environmental movement is really destroying human civilization. I'm not even going to spend time trying to pretend on this one. Let the greens speak for themselves.

The Truth:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong, Chairman of the U.N.'s Earth Summit, 1992.

"We reject the idea of private property."

Peter Berle, President, National Audubon Society.

"Free enterprise really means rich people getting richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process... Capitalism is destroying the earth."

Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Pet ownership is slavery. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or be entertained by."

Ingrid Newkirk, Founder of People for the ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA)

"The only really good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation levied by an elitist species upon the rest of the natural world."

Friends of the Earth.

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable, but a good thing... This is not to say that the rise in human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much of a help to the world in the long run."

Editorial in the Economist

"If you give the idea a chance, you might agree that the extinction of homosapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions of other Earth-dwelling species."

Wild Earth Magazine

"Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance."

Richard Conniff, Audubon Magazine

This is the wasted human corpuscle which dares call me a fringe extremist, yet not once have I called for their eradication, nor would I, because I value human life - even theirs.

My ideals of governance are exactly the same as those held by the Founders of this nation, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, and Madison. Their ideas of a controlled government, individual liberty, private property ownership, and free enterprise - are the ones which made this nation the most free, richest and healthiest in the world.

The opposite - the ideas being promoted today by those who advocate powerful central government, controlled economies, destruction of private property ownership, and redistribution of wealth - are the root of poverty, pain, and human misery. Those policies have been proven time and again to fail, leaving death and destruction in their wake.

They seek to control every movement, every action and every decision people make about their own lives. Rather than following our Constitution, which says we are all born with our rights, giving government the job to protect them, they seek to dictate what our rights will be. Control, power, and ultimately, disaster - caused by their policies - are the future we face, with them in charge.

To cover it up and redirect attention, they call me an extremist whacko. And the tactic works every time a lazy, uninformed electorate chooses to trust elected officials to make decisions for them. Luckily, I have a tough hide.

See biography for Tom DeWeese