I don't like conspiracy theories; they are the refuge of the weak-minded. Reality is bad enough; there is no need to explain the world using conjecture and fantasy. The facts suffice. ©2011 By ILANA MERCERWorldNetDaily.com
In particular, imputing garden variety government evils to conspiracies is based on the following faulty premise: Government generally does what is good for us (NOT). So whenever we think it is failing in a mission it fulfills so well (NOT), we should look beyond the facts for something more sinister (NOT).
As if the state's natural quest for unlimited power were not enough to explain the events! Why, for example, would you need to search for the "real reason" for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless you honestly believed government would never prosecute such a war? History belies this delusion. Even when government prosecutes a just war, it finds ways to prolong it, as a protracted crisis helps in consolidating power.
The constituent elements of the behemoth continuously work to increase their sphere of influence. Thus grunts don't benefit from war; the generals everybody reveres do. It is but natural for the soldier's superiors to pursue war for war's sake. Given its size, reach, and many usurpations, the US government is a destructive and warring entity—no matter which of the "big government party" factions is at the helm.
Clearly, conspiracy thinking is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the welfare of the individual and civil society, a position I hold. I would say simply that the state presides over the disintegration of civil society, but it does so reflexively, rather than as a matter of collusion and conspiracy.
This has been my general thinking, until now. I may have finally found a conspiracy I can consider.
Rather than wind down—as we were told it would—the US's indirect invasion of Libya has gained momentum. Rather than continue to misfire their weapons, Libyan "rebels" have suddenly materialized as lean, mean, fighting machines that've stormed and taken the capital Tripoli. One minute the entities labeled "rebels" by an adoring American media were being repelled back to their Benghazi stronghold by a well-trained army of Libyan conscripts. Next you know, the same men had captured Colonel Gadhafi's compound.
What you won't see or hear if you watch Fox News, MSNBC and CNN—whose presstitutes don't report, but root for whichever side in a conflict benefits their favored political party or ideology—you'll get from Russia Today. As RT reports, the UK's Secret Service has been "engaged in drilling Libyan rebels, helping them to establish a proper military plan for an assault on the capitol Tripoli." The UK not only dispatched spies and former special ops to train militants, but had been "providing them with ammunition for the operation, including night-vision goggles, advanced communication equipment and no less than 1,000 sets of body armor."
GlobalPost.com has confirmed that the North Atlantic military alliance has ramped-up its five-month old campaign of air strikes, insisting that the 4,000 targets NATO had leveled so far were all "legitimate military targets." These sorties have brought the regime to its knees, a NATO spokesperson asserted.
Let's rewind the newsreel. In 2009—in his capacity as head of the African Union—Libya's Moammar Gadhafi had proposed that the economically crippled continent adopt the Gold Dinar. I do not know if Col. Gadhafi continued to agitate for ditching the dollar and adopting the Gold Dinar. Or if The Agitator from Chicago got wind of Gadhaf's (uncharacteristic) sanity about things monetary.
This much I do know: America is crashing and burning. Monetary policy and media spin have obfuscated this inescapable reality. Most Americans are quite happy to remain suspended in a world of make-believe, where the US is still a superpower, despite the fact that, combined, American state and personal debt now approximates 65 trillion dollars.
My countrymen expect to continue cruising on credit and on the backs of the dwindling number of producers among them.
It turns out that any confidence America and its profligate European and English allies had placed in the sheer stupidity of African-Union leaders had paid-off. By GoldBuzzer.com's telling, the Libyan leader had failed to convince the African Union to adopt a gold currency. The "Gold Dinar" was dismissed, and Gaddafi demoted.
Nor had Gadhafi made headway in persuading oil-rich Middle Eastern leaders to demand gold, rather than debased dollars, for their oil. Granted, at 144 tons, Libya's gold reserves are relatively small (and probably getting smaller given the post-revolution looting that is likely underway): "only 5.6 percent of its total currency exchange reserves."
Nevertheless, gold is both a haven—and an indicator of how moribund the dollar-driven global economy is. A modicum of monetary policy savvy will have sent the more capable individuals and countries scampering after gold, late in 2008, if not before.
Congress and the Department of Justice have sicced their attack dogs on Standard & Poor's after that credit rating agency dared to declare the obvious: America's credit is kaput.
Is it within the realm of conspiracy to posit that the same disorganized criminal enterprise could have tacitly agreed to take down a pesky, persistent Arab gold bug?
Had a gold revolution engulfed oil-rich African and Persian-Gulf states this would have spelt trouble for the debt-strapped West.
If only symbolically, a gold revolution across Arabia and Africa would have outweighed by far the significance of a democratic revolution.
Members of the media-monetary-congressional complex orbit in privileged circles; all benefit from the freshly counterfeited funny-money dispensed from D.C. On the other hand, the workers of the world are brothers in bondage.
Had Gadhafi sparked a gold-driven monetary revolution, he would have done well for his own people, and for the world at large.
A Gadhafi-driven gold revolution would have, however, imperiled the positions of central bankers and their political and media power-brokers. The former surreptitiously print away the fruits of the people's labor; the latter scramble their brains so that they don't know they are being robbed blind.