Conspiracy Queries
By Erik Rush (09/12/07)
There are certain aspects which I (and apparently a lot of people) find attractive about conspiracy theories: They're intellectually engaging, they're fun (particularly if you have a fertile imagination), they're something in which pretty much anyone can indulge, and they're not the sole domain of any particular political ideology, thus any adherent to any particular political ideology can be accused of promoting one.
I was leaning toward writing a column about Kyla Ebbert, the 23-year-old college student and Hooters waitress who, two months ago was confronted by a male flight attendant for Southwest Airlines for wearing clothing that was “too revealing” on a day the weather forecast had called for temperatures between 100 and 110 degrees.
Now, I’d be the first one to agree with the contention that too many women (and underage girls) dress like South Bronx streetwalkers these days, but (judging by the photo of Ebbert) I didn’t think her outfit was any more revealing or provocative than a ripped guy wearing a muscle shirt on a 100-degree day.
And then I heard that chiding little voice: “Is that the best you can do?”
My take on the whole matter then became the insanity of such a story gaining the kind of traction it has when the governor of a certain western U.S. state (in a play to pay back far-Left supporters who were instrumental in getting him elected in 2006) is trying to find a way to circumvent a law passed via ballot measure by the people of that state to ensure that tax dollars would never be used for the “direct or indirect” support of abortion mills, presidential candidates playing dangerous party politics during wartime (with around half of them denying we’re even in a war), a judicial system that’s becoming more ineffectual with each passing week, another western state that’s poised to “redefine marriage…”
And then there’s our President, who recently tore off the mask he’d been wearing to reveal what appears to be a dedicated globalist. “Globalist?” you might say. “Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.” After all, there have been some flaps over cloistered Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) meetings, the purported advent of a North American Union that no one wants, and the unilateral granting of access to U.S. highways to Mexican trucking companies at a time when 1) there is widespread and valid concern about who and what may be traversing our southern border and 2) bipartisan factions within Congress and the American people have made it clear that the majority of us are taking it in the shorts given the status quo in this area. Yet, deriving an international globalist plot from all of that still seems to be a bit much, right?
Here’s the part where I remind the reader that sometimes the truth can be stranger than fiction.
For those of us old enough to remember the film “Rollerball” (1975, directed by Norman Jewison and starring James Caan and the late John Houseman), the ultra-violent sport for which the film was named was a metaphor for the world. Each nation had a team that captured cultural preeminence based on how well they played each season, yet the nations themselves no longer had anything resembling sovereignty. The world was governed by “The Energy Corporation,” which provided for everyone according to their needs through efficient management of the planet’s human and natural resources.
Of course, some people lived really well – like the practically anonymous Energy Corporation heads and Rollerball superstars – while others didn’t live quite as well. Like “Star Trek’s” United Federation of Planets, no one was actually poor, but no one used currency and it remained unclear as to how this worked and who made decisions regarding one’s relative worth or that of their occupation.
In 1975, I was just turned on by the novelty of the fictional game and the violence; later, I began to give a great deal more thought to the minutiae that people take for granted not only when they suspend their disbelief for the sake of entertainment – but when they cast votes.
What is now transpiring behind the political scenes goes far beyond what detractors have been calling the Bush administration's "stealth plan" to allow big rigs from Mexico to run on roads throughout the United States. Part of this is demonstrated by the bipartisan opposition of some of Bush’s moves of late, but moreso in the blatantly nebulous public relations twaddle that’s been fed to news agencies and the public alike. Disgruntled congressmen and Teamsters apparently have no idea of what the bigger picture holds.
It’s certainly possible that a flawed, overenthusiastic outlook relative to the potential for economic synergy has the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States convinced that the SPP and Logistical Trans-Corridor of North America will benefit their nations economically, ease U.S.-Mexico border tensions and by default, motivate the three to preserve their interests more vigorously concerning the War on Terror, the encroachment of Marxist factions in South America, Central America and Mexico and offset the dangerous level of Chinese investiture in the United States.
The furtive methodology and cavalier implementation underscore contentions I’ve made over the last few weeks and indicate the more probable design: The oligarchs among us (identified in my recent column, Target: SPP) are becoming more and more comfortable dispensing with all pretense of national sovereignty amongst the nations of North America.
My question lies with the minutiae that is not even being hinted at by President Bush and his cohorts in these endeavors, let alone openly discussed by the leaders of these nations. My concern (to put it mildly) is that even they haven’t sufficiently analyzed same.
For example:
1. The differing legal systems and paradigms of justice between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. have already resulted in major legal, social and cultural conflicts.
2. The rampant socialism within the Canadian political system (which the majority of Americans perceive as a breakdown of Canadian culture and a threat to ours), insinuated into the American socioeconomic machine would only serve to further weaken the economy and moral fabric of the United States – or what ever the oligarchs intend to call it once we’ve become “integrated.”
3. Will this “triumvirate” be able to agree on a uniform disposition concerning radical Islam as it relates to mutual security and economic interests?
Finally, how will the above questions (and dozens of other deadly serious ones) apply to wider areas of the globe given the institutional duplicity and tribalism that manifests in underdeveloped countries – not to mention wealthy totalitarian ones? The only nations of significant power that were ever able to efficiently deal with those questions were Rome and the Soviet Union. It worked something like this: “Get along or we’ll kill the bloody lot of you.” On the other side of the coin we have nations like Haiti, and of course Iraq where reason has been used to convey what wonderful, equitable political models the West has to offer.
Given the differences in cultural and sociopolitical paradigms in the U.S. and Canada versus Mexico (Democratic/parliamentary versus Napoleonic), the former are going to have a difficult enough time trusting their Mexican counterparts not to betray them, never mind infecting these enterprises with their corruption and inefficiency.
There is more than ample proof that certain elitists spanning party lines have believed since the ‘Seventies that globalism is inevitable and have been moving us incrementally toward this goal. It would not surprise me one bit that U.S.-based power brokers are laboring under the delusion that it’s their destiny to be the “real” behind-the-scenes power in the New World Order.
Talk about your sucker play…
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
