The Practice of Conspiracy

In popular parlance conspiracy theory has been carefully groomed and defined as a symptom of a private psychosis. Any suggestion that the outward structuration of nation states, international organisations and government bureaucracies does NOT govern the world along with the suggestion that there is a hidden power system linking all events in a secret scheme of world governance via inaccessible institutions clearly marks a person as the victim of a paranoid fantasy. What gives that particular madness its allure is that it disturbingly touches on vital aspects of modern society that, nevertheless, simply do not add up. It is a precarious step from recognising that almost all the major American and European banking institutions are in the hands of jewish families to being convinced that they are bent on world domination. The first construct is true but the second is fantasy. There is the little matter of the Chinese – a chill reality that puts paid to the zionist fantasy.

Taking, then, as our starting-point that Conspiracy Theory is abhorrent to the rational mind, let us look at the most disturbing face of modern society – that is the nature and condition and programmation of modern state and inter-state dynamics. The pivotal law of modern life is that the more the social system is engineered, structured and complexified the more the free-acting individual can control it and manipulate it.

A critical point of understanding totalitarianism came after World War Two when a German historian realised that the power, and flaw, of the Third Reich was that there existed a dysjunction between the complex and detailed structures of the state and the role and person of the dictator, Adolf Hitler. He had, as it were, no connection with the Nazi regime. Of course, far from implying that he was not the active principle, the implication was even more disturbing. It was his separate ‘otherness’ which was the governing element of his total control. This model of power is borne out as valid when applied to Stalin’s epoch of genocide in Russia.

However, perhaps the greatest deception in modern thinking of political modalities is that the totalitarian state is in opposition to the democratic state. This is a radical failure to understand technique. Every modern state by definition is totalitarian.

An ‘undeveloped’ state, a ‘third world’ state, is simply a state with a primitive system of information technology which is not backed up by a complex all-embracing bureaucracy interlinking judiciary, police, security, taxation and administration. Once that level is achieved then that state needs to have ‘someone’ the other states’ leaders can talk to – no decision-making takes place but among ‘heads of state’, Assemblies are for ratification not initiation.

All remnants of collegiate decision-making or consular influence – those bodies erected by monarchic governance and aristocratic limitations, preventing folly and protecting the individual – all these have been swept aside following the forced and urgent legislation in the democracies following the demolition of two skyscrapers in New York at the turn of the millennium. Again, it is not necessary to yield to the paranoid view of the Conspiracy clan to arrive at the recognition that following the destruction of the Twin Towers the remaining tradition of justice inherited from the monarchic European past was obliterated. This can equally be taken to represent the Thucydidean doctrine that political evolution makes use of the opportunity of the unforeseen event. As a result, there is a uniformity in state leadership worldwide, anointing each one in his domain, a dictator.

Now, once this is grasped, it must urgently be recognised that, following ‘the Führer Principle’, the modern leader can, like the lonely paranoid bourgeois with his Bilderberg, world dominance fantasies, be – in Shakespeare’s phrase – ‘by some vicious mole of nature in him’, assailed by the paranoid conviction that he, as leader of his state, is facing a vast international conspiracy and challenge. His private psychosis can without interruption – and there is no political interventive power in modern governments – act against an imagined enemy. His response however will be to activate the whole repressive and tyrannical power of technology allied to an undecodably complex set of laws and protocols which in the end license and legalise war, genocide, torture, rendition and secret location imprisonment as well as liquidation.

Given the triggered paranoia of British and American leaders they cannot, by the nature of that paranoia, take civil or collegiate advice. They are driven to seek their safety with the forces of the police, and not the civic, because public and normal, but the security apparatus which need not – it will insist must not – tell the people what it is doing.

What we are now witnessing is the Stalinisation of the formerly democratic state.

According to an NKVD (former KGB) directive: “To have had relations with an arrested person constitutes a sufficient reason for that person to be arrested in his turn.” For example: the arrest of the chief political administrator Andrei Khromov was directly motivated by this brief note sent by Malenkov to Stalin: “Here is someone who is without doubt close to Iakovlev (the Commissar of Agriculture who had just been arrested ten days before), for Iakovlev has recently recommended him for a post of responsibility.” Twenty four hours later Khromov was arrested.

Another Stalinist doctrine was ‘passportisation’ as a means of netting unwanted elements and having them removed. The compulsory issue of identity cards was considered a threshold move to total police control of the urban population.

Another doctrine was the plan to ‘disgorge detention centres’ – as prisons became overcrowded there had to be an emptying out of prisons with transfers to ship-prisons and secret remote centres. Suicides were useful, also.

According to the Russian secret police a vast conspiracy of terrorist organisations threatened the State. The Report stated that “these terrorist elements supported from outside the country were recruiting young men, unemployed and socially dissatisfied to participate in terrorist acts, industrial sabotage, and the use of chemical weapons as well as bacteriological ones.”

In 1935, 8,300 families plus 41,000 people were forcibly deported from the region of Kiev to allow the police to eliminate undesirable elements said to be hiding among them.

That is Stalin’s Kiev in 1935 not Zardari’s Swat Valley in 2009.

It was forced famine in the early 1930s that was the preparatory scenario to the Great Terror genocide of 1937. The man-made famine led the way to the purging of undesirables in the purges that ended in killing millions.

The destruction of two buildings in New York was to lead to the Stalinisation of the masses in Europe and America as well as two invasions which historically ended the doctrine of the sovereign state alongside the programmed destruction of Pakistan.

The fascist Spanish General Mola of Franco’s army introduced a key political concept in saying that while four columns marched on Madrid a fifth column of republicans were hidden in the city. In Stalin’s discourse to the Central Committee, 3 March 1937, he presented the idea of Russia being invaded by a Fifth Column of subversives. He was introducing his ‘rationale’ for the coming mass murder of his planned purge of Russia. In this speech he also stated that as such religion stood as an active threat and had to be eliminated, priests, cathedrals, imams and mosques. It meant that in order to control – enslave – the civic population there had to be a subversive political entity opposing the people. Thus, all actions and laws that could be deemed repressive should be deemed the necessary protection of the people from terrorism. The identity card system allowed the NKVD to classify every citizen on a scale from ‘observed’ to ‘eliminated’.

1] Poducetniki – individuals passively noted as a potential danger.

2] Anketa – the suspect was considered actively dangerous.

3] Delo-formuliar – he was allotted a dossier.

4] Kompromat – his actions were deemed illegal (joining a group).

5] Agenturnoie-delo – he was issued an instruction-dossier, that is, due for imminent arrest.

On 15 July 1937, Mironov, head of the Siberian NKVD, on returning from Moscow stated: “You may keep imprisoned suspects as long as you consider it necessary. Incarceration need have no limit. Do not feel obliged to go into details. Soon we will discover new affairs, new groups to infiltrate. You must dig up new networks of clandestine organisations. Your job is not to end the matter and classify it. On the contrary, you must expose it, let it play itself out, to lead us to the ultimate confrontation.”

To this end the NKVD invented an organisation, the ROVS (the General Russian Union). It was supposed to represent the union of two anti-communist organisations, one socialist and the other monarchist.

On 1 January 1938, Comrade Iejov and Comrade Stalin received the following report from the NKVD’s Department of Statistical Accountability. Strictly confidential – towards the advancement of Operation 00447 (licensing the genocide).

On 1 January 1938, 555,641 were arrested in the execution of this operation. Further, outside the quotas 22,108 individuals have been arrested by the NKVD Novossibirsk and Altaï districts for belonging to the counter-revolutionary ROVS.

Among the elements condemned for adherence to the ROVS:

In the 1st category (execution) 18,530

In the 2nd category (Gulag) 3,578

Hundreds of thousands were executed and the Gulags were filled with tens of thousands for being affiliated with an organisation that simply did not exist.

Al-Qaeda simply does not exist. Just as there certainly were diverse groups opposed to communism, so too, there are diverse groups opposed to the capitalist entity. As for Bin Laden – and we make no claims – but note:

• 1. He began his public career as a CIA operative.
• 2. Dr Turabi offered him to Clinton – the latter refused the offer.
• 3. French Intelligence and medical common-sense confirm he is dead.
• 4. Dead, he still issues messages – but nobody has seen him. Alive, he has been rendered useless.

According to Home Office figures, Great Britain, from 11 September 2001 to 31 March 2008:

• Number of arrests under terrorism legislation: 1471
• Number sentenced guilty for terrorist offences: 102
• Number released without charge: 819

From 2007 to 2008:

• Of 12 charged, 10 were given a sentence of less than 4 years, 2 acquitted.
• Of 7 charged, 1 was given a sentence of less than 10 years, 6 acquitted.
• Of 3 charged, 2 were given a sentence of less than 20 years, 1 acquitted.

No one charged with an offence that would be in excess of 20 years. The main offences were possession of an article for terrorist purposes, membership of a proscribed organisation, and fund raising. These are all offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 (ANI).

The recent case resulting in three guilty sentences relating to a plot to destroy planes using liquid chemical explosion raises serious doubts. The three guilty parties are highly unconvincing as young intellectuals capable of the scientific knowledge to design these bombs. They seem to be of low education and intelligence. There seems a high probability of the ‘missing plotter’ now believed to be in Pakistan being an agent provocateur. The propaganda of simulated plane explosions using such a device constantly shown on TV strongly seems to suggest a staged trial.

The new English Muslim acquitted may well have been the real target and the whole operation was a botched attempt to dissuade young Britons from entering Islam. If so, his obviously innocent claim has been vindicated by the Court.

Anti-terrorism is now a growth industry, and an over-funded and incompetent Security Service which leeches funds from the overworked, underpaid and underfunded Police Force all points to a country on the edge of terminal decline. Ironically, it is the British Muslim population that alone can revitalise this ancient realm. Alas, too, it is a disgraced government that is fostering a pseudo-national fascism to distract from its total inability to govern.

The local Labour MP who rejected the claim that the extreme right was fascist – in one sentence made three grammatical errors.

When only the liars are left – who are we going to believe?


sas