Two Views of History ‒ Part 3

Two Views of History ‒ Part 3

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in original are omitted.]

Beginning with the French Revolution, all revolutions involving Europeans have had common features that strongly suggest conspiracy. No matter the grievances of the people, which have varied with time, the program of the social revolution has always been the same. Even the same slogans and catchwords have been used. Nearly every program and philosophy that the Illuminists offered during the French Revolution have appeared in every revolution that has followed. The revolutionary leaders are not men of the people. They come from the upper or middle classes, who are not victims of oppression. Weishaupt, Marx, Lenin, and most other revolutionary leaders were bourgeois.[1] The people who back and promote these revolutionary leaders were the super rich, like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. With rare exception they are indifferent about the suffering of the people and even human life. Not only do they have no pity or sympathy for the common man, they frequently disdain him. Furthermore, these revolutions have occurred when the ruling authority was beginning a program of reform for the benefit of the people. The only adequate explanation of this series of “coincidences” is a conspiracy that has maintained itself for at least 250 years. As accidental historians cannot adequately explain these “coincidences” away, they ignore them.

The people never wanted to abolish private property. They wanted to obtain more property and pass it onto their children. A goal of the revolutions over the last 250 years has been to abolish private property and inheritance. (The beauty of fascism is that it abolishes private property without abolishing it. People are allowed to own property, to pay taxes on it, and to be responsible for it. The government has total control over all property. Thus, the government enjoys the privilege of ownership without the responsibility.)

The people have always been nationalistic. They have no real thought, desire, or interest in internationalism. They distrust foreigners and oppose placing the welfare of other countries above their own. Yet internationalism and the destruction of national borders have been key parts of the program of the revolutionists over the last 250 years.

For the most part, the people place great value on their family and their religion. A goal of every revolution over the last 250 years has been to break up family life and to destroy the religion of the people, especially Christianity.

Accidental historians cannot adequately explain this commonalty of every revolution of the last 250 years. They cannot adequately explain why the leaders of these revolutions always act not only contrary to the wishes and goals of the people, but to the detriment of their wishes and goals. Only by resorting to a conspiratorial explanation of these revolutions, can an adequate explanation be given.

Accidental historians who do write about secret societies and conspiracies emphasize the absurdity of secret societies having much impact on the major events of history. They emphasize the divisions and disagreements among secret societies and among members within the same society. If a conspiracy writer confuses facts about an event, conspiracy, secret society, or a person, such confusion is used to pooh-pooh conspiracy and the importance of secret societies. Some conspiracy historians are prone to exaggeration; such exaggerations are, likewise, used to disregard, if not disdain, works of all conspiracy historians. Accidental historians attempt to present secret societies and their presumed schemes as inept comedies of errors. Their members are misguided idealists, knaves, charlatans, buffoons, and the like — none has the intelligence or resources to cause a successful revolution or overthrow a government. They may not deny that primary actors in a coup or revolution are members of a secret society; however, they argue that such membership and society are irrelevant. Such membership is coincidental. Any evidence connecting the secret society with an event or suggesting that a conspiracy was involved is inconclusive and based on circumstantial evidence. (Are not the accidental historians’ explanations also inconclusive and based on circumstantial evidence? If they were not, historians and political analysts would not continue to come up with new explanations.) Accidental historians present believers in conspiratorial aspects of history and the involvement of secret societies as ignoramuses who look for simple answers to complex problems. They are intellectually on the same level as the Flat-Earthers. They are irrational, lack sophistication, and seek oversimplified answers. (Over simplification is reducing everything down to economics and class warfare or to poverty, ignorance, and disease, which is what accidental historians typically do. No explanation of history is more simplistic than the accidental theory of history for the major world events.) McCarthy’s exposure of Communists is reduced to the same level as Stalin’s purges — overreaction to superstitious belief in secret societies and their conspiracies and powers. When writing about the influence of secret societies and their conspiracies on major historical events, accidental historians denounce the whole notion that a secret society could successfully execute a conspiracy of any importance. Any book that describes secret societies and conspiracies as significant and important actors in the great events of history is a “farrago of nonsense.” This is the opinion of accidental historians on secret societies and their conspiracies.

What the anti-conspiratorialists ignore is the clear and overwhelming evidence that in the “democracies” of the West, two governments exist: the visible and the invisible. Lady Queenborough describes this relationship as follows:

The game of politics is the pursuit of power. In all democracies, there are two separate organizations playing the political game. The open and visible one, the members of which hold office as members of a government, and the invisible one composed of individuals who control this visible organization and in whom is vested the real power, the essence of which is finance, controlling the publicity which makes or unmakes its tools.[2]

Such relationship between these two organizations is by its very nature conspiratorial.

Accidental historians see historical events as discrete and independent events. They fail to “connect the dots.” Conspiratorial historians “connect the dots.” They see the interconnections of historical events. To accidental historians, most adverse events happen by accident or incompetence. Conspiratorial historians agree with Franklin Roosevelt: they are planned.

Cochran’s Law Lexicon defines conspiracy as “an unlawful combination or agreement between two or more persons to carry into effect a purpose hurtful to some individual, or class, or the public at large.”[3] When two or more people collaborate to carry out an act that harms an individual, class of people, or the public, a conspiracy exists.

To decide if a conspiracy exists, Dr. Sterling Lacy has asked:

Is it evil to maneuver America from deifying God to deifying man? Does it take more than one person? . . .

Is it evil to socialize America? Does it take more than one person working in harmony to set up this system of legal plunder? . . .

Is it evil to fill school children’s minds with amoral sex education in our government schools? Does it take more than one person to design the programs, print the textbooks, and force our local teachers to teach our innocent children that homosexuality is simply an alternate lifestyle and that sex before marriage is their own business as long it’s “safe” (by “safe” they mean you don’t get a disease or get pregnant)?[4]

If any one of these events is evil and harms an individual, class, or the public and if more than one person is involved, then a conspiracy exists.

The conspiratorial view of history is Biblical. The random accidental view of history is Marxist.[5]

The conspiracy of Illuminism is not one of evil men meeting in secret and plotting to overthrow governments, although such conspiracies do occur. It is one of like-minded people coming together and working toward a common goal without necessarily having centralized autocratic direction. It is as Chaitkin describes:

. . . a conspiracy of this sort, spun out over successive generations, does not operate in the fashion most persons today would assume a conspiracy to work. One must not imagine that the essence of such conspiracies are secret meetings in obscure places, and so forth. The covert features of conspiracies are merely the necessary (usually) auxiliary means to the end in view. The essential thing about the great conspiracies which have, in fact, shaped most of human history, is not the dark plottings, and the begattings. The essential feature of any great conspiracy of this sort is the motivation which causes the leaders of a conspiracy to conspire together.[6]

The conspiracy operates like the Rhodes scholarship system, which serves to recruit and train Illuminists. Frank Aydelotte, American secretary to the Rhodes trustees, described this system:

If he [the Rhodes scholar] has the capacity for assimilation, if he can become part of what he meets, he may return from Oxford to the United States a citizen of the world. . . . Older [Rhodes scholar] men were often able to assist their young protégées, just back from Oxford, in finding suitable posts in the United States.[7]

Skull and Bones and other illuministic societies operate similarity.

The impact of secret societies on history can best be understood in the terms of Hegelian dialectic process: conflict creates history. Thus, controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. Managed use of conflict leads to predetermined ends.[8]

In Hegelian terminology, a thesis, problem, or existing force generates an antithesis, reaction, or countering force. The result of this conflict is a synthesis or solution, which becomes the new thesis.

Using the Hegelian dialectic process, Illuminists create a problem (thesis). Then other Illuminists stir up a reaction, such as fear or panic, in the people (antithesis). Next another group of Illuminists come forth to offer the solution to the problem (synthesis). The solution is always one that advances the cause of Illuminism. It is one that the people would not tolerate if they had not been conditioned to accept it.[9]

An example of the application of the Hegelian dialectic process is the Great Depression. Illuminists in control of the Federal Reserve System inflated the money supply and then greatly contracted it. This action led to an economic depression (thesis). Then Illuminists in the Hoover administration and businesses went to work to exasperate the depression with programs to keep prices and wages from falling — thus, creating massive unemployment (antithesis). Next illuminist Franklin Roosevelt came forth with the solution, a fascist welfare state where people would be dependent on the government (synthesis), a solution that the people would not have tolerated except for the crisis.

Another example is the international financiers financing the Bolshevik Revolution and communist rule of the Soviet Union that followed. “Western capitalists created Communism on one side (thesis) as a perceived enemy to the democratic nations (antithesis) on the other side. The ensuring conflict produced huge markets for finance and armaments and eventually a leveling of both sides (synthesis).”[10]

Illuminists use controlled conflict to bring about their illuministic New World Order, which is their synthesis. Because their New World Order is artificial, it has to be created. Random, spontaneous events would not bring about their New World Order. Moreover, managed conflicts create enormous profits for Illuminists. While they manage conflicts to bring about their New World Order, they also use these conflicts to make themselves richer.[11]

Rather than create movements, Illuminists often capture existing minor movements and turn them to their own evil purposes. They elevate them into major programs. They are notorious for taking important concerns of people, like the quality of the environment, and subverting them into a cause for the advancement of Illuminism. Without illuministic control, many of these movements would be harmless, and perhaps even laudable.[12]

Whether created or captured, Illuminists seek to turn discontent into chaos. Out of chaos, they will bring order. (According to Texe Marrs, “order out of chaos” is a “secret doctrine of the Illuminati.”) They seek “to bring an order of knowledge to the chaos of the various human beliefs and philosophies in the world.”[13] Illuminists will build their New World Order by whatever means possible; “the end justifies the means.”

Does this mean that Illuminists operating through secret societies have caused all, or even most, major events? No. However, they have used and manipulated most of them, especially in modern times, to their benefit. They have been heavily involved to varying degrees in the various revolutions and upheavals over the last 500 years. Often they have caused wars where issues could have, and without their influence probably would have, been resolved without war. Frequently, they exasperate minor problems into major problems. Illuminists do not necessarily create or foment all revolutions and great events of history. However, they have used most of them for their own ends.

Although Illuminists appear to be in control of much of the world’s manmade catastrophes, they often start events into motion only to loss control. Adolf Hitler and Napoleon appear to be two examples where the Illuminists lost control of those whom they brought to power. Furthermore, the Illuminists do not always win. Two examples of illuministic failures are the failure to turn Spain into a communist country in the 1930s and maintaining Communism in Chile in the 1970s. Francisco Franco foiled their attempt in Spain. Augusto Pinochet’s overthrow of Salvador Allende reversed their advancements in Chile. When the efforts of President G. H. Bush, on behalf of the Trilateral Commission, to prevent the collapse of the Soviet Union are consider, its collapse appears to have been a setback for the Illuminists — at least the collapse may not be part of their plan for controlling the world.

Two views of history exist: accidental and conspiratorial. Of these two views, the conspiratorial view is superior to the accidental view in explaining the history of the world over the last 500 years.

Endnotes
1. Nesta H. Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization (Editor Anthony Gittens. Seventh edition. Palmdale, California: Omni Publications, 1994), p. 59.

2. Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), Occult Theocracy (Two Volumes. Hawthorne, California: The Christian Book Club of America, 1933), p. 241.

3. Robert A. Mace, ed., Cochran’s Law Lexicon (Pronouncing edition, 4th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: The W.H. Anderson Co., 1956), p. 81.

4. Sterling E. Lacy, Valley of Decision (Texarkana, Texas: Dayspring Products, Inc., 1992), p. 11.

5. Lacy, p. 18.

6. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman (New York, New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984.), pp. 144-145.

7. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p. 45.

8. Antony C. Sutton, How the Order Creates War and Revolution (Phoenix, Arizona: Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. I.

9. Des Griffin, Anti-Semitism and the Babylonian Connection (Clackamas, Oregon: Emissary Publications, 1992), p, 69.

10. Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids (New York, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2000), pp. 194-195.

11. Sutton, p. i.

12. Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (Palmdale, California: Omni Publication, 1924), p. 345.

13. Marrs, p. 255.

Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

 More articles on history.