Friday, September 16, 2011

Synchronicity, Myth, and the New World Order

Dees Illustration
Charles Eisenstein
Reality Sandwich

Looking out upon the horrid ruin we seem to have made of the planet, in spite of the kind hearts and good intentions of the vast majority of human beings, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that some nefarious force has hijacked civilization, driving it towards ends that serve almost no one.

If we are headed for a future that no one would consciously choose, it stands to reason, some say, that we are not choosing; that something else, unfriendly to human welfare, is choosing for us.

Deeper study of certain pivotal events in history strengthens this conclusion. The official explanations of the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 are riddled with contradictions that are difficult to explain. Ominous coincidences pile up and make patterns, pointing toward a conscious agency orchestrating these events toward sinister goals. Diving deeper, one discovers patterns of patterns that ultimately coalesce into an alternate history of the world.

The alternate history explains world events as resulting from the machinations of a powerful, dark cabal of secret organizations comprising the global elite: the banks, wealthy families like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, non-official organizations like the Bilderburg Council, organized crime, shadowy agencies within the government, secret societies like Skull and Bones and the Freemasons, and so on. Behind them all is a group even more secret, comprising the true rulers of earth, who count even prime ministers and presidents among their puppets. Some theorist say that these Illuminati who hold the reins of power are human beings; others say that they have extraterrestrial allies, or that this group is controlled by, or consists of, ETs. Their goal, it is said, is to impose a New World Order (NWO) in which their dominion is complete.

In addition, the dark cabal that rules the earth is purported to have powerful secret technologies at its disposal. Weather control, mind control, energy weapons, artificially created diseases like Lyme and Swine Flu, and other near-magical technologies enable them to destroy any opposition and control us in ways we barely suspect. Always they are seeking to impose new forms of tyranny, to extend their dominion over mind and matter.

The purpose of this essay is not to debunk conspiracy theories or uphold the dominant historical narrative. Rather, I will advance a third explanation that respects and transcends both. Most critiques of conspiracy theories dispute the author's evidence, logic, and sources, and impugn his sanity, intelligence, or integrity. I will not do that. While such critiques often have merit, they tend to go after the low-hanging fruit: the sloppiest authors, the weakest points of their theses, the most easily explained of their evidence. Giving the best of the genre a fair reading, however, the impartial reader realizes that something strange is going on.

Moreover, the NWO conspiracy theory, whatever its flaws, bears some important truths. For one thing, it speaks to our sense that there is something deeply wrong in the world, something that is right in front of our faces yet that we are too blind to see. The NWO hypothesis feels validating and liberating. In the end, though, many people find it to be disempowering; as I shall describe, it subtly feeds into the mentality behind the very same conditions that it aspires to change. It robs us of our power and helps maintain the status quo. How does this happen, and how can its liberating potential be realized? To answer this question, let us begin with a meta-level critique of the NWO thesis, and conspiracism in general, a critique that opens the door toward integrating both the NWO and the dominant narrative into a larger framework.

Read Full Article


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Nice writing. I can definitely relate to a lot of what you’re saying, but there is one fundamental point missing: The "Need to Know Basis" concept -- the way all operations generally work within the government and/or private organizations.
For example, an army colonel commanding an infantry battalion during a wartime operation would not divulge comprehensive mission information to a lowly enlisted private. The private would learn what’s directly expected of him from his team or squad leader, and the role his platoon/squad/team are to play in the operation. He wouldn’t know the detailed plans and mission objective concerning the other participating infantry companies in his battalion because the information would be irrelevant and way beyond his military pay grade; thus, Need to Know...
It all comes down to how much does this private need to know to successfully complete his role in the mission. Information ebbs and flows from both directions: The Lt. Colonel doesn’t know precisely what the private is doing, and vice versa; yet, each have a significant role to play. Hell, the Colonel might not even know the true significance behind the operation he's being ordered execute. The whole thing may be bigger than the Colonel...and he won't question the reasoning because of his military indoctrinations. Specifically the one like possibly questioning his superior's command etc etc…
Now, is it so hard to imagine there being “units” and/or organizations of individuals operating in similar fashion, in order to achieve a set of goals? No, of course not, we witness these struggles daily on so many levels. So, hypothetically: Why would it be so hard to believe The Trilateral Commission and The Council on Foreign Relations possibly working together in order to further or achieve a political agenda? One large enough in its entirety so as to cause a ripple effect of negativity, which could possibly be felt throughout the world?
Should we assume that all the individuals involved in such a hypothetical plan might and should know absolutely all the plan's details? No, of course they wouldn’t, and we shouldn't. They would know exactly what they were supposed to know, and nothing more; thus, the inability to see the forest for the trees. This would allow truth to be shaped and molded into anything, possibly rendering it a form of high quality propaganda, specifically for the masses to be inundated with until apathy takes hold, and the next crisis begins.

Post a Comment