We have all become familiar with the term “conspiracy theory” over the last five years.  But what is less clear for some is what the “conspiracy” actually is.

The “Conspiracy” refers to a movement among top intellectuals, industrialists, and globalists to create a single world government, which would threaten individual freedom and lives.

This movement, also known as the New World Order, is driven by a philosophy called technocracy, which advocates for rule by experts, scientists or technicians, rather than democratic processes.

Proponents of the New World Order, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Klaus Schwab, aim to create a more controlled society dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values, and potentially governed by autonomous AI systems.

Is the current talking point about the USA annexing Canada part of the Conspiracy?

Technocracy, Fear-Mongers, and the Conspiracy

By Bert Olivier as published by Brownstone Institute on 8 January 2024

The term, “conspiracy theory” became part of common parlance during the “Covid era,” but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the “conspiracy theorists” in question, namely those people who saw through the “pandemic” scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the “conspiracy” is probably less clear. When I ask people what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So, what is it? 

In his book, ‘HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy’ (2003) – followed in 2006 by ‘Weather Warfare’ – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the “High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),” and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the “Conspiracy.” Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the “Conspiracy” is concerned. His answer to the question about its “what?” is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):  

Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and “global villagers” to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic “conspiracy” of the evil few or a broad “consensus” of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives …

To grasp why Smith employs the term “deadly” with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a “one solution for all” system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.

The idea of a “League of Nations” that was floated after World War I was but one embodiment of this movement. Today’s United Nations (UN) was built on the League of Nations concept. The UN was created primarily to end war – by ending nations. The logic is that if there are no nations, then there can be no wars between nations. This was clearly stated in the United Nations’ ‘World Constitution’ with these words: “The age of nations must end. The governments of the nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms.”

While 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant, would have applauded the aim of terminating wars between nations, he would certainly have been less enamoured of the idea that sovereign nations would have to relinquish their sovereignty in favour of a wholesale assimilation into an encompassing world government. His reasons were clearly stated in the second of the ‘Definitive Articles’ formulated in his essay on ‘Perpetual Peace:’ “The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.” For Kant this is essential for lasting peace, insofar as such a federation, where states would be subject to federal laws, is comparable to a state with a republican constitution, which is governed according to laws that are external to the (often disorderly) will(s) of citizens themselves. 

Unless such a federation of nations (as opposed to a “state” of nations, where all member states would comprise only one “nation of states”) were to be established, the rights of every member state would notbe guaranteed, parallel to the way citizens’ rights are guaranteed in a republican state. In other words, every member state, together with its citizens, would be at the mercy of what the overall “world government” decides. Particularly the words (in the excerpt, above), “to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms,” sound outright ominous.

The New World Order (NWO) is but one name given to this push to create a true world government. Many supporters of the NWO espouse a philosophy called technocracy, which is rule by experts, scientists or technicians. It is not democratic in any sense by which Americans understand the term. One very famous advocate of the New World Order is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was a National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and other presidents. He called his version of technocracy “technetronics.” In his book, ‘Between Two Ages’, Brzezinski wrote: “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.”

This “technetronic” union of nations would call for the de-sovereignisation of all existing countries. This new ordering would reduce the United States of America to a mere regional government – perhaps the “United States of North America.” [See end note] The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is widely seen as one stepping stone to the NWO. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was quoted by the Los Angeles Times Syndicate in 1993 as saying: “NAFTA represents the single most creative step towards a New World Order.” The Common Market in Europe and the European Union (EU) are similarly seen as bridges to an eventual United States of Europe, which in turn would be just another region of the United Nations’ global state (or “global plantation” as some detractors have called it).

It is an understatement to claim that technocracy is “not democratic in any sense by which Americans [or anyone else; B.O.] understand the term.” Strictly speaking, technocracy would go further than merely using technical means to govern people, such as surveillance equipment, water cannons or armored cars for crowd control, or tasers to neutralize resistance; in the true sense of the word technocracy, technical devices, such as AI-robots, would be the means of governance.

Read More