Home » Blog, eugenics, General, Global Warming, gun control, homosexuality, Liberalism, Malthusians, manhood, morality, Obama, philosophy, politics, Progressives, rants, scientism, Secular Humanism, The Drone Wars » The Drone Wars: Introduction

The Drone Wars: Introduction

Your first inclination when I refer to ‘the drone wars’ is probably to the unmanned (but sometimes armed) aerial vehicles that are clogging air spaces and the public imagination, but in fact this is the title of a new series that I will be working on inspired slightly from the Star Wars episode, The Clone Wars, and inspired more seriously from those first unmanned (but definitely armed) aerial ‘vehicles’ we call bees.   While the ‘drone’ bees do not quite fit the analogy I intend to ultimately draw, the overall social structure of life in the bee hive do, what with its class structure, where certain kinds of bees provide just one function (ie, the drones) in service to a singular entity, the queen.  In our analogy, the ‘queen’ might stand in for the elites within our society.  The analogy directly to drone bees might be apt, since my understanding is that drone bees don’t sting.  As I take it, having an entirely defenseless class of workers that serve the elites, and then die, is a good summary of what the ‘drone wars’ are all about.  And at any rate, “The Drone Wars” has a certain pizzazz to it as a title of a potential, future book.

The reasoning behind this series is this:  It has become increasingly clear to me that there really is a plan afoot to impose certain policies upon the world’s population, with two basic objectives:  1., make it so that humanity serves them and 2., pull it off without there being a bloodbath.   There have been a host of illustrations of this that I have encountered, but I couldn’t very well mention them here without some kind of explanation and documentation.  Indeed, it would take several books to do it justice, because, as I will well concede, the thesis I am proposing is exceedingly far-fetched.  It would be fair to demand significant corroboration for my claims.  However, day after day has gone by, and week after week, and month after month, and now even year after year, and these books have yet to be written.  Indeed, these lines are the first attempt I’ve made to commit them to written form at all.  So, a new plan was hatched.

With this introductory post, I intend to provide the context necessary to understand other posts that will be written.  It will be far more manageable to produce a series of essays than an entire book, and in the end there may be the same result:  the corroboration of my claims and sufficient reason to be very, very, concerned.

This series is the closest I think I will ever come to invoking what we typically understand as a ‘conspiracy theory.’  I have said frequently that for many of the things I have discussed, there is no need to invoke a ‘conspiracy theory.’  Rather, there are certain positions and policies that flow naturally from certain ideological and philosophical commitments.  You don’t need to coordinate the actions of co-ideologues because, by virtue of having a shared world view, people will generally come to similar conclusions and attempt to do similar things.  And yet, I have ascertained that there is good reason for thinking there is ‘out there’ something much bigger and broader, and, yes, sinister.

We have been conditioned in our society to regard anything called ‘a conspiracy theory’ as absurd on its face.  Even if there is evidence for it, if you call it a ‘conspiracy theory,’ you’ve effectively taken it off the table for consideration.   Even if the only plausible explanation for something is a ‘conspiracy,’ you can get people to avert their eyes simply by labeling that explanation ‘a conspiracy theory.’  People don’t want others to think they are the sort that ‘can be taken in.’  On the one hand, they are easily cowed by their concerns about what others will think about them, and on the other hand, they enjoy the flattered feeling they have by being among the ‘sophisticated’ that don’t believe ‘that nonsense.’

Despite this, there are elements within our experience that simply cry out ‘conspiracy.’  There is just no other rational way to perceive these elements.  We may be unable to determine who the actors are or what their motivations ultimately are and we may not be able to produce the kind of evidence we need to take the actions appropriate if it is a genuine conspiracy, but a genuine conspiracy it undoubtedly is.

For now, let me just submit the Bilderbergs as an illustration.  Here you have a secretive group of powerful individuals who have been meeting in seclusion for more than fifty years.  Of late, they have been making public at least some of the attendees, and these include bankers, wealthy CEOs, prominent members of intelligence agencies, and so on.  We are to believe that they have been meeting for more than fifty years without any kind of agenda or guiding principles and that there is never any coordination of policies resulting from these meetings.  Even if the goal is only to help the others make money (and not exert power and influence) it must be seen as, at minimum, the most insidious form of insider trading humanity has ever seen.

It is inconceivable that this is all it is, though.  In the last 4 years they have been giving indications of what they are talking about (and, putatively, a list of participants for each year’s meetings), and examples include:  “World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science” and “Demographic Challenges” and “the Future of Democracy” and “Jobs, entitlement and debt” and “Nationalism and populism” and “US foreign policy” and “Who will pay for the demographics?” and even “Online education: promise and impacts.”  Why on earth would these people single out online education for discussion?

My research has indicated that behind the word ‘demography’ is a whole package of ideas, including overt population control, that can easily relate to ‘world food problems’ and ‘Global Cooling.’  Go to the United Nations web page and you will find these and many others discussed in the context of concerns about ‘over-population.’  But this is the low-hanging fruit.

It has become evident to me that this program (if there is even a ‘program’) goes well beyond the typical fodder for ‘conspiracy theories.’  For example, one of the things listed for discussion by the Bilderbergs was “The future of democracy and the middle class trap.”  From this brief mention, how does one think these two ideas are connected?  The meeting coordinators evidently believe that ‘democracy’ and ‘the middle class’ are connected somehow.  My guess is that 95% of my readers have never even put the two phrases together in the same sentence.  Moreover, my guess is that 95% of my readers will intuitively suppose that the Bilderbergs are hoping somehow that more or better democracy can help the middle class avoid the ‘trap.’  This is a charitable supposition, but it is nonetheless only a supposition.  It could just as easily refer to a feeling that democracy is an ‘out of date’ political system and they wish to dump as many people into the ‘middle class’ as possible, keeping people ‘trapped in it.’  I don’t know which supposition is more accurate (but I have my well-founded suspicions)… and neither do you.  I don’t understand why we should adopt the more charitable one, when no direct evidence exists to point us in either direction (or others we may imagine).

I have mentioned the Bilderbergs only by way of illustrating what seems to me to be prima facie evidence of some kind of coordination by the ‘elite.’  I think there are many more examples that can be raised, but of course to document them all and show that conclusions I am drawing are rational would take up a lot of time, which is precisely why I have begun this series.  I don’t have the time.  But perhaps, over time, in future essays, more examples and corroborating evidence will be made available.  If I waited to do it all in advance, it would never get done.  So dribbling it out is the best I can do for now.

I need to make a few clarifying comments for future reference.

One thing that is clear from my research is that the political ideology driving this ‘conspiracy’ transcends the party labels we are accustomed to working with.  To return again to the Bilderbergs as an illustration, evidently, from the beginning, it invited both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals.’  According to their site, the meetings were originally conceived because people “were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.”  What, pray tell, are areas of common interest between rich and powerful conservatives and rich and powerful liberals?  And doesn’t the idea of ‘working together’ here naturally suggest some kind of coordination and cooperation among the participants throughout the years?  Too bad we are not privy to the details on what they thought was their ‘common interest’ and the mechanics of how they then proceeded to ‘work together’!

In the course of my essays, I will show how both Republicans and Democrats appear to be involved in these affairs.  I actually think I have a good idea of what the ‘common interest’ they had (and have) in mind is, and some idea of the kind of ‘work’ they have been doing ‘together.’  Moreover, I think I have a good idea of the future ‘work’ they have in mind.  I know less about the main political parties in other countries, but I feel confident in saying that what binds these people together is their great wealth, their intention to gain more wealth, and their overall hope that they can do this without anyone finding out the details (because their heads would end up on stakes) or without making themselves too squeamish.  That is to say, this isn’t their first ‘go’ at this, but earlier efforts resulted in the deaths of millions of people.  That’s not what they had in mind, and they wish to avoid it in the future.  More on this, trust me.

This viewpoint of mine will be an awkward manifestation of that old maxim, “politics makes strange bedfellows.”  It is awkward because I genuinely believe that there are certain ideologies that are profoundly dangerous and malignant.  Liberalism really could get us killed.  Progressives really could enslave us–and themselves.   Moreover, there is no question in my mind that one of the great common ideological components of these ‘elite’ is the statism that liberalism and progressivism itself tends to cultivate.  And yet, individual liberals and individual progressives often make good points and are animated by genuine concerns and genuine problems.  The poor, hapless, “Occupy Wall Street” folks did have legitimate concerns.  The problem is that the solutions that the OWS folks, liberals, and progressives, propose are not only almost always counter-productive, they are misguided and almost certain to exacerbate the problem.  For, if there is anything that the elites like having, it is access even more ‘levers of power.’  And those of this ideological strain almost always see increasing the number of ‘levers of power’ as a solution to their problems.

Conservatives, in America, at least, are not immune to this criticism.   Insofar as they advocate for ‘limited government’ and individual liberties, they are on the right track, but it is only incidentally the case that at present the Republican party aligns with their values.  Remember, if you will, that the first Progressive party in the United States was actually a Republican venture.  It wasn’t necessarily the goals that are objectionable to Republicans, but the methods.

I will advocate for a position that is broadly conceived as ‘conservative’ but I will have to tweak it considerably, because as it stands right now, conservatives (as the term is conceived in America) are as likely to help bring about tyranny as the liberals.

I will, therefore, be finding myself in common cause with some folks that I have virulent disagreement with.  Awkward, as I said.

So, I need to employ some terms to distinguish who I think the actors in view are.  I have used the term ‘elites’ which is helpful, as far as it goes.  It is more than that, though, as I will be attempting to show.  Moreover, there is remains the very real problem that many of the people implementing the views of these ‘elites’ may yet not be privy to the actual goals of these elites.  Without being able to access their brains, or corroborating documentation, their actions are indistinguishable from those of the ‘actors’ themselves.

A case in point would be a certain Jonathan Gruber.  Here is a man who has now been documented as deliberately and willfully engaging in deception of the American people, and even going so far as saying that the only way that they succeeded was by relying on the ignorance of Americans.  Is he ‘in on it’?  Or, is he just a tool like the rest of us?  Deceptive actions such as these are precisely the kinds of things the ‘elites’ engage in, putting forward a policy with one stated rationale behind it, when in fact they are motivated by an entirely different rationale, which, if was widely known, would be deemed reprehensible and cause for rioting in the streets.  I just don’t know how to figure out which category a man like Gruber belongs to.

(Importantly, my thesis speaks to HOW it is that Americans are supposedly ignorant about basic economics in the first place!)

So, here are my proposed categories.

The Central Planners.  Otherwise known as, “The Managers.”  I doubt very much that there really is a central organization, per se.  I think rather that there are a class of people who regard themselves as superior to the rest of society, and believe that this is proved (at least to themselves) by their high station in life.  I may also sometimes call themselves “The Aristocracy,” because it is clear that they believe that they are better-suited to rule.  I think they feel they have a biological basis for this, that natural selection and evolution have worked together to elevate them above the rest.  They do not perceive that they are amoral or immoral, but that there is a morality that applies to the individual and a morality that applies to the ‘state.’  That is to say, the drones are biologically disposed to feel they ‘ought’ to do one thing, but the ‘queen’ has a ‘higher’ importance.  The ‘queen’ must look out for herself, and of course, the entire hive.  The rules that apply to the drones do not apply to her, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t play by the rules.  It is, as I said, preferable that the drones are not able to countermand her; far better if the thought never crosses the drones’ minds.  That is part of the program.

The Delegates.  Otherwise known as, “The Deputies” or “the Uninitiated.”  This might be the category that someone like Gruber is in.  These people carry out and implement the will of the Managers, genuinely believing they are accomplishing one thing for one reason, not knowing that they are really accomplishing something else entirely, for another reason.  As another case in point, I do not find it coincidental that we have more and more people suggesting that we must subvert or get rid of democracy altogether if we are going to ‘save the planet.’  (Lucky for us that the Bilderbergs have been talking about both Climate Change and the Future of Democracy, right? Not linked together, I’m sure…)  The people in this category might be privy to the actual goals and actual motivations of the policy initiatives, but still not a member of the conclave of Managers themselves, and still possibly unaware there even is one.  Again, Gruber comes to mind.

The Dupes.  These are, in the main, the liberals and progressives who serve as foot soldiers advocating strenuously for all the things the Managers (“just happen to”) also want to do, just for different reasons.  It is usually the case that the Dupes don’t have a clue about the malevolent goals and outcomes that the Central Planners have in mind.  In this sense, then, many of us are dupes, and will always remain so, since we are obviously not going to be told the ‘real’ plans.   Indeed, I will be discussing a number of examples where conservatives advocate for policies designed to enslave us all.  The difference, if there is any, is that the conservatives ought to have known better.

The Drones.  Or, “the worker bees.”  This pretty well covers the Dupes, too.  I think there are just two basic classes of people in view here (as these elites perceive it), and these are those of the queen bee and the workers that server her.  The problem is that the Drones are a dangerous lot.  They must be kept pacified.  They must remain content with their station in life.  They need to be ‘trapped.’  One of the best ways to keep them trapped is by debt:  credit card debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, etc.  There was recently an article about the Federal student loan debt totaling 800 billion dollars.  A few years back, when I first heard that Obama was going to nationalize the student loan business, I knew exactly what was really in view.  The article sums it up succinctly:

This is money that young Americans owe the federal Treasury–and that gives the federal government leverage over their lives.

“Under the DL program, the federal government essentially serves as the banker — it provides the loans to students and their families using federal capital (i.e., funds from the U.S. Treasury), and it owns the loans,” explains the Congressional Research Service.

In fact, the program is a government-funded redistribution of wealth to colleges and universities. The question is: Who will ultimately pay for that wealth transfer?

I don’t suppose any of the Occupy Wall Street people will perceive that the ‘banker’ financing their student loan is in character and net effect just like the ‘bankers’ they protested on Wall Street.  Who will pay for the wealth transfer?  Well, eventually taxes will (theoretically) have to be raised to cover this expense, and this will be extracted from the people who received the loans in the first place.  Not only will they be in hock to the Federal government, which has no competitor anymore on this front (wasn’t there a reason we viewed monopolies as bad?), but they will have to work longer and harder to pay off a larger pile of debt more generally, because the colleges are charging more–since they know students can access more debt.  If you surmised that I looked quite suspiciously at the latest announcement that the Feds want to offer the first two years of college ‘free’, you’d be correct.

I am dwelling on the student loan issue here because it plays directly into the ‘worker bee’ aspect.  Not only is it the case that people have higher debts, but they can’t get decent jobs to pay those debts.  With the increase in ‘hyper-specialization’ and people being underwater on their mortgages, people can’t get jobs even when they are available.  They aren’t qualified for the ones in their local area–unless they go get more schooling!–and they can’t sell their houses in order to get a job they are qualified for, elsewhere.  “The future of democracy and the middle class trap”?

The debt, the schooling, the education, the low wages, the high taxes, so on and so forth… these are all engineered so as to keep the people pacified and defenseless; in this instance, to be able to ‘defend oneself’ speaks to the ability to earn enough wages in order to change one’s circumstances for the better without recourse to charity or government subsidy (both of which have potential to further entrap people).

A recent article about ‘the Vanishing Male Worker‘ lays it out nicely:

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas. “It’s not a choice that has made them happy. They would much rather be adults in a respectful job that pays them and promises them benefits.”

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children. Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

But the article doesn’t suggest that this situation has been engineered… which is precisely what I believe is the case.   The converse of this story, of course, is that women are obviously making up the difference in the workplace.  Good for women?   Well, did you know that population control advocates have long known that an effective way to curb a society’s population growth is to give the women an education and jobs?  Women in America have been doing gangbusters on this front every since the 70s–which, by the by, is precisely when this connection was most acutely realized.

I will take just a moment to corroborate this, because in my experience, Dupes are also very prone to Knee-Jerk Disease, and are primed to reject what I’m saying anyway.  Now that I’ve said something that sounds heretical, bigoted, and sexist, they’re really going to get up in arms.

In 1969, Bernard Berelson, president of The Population Council, published a paper called “Beyond Family Planning.”  Of course, he’s only ‘discoursing’ and not making proposals!  But it is very interesting to read, anyway.

Download it:

Here is a bit that is potentially relevant:

[As method to reduce population growth]  F., Shifts in Social an Economic Institutions: i.e., broad changes in fundamental institutional arrangements that could have the effect of lowering fertility.  1. […] … through establishment of a domestic “national service” program for all men for the appropriate two-year period in order to develop social services, inculcate modern attitudes including family planning and population control, and at the same time delay age of marriage.

2. Promotion or requirement of female participation in labor force (outside the home) to provide roles and interests for women alternative or supplementary to marriage.

3. “Direct manipulation of family structure itself–planned efforts at deflecting the family’s socializing function, reducing the noneconomic utilities of offspring, or introducing nonfamilial distractions and opportunity costs into people’s lives”; specifically, through employment of women outside the home; “selective restructure of the family in relation to the rest of society.”

4. Promotion of “two types of marriage, one of them childless and readily dissolved, and the other licensed for children and designed to be stable;” the former needs to be from 20-40 per cent of the total in order to allow the remainder to choose family size freely.

5.  Encouragement of long-range social trends leading toward lower fertility, e.g., “improved and universal general education, or new roads facilitating communication, or improved agricultural methods, or a new industry that would increase productivity, or other types of innovation that may break the ‘cake of custom’ and produce social foment” and improved status of women (U.N./ECOSOC)

Entirely coincidentally, I’m sure, but in the 1970s, the employment ‘opportunities’ for women in America exploded.  Was it because of concern for the women themselves, and their rights?  As you can see from Bereleson’s survey, they were even willing to require “female participation in [the] labor force”!  Your knee-jerk reaction here is to think, “What does the man have against women working outside the home?!!?!” but that is not at all what I’m getting at.  The point here was that Bereleson was considering manufacturing the women’s desire to work outside the home, with the aim of exerting population control. These people didn’t care one lick about a woman’s rights or what she wanted.  I would even go so far as to say that I am more concerned about what a woman’s rights are or what she wants–what she wants, really–than the Dupes who think they are the greatest advocates for women.  If a woman wants to work, fine.  But what if she doesn’t?  What if she didn’t all along?  And, might there be other ways of ‘requiring’ someone to work, such as creating economic conditions where a woman has but no choice to work?

Before you answer, consider this recent article talking about the great decline of the institution of marriage in the United States (read it closely! cross reference with #4 above) and this one, declaring that the US birth rate has reached an all-time low.

Coincidence?

It just so happens that in the late 60s and early 70s they were discussing how to re-engineer society so as to control the population size, seriously considering pushing women into the work force, making general education universal (see again Obama’s announcement about 2 years of ‘free community college’), and re-shaping the institution of marriage so as to down play it (note that in the article I cite, marriage rates among blacks are even lower, and “The evidence shows that getting married increases wealth and income”.  Coincidence?) and here we are now, at the end of a “long-range social trend” where fewer people are marrying, more people are going into debt to go to school, more women than men are in the workplace, and… birth rates are lower?  It just so happens?

I will analyze many of these things in more depth later (hence the need for multiple essays) but the reader will naturally say to themselves, “Well, just because they talked about doing all these things that have actually come to pass, it doesn’t follow that they actually did these things, and if they did, that they did them for these reasons.  That’s quite the conspiracy theory!”

A natural question that a dupe and drone is supposed to ask, and then shy away from trying to answer because obviously, if this was engineered, there are engineers, and that requires a ‘conspiracy.’  And we already talked about the aversion that ‘drones’ have to thinking about conspiracies.

Ah, but what if there is documentary evidence?

I mean, besides the fact that we’re actually seeing these things with our own eyes?

I have in my possession such evidence.

And that, my friends, is why I myself have finally risen above my aversion to being regarded as a ‘conspiracy kook.’

It may be that the reader is willing to grant the existence and operation of these Managers, but approves of these developments.  I, for one, am absolutely outraged.  Even if I were seeing things I approved of, if they were deliberately and deceitfully foisted upon us, I would be mortified.  Since I have come to the firm conclusion that these things are engineered, and I find it absolutely despicable that anyone thought themselves high and mighty enough to go ahead and carry out their plans, regardless of the content of those plans, I feel I must do my part to expose them and fight them.

To little effect, I’m afraid.  All the evidence suggests that they’ve already won.

But a man can try.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*