by Gary North

And it came to pass, when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord (H Chronicles 12:1-2).

Rehoboam is not a familiar name in Bible history. He was Solomon's son, and he inherited the kingdom of Israel at its high point: more wealth, influence, and power than it was ever to experience again.

Early in his reign, the people came before him and asked that he reduce their taxes. For three days he consulted with his counsellors. The older counsellors agreed with the people, but not the younger ones. Rehoboam sided with the younger ones. He came before the representatives of the tribes and promised to hike taxes. "My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" (I Kings 12:12). Within weeks, the rebel leader Jeroboam led ten tribes out of the old kingdom and established a new nation, Israel (the northern kingdom), leaving Rehoboam to strut over and threaten only two tribes, Judah and Benjamin (the southern kingdom). Rehoboam's conspiracy against the people caused a civil war and had split the kingdom permanently.

Rehoboam learned slowly. First he had conspired against the people of Israel. Next, he rebelled against God. He took his much-reduced kingdom into ethical war against God — the old error of conspirators throughout history, both human and angelic. Then Shishak of Egypt prepared to invade. The original slave-holding tyranny threatened again. This time, Rehoboam repented, along with the princes (II Chronicles 12:6). God then repented in part, but He brought Shishak in for a raid. God gave them "some deliverance" (II Chronicles 12:7).

This was Israel's recurring lesson, which the people never really learned. Conspire against the law of God, and you thereby conspire against God. God then brings in full judgment: invasion. Again and again, He did this with Israel. When the kings conspired against God, they found themselves at the mercy of the really ruthless conspirators, the rival pagan empires. The rivals always possessed greater power than the halfhearted conspirators of Israel. The rulers of Israel dabbled in the occult, dabbled in the power religion, dabbled in rebellion against God, and dabbled in tyranny. They were no match for the full-time conspirators, once God let them go.

Unification: Two Strategies

The average citizen knows about various conspiracies that proclaim "unification through execution." We have seen their work in history: the Jacobins in the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Party in the Russian Revolution, and Aryan masters of the Nazi revolution. They achieve "consensus by terror" —  endless terror, Karl Marx's vision of "the revolution in permanence."1 The old description is true: "The Revolution eats its children." (I like the wit's addition: "But not soon enough. ")

What the average citizen does not readily recognize is the existence of the other form of conspiratorial organization, the kind described in None Dare Call It Conspiracy. This kind bases its strategy and tactics on the principle of "unification through manipulation." This form of conspiracy operates under a very different set of presuppositions and assumptions about the way to achieve universal ethical unity. Its pre-eminent hypothesis is this: ideology is ultimately irrelevant. Ideological differences cannot possibly be ultimate, for we know that all ultimate disagreements are ethical disagreements, and mankind cannot possibly be ethically divided. By definition, any perceived ethical disunity just has to be a temporary phenomenon. To admit that such ethical disunity is fundamental and permanent is to admit that mankind is not God, for God cannot be ethically divided against Himself. Therefore, they reject the idea. They believe that there are always ways to overcome ethical (ideological) disunity.

The best way to overcome this temporary disunity, of course, is to make a deal, preferably a business deal. Best of all, make a business deal at taxpayers' expense.

Conspiratorial humanists all agree that mankind ought to be unified ethically, where all men share the same cosmic vision. But they disagree about the hypothesis that mankind is, in fact, ethically unified. The "conspirators through execution" acknowledge that all men clearly are not yet ethically unified; therefore, some men — indeed, millions of them — will have to be removed from visible existence (execution, the Gulag) if they persist in their rebellion against the Truth. What kind of Truth? Jacobin Truth, proletarian Truth, or Nazi Truth: they all argue (and act) the same way. The pattern is repeated because the theology is repeated.

In contrast, the "conspirators through manipulation" dare not admit such a thing. To do so would deny their theological premise of the existing underlying ethical unity of mankind, meaning "mankind properly understood." They, of course, are just the people to "properly understand" mankind, whether mankind agrees with them or not.


What these manipulating conspirators need is secrecy. They realize that at this stage of history, men publicly disagree about the fundamentals. If they try to "hold mankind together" by serving as intermediaries between (or among) various warring societies, they need to do so invisibly. Voters in the United States never wanted to join together in a one-world government with the Soviet Union. They knew full well who would have been the policeman in such a society. If "conspirators through manipulation" had tried to try persuade the average American voter to allow them to move forward in the creation of such a New World Order of ethically unified humanity, they would not have gained co-operation. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has now made this project irrelevant. The question now is: How soon will former Communist states be brought into NATO and the other internationalist organizations?

The conspirators always kept their program of long-term convergence relatively quiet. I say "relatively." Since 1973, the Trilateral Commission has published its intention repeatedly to create a New World Order. Doesn't this refute my contention that they are a conspiracy? Aren't all conspiracies always completely secret?

No, they aren't. Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati were almost entirely secret. But, as time goes on, the conspirators have become more open, especially the "conspirators by execution." Hitler published Mein Kampf. Lenin published his intentions repeatedly. True, they did not announce their intention to liquidate specific numbers of specific groups, but they announced their general intentions. But hardly anyone in power believed them. Why not? Because the "conspirators by manipulation" always said that these were just verbal excesses. "They really don't mean it! So let's make a deal."

But aren't all "conspiracies through manipulation" always secret all the time? No, they aren't. They are secret about some things. They were secret about the real intentions of the Federal Reserve System before it was voted into law in 1913. They were secret about the real intentions of the Federal income tax before it was voted into law (or more accurately, before voters were told that it had been voted into law) in 1913. But some of their program has always public. Their "helpful guys" image is carefully maintained. Nevertheless, prior to Dan Smoot's Invisible Government (1962), the C.F.R. kept an incredibly low profile.

Books and Covers

Books, however, were always a high priority item. The C.F.R. is always bringing out books. So are its members. Bland, boring books. One important C.F.R. outlet is Praeger Publishers. How many variations of titles and books have appeared that are along the lines of Richard N. Gardner's (Harvard U., Harvard Law School, Rhodes scholar, Oxford Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and, of course, C.F.R.) In Pursuit of World Order: U.S. Foreign Policy and International Organizations (Praeger, 1965), with a foreword by Harlan Cleveland (C.F.R.)? Hundreds? Thousands? Who cares? Too many, at the very least. (For more on Gardner, see my Preface, page xiii.)

Here is this book, written by a man with impeccable academic credentials, who writes a book with a very "peccable" thesis: that the United Nations is an institution which offers the world hope. I happen to have bought a used copy, probably for under a dollar, at some long-forgotten used book sale. It is an autographed copy. It is dedicated to someone as follows: "With gratitude for his contributions to the pursuit of world order through 'UN We Believe,' Best Wishes, Richard N. Gardner." Maybe it's a forgery. Anyway, forgery or not, it still sold for under a dollar.

How could this earnest-looking man in his late thirties have devoted himself to such a preposterous task, to prove that the UN offers anyone hope in anything except, possibly, a bureaucratic job in some UN agency? How could Adlai E. Stevenson, Hubert H. Humphrey, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Sen. Jacob K. Javits have all written blurbs for it on the back of the dust jacket? There is only one reasonable conclusion: none of them actually read this pathetic little book, with its dry, brief descriptions of endless UN agencies (GATT, UNCSAT, ICAO, WHO, FAO, etc., etc.), and its hopeful chapter titles, such as "Turning Point in World Trade" and "Solving the Monetary Dilemma." It took a Rhodes scholar to write this?

Books make them look scholarly. Books make them look respectable. Books make them look like a bunch of academics, meaning powerless. Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, an important late-eighteenth-century secret revolutionary society,2 recognized the importance of books very early. He laid down guidelines concerning the proper concealment of a secret society. No principle was more important than looking unimportant. Books were part of this cover.

The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will .... A Literary Society is the most proper form for the introduction of our Order into any state where we are yet strangers.3

Today, the college and university have taken the place of reading societies. So have literary reviews and book review services, so that lazy pseudo-intellectuals can appear to be well-informed without actually having to read fat books. Discussion groups have replaced the literary society. And the biggest discussion group of all is the Council on Foreign Relations.

But that was only the beginning, Weishaupt said. "In like manner we must try to obtain an influence in the military academies (this may be of mighty consequence), the printing-houses, booksellers shops, chapters, and in short all offices which have any effect, either in forming, or in managing, or even in directing the mind of man: painting and engraving are highly worth our care."4

Weishaupt's strategy still holds. First, the military academies and the military. The Commandant of West Point over the last generation has always been a G.F.R. member.5 Senior commanders are also CFR members. The C.F.R. sponsored many meetings around the country in 1983-84, as it does every year — meetings that featured C.F.R. members in the military. These members included: Bernard W. Rogers, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; John A. Wickham,Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; John T Chain, Deputy Chief of Staff, Plans and Operations, U.S. Air Force; Paul E Gorman, Commander-in-Chief; United States Southern Command, etc.6 The most spectacular case is that of Gen. Al Haig, a mediocre West Point student, who was a colonel when he joined Henry Kissinger's staff in 1969. Four years later, he was a four-star general, skipping the third star (lieutenant general) completely. He catapulted over 240 other general officers.7 He later served as Secretary of State under President Reagan. Not bad for a "verbally challenged" guy!

Second, publishing. Every secret agent needs a "cover." Every conspiracy also needs a cover, as Weishaupt said. Academic books have for two centuries been part of the manipulators' cover. But remember North's law of "harmless" conspiracies: you shouldn't judge a cover by its books. The books may be bland and boring, but their authors are not harmless.

The Trilateral Commission

Things have changed since 1970 that have forced the manipulators to become more open about part of their activities. Millions of Americans now know who they are and what they are. It is now impossible for them to hide completely. So they are attempting to deflect the charge of "conspiracy" by going partially public. This tactic can be seen in David Rockefeller's defense of the Trilateral Commission in a letter to the editor in the New York Times (August 25, 1980):

Is the commission secretive? Not at all. For $10 a year, anyone can subscribe to its quarterly magazine, "Trialogue," and also receive periodic mailings of task force reports. Furthermore, we publish a list of the source of all U.S. contributions in excess of $5,000. The only part of our proceedings that is "off the record" are discussions at commission meetings, and we keep these private to encourage uninhibited criticism and debate.

His letter was clearly pulled out of a computerized word processor, for this canned response contains whole paragraphs that were reprinted in the Saturday Evening Post (October 1980) two months later: "The Trilateral Commission Explained," by David Rockefeller.

A subscription to a magazine which carries no advertising, plus "periodic mailings of task force reports," all for $10 a year! Not a profit-seeking magazine, surely. No, a subsidized propaganda magazine from a secret society that had to be created in 1973 in order to help deflect the heat after 1972 that books like None Dare Call It Conspiracy had produced for the C.F.R. The Trilateral Commission is a kind of heat shield. It is public where it has to be, secret where it has to be ("discussion group secrecy"), and conspiratorial from day one.

"Conspiracy," Plus What Else?

The conspirators hope that people will not believe the story that is contained in a book such as None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Secrecy has been basic to their plans. This secrecy is not so secure as it was prior to 1960. But they still use the tactic of ridiculing all conspiracy theories of history, as we have seen. So they have adopted the tactic of ridiculing as infantile everyone who advocates a conspiracy view of history.

Contrary to what you might think, conspiracy theories can be very sophisticated. They do not simply rely on exposing any particular group of conspirators and then proclaiming, "These people did it to us!" On the contrary, a serious conspiracy theorist relies heavily on social and economic analysis, especially the analysis of ideas: the "climate of opinion."

Let me demonstrate what I mean. The American public's opinion is changing. People are starting to reject the political ideas that allowed the creation of the conspiratorial system of economic control. Will the public now be able to dislodge the power-brokers? If they believe in the existence of this conspiracy, won't the public reaction against domestic socialism accelerate? The opposition thinks so.

The climate of opinion in America is shifting. Ask yourself: "What is more important, the shift in the climate of opinion, or the new facts that bring the book up to date?" If you agree with me about the importance of widely shared ideas, you will say, "the shift in the climate of opinion is more important than the new edition." In other words, it is the big picture that dominates — the shift in opinion of millions of Americans, as well as a growing minority of articulate intellectuals — rather than the effects of some paperback books of the early 1970's. (Unless you want to argue that the earlier books were the primary cause of the shift in the climate of opinion — and I don't think any of the authors is arrogant enough to say it, or stupid enough to think it.)

The Climate of Opinion

Let me put it another way. If some conspirator had put a Mafia contract on Gary Allen, Larry Abraham, and W. Cleon Skousen in 1968, and they had all been murdered, and if None Dare and Naked Capitalist had never been published, would the shift of opinion still be going on? Almost certainly.

All right, let's take it one step farther. Do you think that if someone had put a bomb into a room filled with Rockefellers, Carnegies, and the other conspirators of 1913, no matter how early in the game, do you think their deaths would have stopped the erosion of Constitutional liberties? Yes? No? Maybe? I did not say slowed the erosion; I said stopped.

I'll bet you don't believe that a bomb would have stopped it. Shoot one enemy, and another one appears, on either side of the conflict. Why? Because it is the struggle—a religious struggle over the acceptable world-and-life view, the first principles of society-which is central, not the specific conspirators. It is the script, not the players, which is central.

Yes, there are important participants. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was one. J. Pierpont Morgan was one. "Col." E. M. House was one. But if all three had died at age ten, would the fight over the right to interpret the U.S. Constitution not have taken place? Would it have been a "slam dunk" (to use a basketball analogy) for the good guys? Of course not.

So, what does this say about conspiracies? Like weeds, they need a field to grow in. The field is a climate of opinion—the same field used by the rulers of any society. Change the ideas, and you change the social order. The real conflict is not over money, or military hardware, or votes. The real conflict is over ideas.

One more question. How widespread does the dominant climate of opinion have to be in order for a ruling elite — and all rulers are part of an elite — to maintain control? Does almost everyone in a society need to share the basic presuppositions of the leaders, or only the literate minority which writes and speaks "in the name of" the people, or the Party, or the Volk, or the evolutionary forces of history, or God Himself?. In other words, if a conspiracy gains control of the prestigious outlets for ideas, can its members continue to control the lives of the masses? If not, why not?

We might put it this way: Ira conspiracy persuades the vast majority of a society to change their opinions and agree with the conspirators, can we legitimately cry "foul"? Wouldn't public debate really eliminate the conspiratorial aspect of the articulate minority? If we answer, "yes, it was all done in the open according to the rules," then when we talk about a conspiracy, we must be talking about a group that doesn't do it by the rules. What, then, are the rules — the good and righteous rules — of political competition? And have today's leaders played by these rules? (Hint: when you think of rules of the game, think "Constitution." Furthermore, think "law of God, as revealed in the Bible.")

The conspiracy is powerful. But the key to stopping the conspiracy is above all educational. If it were simply a matter of personal power, a few bombs would do the job. Neither side believes in the power of bombs, as such. What distinguished Lenin from two generations of suicidal Russian revolutionaries was that Lenin believed in centralized Party discipline, newspaper articles, tracts, books, and bombs — probably in that order. Bombs were in last place, as the October Revolution proved in 1917. He captured Russia virtually without firing a shot. Why was he able to do this? Because the Russian rulers, like the Russian people, had lost faith in the moral and intellectual foundations of Old Russia.

Also, the Czar had a massive centralized bureaucracy, all ready and waiting to be captured.8 So, for that matter, did Louis XVI of France in 1789.9

So it is not simply a question of conspiratorial mobilization. It is a question of conspiratorial mobilization within a particular climate of opinion and within particular historical circumstances. Conspirators understand this best of all. They also understand that if any hostile critic of their actions dares to mention the existence of their conspiracy, which has been successful in using the climate of opinion to manipulate the majority, he can be cut off at the knees simply by sneering, "Oh, yes, a conspiracy thesis of history. How infantile."

That sneer, coupled with threats to professional careers, has worked incredibly well. So, academic outsiders necessarily have to do the initial work, people such as Dan Smoot, who wrote the first major exposé of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Invisible Government (1962), got it published by a small conservative maverick publisher, and then sold an incredible one million copies through the mails because he had his own weekly T.V. show. The same is true of Allen, Abraham, and Skousen. These men understood Rushdoony's principle that "intellectual respectability in the eyes of either the liberals or anyone else is an irrelevant matter in the discussion of any question. We must leave the dead to bury the dead."10

Dead and dying men, however, continue to be outraged. Nevertheless, they must keep their outrage concealed. They must appear to be calm, cool, and collected. So they have hired other men to do their work for them. Instead of an outraged cry against conservatives who resist international political convergence, they have hired historians, political scientists, and newspaper editorialists to do their sneering for them. It worked for many decades. It isn't working so well these days.



1 Karl Marx, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" (1850), in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, 3 vols. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), I, p. 185.

2 James Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 93-99.

3 Quoted in John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy (1798); reprinted by Western Islands, Boston, 1967, p. 112.

4 Ibid.

5 Susan Huck, "Lost Valor;" American Opinion (October 1977); "Military," American Opinion (July/August 1980).

6 Council on Foreign Relations, Annual Report 1983-1984, p. 56.

7 Gary Allen, Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State (Seal Beach, California: '76 Press, 1976), p. 119.

8 Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Old Regime (New York: Scribner's, 1974).

9 Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and The French Revolution (4th ed.; Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, [1858] 1987).

10 R.J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1965] 1978), p. 141.



Taken from Conspiracy: A Biblical View

Copyright 1986, Institute for Christian Economics

P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711

Donations are fully tax deductible; checks should be made out to Institute for Christian Economics.

Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved.