(Footnotes to be included in future version)
By Brishon Martin
(This article was originally written in 1999 in rebuttal to (CFR member and NeoCon/NeoLib) Daniel Pipes’ book: “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.” It was updated July 4th, 2021.)
What is a Platonic Philosopher King? Ayn Rand’s protege, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, has this to say by way of description of Plato’s Philosopher Kings: “…Plato has three broad classes of men: the men in whom reason is the dominant element, that is, the philosophers; the men in whom the spirited is the dominant element, that is…the military class; and the men in whom the appetites are most developed, namely the masses… businessmen and laborers… The question of politics for Plato is: Which group should rule?… The group that has to receive the ruling power in the state is the philosophers. They are the only men of reason… And…the philosophers must have unlimited power in the state. Philosophers, in a word, must be KINGS, absolute rulers… “Education, says Plato, must be wholly controlled by the state. We must have a thoroughgoing censorship of literature, music, philosophy, and science… We will allow people to hear only those ideas that are good for them, as judged of course by the authorities, the philosophers. We will tell people “noble lies,” that is to say, lies that are for the good of the people, as and when it turns out to be necessary. In other words, we are going to engage in out-and-out brainwashing. Thus, in Plato’s state, the ministry of propaganda and public enlightenment and its complement, the ministry of CENSORSHIP, are of the first importance… Plato is an ardent state-worshiper, and advocate of the view that individuals should systematically sacrifice themselves to serve the state.”
The definition of conspiracy from Oxford Languages is: “the action of plotting or conspiring,” and “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” From Wikipedia “A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking.” Combining those definitions, a “conspiracy theory” should be a “rational type of abstract thinking about a” “secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” By that definition, a conspiracy theory doesn’t carry the negative connotation of the irrational. Yet, in our modern culture, especially in the US, that negative connotation is widespread. How did this happen? In practical terms this article gives you a lot of information:
In the West, and in America particularly, we have grown accustomed to a range of terms which function as form of psychological warfare. These terms stigmatize and stifle a group of people and any debate about their models of reality. A sampling of these weaponized terms range from “Anti-vaxxers;” “anti-maskers;” and the grandaddy of them all is the all-purpose smear: “conspiracy theory,” or “conspiracy theorist.” If you have heard these smears aimed at a person or group and felt primed to dismiss some theory, some person, or some group, as de-facto irrational and thus unworthy of consideration because their views are outside the mainstream; or if you have been afraid to express your views on a controversial issue because you fear being stigmatized with one of these smears, then you have experienced your mind under assault. Further, if you have used these terms as pejoratives against others — without extensive investigation — then you have succumbed to the attack and become a dupe, — perhaps without realizing the harm you do to yourself and others when you sling this kind of weaponized language.
The term “Anti-concept” was introduced by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, in her article, “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing” and she stated in this article that anti-concepts: “consist of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept – a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a ‘package-deal’ of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a ‘package-deal’ whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.”(*) The ‘package-deal,’ or trick, with the anti-concept “conspiracy theory” is that it packages together conspiracy with irrationality vaguely implying that it is irrational to believe in the existence of conspiracies. However, it is not intended to smear all theories involving conspiracies. There are some conspiracies, or NARRATIVES, that the creators and knowing pushers of this anti-concept want you to believe – their own.
People’s models of the conspiracies that groups engage in can be rational or irrational. “Conspiracy Theory” is aimed at obliterating non-elite promoted, yet true or legitimate and thus rational models of a conspiracy/s. The smear “Conspiracy Theory” functions to demotivate and undermine consideration of those who challenge the official narratives of the elite, Internationalist/Globalist, Philosopher Kings. For example, a rational narrative supporting those who don’t embrace vaccines (or untested gene therapies); those who don’t embrace wearing masks; those who oppose “Vaccine Passports” (which are planned as the beginning of having all our medical — AND PERSONAL — data on databases which will provide the basis for our Chinese-like Social Credit scores that the Philosopher Kings will use to RANK our status as their chattel).
Besides being an anti-concept, as it is widely used today, “Conspiracy Theory” is often accompanied by a battery of logical fallacies including: ad hominem; appeal to authority; and the argument from intimidation. The intended, and widespread, effect in popularizing this all-purpose smear is to make people dependent on “Leaders;” governments; on mainstream media; the UN; and on other globalist-controlled “authorities” (including “leaders,” “doctors,” “scientists,” and technocrats like Bill Gates, Faucci, Biden, Schwab, Kissinger, etc.) to determine which conspiracies are within the bounds of reason and which are not. In fact, we hear a chorus of globalist propagandists assuring us that if we doubt the mainstream media, or the “authorities,” then we are “crazy tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists.” But why do they attack those who disbelieve the mainstream narratives on the cause/s of events? David Rockefeller gives us an indication with this quote from 1991: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” The “plan for the world” Rockefeller is confessing here is a global government which has many names: “New World Order,” “Technocracy,” “Global Governance,” “Internationalism,” “Globalism,” “Ecumenism,” etc.
Rockefeller’s “Supranational…intellectual elite” are essentially the same as Plato’s “Philosopher Kings,” and Rockefeller is, yet again, quite open about where the elite Philosopher Kings are leading humanity (from his 2003 autobiography): “Some even believe [the Rockefellers] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.” While I don’t generally trust the words of those from the Philosopher King predatory class, in this case I won’t argue with him.
Rockefeller is not the only Philosopher King to let the cat out of the bag about their end-goal. Through the years the Philosopher King’s marching of humanity toward world government has been an open secret for those with the time and inclination to investigate the elite’s own organizations and documents. I have been so inclined since at least the publication of Dr. Peikoff’s 1984 book “The Ominous Parallels: the End of Freedom in America,” where he argues that America is going FASCIST. I concur. In fact, I maintain that humanity is witnessing the end game of a transformation from relative freedom to global fascism. The transition to fascism could not happen without a secret conspiracy because those of us to be controlled would be resistant to it. Thus, SECRET plotting and machinations by the predatory Platonic Philosopher Kings, who are conspiring against our Individual Rights, is a vital part of this transformation.
While the goal, herein, is not to promote or demote any particular alternative theory, model, or narrative about important historical events that have taken place – events which usually led to wars or totalitarian laws or both — I want to cite some examples of how going against the mainstream globalist narrative can bring on the “Conspiracy Theory” charge, a charge which strikes fear in the hearts of many particularly journalists and academics. This charge works as a disciplinary device that has been effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. This off-limits nature of raising legitimate questions about official narratives destined to inform public opinion and thereby supposedly “public policy” include:
(*) The 1963 JFK assassination and the CIA-informed Warren Commissions conclusions with its “The Lone Gunman” theory;
(*) The 1964 “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” which was used as the Casus Belli for expanding the Vietnam War;
(*) The events surrounding Israel’s bombing of a Naval ship the USS Liberty in 1967 killing 34 US soldiers;
(*) The events surrounding “Ruby Ridge,” “Waco,” and the Oklahoma City Bombing;
(*) The government’s theory of a conspiracy surrounding the events on 911 and the official report on this event, (e.g., why Kissinger, a friend of Bin Laden’s family, was, at first, put in charge of the investigation), plus “The Patriot Act” enacted in its wake;
(*) The (now acknoweldged) problems in the government’s claims that Iraq had WMD and why it was attacked despite no ties to the events of 911 and the same with the war in Afganistan etc.
As human beings, we have evolved in a context where our very survival depended on belonging to, and being accepted by, groups. Feeling hesitancy, or fear, about believing or doing things which might get us abandoned or attacked by the group is commonplace. Expressing skepticism with our social group(s) can be threatening and may indeed subject us to an increased risk of abandonment or attack. Social groups typically have a kind of immune system to help them survive, sometimes at the expense of individuals in them. Like Plato — the father of collectivism — Platonic Philosopher Kings embrace collectivism for the masses, which overtly sacrifices the individual to the agendas and will of the Philosopher Kings — particularly the top Philosopher King. I think it’s obvious that those willing to sacrifice even the lives of other humans will have no hesitancy in engaging in weaponizing language. That this weaponizing of language has taken place is not benign or accidental but rather it’s a type of strategic control, a form of mind-control.
The popularization of the smear of “Conspiracy Theory” goes back to the CIA and its notification to its bureaus about the fact that many were questioning the official narrative put out about the events in Dallas in 1963 and the Warren Commission’s “Magic Bullet Theory.” The CIA itself informed the Warren Commission.“ To quote: “Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the ‘New Right.’ Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively ‘weaponizing the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings… the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question… CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request… The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”(*)
The CIA’s strategic counter-attack to individuals coming up with alternative models or theories of what happened in Dallas, was to weaponize our language with “Conspiracy Theory” and it was not the only time the globalist Platonic Philosopher Kings weaponized language. In Rand’s 1971 article “Credibility and Polarization” she further states about “anti-concepts” the following: “The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate… One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad, undesirable, socially destructive — evil. It’s something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It…serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits…of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country – which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat… It is doubtful…that one could get away with declaring explicitly: ‘Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!‘… If, however, one declares ‘Don’t let us polarize,’ and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.”
If the smear “conspiracy theory/ist” stands in your mind as meaning a de-facto irrational conspiracy theory then what room is left for a rational conspiracy theory? Motivated by fear and unconstrained by knowledge, anti-concepts undermine one’s motivation to think thoughts or create objective models, or theories — unapproved by the mainstream “authorities,” or not.
Objective standards of trustworthiness (as high as those that apply in an honest court of law) should apply to any “leader,” billionaire, government official, the United Nations, or to their frontmen. And these very people have been caught lying, or engaged in corruption, countless times in order to gain or keep power. Just in the US, recall the Watergate break-ins and scandal from the Nixon era; Iran-Contra “guns for rebels” and “No new taxes” from the Reagan-Bush era; continuing the Bush dynasty such whoppers as “Weapons of mass destruction” and “Mission Accomplished;” then the bald-faced, and televised, lies and courtroom testimonial evasions with Clinton (vis-a-vis Lewinski), and his ties to pedophile blackmail ringleader Jeffery Epstein (ties shared by Trump, Bill Gates and many others). As for “Covid came from a Bat not from illegal and immoral research;” “Untested shots are safe;” “Protestors are Domestic Terrorists;” “Health or Green Passports are for your safety;” keep this historical context of deceats in mind when weighing the credibility any claims coming from the Philosopher King’s stable of minions.
Instead of being intimidated, or appealing to an unreliable, untrustworthy authority, when trying to suss out the cause of a political event or agenda, we should ask: (1) Who has the motivation – who benefits?; (2) who had or has the opportunity; (3) who has the means; and (4) who has a historical track record of doing similar things — especially when it comes to a track record of seeking global dominance. Could the groups that benefited the most from an event or agenda, who had the most opportunity, greatest means, and best track record, have conducted it themselves as a “False Flag” or enabling event? With the The Covid-19 “crisis” magnificently dove-tailing with the “Great Reset,” “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Gate’s “Decade of Vaccines,” “Green/Vax passports,” and “having no private property,” huge numbers of people are waking up to our Philosopher King’s war against us. Their unifying and globalizing agenda has been pushed for decades by: the United Nations; its NGOs and “Public/Private” [FASCIST] partners; globalists of all stripes; and their organizations and foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, Davos, Bilderberg, CFR, RIIA, and many other institutions including the Catholic Church and Silicon Valley’s fascist and heavy-censoring high-tech Guilds or Cartels. Just recently 20+ world leaders called publicly for a “new global settlement.”
In sum, the Platonic Philosopher Kings, their functionaries, and even unwitting dupes, are weaponizing language in an effort to make us confused, fearful and above all OBEDIENT in order to make themselves globalist totalitarian masters of the “New World Order”(George Bush Sr.). They are using weaponized language to advance their agenda of “One neck for one leash” as Rand puts it. One of their predatory battle tactics is an insidious abuse of language and communication which goes beyond propaganda and truth suppression, to the prevention of wayward and unapproved thoughts; accusations of mental illness; and charges of “Domestic Terrorism.” As the brilliant investigative journalist Whitney Webb reports: “It is important to point out that such initiatives, whether HARPA [the new federal agency…that would work with the Department of Justice] or [former Federal Attorney General] Barr’s newly announced program, are likely to define “mental illness” to include some political beliefs, given that the FBI recently stated in an internal memo that “conspiracy theories” were motivating some domestic terror threats and a series of questionable academic studies have sought to link “conspiracy theorists” to mental illnesses. Thus, the Department of Justice and “mental health professionals” have essentially already defined those who express disbelief in official government narratives as both a terror threat and mentally ill — and thus worthy of special attention from pre-crime programs.” Seems the Emperor feels like disrobing.
If there is an honest and benevolent desire to stem a supposed rising tide of irrational theories going against government narratives there is a supremely effective way to stem such irrational theories: end the secrecy; open up the archives; declassify all the relevant documents and evidence; and stop destroying evidence. But when this has been suggested the answer is that secrets must be kept for the purpose of “national security.” In other words, the Globalist Philosopher Kings hide behind the fig leaf of protecting the nations to protect their globalist monarchy. When and if the secret archives are opened up and independent and honest historians are allowed to study and publish their findings we will get much better history. For example, “Tragedy and Hope,” (by Bill Clinton’s mentor Carol Quigley) came out of the “Council of Foreign Relations” (CFR) opening their archives to Quigley. Similarly, “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300” came out of The British government’s archives being opened to historian Dr. John Coleman; not to mention Antony Sutton’s excellent work on the West creating the BogeyMan of the USSR with the “Cold War.”
Has the US National Security Act (1947), or the USA Patriot Act made us more or less secure? Here, the ACLU says less: https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security As it is NOT the security of a nation, but rather the security of the International Globalist Technocratic Elite Platonic Philosopher Kings that is being protected by all this secrecy, instead of smearing “Conspiracy Theorists,” do yourself, and other autonomous, independent freedom lovers, the honor of expecting the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The need to come up with theories to model reality is necessary for all humans to function in reality. Smearing us as crazy, mentally ill, or “Domestic Terrorists” does not change or address that need. Appealing to the fallacy of “Ad Hominem” and the use of anti-concepts are what one would expect from someone who is guilty and who seeks to hide their crimes and predatory motives. When asked to open their archives, if government’s balk tell them what they tell us: “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.” Putting a finer point on it: journalist and researcher JAMES CORBETT puts it like this: “Although we live in a time when it is possible for nebulous government agencies [and fascist cartels] to know every detail of our life…we are also living in an age of unprecedented ignorance about what our own governments are actually doing… Somehow we’re expected to go along with the sophomoric sophism that if we ‘have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.’ Yet, at the same time we are asked to believe that the government must keep all manner of information secret from the public in order to carry out its work of “Protecting” the public.”
Finally, and in view of the unprecedented positions taken in regard to “Social Justice/Communism and vaccines by our first ever Jesuit Pope, here’s Dr. Leonard Peikoff tying in humanity’s current decent into global fascism to the historical masters of Platonic Philosopher King Totalitarianism: “…It is instructive to observe that PLATO is the father of Western RELIGION and the father of Western COMMUNISM and that both of those are beautifully integrated in his philosophy to form one coherent whole. This is a very helpful identification when you observe that the two branches of his decedents [COMMUNISM & CHRISTIANITY] pose as warring antagonists…” For more on Pope Francis’ Platonic totalitarian politics see this excellent article by Stephen Hicks and Maria Marty: