Wars start when one nation moves into the territory of another; depressions occur when markets take unexpected downturns; inflations
occur when prices are driven up by shortages; revolutions start when the people, always spontaneously, rise up to overthrow the existing government. These are the traditional explanations of historical events. Events happen by accident, there do not seem to be any causes.

But this explanation of history leaves gnawing questions in the minds of serious students. Is it possible that government leaders and others planned these events and then orchestrated them to their desired conclusions? Is it possible that even the great catastrophes of history were part of this plan?

There is an explanation of historical events that answers these questions in the affirmative. It is called the Conspiratorial View of History and it is the alternative to the Accidental View, the view that is commonly held today. It is possible, therefore, to summarize the major events of history into two alternative schools of thought:

The Accidental View of History: historical events occur by accident, for no apparent reason. Rulers are powerless to intervene.

The Conspiratorial View of History: historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the people.

James Warburg in his book, The West In Crisis, explains the Accidental View thus: “History is written more by accident than design, often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen.”

Another who has offered the Accidental View as the explanation of the major events of the world is Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor. He has written:

“History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy. . . . increasingly, policy makers are
overwhelmed by events and information.”

But there are those who disagree with the positions of Warburg and Brzezinski. One, for instance, was Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw
many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations.

President Roosevelt has been quoted as saying:

“In politics, nothing happens by accident If it happens, it was planned that way.”

If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events.

But if the events still occur after the government officials had been expected to prevent them, the government officials have failed in their
assigned duties. There are only two explanations as to why they failed:

1. The events overwhelmed them, and could not have been prevented;

or

2. The events were allowed to occur because the officials wanted them to occur.

It is difficult for the casual observer to believe that these incredible events could not have been prevented, as humane people of conscience do not allow harmful events to occur.

If a planned and unwanted event is allowed to happen, those who planned the event would have to have acted in secret so as to prevent
discovery of their plans by those who would be adversely affected.

Planners working in secret to plan an event that the people do not wish to occur are, by definition, members of a conspiracy. Webster’s defines
conspiracy as a “combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose.”

Not only must the Conspirators work in secret, they must make every effort to insure that their plans are not made public. The first task of a conspiracy, then, becomes that of convincing the people that the conspiracy itself does not exist.

This makes the task of uncovering the machinations of the conspiracy all the more difficult.

The promised land story caused the current problems in the world today.

All we read about is conquered the land, conquered the land without telling us the genesis of the land

There are three ways of exposing a Conspiracy:

One is for any of the participants in the conspiracy to break with it and to expose his or her involvement. This takes an extremely courageous
individual, and that type of exposure is indeed rare.

The second group of exposers are those who have unknowingly participated in a conspiratorial planning of an event but who didn’t realize it until later. These individuals, and there aren’t many in the history of the world, have also exposed the inner workings of the conspiracy at great
peril to themselves.

The third method of exposing a conspiracy is for researchers to uncover conspiratorial designs in the events of the past.

There exists a conspiracy, and that it is extremely large, deeply entrenched, and therefore extremely
powerful. It is working to achieve absolute and brutal rule over the entire human race by using wars, depressions, inflations and revolutions to further its aims. The Conspiracy’s one unchanging purpose has been to destroy all religion, all existing governments, and all traditional human institutions, and to build a new world order (this phrase will be defined later) upon the wreckage they have created.

Notice that if the Conspiracy does exist, it will do everything it can to deny the charges of both those who seek to expose it and those who claim to have been a part of it.

There are those, perhaps not knowing the importance of their contributions to the study of the conspiracy, who have added estimates of the size of this ruling group.

One was Walter Rathenau, who in 1909 controlled German General Electric. He said: “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another,
direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”

Another informed observer, Joseph Kennedy, the father of the late president John Kennedy, identified the number of individuals who run
America. He said: “Fifty men have run America and that’s a high figure.” 4

Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professor of History at Georgetown University’s Foreign Service School, and who formerly taught at Princeton and Harvard, has written a thirteen hundred page book entitled Tragedy and Hope. This book, published in 1966, was, according to the author, the result of twenty years of research into the Conspiracy.

Dr. Quigley concludes:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the
radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any group, and frequently does
so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to
examine its papers and secret records.

But Quigley took a step none of the exposers have publicly taken. He admits that he is a supporter of the Conspiracy he has written about:

I have no aversion to it or most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . , but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

The ultimate purpose of this Conspiracy is power. There are some who desire this more than even material goods, although the two frequently go together. One such individual was the previously mentioned Joseph Kennedy.

Family admirer and author Pearl Buck wrote the following in her book, The Kennedy Women :
“Rose Kennedy (the wife of Joseph Kennedy) knew that the man she loved loved a power beyond the power of money. He wanted the power of government, and he would have it.”

The Conspiracy that Dr. Quigley and others saw, then, needs conspirators, and it is logical to ask why illustrious men of wealth and fortune would join such an enterprise. One who answered this question was author Blair Coan who wrote in his book, The Red Web: "The answer is quite the reverse of the question: These men (involved with the Conspiracy) became illustrious primarily because they were part of the Conspiracy.”

So those involved do not become rich and/or illustrious and then join the Conspiracy; they become rich and illustrious because they are members of the Conspiracy.

But what is their motive? What prompts men to seek wealth and position? Former Congressman John Schmitz explains that there is an
additional goal: Powerl Men join the Conspiracy to gain money and then power. Schmitz wrote: “When a person has all the money he needs, his goal becomes power.”

Benjamin Franklin explained this connection between money and power when he said: “There are two passions which have a powerful
influence on the affairs of men. These are. . . love of power and love of money When united. . . they have the most violent effects.”

However, power itself has a corrupting influence on those who seek it.

In an oft-quoted truth, Lord Acton explained power thus:[s] “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [/s]

Monogamy:
The promised land story caused the current problems in the world today.

All we read about is conquered the land, conquered the land without telling us the genesis of the land

The land of Cain and it descendants are the major bane of the world's problems.

Those who seek power will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally cause depressions, revolutions, unleash pathogens into the population and wars in order to further their desire for more power.

This corrupting nature of the very pursuit of power explains why the moral mind of the individual who neither desires
power over others nor understands the desire for such power cannot fathom why power-seekers would want to create human misery through wars, depressions, disease and revolutions.

In other words, the conspirators are successful because the moral citizen cannot accept the conclusion that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.

Another power seeker, the Russian anarchist Bakunin, explained that this process of corruption even affected those dedicated to freedom who were given power to protect the powerless. He wrote that "... the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty .”

The delight in the possession of power over others was explained by
another observer of the power-seeking Joseph Kennedy: “I like Joe Kennedy. He understands power. Power is the end. What other delight is there but to enjoy the sheer sense of control? He would say: ‘Let me see any other motive in the people who command.’ ”

So the motive of the Conspirators has been identified:

It is Power!

AntiBalaka:


The land of Cain and it descendants are the major bane of the world's problems.

That's the genesis.

When God is not a real estate agent wey dey share lands anyhow.. Conquered the land!!!

The method by which the Conspiracy recruits new members to replace those who retire or die is explained by Norman Dodd, an investigator and researcher into the existence of the Conspiracy. Mr. Dodd explained: “The careers of men are watched. The men who indicate that they would be especially capable in terms of the aims of this group are approached quietly and invited into the inner circles. They are watched as they carry out assignments and eventually they are drawn into it under circumstances which make it virtually impossible for them to ever get out of it.”

What is the ultimate goal of the Conspiracy? If total power is the final object, then, any system which maximizes power into the hands of a few is the system to be desired. In terms of government, then, the ultimate form of power is Communism. This is the seat of the maximum power over the economy and of the individual. The Conspirators: “want big government because they understand that Socialism (and Communism as well) is not a humanitarian system for redistributing wealth, but for concentrating and controlling it. They also recognize it as a system for concentrating and controlling people .”

Now you will understanding why western banksters and capitalists funded the Jewish Bolsheviks into power in the old USSR and why they love China and want to unveil a Great Reset aka global communist revolution as dictated by the World Economic Forum.

''You will own nothing and be a happy''

The objectives outlined by the World Economic Forum in their Great Reset also mirrors that of the UN Agenda 2030 to which goal is total global communism under a New World Order of a powerful central global govt.

This conspiracy has been in the works for several hundred years and their goal to create such a powerful communist global order was set for May 1st, 1976 but then came about Hitler and WW2 which set the conspiracy back a few years.

Comprehending how this conspiracy could survive for such a long period of time has been difficult but alas it is well and active and more powerful than ever to achieve its ultimate goal of global communism and the Covid debacle - which has turned science upon its own head by the corrupting lucre and blackmail the conspirators have on their puppets in places like the WHO and in virtually all sits of power across the globe, has made this conspiracy come to light.

One explanation of its lengthy existence was offered by George Orwell, the British Socialist, who wrote Animal Farm and 1984, two books on the subject of absolute power in the hands of a few.

He wrote: “The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important provided the hierarchical structure remains always the same.”

The method by which the Conspiracy recruits new members to replace those who retire or die is explained by Norman Dodd, an investigator and researcher into the existence of the Conspiracy. Mr. Dodd explained: “The careers of men are watched. The men who indicate that they would be especially capable in terms of the aims of this group are approached quietly and invited into the inner circles. They are watched as they carry out assignments and eventually they are drawn into it under circumstances which make it virtually impossible for them to ever get out of it.”

What is the ultimate goal of the Conspiracy? If total power is the final object, then, any system which maximizes power into the hands of a few is the system to be desired. In terms of government, then, the ultimate form of power is Communism. This is the seat of the maximum power over the economy and of the individual.

The Conspirators: “want big government because they understand that Socialism (and Communism as well) is not a humanitarian system for redistributing wealth, but for concentrating and controlling it. They also recognize it as a system for concentrating and controlling people .” It is common for detractors of this position to claim that the last thing that the wealthy of the world want is government control over or ownership of the factors of production. But, as we shall see, Socialism or Communism offers the Conspiracy the greatest vehicle for concentrating and controlling the wealth. This is the ultimate goal of these planners: power over not only the wealth of the world, but also the producers of that wealth, the people themselves. So the Conspiracy uses government to get control of the government, and total government control is their goal.

If government is being used by the Conspiracy to consolidate power into its hands, it behooves those who wish to preserve their freedoms to understand the very nature and function of government. Once the character of government is understood, efforts can be directed against the increase in governmental powers over both the national economy and the lives of its citizens.

A good place to begin such a study is to examine the two sources claimed to be the source of human rights. There are only two, presuming that it is admitted that humans do indeed have rights: either man himself, or someone or something external to man himself, a Creator.

Many of America’s founding fathers were aware of the difference between these two alternatives. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, stated his
concern and understanding thus: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

However, the corresponding alternative explanation argues that our rights come from government, the creature of man himself. This contention holds that man creates government to give man his rights.

A stem warning for those who do not distinguish between these two alternatives came from William Penn. He wrote: “If men will not be
governed by God, they then must be governed by tyrants.”

There are four references to a Creator in the American Declaration of Independence, but certain of America’s leaders are now asking that God must be separated from the affairs of the government. If this separation is made, as Mr. Penn indicated, the people will be governed by tyrants, and future tyrants will do all that they can to separate a belief in God from the existence of government.

A good example of the philosophy that governments grant human rights to their citizens is found in the International Covenants on Human
Rights, passed in 1966 by the United Nations.

It reads, in part:

“The States parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State, in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by
law....”

Animal one dash me human rights!

This document, passed unanimously by all of the parties voting, including the United States, concluded that man’s rights are granted by the
government. It further concluded that these rights could be limited by law; in other words, that which the government grants can be controlled by the granting body, the government. That which the government gives can also be taken away.

Man’s rights under this thought are not very secure. Governments can change, and with the change, man’s rights can disappear. Knowledge of this fact did not escape America’s founding fathers, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ”

Here, then, is the other theory of the source of man’s rights: they are given to man by his Creator. Man’s rights are inalienable (defined as
incapable of being transferred) which means that they can not be taken away by anyone except the entity that gave the rights in the first place: in this case, the Creator.

So here are the two competing and contradictory theories about the rights of man: one holds that they are given by the Creator, and therefore can only be removed by the entity that created them in the first place; the other holds that man’s rights come from man himself and therefore can be limited or removed by man or by other men, as “determined by law.”

Therefore, the man who wishes to protect his rights from those who wish to limit them must protect himself and his human rights by creating an agency that has the power to exceed that exerted by those who violate human rights. The agency created is called government. But granting power to government to protect human rights also grants power to those who can abuse it as a vehicle to destroy or limit the rights of the people who created the government.

Those who wrote the American Constitution realized that this tendency existed when they wrote the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. The purpose of these amendments is to restrict the power of the government to violate the rights of the citizens of the nation. The founding fathers wrote these restrictions with phrases like:

“Congress shall pass no law ”

"The right of the people. . . shall not be infringed.”

“No person shall be . . . deprived.”

“The accused shall enjoy the right”

Notice that these are not restrictions on human rights, but are restrictions on the activities of governments.

If rights are granted by the Creator of those rights, what are rights granted by government? It becomes important to distinguish between a
Right and a Privilege by defining these two terms.

A Right is a freedom to act morally without asking permission;

A Privilege is a freedom to act morally but only after permission has been granted by some governmental entity.

The right to life, then, granted to each individual by his Creator, has now become a privilege. Man lived by permission of the government, which had the power to limit and even curtail the human right to life.

The human rights that the individual wishes to protect are simple in nature, and include the right to Life, Liberty and Property.

These three rights are in essence only one right: the right to Life.

These rights are in accord with man’s basic nature. Man is created hungry and needs to produce food to sustain his life. Without the
right to keep what he has produced (his property) man will surely starve to death. Not only must man be allowed to keep the products of his labors, he must be free to produce the property he needs for his sustenance (the right known as Liberty.)

Governments do not need to take man’s life to kill him. Governments can remove man’s right to property or the freedom to produce the property needed to maintain his life. A government that restricts man’s ability to keep what he produces (his property) has an equal ability to kill a man as surely. We can see how the right to self sustenance and in essence right to life is being slowly but surely being eroded by the current Buhari APC govt which refuses to protect farmers in the rural areas from daily attacks by Fulani invaders bent on a land grabbing expansionist drive.

There are government entities that restrict man’s right to property or his right to liberty without terminating his
life directly. But the effect is still the same.


As can be discerned from the Communist, Klauss Schwabbs of the World Economic Forum, the Communists wish to abolish “private
property,” or the individual’s right to keep what he produces.

One who spoke in favor of the concept of private property was Abraham Lincoln, who said:

“Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may
become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built .”

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.

Liberty is defined as rights with responsibilities. Its opposite, License, is defined as rights with no responsibilities. Another word for License would be Anarchy, or a situation where there are no rules, rights, or privileges. The strong devour the weak; the powerful destroy the powerless. In the animal world, License is defined as “the Law of the jungle.”

Those who love freedom must recognize that others have equal rights to their freedom as well, and that only by recognizing this fact will all be totally free. That means that all individuals must restrict their freedom to harm others, or none will be free to enjoy their rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Creator of man laid down some guidelines about the rights of others. These guidelines are written in the negative in at least six of the Ten
Commandments. The guideline is written "Thou shall not . . . which means that all will be free if all men confine their activities to those which do not harm others.

America’s founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also wrote their guidelines in the negative: “Congress shall
pass no laws . . . But these restrictions enable man to be freer because man’s life would be free of governmental restraints.

Those who wrote the Constitution were concerned about the concept of equal rights. They were attempting to separate themselves from a monarchy as a form of government where certain individuals, the king and his court, had more rights than the common citizens. These individuals had superior rights because of their positions. Conversely, the common people had little if any rights. America’s founding fathers were convinced that they would not allow this inequality to occur in this country as they wrote the founding documents.

They wrote it into the Constitution that all men were created equal, that the lowest had the same rights to Life, Liberty, and Property as did the
highest. Modern man, through the misuse of government, passes laws to make men equal in all areas of their lives. This obvious misunderstanding of man's nature has caused much grief as long as man has been attempting to create government

The solitary man, alone in his environment, need not concern himself with rights and the need to create government to protect those rights. No one exists to plunder his goods or take his life. There is no need to protect his rights. They are secure.

It is only when another individual or groups of individuals join him in his solitary existence that concerns about rights become important.

Each of the inhabitants has an equal right to life, liberty and property. That right is protected as long as each inhabitant recognizes the equal right of the others. No individual nor any group of individuals has the right to take the life, liberty or property of another individual or group of individuals.

There is no question that any individual, or group of individuals, has the ability to violate the rights of any individual. The question being
discussed here is whether or not the violator has the right to do so.

If each individual has the right to his life, liberty and property, and no one has the right to take these rights, then it follows that man must have the right to protect his rights. This right is called the Right to Self Defense. Each individual has this right in equal proportion to any other individual.

If each individual has the right to self-defense and each has it equally, then each individual has the right to pool his individual right with others so that all can protect their rights from those who come to violate all of their rights at the same time.

In other words, if each has the right individually, then all have the right collectively. Such collective poolings of individual rights to self defense are called governments.

Men create governments when they pool their individual rights to self defense to create an agency that has the collective right to protect both the individual and the collective body of individuals.

Men can only grant to government those rights they themselves have. If an individual does not have a right, it is not possible for that individual to grant that right to government. Government can only have those rights that each individual has.