The Involuntary Conspiracy

Down The Rabbit Hole

Alex Wallenwein wrote on News With Views:

Okay, so maybe there isn’t a consciously planned conspiracy to subject the world to a one world government. But consider whether there may be such a thing as a “sub-conscious conspiracy.”

What nonsense! How can there be a conspiracy that is subconscious, when the very meaning of the word implies a conscious design to do something, right?

But consider the possibility that there is such a commonality of essential flaws in human nature that makes it appear, from the outside, that there is an active, conscious, and purposeful conspiracy at work. So then, what is human nature? To what extent is human thinking, and therefore action, driven by ego? And what is ego, if it is not the potentially unrestrained drive towards more and more individual power?

If we are willing to be honest with ourselves, we can witness this tendency, and this process, in ourselves at the very smallest of levels — in our own personal interactions. (Sacrificing family, etc. to our own lust pattern which is built on — and builds — nothing more than the sense of ego power we get from having another sexual “conquest”, etc.) …

Read more here.

6 Comments on "The Involuntary Conspiracy"

  1. I would add a different angle to things – something in which one need not intend to conspire but it exists:

    When people come together they talk about different things, and sometimes end up sharing ideas and plans. And sometimes those plans end up taking wing.

    When you’re talking about a few poet-friends at a poetry reading, you may get six people doing three tankas (5 lines, 5-7-5, 7-7) on the subject of Prozac: Yes/No/Maybe (true story). Pushed up to international Heads of State and Corporate C?Os, you end up getting world-spanning activities.

    Add in the fact that Heads of States and C?Os tend to be men of action, and their discussions are more likely to lead to actions that affect us. Add in the tendency to view things from the POV of themselves, their friends and those under them who carry out their wishes; and you get stuff that may very well be intended to benefit everyone but in the end benefits the HoS, the C?Os and their representative states/companies to the detriment of everyone else.


    Note that I’m assuming everyone in such meetings are good men/women who have good intentions and lack of duplicity. Which means I’m also assuming that those who’d intentionally conspire against “their inferiors” would be forever frustrated in their will-to-power and end up as beggars at best.

  2. gwen jackson | Mar 7, 2012 at 4:06 am |

    wow. i disagree with almost every sentence and every premise put forth in this article (pretty much everything humans do is an ego-urge, but ego itself is driven by inescapable biological imperatives programmed by eons of evolution, so whatareyagonnado?). but, i disagree with most everything everywhere, so whateva.

    • Aleph Omega | Mar 7, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

      The ego may be inescapable (at least as long as we are alive). However its drives and urges certainly are not. Try some meditation or psychedelic hallucinogens. If you’re lucky, you may begin to see the destructive thought patterns which have crystalized around your “ego,” and how they are simply one possible option out of many, which you can either choose to engage in, or not.

      I think a big part of the problem is that in the materialist-driven Western world, we *need* men like this. Bureaucrats and businessmen who get all the widgets where they need to go… because who would want that kind of job anyway, that kind of stress and responsibility? We have abdicated our power to a bunch of bean-counters, who (if they are smart) delegate the work to their underlings, and sit back reaping the profits of other people’s labors. The entire system is pathological and parasitical. Unfortunately, we’ve gone so far and grown so fast in the last century alone, we’ve built ourselves into a corner and we see no way of changing the status-quo if we wish to maintain our presently privileged equilibrium. 

      This may not be entirely true, but the system itself (and those who compose it, particularly those in positions of power) resists change. THIS is human nature: the inability to let go, particularly once one has attained an achievement (such as becoming a multi-billionaire, or CEO). Even if these achievements are not personally or spiritually fulfilling, the material diversions and consolation prizes granted by these achievements convinces the individual that they must uphold their power at all costs… after all, they (or their family, as socialization plays a large role) worked so hard to get there, they “deserve” it. We maintain this delusion, individually and as a society by esteeming materialistic objects and desires. If nobody gave a fuck about italian sports cars, private jets, mansions with swimming pools, and having sex with models, these illusions would lose their grip over our collective consciousness, and thus, their power. Unfortunately, as you say, the lower drives of human nature serve to keep us chained to the materialistic way of thinking which leads to beliefs in such things as social Darwinism, exploitation in the name of capitalism, unrestrained “progress” etc.

      How can we change this? It’s a complicated problem, and I think if we had an answer, we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in. But there is one easy and reliable answer, and that is to start the change within yourself.

  3. BrianApocalypse | Mar 7, 2012 at 10:04 am |

    I have theorized along similar lines for a while… Although I don’t agree 100% with the article, I think it’s essentially the right idea. I started abandoning most of the NWO type conspiracy theories once I realized that there is a far more simple and plausible explanation for almost all the international events that are attributed to this “conspiracy”…


  4. perchance to dream | Mar 7, 2012 at 11:44 am |


  5. Liam_McGonagle | Mar 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm |

    Is your desire to be loved destroying civilization?

    I really believe that, to some extent.  I truly believe that if more people were able to actively engage with their self-loathing the world would be a better place.

    Fundies like Santorum seem like they’d be on the right track in one sense–they exhibit a strong suspicion of Human Nature.  Problem is that they project the totality of all actual evils and shortcomings on to an “Other” figure–ironically leaving themselves easy prey to the very vices against which they feel themselves especially vigilant.  Hence the historically higher rates of out-of-wedlock births and divorce in America’s “Bible Belt” region.

    Fundies are engaged with the problem–just not actively, more as unwitting victims than effective combatants.

Comments are closed.