(NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the CFR is the Council on Foreign Relations, the WTO is the World Trade Organization, the WEF is the World Economic Forum, and the IMF is the International Monetary Fund. The “European Council” and the “Council of the European Union” and the “European Commission” are three distinct entities.)
The reader might also add the political leadership of Brazil, India, and South Africa.
Upon reflection, one could also name the richest people in the world and the people who lead the biggest businesses and companies in the world. To that could be added religious leaders, like the Pope and Dalai Lama, and media leaders, who influence millions of followers on social media, other internet venues, television, and radio. Famous athletes and coaches could be included in the list.
All of the above are certainly influential and powerful people. To be added to that list are, however, people whose names, affiliations, and job titles are unknown to the reading public. These people are the “insiders” as historian Gary Allen describes them.
Some of the “insiders” have job titles which sound humble and obscure, but persist in governments and bureaucracies as political leaders come and go. Some of them are by accident of birth well connected to various leaders. Some have knowledge and expertise which make them valuable, or which give them the ability to manipulate.
In the media, some of the “insiders” belong to that class which is known as the “opinion makers.” While nominally powerless, they exert great influence on society. On platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, and many others — in an earlier generation, they were newspaper columnists and radio commentators — they have no governmental authority or power, but nonetheless can shape public opinions and perceptions.
Other “insiders” are invisible and obscure. Their names don’t show up in Google searches, but their influence circles the globe.
These “insiders” are networked among each other, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, and form a bloc. Much more subtle than a Cold War bloc, this bloc moves silently and invisibly behind the scenes. Viewers all know the faces, voices, and opinions on YouTube, TikTok, and other apps, but who are the “old men” on the Boards of Directors who operate those apps? Who makes those faces, voices, and opinions possible?
And why does the viewing public feel the need to agree with one or another of those media influencers?
Historian Gary Allen explains:
One thing which makes it so hard for some socially minded people to assess the conspiratorial evidence objectively is that the conspirators come from the very highest social strata. They are immensely wealthy, highly educated and extremely cultured.
These “opinion-makers” have millions of hits and millions of followers on their platforms. The average viewer will wonder if they know something and if they should earn our respect.
But these conspirators — Gary Allen uses the word, but the reader should distinguish between those who are conspirators and those who are unwitting instruments of the conspiracy — might not be worth the public’s respect. They might know some secrets, but those are sinister secrets, secrets which make these “influencers” guilty, not honorable.
Or these “influencers” might know very little, and be mere unknowing puppets.
These familiar faces, often the facade behind which lurk much more powerful but unfamiliar faces, do not work for the well-being of their fellow citizens. Instead of a citizen’s rights, they are motivated by a conspiracy’s ability to control.
Instead of maximizing each human’s right to make decisions, these influencers enable an international conspiracy to control the lives of individuals.
It is a global conspiracy. It extends beyond the political and partisan squabbles within any one nation. In the United States, the Democrats might argue with the Republicans. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party might argue with the Labour Party. In Germany, the Social Democrats might argue with the Christian Democrats. But these divides are irrelevant and insignificant to the much deeper and quieter conspiracy which includes members of all these parties, and includes many others as well.
The goals of this conspiracy are many and nuanced, but one element unites all these goals: control. The conspiracy works to control, to remove freedom, to remove liberty, and remove the individual’s ability to make meaningful choices.
Gary Allen writes:
Many of them have lifelong reputations for philanthropy. Nobody enjoys being put in the position of accusing prominent people of conspiring to enslave their fellow Americans, but the facts are inescapable.
The international conspiracy is quite adept at using social psychology. The phrase “social psychology” is used to describe “how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others,” in the words of one textbook.
The global conspiracy — it makes no difference whether it’s called a “socialist” or a “communist” conspiracy, and may even be called, in some cases, a “capitalist” conspiracy — uses social psychology effectively, as Gary Allen notes:
Many business and professional people are particularly vulnerable to the “don’t jeopardize your social respectability” pitch given by those who don’t want the conspiracy exposed. The Insiders know that if the business and professional community will not take a stand to save the private enterprise system, the socialism through which they intend to control the world will be inevitable.
For the global conspiracy, socialism and communism are means to an end. The goal is control, and these socio-economic ideologies offer an excuse for those in power to control individuals and to gain yet more power. The rank-and-file members of socialist and communist movements may indeed have good-hearted desires to alleviate poverty and work toward some version of justice. But the leaders of those organizations see only the opportunity to amass more power for themselves.
There is a certain insincerity and cynicism with which wealthy industrialists fund and promote socialist movements. Billionaires in the twenty-first century world economy obtain and maintain their prosperity by using the “free market” version of capitalist economics.
In the various versions of socialism which these movements espouse, these billionaires would lose the source of their money, because there would be no free market, and they would lose much of the wealth which they already have, because of massive property taxes and wealth taxes. So why would these rich women and men promote socialist schemes?
They have no desire to fully implement utopian socialist visions. Instead, they merely institute those aspects of socialism which would give them institutional control over the lives of individuals and control over businesses and economies.
Gary Allen explains how the “insiders” use a combinations of social psychology and economic pressure to exact compliance:
They believe that most business and professional men are too shallow and decadent, too status conscious, too tied up in the problems of their jobs and businesses to worry about what is going on in politics. These men are told that it might be bad for business or jeopardize their government contracts if they take a stand. They have been bribed into silence with their own tax monies!
Insincerity and cynicism are also visible as the “insiders” embrace various social causes.
Race and racism have become focal points for such social movements during the first quarter of the twenty-first century. The opinion-makers, insiders, and influencers fund and promote such movements, repeat the slogans and programs of the movements, and are happily seen in the media with the leaders and members of the groups which the movements claim to help. Yet their own personal lives remain surprisingly free of diversity. This is true of political leaders, media personalities in music and movies, and other types of influencers.
Another topic among the social movements of the era is that of gender and sexuality. Here, too, the global insiders offer insincere but highly visible support. On the one hand, those wealthy and powerful individuals energetically proclaim their alliance with non-standard concepts of gender and sexuality; on the other hand, among their own friends and family, they tolerate only the most traditional understandings of gender and sexuality. Members of the conspiracy see the gender/sexuality questions only as one more way to control people by having a connection to what those people see as a component of their identity.
A third example is found in the current concerns about climate. Global insiders endorse various “green” movements to protect the environment. Yet these same insiders have the largest “carbon footprints” on the planet. They build or buy large and expensive structures in low-lying areas near the seacoast, revealing thereby that they do not anticipate rising ocean water levels. But the “green” movements offer them further opportunities to control: numerous regulations and taxes.
The pattern is clear: wealthy capitalists who promote socialism; people who insist on traditional marriage structures for their friends and family but promote alternative understandings of gender and sexuality; people who use massive amounts of fossil fuel and don’t believe in rising sea levels, yet promote “green” politics.
Those who seek only power and control use these social groupings as a facade to cover their activities and as instruments to manipulate individuals and societies into cooperating with their deceptive actions.
