EKCAPA Uncovers Stone Henge Conspiracy

Posted by Redshield at 3:48 pm

EKCAPA has uncovered a fresh Conspiracy Theory. Our very own Bluechip decided the other day that he would take a trip to Stone Henge at one in the morning, naively assuming that we live in a free country. However security guards employed to ‘protect’ our British Heritage were downright nasty, refusing to tell him who they worked for (the NWO) and also accusing him of loitering with intent.

What are they hiding? Are they afraid that Geomancers will discover the latent psychic energy in Stonehenge and release a cosmic deaththought on the Reptilian Agenda? Or are they just worried that a stoned druid will take a wizz on it? Either way, we want are henge back!  Take your filthy reptilian digits off it!

The Conspiracy Sausage

Posted by Redshield at 1:09 pm

A couple of months ago, whilst engaged in heated debate with the Chartham Yoda over a spicy chicken ginsters and a fudge brownie Frijj, I discussed the propensity of certain Conspiracy Theorists to shoehorn lots of very different conspiracy theories together into what, for want of a better word we called the Conspiracy Sausage. Now, whenever we meet, with cries of ‘GET IT ALL IN! GET IT IN THE SAUSAGE! we discuss ways in which our ever more unwieldy sausage can be expanded. Atlantis theory rests alongside the 9/11 Truth Movement. JFK theories rub shoulders with Roswell and Reptilian Theory. Come along, there’s room for all in the Conspiracy Sausage. If you have any suggestions, send them to us, and watch the sausage grow in size as well as in richness and flavour.

Project for the New American Century

Posted by Redshield at 12:30 pm

Redshield was planning to write about Ghosts for his newest blog entry, but a certain document has come to light over the last 24 hours that I feel compelled to write about by my inner deamon. Project for the New American Century is a neo – con document drawn up in 1997 by these people:

Elliott Abrams           Gary Bauer William J. Bennett          Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney          Eliot A. Cohen        Midge Decter         Paula Dobriansky

Steve Forbes      Aaron Friedberg        Francis Fukuyama

Frank Gaffney        Fred C. Ikle       Donald Kagan         Zalmay Khalilzad

I. Lewis Libby         Norman Podhoretz       Dan Quayle      Peter W. Rodman

Stephen P. Rosen         Henry S. Rowen       Donald Rumsfeld

Vin Weber        George Weigel        Paul Wolfowitz

Apart from being a who’s who of overweight white golfers, people you’d least like to go to Glastonbury with, people who probably had a less fun but far more productive time at university than I did, and finally a list of people who almost certainly passed their cycle proficiency test, they are also a bunch of nasty neo – cons. They also, in this document, have laid out what they consider to be the direction which America should take in what was than, the new century. Here is just some of the stuff they have written.

Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Note:

1. The accusation of ‘Isolationism’ in the first paragraph. While isolationism got a bad rap, possibly justifiably before the second world war, when flung about in peacetime, it can often be replaced by ‘person who minds there own business’.
2. ‘They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives’ – Basically, this accusation leveled at fellow moderate Conservatives means, they don’t all agree that war is the best way of doing things.
3. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. I wasn’t aware that America led the world, only that it had the highest GDP. This would mean that far from America reluctantly scrambling to the top of the pile because of its natural advantages, there’s a plan to make it the leader of the world.

4. Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? – Which interests? Please enlighten us Dick and the boys. Do you mean the interests stated in the US Constitution? Or do you mean economic interests?

5. ‘The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership’ – This again uses the timidity shown in the second world war as a club to beat us round the head with. This statement should read ‘it is important to shape circumstances before they actually exist’.

6. we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values – Again, what values? Which allies? The French are pretty democratic, they just don’t like killing people. And Zimbabwe are pretty undemocratic, so what’s so special about Iraq I wonder?

Anyway, check it out for yourself: http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

Bohemia Grove

Posted by Redshield at 11:41 am

Thought it would be appropriate to start Fringe Activities with one of the most juicy and engaging conspiracy theories, Bohemia Grove. What exactly is gotten up to amongst the redwood trees? Is it just a bit of corporate fun or are there more sinister forces at work? I started my investigation by watching the Alex Jones documentary,  Inside Bohemia Grove. This is, first and foremost, a highly entertaining documentary, partly made exciting by the clandestine nature of the way in which Jones has to break into the Grove, and partly the sheer amount of beige chinos and polo shirts tucked into belts. Redshield suggests a Bohemia Grove drinking game where every time a pair of chinos is seen the viewer has to down a pint of Kent’s finest.

However, for the uninitiated, here is a brief run down of the Bohemia Grove Conspiracy. Bohemia Grove is effectively a Summer Camp situated in North California and it plays host every summer to some of the worlds richest and most powerful men, who descend in their hundreds to skip amidst the redwood groves, on a break from ruling the world. But if the thought of Donald Rumsfeld and other overweight Americans skipping doesn’t shock you enough, there’s more. For tales have emerged, not only of ridiculous laddish behaviour, but of rampant homosexuality, use of prostitutes and pagan worship, as well as the brokering of deals. So lets put that in 5 easy points.

1. That the Bohemia Grove exists
2. That many of the worlds richest and most powerful men attend it
3. That they broker secret deals there
4. That they engage in sinister pagan rites
5. That they engage in activities that ill befit men in their position.

So, as truth seekers we must test these hypotheses against the hard evidence. Firstly, the Bohemia Grove club does exist. Although there is no way of fully testing this without going there, the accumulated evidence on film and print makes it very unlikely that there would be no Bohemia Grove at all. Moreover, there is no immense attempt at a cover up, even if they do not exactly advertise it extensively. To give a good example, if you search the internet for Bohemia Grove you will not find dates or locations, but a basic Wikipedia entry will show you the clubs history and famous members. So were not talking the openness of the Upper Hardres Village Fete, but still reasonably accessible.

Secondly, there is the alumni. This is not just Phil Daniels and the bloke out of S Club 7. Both of the Bushes have been attendees as well as the usual quota of Rothschilds, Rockafellas and the ubiquitous pantomime uber – villain Henry Kissinger. It is important to note as well that it is a MEN’s club, no women allowed. So, the second accusation is correct in both of its parts, just as in the Bohemia club you have to be correct in both of your parts to join (eh, eh, djgetit). Here is a web source I found, describing the camp members.

Bohemian Grove, a secluded campground in California’s Sonoma County, is the site of an annual two-week gathering of a highly select, all-male club, whose members have included every Republican president since Calvin Coolidge. Current participants include George Bush, Henry Kissinger, James Baker and David Rockefeller — a virtual who’s who of the most powerful men in business and government.

Thirdly, the accusation that they broker secret deals may have a basis in fact. It is strongly rumoured that the Manhattan Project was cooked up there, and even though the club rules and ceremonies forbid it, I think you would have to be fairly naïve to think that you can put the richest men in the world in one place and not get clandestine deals happening to some extent. As to what? Where? How? No one knows. Here is Skeptoid magazine clarifying the ‘Manhattan’ rumour,

‘It turns out that the conspiracy story most often told about the Bohemians is actually true: That the Manhattan Project was planned there, to develop the first atomic weapons. The Bohemian Grove property is vacant 49 weeks out of the year, and when it is, it’s available for private use by members. In September of 1942, Dr. Edward Teller, a club member, reserved the grove and held his meeting there. No other Bohemian Club members were present. So although it’s factually true that the Manhattan Project was planned at the Bohemian Grove, the obvious implication that it was a Bohemian Club project planned by Bohemian Club members is patently false.’

Bullet point four is perhaps the most contentious and famous point. As can be seen in Alex Jones’s documentary, the Grove is full of symbols of skulls and more importantly owl symbols. The owl is the official Bohemia Club symbol and it denotes wisdom. In the first week of a camp the Grovers all engage in a ceremony known as the Incarceration of Care.  When I first saw a creatively edited version of this ceremony it came across as a rather sinister and terrifying cultic rite, however watching the full version brought home to me some of the more mundane aspects of it. Here is the premise:

The Incarceration of Care is a ritual based around the sacrifice of  mankind to the pagan owl God Moloch

Firstly, the ‘Care’ mentioned is actually care, as in worry. The ceremony is designed to be the ritual  burning of care before the camp starts to allow people to enjoy themselves, I saw no indication that Care was meant to represent global humanity. Also Alex Jones assertion that the owl in question was the owl God Moloch appeared to have no basis in fact other than the fact that they are both owls. This is one of the major problems with Conspiracy Theories. Symbology is so Universal in some senses, (as Carl Jung pointed out), that one can find almost any symbol and link it to an ancient culture, it doesn’t mean that it means the same thing. A perfect example of this is the swastika, the symbol of the Third Reich, that was also a Hindu symbol. In, to use a cliché, a global society, we can always find something, somewhere that will back up a point we want to make. Symbology is a notoriously tricky and personal thing. Here is a Skeptoid article which backs up my point

The Bohemians call this the Cremation of Care ceremony, and the name of the antagonist in the coffin is Dull Care. It turns out the term dull care comes from a 1919 Oliver Hardy short film of that title, in which the police force is more interested in being lazy than in chasing bad guys. They leave the “dull cares” of their day behind them, and enjoy their freedom. The Bohos thus kick off their encampment by metaphorically throwing their “cares of the day” onto the sacrificial pyre. The theatrics of the robes and the ceremony are certainly consistent with the dramatic theme of the camp. The giant owl merely represents knowledge, and it’s been the club’s symbol since its inception.

As for the accusation over fumbly goings on in Bohemia Grove, there is no proof of this. It is telling, in my opinion that the objections to Bohemia Grove that started to emerge in the 70’s mainly focused on these complaints, and tended to ignore the fact that all the major leaders in the world were meeting without our knowledge! It shows the skewed sense of morality that we have, (hopefully) emerged from. I suppose this accusation is a bit contentious, because it implies that there is something wrong with homosexuality. But  if our leaders are all having relationships with each other it could have political implications, whether those relationships are hetero, homo, or alien (veiled David Icke reference, first of many). However, I, Redshield, believe that the whole of human history has been an attempt to cover up our homosexuality, hence why the Village People should be seen as freedom fighters. So, this aspect of Bohemia Grove could have implications for my theory, this will be discussed in more detail later.

So, basically, Redshield believes that there are certainly areas of concern within Bohemia Grove. The fact that the elite are not just happy to spend all year with Henry Kissinger, surely a man with the most boring, hypnotic voice ever known, but spend their holidays with him as well, warrants that most foul of modern suggestions, get a life. Secondly, although it is not necessarily a sinister, devil – worshipping camp, the Incarceration of Care is a bit weird. The overwhelming sense that comes from this investigation is that it is frightening, not so much because of what goes on, but because people that are so powerful are engaging in such ridiculous den – making.