M.A.C.: Mutually-Assured Corruption

Government, whatever its de jure status, strongly tends toward oligarchy. The bigger the government the stronger this tendency will be, since then the stakes of exercising a disproportionate influence over government policy is raised (as big government has the ability to, e.g., make or break business fortunes via its policies and how it chooses to enforce them).[1] That is true every bit as much for formal democracies. Consequenty, under government, the strong inclination is a winnowing effect whereby those who rise to the top of the private sector and the government sector are those who are willing to "play along to get along," i.e., amenable to supporting the furtherance of the political establishment's power.

Such applies to media outlets and universities, as well[2]; which, when combined with the government's own schooling and propaganda, inculcates the largest part of individuals' Weltanschauung from cradle to grave: the contents of that worldview being rather thoroughgoing, if muddleheaded and hodgepodge, forms of etatism, accompanying a high degree of political naïveté which such a position implies. Hence, the very intellectual tools which are prerequisite for sustaining an effective defense of liberty are absent most people.

So also due to that effect of winnowing, there tends to be a confluence of ideology at the top level, for accrument of power becomes its own purpose as the government moves toward its logical conclusion: the total state, and all the horrors that come with it. Distinctions such as Democrat and Republican, "liberal" and conservative, etc., are useful for providing hoi polloi with innocuous distractions, but they mean little at the top echelon.[3]

Since all governments (including totalitarian dictatorships) ultimately can only exist due to the "consent" of its subjects (at least "consent" in the sense of resignation), it's understandable why the oligarchic nature of government would not be widely publicized by the political establishment within a formal democracy.

The process of tendency toward oligarchy I've outlined above is intrinsic to government due to the inherent, perverse incentive structures which obtain under government (i.e., the internal logic of the system). Ultimately it doesn't matter how pure and good the intentions are of the people who set up the government, nor what type of government is nominally instituted: so long as the defining feature of government exists--that of a regional monopoly on ultimate control over the law--then this process cannot be avoided, since the inherent incentives of the system are such as to reward actors who bring about such outcomes (being that one who is able to inordinately influence the policies of a government can use that influence for his personal benefit and that of his friends, whereas liberty for society is a general benefit which accrues to no one in particular). All the good intentions in the world are no match against perverse incentives.

The foregoing is the political economy basis for understanding government's tendancy toward oligarchy. But I'll here provide extensive empirical evidence to further show that worldly praxis matches the analysis.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted in a private letter only published after his death:

""
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson--and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States--only on a far bigger and broader basis.
""

(From President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933; contained in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt [New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950], pg. 373.)

The history which Franklin Roosevelt invokes in his above comment is quite telling, and all the more relevant to the current economic ills which the world is experiencing. President Andrew Jackson was a staunch critic of central banking, and he led the movement that ended the Second Bank of the United States. So in writing the above, Roosevelt was criticizing the Federal Reserve System and the monied families (e.g., the Rockefellers) which put it in place, whom Roosevelt refers to as the actual owners of the U.S. government and whom Prof. Carroll Quigley would later write about.

But the most important point of Roosevelt's above statement is that he is therein claiming that he is merely a figurehead. Moreover, he's telling this to Col. Edward Mandell House, who was an old government insider and previously the advisor to President Woodrow Wilson--that is, Roosevelt took it for granted that House would already know that he was merely a figurehead (i.e., Roosevelt's statement of "as you and I know").

Deeply contemplate the foregoing. Franklin Roosevelt is widely regarded as quite possibly the most powerful U.S. president to ever exist, with the only other plausible contender for that title being Lincoln. And the U.S. presidency is commonly considered the most powerful position on Earth in the history of the world. Yet here Roosevelt maintains that he's merely a titular head. And that he says to a deeply-connected government insider in a manner which demonstrates that he's providing no great revelation, i.e., he expects House to know exactly what he's talking about.

Roosevelt in the above letter mentioned President Woodrow Wilson ("W.W."). Below is what Woodrow Wilson himself wrote concerning this same matter:

""
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

...

and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
""

(From Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People [New York and Garden City: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1913] http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811 .)

Here's some choice quotes from David Rockefeller:

""
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of 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 am proud of it.
""

(From David Rockefeller, Memoirs [New York, N.Y: Random House, 2002], pg. 405.)

So here, in no uncertain terms, David Rockefeller proudly admits to being part of a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" and "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world ..." As he states: "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

And,

""
One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. ... There is a very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive. ... The enormous social advances of China have benefitted greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. ... The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.
""

(From David Rockefeller, in his article "From a China Traveler," New York Times, August 10, 1973, pg. 31.)

The below is from Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt:

""
The word "Establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House.

Most people are unaware of the existence of this "legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area.
""

(From Edith Kermit Roosevelt, "Elite Clique Holds Power in U.S.," Indianapolis News, December 23, 1961, pg. 6.)

For the history on how the "capitalist" (i.e., mercantilist) elite in the U.S. bankrolled Communism as well as National Socialism, see the below scholarly books by libertarian Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D.:

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html

(Note: Chapter I of the above book refers to a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch cartoon illustration by Robert Minor. This can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Robert-Minor-Dee-Lighted-1911.png .)

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Suffolk, England: Bloomfield Books, 1976) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/index.html
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/sutton_wall_street/index.html

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D. (Billings, M.T.: Liberty House Press, 1986) http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.html
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/sutton_best_enemy/index.html

See also:

"Thyssen Funds Found in U.S.," International News Service (INS), July 31, 1941 http://www.infowars.com/print_prescott.htm

Vesting Order Number 248, Federal Register, November 7, 1942 http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting.htm
http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting%20248.gif

"Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed," John Buchanan, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 1, October 10, 2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20040510030611/http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link

"'Bush-Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951'--Federal Documents," John Buchanan and Stacey Michael, New Hampshire Gazette, Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20031119040002/http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2

"How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power," Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, Guardian (U.K.), September 25, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

"How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis," Attorney John Loftus, former U.S. Department of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor and current President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, September 27, 2000 http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html
http://www.john-loftus.com/Thyssen.asp

The Bilderberg group is the top-tier of the globalist ruling elite. Groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission are the Bilderberg group's more public organizational branches which help to enact the agenda of the Bilderberg group.

Reuters acknowledges that the Bilderberg group of European royalty and international central bankers groomed Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for the U.S. Presidency and British Prime Ministry, respectively:

"Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweden," Peter Starck, Reuters, May 23, 2001 http://www.propagandamatrix.com/reuters_bilderberg.html

As the below BBC Radio report reveals from uncovered archived Bilderberg documents, the European Union and the euro European Union single-currency were both the brainchild of the Bilderberg group and secretly planned since the first Bilderberg group meeting in 1954:

"Club Class," Simon Cox, BBC Radio Four, July 3, 2003 http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bbc_radio_4_bilderberg.mp3
http://web.archive.org/web/20051023125305/http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bbc_radio_4_club_class.mp3
http://web.archive.org/web/20030714183005/http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/1624491.php

See also:

"Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group," Bill Hayton, BBC News, September 29, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm

"Confessions of a Globalist: Bilderberger Admits Influence on World Decisions," James P. Tucker Jr., American Free Press, Issue #42, October 17, 2005 http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/confessions_of_a_globalist.html

"Elite power brokers' secret talks," Emma Jane Kirby, BBC News, May 15, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3031717.stm

"World government in action," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, May 16, 2003 http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606

"The masters of the universe," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, May 22, 2003 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

For more information on the Bilderberg group, see the below news archives:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_bilderberg.html

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.html

For the most recent Bilderberg meeting, see:

"Castrated U.S. Media Remains Obediently Silent On Bilderberg: Not a single mention in corporate press of 125+ global power brokers meeting behind closed doors," Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, June 9, 2008 http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/060908_castrated_media.htm

As Lord Acton noted, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (from a letter by Acton to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 1887). One of the main pleasures and prerogatives of those who seek such power is the exercise of it. And when the world is one's oyster and one has grown tired of the usual thrills that money can buy, combined with effective legal impunity (so long as they remain servants of the establishment), the tastes of elites often seek out more bizarre and verboten thrills. For voluminous documentation on their more saturnalian escapades, see the below post by me:

"Documentation on Elitist Child Sex-Slavery, Snuff Films and Occultism," James Redford, September 3, 2007 http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4468

Related to the previous item, in the below post by me, I provide massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them--including homosexually anally raping them--and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government:

"Crushing Children's Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom," TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth

On the matter of the intensive conditioning of the public by government to recoil from conspiracy charges which inculpate it (while at the same time accepting the mendacious, anti-veridical and self-serving conspiracy theories the government promulgates), the following passage by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard is quite edifying:

""
It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ('We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.
""

(From Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State," Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays [Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974]: http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp .)

The inherent, unchangeable nature of government is colossal conspiracy. If one accepts the validity of libertarian ethics, this conclusion is unavoidable. Recall that conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something improper to others (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). But even aside from libertarian ethics, the mere fact that governments set for themselves double-standards is alone quite enough to logically demonstrate that governments themselves consider their own actions improper (i.e., if their same actions which they do to others were to be done to them). Thus, the conclusion that government itself is the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist or that could ever exist is logically unavoidable.

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then *by definition* the U.S. government's offical fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own non-combatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)

All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz., the Civil War; etc.)

Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that--but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite piddling by comparison.

Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a logical subset of terrorism, and the word terrorism originally referred exclusively to government actions: i.e., the Reign of Terror in France against critics of the state, which was done according to the law--and later on the word terrorism was used to refer to other governments), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control. In the below post by me is contained voluminous amounts of documentation which refutes the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks, as well as documentation on many other government-staged acts of terrorism:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," TetrahedronOmega, September 30, 2005 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

----------

Notes:

1. Witness the ridiculous legal persecution of Michael Milken and Martha Stewart, and the absurdist cases brought against Microsoft. Even the richest of moguls know that should the government, for whatever reason, take a disliking to them that it can trump up preposterous charges against them and a large portion of the public will cheer.

See also "Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm: Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says," Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen with contribution from Richard Drezen, Washington Post, October 13, 2007; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485_pf.html

Excerpt from the above article:

""
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
""

2. For extensive documentation regarding this matter, see "The Major Media is Owned by the U.S. Government," TetrahedronOmega, December 31, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125&mforum=libertyandtruth

3. For example, Bill Clinton calls the Bushes his surrogate family, and vacations with them regularly. Hillary Clinton has long had regular private dinners with Rupert Murdoch and she was politically supported by Murdoch, who was helping her raise funds for her presidential bid.

John Kerry and Bushes Sr. and Jr. are all Bonesmen in the occult sociey of the Brotherhood of Death (a.k.a. the Order of Skull & Bones at Yale), of which occult society was instrumental in the funding of Hitler and the Nazis. Bonesman Prescott Bush (Bush, Sr.'s father) had one of his banks and a number of his companies seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act for his financing of the Nazis even during wartime.

Below are some articles on the Clintons being exceedingly close family friends of the Bushes:

"Bill Clinton Talks Heart Surgery on 'Letterman,'" Associated Press, June 17, 2005 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159851,00.html

From the above article:

""
During a recent appearance together in Houston, Clinton noted that Barbara Bush had taken to calling Clinton "son."

"I told the Republicans in the audience not to worry, every family has one--you know, the black sheep, kind of drifts off," he said. "I told them, I said, 'This just shows you the lengths at which the Bushes would go to get another president in the family and I wish I could get them to adopt Hillary.' "
""

See also:

"Opposites attract," Julian Borger, Guardian (U.K.), July 1, 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1518633,00.html

"Inside Politics," transcript, CNN, June 17, 2005 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/17/ip.01.html

"Verbatim," Time, June 20, 2005 http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501050627-1074169,00.html

"Barbara Bush Calls Bill Clinton 'Son,'" Drudge Report, June 17, 2005 http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/clinton_barbara_bush_calls_clinton_son.htm , http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

Below are some articles on Rupert Murdoch's love for Hillary Clinton:

"Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton," Caroline Daniel, additional reporting by Aline Van Duyn, Financial Times, May 8, 2006 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html

"Hillary Clinton defends link with Murdoch," Holly Yeager and Caroline Daniel, Financial Times, May 10, 2006 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-dfc2-11da-afe4-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

####################

In the above analysis of state control over people in a given society (i.e., the means by which a relative handful of ruling elites can exercise control over a populace) I left off one of the major contributing factors. That major factor is what I term M.A.C.: which is an acronym that stands for Mutually-Assured Corruption, in linguistic analogy with the so-called "Cold War" doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (M.A.D.): the position that should, e.g., the U.S.S.R. launch a nuclear first-strike against the U.S., nuclear I.C.B.M.s would be launched in retaliation, insuring that both countries end in nuclear holocaust. In such manner, thereby providing a strong deterrence to any country attacking with nuclear weapons.

So in addition to the fuller analysis which I have above provided, let me here expatiate on M.A.C.

How M.A.C. works is that the only way to get into the "club" (so to speak, i.e., to become a favored minion of the oligarchy) is to engage in activities which make oneself liable to blackmail. Though not blackmail to just any naïf, but blackmail whereby the evidence of the deed(s) is held by the masters. Hence, the analogy in terminology to the doctrine of M.A.D. is to be understood merely linguistically, as the mechanism of M.A.C. functions on a disparity of power (whereby the underling is not able to blackmail his master), but one which nevertheless has the strong tendency to ensure a mutual state of corruption within critical levers of power.

This works on many levels, as former F.B.I. employee Sibel Edmonds has in part detailed. It could be something as simple as doing standard practices within a given organization that everyone within the organization does, but which nevertheless are criminal actions which subject oneself to prosecution should the regime take a disliking to said. That is, such acts as billing time or expenses that one hadn't actually used as a part of one's work, which could be as simple as calling one's wife or husband on a cell-phone payed for by the agency (even if the call only lasts seconds); or, e.g., charging for lunches one hadn't actually bought. As Edmonds reveals, such activity is actually encouraged by the managers of government agencies--one reason being, since as it was explained to her, everyone does it. But the far more potent reason such activity is actually encouraged is that it makes their agents subject to criminal prosecution. Fortunately, Edmonds is a rare and particularly smart bird (to use a figurative term), so she saw the trap that was inherent in such activities, thus she refused to do what was standard practice.

If it hadn't been for that (i.e., her almost extra-human intelligence, since such a trap is so easy and natural to fall into; but perhaps merely her intelligence isn't at work here, since perhaps she took to heart and to mind the corruption in her birth country), we would have years ago heard of a discredited F.B.I. employee by the name of Sibel Edmonds who bilked the agency out of several-hundred dollars. Instead, we have in Edmonds a former F.B.I. employee who is under a court gag-order not to reveal what she knows, though she has explained that it concerns a network of very high-level U.S. politicians involved in drug-running in order to finance terrorism against the U.S. Yes, you likely read that correctly; if not, re-read it, as I didn't misstate anything.

That's merely one low-level permutation of M.A.C. But from this simple example one can see just how potent and effective M.A.C. can be. People can so easily fall into M.A.C. without them even realizing it until they are called to do something they rather not do. It is only then that they realize that they are (potentially literally) screwed every which-way from Friday and can can look forward to years of gang anal-rapings as a prison sex-slave lest they do their master's bidding.

My, my, the things people will do to avoid having numerous strange penises involuntarily impaled into their rectums without condoms or efficacious lubrication. Books could be written on it--and indeed have been. But due to space considerations, I'll here spare you the gory details. Needless to say, happy endings don't feature prominately, as besides the obvious pain, shame and self-loathing, there is also the issue of lethal diseases pursuant to such proceedings.

As I said, the above is a low-level permutation of M.A.C., yet even here we see just how amazingly strong its power can be. Yet M.A.C. can be practiced on higher levels, and indeed once someone has been caught in the clutches of M.A.C., even on a low level, they can then be compelled to engage in acts which are not necessarily to their liking and which further incriminates them. Hence, M.A.C. reinforces itself with compounding layers.

And so once one gets caught in the clutches of M.A.C., it can quite easily become a never-ending spiral into ever-greater levels of depravity, of which knows no end.

Governments have long ago figured all this out. M.A.C. is nothing new. It's just that the knowledge of the plebeians (of which I am a member) has expanded. Hence, I have here put a term to, and elaborated on, what had once been only dimly understood--or rather, what had been intuitively grasped, but for which had not been articulated in a systematic manner.

At the higher levels of M.A.C., we come into the domain of such things as actual human sacrifice, including of children and infants. Of course, the rape of such little innocents can be included in this process.

I have often thought that all the power attributed to the ruling elite's practice of occultism can be perfectly explained by mere psychology. That is, elite occultism is little more than ancient techniques in manipulating people.

Many have spoken of such terms as "mind-control," and what is commonly thought by such a term is a human becoming a robot carrying out his master's wishes.

But really, in literal terms, all "mind-control" implies is that something has been impressed upon a subject's mind in order to gain control. This could be something as simple as the threat of force: i.e., the threat of physical punishment for noncompliance.

The reason I even bring up the issue of mind-control is because logically it intercepts M.A.C. M.A.C. works because those who have been caught in its clutches realize that they have a hard road to travel (to put it in polite terms) lest they do their master's bidding. If they were not concerned with their own well-being (and furthermore, that of their loved-ones, in the short-term view), then M.A.C. could have no power. Hence, M.A.C. is a form of mind-control.

That is, it's a method of getting people to do things they may not be naturally inclined to do. In the case of M.A.C., this process is especially potent, as its captives realize that the establishement is going to railroad them based upon genuine evidence (the usual case, as of course charges can be trumped-up), and so they have little room to kid themselves as to their fate.

The above is the outline of M.A.C., as well as a rationalist description of what, at base, so-called "mind-control" really is. Of course, mind-control can take even more permutations than the above, as it can involve such things as the use of drugs, or torture, in order to "break" a person's mind in order to reshape it. But the above exposition suffices to make the point without the need to invoke further assumptions, so I will leave the above analysis on this matter as it rests.

There is much more to be said about M.A.C. The above analysis can be understood in economic terms, as well. For what we have at work here is incentives and disincentives. Or to reword it, rewards and punishements.