The Police State Conspiracy
an Indictment

[3250 words]
[HEARING -- DAY 1]

                     THE POLICE STATE CONSPIRACY 
                         - an INDICTMENT -
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

              Presented before the GRAND JURY of LIBERTY
                    On this FIRST DAY of HEARING
                      - OUTLINE OF INDICTMENT -

                       The PEOPLE v NWO Et Al

       Defendant 1 - NWO ("Corporate Globalist Elite")
       Defendant 2 - MEDIA ("Corporate Mass Media")
       Defendant 3 - GOVT ("National Government Leadership")
      Accomplice 1 - POLICE ("Police Forces")
      Accomplice 2 - FUNDAMENTALISTS ("Christian Fundamentalist 
                     Movement")



       "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon
        may have to choose between civil liberties and more
        intrusive means of protection. Defense Secretary 
        William S. Cohen says. 
  
       "The nation's defense chief told the Army Times he once
        considered the chilling specter of armored vehicles
        surrounding civilian hotels or government buildings to
        block out terrorists as strictly an overseas phenomenon.
        But no longer. 
  
       "It could happen here, Cohen said he concluded after eight
        months of studying threats under the Pentagon microscope."
                                From Staff and Wire Reports,
                                The Times of the Ark-La-Tex,
                                15 September 1997


Introduction and Overview
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I found the above statement on Internet, not MEDIA.  The statement 
may seem incredible to many, but it should, I suggest, be taken as a 
real and ominous warning.  "It could happen here" turns out to be a 
more apt phrase than Mr. Cohen may have intended -- the historical 
overtones of "dictatorship" and "fascism" which ring from it are not 
to be lightly dismissed.

With the USA in the forefront, the following trends -- long familiar 
in the Third World -- are beginning to spread slowly but surely to 
the West generally: the erosion of civil liberties, growing POLICE 
powers, paramilitarization of POLICE forces,  widespread surveillance 
of citizens, and an increasing political emphasis on stricter laws 
and more aggressive law enforcement.  These trends add up to the 
establishment of a comprehensive police-state infrastructure: the 
physical and legal apparatus of a paramilitarized society.  

We do not yet have paramilitarized societies in the West -- except 
perhaps as limited to certain urban enclaves -- but the essential 
foundations for more general deployment are falling steadily into 
place.  This development -- despite what MEDIA-inspired "common 
wisdom" might indicate -- cannot be explained away as being simply a 
natural response to the problems of crime, drugs, and terrorism: the 
enforcement-intensive approach, it turns out, is not particularly 
effective in addressing these social problems -- as their continuing 
growth demonstrates. 

There is a more credible explanation for the establishment of 
police-state infrastructures, and there are sound reasons to expect 
that actual paramilitarized societies will become common -- and these 
have to do with the NWO's GLOBALIZATION agenda.  

As the nation state declines and power shifts to global 
bureaucracies, and as social conditions worsen due to runaway "market 
reform", more and more citizens are beginning to feel 
disenfranchised.  Rather than being participants in a democracy, they 
are increasingly feeling like cogs in an out-of-control corporate 
machine.  As more citizens come to feel both politically 
disenfranchised and economically insecure, and as unemployment and 
poverty become more pervasive, police states are likely to become 
increasingly necessary in order to maintain civil order.

From the perspective of a foresighted and cautious NWO planner, 
provisioning for paramilitarized societies would be every bit as 
necessary as eliminating corporate regulations and making sure free-
trade treaties get pushed through.  One may fairly ask however, 
whether "NWO planners" really exist, whether they are that 
foresighted, and whether they have that much influence over GOVT.  
This INDICTMENT presents evidence for an affirmative answer to each 
of those questions.  

The top leaders (GOVT) of nearly every major democracy are outspoken 
advocates of globalization, market reform, reduced corporate taxation 
and regulation, and sovereignty-surrendering free-trade treaties; in 
short: GOVT acts as an NWO agent.  The NWO agenda is a _corporate_ 
agenda; GOVT and MEDIA often COLLABORATE in selling and implementing 
the NWO agenda.  

The NWO agenda is also a _coherent_ agenda: it proceeds not in fits 
and starts, but as a broad sweep of initiatives that are 
professionally promoted and managed in international forums as well 
as in each nation and in the global MEDIA.  If a more potent 
framework for managing public order is perceived as necessary for the 
preservation of order under globalism, it would not be surprising if 
MEDIA and pro-NWO GOVT were to play their supporting roles just as 
faithfully as they do in all other aspects of globalization.  "Market 
reform" is the rhetoric selling _WEAKER_ GOVT (toward corporations); 
while "war on perpetrators" is the rhetoric that sells _STRONGER_ 
GOVT (toward PEOPLE).

GOVT and MEDIA, not surprisingly, give no public credence to the 
possibility of an encroaching police state; the typical television 
viewer would presumably dismiss such a "fantasy" as being either the 
paranoid delusions of militia cult members or perhaps the rhetoric of 
populist demagogues. 

GOVT and MEDIA _do_ however make sure none of us ever forget about 
the dangers of crime, drugs, and terrorism.  Each brick in the 
police-state wall -- each new POLICE power or discarded liberty -- is 
heralded as a necessary tool in the "war" against perpetrators.  

The fact that _everyone's_ rights are being signed away, and that 
perpetrators are not likely to be deterred by these "wars", fails to 
make the headlines or editorial pages.  But a steady diet of police 
dramas and terrorist thrillers conditions people to respond favorably 
if _real_ POLICE are seen to have big guns, itchy trigger fingers, 
and a disdain for constitutional "technicalities".  "Judge Dredd" and 
"Dirty Harry" have become _heroic prototypes_ in the public mind.

These important developments cannot be discussed intelligently 
without facing squarely the whole question of CONSPIRACIES.  Because 
of a widespread (and MEDIA reinforced) tendency of people to dismiss 
anything that sounds remotely like a "conspiracy theory", this 
INDICTMENT devotes some attention to conspiracies as a topic in its 
own right.  The evidence will show inarguably that conspiracies occur 
all the time and that they occur at the highest levels of GOVT, 
MEDIA, and NWO.  The interesting question is not _whether_ 
conspiracies occur, but rather how they can be generally recognized, 
and how their objectives can be identified in each instance.

From the perspective that conspiratorial behavior is simply a 
recognizable part of standard operating procedure among our elite 
"leadership" (DEFENDANTS), the various threads of this INDICTMENT 
stand out as a coherent tapestry of police-state social re-
engineering.  There turn out to be a whole _pyramid_ of conspiracies 
going on, with only the top echelons necessarily cognizant of the 
whole picture.  Individual MEDIA reporters, POLICE officers, and GOVT 
officials may be simply behaving according to the culture they find 
themselves in, but as one looks up the chains of command, the 
evidence of conscious deception and coherent planning becomes 
increasingly clear. 

If the installation of police states are indeed underway in 
democracies, it is only to be expected that covert activity would be 
involved: what GOVT official or NWO executive would want any 
suspicion of such an agenda becoming public?  Not only would a major 
PR problem arise, but the public would then begin to view "war on 
perpetrators" rhetoric from a disturbing new perspective: a 
dangerously informed one.

I am an American, and I refer in this INDICTMENT to armed militias, 
the Christian Coalition, the Bill of Rights, etc. as if those were 
part of ever reader's political environment.  I apologize to the JURY 
for this U.S.-centric perspective, but in fairness it's the American 
model which is being pushed down everyone's throats by globalization, 
and the picture from "the belly of the beast" may be more relevant 
than you think, however safe you may think you are in your corner of 
the world at this moment.

         ___________________________________________________
         |                                                 |
         |  Section 1: The erosion of civil liberties,     |
         |             and  why that's important           |
         |_________________________________________________|


1.1   The Bill of Rights: _political_ empowerment
      is what it's all about, not laxity toward crime
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Bill of Rights, like the rest of the U.S. Constitution, was born 
out of the American Revolution, the ending of arbitrary monarchical 
rule, and the embracing of a bold new political philosophy based on 
individual liberties and the "rights of man".  The Bill of Rights 
arose not from any liberal attitude toward crime -- punishments were 
prompt and harsh in the early days of the nation --  but rather from 
a hard-won knowledge of how the democratic process operates -- what 
guarantees are necessary to enable a free people to act together and 
take command of their own sovereign destiny without undue GOVT 
interference. 

Newly enfranchised Americans knew from first-hand experience that to 
operate as a politically free people, they must have the right to 
speak their minds publicly without fear of GOVT reprisal; they must 
to be able to gather with fellow citizens and publicly air their 
grievances; their property must be safe from arbitrary confiscation; 
juries must reflect their own communities, rather than being GOVT 
stooges.  Every one of the ten Rights arose out of oppressive 
experience which Americans of all stripes believed had gone beyond 
the limits of appropriate GOVT power, at least in a country that 
wanted to become a democracy.

The Bill of Rights is a minimum set of guarantees designed to enable 
an aroused citizenry to stand up and voice their concerns with 
political intent, _especially_ when that intent is not welcome in 
GOVT circles.  The Bill of Rights was intended to facilitate _legal_ 
political activism -- to enable future generations to organize 
effectively and peacefully against unpopular GOVT policies _without_ 
having to go through another bloody revolution.

As we shall see, in considering how various of the guaranteed rights 
have already been eroded, that many of the dramatic episodes in 
American history could not recur: they would no longer be legal.  The 
massive labor struggles, the radical agrarian populist movement, the 
civil-rights movement, the anti-war movement of the sixties -- all of 
these involved heavy-handed opposition from hostile GOVT. 

But Bill-of-Rights guarantees -- even when frequently ignored by 
overzealous officials -- proved strong enough for the democratic 
process to eventually operate, and those Constitutionally protected 
activist episodes can now be credited with achieving much of the 
social progress that all Americans have since come to count as part 
of their shared heritage.  Popular political uprisings are the last 
recourse of peaceful democratic change, and that recourse is 
precisely what the Bill of Rights was meant to protect.

It is noteworthy that all of these past traumatic historical episodes 
were survived quite well by the nation -- often with _extremely_ 
frustrated administrations in power -- without the Bill of Rights 
ever being fatally undermined.  And America has always had its fair 
share of crime and lawlessness as well -- from the Wild West to the 
Prohibition mobs, the GOVT has often had to deal with violent and 
frequently organized criminal activity.  But only since NWO globalism 
has captured control of GOVT, has diminished Constitutional rights 
suddenly become "necessary" to preserve public order.


1.2   AMENDMENT 1: under attack by FUNDAMENTALISTS
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        AMENDMENT 1, U.S. Constitution:
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
        religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
        abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
        right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
        the GOVT for a redress of grievances.

A _state religion_ was correctly perceived by early Americans as 
being an anti-democratic institution: religious doctrine, which is 
not subject to democratic process, could all too easily find 
expression in GOVT policy -- a phenomenon dramatically demonstrated 
today in the fundamentalist Muslim countries.  The Founding Fathers, 
many of whom were avowed atheists, were clear about wanting a 
definite separation between church and state, as reflected plainly in 
their language above.

The FUNDAMENTALISTS today openly challenge the separation clause of 
AMENDMENT 1 -- they claim, contrary to plain historical fact, that 
the U.S. was founded as a _Christian_ nation, and are increasingly 
succeeding -- with the complicity of MEDIA coverage and sympathetic 
members of GOVT -- in acting as a de facto _ state religion _. 

FUNDAMENTALISTS are not a religious crusade -- they are a radical 
_political_ movement; they seeks not to promulgate an understanding 
of Christian faith, but rather are seeking, with increasing success, 
to impose their own repressive values on everyone else -- the very 
thing AMENDMENT 1 was intended to prevent.  

FUNDAMENTALIST activists, for example, were highly influential in the 
passage of the recently passed "Computer Decency Act" -- a heavy-
handed censorship bill which critics saw as "abridging freedom of 
speech and the press" on Internet, and the Supreme Court ultimately 
overturned it on that basis.  New replacement legislation, re-worded 
in an attempt to circumvent the adverse ruling, is already making its 
way through the halls of Congress.


1.3   GOVT and MEDIA complicity: outlining the case
      for an NWO-inspired, anti-constitutional CONSPIRACY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The FUNDAMENTALISTS have been functioning, knowingly or not, as 
convenient shock troops for AMENDMENT 1 destabilization.  Their 
strident demands for GOVT-enforced "family values" provides a 
convenient pretext for GOVT to chip away at AMENDMENT 1 guarantees 
without ever needing to publicly admit that AMENDMENT 1 per se is on 
the GOVT chopping block.  Congressional critics of Constitutional 
degradation, and there still fortunately are some, are effectively 
silenced by fear of electoral reprisals by the well-disciplined 
FUNDAMENTALIST voting block.

It is important to note that the FUNDAMENTALIST Christian ideology 
itself has not changed appreciably since colonial days: there has 
always been a strong puritanical, libertarian-fearing streak in 
American politics -- ever since Queen Elizabeth I first encouraged 
puritan emigration to the colonies.  What's different now is (1) an 
influx of support and funding for the movement from right-wing 
sources that have their own reasons for wanting its political agenda 
promulgated, (2) abundant sympathetic MEDIA treatment of 
FUNDAMENTALIST viewpoints, and (3) a sympathetic reception for that 
minority ideology in GOVT.  

The "FUNDAMENTALISTS vs AMENDMENT 1" scenario hints at a pattern that 
will be noted often in this INDICTMENT.  Whenever our NWO-oriented 
GOVT and the collaborating MEDIA seek to chip another shaving from 
the Constitution, they always succeed in identifying some societal 
constituency (above it was the FUNDAMENTALISTS) which needs only a 
nudge of encouragement in order to play a supporting role -- without 
necessarily being aware of the larger game being played.  

As the constituency gains in stridency, MEDIA makes sure that voice 
becomes an official part of "public debate", and GOVT cooperates by 
responding to the "rising public sentiment" in press conferences, 
lending it additional authenticity in the pubic mind.  Over time the 
general public perceives that "political pressure is building", and 
when the Constitutional retrenchments are finally implemented, it is 
generally accepted as a "politically understandable" GOVT _response_ 
rather than a threatening GOVT _initiative_.  Those critics who point 
out the opportunity for GOVT abuse are dismissed as being either 
paranoid, soft on perpetrators, or -- worst of all -- doctrinaire 
"liberals".

This formula works all too well, and is well-designed to leave very 
few "tracks" of conspiratorial evidence: the members of the 
constituency, for their part, are merely pushing their sincerely felt 
political agenda, in respectable democratic fashion; MEDIA are simply 
reporting what appears to be news, with no more apparent spin than 
any of their other stories; GOVT seems to be responding as it should 
to public sentiment, although with perhaps a bit more dispatch and 
effectiveness than for run-of-the-mill legislation. 

The evidentiary case for good-faith behavior all around -- even if 
misguided -- seems on the face of it to be sound.  The case for 
nefarious intent, on the other hand, is initially indicated only by 
circumstantial (yet significant) evidence: the inarguably and 
permanently diminished Constitution, the measurably increased GOVT 
powers, the all-too-convenient public acquiescence in the outcome, 
and the long-term material benefit to maintenance of public order 
during the ravages of NWO globalization.

Given such a brilliant formula, and in the face of ongoing MEDIA 
misinformation, a heavy burden of proof falls on any prosecutor who 
seeks to convince a JURY that that the corporate NWO agents at the 
head of our presumed democracy are in fact guilty of intentionally 
embezzling democracy and freedom from the Constitutional coffers, so 
that their New World Order can be conveniently installed and 
sustained.  

Even to describe the crime accurately, identify the perpetrators, and 
present the motivation -- long before any evidence can be offered -- 
it becomes already difficult to express the case in a way that 
doesn't sound daft or paranoid, given the depth to which public 
consciousness has been influenced by MEDIA's selective version of 
reality.

For example, most people I talk to in daily life (including on the 
Internet) have alarmingly little appreciation for how substantially 
our civil liberties have already been forfeit -- _never mind why_.  
The full implications of recent legislation and court decisions are 
simply not well publicized.  Most people know an Anti-Terrorism Bill 
was passed following the Oklahoma bombing, for example, but few 
realize that it sanctions virtually unlimited surveillance of the 
American public (among other radical provisions) and substantially 
erodes... 

        AMENDMENT 4, U.S. Constitution:
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
        houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches 
        and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall 
        issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
        affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
        searched and he persons or thing to be seized.

Similarly, the political import of these civil liberties -- _whether 
lost or not_ -- is vastly under-appreciated: MEDIA have (over a 
period of decades) successfully linked "rights" inexorably with 
"criminals" in the public mind.  The fact that those rights were 
proudly fought for by our officially venerated national heroes, and 
that for two centuries the nation's GOVT and PEOPLE have cherished 
those rights -- this once universal knowledge seems to have simply 
vanished (Orwellian style) from public awareness, as reflected in 
MEDIA reality.

Even if the details of the Anti-Terrorism Bill were to be pointed out 
to typical citizens, along with the language of the AMENDMENT 4 -- 
most would be likely to respond that "technicalities shouldn't be 
allowed to assist criminals in hiding evidence from law-enforcement 
agencies".  

Very few would realize that criminals adapt quickly to refinements in 
POLICE tactics, and that in the long run it is law-abiding political 
activists who will be left most vulnerable to being harassed by 
unrestrained GOVT snooping.  Even fewer people would also realize 
that such political activists have made substantial contributions to 
American social progress ever since 1776, when a group of them signed 
the Declaration of Independence and launched the Revolution.

                 ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY:

At this end of DAY 1 of HEARING, the basic scope of this INDICTMENT 
has now been laid down:

        - The general nature of the "crime" has been stated (GRAND         
          THEFT of Constitutional liberty);

        - The primary DEFENDANTS (NWO, MEDIA) have been named, and 
          their motives outlined (maintaining social order under 
          NWO globalism); 

        - Some initial INJURY claims (re/ AMENDMENT 1, 4) have been 
          shown to the JURY;

        - Some lesser ACCOMPLICES (FUNDAMENTALISTS, POLICE) 
          have been named

        - One conspiratorial pattern has been outlined (recruitment 
          of disaffected FACTION as patsy ACCOMPLICE)

        - The special difficulties of prosecuting this case while the 
          DEFENDANTS (esp. MEDIA) are still at large has been noted;

On DAY 2 of HEARING, remaining INJURY claims and ACCOMPLICES will be 
named; presentation of details of case will begin.

Thank you for your attention.