The following piece in the works will be included in
Issue #10 of "Observation," due out in late January.  Access file
"obeu.txt" in "issues"/"Rush H. Limbaugh" at that time and
download the whole newsletter.  It normally runs about 6 pages.
See "oaeu" (downloaded 12-20-95) in issues/Limbaugh to view the
previous issue (please excuse the ASCII garbage).


Conspiracy Theories

        'The Unseen Hand' by A. Ralph Epperson expounds much of
the conspiratorial view of history-- a view that believes a very
small inner-circle of men and women are seeking to rule the world
without the ones being ruled (you) finding out about their
'conspiracy.'  Epperson credits the 'accidental' view of history
as the only alternative view-- a view that believes everything
happens chaotically and by chance.  This view offers confusion,
purposelessness and anarchy.  While Epperson makes brief remarks
regarding the role of theology, he stops short of recognizing a
Biblical view of history-- a view of history that believes God in
His Sovereignty is in firm control of all events and people,
ruling from heaven (see Acts 17, Psalm 2).  The conspiratorial
view can mistakenly be confused with the Biblical view because
God does permit evil, conspiratorial men to rise to seats of
power (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, Hitler), knowing that all things work
together for good. Without a proper understanding of the Bible,
students and professors of history often fall for the strict,
nontheological conspiratorial view.  Staunch conspiratorialists
should not feel bludgeoned though because much of the facts and
findings put out in books like Eppersons are well-researched and
documented.  It's the interpretation of the findings that opens
them to being labeled kooks.

        Before going further, as an aid to those being exposed to
the conspiratorial view of history for the first time, consider
the following historical events.

        After the panicking run on American banks in 1907,
pretentious bankers with political and worldly influence met at
the Jekyll Island Hunt Club to pen what would become legislation
giving us the Federal Reserve Board (central banking). These
bankers were: Paul Warburg, partner in Kuhn-Loeb & Co.; Benjamin
Strong, President of Morgan's Banker's Trust Company; Frank
Vanderling, President of Kuhn-Loeb's National City Bank of New
York; Henry Davidson, Senior Partner of J.P. Morgan; and Charles
Norton, President of Morgan's First National Bank of New York.
The politician present that would propose the work of this group
to Congress was Sen. Nelson Aldrich [RI], the grandfather of the
Rockefeller brothers.  President Woodrow Wilson would sign the
Federal Reserve Act into law in December of 1913.

        Four years later, the Bolsheviks gained control of Russia
via a revolution with Vladimir Lenin ascending to the role of top
tyrant.  Under Lenin, Russian banks were nationalized, private
ownership of land was made illegal, gold became state property,
concentration camps were opened, peasants were starved and other
'benefits' were extended to ordinary, working Russians. (Jimmy
Carter was not yet available to fix this one). pg. 170-3

        What do bankers have to do with the Bolshevik Revolution?
Well, William B. Thompson, a significant owner of stock in Chase
National Bank and director of the New York branch of the Federal
Reserve System, loaned $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviks.  Jacob
Schiff, a partner of Paul Warburg and a senior partner with Kuhn,
Loeb and Co., gave Lenin $20,000,000.  The Morgans and
Rockefellers were also said to have contributed to the Russian
Revolution.

        In April of 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
signed an unconstitutional Executive Order requiring Americans to
turn in their gold, a Leninist tactic, or face stiff fines and
possibly imprisonment.  In place of gold, irredeemable paper
currency (fiat money) was issued.  This surreptitious move to
debase American money was ostensibly done to end the 'national
emergency' brought about by the Great Depression of 1929. (pg.
65)

        The conspiratorial view of history holds that these men
(Americans and Communists) worked secretly together with a global
vision of eventual dominance while the Biblical view holds God
permitted these men to do what they did for His purposes, which
are still in process.  God could have prevented all of these
events from happening if He chose to, but didn't.  The
conspiratorial view grants way too much credit to these key
figures and undeservedly recognizes them in history as powerful,
astute world-shapers.  Both the facts and assertions made about
these events are either valid or at least well-supported, but
without a proper interpretation the information is reduced to
trivia.

        Is it o.k. then to be a conspiratorialist? Because of the
high probability for being misunderstood, you would do well to
identify with the theological worldview that acknowledges
conspiracies are taking place, subject to the sovereign purposes
of God, thereby distancing yourself from the paranoid, aimless
strict conspiratorialists.  These fretful, paranoid types might
as well believe the accidental view of history, the results are
the same-- voluntary submission to unknown untouchable tyrants
operating the world's switches from atop Mount Olympus while they
contemplate their perceived power and wealth. With an
understanding that rich, evil men can only do what they're
permitted, and that God's purposes are ultimately for our good,
it's detrimental, at the least, to ascribe to the strict
conspiratorial view of history.  If the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), the Bildebergers, the Trilateral Comission and
others believe God can be outmaneuvered they will be in for a big
surprise.