Richard Moore

[3250 words]

                     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

                Copyright 1997 by Richard K. Moore
                         Wexford, Ireland

        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

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

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

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

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

        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

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.



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;

          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.


Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26   Wexford, Ireland
         http://www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal            (USA Citizen)
  * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *