CASE STUDY #2: The War on Drugs

If you’re looking to research the power of the Illuminati, consider if you will that you may need look no further than the United States led “War on Drugs”. While everyone with an education and access to even a moderate amount of information will tell you it’s been a dismal failure, we are still able to claim to more conservative strongholds that it is a successful, viable, resource-worthy campaign. That alone would be a success, but we’ve got our fingers blasting deeper into the pie than that.

There was a time when drugs were legal, and even with ready availability at market rates, with due taxation for import and sale, there wasn’t a societal problem with them. In consideration of the wonderfully euphoric nature of what are now called “illegal drugs”, we had a problem with them, and that was that they were not being used as tools of division and financial gain.

We launched the War on Drugs. We personally contacted a few key persons in positions of power, explained to them our need to protect our children from this newfound, imaginary threat, created a media agenda, drove it with artificial public concern, and thus was launched a war without end against an enemy without borders for an immeasurable victory towards an unknowable finish line.

It’s not that drugs were bad, per se, it’s that they weren’t yet good. Not for us, barely for the users, and the warlords in far off nations were really having a tough go of it all financially.

The first round in the war on drugs made the legitimate sale of “controlled substances” illegal, which cut the tax stream from these products overnight. That was planned and acceptable because it diverted attention from other matters we were developing while redirecting state and federal funding to the creation of new jobs, almost all of which went to our members. These jobs had very little oversight, no goals or targets, and couldn’t be eliminated because they were so very noble in nature, apparently.

Thanks to the illicit nature of these substances, and the strict controls over them, we were able to further increase spending by governments around the world on projects that had little or no meaning, while greatly increasing revenue to rising-star powers in places where control was not yet absolute. Billions have been earned and/or lost by parties involved in the illicit drug trade, and the only limit to supply has been our divisive ends.

With an under-the-table industry ranging in the tens of billions per year, it immediately became effortless to transfer unprecedented wealth from regulated monetary systems to persons, nations or causes outside the system of governed financial flow. Dictators, rebel groups, individuals, and medical experimentation groups gained access to resources previously only dreamed of, and all because your congressman agreed that it was unsound to permit his own, grown son to smoke marijuana on his birthday.

Next came the enforcement of drug restrictions against the lowest level offenders. If there was a non-Illuminati member we needed to target, we could have him stopped and searched (mostly legally, sometimes) only to find a tobacco pipe with no fingerprints that could be construed as a drug paraphernalia. This extension of the law allowed us to transform traditional citizens (who are not Illuminati, of course) to the ranks of felonious lawbreakers. This helped us shape close elections (by taking the voting rights from those who refused to vote with us) and disarm the dissenters from our view points.

There are now nations in which we control the drug militias as well as the governments, even going so far as to orchestrate a mock power struggle between them. Foreign nations give billions to our “police”, who do as they’re told by permitting the export of these drugs, upon which our dope lords make the millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions they are due (depending on their position.)

All the while our operatives are protected at every level, from the lowly farmer to the cop who protects him and the governor who misplaces his name when he is caught.

It is only because of the extreme profit in the trade that the US Government got so heavily involved in the transport of illegal drugs in the 1980s and 1990s. We didn’t have to convince the CIA to permit drug running, they had to convince us for the to facilitate the whole program themselves, and they did well. Only about 15% of the profits ended up in the hands of US-sponsored rebel groups, while the rest quietly disappeared. We won’t say where it went, of course, but I should point out that Nancy Reagan is never wanting for a new pair of $900 shoes.

With the “War on Drugs” less popular than ever, and drug use more widespread than before the tens of billions were spent, we saw the campaign had run its course, so we quietly put it to bed. We didn’t win, we didn’t lose, and we didn’t give up… we just stopped talking about it, and nobody asked why, as expected.

Now we focus our drug efforts through pharmaceutical companies, who still legally purvey the greatest quantity of controlled substances the world could ever have imagined. The State of California has begun permitting the sale of medical marijuana, and we have to push towards the pretense that we care, so from time to time we pick a non-Illuminati member and put him out of business. We take these legitimate business operators and arrest them, rob them of their inventory, and brand them as criminals forever more.

It’s not that we disagree with what they do, it’s that a handful of them are operating outside of our sphere of influence, and we just can’t permit that. Not when drugs are such a sad problem as they are.

So who wins in the war on drugs? Not president Bush, who has “allegedly” gad more lines than a Shakespeare tragedy (though he still refuses to admit… or deny it). Not Cheech Marin, who likely has bong resin in his bones at this point. And certainly not Tommy Chong, who served federal time for taking the fall on behalf of his son who ran a legal head shop that got caught up in an interstate sting operation. Tough times, Tommy Chong, maybe if you’d have joined us this wouldn’t have happened and you’d have had a film that actually sold out.

READ MORE CASE STUDIES.