Aldous Huxley

Official Culture Reprise III: Authoritarianism Revisited (2)

 “… instead of trusting what their own minds tell them, men have as a rule a weakness for trusting others who pretend to supernatural sources of knowledge.”

Arthur Schopenhauer


article-1192484-054FBEE9000005DC-392_468x551

Promotional poster from the film 1984

Authoritarianism only becomes a dominant force when ponerisation is advanced and normal humanity succumbs to the emerging restrictions. Our trust and belief in those who offer the pretence of leadership and a para-moral imperative appears to have a symbiotic relationship to our wilful blindness and apathy which is also part of the rise and fall of numerous Empires. Someone to lead and show us the way, someone with power, personality and charismatic inspiration that is almost spiritual… The same old patterns are in evidence everywhere one looks.

But what if such power lies within a network of human beings who have shed their reliance on an external authority and have discovered the pragmatism of their own centered faith in the Universe and each other? Do we have to have to have ideologues who arrive based on what we lack inside? Is it possible to manifest a leader or leaders who are drawn from something quite different and where the very notion of leadership is redefined?

We have explored the theories of ponerology, authoritarianism and our own stratum of wishful thinking and wilful blindness. We must also factor in an undue emphasis on the material world and the separation from Nature to which we are mysteriously connected, not just through the thousands of years of bio-rhythms and collective archetypes pulsating through the human psyche, but resonant through our very DNA. We might also posit that all the problems of the world lie not in economic, ecological or socio-cultural solutions but ultimately in our relationship to ourselves and the potential to connect with realities that transcend the five senses.

(more…)

Advertisements

Technocracy XIX: Huxley’s Warning

 “Our business is to be aware of what is happening, and then to use our imagination to see what might happen, how this might be abused, and then if possible to see that the enormous powers which we now possess thanks to these scientific and technological advances to be used for the benefit of human beings and not for their degradation.”

Aldous Huxley


Aldous Huxley gave a speech on what he called “The Ultimate Revolution” at U.C. Berkeley in 1962. As usual, he was remarkably prophetic in his statements. Whether he acted as the positive counter-weight to his brother Julian Huxley or was merely fulfilling his role as a telegrapher of Elite designs, is open to debate. Whatever his intentions, his words and writing remain powerfully relevant as we go forward into the 21st Century.

Huxley saw the ultimate revolution would come in exactly the same way he outlined a technocracy in his book Brave New World (BNW) which is an insightful doctrine on transhumanist philosophy and psycho-pharmaceuticals. He saw the development of these processes and techniques as firmly under a controlling oligarchy of the day whose overriding objective would be to get the mass mind to “love their servitude”.

Three years previously he stated:

“And it seems to me perfectly on the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.”

It is from this basis that the Ultimate Revolution may emerge from a suitably standardised population where human differences have been ironed out and, as Huxley describes:

“… to create, … mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system”, and where “… a method of control by which a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy.”

aldous-huxley
Aldous Huxley

Huxley told his University audience of his belief that “scientific dictatorships” of the kind advocated by Bertrand Russell, B.F. Skinner and so many others would exist in many parts of the world, marking out such a brand of totalitarianism by stealth, the type of gradualism favoured by Fabians, corporate-collectivists and the Global Occult Body. It is here that transhumanism offers itself as a more viable construct of seduction “not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the BNW pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.” It is the constant striving for efficiency, sensation, economic and emotional certainty as a screen against a seemingly unstable world that makes techno-utopianism so appealing. It is the merging of the 4Cs and the 3Es into a global, interlocking State of unions with transhumanism as the glue.

Huxley continues:

“… I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned with the technically perfect, perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in BNW. So that, it seems to me then, that this ultimate revolution is not really very far away, that we, already a number of techniques for bringing about this kind of control are here, and it remains to be seen when and where and by whom they will first be applied in any large scale.”

We know that the application of the “scientific technique” in the order of the Three Establishment Model (3EM) employs a wide range of mind control and social engineering methods which have been extremely effective in shaping the individual and mass mind. Pavlovian techniques alongside, advertising, education, marketing, PR, propaganda and media influences; covert experimentation from military-intelligence with their psychotronic and bio-warfare have been used for many decades. All these could now be considered to be in a state of high advancement. Used in conjunction with a predisposition in the human make-up to acquiesce to authoritarian personalities and their power structures, as a consequence, using Huxley’s 1962 standards:

“… there can be no doubt that by the application of these methods a very large army of totally devoted people has been created. The conditioning has been driven in, so to say, by a kind of psychological iontophoresis [ * ] into the very depths of the people’s being, and has got so deep that it’s very difficult to ever be rooted out, and these methods, I think, are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance that the person who is subjected to a form of terroristic stress but for the purpose of inducing a kind of voluntary acceptance of the psychological state in which he has been driven and the state of affairs in which he finds himself.” [1]

Huxley then describes experimentation of rats and the manipulated mid-way point: “between the pleasure and the pain center,” and the behaviour which resulted in: “a kind of mixture of the most wonderful ecstasy and like being on the rack at the same time.” However, the rats would always press the bar for the same “hit” despite knowing it would result in an increase of discomfort. The pleasure was enough to eclipse the underlying pain. Fitting electrodes in chickens induced the complete control of their behaviour in way that is very similar to what we are facing now with humans, albeit on a vastly more complex and diverse set of responses. The result however, is just the same:

“… they can run about in the barnyard and you could press a button and this particular area of the brain to which the electrode has been screwed down to would be stimulated. You would get this fantastic phenomena, where a sleeping chicken would jump up and run about, or an active chicken would suddenly sit down and go to sleep, or a hen would sit down and act like she’s hatching out an egg, or a fighting rooster would go into depression.”  [2]

He then makes the most important point of all and asks us what might happen if such techniques were in the hands of unscrupulous people. We must learn the lessons of history and exercise our imagination and critical faculties in order to deduce what might occur in the future. Well, not only has there been a long process of mass mind control and a slow ponerogenic infection in the mass of humanity, these techniques are now wholly in the hands of technocrats. Have we even attempted to extrapolate the necessary information that lies behind this entrainment? Would that be pandering to “conspiracy theory” or casting a discriminating eye over repeating patterns of history that still echo their signs and portents?

It seems time is short to “get it”.

Huxley’s prediction is not only true but has gone way beyond his understanding in terms of how deep the pathology has become. He asks: “What might happen if these fantastically powerful techniques were used by unscrupulous people in authority, what on Earth would happen, what sort of society would we get?” A Global Pathocracy by stealth would be the inevitable answer.

He states further:

“…when looking back over history we have allowed in the past all those advances in technology which has profoundly changed our social and individual life to take us by surprise, I mean it seems to me that it was during the late 18 century early 19th century when the new machines were making possible the factory situation. It was not beyond the wit of man to see what was happening and project into the future and maybe forestall the really dreadful consequences which plagued England and most of western Europe and this country for sixty or seventy years, and the horrible abuses of the factory system and if a certain amount of forethought had been devoted to the problem at that time and if people had first of all found out what was happening and then used their imagination to see what might happen, and then had gone on to work out the means by which the worst applications of the techniques would not take place, well then I think western humanity might have been spared about three generations of utter misery which had been imposed on the poor at that time.

And the same way with various technological advances now, I mean we need to think about the problems with automation and more profoundly the problems, which may arise with these new techniques, which may contribute to this ultimate revolution. Our business is to be aware of what is happening, and then to use our imagination to see what might happen, how this might be abused, and then if possible to see that the enormous powers which we now possess thanks to these scientific and technological advances to be used for the benefit of human beings and not for their degradation.” [3]

And this is where we now find ourselves.

Do we indeed have the “wit” to marshal our resources against what seems to be the inevitable repeat scenario of psychopathic dominance?

Can we turn the tide of technology towards the creative principle and away from the closed door of transhumanist feudalism?

Perhaps the keys to understanding these answers lies in the event that was both a calling card of the Pathocrats and a potential global wake-up call to the nature of our reality here on Planet Earth. It was a crossroads that forced us all to choose which reality we prefer to inhabit, whether we realised it or not.  In the next series, we will look at possibly one of the most important “ritual” of the last two hundred years: September 11th 2001 and the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks and the engineering of its effects on the world population.


* Otherwise known as electromotive drug administration (EMDA). A technique using a small electric charge to deliver a medicine or other chemical through the skin.


Notes

[1] ‘The Ultimate Revolution’ By Aldous Huxley, March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society


Science is in crisis. A product of our official culture, fraud, corruption and a scientific thought police continue to circumscribe academic evaluation, shackling the best scientists and maintaining a materialist gridlock on open-minded and multidisciplinary approaches.  Consequently, in many quarters, the state of science resembles an authoritarian religion where money and inflated academic egos dominate, rather than a quest for truth.

Capitalising on the Age of Reason firmly set in place by the Illuminism and “Enlightenment” of the 18th Century, the “scientific method” or “technique” grew out of Germany and Prussia of the 1800s embracing the theories of the new scientific rationalists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. This was to inaugurate a new educational system never before seen. Children would become the nuts and bolts of the State, bludgeoning generations of young people into a rigid prison of rationale and reason. Feelings would be irrelevant.

Hegel was one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age and the culmination of the German idealistic philosophy school of Immanuel Kant. Like the Prussian militarists who inspired utilitarian schooling so beloved of the corporatists, there was only one way to live and be – through the world of reason and a rejection of the heart as an organ of perception. To Hegel the state is the ideal of Absolute Reason where citizens gained their freedom from being subservient to the state. Hegel viewed the State through a lens of religious fascism where it: “… has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state.” It is therefore unsurprising that both fascism and communism have their philosophical roots in Hegelianism and Illuminism – flag bearers of the present Global Establishment. [1]

To bring all this up-to-date we need to introduce another mechanistic thinker who was to provide a massive contribution to our understanding of behaviour which was absorbed into the cult of control in the West of the 20th Century. His name was Burrhus Frederic (“B.F.”) Skinner who took his cues from Ivan Pavlov’s research into temperament conditioning and involuntary reflex actions. A scientist who sincerely wanted his ideas to benefit humanity he nonetheless, fell into the belief trap that populations could be controlled by a positive reinforcement which was simply a concealed method of coercion. In fact, Skinner was an early technocrat in his thinking and believed in a utopia of science and technology that could control populations rather than encouraging free-will. He stated: “It is a mistake to suppose that the whole issue is how to free man. The issue is to improve the way in which he is controlled.”

Clockwork_orangeA

A Clockwork Orange (1971) which drew heavily from the ideas behind behaviourism. Theatrical release poster by Bill Gold (wikipedia)

Skinner was Influenced by the Age of Reason and its advocates. His social contract was to be extended to include a scientific elite which would make sure that populations stayed within certain parameters set down by an agreed upon “scientific technique.” It is for that reason that he held with the belief that specialists as “reinforcers” should impose “codified contingencies” to ensure that people – as the instinctive machines he believed them to be – should follow prepared lines of behaviour just as rats in his experiments were encouraged to go down certain paths in a maze.

Skinner introduced us to the ideas of behaviour therapy which included his discoveries of operant conditioning, aversion therapy, and desensitisation. Operant conditioning involves the reinforcement of certain behaviour accompanied by a stimulus such as light or sound. Reinforcement depends on the frequency and occurrence of the response and what type of reinforcement mechanisms are found in the immediate environment. Skinner used rats to illustrate his thinking by using simple experiments with food and water as rewards. When a rat depressed a bar it was rewarded with food. Regardless of how the bar was depressed is irrelevant, operant conditioning shows that it is the frequency or rate at which the operation is carried out (how many times the bar is pressed within a given time and how rapidly) which determines how successful operant conditioning has been.

Aversion therapy is exactly as it sounds: the individual is exposed to a stimulus alongside some form of reinforcement discomfort which is designed to create an aversion to the initial desire. This technique was used in the past to try and cure homosexuality or alcoholism. It was also graphically featured in Stanley Kubrick’s film A Clock-work Orange (1971) as a means of mind control. Skinner’s experiments with rats and pigeons were extraordinarily instructive and offered new insights into how our environment shapes our behaviour. However, he wanted to graduate to humans in a bid to find the perfect automaton, so he took the liberty of using his own daughter. (We don’t know what his mother had to say about this of course). The baby was placed him in a large, sound-proof box with one window where the temperature was carefully controlled. “The Skinner Box” as it would later be known, would go on to be used in many laboratories so that reinforcement and operant conditioning studies could be reliably employed. Skinner was untroubled by the use of his daughter in the experimentation proclaiming that: “crying and fussing could always be stopped by slightly lowering the temperature” and since the box was sound-proofed, everyone was a winner according to Skinner, as “… soundproofing also protects the family from the baby.”

Desensitisation describes a psychological technique whereby the subject is placed in a relaxed and suggestive state and exposed to images and /or accompanying sounds which are designed to evoke mild stress or anxiety. The images gradually become stronger in content until finally the image is so strong that the person shows no anxiety. He has been slowly desensitised to feeling associated with that particular imagery. As the reader can appreciate these methods induce both positive and negative results based entirely on the intent of the experimenter. Furthermore, he discovered that the level and frequency of the rewards determined how the required behaviour could be maintained.

Skinner at the Harvard Psychology Department, c. 1950 (wikipedia)

It was a breath of fresh air for those in Elite circles and enthusiastically incorporated into the psychological warfare of the emerging National Security State. The emphasis on instincts  espoused by Freud, the social engineering modalities of the Frankfurt School and the biological determinism of humans and life itself as nothing more than components of a machine all provided grist to the mill which psychopaths used to keep spinning their reality. Since Skinner’s main focus was developing a society that could be controlled, his contribution in the understanding of how behaviour operated in the modern world was seen by the Pathocrats in this context. The behaviourists were welcomed into the fold and put to work which has led to behaviourism as one of the most accepted and revered forms of psychology in authoritarian perception, not least because ethical science seems to be inimical to its applications. Changing behaviour and belief is vital to changing society with – and preferably without – consent.

Since B.F. Skinner’s experiments, aversive stimulation and knowledge of operant conditioning has been explored through the Cold War to the War on Terror, MKULTRA to the PSYOPS in Media propaganda and the black ops of regime change. Society itself is the new Skinner Box and official culture is both the cause and effect. With the advent of mass surveillance and SMART society, with an ever more integrated functionality from infrastructure to social networks, the behaviourists ethos of managed reflexes has evolved into new technocratic blueprints of managed societies and the ability to carefully control both the inner and outer environments of the human mind.

Perhaps the best representation of elite thinking on the “science technique” to shape society came through the intellectual leviathan that was British philosopher, educational theoretician and mathematician Bertrand Arthur William Russell. The mythology surrounding this man ensured that he was an ardent humanist, socialist and advocate of peace. His controversial views on the future of society have been largely air-brushed from the rose-coloured worship which periodically takes place in the halls of academia and the peace movement. Yet, there is ample evidence that he was one of the most scheming Machiavellian figures of the 20th Century who knew exactly how to play the public and leaders alike with his misanthropic views.  As Lyndon La Rouche summarised in his  1994 Schiller Institute article Russell’s mindset incorporated:  (1) a racism as virulent as Adolf Hitler’s; (2) a feudal-aristocratic socialist’s Ruskin-like hatred for modern European civilization; and (3) a utopian’s obsessive commitment to bringing about civilization’s descent into a parody of pre-Renaissance feudalism, or sometimes even pre-civilized barbarism.”

Russell channelled his beliefs into the Pugwash Movement which he founded in London July 9, 1955 using the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. This led to the first meeting in 1957 attended by many renowned scientists. He received many awards throughout his career and was highly influential in Elite circles. The impetus for creating Pugwash was drawn from his wish to give a scientific justification for world government by using the threat of the Cold War as pretext. Indeed, in his famous treatise: The Impact of Science on Society (1953) he makes his position clear regarding the nature of science and its purpose: “I do not believe that dictatorship is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” [2]Whether the members of the movement held exactly the same beliefs as Russell remains to be seen. But as we know, there was certainly strong mass appeal for such ideas, Russell being one of a number of great minds to give vent to his authoritarian sentiments.

Russell believed that the empires of the past lost control over their dominions due to an inefficient social programming which should have been in embedded in the development of the centralised structure. He claims that the “Scientific technique” had removed this limitation. The future would be open for the establishment of a successful world government (Empire) if a “unifying principle” could be found that superseded the fear of war: “… unification under a single world government is probably necessary unless we are to acquiesce in either a return to barbarism or the extinction of the human race.” [3]

While explicating the evils of the Soviet era he clearly saw this as the forerunner of a more streamlined and cohesive social structure where: “… the very evils of the system help to give it stability. Apart from external pressure, there is no reason why such a regime should not last for a very long time.” [4]

As is the case with such a mind-set, it is always the rabble-rousing masses that are the cause of the chaos rather than the institution and creation of strictures that develop from it. Or as Russell mentions, “evil passions in human minds …” that stand in the way of a World State. The philosopher wishes to replace one society and dictatorship driven by the fear of war with another that would make war unnecessary due to the dumbed down compliance of the ordinary man-made stupidity. War would disappear but so would the basic human condition of love, creativity, freedom and spirituality, though this would only be a right and fitting state of affairs according to Russell, since the Elite were eugenically destined to dispense these qualities amongst the plebeians through a strictly behaviourist and Darwinist belief-set:

“War has been, throughout history, the chief source of social cohesion; and since science began, it has been the strongest incentive to technical progress. Large groups have a better chance of victory than small ones, and therefore the usual result of war is to make States larger. […] There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” [5]

Could it be that these same “passions that inspire hate and fear” are primarily due to the very centralised systems Russell intends to enforce on the rest of us? No doubt we have the very manifestations of just such an “enemy, actual or potential” in the form of the War on Terror and false flag operations to keep the public allegiance to the State. The existence of an enemy has always been fabricated by authorities in order to maintain their power base, a state of affairs that became progressively ponerised once that door was opened. Russell’s solution to the creation of that “loyalty” is not by force but through a type of education that would result in a populace made suitably docile and unthinking. He understands very well the importance of mass psychology and believes it to be “immensely important” and “politically useful”. If Russell’s scientific dictatorship is to work, then modern methods of propaganda must target education. Instead of the threat of war we now have the children as the target of indoctrination. Mass psychology is to be used to this end:

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey. [6]

We see exactly the same vision of children as products envisaged by the American National Education Board and the Rockefeller mind-set where children’s minds are there to be beaten into shape so that they conform to a carefully prepared aversive conditioning. Is it not interesting to see the same perception appearing from a representative of the British intelligentsia bridging the same belief in the minds of industrialists and Fabians more than half a century before? Then of course, we have the same pattern appearing in the forces behind Illuminism and the outgrowth of Empires which underlie the sub-stratum of psychopathy as the unchanging progenitor.

It seems Russell is unable to step outside his own philosophical trap that State and science offers a panacea for human evolution despite the very presence of government always indicating otherwise. The comprehensive overthrow of freedom and the individual mind for peace and the “greater good” is in evidence once again:

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte [German Philosopher] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”  [7]  [Emphasis mine]

Now, if you are blinking your eyes at these statements and thinking perhaps such a noble laureate is not advocating such a position and is merely indicating a future state of affairs, you are mistaken. Remember that the goal of Bertrand Russell and others of his kind has always been the imposition of a scientific World State determined by an Elite. Any intellectual philosophising around that point with the accompanying nuggets of undoubted wisdom mean nothing when set against the framework of what is an authoritarian desire finally let off its leash and buffered by the security of his intellectual status.

Russell’s vision aligns closely with Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel Brave New World (1932) which describe developments in reproductive technology and sleep-learning that combine to change society. The scientific technique is exacted so precisely that it produces mechanized human beings who are sealed into a tightly controlled artificial environment, separate from nature and the “perils” of intellectual creativity or free thinking. Science is only used as medium for social control just as Skinner and Russell advocate, where dehumanisation will ensure ignorance and weakness, which will thus ensure the end of war.

The framework of science under pathocratic control, sterilizes the natural rhythms of life, replaced with prescriptive values which have little to do with freedom or free-will. It is interesting that science – perceived as an entirely rational subject – can be employed to indoctrinate irrational inclinations. While it is science that the State uses to control its citizens, it is also science that brought about the need for totalitarian control in the first place. The degradation of normal people under the scientific dictatorship will be inevitable so that threats from creative individuals who can offer alternative visions would be inhibited, as is the case in any Pathocracy. And it is here that we see the same process occurring under the “democracies” of many political and academic institutions of the United Kingdom, America and other European countries. This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue to be a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”.

As Andrew Łobaczewski observed, when ponerology becomes skilfully popularised science, it will help nations to develop immunity. Science can serve as liberator or prisoner of human consciousness, something which seems to have escaped Bertrand’s ambitious scope for world government. As Huxley wrote in BNW: “… we have our stability to think of. We don’t want to change. Every change is a menace to stability. That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.” [8]

slide_321080_3007991_free

Bertrand Arthur William Russell

This brand of vertical collectivism demands the erosion of national sovereignty necessary to usher in global governance, the start of which begins with the introduction of economic unions (European Union, Africa Union, Asia Union etc.) that will later be interlocked into one Global Union under the hammer of closer world integration. Russell shows an idealistic belief that in order to prevent the “barbarism” of war conducted by nation states: “Means must be found of subjecting the relations of nations to the rule of law, so that a single nation will no longer be, as at present, the judge in its own cause,” and where “… national liberty will have to be effectively restrained.” While preferring not to mention the obvious manipulations by industrialists and Zionist interventions, he goes on to state that once Russia and the United States have come under effective control of collectivism where:

“… either by victory or by an obvious military superiority, the preponderant Power can establish a single Authority over the whole world, and thus make future wars impossible. At first, this Authority will in certain regions, be based on force, but if the Western nations are in control, force will as soon as possible give way to consent. When that has been achieved, the most difficult of world problems will have been solved, and science can become wholly beneficent.” [9]

Of course, we must place our trust in Western nations and the rule of law and science as the beneficent arbiters of reality for the masses and bow down to their imposed “welfare.” The best answer for Russell is a Global Authority since he is a man cast from the authoritarian mould. Similarly, ensuring the comprehensive dilution of the genetic stock of normal human beings must be implemented and parallel methods of population control introduced through ostensibly benign reasons. Hence, the emphasis on the population explosion, its causes and effects.

Over 40 years later the same theme is in evidence, this time from one time US foreign policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). Brzezinski, CFR and Trilateral Commission member eloquently offers the same solution for American Hegmony under cover of United Nations protocols.

He states:

“In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945.” [10]

The overwhelming imperative is always global governance whether for ideology, power, greed, or psychopathic propagation. If we follow the beliefs of the Russells and Rockefellers of this world the kind of financial-scientific feudalism they so desperately desire will be very soul-less environments indeed and is precisely why they will always break down. As he exclaims: “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique,” which means an array of suitable scientifically-based techniques must be found to ensure the resulting education will reflect their minority mind-set with all its psychological anomalies. Such people have no problems experimenting in altering the genetic structure of animals, plants and Nature itself in order to dominate and control rather than to work with or co-create. It is inevitable that under a Pathocracy and the knowledge of the Human Genome, the experimental bar on humans will rise, both in secrecy and in public.

It is interesting that like Rockefeller, Stalinist Russia is so often the example in Russell’s mind:

“When such methods of modifying the congenital character of animals and plants have been pursued long enough to make their success obvious, it is probable that there will be a powerful movement for applying scientific methods to human propagation. There would at first be strong religious and emotional obstacles to the adoption of such a policy. But suppose (say) Russia were able to overcome these obstacles and to breed a race stronger, more intelligent, and more resistant to disease than any race of men that has hitherto existed, and suppose the other nations perceived that unless they followed suit they would be defeated in war, then either the other nations would voluntarily forgo their prejudices, or, after defeat, they would be compelled to forgo them. Any scientific technique, however beastly, is bound to spread if it is useful in war – until such time as men decide that they have had enough of war and will henceforth live in peace. As that day does seem to be at hand, scientific breeding of human beings must be expected to come about.” [11]

And no doubt this “scientific breeding” to produce only the best and strongest will adhere to the same “beastly” precepts that gave rise to the legion of authoritarian principles down through the ages. But Russell doesn’t seem to be worried about that since his white, Oxford-educated Anglo-Saxon genes are beyond reproach and can only lead to a scientific destiny wholly in line with the same kind of British Empire perfection which so captured Cecil Rhodes.

Let’s remember what Russell wrote about education and his regime for the compliant child where: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” And finally, the justification for applying the vertical collectivist dream: those totalitarian governments were not so bad … They just needed the right quality of intellectual steerage. Let’s not be too hasty. Russell may not be advocating explicitly such a state of affairs but by inference he means to suggest that such “atrocities” are nevertheless highly practical for an emerging World State and encouraging maximum stability:

“A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said – I do not know with what truth – to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.

Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato’s Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian.)

To those accustomed to this system, the family as we know it would seem as queer as the tribal and totem organisation of Australian aborigines seems to us… The labouring class would have such long hours of work and so little to eat that their desires would hardly extend beyond sleep and food. The upper class, being deprived of the softer pleasures both by the abolition of the family and by the supreme duty of devotion to the State, would acquire the mentality of ascetics: they would care only for power, and in pursuit of it would not shrink from cruelty. By the practice of cruelty men would become hardened, so that worse and worse tortures would be required to give the spectators a thrill.” [12] [Emphasis mine]

Neither democracy nor “The Rights of Man” are sufficient to avoid such “scientific horrors” only a World State determined by socialist principles. A world government with psychopaths at the helm would revel in just such a future.

Bertrand Russell was briefly a member of the Fabian society and resigned over the issue of “entente” or alliances that could lead to war. However, liberalism, socialism and pacifism were just labels for Russell stating: “I have never been any of these things, in any profound sense.” [13]It was his reaction against idealism and his work as a logician which defined his distaste for war and classical totalitarianism. Ironically, he merely advocated another form of dictatorship, its only difference being that it was inverted. He conforms to the Fabian worldview that society must be gradually “shattered to bits” on the anvil of socialism in order to be reformed into a world where a global scientific elite would dominate. Russell is an intellectual genius and knew exactly what he is saying. And though he includes profound insights into the nature of democracy and education his disdain for the common man and his myopic view of science used to dominate and enforce is crystal clear throughout. Though he falls short of recommending certain Dystopian conclusions his vision for enforcing peace through a scientific Elite is the defining reason for his book. And from an undoubted conscientious objector no doubt he really believed his own perceived altruism as so many do. All the same, they lead us down the path of destruction by offering an antidote that is merely more of the same.

One of the first targets of an emerging Pathocracy is within education and in particular the sciences. Łobaczewski had direct experience of this kind of “scientific” induction which was carried out under state Communism in Poland. Based on specific psychological knowledge only the psychopath could harbour and use, he described the process of personality disintegration which occurred as “transpersonification” dispensed from University professor as new tools of the State. According to Łobaczewski, these professors “… knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.” [14] *

It is the intellectual spellbinders from the Neo-Conservative movement to the Fabian and corporate libertarians of the past and present who act through the MSM as conduits for transpersonification and ponerogenesis. We place highly intelligent men like Russell on the pedestal of laudability, whilst disavowing their toxic legacy which can only encourage the receptivity of authoritarian minds. Such complacency in resisting seductive beliefs dressed up in surrounding wisdom sets up a verdant psychic landscape for future pathogens to flourish and should never be underestimated. Learning the language of psychopathic beliefs is vital, as they will inevitably give rise to state-mandated actions which have been given the veneer of time-honoured respectability.

 


* Drawn from Łobaczewski’s own experiences as a student in Communist Poland, a detailed explanation of the transpersonification process as seen through the scientific academia of the time. The extract is taken from the introduction in Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.


 Pathocracy and “Transpersonification”

An extract from Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes By Andrew M. Łobaczewski, edited by Laura Knight-Jadczyk:

May the reader please imagine a very large hall in an old Gothic university building. Many of us gathered there early in our studies in order to listen to the lectures of outstanding philosophers and scientists. We were herded back there – under threat – the year before graduation in order to listen to the indoctrination lectures which recently had been introduced.

Someone nobody knew appeared behind the lectern and informed us that he would now be the professor. His speech was fluent, but there was nothing scientific about it: he failed to distinguish between scientific and ordinary concepts and treated borderline imaginings as though it were wisdom that could not be doubted. For ninety minutes each week, he flooded us with Naïve, presumptuous paralogistics and a pathological view of human reality. We were treated with contempt and poorly controlled hatred. Since fun-poking could entail dreadful consequences, we had to listen attentively and with the utmost gravity.

The grapevine soon discovered this person’s origins. He had come from a Cracow suburb and attended high school, although no one knew if he had graduated. Anyway, this was the first time he had crossed university portals, and as a professor, at that!

“You can’t convince anyone this way!” we whispered to each other. “It’s actually propaganda directed against themselves.” But after such mind-torture, it took a long time for someone to break the silence.


We studied ourselves, since we felt something strange had taken over our minds and something valuable was leaking away irretrievably. The world of psychological reality and moral values seemed suspended as if in a chilly fog. Our human feeling and student solidarity lost their meaning, as did patriotism and our old established criteria. So we asked each other, “are you going through this too”? Each of us experienced this worry about his own personality and future in his own way. Some of us answered the questions with silence. The depth of these experiences turned out to be different for each individual.

We thus wondered how to protect ourselves from the results of this “indoctrination”. Teresa D. made the first suggestion: Let’s spend a weekend in the mountains. It worked. Pleasant company, a bit of joking, then exhaustion followed by deep sleep in a shelter, and our human personalities returned, albeit with a certain remnant. Time also proved to create a kind of psychological immunity, although not with everyone. Analyzing the psychopathic characteristics of the “professor’s” personality proved another excellent way of protecting one’s own psychological hygiene.


You can just imagine our worry, disappointment, and surprise when some colleagues we knew well suddenly began to change their world view; their thought-patterns furthermore reminded us of the “professor’s” chatter. Their feelings, which had just recently been friendly, became noticeably cooler, although not yet hostile. Benevolent or critical student arguments bounced right of them. They gave the impression of possessing some secret knowledge; we were only their former colleagues, still believing what those “professors of old” had taught us. We had to be careful of what we said to them. These former colleagues soon joined the Party.


Who were they, what social groups did they come from, what kind of students and people were they? How and why did they change so much in less than a year? Why did neither I nor a majority of my fellow students succumb to this phenomenon and process? Many such questions fluttered through our heads then. It was in those times, from those questions, observations and attitudes that the idea was born that this phenomenon could be objectively studied and understood; an idea whose greater meaning crystallized with time.


Many of us newly graduated psychologists participated in the initial observations and reflections, but most crumbled away in the face of material or academic problems. Only a few of that group remained; so the author of this book may be the last of the Mohicans.


It was relatively easy to determine the environments and origins of the people who succumbed to this process, which I then called “transpersonification”. They came from all social groups, including aristocratic and fervently religious families, and caused a break in our student solidarity to the order of some 6 %. The remaining majority suffered varying degrees of personality disintegration which gave rise to individual searching for the values necessary to find ourselves again; the results were varied and sometimes creative.

Even then, we had no doubts as to the pathological nature of this “transpersonification” process, which ran similar but not identical in all cases. The duration of the results of this phenomenon also varied. Some of these people later became zealots. Others later took advantage of various circumstances to withdraw and re-establish their lost links to the society of normal people. They were replaced. The only constant value of the new social system was the magic number of 6 %.


We tried to evaluate the talent level of those colleagues who had succumbed to this personality-transformation process, and reached the conclusion that, on average, it was slightly lower than the average of the student population. Their lesser resistance obviously resided in other bio-psychological features which were most probably qualitatively heterogeneous.


I found that I had to study subjects bordering on psychology and psychopathology in order to answer the questions arising from our observations; scientific neglect in these areas proved an obstacle difficult to overcome. At the same time, someone guided by special knowledge apparently vacated the libraries of anything we could have found on the topic; books were indexed, but not physically present.


Analyzing these occurrences now in hindsight, we could say that the “professor” was dangling bait over our heads, based on specific psychological knowledge. He knew in advance that he would fish out amenable individuals, and even how to do it, but the limited numbers disappointed him. The transpersonification process generally took hold only when an individual’s instinctive substratum was marked by pallor or certain deficits. To a lesser extent, it also worked among people who manifested other deficiencies in which the state provoked within them was partially impermanent, being largely the result of psychopathological induction.


This knowledge about the existence of susceptible individuals and how to work on them will continue being a tool for world conquest as long as it remains the secret of such “professors”. When it becomes skillfully popularized science, it will help nations to develop immunity. But none of us knew this at the time.


Nevertheless, we must admit that in demonstrating the properties of this process to us in such a way as to force us into in-depth experience, the professor helped us understand the nature of the phenomenon in a larger scope than many a true scientific researcher participating in this work in other less direct ways.

~~~

As a youth, I read a book about a naturalist wandering through the Amazon-basin wilderness. At some moment a small animal fell from a tree onto the nape of his neck, clawing his skin painfully and sucking his blood. The biologist cautiously removed it — without anger, since that was its form of feeding — and proceeded to study it carefully. This story stubbornly stuck in my mind during those very difficult times when a vampire fell onto our necks, sucking the blood of an unhappy nation.

Maintaining the attitude of a naturalist, while attempting to track the nature of macro-social phenomenon in spite of all adversity, insures a certain intellectual distance and better psychological hygiene in the face of horrors that might otherwise be difficult to contemplate. Such an attitude also slightly increases the feeling of safety and furnishes an insight that this very method may help find a certain creative solution. This requires strict control of the natural, moralizing reflexes of revulsion, and other painful emotions that the phenomenon provokes in any normal person when it deprives him of his joy of life and personal safety, ruining his own future and that of his nation. Scientific curiosity therefore becomes a loyal ally during such times.

 


Notes

[1] p. 133; Philosophy of Right, “The State”, By Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1821 Trad. S. W. Dyde, 2008. Cosimo, Google Print, p. 133.
[2] p.57; The Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell, Published by Routledge; New edition edition, 1985 | ISBN-10: 041510906X
[3] Ibid. (p.27)
[4] Ibid. (p.51)
[5] Ibid. (p.27)
[6] Ibid. (p.31)
[7] Ibid. (p.52)
[8] Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932).
[9] op. cit. Russell (p.97)
[10] op. cit. Brzezinski (1997)
[11] op. cit. Russell, (p.29)
[12] Ibid. (p.53)
[13] p. 260; The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, By Bertrand Russell. Published by Routledge January 1950
[14] op. cit. Lobacwezki (p..27)

World State Policies II: Fabianism: “With Fate Conspire”

“To play those millions of minds, to watch them slowly respond to an unseen stimulus, to guide their aspirations without their knowledge – all this whether in high capacities or in humble, is a big and endless game of chess, of ever extraordinary excitement.”

— Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society.”


clip_image002Italy’s Antonio Gramsci, was one of the greatest Marxist intellectuals who played a large part in mainstreaming an Illuminist strategy for destroying Christianity and re-shaping Western culture. Since the communist revolution was only partly successful for a variety of vested interests, Leninist methods were ditched in favour of cultural Marxism that would initiate change from within, gradually and inexorably as a “long march through the institutions.” No domain of society would remain untouched. The jostling for New World Order advocates had become fused with ceremonial psychopathy allowing Illuminist inspired philosophies to reincarnate into political theory across Liberal, Conservative and Zionist ideologies, the latter grouping making up most of the progenitors of Marxist theory.

By the end of World War I the Hungarian Bolshevik Georg Lukacs had introduced the concept of “cultural terrorism” which further embedded the strategy within the minds of academia and the Elite. For Lukacs – like the industrialists who came after him – knowledge of psychology and sexual mores were integral part of social engineering towards a Marxist philosophy. Traditional perceptions of sexuality and the sacred were there to be fragmented and distorted – shattered into fragments in order to be remade towards specific aims. This would be taken on by later groups such as the Fabian Society and the massive social engineering programs of the Rockefellers and affiliated organisations.  The three streams of Establishment ideology were moving in the same direction but frequent in-fighting between factions meant that capitalist-collectivist thinking went through a variety of upheavals as it sought to find the ultimate tool for the mass mind and elite dominance.

By the 1920s, after a broadly unsuccessful attempt to change his native country Lukacs had gained a following in Germany which, with industrialist assistance, led to the creation of The Institute for Social Research based at Frankfurt University. This centre of Marxist theory later became simply The Frankfurt School a hugely influential think-tank which would become the social engineering hub for the Western mind. By the 1930s, Cultural Marxism had become a substantial force behind the scenes with psychology forming the basis of new advances in political theory. Intellectuals Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were key in the development of culture as a primary force in shaping the trajectory of social perception. It was to be even more important than the emphasis on economic disparity which was so crucial to the theory of Marx. For Horkheimer, the proletariat was not the focus of future revolutions but culture as a whole. To make it work, the hybridisation of concepts was essential.

The psychoanalysis of Freud and cultural Marxism would fuse so that the concept of sexual repression and Pavlovian conditioning would eventually make the population pliable and compliant in the face of World State policies. It was to lay the foundation of a method of critical theory where social science and government institutions would be imbued with the bias of cultural Marxism inside a corporatist framework. Education meant adopting the correct attitude rather than universal morality or values. Oppression and victimhood – so much a part of the Zionist cause – was the precursor to so many “progressive” theories which value conformity, group consciousness and homogeneity at the expense of individualism and freedom. Zionism and cultural Marxism went hand in hand. As Jewish immigration to the United States gained momentum throughout the 20th century, media and entertainment were the natural focus of Jewish intellectuals since it was a double whammy of both political and cultural infiltration.

By the 1950s and 1960s the marriage of Zionism, cultural Marxism, advances in psychology and the left-over of seeds of a Nazi-imbued psychopathy were re-established with the support of the Anglo-American, liberal Establishment. It would be the crucible of change that would alter the social landscape of the US in ways unimaginable. While on the one hand eugenics was very much a part of Elite beliefs, the collective and group consciousness was promoted, so too the idea of a One World Order. Mixed in to re-shape sexuality were change agents such as Alfred Kinsey and the sexual revolution, all manner of New Age distortions and streams of the counter-culture subverted and contoured towards the same psychological conditioning. With the merging of psychoanalysis and cultural Marxism sexual perversity became normalised and instinctual drives went beyond the healing of repression to become the pinnacle of the pyramid to which all healing would aspire. Rather than “Free Love” it was free sex and liberation without limitation as an end in itself where traditional institutions and wisdom were thrown out in favour of bland mediocrity. It was indeed a Brave New World of sensation where humanism and later transhumanism and their vision of technocracy would develop the Marxist ideas into a sensate machine for the masses, the torch of Illuminism acting as a red herring and cover for core members of global occultism. The seeds of psychopathy that lay behind it never died.

Developed by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, an ideology was born from political and socialist economic theories, developed from his own interpretations of Marxist theory. He advocated taking power directly as a prelude to socialism. It was a “now or never” principle where the claiming of that power was of overriding importance; the details could follow later. The term “Leninism” was popularized in the early 1920s to denote a “vanguard-party revolution”. It is most clearly seen in a quote from the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” [1]

By 1905 Lenin and his Bolshevik revolution was overseeing a return of power to the proletariat and the destruction of anything that stood in its way. The bourgeoisie had reason to be afraid. An example of Leninist group-think would be Neo-Conservatism and Revisionist Zionism. [2] Individuals such as Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld represent this line of authoritarianism. For Leninist collectivists, the wolf is openly on show. Though they would never dream of describing themselves as Leninist, it is the principle at work here.

On the other side of the coin was The Fabian Society founded in 1884 by, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, along with English writer Edward R. Pease who also became a trustee for the famous socialist creation of the London School of Economics, also founded by the Webbs. Financing magically arrived from the Rothschilds as well other international bankers including Lord Haldane who summed up the purpose of the society succinctly: “Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State.” [3]A cross-fertilisation of humanism, theosophy, and Communism took place. Lord George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and Arnold Toynbee were some of the earliest members who shared their open views regarding how to shape the world on the anvil of their particular brand of socialist principles. Round table members if not directly part of the society would have been fully aware of the group as it evolved alongside at roughly the same time. More modern versions of Fabians – by nature if not always by membership – are Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gordon Brown, David Rockefeller, Robert Fuller, George Monbiot, Barack Obama and Maurice Strong.

The Fabian Society is the Anglo-American branch of cultural Marxism. Comprised of an elite group of intellectuals from the middle and upper classes a semi-secret society was formed for the express purpose of creating a socialist order without using the Marxist-Leninist methods of revolution but by facilitation and gradation – the gentle approach, much like the action of water eroding rock. They would do this by infiltrating government, education, media, law and commerce, with sophisticated propaganda playing a decisive role in their indoctrinations. The violence and direct confrontation of the Leninists was avoided, unless absolutely necessary. Established governments and institutions were targeted by the Fabians for a dose of social engineering to give qualitatively better and more enduring results. Drawing attention to the term “socialism” was considered counter-productive. Humanitarian principles such as welfare, medical care, workers rights, women’s rights, foreign aid and multiculturalism would serve their objectives without resorting to overt conflict and more importantly, the collectivist vision behind these ostensibly benign moves would never be seen for what it was, and thus easy to proceed without interference. Their hope was that their methods would spread throughout society by a form of direct and indirect educative osmosis which would then become the norm.

The late author Eustace Mullins described a social historian’s observations concerning the “rats” rather than the “wolves” of social engineering and what he considered to be the major development in the late nineteenth century: “… perhaps equivalent to the discovery of the wheel.” He was referring to the time when: “…charitable foundations and world Communism became important movements” and their new discovery: “… was the concept developed by the rats, who after all have rather highly developed intelligences, that they could trap people by baiting traps with little bits of cheese. The history of mankind since then has been the rats catching humans in their traps. Socialism – indeed any government program – is simply the rat baiting the trap with a smidgen of cheese and catching himself a human.” [4]

By 1900 the Fabian Society joined with the trade union movement which later became the political arm of the Labour Party which would eventually implement the framework of the welfare state (and some would say the normalisation of dependency and government responsibility). As a result, the Fabian Society still has a strong influence on government policy. After all, many Labour Party politicians have been Fabians including several Prime Ministers: Ramsay MacDonald MP, Clement Attlee PM, Tony Benn MP, Anthony Crosland PM, Richard Crossman MP, Harold Wilson PM, Tony Blair PM, and Gordon Brown PM.

The symbol of their elected method of gradualism is the turtle and the official shield of the Fabian Society shows an image of a wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolising the gradual shaping of society by manipulation. While Leninism is a Wolf taking what it wants directly, the Fabian ploy is by deception over longer periods of time, but a still a Wolf preying on the sheep, though it is doubtful stalwart Fabians would see it that way.

Allowing the easing of “social tension” is useful by employing socialist principles whilst maintaining the overarching capitalist system. The power inherent within the seeming dichotomy of National Socialism comprising the corporate state and Fabians’ welfare state is seen in a report from 1982 by Alan Pifer, then president of the Carnegie Corporation whom we shall turn to presently. Pifer stated there would be: “… A mounting possibility of severe social unrest, and the consequent development among the upper classes and the business community of sufficient fear for the survival of our capitalist economic system to bring about an abrupt change of course. Just as we built the general welfare state … and expanded it in the 1960s as a safety valve for the easing of social tension, so will we do it again in the 1980s. Any other path is too risky.” [5]

Nationalisation of land and government institutions, protectionism and resistance to free-trade are some of the beliefs of Fabianism. According to member George Bernard Shaw, the Society saw the enormous power of the environment as key to progressive change over time. He passionately drove this point home when he said: “We can change it; we must change it; there is absolutely no other sense in life than the task of changing it. What is the use of writing plays, what is the use of writing anything, if there is not a will which finally moulds chaos itself into a race of gods.” [6]  In their reality, we might have an inkling who will be sitting on the clouds of Olympus when these “gods” in waiting have finished offering the cure to such Hegelian chaos. To this end, Bernard Shaw designed an intriguing stained glass window for the Fabian Society. The window was installed at the Fabian Society’s headquarters but was removed in 1978 for reasons unknown. It came to light again during a sale at Sotheby’s in 2005 having been purchased by the Webb Memorial Trust and was later loaned to the London School of Economics. It depicts two men – possibly Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw – with large hammers pounding a globe of the world which rests on an anvil. Ten individuals kneel reverentially below while a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing displayed on a shield hovers above the world. There is also an inscription above the globe which reads: “Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

This line is from Persian poet and mystic Omar Khayyam:

 “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits,

And then remold it nearer to the heart’s desire!”

Why is the Earth placed on an anvil? To reshape and transform it into something closer to the Fabian desires. First, the earth and its people must be “shattered to bits” via methods of the Wolf that is hidden behind sheep’s’ clothing and which dominates the earthly sphere. And certainly, the best way to shatter and re-order it into a collectivist’s vision is through the fire of war and the gradualism of “social reform.”

Perhaps one of the most famous proponents of this kind of was Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells in his The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) where the seemingly laudable aims of socialism are merely used as a backdoor for something quite different. Wells, like so many of his colleagues formed the rival camp of “scientific technique” as the antidote to the Neo-Platonists of the American and German occult-romanticism of the 19th century. It was they who believed in a singularly ecological form of social order. After all, Cecil Rhodes was inspired by a form of Germanic romanticism and English eco-fascism, poetically expressed by John Ruskin to form his secret society of the Round Table. Ruskin felt that faith in science led to serious errors, Wells, however, embraced scientific rationalism which will serve the idea: “… of a planned world-state … one to which all our thought and knowledge is tending … It is appearing partially and experimentally at a thousand points … its coming is likely to happen quickly.” [7]

And where have we heard such a reference to “a thousand points” and “a New World Order”? From none other than George Bush Sr. and his State of the Union address of 1991 entitled: “envisioning a thousand points of Light” in which he declares: “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order…” [8] The elder statesman  then proceeded to soar into unbelievable rhetoric of which Obama and Blair would have been proud. This is particularly nauseating as the speech was at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the carnage that followed.

What Bush was really signalling to his fellow brethren was a strategic phase in the establishment of a new reality, where the merging of cartel-capitalism with World State collectivism will transcend nation boarders and simplistic notions of left-right paradigms. H.G. Wells explains the nature of the “Open Conspiracy” where its political world:

“… must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments … The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York … The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed… It will be a world religion.” [9]

FabianWindow_Large

fabian-socialist-wolf-in-sheep-clothingThis stained-glass window designed by George Bernard Shaw is on display at the London School of Economics (LSE), which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb. Sidney Webb and Shaw are depicted striking the Earth with hammers echoing a quote from Omar Khayyam: “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE.”  A wolf in sheep’s clothing can be seen as the Fabian crest hovering above the globe, indicating its preference for gradualism (and deception). Once again, the end justifies the means, which echos both Neo-conservatism and Crowleyian occult principles. The only difference now is that we have it in a “socialist” context. Another Fabian symbol denoting the same is the tortoise. Lenin’s well-intentioned but “Useful Idiots” are lined up at the bottom worshipping at the altar of socialism which is meant to help those crushed under the flat foot of the State. Sadly, Fabian-socialists appear to offer equally damaging.


We are beginning to see at this stage its startling relationship to Illuminism and the replication of themes and principles which occur throughout literature, politics and social science. Implicit in such belief systems is society elevated to the position far above individual, community and the hope of natural networks that may operate as self-organised units, without the need of the State. By following the centralisation of government as the authority figure, society becomes so ill and pathologised that what the majority of well-intentioned capitalists and socialists appear to not understand is that Fabian manipulations on the anvil of their romantic but dangerous desires is just a tool for psychopathic ascendency. Forcing change by placing populations on an anvil of any ideology won’t work – not least if it is overshadowed by deception.

As author and journalist G. Edward Griffin observed:

If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Religion encourages contentment and dulls the anger and passion needed for revolutionary change. … Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it should become the vision for better things in the next world. He said the new order must be built on the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. [10]

Build a seductive vision appealing to every human being’s limitless belief in the romance of greener pastures and you have an instant magnetic node to attract your faithful. Philanthropy and Communism were mighty pillars in their armoury of mass control for the Rothschilds and Rockefellers alike. Rather than any altruistic or ideological reasons for their support, knowledge of how these movements served to broker power was vital to the 4Cs.

The long-lived patriarch of the 19th century John D. Rockefeller who presided over Standard Oil and the rise of corporate influence over American society viewed Communism as just another chance to make mountains of dosh. It was the ultimate monopoly made manifest, where financing both sides of any conflict could only mean a self-perpetuating and eternal source of monetary extraction sourced from State oppression. Ever greater forms of monopoly were the driving force of Rockefeller’s power and remains so for the minds who have taken on his vision. China, as exactly the communist-capitalist hybrid currently staking its claim across the world is seen as the perfect template for a neo-feudal World State. This is why John D. Rockefeller’s grandson David Rockefeller as a “china Traveller” in 1973 would sing the praises of the Maoist regime despite the despot having murdered over 40 million of his own people. The Dewy-eyed David waxed lyrical about how “impressed” he was about the “sense of national harmony” and: “… Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded … in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive … The enormous social advances of China have benefited 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.” [11]

It is this form of Communism that is so attractive to the globalist mind. It serves as the perfect model: a totalitarian Elite sitting astride a top-down capitalist system of highly centralised resource management. This love of Communism was in part, entirely misplaced by the McCarthyism of the 1950s as somehow the spectre of cold war infiltration. While the persecution of certain members of Congress, and members within the media and entertainment world was inexcusable, there was, ironically, some justification for the “red menace” but a complete misunderstanding of the true cause.

Author Anthony C. Sutton reminds us that collectivism is indeed a creature of necessity in both belief systems:

It may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. An alternative concept of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.

There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists – to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because academic historians have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. There are two clues: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose – and it is only hypothesis at this point – that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?  [12]

In order to usher in suitable conditions for their New International Order, certain programs were to be implemented in those very tax-exempt organisations and institutions so that Americans would eventually accept the creation of a world government. This is why the principle of collectivism via Communism, internationalism, globalisation and group endeavour has been promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment Centre for National Peace and the Lucis Trust. Even by 1913, there was concern by many in the US government of the day that industrialists and their philanthropic creed were not all they appeared to be. The rapid ascendency of the corporation has been achieved by the ruthless application of the 4Cs. The philanthropic foundation, though offering many altruistic peoples a platform for good deeds is still birthed from a perception that is not remotely interested in furthering the social emancipation of ordinary people. Foundations have taken advantage of the naturally growing altruism present in the normal population having expanded from a mere 21 to more than 50,000 by 1990. [13] This has been commensurate with the take-over of government by corporations and most importantly, educational policy which historically has always been the target. Such was the concern at the evolution of these strange corporate entities and their focus on education of the nation that the 662nd Congress created a commission to investigate the role of these new foundations. After one year of testimony their conclusion was definitive:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of the nation. […] The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power, however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances which insulate it from criticism and scrutiny.” [14]

Yet these conclusions were to highlight the apathy and fecklessness of Congressional power, not least the relative ease to which they submitted to bribes by the Elite in return for legislative support.

An interview conducted with Norman Dodd in 1982 by writer and film-maker G. Edward Griffin, provides an interesting confirmation of the above. From his work as staff director of the Reece Committee a Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations named after Congressman Carroll Reece, Dodd was tasked with investigating “un-American” activities rumoured to be circulating in large tax-exempt foundations and other institutions within America. This had been prompted by certain editorials and opinion pieces within newspapers and foundation newsletters perceived to have been unduly supportive of communist ideology. Dodd under the Reece Committee defined “un-American” as: “… a determination to effect changes in the country by unconstitutional means. …any effort in that direction which did not avail itself of the procedures which were authorized by the Constitution could be justifiably called un-American.” [15]

Before his appointment to the Reece Committee Dodd worked in banking and financial consultancy through the 1929 depression up to his appointment by the Reece Committee in 1953. His interest in seeking methods by which he could contribute to: “… the educational world to … teach the subject of economics realistically and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterize our country.” [16] His networking with individuals who thought the banking system was not working in the US and his obvious capacity as both a member of the stock exchange and international financial advisor brought him into contact with those at higher levels of commerce. One of these was Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation. After meeting Gaither in New York for what he assumed would be an informal and friendly welcome the CEO revealed something to Dodd that almost caused him to “fall off his chair”. An extract from the transcript follows, (or you can watch the full interview here).

“Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves?” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and said:

“Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war. We’ve had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”

I said, “Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know,” whereupon he made this statement to me: “Mr. Dodd, we are here operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” […]

“Well, Mr. Gaither I can now answer your first question. You’ve forced the Congress of the United States to spend $150,000 to find out what you’ve just told me.” I said: “Of course, legally, you’re entitled to make grants for this purpose, but I don’t think you’re entitled to withhold that information from the people of the country to whom you’re indebted for your tax exemption, so why don’t you tell the people of the country what you just told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing.” So then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you’ve forced the Congress to spend this money in order to find out what you’ve just told me.” [17]

After that experience it’s understandable that Dodd found himself accepting a post on the Reece Committee.

In 1954, Norman Dodd had been able to study the minutes of meetings from a twenty year period which he found implicated the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other organisations in an intentional manipulation of the United States into World War I and explicit control of US education in order to subvert and distort history towards a collectivist ideology. Though this is one man’s testimony and much like the Kay Griggs interviews open to criticism, they are compelling for their sense of authenticity and factual confirmation. Dodd had nothing to gain from his claims and indeed the details merely confirm the beliefs and actions of the protagonists in question which derive from many other sources.

The Carnegie Endowment for international Peace, (now an international peace and foreign-policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C.) began its operations in 1908 and officially in 1910 with a $10 million gift by its founder, industrialist and J.D. Rockefeller buddy Andrew Carnegie, giving his trustees “… the widest discretion as to the measures and policy they shall from time to time adopt” in carrying out the purpose of the fund. [18]According to the minutes of this meeting the discussion revolved around the question as to whether there was a more effective means than war to change the lives of an entire populace. They concluded that there was not. In the following year the second question asked in the meeting was how could they involve the United States in a war? They decided that the control of the State Department was necessary to achieve such an aim and for that to be successful the channels of diplomacy would also have to be controlled.

During World War I another meeting took place where they decided to send a telegram to President Woodrow Wilson advising him not to end participation in the war too quickly. By the time the war had ended in 1918 their focus had shifted to how best they could mould American society towards their objectives, deciding that education with specific attention to American history must be reshaped and reformed. That was when the Rockefeller Foundation came aboard, presumably with great enthusiasm. Domestic operations would be handled by the Foundation while educational concerns at the international level would be handled by the Carnegie Endowment.

After being turned down by many academics when asked if they would “alter the manner in which they present their subject” they finally adopted the tactic of creating their own group of historians for this express purpose. The Guggenheim Foundation was found to be amenable to their designs and agreed to grant them fellowships on the Carnegie Endowment board’s say so. Eventually, twenty potential teachers of American history were sent to London, effectively told what was expected of them: securing posts that were fitting for the doctorates they had been generously granted. These twenty historians ultimately became the core grouping within the American Historical Association. Dodd states further that by the end of the 1920s:

“… the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.” [19]

The minutes were transcribed by Dodd’s colleague Kathryn Casey onto dictatone files. These might reside, according to Dodd, somewhere in the US House of Representatives or Congress.

Norman Dodd succeeded in making his mark against the true “un-American” activities existing in the United States at the time. The second Congressional investigation of foundation tampering with schools and American social life ran into vociferous criticisms from corporate and political quarters which caused its disbandment soon after. Nevertheless, the committee offered their findings from an almost one-thousand page report which stated:

The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion.

The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in education and the social sciences, with a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. This Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of education.

It has come to exercise very extensive practical control over social science and education. A system has arisen which gives enormous power to a relatively small group of individuals, having at their virtual command huge sums in public trust funds.

The power of the large foundations and the Interlock has so influenced press, radio, television, and even government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of anything the Interlock approves to get into news channels—without having first been ridiculed, slanted and discredited.

Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution of our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of professional employees of the large foundations. Even the great sums allotted by federal government to social science research have come into the virtual control of this professional group.

Foundations have promoted a great excess of empirical research as contrasted with theoretical research, promoting an irresponsible “fact-finding mania” leading all too frequently to “scientism” or fake science.

Associated with the excessive support of empirical method, the concentration of foundation power has tended to promote “moral relativity” to the detriment of our basic moral, religious, and governmental principles. It has tended to promote the concept of “social engineering,” that foundation-approved “social scientists” alone are capable of guiding us into better ways of living, substituting synthetic principles for fundamental principles of action.

These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in political activity, not in the form of direct support of candidates or parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully calculated political concepts.

The impact of foundation money upon education has been very heavy, tending to promote uniformity in approach and method, tending to induce the educator to become an agent for social change and a propagandist for the development of our society in the direction of some form of collectivism. In the international field, foundations and the Interlock, together with certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling research through the power of the purse. The net result has been to promote “internationalism” in a particular sense—a form directed toward “world government” and a derogation of American nationalism. [Emphasis mine] [20]

The early days of American education are soaked in corporatist-collectivist group-think and One World indoctrination which has only become more entrenched and sophisticated in its camouflage. There were constant warnings about this pathogenic infection throughout the 20th century but the strength of the funding and corruption both in Congress and in the education system itself was too strong.  It is important to take note that though this appears to be a “communist plot”, collectivism alongside corporatism are products of the genesis of evil, known in ponerological terms as “ponerogenesis.” Psychopaths are merely using the most convenient tool s to achieve their ends, a fact which has been reiterated throughout this blog so that the reader does not fall into a waiting belief-trap. An example of this can be seen in the scapegoating of the public regarding child molestation and paedophilia and the witch-hunts that followed. The climate of fear and persecution was also famously present at the McCarthy hearings. These are both examples of seriously flawed attempts to address pathocratic influence and the latter’s successful methods at countering it.

It seems the most effective way of ensuring pathocratic dominance through the application of collectivism is by co-opting education of the masses. As we have seen in the testimony of Norman Dodd this is exactly where they have focused their intentions most effectively. Fabianism is synonymous with social engineering and it is the Rockefeller Foundation that took up the gauntlet of not only helping to contour human sexuality and psychology but to target schoolchildren and therefore subsequent generations of adults in the ways of vertical collectivism alongside the principles of the 4Cs.  We also see why there were so many Fabians within Alice Bailey’s Theosophical branch of occultism which promoted the memes of group consciousness and a New World Religion sourced from the United Nations. Same ideology different societal domain. You a method of psycho-spiritual manipulation for every conceivable preference. (Obviously we cannot forget that this hugely benefits the theocratic aims of Zionism whose agents work across the whole 3EM to varying degrees. Cultural Marxism and collectivism are the most useful examples to Zionist and authoritarian Jewish leaders since it fuses seamlessly with anti-Semitism propaganda).

clip_image008

The late Norman Dodd, former Congressional Investigator during an interview by G. Edward Griffin.

To fulfil their these objectives J.D. Rockefeller’s and Frederick T. Gates’ General Education Board founded in 1902 was given the task to redesign American education in way that could not be accomplished by the Carnegie Endowment or Guggenheim members alone. When combined with other Rockefeller social engineering projects, the sheer ambition and scope of their mission cannot be understated, nor the consequences of their obvious success. When you read the mission statements and objectives of The General Education Board several themes become evident all aligning themselves towards the very principles we have been exploring. Such thinking is in plain sight, with alternative possibilities entirely absent. The themes on show are actually the antithesis of good schooling. Dressed up in euphemisms for the common good we have a clear doctrine for creating an ideological system – “system” being the operative word. The intention to encourage and implement:

1.An agenda to minimize learning and understanding in favour of a specific collectivist belief.

2. The reduction of intelligence in favour of endless specialization.

3.A default emphasis on class distinction.

4. To erode and finally eliminate schooling traditions, customs and academic excellence that may lie outside of The General Education Board’s objectives.

5. The reduction of parental influence.

6. Clear indications of eugenic undercurrents, group think, homogeneity and conformity with the loss of individuality and originality.

7. The politicisation of education.

Through the 1920s and 1930s the rolling clouds of collectivism, corporatism and eugenics were beginning to form over education in America and to a lesser degree in Europe. Rockefeller agent Professor John Dewey from the Colombia Teachers College had his Progressive Education Association set up by 1920 which was to spread the Humanist philosophy and eugenics-based doctrine over educational policy. He co-authored the Humanist Manifesto in 1933 which called for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.”Co-signer C.F. Potter stated in 1930: “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” [21]

By 1947, that pivotal year for collectivist social models, the PEA would become the American Education Fellowship where Dewey renewed his call for the: “… establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority …” Another Colombia professor Harold Rugg supported Deweys’ statements and society’s need to mould the child’s mind via a new scientific imperative where “a new public mind is to be created.” This was to be achieved:

“… by creating tens of millions of individual minds and welding them into a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up and ‘new climates of opinion’ formed in the neighborhoods of America. Through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government—one that will embrace all the activities of men, one that will postulate the need of scientific control…in the interest of all people.” [22]

Rugg’s vision was among many who saw a scientific elite ready to: “… create swiftly a compact body of minority opinion for the scientific reconstruction of our social order.” His fervour no doubt impressed the Rockefeller Foundation, enough to fund his prolific texts via the Lincoln School and the National Education Authority, both bastions of a social science that would later be known as Social Darwinism (eugenics).

And it is this “scientific control” that we will turn to next.

 


Notes

[1] The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest) commissioned by the Communist League originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) and published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It laid out the League’s purposes and program.
[2] Francis Fukyama once a Neo-Conservative supporter stated that Neo-Conservative s “…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.” Fukuyama, F. ‘After Neo Conservatism.’ New York Times Magazine. February 19, 2006.
[3] See Eric D. Butler, The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, (Melbourne: Australian League of Rights, 1964), pp. 19, 20.
[4] op. cit. Mullins (p.191)
[5] op. cit. Taylor Gatto.
[6] ‘George Bernard Shaw’. SpartacusEducational. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jshaw.htm
[7] p.243; Ecology in the 20th Centur:, A History, By Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. | ISBN 0300045212
[8] George H. W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, ‘Envisioning One Thousand Points of Light’ Given on Tuesday, January 29, 1991. Infoplease.com
[9] The Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells, 1928 The revised and expanded version arrived in 1933.
[10] ‘Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas’ The Future Is Calling (Part Two) 2003 – 2011 by G. Edward Griffin Revised 2011 July 18. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
[11] ‘From a China Traveler’ By David Rockefeller, The New York Times August 10, 1973.
[12] Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution By Antony C. Sutton, 1974. See also online version here: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html
[13] p.9; Private Funds, Public Purpose: Philanthropic Foundations in International Perspectives
edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler, Published by Klewer Academic / Plenum Publishers, | ISBN 0306-45947-7
[14] The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling By John Taylor Gatto, New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001 |Online edition. Chapter 12: ‘The Daughters of the Barons of Runnemede.’
[15] ‘The Hidden Agenda: interview with Norman Dodd’ By G. Edward Griffin 1982. http://www.realityzone.com
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements by Edmund Jan Osmanczyk and Anthony MangoLondon: Routledge, 2004.
[19] op. cit. Griffin.
[20] ‘The Reece Committee Hearings Before the Special Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organisations – House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, Second Session on H. Resolution 217’ 1954.
[21] Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and published with 34 signers. Refers to humanism as a religious movement meant to replace previous, deity-based systems. Cosmology, human nature, biological and cultural evolution, epistemology, ethics, religion, self-fulfillment, and the quest for freedom and social justice. This latter, stated in article fourteen, proved to be the most controversial, even among humanists, in its opposition to ‘acquisitive and profit-motivated society’ and its call for an egalitarian world community based on voluntary mutual cooperation. The document’s release was reported by the mainstream media on May 1, simultaneous with its publication in the May/June 1933 issue of the New Humanist” (Wikipedia)
[22] The Great Technology: social chaos and the public mind by Harold Rugg, 1933.