Anglo-American Establishment

Osama and Al-Qaeda I

By M.K. Styllinski

“The idea which is critical to the FBI¹s prosecution that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.”

Jason Burke, author, quoted in The Power of Nightmares, documentary


The key to understanding some of the key reasons for the September 11th attacks lies in the history of bin Laden and the creation of Al-Qaeda. The problem is still perpetuated by a common public misconception that there is still a case of “us and them” between government forces and Al-Qaeda terrorism. The American public and some within the 911 Truth Movement and MSM are pressing for culpability for members of the Bush Administration and their part in allowing Al-Qaeda to launch attacks on the United States. So called politicians turned whistleblowers are largely criticising failure of intelligence or incompetence without seeing the root causes which lies at the heart the War on Terror as a piece of large-scale propaganda of which Edward Bernays would have been proud. As author and economist Professor Michel Chossudovsky mentions: “… in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up. ‘Revealing the lies’ serves to present Al-Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an ‘outside enemy’, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al-Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.” [1]

Al-Qaeda is more of a mercenary tool of global intelligence than a real terrorist threat. Regime change and resource exploitation are some of its goals. This necessarily incorporates radicalised individuals who serve as patsies and agents furthering the overall geo-strategy. They are a common form of collateral and cannon fodder. There is a wealth of evidence  for the interested researcher confirming the myth of Al-Qaeda from the mouths of whistleblowers, ex-Intel operatives, politicians, statesmen, authors and academics.

Leonid Shebarshin ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper, that Al-Qaeda was an “all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam” in order to target “… the oil-rich Muslim regions.” He further commented: “The U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat…” and with military bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Shebarshin said, “the United States has already established control over the Caspian region — one of the world’s largest oil reservoirs.” [2]

938px-Flag_of_Jihad.svg

The Shahada – the Flag of Jihad often seen flying with Al-Qaeda, Taliban and ISIL (Source: wikipedia)

It is here that the Three Establishment Model (3EM) interests converge. They do so from the seemingly innocuous beginnings of the Safari Club which had its relatively humble beginnings in homage to the colonial hunters of the British Elite, Cecil Rhodes and the Round Table.

Russell E. Train (cousin of John Train, the Pilgrims Society member and former financial advisor to CIA-ally John Hay Whitney) was a co-founder of the African Wildlife Foundation set up since 1961. According to Train’s biography his foundation had drifted away from the Safari Club which was in existence before 1958 and coyly described by him as “a newly formed organization set up by a local group of businessmen who had gone on a hunt together in Mozambique.” [3] Although certainly a white man’s big-game hunting troupe for Pan-European and Anglo-American big-wigs, one of these businessmen and founders was Kermit Roosevelt Jr. who had set up the club as an anti-communist outpost, the evolution of which was given the seal of approval by Henry Kissinger several years later. Among other states, Saudi Arabia had a large hand in financing operations in Morocco, Egypt and Iran, with a view to countering Soviet operations in the Middle East and Africa. [4]

The other important founder was Count Alexandre de Marenches, the director of French intelligence services representing Pan-European Synarchism in the region. It would thus represent the next phase in Anglo-American dominance in Africa. The WWF and the 1001 club were involved in its formation via Train, Arthur Windsor Arundel and Sue Erpf van de Bovenkamp [5]

With Nixon booted out over the Watergate Scandal 1974, this saw the arrival of a new breed of psychopaths in power who would preside over criminal rule just as they did on 9/11: Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld; Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney; Vice president Nelson Rockefeller (brother of David) and George H.W. Bush as CIA Director, who joined the Ford Administration and the Kissinger cabal. Under this motley crew, 1976 would see the consolidation of a coalition of intelligence agencies that would begin the comprehensive carving up of Africa. The Safari Club would become the central hub for American intelligence financing; the organisation of an international network of terrorists; the CIA’s role in the global drug trade; the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of Al-Qaeda.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) formerly a small Pakistani merchant bank was transformed into an ISI/CIA front for the biggest world-wide money laundering enterprise in history. Its job was to accrue a network of banks to finance intelligence in Africa and other nations. Under Bush, the intelligence groups in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran worked closely with the CIA who found could out-source their Intel operations through these nations which otherwise have been logistically difficult not least because French intelligence was still at the helm of the Safari Club.

1977 was the year that the Trilateral Commission were able to exercise their power more actively through Jimmy Carter’s administration, though in truth, the real power was sourced from Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor, just one of many Trilaterals which infested the government at that time. Foreign policy would be steered towards Trilateral objectives which saw the colonisation of Eurasia as vital in eroding the power of the Soviet Union, seen as a continuing threat to US supremacy and resource scarcity. Iran would become the fulcrum of revolution which would lead to the destabilisation of Russia and her interests. “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, [that] there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.” [6] The same old patterns of interference ensued.

Brzezinski_1977

Zibigniew Brzezinski 1977 (wikipedia)

In 1953, the United States’ CIA initiated a coup in Iran under the codename of Operation AJAX, which sought to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Almost thirty years later the Royal Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dictator of Iran was suddenly no longer useful and Anglo-American allegiances now supported the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini in favour of containment regarding Russia and access to oil. The media propaganda went into full swing for Revolution as preparations for a military coup inside Iran. In 1979, a coup proved unnecessary and Ayatollah Khomeini was smoothly installed as the Ayatollah of an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Much like the kinds of US-NATO-led incursions we saw in Libya and Syria in the last few years, human rights abuses, real and imagined, were floated excessively in the media. As social tensions rose in Iran the Shah’s secret police the notorious SAVAK were encouraged by US diplomats to embark on a campaign: “of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.”

True to form, the Shah fell into the trap laid by Zbigniew Brzezinski who had advised him: “… to be firm” in the face of demonstrations. [7]

After assisting the installation of fundamentalist Islam and just prior to the Iran-Iraq war Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein and gave his support for the war ensuring that arms would be secured with the support of Arab oil-producing nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. [8] Though this war provided a bonanza for weapons manufacturers in the US, Britain and Russia it also served the American interests in fermenting continuing radicalism in the region so that pockets of conflict and the background of war would serve as cover for securing economic interests.

Meanwhile, as Islamic fundamentalism had been seeded and watered in Iran, Osama bin Laden had left Saudi Arabia to train the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan which the US government were training, arming, and funding to the tune of $3 billion thanks again to Brzezinski transplanting the Islamic foreign policy over to the “holy War.” Very soon, as the late Robert I. Freidman describes in The CIA’s Jihad: “… young Muslim men from across the Arab world, as well as from the U.S., flocked to Mujahedeen base camps outside Peshawar, Pakistan, where they were instructed in everything from making car bombs to shooting down Russian MiGs with U.S.-made Stinger missiles. Most of these recruits were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists who despised America just as much as they hated the Communist occupiers, but the CIA was willing to overlook that.” [9]

Osama bin Laden’s leadership in Afghanistan was vital in driving out Russia. The pretext used on this occasion was that the incumbent Afghan government was communist, which it wasn’t. The enormous investment handled by the CIA meant the creation and consolidation of bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist network with the blessing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – and American tax-payers’ money. [10]  Brzezinski’s strategy to lay a trap for Russia whereby the Mujahedeen’s guerrilla war would embroil the Soviet Union in their own Vietnam was supremely successful, leading to its withdrawal and eventual collapse. [11]

october_87-muja

Afghan Mujahedeen,October 1987. By Erwin Lux (Wikipedia)

Now that the Safari Club had managed to send out word through its extensive network of intelligence, numerous new recruits were harvested for the glorious jihad and holy war taking place in Afghanistan. Ahmed Rashid writing in Foreign Affairs explained: “With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” [12] Islamic fundamentalism provided ample opportunity for martyrdom with a fantasy paradise of umpteen virgins waiting for their courageous warriors should they take up arms against the Russian infidels.

Bcci_logoBy the time the Reagan Administration took over Vice President George H.W. Bush made sure the BCCI banking funds were on hand for an expansion of operations in Afghanistan and other regions primed for divide and conquer tactics. Journalist Seymour Hersh termed the Safari Club a “private intelligence group [which was] one of George H. W. Bush’s many end-runs around congressional oversight of the American intelligence establishment and the locus of many of the worst features of the mammoth BCCI scandal.” [13]

Australian journalist John Pilger also placed the onus firmly on the Anglo-American intelligence structure: “More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.” [14]

taliban

Taliban fighters

In the early 1980’s Osama bin Laden already had firmly established ties between Saudi intelligence agency (GIP) their favourite Afghan warlord Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and the Intel chief, and possible middle man for the Mujahedeen groups – Prince Turki al-Faisal, bin Laden’s friend. Though bin Laden “… did have a substantial relationship with Saudi intelligence,” as journalist Steve Coll stated, he was likely not an agent. The CIA and the Safari Club were both working through al-Faisal and “ISI stooge and creation” war-lord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan as well as the Pakistani ISI which had now become a powerful adjunct to the CIA thanks to General (later President) Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s military coup of 1977 who assumed the presidency in 1978. [15] It was no coincidence that Haq passed pro-Islamic legislation, created Islamic banking systems, and Islamic courts and introduced a new religious tax for the creation of tens of thousands of madrassas, or religious boarding schools. This was an offshoot of US policy to build radical Islam, via education that would indoctrinate generations of future Islamic militants for decades to come. This extended to the Pakistani military where “Radical Islamist ideology began to permeate the military and the influence of the most extreme groups crept into the army…” [16]

In 1984, bin Laden moved to Peshawar, a Pakistani town on the border of Afghanistan, so that he could help set up and run Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) (meaning “Services Office” in English). This was a front organisation for the Mujahideen which funnelled weapons, money, and willing Jihad fighters from all over the burgeoning militant Islamic network straight into the increasingly ferocious Afghan war. [17] Meantime, Pakistan’s General Akhtar Abdul-Rahman met bin Laden on a regular basis in the city for Intel and financial dealings related to drug profits from the opium fields which by then were totalling around $100 million. By 1985, bin Laden and the ISI – effectively the CIA – were splitting the proceeds. [18]

202_george_bush_sr

George H. W. Bush and BCCI

Rahman was a close friend of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who by now, was a CIA asset and recognised as an international drug trafficker at Interpol. A top US official said that Haq “was our man … everybody knew that Haq was also running the drug trade” and that “BCCI was completely involved.” [19] Then CIA Director William Casey and Vice President George H. W. Bush were fully aware of the connection and while meeting Haq in Pakistan allowed him to move his drug money through the BCCI in return for his role in the program which was to provide Intel, keep the radical Islamic factions at fever pitch and finance the war on terror network. On one such secret visit to training camps near the Afghan border in 1984, the CIA director spoke of a strategy to “… take the Afghan war into enemy territory—into the Soviet Union itself. Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union’s predominantly Muslim southern republics.” [20] It proved easy to do so. However, it would only be 3 years later that the two Generals Rahman and Haq would both be killed in a plane crash in 1988, widely believed to have been sabotage conducted by the MOSSAD who were concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation instigated by Haq. [21]

Zia_ul-Haq

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq circa 1977

In 1990, the blind Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was travelling to the United States in style – and on a CIA-supported, one-year visa as a reward for his propagandizing lectures in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Much to the confusion and consternation of many intelligence agents he was also on a State Department terrorism watch list that should have barred him from the country. Hand-picked as a spellbinder in order to whip up disaffected Arab immigrants for the required Holy War and in turn, to stir the support for Muslim rebels needed to topple the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan, Rahman was proving an extremely useful part of a burgeoning Islamist network of agents. There were “Jihad offices” in Atlanta, Jersey City, and Dallas, the most important being the “Al-Kedah” (meaning “struggle”) set up in Brooklyn, New York, as the Al-Kedah Refugee Centre which served as fertile ground for Rahman and others’ spellbinding skills.

However, the winds of “blowback” were beginning to whistle through the ranks of Arab-CIA assets, most of whom gave lectures at Al-Kedah which would eventually be implicated in the World Trade Centre Bombings in 1993. Over $600 million was funnelled to this precursor organisation to Al-Qaeda and from several smaller outfits benefiting from CIA funds along with rich Pakistani and Saudi Arabian donors. [22] It would continue to be the main financial hub for CIA chaperoned, Al-Qaeda terrorists so that they could form the so-called network of cells within the United States, heavily monitored and managed by the FBI and CIA. In the words of private Washington attorney and former investigative counsel for the Senate Foreign Relation, Jack Blum: “We steered and encouraged these people. Then we dropped them. Now we’ve got a disposal problem. When you motivate people to fight for a cause – jihad – the problem is, how do you shut them off?” [23]

wtc1993

World Trade Centre Bombings 1993 – Another FBI entrapment set up?

But it was much more than simply forgetting to switch off a tap. This was adapted to a much larger, long-term objective where Al-Qaeda would come home to roost and serve as the bogeyman for a highly ambitious attack on American soil. The object of the CIA exercise was to keep other US agencies and even certain team members from looking too closely into the various issues related to assassinations and terrorist attacks on the homeland. As a growing number of FBI and CIA whistleblowers have proven – not always an easy thing to accomplish.

Another CIA asset rubbing shoulders with bin Laden was Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian preacher/spellbinder recruited from a small village Jenin, ostensibly as a diplomatic tool for uniting squabbling rebel factions in Pakistan. He became bin-Laden’s mentor persuading him to join the Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Azzam was asset gold due to his connections the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi intelligence, and the Muslim World League and the Islamic Coordination Council in Peshawar, which supervised the military activities of the Arab Mujahedeen. Meantime, he could sip martinis and chat with the air stewardesses as he travelled for his frequent lectures in New York, at Al-Kifah and the Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn and the Al-Salam Mosque in Jersey City calling for the “spark” of revolution “… that may one day burn Western interests all over the world.” As Freidman wryly mentions, a fact which drew so many of the CIA assets: “Azzam then asked his audience for donations, made out to his personal account at the Independent Savings Bank.” [24]

Having got too big for his Keffiyeh, Azzam was eventually murdered in a car bomb after accruing many enemies, including Osama bin Laden. No one really knew who had pressed the button but most were glad someone had. As with all allegations of foreknowledge and duplicity the CIA always plays dumb. As a New York investigator observed: “Left with the choice between pleading stupidity or else admitting deceit, the CIA went with stupidity.” [25]

From 1984 onwards, the CIA’s ability to twist itself into a spaghetti junction of lies became tragi-comic. As covert importation of Al-Qaeda terrorist and Islamic militants continued via MAK, one Ali Mohammed came to the attention of the media. A  major in the Egyptian army and a US operative he was tasked with training Islamic militants within the US. As yet another visitor to the Al-Kifah Centre and part of the army unit that was responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat he was involved in a special training program for foreign officers at the US Army Special Forces School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as far back as 1981. Mohammed was apparently purged from the Egyptian Army after the assassination and joined the Green Berets, reportedly travelling to Afghanistan in 1992 to aid the Mujahedeen.

In 1984, US officials told the media that they were forced to remove Mohammed due to his religious beliefs which were considered too extreme. Mohamed found his way to the CIA in Egypt and asked to join as a spy. (It’s as easy as that). CIA subsequently decided that he couldn’t be trusted on account of his associations with Hezbollah. He found himself on a terrorist watch list order to prevent him from coming to the US. However, Mohamed turned up with a brand new visa and moved to America sailing through customs without any problems, with the US State Department choosing not to explain to a thoroughly confused media. [26] Like so many of these stories, they are quickly forgotten.

In 1995, it was revealed at the trial of terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, that Mohammed had been admitted to the US under a special visa program controlled by the CIA’s clandestine service. A subsequent search of his New Jersey home turned up forty boxes of evidence which had the D.A.’s office and the FBI looked at it more carefully, would have revealed an active terrorist conspiracy about to boil over in New York. In addition to discovering thousands of rounds of ammunition and hit lists with the names of New York judges and prosecutors, investigators found amongst the evidence classified U.S. military-training manuals. They also found a video made at Fort Bragg featuring the Green Beret Ali Mohammed lecturing U.S. officers and officials on the politics of Jihad. On the video, Ali Mohammed sounds oddly like a radical fundamentalist himself, declaring that the Muslim world will never accept the existence of Israel.

The CIA was lying again and not quite getting away with it. Nonetheless, no action was taken and before long, Mohammed had found himself a wife and had settled into the American dream.

***

cook_robinRobin Cook

The late Robin Cook as UK Foreign Secretary, was outspoken in his resistance to the Iraq war and the lies of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Cook was one of the very few who resigned over the issue to become an ordinary back-bencher, stating: “I can’t accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.” Cook also wanted to stop the export of aerospace jet fighters to General Suharto’s repressive regime in Indonesia. As he told the Guardian: “we will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression. We shall spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves”. He was to be a vehement opponent and thorn in the side of the Blair government before his untimely death.

Many insiders believed that Cook was destined for a senior Cabinet post under the Brown premiership but this would have been problematic for the British Establishment who was set on Middle Eastern conquest. As Foreign Secretary, Cook would have had plenty of access to intelligence reports and related operations abroad. He is known to have considerably ruffled some feathers by breaking the official secrets act and discussing policy and future proposals. He was to do this in spectacular fashion by courageously speaking the truth regarding the War on Terror and the nature of Al-Qaeda which was “literally ‘the database’, and in Cook’s words: “… originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahedeen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” [27] The Guardian article appeared just after the 7/7 bombings and the incendiary speeches by Cook. Whatever ball the respected politician had started to roll it was not to last.

Robin Cook’s legacy in standing for truth was corroborated by a former French Intelligence agent Pierre-Henri Bunel, who wrote an article for the World Affairs journal based in New Dehli in 2004 where he repeated so many top level analysts’ conclusions: “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[28]

This is where global drugs market comes in …

 


Notes

[1] ‘“Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”’ by Michel Chossudovsky – Text of Michel Chossudovsky’s keynote presentation at the opening plenary session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11, Toronto, 25-30 May 2004. http://www.globalresearch.ca 27 May 2004.
[2] ‘Russian Intelligence Chief Says Al-Qaeda A Myth,’ MosNews| March 21, 2005.
[3] p.39; Politics, Pollution, and Pandas: An Environmental Memoir By Russell E. Train, Published by Island Press 2003.
[4] Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the roots of Terror by Mahmood Mamdani, Published by Three Leaves Publishing; Reprint edition, 2005. ISBN-10: 0385515375. (p.84)
[5] ‘World Wildlife Fund: The 1001 Club Mafia dons, intelligence agents, and raw materials executives striving for a sustainable future’ http://www.whale.to
[6] p.67; Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale-Scott, Published by University of California Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0520258711.
[7] Ibid. (p.81)
[8] The eight year Iran/Iraq war (1980-1988) is remembered as one of the most shockingly harrowing conflicts of the 20th century. It was reminiscent of the First World War in terms of sheer numbers of dead; territory shifting back and forth between the two sides like bone-dry seas, heavy with the burden of teenage corpses and the endless pain of grieving families. It was a lucrative time for the US, Russia, and various European nations eager to extend this barbarism in order to squeeze out the highest profits from a whole generation of beleaguered youths. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East looked on, until the final combined casualty list total reached one million. The combined profit from these arms deals however, is unknown, but we can guess at the obscene sums of money accrued. To further compound the misery and the arrogance of its leaders, nightmarish monuments were erected on the backs of an already broken people: the fountain of blood in Teheran, the soldier statuaries in Basrah and two giant crossed swords clasped by equally giant arms modelled on Hussein himself. They were also cast in a British foundry. It is testament to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s skill as a geo-political tactician and strategist as it is his cold absence of conscience.
[9] ‘The CIA’s Jihad’ By Robert I. Friedman, June 30, 2002. Current View Point -www.currentviewpoint.com
[10] ‘Who is Osama Bin Laden? BBC News, 18 September, 2001.
[11] ‘The Soviets’ Vietnam’. Richard Cohen Washington Post. April 22, 1988.
[12] ‘The Taliban: Exporting Extremism’, by Ahmed Rashid, Foreign Affairs, Issue November-December 1999.
[13] ‘Seymour Hersh and the men who want him committed’, Salon.com by Matthew Phelan, February 28 2011.
[14] ‘Why Good Friends left behind.” By John Pilger, The Guardian, September 20, 2003.
[15] ‘It ain’t over till it’s over’ By Marc Erikson Asia Times November 15 2001.
[16] I Is for Infidel: From Holy War to Holy Terror: 18 Years Inside Afghanistan by Kathy Gannon, Published by Public Affairs, 2005. |ISBN-10: 1586483129. | (pp.138-142)
[17] ‘The Real Bin Laden’ by Mary Jane Weaver, The New Yorker, 2000.
[18] p. 29; Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. By Gerald Posner, Published by Random House, 2003.| ISBN-10: 0375508791.
[19] op. cit. Dale-Scott, (pp. 73-75).
[20] ‘Anatomy of a Victory, the CIA’s Covert Afghan War’ by Steve Coll Washington Post, July 19 1992.
[21] ‘Editorial:Another clue into General Zia’s death’ Daily Times Pakistan, December 2005. […] “former US ambassador to India, John Gunther Dean, suspects that General Zia ul Haq was killed by the Israelis. This is interesting enough but perhaps would not have made it beyond the slew of conspiracy theories that have been cropping up since Zia was killed in a C-130 plane crash if the US State Department had not chosen to ignore Mr Dean and later cashier him on grounds of being mentally imbalanced.
According to Ms Crossette’s account under the title ‘Reflections — Who Killed Zia?’, Mr Dean suspects that General Zia, his top commanders, the US ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphael, and a US brigadier-general were killed by the Israeli secret agency Mossad because Tel Aviv was concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions following a statement by General Zia in 1987 that Pakistan was a “screwdriver’s turn away from the bomb”.But when Mr Dean expressed his views to the State Department at the time and insisted that the US must thoroughly investigate the Israeli-Indian axis, the Department accused him of mental imbalance and relieved him of his duties; this, despite that fact that Mr Dean was a distinguished diplomat who had garnered more ambassadorships than most envoys. Ms Crossette says that Mr Dean, now 80, wants the stigma of mental imbalance removed and is collecting his papers and is ready to share his thoughts. He lost his medical and security clearance because of his views and was forced to seek retirement in 1988.”[…]
[22] pp. 279-280; Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss (American Empire Project) Published by Metropolitan Books; 2005 | ISBN-10: 0805076522.
[23] op. cit. Freidman.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] ‘The Masking of a Militant’ By Benjamin Weiser and James Risen – A Soldier’s Shadowy Trail In U.S. and in the Mideast The New York Times, December 1, 1998.
[27] ‘The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means – The G8 must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of such atrocities’ By Robin Cook, The Guardian, July 8, 2005.
[28] ‘Al Qaeda: The Database’ By Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, May 12, 2011 | Wayne Madsen Report 20 November, 2005.

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.

World State Policies I

 By M.K. Styllinski

“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.”

Anthony C. Sutton, Wall St. And the Bolshevik Revolution (1974)


The David Rockefellers of this world have a long history of managing the hoi-polloi of ordinary folk like you and I who consider “auto-determination” a human right rather than a quaint historical footnote. Once we understand that such a perception of smug superiority is not a passing whim but an indelible stamp of elite-thinking that holds normal humanity in absolute contempt, then we will begin to understand that such people seek to bend the world to a singular reality without majority consent. And because they have been practicing this art of modern manipulation for at least 150 years, with access to cutting-edge resources from psychology to technology, history to economics – they have become exceedingly good at it.

So what is the objective of this Plan? We’ll look at a few of the main building blocks of Pathocratic rule such as the relationship between capitalism and collectivism, the role of a peculiar vision of science including eugenics; food as a weapon and advocates of depopulation. Once again, various ideologies, institutions, criminal cartels and political and social movements will be used as tools to achieve those ends. Certain themes can be discerned that will be obvious to everyone, the methods and the effects of which have been briefly discussed in previous posts.

We might call the broad brush changes that have helped to take over the world of normal people as the “4Cs” which can be viewed as both chronological and non-linear in nature whereby each gives rise to the other in an ascending spiral.

These are:

1. Commercialisation through deregulated capitalism

2. Consolidation through cartel corporatism and financial warfare

3. Centralisation through the transfer of power from local to global

4. Control and its maintenance once achieved.

Extreme commercialisation has affected every aspect of our lives from the quality of food we eat to the type of education our children receive. We are no longer people but “consumers.” The commoditisation of life and the short-term gains it offers relies on economic disparities, debt enslavement and perpetual war to keep the illusion of choice and economic growth in place. However, most of us are firmly trapped in this economic and materialist model that offers nothing more than a serious reduction in the quality of life for most on the planet. While it is true that capitalism has been the model for the rise of the West and as a result of the present increase in prosperity being enjoyed by Asia, the ecological, social and spiritual consequences of this economic paradigm have been disastrous. Yet nothing is allowed to challenge the concept of this version of cartel-capitalism which still determines the economic machinery of global economics. A widespread acceptance of models that would drastically improve the lives of millions is purposely avoided to maintain the status quo. Not only do alternative modes of commerce and more localised, community-based economies exist they are eminently workable.

wallpaper-127321-horz_thumb.jpg© infrakshun

Viable alternatives are shackled by a mix of conscious and unconscious conditioning and the beliefs that rise up out of such insecurity. In the face of change at the local level which may be derived from models which go counter to the dominant systems of the 4Cs operating at national and global levels, it is extraordinarily difficult to implement and sustain alternative methodologies no matter how practical or sensible they may be. Opting out of this entrenched system is now no longer possible for most, economically and psychologically as we are completely inside the concept of market demand.

The rise of cartel-capitalism is a gargantuan pathology based on the exact same personality traits of the psychopath. When populations have to fight their way out of poverty and squalor only to be given the chance to inflict the same economic footprint of their eventual capitalist success on others, we see that this system is designed to erode responsibility, increase unsustainability and create a cycle of perpetual boom and bust; where the haves and have nots dance in an eternal cycle of resource competition. All of which, is inevitably and perhaps literally – soul-destroying.
<
“Globalisation,” “globalism” and “World State” mean the 4Cs. Your personal life and personal goals are unimportant to the planners unless those goals are consistent with the sociological, economic and “religious” goals of their global vision. To be useful to the Pathocrats you must be like a number in an algorithm, to be herded and managed into units of consumption. Is this the real goal of commercialisation: to dehumanize and devalue so that humanity become the products that they covet, so that psychopaths can roam free and increase their numbers finally eclipsing normal humanity completely?

Consolidation has been taking place at an ever faster rate since the Industrial Revolution and represents the move towards greater and greater centralisation. Corporate mergers trans-national entities, mass privatisation, monolithic agribusiness and media empires are all products of this phase of consolidation. In the manipulated economic crisis of 2008 (which is still continuing) JP Morgan, Citibank and Goldman Sacs were among the top mega-companies to make a killing in the wake of the crisis after having used billions of dollars of tax payers’ money given to them by the governments. Trillions were sunk into a “bailout” black-hole to keep the international banking system and its corporate partners afloat while the global economy began its final push towards even greater centralisation. What amounted to a form of financial warfare saw the asset spoils going to the bigger companies who bought up the bankrupted losers thereby consolidating their new positions. What’s more, societies of ordinary people were duped into paying for these “bail-outs” with “austerity measures”. How many of the elite do you think were effected by this imposition? Billions were wiped off social welfare, hikes in taxes, food prices and oil were imposed all of which maintained the financial system that bit longer so that they could extract more dividends and cream off what is left of the old crony capitalism before the final meltdown. In combination with the West’s proxy wars, Homelessness, repossessions, mass unemployment and an immigration exodus were the result.

Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer. The 1 percent of the wealthiest have made more profit from this global recession than ever before. The only ones pulling in the purse-strings are the middle and working classes. Ordinary people are being asked to “tighten their belts” work harder for less pay in the West so that the iniquitous banking model can be allowed to consolidate and centralise their operations still further. This translates into business as usual for countries like Africa which continue to be despoiled and invaded by Western corporations looking for the next consolidated “hit” backed by the same Banks who have been pleading governments to help them “survive.”

None of this is about improving the lot of humanity. It is about maintaining pure, legitimized greed which is then mandated by law. We are so irrevocably enmeshed in the system of the 4Cs that any attempts to jump ship at the national or individual level, creates insurmountable problems. The Establishment must convince its populations that their way is the only way and like good little school children you must obey Teacher. According to the “elected” authorities, we cannot and must not attempt to be the architects of the school itself.

The United States has been the defining inspiration for the capitalist model for over a hundred years. While it has been the source of all that is best in humanity, the country has declined since the Kennedy brothers assassinations and sharply after the September 11th Attacks on the Twin Towers. This deep-seated tendency to authoritarianism has given the American people a perverse rendering of history and an almost indelible stamp of para-moral rectitude. As we have seen, even more shocking is the realization that the form of government that dominates today is National Socialism which was of course, the socio-political ideology of choice for the Nazis. It was Benito Mussolini who suggested that fascism, was corporatism or as author and journalist Jim Marrs points out: “… in countries such as Italy and Germany before World War II the State took over the corporations. In the United States today, the corporations have taken over the State, but the end result is the same.” [1] We may not have the jackboots and swastikas but the suits and ties and thought police work just as well.

In a nut-shell, elite psychopaths can choose to employ past and the present, “traditional” and “progressive” according to their needs. (See below).

Inverted Totalitarianism / Huxleyian

Classical Totalitarianism / Orwellian

State domination of economy and business

Corporate domination of State and economy

Active political mobilisation of the populace

Political apathy and ignorance

Open rejection of democracy

Mask of Democracy

Classical and Inverted Totalitarianism

The ponerisation of the United States of America is what we have likened to a “soft” or inverted totalitarianism. It is because this descent is not obvious that it becomes more dangerous, lying as it does behind infotainment, corporatism and ponerised cultural “norms.” Political philosopher Sheldon Wolin refers to just such an inversion taking place but with distinct differences compared to more classical forms of totalitarianism as seen under Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. [2]  Whereas in the Nazi Third Reich’s dictatorship it exercised State power over the economy and its players, with inverted totalitarianism, it is the corporate model which dominates the State. Similarly, where the Nazis were masters of propaganda aimed at mobilising the power of the people the reversal of totalitarian dynamics serves to put the people to sleep under a mass inversion. Here, it is the recurrent theme of sensation, pleasure and ignorance which keeps people in a state of servitude through an official culture founded on narcissism and the consequent open door to a range of mental and emotional addictions.

Finally, whereas democracy is openly rejected under classical forms of totalitarianism, the inverted model hides behind a mask of democracy where democratic principles exist only on paper, soon to be dispensed with altogether with the right “crisis.” This is perhaps the most important distinction between the past and the present. Pathocracy uses an inversion of known totalitarian principles so that it perfectly adapts to both the emerging culture of the Information Age whilst adhering to more Orwellian methods of the past.


 “The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point….a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit.”

Frederick C. Howe, Confessions of a Monopolist (1906)


The Corporatist-Collectivist Chess board

A key ingredient in the capitalist-collectivist hybrid that currently infects societies today is the rise of Marxism, the important Hegelian tool of choice for Elite objectives.

Preceding World War I, Marxist theory was all the rage but the Zionist / Wall St. funded Communist revolution didn’t quite work out as planned in terms of mass appeal because workers could see that it wasn’t a panacea – it simply couldn’t deliver, and most certainly not in the West. Which is why cultural Marxism and its Fabian agents took gradualism to its heart in order to reshape the mass mind of the West toward Marxist principles by stealth while encouraging corporatism to grow alongside it. In fact, the European Union was founded on exactly the same principles that gave rise to both the U.S.S.R and the Nazi Third Reich. Indeed, the latter was instrumental in the visionary ideas that saw the development of the European Union as we have come to recognise it now. It is no surprise that Germany is its most powerful leader since the back-up plan of the Nazis was precisely this: if they could not win the war logistically and strategically then dominance would come in the future via economic power.

(For more on this see The EU: The Truth about the Fourth Reich How Adolf Hitler Won the Second World War By Daniel J. Beddowes and Flavio Cipollini).

It was this root that the same Synarchist-Fascist impulse was to create the European formation of the Gladio terrorist networks which sprung up in the 1950s and 60s and that saw American conservatives effect massive Cold War witch-hunts against a so-called Communist conspiracy. Their hunches were far more accurate than we realise if somewhat simplistic and to which huge derision was drawn from the liberal left. But they were wrong overall – they did not understand the hybrid of extremes which were attempting to join.

So, what form has this “socialism” in the West actually taken? Simply put, collectivism is the opposite of individualism, where group thought, philosophy, action and principle overrides the needs of the individual. The term can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. The former is collective decision-making among largely equal individuals, and is therefore based on decentralisation, while the latter is drawn from hierarchical power structures and socio-cultural conformity, and is based on centralisation. [3] While such a drive to group endeavour can bring out the positive aspects of our interdependence and our shared experiences across the planet, the kind of collectivism we will explore is an overreaching form that employs both vertical and distorted horizontal forms into one vast entity – its expression having been ponerised by emerging strains of psychopathy. The onset of ponerogenesis will manifest by whatever channels deemed suitable in order to achieve Pathocracy. Remember that none of these ideologies are evil in themselves, but used in a pathocratic context, they become tools of destruction.

The war between collectivism and individualism continues to rage in the West, while in the Middle East, Asia and Africa a blend of Anglo-American influences amid certain theocracies combine Church and State, compelling citizens to accept a particular religious doctrine set against radical secularism – a fine breeding ground for numerous civil wars. We are all immersed in an array of belief systems from Conservatism to Liberalism, Communism, Neo-Conservatism and Zionism and on and on so that division is the keynote for Establishment leverage. To that end, money is the denominator in all things which goes way beyond simplistic ideas of trickle down. The state-shadowed Communism and corporate capitalism are blood brothers. As the late German historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler remarked in his Decline of the West (1991) “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interests of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money–and that without the idealists among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.”

While many globalists officially discard Stalinism they embrace collectivism and Marxist ideology quite happily. It is collectivism which is ideally suited to the more Huxleyian or inverted form of totalitarianism. If we take a look at the sprawling mess of the European Union we see the same hybrid of totalitarianism at work, this time from a mix of both the Liberal Establishment and European Synarchy. Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky warned in a speech that the European Union: “… represents a continuation of the totalitarian vision he had fought against in Russia … The former Soviet president Mikhail S. Gorbachev put it more succinctly when he told the official Russian news agency, Ria Novosti, last week that ‘It is all about influence and domination in Europe.’ ” [4]

Bukovsky is no reactionary. After the Soviets expelled him to the West in 1976 he has offered unique insights into the nature of the Soviet Communist Party drawn from direct experience of the regime. He was the one of the first to expose the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR and according to journalist Belgian Paul Belien: “… spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions.” [5] In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert at a trial to ascertain whether or not the Communist Party had been a criminal institution, Bukovsky was permitted access to a great many classified documents from secret Soviet archives. Only a handful of people have seen this information. What he managed to scan for his own records has become an intriguing confirmation of the pathology shaping the beliefs of collectivism as a tool for Pathocracy.

The Russian dissident takes up the story:

“In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our common European home.

“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world … were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration…. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.” [6]

Many of these documents are freely available on a variety of websites on the internet. Interestingly, we see the same power brokers such as the Trilateral Commission and the Rockefellers in the thick of it:

“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank…

“…the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist…. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.” [7]

Vladimir Bukovsky’s point is crucial. Rather than revealing a communist conspiracy a totalitarian structure was carefully nurtured and organised by proponents of socialist and capitalist ideologies, the bridge between the two being Pathocratic objectives camouflaged by tailored belief systems:

“When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan … an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

“If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version … It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB…. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity?

“They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. … Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes….

“The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology

Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech …. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol ….

“It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. … This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

“Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project….. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?… The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the over regulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea….

“Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? … In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union…. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads…. We are losing and we are wasting time.” [8] [Emphasis mine]

So far, with the likely collapse of the euro at some point in the near future and widespread economic hardship in Europe, the above analysis from 2006 has proved quite correct. Bukovsky is no politically motivated dissident on a mission of vengeance against modern Russia, a entirely different animal of the Soviet past. He sees the totalitarian structures, ideologies, plans in much the same way that Łobaczewski sees inevitable expansion of ponerogenic influences to which such bureaucracies are wide open. It is not a coincidence that the Soviet Union’s elimination of nationhood in favour of “Unions” and “blocs” is the same goal of the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment. On this point Bukovsky further observed:

“The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people ‘Europeans’, whatever that means.

“According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the… national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated….” [9]

Bukovsky  is convinced that the European Union “cannot be democratized” due to its latent totalitarian structure. So, why are we now so polarised between the myths of socialism and capitalism not seeing the how the web of neo-liberal economics offers the building blocks for a global power structure?

wallpaperstock-net

In fact, the idea of eliminating national boundaries and nation states was proposed from all sectors of the Establishment coloured with their respective ideologies. It is a matter of historical record but you won’t find it on most educational curricula. After the Second World War in that frenzied opportunity to build their edifices of future control, there were many voices suggesting blueprints for the elimination of nation states and the formation of vast federal Unions built on top of the NATO military alliance. A European Union did come out of it, even though the original Atlantic Union – as a precursor to an eventual Global Union – didn’t see the light of day – at least in that incarnation. But the Cold War wasn’t just about reflexive paranoia. Underneath Anglo-American and European elites was a persistent wish to see nation states disappear so that a capitalist-collectivist vision could manifest globally.

Journalist Matt Stoller’s article published in salon.com September 20th 2013, placed the Establishment in the spotlight by revisiting history amid the Edward Snowden revelations of NSA surveillance and the attempted invasion of Syria. “The Elites’ strange plot to take over the world” described just one of the influences from those steeped in Cold War paranoia, this time from journalist, Clarence Streit who contributed to the ideologues who were buzzing the honey-pot of the mass mind and waiting to shape it into the required form. Since it was broken it was highly suggestible and easily managed. Now was the time to erect the institutions of future authority.

Streit wrote a book called Union Now (1939) which, according to Stoller:

“… had a galvanizing effect on the anti-fascist youth of the time, a sort of cross between Thomas Friedman’s ‘The World Is Flat’ and Naomi Klein’s ‘The Shock Doctrine.’ Streit served in World War I in an intelligence unit, and saw up close the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles. He then became a New York Times journalist assigned to cover the League of Nations which led him to the conclusion that the only way to prevent American isolationism and European fascism was for political and economic integration of the major ‘freedom-loving’ peoples, which he described as America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and most of Western Europe. The Five Eyes surveillance architecture was created just a few years later, as was the international monetary regime concocted at Bretton Woods.”

Streit was yet another example of individuals having suffered the effects of war and basted in intelligence training and its tools of PR propaganda. He was present at the gathering together of a large number of social dominators at two of the most important meetings of the 20th Century: Versailles and The Paris Peace Conference which led to the League of Nations organisation and the impetus to reshape the geo-political fortunes of the world. Though Streit’s pitch was to fight totalitarianism wherever “civilised society” found it, ironically perhaps, it was used as a plan for precisely the same, by political and diplomatic leaders of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, many of whom went on to craft the multilateral institutions and international policies of the Cold War and the push for an Atlantic Union. Though many of these leaders were well-intentioned in their wish to head off a Communist take-over as they saw it, there were others who were equally cognizant of the need for the first phase in a Global Union /World State to expand the principles of world government which would eventually incorporate the Soviet Russia and Maoist China.

The 1970s were full of resolutions and hearings designed to make the Atlantic Union and nation states a thing of the past but firmly under the yoke of an Anglo-American trajectory. Federalism would be the socio-economic and political framework by which countries would be redesigned. Indeed, in 1971, a House Concurrent Resolution 163 was proposed: “… to create an ‘Atlantic Union Delegation,’ a committee of 18 ‘eminent citizens’ to join with other NATO country delegations and negotiate a plan to unite. According to the sub-Committee chairman Donald Fraser, it was to be an: “international convention to explore the possibility of agreement on a declaration to transform the present Atlantic alliance into a federal union, set a timetable for transition to this goal and to prescribe democratic institutions under which the goal would be achieved.”

It was no coincidence that the Establishment presidents and European leaders were on board and ambitious to change society. The mass of politicians were fairly clueless about the underlying psychopathy which was piggybacking such ideological drives for Union. The Two World Wars, the Cold War the Great Depression of 1929 and the rise of corporatism proved that nations were already suffering from exploitation driven by rapacious greed. Manipulation and distortion of otherwise sound principles was becoming the norm. Thus it offered a logical basis upon which the concept of political union, could be rationalised and extended. Though many politicians rightly saw the Depression as a result of failed monetary policies at the domestic level, which it was, they were not able to also see that for the bankers and the industrial powers of the time it was one of the effects of the 4C’s coming home to roost and a significant bonanza which would offer future opportunities to tweak the system in their favour.Though it drastically affected the common man and the fabric of society it only allowed the super-rich families of the day to regroup and start the process all over again.

Leaders assumed that calling for greater union would automatically mean greater economic certainty and stability. Yet, they failed to see that the economic crashes and poverty that were induced were part of a system of boom and bust; a debt-based framework by which a fiat currency could be made to work for the tiniest percentage of the population by exploiting the majority. Union would merely extend the 4C’s and its exploitation through gradual deregulation further afield and limiting self-sufficiency, autonomy and economic independence in a box. The objective was a Global Union of the 4C’s which had nothing to do with a socio-economic equilibrium. This was purposefully or naively lost on persons like Streit.

The same ill-informed romanticism of economic parity fuelled their dreams of an Atlantic Union which was to be grafted onto the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The ‘Structural Adjustment Team’ of the IMF, the World Bank, The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT and the The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) were all partly inspired by the ideal of an Atlantic Union. The latter organisation was used as a tool by a Anglo-American Conservative-Synarchist drive to establish a European Super-state which could eventually form part of that Union.

Throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the Cold War provided the incentive and rationale for closer integration and a trans-Atlantic Union to freeze out Communist aspirations. Traditionally, the far right hated the idea on principle, as it was indicative of a socialist coup under cover of liberty and welfare, when in fact it was just another tool for eroding national sovereignty. In the future, the disappearance of the Nation State might arrive as a natural consequence of a family of societies whose psycho-spiritual maturity has come of age, but sadly this is not the reality. We are governed by very different persons whose objectives are clearly not focused on emancipation.

As Stoller mentions, though their intentions were faulty there was an important irony here:

“… as liberals gently chuckle at right-wing paranoia about what they perceive as an imagined plot to create a world government, it is the conservatives who have a more accurate read on history. There was a serious plan to get rid of American sovereignty in favor of a globalist movement, and the various institutions the right wing hates — the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. — were seen as stepping stones to it. Where the right wing was wrong is in thinking that this plot for a global government was also a communist plot; it wasn’t, it was motivated by anti-communism. The proponents of the Atlantic Union in fact thought that this was the only way to defeat the USSR.”

Though Streit believed that an Atlantic Union would decrease the threat of dictatorship he had not seen that the seeds of an inverted totalitarianism lay within the very antidote he and so many others were proposing and which was doing the job of the Pathocrats so admirably. Federalism under such individuals could only lead one way.

(Thankfully, Vladimir Putin has comprehensively tackled the Russian Oligarchs and apparently outside the one world government ideology. He and his advisors appear to be the only people to whom we can rely upon to halt this reckless Anglo-American-Zionist hegemony. Putin is not perfect by any means, but he is all we have. Russia may yet be the Big Bear of Salvation having gone through decades of ponerisation and come out the other side.)

By the 1980s however, the push for Unions had become more complex and nuanced. The 3EM had clear lines of demarcation when it came to how it envisaged its capitalist-collective hybrid. Nationalist terrorism had a resurgence under the Conservatives and Synarchists while Anglo-American liberalism roared ahead with the Atlantic Unionists, even straddling American Zionism who favoured any kind of integration while extending its own separatism to further its interests. None of these concerns have disappeared. On the contrary, they have adapted and kept pace with the ebb and flow of domestic and foreign policy. Deregulation of the Reagan, Carter and Clinton years ensured that the Federal Reserve and the corporate-banking oligarchical influence dominated through their many varied social engineering interests, which could now take on new vigour.

The quest for global governance, a global economic infrastructure, a “global consciousness” and global ecology” under these terms has infiltrated all societal domains. The double-think ruse of international integration does not mean a furthering of human values but an increase in the 4C’s which leads to further economic slavery, and an unnatural homogenisation since it derives from poverty, mass unemployment, mass immigration and a boom and bust of national destabilisation. World government and the globalisation of an Official Culture of psychopathy already exists but is yet to be formalised and publically acknowledged in an open framework of apparent necessity.

As we have seen, the promise of an Atlantic and Americas Union has been comprehensively dismantled thanks largely to the late Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leaders. We must also not forget the recent BRICS partnership which will surely act as a welcome alternative to the US dollar reserve currency. However, a Global Union is still trying to be born, a gestation that is drawn from the presence of a military-intelligence and surveillance apparatus, where the global economy of the 4C’s is as ubiquitous and damaging as it ever was.  This is not something the pathocratic mind will relinquish any time soon.


Notes

[1] Jim Marrs, quoted in the documentary “In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood, and Bioterrorism Produced by Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz 16:04 Jim Marrs – Corporate control of the state. Socialism and Fascism to benefit corporations. “National Socialism” (fascism is corporatism).
[2] Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, By Sheldon Wolin, 2008.
[3] Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement Singelis, By T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. 1995. | http://www.ccr.sagepub.com/content/29/3/240.abstract
[4] ‘Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship’ by Paul Belien, Brussels Journal, February 27, 2006.
[5]  Ibid.
[6]  Ibid.
[7]  Ibid.
[8]  Ibid.
[9]  Ibid.

Save

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

bilderberg1

Bilderberg group connections (click on image to enlarge)

‘Imporre un governo pro Bilderberg destabilizzando le banche italiane’ (‘Imposition of pro Bilderberg government destabilizing Italian banks’) By Sandro Bulgarella


Arguably the most influential of the bunch, the Bilderberg group was founded in 1954 by handful of the usual suspects with directives from the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (formerly Chatham House ) and the Round Table. These founding members included philosopher, economist, communist Poland’s Charge d’Affaires and European union architect Dr. Joseph H. Retinger, international banker Baron Victor Rothschild, industrialist Laurence Rockefeller, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow and CIA Director General Walter Bedell Smith, and the Netherland’s charismatic Prince Bernhard, husband of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, the richest women in the world at the time. (This was primarily due to her business partnership with Victor Rothschild’s Royal Dutch Shell Oil Co. and substantial stock held in Exxon). [1]

Retinger-bernhard

(left) A Young Dr. Joseph H. Retinger; (right) Prince Bernhard

As you can see already, the Rothschilds were in on the act right from the start, once again since it is they who have the overall control over the direction and flow of money.

Though the name “Bilderberg” comes from the Dutch hotel that hosted the first meeting in Oosterbeek, Holland, the German-born Prince had far less innocent beginnings as a card-carrying Nazi and member of the SS. Though he redeemed himself in the minds of many by being a stalwart fighter in the Dutch resistance, it seems he was chosen for his mind-set. Bernhard and his Bilderberg baby is credited with being the cradle of the European Community the ultimate goal of which was – surprise, surprise – a one world government and an Anglo-American empire dominating the globe. [2]

Prince Bernhard was keen to work for British Intelligence during the Second World War and although initially refused he was offered work at the Allied war planning councils. This may have been a cover story. There is little doubt that America’s CIA had a large part to play in the formation of the Bilderberg meetings. In 1952, the agency allegedly financed a trip for Joseph Retinger to persuade Prince Bernhard to form regular, unofficial meetings which would provide a place to solve the problems of the Atlantic community. Dr. Retinger thrashed out the details with his old buddies David Rockefeller, (CFR)  Averill Harriman (Skull & Bones) and then director of the CIA Bedel Smith:

“… Retinger explained his proposal, Smith said, ‘Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?’ He quickly referred Retinger to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become Eisenhower’s special assistant for psychological warfare. It took a while for Jackson to organize the American wing of the group, but finally, in May 1954, the first conference was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg, a secluded hotel in Holland, near the German border. Prince Bernhard, and Retinger drew up the list of invitees from the European countries, while Jackson controlled the American list.” [3]

As with most of the above groupings so far, a cross-fertilization of discussion takes place at regular meetings where geo-political policy is planned for the coming years. All the representatives from the usual spheres are present; the only difference being it has a distinctly European flavour, with an emphasis on Euro-banking. NATO representatives, “The Structural Adjustment Team,” of the IMF, World Bank and WTO, the Rothschilds and the Dutch Royal family’s Queen Beatrix are very regular members. Other attendees have included Bill Clinton, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and the Goldman Sachs and Federal Reserve cartel as represented by Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. European Central Bank’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King swap vol-au-vents with Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld and Rupert Murdoch as just some of the luminaries who grace the Bilderberg meetings with their divine presence.

According Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin’s research, Steering Committee rules ensure that:

“… the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends. Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.”

Estulin also states:

“Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications. Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings “are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus.” [4]

There are numerous examples of Bilderberg influence greasing the wheels of progress for those they consider to be potentially useful in the achievement of their aims. Tony Blair was a Bilderberg attendee before becoming UK Prime Minister. Bill Clinton attended a meeting 1991 and made sure the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect when he became President shortly after. NAFTA was a Bilderberg priority and Clinton, Establishment groomed, was considered a good choice to further their agenda. There are many others. Funding for the events is never a problem since several member organisations and companies willingly donate each year. Two of these regular contributors are Goldman Sacs and BP who financially assist the “charity” although since 2008 it has omitted the donator’s names from its accounts. [5]

Estulin is arguably the world’s expert on what is discussed at each year’s Bilderberg meetings. After 14 years of research based on what he calls “… the ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside, as well as outside the Group’s membership,” he has managed to garner a comprehensive picture of the perceptions and plans behind the Bilderberg Group and their aspirations for the world. The True Story of the Bilderberg Group shows convincingly that the suspicions of so-called “conspiracy theorists” are generally correct. Though some will find his breathless: “I’m-about-to bust-their-show-wide open-and-they’re-after-me” pitch a little too much to stomach the author has worked hard to prise open the inner workings of the group and should be commended for that, if not for the English text translations.

Estulin is convinced that the Bilderberg Group and its affiliated nodes are “a shadow world government” who are threatening to take away our right to direct our own destinies by creating “a disturbing reality” which is very far from the public interest. He writes: “Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public.” [6]

It seems at the very start of the Bilderberger project the idea was to build an “Aristocracy of purpose” between Europe and the United States in policy, economics, and strategy.” NATO was to ensure “perpetual war” and “nuclear blackmail” to keep the required fear quota at a premium and for geo-strategic bargaining chips. In David Rockefeller’s Memoirs (2002) he refers to both of these themes, stating: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [7] You can’t fault Mr. Rockefeller for candour when it suits him. Yet, clearly, it much more than merely “a more integrated global political and economic structure” and “one world” as if you imply this is a fuss about nothing and quite natural and benign.

This rare glimpse of “honesty” doesn’t begin to address the institutional secrecy of which he is so “proud”. While these imperatives are set to continue to interfere in global decision-making it is because the Bilderbergers are very aware of both human psychology and the repercussions of the information Age that they will continue to work in secret. They know when information begins to leak progressively into the mass mind dots can be connected and a thinking population is the last thing they want.

In Estulin’s 2007 report – perhaps one of the most pertinent – he offers some possible trends on the energy scene and in particular oil, a resource that is deep interest to the Bilderbergers. He states: “From now on, the only sure thing is that supply will continue to diminish and prices will continue to increase. In these conditions world conflict is a physical certainty. End of oil means end of world’s financial system, something which has already been acknowledged by Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle.”

membership-list-attendance-bilderberg-group-ottawa-20062

Bilderberg Group leaked attendee list, Ottawa 2009. (click on the image to enlarge)

Whether the “end of oil” is a realistic prediction any time soon, the accessibility of oil reserves is certainly a question which is being asked in the meetings with increasing frequency. Estulin continues: “Goldman Sachs oil report, (another full time member of the Bilderberger elite) published on March 30, 2005 increased the oil price range for the year 2005-6 from $55-$80 per barrel to $55-$105. During the 2006 meeting, Bilderbergers have confirmed that their short range price estimate for oil for the 2007-08 continues to hover around US $105-150/barrel. … No wonder Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced several months ago during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a ‘post-industrial age.’”

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

To bring the world into the post-industrial age, you first need to destroy the world’s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don’t spend money, they don’t travel, and they don’t consume.” [8]

While the “end of oil” and by implication the concept of “Peak oil” may be another instrument from the propaganda tool-kit, the war for resources from water to mineral deposits, oil to foodstuffs will play a large role in the coming conflicts. The “Order out of Chaos” theme can be seen over and over where society is broken and rebuilt, only to be broken and rebuilt again according to how much and how many can be exploited. Whether it is the First or Second World Wars, the balkanization of Iraq, the creation of Kosovo as a narco-state – all have this strategy in common.

Supreme confidence in the Olympian ideals is drawn from the probable high incidence of psychopathy within their ranks. If we strip away the rationalisations and ideological nonsense all that remains is a framework by which they can exert unlimited power and control.

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

  • ““one international identity with one set of universal values;”
  • centralized management and direction of world populations by controlling world public opinion;
  • a New World Order with no middle class, only “rulers and servants (serfs),” and no democracy;
  • “a zero-growth society” without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
  • The creation of “Union blocks” which will eventually be interlocked into one entity.
  • using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
  • expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
  • the world militarization of NATO;
  • imposing a universal legal system; and manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
  • absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
  • “centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;” one size fits all globally;
  • A global “welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination.”

What is more, the vast influence that is brought to bear on global power-brokers and their goals is entirely illegal. Under United States law, the Logan Act states that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens in order to develop public policies. (The same principle applies in the UK). Therefore, when US officials have attended Bilderberg meetings, they were breaking federal laws of the United States. As online journalist Jerry mazza reminds us at the 2005 Bilderberg meeting : “… the American government was well represented in Rottach-Egern by Alan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council; William Luti, Deputy Under Secretary of Defence; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq War and incoming president of the World Bank.” [9]

070513groveBilderberg 2013 Conference took place at the Grove Hotel, Watford, UK

The corporate media still refuses to cover the Bilderberg meetings except for the occasional piece by more independent journalists such as the Guardian’s Charlie Skelton. Generally, the meetings remain unknown by the majority. Like the CFR’s total control over the American media CNN, CBS, ABC and other media giants continue to control and filter everything that passes as news to the general public. Many Bilderberg attendees are journalists and newspaper editors who push the required propaganda while agreeing to keep silent about the groups meetings.

The closely aligned Rockefeller family has managed to rapidly exert incredible power over socio-cultural, economic and political discourse in both the US and the UK. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves once again of another example of David Rockefeller’s soul-bearing in this context where he expresses his gratitude to: “… the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years.” And here we have the truth laid bare, when he states: …It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated now and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.” [10]  It is the self-proclaimed status as demi-God that characterizes the present breed of psychopaths convinced of their own special “auto-determination” outside the destiny of normal peoples. Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want an all-encompassing and preferably eternal monopoly over every aspect of our lives – that is the endgame.

The UN is busy doing its level best to provide them with that mechanism under a document called “Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF)” policy paper No. 24. This may as well have been written by the hand of Rockefeller himself for in this little-known paper we can read how “Governance solutions for reasserting the state monopoly on the use of force” and a helpful, altruistic listing of the options available to governments to re-establish “monopolies of force” against their own people:

  • (Re-) establish state monopoly – Ownership of WMDs – Safety Inspectorates
  • Prohibit business activity – Justice and Execution – Deadly Force?
  • Regulate/limit activities – Private defence/security services, Control of financial transfers – Export controls – Transport and infrastructure safety – Environmental impact

What is more: “The legitimate monopoly of force should not be limited to the nation-state but should be based on the local, national, regional and the global levels.” And further: “At the global level no monopoly of violence exists. The UN Security Council already has a monopoly power to authorize the use of force at the global level, although the UN was never given the necessary means to exercise this authority, such as the capacity to implement sanctions, a police force and armed forces… This deficiency in global governance acts as a bottleneck and a barrier to the creation of the democratically legitimized monopoly of violence that is globally required.” [11]

Pathocrats

See also: The Dark Green series exploring “Eco-Fascism” and “Eco-Intelpro”.


Notes

[1] Queen Juliana: The Story Of The Richest Woman In The World, by William Hoffman, Published by Angus and Robertson, 1980 | ASIN: B000UI94JK.
[2] See: H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands: an authorized biography by Alden Hatch. Published by Harrap, 1962.
[3] The Chairman: John J. McCloy – The Making of the American Establishment, by Kai Bird, Published by Simon & Schuster, 1992.
[4] op. cit. Estulin (p.25)
[5] Applications listed in the Charity Commission annual records: http://www.apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends06/0000272706_AC_20080331_E_C.PDF
[6] Ibid.
[7] Memoirs By David Rockefeller, Published by Random House, 1st Trade Ed edition, 2002. ISBN-10: 0679405887 (p. 490).
[8] ‘Bilderberg 2007: Welcome to the Lunatic Fringe’, by Daniel Estulin DanielEstulin.com, May 21, 2007.
[9] ‘I’ll have the Bilderberger, well done!’, by Jerry Mazza Online Journal, Nov 9, 2007.
[10] Quoted from Bilderberg/Trilateral meeting in 1991 in Baden Baden, Germany. (See Daniel Estulin.)
[11] Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) Occasional Paper – № 24 ‘The Privatisation of Security in Failing States – A Quantitative Assessment’ By Željko Branović, Geneva, April 2011.

 

Puppets & Players VII: Trilateral Commission

organigramme_Trilateral-commissionTrilateral Commission networking (Click on the image)


Founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in July 1973, the Trilateral Commission (TC) also describes itself as a non-governmental, non-partisan discussion group set up to encourage closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. Or in the TC’s own words it was formed: “…by private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public understanding of such problems, to support proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices of working together among these regions.” [1]

The Executive Committee chooses members with a suitable insider pedigree, offering some form of expertise in their chosen field be it finance, economics, politics or media. Most important however is the kinship to globalist ideals. These members total around 350 for a three-year renewable period, meeting several times a year to discuss their work and organize TC strategies. As with the CFR and Bilderberg, TC annual reports are available and its beliefs and ideologies are clear. The real operations and strategies for the coming years are not revealed and to do so would be dangerous, the simple reason being that their objectives would be seen for what they are: irresponsible and undemocratic albeit dressed up in the civilised language of the government technocrat.

Disarmingly described as a high level “discussion group” it publishes a quarterly magazine called the Trialogue in which all kinds of barely restrained empire-building ideas clash to together in frightfully civilised fashion. Yet, as author Anthony Sutton wrote in Trilaterals over Washington: “… this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy.” When combined with CFR and the Bilderberg Group along with a multitude of other branches we quickly realise that there is a very significant and powerful force at work which influences foreign and domestic policy. [2]

The suitably nebulous and vague terms used in the introduction to the TC found at trilateral.org serves to limit the attention from media and public alike. Indeed, the website itself looks sombre and dull enough to send even the most avid geo-political watcher straight to sleep. For all most disinterested people know, they might be meeting to play chess or past the time chatting good-naturedly over a game of golf while setting the world to rights for all. The impression given is one of economic benevolence; fatherly leaders and venerable statesmen doing rarefied work on the Great-Unwashed’s behalf; striving to bring the economic model of East and West together so that all may share its numerous bounties.

The TC membership operates along the same lines as the CFR and as might be expected, many members ping-pong between both groups. If the Council on Foreign Relations is the crucible of world state concepts and ideas then the Trilateral Commission is tasked with commissioning those ideas into reality extending their visions into the strategically important geography of Eurasia. Tucked away on the founding members page of the website there is finally a mention of Zbigniew Brzezinski who: “… played an important role in the formation of the Commission and served as its first director from 1973 to 1976. After serving in the Carter Administration, Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and served on the executive committee until 2009.” [3]In 1970, as a young Polish intellectual, Brzezinski foresaw the rising economic power of Japan, and post-war Europe. Brzezinski was also a big fan of Karl Marx, adapting and expanding his theories. World-order politics was to be promoted through a trilateral economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States. David Rockefeller was excited by Brzezinski’s vision of collectivism and capitalism which dove-tailed neatly into the Rockefellers’ love of China. This merging of corporatism and Maoism/Stalinsim was to be the template for the New Economy under Banking rule. Hand in hand, Rockefeller provided the income and Brzezinski academic clout and together they brought to bear a formidable network of high level contacts.

TrilateralList2010

Trilateral Commission Executive Committee 2010 (www.publicintelligence.net/)

Like David Rockefeller and his family, Brzezinski’s chameleon-like influence is enormous (if not infamous) which is why his presence on TC is understated despite his conceptual echoes present on every page. As a geo-political strategist and tactician; a Machiavellian insider and all-round, intellectual genius, Brzezinski built a reputation for providing insights into the future that were both compelling and accurate, exemplified in his book: Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997). He would be an obvious choice to organise and manifest David Rockefeller’s equally neo-feudalist vision for integrating Asia into their ambitious visions of a “New Economic World Order.”

Brzezinski’s grooming and educating of Jimmy Carter to be Presidential material and aligned to TC’s interests – like Obama – began years earlier in 1973 when Carter was offered a place as founding member of the newly–created commission, which he duly accepted. It was to be a coup for the TC. The late former Republican Senator and opposing candidate Barry Goldwater saw the writing on the wall when he wrote:

“David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination, and the presidency. To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community – which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations – and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR, and the Trilateral.”[4]

3bzhezins

Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Carter administration with Brzezinski as US National Security Advisor had 19 Trilaterals either with government posts or with cabinet positions. [5]That was a lot of political power directed in a decidedly Rockefeller-Brzezinski direction. Carter the peanut farmer, much like the law student Barack Obama would be a figurehead for something quite different to the political marketing. The perceptions which underpin the TC and CFR groups are Capitalist-Marxist philosophies. Capitalist in the sense that deregulated corporatism and privatisation reigns supreme and Marxist in the sense of Jewish-influenced Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School topped off with traditional Fabian socialism. This is why this belief system is so attractive to the Rockefeller dynasty and their worshippers – it provides the perfect template for World State rule and centralised control.

There is no conspiracy here at all.  They are very open in their views as they know the general public and most government and agency officials have little understanding of their true objectives, nor do they have the conceptual understanding of the long term strategy and the background of occult principles involved.

In Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages his belief hinged around the idea that three important stages of evo­lu­tion, had been passed and that mankind was presently midway through the fourth and final stage. Stage 1 was “Religious”, the second stage “nationalism” and the third stage was “Marxism” which he described as: “… a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” This would lead to the final transformative stage of the Technetronic Era where humanism, technocracy and a World State hybrid of capitalism and Marxism would be engineered around exact mechanisms of a “scientific technique.” Barry Goldwater suggested TC’s objective was: “… a skilful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical … [in] the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.” [6]

The Senator was correct in that they believe in an economic utopia but incorrect that such a vision extended to all. The TC, CFR game-plan has always been predicated on an Elite class which expects global serfdom to meekly roll over to their rulers, doffing their hats in subservient awe. Like all Trilateralists, Brzezinski believed that national sovereignty and: “… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” And therefore: “… as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [7]

And this has been the constant siren call of the various sectors of the Three Establishment Model (3EM). This “threat” – and many others since – was certainly delivered in the guise of the September 11th attacks which served to speed up Anglo-American-Israeli hegemony in the form of the Police-Surveillance State, a brutal Middle Eastern resource grab and the emergence of a a new cold war, despite the best efforts of Vladimir Putin to prevent it. Russian-hater Brzezinski was well aware of what was coming down the pipeline, probably because he was one of the many advisory architects. American dominance can only be assured by maintaining conflict, breaking the spirit of the people and challenging Russia’s independence. It cannot be allowed to offer an alternative model – however imperfect – to the 3EM. The trilaterals are therefore very keen indeed to demonise Russia and the media propaganda has been put into action in ways not seen since the Bay of Pigs.

This brings us to the next and perhaps most important outpost for globalist strategy: the Bilderberg Group.

See also: The Trilateral Commission by Prof. Antony C. Sutton

 


Notes

[1] http://www.trilateral.org
[2] p.5; Trilaterals over Washington By Anthony C. Sutton. Published by August Corporation 1981. | ISBN-10 0933482012.
[3] Ibid.
[4] p.286; With No Apologies: The Personal and Political Memoirs of United States Senator Barry M. Goldwater. Published by William Morrow and Company; 1st edition, 1979 | ISBN-10: 0688035477
[5] ‘America Plundered by the Global Elite’ by Patrick Wood, The August Review, December 13, 2005.
[6] op. cit. Goldwater (p.285)
[7] p.35; The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and It’s Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Published by Basic books, 1997. | p.211; Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era By Zibgniew Brezezinski, Published by The Viking Press, Inc. 1970.

Puppets & Players IV: The Round Table Group / Movement

“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

— Cecil Rhodes


The British Empire is the most recent expression of pathocratic rule to grace the shores of unsuspecting nations. Almost 90 percent of the globe had been invaded by Victorian stiff upper lips with only 22 countries ever escaping the glorious injection of Christian missionary and military zeal. [1]One individual who was the epitome of strong-arm, British imperialism was Cecil Rhodes. Though the inception of a distinctly British version of a World State extends far back into time we will take up the narrative as Rhodes made his way to South Africa in the year 1870, aged 17 years-old.

Born from a poor but religious family, the story goes that he was sent there to improve his health and to extend business interests with his brother Herbert, based in Natal as a planter on a cotton farm. By 1871, they had made a claim in the Kimberley diamond fields and rapidly amassed a fortune. After only a few years he returned to England and entered Oriel College, Oxford. Though his recurring ill-health is often sourced as the reason it is difficult to imagine how it was possible for a seventeen year-old from a poor family in Hertfordshire could return in just a few years with a fortune and be able to travel as he pleased between Africa and Oxford without completing his degree for almost ten years! The most probable reason for his rapid success and freedom from the normal constraints of Oxford students is that he had been selected by Nathaniel Rothschild to act as agent and facilitator for his African conquest. No doubt Rothschild recognised a kindred spirit in the young, ambitious Rhodes and decided that not only was he on the same page, he would be a very useful political and ideological asset.

In 1888, with the backing of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, Rhodes, at just 24 years-old bought out all rival mining companies in the Kimberley region. He quickly became a most powerful man, entering the Cape House of Assembly as member for Barkly and eventually taking office in the Cape Ministry. The mining industry was under his complete control eventually growing into De Beers Consolidated Mines. By 1890, he had become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony with enormous leverage over the Cape economy as a whole. [2]

22518586

John Ruskin

John Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford and a major player in the rise of the Romantic Movement. He was an architect, philosopher and talented artist who also preached the doctrine of collectivism and elite rule, partly due to the influences inherent in his upper-middle class background and British Empire traditions. Ruskin was sincere in his beliefs and was one of the first true philanthropists of his age, giving away much of his wealth to the poor. His mix of art and elitism was extremely appealing to the Establishment who felt their elevated status and access to education and riches gave them a moral obligation to manage the masses. The rise of Marxism was entirely compatible with persons such as Ruskin as it combined the uplifting of the poor with the collectivist future for the world.

Rhodes was greatly influenced by John Ruskin’s romantic, imperialist philosophy while at Oxford, though Ruskin’s somewhat benevolent colouring was lost in Rhodes’ fanatical racism and belief in the British as the New Olympians. His unfailing confidence in the supremacy of the British Empire reflected his own dedication to white supremacy and the promise of an Anglo-Saxon Global Empire. He became the dominant colonist in expanding British territory, securing the charter for the British South Africa Company which was heavily involved with the slave trade. He made sure that Bechuanaland remained in British possession instead of falling to the Boers; developing the vast areas of land north and south of the Zambezi. The monopoly exerted by Rhodes over the diamond and gold mining industry was already creating tensions in the region most particularly between the Boers and the indigenous populations, the latter seen as less than human by both sides which meant that massacres were frequent and brutal.

The Transvaal region of South Africa was beset by prospectors looking to strike it rich. Kings College, Oxford educated, High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony Lord Alfred Milner was to prove vital to Rhodes’ and therefore, the Rothschild’s expanding ambitions. Like Rhodes, he was a great believer in British supremacy though less bullish insofar as his role as enforcer had a semblance of constructive diplomacy should it prove to be the only option. Rhodes, Milner and the overshadowing Rothschilds safely tucked up in London vowed to dominate the region by every possible means.

clip_image002clip_image004

Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes

Biographer John Flint unearthed the original will of Cecil Rhodes made in June 2 1877 in his own handwriting entitled “Confession of Faith.” Considering the astounding influence this man had on his world and what he set in motion after his death it may be helpful for the reader to step inside Rhodes’ mind more fully and thus understand why he seems to have been used as  a Rothschild agent keen to establish their leverage via the British Empire. Without using British influence in the Middle East the creation of the State of Israel at this juncture would never have happened. The Rhodes document is a platform for extolling the virtues of a master race, systematic genocide, racism; a distinctly British colonialism and the creation of control via a new secret society:

It often strikes a man to enquire what is the chief goal in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on his idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself thinking over the same question the wish came to render myself useful to my country. I then asked myself how could I and after reviewing the various methods I have felt that at the present day we are rhodesactually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit that if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.

Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. […] In the present day I became a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end. […]

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. […] 

… think of those countless 1000’s of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? Do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men. I bring facts to prove my assertions. Does an English father when his sons wish to emigrate ever think of suggesting emigration under another flag, never – it would seem a disgrace to suggest such a thing I think that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag rather than wealth under a foreign one. Fancy Australia discovered and colonised under the French flag, what would it mean merely several millions of English unborn that at present exist we learn from the past and to form our future. We learn through having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses. […]

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object. […]

Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed. […] (In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe…) [3]

In 1891, fuelled by Rothschild funding and his Oxford-based intellectual elite, Rhode’s plans began to take shape. The Round Table and later the Council on Foreign Relations would be the culmination of just such a “secret society” incorporating all of the above principles, differing only in their euphemistic representation, being soft on the ear and easy on the eye, appealing to high society civility and champagne smiles. With well-known journalist William T. Stead and Reginald Baliol Brett, known as Lord Esher, friend of Queen Victoria, and eventual advisor to King Edward VII and King George V, Rhodes formed the membership of what would soon grow into an international organisation. In Professor Carroll Quigley’s second book The Anglo-American Establishment he tells us the plan for such an organization was to act as an inner circle: “… to be known as ‘The Society of the Elect’, and an outer circle, to be known as ‘The Association of Helpers.’ Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Lord Alfred Milner.” [4]

carhodes

“French cartoon depicting Cecil John Rhodes with a bottle of champagne while the Transvaal burns” Source: http://angloboer.com/

However, by 1895, Cecil Rhodes suffered a setback. Large scale operations were carried out in the Transvaal in an attempt to quash insurgent attacks by increasingly hostile Afrikaans who wanted to oust British rule and monopolise the gold. The Jameson Raid was one of the bloodiest disasters for the British colonial designs and forced Rhodes to resign as Prime Minister of the Cape. By 1899, largely due to Milner’s intransigence and belief in British imperialism as the only way to proceed, war between the British and the Boers broke out in 1899, with the annexation of the two Boer states in 1901 and then claimed by the British Empire.

Milner was assigned the administration of the two states which meant he had to rescind the governorship of the Cape Colony, while still retaining the post of high commissioner. During the war concentration camps incarcerating over 27,000 Boer women and children were created with some records reporting more than 14,000 black South Africans died while imprisoned in the camps. [5]Though Milner privately expressed his opposition to the camps he did very little to prevent or to restrict the atrocities inflicted by Lord Kitchener on his departure from the Cape to the Transvaal. It was to be the imperialistic pioneering personalities of Rhodes and Milner who would form the nexus of a British Elite formed in South Africa based on the same Synarchist and supremacist beliefs bubbling away in the crème de la crème of upper class English society.

he remit was to not only spread British Rule throughout Africa but to lay the foundation for a wider global domination just as the British Empire itself was weakening. It was to be called the Imperial Federation of the British Empire. Members included: Lionel Hitchens, J. F. Perry, Robert H. Brand, Geoffrey Dawson, Philip Kerr, Leo Amery, and Lionel Curtis. By 1910 Milner, Cecil Rhodes, and Lionel Curtis had formed the European Round Table Group drawn from the mythology of the Knights of the Round Table and the search for the Holy Grail – Rhodes’ own romantic vision of a strictly British birth right. Lionel Curtis, as so many of his colleagues, also believed in the superiority of a white, Aryan race, harbouring the dream of a one world government that would oversee a New World Order run by an initiated Elite – another variant of the same old Synarchist beliefs.

Nathaniel Rothschild’s financial support was behind the existence of the Round Table through the auspices of his agents such as Rhodes and Milner but there is no evidence to confirm a direct link. For most members Rothschilds’ financial influence was likely immaterial since the momentum of power was extending into multiple avenues of interest for all. Psychopaths were cultivating their clustering abilities once again. Indeed, Rhodes was in it for power and white supremacy, Milner for a “natural” British imperialism and Curtis for a British global theocracy. Much like the degrees of difference that exist in the power brokers of today, the primary directives of world domination encompass all members.

Though Rhodes died before the Round Table was created he left considerable amounts of money in his will for the establishment of a secret society whose purpose was to establish British rule throughout the world. As caretaker of the Rhodes fortune, Milner brought this wish to fruition. Rhodes also set up scholarships at Oxford University so that carefully selected candidates could continue the work of British interests and his visions of a dominant, Anglo-Saxon race. Soon after its formation, the Round Table Publication was produced as an anonymous quarterly magazine containing several reports (or propaganda) that helped to found other Round Table groups all over the world. The first issue of The Round Table was largely written by Philip Kerr and appeared in November 1910. By 1914, the Round Table network was expanded in every dominion of the British Empire the role having been taken on with relish by Lionel Curtis. He would later go on to form the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (or Chatham House) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) acting as a front for both, with a large share of the influence afforded to the corporate giant of J.P Morgan. Once again, Rothschild interests were also lurking in the background with all three making sure their power was at the forefront of operations.

The industrialist John Pierpont Morgan who financed much of the American Elite had originally begun his meteoric rise from London through Rothschild’s Peabody and Company and his own Grenfell Morgan & Co. It was at the Paris Peace Conference that Milner and Morgan’s Wall St. connections and legal acolytes would mingle and join forces.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson had discussions with those in the American Democrat party organized by international banker Bernard Baruch. The Great War was essential to the plans of not only the Anglo-American establishment but the future of Zionism. The Zionists had an important stake in making sure the United States entered the war. While the Rothschild supported American Industrialists the Rockfellers and J.P Morgan were salivating at the chance to wrest financial control from the American people, the Round Table Group and the Zionists were striking a deal. Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, and Colonel Edward Mandell (a Round Table agent and Wilson advisor) were all working on President Wilson so that he had nowhere to turn but toward Elite designs. The German people were further demonised while a false flag attack of the Lusitania “incident” was ushered in to turn the tide of public opinion. The same old pretext of “making the world safe for democracy” was used.

paul warburg-j-schiffZionist Industrialists Paul Warburg (left) and Jacob Schiff

Author Dr. Albert D. Pastore explains Round Table and Zionist wheeling and dealing so that the United States would enter the war by 1916:

The British government and the Zionist leaders struck a dirty deal. The Zionists were led by Chaim Weizmann, the man who one day become the first President of the State of Israel. The idea was for the Zionists to use their influence to drag the mighty USA into the war on Britain’s side, so that Germany and it’s Ottoman allies could be crushed. In exchange for helping to bring the USA into the war, the British would reward the Zionists by taking over Palestine from the conquered Ottomans after the war was over. The British had originally wanted to give the Zionists a Jewish homeland in an African territory. But the Zionists were fixated on claiming Palestine as their land. Once under British control, the Jews of Europe would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine in great numbers. […] it wasn’t long before the German, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires were defeated and their maps rewritten by the victorious powers at the infamous Treaty of Versailles in 1918. In addition to the numerous Zionist bankers who were influencing Versailles, the Zionists also had their own delegation which was headed by Chaim Weizmann.Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the same month that Germany surrendered. But it had actually been prepared 20 months earlier in March 1916 with Weizmann’s influence. 13 The Declaration allowed mass Jewish immigration to conquered Palestine while promising to preserve Arab rights. The Arabs living in Palestine weren’t buying these promises. They protested, but there was nothing that they could do to stop the coming wave of Jewish immigration. This was the first step in creating what was to later become the state of Israel 20 years later. [6]

Everyone had something to gain from the puppetry of Wilson. He was inducted into the designs of the global governance crew and in return he was asked to give backing to the Federal Reserve and income tax, and anyone in the future cabinet. They also cautioned that if they managed to place Wilson in power then it would be wise to follow their guidance should there be a war in Europe, a war that many emerging corporatists like the Rockefellers, Harrimans and the Bush family were busy trying to support. He was offered a front seat on the gravy train and the power and status it offered.

Woodrow Wilson’s intelligence, socialist ideals and religiously tinged self-importance followed a very similar road to power as Fabian member Tony Blair. Wilson presided over 2 million deaths of young men for a road-map of geopolitical re-configuration and greed by several large weapons companies, while Blair oversaw and helped to ensure the invasion of Iraq as a key phase in a larger Middle Eastern push to secure resources, along with the construction and maintenance of Anglo-American network of oil pipelines. He also had a direct part in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis based on the same impeachable religious self-belief despite all the evidence that the invasion had nothing to do with peace and democracy. Unlike Blair, Wilson later expressed dismay at how easily he had been duped.

tonyblair3-horz

Tony Blair (left) and Woodrow Wilson (right)

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson was elected President beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had been against the imposition is of a central bank. As money and lobbying always determines the candidates in most elections, industrialist J.P. Morgan on the advice of Rothschild and Round Table members injected huge quantities of cash into Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party thereby fracturing the Republican vote and placing the unknown Wilson in pole position. After constant pressure for a central bank had been plaguing Congressman for several years, the dream for the industrialists and the demise of democracy was set in motion.

In the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists … acting together to enslave the world … Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is — the Fed has usurped the government.” [7]There was nothing “Federal” about the bank. As it was then, it has remained so up to the present: a private company owned by a consortium of international bankers not subject to presidential congressional oversight, nor any auditing procedures. It gives international banking exactly what it wants – control of the domestic and international markets with speculative and insider knowledge atop a deregulated financial architecture that benefits the few at great expense to the majority.

In the last year of the First World War, a new idea had taken root for an antidote against such destruction. At least that was the propaganda that everyone was eager to believe. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1918 the floatation of a League of Nations was introduced. It was to be an international organization that would settle disputes between nations by using a raft of laws, treaties, and agreements, as opposed to war.

President Wilson’s post-World War I, 14-point plan for peace underscored this new internationalism and “A general association of nations.” In the fourteenth point of the plan it reads: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” [8] In fact, it was British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and the president’s private, non-elected, right-hand man Colonel Mandall House who “advised” Wilson to put forward the idea of the League instructed by the Round Table. Wilson’s well-intentioned League of Nations Commission of Mandates soon followed which was designed to brainstorm solutions to the problems of the world and was to be headed by Colonel House and Cecil Rhodes’ friend Lord Milner. Having already established a network of politically-minded, mostly socialist intellectuals, Milner’s helmsman ship was to prove incisive in the expansion of the Round Table and connected groups.

The League of Nations was the result of a design by Mandell House and Milner both of whom were “socialists” and dedicated to inaugurating a Fabian-led version of world government. Harvard Law graduate, Jerome D. Greene was secretary to the Reparations Commission at the Paris Peace Conference. He was general manager of the Rockefeller Institute from 1910-1912 going on to become a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute, the Rockefeller foundation, and to the Rockefeller General Education Board until 1939. He was also part of Milner and historian Arnold Toynbee’s Oxford intellectual set and well=placed to act as a co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations which was up and running as the American branch of the Round Table in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel Mandell House, and big names in international banking and commerce such as: J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff who had all been involved in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and a fiat currency. So, when the Paris Peace Conference arrived with their specially placed puppet Woodrow Wilson, Morgan and Rockefeller saw their opportunity to introduce their vision of global governance under the cover of Wilson’s peace plan.

Despite those carefully laid plans the US Senate with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge leading the charge rejected Wilson’s 14 Point Plan, primarily due to the restrictions and limitations on Americans’ way of life that would eventuate if the plan was allowed to go ahead. The Senators were not about let a socialist vision of a one world government riding on the fake idealism of internationalism destroy the idea of national sovereignty. On March 8, 1920 ratification in the membership of the League of Nations was rejected. Although the icing on the cake did not happen the idea of a League of Nations had been firmly planted in the minds of many, even if they had no awareness of its real intent. After the war many were looking for solutions so that such an appalling loss of life would never happen again. With the spirit broken in humanity it was easy to implement seemingly benign institutions that fed into that hope.

In 1913, just prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act President Woodrow Wilson published his book The New Freedom in which he declared that since he had entered politics his private discussions between his friends and fellow members of government had revealed what might be called a shadow government working behind the scenes: “Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” [9]Ironically, President Franklin Roosevelt was to reiterate the same point in a letter to none other than arch-insider and Wilson’s close advisor Col. Edward Mandell on November 21, 1933 where he stated: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson …” [10] A network now existed by which a slow but steady march towards world government could take place. Their future seemed assured in that many other international organisations could be overlaid onto the international infrastructure of Round Table Groups.

roundtable-logo-horz

(left) Logo of The Round Table Movement as it is today apparently acting as no more than a cover for operations long since been submerged into the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment. (right) Logo of Chatham House aka The Royal Institute for International Affairs.

With the aftermath of the Second World War a new push to establish a further system of organisations and institutions from which yet another important phase of a New Order could come into being. Professor Carroll Quigley reminds us that the Round Table’s vision was to: “… create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole … controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” As we can see today, the organisations and groups responsible for this ideology are as determined as they ever were. With the Rothschilds and other dominators sitting on their thrones at the nexus of all these groups we can best re-visit and summarise their methods to shape the world by returning to Carroll Quigley’s observations from his book: The Anglo-American Establishment (1966). He offers three means by which they intend to shape societies: “(a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from [certain universities) and the linking of these men to the [Group] by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the [Group] in positions of power shielded much as possible from public attention.” [11]

Today, The Round Table and Rhodes’ legacy has been absorbed into the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and multitude of supportive think-tanks, PR fronts and parent organisations. There is a also The Round Table Commonwealth Journal which maintains a low-key presence with a token tip of the hat to its past. The editorial board is called “The Moot” and is made up of members of European industry and Commonwealth bureaucrats. The real power has certainly been disbursed and strengthened.

 


Notes

[1] Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded by the British The Telegraph, November 5th, 2012.
[2] Chambers’ Encyclopeadia A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge, Volume VIII, 1908.
[3] John Flint, Cecil Rhodes, Little, Brown & Co, Boston 1974; and Hutchinson, London, 1976. pp.249-252
[4] p.3; The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, By Carroll Quigley, 1981, Books In Focus, NY,
[5] ‘The Boer War 1899 –1902’ By G. H Le Le May | http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/africancampaigns/boerwar/boerwar.htm
[6] Stranger than Fiction By Albert D. Pastore 2005
[7] Woodrow Wilson’s speech on “The Fourteen Points Plan” in Congress, January 8, 1918.
[8] Ibid.
[9] p.14; The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People By Woodrow Wilson Doubleday press 1913.
[10] Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), (p. 373).
[11] p.15; The Anglo-American Establishment By Carroll Quigley, GSG Associates publishers, 1981 | ISBN-10: 0945001010

Puppets and Players II: The Pilgrims Society

image

Official logo of the Pilgrims Society | Source: http://www.pilgrimssociety.org – The Pilgrims’ logo was designed by Hugh Fisher. “It shows an ancient mounted pilgrim, with a lion (representing Great Britain) walking beside him and an eagle (representing the USA) perched upon the steed’s rump. Above this, another ancient pilgrim gazes with amazement at a motor car, bicycle, steamship, train and aeroplane. The motto “Hic et Ubique” translates as ‘Here and Everywhere’.”

The Pilgrims Society is a massively influential Anglo-American grouping of the Global Elite that remains unknown to the general public yet show-reels members who number some of the most powerful men and women for the last 100 years. If you look at the small print of major historical events Pilgrims show up with alarming frequency unlike any other organisation in the world.

Of course, great strides are taken to present the Society as a radiant centre for the most civilised and unbridled philanthropy, which of course it probably is. But this is not its exclusive remit. Though often real in their actions and benefits, the milk of human kindness as a driving force of what is an Establishment talking shop should be be summarily cast aside, knowing that this masks ideologies and agendas which are not about improving humanity’s lot. As always, it is concerned with leveraging and maintaining its Anglo-American power base. There is a Synarchist, aristocratic and conservative Skull & Bones flavour to the proceedings with a dash of Venetian Nobility coat-tails…

The London chapter was founded in 1902 by conservative politicians Chauncy Dephew and Harry Brittain with the New York chapter following a year later. The Society is effectively a very large Old Boys’ Club where power-brokers can do business interspersed with some good, old-fashioned plotting, while shuffling around vast golf courses, pulverizing game birds at exclusive shooting lodges, or tinkling their champagne glasses at lavish Establishment dinners at the behest of the Queen. This involves taking advantage of high-level networking, carefully wrapped up in traditional British pomp and ceremony. The tuxedo and ball-gown meetings serve to welcome successive U.S. Ambassadors and dignitaries serving the common cause and more importantly, to make sure everyone is more or less on the same page regarding Anglo-American policy – and if they aren’t, to politely threaten between the entrée and the dessert.

It is well to remember that the British occult-aristo-banking cartel changed with the times when it could not maintain sufficient control over all the chess pieces which are sometimes scattered by uncontrollable winds of change. It did not change its essential colours, however, or as professor Carroll Quigley stated: “… the existence of this Wall St., Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected by the fact that such Wall Street luminaries such as John W. Davis, Lewis W. Douglas, John Hay Whitney […] were appointed to be American ambassadors in London.” [1]To this end, the Pilgrim Society helps to maintain and strengthen age old Elite traditions of World banking Order, within domestic and international politics both in Britain and its former colonies, Europe, North America and Africa. As you may imagine the Rothschilds as self-proclaimed Judaic royalty (albeit Ashkenazi) makes a frequent appearance since they own the international banking industry.

The Pilgrims Society, though seemingly a glorified dinner club for members across the 3EM, follows the same framework for “open” secrecy as all the other “clubs” but the membership lists, details of meetings and almost zero reporting on the history and nature of the Pilgrims Society means it is even more removed from the public and thus democratic accountability. As Dutch investigative journalist Joël van der Reijden has discovered, there is very little to go on regarding its intentions with only the briefest mention in a handful of newspapers and almost nothing written by journalists in the major broadsheets of Europe as a whole. Yet, there is no denying that the institutions which come under the control of the Society and the events to which Pilgrims have exerted overt political and corporate influence is immense.

For example, The New York Federal Reserve presidents who have also been confirmed Pilgrims have numbered five out of the last nine, which are Benjamin Strong (1914-1928); George Harrison (1928-1940); Allan Sproul (1941-1956); Alfred Hayes (1956-1975) and Paul Volcker (1975-1979). The subsequent presidents were members of subsidiary groupings and banking institutions connected to the Society such as Council on Foreign Relations or Goldman Sacs. Indeed, all the key players involved in the major financial deregulation and economic restructuring of the last one hundred years plus have all been Pilgrims which include familiar banking names as Vanderlip, Strong, Warburg, Davison, Norton, and Aldrich all connected to wider network of Pilgrims in politics and corporations such as JP Morgan, George F. Baker, John D. Rockefeller, and Jacob Schiff.

It seems the US monetary system itself is crawling with Pilgrims. When analysing the Pilgrims Membership list van der Reijden found that 1 in 3 of the U.S. members were also members off the CFR along with a regular and strong executive presence from Carnegie Institute; Federal Reserve; J.P. Morgan; Chase Manhattan Bank; Skull & Bones and World Bank Presidents. As the presence of the Pilgrims is literally everywhere in Anglo-American banking, business and politics it is safe to assume, as van der Reijden points out: “… that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned by the Pilgrims … because New York itself is Pilgrims property.” [2]

Pilgrims have been described as: “principal custodians of what has come to be known as the Special Relationship” whose objective is “… the encouragement of Anglo-American good fellowship.” [3]

But what does this “relationship” and fellowship actually mean for the majority of the world’s people?

Forging creative ways to make the world a better place?

Or finding out the best ways to maintain Empire and monopoly?

Similarly, one only has to look at the membership list to get an idea as to what kind of world-view predominates – neo-liberal imperialism updated with technology. Nothing much has changed since the conception of the Rothshchilds’ British Empire over which the patron Queen Elizabeth II presides sitting, it seems, more and more uncomfortably as a pensioner who just wants to watch her soaps rather than be an English-Germanic figure-head of an antiquated cartel. But you are born into it and brainwashed. So, perhaps the Royals should be pitied rather than pilloried.

It seems the Pilgrims Society not only shows the close links between American and British foreign policy, serving as an inner circle of the Council on Foreign Relations but may also be the overseeing link between the Bilderberg Grp, the antecedents of the imperialist Round Table group and the that which has the label of the “Committee of 300” which is likely a red herring for a deeper form of occult membership. This would explain the ubiquitous presence of Pilgrims in every major Anglo-American, geo-political and financial event of last one hundred years.

After all, the motto on the Society’s official logo is the Latin Hic et Ubique which translates as “Here and Everywhere” which indeed, they are: from the 1906 Algeciras Conference to the 1913 establishment of the Federal Reserve to financing the Communist revolution; the Versailles Peace Conference and The Dawes Plan for German Economic regeneration to the financing of Nazi Germany from J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller associates, Averill Harriman, Ford Foundation and IBM; Knights of Malta and OSS led Vatican Rat lines through which thousands of Nazis were smuggled into Europe, South Africa and Latin America. Most commissions and inquiries into CIA activities and the events of 9/11 were fronted by Pilgrim Society members.

imageHenry Kissinger: CEO Kissinger Associates, former National Security Advisor under Nixon and numerous political posts

imageThe late Lord Peter Carrington:  Former Foreign Secretary Under Thatcher, Former NATO Secretary General, Former Pilgrims Society president

image George P. Schultz: Former US Secretary of State, CEO of Betchtel

image Frank Carlucci: Former CIA Deputy Director

Notes

[1] op. cit. Quigley Chapter 65 “American Confusions, 1945-1950” – ‘The American Branch Exerted Its Influence Through Five American Newspapers.’
[2] ‘The Pilgrims Society: A Study of the Anglo-American Establishment’ By Joël van der Reijden
uly 17, 2008. For more see:  https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/
[3] http://www.pilgrimsociety.org