Bank of England

Puppets & Players III: Le Cercle

cercle 1

© infrakshun


In June 1997, The Independent ran one of the very few reports about Le Cercle stating that it was: “One of the most influential, secretive, and it goes without saying, exclusive political clubs in the West … One member contacted by this newspaper said he could not talk about it ‘even off, off the record’. Another simply put the phone down … The source of its funding is a mystery…” [1] Joël van der Reijden has extended the research on Le Cercle with his well sourced 2006 article, some of which will form the following information. [2] Readers are encouraged to embark on their own investigations in order to shine more light on one of the most secretive Western-oriented organisations within the Three Establishment Model (3EM).

Previously known as the ‘Pinay Circle’ or the ‘Cercle Pinay’, Le Cercle (The Circle) is a trans-national think-tank, discussion group and strategic board for politicians, bankers, media chiefs, corporate executives police, military and intelligence agents. Its beliefs stem from allegiance to the British aristocracy and the Vatican wrapped up with fascistic European Synarchy. It is fanatically anti-communist seeing a KGB conspiracy behind every international event. It is through this group that the Vatican Pan Europa Network functions with members from Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta on board, headed by Otto von Habsburg as representative until 2011. Since it came to the attention of researchers, largely thanks to van der Reijden, it has remained highly secretive and unknown to the public.

Merging with the Synarchists’ desire for an integrated European State, the whacky intent of the Vatican sect is to see its own brand of New World Order in the form of an Imperium Romanum Sacrum or New Holy Roman Empire. The British Synarchists are now less interested in joining the EU in comparison to the past now that the possibility of leading the EU Superstate is unlikely thanks to the rise of the Franco-German Alliance. It is here that American members are keen to exert influence and join forces. And since the break-up of the Euro is now an inevitability (it was never meant to be a long-term currency) the project that was the European Union is coming to and end, in the hope that a different form of union can emerge from the coming ashes…

Le Cercle, as they name implies, has its origins in France as the brainchild of Jean Violet, who formed the group in 1951. Violet was a known Nazi collaborator and a member of Comité Secret pour l’Action Revolutionnaire (CSAR), a fascist secret society with occult overtones. It was said by some to have been part of the Synarchist movement seeking to undermine the French Republic in preparation for the Nazi invasion. [3] It was after the war that Violet came into contact with Antoine Pinay who was in bed with Opus Dei and French Intelligence (SDECE). This was the start of Violet’s wide-ranging network which extended from senior Opus Dei officials and Vatican intelligence to the European Centre of Documentation and Information (CEDI) which was part of the Pan Europa Union set up in 1923 by Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, son of an Austro-Hungarian diplomat and quickly patronized by the Habsburgs, the Vatican, and eventually Opus Dei to become the right wing Vatican Pan Europa network. The Pan Europa Union’s objectives were to keep the Soviets out of Europe, and to create a Roman Catholic-oriented European Superstate. Violet’s connections even got the attention of the Head of German intelligence and former Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen who recruited him due to his networking capital within Le Cercle. [4]

Throughout the 1950’s and early 60’s Pinay and Violet set about recruiting Franco-German members to implement the vision of a United European State. This was after all, a key strategy of the Nazi Third Reich should Germany lose the war for Germany to dominate Europe economically if not ideologically. [5]  Two of these early members were Robert Schuman French prime minister from 1947 to 1948 and French foreign minister from 1948 to 1953 and Jean Monnet, Planning Commissioner of the National Economic Council from 1945 to 1952. Both were connected to top level economic and political circles in North America, the UK, and Western Europe. Monnet was particularly strong in pushing for an integrated Europe in the aftermath of WWII. He was to become the architect and visionary of the kind of Europe le Cercle members wished to see, by forging high-level links within the Anglo-American Establishment and British aristocracy and overseeing organization of the Pilgrim’s Society. Anyone who was anyone knew Monnet and who was one of the primary Elite intermediaries of the 1930s 40s and 50s. Early members included Lord Kindersley of the Bank of England; Arthur Salter a European Federalist and one of the core leaders of the Round Table; US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles; Lady Nancy Astor and the Earl of Perth, Sir Eric Drummond. [6]

The Venetian Black nobility line found it’s connection to Le Cercle via Bilderberg co-founder and Vatican agent Joseph Retinger when Monnet organized the May 1948 Congress of Europe, a project of the United Europe Movement in The Hague. CIA heads Allen Dulles and Bill Donovan were present marking the beginning of a financial support system the United European Movement in the following decades.

According to Joël van der Reijden, Le Cercle member Robert Schuman:

“… proposed the so called ‘Schuman Plan’, which became the basis for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was established in 1952 and is usually seen as the birth of the European Union. In reality, Monnet, who became the first chairman of the ECSC’s High Authority, had entirely written the ‘Schuman Plan’. And interestingly, even this might only partially be true, as Monnet’s structure for Europe turned out to be a slightly adapted version of Arthur Salter’s 1931 paper ‘The United States of Europe’, which originally advocated a federal Europe within the framework of the League of Nations. Both men worked high up in the League of Nations and had a close relationship to the leading Anglo-American families….” [7]

With Monnet’s repeated attempts to create a European Defence Community (EDC) failing to materialize he founded the very low-profile Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) with a view to pushing forward the integration of European nations. This would later be part of the immense lobbying efforts for the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) as well as the 1957 Treaty of Rome which would inspire many other EU integrationist organizations and bodies. The Pilgrims Society, Bilderberg Grp; the Rockefeller family and members of future Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission organisations were crawling all over the European initiatives.

By 1961, Monnet’s formidable networking oversaw the creation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which has since become the European contribution to the World State vision and linking the globalization imperatives of the Structural Adjustment Team of the IMF, WTO and the World Bank. Monnet as Le Cercle representative wasn’t finished however. On a synarchist roll, talks with which UK Prime Minister Edward Heath followed along with the entry of Britain into the European Common Market thanks to input from Vatican mover David Drummond who oiled the wheels of Heath’s awareness. Entry of the European Economic Community was a foregone conclusion by 1973.

Jean Monnet also exerted pressure and influence in creating and strengthening Franco-German alliances so that it would hopefully, under synarchist leverage, have the final say in the destiny of European integration and the long-hoped for European block. It was however, because of De Gaulle’s realization that the Anglo-American Establishment and the synarchists of the time were not in line with a more autonomous and agriculturally independent states within Europe that he became a target for those pushing for a Federal Europe. De Gaulle wasn’t just being nationalistic here. He was a keen elder statesman and knew what forces were at work behind the scenes.

Citing a need to maintain an independent military strategy, De Gaulle Withdrew from NATO, expelled Allied forces from France and attempted to establish better ties with Communist Russia all of which was on top of his decision to withdraw from Algeria. Consequently, several assassination attempts were made on his life. The most famous of these was by the settlers’ resistance group Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS) in August 1962 when he and his wife’s car was sprayed with machine gun fire arranged by Colonel Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry at Petit-Clamart. The Colonel had been born from a family of Catholic military officers and married to the daughter of Georges Lamirand who had been Vichy France General Secretary of Youth from September 1940 to March 1943. He was also a member of the organization, “Vieil État-Major.” Jean Cantelaube, a former security officer of De Gaulle, was recently identified as an intelligence agent who provided information to Bastien-Thiry’s organization, thus making a possible extra link to Le Cercle, traditionally embedded in French Intelligence. [8] This was more than enough to make him a target of Le Cercle, and though no evidence exists in any participation in the assassination plot, given Bastien-Thiry’s background it is more than a probability that Le Cercle, if not complicit, would have been clapping their hands with glee at the opportunity.

clip_image002Otto von Hapsburg

clip_image004Jonathan Aitken

clip_image006Konrad Adenauer

clip_image008Michael Howard

clip_image010Lord Norman Lamont

clip_image012Brian Crozier

Le Cercle’s primary intelligence go-between and PR guru journalist Brian Crozier was perhaps the most efficient and effective in disseminating the KGB-under-the-bed propaganda which was drawn from the group’s intense hatred of all things communist. Soviet infiltration plots notwithstanding, it is far more likely that Capitalist-Communist hybrids of corporatism encouraged by the Rockefellers were dominating rather than there being KGB agents everywhere as Le Cercle members claimed. (If we keep in mind that it is essential psychopathy that uses any ideology to further its ends, it is not so much about the evil of communist or capitalist influence as it is the importance of psychopathic clusters to maintain their dominance over ordinary people. To do that, they must infiltrate all religious, political and social institutions in order to progressively hijack certain principles and forge new ones. Thus setting one belief system against another – sometimes in subtle ways – is always the name of the game. So, let’s not get too caught up on polarities. Suffice to say that that fascism, socialism, capitalism and communism are drawn from the same source of distortion, their initial wisdom distorted and used against ordinary people to keep them in spiritual bondage. Le Cercle plays it’s part in that endless divide and rule, even perhaps within the Establishment itself).

To give the reader some idea as to the many and varied networks le Cercle members move in, a random selection of influential members, attendees and Chairpersons follows:

Otto von Hapsburg – As an Austrian member of the Royal House of Hapsburg. The eldest son of Charles I and IV, the last Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, and his wife, Zita of Bourbon-Parmahe. Strongly anti-Nazi and anti-communist. A Knight of Malta, he was an enthusiastic advocate of Pan-Europeanism. His family has strong historical ties to the Vatican and all things Catholic. Died in 2011.

Sir Peter Tennent – Banker and corporate executive. Heavily involved in War-time intelligence activities after being recruited by Colonel Sir Charles Hambro for the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in 1940. A Knight Bachelor of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George since 1972. He was a member and CEO of numerous foundations, trusts, hedge funds and corporations. Tennent was also a member of private sector intelligence group “The 61” and an Advisor to Pilgrims Society controlled Barclays Bank. Before he died in 1996, he had chaired several of the meetings of Le Cercle.

Jonathan Aitken –Conservative MP, Banker, writer and Arms dealer. Received an 18-month jail sentence in 1999 for lobbying for GEC, Marconi and VSEL, in order to sell millions worth of weapons to Saudi-Arabia. As director of BMARC he had been happily exporting arms to to Middle Eastern countries including Iraq. CEO of TV-Am and his banking and investment company Aitken Hume Plc and was a member of the Queen’s Privy Council; Minister of State for Defence under in 1992; Served as Chairman of Le Cercle during this period, as confirmed by MP Alan Clark. [9] Protégé of Lord Julian Amery.

Norman Lamont – Conservative MP (with Neo-Conservative connections to the United States) and Member of the Queen’s Privy Council. Lamont had an 11 year stint under N.M. Rothschild & Sons and became director of Rothschild Asset Management. Various ministerial posts under Thatcher and his most public as Chancellor of the Exchequer under John Major. Numerous domestic and international roles in commerce and finance including Chairman of the G7 group in 1992, negotiator at Maastricht; Advisor to Monsanto. Current Chairman of Euro-Sceptic think-tank Bruges Grp and said to be current Chairman of Le Cercle.

2011 saw his involvement in obstructing the Carroll Foundation Trust and parallel Carroll Maryland Trust billion dollars offshore tax evasion fraud scandal now encircling 10 Downing Street and the Conservative Party. It is “one of the biggest tax fraud scandals in living memory” and the ‘obstruction and co-ordinated cover-up’ is due to FBI Scotland Yard prosecution files naming high value suspects which extend deep into top-level banking and corporate echelons. Still under investigation during the coalition government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg Lord Lamont is one of many whose present pedestal remains in question. A total black-out on reporting in mainstream newspapers has been in effect since 2012. [10]

Prince Turki al Faisal – father was King Faisal, a major force behind the Arab oil embargo against the United States in 1973; nephew of the late King Fahd al-Saud, head of the House of Saud; Faisal studied at Princeton, Cambridge, and Georgetown Universities; Chairman King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies. Co-Founder King Faisal Foundation; CFR attendee; DAVOS attendee; headed Saudi foreign intelligence services from 1977 to September 1, 2001; supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviet invasion; Saudi Ambassador to Great Britain; named in a lawsuit from relatives of several hundred September 11 victims due to Saudi / bin Laden links to 9/11; friend of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles and the Bush family.

Michael Howard – Lawyer, Chairman of the Bow Grp 1970; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry in 1985; responsibility for regulating the financial dealings of the City of London; one of the architects and supporters of the council or poll tax under Thatcher; various high-level government posts in the Thatcher government; tough reputation on the causes of crime. As Home Secretary his reputation was tarnished: “When he … released high-level drug dealer John Haase from prison just 10 months into an 18-year sentence, along with his associate Paul Bennett. Haase’s criminal career began with armed robberies in the 1970s. He moved on when he realised there was much more money to be made in heroin. He took control of the British end of the southern route for heroin smugglers, which runs from Afghanistan to Britain via Turkey and the Balkans. A member of Haase’s gang, Simon Bakerman, imprisoned for running an amphetamine factory, is Michael Howard’s cousin.” Junior minister at the time, Anne Widdicombe’s remark immortalized Howard’s persona when she remarked that “there is something of the night about him.”

Konrad Adenauer – a CIA asset and architect of West Germany’s economic recovery; Lord mayor of Cologne 1917. Lawyer, Pan Europa Union follower; hard-line anti-communist and associated with many known former Nazis including General Reinhard Gehlen; associate and signatory of the Treaty of Rome; received the Magistral Grand Cross personally from SMOM (The Sovereign Military Order of Malta) Franz-Josef Bach his Personal assistant was a German Ambassador to Iran and consultant and lobbyist for corporations including Siemens, Nippon Electric and Northrop-Grumman. He died in 2001.

The promotion of Franz Josef Strauss in terms of office and image inside and outside of Germany was also part of the le Cercle agenda as evidenced in the above published sources. Any accusations and criticism of Strauss was countered by denouncing the detractors as communist agitators. Strauss was a Le Cercle faithful and his friends rallied to his cause. A hard-right Roman Catholic Christian of the Social Union of Bavaria (CSU), he was buffered and protected throughout his life and career amid countless family scandals.

Reijden’s research places the following members as chairman/ President since the 1950s to the present day:

clip_image014_thumb.jpg

Lord Julian Amery MI6 agent, 1001 Club, Operative and Cercle chairman [13] His father Leo Amery was a key Round table member

Chairman/President /Term

  • Antoine Pinay 1950s – 1970s
  • Jean Violet 1970s – 1980
  • Brian Crozier 1980 – 1985
  • Julian Amery 1985 – 1990s
  • Jonathan Aitken 1990s – 1996
  • Lord N. Lamont 1996 – today [11]

The achievements of Le Cercle have been better understood from the 1975 leaking of documents from the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) and further revelations from German intelligence officer Hans Langemann, a former head of Bavarian State Security in the 1970s and early 1980s. With the help of a colleague who attended Le Cercle meetings full briefings were passed on to Langemann in exchange for intelligence information of his own. He sold the information to Kronket Magazine which eventually ended up in Der Spiegel in the early 1980s.

From this information we can see that le Cercle influence is not insubstantial. Through its virulent anti-communist paranoia it played a key role in bringing Margaret Thatcher to power with several le Cercle members hovering in her sphere, including Brian Crozier whose covert advisory committee, “Shield” played a crucial role:

The initial idea for Shield came from MI6 agent Sir Stephen Haskings, a friend of Crozier who had formerly been a SAS soldier and SOE officer. Crozier put together Thatcher’s election campaign by adopting Jean Violet’s Psychological Action program, a technique to find quick, short answers to three basic questions: What do people want? What do they fear? And what do they feel strongly about? Shield also completely convinced Thatcher about the severe threat of domestic communist subversion. After Crozier and Haskings handed her their paper ‘The diabolical nature of the Communist conspiracy’, Thatcher’s reaction was, “I’ve read every word and I’m shattered. What should we do?’” [12]

The Round Table’s presence in South Africa also had many Le Cercle members by virtue of the inevitable crossovers the evolution of the two groups engendered. Though both differed substantially on ideology there were also many similarities rooted in aristocracy and British Empire traditions. Rhodesia and South Africa was largely owned and manipulated by these two powerful groups. Cecil Rhodes, a Rothschild / Round Table agent and Julian Amery a Le Cercle Chairman and highly influential 1001 Club member were two of a kind and rooted in British fascism and post-war imperialism.

Finally, several members of Le Cercle played a prominent role in the Afghan war. The alleged Polish Venetian Nobility descendent Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security advisor to Carter, was the architect of the Mujahideen guerrilla network. With assistance from another Le Cercle member and Knight of Malta, CIA director William Casey, he helped to push the Soviets out of the country leading to its eventual collapse.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Aitken dropped by the Right’s secret club’, The Independent, June 29, 1997.
[2] ‘Le Cercle and the struggle for the European continent: Private bridge between Vatican-Paneuropean and Anglo-American intelligence’ By Joël van der Reijden, November 18, 2006/Update: July 29, 2007 / Version: 1.02 / Original report of ISGP on Le Cercle: July 26, 2005.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘The Pinay Circle and Destabilisation in Europe’, By David Teacher, Lobster Magazine, November 1988, Issue 17.
[5] The EU: The Truth About The Fourth Reich: How Adolf Hitler Won The Second World War (2014) [Kindle Edition] by Daniel J Beddowes Flavio Cipollini.
[6] op. cit. van der Reijden.
[7] Crawley, Aidan (1969). De Gaulle. London: The Literary Guild. ASIN B000KXPUCK.(p.381)
[8] Cantelaube’s notes quoted in Jean-Pax Meffret’s book; attempt accomplice interviewed by Olivier Cazeaux
[9] ‘Aitken dropped by the Right’s secret club’ By Chris Blackhurst, The Independent, June 29, 1997.
[10] http://www.carrolltrustcase.com/
[11] op. cit. van der Reijden.
[12] Ibid. Reijden. He quotes Crozier’s book Free Agent which fleshes out the whole story and The Telegraph report from January 11, 2005, ‘Stephen Hastings’ obituary’.
[13] November 1988 Issue 17, Lobster Magazine, ‘Brian Crozier, the Pinay Circle and James Goldsmith’ (quoting from the Langemann papers); 1993, Alan Clark, ‘Diaries’, p. 369-374; 1993, Brian Crozier, ‘Free Agent’, page 193; June 29, 1997, The Independence, ‘Aitken dropped by the Right’s secret club; Is it the ultimate dishonour’ (claims Amery was chair before Aitken); February 1, 1998, News Confidential, ‘Jonathan Aitken MI6, CIA?’
Advertisements

Cartel Economics I

2013-07-04 18.28.14© infrakshun

 By M.K. Styllinski

“The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution … if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson


January 8th 1835, was a special day and year in American history: it was the only time that the United States had no national debt. Now, the national public debt has surpassed all possibilities for even a gradual repayment standing at the time of writing at: $ 16,698, 618, 743, 942. 57. With the estimated population of the US at 314,525,808 each citizen’s share of this debt is $53,091.41. This has continued to increase by an average of $3.88 billion per day since September 28, 2007. [1] This abstract figure is on top of almost half of all Americans today classified as ‘living in poverty’ or ‘barely scraping by’ whilst 46.4% pay no income tax. [2]

How on earth did it get to such a point of no return?

President Thomas Jefferson, like so many American forefathers was right again. Our present global economic system is founded on the enslavement of older cultures which informs the new with psychopathological dispositions remaining hidden behind its inception. This archaic and grossly inadequate financial system has overseen the steady decline in job opportunities, and the accompanying fragmentation of the community. A heavily invested hi-tech global economy is producing a surplus of goods and services with an ever smaller work force. Poverty of mind and body fluctuates under a vast divide with tiny pockets of jealously guarded affluence. This is leading to greater destabilisation, as various sub-cultures of youth crime emerge under well-established mafia-led economies; to act as their corporate cannon fodder.

Global financial debt, wage dependence and a kind of “export warfare” are maintained and regulated by the IMF and the World Bank. These bastions of financial brokering are seen as the epitome of free trade ethic, yet rather than being the facilitator of all things financially rosy, they are in fact the gatekeepers of debt slavery and economic disparity. If free trade was to be truly conducive to the majority of humankind then it would be founded on justice rather than on utility and strength alone. The IMF has engineered these controls at the behest of both international banking cartels and the fortune 500 corporations preventing individual nations from managing their own economic affairs, while increasing the centralisation of power under the auspices of global governance as an exemplar of good economic practice. [3] For each nation to control its own destiny, including the inflow and outflow of capital, this would take away the dependence on the resources that provide a rich bounty for wealthy countries.

Despite the theoretical and abstract theories of free trade worshippers, the present financial architecture remains the primary base for an abundance of capital resources for those at the top of the pyramid. These institutions remain in their economic eminence gris where their so called “loans” to the developing world is no more than a mechanism to keep these nations at the beck and call of financiers. The debt based financial system which keeps the blood-money flowing is a seemingly invincible arrangement that is energised by “borrowing” thereby affirming the future of developing nations assets (i.e. its people) which will then be held in bondage and ransomed out to whoever’s buying. American hegemony has ensured that the extraordinarily damaging forces of economic globalisation continue unabated.

Behind this monopolisation are highly influential institutions which include: the World Economic Forum (or the Davos Group) the International Chamber of Commerce, The Business Industry Advisory Committee, World Business Council on Sustainable Development, The US Council on International Business, The Business Round Table Europe and The European Round Table of Industrialists. The most noted of these global steerage organisations are The Council on Foreign Relations,[4] The Bilderberg Group [5] and the Trilateral Commission [6] whom, admittedly have a legendary conspiratorial mythos and not without reason. These three organizations offer a cultivated and refined air of respectability and economic savoir-faire. Yet the reality of their global manoeuvres offer important reasons as to why developing countries continue to drown in varying degrees of corruption, famine, poverty and crippling economic hardship.

The overriding theme that connects all three groups is the historical and unquestioned belief that national boundaries should be obliterated and global governance established, along with the requisite central bank and currency. No matter how these accusations may be repudiated in the rare addresses to the press in public and via their respective websites, this is the overarching objective. Its members write scholarly pieces which are then used in the decision making process where the academic discourse often reaches dizzying heights of rhetoric, extolling the virtues of a borderless and united (read monopolised) world which the media happily disseminates via its editorials and commentary sections. Guest writers are frequently drawn from those very same think tanks and myriad organisations sympathetic to the cause. These steering groups bring together CEOs of global corporations, leaders of national political parties and a general mix of “movers and shakers” to enjoy some consensus building in how to mould and shape the global economy. The public is never privy to these inside negotiations.

Members include most of the rich and famous in the political and financial arena since before the Second World War. (The Trilateral Commission is a more recent arrival). As such, these meetings are about an old boy’s network of Caucasian males, from Northern industrial backgrounds of the wealthy elite primarily concerned with maintaining the prosperity of an Anglo-American style economy. This naturally requires a long-term dominion over the world’s resources and markets, to the exclusion of most of the world population’s aspiration for a better life. Steps are taken to ensure that international development loans can never be paid back and thus not only lock many developing countries into a spiral of unending debt, but the necessary impositions of civil war and poverty to ensure compliance and unfettered access to resources far into the future. Most policy directives can be traced back to these closed meetings between leaders that are effectively arranged to preclude alternatives to prevailing economic status quo. [7] Without any elected, democratic process involved they are able to influence governments, financiers and corporations, NGOs and entertainers alike according to their own narrow wishes.

Though many of the more naive participants believe they are holding hands around the table, inaugurating the seeds of prosperity tied up in a nice blue bow of international relations, the reality is somewhat different. The members are involved in an exclusive process that is wholly directed towards the corporate, Neo-Libertarian ethos of economic integration and that sickly sweet euphemism of “harmonization.” Or more accurately: a rampant conglomeration of cartels maintaining an elite agenda for power, where alternative visions of the financial and economic development are never up for discussion and resisted at all costs.

The late author and journalist Eustace Mullins laid out the global structure which is largely unchanged today:

It consists of the major Swiss Banks; the survivors of the old Venetian-Genoese banking axis; the Big Five of the world grain trade; the British combine, centered in the Bank of England and its chartered merchant banks, functioning trough the Rothschilds and the Oppenheimers and having absolute control over their Canadian colony through the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal, their Canadian lieutenants being the Bronfmans, Belzbergs, and other financial operators; and the colonial banking structure in the United States, controlled by the Bank of England through the Federal Reserve System; the Boston Brahmin families who made their fortunes in the opium trade, including the Delanos and others and the Rockefeller Syndicate, consisting of the Kissinger network headquartered in the Rockefeller Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, the present form of the old Rothschild representatives in the United States, which includes Kuhn, Loeb Company and Lehman Brothers. [8]

Though as some will recall, the Lehman Brothers was sacrificed in the 2008 financial warfare phase that saw even greater asset consolidation for J.P Morgan (Rothschild) Citibank, Bank of America and others.

One-time mentor to future US president Bill Clinton, Professor Carroll Quigley taught History at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976. He also taught at Princeton and Harvard universities and lectured at the Brookings Institution, the Foreign Service Institute, the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. Moving into consultancy in 1958 he worked at the Congressional Select Committee which set up the National Space Agency. In other words, this man was an insider. He was able to expose many of the workings of the Anglo-American Establishment by gaining access to the private archives of that Rockefeller baby: the Council on Foreign Relations closely associated with the Trilateral Commission and the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

His masterpiece in this regard is: Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time published in 1966. The book is dense, over 1,300 pages and meticulously sourced. Readers are encouraged to seek out the book themselves to validate its quality.

Quigley details the emergence of the commercial world and international finance and their historical repercussions. Initially, the Georgetown professor had great difficulties with his publisher over the distribution of the tome.  “The publisher claimed demand was poor. When Quigley sought and acquired the necessary demand, the publisher responded by saying that the plates had been destroyed.” [9] It has also been suggested that the upper levels of Elite banking were not amused and initiated a form of censorship which was perhaps one reason why the book was very hard to find over the last few decades.

Rather than attacking the principles behind an intellectual elite and an updated feudal system commonly labelled a “New World Order” Quigley’s confession was very much one of support. The differences of opinion he had with his Elite friends were in terms of secrecy and openness.

In his own words:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. [10]

The information the professor conveys dove-tails perfectly into the speculation, supposition, circumstantial and deductive evidence of the actions of unknown agencies operating within governments, banking and occult societies. Quigley confirms the fact that if it were just a case of a Darwinian relapse caused by the inherently selfish human beings that create deleterious effects on societies then it would be relatively easy to adjust over time by improving our social systems while retaining the overall modes of capitalism. But it seems the financial architecture of modern economics is a symptom of something very different to the ideal of capitalism with a small “c”.

What was originally the primary goal of traditional capitalism at its inception?

According to Quigley, commercial capitalism traversed five stages, the first of which was “… self-sufficient agrarian units (manors)… in a society organized so that its upper ranks—the lords, lay and ecclesiastical—found their desires for necessities so well met that they sought to exchange their surpluses of necessities for luxuries of remote origin.” The second stage: “… mercantile profits and widening markets created a demand for textiles and other goods which could be met only by application of power to production”. This produced the third stage of: “…industrial capitalism [which] soon gave rise to such an insatiable demand for heavy fixed capital, like railroad lines, steel mills, shipyards, and so on, that these investments could not be financed from the profits and private fortunes of individual proprietors. New instruments for financing industry came into existence in the form of limited-liability corporations and investment banks. These were soon in a position to control the chief parts of the industrial system, since they provided capital to it.” [11] This was where financial capitalism evolved to the fourth stage whereby it: “… was used to integrate the industrial system into ever-larger units with interlinking financial controls. This made possible a reduction of competition with a resulting increase in profits. As a result, the industrial system soon found that it was again able to finance its own expansion from its own profits, and, with this achievement, financial controls were weakened, and the stage of monopoly capitalism arrived.” [12]

Finally, the fifth stage saw: “…great industrial units, working together either directly or through cartels and trade associations, were in a position to exploit the majority of the people. The result was a great economic crisis which soon developed into a struggle for control of the state—the minority hoping to use political power to defend their privileged position, the majority hoping to use the state to curtail the power and privileges of the minority. This dualist struggle dwindled with the rise of economic and social pluralism after 1945.” [13]

Therefore, the primary goal of capitalism was profit where values of the majority underwent a rapid process of attrition resulting in their extinction. It reached a stage where the very nature of human values and alternative concepts of “growth” were ridiculed or questioned if they did not fit in with the current paradigm of exploitation. As Quigley states capitalism is:

“… never primarily seeking to achieve prosperity, high production, high consumption, political power, patriotic improvement, or moral uplift. Any of these may be achieved under capitalism, and any (or all) of them may he sacrificed and lost under capitalism, depending on this relationship to the primary goal of capitalist activity—the pursuit of profits. During the nine-hundred-year history of capitalism, it has, at various times, contributed both to the achievement and to the destruction of these other social goals.” [14]

 


Notes


[1] US National Debt Clock at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ and wwww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt#Public_and_government_accounts
[2] ‘When The U.S. Paid Off The Entire National Debt (And Why It Didn’t Last)’ by Robert Smith, “Planet Money” on http://www.npr.org | ‘The kind of money matters’ by E.G. Austin, The Economist, Mar 1st 2012.
[3] While the carte blanche exploitation of Africa was signed for in 2000 the American Union has stalled somewhat, thanks largely to the efforts of Victor Chavez the President of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia who will not play ball. The Global Union is an entirely elitist plan for an “New International Order” that Neo-Conservative , corporate and Zionist elites wish to suck in all nations of North, Central and South America as well as the Caribbean Islands, and which would function just like the present European Union, which was completed in the year 2000. Like the European Union, there will be one monetary system, one central bank, one unelected governing body, one military force, one judicial system, no borders, and no Constitution and Bill of Rights. NAFTA, has now become the FTAA,  (Free Trade Area of the Americas).
[4] Further reading: ‘Kinder capitalists in Armani specs’ by Will Hutton, The Observer, 1st February 1998, p22; ‘Goldwater Sees Elitist Sentiments Threatening Liberties’, By US Senator Barry M. Goldwater, 1979. See also: The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline by James Perloff. 1988 | ISBN: 0882791346.
[5] Further reading: American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission by Stephen Gill, Cambridge University Press; Reprint edition (1991) ISBN: 052142433X; Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Published by South End Press, 1980| ISBN: 0896081036.
[6] Further reading: ‘The Bilderberg Group and the project of European unification’ by Mike Peters, The Lobster, Issue 32, 1996; Bilderberg Group, The Global Manipulators, by Robert Eringer, Pentacle Books, (1980); ‘European Parliament examining Bilderbergers -Bilderberg questions tabled at European Parliament by Patricia McKenna MEP’ – November 1998 to February 1999 by Tony Gosling., http://www.Bilderberg.org.
[7] pp.133-140; When Corporations Rule the World, by David C. Korten, Published by Earthscan, 1995 | ISBN 1-85383-434-3 | ‘Building Elite Consensus.’
[8] Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America by Eustace Mullins. Chapter 10: ‘The Rockefeller Syndicate 310.’ Published by The National Council for Medical Research; third printing edition, 1995 | ASIN: B002S1BNKA
[9] The Global Manipulators. the Bilderberg Group. the Trilateral Commission. Covert Power Groups of the West by Robert Eringer, Pentacle Books, 1980 | ASIN: B00AMPT9XM
[10] Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time published by New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966 | Sourced from online PDF file version  found at http://www.wanttoknow.info/war/tragedy_and_hope_quigley_full1090pg.pdf
[11] Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by Carroll Quigley, Published by Angriff Pr, June 1975, ISBN-10: 094500110X. Chapter 5: European Economic Developments.
[12] Ibid. Part One—Introduction: Western Civilization In Its World Setting Chapter 1—Cultural Evolution in Civilizations.
[13]  Ibid. Chapter 5—European Economic Developments; Commercial Capitalism.
[14] Ibid. Chapter 5—European Economic Developments; The Primary Goal of Capitalism.