Bilderberg Group (BG)

Dark Green XIV: Global Cooling, Bilderberg and the Oceanic Wild-Card

By M.K. Styllinski

“In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 1)  ‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.’ 2) ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes.’  To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

– Professor C. R DeFreitas | www.friendsofscience.org/


With the precautionary principle being happily brushed aside yet again via the introduction of geo-engineering into the public arena, the craziness from our so-called “leaders” has reached stratospheric levels of lunacy as the stakes get higher. Nonetheless, let’s get back to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer and his take on Pacific Decadal Oscillation which, in his view and an increasing number of scientists: “… is critical to our understanding of global warming.”

He reiterates the point that small changes can have enormous impact over time, especially regarding the presence of global cloud cover and states: “… clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), [therefore] a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more.” Not forgetting the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) – another variable natural cycle of around 60-80 years which occurs in the North Atlantic Ocean. It seems we are just starting a cool phase on that cycle too. [1] Both of these circulation patterns in our oceans have been occurring for about one thousand years.

Another theory contributing to the idea of global cooling is water vapour concentrations in the stratosphere which have decreased by about 10% after the year 2000, showing stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change – rather than CO2. Factor in low solar activity and the continuing lack of global warming for 18 years – despite CO2 concentrations – there isn’t much of climate science which is pointing to the exclusivity of global warming. Most of the recent climate models have been entirely wrong in their predictions, yet climate activists and many scientists cling to excess CO2 levels as the main driver of climate change.

As discussed previously, the scientific facts can be spun from either side of the divide and argued into eternity until we see who benefits from the politicising. Clearly, the global warming camp and its traditional left-liberal leanings work in concert with corporate sponsorship and elite ideology which has much to gain as we shall see in the next post. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to jump aboard with those resisting AGW advocates simply because it fits in with their conservative views and short-term greed. Coupled with institutionalised science which is divorced from an ethical discourse as much any other activity we have a very heady brew of confusion that sends the public’s collective head spinning.

2013-01-15 15.10.15 Ice Age on the way? | © infrakshun

One obvious factoid which has rarely if ever been placed under the microscope next to climate science is the Bilderberg group’s connection. at the international level. It is not simply a glorified talking shop but a place where present and future leaders determine which direction international politics should go. Such (perceived) dignitaries included Henry Kissinger, Prince Beatrice of the Netherlands, Richard Perle and Bill Gates. Which is why when attendees and topics for discussion are sometimes leaked from its annual meetings, many of us pay attention as they are often indicators as to how domestic and geopolitical policy is going to play out in the coming months and years.

At the 58th Bilderberg Meeting of June 2010 in Stiges, Spain tucked away in a list of conference subjects under discussion was the mention of “global cooling.” After all the hullabaloo in media and scientific journals decrying climate deniers and establishing the truth of a scientific consensus on global warming, it is more than a little curious that global cooling was even on the conference agenda, especially when the AGW-led Carbon Tax is a much loved and looming policy of the very kinds of Elite present at the meeting. It is more probable that knowledge of AGW as a social engineering project is generally known by many members, some of whom were responsible for its inception. Therefore, it becomes less surprising that global cooling was given top billing since it may represent a more authentic picture of climate change in the not so distant future. What does this do to the picture of global decarbonisation and Carbon Tax? If CO2 is not the villain of the story – by accident or decree – and it’s a lot more complicated than the Establishment thought then it will require some substantial tweaking of the AGW script.

Back in 2006, glaciologists were able to show data from tropical ice cores that indicated two abrupt global climate shifts. By comparing ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas a huge shift from a warm climate to a cooler regime was discovered. This occurred over 5,000 years ago along with a more recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years. It seems the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 1,000 years warmed parts of the globe and was swiftly followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA) and a sudden onset of much colder temperatures the vanguard of which was the advance of glaciers in Europe. It seems the rise of a warm climate followed by an abrupt descent of an Ice Age has been happening as a natural cycle not only here on earth but on other planets so it seems even more unlikely that the microscopic activities of us humans are affecting the climate in the way that AGW advocates suggest.

Furthermore, instead of the much trumpeted media images of ice melting and polar bears stranded on floating boats of ice, the reverse seems to be true, at least in part. Antarctica’s land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate but sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. These are two separate phenomena. A recent paper from Bristol University on the Greenland ice sheet (not ‘arctic ice’) shows that changes to the ice sheet mass indicates weather influences (shifting pressure systems in the North Atlantic, or El Niño and La Niña events) rather than anthropogenic climate changes.

Oceanography is another field very poorly understood in relation to climate change. In the 2013, August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten a two part article included academic research on solar influence as well as the mystery of the oceans which it stated: “… are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.The journal quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark to illustrate why this is so. He explains: “How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

The IPCC and its legion of computer modellers have assumed that AGW is an obvious fact with further increases of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 with CO2 as the cause. Yet, at the time of writing eighteen years have passed with no temperature increase and with record levels of cold being recorded over the last few years. Rather than simply a glitch in the global warming trend the decrease in temperature may indicate the underlying cause of climate change is one of cycles of global warming and cooling stretching back thousands of years.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Department of Geology, Western Washington University is one of an increasing number of scientists who think that the evidence is pointing in the direction of a global cooling trend and the onset of the “Little Ice Age.” Indeed, Professor Easterbook’s research summarised in his 2008 paper shows that: “Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.” Comparing over ten global climate changes in the last 15,000 years it is clear that: “….global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant.” The professor is certain that human CO2 input is not a factor during these ancient global climate changes since anthropogenic CO2 emissions simply weren’t on the scene during these climatic upheavals. What is more likely is that the cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was … the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.”[2]

Easterbrook spent decades studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, (GDO) which showed a pattern of glacial advances and retreats that correlated with climate records. Furthermore, the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve) also correlated with glacial fluctuations. The GDA and PDO data matched global temperature records suggesting a clear relationship. This had implications for the assumption that CO2 was the arch-culprit in anthropogenic global warming due to the fact that all but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO2 emissions. In truth, the tiny increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) is not the cause of the warming, but a symptom of the natural cycles which have ebbed and flowed over the past 500 years.

The professor believes the significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and the influence of sun-spot activity on global temperature is dramatic. He states: “… once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future.” Unlike the climate modelling of the IPCC using the climate pattern which had been established for several hundred years, in 1998 Easterbrook created a temperature curve based on past natural cycle which would predict changes from this century into the next and which suggested: “… global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090.” [3]

His research has so far been vindicated since it is clear that the IPCC forecast of global climate warming of 1° F was wrong so too the measures suggested to curb AGW in the form of carbon taxes and CO2-based reduction schemes. From 2007-2008 there was a marked cooling and a continuing decrease in global temperatures with: “… NASA satellite imagery confirming that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.” [4]

If the cooling is severe this could lead us into aforementioned Little Ice Age, something which has not only happened before but is likely to happen much, MUCH faster than we imagine. According to findings from a 2009 study led by UK geological sciences professor William Patterson, the earth’s climate can flip from warm to cold extraordinarily quickly.

100_5010© infrakshun

In November 2013, a newspaper report quoted Patterson describing his research where hours of “scraping off layers of mud 0.5mm thick from a lake in Western Ireland” yielded surprising results. The report went on: “Each layer represented three months of sediment deposition, so he could measure changes in temperature over very short periods. He found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake’s plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The subsequent mini Ice Age lasted for 1,300 years.” Patterson likened the speed of the arriving Ice Age as: “… the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months.” The article goes on to make the point that while this is a ‘mini’ ice age in geological terms but 1,300 years is roughly 61 generations. That’s a considerable time and something which humanity may be facing. [5]

As 2013 was the coldest year for 200 years, Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory went on record in a UK report to warn about the validity Ice Ages.  The last big freeze, or “Little Ice Age” was between 1650 and 1850 the return of which Abdussamatov is convinced we are presently on an: “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.” He further commented: “Humanity has always been prospering during the warm periods and suffering during the cold ones. The climate has never been and will never be stable.”  [6]

Predictions by scientists backed by the IPCC have included sea level increases between 26 to 81 centimetres by the end of the century. This in turn, may cause expansion of the oceans and the melting of global ice formations. Despite feverish computer modelling churning out the worst case scenarios tied strictly to anthropocentric global warming and feeding into the public belief that it is fact, the embarrassing reality for AGW experts and the IPCC is that most of the dire warnings of horror and mayhem have not come to fruition. Embarrassing that is, if you have let well-intentioned passion succumb to ill-intentioned social engineers. For example, AGW advocates offer a flurry of explanations as to why the IPCC’s projections on global temperature rises have not been met. Warming has continued but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, for instance. Those opposed to AGW believe there is not the slightest evidence for this and represents more computer modelling based on wishful thinking rather than concrete observational data.

Since minds and money were not brought to bear thirty years ago to initiate preventative measures and mitigate the effects of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere it seems we are literally between the devil and the deep blue sea. This doesn’t mean that global cooling scenario alleviates the possibility of catastrophic change. Massive implications remain for agriculture, the total breakdown of the social fabric and city infrastructure, ecological destruction and species die-off, the signs of which are already appearing – with or without an ice age. A global warming scenario compared to a new ice age might actually be preferable. It prompted US climate change scientist Franklin Hadley to say in a 2009 article for MIT: “Given how catastrophic another ice age could be, one might be tempted to ask whether a human-caused increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures will actually be a boon.” [7]

So, what is the central issue that we need to be aware of in amongst the mire of politicised science?

Simply this: that preventative measures are being lost in favour of fake solutions which benefit only those who intend to cream off one last big financial bonanza before the globe goes belly up.

It is horrendous truth to contemplate that there really are people out there that willingly use civilian casualties and environmental destruction to bolster their stock options at boardroom get-togethers. But it should be no surprise that massive scientific fraud and naive activism is similarly used to make big money. The Bilderbergers and other elite outfits are certainly aware of the ramifications of climate change since it is their business to analyse and predict socio-economic trends in order to load the dice toward the own plans. What is more compelling for many scientists and researchers is the reality that the weather is infinitely more complex than we ever realised and that’s without including more anomalous Earth changes and cosmological effects. There are factors that loom much larger than the idea that human beings can affect the outcome of meteorological phenomena on a scale which has been suggested.

I suspect the cosmos would laugh at such an idea…

What does appear to be true is that greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and terra firma destruction in general may have exacerbated and added to the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. In this sense, human beings are culpable. Sensible scepticism about the magnitude of greenhouses gases is necessary rather than claiming there is no validity to any of the climate theories. No one can argue that we are not collectively responsible for despoiling our planet and allowing psychopaths to rape the ecology of our minds, thus our external environment. However, once again, we must understand that science is not exempt from pathogenic infection and the ease to which the best of intentions can be subverted toward their cause. We know there is Climate Change. We should know that there is more than a strong case that AGW and CO2 as the primary cause has been massively hyped. We also know that greenhouse gases and the ozone layer, the sun and natural cycles are all playing a crucial part. More importantly, the green spin tells us that if we adopt a host of new global economic and social laws and infrastructure changes then it will inevitably solve the problem.

It will not.

Excluding the purposeful design of control that is behind, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, SMART society and global warming fraud, if we ushered in an Ecotopia overnight it would not change the vast processes of cyclic change of which we are a part. This is much bigger than us. Therefore, the correct preparation and preventative measures would be welcome in the face of either global warming or global cooling based on reality and away from elite centralisation.

Sadly, it is unlikely we will be able to see the wood for the trees when the very heart of the debate is compromised.

 


Notes

[1]‘The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Key to the Global Warming Debate?’ By Roy Spencer, 2008.
[2] ‘Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ By Daniel Easterbrook, Global Research, October 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Ice Age took just SIX months arrive 10-years’ Daily Mail.
[6]‘Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age.’ Daily Express.
[7] ‘Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age,By Franklin Hadley Cocks ’63, SM ’64, ScD ’65 ‘MIT News Magazine December 21, 2009.

Advertisements

Dark Green IX: UN Agenda 21 and US Land Grab

By M.K. Styllinski

“One of the big lies about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is that it ‘builds strong communities’. It does. But not in the way you would expect. It is managed democracy and manufactured consensus.”

– Rosa Koire, Executive Director, Post-Sustainability Institute


If we are to live our lives supporting and deriving benefit from Nature’s bounty, sustainable development must be an essential part of human destiny. However, in the hands of our leaders the concept of sustainability in its present incarnation may be very far from what many environmental activists believe it to be.

One of the many initiatives to come out of the Rio conference in 1992 was a 300 page document called Agenda 21 which the UN defines as: “… a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and major groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” Out of the summit came a National Strategy for a Sustainable America which led to the announcement in July 1993 by US President Bill Clinton of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to implement a “national Strategy” for sustainable development. By 2010, this had advanced to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mission of advancing the principles and goals of sustainable development through partnerships, collaboration, and outreach. [1]

The 1992 Earth summit’s Rio Declaration on Environment and Development set out 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world. The PCSD also had a set of “We Believe Statements” outlining 16 principles which paraphrase the Rio Declaration. Both these sets of principles are incorporated into Agenda 21 (“21” refers to the 21st Century).

The Agenda 21 document comprises of 40 chapters grouped into 4 sections:

  • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions
  • Combating poverty in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
  • Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
  • Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
  • Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
  • The roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
  • Section IV: Means of Implementation Science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms. [2]

In the above, we find the complement to the Earth Charter, where the opposite poles of political beliefs come together to create maximum noise ratios and thus obscure any rational discourse on the issue. A “divide and rule” friction is set up between so called “lefties” and “right-wing whackos” for which Agenda 21 is the devil incarnate or a practical framework for a sustainable future. Is Agenda 21 an innocent “soft law” platform for change? Or are the “radical right, conspiracy theorists” correct and this is an an attempt to impose a vast template for technocratic global governance via Agenda 21?

treeeee © infrakshun

The UN Commission on Global Governance established in 1992 with full support from then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali published a report in 1995 called “Our Global Neighbourhood.” Sustainable development (SD) and environmental protection are seen as integral step to the long-term security of that vision. As the report confirms: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” And further: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” [3]

The problem that many have with this process as it is being developed in both EU and the United States is that it removes the public from the decision-making process, by default. If elected officials are by-passed by non-elected officials who have been tasked with an agenda, however well-intentioned, it means that democracy and civil liberty is side-lined in favour of a consensus that may have no relation at all to the values, culture and self-determination of the country involved. Regionalism and the communitarianism are fine ideas – even welcome theories for socio-economic development. However, the devil is in the details. The overriding importance for members of the UN and Establishment circles is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the absolute control of the domestic population with the means to see that come about. When you get these people whole-heartedly supporting such potentially massive changes you can be absolutely sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater good but the interests of the “lesser evil.”

Areas which are prompting most concern involve policy making procedures defined by collaborative consensus building a conflict resolution label appropriated by SD and SMART redevelopment and is inaugurating drastic changes in the way public policy is created in the United States. This consensus process as defined in Agenda 21 and the “We Believe” Statements of the PCSD serves to circumnavigate elected officials and place power in the hands of unelected officials who then determine Agenda 21 policy. This gives a free reign to a multitude of SMART redevelopment programs, where government and the corporate sector merge in ethically compromised, ideologically questionable ways.

With the United States having already had much of its constitution eviscerated by both the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden Administrations, the legitimate concern here for this one-time Republic and for the nations of Europe is that governments are exercising entirely undemocratic powers through seemingly benign programs. They do this because such passion can be usefully diverted to agendas which piggy-back the initial intent from public and officials, which is sincere. The Agenda 21 platform certainly has collectivist principles to its policy changes which immediately causes the political right to raise its hackles at the merest hint of such a thing. Since the US has an appalling record on global resource use and environmental safeguards in general, the kinds of changes which are being demanded under Agenda 21 will mean that there will be a forced redistribution of wealth and the confiscation of private property under the guise of “protecting the environment.” Therefore, the “social equity” in such a context, is a collectivist dream.

The concept of sustainable development does require a system of governance that is even more centralised under an integrated package of social equity, environmental protection and economic activity. (And we haven’t even looked at carbon tax yet). The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development (SD) into the policy process of every agency in the US federal government. In partnership with the same environmental organisations who drafted Agenda 21, federal government agency grants are allowing SD programs to be seeded into the infrastructure of American life. So, while the UN cannot impel communities to adopt Agenda 21 policies its influence and beliefs are outsourced to hundreds of environmental groups and NGOs – the latter often paid quangos for government meddling – who carry out its operations so that Agenda 21 dove-tails seamlessly into future SMART growth infrastructure.

As a prelude to the Agenda 21 framework and The Convention on Bio-Diversity which has yet to be ratified, the Ecosystem Management Policy spear-headed by the UNEP is up and running in many US states. This means that where federal management of ecosystems exists it would inevitably expand federal control of the use of privately owned land and increased restrictions on the use of public lands for economic purposes. Since ecosystems do not have a defining boundary, private lands would be included in an expanded regulatory framework with the imposition of restrictions and guidelines mandated by law. The scope for the abuse of power would be limitless.

In Agenda 21’s vision for America, the protection of the ecosystem and sustainable development would take precedence over economic activity and private property rights. If the authority for implementing ecosystem management eventually meshed with Agenda 21 and continues to lie with the federal government, the vested interests of stakeholder input and authoritarian environmental activists, a massive transfer of power from the individual to the state is the only possible outcome.

The political and social equality pushed in Agenda 21 does not necessarily equate with a free society.

The repeated statement that a “transformation of society” is required includes an irreversible change in the process through which decisions affecting citizens are made. Extensive land use planning delivering SD to local communities dispenses with these democratic processes, or as commentator Henry Lamb correctly observes: “The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process … the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.” [4]

The lure of partnership-privatisation, be it water or forestry management and the wider issues involved, are often eclipsed by the approach of financial dividends. Everyone is always keen to make a buck and nothing is more seductive when one’s conscience is perceived to be clean while doing it. Bailing out bankers is a euphemism for maintaining an exploitative system. Such bailouts can operate under corporate lawyers and foundation executives offering financial assistance while making sure that they can gain much more for their money in return. Local officials and rural communities are seldom aware of what they are being “sold” and wouldn’t know a biodiversity clause or an Agenda 21 stipulation if it was deftly flashed in front of them on an i-pad screen. But it would sure look benevolently green.

One of the most surprising and little known facts related to SD and the present land grabs which are now taking place in the USA are the Executive Orders No.11490 and No.11647 enacted by President Richard Nixon on February, 10, 1972. The United States was divided into 10 Regional Councils, each federally controlled by bureaucrats for the improvement of coordination of activities between different levels of government. These 10 federal regions were to be given powers over everything pertaining to regionalism. Within those regional divisions, this included conservation, land use, water and all other natural resources within the United States. Fairly momentous and dramatic contributions to the US yet very few people know about it thanks to a compliant media and a corrupt Congress.

fedregional Standard Federal Regions

A bureaucratic binding has now arrived in the form of four federally chartered regional commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), signed into effect by President Kennedy in 1963 and amended numerous times up until the present; The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan (1988) and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) signed into effect in 1994 and the Denali Commission (DC) signed into effect in 1998 – both by President Clinton, the latter being the only commission targeting a single state (Alaska).

Each commission is responsible for a variety of legislative operations and procedures implementing a long term economic plan:

  • ARC: On top of a mandate to improve “regional infrastructure, reducing regional isolation; water and wastewater management resources; natural resources development; and human resources development, including housing, education, job skills, and health care” the Truman Administration expanded this to “… promot[e] economic development in the region; and establishing a framework for joint federal and state efforts in developing basic facilities essential to promoting coordinated regional responses to the region’s problems.”
  • DRA: “The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1989.9 Title II of that act, known as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, authorized the creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission (LMDDC […] the Commission’s legislative mandate was to identify the economic needs and priorities of the Lower Mississippi Delta region, and to develop a 10-year economic development plan for the region.
  • NGPRA: “… directed it to study and make recommendations for improving the economic development prospects of residents of rural Northern Great Plains communities. The Commission was charged with developing a 10-year rural economic development plan for Northern Great Plains (NGP) with the assistance of interested citizens, public officials, groups, agencies, businesses, and other entities. […] “The act charged the NGPRDC with developing a 10-year plan that would address economic development, technology, transportation, telecommunications, employment, education, health care, housing, and other needs and priorities of the five-state region. The act encouraged the NGPRDC to develop the plan in collaboration with Native American tribes, federal agencies, non-profit and specific issue areas: value-added agriculture, international trade, business development, telecommunications, transportation infrastructure, health care, and civic and social capacity.”
  • DC: “… the Commission’s mission included providing job training and other economic development assistance to distressed rural areas in the state. The act also charged the Commission with providing for rural power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needs of remote areas in the state.” [5]

All these Commissions are in turn, focused on a highly complicated jumble of state and local county development programs many of which are integrated or in the process of being integrated into the Agenda 21 blueprint. What Nixon and the Clinton-Gore administration did was to create a new government eco-bureaucracy or “regional” government placing the states into the aforementioned Ten Regions and their requisite federal funding. However, as regional government was the assigned vehicle for federal fund distribution it meant that local government officials were unaware that they were effectively reducing their power by being answerable to administrators of regions. Local authorities would be bypassed in favour of regionalism which isn’t just a system of grant distribution but an extension of State power.

The justification for all these eco-imperatives comes from the United Nations which – in much the same way as the Eurocrats in Brussels – overrides democratically elected decision-makers in favour of SD and SMART associated stake-holder legislations. Fusing management and administration systems based on new technology, redevelopment and eco-imperatives are making regionalism very far from democracy and constitutional accountability. We are faced with a situation where decisions are rubber-stamped by international regional government administrators and their connected councils serving a desperately hierarchical world management system which has nothing whatsoever to do with serving Mother Earth or its people.

The concept of Sustainable Development as it was sold to the public was never a grassroots ignition. It is a top-down product of a world management system dressed up in green language which will allow yet another vast channel of technocratic control to merge with fake land ethics, laws, and regulations. Environmental protection of fauna and flora will certainly take place but society will be in no position or have the legal right to enjoy it! Nature’s new found liberalisation, sagely bestowed by global stewards will always know best it seems.

The UN works through the emerging civil society which is actually made up of thousands of NGOs with largely the same beliefs as UN personnel. They are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. Via summits, national and international conferences, seminars and local outreach groups policy documents are formulated drawn from the gospel of Agenda 21, they are all overseen by Maurice Strong’s UNEP. Under the ever-present influence of NGOs and environmental pressure groups, local governments become un-elected members of “stakeholder councils” managing “empowerment zones”, or “enterprise committees” and “visioning councils” determined to adhere to the concepts of SMART growth. *

Despite many recommendations still to be implemented, the UN has spent – and continues to spend – millions of dollars whilst holding various international meetings which are attended by hundreds of political leaders, corporate CEOs and thousands of other non-governmental organizations who expend equal amounts of time drafting massive policy documents. Clearly, this is much more than a whimsical green distraction. They mean business. Although Agenda 21 is entirely “voluntary” and “non-binding” that is not how it’s playing out on the ground. Using an array of Delphi-based psychological techniques a veritable army of “facilitators” are descending on American cities and part of the neighbourhood councils and planning associations. Often, eco-SMART NGOs are nothing more than pincer movements into communities in order to extract support for redveelopment proposals under Agenda 21/SMART auspices.  Most importantly, they represent a fusion of corporate and government sponsorship which stands to make a lot of money for both parties at great expense to specific communities, most notably in suburbia.  As these new vested interests are drawn from Rockefeller-type Foundations and corporate CEOs it does not bode well for the future that will be defined by the disempowerment of civil society and the dilution, if not disappearance of truly representative local government and community.

The ubiquity of SD activists and advocates becomes especially problematic when so many of these people are tuning in to what is after all, a genuine wish to protect the environment and improve the quality of societies for future generations. Yet there is a refusal and a lack of knowledge as to how an ideology and system can be co-opted and used for something quite different. The young’s natural passion to protect the Earth is strong, so too are the dangers of the dogma and fascism that are intimately connected to the history of the environmental movement. With the present global economic system in terminal decline and media propaganda as potent that it has ever been, we are reminded of Peter Staudenmaier’s observation in the context of rising fascism: “The attraction such perspectives exercised on idealistic youth is clear: the enormity of the crisis seemed to enjoin a total rejection of its apparent causes. It is in the specific form of this rejection that the danger lies.” [6]

So Agenda 21 network continues to infiltrate every aspect of society and local development plans from biosphere reserves, wetlands, greenways, railways, carbon footprints, partnerships, conservation /environmental protection, land use, environmental protection, heritage areas and planning to name but a few. While securing more legislation and government control it reduces the rights of the individual and usurps power from local, democratically elected councils. Perhaps most importantly, after our exploration of eco-fascism and depopulation we should be extremely concerned when a vast blueprint for ecological management and sustainable development is sourced from those who cheerily support perpetual war, state-sponsored terror, cartel capitalism, eugenics, forced sterilisation; a global tax, (usually on those who will be least able to pay) and massive reduction of the human population by any and all means to reach that objective.

So, the perceived belligerent fears from the right-wing resistance to Agenda 21 stems from a much more complex dynamics playing out in plain sight. Therefore, there needs to be much more bipartisan support for rooting out what really gives on this issues both politically and within the public. The refusal to address legitimate fears from liberal and left-wing groups displays the same tunnel vision.

UN-Logo© infrakshun

Building on the advances made from the 1992 Rio summit, the Rio+20 Summit on Environmental Sustainability took place in late June of 2012. Though no real breakthroughs or commitments were forthcoming, the “larger achievement [may have been] making global sustainable development goals a priority on the international agenda” according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. The summit produced Rio+20’s outcome document, The Future We Want the greatest contribution of which “… catalyses a global call to make sustainable development priorities central to global thinking and action.” [7]

Whether this is a turn for the better for humanity is entirely dependent on whom we choose to preside over this transformation. Some of the perceived enemies of environmental activism such as large polluting corporations and bureaucratic government departments also play a part as effective double agents on the panoramic stage of social engineering. Presenting and even encouraging the rifts between the two serves to prop up the illusion that the overall conflict is real when it is all part of the programming. That is not to say that is ALL a conscious ruse. Clearly not. But we can hopefully begin to see how these ambitious macro-social projects connect like a vast net across the globe. And a big part of this eco-Intelpro involves the confiscation of land.

The rush to grab land and resources across the world has defined a new form of colonialism in the 21st century. China, America, Britain and other European countries are leading the way in carving up African land under the pretext of offering environmental or humanitarian assistance. [8]But how many of us know about the vast tracts of land which are being bought up by federal government programs in partnership with Establishment families, and hundreds of conservation trusts and environmental groups a bit closer to home?  In the US these “buffer zones” and “rural corridors”; heritage sites and designated conservation areas of “re-wilding” which are falling under the protection of SD and biological diversity legislation sometimes run into anything from 100,000 to 25 million acres where human presence is seen as “interference.” [9]

The re-introduction of species which have died out in specific regions, the management of forests and lakes, reservoirs and various types of land reclamation rides on the powerful and deep-seated wish for people to care for their environment. Difficult as it may be to accept – especially for ecologists and environmentalists who are traditionally some of the most passionate in their beliefs – the US is experiencing a gradual but inexorable large-scale theft of US land by those with money and power in order to turn almost 50 percent of America into protected habitats and reserves for the good of biological diversity. It is a theft because the vast majority of the public has neither access to, nor the necessary information to make an informed decision as to where they stand on the issue. Thanks to the usual lack of proper investigative reporting by the US media and the constant noise and distraction of Republican and Democrat knockabouts, the required public awareness on this agenda is non-existent and thus proceeds with ease, with locals and their councils oblivious to the larger implications, all too often embroiled in the impenetrable bureaucracy that SD has spawned.

The Wildlands Network (formerly the Wildlands Project) is more radical than the vision of SD though it is sitting alongside its ideological platform quite comfortably. The United Nations gave its seal of approval in its “Global Biodiversity Assessment” when it mentioned The Wildlands Project as a possible approach to preserving biological diversity. [10]  It is vast in scope, extending from one end of the continent to the other. Equally impressive is the enormous list of Wildlands Network affiliated organisations and groups, councils and foundations which in turn have sub-categories of affiliates which are thousands in number. And what do you know? The Rockefeller Foundation is there among the donators as is The Turner Foundation, from media mogul and depopulation advocate Ted Turner, the largest sponsor of environmental causes in the country. The Environmental Grantmakers Association makes sure a steady stream of cash keeps this long-term project afloat and on course.

The network was created from the concept of “re-wilding” a term first coined by conservationist and activist Dave Forman, one of the founders of the group Earth First! The term described the creation of “reserve networks” across the United States which would provide vast areas of wildlife habitat, the goal being to maximize biological diversity across the land. Humans, however, do not feature in this grand plan. Having laid the blueprint for the Wildlands Network in the 1980’s with colleagues Howie Wolke, and Bart Koehler, conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss continued to build on the ideas, most notably in an influential paper published in 1998. [11]While Forman’s involvement has faded somewhat, Reed Noss, has become the leading spokesman for the Plan, expanding the possibilities with federal government support.

The philosophy which suffuses the Wildlands Network is Deep Ecology. In the words of Forman, from his popular 1991 book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior: “The only hope of the Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology. Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and the plowed lands.” Deep Ecology is essentially a mix of the rich tradition of Pantheistic nature worship with streams of Taoism, Buddhism and American and German eco-revivalism thrown in. It is in fact, a beautiful philosophy. However, in radical hands it becomes something quite different.

Norway’s premier Philosopher Arne Naess and recognised pioneer of the Deep Ecology movement drew up eight basic principles that describe the philosophy:

  • The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
  • Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
  • Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
  • The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life demands such a decrease.
  • Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  • Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  • The ideological change is mainly in appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
  • Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary change. [Emphasis mine]

Eminently sensible. Except that this same philosophy is also embraced by eco-fascists who define our “obligations”, in slightly more authoritarian ways thereby hoping to change political policies to a situation “deeply different from the present.” We might hazard a guess what they might be prepared to do to get that ideal differential.

Deep Ecology has many positive connections to past traditions which involve co-creating with Nature rather than exploiting it, thus exhibiting a much needed humility. Nonetheless, since it appeals to those harbouring eco-fascistic views and authoritarian designs it is easily absorbed into the Agenda 21 framework.  Despite the central premise of Deep Ecology as philosophical (which often means impractical) and a guide to a deeper awareness of nature and our relationship to it, in the context of Pathocracy it becomes another nail in the coffin of true awareness; the case of the horse bolting before the cart. When Deep Ecology becomes grafted on to the State – much like anything other truth – it cannot become anything else but subverted.  The radicalism of the Wildlands Network in combination with Agenda 21 and Deep ecology advocates has the potential to become something quite different to the romance of us all returning to a more harmonious connection to the Earth. Such radicalism invites it as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine exemplifies: “Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go …”

So, to what does the Wildlands Network comprise? Reed Noss defines it in the following terms: “A wilderness recovery network is an inter-connected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity of populations across the landscape.” [12]

 agenda21wildlandssustainabilitydiagramThe 4C’s meets the 3E’s 

The characteristics of these core areas include the expansion of parks and “wilderness areas to include adjacent old growth, roadless areas, and ecological areas,” where size means “bigger is better.” (So much for E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful) Existing roads would be closed and “Human access greatly reduced or eliminated altogether.” Noss interjects that: “Many ecologists (myself included) would just as soon see huge areas of land kept off limits to human activities of any kind.” [13] “Buffer zones” allow for some human activity, while “corridors” permit wildlife to travel freely from one core area to another, extend reserve habitats; allow seasonal migration genetic interchange between core reserves; “provide for long distance migration in response to climate change” with the average width of corridor one mile wide where little or no human use is encouraged. All of which seems to confirm the idea of that humans are to be controlled and managed in order to preserve Nature. The Integration and marriage of the natural world of which we are a part seems an unworkable hypothesis, but such segregation would certainly appeal to a super-rich Elite who have made it their long-term purpose to live in these reserve habitats while the rest of us get used to living in Mega-cities.

SD principles and the parallel visions of conservation biology share a special place in collectivist minds. The three pillars of SD which can be found in almost every article or paper related to Agenda 21, ecology and environmental ethics are: “Equity”, “Economy” and “Environment” or “The three E’s of Sustainability.” (See above). Each sector requires a total transformation towards global government. The “transformation of society” under the auspices of the UN and its agencies, the Club of Rome and many other think tanks and non-elected institutions and NGOs is not about a paradigm shift to more freedom and ecological emancipation but to accept a carefully engineered set of beliefs in order to welcome its exact opposite. Equity, Economy and Environment are embedded in the collectivist-corporatist ethos of the 4Cs of: commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control. Equity is about social justice that will put nature before humans and thus create the conditions by which private ownership is diluted and eventually seen as “eco-unfriendly” and against the “greater good”. Integrated into a SMART infrastructure a police state will be relatively “soft” due to the pervasive sanitising of consciousness drawn from socio-eco-engineering principles. In this way, Fabian economics has always been behind much of the new ecological visions currently capturing the minds of the Western young bureaucrats and technocrats. It is the core force behind the 4Cs, the 3Es and the 3EM.

Ecologists, environmental activists, politicians and bureaucrats are so bound up in green visions or the cash incentives for green technology that they cannot seem to entertain the possibility that such huge projects may serve a totalitarian game-plan. As discussed the shadow of right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theory lunacy, rather than a cold-bloodied appraisal of some obvious sign-posts holds sway.  One wonders if the Rockefeller, Oppenheimer, Windsor, and Rothschild dynasties and the protégés of One World, eco-fascists are going to be inhabiting the carefully regulated, SD-designed SMART cities of the future where everything conforms to a bland monotony of ecological and technocratic “efficiency”. I doubt it. The poor of course will remain where they always have – in centralised systems, on the margins of society scratching a living without access to nature (or nurture) while the middle class will be suffocated under more and more eco-SMART technocracy with very little ability to free themselves from  biometric “convenience.” The Elite will be residing in “secure zones” with grand ranches, mansions and resorts set deep in the wilderness away from the human species that does not respect her; like demi-Gods on earth whose stewardship and spiritual status demand their presence as custodians of the New World Religion. The World State writ large. Meantime, the rest of humanity will be corralled into cities known as “safe zones” and far away from “sacred” wild lands. These mega-cities will house what’s left of the human populations, after wars, disease and manufactured crises have done their work…

Dystopian fantasy? Hysterical hyperbole?  Or perhaps we really believe that all of this is really for us, and everyone will be happily paragliding, hiking and rafting the rapids at their leisure from core wilderness centres to the grand corridors of their choosing?

In the next post we will look deeper into the Sustainable Development, UN Agenda 21 and how it is currently affecting cities in America.

 


* In the unlikely event that you still unclear as to what SMART growth actually means, wikipedia provides as good a summary as I can come up with describing it as:

“… an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’ have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.”

As we get to the section on Technocracy you’ll see how snugly all this “exciting” and “liberating” SMART technology fits into Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.


Notes

[1] ‘Sustainable development,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[2] http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
[3] The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[4] ‘Is your private property in jeopardy?’ By Henry Lamb, October 31, 2005 | http://www.sovereigntinternational.com
[5] CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web, Federal Regional Authorities and Commissions: Their Function and Design Updated September 21, 2006, By Eugene Boyd, Analyst, Government and Finance Division. http://www.hsdl.org
[6] op. cit. Staudenmaier.
[7] ‘Examining Rio+20’s Outcome’ Authors: Suan Ee Ong, Senior Research Analyst, Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University Rômulo S. R. Sampaio, Professor of Environmental Law, Getulio Vargas Foundation Andrei Marcu, Senior Advisor and Head of Carbon Market Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies Agathe Maupin and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Research Fellow and National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs. http://www.cfr.org/ July 5, 2012.
[8] The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns The Earth by Fred Pearce. Published by Eden Project Books. 2012.
[9] The Wildlands Project: Summary: http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org
[10] Section 13.4.2.2.3, page 993, ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment’ Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[11] Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth 8 (Fall 1998) 19-28.
[12] “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy, ”by Ross F. Need, Wild Earth Journal, .January 1992.
[13] Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks by R. Noss, World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper, 1995. p.12.

Dark Green IV: 1001 Club, WWF & Green-Washing

By M.K. Styllinski

“I have never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing.”

– Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, Meeting of Industrialists 1961


WWFJust as there are many environmental organisations and advocacy groups who do extraordinary work for the planet’s environment and wildlife, there are also those that have their roots in eco-fascism and technocratic social engineering. For the sake of brevity and to remain on topic, we shall single out the WWF as an example of this “green mask” as well as its relationship to Prince Philip and corporate sponsorship.

The Nature Conservancy was founded by Royal Charter in 1949 and one of the four official research organisations under the British royalty’s Privy Council. It allowed for the legal protection of National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). After writing the legislation for the body, Edward Max Nicholson became its head in 1952 deeming it important enough to leave his government post as permanent secretary to the deputy Prime Minister. Though he stepped down as Director-General in 1966 he remained a powerful influence over conservation and the environmental movement as a whole, formulating strategy, tactics and direction for several decades. (Nicholson’s 1970 book title: The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of the World should give an idea where his sentiments lay…) Like his friend Julian Huxley, he was an advocate of eugenics and racial purification.

In 1931, the British policy think tank, Political and Economic Planning (PEP) took to the elite eco state with pressure from Huxley, the financier Sir Basil Blackett, the agronomist Leonard Elmhirst, the director of Marks & Spencer Israel Sieff among many others. Nicholson became chairman in 1953. [1]Being a non-governmental planning organisation financed by corporations it was perfectly suited as a pool from which members could be networked and managed to organise other initiatives and projects. [2]

Partially affiliated to the United Nations and with a constitution written by the British Foreign Office, the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ICUN) was founded in 1948 by Sir Julian Huxley, bringing together 77 nations, 114 government agencies, and 640 non-governmental organizations and over 10,000 scientists, lawyers, educators, and corporate executives from 181 countries. The ICUN’s mission is: “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to assure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” [3]

To say that ecology is more important than any concept of human need would be to vastly underestimate the ICUN’s precepts. Working closely with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) it was this body that launched the “Global Biodiversity Strategy,” which now guides the conservancy and sustainability initiatives of many countries. The preservation of biodiversity is its primary goal. Back in 1948 however, it needed funds to survive.  The idea for a financial fund for the IUCN initially came from businessman Victor Stolan who passed his suggestion onto to Huxley who in turn, put Stolan in contact with Max Nicholson who had the intelligentsia and corporate elite at his fingertips. In 1961, with Stolan, Sir Peter Scott and Guy Mountfort, Nicholson formed the committee that would found the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (now the World Wide Fund for Nature) officially launching the organization on April 29, with none other than Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands as its official chairman in the following year. The first staff was assembled by more Rockefeller minions, this time in the guise of Godfrey A. Rockefeller and WWF offices opened on September 11th in Morges, Switzerland.[4] Though business as usual, a cat was let out of the bag and Prince Bernhard was embroiled in the Lockheed-Martin weapons scandals in the mid-1970s where he was found guilty of accepting bribes to sell aeroplanes. Prince Philip would eventually replace Bernhard to become WWF chairman from 1981 – 1996 and continues to hold the title of President Emeritus. Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the Queen was chosen to replace him.

The WWF is a meeting point and clearing house for some of the leading European eco-oligarchical families. It is the most powerful environmental organisation in the world, active in over 100 countries. It has frequently been accused of benefiting industry more than the environment and acting as a neo-colonial tool for British interests.  Anti-pollution, endangered species and encouraging renewable energies and sustainable practice form the policy objectives of WWF. To that end, conservation areas, parks and reserves have been set up usually outside the influence of the governments within those nations. According to Executive intelligence Review many of these “ecological reserves” are used “as training grounds and safe-havens for British-backed terrorist organizations” such as the “… national parks in Africa, [which] train and protect all the “liberation fronts” under British control.” [5]

The vast wealth, social, cultural and political influence of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh should not be underestimated in this context. He is patron, chair, trustee and shareholder for many corporations, committees, bodies, boards, panels, commissions and military ranks, which, as one biography mentions: “… cover sixty-six close typed pages in his Patronage Book at Buckingham Palace.” [6]The WWF was and remains dear to his heart. Remember that the handlers behind Sir Julian Huxley and his ideas for getting the general public and lower tier power brokers to “think the unthinkable” was to engage in a form of eco-Intelpro, where environmentalism would act as a mask for eugenics and other World State applications. For Prince Philip and his ilk, environmentalism, neo-feudalism and eugenics are inextricably linked. As author Walter William Kay observes: “During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.” [7]

By the time WWF had entered the 1970s and the waning influence and disappointment of the counter-culture, Philip, Bernhard and their associates were creating a funding base not just for the WWF, but for the hundreds of new environmental and ecology-based organisations appearing all over the world. There was a new generation to hijack and deploy “… as the storm-troopers of the new ‘green’ fascism.” This fund was named the “1001: A Nature Trust” or the “1001 Club” among its members. It was so called because Philip wanted to hand pick 1001 members of the crème de la crème of corporate elite. It was in reality a green Bilderberg Group  packed with the same brand of European corporatists and Synarchists. By far the greatest number of members were drawn from the heads of the banking cartels and with an initial fee of £10,000 members could enter the inner sanctum of ecological visions.

Prince_Philip__Duke_of_EdinburghPrince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1961 Meeting of Industrialists 1961

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, and a motley crew of known criminals such as arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and former Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Vesco, Edmond Safra and Sheikh Ali Ahmed, also happened to be on board and who became more widely known for their connection to Prince Bernhard when they were exposed by the Financial Times at the time of the Lockheed Scandal. Eco-guru Maurice Strong, also a member of the 1001 Club did his part in placing WWF at the centre of public awareness and the Establishment by sponsoring Earth Day, closely followed by the UN sponsored Stockholm conference which birthed the UNEP and Strong’s future eco-vehicle for the most potent global warming and sustainable development/SMART society propaganda.

In Executive Intelligence Review’s ground-breaking report “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor” evidence is presented that is very hard to deny yet still largely ignored in the MSM. Prince Philip and the House of Windsor is charged with heading the “Club of Isles” which is made up of green NGOs, organisations, corporations and councils, with Queen Elizabeth as the “chief executive officer.” The Club brings together the political and financial power base of intermarried European Royals and dynasty families which extends from Scandinavia to Greece. What this means is that there is eco-fascism at work which employs the same monopolistic methods of both the early Round Table Movement, its corporate cousin the Round Table of Industrialists and other power brokers to accomplish the same ends. Once again, as the global Red Shield Masters of financial directives, the House of Rothschild lie behind its inception as founding members of this interlocking membership of eco-fascists. Accordingly, we have:

“… a new British imperial revival, modeled on the eighteenth and nineteenth century British East India Company, with its private armies, and its corporate sovereignty over large tracts of land, ripped from the hands of nation-states. Today, relics of the heyday of the British Empire, such as Crown Associates and the Corps of Commissionaires, are directly running the affairs of state for such London puppets as [ ] Museveni, and are deploying private armies made up of “former” British SAS officers, now employed by companies such as Executive Outcomes, Defense Systems, Ltd., KAS, KMS, etc. Under the new imperial mandate, the agenda is now explicitly the depopulation of the globe. [8]

WWF and its sister organisation the IUCN has dedicated themselves to reducing the world’s population and controlling the world’s resources so that they stay in the clutches of an updated and modernized British and Anglo-Dutch Empire and their  ties to globalist groups. True to form, the push for a world government is a tacit requirement for its continuance, something which the WWF have dutifully advocated. [9]  Cecil Rhode’s Round Table with Rothschild money; Fabian cross-overs and much of the Anglo-American and Anglo-Dutch Elite lie firmly under the auspices of the Club of Isles, which draws its ideology from the British East India Company and its freemasonic roots in the late sixteenth century, the personification of British Empire’s early corporatism as conquest. Once the company had its royal charter from the Crown then the fortunes of British Aristocracy and elite families was secure.

Where and how does the Queen obtain her wealth? She is the richest woman in the world after all, with a tidy sum of at least $13 billion to her name. Being exempt from disclosing her innumerable holdings it is likely that the fortune is much, much greater. Some of these corporations and holdings operating in Africa are infused with British political directives partially or wholly owned by the Crown:

  • Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd – the largest mining company in the world built from the Diamond trade of the Oppenhiemer family with financial support from JP Morgan and The Rothschilds;
  • RTZ Corp. PLC. The second-largest mining company in the world.
  • De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. Set up by Cecil Rhodes with Rothschilds’ support to monopolise world diamond production.
  • Barclays PLC. The primary banking cartel in Africa and Europe and membership of the 1001 Club and helped to co-found WWF.
  • Shell Trading & Transport PLC and Shell U.K. Ltd. – World’s largest petrochemical producer.
  • N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. – One of the original families from the Hapsburg Empire and groomed and financed Cecil Rhodes’ exploitation of Africa’s gold and diamonds.
  • Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. (ICI) – Formed in 1926 by Lord Melchett. The present Lord Melchett, grandson of ICI’s founder, is head of Greenpeace, United Kingdom.
  • Unilever – Owns vast plantations in Africa and the continent’s largest trading company (United Africa Co.); key part of the world food cartel, particularly in fats and edible oils. Formed by 1930s strategic merger of English Lever Brothers firm, which owned the West African heirs to the Royal Niger Co, with a Dutch company. [10]

club of isleClub of Isles connections (revamped from ‘The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor’ By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. November 1994)

The only way such plunder can be continued is similar to the geo-political strategy favoured by her Majesty’s MI6, the MOSSAD and the CIA when they wish to claim a country for their own – create chaos and as much misery, violence and death that is proportionate to the prize.

This brings us back to one of a handful of pioneers on behalf of the British Crown: Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company. It is exactly this perception of the world that informed the direction and policies of the WWF at the board level. The WWF-IUCN marriage is continuing what their 19th Century forerunners started though under an almost impenetrable cover of environmentalism and conservation. Africa has been violated, raped and plundered by the British Elite for two hundred years and is only increasing its activities as we enter the 21st century competing with American, Russian and particularly Chinese interests in the continent.

Neo-colonialism in Africa has been financed by a conglomerate of companies tasked with securing and expanding the fortunes of the Queen and the Crown Corporation of London and its bankers. Keeping civil wars and genocide intermittently turning over is essential to both land grabbing, resource catchment and long term destruction of “inferior races”. The new drive to conquer Africa has multiple benefits and it is perhaps for this reason that WWF has been so closely associated with corporate “green-washing.” The WWF claims that partnering with companies such as Coca-Cola, HSBC and Nokia will reduce their impact on the environment is both false and disingenuous. [11]With over €56 million (US $80 million) from transnational businesses in 2010 (an 8 percent increase from 2009) this is not small coinage we are talking about here. [12]  The organisation has an impressive stream of revenue from a long list of corporate, governmental, private and public sources. Millions of people donate their money around the world, contributing to its annual income of ½ billion euros a year. From just one source, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) WWF has received a total of $120 million over the last several years. [13]  So, how is it being invested?

Rwanda is an instructive example. While WWF’s national park gave refuge to the endangered species of Mountain Gorilla it also offered a safe haven for guerrillas of the Ugandan and British backed insurgency group Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who at the time, were fighting a bloody war against Rwanda’s government and people. Much to the delight of her Majesty’s ruling elite, they have since become the ruling political party of Rwanda, led by President Paul Kagame.

eastern_lowland_gorilla_wallpaper_pc-horz

Silver-backed Mountain Gorilla (left)  Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) flag (right)

The sheer size of these parks is astounding. South Africa’s Kruger National Park is bigger than Ireland or Israel, while the Central Kalahari Game Reserve covers 51,800 square km and is larger than either Denmark and Switzerland. There are more than 1,100 national parks and related reserves in sub-Saharan Africa, of which 36 are designated World Heritage Sites. Since 1970, total protected-area coverage in Africa has increased nearly two-fold, and now encompasses 3.06 million km2 of terrestrial and marine habitats. Protected areas currently cover 15.9 percent and 10.1 percent of total land surface in the East/Southern African and West/Central African regions, respectively. [14]

It is also true that many reserves suffer from what is called “reserve isolation” ironically caused by habitat loss, fences and roads, overhunting, and disease being the most important factors. Ecologist William D. Newmark writing in Frontiers in Ecology describes:

“The ultimate drivers of protected-area isolation in Africa,” which are: “… rapid population growth, economic expansion, social and environmental human displacement, and poverty.” He continues: “Between 1975 and 2001, the human population in sub-Saharan Africa doubled, and it is expected to double again by 2034. Additionally, 42 percent of people living in the region subsist on less than one US dollar per day.” [15]

In fact, the parks have destabilised and disrupted the economic and ecosystems in Africa by: “decreasing the total energy throughput in the entire ecological system” and thus providing an open door to parasites and new strains of disease. The case of the tsetse fly seems to prove this point:

African tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly – which carries the deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness – in check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance. The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game, particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on hunting, as a threat to their herds. […]

Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge, England, an entity financed by Prince Philip’s WWF, ‘blood-sucking tsetse flies inhabit 10 million square kilometers of tropical Africa, in a wide band across the continent that takes in 34 countries.’ The authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have rendered new areas tsetse-free. In fact, ‘ the tsetse-free areas are growing so fast that … there is a real possibility that the spread of livestock onto marginal land will become a threat to wildlife …’ The eradication of the tsetse fly may be Africa’s misfortune.”  [16]

And it precisely the same interference in African affairs which has given rise to the serious economic situations in the continent with its inhabitants never having the chance to prepare for the future before the next Western-backed coup, land grab, manipulated famine or large-scale nature reserve to send both the social and ecological balance into chaos. Subsisting on one US dollar a day and coupled with Western foreign policy to exploit Africa any which way it can, may be linked to the rise in population growth.

When the mostly white, corporate and international banking fraternity sitting on the boards of WWF-INCU take massive swathes of African land out of circulation, this has economic consequences. The land often has resources lying beneath which can be covertly mined, harvested or extracted much to the frequent outrage of WWF subscribed members but with the sage approval of the hierarchy. The current theme we see over and over is a restricted area for humans where flora and fauna take precedence.

Harking back to Medieval England where lands and forests were sequestered for exclusive hunting by the King and his officers, this has continued first under the guise of the 19th and 20th Century colonial Elite and their obsession with hunting game and the often brutal eviction of local natives. Many early laws, conventions and colonial decrees dating from 1900-1933 paved the way for national parks which gradually drove indigenous tribes away from their homes while restricting their ability to hunt. Their naturally ecologically sound practice was overtaken by mass hunting where the European rich began to commercialise and consolidate nature in Africa. These internal frontiers within the African colonies decreed  the native population were prohibited from hunting or even walking on what was once their own land. It was to be a form of trespass under the pretext of protecting wildlife which continues to the present day, even though colonial rule appears to have long gone.

1024px-Kruger_Zebra

Two Burchell’s zebra in the central Kruger National Park, South Africa  Photo: Nithin bolar k | Location of Kruger National Park Photo: Htonl  (wikipedia)

The Kruger Park was created and named after South African President Paul Kruger in 1889 and lies along the border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. After the Boer War between the British and the Afrikaaners and the ecological destruction visited on the park and region by Lord Kitchener, it was re-established by Round Table member Lord Alfred Milner a close  colleague of Cecil Rhodes who was already busy stripping gold from Africa for his Rothschilds handlers. In 1902, he instructed the park’s first warden Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton fresh from service in the Boer War to rid the park of indigenous black people. Under the banner of “anti-poaching” this took over 45 years with more than 11,000 miles of countryside ethnically cleansed. Locked out of their own parlour, black Africans were forced to find work in cities and mines following a pattern of slave labour which has continued today under corporate rule. As it was then, so it is today.

Where once tribal hunters used the animals they killed for good of the family and tribe, many are often forced to poach because history has shown that to have faith in governments that purport to protect wildlife is a false economy indeed. Corrupt governments with the help of organisations like the WWF sell animals to the highest bidder and make profits from both culling and hunting so “poachers” see no reason why they should not hunt these animals and take the profits before others do.

From the outset, destabilising the African continent was the avowed mission of British Empire agents with Rhodes and Milner two of the most well-known. The only way to secure power for the Empire was to break the spirit and land of the people. For example, from 1952 to 1960, the atrocities of the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society within the Kikuyu tribe was nothing more than a British plot to cut off the head of a Kenyan revolution against British colonial rule. Mass resettlement and severe ecological destruction ensued with many forests burnt to the ground by the British military. Kikuyu factions and tribal warfare was stimulated and encouraged by early British PSYOPS to encourage and perpetrate genocide. By exacerbating ethnic rivalries and historic enmities it reverse-engineered the revolution that was initially against the British so that it became focused on the tribes resulting in a conflagration against native peoples in the region. [17]  Most Mau Mau guerrilla units were an example of synthetic terror led by British military personnel and would serve as valuable knowledge for subsequent operations in present day warfare most notably in the genocides of Rwanda, the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the contemporary US-NATO and MOSSAD backed insurgents of the Syrian civil war. [18]

The British park system provided both cover and training for past and future operations and with the imposed tribal warfare doctrine it would define Africa for the next 100 years and beyond. By the 1960s, the British Empire was winding down from its more overt colonialism but the parks system remained a trenchant outpost of colonial rule while independence sprouted all around. Although still run by a largely British contingent the parks were now being outsourced to NGOs, shareholders and trustees unaccountable to African governments. As a consequence, the National Parks of Africa are mostly privately managed from trustees abroad.

The guerrilla war against the white minority rule of Rhodesia led by the Zimbabwe Peoples Union (ZAPU), and later the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) had both groupings trained by the KGB and Chinese instructors at the Queen Elizabeth park, Gorilla Park in Uganda and the Serengeti and Ruana national parks of Tanzania.[19]The Rhodesian government deployed the Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo) a former guerrilla unit created by Rhodesian intelligence against Zimbabwe and trained in South African regional parks in Natal, and nearby Kangwane.[20] The bloody civil war to originally overthrow Portuguese colonial rule was started in the 1950s by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and in the 1960s its rival, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) which lasted over 25 years. The West Zambezi Game Reserve, The Mupa National parks both played host to these warring factions.

Rwanda is a small country and much of the savannah area of the Akagera National park was re-settled by former refugees returning after the end of the Rwandan Civil War in the 1990s. In 1997 the western boundary was re-gazetted due to these land shortages and more land allocated as farms to returning refugees. The park was reduced in size from over 2,500km² to 1,200km² much to the chagrin of environmental groups. Organisations like WWF are using paramilitaries to fight poachers and to hold onto the land come what may. Whether this is strictly for the good of the parks and reserves or to maintain land for strategic and resource purposes is still a moot point. Many of the parks straddle the borders of neighbouring countries and despite being administered by UN agencies they are still effectively “militarised zones.” As journalist Linda La Hoyos describes: “Prince Philip’s WWF was administering the gorilla program in the Virunga Park, while the RPF was using the Virunga to maraud Rwanda.”

She goes on to write:

“In fact, RPF-sponsor Uganda has been profiting from the dislocation of the gorillas caused by the RPF operations. According to Africa Analysis, the RPF invasion had sent Rwanda’s gorillas running to Uganda, giving Museveni the opportunity to launch his own ‘eco-tourism program.’ Without the safe havens, provided by the royal family’s park system, the protracted civil and border wars afflicting Africa since the 1970s would have been impossible.” [21]

There are many ways to fleece a continent, but none prove more fruitful than the through the camouflage of charitable aid.

While conservation groups have been sounding the alarm on the plight of the elephant and calling for a ban on the sale of ivory, the WWF maintained nothing was wrong with the elephant population. When they eventually and grudgingly launched a campaign to assist the elephants in Uganda they set up a camp on the Rwandan border curiously more than 1,000 miles away from the main elephant colony in Murchison National Park. But it was from this exact location that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) would invade Rwanda not long after and the events set in motion that would lead to genocide and human “culling.” Coincidence or forethought?

The game plan at the time and which has since been successful was to: “… destroy Rwanda and Burundi, turning the remains into satellites of Ugandan (British) domination; destroy Kenya by overthrowing [the government] and instigating tribal warfare; and seize mineral-rich eastern Zaire.”  [22]

Did WWF covertly assist in this neo-colonial warfare?

 


Notes

[1] p.210; Memories By J.S. Huxley, Published by Allen & Unwin, 1970 | ISBN 0-04-925006-X | British Archives at http://www.aim25.ac.uk/ archive reference code: GB 0097 PEP/PSI.
[2] ‘WWF in the 60’s’. wwf.panda.org.
[3] http://www.iucn.org/
[4] In Memoriam: Godfrey A. Rockefeller, Kerry Zobor (World Wildlife Fund). January 29, 2010.
[5] ‘How The Green Fascist Movement Was Created’ by Marcia Merry and Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, July 18, 1997.
[6] ‘The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming,and The Anglican Church’ by William Walter Kay, 2000. http://www.ecofascism.com
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Tinny Blair Blares For Prince Philip’s Global Eco-Fascism’ by Jeffrey Steinberg Executive Intelligence Review, July, 1997
[9] Eco-logic papers ‘global governance’ Sep/October 1997. http://www.freedom.org/el-97/sep97/tocSep97-97.htm
[10x] ‘The Coming of the Fall of the House of Windsor.’ By Lyndon La Rouche, JosephBrewda, Mark Burdman, Carlos CotaMeza, Linda de Hoyos, Allen Douglas, William Engdahl, Manuel Hidalgo, Ken Kronberg, Hugo Lopez Ochoa, Rogelio Maduro, Marcia Merry, Silvia Palacios, Ana Maria Phau, David Ramonet, Raynald Rouleau, Michael Sharp, John Sigerson, Dennis Small, Gretchen Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, Geraldo Teran, Scott Thompson, Charles Tuttle, and Anthony Wikrent. Other collaborators contributed information from Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America. The project editor was Susan Welsh., Executive Intelligence Review. November 1994.
[11] http://www.wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/businesses/
[12] ‘Panda-ing to the Soya Barons?’ Corporate Watch, September 30, 2009 | ‘Ikea – you can’t build a green reputation with a flatpack DIY manual’ by Fred Pearce, The Guardian, April 2, 2009.
[13] ‘Green Veneer WWF Helps Industry More than Environment’ By Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter issue 22/2012 (26 May 12) of Der Spiegel.
[14] ‘Isolation of African protected areas’ by William D Newmark, Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6(6): 321–328, doi:10.1890/070003.
[15] Ibid.
[16] ‘World Wide Fund for Nature commits genocide in Africa’ by Linda de Hoyos, “The True Story Behind the Fall of the House of Windsor,” Executive Intelligence Review, Special Report, September 1997.
[17] Gangs and Counter Gangs by Col. Frank Kitson, Published by Barrie & Rockcliff, 1960 | ASIN: B0000CKJUV
[18] ‘NATO Death Squads Attempt to Ethnically Divide Syria’ – Refugees fleeing NATO’s “Free Syrian Army,” not government troops. By Tony Cartalucci, Global Research, July 23, 2012. | ‘British intelligence enabled Syrian rebels to launch devastating attacks on President Assad’s regime, official says – Disclosure is first indication of Britain playing a covert role in the civil war Intelligence from Cyprus ‘being passed through Turkey to the rebels’ Daily Mail, By Leon Watson, 19 August 2012.
[19] ‘The African parks were created as a cover for destabilization’ By Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, 1994.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] op.cit. Brewda.

See also: WWF International accused of ‘selling its soul’ to corporations

“Geneva-based WWF International has received millions of dollars from its links with governments and business. Global corporations such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Monsanto, HSBC, Cargill, BP, Alcoa and Marine Harvest have all benefited from the group’s green image only to carry on their businesses as usual.”

Dark Green III: Eco-Nazi-Aristocracy

By M.K. Styllinski

UK-GermanFlag-

© infrakshun


The Nazis were the first radical environmentalists who, with a bit of help from Wall Street, happened to land themselves control of the State. The British monarchy and its aristocratic web of relations has continued a distinctly feudalistic version of nature conservation, hunting and ecology which has continued to the present day. It is common knowledge that a Germanic background has laid at the foundation of English royalty which has had a peculiar link to the development of ecological consciousness and its present inversion.

Jonathon Petropoulos’ Royals and the Reich shows exactly why German aristocrats were the most fascistic of the time:

270 German princes and princesses were Nazi Party members. A sampling of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Party members. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. A third of Nazi-aristocrats joined the Party before Hitler became Chancellor; a majority supported the Nazis, or like groups, before this date …. Royal Hohenzollern princes were high-profile Nazi campaigners during the Nazis’ struggle for power. Aristocrats occupied thousands of top government posts during the Third Reich.

King Edward VIII was a Nazi. He was definitely guilty of treason and possibly guilty of attempted regicide. Edward did not abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. He was forced from the throne by PM Baldwin because Edward was heading up a Nazi fifth column in the UK.

George V, George VI, the Duke of Kent and scores of British aristocrats promoted “appeasement.” This “peace movement” was an effort to steer Britain into the Axis.

Western Europe’s aristocracy, including most German princes, survived World War II. They retained, even supplemented, their land holdings. Over the past few decades they have engineered a remarkable renaissance. [1]

And that renaissance involved inherited land rights which underpinned the maintenance of an authoritarian class system, fed by a fear of civil unrest and anti-Bolshevism. The aristocracy wanted to play a part in leading the masses out of an old world in decline, a New Order that would be fiercely protected and re-packaged under National Socialism.  Futurism, synarchy and the eco-fascism that went with it, was dear to the hearts of much of the aristocracy and Establishment classes in the 1920s. By 1917, the aristocratic families of the Windsors, Romanovs, Habsburgs, Savoys and Hohenzollerns were “the original European Union,” all of whom: “… practised endogamy [marrying within one’s own social, ethic group] to such an extent that the entire Protestant caste could name Queen Victoria and/or Denmark’s Christian IX as an ancestor.” [2]

After the tyrannical Emperor Wilhelm was removed from power in 1918, the rural life continued to be worshipped by the Aristo-Elite in the Weimar Republic harking back to the good ole’ days which led to young aristocrats shunning the Republic and turning their attention to Nazi ideology and the rise of right-wing paramilitary groups. Despite considerable changes over the years the aristocracy and upper classes held onto their wealth and power. The revolution in the Weimar Republic was a political one and did nothing to change the Elite who were entrenched in the old economic order which obviously benefited their financial status and traditions. The aristocracy and the Nazis came to rely on each other as National Socialism gained support. Throughout the 1920s and 30s: a Nazi high society mingled with: “… Aristocrats, industrialists and movie stars [who] lounged in Goring’s and Goebbels’s parlours. Few from this scene bothered to read abstruse ideological screeds like Mein Kampf.” [3]

Though the party sold itself on grassroots support from the peasantry and a party for the workers and the disenfranchised in society, in reality they used the wealth of the German nobility and mixed freely with higher classes. Even though there was Brownshirt rhetoric against nobility and much distrust, this only boiled over when Hitler’s paranoia reached epic proportions and he began a rejection and imprisonment of many German princes in the latter years of the Second World War. Meantime, monarchists were courted and entertained. In return, Hitler made promises to restore monarchist families. [4] Even when there was resistance to Nazis and their pan-Germanism from families such as the Wittelsbachs and the Habsburgs, their fascism remained rock-solid.

The association of Nazism with nobility would only feed into the mythology of a New World Germanic Order that was somehow blessed by Royal Seal and noble blood, fitting for a Divinely ordained destiny. From this financial security the Nazis promised protection thus increasing the slow gravitation by the aristocracy toward Nazism.

Author William Walter Kay provides some interesting figures:

At least 270 members of princely families joined the Nazi Party. 50 percent of princes and princesses eligible to join the Party did so. Of the 270 card-carrying Nazi princes and princesses, 80 joined before January 30, 1933. One survey of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Nazi Party members; 962 of whom joined the Party before 1933. This is hardly an exhaustive list of aristocratic Nazis.

No one has ventured a guess as to what percentage of Germany’s 70,000 nobles were Nazi Party members; but this percentage was far higher than that for the general public. The nobility were probably the most Nazi-friendly demographically identifiable cohort. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. [5]

The family of Hessens or the House of Hesse had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Third Reich boasting 14 party members in its three family branches. Involved in selling mercenaries and land confiscation, owning shares in the notorious I.G. Farben and pursing investments in art, jewellery, furniture, porcelain and other durables, their influence was substantial. *

Princess Margaret’s mother was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her father was Kaiser Friedrich III. She married Landgrave Friedrich Karl of the Hesse-Kassel branch where she had six sons. The surviving children Prince Christoph von Hessen and Prince Philipp von Hessen are of particular note in that they embraced and perpetuated Nazism though their actions and subsequent families. When Prince Christoph married Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark in 1930, the ring bearer at the wedding was Sophia’s nine year old brother Philip – the future Duke of Edinburgh and according to Petropoulos: “Sophia’s mother was a Battenberg, a morganatic branch of the Hesse-Darmstadts. Sophia’s three sisters, Margarita, Theodora and Cecile, each married Nazi-aristocrats. Margarita married Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg – a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. He was a Nazi Party member in contact with Nazi leaders, and an Army commander during the 1938 occupation of Austria. Nazi Party Foreign Policy Office head, Alfred Rosenberg, turned to Gottfried to solicit British royals.” [6]

Christoph-phillppe

Prince Christoph von Hessen (left) and his brother Philpp von Hessen (right)

Prince Christoph began working for Herman Göering’s intelligence agency in 1933, the Reich Air Ministry Research Office (Forschungamt or “FA”) which was an extremely powerful Third Reich agency. He rose up the ranks of the SS to be inducted into Himmler’s personal staff in 1934 and by 1939 he had become an SS Oberfuhrer. Having joined the Luftwaffe in the same year: “The Luftwaffe awarded Christoph an Iron Cross for his assistance in planning the gratuitous bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940. 1,000 civilians were killed with 78,000 left homeless.” [7] Petropoulos’ evidence also points to Christoph’s involvement in planning attacks on Buckingham Palace. He died in a plane crash in 1943 flying from Rome to Germany.

His brother Prince Philipp von Hessen was quite a different character, being more of an arts-driven socialite. He joined the Hessian Dragoons just prior to World War I but never saw combat; studied art and architecture at Darmstadt University and became an interior designer in Rome, his family funding a flamboyant lifestyle. While there, he became attached to both Count Albrecht von Bismarck and his social circle which were part of the European intelligentsia. British writer Siegfried Sassoon was one of the lengthier homosexual relationships in Philipp’s life. [8]  However, true to tradition in September 1925, he married Princess Mafalda – daughter of Italian King Vittorio III. The marriage was well attended by Royalty and the Euro-Establishment. Living in Italy they were part of the fascist Italian royal inner circle and Phillip’s position allowed him to act as conduit for relations between Italian-German aristocrats. This is explains why Mussolini – a highly popular figure at the time – was seen posing in photos of the happy couple on their wedding day. It wasn’t long before they had four children with the youngest named “Adolph” as homage to his Godfather.

Philipp’s cousin Prince August Wilhelm, was the person who officially recruited him into the Nazis. He joined the Nazi Party in 1930, while Mafalda opted for the Nazi women’s auxiliary with their two eldest already in the Hitler Youth. After having joined the SA in 1931 Hitler personally promoted Philipp to General of the SA five years later with a seat at the Prussian Staatsrat and the Reichstag. As we know, the SA was a hot-bed of homosexual favouritism so it probably greased the wheels of the Prince’s success, eventually becoming one of Hitler’s closest confidents. Philipp himself is quoted as saying: “I always had access to Hitler if I wanted it.” [9]

Royal_Standard_of_the_Grand_Duke_of_Hesse_(1903–1918).svg

Royal Standard of the Grand Duke of Hesse (1903–1918) (wikipedia)

To understand how this aristo-fascism manifested on the ground, the following passage illustrates the deep-rooted nature of Philipp’s Nazi beliefs which was no different at all to ordinary card-carrying Nazis:

Philipp supported the Third Reich’s forced sterilization of 300,000 people. In 1935 he ordered a stifling of local clerical criticism of this program. Hadamar was the site of numerous sterilizations including one of an epileptic member of Hesse family who died after the operation.

Hadamar was one of six killing centres in the T-4 program to exterminate disabled persons. This program, launched in 1939, was co-managed by the Interior Ministry and the Chancellery (located at Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin, hence “T-4”). 70,000 people were killed. T-4 executioners later figured prominently in the Holocaust. T-4 was officially halted in 1941 in response to clerical denunciation, but the killing continued. 5,000 were killed at Hadamar after T-4 program officially ended. In total 10,000 were killed at Hadamar. Philipp ignored letters from distraught citizens with relatives caught up in T-4; including a letter from one of his civil servants whose son perished at Hadamar.[10]

From 1934-1939 the prince accompanied Hitler on various travels including the 1938 appeasement deal by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. He spent much of his time acting as liaison between Germany and Italy, procuring valuable pieces of looted art from wealthy citizens and Jews in Italy, Poland, Holland and France, a familiar practice among the aristocrats. By September 1943, Italy had fallen to the Allies and things were turning sour, which meant Philipp had to decide how he was going to save his skin. In order to make his options easier Hitler had him shipped off to Dachau concentration camp while his wife Mafalda was sent to Buchenwald camp where she eventually died. The Prince found himself in the Allies hands when camps were liberated by the US military.

Despite being the 53rd most wanted Nazi, Philipp was to survive and prosper as did so many other German royals who left their Nazi associations and crimes without even a prison sentence. [11]

At the Hadamar trial while Philip was declared to have “retained ultimate responsibility” for the sanatorium, and to have “played a decisive role in the killing,” he went unpunished. Three of his Hadamar co-defendants were sentenced to death.

For an attorney at his denazification trial Philipp hired Fabian von Schlabrendorff, a man with a sterling reputation as a member of the resistance who later assisted the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials.

Schlabrendorff recast Philipp as a victimized member of the resistance. Most of the 17 witnesses called were sympathetic to Philipp. The verdict, rendered December 1947, declared Philipp a Category II offender and sentenced him to two years forced labour and a 30 percent property forfeiture. As he had been incarcerated since 1945, he was released. [12] [Emphasis mine]

In 1968, Philipp succeeded as head of the entire House of Hesse, including grand ducal Hesse (Hesse and by Rhine/Hesse-Darmstadt) on account of the death of his relative Prince Louis of Hesse and by Rhine. He died in 1980 and remained friends with many fascists – including the Duke of Windsor.

While the House of Hessen was perhaps the most high profile aristo-fascists Walter William Kay highlights Jonathan Petropoulos’ research into the prevalence of other aristocrats involved with Nazism. It only represents a partial overview of members and their actions during the war, the whole picture of which may never be known.

He states:

The Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha family had 9 members in the Nazi Party; the Schaumburg-Lippes had 10; the Lippes had 18; and the Hohenlohes had 20.

The royal Hohenzollerns maintained good relations with the Nazi elite from 1929 to 1943. Their support was highly visible. In the early 1930s, as the Nazis struggled, Hohenzollerns appeared in Nazi advertisements and were seated at Nazi rallies where they could be seen by all.

Prince Auwi, the Kaiser’s fourth son, joined the Party on 1 April 1930 but his involvement clearly pre-dates that. He held Nazi membership card number 24. […]

Crown Prince Wilhelm (“Wilhelm”), long an admirer of Italian Fascism, enjoyed a successful meeting with Mussolini in 1928.

Wilhelm campaigned for the Nazis, in SA uniform, in the watershed 1932 Hitler-versus-Hindenburg election. He used his influence in 1932 to help rescind the government ban on the SA and SS. […]

Kaiser Wilhelm regularly contacted Hitler and penned letters praising him. He shared Hitler’s vision of a remilitarized Germany and he espoused anti-Semitic views. […]

Prince Friedrich Christian zu Schaumburg-Lippe worked for the Nazis for a year before joining the Party and becoming a “national speaker” in 1929. […]

[Josias, Hereditary Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont] joined the Nazi Party in 1929 and the SS in early 1930. He was close to Himmler who appointed him SS Chief of Staff and chief aide to the head of Hitler’s personal security team. Waldeck ran the SS equestrian club. He was an SS-General and a Foreign Office Councillor. He held a Reichstag seat from 1933 to 1945. To promote SS settlements in Eastern Europe Waldeck created the Bureau for Germanification of Eastern Peoples. [13]

And of course, we remember Prince Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld who was a member of the SA, SS and Nazi League of Air Sports and went on to found the Bilderberg group in the 1950s. Fascist tendencies seldom disappear but incubate in the aftermath of the chaos they create, waiting for the next batch of authoritarian and social dominators to gain ascendance. Monarchies, like their freemasonic counterparts, provide yet another hierarchical breeding ground for their manifestation.

That is not to say that this brand of ponerogenic-fascism was exclusively sourced from Germany. The British Royal family have a genetic bloodline and beliefs which were decidedly Germanic. The long history of Royalty and the Establishment and its love-affair with all things Synarchist extended beyond national boundaries. If anything, German Romanticism and National Socialism only mimicked what was already taking place in both Britain and later America, quickening the pace of ponerogenesis.

Queen_Victoria_1887

Queen Victoria,1887

When Queen Victoria married Prince Albert in 1840 it was the beginning of the House of Windsor. Albert was the son of Germany’s Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha though his real surname, Wettin had its roots in another one of the numerous dynastic German families which proliferated in the last few hundred years. By 1917, George the V had dumped Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for the thoroughly English-sounding “Windsor” so that their Royal German heritage wouldn’t get in the way of First World War propaganda. That was one irony which might just have caused problems for the perception managers of of the day, enough to threaten the needed fodder of the British Tommy whose death toll reached over 2 million and from which weapons manufacturers and international bankers divided the spoils. [14]

On the other side of the Royal coin the surname of the Queen and Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh is Mountbatten-Windsor the origins of which are drawn from the long-winded Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. (Which leaves you appreciating the English simplicity of “smith” or “Brown”). The young Philip was schooled at Schloss Salem, run by German-Jewish educator and philosopher Kurt Hahn. Though Hahn did his best to resist the development of Hitler youth within the school, it nevertheless became a bastion of Nazi teaching with race science becoming part of the school’s curricula. [15] Hahn went on to found Gordonstoun School in Scotland which has played a major role in rearing all the male children of Queen Elizabeth II and Philip.

Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh had four sisters all of whom were in Nazi Germany during WWII and were married either to SS-Obergruppenführers or Nazi Gauleiters. Margarita was married to the Czech-Austrian prince Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg whom we met previously, a great-grandson of England’s Queen Victoria; Theodora to Berthold, the margrave of Baden; Cecilia to Georg Donatus, grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Queen Victoria; and, Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse. Prince Christoph, Hermann Göering’s Chief of Intelligence whom we looked at briefly, was his brother-in-law and just one of numerous relatives who fell over themselves to snatch a piece of the Nazi pie. So many in fact that Philip’s invitation list was paired down to a handful on account of the surfeit of Nazis that made up his best pals. [16] Prince Henry Duke of Brunswick, real name: Heinrich von Braunschweig for example, or the father of Princess Michael of Kent: Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, an Austrian SS Obergruppenführer. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a forthright Nazi who said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job.” [17]

In response to Jonathan Petropoulos’ The Royals and the Reich (2004) Philip had to indulge in some uncomfortable damage limitation by a televised airing of a much sanitized version of the Royals’ anti-Semitic views. He described the House of Windsor as having ‘inhibitions about the Jews’ and remarked on how there was ‘jealousy of their success.’ [18] Never before seen photographs from the book featured: “… Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms. One row back in the cortege in Darmstadt, Western Germany, was his uncle, Lord Mountbatten, wearing a Royal Navy Bicorn hat. Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Göering.” In the interview, he said that the attraction of the Nazis was down to the “…great improvement in things like trains running on time and building. There was a sense of hope after the depressing chaos of the Weimar Republic.” [19]

princephilipatnazifuneral

Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh at the funeral of his elder sister Cecile in 1937. He is flanked by high ranking Nazis. The prince was a supporter of the new Nazi economics, but was his mind-set out of the same mold?

Prince Philip is representative of a belief that views humanity as a virus that must be wiped out in order that Nature can live in perfect equilibrium. Most of humanity that is, except the aristocracy and banking, corporate and occult Elite who consider themselves on level of racially and spiritual superiority far above ordinary folk. It seems that Prince Philip took his lead from Heinrich Himmler who described his victims in “language normally used for bacterial cultures. ” Nonetheless, Philip’s eco-fascist credentials were put to work for the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 holding hands with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

In his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” Pruning back and uprooting the “weeds” in the population means that we are under heel of a group-mind that sees eugenics and animal husbandry of the Nazis as the best way to allow the spiritually ascended few to sit on the right hand of God. According to Philip while not claiming to have “… any special interest in natural history … as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.” [20]

We are in no doubt as to the imperative behind Philip’s final solution where he parrots the same script of the eugenicists explaining that the “conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs,” which the Duke believes is: “… largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. ‘Adapt or die’ is as true today as it was in the beginning.” [21]
Now, consider whether the next passage From Prince Philip could have been written by Hitler, Himmler, or Darré:

What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation–and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism–are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.

Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities. [22] [Emphasis mine]

Prince Philip cites: “wars and terrorism [as] the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.” Now, given that we know that disease, general lack of public health, poverty and hunger cause the most deaths in the global population this is both factually wrong and oddly misleading. Why include terrorism as one of the principal means? Philip’s inference is that the culling of weaker and inferior element conforming to the natural homeostasis of Nature should be encouraged. False-flag terrorism and Kissinger’s Food as a Weapon comes back to haunt us in his words.

Consider too, the words of Hitler on the recognition that the “… Völkisch … separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality” and in conforming to “… the eternal Will that dominates the universe … the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker” is the inevitable outcome. And it is this “Will to Power” as drawn from the philosophy of Frederick Nietzsche and as a pillar of worship in Satanic lore that “…pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature’s operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism.” [23]

7272088Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip Duke of Edinburgh

Philip is not alone in his misanthropic sound-bites. The environmental movement is awash with the same anti-human sentiments drawn from a growing green fundamentalism. Journalist David M. Graber of the Los Angeles Times believes that: “We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth … Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” [24]Or from academic Paul W. Taylor: “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” [25]

King Edward VIII was touted as a hiccup in an otherwise flawless history of selfless Windsor rule. Contrary to popular belief, the Royal House of Windsor was fascist to the core, long before the Edward & Mrs Simpson pantomime. The Queen Mother and George VI’s birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland was simply due to the uncomfortable fact for some in British intelligence that they were sympathisers to the Nazi cause and appeasement was a natural course.

Wallis Simpson Edward VII Adolf Hitler Berghof 22 October 1937Wallis Simpson Edward VII Adolf Hitler Berghof 22 October 1937

Winston Churchill was the object of loathing for the Queen Mother which was why she was kept away from giving interviews due to her supremacist views. She was a PR nightmare, counter to the sweet little old granny image so (apparently) beloved of at least the older generations of the British public. [26] Britain’s “favourite granny” was actually described as extremely racist by former aides, an avid support of the South African Apartheid, anti-Semitic and opposed to all forms of immigration. In summary, as one British journalist and presenter of BBC’s Today programme once described her: “a ghastly old bigot”.

Rather than a personal aberration the Queen Mother’s attitudes and beliefs were a caricature of not only an obvious elitism – that is the nature of aristocracy after all – but a continuing brainwashing of an underlying fascist doctrine from which the younger members of the Royal family would no doubt recoil, despite the residual effects of its presence having inevitably become part of their worldview. Aristocracy, public school and British upper class system is replete with beliefs which blur the line between conservatism and fascism.

princeharry1The Duke of Edinburgh’s grandson, Prince Harry, provided a glimpse into Royal perceptions in a series of early gaffs which confirmed the results of brought up in an aristo-military milieu. In 2005, Prince Harry was forced to publicly apologise for his fancy dress attire which he donned for friend’s “colonial and native” party. His outfit comprised of full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German Wehrmacht and a swastika armband. A few years later he was forced to issue an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our little Paki friend” and joking with another that he “looks like a rag-head”, an offensive term for an Arab. [27] These may appear to be trivial points, but they provide a mirror of the British class and public schooling system and the elitist beliefs and privileges which define their existence.

Further embarrassment for the royal family in July 2015, came from a hitherto unknown film possibly from the Queen’s own archive which surfaced in tabloid Newspaper The Sun and its own youtube channel. Shot by the Queen’s father, George VI on the grounds of Balmoral, most likely between 1933 and 1934, after Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, the film depicts a veritable swarm of Nazi salutes featuring the young Princess Elizabeth with her arm raised, her mother and the Queen’s uncle Edward VIII all giving sieg heils to their hearts content. (Although nothing very shocking to most who know the roots of Royal fascism, it did serve as a nice distraction from the British government’s covert and illegal bombing of Syria as part of US-NATO alliance to oust Assad).

nazi-salute

Screen shot of group Nazi salute from “lost” home movie. “Say hello to Uncle Adolf back in Germany Children.” | See also: The Queen’s ‘Nazi Salute’ film leak triggers Royal inquiry


Royal documents which had been held in vaults at Windsor Castle were released in 2003. In the documents were details concerning Edward VIII’s relations with Hitler and the Nazis. Plans to restore Edward, the Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war were discussed. The documents also revealed that the Duke was: “no enemy to Germany,” and would be the: “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”. The 1936 abdication of former King Edward VIII, demoted to the Duke of Windsor had nothing to do with his relationship with Wallis Simpson but the fact they were both Hitler groupies.

By 1937 they were sharing cups of tea at his Obersalzberg retreat giving Edward a chance to practice his Nazi salute. [28]The cover-story was that British intelligence, worried at Edward’s propensity to cock up war propaganda, sent a British warship to hastily dispatched the Duke and Duchess as far away as possible, dumping them on the Bahamas, where, in Churchill’s view the least damage could be done to the war effort. By way of compensation the Duke donned the role of Governor of the Bahamas much to the bemusement of Bahamians whose country he referred to as “a third-class British colony”.

Even less likely to have endeared him to their hearts was the Duke’s authoritative statements on Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune whom the duke urged us to remember was: “more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium.” [29] Statements such as these were repeated by Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, down through the decades but Edward kept up the tradition even as late as 1970 in which he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.” [30]

Investigative journalist Martin Frost discovered that Prince Charles’ much loved uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten (originally Battenburg, a branch of the House of Hesse) may have played a key role as: “…one of the central figures in the 1930s Nazi-British back-channel …” In fact, until his abdication King Edward VIII had the full backing of ‘Dickie’ Mountbatten. Secret channels of communication were maintained as World War II progressed much of it between the British royal family and: “… their pro-Hitler cousins in Germany, by Lord Mountbatten, through his sister Louise, who was crown princess of pro-Nazi Sweden. Louise was Prince Philip’s aunt.” [31]

Martin Frost’s research peels back further layers of the story. Far from the Duke of Windsor cultivating chummy relations with Hitler for his desire for peace, Portuguese Secret Service files first published in the London Observer and reported in Washington Times Nov. 20, 1995, revealed that:>

… the Duke of Windsor had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, that would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne, with Queen Wallis [Simpson, the American divorcée, for whom he abdicated the throne] at his side. Portuguese surveillance revealed that Walter Schellenberg, head of Gestapo counterintelligence, was one point of contact in this plot. After Schellenberg met with the Spanish ambassador to Portugal, Nicolás Franco, brother of fascist Gen. Francisco Franco, Ambassador Franco told a Portuguese diplomat: “The Duke of Windsor, free from the responsibilities of the war, in disagreement with English politicians, could be the man to put at the head of the Empire. [32]

In essence, after this very brief snapshot of fascism in German and British Royal families perhaps the most important point to consider is that the British Royal family and elements of the British Empire acted as a two-way conduit for Nazi ideology and practice in Germany – not necessarily the other way around. This would lay the ground for the eco-fascism to come. Hitler’s National Socialism is a quintessentially British and aristocratic creation. As we have seen, once a Pathocracy had manifested in Germany its seeds were sown in post-war global structures and in the National Security State of the United States.

 


* The reader may also remember that House of Hesse had an illustrious history with the House of Rothschild and none other than the now iconic secret society of “Illuminati” via Illuminist Prince Karl of Hesse. Though Illuminism has since been all the rage in popular culture it was likely only a splinter group which served as a good cover for those to continue work undisturbed.


Notes

[1] From William Walter Kay’s review of Royals and the Reich by Jonathan Petroupoulos. http://www.ecofascism.com/review11.html
[2] op. cit. Walter Kay.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] p.67; Royals and the Reich: The Princes von Hessen in Nazi Germany By Jonathan Petropoulos. Published by Oxford University Press, 2009. | ISBN-10: 0199212783
[9] op. cit. Walter Kay.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armaments Industry by Helmuth Carol Engelbrecht, Frank Cleary Hanighen. Published by Dodd, Mead, 1934.
[15] p.34; Evolution of Memory, Volume I: Historical Revisionism as Seen in the Words of George J. Jurgen Wittenstein. By Ruth Hanna Sachs, Excalmation! Publishers, 2011 | ISBN 0982298498.
[16] ‘German roots still a royal embarrassment’ by Richard Woods, Sunday Times 2005.
[17] Ibid.
[18] ‘Prince Philip pictured at Nazi funeral’by Andrew Levy, Daily Mail, March 2006.
[19] Ibid.
[20] p.8); Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.
[21] HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, “Conflict Between Instinct and Reason” Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.
[22] op. cit. Prince Philip (Introduction; 1988)
[23] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 13.
[24] David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989 (in Rodes and Odell, op. cit., (p. 149)
[25] p. 115; Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, By Paul W. Taylor Princeton University Press, 1986.
[26] ‘Queen Mum wanted peace with Hitler’ By Sophie Goodchild, Independent on Sunday, 2000.
[27] ‘Our little Paki friend’: MOD to investigate Harry after racial slurs on Asian colleague’ Daily Mail, 11 January 2009 | Ibid.
[28] Edward VIII By Frances Donaldson, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1974| ISBN 0-297-76787-9.
[29] King Edward VIII: The official biography By Philip Ziegler, New York: Alfred A. Knopf | ISBN 0-394-57730-2.
[30] Ibid. (p.67)
[31] ‘On Royal Nazis and the Scottish’ By Martin Frost 2007 |www.martinfrost.ws
[32] Ibid.

Puppets & Players IX: The Rockefellers

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

– David Rockefeller


The Rockefeller Foundation may be remembered as the primary financier of Alfred Kinsey’s “scientific” studies which helped to usher in massive changes to US and European society in the 1950s and 1960s. The much cultivated origins of their philanthropic deeds are still going strong in the form of the Rockefeller Foundation now based at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York City. However, the Rockefeller legacy has had more to do with public relations and the continuance of an ideological brand of corporatism than the official, mission “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” The dynasty has funnelled vast amounts of money into areas as diverse as construction, medical health, population sciences, agricultural and natural sciences, arts and humanities, social sciences, oil, education, economics, conservation and international politics, they have exacted an unparalleled influence over American society.

clip_image002

The Brothers Rockefeller (from left to right) are: David, the last surviving Grand-child of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. Until recently he was Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop (deceased); John D. III (deceased) Nelson and Laurance. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) was set up in 1940 to fund international, philanthropic endeavours. The Rockefeller Foundation has a more independent remit.

The Rockefeller family made its largest fortune in the oil business, primarily through their company Standard Oil during the late 19th and early 20th century. Their long financial association with the Chase Manhattan Bank and JP Morgan finally merged their interests to form JP Morgan Chase in 2009. Alongside Goldman Sacs, they profited hugely from the 2008 financial warfare that consolidated and centralised their global wealth into trusted mergers. No one knows the combined wealth of the family’s assets and investments but with the backing of the Rothschilds since the days of Milner and the Round table, it is likely to be very much more than substantial.

The same old boys’ network is in evidence within the banking fraternities from whom the Rockefellers extract maximum financial dividends traditionally passed only to male family members. Shares in the successor companies to Standard Oil, real estate holdings and many other diversified investments are overseen by a hand-picked and powerful trust committee headed by a revolving door of high-profile individuals drawn from Wall St., commerce and academia. A whole team of professional money managers are employed to look after the principal holding company, Rockefeller Financial Services which falls into five main branches:

  • Rockefeller & Co.
  • Venrock Associates (Venture Capital)
  • Rockefeller Trust Company (Managing hundreds of family trusts)
  • Rockefeller Insurance Company (Managing liability insurance for family members)
  • Acadia Risk Management (Insurance Broker for the art collections, real estate and private planes.)

The total philanthropic donations from two generations of the family amounted to over $1 billion from 1860 to 1960. In November 2006, the New York Times reported that the present family patriarch David Rockefeller and his total charitable benefactions amount to about $900 million over his lifetime. [1] That’s an extraordinary figure. However, the question of whether the philanthropy was (and is) an unsullied wish to assist mankind or merely another manipulative mask in a box of corporate tricks could be argued long into the night. True philanthropy is surely unconditional and without an agenda of any kind. Everything the Rockefellers do has its origins in the desire to shape humanity’s development towards its own perception of reality. As author and journalist Gary Allen observed in his book The Rockefeller File: “By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’” [2]History shows this to be the case so we can logically assume that the legacy of philanthropy has been extremely successful in offering a cover for their less well known activities throughout American and British socio-cultural change.

There were some who saw through the mask of philanthropy to the real consequences of his actions.


41QCVLcm9mL

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of 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.”

– David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

***

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

– David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

***

“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”

– David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

***

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

– David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973


The early part of the 20th century saw John D. Rockefeller and his brother William Avery carve out a permanent place in US history to all but replace the Presidents’ heads carved out of the mountains at Rushmore. With many social “face-lifts” to fit  the culture of the day, the Rockefellers have been responsible for funding and promoting some of the most potent social engineering projects in America over the last one hundred years. The reason was to create an American populace that is preoccupied, docile, apathetic and ultimately accepting of a new form of global feudalism; this has always been the aim of the family and its agencies. Monopolistic control of business and people was the key driver of its ascendancy. Since politics and money are synonymous to the Rockefellers, they have been particularly busy influencing political candidates and their parties towards the goals they hold so dear.

In 1927, as a prelude to the coming Great Depression New York City Mayor John F. Hylan didn’t mince his words in an interview he gave to the New York Times. They remain as relevant now as they did then:

“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen … At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”

It was the ruthlessness and unswerving passion for making money that probably drew the attention of the House of Rothschild in using the Rockefellers as yet another agent for its global financial Empire. The Establishment families have an incestuous relationship across all domains, which is why so much of their funding has been thrown at political organisations and institutions that they either helped to create or best served their financial, political and ideological interests. Its support for a virtual “Who’s Who” of the Establishment speaks volumes.

Standard Oil CartoonJohn D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil company characterized as an evil octopus a common sentiment of the time. | Reproduced by the National Humanities Center Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005. Courtesy Library of Congress.


The promotion of cartel-capitalism is the Rockefeller’s’ overriding principle of world advancement. Many of these groups and their beliefs are unknown to the public and outside any democratic framework despite exerting a powerful “invisible hand” on political discourse. Most candidates in successive US administrations have been members of or affiliated to these organisations, a fact which should cause concern. As well as its funding of the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies that advised the US State Department and the US government on World War II strategy and forward planning, other long time beneficiaries include a legion of think-tanks, trusts, foundations, organisations, NGOs, and federal agencies. The most well-known of these is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London; London School of Economics; the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the Brookings Institute and the World Bank.

These tentacles also reached a number of Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Colombia, McGill and Princeton University and the University of Lyon in France who benefit from grant funding, in particular the research in social sciences, natural sciences and medicine. Steady support for ideologies dear to their hearts include the Population Council of New York; Social Science Research Council (funding for fellowships and grants-in-aid); National Bureau of Economic Research; the new building of the medical school during the 1920s-1930s and the Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory. An emphasis on economics, social science and population control is always evident.

jdr-senior-jr

John D. Rockefeller Senior and Junior, 1921

The Rockefeller Foundation is ranked among the most influential NGOs in the world with 2010 assets totalling $3.5 billion with annual grants of over $139 million. [3] With a state charter for the foundation being granted by the New York Mayor in 1913 along with their many trusts that would emerge over the intervening years, this allowed a large portion of the Rockefeller’s fortune to fall outside the requirements for inheritance tax and therefore insulated from government and IRS control. When big money meets politics behind closed doors you can be sure that notions of transparent democracy cease to apply. In its first decade of socio-political influence, the Rockefeller foundation concentrated entirely on the sciences, public health and medical education. They knew that in order to affect long-term change according to their own agenda, it needed to be comprehensive and seemingly benevolent mask rather than at its core, an ideological and political one.

It was also in 1913 that the foundation set up the International Health Commission launching the foundation into international public health activities and forging the reputation to fund research into diseases in fifty-two countries on six continents and twenty-nine islands. The Commission established and endowed the world’s first school of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and later at Harvard. It then spent more than $25 million  developing other public health schools in the US and in 21 foreign countries, helping to establish America as the world leader in medicine and scientific research. In the same year, it began a 20-year support program of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, whose mission was research and education on birth control, maternal health and sex education. Once again, this emphasis was key.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became the foundation chairman in 1917 and a year later, established The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, named after his mother, shifting the focus of philanthropy more deeply into the social sciences, stimulating the founding of university research centres and creating the Social Science Research Council. This memorial fund was subsequently absorbed into the foundation in a major reorganisation in 1928/9.

rockefeller6The foundation also supported the early initiatives of notorious geo-political manipulator Henry Kissinger, such as his directorship of Harvard’s International Seminars and the early foreign policy magazine Confluence, both established by him while he was still a graduate student. Kissinger is the equivalent of the Shakespearian character of Iago in “Othello” whose job it is to play one group, government or individual against each other without them ever discovering the source of the intrigue. As an agent of the Rockefellers, Kissinger has been involved in every shady, geo-political form of skulduggery since he was National Security Advisor to Nixon and is seen as an elder geo-political statesman – the public face of those we rarely, if ever get to see. He has perhaps done more than anyone in contouring American politics and society towards Rockefeller and Elite objectives. It was he who spear-headed the concept of food as a weapon forged from the very same think-tanks and organisations we have been discussing.

1954 was a pivotal year for David Rockefeller’s global aspirations. The Bilderberg Group was founded and The Conference on International Politics, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation was convened in Washington, D.C., in the same month. The leading lights of post-war political science were brought together including: Walter Lippmann, Kenneth W. Thompson, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth N. Waltz, Paul Nitze, Arnold Wolfers, and Reinhold Niebuhr among others. The Rockefeller Foundation’s president chaired the conference while Waltz and Thompson helped to organize the meeting and discussions. The official objective was to explore “the state of theory in international politics” [4]

Though some commentators believe that there was a failure to arrive at a consensus towards unified theory of international relations, this was never the intention. By gathering together so many luminaries in the field of neo-realism as per the Rockefeller formula, their target was to assess an exact state of play in order to begin steering societies in the required direction at certain junctures. What better way to do this than to scan the greatest minds and extract the information? Perhaps even head-hunt the best and brightest to join the Foundation?

Kenneth W. Thompson was obviously singled out by the Foundation as a useful tool. In 1955, less than a year after the first Bilderberg conference he began working for the Rockefeller Foundation eventually becoming Vice President for International Programs, specialising in the area of institutional philanthropy and no doubt contributing – knowingly or unknowingly – to the Rockefellers’ fine-tuning of the field. As author Nicolas Guilhot observes: “One might reasonably ask whether, had he not played a crucial role within the Rockefeller Foundation for several decades, the field of IR would be the same, or whether it would exist at all.” [5]And that is surely the most obvious point of the whole conference: it was an exercise in establishing a dominant view of international relations under the cover of exploring diversity and economic prosperity. As political scientist professor Robert E. Muller Jr. comments, the conference may have helped establish:

“… a discipline separate from political science and rooted in an understanding of power politics and national interest dictated by the exigencies of the moment. And in this way, it may have invented the international relations theory that guided the thinking of American policy-makers well into the Vietnam era.” [6]

This is exactly where the Rockefeller Foundation excels.

210px-29_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008

Symbolic of the family’s titanic aspirations: Rockfeller Center’s GE Building, New York | Photo: Martin St-Amant (wikipedia)

A familiar political philosophy for the Elite families is derived from the fusion of Marxism and Capitalism; collectivism and fascism. These beliefs are attractive to corporatist families like the Rockefellers because they offer what they consider to be the best of both worlds. China is the best example since it incorporates both which is why the Rockefeller Foundation played an important role in rebuilding intellectual ties across the Atlantic after the Second World War. They did this by using their vast storehouse of money to be the self-appointed catalyst for increasing the hybridisation of Western capitalist ethos and communist-Marxist ideas via intellectual refugees and American thinkers. It is this literal capitalisation of economic ideologies and their applications that most interests true corporatists. In their minds, it offers the best framework by which a global neo-feudalist state can manifest.

Rather than the “universalist” credentials that the Rockefeller Foundation liked to promote it was actually a mask for this economic hybrid. Rockefeller president Lindsay F. Kimball offered his own advice as to the perception of the foundation in his report from the 1950s:

“The Senate and FBI investigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations [a Rockefeller beneficiary] and the charges proffered by Representative Cox indicate the belief in at least a few minds, that the Rockefeller Foundation is either unwittingly giving support to the enemies of our country or is itself fuzzy-minded, unrealistic, and even pinkishly inclined.” [7]

Though unfashionable in its day due to the spectre of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this belied the fact that the Rockefellers were much more than “pinkishly inclined” but an active promoter of World State influences and communist ideology, unbeknownst to Kimball himself, though his highlighting of these conclusions were obviously borne from his own concerns. This was unlike many artists and intellectuals of the day who genuinely saw socialism, communism or Marxism as at least a new possibility for social change and a step away from the relentless materialism which had engulfed America.

Indeed, the communication between top level staff at the Foundation indicated that they were favourable towards socialist and communist intelligentsia. The most important field of enquiry for the Rockefeller Foundation is best summarised by Hugh Wilford, discussing the Foundation’s influence in his book: The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution, where he asks the question: “Are thoughts organically formed? Is it possible to control or manipulate thoughts externally to make them fit into the goals of organisations such as foundations?” [8]

The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

To that end, another significant program within the Rockefeller Foundation was its Medical Sciences Division, which extensively funded women’s contraception and the human reproductive system in general. Other funding went into endocrinology departments in American universities, human heredity, mammalian biology, human physiology and anatomy, psychology, and the pioneering studies of human sexual behaviour by Dr. Alfred Kinsey whom we looked at in the Sex Establishment.

This brings us to the core belief system of the Rockefellers and their comrades: social control largely based around eugenics – a pseudo-science as strong as it ever was in Elite circles. The Rockefellers have been responsible for funding social engineering projects with just such a belief at their root. In 1933, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, proclaimed that “The social sciences … will concern themselves with the rationalisation of social control …” and this has remained so ever since. [9]

In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council the presidency of which just happened to be none other than Frederick Osborn, leader of the American Eugenics Society who held the position until 1959. Nine years later he wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.” And so it is. From Social Darwinism to the now to the more academically bland social biology and genetics.

General Motors, the Ford Foundation, IBM and others were all involved in supporting the Nazi regime that was both ideological, logistical and material. [10]The Rockefeller family was perhaps the most active in providing assistance to the Nazi Third Reich contributing to the speed of its rapid ascent to power. It is still largely unknown that right from the start of its creation by John D. Rockefeller, the Foundation served as a principle financier of the German Eugenics initiative and even funded the program on which Josef Mengele worked before he went to Auschwitz. [11]Successfully joining financial forces with the Carnegie Institute and the Harrimans,a host of American academics from prestigious universities such as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton happily embraced a racist, and fascist philosophy and practice existing in America at the time. The authoritarian nature of the eugenics belief was the basis upon which many of the institutions of the 1940s came into being.

When we understand that the updated, racist philosophy of Nazism is the driving force behind so called Rockefeller philanthropy and much of the Establishment’s world-view, we can begin to see the reasons for such support in a very different light. This is the reason why the Rockefeller Foundation’s main financial beneficiaries have been the very same organisations that have historically adhered to the same beliefs. Though it does not necessarily mean all subsequent generations of Rockefellers are cast in the same mold. However, the trajectory of the family and its objectives remain the same regardless of whether this is merely misguided results of brainwashed beliefs or the symptoms of inherited psychopathic traits.

NYC_-_Rockfeller_Center_-_Atlas_Statue

New York Rockefeller Center with statue of the God Atlas. The Rockefeller institutions are often saturated in mythological and occult symbolism.

The Rockefeller Foundation underwent a significant re-organisation in 1928 giving the opportunity for an agriculture department to be incorporated into the Natural Sciences division. In order to protect the family’s investments and to ostensibly guard against communist influence the Foundation gave a grant to the Mexican government for maize research, undertaken with the help of Nelson Rockefeller via the US government. Applying the principles of John D. Rockefeller’s meteoric success with Standard Oil the science of corn propagation and the new agriculture was to mark out the early 1940s as a landmark in the rise of large-scale mono-farming joining together with the commensurate rise in mechanisation and fast food economy in the US.

With close assistance from the Ford Foundation Latin America and India were the next in line to “benefit” from the vast experiment in agribusiness which would soon to be labelled the “Green Revolution” and the ultimate answer to poverty. In reality, expanding crop yields created the exact opposite by displacing farmers and their communities, creating ecological catastrophes, reducing biodiversity, lessening soil fertility and saturating the environment with pesticides from the new offshoot businesses of the agrichemical industry. In concert with international banking and commerce, far from solving the world’s poverty it served to increase it, even though the existence of food mountains would be a feature of modern farming methods parallel to famine and interstate war.

For the Rockefellers, searching for ever more efficient means of making money and redesigning humanity to a sophisticated serfdom meant using corporatism grafted onto the global ecology –  stream-lining Nature’s bounty into a vast production line. It was only natural for the Foundation to support the advances in genetically modified organisms (GMO) foodstuffs and transgenic crop production where the eventual patenting of Nature herself became the economic goal. This conveniently merged with the ideas on eugenics and population control (as all goals towards centralisation ultimately do) best espoused by the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation who finance corporate-led, scientifically dubious vaccination and agriculture projects.

There is an important crossover towards the control of populations and how food, agriculture and technology can influence an outcome that is aligned to the belief system of the Rockefellers and their associates. The radical change from localised subsistence farming to the placing of power in a handful of agribusiness corporations has been in part, thanks to considerable Rockefeller funding. (Breaking the independent clusters of family farmers has always been an integral part of Elite-sourced technological “revolutions,” as we saw in “The Courage to Critique”) .To that end, generous financing has been poured into biotechnology research personified by trans-national corporation Monsanto which has a record of worker rights, environmental and business corruption unparalleled in corporate practice.

The wholly erroneous and disingenuous assumptions that GMO can solve the world’s food crisis, has nonetheless been given a healthy dose of support in industry and the MSM, where in reality, it is nothing more than another corporate tool of exploitation. For this to work members are activated within the auspices of humanitarian directives found the United Nations, WTO, IMF and The World Bank. They also need to appeal to the spiritual and occult-minded Elite presently residing in its most public face: The Lucis Trust, an occult organisation firmly embedded in the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

clip_image003

“In 1917, John D. Rockefeller could have paid off the whole US public debt on his own. Today, Bill Gates’ entire fortune would barely cover two months’ interest.”

It was to be during the years between 1956 – 1960 that the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund financed the Special Studies Projectwith the help of then President Nelson Rockefeller and directed by the ever faithful Henry Kissinger. This was to be a blueprint for the future, not for America but for the “global community.” The studies were published in a now hard to come by book entitled: Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports. It is here that the full long-term nature of the World State philosophy can be discerned though suitably dressed up in euphemisms and platitudes. The objective of the studies were to create a long-term plan so that a progressive phasing in of a global government could materialise in a post-war environment. To do this large-scale social engineering was to take place using the Fabian method of gradualism so that the American people and eventually the world, would have no idea what was being sold to them. The future they have shaped has come of age.

(For more on these studies and Prospect for America please visit wwwredefininggod.com)

 


Notes

[1] ‘Manhattan: A Rockefeller Plans a Huge Bequest’By Stephanie Strom, The New York Times, November 21, 2006.
[2] The Rockefeller File By Gary Allen. Published by ’76 Press, 1976.
[3] Return of Private Foundation, or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable TrustTreated as a Private Foundation 2010. Form 90-PF. | www. dynamodata.fdncenter.org/
[4] p.240; The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, by Robert E. Muller Jr.; Nicolas Guilhot, ed., New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
[5] op. cit. Muller (p.15)
[6] Review of The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, Edited by Nicolas Guilhot in Ethics & International Affairs, July 12 2012. http://www.ethicsaninternationalaffairs.org
[7] ‘The Rockefeller Foundation vis a vis National Security,’ By Lindsley F. Kimball, November 19, 1951, folder 201, box 25, series 900, RG3, RFA, RAC.
[8] p.117; The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution By Hugh Wilford, Manchester University Press, 1995 | ISBN-10: 0719039886
[9] Max Mason quoted in ‘Mental Health, Education and Social Control’ Part 2 By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., September 2004 | http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/cuddy/mental_health-2.htm
[10] IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation. By Edwin Black, Second paperback edition, Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2009 | ISBN 13: 9780914153108
[11] Ibid.

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 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?’

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

The Light Bringer II: The Lucis Trust

“Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.”

– lucistrust.org


After years of contact with her “spirit masters” Russian esotericist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was contacted by the Master Morya in 1851. A co-founder of the Theosophical Society in 1875, she went on to publish the hugely influential Isis Unveiled in 1877 while establishing Lucifer, an occult magazine in London in the same year. The equally controversial and occult classic The Secret Doctrine followed in 1888.

clip_image002Alice Ann Bailey and her husband 32° mason Foster Bailey had become acquainted with students of Madam H.P. Blavatsky and joined the Theosophical Society soon after in 1917. Master Koot Humi had apparently been in “telepathic contact” with Bailey since 1895 which paved the way for contact with another hierarchical master, “the Tibetan” otherwise known as Master Djwhal Khul who asked her to assist him in some dictation work in 1919. As this was all carried out via telepathy it is hardly surprising that Bailey who had been raised a devout Christian, was little put out. Her refusal to act as a PA to Khul’s esoteric “overshadowing” was short-lived, apparently “persuaded” by Koot Humi to be the needed channel for telepathic dictation.

Twenty-four books of esoteric philosophy were produced by Bailey over the next thirty years and would become the foundation of much of the New Age or Human Potential Movement. The basic premise behind these 24 tomes was to prepare humanity for the “re-appearance of the Christ” and “the externalization of the Hierarchy.” This is to include several of the Masters descending from “the etheric plane” and setting up shop in cities around the globe. With what appears to be an army of planetary civil servants rather than spiritual advisors, these Masters will begin reshaping economics, religion, education and politics and everything else on their own particular anvil of reality so that they can usher in their New World Order for us all, which would lead to peace, prosperity and right human relations …

dwal-kul

Artist’s rendering of alleged Tibetan Master Djwhal Khul

To that end, the Baileys founded The Lucis Trust in 1922, as a non-profit service organisation incorporated in the United States with headquarters in New York City, London, and Geneva. The trust was primarily set up to further the distribution and dissemination of the books under the banner of the “ageless wisdom teachings” which served as a template for affiliated organisations which included:

The Arcane School – “The Arcane School was established by Alice A. Bailey in 1923 to help meet an obvious and growing demand for further teaching and training in the science of the soul. The Arcane School was created as a training school for adult men and women in meditation techniques and the development of spiritual potentiality. The School provides sequential courses of study and meditation, and practical training in group service.” [1] The school had 20,000 graduates by 1954. A veritable occult university, its remit is to continue to be the main training ground for New Age disciples.

World Goodwill – founded in 1932, has been recognized by the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), and is represented during regular briefing sessions for NGOs at the United Nations. The Lucis Trust has consultative status at the roster level with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The dropping of the atomic bomb is seen by freemasonic initiates as the spiritual manifestation of Luciferian light. The UN is seen as the harbinger and enforcer of a monopoly over all countries so that global governance and One World principles can supersede national sovereignty. It is a Federalist dream. Consequently, World Goodwill works directly with the “world federalists,” and follows closely the explication as found in Bailey’s The Externalisation of the Hierarchy that gives the work of the UN and its agencies to externalize a so-called Hierarchy of “Illumined Minds,” bringing forth an “Age of Maitreya,” an esoteric label for the return of Christ.

lucis-cloud_thumb.jpg

Lucis Trust insignia

Triangles – Founded in 1937, is the name for a global network of cells, whose members use a prayer called the “Great Invocation,” [2] especially on the night of the full moon, when members can be influenced by the astrological signs of the zodiac. “A triangle is a group of three people who link each day in thought for a few minutes of creative meditation. They invoke the energies of light and goodwill, visualising these energies as circulating through the three focal points of each triangle, and pouring out through the network of triangles surrounding the planet.” [3]

The Beacon magazine – “Alice and Foster Bailey established The Beacon in 1922. They conceived it as a forum for esotericists to contribute their visions, share their experiences and develop their ideas about the evolution of humanity and the unfolding Plan for our world. The quarterly magazine “… focusses its work on the nature of man, of God and the universe, on the Plan for humanity, the Hierarchy of Masters, the reappearance of the Christ, the emergence of new age principles in the world…” [4]

The Findhorn Foundation deserves a mention here, a magical place on the one hand and fairly compromised on the other. While the Lucis trust could be said to the intellectual centre of the New Age movement the Findhorn Foundation could be seen as its emotional centre.

Formed in 1962 and famous for being the “Vatican of the New Age” it is one of the first of such centres in the world the foundation offers an eclectic mix of nature-based, ecological and spiritual courses, out-reach programmes, seminars and workshops. It has a community eco-village and plays host to conferences on a range of topics from “Angels,” “Sexing the Spirit” to “Love, Magic, Miracles” promoting the idea of a “New Spirituality” in line with the the core philosophy of the Lucis Trust.

Like the Lucis Trust, Findhorn has enormous potential and creativity, heavily focussed on what are termed the realm of angelic and nature spirits which brought it initial fame care of its now deceased owners Eileen and Peter Caddy. Experiments in ecology and “co-creating” with Nature had impressive, if not phenomenal results. However, like any movement that becomes popular and starts to expand – most especially when it has a spiritual in focus and therefore threatening to darker forces –  without sufficient understanding of either negative para-physical realms and knowledge of ponerology, then corruption is inevitable.

I attended three conferences and found many wonderful people there. After attending several workshops and conferences in the late 1990s I also found a high proportion of participants exhibiting various stages of mental illness ranging from delusional to psychotic states. This appeared to be drawn from the sensitivity of the individuals’ personality married to an insufficient knowledge of non-physical realms and a naive embrace of that which was assumed to be “spiritual” which was quite clearly to me – and I suspect a few others – anything but. The notion of deception as the primary mode of attack appears to be entirely blanketed with a feeling-based interpretation of phenomena. Angels, earth spirits, and new age speakers are embraced without any psychic protection or analysis whatsoever. And when certain psycho-physiological symptoms of what might called possession occurred, this was put down to various rationalisations ranging from “etheric adjustment” or unresolved “karmic resistance”.

The New Age movement contains some extraordinary people who are inspiring and gifted in their teachings and intutive renderings of new visions. It is also wide open to various forms of abuse at the emotional and para-physical levels which has effectively derailed an awful lot of good work. It is for this reason that the new age centres remain the primary mode of spiritual obfuscation and deception in our current times.

Which brings us back to the Lucis Trust as the foundation to such centres and the disemination of a way of viewing the world and its subtle twists on ancient wisdom and perennial philosophy.

the-fallen-angel-by-gustave-dore_thumb.jpg

“The Fallen Angel” by Gustave Doré | “Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name ‘Lucifer’ which means light-bearer. ” lucistrust.org

Perhaps a small hiccup and indication of where their sentiments lay was seen in the naming of The Lucifer Publishing Co. in the early 1920s. Probably realising that this was a little inflammatory even for their theosophical brethren, they changed the name to Lucis Publishing Co. in 1925. The reasoning behind this is that In Latin lucern ferre translates to “light-bearer” and lucis means “of light.” However, we read on the Lucis Trust website that: “The Baileys’ reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise that they …. Sought to elicit a deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer.” [5]

It is certainly true that “Lucifer” means Lightbringer, Lightbearer, Bringer of Dawn or Morning Star. The latter meaning having its origins in the planet Venus. There are also those who associate the Fallen Angel of Lucifer to the Fall of Man or humanity. The negative attributes – as with all the shadow sides of archetypes, Gods and Goddesses – are used on the left hand path of black magick. It is also safe to say that Lucifer and its various cultural incarnations have become associated with a strictly satanic pathway long before the Bailey’s arrived on the scene. So, why choose this emblem? What quality of Promethean light is it bringing? Is it an alchemical fire or the fire of inversion which distracts and deceives – “even the very elect”?

Nonetheless, the objectives of the Lucis Trust as stated in its charter are:

“To encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, science and art; to encourage every line of thought tending to the broadening of human sympathies and interests, and the expansion of ethical religious and educational literature; to assist or to engage in activities for the relief of suffering and for human betterment; and, in general, to further worthy efforts for humanitarian and educational ends.” [6]

It all sounds thoroughly noble and worthy. *

We can, however, read the same nebulous sentiments and platitudes from affiliated think-tanks and clubs, ostensibly for world economic and geo-political harmony from the likes of Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) Trilateral Commission (TC) and Bilderberg Group (BG). A cursory look at all four websites (with the exception of BG who decided not to give us that pleasure) the average person would come away thinking very little was amiss and nothing but butter would melt in their mouths. Dig a little deeper however and something is very much amiss with some obvious red flags right from the get-go.

clip_image004

Alice A. Bailey circa 1930s

“The Plan” as espoused by the Lucis Trust appears to be a direct mirror of Establishment worldviews. Freemasons and New Agers have joined the throng in propagating collectivist symbolism and motifs that are both pagan and pantheistic. Nothing wrong with nature-religions but animal totems and the God of Materialism also have pride of place in existential Satanism. It is no coincidence that the Lucis Trust lies at the heart of the occult foundation of New World Order philosophy which has been enthusiastically embraced by all the usual globalist suspects in full awareness – or inexcusable ignorance. This fact alone should give us pause.

The Lucis Trust is intensely political as it is occultly religious. Globalist ideology can be read on every page of its books and articles promoting centralisation and group consciousness – something quite different to being group conscious – at the expense of individuality.

The Trust founded its “World Goodwill” initiative in 1937 which just so happens to be embraced by a host of pathological signatories for whom corporatism, exploitation and globalism is the prime-mover of their beliefs. Anyone with a modicum of awareness should have their alarm-bells ringing at such a discovery. Some of these luminaries are: Helmut Schmidt, former Chancellor of West Germany; Malcolm Frasier, former Australian Prime Minister; Robert McNamara, former US Foreign policy advisor and Secretary of Defence; Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and recent chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board under President Barack Obama and of course, Elder statesman and essential psychopathic insider: Henry Kissinger.

The Lucis Trust is run through an international board of trustees whose membership is said to have included: John D. Rockefeller, Norman Cousins, Thomas Watson, Jr. (IBM, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow) and Henry Clauson, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, 33rd Degree, and Southern District Scottish Rite.

“World Goodwill’s activities are essentially educational” and it has three main purposes:

  • To help mobilise the energy of goodwill;
  • To cooperate in the work of preparation for the reappearance of the Christ;
  • To educate public opinion on the causes of the major world problems and to help create the thought form of solution.” [7]

Lucis Trust programming is essential for a New World Religion and New Social paradigm to be sold to the masses. It’s template must tick all the feel good boxes for aspiring neophytes whilst appealing to the metaphysical-freemasonic intelligentsia who have attained certain degrees from other esoteric schools. Then there are the children, the new generations to which the Lucis Trust and it’s United Nation vehicle must direct its spiritual energies.

In 1968, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) spearheaded a lobbying effort – along with the United Nations Economic and Social Council headed by Robert Muller – to adopt Resolution 1296 which grants “consultative” status to certain NGOs. In 1970, the Lucis Trust was one of the first to be granted such as status on the UN roster. Muller, a former Assistant Secretary General to the U.N., had good reason to set about his task in further integrating the Lucis Trust with the United Nations. As a devoted disciple of Alice Bailey, he took inspiration from her book A Treatise on White Magic, and “Education in the New Age” in order to create his vision of education for the world. This eventually formed the basis for the Robert Muller schools. [8]

In 1995 Muller delivered a speech at the University of Denver where we can gleam some understanding as to what brand of education he and UNESCO was preparing for the world’s generation of children.

He stated:

“I had written an essay which was circulated by UNESCO, and which earned me the title of “Father of Global Education.” I was educated badly in France. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only correct education that I have received in my life was from the United Nations. We should replace the word politics by planetics. We need planetary management, planetary caretakers. We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global sociology, a global anthropology. Then I made my proposal for a World Core Curriculum.” [Emphasis mine] [9]

Muller’s Curriculum offers a primary objective which involves:

“… Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of … the greater whole. In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centred objectives, leading to group consciousness.”

The World Core Curriculum Manual says: “The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey, by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul.” And this “enlightened” individual wants a New World Order ethos which displaces diversity and the “one in manyness” in favour ONE THOUGHT expressed through regulated building blocks of servitude dressed up as spiritual holism. This is global, One World philosophy which lends itself to something diammetrically opposite to “holding hands across the ocean.” This is a curricula for homogenity of the kind where bland conformity is the new normal. (For Muller’s work in environmentalism along aide Maurice Strong see: Dark Green VII: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique”)

Muller’s ideas simply mirror the Alice Bailey teachings where “World Citizenship” and a “World Federation” will begin to manifest as a result of the activation of a “World Brain” developed by so-called “enlightened” individuals or “World Servers.” [10]  And who would preside over this “enlightened” Synarchy? Once again, the constant harping on global consciousness as the only way to be harmonious means subservience to a centralised global order where the individual is secondary to the Group Mind. Education is a means to introduce uniformed thinking where diversity and creativity exist insofar that it conforms to the One World philosophy. This description could be straight out of a Marxist or Fabian treatises tied up with a rainbow ribbon of New Age floss. (Keep in mind the agency of UNESCO which served to introduce the same agenda from a humanist perspective. (It is also interesting in terms of Common Purpose in the UK and Common Core education initiatives causing so many problems in the U.S.  (We will explore all these ties in the next and future posts.)

tet

The Tetrahedron or “triangular pyramid” logo of the World Core Curriculum

This is where fascist Synarchists, elements of Theosophy and the gradualism of Fabian socialists held close ties precisely due to their common ground on forging a World State. Unusually for a woman, Annie Besant founded the British Federation of the International Order of Co-Freemasonry and was heavily involved with Fabian socialism co-founding the Fabian Society. This potent occult mix drew together Gnostic Christians and Spiritualists, including Frank Podmore, later Lord and Lady Passfield, the Freemason William Clarke, Viscount and Viscountess Snowden, British Prime Minister J. Ramsay Macdonald, Lord Sidney Oliver, Lord Thomson and Soviet agent Lord Haldane, and others.  In the same year, Scottish noble Douglas Dunglas Home, who had sponsored Blavatsky as early as 1858 and given séances for the Czar, returned to Great Britain, where, with support of the Cecil family, he founded the Society for Psychical Research, whose members included Arthur Conan Doyle, Lord Balfour, John Dewey, William James and Lord Bertrand Russell.

Along with 33rd degree mason C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant joined the theosophical society in 1907 after digesting Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine, finally becoming the leader of the movement. Besant cultivated further cult status by grooming a young Indian adept Jiddu Krishnamurti as the new messiah. As is often the case with the best laid plans, the no-nonsense Indian rejected the mantle much to the chagrin of Besant and her followers. With no love lost between her rival, Bailey was able to take over the theosophical Plan allowing it to continue on its way despite these messianic setbacks.

By the 1930s, the British Establishment and intelligence services employed Satanist Edward Aleister Crowley and his Order of the Golden Dawn (or Stella Matutina) which joined hands with his aforementioned off-shoot of Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) Germany’s Thule Society which, in turn, oversaw the rise of the Nazi Party. The Corporatists and International bankers did the rest. Much of the re-building from World War II came directly from occult imperatives, the principles of which overshadowed ALL of the new institutions that arose out of its purposely created ashes.

149548903.QziCUe3i.IMG_4362

Whitehall, London

Any directive must allow free-will and the opportunity for humanity to decide their own destiny without interference. As the Lucis Trust works with such people who support the principles inherent within the beliefs of an authoritarian brand of a New World Order, then we have to question what kind of spirituality the trust is really promoting. As the vast majority of global governments and their leaders are, without doubt psychopaths or sub-categories of psychologically deviant individuals, then what kind of Plan do we think is going to manifest?

World Good Will to all men?

The Lucis Trust would likely give all kinds of esoteric reasoning that the old world is dying and the New World Servers are ushering the New Age of true spiritual freedom and “right human relations”. However, real spiritual guidance needs no subtle forms of coercion and what amounts to forced choices. To that end, it is very clear to see which “Plan” is in operation at this present time characterised as it is by certain themes and signs which denote status, hierarchy, centralisation, group consciousness and an entirely autocratic brand of spirituality.

What underlies the Lucis Trust’s particular type of “education” is the placing of our energy, faith and responsibility in an external, subtly authoritarian force of “supermen” based on hierarchical principles instead of our own independent and collective empowerment. Surely, if there is such a thing as “Christ consciousness” then it will manifest through a co-linear network of like minds where “right human relations” can emerge naturally without systems of belief instead of being focused in a “divine” saviour or group of “Ascended Masters” now so ubiquitous in the New Age Movement as a whole.


 triangles2double

Arcane School Triangles – disbursing energy to crumble the Old Order… But do we know who is behind this New Order? A Treatise on white magick or merely a more sophisticated rendering of black magick?


Corralling human thought into a prescribed and rigid belief system is seldom creative or sustainable but often incendiary, as it is drawn from invocations and so called “white magic.” The Lucis Trust describes occult meditation as: “a means of consciously and purposefully directing energy from a recognized source to the creation of some specific effect.” And this is the essential problem with “Magick” of any kind, (the “k” emphasizes occult ritualistic elements involved) especially with its focus on group consciousness and status. It seeks to create effects in the external world; to manipulate matter to gain some specific outcome and to “invoke” a particular thought form and/or entity. Whether it is a Baal or a Lord Maitreya is irrelevant. White and black magick are two sides of the same coin. White magick is simply more coy about its intent to manipulate matter towards its perception of what is perceived as “good.”

There is no need to base Synarchist precepts upon a world that does not operate according to elitist beliefs systems whether termed “spiritual” or otherwise. The implicit message from the Lucis Trust is that ordinary men and women need to be schooled and instructed by those in the know, which at the moment comprises of authoritarian followers and social dominators of various degrees. The last thing humanity needs is to have its spirituality defined by more authority, yet that is exactly what the Lucis Trust and the United Nations would have us adopt. Working on ourselves can naturally manifest the effects in the outer world without recourse to a centralised belief system and it’s hierarchy of spiritual administrators. We surely have to be extremely careful that such a funnelling of potent human energy is being directed to the correct quarters and for what purpose. No such public discussion has taken place as to whether organisations like the Lucis Trust should be sitting at the table of hundreds of influential think-tanks and NGOs not least the United Nations. We only have Alice Bailey’s word that what she was channelling was indeed benevolent. And given the evidence it appears slick and heavy with a technical integration of Western magick and Eastern techniques but ultimately devoid of anything approaching spiritual emancipation.

Given the nature of “The Absolute” and the Mixtus Orbis of this world that is characterised by deception in order that we grow, do we really think that such monolithic expressions of occult authority are actually offering something genuinely liberating? Or are they merely offering the illusion of such a possibility? In order to try and answer that question we will have to look at the possible roots of Alice Bailey’s “overshadowing” Tibetan.

 


* I must confess some personal interest in the Lucis Trust. I was a member of the Arcane School for five years in my early twenties and attended many of their seminars and conferences based in Whitehall, London. It is only now in hindsight that I realise what an extremely clever and high-level disinformation project it truly is.  This does not discount the many and varied expositions on esoteric truth contained within. However, it’s important to be aware exactly how spiritual information of this kind can be co-opted, distorted exactly because so much of the reality of our hyperdimensional reality has been left out.

It is especially sad, since there are many genuine and well-intentioned people within its ranks who come from a variety of backgrounds. An overwhelmingly white, middle-class demographic, many are drawn from UN-linked NGOs, the civil service and corporate machine. What defines this group is a centre of gravity focused in the intellect, a strong pull towards status (though often subconscious) and a genuine desire to serve humanity. These of course, can be recognised at the lower and mid tiers of the freemasonic degree process. An overriding emphasis on a Christ figurehead and his hierarchy of “Masters” is the proffered carrot despite the insistence on inner work and soul integration.  In my view, the original ancient wisdom – even from the original mix of theosophy from which the Bailey works were drawn – suggests that a “Christ consciousness” will manifest through a network of individuals rather than to be focused in an architecture of authority managed through a network of hierarchical New Group of World Servers structured around magical invocation, often at the Establishment level.  At the higher levels of freemasonic operations, it is anyone’s guess what is occurring, but given what we know about ponerology and the red flags all over the Lucis Trust itself, the prognosis isn’t good.

However, I would urge readers to discover for themselves the nature of Alice Bailey / D.K. material in order to judge for yourselves. It  will require deep study in parallel to other esoteric systems and with a keen inner eye cognizant of  how such a system of spiritual teaching is now being used in our present culture.  There is, at one level, much to commend it – up to a point.  Then you might like to compare it to Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way Teachings and the latter day Fourth Way School of paleo-Christianity, both of which can be found at cassiopaea.org and paleochristianity.org.

 


Notes

[2] ‘The Great Invocation’
From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into the minds of men
Let Light descend on Earth.
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into the hearts of men.
May Christ return to Earth.
From the centre where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide the little wills of men-
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.
From the centre which we call the race of men
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.
Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.
[3] http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/triangles
[4] http://www.lucistrust.org/en/books/the_beacon_magazine
[5] ‘The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer’ – http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer
[6] Luci Trust Charter | http://www.lucistrust.org
[7] http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill/purposes_objectives
[8] A Treatise on White Magic By Alice A. Bailey, Published by Lucis Publishing Co. 1934. http://www.alice.bailey.it/testi…/A-Treatise-on-White-Magic.pdf
[9] ‘A World Core Curriculum for Global Education Framework of Our Global Knowledge| http://www.unol.org/rms/wcc.html | http://www.robertmuller.org/rm/R1/World_Core_Curriculum.html
[10] Education for a New Age By Alice A. Bailey, Published by Lucis Publishing Co. 1954 | Updated in PDF online version 1998: http://www.bailey.it/images/testi-inglese/Education-in-the-New-Age.pdf

Save

Save