Technocracy XV: A Post Human World? (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

 “The Purpose of Biotechnology is the End of Death.”

Martine Rothblatt, CEO Therapeutics Corp.


© infrakshun

The above quote sums up the whole drive behind transhumanism – fear of death and the (androgynous) biocentrism as arbiter of consciousness.

It would be churlish in the extreme to say that aspects of new technologies in the realm of medicine do not have enormous potential. Researching cures for diseases and the general enhancement of human life are unquestionably benefits to be welcomed, yet, altruistic advancement is not the perception that dominates in centres of power and influence. The presumption of innocence has been discarded along with any notion of privacy and independence. It is the same persistent beliefs which are being enforced by societies’ self-proclaimed wardens that humanity needs micro-managing because, like an unruly child we will only resort to bad deeds unless we are placed in various forms of shackles – seen and unseen. Monitoring and tagging the population is proceeding in order to banish every trace of uncertainty; to prepare the masses for large-scale social, economic and even environmental upheaval.

To the techno-religious ideology that flows through the currents of a SMART Surveillance Society (SSS) it is transhumanism which is set to be at the forefront of humanity’s technological transformation. A Technocracy is closely embedded in such values despite genuine protestations to the contrary. Those that do reject such a notion are not likely to remain in the vanguard for very long.


© infrakshun

Technology, like any other tool in human hands, can be an extraordinarily powerful and liberating way to actualise our inner realities and manifest our desires. Since this series is about how psychopaths infect creativity and flip it on its head to induce entropy, then we should be monitoring very closely where this particular revolution is heading. From so-called primitive society, to the agricultural, industrial, and now the Eco-Smart-Information Age, there are extraordinary opportunities with their attendant risks. As new “change agents” work to manage and transform the old world into a new technocratic vision for all, the probability of this new transformation evolving into something other than the cherished ideals hold futurists so rapt, is very real indeed.

Awareness of ponerology in this context does not negate SMART society but perhaps considerably modifies its soaring ideals. This doesn’t mean we return to living in mud huts either. It does however demand that we use discernment and discrimination when new paradigms come along offering the kind of ideological Utopias so familiar down through history. This also doesn’t mean that technological change will not offer radical transformation. It just depends exactly what trajectory we are following and whether or not its coordinates have already been mapped in advance.

A revealing talk was given by South Korean Dr. Seang-Tae Kim, President of National Information Society Agency (NIA), South Korea on October 25, 2011 on the emergence of SMART growth. He spoke about the “Mega Trend of Future Society” and its “Paradigm shift” which will lead to SMART technologies redesigning the world. He believes this heralds a more “human-oriented” focus stemming from the rise of an aging population and the awareness of networking and a “knowledge-based economy.” Theories of “High Concept” creativity and empathy he believes, must be integral to SMART emergence to function. “Consumers” will be “Pro-sumers” generating enormous wealth outside of the normal capitalist channels thus stimulating a new innovation philosophy across bi-lateral networks of merging digital and analogue systems. A “Dream Society” characterises the New Revolution and it is brimming with hope and energy.

Seang-Tae Kim believes that a new technological humanism or human-oriented society can turn the highly volatile risks of an aging population, geo-conflict and the threat of Climate Change into a more streamlined and cost effective vision. Indeed, it is inevitable, he opines, due to the global budget deficit that demands change and where traditional government must be transformed into open government by the power of the people. For Seang-Tae Kim and other SMART-transhumanists, he advocates people power which is beyond the Fordism of the factory-line toward a more promising Post-Bureaucratic Age. He believes that local society and feudalism, government power and industrial society must naturally give way to an open-source infrastructure, an “eco-system of new values”, and a “value oriented eco-system.” This will apparently be predicated on a “platform strategy” which naturally encourages group power. (For a fascinating book on open source software and infrastructure see The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and Trust by Robert David Steele).

Exciting as that sounds, can such system bypass the integration, dependency and invasive nature of the SMART Surveillance State (SSS) away from pathogenic control? Does an “open source everything” mixed with the philosophy of transhumanism represent an inevitable push away from State centralisation and bland techno-homogeneity? Or, is this merely an end-game reinvention of Empire at a higher turn of the spiral? If the latter, how can we avoid SSS ideals being vectored into the same old patterns? Denial of the dark side of human progress has persistently got us into collective pickles. Yet, we remain strangely blind to the fact.

Like the transformation of society, the metamorphosis of the human being is an integral part of transhumanism beliefs. Sandwiched between the SMART Grid implementation, post-modernism, cyber-activism and virtual reality, transhumanism, sees the merging of man and machine as just a cosmic nano-second away. Replacing an arthritic hip or elbow joint with the help of embedded nanotech is something desirable to most people. Yet, this is small fry for those who wish to use nano-devices and neuro-prostheses to change us into something other than human – a post human.

In March 2012, media entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov made the ambitious claim that he planned to ‘transplant’ a human mind into a robot body in 10 years. According to the Russian this would herald the next stage of science and a ‘new human body.’ The promise of an atheistic immortality is the driving force behind the project which Itskov claims has more than 30 scientists working on it. Uploading minds without surgery would be the next challenge where bodies are left behind in favour of cybernetic super-humans merging with a bio-genetic, virtual world of limitless potential. The project is modelled after the James Cameron movie Avatar where human soldiers use sophisticated technology to inhabit the bodies of human-alien hybrids as they embark on an invasion of another world. [1]


Smart Society Building design in Taiwan Source: From Danish in a smart society – Dream or Reality?’

This is a fairly accurate description of the dreams of your average transhumanist who believes that the merging of man and machine offer the best of all evolutionary outcomes. While the transhumanism movement has many different permutations of opposing views there are some fundamental themes that remain sacrosanct:

  • The evolution of humanity
  • Biotechnological enhancement that will extend and exceed ordinary human capabilities
  • A focus on longevity, radical life extension and immortality
  • A focus on human happiness that can become a permanent state of mind with the help of technology.

Transhumanists see the rise of the machines as a chance to reach an integration and synthesis of biology, genetics, cybernetics, naotechnology and artificial intelligence. In doing so, they believe we will transcend the limitations of human biology and the fixity of the machine to become a hybrid superman with a vastly more intelligent brain thus leading to a quantum leap in human evolution, otherwise known as the “Singularity.” This is a culmination of human evolution that has reached its sell-by date and must become fused with a SMART world convergence of biotechnology, robotics, and biometrics, inaugurating the next and most decisive step ever in the history of human evolution: The Post-Human Age. The technological component of the singularity posits a robotic “intelligence explosion” based on an exponential curve of “recursive self-improvement.” which will either draw humanity – or those choosing such a fusion – into its slipstream.

Another form of aggregate swarm intelligence; a technocratic version of the Hive Mind rather than true freedom and individuality?

Transhumanists tell us we can alter the nature and meaning of strictly organic evolution. The combination of new cognitive tools interfacing with artificial intelligence, molecular biology and the modification of emotional and mental states means the list of potential “enhancements” is never-ending. Although there is a chic, techno-spirituality, even an obvious alchemical metaphor within transhumanist discourse, the movement has historically remained an atheist/materialist ideology as the name implies. The belief has more potent implications for its direction than the mechanics of the movement itself as we shall see.

Moving back to our old Fabian and Social Darwinist Mr. Julian Huxley, it was he who coined the term ‘transhumanism’ in 1957, fitting technocracy neatly into his well-watered vision of evolutionary humanism, the genetic legacy of which he can thank his grandfather, Darwinist Thomas Henry Huxley. Transcendence, in strictly materialist terms was the goal. Transhumanism provided the imagination, hope and intellectual rigour to seed a new ideology and its conceptual framework. The systems theory of cybernetics would play a large part in its development and the parallel evolution of ecology and new physics which would be taken up with a passion, decades later.

Acting as a bridge to New Age philosophies that would surface in the late 1960s-1970s, a fusion of ecology, transhumanism and the Human Potential Movement can now be seen. (The influential Barbara Marx-Hubbard is one such Elite-lauded advocate of “bad seed” transhumanism). Two of Huxley’s close friends John Burdon, Sanderson Haldane and John Desmond Bernal who were major shapers of transhumanist thought also happened to be members of the communist party. Whereas Huxley was passionate about eugenics and saw it as integral to the development of transhumanism as a whole, Haldane was a population geneticist. Whilst not comfortable with what he saw as the “poor science” of eugenic theory, he nevertheless permitted its inclusion in the transhumanist vision. J.D. Bernal’s expertise lay in crystallography and molecular biology and shared his friend’s desire to see a new social order based around a gradual engineering of the social organism.

Another dear friend of Huxley’s was our equally dedicated Fabian guru of the 1920s and 30s: H.G. Wells. The writer’s extraordinary books did not just offer a way to funnel his eerily accurate predictions into popular literature but also served as microcosms of technocratic ideals. Wells saw Technocracy as the ideal way to manage the masses and he was wholly dedicated to the principle of neo-Feudalism as the way to control the destiny of nations.

NPG x12102; Sir Julian Sorell Huxley by Wolfgang SuschitzkySir Julian Huxley and Barbara Marx-Hubbard

By the 1960s other names were caught up in promoting the philosophy in popular culture and academia such as Ray Kurzweil, Frank P. Tipler, Eric K. Drexler, Hans Moravec and Marvin Minsky, all of whom contributed richer and more diverse versions of transhumanism and the Singularity. According to some, the human species has the potential to flower but not before artificial intelligence (AI) has competed for supremacy with humanity. Once this has been thrashed out in true Terminator-trilogy-fashion then humanity can get on with being the cyber-sapiens or Marx-Hubbard’s New Age version of “Homo-Universalis” and presumably upload themselves into any sector they choose.

Transhumanism reached a watershed in 1998 with the founding of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) by philosophers Nick Bostrom and David Pearce, closely followed by their “Transhumanism Declaration.” This helped to bring prominence to other organisations and groups such as Extropy Institute and the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. As the internet took off so did the transhumanist philosophy. Cyberspace was, after all, the natural medium for the propagation of the movement’s ideas.

Ray Kurzweil is perhaps the most well-known author, inventor and futurist introducing an almost evangelist fervour to his eschatological version of transhumanism. Kurzweil published The Age of Spiritual Machines, (1998) about the future of AI and biotechnology; Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever (2004) co-authored with medical doctor Terry Grossman and explored human health and nutrition; The Singularity is Near (2005) Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (2009) and his latest How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed was published in 2012. All of the concepts contained in these books features in a recent documentary film Transcendent Man (2013)  exploring the life of Kurzweil.

What is more interesting however, February 2009 saw Kurzweil collaborate with Google and the NASA Ames Research Centre, to announce the creation of the Singularity University Training Centre for corporate executives and government officials. The mission of the university is to “assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies and apply, focus and guide these tools to address humanity’s grand challenges”. [2] Ray Kurzweil does for transhumanism what Maurice Strong did for UN Agenda 21 since he appears to be on the advisory board of almost anything remotely AI or transhumanist-related. Which is why he is also on the board of Martine Rothblatt’s Therapeutics Corp.)


Raymond Kurzweil at the Singularity Summit at Stanford in 2006 (wikipedia)

Moscow was the venue for the Global Future International Congress “A New Era for humanity” which took place in February of 2012 and in June 2013. Organised by the Global Future 2045 (GF2045) a non-profit organization that has: “… the goal of creating a network community with the world’s leading scientists in the field of life extension and to support them as an investment hub, contributing to various projects.” [3]

Hosted by Kurzweil, it offered an uncompromising vision of a future for post-humanity where bio /nanotechnology, AI, cognitive applications, and cybernetics would allow the mass replacement of our drearily inadequate selves. The distinguished panel of speakers and guests were writers, anthropologists, astrophysicists, NASA scientists, historians, sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and many others from specialist fields of technology. The message was yet another indication that the “accelerated” nature of technology and the “race to save the world” hadn’t lessened in its intensity, nor had the belief in technology as saviour.

On the website an introductory 7 minute video with a soaring orchestral score has a narrative which imparts the following nuggets to look forward to:

  • 2012: the emergence of new transhumanist movements & parties amid the on-going socio-economic crisis
  • 2012-2013: new centres for cybernetic technologies to radically extend life
  • 2014: The “race for immortality” starts
  • 2015: “Find ways to transfer our personality to an artificial carrier – the robotic human copy or “Avatar.”
  • 2015-2020: Robots to replace human manufacturing & labour, servant tasks; thought controlled robots to displace travel needs; flying cars, thought-driven communications implanted in bodies or “sprayed on skin.” timecover
  • 2025: The creation of an autonomous system providing life support for the brain that is capable of ‘interacting with the environment’; brains transplanted into avatar bodies greatly expanding life and allowing complete sensory experiences.
  • 2030-2035: Reverse-engineering of the human brain already being mapped out, wherein science comes “… close to understanding the principles of consciousness.”
  • By 2035: First successful transplantation of personality to other data receptacles and the “epoch of cybernetic immortality begins.”
  • 2040-2050: Bodies “… made of nano-robots” taking any shape, alongside holographic bodies.
  • 2045-2050: Drastic changes to the social structure and sci-tech development. Tipping the hat to the UN, conflict and violence is “not permitted.” Instead, the priority is given to “spiritual self-improvement.” “A New Era of neo-Humanity Dawns”…

According to the website: the Russian GF2045 group met to draft a: “resolution that will be submitted to the United Nations demanding the implementation of committees to discuss life extension Avatar projects as a necessary tool in the preservation of humankind.”


Martine Rothblatt in 2010. (wiki)

An attendee of the follow up conference in 2013 was aforementioned Martine Rothblatt founder and CEO (and fittingly transgender) of biotech company United Therapeutics Corp. Rothblatt has introduced the concept of “mind clones” where the human mind is created from a “mind-file” of our social networking data and other personality sources. S/he believes the capability to do so will be made possible in under twenty years time. She even used the personality of her dead wife to create a droid template example of what transhumanists would love to see as commonplace.  Cartesian dualism and atheist paradise? Or merely the next stage in our evolution?

Rothblatt sees “… the market opportunities as limitless” where everyone will be seeking to make a digital copy of their thoughts of their memories, thoughts and feelings to be made manifest in a droid of their making. Grabbing a slice of the artificial action, Rothblatt believes is inevitable: “We all want an i-phone, we all want a social media account and we are all going to want a mind clone.” [4]

Speak for yourself Martine.

And what would you know? Amazon and Google are extremely keen on this type of artificial intelligence.

(The concept of transgenderism and androgyny has an occult-esoteric element within transhumanist discourse, something  which Rothblatt appears to personify and something that will be explored further in the Occult Transhumanism).

To reiterate, it could be said that these imaginative interpretations of one possible future without awareness of the ponerological basis of psychopathy “demanding” anything (and worse still, receiving it) would be a recipe not for human freedom but more ways to welcome its opposite. An alternative future that is drawn from exactly the same technocratic tenets will be a decidedly Dystopian one and no less probable should we allow ourselves to be guided down these grandiose beliefs. That’s not to say we have not been affected positively by technology since the Industrial Revolution. Improvements in health and sanitation; air travel; photography; computers, medical advances and information technology have positively reshaped the world. Once again, it is the perception of reality that will define how these technological innovations are used and whether a healthy techno-culture can exist.


“The biocomplexity spiral is a depiction of the multileveled complexity of organisms in their environments, which is seen by many critics as the ultimate obstacle to transhumanist ambition.” (wikipedia)

The other problem with transhumanism is the adherence to a belief that evolution is dependent on machines to take us to the next level. Nature is inherently unpredictable and disruptive since that is the whole reason how non-linear evolution occurs – far from equilibrium. It is therefore outside human-implanted notions of intelligent design. Aside from obvious hubris, attempts to replicate, emulate nature may be partially possible, but to try and go beyond bio-complexity itself is to re-enact an unnecessary mythology which is Promethean/Luciferian in its ambition. 

There are many advocates who advise caution in the development of technology. Kurzweil, to be fair, does his fair share of warning the faithful of its potential slip into Darth Vader territory. Nonetheless, once the momentum gains more traction it is unlikely that any safeguards will be present, let alone feature as a primary component to secure an ethical and moral foundation. Indeed, as this series of posts has hopefully indicated, there are signs it is being absorbed into exactly the same mainframe of Official Culture and its overseeing Establishment.

At present, such an ideology is highly attractive to a variety of intelligent people, many of whom are sincere in their beliefs to improve societies. One advocate defined transhumanism in simplest terms as: “… the idea that human kind can use science and technology to become more than what we are and help those interested in doing the same and in protecting the freedom for all to decide for themselves how to be happy, in other words ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’.”  Surely, is this not something we ALL want? Unfortunately, the reality of transhumanism routinely goes way beyond such simple definitions, and their lies the problem since it plays into – and is promoted by – the more pathological elements of the movement.

Moreover, it is precisely this pathology to which transhumanism in particular lends itself, namely: clusters of psychopaths and social dominators straddling all social domains for whom this ideology undoubtedly appeals to the workings of their “machine minds”. Naturally, this won’t be acknowledged by its adherents since the dependence on our chosen belief tends to prohibit negative associations. Consequently, wealthy techno-psychopaths bring with them a great deal of charisma, PR and investment disbursed through the various connected branches that make up the movement: from Hollywood, media, social science and the military-corporate complex.

As rapid advances in AI, quantum computing, neurology and robotics continue then it is simple logic that the time will approach when a digital map of the human brain will be placed into machines and eventually surpassed just as Rothblatt has indicated. It is then that a potential separation will occur between two types of human beings, perhaps labelled the “organics” and the “post-humans” and in much the same way as normal people are unconsciously separated from a variety of psychopaths and sub-categories of the same.

If we are already embedded in the SMART infrastructure how likely is it that we will have a choice which breakaway civilisation to follow? Or, will “group consciousness”, communitarian “consensus” and SMART “efficiency” simply decide for you?



[1] ‘Who wants to live forever? Russian project aims to transplant a human brain into a ‘Davros’-style robot body within 10 years’ By Rob Waugh Daily Mail, March 2 2012.
[2] ‘The Singularity Is Near: Mind Uploading by 2045?’by Tanya Lewis, June 17, 2013. | ‘Future of Artificial Intelligence in Mind Clones’,
[3] FAQ | “Singularity University.” September 9, 2008.

Technocracy I

By M.K. Styllinski

“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs.”

– Neil Postman

Under the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) heavily funded by the Rockefeller Foundation we see the centralisation of food under agribusiness merging with SMART society. Technology is the key to delivering a world of plenty according to these scientists and financial backers. On the website we read: “The Rockefeller Foundation envisions a world with SMART Globalisation – a world in which globalisation’s benefits are more widely shared and social, economic, health, and environmental challenges are more easily weathered.” Recall too, our exploration into the scare-tactics of global warming, the implementation of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (SD) all of which is hijacking genuine concern for our planet in order to use it to advance a New World Control System, by stealth. On the one hand, we have overt geo-political deception forcing chaos into being upon which a Hegelian solution for that post-war (post-catastrophe?) world can be laid. On the other hand, the requisite, centralised “New International Order” is delivered as a “benign” ecological, socio-cultural and economic template incorporating urban, energy efficient and sustainable “human habitat” zones requiring a high-level population density.

2012-07-21 18.22.48© infrakshun

After great disasters, there are always great opportunities to create new institutions and infrastructure predicated on elite ideologies.  World War I and II were prime examples, and indeed partly initiated for this very purpose. Humanity’s spirit must be broken in order that such phases of a New Order are welcomed, albeit with inclusive-sounding labels for peace and prosperity. The aftermath of intense Earth changes and asymmetric warfare will provide the same opportunities for another phase in the Pathocratic encroachment over normal human beings. And what might we expect?

Think of it this way:

If the Pathocrats have their way, we will be carefully managed into SMART operated high-rises with uniform amenities and leisure parks, where metered energy consumption, automation and a digitisation will be encased in an overarching surveillance – for your own “protection.” Only the new technocratic gentry will inhabit lands deep in the countryside. For the rest of us it will be off limits, our movements strictly monitored. In accordance with New World Religion protocols and the New World Civil Servant Resolutions Nature will be protected as “sacred” and barred from the mass of humanity. These Mega-cities will provide for our every need … Provided that is, conformity and compliance remains paramount for the New Collective and the maintenance of a group consciousness duly cultivated, as envisoned by Zone Council Resolutions. This will ensure the efficiency of our SMART society, the most important precept in the New Age. Break consensus and community cracks. Serve the individual and promote the Self, SMART grid dysfunction and the potential for overall system failure is inevitable and thus a return to fragmentation and dissociation of the past. This cannot be permitted – for the good of the whole. Resistance is like an infection, before you know it, the whole grid would be infected.  As such, we must be treated like the historical virus that we are and protected from ourselves by the guiding hand of the priesthood. Otherwise, the potential despoiling of Mother Earth will occur. Accordingly, a vast number of protective measures have been put in place to maintain efficiency and inner happiness. We will want for nothing. To maintain optimum levels of sensate satisfaction, human habitats will have their own integrated “Malware” and “anti-virus” enforcement systems in place as envisioned and voted for by Neighbourhood, Zone Councils and Regional Elects – for the good of all. Community is all, group consciousness is all … Love live the New SMART Consensus.

You can probably continue the narrative with all kinds of creative allusions inspired by various books and Hollywood flicks. This is the real inverted totalitarianism that both Orwell and Huxley warned about and countless myths and oral traditions.

So, are the checks and balances in place to prevent such a future? Or is it just a silly Dystopian fantasy?

When SD and SMART systems are set against the strangle-hold that our power brokers still maintain currently manifesting as ubiquitous surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties, then questioning the direction this form of technology is taking  becomes an absolute imperative. For once we have passed a certain point in technological know-how, artificial intelligence will offer us no way to turn back without wholesale destruction.

Society is rapidly changing thorough technological innovation advancing in ways that challenge the imagination. The horizon is limitless as to how technology will be used. The important question to ask is: do we have any say in how technological knowledge is being applied in the present and thus how it will shape our future? As with most things in life, there are always positives and negatives to any new innovation on a mass scale,  but it remains to be seen which one will gain ascendance. As always, this is dependent on who holds the overall power of technology and its uses. So far, we have an appalling track record. As it stands, the advantages are set to provide unquestionable benefits in the medical field communications sectors. But what are the dangers of an over reliance on digital technology applied to all other sectors of society? Will it augment the path to true freedom or be its demise? Already there are serious questions being asked on a number of issues from health to civil liberties, artificial intelligence to cyber warfare, all of which we will explore.


As this silicon revolution continues to submerge us in an ocean of Wi-Fi waves there are signs that our intense reliance on SMART networks may not be the most expedient way to take humanity forward. Nonetheless, selling the idea of convenience and efficiency is proving extremely seductive. It also offers untold benefits to intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency (NSA) to complete its mission to own information and predict behaviour of every individual in America and the globe.

The acronym “SMART” is the new mnemonic buzzword which is being used to describe a network of gadgets, utilities, services, weapons, energy systems and new forms of governance bound together in a sea of digital and Wi-Fi-based technology. Each letter in the acronym stands for a particular objective which can be loosely interpreted. They are typically defined as follows:

S = Specific / Significant

M = Measurable / Motivational

A = Attainable / Assignable

R = Relevant / Realistic

T = Time-bound / Time-Related

The technology promises a broad range of practical and philosophical ideas which are already re-shaping the very concept of communication, travel, agriculture, medicine and city infrastructure. SMART uses computerised systems which incorporate digital metering to monitor and control energy from power plants to appliances within the home.  Another acronym used to describe this technological structure of Web-connected appliances and in-home devices is the “Internet of things” (IOT). Although domestic appliances such as fridges, freezers, lighting and televisions fall under the IOT, it is the energy companies and infrastructure –  including transportation, health, oil, gas and alternative energy systems – which are being incorporated into a vast SMART grid awash with Wi-Fi technology that will connect to the internet and allow devices to “speak to each other.”

Many corporations such as AT&T, General Electric, are changing their present system of distribution, storage, administration and the very core of their manufacturing towards the IOT and SMART philosophy. For software companies such as Cisco, IBM, Siemens, Microsoft and Intel, this is a lucrative time. As a September 2013 article by online magazine Standard Digital entitled: ‘Tomorrow’s smart cities’ explained: “In Singapore, Stockholm and California, IBM is gathering traffic data and running it via algorithms to predict where a traffic jam will occur an hour before it has happened. Meanwhile in Rio (Brazil), it has built a NASA-style control room where banks of screens suck up data from sensors and cameras located around the city.” IBM has 2,500 smarter cities projects worldwide and is confident in financial future of redesigning cities. To that end it has trademarked the term “smarter cities”.

The article also quotes Anthony Townsend, director of the Institute of the Future and author of Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. Townsend puts his finger on the pulse when he states: “Some people want to fine tune a city like you do a race car but they are leaving citizens out of the process…” And in relation to a China’s massive new city building projects and huge central control rooms, one of which is already operational in Rio, Brazil: “The control room in Rio was created by a progressive mayor but what if the bad guys get in? Are we creating capabilities that can be misused?” Constant attempts to try and get the UK public to adopt a bio-metric, National ID card have failed, though a foreign ID card for immigrants was unveiled in 2008 as a possible “softening up” exercise for a re-introduction of the scheme. This seems to be one branch in the creation of database state in the UK and abroad. When all the databases are indexed by what is known in the UK as the National Identity Register (NIR) it is then that our lives will be defined by our NIR number and a host of invasive surveillance which may come into play.

The UK organization NO2ID which campaigns against the Database State sees “Transformational Government” as not just a threat to our civil liberties but a whole way of life. Indeed they state: “… what is being transformed is not government but its power over you.” The reason for this increasing disquiet over State interference in the lives of British people is drawn from broad range of measures integral to the emerging SMART society.

NO2ID outlines just some of the UK government’s plans currently evolving:

  • ID interrogation centres, for passports and ID cards
  • ePassports that help collect data about your travel
  • International eBorders schemes that exchange Passenger Name Record information with foreign countries as well as collecting them
  • Recording of all car journeys, using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
  • ‘Entitlement cards’ as part of, or linked to the ID scheme, logging use of public services
  • Centralised medical records without privacy
  • Biometrics in schools — fingerprinting children as young as 4 or 5
  • ‘ContactPoint’, a database collecting sensitive information on every child
  • Fingerprinting in pubs and bars — landlords forced to monitor their patrons
  • A greatly expanded National DNA Database (NDNAD)
  • New police powers to check identity
  • Increasing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for employees and volunteers
  • Businesses under pressure to verify ID of staff and customers with the government  [1]

Neil Postman’s reference to a “Technopoly” as a state of culture is another consolidation of Official Culture. It is a description of an emerging Pathocracy with emphasis on the scientific technique underpinning the dominance of technology and its applications. When combining the  Surveillance State, and SMART society we fuse Technopoly and Pathocracy to form: Technocracy. a system of society according to which government is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. It is a scientific dictatorship as discussed in ‘World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique’ and to which UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is integrated.


Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert founded the Technocracy movement in 1932 during the Great Depression and produced what is seen by many as the Bible of the movement: The Technocracy Study Course. Rather than the “price system” the design was based on the metrics of energy and considered apolitical. It was primarily a technological panacea for global economic problems based on energy production and distribution together with precise monitoring and measuring as the pillars of its potential success.

It was a techno-Marxist plan which included nationalising public utilities abandoning the gold standard (which the financial oligarchs loved) and suspending the stock exchange. Why would you need one when the new currency was mainframe of automation and “digital” currency?

The Technocracy Study Course reads like a strange amalgamation of bureaucratic fundamentalism grafted on to a engineer/mathematician/accountant’s world view of humans as binary energy units. (Perfect for the Lucis Trust’s New World [Civil] Servants). They outline their meter reading diagnosis for society in typically precise fashion:

  • “Register on a continuous 24 hour per day basis the total net conversion of energy.
  • “By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
  • “Provide a continuous inven­tory of all production and consumption
  • “Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used.
  • “Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” [2]

Many younger online users attracted to hacktivism, spirituality and social networking have been taken in by the recent manifestation of technocracy in the very slickly produced and marketed Zeitgeist films and the affiliated Venus Project founded by Jasque Fresco. The first film included some excellent truths regarding the nature of the economic world in which we live, as well as an incisive deconstruction of government influence and false flag operations. But the second film entitled: “Addendum” revealed that it had some fatal flaws. Zeitgeist was designed to grab our attention and prime the not so discerning members of the public to accept another version of Elite control this time through systemic technology as saviour, where computers make key decisions. It is the same techno-Marxism that assumes everyone will be thoroughly happy with such a Brave New World of regimented, rule-based precision; where individuals become numbers integrated into a game theory mainframe of “efficiency.”



Naturally, no mention is made of authoritarians and social dominators pre-disposed to the distortion and co-option of well-intentioned technocrats. To say that such a scenario is unrealistic and naïve seems obvious, not least the undesirability of such a sterile future. It is the same old approach to people management with the blessing of the Rockefeller class, all of whom have been extremely active in the “information dominance” brand of social engineering. When you know the awareness is changing the mass mind then you offer the World State scenario under a different guise and adapt good intentions accordingly.

The Zeitgeist Mission Statement gives us all we need to know:

“This ‘Resource-Based Economic Model’ is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a monetary or even political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.”

The term “Technocracy” in Zeitgeist terms, is really another way of referring to the “scientific technique” dipped in coating of trans-humanist fervour. Think eco-aware, engineering geek meets bank manager, meets human resource chief. Throw in a goatee and there you have it. It’s the same story different wardrobe.

In America, appealing to the new generations born in the digital world is a vital part of the social engineering project reaching its apotheosis of the Rockefeller Foundation. The GMO/agriculture research arm of IRRI calls it: “SMART Globalisation”, a corporatist-collectivist vision that sounds wonderfully benign on the face of it. It is the latest meme designed to channel human activity into local, national and global SMART systems from which our finances, health and autonomy would be under complete and automatic control. In other words, a Global SMART Grid. It is here that we see technocracy and neo-feudalism come together in virtual “harmony,” developed with the best of intentions at the lower end of awareness but guided by the worst from the top. The current crisis in the capitalist economic order is all part of the phase to replace the old world with this new vision. Let’s just recall that David Rockefeller has been a long-time admirer of communist China and the hybrid vision of the capitalist-collectivist philosophy.


David Rockefeller and Mao’s deputy Zhou Enlai 1973.| The Rockefellers have been hard at work engineering this World State based on the Chinese model for many decades. For more information see Rockefeller Internationalism by William Banyan

Author Naomi Klein alerted us to the fact that Chinese authorities have taken SMART society to their hearts and created a “model city” of the future re-affirming the Rockefeller and Elite vision for the world. It only took 30 years, for Shenzen to be transformed from a barren wasteland to a SMART city of 21.4 million occupants who are living the “dream” and where 200,000 cameras currently monitor and survey the populace with over 2 million more planned. What this SMART Society provides is a police State testing ground comprising of “central planning, merciless repression and constant surveillance.” Fortune 500 technology companies are watching very closely indeed. So closely, in fact, that high-tech surveillance and censorship programs were provided by IBM, Honeywell, and GE people under the generic name of “Golden Shield,” and used as a test run for what will is envisaged for the US population (once it has been thoroughly broken by social and economic chaos that is…) [3]

Recall former US National Security State advisor under Carter and Obama head hunter Zbigniew Brzezinski and his 1968 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. It was a call to re-envision the technetronic era after a few abortive attempts during the 1930s depression. It was to be the inspiration and backbone to the formation of the Trilateral Commission and its support of the Tiger economies of Asia. It was no coincidence that the book was extraordinarily prescient. Brzezinski, like so many geo-political establishment intellectuals often broadcasts Elite visions under a predictive and softly critical narrative. The intent is to broadcast formulas to the faithful and engage a populist understanding of the principles and their future objectives. And by “populist” we mean not just the public but those who may be termed the worker bees in the hive mind of the global Establishment.  Between Two Ages served to ignite the fuse of a Technocracy, the seeds of which were planted in another era of economic depression and ready to download directly into our minds. Brzezinski writes: “In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” [4]

between two agesWe are already immersed in the “ether” of radio, micro and now Wi-Fi waves * indicating that not only is this foundation for a Technocracy present, it is accelerating exponentially. For this growth to continue unabated, Brzezinski posits another future scenario that has come to pass, involving: “… the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values (of Liberty). Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” [5]

He warns us with apparent gravitas:

“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.” [6]

There are two ways in which this Technocracy is being implemented both of which naturally intersect:

1) Economics and energy

2) Surveillance and state controls.

In the first instance, the energy issue is being promoted and reorganized via the digital automation of SMART technologies. The US Department of Energy defines these technologies as: “… an electrical grid that uses computers and other technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviours of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.” [7]A similar grid is underway in Europe under “SMART Grids European Technology Platform.” [8]

America’s old and out-dated power grid is ready for an overhaul and the SMART Grid technology will mean the installation of digital meters in each home and business and 24hr monitoring of energy consumption that goes with it. What SMART means in this context is that there can be communication with other related devices within the home to relay support data information without any contact with the customer. Rather like Homeland Security and its agencies, The SMART Grid Task Force “… is responsible for coordinating standards development, guiding research and development projects, and reconciling the agendas of a wide range of stakeholders.” [9]

SMART Grid technology is big money and represents a revolution, particularly in telecommunications and energy. In 2010, the countries investing the most in SMART grid systems were China at $7.32 billion, closely followed by the United States $7.09 billion, Japan at $807 million with Spain, South Korea, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and Brazil all spending millions on transforming their societies’ infrastructure. [10]

Like so much of the post-911, military-corporate infrastructure outsourced both home and abroad, the Department of Energy’s mandate to push ahead with this overhaul did not get Congressional hearing. From October 2009 – January 2010 SMART grid project funding ear-marked for 183 projects in 43 states totalled $3.4 billion thanks to the Obama Administration picking up where the Bush Administration left off with the creation of The Office of Electricity Delivery in 2003. The Department of Energy’s press release gives details of what this will mean for the average electricity consumer:

  • More than 850 sensors called “Phasor Measurement Units” to monitor the overall power grid nationwide
  • 200,000 SMART transformers
  • 700 auto­mated sub­stations (about 5 per cent of the nation’s total)
  • 1,000,000 in-home displays
  • 345,000 load control devices in homes [11]

smartgridvillageThe SmartHouse/SmartGrid Vision c/o The 7th Framework Programme funded European Research and Technological Development from 2007 until 2013 Link:

Systems theory and cybernetics had always been attractive to technocrats as a web of relationships that facilitate economic and social control. “The Web of Life” concept of interdependence and interrelatedness of all things within ecological systems was taken on by a number of ecologists and New Age seers. The concept of equilibrium and balance was in fact, determined by vastly unpredictable and creative confluence of non-linear principles, which is why attempts to bottle such non-linear systems into a means of socio-economic control can never work. However, this is where the World Wide Web (WWW) and the Network of Things (NOT) comes in. It is essential to the mind-set who see people as numbers and assigned values to be moved around on a computer screen like a game of SIMS.


Ready to become part of a virtuality and SIMS-SMART?

With NOT, technocrats wish to bathe us in a sea of Wi-Fi waves, with cities and homes awash with wireless networks where automation rules. From your dimmer switch to powering your juicer; the garage door to the security code on the residential gates. No human intervention is necessary. With strict guidelines as to what they will be programming, the new armies of programmers will be told to download exactly what they want you to see and hear, changing it as they see fit and without your knowledge. If you refuse and wish to take it to an ombudsman or even a civil action, how are you going to watch your T.V. or eat your food if your utilities are switched off? Look at the nature of banking. When did you last see your bank manager or get a problem resolved whilst speaking to some low-wage slave in India you cannot understand? Distance is designed.

The SMART Grid is married to the Wi-Fi Alliance which is readying itself to implement Wi-Fi circuitry in every conceivable device in the home and business sector. It will operate in exactly the same way as Wi-Fi-enabled network modems and routers for personal computers to mobile phones currently being used by homes and businesses globally. Telecommunications electricity, and renewable energy resources will be functionally integrated into a system automatic provision, payment and monitoring. Gmail, i-Pod applications, your fridge and T.V. and the Wi-Fi “ether” that will activate them are ready to be absorbed into the SMART Grid where literally everything communicates with each other in a fully-automated, seamlessly connected world of man and machine.

And now, it means you can literally become part of the very fabric of SMART willingly and forever with electronic senors printed directly onto your skin… Oh, the convenience! Mike Orcutt of MIT’s Technology Review comments: “Such systems could be used to track health and monitor healing …” Sure. And if you fall on the wrong side of your friendly SMART government tracking and monitoring takes on a whole different meaning. But having your i-pad on your wrist as opposed to freedom of movement is clearly more important… More on this later. [12]

printable.skin_.electronics.2x299Now, you too can become SMART!

Another aspect of the Wi-Fi revolution that is not being talked about is the health effects of living our daily immersed in this type of constant radiation. There is a glut scientific, peer-reviewed papers out there which are unsurprisingly, barely receiving a whiff of recognition that they sorely deserve. Adverse biological effects from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz) have been complied by the UK campaign group Wi-Fi in Schools (You can visit them at and print out as many as you like). The many examples of extensive research undertaken by University and independent scientific research institutes provides disturbing evidence across a broad range of experiments carried out on mice, rats and tadpoles.

Some of the findings included:

  • Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices.
  • Decreases in human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation from the use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi.
  • Oxidative injury in rat testis and on oxidative stress in blood induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices.WI-FI_ZONE_01
  • A provocation study using heart rate variability shows Negative effects on autonomic nervous system from microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone.
  • Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG
  • 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells.
  • Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice
  • Cognitive impairment in rats was shown after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation.
  • Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range
  • Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. [Source:]

Bearing in mind that 16v/m is the average level of exposure for these experiments and that when using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer we can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. This is only the beginning of research into these areas but the evidence for serious problems on the subtle layers of our biological and neurological make-up is already overwhelming. If we don’t put the brakes on for the health issues alone, then we will be looking at generations with behavioural difficulties, infertility, impaired cognitive ability and an epidemic of endemic brain tumours.

As smartphones begin to rain down from the technocratic ether, the most convincing evidence that mobile phones are causing brains tumours in the young has arrived from Dr. Boian Alexandrov from the Centre for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His team have shown that terahertz (THz) waves gradually destroy human DNA which is fairly terminal for the human race. Since chips broadcasting THz waves are being considered for use in mobile phones as imaging systems tool across this SMART society and THZ scanner technology is already being used by the TSA at most of our airports, the question as to whether there are any health issues concerning terahertz technologies seems unimportant as the great wave of innovation roars ahead.

The medical establishment is encouraging the use for operations in which scanning will prove highly useful for otherwise invasive procedures while “exciting” innovations in consumer freedom will allow us all to see through objects and walls to find our lost car keys should we choose to buy into the gadget craze. Dr. Alexandrov and his team’s ground-breaking study (among others)  is lurking in the background as a minor impediment to the euphoria of “progress.” His team discovered that exposure to THz radiation builds cumulatively and affects human and animal tissue DNA, effectively “unzipping” the DNA molecule. In their paper ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field,’ Alexandrov et al conclude:

“We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.” [13]

So, if we continue to breathe in the SMART hype, we’ll soon see where the real growth lies.


* “Wi-Fi is a popular technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly (using radio waves) over a computer network, including high-speed Internet connections.


[2] p.232; The Technocracy Study Source, by Howard Scott and M.King Hubbard, published by Technocracy Inc. 1940 edition.
[3] ‘China’s All-Seeing Eye’ By Naomi Klein, Rolling Stone, May 14, 2008.
[4] Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski 1970 / ISBN-10 0313234981 (p.11)
[5] Ibid.(p.97)
[6] Ibid. (p252-253).
[7] U.S. Department of Energy. ‘Smart Grid / Department of Energy’
[8]”. 2011.
[9] Smart grid: an introduction US State Department.
[11] ‘Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy?’ By Patrick Wood, August Review 03 March 2010.
[12] ‘Electronic Sensors Printed Directly on the Skin’ MIT Tech, Mike Orcutt, March 11, 2013.
[13] ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field’ by B. S. Alexandrov, V. Gelev, A. R. Bishop, A. Usheva, K. O. Rasmussen. (Submitted on 28 Oct 2009) Biological Physics (; Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph) Journal reference: Physics Letters A, Volume 374, Issue 10, 2010. Abstract: We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.

Dark Green X: UN Agenda 21 and SMART Growth

economist_566Promotional advertising for Smart Housing Conferences

Eco-fascism has blended with the usual collectivist and corporatist ethos to produce UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (SD). Such an exercise in mass manipulation under cover of altruistic and benevolent enterprise is nothing new. The population at large cannot be trusted and must be managed; individual rights must be laid waste for a New Communitarianism as determined by the pathocratic Establishment rather than grassroots, normal people – a blatant hijacking of a pragmatic philosophy. By taking advantage of the “humans as virus” meme and laying on the guilt, fear and culpability of both the affluent and the poor alike, the  burgeoning sub-class and the pounding of the middle class will be standardised. The selling point is a wholesale redistribution of wealth so that ostensibly, poorer people will have more capital thus economic disparity will be alleviated. This is not about uncovering a socialist plot or adhering to a tribal belief of right-wing values. This is about the subversion of the best qualities within the left and right belief system and using such beliefs and principles to bolster globalism and the imposition of the World State.

Pushing the idea of social justice is a large part of Agenda 21 and is understandably appealing to those sincerely wishing to help their neighbourhood and global initiatives. It is however, a ruse. Conservation and ecological awareness is crucial but not at the cost of our civil liberties and the erosion of our basic humanity.

This is very important to understand, which is why I stress it over and over: if you are overly-identified with a belief and thus a tribe, then your perceptions will already be skewed and resistant to seeing the signs of emotional manipulation. This is an omni-directional deception which uses ANY belief to oil the wheels of its progress. Get out of the mind-set that left, right or centrist views have the answer. Psychopaths are predatory opportunists and are happily free from such belief constraints and they use that mental freedom mercilessly.

Governments are taking control of all land use in order to exclude private property owners from having any say in the future. If you want to be off-grid or truly independent, the coming SMART infrastructure will make it purposely difficult – if not impossible – to opt out. Independence and freedom of mind is a threat to the emerging eco-technocratic World State. Remember Food as a Weapon? Well, this naturally extends to land use and urban redevelopment. Gradualism is the only suitable method to affect change of this kind since they know that most people wouldn’t wash it otherwise. However, things are  being stepped up.


© infrakshun

People will be herded into concentrated zones of urban “human habitation” (in UN-speak) while rural communities who choose to live outside such a system will be progressively isolated and cut off from earning a living. Self sufficiency of the kind that will offer complete independence from the SD-SMART grid will be prohibited, simply due to the state of infrastructure technology. Don’t have an i-phone to swipe your bar-code and obtain food?  Don’t have your palm-chip? Then how can we check your health/licence/carbon credit quota and therefore allow you to buy your food/gas?

The 1960s and early 1970s saw a huge expansion of global awareness which was comprehensively co-opted by psychopathic leaders and their intelligence apparatus. The flowering of human consciousness which led to human potential movements were co-opted quite early on. When you are able to plan and preempt such cycles of creative expansion you then set about ways of “de-fanging” it, so that the threat of human emancipation does not threaten the minority psychopath’s hold on power at the top. (See David McGowan’s book on Laurel Canyon for but one description of this process and re-read ‘The Light Bringer’).

The Club of Rome, Limits to Growth and a clustered emergence of green organisations (most of whom were genuine with great successes early on) were later taken over and subtly and slowly moved away from their founding principles. UN policies on ecological imperatives also mostly date back to the early 1970s. it was not until the Rio de Janerio Earth Summit in 1992 that green consciousness started to take hold in our minds.

In order to make sure this trajectory was maintained and to take advantage of the environmental inspiration to save the planet, Agenda 21’s power was codified by the American Planning Association and their legislative document: Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. (It was not codified in the same way as European legislation which is binding by law, but through a process of complete camouflage and obfuscation). Finally completed in 2002, taking almost ten years to produce the final version, this blueprint for radical change is jam-packed full of ordinances, regulations and statutes that would have made Napoleon balk. What is more, all these rules are to be incorporated into the general town and city planning of every city in America. Consequently, every federal department that governs land use has this particular “bible” somewhere in the office and whose “requirements” are being  implemented, whether at the local or state level. Similarly, the education system has the same simplified version of Growing Smart on its curricula taking up a big part in outcome based education and Common Core, hence the now familiar buzzword of “SMART growth” on everyone’s lips.

Typical SMART style designing of public buildings in US.

The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was created in Germany solely in order to implement Agenda 21. It takes its role very seriously by ensuring that this “guidebook” becomes doctrine alongside Agenda 21, with the cost paid by the US tax payer. With over 1000 cities and counties claiming membership, it seems this is having an effect but not for the beneficial reasons many green advocates would imagine. Its purpose is to dilute and invalidate boundaries and national restrictions so that global governance can enter unimpeded. This is where SMART societies and Agenda 21 come together in all their chilling exactitude.

The planning revolution across the United States in the 1990s and 2000s saw a glut of apartments sprouting up miraculously in the middle of towns and cities. Thanks to the Growing Smart blueprint, vast tracts of cities and great chunks of towns were re-zoned to ‘mixed use’ in order to conform to the new regulations. In combination with government funding, the Redevelopment Agency in partnership with private businesses/corporations are driving a transformation of the urban environment toward an expensive, eco-standardised design which often has retail space at the bottom with residential floors above. I’m sure you can recall seeing these new streamlined and soulless designs all over the United States and European cities. These blocks have a high density of people so that the retail can be justified. Usually, these end up bankrupt, resulting in a swath of empty condos or apartments. But that’s part of the policy. The designs all look the same because they all have the same marketing behind it, from national workshops, seminars and training programs, federal, national redevelopment associations – they are all feeding from the same bag of ideological oats and funded by the public from property taxes.

On top of austerity measures in Europe and massive economic debt in the US, the money that should be going toward the upkeep and betterment of basic infrastructure is going into the banks’ coffers to prop up a failing economic system and ear-marked for the Redevelopment Agency under the euphemism of “urban renewal.” (European equivalents come under local development agencies and councils funded by the European Regional Development Fund). And here’s the kicker: with this brand of redevelopment cities and councils have the right to take private property by what’s called “eminent domain” and sell it on to a private developer – effectively out-sourcing the overall strategy to developers who build “cheap” housing, adhering to strict Agenda 21/Smart Growth designs – all under mixed use. Privacy and originality is literally thrown out of the window. Want a little garden? Forget it. Community gardening? Dream on. There are countless newspaper reports of homes and community gardens being levelled and destroyed due to an infringement of these obscure regulations.

With such redevelopment regulations comes a plethora of other land use restrictions all of which are gradually limiting the possibility of eating locally produced food and the cultivation of local markets. This also applies to farmers in both rural America and Europe. Already beholden to corporations, they are now having to take further pressures from unyielding rules that restrict water and land use, all enforced by hefty fines. The Wildlands Network ensures intense restriction on the one hand for independent farmers while on the other, corporations have a free rein to pollute and utilise land while paying a paltry fine if caught. Agricultural Land Trusts not only define the borders of farmers’ land use but impose generational regulations which make it inevitable that independent farming and the ability to actually feed ourselves without agribusiness and corporate food chains quite impossible. The 4C’s and 3E’s working in concert. No more independent, organic produce passed down the family line because the farmer’s property has been sold is a Faustian reality.


Copenhagen, Denmark. Designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group, with nearly 500 apartments and incorporates a commercial district

A key part of this urban process is to declare it a “blighted” area as a justification for funnelling your taxes in redevelopment schemes. This vampiric extraction of crucial funds from communities, towns and cities is directly contributing and creating real impoverishment, where local services are cut, hospitals closed, roads left in disrepair, schools unsupported and social services in general suffering. Meantime, as discontent and an alienation continue to fester, law enforcement is militarised and departments merged in order to counter this social distress. Our urban environment is intimately connected to this state of affairs and it is under attack. Yet, the marketing and countless neighbourhood meetings and facilitation of such schemes continually claim that this is “renewal” when it is quite the reverse; it is social engineering in order to streamline cities into the UN Agenda 21, SD/SMART cities of the future. One criterion used to initiate a blighted area is that there are too many local businesses – I kid you not.

Ironically, the wheels of this eco-fascism are continually oiled by environmental community groups and NGOs who are still under the illusion that this is all for the betterment of their cities and nature in general. It is not about making a better world. It is about re-designing cities and towns – even demolishing whole areas liberally labelled “blighted” – in accordance with a sustainable, SMART model. This has been easier and easier to do since the 2008 manipulated economic depression where so many homes were lost to the sub-prime housing crisis and where anyone at all could ask for an exorbitant loan. There is massive ideological and financial incentive in creating poverty and rebuilding it along the rigid lines of Agenda 21 and Smart Growth regulations. It is a highly ambitious plan employing a systems theory view of implementation across a wide range of societal domains, all of which, by necessity, must be integrated into this sustainable model for it to succeed, and succeeding it is, at least in the short-term. And the reason this brand of redevelopment is gaining ground is primarily due to the ignorance of the hijacking of genuine green sentiment and the distracting rise in technology that can seemingly solve all our problems. These are fertile grounds for the use of social engineering techniques so beloved of the Establishment. The ICLEI continues to step up SD and Climate change brainwashing, wrapping up the ecotopian packaging so that regulation ensures a greater dependence on the State.

And this is what it’s about: as populations become more dependent, more disenfranchised, laden with an impossible debt burden increasing numbers of the population will be forced into high density cities and towns, plugged in, by default, to the SMART grid and SMART systems networked over every domain from supermarket foods to healthcare. But a manipulated financial meltdown and social unrest must come first to truly break the spirit and conform. (Among other related factors, this is what ISIL in the Middle East and the Ukraine crisis is all about). The true “Social Equity” will demand that everyone will be in the same dependent boat, except those who are the technocratic managers and eco-enthusiasts who will preside over the motherboard of game theory management.

As we saw previously, the four pillars of Agenda 21 are Economy, Ecology and Social Equity – the Three E’s. As before, they merge easily into the cartel capitalism and cultural Marxism of what I call the 4C’s – Commercialisation, Consolidation and Centralisation, leading ultimately to overall Control. Recall the quotation to be found at the start of this post. Private property, business and industry can all be sequestered, bought up or removed entirely under eminent domain, conservation easement and land use restriction all justified under Social Equity whereas in fact, the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer through a form of lego-land ghettoization.


Porta Nuova Isola, Milan | photo: © Arup

The next questions to pose are these: How do they get this legislation through at the local level? How does it get so far?

As mentioned in the previous post, establishing “common consensus” where it matters is where social engineering and psychological techniques come into their own. To dilute suspicion that all is not what it appears to be, the use of jargon, buzzwords sound bites and interminable vagueness is essential. New Age principles and pseudo-science floated atop neuro-linguistic programming to trigger feel good emotions rather than cold blooded critical analysis of what is actually being presented, is key. After all, many community members and representatives of the neighbourhood attend meetings are naturally attuned to a positive outcome and looking to confirm their beliefs that anything seemingly “Green” is inherently “progressive” and a natural way to go for their respective neighbourhoods. (In a less psychopathically compromised society, this would be true of course).

It is the nature of Agenda 21 to actively engage with NGOs and community groups as possible offering the illusions of citizen involvement. However, due to the massive increase in associated boards, regional agencies, commissions, trusts, programs and non-profit organisations the result is a melee of information with no one at seems tracking the true source. Exhaustion and confusion results with a sense that communities are becoming more psychologically isolated. Instead of real answers disorientation and interminable vagaries and platitudes constantly circle around the subject. This is purposely encouraged by paid lobbyists, fake neighbourhood groups and their ever-present “facilitators” who make sure the consensus stays on course without revealing who pays his fees. All these various regulated meetings are marketed as “spontaneous” or “grassroots” while being carefully engineered.

A process of vetting takes place when community leaders attend such meetings and paid shills scattered in the audience to shout down dissenters and encourage group-think. Similarly, formal sounding commissions and boards are created with those that have proved themselves either power-hungry, militant and clueless or what a piece of the green gravy train and are thus reliable “team players.” These same people are then able to enter the existing political infrastructure designed to weed out persons with ability and conscience in favour of those with the needed pathology. Real town and city citizens don’t stand a chance against such a monolithic propaganda outfit. It is testament to the fact that you never hear about Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development on any mainstream media whether conservative or left-liberal. There is an unspoken blackout on the subject which explains just how important this SD/SMART blueprint for change truly is.

issaquah-highlands-towering-wall-clearcut-rr1Smart Modernism © Tom Lane of

A collaborative consensus is merely a form of manipulation outside of democratic principles which are fast becoming quaint in the Eurozone and downtown USA. The consensus does not allow for dissent. Indeed, green protest itself has become subsumed into corporate green-washing and NGO lackeys whilst the very framework for ecological change has been compromised. SD and Smart Growth is already deeply embedded in our societies to the point where it is difficult to know who is working for who, where the lines between government, NGOs and corporations begin and end. The answer is, they don’t. Which is why the desperate state of our societies under the yoke of this spider’s web is making inroads into every way of life, tragically enabled by a lack of awareness from those who often genuinely have the best interests of the planet and others at heart.

Group think and group consciousness programming develops a “consensus” that is founded on manipulation rather than truth. As a result, in meetings and in media reports, such programming encourages isolation of individuals who feel something is amiss and the easier facilitation of authoritarian followers to rise to the top. This applies from the local to more governmental meetings. Consensus building and visioning techniques, although benign in the right setting, have been twisted in service to Agenda 21. The Delphi Method/technique is certainly the psychological manipulator of choice in the context of SMART growth presentations and Agenda 21 streamlining. We can also see it being used to great effect in Common Purpose meetings as well as Common Core open education meetings in the US.

Rosa Koire is the executive director of The Post Sustainability Institute and a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specialising in eminent domain valuation. Her 2011 book: Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Developmentwritten with Barry N. Nathan has been the source for some of the material in this post and represents a rare insight into the nature of eco-intelpro. Koire believes this is a key component in the “rapid change” focus of Agenda 21 and SMART growth philosophy which routinely dupes communities into formally accepting pre-decided implementations. The appearance of groups having a say is just for show.


© Rawpixelimages | – Business Conference Meeting Seminar Team Concept Photo

Delphi was developed by the RAND corporation as a cold war mind control technique. Its objective was to channel group thinking and emotional desire towards the prepared point of view already developed by facilitators and in such a way that the invited group believed it was their idea. Public meetings appear to be the favoured forum to achieve their goals. Trained facilitators present a range of choices to a group, presenting a rich format for discussion.What the audience do not realise is that these “choices” have all been weighted in favour of the facilitators and their prepared outcome – the only one they want to see adopted. The audience is immersed in a form of entrainment with tried and tested techniques such as “visioning” used to create the correct emotional atmosphere ultimately conducive not to the participants but the conveners.

Delphi is used widely in school board meetings, training groups neighbourhood association meetings and every place where the end goal is to placate community concerns and contour thinking toward Agenda 21 objectives – without them ever knowing. Whether in Europe or America, there is an intentional camouflage of names and labels seemingly different but singing the exact same SD tune. There are so many different names for the same thing that it is very easy to be duped. Consequently, SMART growth and SMART initiatives in business, project management and civil society are awash with Delphi techniques. You can see an example HERE

With substantial financing given to local government from federal agencies and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) the meetings are cynically billed as an opportunity for the citizens of their town or city to: get involved! Re-design your city! Become part of our shared, green future! A redevelopment project or regional transportation plan is usually the precursor to more radical change which inevitably involves housing and/or land use restrictions. They are often Trojan Horses for larger development goals.

Rosa Koire is unequivocal about the Delphi Technique and it’s common use to subvert meetings.

She states:

“The key thing to know about this is that of course you have no input. Only comments and observations that support the pre-approved plan will be supported. All others will be written on a big pad of paper and discarded later. The illusion of public buy-in is all that is needed. The organizers can later point to the fact they held a public meeting, a certain number of residents attended, a public comment was taken, and the community approved the plan. The facilitator is often a private consultant who has been professionally trained in running and managing a meeting. This consultant has been hired by your city to fulfill the requirement that the project has been seen and supported by its citizens —- it’s YOUR plan. If the project is a controversial one the city may have put out the call for non-profit groups, neighborhood associations, and city employees to send members to seed the audience and outnumber potential opponents. This is war. On those few occasions when the majority of the attendees object to the planned outcome, the facilitator will close the meeting and reschedule it for another time and place. You are experiencing the new consensus.”


© Heavyrobbie |

As ever, Communitarianism infused with Establishment precepts is the underlying framework by which inverted totalitarianism is floated. Individual rights are a threat to group consciousness, and the emerging “global community” – a one world ethos.  It encompasses the Hegelian dialectic and its updated version of a) a problem is created b) an emotional reaction is engendered c) the prepared “solution” is delivered amid the chaos. The solution becomes the “new normal” – corporatocracy meets pathocracy all painted in green chilac.

Koire stresses that EVERYONE is affected by UN Agenda 21 and SD programming but it hides behind this SMART green jargon. “Insidious” is an apt word because it is so difficult to see unless you have built your knowledge base and taken steps to become aware.  Behind the Green Mask is an excellent primer for understanding how green hijacking works. Though there is much more to absorb in book, as well as strategies to counteract these subversions, it might be helpful at this stage to quote Korie’s brief synopsis of Agenda 21 and SD process and what it means for the average person on the ground:

  • Step by step: UN Agenda 21 sets the stage for high density development in cities.

  • Redevelopment agencies subsidize development for Smart Growth. Only some favoured builders are in on the money train.

  • Banks were urged in the Clinton administration to loosen their loan criteria and let the money flow.

  • Developers built more and more commerical and residential buildings, glutting the market.

  • The economic collapse was engineered to cover the migration of business and production out of the US.

  • The stock market crash was engineered to suck wealth out of the middle class and destabilize their retirement.

  • The TARP bail-out was pay-back for the banks and consolidated their power by allowing them to take over smaller banks.

  • The crashed economy is a staged event and encourages agitation for more social programs, along with the vilification of property ownership. Those who own private property are ‘greedy.’

  • As people lose their homes to foreclosure and their steady employment vanishes, they will be more willing to live in government subsidized apartments in the center of cities. Neighbourhood cohesiveness will be a thing of the past. There will be less people to object to loss of private property rights. proposals to stop the federal mortgage interest tax deduction will be more easily accepted thus threatening private home ownership. The press obligingly writes about the miseries of home ownership and extols the virtues of living in a condo (maintenance free!) or apartment (move when you want!) next to the train tracks.

  • Instead of ‘social equity’ we’re seeing a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, as foreclosed property gets snapped up at deep discounts by those with cash.

  • High unemployment and government assistance contributes to overall government indebtedness and continues the spiral of reducing our standard of living.

  • Private car ownership will become unaffordable through high gasoline prices, high parking costs in city centers,  and vehicle miles traveled taxes, and wages can be lowered to reflect the ‘savings.’

  • The redfields to greenfields conversions in the suburbs allow cities to demolish buildings and close off services to those areas. Redevelopment dollars, your property tax dollars, will be used for these projects.

  • Rural roads will not be paved, making rural property less valuable, banks will foreclose and local government will buy for pennies on the dollar. Less and less land will be available for agriculture, for production, for small scale living. Government-owned land will be managed by or given to non-profit land trusts in public private partnerships.

  • Lands will be closed off to public use. Rural areas closed. Suburban areas closed. Forest areas closed. Rural roads closed. Logging roads closed. Camping areas closed. State park areas closed.

  • Restrictions on travel. Personal identification required at all times. Health records. School records. Communication records. Email, Facebook, Global positioning mapping, virtual reality, —all serve to narrow your world.

  • Community oriented policing, Fusion centers, expanded domestic surveillance powers for the FBI, redefining torture, continuous war for peace, eternal war on terror, regular renewal of the USA Patriot Act.

  • Picking winners and losers is the official blood sport of the Agenda of the 21st Century.

Welcome to Smart Growth, UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, ready-made and waiting at a local neighbourhood and council meeting near you.

Communitarianism under SMART society and SMART technology will conform to Chinese and Stalinist Russian models – a SMART gulag of assigned leisure, total dependence and de-natured existence. With surveillance and biometric recognition and likely SMART chips under the skin, the “simulacra and simulation” will be complete. If you suddenly have an overwhelming urge to wrinkle your nose and scoff having got this far, I would politely assure you this is happening under your very nose – probably in your own town. Although progress is being made, don’t worry if this is all news to you. UN Agenda 21 has a pedigree camouflage. Let’s face it, there are some truly inspirational people who work under its auspices and passionately believe in the whole kit and caboodle. Blind belief is a powerful thing, as is the will to follow others’ lead. It is a rare thing indeed to find an ecologist or environmentalist who can see the wood for the trees.

In the next post we will look at the Establishment’s take on Climate change.

See also:

Singapore Is Taking the ‘Smart City’ to a Whole New Level
Six Issues that are Agenda 21
U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for ‘Heavy-Handed’ World Government

Dark Green IX: UN Agenda 21 and US Land Grab

“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.


[1] ‘Sustainable development,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[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 |
[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.
[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. 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:
[10] Section, 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.

World State Policies VII: Planned Parenthood, UNESCO and “New-Genics”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola

planned-parenthoodDuring the 1930s as Rockefeller funding was supporting research into molecular biology for new ways to implement social control, another pseudo-scientific outfit sprang up from the mind of one Margaret Sanger. Ms. Sanger favoured “The elimination of ‘human weeds,’ for the ‘cessation of charity’ because it prolonged the lives of the unfit, for the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and for the sterilization of genetically inferior races.’” And this gentle parent’s views were to be the inspiration for “Planned Parenthood.” [1]

Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942, became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America formerly created ten years later in 1952 at a conference in Bombay, India. She is widely regarded as the founder of the modern birth control movement and a tireless activist for women’s rights, helping to put a stop to the practice of back-alley abortions that claimed so many lives.

Her drive to promote birth control was perhaps due in part, to her mother who suffered greatly in her 18 pregnancies and later died of tuberculosis. However, despite Sanger’s obvious positive intentions she was for all intents and purposes a full-blown authoritarian who was a big fan of the Nazis. She also had a strange blend of occult/theosophical and collectivist beliefs which led her to harbour increasingly extremist views, where the extermination of those she deemed less pure than her Caucasian, white, spiritually advanced self was eminently acceptable. Her engineering of the human race to a spiritual and genetic perfection was merely another form of Social Darwinism with a feminist bent. She felt the reason for the spiritual and biological demise of her brethren was due to contamination by “unfit” genes and as such, her mission was to rid the world of such undesirables.

In the 1930’s, while Sanger praised Adolf Hitler’s Racial purity program and the Aryan dream of a snow-white New World Order, she commissioned the aforementioned Nazi eugenicist Ernst Rudin to be an advisory member of her organization. Nine years later Sanger began work on saving the world from the copulating practices of the black man whom she believed to be an “inferior race.” The “Negro project,” was a program designed to vastly reduce or indoctrinate under the pretext of religious instruction.

She declared:

“The masses of Negroes … particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit …” […]

“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ” [2]

And from her biography:

“The eugenists wanted to shift the birth control emphasis from less children for the poor to more children for the rich. We went back of that and sought first to stop the multiplication of the unfit. This appeared the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” Quite simply, in Sanger’s view quoted in Birth Control Review, December 1920: “Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” And in summarising an address to New History Society, in April 1932, the object for the Population Congress would be: “… to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” ” [3]

Some choice.

In a 1985, Planned Parenthood annual report board members claimed that they were: “Proud of our past, and planning for our future.” [4]


        Margaret Sanger

The eugenic imperative lent further energy to the World State in waiting and the intelligentsia ran around doing what they could to create networks of grand visionaries that would carry the flame into the future. Collectivism and the New Social Order lay on the foundations of gradualism, after all. They knew that persons would have to be carefully selected through the generations so that organisations would adhere to the original plan. Margaret Sanger had joined the Socialist Party and was eventually well connected with the Fabian Elite including: H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Bennett, Arbuthnot Lane, and Norman Haire. It was through these “relationships” that she was able to finally meet Havelock Ellis, author of the Psychology of Sex and with whom she had an affair.

In 1922 she wrote the book The Pivot of Civilization in which she laid bare her love of Malthusian and eugenic principles. In 1925, she was in full spate and penned a rant that would have given Pol Pot a run for his money, stating: “We can all vote, even the mentally arrested. And so it is no surprise to find that the moron’s vote is as good as the vote of the genius. The outlook is not a cheerful one.” She continued her rant claiming: “The dullard, the gawk, the numbskull, the simpleton, the weakling, and the scatterbrain are amongst us in overshadowing numbers–intermarrying, breeding, inordinately prolific, literally threatening to overwhelm the world with their useless and terrifying get.” [5] Let’s keep in mind that Frederick Jaffe the head of Planned Parenthood research in 1969 floated several proposals in a memo which seemed to continue the above sentiments which included “compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children” as well as “compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies,” federal entitlement “payments to encourage abortion,” and “tax penalties” for existing large families. [6]

With friends like Fred who needs families?

According to the Planned Parenthood Federation website at today, Margaret Sanger’s reasons for building her birth control empire have been airbrushed away. She was: “… one of the movement’s great heroes,” where her: “… early efforts remain the hallmark of Planned Parenthood’s mission: providing contraception and other health services to women and men; funding research on birth control and educating specialists and the public about the results; advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”

But is this advice based on good science or ideology?

Planned Parenthood (PP) as the largest provider and promoter of abortion and “… the largest provider of sex education in America,” has expanded from its humble beginnings into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with centres in 50 states; national headquarters in New York, a legislative centre in Washington and programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. [7]They have over 922 clinics in almost every major metropolitan area in the United States while their international centres can be found in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli. [8] 

PP lobbies for abortions within the second trimester and associate resistance to this policy from pro-life extremists who wish to be rid of all abortions: “… abortion after the first trimester remains a necessary option for some women. Unfortunately, anti-choice zealots seek to limit access to abortion through, among other means, laws imposing a fixed date for fetal viability and bans that would outlaw safe, medically appropriate abortions in the second trimester. The hidden agenda of these zealots is to make all abortions illegal.” [9]

Just as the answer does not lie with anti-abortionists, it does beg the question whether PP are also there for humanitarian reasons given its history. In her book Woman and the New Race, Sanger observed: “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it,” and we can see by the slick marketing and multi-million dollar yearly profits nothing much has changed except the lure of the dollar sign. [10]From 2000 – 2010 there was a steady rise in the number of abortions PP undertook increasing from 197,070 to 329,445 by the end of the decade with the dispensing of 131,638 to 1,461,816 Morning After pills. [11]Planned Parenthood Federation of America classified as a non-profit organisation revealed in its 2008 report that income generated from their yearly abortion drives netted a total income of $1.02 billion—with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers pay for around $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That is a sizable chunk of Planned Parenthood’s projected profits. [12]

Upon visiting their websites today, it’s almost as if the subject of abortion is celebrated. Email alerts! Get Involved! Job opportunities! Providing access to reproductive health care so that women they can “control their bodies and their futures.”

Or rather than appealing to a feminist perception of emancipation, is it that those behind Planned Parenthood can control their bodies and their futures?

Rather than eugenics, depopulation and enforced abortion being a thing of the past perhaps it has been pushed under the carpet of highly paid advertising campaigns, pretty colours and a whole lot of profit.  Women must have the freedom to do as they will with their own bodies, yet when this support becomes a corporation with cash as the bottom line and eugenics at its historical roots, more questions need to be asked.

As to whether Planned Parenthood are fulfilling a useful role in today’s world based on a natural evolution of society then we would have to say “no” because society has been wholly manipulated by the very same people who have set up these institutions. Is it habituation to abortion and so-called sexual liberation or merely the right to choose? The question is not that it does not offer women more “reproductive choice” but for what is the core reason such education is being promoted? What does such an international ideal serve? If you want to make a population less loving, more sexualised and narcissistic and thus more malleable, the gross result may be more babies in the short term but with large-scale abortion clinics on standby as branches of a larger corporatist ethos who will they look to for further inspiration?

All roads lead to the Rockefeller ideal of China as the Pathocratic template of the future.

Alan Guttmacher, who took on a ten year presidency of PP provides an example of this ubiquitous China-think. He stated: “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed,” reminding us that: “… the means presently available are compulsory sterilization and abortion.” He then enlightened an already open-mouthed journalist that this Planned Parenthood’s values of compassion, love, health and women’s rights may have to be jettisoned for coercion and force that might be especially needed “… in areas where the pressure is the greatest, possibly in India and China.” [13]

In 1984, PP had written in support of China’s brutal one-child per couple policy, where sterilisation and forced abortions are mandatory [14] and were quite excited about such a possibility arriving in the United States (keer-ching! $$$$) which is why they battled to restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) which had already committed $100 million to this Chinese program. [15] Twenty-six years later we hear from another ex-Planned Parenthood director Norman Fleishman writing to President Obama about the recent decision to force insurance companies to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortion: “Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.” [16]

Now it seems, Planned Parenthood has come out fighting and is actively against this line – at least on their website. We can now read: “Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) opposes coercive and inhumane reproductive policies and practices, including China’s one-child policy and the illegal practices of forced abortion and coerce birth control reported in some localities. We believe in reproductive self-determination and we advocate for public policies that guarantee these rights and ensure access to safe and legal services.” [17]

Whether this is just good PR and represents more than just indignant-soon-to-be-leaving directors of PP remains to be seen. But large-scale profits from equally large-scale abortion will doubtless continue. However, if you want to see the truly abhorrent face of Planned Parenthood then we need look no further than the recent secret recording of Planned Parenthood Federation Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, discussing the side business in fetal parts. Let’s include a few choice quotes from the video:

“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.

“The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. …

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. …

“So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.” [18]

Mirroring illegal partial-birth abortions and taking full advantage of their equally partial government funding there speaks the voice of greed and science conjoined. You don’t need any more obvious evidence to abort babies for profit. As the Free thought project reports:

According to 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

The legal issues were seemingly addressed during the conversation when Nucatola says, “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”

Lila Rose, Live Action President responded to the disturbing video:

This investigation by the Center for Medical Progress reveals the unimaginable horror that is Planned Parenthood. The exploitation of human life, the cover-up, and the black market profiteering by America’s largest abortion chain is not only egregious and heartbreaking, but exposes how the abortion giant is corrupt to the core

— from the CEO, Cecile Richards, down to the local clinic. [19] 

Watch the video HERE.


What is certain, China’s one-child policy has been a disaster for women with the equivalent of the entire female population of the United States missing. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s book Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men she places the source of the problem squarely on the one-child policy which has its roots in the population control advocacy in the West. It has exponentially increased the number of men and turned the remaining women into commodities, adding to the already significant increase in global sex-trafficking. Not only that but: “Between 1992 and 2004 China’s crime rate nearly doubled. In India from 2003 to 2007 rape cases surged over 30 percent and abductions by over 50 percent prompting the government to unveil female-only trains.” [20]The conclusion is that while China’s population police themselves in this regard, as Hvistendahl reminds us: “In a world in which women are unnaturally scarce, the right to abort will be the least of our worries.” [21]  Thankfully, this led China to rethink its policy in 2009 with Shanghai as the template for a two child policy. The Telegraph reported: “Experts predicted earlier this week that there will be zero growth in China’s population of 1.3 billion people by 2030.” [22]

The one child policy was so appealing to Western elites due to the similar short-sighted and misplaced view of how nature operates which is non-linear, self-organising and adaptive. Which is why a recent study commissioned by the BBC in September 2012 discovered that: “… China’s fertility would have declined at a similar rate without the one-child policy and would continue to decline even if the policy was discarded.” [23]


How did the one-child policy affect population levels? | Ageing China: Changes and challenges”

One of the key proposals in this post for the reader to consider is that the institutions and well-known organisations of today – though inhabited by honest, sincere and selfless individuals – are nonetheless steered by ideologies and strategies (and market-led greed) from the top which have not changed for many decades. While social engineering carries on at one level, another tier maybe involved in the imposition of a world philosophy and culture that ostensibly seems a wonderful thing. An example of this can be found from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley, elder brother of author Aldous Huxley was a giant in the humanist and eugenics movements. He held several important posts including the Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first president of the British Humanist Association (1963), Vice-President (1937-44) and President of the British Eugenics Society (1959-62). He was also co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Huxley was also the recipient of several awards aligned to his areas of interest including UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize (1953) (as did Bertrand Russell); the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society (1956), and the Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population (1959).

As the first director of the organisation Sir Julian Sorell Huxley wrote a paper entitled “UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy” published in 1946. In the paper he shared his vision for the future of the international organisation and what he hoped it would achieve. Huxley believed its philosophy should be “… based on a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background” or a grand design of World Evolutionary Humanism.

From ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy’ he states:

It is essential for Unesco to adopt an evolutionary approach. If it does not do so, its philosophy will be a false one, its humanism at best partial, at worst misleading…. in the last few decades it has been possible to develop an extended or general theory of evolution which can provide the necessary intellectual scaffolding for modern humanism. It not only shows us man’s place in nature and his relations to the rest of the phenomenal universe, not only gives us a description of the various types of evolution and the various trends and directions within them, but allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends […]

Objectively speaking, the new method consists of cumulative tradition, which forms the basis of that social heredity by means of which human societies change and develop. But the new method also has a subjective aspect of great importance. Cumulative tradition, like all other distinctively human activities, is largely based on conscious processes – on knowledge, on purpose, on conscious feeling, and on conscious choice. Thus the struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness.

Evolution in the human sector consists mainly of changes in the form of society; in tools and machines, in new ways of utilising the old innate potentialities, instead of in the nature of these potentialities, as in the biological sector. […] Nor does it mean that man’s innate mental powers could not be improved. They certainly were improved (presumably be [sic] natural selection) in the earliest stages of his career, […] and they could certainly be improved further by deliberate eugenic measures, if we consciously set ourselves to improve them. Meanwhile, however, it is in social organisation, in machines, and in ideas that human evolution is mostly made manifest.” [24] [Emphasis mine]

So, an almost word for word reiteration of Bertrand Russell’s “scientific dictatorship” was also being developed by Huxley where it is assumed that natural selection, a social struggle and the eugenic improvement of humans are part of UNESCO’s mission. They also happen to be key words in both collectivist, humanist and atheist thinking where human beings are not only devoid of the consciousness as he mentions but must be developed along the lines of a faulty machine.


Sir Julian Sorrell Huxley

It is the arrogant imposition of dogma within a soon to be highly influential institution that belies a certain confidence that he is surrounded by those who think the same. And for an educational, scientific and cultural organisation to be founded on eugenics to then speak of equality and emancipation … This goes only so far before doubts set in as to the authenticity of its participants but not the artfulness of its propaganda. Yet he qualifies his exuberant idealism: “… with equality of opportunity [which] must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.’ Which means opportunity – but only for those who come up to scratch.

He further informs us:

“… it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [25]

As with most of these people, they know that most normal individuals see the manipulation of the human psychology and physiology based on class and race superiority as naturally abhorrent, so Huxley is really saying that acceptance of radical eugenics policies is not yet possible so let’s introduce it along the lines of gradualism so that “greatest care” may furnish the “unthinkable.”

What is radical eugenics if it is not coercive altering of the human mind and body under certain Elitist beliefs?
To promote what Huxley calls an “adjustment” to these eugenic ideals, he calls for “a great deal of education of the general public” resting upon the fallacy that evolutionary biology is the only means by which we can measure the progress of humanity, or as he states: “…judging the rightness or wrongness of our aims and activities.” For this peculiar brand of reductive determinism to play out, according to Huxley there should be an extension of: “… personal ethical judgements and responsibilities to many collective and apparently impersonal actions” and further “… to undertake a considerable socialisation of ethics.”

What the director is advocating is an ethics of the “scientific technique” whereby rights of the individual are submerged into a World Evolutionary State of Government. Progress for Huxley is a narrow pathway indeed:

… the more united man’s tradition becomes, the more rapid will be the possibility of progress: several separate or competing or even mutually hostile pools of tradition cannot possibly be so efficient as a single pool common to all mankind. And secondly, that the best and only certain way of securing this will be through political unification. As history shows, unifying ideas can exert an effect across national boundaries. But, as history makes equally evident, that effect is a partial one and never wholly offsets the opportunities for conflict provided by the existence of separate sovereign political units.

The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means for avoiding war. However, world political unity is, unfortunately, a remote ideal, and in any case does not fall within the field of UNESCO’s competence. This does not mean that UNESCO cannot do a great deal towards promoting peace and security. Specifically, in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization. But, more generally, it can do a great deal to lay the foundations on which world political unity can later be built. [26]

By using the biological metaphor of a the struggling human gene “pool,” Huxley introduces the real “moral” task of UNESCO which is not the promotion of education, culture and science but the engineering of collectivist dogma which requires the dissolution of sovereign states for a (humanist) world government. The avoidance of war is the caveat that is wheeled in for justification for such a program, but it remains disingenuous as it is ignorant.

Obviously wishing to get all the juicy morsels of propaganda into the paper for posterity, Huxley believes that such “unification in the things of the mind is not only also necessary but can pave the way for other types of unification.” A global religion, global army, global economy and global government will finally lead to “full world unity” but not until that pesky global mind has been unified no doubt under the arch-deacons of the “scientific technique” and their instruments of coercion. For Huxley, the administering of education is merely another tool to facilitate that end by “improving the technique of education…” and to “…help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process,” with “… special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” [27] In order to make sure that the uneducated and developing nations are fully indoctrinated into an homogenised slush upon wish the World State will float; a fundamental education must evolve that has been paired down enough for the inclusion of a “common scale of values.” And on what basis might those be formed? Huxley has the answer: “One other item which Unesco should put on its programme as soon as possible is the study of the application of psycho-analysis and other schools of “deep” psychology to education. […] This would mean an extension of education backwards from the nursery school to the nursery itself.”

It was only a matter of time before the fusion of the scientific technique, Freud and the discredited psychoanalysis popped up as it usually usually does at some point in Elite initiatives, so why not as the education fundamentals of UNESCO?

Julian Huxley’s position as chairman of the Eugenics society (1959-62) comes through vividly in his recommendations for the use of media and public relations as tools of propaganda and a “mass creed” for the greater good. He even manages a little doffing of the hat to Lenin:

“Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to ‘overcome the resistance of millions’ to desirable change. Using drama to reveal reality and art as the method by which, in Sir Stephen Tallent’s words, ‘truth becomes impressive and living principle of action,’ and aiming to produce that concerted effort which … needs a background of faith and a sense of destiny. This must be a mass philosophy, a mass creed, and it can never be achieved without the use of the media of mass communication. Unesco, in the press of its detailed work, must never forget this enormous fact. [Emphasis mine]

And what is this “mass creed”? World evolutionary Darwinism twined with a World State. The actual inspiration for Huxley’s turn of phrase was probably inspired by the work of Charles Galton Darwin ex-eugenics society president who wrote about the importance of “creeds” in shaping human perceptions in his book The Next Million Years (1952):

The detailed march of history will depend a great deal on the creeds held by the various branches of the human race. It cannot be presumed with any confidence that purely superstitious creeds will always be rejected by civilized communities, in view of the extraordinary credulity shown even now by many reputedly educated people. It is true that there may not be many at the present time, whose actions are guided by an inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial bull, but the progress has not been very great, for there are still many believers in palmistry and astrology. It is to be expected then that in the future, as in the past, there will be superstitions which will notably affect the course of history, and some of them, such as ancestor-worship, will have direct effects on the development of the human species. But superstitious creeds will hardly be held by the highly intelligent, and it is precisely the creed of these that matters. Is it possible that there should arise a eugenic creed, which – perhaps working through what I have called the method of unconscious selection – should concern itself with the improvement of the inherent nature of man, instead of resting content with merely giving him good but impermanent acquired characters?  [28] [Emphasis mine]

The UNESCO humanism and eugenics perception of the mind and body has now morphed into futurism, care of the transhumanists a large proportion of whom carry the same ideological torch.

Ethical constraints are vital as advances in human genetics advance towards an obvious array of medical benefits and when the direction and ideology is still firmly in the grip of Wall St. and the same “philanthropic” families. Edwin Black makes the important point that a “‘newgenics’ has risen again to persecute and discriminate on the basis of blood ancestry. Insurance companies, employers and others want to exclude those deemed to be insurance risks and even socially unacceptable and legislators complain that this will create a new ‘genetic ghetto.’” [29]

dnaspiralThere are plenty of individuals that believe they are Gods in the making and have the right to tinker with the human genome in order to enhance humanity’s genetic profile and eradicate “imperfections.” The film Welcome to Gatacca was a thought-provoking study of the long-term future of eugenics that slipped towards a definitely dystopic scenario. There is no doubt that we are already easing down a slippery slope of eugenics care of technocratic science. Designer babies are not a pipe-dream. Some clinics are already offering the chance to alter the genes of your future child.

Professor Julian Savulescu of Oxford University and editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, sees the genetic engineering of “ethical” babies as a moral obligation and genetically screening our offspring to make them better people is just “responsible parenting.” Screening in and screening out certain genes begins the process of designing our babies and our future societies. If we are considering the psychopath as the primary cause of the ills of our societies is it not logical that we should eradicate the possibility of psychopaths even entering the world? Savulescu, like so many other academics considers such a move in strictly altruistic terms in that “rational design” will deliver more intelligent and less violent people for the future. He believes it is just a natural extension of the process which presently screens for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome and various forms of cancer.

He explains his view with persuasive logic:

“Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting? … So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.” [30]

Unlike the forced system of eugenics, the professor believes the system he envisages would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children. “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”

Is it not correct that the influences of the psychopath and the almost unimaginable havoc they create on this earth, means that we should make sure that if there is a screening process then it must be implemented for the psychopath genes alone? After all, these people are like cancer cells within the host of an organism and death is the only result. Is it not our duty to turn the corner and release us all from the burden of history?

There are many problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, even though idea of exclusively criminal genes has rightly been consigned to the bin, the notion that there may be heritable genes determining psychopathy has proved more convincing, not least least through the advances in epigenetics. [31] We are still at an early stage in finding cast iron proof however, due to a number of complex factors. The implications of the genetic component to psychopathy are vital to work through but there is still considerable disagreement between psychologists as to how to approach this problem. It is also true that genes alone do not determine behaviour in normal individuals, yet in the psychopath the genetic component may be the defining factor. However, surrounding the notion of genetic tinkering of the human genome, where do we draw the line? Discrimination on the basis of physical traits will also follow the already well-defined divide between wealthy families and their offspring who receive genetic enhancement, inevitably leading to a new breed of genetically enhanced humans or “Post Humans” as the transhumanists prefer; a form of genetic aristocracy that will have implications in terms of unfair advantage and gender bias that would descend upon almost every field of human endeavour. This unfair advantage already exists but it would be taken to a whole new level that would likely form a breakaway civilisation – if it hasn’t happened already.

The point to remember here is that while we are still inside the world of the psychopath, the chances of achieving an equitable and ethical balance of voluntary and informed choices remains slim. Knowledge of the science of psychopathy needs to become water-tight so that there can be no question of just how powerfully invasive their presence is in the world today. Once we have this widespread understanding decisions as to how we screen and insulate society against the psychopath will take on new and more creative solutions. Meantime, eugenics in the hands of conscience-less individuals represents a very real threat for any hope of equality in the life of the human race. Indeed, it is probable that we have been living under such a nightmare scenario for sometime, where the screening out of normal people in favour of psychopathic dominance has advanced to a considerable degree.



[1] Killer Angel: A Short Biography of Planned Parenthood’s Founder, Margaret Sanger By George Grant, Cumberland House Publishing; Revised edition, 2001 | ISBN-10: 1581821506
[2] Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
[3] pp. 374-375; Chapter 30, Now Is the Time for Converse
[4] Planned Parenthood of Houston, Annual Report, 1985.
[5] Margaret Sanger, International Aspects of Birth Control: The International Neo-Malthusian and Birth Control Conference (New York: American Birth Control League, 1925).
[6] Examples of proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility, a Planned Parenthood memo written by Frederick Jaffe (Planned Parenthood head of research), 1969.
[8] annual report 2010.
[9] Planned Parenthood Federation of American, Abortions Facts, Abortion After the First Trimester in the United States |
[10] Women and the New Race by Margaret Sanger
[11] Planned Parenthood annual report 2008
[12] Ibid.
[13] 6. Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D., Ideology Compels Fervid PPFA Abortion Advocacy, National Right to Life News (March 28, 1985), p. 5.
[14] The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1984 cited in Chapter 64: of Planned Parenthood: The World ‘s Premier Anti-Life Organization, Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League |
[15] ‘New Battle Looms Over U.S. Aid for U.N. Agency Supporting Coerced Abortion’, By Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life News (May 1, 1986), p. 1.
[16] ‘The Laborer in the Vineyard’By George Neumayr, The American Spectator, August 25 2011.
[17] ‘Planned Parenthood Statement in Support of Chen Guangcheng Denounces Coercive Reproductive Health Policies in China’May5 2012.
[18]BREAKING: ‘Planned Parenthood Busted on Hidden Camera Trying to Sell Aborted Baby Parts’ By Matt Agorist on July 14, 2015.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men by Mara Hvistendahl’s PublicAffairs; 1 edition (7 Jun 2011).
[21] Ibid.
[22] ‘China begins lifting strict one-child policy’ By Malcolm Moore 24 Jul 2009,The Telegraph.
[23] ‘UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy By Julian Huxley Preparatory Commission of The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’ 1946. / (p.21)
[24] ‘Ageing China: Changes and challenges’ BBC News, 20 September 2012.
[25] Ibid.
[26] op. cit. UNESCO (p.13)
[27] Ibid. (p.60)
[28] The Next Million Years By Charles Galton Darwin. Interestingly, the PDF version has decided to expunge this passage from the book. How many times has this kind of censorship of history happened I wonder?
[29] op. cit. Black
[30] ‘The Maverick: ‘It’s Our Duty to Have Designer Babies’’ September Issue, Reader’s Digest, August 21 2012.31
[31]‘The Psycho Gene’ By Philip Hunter, Nature, EMBO reports, January 22, 2010. |

World State Policies IV: Common Purpose

Common_Purpose_logoIn tracing Corporatist-Collectivist thinking since the 1950s, it has become clear that its proponents have been very busy making sure their interests are fulfilled far from public scrutiny and if they are discovered, their agencies are cloaked in double-speak and “pro-active” corporate jargon to avoid suspicion. Common Purpose is a quasi-political, semi-secret UK organisation which appears to fall under this category and like so many of its affiliated organisations it relies on public ignorance to successfully carry out its mandate. Spawned from the Liberal, Anglo-American corner of the Three Establishment Model (3EM)  (the others being Zionist and Conservative)  it is closely associated with Fabianism, New Age beliefs, humanism, technocracy, green living and vertical collectivism.

The organisation has been tailored to infiltrate British public and private industry at the local and national level in order to head-hunt potential candidates for leadership and thus fulfil World State policies and the emergence of inverted totalitarianism. No doubt, there is much guffawing and scoffing at such an idea. Yet, this has been the nature of social engineering programs for a very considerable time.  Future leaders are groomed with a pre-disposition for authoritarianism via a fusion of Marxist and Conservative appeal. As such, movers and shakers are found within both labour and conservative ranks.

It has taken over fifteen years for the British public to even hear its name thanks to its highly secretive nature. The fact that anyone knows it exists at all is largely due to the work of Brian Gerrish a former Royal Navy Lieutenant * who, since his retirement now works full time to expose the objectives of the organisation. He discovered Common Purpose (CP) when he was involved in initiatives to help people find jobs whereby council support was withdrawn due it seems to the projects stepping on CP objectives. When Gerrish tried to continue alone without council support it quickly led to a threatening situation:

“When we started to explore why we were being threatened we were absolutely staggered to find a very strange organisation called Common Purpose operating in the city. And we were absolutely amazed that there were so many people involved but they were not declaring themselves …”'[Common Purpose] was operating throughout the structure of the city, in the city council, in the government offices, in the police, in the judiciary. Essentially we discovered what is effectively, at best, a quasi secret society which doesn’t declare itself to ordinary people.’ [1]

Common Purpose  has increasingly come under fire thanks to the work of Gerrish and other concerned members of the public. The accusations have been rather unsuccessfully fielded by the board trustee member Sir David bell who dismisses the concerns as unfounded. The charges are numerous and include:

  • Undue secrecy and zero transparency.
  • A pervasive, undemocratic influence with social engineering at its core.
  • Change based around principles of collectivism or its sub-category of New Age glossed “communitarianism”.
  • Masquerading as an ‘educational charity’ when it is in fact a political organisation.
  • Many of its activities are funded by tax payers money.
  • Undue and unaccountable influence in all societal domains.
  • One of its core principles is to eventually merge the private and public sectors by deceitful means.
  • To bypass democratic accountability and replace current legitimately elected or chosen posts in favour of CP graduates who have unfair advantage.
  • Working to affect change so that Britain is irrevocably changed towards EU-directives and Fabian beliefs by stealth.
  • Closely associated with Bilderberg beliefs and associated pet projects such as Agenda 21, technocratic SMART-city initiatives which includes merging sustainable development frameworks without due consultation and beyond civic consultation. In other words, collectivist, World State policies.

At first glance, rather like most political think tanks and organisations that we have looked at on this blog so far, CP has taken the mask of an educational charity founded in 1989 registered in the UK under number 1023384. According to its website: “… to date, more than 30,000 people have participated in our leadership development courses internationally. The idea spread and Common Purpose programmes are currently run in France, Germany, Ghana, India, Sweden, Turkey, Ireland, Hungary and South Africa.”

It ostensibly provides leadership and networking development training for potential high flyers within the police, judiciary, civil service, social services, education, media and politics. Remaining true to the “scientific technique” and philosophy of the Fabians and humanist education it has become a well-placed organisation of “change agents” at the heart of the British Establishment. states further:

“… the advancement of education for the public benefit and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing to educate men and women an young people of school age, from a broad range of geographical, political, ethnic, institutional, social and economic backgrounds in constitutional, civic, economic and social studies with special emphasis on civil and social awareness and responsibility in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.”

The statement sounds as bland and innocuous as we’ve come to expect from such Euro-led outfits.

Evidence suggests that the notorious Tavistock Institute had a part to play in the formation of Common Purpose training courses. The CP concept was started there, fine-tuned at Oxford University and then ‘exported’ to the US joining together with Harvard’s Advanced and General Management Programmes which:

“… brings together members of the executive committee, heads of business units and functional areas, as well as leaders of governmental agencies and non-profit organizations.” ( GMP follows exactly the same formula as CP and “is designed primarily for executives with recently acquired or significantly expanded general management responsibilities, and for senior functional managers who need a broader perspective on company operations or who will soon become business-unit, division, or regional leaders.” [2]

On his website literature Brian Gerrish states: “It was then re-imported to UK via Julia Middleton Chief Executive of CP, who was miraculously given £500,000 to start CP programmes throughout UK.” A former editor for Marxism Today, civic society campaigner, co-founder of think-tank Demos and Deputy Chair of the Media Standards Trust Board, Middleton has been its CEO since its inception but it is unlikely that she was the sole creator of such a complex social engineering program. She had a bit of help from Stephen Heintz who acted as President of CP. Once his job was done he assumed his position as President of … surprise, surprise…the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Demos is also an Establishment arm advocating Fabian-driven principles akin to Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group. In a BBC News report by Catrin Nye from September 30 2011, entitled: ‘Is the internet rewriting history?’ the think-tank recently warned against the dangers of free speech and “conspiracy theories” which “rewrite history” on the internet. DEMOS was founded in 1993 by another former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques, and Geoff Mulgan in response to what they saw as a crisis in British politics and the social fabric. It remains a key link to CP as a whole.

In fact, CP likes to say that there is no CEO, which begs the question: Where does CP get its directives?

Delving a bit deeper into the roots of CP we find that the board of the Media Standards Trust are Sir David Bell who sits on various other influential media boards, Goldman Sacs member Charles Manby and Anthony Salz of another usual suspect: NM Rothschild. CP observes the same rules of secrecy observed by the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs. This convention is defined as the “Chatham House Rule” where members must not reveal the details of individuals who attend nor the subjects under discussion. This camouflage is maintained by the Common Purpose Charitable Trust (CPCT) who carries out its activities through the subsidiary charities of: Common Purpose International, Common Purpose UK and its trading arm Civilia Ltd.

Improving society so that it is more “efficient” is underpinned by the use of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, elements of the Delphi Technique and strains of political correctness across all issues which, alongside a lack of transparency, are extremely difficult to counter without appearing reactionary and “old school.” Common Purpose is modernising society for a “New Order” which – if we are to read their benign messages on their websites – is all for our benefit. So much so, that it must be carried out with minimal participation from the public – unless of course you are ambitious, well-placed and harbour a mind-set that is amenable to CP aims.

Clearly, to re-engineer society you need the funds to do it which is why CP charges considerable sums for their candidates whom they head-hunt and entice with promises of advancement should they decide to embark on this particular gravy train. Blog journalist Ken Craggs’ tells us: “Over 120,000 leaders have contributed to or participated in a Common Purpose programme and this grows by at least 3,000 people each year. Common Purpose charge substantial figures for their courses. Matrix costs £3,950 plus VAT, a course for a high-flying leader can be as much as £9,950 plus VAT.” [3]The key motivation behind these training courses appears to be to groom potential leaders according to Common purpose principles so that when they are placed in suitable positions by virtue of being CP “graduates” they will carry out their allotted tasks.

So, what are these principles?

The usual elitist beliefs to which the reader will by now be accustomed such as reducing national sovereignty, the erosion of national identity, the destruction of democracy, undermining of traditional beliefs and values in order to replace them with one world, technocratic and collectivist visions. More elitism by those who consider they know best. Which is why such people use Orwellian double-speak and NLP to “train” its members towards a singular view so that they think and act according to their own objectives. Key issues such as education, immigration, European policy, NHS, climate change and local and regional councils are similarly changed by indoctrinated CP agents, most of whom probably consider they are working for the greater good. Thus, multiculturalism and progressive modalities are applied to funnel critical thinking on these complex issues into beliefs which always conform to the much anticipated technocratic World State. Once this vast network is embedded in every sector of society – which is well on the way to being realised – the Establishment can sleep in their beds safe in the knowledge that their dutiful minions are carrying out their wishes. Such a program starts early and compliance is rewarded with career advancement. Conversely, signs of independent thinking and questioning is met with closed doors and a rapid descent.

Common Purpose shows signs of being a cult along the lines of Scientology according to website For example, while using psychology and mind games to seduce and entrain would-be graduates, a classification is used: – ‘Suns’ (people of established power and influence), as ‘Stars’ (those of rapid but unpredictable rise to power and influence), and ‘Moons’ (those individuals whose power is diminishing). Those who will not help Common Purpose, or who challenge it, are called ‘Black Holes’.

For an avowed educational charity it appears to benefit everyone but those in most need. CP has been receiving money from local authorities and government agencies for training which has been paid for by the tax payer. As mentioned, these training courses do not come cheap. This unlawful allocation of money spent on CP training has nothing to do with benefiting communities but everything to do with increasing the CP agenda outside the democratic process.

The organisation is clearly political and is thus in breach of the Charity Commission rules which states: “An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.” Yet, local councils and authorities CP operates outside the law but actively seeks to influence law enforcement, the judiciary and the politicians across all parties. In fact, all CP members who should be acting as public servants breach the seven principles of Public Life as set out by the Committee. If we are suspicious about the rising surveillance state and the easy purloining of our bio-metric data then we should also be concerned about the Common Purpose penchant for secrecy and data collection. Indeed, CP has been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office for alleged breaches of data protection law:

“Leadership training charity Common Purpose has been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office for alleged breaches of data protection law.

The Northwest Regional Development Agency, which made the complaint, has also apologised to a person whose name it inadvertently passed on to Common Purpose after he made a request under the Freedom of Information Act about its dealings with the charity.

The name was then included by Common Purpose in a list of previous FOI requests about the charity that it distributed to public authorities receiving new requests. The charity said it distributed the list to illustrate the high number of FOI requests being made about it and to help authorities decide whether to treat new requests as vexatious.” [4]

Common Purpose revealed the name of a legitimate enquirer under the Freedom of Information Act in an apparent fit of pique. And it wonders why so many inquiries arrive at its door? No action was taken.

The idea of acting beyond and outside established authority is ironically a large part of Fabian, Marxist and Common Purpose ideology. CEO Julia Middleton’s book Beyond Authority (1982) conforms to the ethos of change through Fabian or Marxist gradualism. As Brian Gerrish informs us, it is a text book for CP’s leadership philosophy, with some interesting tit-bits on the kind of manipulation that is required to make sure CP agendas are listened to and acted upon. On one occasion we read in the book that some helpful UK Parliamentary peers took her aside and told her all that was required was a: “… small committed and coordinated group of people producing pressure from the outside. Two or three determined fifth columnists on the inside. And the stamina from both groups to keep on and on and on putting them on the agenda until they eventually had to be discussed …”

Another passage in the book reveals:

‘I spoke to a friend recently who described how she had set someone up. Using all her charm and flattery, she had drawn him in and then installed him as a convenient useful idiot … My friend’s intention was to get him to produce a report which she knew full well would be a perfect smokescreen for her own activities …’

‘Have I ever done this? Yes … it was certainly useful to produce the distraction of creating a sub-committee, led by someone who did not really understand the big picture, to look into an issue in depth, with no timetable, so we could get on with what we saw as important issues.’ ” [5]

There is the evidence that CP routinely flouts British laws in favour of their own authority. The webmaster of Stop Common had this to say on the legal concept of Ultra Vire, latin for ‘Beyond the powers.’:

A Common Purpose quote: “People who lead beyond their authority can produce change beyond their direct circle of control”.

Leading beyond authority can mean acting ultra vires. Ultra vires a legal concept. It is Latin for ‘beyond the powers’. It can apply to any body which has rules, such as a charity or a local authority. An ultra vires act is one that is outside the specified and/or implied constitutional objects and powers of the body in question. It is ‘beyond the powers’ and therefore illegal.

Also, what are the implications of ‘leading beyond authority’ for services which require a hierarchical management structure to ensure discipline and cohesion, like the armed forces and police which can be manipulated from within for political purposes? ” [6]

Meshed with other Establishment think-tanks, NGOs and government agencies the symptoms of CP influence has been plain to see over the last fifteen years which has directly led to cultural disintegration; constant surveillance; the rise of Orwellian double-speak; House repossessions; Rapidly falling incomes; widening gap between the rich and the poor; high unemployment; unregulated immigration; social fragmentation; destructive policies within the NHS, rampant political correctness; trenchant bureaucracy in line with SMART technology; erosion of the middle class and economic enslavement. Is it all down to CP training? Unlikely. But as one factor in a many-headed hydra of social engineering, it is potentially significant.

Like the New Group of World Servers triangulating their occult influence throughout corridors of power, so too we have the same mind-set targeting business and politics with the same goals this time through programs such as the Global Leader Experience (GLE) which is designed for university students in order to: “… develop … leadership skills to help influence the future of the world, as well as establish a genuinely global network.” [7] All packaged carefully along CP lines of course. And what better examples of “leadership do we have waiting in the wings? CP’s Corporate partners such as:

  • BP
  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • HSBC
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Oxfam
  • DLA Piper
  • BBC
  • International Red Cross
  • Siemens
  • London Fire Brigade
  • Santander
  • Brunswick Group LLP

They even have programmes for new African leader so that a Round Table tradition can continue with well-placed nodes at their disposal.

Common Purpose is effectively the United Kingdom equivalent of organisations tied into SMART growth and Agenda 21 over in the US which are ideologically, exactly the same but appealing to young business leaders. (See UN Agenda 21 and Land Grab)We have discussed how capitalism, communism and Zionism have been embraced by the 3EM. Communitarianism is a further belief that cements the building blocks of inverted totalitarianism of the past and forms the local and national strategies of Common Purpose. Also known as the “Third Way” It can lie at the centre of many beliefs but is most at home in socialist, Neo-Conservative, Green and New Age activism as the primary tools of the Liberal Establishment ideologues.

Alaskan Journalist Niki Raapana summed up the belief succinctly by stating: “Communitarianism is a Dictatorship of the Community. Unlike communism, which established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, communitarianism is the more advanced stage of human social evolution.” [8] And it seems CP requires the full compliance of every corner of society to achieve its communitarian ends, without any public interference. In order that a comprehensive network of what amounts to “soft” social control has been implemented with the same happy, smiling faces of mediocrity. Nothing wrong with communitarianism but it depends entirely on who is initiating such a new social divergence and whether this plan is genuinely benevolent. And so far, it is easy to discern that it is not.

As we know, the best of intentions can just as easily lead to the highest expression of evil when the concept of social evolution is gravely misunderstood by allowing psychopathy to distort and co-opt the benign. As journalist James Corbett recently asked:

“Even if Common Purpose by itself were the most benign organization imaginable, though, it is difficult to justify the secretive nature of this public charity which receives funding and support from various public agencies. The question once again becomes: to what extent is the public comfortable having an organization of questionable aims and means training the next generation of world leaders in secretive seminars, largely at taxpayer’s expense. And, to the extent that the public is uncomfortable with the influence that groups like this have over the political and business world, what precisely can they do about it?” 

The first step is to dispense with the kind of secrecy favoured by CP and introduce genuine transparency partnered with the kind of organisations and board members which historically advocate the same rather than institutional protection.Until that time, to suggest that Common Purpose is just a non-political charity is not only false it is a blatant deception.

We’ll leave the last word on Common Purpose from Brian Gerrish:

Common Purpose promotes the ’empowerment of individuals’, except where individuals challenge the activities of CP, and public spending on CP. These people are branded vexatious, extremist, right wing or mentally unsound. Mrs Julia Middleton, the Chief Executive of Common Purpose, praises the work of German bankers. Deutsche Bank is, of course, a major power behind Common Purpose. Mrs Middleton, earning circa £80,000 p.a. from her charity, is also very happy to promote the term ‘Useful Idiots’ in her book ‘Beyond Authority’. Are we, the General Public the USEFUL IDIOTS, or are the Elite Common Purpose Graduates? You decide.


* Brain Gerrish has done great work in outing the methods of Common Purpose. However, it always pays to be careful about certain whistleblowers and Gerrish falls into this category for a number of reasons. He is staunchly conservative and is on a rather right wing and identified with his mission, as he sees it, to purge Britain of communism and Marxism. This is hardly an objective view rather a very simplistic one. He also has a military background  hailing from the Navy no less, who have a particular tradition for military intelligence shills and PSYOPS. Gerrish may well be one of those sent out to counter elite factions. i.e. Pan-European Synarchy blowing the whistle on the Liberal arm of the 3EM. It does not mean common purpose is suddenly smelling of roses, only that Gerrish may have an agenda of his own which is not all that it seems. Anyone that excludes too much information in favour of a pushing a narrow belief needs to be watched closely. Always keep the bigger picture.


[3] ‘Leaders with a Common Purpose’ By Ken Craggs, May 20th, 2011.
[4]‘Charity reported over data protection issues’ by Paul Jump Third Sector, January 20, 2009.
[5] op.cit Gerrish
[8] ‘Niki Raapana talks to herself about communitarianism’ October 2010 |
[9] The Corbett Report – Charity or Change Agent February 5 2013. |

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

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

— Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This line is from Persian poet and mystic Omar Khayyam:

 “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

As author and journalist G. Edward Griffin observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3.A default emphasis on class distinction.

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

5. The reduction of parental influence.

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

7. The politicisation of education.

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

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

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

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

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



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

World State Policies I

 By M.K. Styllinski

“There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists – to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because academic historians have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing.”

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

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

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

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

These are:

1. Commercialisation through deregulated capitalism

2. Consolidation through cartel corporatism and financial warfare

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

4. Control and its maintenance once achieved.

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

wallpaper-127321-horz_thumb.jpg© infrakshun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inverted Totalitarianism / Huxleyian

Classical Totalitarianism / Orwellian

State domination of economy and business

Corporate domination of State and economy

Active political mobilisation of the populace

Political apathy and ignorance

Open rejection of democracy

Mask of Democracy

Classical and Inverted Totalitarianism

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

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

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

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

The Corporatist-Collectivist Chess board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian dissident takes up the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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