Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Zakheim, Zelikow and the ADL

 By M.K. Styllinski

“‘According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,’ Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.”

— CBS News, 1/29/02


A day before the September 11 attacks in an impossible proclamation of openness, the Secretary of State for Defence Donald Rumsfeld humbly acknowledged that the Pentagon had made a tinsy-winsy error and “could not track some $2.3 trillion in transactions” (one thousand times one billion = one trillion) the worst of the rot having set in during the Clinton Administration. This figure came from the Pentagon’s own Inspector General where according to a CBS News report: “Its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.” [1] Though the issue had been raised before, with explanations given that it was a systems and bureaucracy problem rather than core corruption, it still begs the question: why announce it then? Or was it another coincidence to add to the burgeoning pile? Looks like Rummie was taking the opportunity to announce wholesale corruption amidst the shock of 9/11.

Just add it to the mounting list of Zio-Conservative state crimes.

Donald Rumsf 2-3 Trillions Missiing

Donald Rumsfeld

$2.3 trillion is an almost unimaginable amount of money. In fact, it is equivalent to the entire budget of the U.S. government simply vanishing. It is also true that the Resource Services Washington, accounting offices and records at the Pentagon were destroyed along with the deaths of 34 0f 65 individuals most of whom happened to be civilian accountants, book-keepers and budget analysts, who were sitting at their desks when disaster struck. [2]

There are many researchers who have found convincing evidence that the 9/11 attacks were also planned as a cover-up for financial crimes dating back to 1991. Though by no means the only reason for engineering 9/11, one investigator in particular, Mr. E.D. Heidner, has provided compelling evidence that the secretive Black Eagle Trust Fund was at the centre of a huge money laundering operation totalling $200 billion in bonds. On the board were some of the most well-known US government hawks including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz.

Funding a covert economic war against the Soviet Union beginning in 1991, such financial corruption required a massive laundering of money well outside of congressional and federal oversight. Wall Street and corporate investors pillaged Soviet oil, gas industries and destabilised the Soviet infrastructure while lining the coffers of Western government officials and related interests. The 9/11 attacks served to cover-up all the evidence and derail multiple federal investigations of crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.

Heidner states:

“… hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically ‘cleared’ without anyone asking questions – which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its ‘emergency powers that very afternoon.’ ” [3]

Ending the Cold War and dismantling the Soviet Union required massive amounts of covert securities which were housed in the brokers’ vaults of the World Trade Centre. Just like everything else, they were pulverised on September 11th before they could be settled and cleared which was scheduled for September 12th. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) had been tasked with investigating these bonds and it is just so happens that the ONI headquarters was the primary target and completely destroyed during the Pentagon attack.

010914-F-8006R-002

The Pentagon attack after the collapse of a section of the outer ring. The Naval Command centre was the hardest hit with all but one of the 30 ONI employees surviving the attack.

The three major securities brokers in the World Trade Centre were Eurobrokers, Garbon Inter Capital and Cantor Fitzgerald, the latter being the largest securities dealer in the US.

Heidner also found that:

“… 41 percent of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers. 24 percent of the 125 fatalities in the Pentagon were from the Naval Command Center that housed the Office of Naval Intelligence. 29 of 30 Office of Naval Intelligence employees died. The Naval Command Center had been moved into that newly opened section of the Pentagon only a month earlier. And in the vaults beneath the World Trade Center Towers, any certificates for bonds were destroyed.

On that fateful day, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared a national emergency, and for the first time in U.S. history, invoked its emergency powers under Securities Exchange Act Section 12(k) easing regulatory restrictions for clearing and settling security trades for the next 15 days. These changes would allow an estimated $240 billion in covert government securities to be cleared upon maturity without the standard regulatory controls around identification of ownership.” [4]

If you were similarly struck by a bolt of conspiratorial speculation you might even consider that incompetent accounting and securities fraud could conceal a host of operations that needed paying for. You might also recall that unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAP), better known as “black projects”, have currently siphoned off several trillion since 1998-2002. God only knows how much has been sucked out of the Amercian tax payer after another 13 years. (See Table below).

Year

Missing

Sources

1998

$3.4 trillion

Washington Times

1999

$2.3 trillion

Congressional meeting

2000

$1.1 trillion

Congressional meeting; Insight Magazine

2001

$2.3 trillion

CBS quoting Rumsfeld

2002

$1+ trillion

San Francisco Chronicle; CBS

Source: The Institute of Globalisation and Covert Politics [5]

Not a whisper of this astounding criminality reached the prime-time news. If it did gain a story it was wrapped up in bias which suggested this was a bureaucratic problem rather than systematic fraud that was part of “normal” government life.

One person to swiftly resign when the $2.3 missing trillions was announced was Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim the Comptroller of the Pentagon during the attacks. We must add another $1 trillion that was lost under Zakheim’s watch during his tenure from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. Not only could he not account for this truly massive monetary drain of financial transactions, but dozens of missing tanks, missiles and planes. [6]

An adjunct scholar of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he has published over 200 articles and monographs on defence issues. Zakheim is also a CFR member and signatory of the PNAC keynote paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in 2000, which as the reader might recall, pushed for “a New Pearl Harbor.” [7] Zakheim’s resumé reads like a John le Carré novel, full of insider posts and covert dealing. If you were looking for a MOSSAD mole within the US administration allowed to do precisely as he pleased then Zakheim seemed to fit the bill.

zakheimDov Zakheim at a White House press briefing in 2002.

From 1985-1987 he was Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Planning and Resources, before nesting down at the Congressional Budget Office. In 1998, Zakheim worked as a policy advisor during the Bush 2000 campaign and did such a good job that he was sworn in by the Bush Administration as Under Secretary of Defence (Comptroller) of the DOD in the following year. Zakheim also just happens to be an expert in ballistic missile technology which is somewhat unusual for a campaign advisor and Comptroller. Zakheim, who had been hob-knobbing around the Pentagon and US administrations for over 25 years had also been supplying the latest in offensive and defensive missile systems to Israel including F-15’s, F-16’s, patriot missiles, Merkava tanks, ICBM’s, nuclear smart bombs and even space satellite technology worth billions – a huge proportion of which was paid for with American tax dollars. [8] This would explain why Israel has become the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving close to $3 billion in largely military assistance each year. No wonder too, that Israel has one of the biggest air forces in the world. [9]

Merkava-1-latrun-2

Israeli Merkava Mk I MBT in Yad la-Shiryon Museum, Israel. 2005. (wikipedia)

The Rabbi had been working very hard behind the scenes to benefit Israeli military interests. This, despite Navy Intelligence Analyst and Israeli mole Jonathan Jay Pollard who was discovered and arrested for stealing “… vast quantities of classified information on Israel’s behalf for almost 18 months.” He was also linked to another US national Ben-ami Kadish, who pleaded guilty to charges of passing classified information to Israel in the same year. [10]  Dov Zakheim had no need to carry out Pollard’s remit when he had clearance to do as he wished.

It becomes somewhat clearer when we look further back to 1996 when The Washington Post reported on a Defence Investigative Service’s confidential memo warning military contractors that the Israeli government was: “’aggressively’ trying to steal U.S. military and intelligence secrets, partly by using its ‘strong ethnic ties’ to the United States to recruit spies.” When we remember the MOSSAD’s intelligence operations within the US, employing thousands of sayanim * from a Jewish socio-cultural foundation, then the “ethnic ties” becomes easier to understand.

The Post’s report continued:

482px-Peacekeeper_missile_after_silo_launch

U.S. Peacekeeper missile after silo launch (wikipedia)

“…Israel ‘aggressively collects [U.S.] military and industrial technology,’ including spy satellite data, missile defense information, and data on military aircraft, tanks, missile boats, and radars.

Drawing on the example of the Pollard case and of other Israeli espionage operations in the United States, the memo said that the country’s recruitment techniques include ‘ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties’ of US citizens.

‘Placing Israeli nationals in key industries … is a technique utilized with great success,’ the memo said.” [11]

Sounds like Zakheim to me. The memo warning was nonetheless cancelled for reasons we will look at further on.

According to artist and author Uri Dowbenko in an article from Government Executive magazine, Zakheim admitted: “… we are in the business of fighting wars” which fits like a glove into the PNAC doctrine and explains his true role within the US administration. After Zakheim conveniently resigned and washed his hands of the little matter of the missing $3 trillion, Online Journal’s Jerry Mazza states: “In May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.” [12]

dovz1

Dov S. Zakheim giving a talk the Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Initiative 2013 forum: “What Defense Does America Need?” Zakheim’s quote:  “There are things we can do, but what we shouldn’t do… is eliminate those capabilities that we will bitterly regret not having should some new contingency come up that of course we did not foresee.”  Zakheim is very big on “contingency.” Militarising America means strengthening Israel at any cost, both financially and ideologically.

Having retired as Senior Vice President at Booz Allen Hamilton in 2010, he became Senior Fellow at the CNA Corporation which operates the Centre for Naval Analyses a federally funded research and development centre founded in 1942 and serves the Departments of the Navy and other agencies. The centre pioneers research into: “… military preparedness, operations evaluation, systems analysis, foreign affairs, strategic relationships, humanitarian operations and logistics.” It has special field research studies dedicated to the Marine Corps and the “role of China in the International Order.” Their customers are essentially everyone operating within US intelligence and the Department of Defence. Its contract is administered by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) “which allows for task order awards via a DD Form 448 MIPR.” [13] (The latter being a military interdepartmental purchase request or MIPR).

Zakheim also finds time to act as a Senior Advisor at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies a right wing think-tank, and a Co-Vice Chair of Global Panel America (Global Panel Foundation) a corporate and ex-government think-tank with a globalist vision. Going back further, Dov’s grand-father Julius Zakheim (Zhabinka) was a Russian rabbi who married a relative of Karl Marx and had a leading role in paving the way for the Bolshevik Revolution. Dov’s father Rabbi Jacob I. Zakheim on the hand, was a hard core Zionist and an active member of Betar terrorist organisation which forged links with Haganah, Irgun and the Stern gangs. [14]

Aside from this background which is alarming enough, what is a dual nationality Zionist rabbi doing in control of the accounting of the United States of America?

Is that not just slightly strange notwithstanding the uneasy spy vs. spy nature of America and Israel?

Why is it that our Dov keeps coming up time and again in connection to financial irregularity and the 9/11 attacks?

spcWhat is even more interesting is that before becoming the Pentagon’s financial Tzar, he was chief executive officer and president of SPC International and an executive at System Planning Corporation, (SPC) linked to DARPA, a weapons contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. The company specialises in advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide: “remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system.” Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11: “the planes used in the attacks could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.” [15]

If anyone was going to provide the technical and financial know how to turn hijacked planes into remotely controlled projectiles from the ground with hijackers as suicide patsies, then Zakheim was the man. Clearly, there should be a heavy weight suspicion concerning the role of Dov Zakheim, not just in the loss of inordinate amounts of American tax-payers’ money, his ties to militant Zionism and dubious weapons shipments to Israel, but his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Jerry Mazza mentions, coincidentally:

“… in May 2001, when Dov served at the Pentagon, it was an SPS (his firm’s) subsidiary, Tridata Corporation, that oversaw the investigation of the first ‘terrorist’ attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. This would have given them intimate knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center. From the ’90s through 2001, WTC Security was handled by Securacom, a Kuwait-American firm, on whose board Marvin Bush, the president’s brother, sat. After 9/11, Securacom was let go, changed its name to Stratosec, and was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2002.” [16]

It is Securacom that was hired by owner of the World Trade Centre Towers, Larry Silverstein among whose closest friends is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who was nearly falling over himself to suppress his glee on September 11th. As we might recall, when asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations: He replied: “It’s very good … Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel].” It was also Mr. Netanyahu, who back in 1986, coined the phrase “the War on Terror” and who is presently a stalwart supporter of messianic cult of Chabad Lubavitch who is also calling for the destruction of Iran as part of a divine prophecy. [17] (More on this in later posts).

291040761_3_294_220-horz

Benjamin Netanyahu and Dov Zakheim cut from the same cloth – the difference is largely one of IQ.

Rabbi Dov Zakheim was merely a more obvious indication of the takeover of American politics by the Zio-Conservatives and their plans to set the USA on the road to perpetual war against Islam. Jewish-American top level posts within the administrations such as Elliot Abrams, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and more recently Rahm Emmanuel, all have their allegiance first and foremost to Israel. Everything was in place to launch “a catastrophic and catalyzing event” to move forward and actualise a Greater Anglo-American-Israeli domination of the Middle East.

Geo-political analyst Professor James Petras explains the broader rationale behind the 9/11 false flag:

The key to the success of the operation was to encourage terrorists and to facilitate calculated and systematic ‘neglect’ – to deliberately marginalize intelligence agents and agency reports that identified the terrorists, their plans and methods. In the subsequent investigatory hearings, it was necessary to foster the image of ‘neglect’, bureaucratic ineptness and security failures in order to cover up Administration complicity in the terrorists’ success. An absolutely essential element in mobilizing massive and unquestioning support for the launching of a world war of conquest and destruction centered in Muslim and Arab countries and people was a ‘catastrophic event’ that could be linked to the latter. [18]

And it was this “neglect” and the Intel/security “failures” which may have allowed a joint operation – despite the uneasy alliance with Israel – between top level officials of the US military, CIA, FBI and other US agencies and the MOSSAD to carry out the greatest false flag attack ever on US soil.

There is no doubt that members of the Bush Administration not only had access to intelligence reports and prior common knowledge of imminent attacks but lied under oath to the 9/11 Commission. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice among many others all covered up the fact that they knew at some point this was going to happen and likely had some part to play in its formation. However, they were clearly not the major players.


 “Al-Qaeda is the enemy,” they are an unslayable power.”

– Philip D. Zelikow, Honors College Commons lecture 2011


In 2011, author, academic, diplomat and arch-propagandist Philip D. Zelikow (another with dual US-Israel nationality) was wooed from his post as associate Professor for graduate academic programs in the University of Virginia, and appointed by President Barack Obama to his Intelligence Advisory Board. Zelikow’s special talents were crucial in persuading the public that America was on a Wild-West road to vengeful redemption and a cathartic reclamation of American values, but only if it was imposed with blood and bombs on the rest of the world. [19]

In the best tradition of Hollywood script-writing Zelikow was able to weave a fantasy for the 9/11 operation with a flourish of his propaganda quill that would have made Edward Bernays swoon with paternal pride. In a Millar Report from 1999 Zelikow writes of the importance of beliefs about history, calling attention to “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene.” [20] To that end, he also described himself: “as an expert in the ‘creation and maintenance of public myths.’ He defines ‘public myth’ as a “public presumption” about history that may or may not be true, but which nevertheless exerts a powerful influence on public opinion, and through that influence affects history.” [21] This is probably why he remains consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defence and offers his expertise to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

He became the natural choice for the appointment of architect and head of the 9/11 Commission Report, leading a grouping of suitably debriefed and/or clueless ex-government officials and Congressman who could be relied upon to tow the official line and support its findings. Zelikow was tasked with writing a report that would keep the truth about 9/11 from the scrutiny of the public, civil society and wayward journalists. Given Zelikow’s skills in formulating doctrines aligned to Zio-Conservative policy he was the perfect man for the job. Indeed, according to New York Times Investigative reporter Philip Shenon: “Zelikow had written all of the chapter outlines of the 9/11 Commission Report before the Commission even began its investigation. Zelikow completely controlled the investigation, ordering underlings to basically just fill in the chapter outlines of his pre-scripted novel. The Report became a “surprise bestseller” because it reads like a novel – which is exactly what it is.” [22]

philip-zelikow

Philip D. Zelikow, Like Dov Zakheim, is big on contingency and external threats – to Israel. The latter uses financial, geopolitical  and business strategy, the former uses propaganda and myth-making talents to maintain a fictional narrative. For Israel, he was the perfect man to act as executive director for the 9/11 Commission.

It’s also worth mentioning that several members and officials related to the Commission made it quite clear that they were extremely unhappy with almost every aspect of the Report. After the Report was finally released to the press, Former New Jersey Governor and Commission Chair Thomas Kean and Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton, former Democratic U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana wrote a book in 2006 about their experiences during and after the 9/11 Commission Report. They accuse officials and authorities within the Pentagon and FAA of ignoring their recommendations, putting out disinformation and misstatements to the media and overseeing systematic obstruction during the investigations. In summary, they charge that the 9/11 Commission Report was “set up to fail” right from the start. [23]

In a world where conflicts of interest are the norm when it comes to matters even partially related to 9/11, Zelikow’s meteoric rise from genius academic to Bush /Obama favourite not only shows the illusion of Republican and Democrat differences but his talent for telegraphing future scenarios. In that sense, he operates in much the same way as Zbigniew Brzezinski during his time at the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and in his influential books on geo-strategy. Propaganda and myth-making are cornerstones of the Zelikow world-view as it is with any Machiavellian neophyte.

In a 1998 issue of the PNAC Mark II think-tank magazine Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled: “Catastrophic Terrorism” where Zelikow served up what appeared to be a “warning” to the faithful, but was in fact a narrative of Zio-Conservative ideology and future policy, yet again mentioning that well-worn phrase: “Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States (sic) might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force…” He further states: “Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.” [24]

Which then might lead to a situation of eyebrow-raised finger-wagging, followed by a decree to hand over ALL our freedoms and stop whining…

Zelikow was ordered by his colleague Condoleezza Rice to re-write America’s national security strategy immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was to be the sequel to PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and equally important in priming minds still reeling from fear and anger from the events of 9/11. The document, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America” was issued on September 17, 2002, and represented a turning point in the realisation of perpetual war for the world’s resources, under the guise of exporting American democracy. It would give significant credence to the formula of the “War on Terror” functioning as a propaganda nail driven into an already traumatised public mind. It was designed to bolster support for “future crime” scenarios where rogue nations would harbour Weapons of Mass Destruction intent on using them against an unprepared United States. [25]

Philip_D_Zelikow,_University_of_Virginia_(4799290374)

Zelikow delivering a lecture at the University of Virginia, July 2010.

Although Zelikow had been against CIA torture during the Bush years and had actively written against “enhanced interrogation”– at least as official policy – it was only due to the fact that the fear and anxiety induced would eventually prove counter-productive and “be exploited by zealots and fools.” [26] Zelikow is a perfect example of Brzezinskian pragmatism. Yet for his 9/11 Commission fantasy to work, certain torture related “successes” had to be made viable. For instance, the whole official story, as 9/11 academic and journalist Keith Barrett explains, hangs on “… third-hand testimony taken under brutal torture from [supposed 9/11 mastermind] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who apparently had to be waterboarded 183 times in one month in order to brainwash him into remembering and parroting the details of Zelikow’s novel.” [27] Whether that is precisely true, Mohammed certainly claimed he provided a lot of false information which he assumed the interrogators wanted to hear in order to stop the torture, something that can be used as metaphor for almost every aspect of Zio-Conservative support for pre-emptive politics. [28]

Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

It was for this reason that the 9/11 Commission proved to be nothing short of a whitewash thanks largely to the talents of Zelikow and his legion of presstitutes. Anyone who could think critically (which meant the MSM and Congress were automatically excluded) immediately saw the gaping holes and errors and which conveniently side-lined any reference to government culpability. To those who were naturally sceptical of the 9/11 Commission’s findings James Petras describes Zelikow’s response which was extremely telling in that he:

“… went on an insane rage, calling the sceptics ‘pathogens’ or germs whose ‘infection’ needed to be contained. With language reminiscent of a Social Darwinist diatribe, he referred to criticisms of the Commission cover up as ‘a bacteria (that) can sicken the larger body (of public opinion)’. Clearly Zelikow’s rant reflects the fear and loathing he feels for those who implicated him with a militarist regime which fabricated a pretext for a catastrophic war for Zelikow’s favourite state – Israel.” [29]

It is not simply fear and hatred operating here. We might be discerning a standard slipping of a “Mask of Sanity” so characteristic of embedded psychopaths who otherwise project an icy demeanour of clinical control and confidence. What is intriguing in the context of ponerology is the use of the exact same language, thoughts, ideas and concepts of their perceived enemies, projecting onto their accusers the very crimes of which they are guilty. In truth, Zelikow, Cheney, Karl Rove and so many others in successive US Administrations personify those “pathogens” who “sicken the larger body” of government. It is also clear that Zelikow’s allegiance is not to either the US constitution or the American people. While speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts regarding the possible implications of the September 11th attacks, he told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002: “I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel …” [30]

Recall Prime Minister Netanyahu who told an audience at Bar Ilan University in September 2008 when he was acting head of the Likud party: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” and further added that the events had “swung American public opinion in our favor.” [31] If a politician can so brazenly cater to cheap political ambitions in public it does make one wonder what he would be willing to sanction in private. And it is very obvious indeed that Israel has a huge stake in the “Clash of Civilisations” shtick, the “War on Terror” and the whole 9/11 charade.

bibi_bomb

Netanyahu embarrassing himself in front of the UN. Since Iran is on the list of regimes to topple Netanyahu must keep pressing for an attack on Iran to fulfil Ultra-Zionist religio-political imperatives. In the same way, the events of 9/11 were a vital phase in achieving the long sought after domination of the Middle East and the extermination of Arabs, seen as the ancient Amalekites. (Photo Source: AP)

With a history of involvement in the far-right politics overseeing intelligence agencies Shin Bet, the MOSSAD and serving as Israel’s Prime Minister at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Netanyahu is the most likely candidate as one of its primary insiders or architects. He has been a major mover in politics and a prominent member of the Likud Government since 1993. The Likud Party evolved from the Irgun Jewish terrorist organisation created by Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the  Jewish Self-Defense Organization and ODESSA fame and is enmeshed in covert Zionist operations abroad.

Though there was the Israeli concept of “TNT,” Hebrew for “Terror Neged Terror” (“terror against terror”) which existed in the 1970s [32] it was Netanyahu’s own book Terrorism: How the West Can Win written in 1986 which first introduced the term: “War on Terror.” With undercurrents of Straussian and ultra-right aspirations throughout, he explains how the West needs “a better understanding of terrorism” in order to mobilise against it, clearly desperate for “… a coherent and united international response” so that: “… a broad-based, vigorous campaign against the terrorists and their sponsors,” can begin to take place. In other words, it provides another clarion call for both the creation of and “resistance” to a joint Western-Israeli manufactured Global War on Terror and the manifesto for a Greater Israel. [33]

Zeev_Jabotinsky

Vladimir Jabotinsky (Wikipedia)

The late expert on Arab-Israeli relations Edward W. Said spoke of the “low-level oddities” in the book which marked it out as a propaganda exercise:

Very few efforts are made to convince readers of what is being said: sources and figures are never cited; abstractions and generalizations pop up everywhere; and, except for three essays on Islam, historical argument is limited to the single proposition that terrorism has never before presented such a threat to ‘the democracies.’ I was also struck that the verb in the book’s subtitle, How the West Can Win, doesn’t seem to have an object: Win what? One wonders. So great is the number of contributors, so hortatory the tone, so confident and many the assertions, that in the end you retain little of what has been said, except that you had better get on with the fight against terrorism, whatever Netanyahu says it is. [34]

Obviously, whatever the threat may be, you can be sure it’s against Israel and we all have to step into its shadow.

Likud_Logo.svgLikud Party Logo

The forging of US-Israeli leadership in tackling the nature of terrorism was given major boost at the close of the 1970s when Netanyahu and Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak founded the Jonathan Institute named after Bibi’s brother Yoni, who was killed in the Israeli anti-terrorist raid in Entebbe, Uganda. This was partly thanks to the mentoring of Netanyahu by Betchtel board member and Reagan’s Secretary of State, George P. Shultz who saw Bibi’s fascist record as an effective tool in re-working the World Order and thus a another tool for Anglo-American dominance. To do that, he needed Zionism as much as Zionism needed the American Establishment. At that moment, Netanyahu was flavour of the month.

In June 1984, an international conference on terrorism was held in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Institute at which Shultz gave a keynote address to announce Paul Wolfowitz’s policy of pre-emptive force. He stated: “… a purely passive defense does not provide enough of a deterrent to terrorism and the states that sponsor it. It is time to think long, hard, and seriously about more active means of defense—defense through appropriate preventive or pre-emptive actions against terrorist groups before they strike.” [35] It was as if Bibi’s book and Wolfowitz’s vision had become one – all for Israel.

The conference was also the breeding ground for implementing the cooked up Intel for what would become the “axis of evil” and the invasion and destruction of Iraq. In relation to 9/11, many speculate that this was a centre for not just studying terrorism but planning it. Egyptian Intellectual, Dr. Hassan al Bana in a televised interview with a Middle Eastern TV station stated publicly that he thought Netanyahu planned 9/11 at the 1984 conference with other Establishment and Zio-Conservative luminaries.  [36] (See footnote for complete extract).

shultz-wolfowitz

George P. Shultz circa early 80s and Paul Wolfowitz  (right)

Isser Harel, the recognised founder of Israeli intelligence; former head of Shin Bet, (1948–1952) and director of Mossad, (1947-1963) was likely the inspiration – if not one of the original architects – of an ambitious attack on US soil. Journalist and author Christopher Bollyn describes a dinner meeting between Harel and American Zionist Michael D. Evans where he is told that terrorism would come to America in no uncertain terms:

Isarharel

Isser Harel spymaster and Director of the MOSSAD

“Arab terrorists would strike the tallest building in New York City, ‘a symbol of your fertility,’ Harel said. Harel had dinner with Evans on September 23, 1979, according to Evans, and told him that America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia ‘was dangerous and would develop a tolerance for terror among Americans.’ Harel went on to say that ‘Islamic fundamentalists would ultimately strike America.’

When Evans asked where the Arab terrorists would strike, Harel said: ‘In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit.’

… ‘Isser Harel prophesised that the tallest building in New York would be the first building hit by Islamic fundamentalists twenty-one years ago,’ Evans said in the 2004 interview.” [37]

Unless Harel was psychic, there is little doubt that one of the first intelligence agents in the world knew about the long-term planning of such an Islamic terrorist attack, if he didn’t have a hand in the planning himself. As we continue we will see that the foundation and implementation of such a design was right under everyone’s noses.

The history of Zionist influence in contemporary America and the domination of Jewish thought in the media, entertainment and political lobbying acted as the backdrop to the presence of a vast Israeli spy ring and a Zionist “fifth Column” in the US government. It has allowed individudals like Zelikow and Zakheim to work their way up through the ranks with an agenda that is not only anti-American but fanatically pro-Israel to the exclusion of all else. For the planning and execution of September 11th attacks the US needed to be infiltrated not just within the departments of military intelligence but at the level of propaganda, the legacy of which had already been firmly pioneered by the genius of Edward Bernays and others.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has played a significant part in spying since its founding in 1913. It also happened to be the creation of B’nai B’rith founded in New York in 1843, by German-Jewish immigrants. Known as the “Sons of the Covenant” and rooted in a Jewish branch of freemasonry, it is the oldest “Jewish service organisation” in the world. [38] The House of Rothschild was involved in the manufacture of the religion which was a direct product of the criminal network agency of the Order of Zion and organised as a “covert intelligence front” to extend its PR financial Empire. [39]

ADL logoThe ADL describes itself as a “… civil rights/ human relations agency”, which “fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all,” doing so through: “information, education, legislation, and advocacy.” [40] This however, had to be squared with San Francisco Bay area activists who were spied upon by the ADL and who sued the organisation for violation of their privacy rights as provided under California law. The 1993 ruling by the District of Attorney of San Francisco: “… released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.” [41] The extensive nature of ADL’s spying activities included not just Arab Americans but “…members of Greenpeace, NAACP, the Mills College faculty and various other institutions, groups and individuals.” Political pressure caused Smith to later drop the charges settling the suit out of court in February 2002. [42]

During these investigations one of ADL’s operatives Roy Bullock was found to have been involved in CoIntelpro activities since 1960 and which even suggested an involvement in murder:

“Ten days before he was assassinated in South Africa, Chris Hani, the man who would have succeeded Nelson Mandela as the country’s president, was trailed by Bullock on a trip through California who reported on it to the South African government.” […] After Los Angeles Arab American leader Alex Odeh was murdered, Bullock was discovered to have a key, and a floor plan, of the murdered man’s office.  This is evidence that ADL operatives may have helped plan and execute political assassinations in the US and abroad.  But don’t hold your breath for the FBI to investigate or charge Bullock, or any other ADLer, in connection to these murders.” [43]

The fact that the ADL can continue to operate under the status of a tax-exempt “religious and charitable” organisation is drawn from an historic court case where B’nai B’rith could have been prosecuted for failing to register as agents of a foreign power under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. A sworn testimony was given at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1961, where Saul Joftes – former director general of the B’nai B’rith’s Office of International Affairs – revealed that B’nai B’rith “engages in international politics and more often than not does the bidding of the government of Israel. Its leaders make frequent trips to Israel for indoctrination and instructions.” [44]

By the 1970s however, the potato was too hot to touch and B’nai B’rith and the ADL were not prosecuted. This allowed them to carry on pretending they were charitable, religious and educational organisations rather than propaganda outposts of the Israeli government. The job of B’nai B’rith/ADL is to restrict all and every form of criticism levelled at Israel using the tools of anti-Semitism and psychological coercion.


“B’nai B’rith International’s Israel/Middle East policy includes issues such as fighting terrorism; supporting Israel’s right to defend itself; preventing Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons; preserving the unity of Jerusalem; promoting the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries; and supporting direct negotiations between the parties to the Middle East conflict while affirming the importance of Israel’s critical security needs.”

bnai-brith-deplora-teorias-antisemitas-de-conspiracion

B’nai B’rith International logo

 (Since there inherent assumptions in this description from B’nai B’rith International’s website, we can deduce that Middle East policy actually serves not as a peace-making initiative for all peoples but yet another arm of Israeli propaganda, distorted geo-political ideology and Jewish ethnocentrism.

“B’nai B’rith Europe (BBE) is represented in 29 countries, with 7,000 members in more than 150 associations or lodges.  Based in Brussels, BBE has delegations at the European Parliament, the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, the United Nations in Geneva, and UNESCO in Paris.”

That belies some serious political leverage.


You might be thinking what has this got to do with the war on terror and 9/11? Quite a lot. The ADL,  B’nai B’rith and other orgranisations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) serve as powerful buffers to Zionist and Jewish supremacy using intimidation tactics which include spying on activists and academics critical of Israel’s lobbying and the treatment of the Palestinians, all of which has increased since 9/11. According to a Counterpunch report: “… at least 51 percent of the activities at its San Francisco office were devoted to defending Israel.” Its self-anointed role as an “education organization” seems tenuous in light of its activities or, as the report bluntly stated: “The settlement offered by the ADL is recognition on its part that it could not afford to go to a trial in front of a jury and face the likelihood that more of its dirty secrets would be revealed.” [45]

There has also been a curiously close relationship between the ADL and the FBI which has oiled the wheels of the organisation on more than one occasion. The FBI routinely display ADL posters in FBI offices throughout the country and have hosted ceremonies and conferences at FBI headquarters. One such event in 2000 saw an ADL press release announcing the participation of more than 500 representatives from Law Enforcement agencies from across The U.S. in a Joint ADL-FBI Conference on Terrorism in New York. The conference was held at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA titled: “Extremist and Terrorist Threats: Protecting America After 9/11.” This was apparently an: “outgrowth of ADL’s long-time involvement in providing information and training to law enforcement on threats posed by extremists.” Subjects under discussion were extremist groups, investigative techniques, counterterrorism strategies, domestic security and threat assessment.” [46]

ADL’s National Director Abraham H. Foxman proceeded to teach the FBI to suck eggs, exclaiming:

“Now more than ever, law enforcement must have the resources and know-how to prevent future acts of terrorism. In order to assess threats against the United States, law enforcement must have credible information about domestic and foreign extremists whose rhetoric promotes violence. Through our network of regional offices and our experts in the field, ADL is uniquely suited to aid in the war against terrorism.” Foxman went on to say that the conference was: “… an opportunity for law enforcement and extremism watchdogs to compare notes and forge alliances.” [47] [Emphasis mine]

What was being said in the above was not a plea to work together but a barely veiled command. What is a self-appointed human rights education and advocacy group doing sitting in the lap of the FBI? Could it be that the only reason for “comparing notes” and “forging alliances” from ADL’s perspective is to monitor and then subvert any FBI investigations that may be potentially threatening to the anti-Semitic barrier used to insulate it from criticism on Israel’s foreign and domestic policies?

On May 7, 2002, Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the FBI (someone who regularly lied about what he knew and didn’t know during 9/11 Congressional reports) addressed the ADL’s 24th National Leadership Conference where he said:

“A few months ago, Abe [Abraham H. Foxman] and Jess [Jess N. Hordes, ADL Washington representative] came by my office for a visit.  I appreciated their taking the time to meet with me. I have long admired and respected the work of ADL, and I appreciate your longstanding support of the FBI.  I know that under my predecessor, Louis Freeh, this partnership reached new heights. As I told Abe and Jess, I am absolutely committed to building on that relationship.” [48]

Appreciated them taking the time to meet him? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? This is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation speaking as though he is about to take a scented bubble bath with dear old Abe and Jess and reveal more than just FBI secrets. The ADL now has access to government’s confidential investigative files with ADL employees even invited to take a ride with FBI agents making raids or arrests which are of interest to the organisation. The FBI is not wearing the trousers in this “relationship.”

It seems the FBI is still in the pocket of the ADL in 2015. Mueller’s successor was former US Deputy Attorney General during the Bush years and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin weapons manufacturer James Comey Jr. who has been told to continue the obsequious tradition. In a speech to ADL members he reiterated that the organisation: “… has even greater reach;” which has meant the training of “…12,000 law enforcement personnel last year alone” and the mandatory programs on the  “Hate Crimes Training Manual” developed by the ADL and FBI. With the definitions of “terrorist” suitably blurred and the FBI’s penchant for entrapment formulas, this is nothing more than indoctrination which ensures a hyper-vigilance on anti-Semitism and politically correct reflexes out of all proportion. It does however, increase Israel’s bubble of socio-cultural protection against any and all criticism. [49]

AbrahamFoxmanJan2011

Abraham H. Foxman National Director of the Anti-Defamation League; FBI director James Comey Jr. (top left) and former FBI Director Robert S. Muelller (top right) 

The ADL’s response to the Defence Investigative Service memo mentioned previously and reported by The Washington Post was an example of how to utilise the anti-Semitism canard in the face of more accusations of an Israeli spy ring. It was highly effective. Journalist R. Jeffrey Smith writes: “The warning, which described Israel as a ‘non-traditional adversary’ in the world of espionage, was circulated by the Defence Investigative Service with a memo noting similar intelligence ‘threats’ from other close U.S. allies. The warning about Israel was ‘cancelled’ and withdrawn by the Pentagon in December after senior officials decided its author had improperly singled out Jewish ‘ethnicity’ as a specific counterintelligence concern.” [50]

In a letter to Defence Secretary William J. Perry, the ADL Director Abraham Foxman launched into his job description which requires him to deflect any further scrutiny away from Zionist infiltration claiming: “This is a distressing charge which impugns American Jews and borders on anti-Semitism,” and earlier complaining about its reference to Israeli recruitment techniques but also its “harsh tone.” This thumb-sucking outrage and the mere thought that Israelis could ever employ recruitment techniques even though they are famous the world over for doing just that, all point to the real intent of the ADL. Therefore, it was of no consequence that: “Many military counterintelligence officials remain[ed] scarred by the 1985 revelation that Navy intelligence analyst Jonathan Jay Pollard stole what the memo refers to as ‘vast quantities of classified information’ on Israel’s behalf…” [51]

When society is so fearful of being labelled anti-Semitic when levelling criticism of anything remotely Jewish and/or Israeli, then the outlook is bleak when it comes to exploring 9/11 and Israel’s role. It is for this reason that all the forces of the Israeli lobbies are committed to the prohibition of any and all discussion concerning Israel and 9/11 in the mainstream media. With social surveillance riding knee-jerk PC conformity across American society it is hardly shocking that an extensive Israeli spy ring was operating all over the US and in preparation for the participation in the events of September 11th.  Does that mean that acts of anti-Semitism do not occur? We know very well that they do. Yet, we must look at the ADL in context, as arms of the overall Israeli lobby and intelligence apparatus. Anti-Semitism is as essential to the perpetuation of cultural victim-hood and geo-political ideology as entrapment is to the FBI or CIA regime change. It all feeds into the vast illusion of the terror industry and the role of state sponsorship – most importantly, the role of Israel’s MOSSAD. Unless we understand this, we are doomed to fall into their ever-present engineering of the mass mind.

The military love-hate affair with Israel continues according to a 2012 Washington Post report where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “… plans to supervise the construction of a five-story underground facility for an Israel Defense Forces complex … at an Israeli Air Force base near Tel Aviv.” Operating under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program (FMS) the project is thought to be the largest yet, costing $100 million dollars of American tax payers’ money. The facility is no slap-dash affair with “… classrooms on Level 1, an auditorium on Level 3, a laboratory, shock-resistant doors, protection from non-ionizing radiation and very tight security. Clearances will be required for all construction workers, guards will be at the fence and barriers will separate it from the rest of the base.” [52]

The name of this base: “Site 9/11”.

 


* Sayanim – Describes persons of Jewish origin living outside Israel as foreign citizens and who volunteer to provide assistance to the Mossad. This includes medical care, financial support, research; intelligence gathering i.e. anything that can aid the Mossad in their global operations. Estimates put the number of sayanim in the thousands. This is one reason why the Mossad operates with fewer agents than other intelligence agencies.


Notes

[1] ‘CBS Reports Pentagon Cannot Account for $2.3 Trillion’ “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,’” Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.” CBS News January 29 2002. | ‘Defense Dollars’ PBS Online News Hour, February 12, 2001. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/dollars_2-12.html
[2] South Coast Today Pittsburgh Post-Gazette December 20, 2001. | http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm
[3] For much more information on securities fraud and Black Eagle Trust cover up read E.P. Heidner’s meticulously researched article: ‘Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001’ By E.P. Heidner: http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Unacknowledged Special Access Programs: US deep black programs out of control?’ By Joël van der Reijden, September 10, 2005. Institute for the Study of Globalisation and Covert Politics. www. wikispooks.com/ISGP/index.html Veteran journalist Seymour Hersh has reported on just one USAP that he discovered set up to circumvent national and international humanitarian laws with full knowledge from Condeleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, whereby in late 2001, early 2002 President Bush: “…had signed a top-secret finding, as required by law, authorizing the Defense Department to set up a specially recruited clandestine team of Special Forces operatives and others who would defy diplomatic niceties and international law and snatch — or assassinate, if necessary — identified ‘high-value’ Al Qaeda operatives anywhere in the world. Equally secret interrogation centers would be set up in allied countries where harsh treatments were meted out, unconstrained by legal limits of public disclosure. The program was hidden inside the Defense Department as an ‘unacknowledged’ special-access program, or SAP, whose operational details were known only to a few in the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House.” This would come under the net of subsequent drone attacks in Pakistan under the Obama administration amid condemnation by most people of conscience.
[6] ‘Military waste under fire / $1 trillion missing — Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting’ By Tom Abate, SanFrancisco Chronicle May 18, 2003.
[7] Radar Physics Group, sysplan.com, [cached] | Flight Termination System, sysplan.com, [cached] via http://www.911research ‘Missing Trillions Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01’
[8] ‘US: The Fatal Flaws in the Patriot Missile System’ by Jeffrey St. Clair, Counterpunch, April 17th, 2003. |‘Israel’s Palmachim Spaceport’ Space Today, 2005. “Israel is developing an Ofeq-7 spysat and a radar satellite known as Techstar, a radar satellite, both for launch in 2008.” | Judicial Inc. http://www.72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Zakheim_surplus.htm
[9] ‘Israel To Receive $8 Billion’ By Adam Entous March 18, Reuters, 2003.
[10] ‘Defense Memo Warned of Israeli Spying; ‘Ethnic Ties’ Charge Draws ADL Rebuke’By R. Jeffrey Smith, The Washington Post, January 30, 1996, p. A1.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Following Zakheim And The Pentagon Trillions To Israel And 911’ By Jerry Mazza, Online Journal Associate Editor March 28, 2007.
[13] http://www.cna.org/centers/cna | 448 MIPR or “Department of Defence Form 448, Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request” is a standard for the ease of transfer of funds between U.S. military organizations rather than limited to funding within a single entity. If one reads the reglulations and loopholes inherent in such a method it is easy to see how trillions can go missing. See: ‘Code of Federal Regulations, Title 48 – Federal Acquisition Regulations System – DD Form 448, Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request.
[14] Ibid.
[15] ‘Dov Zackheim, Pentagon Comptroller, Has Misplaced A Trillion $’ by Likud Watch Monday, Jan. 31, 2005. Cleveland Indymedia. http://www.cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2005/01/14509.php
[16] Op.cit. Mazza.
[17] A Day of Terror: The Israelis; Spilled Blood Is Seen as Bond That Draws 2 Nations Closer’ By James Bennet, The New York Times, September 12, 2001.
[18] ‘Provocations as Pretexts for Imperial War: From Pearl Harbor to 9/11.’ May 25, 2008. http://www.petras.lahaine.org/
[19] ‘Zelikow Appointed to Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.’ By Rob Segal, UVA Today, http://www.news.virginia.edu
[20] ‘Thinking About Political History’. By Philip Zelikow. Miller Center Report, Winter 1999.
[21] ‘Zelikow: 9/11 Master Criminal Appointed By Obama’ Obama appoints 9/11 scriptwriter & master criminal Zelikow to Intelligence Advisory Board, by Kevin Barrett, September 2011, Veterans Today. wwwveteranstoday.com
[22] p. 111; The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation By Philip Shenon. Published by Twelve, 2008. | ISBN-10: 0446580759.
[23 p.14; Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission By Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamiliton. Published by Alfred A. Knopf 2006.
[24] ‘Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger’. By Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow. Foreign Affairs, November/December 1998.
[25] ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’. The Washington Post. September 17, 2002. “To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”
[26] ‘Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of the Dark Side’ By Scott Horton, Harper’s Magazine, 14 July 2008
[27] op. cit Barrett
[28] ‘ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody’ (PDF).
[29] op. cit. Petras.
[30] p.456; Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil By Michael C. Ruppert. Published by New Society Publishers, 2004.
[31] ‘Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel’ “According to Ma’ariv, Netanyahu said Israel is ‘benefiting from attack’ as it ‘swung American public opinion.” By Haaretz Service and Reuters, April16, 2008.
[32] Brother Against Brother:Violence and Extremism in Israeli Politics from Altalena to the Rabin Assassination By Ehud Sprinzak Published by Free Press, 1999.
[33] Terrorism: How the West Can Win By Benjamin Netanyahu. Published by Douglas & McIntyre, 1986. (Preface)
[34] ‘The Essential Terrorist’ By Edward W. Said, The Nation, August 14, 2006. http://www.thenation.com
[35] ‘Netanyahu’s Fascist Record: All Roads Lead to Shultz’ by Steven Meyer February 24, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[36] Egyptian Intellectual: Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Planned 9/11| September 11, 2004 TV Clip No. 278. The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian intellectual Hassan Al-Bana, that aired on Sahar 1 TV:
Dr. Hassan Al-Bana: “This is a book written by Benjamin Netanyahu on the uprooting of terrorism. He talks about attacking the Twin Towers. He talks about attacking the U.S. National Security Council, and about attacking the U.N. Take, for example, the Twin Towers operation. Such an operation doesn’t require placing a car bomb under the two towers but placing small nuclear bombs and detonating them. The scenarios were ready. This scenario was prepared by the Jews at the Jonathan Institute.”
Interviewer: “What scenario are you talking about?”
Dr. Hassan Al-Bana: “The scenario of bombing [the WTC]. I’m talking now about the bombing scenario and how it was a planned operation, and not an act of revenge. He had to find an excuse; a reason for intervention.”
Interviewer: “Dr. Hassan, you talk of the perpetrator. Are you saying there was an Israeli plan ready for operation?”
Dr. Hassan Al-Bana: “The scenario was prepared by Israel and the U.S. Henry Ford and George Bush attended the Jonathan Conference in 1984. They agreed with Netanyahu on the scenario for the bombing of the Twin Towers. When Netanyahu was asked how a force can be mobilized… He said: ‘In America you have religious factions that oppose abortions in hospitals. This religious sentiment can be exploited and channelled into these kinds of operations.’ This all exists [in writing]. Anybody who read Uprooting Terrorism [sic] and many other American books [would understand]. “Moreover, there is no such thing as a conspiracy. What conspiracy? George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. are the only American presidents to control the CIA. George Bush Jr. declared that the Twin Towers operation would remain completely secret.”
[37] ‘The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Network Behind 9/11’ By Christopher Bollyn, July 25, 2008.| http://www.bollyn.com
[38] “In 2000 it was reported that Mr. Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, was working with the Grand Master of Anglo-American Freemasonry HRH The Duke of Kent, the founder of the Jerusalem Lodge, Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy Count Giuliano di Bernardo, and the Worshipful Master of the prestigious Quatuor Coronati Research Lodge Lord Northhampton, who has been atop the Temple Mount conducting studies. Evidently these mystical adepts intend to reconstruct the 2,500 year old King Solomons Temple. It seems the brethren are anticipating a forthcoming resurrection of Grand Master Abiff’s architectural endevours.” – ‘British Masons And US Fundis Launch Apocalypse’ by Mark Sonnenblick Executive Intelligence Review Nov. 1, 2000 | From B’nai B’rith – The Story of a Covenant, by Edward E. Grusd, Appleton-Century, New York 1966: From the Forward pg. xi: “Those whose responsiblity it is to interpret B’nai B’rith to the public have a formidable task… from small beginnings, has grown into a vast enterprise of nearly half million men, women, and young people in forty-four countries. It has become so complex in its structure and activities that most of its members-to say nothing of others-have only a limited knowledge of its achievements, purposes, and scope. This book, the first full-length history of B’nai B’rith,…”
…From Chapter 2 – The very beginning: “B’nai B’rith was founded on October 13, 1843, for the expressed purpose of ending, or at least reducing, the chaos and anarchy in Jewish life-or, as one of the founders put it, of “uniting and elevating the Sons of Abraham. […] There were twelve founders, all in their twenties or thirties. All had been born in Germany, and had come to New York in the late 1820’s or 1830’s. All lived on the lower East Side, where most of them, at the time, were petty shopkeepers. The majority had not known one another in Germany, and only a few were acquainted before 1843…” […]  Those few included Henry Jones, Isaac Rosenbourg, William Renau, and Reuben Rodacher. They met, apparently, because they were members of the Free Masons or Odd Fellows, as well as of several secret benevolent socities…[…]  …There is a legend, which is occasionally mentioned to this day, that B’nai B’rith was founded because in 1843 Jews were barred from membership in the Masonic orders and the Odd Fellows. Obviously, that was not the case, since several of the Order’s founders were themselves members of those organizations. We have fragments of memoirs written by Jones, Rosenbourg, and Renau, as well as by others who joined B’nai B’rith soon after it was founded, which leave no doubt about this…
[39] p.27; Dope Iinc: Britain’s opium war against the U.S by a U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team directed by Konstandinos Kalimtgis, David Goldman and Jeffrey Steinberg. Konstandino. 1978.
[40] http://www.adl.org/about_more.asp
[41] ‘Plaintiffs in the of ADL Spying Case -The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues’ by Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier And Steve Zeltzer Plaintiffs In The Of ADL Spying Case, Counterpunch, February 25, 2002. http://www.counterpunch.org.
[42] ‘The Changing Role of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League’ By Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal, http://www.wrmea.org,June 1993,
[43] Ibid.
[44] ‘ADL -A History of Disinformation and Intimidation’ www. archive.org/stream/AdlAnti-defamationLeagueOfBnaiBrithNewsArticles/ADL_djvu.txt
[45] Ibid.
[46] ADL Press Release: June 6 2002: ‘Law Enforcement From Across The U.S. Participate In Joint ADL-FBI.
Conference On Terrorism’ http://www.adl.org/presrele/Mise_00/4108_00.asp
[47] Ibid.
[48] Robert S. Mueller, III Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Defamation League’s 24th Annual National Leadership Conference, Washington, D.C. May 07, 2002.
[49] ‘Remarks by James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (As Prepared)To ADL’s National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2014 http://www.adl.org/press-center/c/fbi-director-james-b-comey-adl-summit.html#.U162xTgU_IU
[50] op. cit R. Jeffrey Smith.
[51] Ibid.
[52] ‘U.S. overseeing mysterious construction project in Israel’ By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 29. 2012.

Unanswered Questions

 By M.K. Styllinski

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt


9/11 was an attack against the minds of the American people.

Shock, fear and anger were the intended by-products of a Hollywood-style production which was delivered to mobilise the mass consciousness towards accepting long-term social and geo-political objectives. Once this programming was in place it was relatively easy to begin pointing fingers at an historical bogey-man which has been carefully cultivated as the Muslim terrorist. What rapidly followed was the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the later invasions of Libya and covertly Syria. Along with Russia, the destabilisation and ransacking of Iran remains an important goal for the Three Establishment Model. As a consequence, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians – most of whom were children – were killed, maimed and psychologically traumatised, with others suffering from intractable health problems.

The core planners of the September 11th attacks were a combination of audacity, ambition, years of careful planning and the reliance on the inculcation of an Official Culture to carry out their plans. The hackneyed displays of “evidence” were designed to appeal to those eager to believe the official story. Shoddiness of this kind is an indication of how blasé and arrogant the architects of this coup really were. Leaving pristine passports lying around in the rubble to be found and copies of the Koran liberally sprinkled everywhere just to reinforce the idea that all roads led to Al-Qaeda, as but two such examples. “Mistakes” like these do not conform to the ambition and precision of the false flag operation. However, if you wanted to falsely blame it on Muslim terrorists as the history of Al-Qaeda operations shows, then such “blunders” begin to make sense.

So, who would benefit from blaming the Islamic world, its fundamentalism having been fuelled by the very same forces?

The Three Model Establishment of Liberalism, Conservative and Zionist factions. It was their crowing achievement, or – depending on which side of the fence one is – the beginning of their eventual demise.

What should have been the most rigorous and extensive international forensic operation ever conducted was turned into the biggest media circus and cover up in modern times. Ground Zero became a travesty of justice with no attempts to maintain the integrity of what was a vast crime scene. Thanks to Mayor Rudy Giuliani and friends, all the evidence was shipped away before forensics could sift through it. [1]  It is only after almost fourteen years that enormous amounts of data has been pieced together by scientists, academics and the general public who may not all agree with the various conclusions, but a broad consensus exists: that the official story is not only suspect but patently false from whichever angle you approach. Various 9/11 commissions merely extended and built on what is already monumental lie, quickly accepted by the MSM and the majority of the public and which remains entrenched in contemporary beliefs. Recently, certain members of those commissions have begin to speak out, reporting on the restrictive nature and manipulation of data. Indeed, it has even been reported that most 9/11 commissioners do not believe the official story either. [2]

Image programming is immensely powerful. Replaying the destruction of the Twin Towers over and over and thus stimulating the instinct of fear and the emotions of anger and pain is not conducive to object study and reflection. As Historian Laura Knight-Jadczyk observes:

“Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of ‘traps’ the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent ‘synaptic patterns of thought/memory.’ The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories – manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.” [3]

And so it is.

dhphoto

Let’s see why this programming has been so successful by taking a cursory look at some of the most glaring issues surrounding 9/11.

Since at least 1996, Federal authorities were aware that suspected terrorists had ties to Osama bin Laden and had been receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. There was even an account by one terrorist that his mission was to fly a plane into CIA headquarters.[4] In fact, there were multiple reports of bin Laden’s location given to both the CIA and the FBI between 1996 and right up to the day before September 11th, 2001. Agents’ reports were ignored or they were actively prevented from taking out bin Laden by top brass. The New York Times reported that:

 [5]“… at least three occasions between 1998 and 2000, the C.I.A. told the White House it had learned where Mr. bin Laden was and where he might soon be. Each time, Mr. Clinton approved the strike. Each time, George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, called the president to say that the information was not reliable enough to be used in an attack, a former senior Clinton administration official said.”

Among the numerous failures in basic protocol and administrative procedures that allowed the hijackers a literal free pass to do as they pleased, one report shows 15 of the 19 hijackers did not fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. (Yes, that’s right 15 of them) and only six were interviewed. Why were 15 of these hijackers not denied entry into the US? [6] It was reported just a few days after the attacks that several of the 9/11 hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, may have had training at secure US military installations and when many of the hijackers’ mug-shots were lifted from the University campus yearbooks. The 911 Commission Report was destined to be a laughing stock. [7] According to a 2001 report in The Times of London: “Five of the alleged hijackers have emerged, alive, innocent and astonished to see their names and photographs appearing on satellite television … The hijackers were using stolen identities.” [8]

By 2000 and 2001, the military were conducting simulation exercises where hijacked airliners were crashing into targets causing mass casualties. Those targets included the World Trade Centre (WTC) and the Pentagon. If we are to believe White House and security officials, they were as shocked as little Bo Beep at such wildly improbable scenarios. [9] The politicians followed the same script with President George W. Bush stating with wide-eyed innocence: “nobody in our government at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envisage flying air planes into buildings.” National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice also exclaimed: “… no one could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” Which is curious, considering CIA director George Tenet’s intelligence summary was prepared for Condoleezza Rice on June 28 and read: “It is highly likely that a significant Al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.” [10] And just to make sure the same memo was received by all; FBI Director Robert Mueller added his chorus line soon after the attacks with: “there were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”

Actually, it was common knowledge that ideas had been seeded in terrorists’ minds to use planes as weapons since 1995. So, our Bob was either lying or so ignorant that he was only the head of the FBI due to his ability to stack paperclips. Even an Air Force general stretched credulity still further with his variation on a theme by stating: “… something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of.”  [11]

Please…

According to 9/11 expert and author Dr. David Ray Griffin it gets much worse:

“… in 1993 a panel of experts commissioned by the Pentagon suggested that airplanes could be used as missiles to bomb national landmarks. However this notion was not published in its report, Terror 2000, because, said one of its authors: ‘ We were told by the Department of Defense not to put it in.’ […] In that same year, there were three planes hijacked with the intent to use them as weapons, including a highly publicized plan of a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda to crash one into the Eiffel Tower. In 1995, Senator Sam Nunn, in Time magazine’s cover story, described a scenario in which terrorists crash a radio-controlled airplane into the US Capitol building.”  [12]

There was also the little matter of another training exercise, this time by a US intelligence agency set for Sept 11th at 9am in which a jet airliner would crash into one of its buildings near Washington, DC. The chances of military drill exercises taking place at the same time as a real-time attack is so statistically improbable as to be impossible. As it happens, one chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000 – to be precise. [13] Strangely enough, this is precisely what occurred in the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. A private consultancy agency called Visor Consultants, linked to the government and police was also running a 1,000 person exercise for an unnamed company adopting the exact same scenario with the Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as the attacks on the morning of July 7th.  [14]

Just another improbable “coincidence” or a tactic for creating confusion within agencies as well as the general public? Actually, training exercises are incredibly common in many false flag attacks in general (See: False Flags? 63 Terrorism Incidents & Training Exercises)

In 2012, the National Security Archive released 120 previously secret documents concerning the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the United States. They showed yet again that President George W. Bush was lying through his teeth. The documents showed:

“From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called ‘Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats’ writes that ‘[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.’ The famous August brief called ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US’ is included. ‘Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,’ it says.”  [15]

It’s not just America’s intelligence personnel who are silenced. Britain, Germany, France, Sudan, Egypt, Israel and Russian intelligence agencies warned of impending attacks on the US, all of whom were ignored. [16] Russian President Vladimir Putin later stated that in August of 2001, he ordered his intelligence: “… to warn President Bush in the strongest terms that 25 terrorists were getting ready to attack the US, including important government buildings like the Pentagon.” The head of Russian intelligence also said: “We had clearly warned them on several occasions, but they did not pay the necessary attention.” [17]

Britain’s contribution to the warnings was in the form of an official memo included in an intelligence briefing for President Bush on August 6th which said that: “… Al-Qaeda had planned an attack in the United States involving multiple airplane hijackings.” However: “The White House kept this warning secret, with the President repeatedly claiming after 9/11 that he had received no warning of any kind. On May 15, 2002, CBS Evening News revealed the existence of the memo from British intelligence … [The US administration] refused to release the memo while claiming there was nothing specific in it.”[18]

Compartmentalisation of intelligence managed by strategically placed high-level personnel allowed the plans for 9/11 to proceed with relatively little resistance. Official Culture of programmed belief systems did the rest.


 “I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It’s not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc.) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93’s debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?”

journalist, Robert Fisk


As 2001 entered the picture a long-time tradition of leaving the oil-rich Saudis alone took on epic proportions of favouritism. The CIA and FBI ordered its employees to avoid the bin Laden’s and Saudi royals – they were untouchable. When the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ final report of the Joint Inquiry into 9/11 eventually arrived in 2003, some 28 pages had been redacted. These reportedly dealt primarily with Saudi Arabia and three Saudi princes who were suspected of being involved in the financing of 9/11 hijackers. They were to die in 2002, within days of each other and in mysterious circumstances. [19]

In 2000, The French intelligence agency, the DGSE, as part of a claim that they regularly pass on intelligence to the CIA, published a 13-page classified report entitled “The Networks of Osama bin Laden.” In the report, a wealth of detailed information about Al-Qaeda is described including the payment of $4.5 million from the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) to bin Laden. However, the IIRO is off limits to US investigations due to its close ties with the Saudi government. [20] The report also casts doubt on Osama bin Laden as the “black sheep” of the family and cultivating the idea of “good and bad” bin Ladens. French journalist Guillaume Disquié writing for La Monde observed: “It seems more and more likely that bin Laden had maintained contacts with certain members of his family, although the family which directs one of the largest groups of public works in the world, has officially renounced him. One of his brothers apparently plays a role as intermediary in its professional contacts or the monitoring of its business.” [21]

It was the same story with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 1998, Julie Sirrs was a military analyst for the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and travelled to the country on various missions from 1997 – 2001. On the part of her superiors and CIA top brass she encountered disinterest and apathy regarding Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and actions.

bin_laden1

Osama Bin Laden’s family had longstanding oil connections to the Bush Dynasty.

In early 2001, she travelled undercover to meet Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud and observed a terrorist training centre in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs later claimed: “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” [23]  According to Sirrs and many other commentators, this was primarily due to the US State Department’s interest in securing the trans-Afghanistan pipeline under contract in the region to the American Unocal Corporation. Political stability of the Taliban regime was essential to that end.[23]

Despite returning with a “treasure trove” of photos, maps and interview recordings, her security clearance was pulled and materials confiscated. She was later accused of being a spy, prompting her resignation from the DIA in 1999.  Sirr’s discovery of collusion in CIA and Afghanistan drug lines as well as the protection of Osama as a long-time CIA asset was the probable cause. [24]

It appears that protecting the bin Ladens was a top level directive which meant many FBI agents were blocked in their efforts to investigate and who often resigned disillusioned and frustrated. Reports of FBI units in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York being obstructed in their duty surfaced in 2001, with reassignments, stone-walling and the alteration and/or deletion of data connected to the bin Ladens and Saudi nationals was carried out.  [25]

bushladen-networkSource: http://www.questionsquestions.net/ (now defunct)

Let’s not forget that the bin Ladens, as one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia had business dealings with the Bush family for over twenty years. Following the week after the attacks it was learned that bin Laden’s family had been taken under the wing of a branch of FBI supervision and escorted out of the country by private plane, before the national air ban was lifted.

Perhaps the Bush and bin Laden family ties to oil exploration might have had something to do with it? [26] 

The disclosure of 52 intelligence warnings to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the threat of terrorist hijackings between April and September, 2001, makes this somewhat easier to understand. [27] Resources, from oil, gas, food and water have always been one of the primary objectives of Anglo-American expansionism and World Order philosophy.

In the Spring of 2001, military and governmental policy documents revealed the implementation of PSYOPS to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. This was an extension of the Neo-Conservative, National Security strategy of preemption. A Council on Foreign Relations darling Mr. Jeffrey Record advocated: “… the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict” and further: “… urged painting over the US’s actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilising public support for a conflict.” [28]

Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush officials stated that the whereabouts of bin Laden were unknown. Yet, a very ill Osama bin Laden had received kidney treatment from Canadian-trained Dr. Terry Calloway in July 2001, at the American Hospital in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. He had also been treated to a visit by CIA agents and the head of Saudi Intelligence. [29] [30] Meanwhile, A CBS News report headed by soon to be sacked Dan Rather claimed bin Laden was back in hospital on September 10, one day before the 9/11 attacks and in the process of being safely tucked up in bed by the CIA’s Intel ally the Pakistani Military Intelligence (ISI). The CBS report revealed that bin Laden had received further dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army’s headquarters, under the jurisdiction of Pakistani Armed forces with close ties to the Pentagon. [31]

Why was no attempt made to arrest the nations “most wanted terrorist”? Why lie about Osama’s whereabouts? Unless that is, he was serving a greater purpose.

Though the reports were denied by the CIA, the hospital and bin Laden himself, Dr. Calloway reportedly refused to comment, and the media outlets who ran the stories stood by them. After all, the US authorities could easily have ordered his arrest and extradition in Dubai July 2001, but they did not. Volumes of other evidence suggest that, in the words of Alex Standish of Jane’s Intelligence Review: “The attacks of 9/11 were not an intelligence failure but the result of a political decision not to act against bin Laden.”

Without a pretext, there would have been no war on terror and no Grand Plan for the monopolisation of the Middle East.

On the morning of September 11th a cosy breakfast rendezvous had been arranged on Capitol Hill with head of Pakistan’s military intelligence General Mahmoud Ahmad, members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees and several other attendees, including senator Bob Graham, subsequent CIA head Porter Goss; senator John Kyl and Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi. [32]  Despite the CIA and Pakistani ISI working in hand in hand for decades, ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad’s cheery presence over orange-juice and pancakes takes on a brevity when we realise that the General not only: “… ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban,” but was alleged to have organised the wiring of $100,000 to WTC hijacker Mohamed Atta from Pakistan via Intel asset Ahmad Umar Sheikh. [33]

What were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 “money-man” at breakfast on the morning of 9/11? More importantly, what were the same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, doing on the joint committee inquiry into 911? Conflict of interest would be an understatement.

On September 12th General Mahmoud Ahmad had negotiations at the office Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and again with Secretary of State Colin Powell on the 13th as though the attacks were a mere fomality.  Just what was this General doing meeting with such a wide ranging set of top of officials and despite the greatest “terrorist” attack on American soil?

usualsuspects2

One month later in August 2001, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,” was the title of the intelligence briefing Bush received which also mentioned the World Trade Centre as a possible target. In 2004, Bush was busy lying so atrociously it placed the media in the spotlight for their purposeful ineptitude rather than the fact that George W. clearly knew he was going to get away with it. He claimed it: “… said nothing about an attack on America,” even though the subject of the briefing was about just such an attack. [34]

As the big day approached it seems there were plenty of people who knew that something dramatic was about to happen; so many in fact, it fell way beyond the bounds of mathematical probability. Just a day before the attacks several top Pentagon officials abruptly cancelled their travel plans for the following morning due to “security concerns.” Several other officials were also told not to fly by persons unknown.

At 1.00am in the morning of September 11th San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, scheduled to fly to New York that morning, received a warning from his “security people at the airport” advising him to be cautious in his travelling. Although later reports would claim that this was due to picking up on a State Department warning of September 7 which focused on the threat to military personnel in Asia, why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown. Attorney General John Ashcroft had also been warned by the FBI in August 2001 to avoid commercial airlines, but this information never made it to the media until much later. Indeed, it seemed Ashcroft was hiding something.[35]

David Ray Griffin observed:

In late July… the Taliban’s Foreign Minister informed US officials that Osama bin Laden was planning a ‘ huge attack ‘ inside America that was imminent and would kill thousands. That the information indicated that the attack was to involve commercial airlines is suggested by the fact that on July 26, CBS News reported that Attorney General Ashcroft had decided to quit using this mode of travel because of a threat assessment – although neither the FBI nor the Justice Departmentwould identify what the threat was, when it was detected, or who made it.’

In May of 2002, it was claimed that the threat assessment had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but Ashcroft, according to the Associated Press, walked out of his office rather than answer questions about it. The San Francisco Chronicle complained: ‘The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind…. The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.’ CBS’s Dan Rather later asked, with regard to this warning: ‘ Why wasn’t it shared with the public at large?’  [36] [Emphasis mine]

Presumably, for the same reason so much other information wasn’t shared with the public.

As if this wasn’t strange enough, on September 11th aftermath, data extracted from 32 damaged computer hard drives revealed evidence of an unusual rise in financial transactions peaking just before the attacks. Over $100 million of illegal transfers were made through WTC computer networks immediately before and during the 911 attacks. [37]

Insider trading suggesting foreknowledge of the attack was also evidenced from huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack United Airlines and American Airlines; on stocks of Munich Re and the AXA Group reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack; stocks of financial services companies Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, (which occupied 22 stories of the WTC) and Bank of America incurring losses from the attack; on stocks of a weapons manufacturer Raytheon expected to reap massive rewards from the disaster and major surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes. Indeed, the overall level of put option trading was up by “1,200 percent” in the three days prior to the World Trade Centre attacks. [38]

Though the amount of money made does not show definitive foreknowledge – as billions could have been made from trading on a catastrophic event not just millions – it does suggest a strange confluence of interest, or as University of Illinois’s Professor Allen M Poteshman states from the conclusion of his own research: “… there is evidence of unusual option market activity in the days leading up to September 11 that is consistent with investors trading on advance knowledge of the attacks.” [39]

Financial parasites profiting from tragedy is quite different to Bush officials and intelligence agents having foreknowledge. The latter may be just another red herring as it not only offers credence to Al-Qaeda bogeyman as the evil enemy of apple-pie freedoms but serves to distance the common knowledge that successive US administrations have consistently supported Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network as part of their foreign policy agenda. The US military and intelligence Establishment have been complicit in providing continuity of this agenda. That being so, it immediately places “foreknowledge” of the attacks in quite a different light.

The above points have barely scratched the surface. So, before we go any further let’s remind ourselves of the key moments of the “Day of Infamy” with a timeline of September 11, 2001. [40]


 9/11 Timeline

7:59: Flight 11 takes off 14 minutes late
8:14: Flight 175 takes off 16 minutes late
8:20: Flight 77 takes off 10 minutes late
8:28: Flight 11 is confirmed as hijacked
8:37: Flight 11 enters New York control space; Boston flight control notifies NORAD
8:42: Flight 93 takes off 41 minutes late
8:46: Flight 11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Centre
8:50: Flight 175 en route to New York City
8:54: Flight 77 strays off course
8:56: Flight 77 transponder signal disappears; Flight 77 disappears from radar screens
9:03: Flight 175 crashes into WTC South Tower; shown on international TV networks
9:06 Bush starts photo op at school; thinks WTC Crash Is Accidental
9:06-9:16: Bush told of second plane crash, continues photo op; reads pet goat story for almost ten minutes; Secret agents as per protocol do not remove him from the room; Ari Fleischer holds up sign saying “do not say anything yet”
9:16-9:29: Bush works on a formulating a speech with staff; no decisions are made
9:20: Barbara Olson, a passenger on Flight 77 is said to have called her husband Ted Olson, solicitor general at the Justice Department. Account is full of contradictions
9:28: Sounds of a struggle are heard at Cleveland Flight Control as Flight 93 is hijacked
9:29: Speech by Bush declaring a terrorist attack
9:30: Langley fighters take off toward Washington; Instead of arriving in the usual 6 minutes, they could reach city in six minutes but take 30 minutes. The jets were redirected east over the Atlantic Ocean and were 150 miles from the Pentagon when it is hit
9:30: After 25 minutes the Secret Service finally decide to hustle Bush out of the school
9:37: Flight 77 disappears from radar; Flight 77 crashes into reinforced section of the Pentagon
After 9:37: FBI confiscates film of Pentagon crash
9:40: Flight 93 transponder signal turned off; flight still closely tracked
9:42: Mark Bingham calls his mother From Flight 93
9:45: White House Evacuated
9:45 – 9:56 Counterterrorism ‘Tsar’ Clarke Initiates Continuity of Government Plan; Senior FAA Manager, on His First Day on the Job, Orders All Planes Out of the Sky Nationwide
9:45 – 9.58 Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer speaks to GTE customer service supervisor Lisa Jefferson and FBI, gives contradictory statements
9:50: Molten metal pours from WTC South Tower
9:52: Fire-fighters reach 78th floor of South Tower; two isolated fires are found
9:55-10:15: Langley fighters reach Washington after considerable delay; contradictory accounts of time lag;
9:57: Passengers Begin Attempt to Regain Control of Flight 93
9:58: Call from Ed Felt on Flight 93, describes explosion
Before 9:59: Gold Transported Through WTC Basement; EMT Worker Given Message That WTC Towers Are Going to Collapse; High-Level Officials Evacuate Lobby of North Tower; Mayor Giuliani apparently told WTC towers will collapse when fire chiefs think otherwise
9:59: Explosions heard in South Tower just before collapse; South Tower of WTC collapses into its own footprint
9:59-10:28: Fire-fighters receive no messages to evacuate North Tower
10.00: Hijackers respond to passenger revolt
10:06: Flight 93 crashes into a Pennsylvanian field; Reports of light 93 Breaking Up Prior to Crash; timing of the crash disputed
Before/After 10:06: Second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least ten witnesses over the crash site within minutes of United Flight 93 crashing.
After 10:06: Fighter flies past Flight 93 crash site; witnesses report lack of plane wreckage at Flight 93 crash scene
After 10:06: Bush is told of Flight 93 crash, wonders if it was shot down
10:15: Pentagon Section Collapses
10:28: WTC North Tower collapses; Many witnesses hear explosions during the collapse of the north WTC tower.
11:45: Air Force One, with President Bush on board, lands at Barksdale Air Force Base
12:00 Noon: Senator Hatch repeats intelligence community’s conclusion that Osama bin Laden is responsible
After 12:00 Larry Silverstein Tells fire department commander to ‘pull’ WTC 7
12:16 US airspace cleared of all civilian aircraft
13:02: Defence Secretary Rumsfeld Calls for War; President Bush Says there will be a counterattack
14.00 – 14:30 Chief Fire Officer makes decision to abandon WTC 7
14:50 President Bush arrives in Nebraska; enters Strategic Command Centre
14:40 Rumsfeld is told Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 attacks but wants to blame Iraq
16:30: WTC Building 7 Area Is Evacuated Due to Anticipated Collapse
17:20: WTC Building 7 Collapses; Cause Remains Unclear
18:42 Rumsfeld, Shelton, White, and Senators give news briefing on attacks
18:54 President Bush returns to White House
20:30: President Bush gives third speech, declares Bush Doctrine
21:00: President Bush meets with advisers, declares war without barriers
23:30: President Bush sees 9/11 as New Pearl Harbour

Notes

[1] ‘Hugo Neu and the Giuliani Partners Who Destroyed the Steel of 9/11’ April 18, 2011, By Christopher Bollyn, http://www.bollyn.com
[2] ‘Most 9/11 Commissioners Don’t Buy The Official Story – Why Do You?’ 9/11 Blogger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdqIzc4TZAY
[3] ‘Comments on the Pentagon Strike’ By Laura Knight-Jadczyk, September 25, 2002. | http://www.cassopaeia.org
[4] ‘FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools’ By Steve Fainaru and James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writers , September 23, 2001; Page. | ‘FBI Chief Acknowledges FBI Errors’CBS News May 30 2002 /updated 2009.
[5] ‘Why I Resigned From the CIA’ by Michael Scheuer, The Los Angeles Times, December 05, 2004. | ‘Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action’ The New York Times, December 30, 2001.
[6] ‘Hijackers Got Visas With Little Scrutiny, GAO Reports’ By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, October 22, 2002; Page A07.
[7] ‘Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases’ Newsweek, Sep 14, 2001.| ‘Alleged 9/11 Hijackers Trained at U.S. Military Bases?’ 2nd Witness Arrested 25 Held for Questioning by Guy Gugliotta and David S. Fallis Washington Post, September 16, 2001; Page A29.
[8] ‘9/11 Hijackers Still Alive’ by Dominic Kenndy / Suicide hijackers hid behind stolen Arab identities; America at war: New York agony; Terror in new York, Edition 5LTHU 20 SEP 2001, Page 3. “Five of the hijackers were using stolen identities, and investigators are studying the possibility that the entire suicide squad consisted of impostors. Details are emerging of the killers’ humdrum final weeks in the US suburbs – joining gyms, eating pizzas and visiting an “adult video” store.”
[9] ‘NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,’ By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA Today, April 19, 2004. | ‘A Nation Challenged: Warnings; Earlier Hijackings Offered Signals That Were Missed’ By Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times, October 3, 2001.
[10] p.68; The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin Published by Olive Branch Press; 2004 | ISBN 1566565529.
[11] ‘Fried Rice: Condi’s Coming 9/11 Firestorm’ Perspectives, February 11, 2005 | ‘Terrorist Plan to Use Planes as Weapons Dates to 1995’ WTC bomber Yousef confessed to US agents in 1995. Public Information Center. December 8, 2002.
[12] op. cit Griffin.
[13] Miami Science Museum www. miamisci.org/ – c/o alienscientist.com ‘Probability of 7/7 War Games and Attacks happening at the same time (Impossible)’ September 2011.
[14] London Underground Bombing ‘Exercises’ Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack – Culpability cover scenario echoes 9/11 wargames by Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet | July 13 2005.
[15] ‘New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims’ By Jordan Michael Smith, Salon.com Jun 19, 2012.
[16] ‘Resentful west spurned Sudan’s key terror files’ War on Terrorism – Observer special The secret war. Part 1 By David Rose, The Observer, Sunday 30 September 2001. | ‘Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored’ By Kate Clark in Kabul, The Independent, 07 September 2002. | ‘Report cites warnings before 9/11’ CNN News, September 19, 2002.
[17] op. cit. Griffin, (p.70)
[18] Ibid.
[19] ‘The Kingdom and the Towers’ By Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan Vanity Fair, August 2011.
[20] ‘Two Suspected Charities Apparently Protected by Saudi Government Ties’ October 12, 2001. historycommons.org timeline.
[21] ‘September 11 2001: How much the French knew’ by Guillaume Dasquié Le Monde (Paris) April 15, 2007. | ‘The House of bin Laden – A family’s, and a nation’s, divided loyalties’.by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, November 12, 2001. “two of Osama’s sisters apparently taking cash to an airport in Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates], where they are suspected of handing it to a member of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization.”
[22] ‘Ex-Spook Sirrs: Early Osama Call Got Her Ejected’ by Gail Sheehy New York Observer, March 2004.
[23] Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by Steve Coll, Published by Penguin books, 2004. ISBN-10: 0143034669 (p. “Robin Raphel, Deputy Secretary of State for South Asia, speaks to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister about Afghanistan. She says that the US government ‘now hopes that peace in the region will facilitate US business interests,” i.e. the Unocal gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. (p.330).
[24] op. cit. Sheehy; New Yorker.
[25] op. cit. Griffin (p.152)
[26] ‘Bin Laden Kin Flown Back to Saudi Arabia’ by Kevin Cullen, The Boston Globe, September 20, 2001.Page: A29. | ‘A |Nation Challenged: The Family. ‘Fearing Harm, Bin Laden Kin Fled From U.S.’ The New York Times, By Patrick E. Tyler, September 30, 2001. | ‘Has someone been sitting on the FBI?’ By Greg Palast, Newsnight programme for the BBC. Transcript at BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm November 6, 2001.
[27] op. cit. Perspectives, 2005.
[28] ‘Defence redefined means securing cheap energy’ The Sydney Morning Herald, December 26 2002.
[29] ‘CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July’ French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital, by Anthony Sampson, The Guardian, 1 November 2001. | ‘Ailing bin Laden ‘treated secretly for kidney disease’ By Adam Sage, Times of London Edition 5L November 2001, Page 5.
[30] ‘Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama’ CBS News February 11, 2009.
[31] ‘Mysterious September 11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill’ by Michel Chossudovsky Global Outlook,Winter 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca,August 4, 2003. |
[32] ‘India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links’, The Times of India, 9 October 2001. | “French author Bernard-Henri Levy later claims to have evidence from sources inside both Indian and US governments of phone calls between Sheikh and Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, during this same time period, and he sees a connection between the timing of the calls and the money transfers (see Summer 2000). [Frontline, 10/13/2001; Daily Excelsior (Jammu), 10/18/2001; Levy, 2003, pp. 320-324] From historycommons.com.
[33] ‘Bush: Memo had no “actionable intelligence”’CNN, April 12, 2004. | Declassified and Approved for Release, 10 April 2004 – ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US’ “Clandestine, foreIgn government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997′ has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US televisioni nterviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Youse! and ‘bring the fighting to America.’” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf
[34] ‘Willie Brown Got Low-Key Early Warning About Air-Travel’ by Philip Matier and Andrew Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, 2001 | ‘Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies’ by Dennis Ryan MDW NEWS 3 Nov 2000 http://www.globalresearch.ca 3 April 2004.
[35] op. cit. Griffin (p.70)
[36] Ibid.
[37] ‘We’ve Hit the Targets’ By Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, Sept. 13 issue, 2003. […] “Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.” | ‘German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals’ Reuters, December 17, 2001. | ‘Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of the 9/11 Attacks, The Times,(London) September 18, 2001.
[38] ‘Insider Trading Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge’ 911 Research, http://www.911research.wtc7.net
[39] ‘Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 2001.’ By Allen M. Poteshman. University of Illinois. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11079387/Unusual-Option-Market-Activity-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-of-September-11-2001
[40] Grateful assistance from that wonderful online resource: wwwhistorycommons.org 911 and other related timelines and reports which made up the summary.

Bernays and Tavistock

By M.K. Styllinski

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda


One of the most common questions regarding the nature of 9/11 is how could anyone pull the wool over the eyes of the populace so comprehensively? If the events of 9/11 were engineered and were indeed an “inside job,” how was it possible to conduct such a complex operation without political, military and intelligence personnel blowing the whistle? Such a conspiracy  surely would not be feasible?

Quite apart from the fact that many persons did act as whistle-blowers from an array of government departments, the nature of the media network, law and justice system always censors and restricts any serious breaches and thus threats to its own existence. Effective dissemination of information and awareness is therefore limited unless painted with various colours of propaganda. Perhaps most importantly of all, the firewall of standard beliefs is the most effective method to ensure that state-sponsored atrocities remain in the realm of fantasy.

As we will discover, an effective blackout on 9/11 issues along with a concerted disinformation campaign has dogged any real breakthroughs in achieving an independent inquiry into the events of that day. Furthermore, what applies to the media is the same for any domain within our present culture which prevents the free-flow of ideas and accountability so that any threats to the structure of the status quo are, if not instantly dissolved, gradually eroded by various belief systems. The cultivation of negative myths and memes in the aftermath of a traumatic event has the effect of sealing in the cracks where truth might seep out. As John F. Kennedy wisely stated: “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

consumerism1Still from “They Live” (1988) Directed by John Carpenter

Propaganda techniques are now the province of a melding between outsourced PR companies and lobbying groups and the Top Secret actions of military PSYOPS which use highly sophisticated methods of media manipulation and electronic warfare to influence mass consciousness. It is common to misunderstand the nature of belief in 21st Century America and the level of socio-cultural engineering which has occurred since the early 1930s. The media’s role has been crucial in weaving an official story which has little connection to facts on the ground. Carefully selected words and images obliterate objective reality, something which one man knew very well indeed. Much of these initial techniques were drawn from Edward Bernays’ insights and taken to stratospheric levels. 911 cannot be understood without this knowledge. So, let’s have a brief refresher.

Jewish Austrian-American Edward Louis Bernays was a pioneer in the manipulation of the mass mind. His techniques have been used by successive governments, oppressive regimes, advertising agencies and intelligence agencies the world over. With a mix of concepts inspired by the psychology of Gustave Le Bon, Wilfred Trotter and his uncle Sigmund Freud he became known as the “the father of public relations” and the darling of the Establishment. “Propaganda” would morph into “Public Relations” under Bernays’ definition.

The man himself appeared to lack any conscience or sense of responsibility for his experiments and willingly sold his ideas to the highest bidder, whether they were an aspiring despot or corporate racketeer. His influences from psychoanalysis and  B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism meant that he saw manipulation as a necessity in society. He saw ordinary people as part of a wild and selfish group-mind that needed to be controlled, preferably by Elite stewards who could steer society in a “superior” direction of their choosing. As with all the other neo-feudalists whom we have explored so far, he had an extremely dim view of humanity and believed his “engineering of consent” was vital to maintain order and direct its evolution. Accordingly, he was to be hugely useful to the emerging Elite who took Bernays and his “enlightened despotism” to their hearts. [1]

edward-bernays

Edward L. Bernays

One of Bernays techniques was the “third-party authority” whereby traditionally independent and trusted members of society are bought and paid for by PR firms to promote a particular product or political spin for their clients. If a doctor, scientist, or journalist gives their seal of approval then the public is more likely to believe what is being said. Although nowadays the public is a little more savvy and cynical regarding these basic methods, in previous years it proved extremely successful for a range of products. The third party technique is obviously still employed though with much greater subterfuge, where government or corporate clients will often keep their PR and lobbying connections hidden from prying eyes – the money involved is often too seductive to declare these conflicts of interest.

The instinct of fear as a linchpin of Freudian thought was integral to Bernay’s methods. He believed it was key to the success of propaganda techniques and urged the US government to ratchet up the fear quota in relation to communism so that the public would become more compliant and malleable to suggestion. He was employed by marketing and advertising companies as well as celebrities, charities and government agencies. Soap, perfume, cigarettes and commerce were all used as an experimental testing ground which proved time and again to be successful in predicting and leading public desires to prearranged outcomes.

Working for the Woodrow Wilson government he was yet another rising star to attend the infamous Paris Peace Conference in 1919 along with all the other World government advocates, international bankers and industrialist families who would later go on to form the Council on Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve, and the House of Rothschilds’ Round Table Group   Bernays was crucial to the development and formation of social engineering that would be tested on the American people. It was to be the same promotion of the “scientific technique” underpinned by psychoanalysis, the hub of which was found at the Tavistock Institute in England.

The manipulation of the American public saw great strides under Bernays and his colleagues, CFR man Walter Lippmann, and media magnate Lords Rothmere (Harold Harmsworth) and Lord Northcliffe. The latter individuals were employed by Britain’s War Propaganda Bureau otherwise known as Wellington House founded in 1913 and named after the Duke of Wellesly. His task was to assist in the preparation of the American mind to accept and support entry into the First World War. Brainstorming sessions took place where the main target of propaganda operations were young working class men who were required to become machine-gun and cannon fodder on the fields of Flanders and the Somme, all of which was unknown to the American public.

The funding came firstly, from the British Royal Family, Rockefeller family trusts and several years later from the Rothschilds, to whom Lord Rothmere was related by marriage.  As the members of the board had links to Lord Milner’s Oxford set, the Round Table group, the Fabian Society, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, the formation of “mass brain washing” meant that Bernays and his set of skills was employed directly in the service of the Establishment’s emerging Pathocrats. The tripartite relations of the arms industry, banking and Elite designs is a lucrative ideological and geopolitical formula that have defined the financial architecture up to the present day.

War propaganda also came under the guidance of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIAA) whose director of Future Studies, Fabian historian Alfred Toynbee acted as an important liaison. As Lord Rothmere owned both The Times of London and the Daily Mail it was deemed more than feasible that the shaping of the Anglo-American mind in favour of war could proceed.

Various propaganda techniques were tried out through Rothmere’s newspapers under Bernays’ expert tutelage. They discovered that the ability to reason was poor amongst the population, especially the uneducated which made up the vast majority of conscripts. It was the stimulation of mass emotional reaction accompanied by appropriate slogans and images of national pride and family protection that proved the greatest success.* As author and anarchist Edward Abbey has pointed out: “The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other – instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.” This applied not just to seducing young men to fight wars but to all aspects of society that indirectly contribute to such a conclusion.

di_20090830-133430-tavistockcentre-sign_w475

The headquarters of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations

The late ex-Intelligence analyst Dr. John Coleman and his own research tells us:

With the Tavistock plan modified to suit American conditions, Bernays and Lippmann led President Woodrow Wilson to set up the very first Tavistock methodology techniques for polling (manufacturing) so-called public opinion created by Tavistock propaganda. They also taught Wilson to set up a secret body of “managers” to run the war effort and a body of “advisors” to assist the President in his decision-making. The Creel Commission was the first such body of opinion-makers set up in the United States.  [2]

In 1921, the ideology of Woodrow Wilson’s handlers met the Duke of Bedford, Marquis of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, who gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shell-shock on British soldiers who survived World War I. The British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare sent for Sir John Rawlings-Reese who was given the job of discovering the threshold or “breaking point” of men under severe stress. This was the official starting point, but the ambitions of the Institute were far broader.

Edward Bernays helped to spread Freud’s theories into the USA while assisting the rise of a particular brand of corporatism and social science based on the same. His books Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928) became bibles of manipulation in business and government circles alike, spawning the growth of Public Relations in Europe and America. In 1919, he had opened for business as a Public Relations Counsellor in New York, with clients falling over themselves to learn the art of engaging the public mind, tailoring their goals to want what they didn’t need. Selfishness, instinct, fear and the importance of Pavlovian responses sat upon an abiding materialism and distrust in human nature, all of which served to feed the machine of the 4Cs. **

German-born Dr. Kurt Lewin became director of Tavistock in 1932. He went on to set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which worked closely with Edward Bernays’ propaganda campaign to make the American mind amenable to war with Germany. A ratline of psychologists began to create a conduit between the US and UK. By 1937, Wellington House had transferred operations to the Tavistock Clinic which became the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations in 1946. The Climax of Civilization (1917) by Correa Moylan Walsh and Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of Western Civilization (Untergange des Abenlandes) were incorporated into an ideological model which included world government and the precepts of A New World Order. Both authors drew from the usual neo-feudal beliefs which augmented the need to regulate and shape societies. This led to the Institute becoming host to renowned behavioural psychologists and the study of group psychodynamics.  [3] The founding members of the Tavistock Institute were dispatched across the world stage to tweak social and political policy. Brigadier John Rawlings Rees was psychiatrist to Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy whilst Ronald Hargreaves became deputy director of the World Health Organization (WHO).

As another round of economic destabilisation was required as per the “break and make” formula, World War II loomed into view and the same techniques were employed. The key to this success was to place undue emphasis on the irrationality of the human mind; to elevate this “natural human flaw” to a level that was abnormal in the public consciousness, so much so, that we would all come to believe that this made up a large proportion of the human condition. This implanted conditioning meant that it became easier and easier to manipulate through an array of Pavlovian distractions. In combination with the Hegelian formula, human psychology was like putty in the controllers’ hands.

Tavistock was at the centre of the Nazi elite exodus after of the war and acted as the lab for the continuation of Nazi experimentation in psychology already advanced in wartime Germany through the discoveries of Josef Mengele  in the concentration camps. Tavistock gave the psychological foundation for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) the precursor to CIA, which continued to work from Tavistock guidelines.

ossWith the 1938 Special Operations Executive agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill already in place allowing British interests to dominate American operations, Dr. Lewin took on the directorship of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which was tasked with bombing civilian housing and avoiding military targets and munition depots inside Germany. As we have established, World War II was a bonanza for the international bankers who did not want to see their liquid assets destroyed. Germany had always been a national asset to be preserved for a long term economic power base within Europe. Instead, the ordinary German populace was to be the bulls-eye. Women, children and old people perished in their thousands amid urban fire-storms perpetrated by the Royal Air Force and the celebrated Sir Arthur Travers “Bomber” Harris. Such carnage was celebrated in war-time news reels as inflicting crucial blows against Germany’s war machine. The truth was rather different. The machine was to remain intact – it was far too useful, the truth of which was buried.  Germany was a vast experiment with Tavistock collecting valuable data for future operations.

Committeeof300RoundtablewithTavistock

Diagram of Tavistock connections from ex-Intel operative John Coleman’s: “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300” (2000).

The Rockefeller impetus to shape the sexual behaviour of Britain and America stemmed from their meetings with their members at the Tavistock Institute. By inverting sexual and social mores, weakening the public’s ability to think critically and breaking down the family unit, ethics and the concept of the sacred, new forms of mass identity and psychological states of mind were inculcated which would best serve the Elite. (See: The Sex Establishment)

Cultural Marxism conjoined with psychoanalysis, and psychodynamics would eventually be used as part of the National Security State, from MK-ULTRA to present day torture techniques in a variety of rendition nations. Freudian psychology would form the basis of a mass defragmentation of character by implanting new socio-sexual “norms” and the introduction of the LSD “counter-culture” fused with New Age psychedelia. A distinctly Kinseyian “revolution” became not so much about love but a mechanistic tool for gratification which further eroded meaning, male and female identity and the proliferation of tribal labels and groupings. The net result was confusion, nihilism, narcissism and the consequent loss of meaning in society. And all that meant populations much easier to control in the face of rising fields of information.

***

The Tavistock network is firmly embedded in the UK-US institutions, extending from Britain’s University of Sussex to America’s Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Esalen Institute who have garnered a reputation for mind control studies linked to CoIntelpro operations within the New Age movement. The Heritage Foundation, MIT, Hudson Institute, Centre of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at Georgetown, where US State Dept. personal are trained and US Air Force Intelligence who joined hands with the RAND corporation: all these were foci for crowd psychology, the experimentation of which was – and still is -visited on the American public.

Today, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is still very much involved in research and consultancy work in social science and applied psychology. The organisation claims its clients are: “international agencies, the EU and its research bodies, UK local and central government and UK research bodies, … private sector and other clients such as regional agencies, health authorities, local authorities, charities and small family firms … and some private clients. In other words, pretty much anyone. Alongside ownership of the international social sciences journal, Human Relations, it owns none other than a very popular and substantial conspiracy forum: “Godlike Productions”.

It is an extremely high probability that this forum is the product of a social experiment devised by Tavistock in order to not only monitor the pulse of alternative and conspiracy-minded individuals in cyberspace, but to muddy the waters of such research. Why else would an institute rooted in unpleasant social engineering programs on behalf of the UK government own such a forum? Moreover, since Godlike Productions has built a considerable reputation as a primary CoIntelpro honey-pot and a major source of the most abject disinformation available on the internet, it is more than curious that Tavistock has ownership. And as one commentator noted: “If it’s happening in the backwoods of the internet, in a place like Godlike Productions, what does that say about the Facebooks and Twitters of the world?” Not that you would have any suspicion of Tavistock’s dark history and present government connections. Upon visiting their website at www.tavinstitute.org it offers a suitably clinical yet wholesome image of sociocultural assistance. [4]

Tavistock’s behavioural psychology and social engineering advances are ensconced in the minds of various Anglo-American think-tanks. These in turn, are associated with political old boys’ clubs like the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome, who then come up with mass mind memes designed to create the required responses. This is, in part, Bernays’ legacy, where the relationship is one of a constant feedback loop of information design adhering to the mix of occult “Olympian” belief systems.

In his ground-breaking book entitled: Propaganda (1928) Bernays argued that manipulation of the public was natural and necessary in the maintenance of democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind. [5]

conform2Still from “They Live” (1988) Directed by John Carpenter

If it was so in the early part of the last century, it is has become turbo-charged in today’s society with the advent of many sophisticated psychological techniques which have trickled into the commercial and public realm. One such operation was under Dwight Eisenhower’s administration who was duped into giving the go ahead for a program of “psychological warfare and political action” and “subversion,” dubbed Operation PBSUCCESS against the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.

With the help of Guatemalan military general Carlos Castillo Armas, who formed a military junta, the president and his government were removed and replaced with a military junta which was all based on Bernays’ carefully constructed package of lies and manipulation predicated on the already sensitive fear of Communism. Arbenz was branded a communist in the US and European media until “Reds-under-the-bed” paranoia was clamouring for his removal. In truth, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán’s social welfare policies proved highly successful in providing work and a variety of social benefits which were eventually deemed a threat Western interests, in particular the multinational corporation United Fruit Company (today’s Chiquita Brands International). [6]  We have seen the same formula play out over Latin America for decades and most particularly with the late Hugo Chavez and other South American leaders finally taking the courageous step to reject the role of lap dogs for Anglo-American imperialism. (Yet, it seems the CIA finally had its way as Venezuela descends into another round of chaos).

Propaganda has been used to plant false stories in the media to oust legitimate governments and whip up collective fears so that the suppression populations around the globe with violence and intimidation can take place without there being much of a hue and cry. Latin America in the 1970’s and 1980’s was perhaps the most vicious and sustained attack against the right of peoples to determine their own destiny. The USA used the spread of Communism as justification for banking and resource control. It was this experimentation that provided much of the groundwork for what was to come.

Secrecy of the National Security State has fused with the corporate world and private security firms, allowing unfettered greed and power to multiply as cancer in a vast petri-dish. It is for this reason that enormous PR companies like Burston-Marsteller can straddle the world acting as channels for immoral and corrupt influence. The ambitious engineering of 9/11 would simply not have been possible to pull off without this groundswell of financial, military and PR power to back it up. As writer John Stauber observes: “Public relations is now inseparable from the business of lobbying, creating public policy, and getting candidates elected to public office. The PR industry just might be the single most powerful political institution in the world. It expropriates and exploits the democratic rights of millions on behalf of big business by fooling the public about the issues.” [7] When this is combined with an intelligence apparatus, think-tanks and global policy institutions, it represents another indicator of a breakaway society completely set apart from civil society. We are all forced to indulge their psychopathic fantasies for ultimate control, which of course, can never work despite creating untold destruction along the way.

Since the days of Bernays, virtual reality is not found within the software of new technology but is hardwired into our very brains. Our perceptions have been managed with greater alacrity by the advent of transhumanist technology but it is the principles of American education which have been responsible for eroding understanding and independence of mind in favour of info-tainment and the cult of artifice. It is belief and iconography that is the arbiter of reality in ways which have become so ingrained it is difficult to see how it can be outgrown.

Official culture grows not just from a habitual mediocrity and fear of change but a gradual disabling of our ability to think. This stems from dissociative states drawn from trauma and slow-burn, emotional hurts accumulated over decades from the encroachment of societal pathology. A link to meaning and the promise of something more than materialism is suffocated by the sheer speed of a technocratic mainframe designed to change the very cognitive processes involved in learning. Education in America has been dumbed down since the invasion of the industrialist families and Rockefeller-Tavistock agents got to work to shape the public mind in concert with Bernays-led Public Relations.

So, in this way, it is no surprise that, in combination with the deep state and pervasive corruption as a way of life, the events of 9/11 were permitted to run their criminal course. This has been a long-term experiment which culminated in an ambitious false flag terrorist attack designed to take the world into the next phase of global operations.

 


* Peter Francis in article commemorating the centenary of the First Great War puts it all into perspective when he states: “If all the British Empire’s dead of the First World War were to march four abreast down Whitehall, it would take them almost four days and nights to pass the Cenotaph.” – ‘Mapping the Impact of the Great War’ ,August 16, 2012, by Peter Francis | http://www.1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/space-into-place/mapping-the-impact-of-the-great-war/

** 4Cs = commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control.


Notes

[1] ‘The Century of the Self: The Untold History Of Controlling The Masses Through The Manipulation Of Unconscious Desires’ By Adam Curtis, BBC Documentary, 2006. [2] The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations : Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of The USA by John Coleman. Published by Joseph Holding Corporation, Incorporated, 2005 | ISBN 0963401971, 9780963401977.
[3] ‘Tavistock: The Best Kept Secret in America’ Dr. Byron T. Weeks, MD, July 31, 2001.

[4] A list of articles on why it is better to steer clear of GLP:  ‘Why can’t you say “Tavistock” on Godlike Productions?’ By Rob Daven, September 2012, Rob Daven https://decryptedmatrix.com/why-cant-you-say-tavistock-on-godlike-productions/ I ‘Godlike Productions and the Science of Shill’ By Frater Isla http://disinfo.com/2013/09/godlike-productions-and-the-science-of-shill/|’Beware of GodLikeProductions’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI9sfY8xOck |Will the REAL “Dr. Grant Gartrel(l)” please stand up? By Joe Quinn, June 6, 2004 http://www.sott.net/signs/Aussie_Bloke.htm | ‘How to Spot CoIntelpro Agents’ http://cassiopaea.org/2012/08/13/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents/
[5] p. 10; Propaganda By Edward L. Bernays, 1928.
[6] ‘War on Truth: The Secret Battle for the American Mind’ by John Stauber, The Sun, March 1999.
[7] CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents. U.S. National Archive.
[8] op.cit Stauber.

Save

Dark Green XV: Goldman Sachs & Carbon Tax

“Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its ’emergency situation,’ has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes.”

– Chris Hedges, journalist and author; extract from his statement during Goldman Sacs protest


Despite the lack of empirical data this hasn’t prevented a massive campaign in favour of reducing our Carbon footprint by fusing it with Sustainable Development visions and the promise of a Global Carbon Tax. The latter bonanza has had all the usual suspects rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of yet another opportunity to fleece the global population of what little cash they have left from the last crisis. And here’s where it becomes easy to see something else is very wrong with the anthropocentric (human-influenced) global warming picture.

Lloyd_Blankfein_CEO_Goldman_Sachs

Lloyd Blankfein CEO Goldman Sachs

Why is it that major electric power utility corporations (the largest consumers of fossil fuels) and some of the biggest names in agribusiness and chemicals have suddenly jumped aboard the climate change train? A change of heart? Well there’s a green light flashing but it isn’t for an ecological conscience.

There is much in the global warming agenda that supports their cause, which is making vast amounts of money through normalised exploitation. This may be why power companies, investment banks and various hedge funds are all salivating at the prospect of the Emissions Trading commonly known as “Cap and Trade”, which is central to reducing levels of CO2. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the new speculative profits to be made in carbon futures, is producing another means to exploit a system where any costs incurred for multi-nationals and utility companies are sure to be passed onto the consumer, as they always are.

If things go according to plan, coal fired power stations, gas distributor utilities and others industries will be subject to limits on the amount of CO2 emissions they can produce annually. When some companies arrive at their carbon-polluting limit then “allocations” or credits can be bought from other companies which have got gold stars for producing less emissions. The neat little twist in this eco-SMART dream is that it  exists only if the government imposes a cap which creates an artificial scarcity on the right to produce energy. Brokers or an electronic trading platform will provide sales for offsets under such a system which is exactly what has been happening in Europe, since 2005 through the Climate Exchange (ECX). What if the allowed credits exceed the corresponding tonnage of emissions, which is the case in almost every country in Europe? Then we have yet another system that not only mandates cheating, but celebrates it.

Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities. Recycling aluminium cans? Claim your credits. Planting trees? Roll on up. Despite both these activities giving no net emission reductions, the latter being long-term at best, no regulations are in place to ensure compliance because it is a eco-ponzi scheme created to make money not to protect the environment. Many people on both sides of the political and environmental divide agree. What is really driving this new market are the billions of dollars on offer for the same protagonists of financial warfare that stimulated the economic meltdown of October 2008 and beyond. These same criminals are supporting a Global Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading as another source to exploit. Estimates of $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned over the next several years, perhaps even three times that amount. [1]

Just as surely as every other bubble in the last eighty years, this new eco-commodities market can only follow the same framework of exploitation as demand rises and carbon auctions become the new source of Elite cash. As the “cap” is lowered by the government carbon credits will become scarcer and thus more valuable as every year passes. Further, it is a fail-safe framework mandated by government that will be worth almost a $trillion, all under the mantle of saving the planet – what a coup!

While the Western nations are being targeted first, Asia has some of the worst pollution in the world which is why Australasia has come under the Carbon Tax boot with a vengeance. The background is instructive since the Australian experience follows the same formula occurring in the West and indicates that it was  being used as a testing ground for a future global roll out. Some key players are pushing the Australian carbon tax and who were/are employed by the very banks that will profit from the system. How interesting then, that Dr Megan Clark, the Chief Executive and Board member of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Australia’s national science agency, was also a former Director of NM Rothschild and Sons Australia  (Australian arm of the Rothschild Investment Bank) from 2001-03. She is also a member of the Australia Advisory Board of the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. [2] The fact that this director is now heading the science body that is lobbying for a global carbon credit scheme that will make her and her colleagues billions has nothing to do with it … Well, it’s all just a coincidence.

Mr Simon McKeon is Chairman of the CSIRO Board is also currently the Executive Chairman of Macquarie Group’s Melbourne Office (Macquarie Bank). The Federal Government had no problem appointing a corporate banker as the CSIRO’s new chairman: “… Despite admitting he has ‘no scientific pedigree’, Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.” Sure – his investments and that of his backers depend on it. [3]

Then there is Liberal Party MP Mr. Malcolm Turnbull who as well as being extremely passionate about climate change issues and equally vocal on carbon credits, he is the former Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Australia, 1997-2001 and a former partner of Goldman Sachs and Co. from 1998-2001. (Goldman Sac’s role in the carbon credits scam will be explored in greater detail presently). [4]  His colleague and former Liberal party leader Dr. John Hewson is another advocate for carbon credit legislation. A founding member and founding Executive Director of Macquarie Bank 1985-87 and former economist with the IMF 1973-75 he is currently a Non-Executive Director of Change Investment Management a financial investment company that invests in ‘Eco’ projects. Hewson has been a busy banker having been a former Director and Chairman of ABN AMRO Australia 1995-98 an investment bank with its own carbon trading division and still finding time to run his own investment banking business. [5]

Ross Garnaut, a key player in governments in the Asia-Pacific, is a professor in economics with no scientific qualifications which nevertheless qualified him to lead the Garnaut Climate Change Report and several other reviews. He was the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Primary Industry Bank of Australia 1989 to 1994 and the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Bank of Western Australia Ltd from 1988 to 1995. [6] Then we mustn’t forget former Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating, Chairman of the Corporate Advisory International at investment banking firm Lazard and his board membership of China Development Bank: International Advisory Council. [7]

Broadly backed by environmentalists but deeply unpopular with the majority of the Australian public, The Clean Energy Legislative Package was passed by the Australian Senate in November 2011 becoming law in July 2012. With around 13 percent of the public in favour of the tax, no referendum was offered so that people could choose, no debate in Parliament and no disclosure as to who are the biggest 500 “polluters”. Reassurance came in the form of compensation to householders borrowed from the IMF already stretched to the limit with European bailouts. [8]

dreamstime_m_18893257© Avenger01 | Dreamstime.com – Carbon Tax Photo

Although the Carbon Tax in Australia was repealed in July 2014 climate change legislation overall remains in place. According to the Australian government: “The Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2014, were introduced into parliament as part of the broader Carbon Tax Repeal Legislative Package and each of which will proceed separately. Policy responsibility for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation remains with the Treasury.” So, no change there. It is likely Carbon Tax will be renewed since the framework is still in place. Furthermore: “The Clean Energy Regulator will ensure that carbon tax liabilities are met in full.” along with the Direct Action Plan of June 2014 which is a bill to implement the Emissions Reduction Fund particularly focused on what’s left of the farming community. [9]

The cost of living for Australians was certainly pushed through the roof with the tax while making very little impact on environmental concerns. In the unlikely event that the science behind CO2 could have been correct, Australia’s total contribution of global emissions will only be reduced by a paltry 0.05 percent taking more than 10 years for the saving to be realised. [10] Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard was a keen supporter of world government so it was natural that she oversaw a move in this direction under the cover of environmental policy.

By 2013, the liberal coalition of Tony Abbot curtailed such a plan for now. No doubt they will try again.

Over in the USA, the first mandatory Cap and Trade system was enforced in the state of New Jersey in 2010 followed by many other North-Eastern states that have sold over 729 million in CO2 credits since 2008. [11] Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Inc. (RGGI) two other mandatory regional systems started in 2012, bringing cap-and-trade to 23 states in all and four Canadian provinces. [12] Though a nationwide system has yet to materialise it is only a matter of time. When insider trading and secrecy defines the political-corporate system then Congress can easily be bypassed as it has been throughout its existence. According to the RGGI corporation’s mission statement its “…exclusive purpose is to provide administrative and technical services to support the development and implementation of each RGGI State’s CO2 Budget Trading Program”.

RGGI, Inc.’s activities include:

    • Development and maintenance of a system to report data from emissions sources subject to RGGI, and to track CO2 allowances.
    • Implementation of a platform to auction CO2 allowances.
    • Monitoring the market related to the auction and trading of CO2 allowances.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states in reviewing applications for emissions offset projects.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states to evaluate proposed changes to the States’ RGGI programs.

A CO2 template ready to extract the needed dosh from the populace once Agenda 21, SD and SMART are fully operational.

Funnily enough, who should happen to be bidding their socks off on this issue? None than most of Wall St., including: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays Bank and others.  Speculating on the price of permits or “allowances” ensures that these financial giants pocket big money from misplaced environmental concerns and corner the carbon market in the process. Wait awhile and the effects of these speculations will be felt on customers’ electricity bills in the same way we all bailed out banksters so they could continue living in the manner to which they had long become accustomed. Utilities which need CO2 allowances at RGGI auctions must compete against powerful private interests whose primary goal is generating money. Therefore, we are looking at another reinvention of the 2008 Ponzi scheme where US and European citizens will be duped all over again.

What’s more, bureaucrats are denying the public right to know via New Jersey Watchdog’s Open Public Record Requests for auction details. RGGI claimed it was not a “public body” and thus it could keep trade secrets, contrasting sharply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducting similar auctions.  Allowances have been sold by the EPA for acid rain otherwise known as SO2. It seems that now that derivatives have been way too toxic CO2 represents a plentiful bounty that requires insider back-scratching. For that to go ahead, the secondary markets of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and the Green Exchange do the job.

And guess who owns these markets?

The Green Exchange is owned by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd. Credit Suisse Group, AG, Morgan Stanley and Newedge Group, most of whom were involved in massive fraud, insider trading, price fixing and serious financial irregularities and fined billions – not that this made any difference at all. [13] [14]

Oh, and don’t forget JPMorgan Chase & Co is also cutting a slice of the pie. (This is the corporate predator that also has a string of “murder-suicides” of its employees, the company that’s going head to head with the Dept. Of Justice over its  FX trading practices).  It is in the interest of these companies to not only take advantage of the gaping holes in the financial system but from any new social directive that lies within it, whether ecological or philanthropic. It demands that they actually create the crises that put the majority of people into dire straits economically so that they can benefit directly from the social services implemented to allow the most needy to survive.

One brief example lies in US food subsidization for the poor, the expenditure of which sits at $72 billion a year provided by food stamps, a.k.a The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS). Nearly half of all SNAP participants are children. Where there is regular outflow of federal cash you will find corporate parasites leeching off their share. Washington, D.C. is home to a range of political and corporate lobbyists who exert enormous pressure on Congress and other instruments of US government to keep the food that can be bought through food assistance programs of the lowest quality and price possible while banks like JP Morgan cream off billions from their payment processing agreements from electronic transactions. They profit from every sale and from every individual desperate enough to have to rely on food stamps and companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Kraft gain a tidy some selling products for subsidisation and profiting from poverty. One journalist posed the question: “… how much were states spending to print food stamps in comparison to how much they pay JP Morgan to process transactions electronically? I’d wager it is cheaper to print the stamps.” [15]

Taking a bird’s eye view of the history of banksters and corporate predation on the public funds is absolutely necessary if we are to see the true nature of the carbon credit scheme and the global warming industry as a whole. JP Morgan-Chase has been manipulating government and the public for as long as Goldman Sachs, the latter having particular influence inside the Obama administration. As Matt Taibbi writes in the opening paragraph of his seminal Rolling Stone piece: “The Great American Bubble”: “the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it is everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” [16] It is in this article that Taibbi lifts the lid on the nature of Goldman Sachs and others who have mastered the art of economic manipulation and to such a high degree that we live in a world of their design, where vast numbers of people live in abject poverty as a direct consequence of their financial terrorism.

vampiresq

World “Vampire Squid”

Cutting its teeth in the Great Depression Goldman positioned itself in thick of speculative investments with Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation, issuing a million shares priced at $100 and buying all those shares with its own money, driving the price up by its own relentless bidding and selling a percentage to the public. The sponsorship of Shenandoah Corporation and the Blue Ridge Corporation followed, where millions more shares in these funds accelerated a pyramidal investment scheme that soared into the financial stratosphere. As stated: “Goldman hiding behind Goldman hiding behind Goldman. Of the 7,250,000 initial shares of Elue Ridge, 6,250,000 were actually owned by Shenandoah – which, of course, was in large part owned by Goldman Trading.” [17] The foundation of the present casino-economy that we now found ourselves forced to play, is directly sourced from financial cartels like Goldman. The basic nature of this time-honoured scam has been labelled the global economy and operates in the following way: “You take a dollar and borrow nine against it; then you take that $10 fund and borrow $90; then you take your $100 fund and, so long as the public is still lending, borrow and invest $900. If the last fund in the line starts to lose value, you no longer have the money to pay back your investors, and everyone gets massacred.”

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith had little time for the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Great Crash of 1929 and the following aftermath of the Great Depression saw Goldman Sachs doing what they did best: creating the opportunities to make money through massive suffering. Galbraith saw:“… the Blue Ridge and Shenandoah trusts as classic examples of the insanity of leverage-based investment,” and which were a: “… major cause of the market’s historic crash; in today’s dollars, the losses the bank suffered totalled $475 billion.” As Galbraith wrote in somewhat deflated fashion: “If there must be madness, something may be said for having it on a heroic scale.’ ” [18]

About sixty-five years later and Goldman Sachs had become a fully-fledged corporate psychopath. This tenacity and primitive survival instinct that left many of its competitors sunk during the depression, just made Goldman even stronger. It became the chief underwriter for most of Wall St. and eventually unleashing its true power through deregulation under the direction of CEO Robert Rubin (and CFR member) who had hung onto the coat-tails of best buddy and President Bill Clinton to become director of the National Economic Council and eventually Treasury secretary.

In the 1990s Rubin could do no wrong and the media smoothed his path to supremacy. When the classic Establishment rag Time had Rubin and his Treasury deputy Larry Summers and Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan on their front cover in 1999, the economic outlook was set for speculation, exploitation and economic plunder on a scale undreamt of. The financial markets were “over-regulated” and Rubin sought to change all that. Far from being “The Committee to Save the World” as the title ran, their job was to plunge the world into economic debt that could never be repaid but profits would abound for those in the know, namely, Goldman Sachs and friends.

The second bubble created and burst by Goldman was the internet dot com bonanza. Ill-thought out and barely legal companies were sold like rock-star geeks in the media and floated on the stock market for mega millions. What the average investor didn’t know was that the banks had been hustling and changing the rules so that deals looked better than they really were. How did they do this? Taibbi explains: “… by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system – one for the insiders who knew the real numbers and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman’s later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the internet years was to abandon its own industry’s standards of quality control.” [19]

It was then that financial warfare became a reality and an even bigger tool for the 4C’s net. With no regulation there were no limits to what could be achieved through financial restructuring in its widest possible sense. Goldman was able to vacuum up money in such an effective and extortionate fashion by manipulating the share price otherwise known as “laddering.”

Taibbi describes the process for us in simple terms:

Say you’re Goldman Sachs, and Bullshit.com comes to you and asks you to take their company public. You agree on the usual tennis: You’ll price the stock, determine how many shares should be released and take the Bullshit.com CEO on a “road show~ to schmooze investors, all in exchange for a substantial fee (typically six to seven percent of the amount raised). You then promise your best clients the right to buy big chunks of the IPO at the low offering price -let’s say Bullshit.com’s starting share price is $15 – in exchange for a promise that they will buy more shares later on the open market. That seemingly simple demand gives you inside knowledge of the IPO’s future, knowledge that wasn’t disclosed to the day-trader schmucks who only had the prospectus to go by: You know that certain of your clients who bought X amount of shares at $15 are also going to buy Y more shares at $20 or $25, virtually guaranteeing that the price is going to go to $25 and beyond. In this way, Goldman could artificially jack up the new company’s price, which of course was to the bank’s benefit – a six percent fee of a $500 million IPO is serious money.

Goldman was seen as one of the primary instigators of the crash as a result. Yet when their laddering operations were discovered they paid their fines and continued as if nothing had happened.

Parallel to laddering was the simple use of bribery or “spinning” where shares were offered to executives at extra-low prices in exchange for underwriting business. Banks did their part by undervaluing the initial offering price so that shares rose more rapidly thus providing greater dividends for the insider few and in the shortest possible time. The you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours formula worked in this way: “… instead of Bullsrul.com opening at $20, the bank would approach the Bullshit.com CEO and offer him a million shares of his own company at $18 in exchange for future business effectively robbing all of Bullshit’s new shareholders by diverting cash that should have gone to the company’s bottom line into the private bank account of the company’s CEO.” [20]

When the bubble burst it took thousands of businesses with it, wiping out more than $5 trillion of wealth on the NASDAQ market alone. Once the investment banksters had been rewarded for criminality with huge bonuses (which continues today) and had obtained a taste for how easy it was to inflate and deflate their bubble – the corruption could only get worse. Moreover, it had an ideological basis to it, where skimming off the maximum amount from a capitalist system in decline was not only profitable but necessary if a new global financial architecture was to ever come of age. Bubbles were essential to global governance to break the public spirit and to provide pots of money for new globalist visions.

800px-GoldmanSachsHeadquarters

Goldman Sachs Headquarters, at 200 West Street, in Manhattan | photo: Quantumquark (wikipedia)

In 2000, true to the formula of sneaking unpopular or downright dangerous acts in at the last minute; when congressman are tired and want to go home to their mistresses, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act found its way into law. It had been inserted into an 11,000 page spending bill with no debate to speak of and very little interest in the implications. Banks were now given free rein to trade default swaps as they pleased. And they did so with impunity in the sub-prime housing crisis leading up to the 2008 crash.

Meanwhile, AIG asked if default swaps could fall under the category of regulatory insurance which meant that Goldman and others could pitch their wares to A-grade investors and the hobo in the street underwriting mortgage-backed securities much of which was subprime. It was the most blatant securities fraud touted as legitimate investing. Ultimately it led to the demise of many companies involved, including AIG. Goldman had the cash to pay lawsuits and fines and was free to walk away yet again with over $1.3 billion of taxpayer’s money from the bailout to AIG which meant that the bank directly profited from the housing bubble not once but twice, or as Taibbi eloquently states: “… it fucked the investors who bought their horseshit CDOs by betting against its own crappy product. Then it turned around and fucked the taxpayer by making him pay off those same bets.” [21]

After the fleecing of the housing market and the myth of housing prices being impervious to change the predators were on the lookout for the next bubble to inflate and burst. The physical-commodities market: foodstuffs, consumables, energy and oil fit the bill. The latter market reacted to this flight from the carnage of the housing crash and the plummeting value of the dollar with the price of a barrel oil shot up from around $55 in mid-2007 to $149 by the summer of 2008. This was due to Goldman and friends manipulating the markets into yet another casino run by lobbying investors and pension fund holders to invest in oil futures on condition that they buy oil at a fixed price and on a specific date of their choosing. Mike Norman, the Chief Economist at the Wall Street firm John Thomas Financial wrote in October 2011: “Total NYMEX open interest in crude is 1.4 m contracts or about 1.4 billion barrels of crude. Daily volume of crude traded on NYMEX is over 1 billion barrels per day. Total daily global demand is only 83 million barrels per day. The amount traded on one single exchange is more than 10 times total daily consumption. It’s a giant casino with prices being driven up by speculators and consumers having to pay more and more.” [22]

Author F. William Engdahl concluded that: “roughly 60-70 percent of the price of oil then was pure speculation, manipulated by the GSCI, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index” … irrespective of supply and demand”. He observed that the “crucial ingredient” in the success of this manipulation is …“not the NYMEX for the global oil price benchmark, but the ICE Futures in London.”

Why?

He offers this narrative on ICE:

Because the ICE Futures is a daughter company of the International Commodity Exchange of Atlanta in Georgia, owned by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase etc. – the big oil banks that benefit enormously from the inside. There is absolutely no serious regulation of the ICE Futures. The British keep their hands off it, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, since 2006 under the ‘Commodity Modernization Act of 2000’ allows ICE Futures to trade energy futures without disclosure to CFTC in the U.S. market through London. So, in fact, it has deregulated and taken away from any government supervisory role the entire trade in energy futures, especially oil. This is a rigged game. [23]

>As Goldman and other banks drove investors into the commodities markets speculators placed increasingly reckless bets leading directly to the oil bubble in 2008. This all took place with the same illegal secrecy that we saw in New Jersey and the Cap and Trade, the same benefits which allowed Goldman to become “the chief designer of a giant commodities betting parlor.” Once again a huge loss of wealth occurred when oil-commodities crashed. It led to worldwide chaos sending millions of people below the poverty line and creating food riots and serious unemployment.

1024px-Reflection_in_a_soap_bubble_edit

Carbon Tax supporter Goldman Sacs and others are responsible for creating and perpetuating financial bubbles. Brocken Inaglory | Alvesgaspar (wikipedia)

Finally, the crash in September 2008 after the bailout of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the sacrifice of Lehman Bros., ( a Goldman competitor) Treasury-Secretary and ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson gave the go-ahead to $85 billion bailout of AIG who owed Goldman $13 billion and therefore allowed the company to pay it back. Meanwhile, industry workers’ jobs and small businesses were dying by the dozen ever hopeful for any assistance – which never came.

What did arrive however, was the notorious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) amounting to $700 billion dollar’s worth of bailout money for the financial industry – namely the banks. Filled to the brim with ex-Goldman employees surrounding the bailout honeypot like killer bees, Goldman Sachs wanted a piece of it. Thus they managed to do just that by converting themselves from an investment bank to a bank holding company. This permitted access to $10 billion in TARP funds along with an almost infinite Federal Reserve funding, publicly backed but well under the radar. What this means in real terms, is an almost unimaginable level of money was lent or guaranteed by the Federal Reserve by the end March 2009 totalling over $8.7 trillion. The influx of new bailouts and loopholes in the law allowed the Fed to block almost all attempts at congressional auditing so that fiscal details on who received what, when and how remained secret.

More recently, as Europe suffers a depression most intense in Spain, Portugal and Greece we find Goldman’s sticky fingers all over it, most significantly in the country where democracy was born. The company willingly helped Greece conceal its budget deficit by arranging a currency swap so that it could manage $15 billion of bond sales and rack up substantial profits before Greece plunged into chaos. Bill Blain, co-head of fixed income at Matrix Corporate Capital LLP, a London-based broker and fund manager stated: “The price of bonds should reflect the reality of Greece’s finances,” therefore: “If a bank was selling them to investors on the basis of publicly available information, and they were aware that information was incorrect, then investors have been fooled.” [24]

Fooling everyone is the name of game.

In summary, Goldman Sachs is one of many powerful criminal cartels indulging its predatory whims to create the inflation and crash-deflation of four major financial bubbles over several decades. All of these disasters leave a greenback dollar-trail to Goldman and its Rothschild brothers in arms who caused untold misery to millions of people, (mostly pensioners and children) by infiltrating government and bribing spineless members of Congress to fracture society to the point that is almost irreversible. Despite all this, they remain on top while international banking law allows them to secrete their profits away in offshore accounts and claim deductions on the same untaxed income. They are free to start the lucrative financial warfare process again should the next opportunity present itself – and indeed it has.

Goldman Sachs was the leading campaign donor for Barack Obama contributing $981,000. Do we think this is because they liked his smile? Or that he would be the first “black” president? Rather, like so many puppets before him, they knew he’d be compliant having been plucked from obscurity and schooled for the job well in advance. Obama’s White House chief of staff and Zionist Rahm Emanuel whose legacy of funnelling cash contributions from Goldman to the Clinton campaign are well known. First proposed by former a Goldman CEO, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he accepted the lead role in overseeing and guiding the ‘$700 billion’ bailout through the White House. Along with Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldman Sachs employees – he was in good company. [25] By 2010, the Obama Administration was infested with Goldmanites just as it was in Clinton’s day.

logo

Which brings us to the Hamilton Project, a mini version of the Council on Foreign Relations with an emphasis on economics. Funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin and embedded in the Establishment’s own Brookings Institution, the think-tank is named after Alexander Hamilton who famously described people as “a great beast” and supported the imposition of a State bank and centralised government.

Ex Goldman CEO Rubin is the driving force of Hamilton and stringent economic policies that would ultimately benefit Goldman Sachs and CFR principles. According to journalist Eamon Javers: “Behind the scenes, Rubin still wields enormous influence in Barack Obama’s Washington, chatting regularly with a legion of former employees who dominate the ranks of the young administration’s policy team. He speaks regularly to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who once worked for Rubin at Treasury.” [26]

The Hamilton Project is a revolving door for Goldman employees and the US government, with the first four directors of the Hamilton Project serving in the Obama Administration. With a heavy mix of Zionist and Anglo-American Establishment groupies, the think-tank includes co-chair Robert Rubin himself; Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein; Sheryl Sandberg Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; ex-Goldmanite and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Neo-Conservative-transhumanist Peter Thiel and topped off with a heavy sprinkling of Brookings Institute staff and George Town University economics professors. Barack Obama has also given keynote speeches at the Hamilton Project giving his tacit support for both its ideology and policies. [27]

fh4eca65e4Key U.S. Government Positions held by Goldman Sachs alumni. courtesy of prof 77 at ‘Dregs of the Future’ and the post: A List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government–including Elena Kagan

Which means the concrete has set for the foundations of Goldman’s next big casino run: cap-and-trade and carbon credits sold to the public as an on-going environmental strategy complimenting sustainable development and re-wilding. If it takes off, Goldman won’t have to do any rigging – it’s all built into the plan mandated by UN Agenda 21 and Western government push for SMART societies worldwide. Goldman has been lobbying hard for Cap and Trade for years and has poured a lot of money into climate change issues, having already invested $500 million in the Green Growth fund.

Carbon credits represent another trillion dollar bubble for Goldmanites and other corporate predators and they mean to have as big a slice of the pie as they can. As Matt Taibbi observed: “This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.” [28]

And that’s what the eco-economic game is all about.


See also: Goldman Sachs to pay $5 billion for misleading mortgage bond investors

 


Notes

[1] http://www.carboncreditsfaq.com/
[2] http://www.aussieinnovation.com/wiki/Megan_Clark
[3] http://www.csiro.au Simon MKeon bio | ‘Macquarie boss gets CSIRO top job’ ABC News, Jun 21, 2010.
[4] Malcolm Turnbull’s Official Australian Parliament House Biography.
[5] His biography on Equity Capital Limited’s website and his fact page at the Museum of Australian Democracy (PDF), Money Management and Australian National University.
[6] Ross Garnaut: Executive Profile & Biography – Businessweek.
[7] Lazard’s website and China Development Bank’s website.
[8] ‘Carbon tax hecklers stop Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her tracks’ by Mark Kenny, Adelaide Now July 14, 2011.

[9] (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax)
[10] ‘Australia introduces controversial carbon tax’ BBC News, 1 July 2012.
[11] http://www.newjersey.watchdog.org/files/2010/09/RGGI-auction-results-thru-9-10.pdf |WesternClimate Initiative -Currently being designed, anticipated to begin January 2012 (as of 1/2011) http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] ‘Goldman Sachs, MF Global Among Six New Clearing Members of Green Exchange’ By Mathew Carr, Oct 11, 2010 bloomberg.com
[14] ‘JPMorgan’s record fine’ Bloomberg, June 4, 2010. | ‘JPMorgan fined for wash trades in oil, gasoline’ By David Sheppard, Reuters, Jun 1, 2012. |
[15] ‘J.P. Morgan makes billions in profits from food stamps every year’ by Lou Colagiovanni, The Examiner June 21, 2012.
[16] ‘The Great American Bubble’ By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Magazine July 9-23 2009.
[17] Ibid. (p.54)
[18] Ibid (Taibbi quotes Galbraith from “In Goldman we Trust” (p.54)
[19] Ibid (p.56)
[20] Ibid (p.58)
[21] Ibid. (p.60)
[22] ‘A History of Rigged & Fraudulent Oil Prices (and What It Can Teach Us About Gold & Silver)’ by Lars Schall interview with F. William Engdahl 2011.
[23] Ibid.
[24] ‘Goldman Sachs, Greece Didn’t Disclose Swap Contract’ By Elisa Martinuzzi, Bloomberg, February 17, 2010.
[25] ‘Goldman Sachs Will Be Sitting Pretty With Emanuel in the Obama White House’ Washington Examiner November 20, 2008.
[26] ‘Robert Rubin returns’ By Eamon Javers, Politico, August 4, 2010.
[27] ‘Obama’s “Smoking Gun”: His Hamilton Project Speech shows his links to Goldman, Entitlement Cuts’(Part 1+2) by F. Flambeau . http://www.firedoglake.com/
[28] op. cit.Taibbi (p.101)

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.


Notes

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

World State Policies IX: Food as a Weapon and GM Crops Unleashed

“If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.”

– Henry Kissinger


henrykissinger“Food is power! We use it to change behaviour. Some may call that bribery. We do not apologize.” So said past Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program, Catherine Bertini.

One can imagine that humility may be very low down on the list of qualities for a person voted “the most powerful woman in the world” by The Times of London newspaper in 1996. And by a spooky quirk of fate, Bertini is also a member of the Advisory Council at Rockefeller College on Public Affairs and Policy, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and a Senior Fellow of the Rockefeller supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. If her Elite membership doesn’t tell you all you need to know from the outset then her mentor Henry Kissinger will place her remarks in context.

One of a number of Elite pensioners who seem to live forever while avoiding any kind of accountability for their crimes, Kissinger is one of the most reviled and revered elder Statesman who has never left the political game. CEO of Kissinger Associates, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and a long-time Bilderberger, he is the public face of those who prefer to remain out of the spotlight. He has strong ties to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), JP Morgan Chase Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and is international advisor to the Hollinger Group. He has held many public office positions including Head of the State Department and National Security Council under Nixon in the late 1960s and early 70s. He received the Noble Peace Prize in 1973 despite being instrumental in creating the Vietnam and Yom Kippur war between Egypt / Syria and Israel.

henry_kissinger

Kissinger 1971 (wikipedia)

Kissinger’s presence has been around like a persistent stain on the carpet of US geo-politics since the 1950s and no matter what truth rises to the surface, the old man still appears on T.V. shows and gives authoritative interviews despite volumes of evidence for his crimes including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, alleged child rape and torture. He encouraged the Kurds to take up arms against Saddam Hussein in 1972-75 and then abandoned them to a slow death; his participation in the promotion of South African apartheid; the destabilisation of Angola; the whitewashing of Central American death-squads; political protection for the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran and its system of torture and repression; the genocide of civilian populations in Indochina; the planning of the coup in Chile and the assassination of democratically elected President Salvador Allende and many other crimes extending to Bangladesh, Cyprus, East Timor, and Washington, D.C.

So, it was fitting that Kissinger would continue his crimes undetected by coming up with the policy to use food as a weapon. [1]

On Dec. 10, 1974, a 200 page classified study (later de-classified in the 1990s) was completed by the US National Security Council called: “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” Overseen by Kissinger, it landed on his desk for review and then on to President General Ford to be adopted as official policy in 1975.  The basic thrust of the study followed the same Malthusian line that population growth in developing countries was a threat to US National Security and therefore had to be curbed by overt and covert means. The former was to be birth control and the latter, the creation of war and famine. It just happened to neatly coincide with political and strategic interests which were underway in countries that were chosen for depopulation. These included: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia. The power status of each of these countries could not be allowed to exceed the level that would put US interests at risk. The report stated: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria’s population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” [2] Which certainly wouldn’t do since America had grand plans for an unimpeded resource grab. US economic dominance and population control strategies converge in the following paragraph:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States [3] [Emphasis mine]

Many, if not most of the problems now experienced in the developing world are a direct result of Western economic policy. Rockefeller Foundation, Planned Parenthood International and others were still busy in India pushing through birth control policies under threat of economic sanctions just as Kissinger was suggesting to withhold food supplies unless mass birth control became standard practice:

“There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.” [4]

Spoken like a true Machiavellian. He continued:

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” adding: “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? … Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?” [5]

It was only in the late 1980’s that the Brazilian Ministry of Health began investigating reports of systematic sterilisation of Brazilian women and was amazed to find that: “… an estimated 44 percent of all Brazilian women aged between 14 and 55 had been permanently sterilized,” while older women had been sterilized fourteen years before at the start of the program. As they pursued their investigations various American and some Brazilian organisations and agencies were found to be involved including the US Pathfinder Fund, International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception, Family Health International – all under the guiding hand of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). [6]

The NSSM 200 study allowed what was essentially a eugenics-based National Security policy for depopulation to secretly develop in third world countries enhancing and expanding the work already carried out by Rockefeller minions twenty years before. Using euphemisms such as “family planning” and “population explosion” the propaganda of imminent population growth tied to the availability of strategic minerals could advance world Establishment designs in a way that had not been possible before the Nixon-Kissinger double act.

Author on geopolitics F. William Engdahl wrote from his 2007 book Seeds of Destruction:

While arguing for reducing global population growth by 500 million people by the year 2000, Kissinger noted elsewhere in his report that the population problem was already causing 10 million deaths yearly. In short he advocated doubling the death rate to at least 20 million, in the name of addressing the problem of deaths due to lack of sufficient food. The public would be led to believe that the new policy, at least what would be made public, was a positive one. In the strict definition of the UN Convention of 1948, it was genocide. […]

Kissinger was, in effect, a hired hand within the Government, but not hired by a mere President of the United States. He was hired to act and negotiate on behalf of the most powerful family within the post-war US establishment at the time — the Rockefellers. [7]

The Rockefeller Foundation had already established itself as part of the factions behind post war Washington policy where oil, defence and global agriculture were all integral to the expansion of American hegemony. Or in Kissinger’s words: “If you control oil, you control nations. If you control food, you control people.” [8]

Food as a weapon is nothing new but the consolidation of this tactic has reached a degree of technological sophistication not seen for hundreds of years. By 1974, the biggest six companies controlling 95 percent of world food were (and still are) Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge, André, and Archer Daniels, Midland / Töpfer all of whom are spawned from an Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, though all based in the US.

Under the rationale of “efficiency” and “maximizing profit ratios” US agriculture policy drove hundreds of thousands of family farmers into bankruptcy in order to pave the way for the monolithic machine of agribusiness, where the remaining farmers would exist only as serfs to trans-national corporations’ production methods. William Pearce, Cargill’s vice-president of Public Affairs was instrumental in this domination. He was on President Nixon’s 1974 Committee for Economic Development and made sure that US trade policy would leave a clear run for American agrichemical business to monopolize the world market in seeds, pesticides and most importantly, genetically modified plants. From that moment on, corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels would not only reorganize farming policy but work to create a new one.

cargill

Cargill food giant logo

All legislation regarding family farm protections were phased out in favour of a rapidly deregulated “free market.” Just like the 2008 financial warfare perpetrated by Goldman Sacs et al and the federally mandated use of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in bailouts, so too Nixon’s farming policy was to change the face of America and the very nature of food. Wall St. only saw dollar signs as the social fabric of farming was torn apart.

The net result of such a systematic grab for power meant that Third World countries were especially vulnerable to these predator corporations who wanted to divert all self-sufficient and sustainable operations into a long-distance relationship of dependency where only fruits, sugar, coffee and vegetables would feature. US grains and other products were offered in return for payment by exporting their fruit and vegetables. This was to be the open door to massive worker exploitation and the loss of domestic food production. It was to signal the arrival of huge fields with cheaper yields dependent on a host of chemical products while the local and often ancient farming practices either instantly died or were absorbed into mechanised and synthetic “efficiency.”

Rather than ensuring that local farmers could provide for their communities by planting high-protein/high calorie crops and even sell the excess abroad at competitive prices, corporations oversaw the rise of a New World of poverty and its underclass, comprehensively denying them the assistance and ability to become self-sufficient in a monopoly that was both ecologically damaging as it was extraordinarily myopic. Cheap imports devalued their economies whilst access to their land was denied. Ensuring healthy, local economies could prosper was never the objective of American agri-business. Exploitation and ruthless stripping of the land, culture and people was the only way forward to ensure maximum profits divorced from limitations, morals and values.

The infamous General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) underwent several incarnations before finally being replaced with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1993, fully operational by 1995. During President Richard Nixon’s tenure and through the auspices of the GATT Toyko round he was able to give carte blanche to the new global agribusiness export agenda while ensuring that developing countries would never gain their own independent food production. Nixon proposed to Congress a new way of managing trade negotiations which were termed “fast track”, for which Congress had to vote “yes” or “no” on a particular trade agreement. All changes to U.S. law had to conform to its terms – without any amendments. This was typical of the Kissinger-Nixon tag team. Under fast track, not only had Congress to conduct a vote within a brief 60 to 90 days of the President’s submission of the agreement, but the subsequent debate had to be limited to 20 hours.

As Congress was effectively removed from the negotiation process this opened the way for Nixon’s idea for a system of advisory groups and think-tanks drawn from the private sector. These appointed groups have enormous power and influence. Closed to public scrutiny, the documents are confidential with security clearances in operation for representatives. Indeed, the documents themselves are virtually unreadable to any but the initiated. Independent presidential candidate and social activist Ralph Nader wrote: “Once the agreements are completed – or on those rare occasions when a draft of the agreements is “liberated” – any person who wants to figure out what the agreements say faces a Herculean task. The agreements are very complex and written in arcane, almost impenetrable technical jargon that bears only a passing resemblance to the English language.” [9]

richard-nixon-and-henry-kissinger-1972

Puppets & players on a mission: Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger 1972

This obfuscation is intentional. The last thing the high priests of unfettered corporatism want is for the public, media or any democratic body casting a curious eye over agreements which are inherently anti-human. The big transnational food corporations intend to keep the public ignorant of trade agreements and excluded from the approval process as they know full well that if they were cross-examined the practices would be seen for what they are – a product of unrestrained, cartel capitalism.

What is perhaps the most dangerous development is the use of genetically modified foodstuffs under the pretext of feeding the world’s poor which were made poor by the very same entities and for that very same purpose.

The success of the WTO was mainly down to the Cargill Corporation’s aggressive lobbying of Congress (otherwise known as mass-bribing) through the auspices of the influential Business Round Table group (An off-shoot of the Round Table of European Industrialists) which is an alliance of corporatists pushing for total deregulation of trade. In other words, limitless exploitation of the world’s resources without national borders or bureaucracy. This lobbying took the form of a WTO paper entitled: “The WTO Agreement on Agriculture” which was penned by a gaggle of corporate plunderers such as Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Nestlé, Unilever, and others. [10]Most of these companies had many thousands of patents on new trans-genic plants. It was to be a perfect platform for GMO companies like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta to merge their monocultures towards the 4Cs: commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation leading to absolute control of the world’s food and its destiny.

The WTO’s remit was to be primarily a global free trade enforcer, a supranational entity fuelled by the insatiable drive of agribusiness and therefore answerable only to private agribusiness companies. Lip-service was paid to the plaintive cries for accountability because it had real power compared to the less efficient GATT agreements of the past. That usually means if the socio-economic and GMO order is not adhered to, the WTO can levy financial penalties to keep countries in line with the agribusiness agenda. For that reason, the WTO was designed to be above the laws of nations, answerable to no public body beyond its own walls. As we shall see presently, this organisation was to be used as the primary means by which genetically modified food and crops would become dominant in the world agriculture market.

By the time the 1986 Uruguay round of GATT talks had arrived and after a successful dismantling of public health and safety provisions in the US and the onset of rapid financial deregulation care of the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, agribusiness was primed to road test its new WTO toy. World cereals and grain supplies, meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, sugar, fruits and vegetables and all forms of spices are controlled by these corporations which operate as a food cartel working in tandem with the various principles of World State visionaries. They can apply enormous pressure to the West and developing countries. In combination with financial warfare and the “shock doctrine”of the World Bank and IMF, infrastructure support and capital goods are routinely denied and so too the possibility for self-reliance and self-sufficiency if a country doesn’t wish to play the game of cartel economics.

Thanks to historic monopolies forged in the dim and distant past these corporations have had a progressively ruthless stranglehold on much of the third world. Most countries don’t have any choice but to import from the food cartel’s export regions or see their populations starve. The shocking disappearance of thousands of global farmers is testament to the power of the food cartel and the crucial part they play in the 4Cs.  $90 million in grants for molecular biology and genetic research were dispensed by the Rockefeller Foundation between 1932 -1957, excited at the prospect of seeing their passion for social engineering bolstered by these new fields of science. For the Rockefellers, eugenics was about to become turbo-charged with much greater advances in manipulating the human mind and body.

GMOslabelling

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

With the Rockefeller Foundation’s well-established web of micro-biologists and bio-technicians spanning the globe the next war against natural food and human health of the most vulnerable was to proceed. On December 9, 1959, with some extra support from the Ford Foundation and the Philippines government, the Rockefeller’s International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established. The Institute’s research headquarters are located on the University of the Philippines campus in Los Baos, south of the Philippine capital, Manila, the largest non-profit agricultural research centre in Asia. With offices in 11 other countries, agricultural research institutes, international development agencies, and philanthropic organisations recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with much back slapping and congratulations by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who have continued to support its work with hefty donations.

With close ties to business, government and biotech industries in the Philippines, the Manila bulletin gushes about the influence of the Institute and lays out the philanthropic Rockefeller script we’ve come to know so well: “In the 50 years of IRRI, the institute’s work has helped feed much of the world’s population, reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure that rice production is environmentally sustainable. IRRI’s high-yielding rice varieties have helped significantly increase world rice production, especially in Asia, saving millions from famine while protecting the environment and training thousands of researchers.” [11]

In fact, the above quote is a woeful misrepresentation of the big picture riding on the assumption that global monoculture farming methods have been a grand success for all concerned, rather than the obvious ecological and social disaster they truly are. Yet, still the Rockefeller Foundation and its enormous corporate and civil society connections thrives on its perceived innovation and philanthropy. The IRRI is major player in the corporate take-over of Asia and its food. Sustainability and assisting sections of the population living in poverty is just another cynical ruse, though many of those employed by these companies no doubt want to believe the fantasy.

Over several decades IRRI has genetically modified over 300 High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) and as Dr Richard Hindmarsh of the University of Queensland points out, prior to such attempts to improve on nature over 100,000 different rice varieties thrived in farmers’ fields. [12] Yet once agribusiness technology tore into natural crop diversity and the ecological balance which existed then it was not long before the natural varieties became extinct, often without seed documentation or collection. Once a monoculture dominates, their genetic uniformity is inherently weaker with increasing vulnerability to disease, pest invasions, biological stress and weed proliferation due to intensive fertiliser use. Intensive farming becomes a false economy since it cannot exist without the inflow of high quantities of pesticides, herbicides and the deployment of massive irrigation projects, all of which destroy communities and eventually the land.

riceRegarding the PR of high yields of rice, with expanding irrigated land and large-scale chemical fertiliser use, IRRI claims that there was significant increase from 2.3 percent per annum before 1964 to 4.5 percent between 1965 and 1980. However, as the Food Security Fact Sheet states, IRRI rice yields at their research farm actually decreased: “… at a rate of 1.25 percent per year from 1966 to 1987, a decline of 27.5 percent in 21 years. From 1966 to 1980, the yield from a variety named IR8 fell from 9.5 tons per hectare to about 2 tons per hectare while still receiving 120 kilograms of pure nitrogen fertilizer per hectare. Yet by 1990, IR8 and similar varieties were planted on about 80 percent of Philippine rice crop area.” [13]

Foundations and NGOs lay the groundwork for a new colonisation under the mantle of philanthropy, which is why IRRI’s annual reports from 1963-1982 show grants from a multitude of US and European chemical corporations from such as Monsanto, Shell Chemical, Union Carbide Asia, Bayer Philippines, Eli Lilly, Occidental Chemical, Ciba Geigy (later part of Novartis Seeds / Syngenta), Chevron Chemical, Upjohn, Hoechst, and Cyanamid Far East. [14] With bio-safety and regulatory frameworks still to be implemented or reinstated, this new form of monopoly is set to continue regardless of the consequences to ordinary people on the ground. Even IRRI’s host country the Philippines, has been importing increasing amounts of rice every year despite following IRRI’s programs with religious conviction. This is in part caused by geography and climate but the heavy use of insecticide and the resultant poor soil content also caused financial and health-related health problems for farmers, the effects of which were inevitably passed onto consumers.

Marketed and promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and their bid to gain control over the world’s rice supply and replace it with GM varieties, the IRRI was a big player in riding the mythological wave of this “Green Revolution” and the tag-line of “solving the world’s hunger problem.” A concentrated effort to neglect indigenous rice varieties with a proven high yield was put into action as the start of a multi-pronged campaign to push the developing world into the palm of biotechnology. [15] The IRRI; the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; UN development Program; the World Bank and several other environmental and agribusiness organisations formed a global steering Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) established in 1972. The much vaunted “success” of this Green Revolution was given a major thumb’s down by Philippines’ famers during a CGIAR Annual General Meeting in 2002 near the offices of IRRI. Demonstrations and street protests called for both institutions to be dismantled with statements decrying the record of the IRRI and CGIAR believing them to be “failed research institutions.” Farmers made it clear that they believed: “… a genuine, farmer-centred research institution should develop technologies that shall liberate farmers from dependence on any agro-chemical TNC [Trans-National Corp.] promote sustainable agriculture, conserve the environment, and protect the health of farmers.” [16]

One of the world’s leading experts on rice science Dr. R.H. Richaria, has been warning of the real nature of the “Green Revolution” since the 1980s. His concern over the severe disturbance of the agro-ecological balance has led to: “… intensive use of inputs such as genetically uniform seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and water and energy, [which] certainly resulted in major environmental degradation, including salinity, soil erosion, desertification, chemical pollution of land and waterways, die-back, loss of crop diversity, and the turning of renewable resources, such as soil and water, into non-renewable resources.” [17]

gmoratios

Source: Issues Surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) Products’ by Subhuti Dharmananda, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Traditional Medicine, Portland, Oregon

The global farming revolution was part of an ambitious strategy to steer the world from agriculture towards agribusiness, with an exclusively GM-centred production line. A global concentration of hybrid seed patents would be in the hands of just a few seed companies. The in-built sell-by-date of these GM seeds meant that farmers were forced into a modern-day form of bonded labour from which it is almost impossible to escape.

The creation of vast tracts of land for the planting GM crops displaced many peasant families and communities who wound up in in the poorest parts of cities and therefore vulnerable to exploitation by those same companies who were always on the look-out for cheap labour. Moreover, developing nations were forced into debt to pay for the expensive technology that produced initially high yields only to rapidly fade in the middle to long-term thus becoming the hook to purchase more and more “add-ons” to sustain the fertility of soil and crops. Those who could not afford it had to borrow the money but with interest rates so high many peasant farmers lost their farms (and generations of farming history) to larger land-owners sponsored by trans-national companies. World Bank loans were easily extended while the banking cartels quite literally, had a field day.

The main task of CGIAR was to achieve excellence in the field of agronomy and agricultural science in general and to apply monoculture production back in the US and the developing world. From that blitzkrieg it laid the foundation for the “Green Revolution” which was in fact the pretext for the “Gene Revolution” and the distribution of GMO-based farming, riding on the wave of a deregulated free market. It followed the same 4Cs formula as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil where the once the seed was planted and in the right way, it was just a matter of time before the planter could monopolise the whole garden and control the parameters of production so that they serve multiple objectives benefiting only the “Master.” Once families like the Rockefellers controlled the food supply they were able to extend their reach over a hundreds of companies and their subsidiaries in the supply line, from petroleum and agrichemicals to irrigation projects and food aid.

Behind this façade of helping the world’s poor quite apart from the obvious ecological and health dangers Rockefellers’ remit is to introduce the science of eugenics (social biology, Planned Parenthood etc.) through as many of societies’ domains as it can. Genetic modification of food is one such important spoke in the wheel. The food chain would be under corporate control matching the aspirations underpinning the human genome program.

Using the banner of a Green Revolution, the agri-chemical business has expanded into Africa courtesy of the Rockefellers and Bill & Melinda Gates foundation’s innocently named ‘The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’ (AGRA). Its advisory board of directors is riddled with Rockefeller go-betweens such as Strive Masiyiwa, Board Chair (Rockefeller Foundation) Jeff Raikes, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee, (Rockefeller Foundation); Judith Rodin, Co-Chair, Programs and Policy Committee (Rockefeller foundation); Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, (Rockefeller Foundation) Pamela K. Anderson, Director of the Agricultural Development Program, (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) [18]

Different name, same story.

Looking at the website you would be forgiven for thinking that so many happy, smiling faces denotes an agricultural future where all such agendas and drawbacks are fantasies of the pessimistic and deranged. Africans will be saved from their poverty by the goodness of a corporate West and their utopian world of hybrid seeds and high yields. That is, if you forget that a chemically saturated Africa and the diminishing returns of GM foods will mean that the long-term health and prosperity of Africa and its people is under question.

Amid the UN sex trafficking and abuse scandals Kofi Annan is no stranger to being used as an Establishment tool should the salary be sufficient. Annan’s job as Board Chair Emeritus of AGRA is to penetrate GM crops deep into the African heartland. Along with the geo-political shenanigans of AFRICOM, AGRA represents the same resource grabbing goals dressed up as agricultural emancipation. With the help of the World Bank, USAID, Monsanto, CGIAR member Syngenta AG of Switzerland, handsomely paid African scientists awash with sweeteners, incentives, sponsorships and initiatives, Africa’s governments are being seduced into accepting a New African Order of biotechnology.

logo

The GM crop leaders are presently the United States, Canada, India, Argentina, Brazil, and China. 1996 – 2006 saw the biggest leap in the production of genetically modified foodstuffs and crops with new countries signing up including South Africa, Paraguay, Uruguay and Australia. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has stated that the world’s farmers planted 148m hectares of genetically modified crops in 29 countries in 2009. The USA is the leader in GM cultivation at 66.8m hectares over 2 million more than the previous year. [19]

Brazil’s economic boom (and inevitable bust sometime in the future) has meant that Genetically Modified Organisms have been included in the ascent with some 10m hectares planted since 2008 overtaking Argentina as the second-biggest grower in 2010. By 2011, that had reached 303,000 km2. [20] 50 percent of GM crops grown worldwide were grown in developing countries, with the largest increase in Brazil in the same year. There has also been rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties in India since 2002 (Cotton is a major source of vegetable cooking oil and animal feed) with 106,000 km2 of GM cotton harvested in India in 2011.

By 2004, global GM crop acreage had hit the 167 million mark. By 2010, Latin America had been breached with Mexico, Chile, Colombia, Honduras and Costa Rica all yielding an average of 0.1 million hectares. Negligible but present nonetheless. Asia and Latin America are providing many hectares set aside for GM crops and associated biotechnology. The rise in GM farming is likely to increase year by year on these continents and in the developing world.

Agri-business makes the idea of choice a pipe dream. Soyabean crops have wreaked ecological destruction on much of Latin America producing huge profits for invested companies. Soya and herbicide resistant crops remain the most popular products that farmers ending up needing once stuck on the monoculture system. GM crop production is still not popular with Europeans due to an ethical and environmental reasoning which has expressed itself through an organised activist movement at local and national levels. Europe is also subject to clear restrictions on growing GM crops. Nevertheless, creeping acreage is appearing with GM maize production having taken place in Spain, Portugal, Germany and France and more recently in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, all with an average of 0.1 million hectares. [21]

As Africa is invaded by Chinese, European and American corporations, so too the potential for GMOs to hitch a ride. Burkino Faso and Egypt are the latest victims (or innovators depending on your position) with Pakistan, the newly and conveniently “liberated” Myanmar and the Philippines following closely behind. [22] Iran climbed aboard in 2005.

See also:

Redesigning Nature

Update: Big Biotech’s big lie: National sciences group concludes GMOs do not increase crop production

 


Notes

[1] ‘The Case Against Henry Kissinger Part One The making of a war criminal’ by Christopher Hitchens
Harpers magazine, March 2001. | http://harpers.org/archive/2001/02/the-case-against-henry-kissinger-2/
[2] National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200) 1974.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide,’ by Joseph Brewda, December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[5] Ibid.
[6] op. cit. Engdahl (p.53)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (p.41)
[9] ‘The Globalisation Agenda – Grave New World – The Democracy Grab’ by Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach from The Case Against the Global Economy and For a Turn Towards the Local by E. Goldsmith and Jerry Mander – Sierra Club Books, 1991.
[10] http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag_01_e.htm
[11] ‘International Rice Research Institute celebrates its 50th Anniversary’ December 9, 2009, Manilla Bulletin.
[12] http://www.panap.net/docs/analysis/gerice.pdf
[13] Rice, Trade and Biotechnology in the Philippines by Steve Suppan Food Security Fact Sheet No. 5, September 1996.
[14] ‘Laying the Molecular Foundations of GM Rice Across Asia’
[15] IRRI powerbase.info.
[16] ‘Richaria’s study proves deliberate neglect of indigenous varieties’ by Bharat Dogra Leisa India Supplement December 1999.
[17] IRRI powerbase.info. dismantal IRRI / CGIAR.
[18] http://www.agra-alliance.org/
[19] Ibid.
[20] ‘The adoption of genetically modified crops – Growth areas’ Feb 23rd 2011, The Economist online.| ‘ISAAA Brief 43, Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011’ By James C (2011). ISAAA Briefs. Ithaca, New York: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
[21] Op. cit. The Economist
[22] Ibid.

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.

commonpurpose.org.uk 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.” (www.exed.hbs.edu/programs) 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 www.eutruth.org.uk/. 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 Purpose.org 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.


Notes

[1] http://www.cpexposed.com/
[2] http://www.exed.hbs.edu/programs/gmp/
[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
[6]http://www.stopcp.com/
[7] http://commonpurpose.org/leadership/programmes/students/global-leader-experiences/london/
[8] ‘Niki Raapana talks to herself about communitarianism’ October 2010 | http://nikiraapana.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/niki-raapana-talks-to-herself-about.html
[9] The Corbett Report – Charity or Change Agent February 5 2013. | https://www.corbettreport.com/common-purpose-charity-or-change-agent/

Puppets & Players IX: The Rockefellers

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

– David Rockefeller


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

clip_image002

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

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

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

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

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

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


41QCVLcm9mL

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

– David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

***

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

– David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

***

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

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

***

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

jdr-senior-jr

John D. Rockefeller Senior and Junior, 1921

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly where the Rockefeller Foundation excels.

210px-29_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

NYC_-_Rockfeller_Center_-_Atlas_Statue

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image003

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

Puppets & Players VI: Council on Foreign Relations

 “The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded … states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies … Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker … The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

– Richard Haas CFR President February 12 2006.


infinite-cash.comProfessor Carroll Quigley described in Tragedy and Hope the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as “… the American Branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” [1]The founding members of CFR were some of the same members involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and the Round Table movement of Cecil Rhodes and Lord Alfred Milner. Many members were drawn from the emerging Military-Industrial complex, incorporating the fresh young blood of the intelligence apparatus of the US government. The CIA’s Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles had both been at the Paris Peace conference along with so many other world government enthusiasts and were founding members of the CFR. Allen Dulles became a member of CFR in 1926 and later its president. His brother John Foster, an in-law of the Rockefellers, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Board Chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was well placed for CFR steerage by the time he was Secretary of State under President Eisenhower. From a 1993 Annual report: “The Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit, and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of US foreign policy, and international affairs through the exchange of ideas.”

This is vague enough to encompass almost any ideological and political persuasion while giving the impression of unsullied innocence. True to its Round Table origins its actual objectives are to forge a centralised system of global government based on an inter-locking financial and corporate architecture policed by a world Army. As Senator Earnest Hollings of South Carolina bluntly put it for the Congressional Record, June 30, of the same year: “If you ever run for President, you get very wonderful, embossed invitations from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, and you get the coffee and fine china, and, man, you are really a high muckety-muck. And then what they do is get you to swear on the altar of free trade an undying loyalty and support—free trade, free trade. That is all they want. And they co-opt every one of these young Senators that want to run for President.” [2]

Today, CFR membership is made up of presidents past and present, Secretaries of State, Wall Street investors, Joint Chiefs of Staff, international bankers, executives, ambassadors, think-tank executives, lobbyists, lawyers, NATO officiandos, Pentagon military leaders, Establishment press, media owners, academics, novelists, entertainers, university presidents, senators, and Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges, and rich businessmen of every creed and colour. An ex-CFR member who seemed to wake up to the reality of what the organisation was promoting was former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward who wrote a scathing critique of CFR stating that their objective is the: “… submergence of U. S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government…” [3]

The overriding principles of a world government that would be based on the Chinese template of communist world state or world government and capitalist economy is still the dream of the CFR globalists as it was with J.D. Rockefeller. In 1962 a study titled, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield states: “… if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government.” And of course, in order to achieve world government and its interlocking “unions” it is necessary to dispense with the idea of sovereignty, economic or otherwise. The CFR members espouse just such a directive for their brand of globalisation.In April 1974, former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner published an article in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs entitled: ‘The Hard Road to World Order’ in which he declared: “… the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down … but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

cfr

Screen shots from the film clip: Council on Foreign Relations

cfr2

The usual suspects crop up again and again …

Since the creation of the Office of Secretary of Defence in 1947, 14 DoD secretaries have been CFR members. Since 1940, every Secretary of State, except James Byrnes, has been a CFR member and/or a member of the Trilateral Commission. Equally, for the past 80 years, almost every key US National Security and Foreign Policy Advisor has been a member. The majority of top generals and admirals and many former presidential candidates were/are CFR, including Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (and TC member), George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John McCain.

CIA directors were/are CFR, including Richard Helms, James Schlesinger, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and Leon Panetta. Many Treasury Secretaries were/are also in the Club such as Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner. [4]

Virtually everyone who has held a position at the US administrative level in the US has been a member of the CFR. Some past and present members include: David Rockefeller, Thomas Foley, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Paul A. Volcker, Prince Edward, Prince Charles of Wales, Madeleine K. Albright, Robert S. McNamara, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George H.W. Bush, Donald E. Graham, Henry A. Kissinger, Richard N. Perle, George Soros, Lawrence H. Summers, John D. Rockefeller IV. Bankers, Alan Greenspan, and World Bank President Robert Zoellick. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton. MSM CFR includes Katie Couric, Bill Moyers, Diane Sawyer, Tom Brokaw as well as foreign heads of state Mikhail Gorbachev, Benyamin Netanyahu and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and even the Dalai Lama. Corporate membership spans most of the Fortune 500 companies such as BP, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Google, Merck, NASDAQ, Pfizer and VISA.

One only has to take a look at the Council on Foreign Relations website to see that it has developed a sophisticated propaganda machine. Simply read the associated blogs and you’ll get an immediate flavour of what their objectives are all about. Unlike Le Cercle or Skull & Bones and occult groupings, this is indeed an open conspiracy. They are happy to court those in the entertainment business who usually have a very superficial understanding of Anglo-American designs but nevertheless due to their mass appeal and willingness to feed their egos and perceived social conscience, promote highly simplistic “solutions” while admirably serving the hidden interests of their backers.Actors such as George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are a case in point, the latter having become a satisfied CFR member last year and is busy doing her best to promote the organisation’s principles. She has very broad social appeal and represents quite a coup for the media focused think-tank.

To that end, social engineering and “information dominance” through the world’s media is essential part of CFR operations and has always played a major part in the shaping the minds of both old and new members so they may in turn, mould the public mind. As Quigley mentions: “The American branch of this ‘English Establishment’ exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening News).” The RAND Corporation is most closely associated with the group and its expertise in PSYOPS is routinely used by a various members of the American Establishment and their promotional arms; from the internet to carefully stage-managed media press conferences. [5]

Most importantly for the CFR and other groups, the decision to infiltrate the left-wing and liberal leaning political movements as far back as 1917 by Round Table and J.P Morgan agents proved hugely important as the MSM evolved. Wall St. was a vital component in the placing of editors and staff amenable to their vision. A Congressional record verifies this fact from statements made by Congressman Oscar Callaway who stated: “… the J.P. Morgan [banking] interests …. and their subsidiary organizations got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the US … They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. … an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information …” [6] Quigley observes that the“… purpose was not to destroy … or take over but was really threefold:

(1) to keep informed about the thinking of Left-wing or liberal groups;

(2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could “blow off steam,” and

(3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went “radical.” [7]

Sociologist Hadley Cantril wrote in his 1967 book The Human Dimension – Experiences in Policy Research: “Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world.” They have been supremely successful in doing just that. Their policy of non-attribution where nothing that is said in public contradicts their message of openness and transparency as does their numerous secret meetings not open to the public. Twenty years ago, the CFR was relatively unknown. Now, with the information age, there is much greater awareness, which is why its slick media campaigns are highly sophisticated in order to match the changing times.

See also: Behind the Big News: Propaganda and the CFR  and The Mainstream Media (MSM)

 


Notes

[1] pp.951-952; Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
[2] Senator Earnest Hollings (D) of South Carolina, Congressional Record, June 30, 1993, S8315.
[3] CFR Annual Report 1993-1994.
[4] The True Story of the Bilderberg Group By Daniel Estulin. Published by Trine Day, 2nd edition 2009. | ISBN-10: 0979988624.
[5] op. cit. Quigley The Anglo-American Establishment (1981).
[6] Congressman Oscar Callaway statements were included in the Congressional Record, vol. 54, February 9, 1917, p. 2947.
[7] op. cit. Quigley (1966)

Puppets & Players IV: The Round Table Group / Movement

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

— Cecil Rhodes


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

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

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

22518586

John Ruskin

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

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

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

clip_image002clip_image004

Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carhodes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tonyblair3-horz

Tony Blair (left) and Woodrow Wilson (right)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

roundtable-logo-horz

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

Puppets & Players III: Le Cercle

cercle 1

© infrakshun


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image002Otto von Hapsburg

clip_image004Jonathan Aitken

clip_image006Konrad Adenauer

clip_image008Michael Howard

clip_image010Lord Norman Lamont

clip_image012Brian Crozier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image014_thumb.jpg

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

Chairman/President /Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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