David Rockefeller

World State Policies I

 By M.K. Styllinski

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

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


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

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

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

These are:

1. Commercialisation through deregulated capitalism

2. Consolidation through cartel corporatism and financial warfare

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

4. Control and its maintenance once achieved.

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

wallpaper-127321-horz_thumb.jpg© infrakshun

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

The rise of cartel-capitalism is a gargantuan pathology based on the exact same personality traits of the psychopath. When populations have to fight their way out of poverty and squalor only to be given the chance to inflict the same economic footprint of their eventual capitalist success on others, we see that this system is designed to erode responsibility, increase unsustainability and create a cycle of perpetual boom and bust; where the haves and have nots dance in an eternal cycle of resource competition. All of which, is inevitably and perhaps literally – soul-destroying.

“Globalisation,” “globalism” and “World State” mean the 4Cs. Your personal life and personal goals are unimportant to the planners unless those goals are consistent with the sociological, economic and “religious” goals of their global vision. To be useful to the Pathocrats you must be like a number in an algorithm, to be herded and managed into units of consumption. Is this the real goal of commercialisation: to dehumanize and devalue so that humanity become the products that they covet, so that psychopaths can roam free and increase their numbers finally eclipsing normal humanity completely?

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

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

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

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

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

Inverted Totalitarianism / Huxleyian

Classical Totalitarianism / Orwellian

Corporate domination of State and economy

State domination of economy and business

Political apathy and ignorance

Active political mobilisation of the populace

Mask of Democracy

Open rejection of democracy

Classical and Inverted Totalitarianism

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

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


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

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


The Corporatist-Collectivist Chess board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian dissident takes up the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wallpaperstock-net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Notes

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

Save

Puppets & Players 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)

See also: James Corbett’s excellent series on Big Oil and the Rockefellers:

 


Notes

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

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

Bilderberg group connections (click on image to enlarge)
‘Imporre un governo pro Bilderberg destabilizzando le banche italiane’ (‘Imposition of pro Bilderberg government destabilizing Italian banks’) By Sandro Bulgarella


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

Retinger-bernhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estulin also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

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

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

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

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathocrats

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


Notes

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

 

Puppets & Players VII: Trilateral Commission

organigramme_Trilateral-commissionTrilateral Commission networking (Click on the image)


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

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

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

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

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

TrilateralList2010

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

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

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

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

3bzhezins

Zbigniew Brzezinski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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