democracy

Trumping the Future

By M.K. Styllinski

trumpclintnon1

It’s not often our repellent Establishment Elite receives a public punch squarely on the jaw and flies across the saloon bar of their sordid reality, gambling cards scattering everywhere. That’s what they’re usually quite good at: behaving like Kings and Queens while gambling with billions of lives and maintaining the poker face of Official Culture; applying just enough pressure to make an outcome seem “democratic” or a regime change appear to be a “humanitarian intervention” whilst bestowing an Anglo-American”freedom” upon whichever nation has the most resources to plunder.

Yet, away from the nonsense of the polls and the disgusting excuse for journalism, most Americans didn’t buy it. Perhaps for some, the sobering lesson of golfing impresario Obama and his lamentable “hope and change” tagline was finally enough to catch a glimpse of this revolving door of hapless puppets where the ideology of right and left mean nothing anymore.  The full tank of gullibility had finally run dry – at least for a large portion of the U.S. public. This, in itself is cause to be hopeful.

So, the aces in the pack dropped out of the Elite’s dark sleeves and in a similar result to Brexit the whole show went spectacularly awry. Even with a bit of DNC vote rigging and no doubt some electronic manipulation on the side, the Liberal/Conservative Establishment’s Zio-Con war hawk Killary fell flat on her face. (Quite literally at one point). Poor Hillary. She so wanted to be President just like her lecherous husband Bill. But even the Grand PR Machine of the Pathocrats couldn’t quite pull it off, since there wasn’t even any charisma or charm in evidence, only the likely onset of dementia, the trademark cackling laugh and a hypocritical mendacity which left a very nasty taste in most people’s mouths. If she wasn’t a lying sociopath with a trail of corpses lining her gaudy political carriage thus far I might have felt a twinge of sympathy.

Since that isn’t the case then we can allow a brief period to gloat.

(more…)

Advertisements

Official Culture Reprise III: Authoritarianism Revisited (2)

 “… instead of trusting what their own minds tell them, men have as a rule a weakness for trusting others who pretend to supernatural sources of knowledge.”

Arthur Schopenhauer


article-1192484-054FBEE9000005DC-392_468x551

Promotional poster from the film 1984

Authoritarianism only becomes a dominant force when ponerisation is advanced and normal humanity succumbs to the emerging restrictions. Our trust and belief in those who offer the pretence of leadership and a para-moral imperative appears to have a symbiotic relationship to our wilful blindness and apathy which is also part of the rise and fall of numerous Empires. Someone to lead and show us the way, someone with power, personality and charismatic inspiration that is almost spiritual… The same old patterns are in evidence everywhere one looks.

But what if such power lies within a network of human beings who have shed their reliance on an external authority and have discovered the pragmatism of their own centered faith in the Universe and each other? Do we have to have to have ideologues who arrive based on what we lack inside? Is it possible to manifest a leader or leaders who are drawn from something quite different and where the very notion of leadership is redefined?

We have explored the theories of ponerology, authoritarianism and our own stratum of wishful thinking and wilful blindness. We must also factor in an undue emphasis on the material world and the separation from Nature to which we are mysteriously connected, not just through the thousands of years of bio-rhythms and collective archetypes pulsating through the human psyche, but resonant through our very DNA. We might also posit that all the problems of the world lie not in economic, ecological or socio-cultural solutions but ultimately in our relationship to ourselves and the potential to connect with realities that transcend the five senses.

(more…)

Technocracy XI: Social (SMART) Grid and “Cognitive Infiltration”

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World


thSocial networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Yahoo! and others have offered new ways to chat, make friends, speed-date and keep in touch with family wherever you are. It has revolutionized information in ways which we are only just beginning to understand. The networks have become such a normal part of our daily lives in such a short time that it is only recently that serious questions about privacy and surveillance have filtered through to the MSM. But ethical questions are being left behind as the Information Age surges ahead. Indeed, if you don’t have a Facebook account then you have already consigned yourself to the hinterlands of suspicion and abnormality. According to some, this may even be a red-flag for suspected terrorist or paedophile. Such is the power of social networking websites on society and the ridiculous assumptions now circulating. [1] $billion companies like Twitter and Facebook have become the largest database on the global population, representing a free and easy resource for intelligence agencies to data-mine. With over 900 million active users it is not difficult to see how useful data catchment could be.

Growing awareness that social networks are being used by intelligence agencies to monitor citizens’ activities prompted cyber-consumer advocate Electronic Frontier foundation (EFF) to file requests in October 2009 to provide records about federal guidelines on the use of social networking sites for investigative or data-gathering purposes. Among other issues related to surveillance as discussed previously, they sued the CIA, the US Department of Defence, Department of Justice and three other government agencies for allegedly refusing to release information on their involvement in social networks. The cases are on-going.

There are so many dubious aspects to Facebook aside from its intelligence connections and origins it is hard to know where to start. We will pinpoint a few however.

The company makes no secret of is its drive to know everything about its members. It wants to extract and mine as much the data from them as is humanely possible and then make it available to all kinds of interested parties. The implications of their drive to happily make your social life – including information you might not ordinarily reveal – fully integrated into the net experience is of course, never discussed. Facebook has been busily creating “Shadow Profiles” in a bid to extract even more information. Using various functions on the software interface which encourages users to share personal data of other users and non-users of Facebook such as mobile phone synchronization, search queries, friend invitations, email-provider imports and instant messaging means that even if you don’t use Facebook you may have a profile nonetheless. [2]

Since Facebook is such a fan of being “social by default” then it shouldn’t be concerned when the tables are turned. Since Facebook revealed in 2012 that more than 83 million Facebook accounts (8.7% of total users) were fake accounts, ongoing controversies with privacy issues, class action lawsuits and litigation as well as the virtual ownership of members’ profiles, it is hardly surprising this was reflected in the stock value which dropped below $20 in the same year. [3]


th“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”

– Facebook Terms of Service. (It has since been updated yet protests groups claim little has changed).


When independent software developer Pete Warden crawled all the data that Facebook’s privacy settings changes had made public, the company sued him. This occurred before the Open Graph API system which means they were planning to make the data publicly available anyway. As Vice President of Engineering at Border Stylo Dan Yoder comments: “Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don’t want their membership to know how much data is really available,” stating further: “It’s one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.” [4]

In 2010, a Canadian security researcher Ron Bowes created a specific crawler script which he then used to take information from Facebook’s open access directory. He managed to download 2.8Gb of personal details including credit card numbers, account names, profile URLs and contact details; names of those users’ friends, (even with hidden profiles) and more intimate photos of over 100 million Facebook users. This cache of private information gold was then dumped on P2P file-sharing service BitTorrent, which was subsequently downloaded by scores of major corporations many hundreds of times. The point was not the relative ease by which such data was “stolen,” though this is an important issue, it was the fact that the data is already publicly available, provided Facebook members have not chosen to hide their profile from search results. [5]

As of 2012, there are now a raft of members, celebrities, underwriters and advertisers all taking a cut of Facebook profits. On the management board is co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg with the largest ownership percentage of an individual at 28% (he is worth $33.1Billion) with co-founders Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker taking between 6-4%.  Venture capital company Accel Partners, Russian internet firm Mail du Ru take 10% repsectively and former PayPal CEO and venture capitalist Peter Thiel 3%. Thiel sums up Facebook’s history of double-dealing and entrepreneurship very well.

mark-zuckerbergCEO Mark Zuckerberg

The first lump sum from his venture capital funding amounted to $500,000 – a tidy sum no doubt drawn from his £3bn hedge fund Clarium Capital Management and a venture capital fund called Founders Fund. Thiel is the Author of an anti-multicultural missive The Diversity Myth and on the board of VanguardPAC a radical internet-based Neo-Conservative pressure group that was apparently set up to attack MoveOn.org, a left-liberal pressure group website. VanguardPAC’s mission is to “reshape America and the globe” according to Neo-Conservative values – the type of values which are still carving up the Middle East. Thiel is certainly not the shy and retiring type and promotes a New World Technocracy laced with transhumanist and right-wing conservatism. The Guardian’s Tom Hodgkinson summarises Thiel’s curious mélange of fascist views: “… since the 17th century, certain enlightened thinkers have been taking the world away from the old-fashioned nature-bound life, and here he quotes Thomas Hobbes’ famous characterisation of life as ‘nasty, brutish and short’, and towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature. Value now exists in imaginary things.” [6]

pthiel1

Peter Thiel: Technocratic Neo-Conservative

From where did Theil obtain his inspiration? Stanford’s University’s René Girard and his mimetic theory that states all cultures and ancient societies were built on the victimisation and an eventual sacrifice of the innocent, even though they believed they were guilty. Mythology was used to legitimise and rationalise the fact that society was founded on violence. If Girard believes that people are sheep and will follow the one strongest in the herd then according to Hodgkinson:

“The theory would also seem to be proved correct in the case of Thiel’s virtual worlds: the desired object is irrelevant; all you need to know is that human beings will tend to move in flocks. Hence financial bubbles. Hence the enormous popularity of Facebook. Girard is a regular at Thiel’s intellectual soirees. What you don’t hear about in Thiel’s philosophy, by the way, are old-fashioned real-world concepts such as art, beauty, love, pleasure and truth.” [7]

Perhaps this is something that may be said for much of the neo-feudalist collectives currently infiltrating our social systems?

Consider the other board member of Facebook, Jim Breyer a partner in the venture capital firm Accel Partners who put $12.7m into Facebook in April 2005:

“…. On the board of such US giants as Wal-Mart and Marvel Entertainment, he is also a former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Now these are the people who are really making things happen in America, because they invest in the new young talent, the Zuckerbergs and the like. Facebook’s most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock’s senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited by the possibilities of new technology and the innovations being made in the private sector, that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel, which “identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US Intelligence Community (IC) to further their missions”. [8] [Emphasis mine]

With significant lobbying costs totalling over $41,000 in just one quarter of 2010 the focus of their expenditure was primarily intelligence agencies such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was the only internet company to do so out of Google, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple. The DNI is an umbrella office founded in the wake of 9/11 synthesizing intelligence from 17 agencies (including the CIA) and advises the President on privacy and federal cyber-security policy.

Which begs the question: Is Facebook lobbying merely to keep their operations free from interference for their Intel handlers?

Meanwhile, Facebook, Blogs, newspapers, radio TV channels, and internet chat rooms are poured over and monitored by the Open Source Centre or “vengeful librarians” – even the constant “tweets” from the Twitter network reaching over 5 million per day. Information is gathered by an army of analysts to find the low-down on the emotional level of a certain city demographic or whether a country is ready to be invaded or …”Democratised.”

facebooklogin1


 “Facebook is not your friend, it is a surveillance engine.”

– Richard Stallman, software freedom activist


It is now common knowledge that The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command centre monitors blogs, forums newsgroups and message boards on a daily basis. Scores of popular websites, including Twitter, Facebook, WikiLeaks, Hulu, and many alternative and left-leaning news sites also come under the umbrella of US surveillance.

Among the many examples that the Obama Administration has provided and which go above and the beyond the Neo-Conservative crimes of the Bush-Cheney cabal is President Obama’s regulatory Czar and legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Just before his appointment as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, this gentleman managed to add to the grand façade that is American democracy by writing a 30-page academic paper co-authored with Adrian Vermule entitled: “Conspiracy Theories.” In the paper he suggested the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. This “cognitive infiltration,” according to Sunstein, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.” This ban would be imposed on such heresies as anti-anthropocentric global warming; the World Trade Centre attacks on 911 were an inside job; Al-Qaeda is a US government-created mercenary unit for hire and a range of other proven conspiracy facts, most of which feature on this blog. By “conspiracy theory” Sunstein defines it as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Heaven forbid we should try to expose that …

And of course, Sunstein implies that that there are no conspiracies operating in government, banking and corporate activities and if you are one of the mentally deranged few that believe so, then medical help and a good psychologist is the only path open to you. It seems everyone is a potential extremist if you are aren’t giving the government a virtual back-rub. He further suggests: ““… a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” [9]

Cass SunsteinCass Sunstein 2011, (AP Photo)

Sunstein’s objective is to raise: “… doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” which places a whole new angle on some of many trolls and trouble-makers who periodically appear on website forums to sow seeds of discontent in ways which follow distinct patterns of emotional programming indicative of paid disinformation agents. Indeed, PSYOPS targeting the web have been in operation for several years, possibly since the internet’s inception in some form or another.  Sunstein’s suggestions are merely an updating of the US Dept. Defence’s Information Operations Road Map of the future. [10]

To make sure such a future – and the mass mind – is firmly where it should be DARPA means to keep biometrics and the internet connected to the same port (which, one day soon, may be located at the back of our skulls). Pentagon scientists are helpfully creating a program to use biometrics as a platform for creating a “cognitive fingerprint” which would dispense with all those passwords building up in our little black books. Which means, according to their website: “… validating any potential new biometrics with empirical tests to ensure they would be effective in large scale deployments.” Named the Active Authorisation Program (AAP) it offers deep analysis of the user’s cognitive processes and thus their online behaviour in the hope of inventing new forms of biometrics so that your identity can be ascertained.

Parallel to this grateful assistance in making our lives so much more efficient and safe, online tech journal Security Ledger reported in April 2013 on one time hacker and DARPA’s cyber chief Peiter “Mudge” Zatko heading to Google Inc. Joining Google’s Motorola Mobility’s Advanced Technology & Projects (ATAP) group, it has a mission to deliver “breakthrough innovations to the company’s product line on seemingly impossible short time-frames.” While Microsoft continues to track users of the Windows phones which have a unique ID that interacts with Wi-Fi locations and GPS to know anyone’s longitude and latitude. Customer privacy isn’t a big issue for Microsoft and really any of the big internet companies. Google knows the password of every Android device (phone or tablet) which has ever logged on to a particular Wi-Fi network. (Android accounts for 79 per cent of phones shipped worldwide).

Business Insider’s article of August 14th, 2013 alerted us to the fact that if you are one of 400 million persons who chose Gmail then you can also expect no privacy at all. In a class action complaint of 2013 Google responded by claiming “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” So, be warned, even though it is unlikely you’ll be able to avoid Google even if you wanted to.

It seems Google and DARPA are courting each other for good reason.

 


Notes

[1] Is not joining Facebook a sign you’re a psychopath? Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is ‘suspicious’ Daily Mail, 6 August 2012.
[2] ‘Facebook Is Building Shadow Profiles of Non-Users’ October 18 2011, http://www.slashdot.org
[3] “Facebook: About 83 million accounts are fake”. USA Today. August 3, 2012.
[4] ‘Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook’ by Dan Yoder http://www.gizmodo.com May 3 2010.
[5] ‘How 100 million Facebook users ended up in a list on BitTorrent’ Jemima Kiss, The Guardian, 29 July 2010.
[6] ‘With friends like these …’ by Tom Hodgkinson, The Guardian May 2010.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ‘Conspiracy Theories’ by Cass R. Sunstein (Harvard Law School) and Adrian Vermeule (Harvard Law School) January 15, 2008, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03, U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199 U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387. [ During my own experience in working for several alternative news websites there was no question that persistent problems from site “trolls” on the relevant forums fell into this category. Some exhibited high knowledge on certain specialist subjects and exhibited a standard formula for contouring ideas and concepts which included the very same “cognitive infiltration” tactics cited by Sunstein and often in a highly elaborate form. Once “outed” they were gone but often the damage was already done].
[10] As part of the “Information Dominance” strategy of the Pentagon, ‘The Information Operation Road Map’ was a paper commissioned in 2003 and declassified in 2006. It was personally approved by the then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. It included details of major PSYOPS disinformation campaigns to place false stories in newspapers and the internet as well as the kind of beginings of “cognitive infiltration” that Sunstein was so keen to see materialise.

Save

Dark Green VII: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique” (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

Every man is a moon and has a dark side which is turned towards nobody- you have to slip around behind if you want to see it.”

Mark Twain


Eco-fascism and World State advocates incorporate a host of well-intentioned people. Such movements work, precisely because the genuine emotions behind the propaganda have been tapped. It does not mean every person involved is somehow part of a nefarious conspiracy – it’s cleverer than that. Knowledge of mass psychology ensures compliance; self-censorship and our adherence to comfortable belief and authority usually proves enough. It is also true that many of those doing their part under the Club of Rome and other organisations we have discussed may be subconsciously aware of these authoritarian principles and have the make up of an authoritarian follower. This doesn’t necessarily make them pathological but it does make them ignorant of the wider spheres of manipulation, thus easily swayed, whether academic or layman, politician or scientist. After all, we tend to jump on the band-wagon of belief that most readily conforms to our childhood programming and personality desires.

The Club of Rome is an outfit designed to appeal to the green arm of those romantic visions of one world unity and eco-authoritarian sensibilities. If World State principles are to have a chance they need to adapt quickly and conform to the Rockefeller ideal of a corporatist-collectivist hybridisation which can foster the needed economics, just as they did after World War II. The directive for institution building was “peace,” here, it is “environmental catastrophe” – regardless of the validity. The psychopath’s mind piggy-backs macro-social imperatives in order to extract the best possible outcome for its minority species. In this case, the survival and dominance of their genetic code, not that of normal people.

The CoR authors state:

“The period of absence of thought and a lack of common vision – not of the world of tomorrow will be, but of what we want it to be, so we can shape it – is a source of discouragement, even despair. […] It seem would that many men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together. In the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist – or have yet to be found.” [Emphasis mine]

This harks back to the stanza of “Remoulding it to the heart’s desire” and the allusions to commonality, consensus, communitarianism etc. (Remember Common Core and Common Purpose?) Nothing wrong with any of those things but just who is doing the “shaping” here on behalf of humanity? The same movers and shakers are still in control. It’s the difference between self-organised communities independent of State controls or inverted totalitarianism hijacking truth and so far, every indication seems to be it is the latter.

It seems the Club of Rome and its various offshoots have arrived at the idea that we need a “common motivation” being so disempowered and bereft of ideas of our own. Further, we need an “adversary” in order to act together and get organised just like we need an adversary in the shape of a terrorist threat or the nonsense of Vladimir Putin as a Hitlerian instigator of a new cold war. It’s exactly the same dynamic used to hoodwink the mass mind. The CoR is using in plain sight, the same technique to elicit a Pavlovian response from the populace to create the groundswell to “save the planet” and prevent an ecological catastrophe. In the “vacuums” created by power structures and with psychopaths at specific nodes of influence almost anything can be inserted into the mass mind with enough appeal to instinct (fear) and emotion (altruistic desire) to create a potent force upon which the Elite can ride to fruition. We find the same “scientific technique” so favoured by governments everywhere:

“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose.”

No arguments there. Rather than moving away from such a manipulation they decide to employ the exact same tactics simply because it is “green” and the future of the planet is at stake. And here we come to the whole point underlying much of the global warming hysteria of the last twenty years:

Can we live without enemies? Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined and new weapons devised. The new enemies are different in their nature and location but they are no less real. They threaten the whole human race and they are and their names are pollution, water shortage, famine, malnutrition, illiteracy and unemployment.  [Emphasis mine]

Finally, the dénouement arrives:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [1]

Transmute our need for bogeyman and graft them onto a sensible, ecological salvation. Notice how State and society are one in the authors’ minds. To combat the perceived threat to the human race deception is necessary for the good of the whole – i.e. The Elite. Similarly, true to eco-fascist principles, the Establishment are not the enemies but “humanity itself” who has been raised and inculcated along the very same lines of perception management that the CoR is proposing here.

Indeed, taking his cue from the propaganda was the late CoR member Prof. Stephen Schneider of Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change who claimed: “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination … So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” [2] However, in order to achieve this aim notions of democracy and freedom must be turned on their head for the greater good.

In the 1991 edition, (though carefully re-worked in the 1993 edition) we find:

But freedom alone cannot reorganise a state, write a constitution, create a market and establish economic growth, rebuild industry and agriculture and or build a new social structure. It is a necessary and noble, inspirational force but it is far from being an operating manual for a new government. This is why the concept of human rights simply initiates but cannot implement the process of democratization […] The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation. The slowness of decision-making in a democratic system is particularly damaging at the international level. […]

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” [3]

They are right: “Democracy is not a Panacea.” Yet, these proffered “Global Revolutions” – as every managed and co-opted revolution in the past – are not offering progressive change that lies with the people but the exact same notions of change residing in global governance and a New Renaissance of World State dreams percolating in the minds of leaders. They are advocating tighter centralisation grafted onto and through the ideological medium of regionalism and Communitarianism. As the “wise man” of new age environmentalism Maurice Strong mentioned in a recent essay for the World Policy Journal: “… our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.” [4]

Once again, you see that it is governments, the state where the answer lies rather than the people. When you place this in context you see a pattern and you slowly realise that this is ditching democracy in order to replace it with a re-packaging of the 4C’s with the exact same management team presiding over a new Social Contract using ecological catastrophe as the “enemy”. This is a ruse to seemingly “unite us” but it is a unity that serves the few. The same is happening with economics (manipulated collapse) and society as a whole (SMART growth/sustainable development).

In similar fashion, the UN as a policing body which is, in principle at least, concerned with the enforcement of world disarmament as an achievable goal. Now, think about this from a minority psychopath’s point of view. What would the psychopath do if he wanted to ride normal humanity’s back without the possibility of being discovered? Further, when he was revealed, you could no longer cause him harm? He would feed humanity an array of enticing “foods”  and cultivate distractions that would make make it progressively docile and asleep to psycho-spiritual danger; a mass condition of Stockholm Syndrome would arrive, effectively disabling humanity’s ability to SEE evil in its midst. While it slept the psychopath caused us to to gorge on empty mental, emotional and physical “nourishment” while eventually removing our teeth under cover of night. When and if we finally awoke our will and ability to defend ourselves from psychic infection would be gone.

Whilst violence is not the answer, disarming the population is a standard, historical tactic of the Establishment and ensures compliance to a World Order with the minimum of resistance, both in terms of the mind and regarding the possibility of civil unrest. A future armed resistance from those who would rather have the choice as to whether they are embedded in a pathocratic “SMART society” is an understandable reaction. Yet, even here the fostering of “revolution” in the minds of the masses is also a part of social engineering and a veritable smoke and mirrors of conflicting desires, since every revolution is designed to break down Official culture so that the Establishment can introduce their own “solutions.”

If you think the CoR is doing its level best to defer to those with conscience and use language that would buffer the true meaning – then you would be correct. The real intention is stated far more bluntly by Fred G. Thompson in his article for the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome:

[W]e have temporarily acquired the means to defy Nature, it is only for a short time. If we do not design policies to halt, and then reverse population growth, Nature by default will soon exact a most punishing solution. […] The reduction of human population by default means in plain language the reduction of human numbers by war, disease and famine. […]

Over-consumption is, of course, the basic cause of polluting the atmosphere and global warming. So it must be dealt with.

One possible scenario would be the imposition of birth control by a world government which possesses the capacity to enforce it globally. Not a pretty scene, but an alternative to global war, disease and starvation. [5]
[Emphasis mine]

And yet, global war, disease and starvation are exactly the methods and effects which have been used by the Elite for centuries. Talk about a contradiction! Despite the insistence that: “ ‘Global ‘governance’ in our vocabulary does not imply a global ‘government’ but rather the institutions set up for cooperation, coordination, and common action between durable sovereign states” it is one of many disingenuous statements which amount to semantics.  How likely is such a global scenario to play out when those same players that coordinated past disasters are still residing at the top of these institutions which are attempting to become supra-global and when democracy is deemed inefficient and out-dated?

How likely is any notion of success to be realised when deception, bad science and blatant determinism is used as the arbiters of a perceived truth?

Democracy has indeed succumbed to the very same forces proposing global consciousness along eco-fascist principles. Democratic decision-making is seen as “damaging at the international level” because of its slow pace. It can also be argued that it can act as a safeguard to precipitous decisions and runaway policies based on reaction and reflex instead of careful thought and transparent arbitration.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sister organisations, the Club of Budapest which focuses on social and cultural issues and the Club of Madrid which has a more political emphasis. Both follow the same themes of sustainability and developing new socio-political and ecological frameworks which leave capitalism and democracy behind. The CoR has also established a network of over 35 National Associations. Although, as of writing, the “Ex Officio membership” at the CoR website is conveniently blank which would have otherwise given a snapshot of the kind of belief from which the CoR has traditionally drawn. A brief summary of current and past members from CoR and its sister organisations include:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner and Emmy winner. Gore led the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference and chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997. Stating in Grist Magazine in 2006: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…” He is most well-known for being opposition candidate to the Bush-Cheney Reich in 2004 and for producing the scientifically compromised but multi-award-winning global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Javier Solana – is a Spanish physicist and Socialist politician. Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy. He is a frequent speaker at the prestigious U.S. based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was also Secretary-General of NATO from 1995-1999 and gave the Clinton led go ahead for the bombing campaign of the former Yugoslavia as well as giving full support for the invasion of Iraq under the illusion of full European support: “Today’s message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility.” [6]

Mikhail Gorbachev – The big Daddy of New World Order change; a CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Maurice Strong) of the Earth Charter. Gorby has come out with some memorable statements: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Most recently the Russian elder statesman had this to say at Lafayette College commenting on the Occupy Wall St. Movement:

“Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order…problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages…all because we do not have a system of global governance. We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change. As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order.” [7]

Diego Hidalgo SchnurCutting his teeth at the World Bank from 1968 to 1977, he is the founder and president of FRIDE, (Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior), of the Club of Madrid. He is the Chairman of the Board for DARA (international organization) and Concordia 21. He is also a founding member and senior fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America (GFNA).

Ervin Laszlo – Concert pianist, scientist and philosopher. Founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honour.

Sir Crispin Ticknell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner. Ticknell is a keen believer in Gaia theory stating that: “Gaia has no particular tenderness for humans. We are no more than a small, albeit immodest, part of her.” [8]

Maurice Strong – Described by the New York Times as the “Custodian of the Planet” Strong has been Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council. He is also a devout follower of the Baha’i religion and propagator of Gaian theology.

And Here’s what Mr. Strong said in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.” [9]A “glimmer of hope” after death and destruction over which he is not only happy to preside,  but to encourage. This is key to understanding the impetus behind global warming and other forms of eco-Intelpro: it is eco-fascism of the highest order. Yet commenting on Strong’s legacy of environmentalism Kofi Anaan thought: “It would be a mistake to think of Maurice solely as one of the world’s leading environmentalists. His main cause has been people.” [10]It’s a “cause” all right, just one that ignores the true roots of the global crises while promoting Nature over humans.Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace. No surprise that we found the late Mr. Muller working his magic here and who observed:

“In my view, from all perspectives — scientific, political, social, economic and ideological — humanity finds itself in the pregnancy of an entirely new and promising age: the global, interdependent, universal age … the birth of the global brain, heart, senses and soul to humanity, of a holistic consciousness of our place in the universe and on this planet, and of our role and destiny in them.”

Which may well be, but such gushing statements are quite useful for those wish to build a global consciousness based on the opposite. Muller’s World Core Curriculum was based directly on the Alice Bailey teachings. His role seems to have been to plant the seeds of a New World Religion in the faithful: “We must, together, create an agency within the U.N. and perhaps an independent United Religions Secretariat. What an incredible challenge that would offer to the United Nations, and what untold good it would bring to humanity, which desperately needs a moral and spiritual Renaissance.” [11]

Which of course means supporting the CoR and all it stands for.

Other Club of Rome members include Kofi Anaan, Lionel Jospin, George Soros, Hassan bin Talal, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Jose Maria Anzar, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more. And of course, as ever, David Rockefeller, whom we know a little about …

Project partners and funding for the organisations comes from a variety of foundations and government bodies which by their mere presence is enough to conclude that such organizations cannot be trusted: Cisco Systems; International Economic Club of China; Turkish Future Researches Foundation (TUGAV) United Nations Foundation (UNF) Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Eurasian Economic Club of Scientists; Bertelsman Stiftung; Hunt Alternatives Fund; The Cousin’s Charitable Foundation; Institute for Security Studies (South Africa) Institute on Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) Brookings Institution; Centre for Concern Rethinking Bretton Woods Project. With annual conference sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation; Google; Samsung; Microsoft; McKinsey & Co and GDF Suez.

The Rockefeller funding is present in all three CoR organisations.

rio-earth-tio1Rio Earth Summit 1992

Blame it on Rio

The drive to protect the Earth and Nature under attack is obviously an admirable one. The destruction of the Rainforests is something that actually gives me a literal pain in my heart when I see it. But how is all this mass emotional energy actually being used? The last thing the pathocratic Establishment want is an informed and thinking public who are able to discern signposts to eco-social engineering. It seems we still have a long way to go when it comes to green issues and notions of just who is “healing the Earth”.

When the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit arrived in 1992 it was chaired under  the ubiquitous Maurice Strong. The Convention on Biological Diversity; The Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the UN Agenda 21 were all birthed there on a wave of green emotion and a sincere desire to take action. Psychological seeding was the intent rather than rapid change. Since then, in concert with SMART society initiatives and redevelopment cartels these policies have redrawn the framework of local and national government policy. Regardless of whether they understood the nature of the green mask, change agents were needed. What counted was their iconic presence.

In 1994, Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, formally introduced the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative as part of the declaration of Rio. The independent Earth Charter Commission, “… was convened by Strong and Gorbachev with the purpose of developing a global consensus on values and principles for a sustainable future. The Commission continues to serve as the steward of the Earth Charter text.” [12]Now, one of the principle creators of the Earth Charter was… (drum-roll) … Steven Clark Rockefeller! He was chairman of the Earth Charter international drafting committee and member of the Earth Charter Commission and Steering Committee. He also happens to be an advisory trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund while still finding time to act as professor emeritus of Religion at Middlebury College. The ideal person to create such a UN-driven declaration that: “we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny,” and that a “change of mind and heart” is needed for this global undertaking. Like Alice Bailey’s “New Group of World Servers,” – who and what exactly, are we ultimately following?

Towards the end of the Earth charter we are provided with more “choices” dressed up as no choices at all:

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfil their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.” [13] [Emphasis mine]

When we come to talk about the UN Agenda 21 and its push for SMART growth redevelopment within urban centres and suburbia, you will see why the above is dangerous manipulation – a green mask, if you will.

By 2000, the Earth Charter text had been taken to activists, NGOs and governments hearts appealing to both romantic and ideological aspirations, with huge glut of conferences, seminars, neighbourhood meetings all attended by suitably paid “facilitators” and lobbyists. Sustainable development in the 1990s was only the first stage. Once SMART growth and society were not merely buzzwords but the technology was there to support it, SD and SMART fused into one. The Earth dialogues followed in 2002, launched by Strong and Gorby as an outgrowth of Green Cross International. These series of annual public forums sought to: “… bring together civil society and the private and public sectors in the search for solutions to resolve the most pressing and interconnected challenges of insecurity, poverty and environmental degradation.” [14]

Sounds inspiring doesn’t it? It’s a shame this is another lie. It seems the young have been sucked into yet another Strong/Gorby production: the Earth Charter Initiative where children are sought as “change agents” for the new “Global ethic.” According to the website description:

“The Earth Charter Initiative is the collective name for an extraordinarily diverse, global network of people, organizations, and institutions who participate in promoting the Earth Charter, and in implementing its principles in practice. The Initiative is a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort, but participants include leading international institutions, national governments, university associations, NGOs, cities, faith groups, and many well-known leaders in sustainable development.” [15]

Its objectives regarding education is an example of a familiar dogma:

“The Earth Charter values and principles must be taught, contemplated, applied and internalized. To this end, the Earth Charter needs to be incorporated into both formal and non-formal education. This process must involve various communities, continue to integrate the Charter into the curriculum of schools and universities, and constitute an on-going process of life-long learning.” [16]

The best way to gain a commitment from the awakening mass mind is to appeal to their values and shared commonality. The Earth Charter text and initiative are worded in such a way that a form of entrainment occurs which fits seamlessly into grass roots aspirations. Social transformation of young minds can then fit into the Agenda 21 structures currently being implemented. After all, according to Strong: “The real goal of the Earth Charter, is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” [17]

Once again, this isn’t about saving the planet or offering a new template that will empower people to find creative solutions outside of the Establishment. This is about the exact reverse: to homogenise thought and action related to green issues and ecological science by contouring focus into pre-designed, socially engineered parameters, where national parks, land allocation, land resource, the prohibition of private property and SMART ghettoization takes place by stealth. This society will be supremely green and highly efficient but lacking any freedom to choose. Indeed, the whole concept of sustainability and SMART is are already being sold as desirable – even inevitable – choices when in fact, it has all been based on another dialectical formula to herd the population.

The reader may remember the late former Assistant-Secretary of the UN Robert Muller, who was a highly influential spiritual guru within the institution and a follower of the Alice Bailey teachings explored in a previous post. The Earth Charter Initiative is overseen by the United Nations University of Peace founded by Muller (yes, Maurice Strong is the President) its governing council a veritable honey-pot of Club of Rome members, including the now retired Secretary-General Martin Lees. Like the Earth charter initiatives in education, Robert Muller schools continue to pop up all over the world “educating” children towards a singular perception of reality. Yet, the more we look into Muller’s background and what he is advocating the more troubling it becomes. The laudable sentiments for world peace and harmony on earth are undercut by the same spiritual fascism that we can find in the Bailey writings and militant environmentalists.  What is more, it presents a spiritual narcissism so extreme it defies belief that such a man until recently had such power over the decision-making process in UN circles. Yet it is this very genuine and highly devotional personality that is so often useful in promoting a fake agenda.

clip_image002_thumb.jpgThe ubiquitous Maurice Strong

clip_image004_thumb.jpg“global visionary” Robert Muller

On Muller’s website goodmorningworld.org a series of personal conversations with God ensue:

God: “Dear Robert, congratulations for having finished your 4000 ideas. May I ask you: which one do you consider the most important?”

I: Well, my most important idea and conclusion after all my adult life as a world civil servant is this: The United Nations must be vastly strengthened to resolve the major global problems henceforth increasingly confronting humanity and the Earth. It must be empowered to adopt and enforce world laws and regulations.

God: “Thank you, dear Robert, for what you are recommending. Perhaps after all, the greatest jewel of my Creation, the Earth, can be saved.” […]

Under these circumstances I cannot accept that you consider your 4000 ideas to be the end. You should, you must continue and work hard on implementation. I will help you from heaven, creating the right circumstances and ensuring that your ideas and efforts will be known at the right, highest world levels.”  [18] [Emphasis mine]

Notwithstanding the assumption that Muller has been hand-picked by God because of the quality of his ideas which will work at the “highest world levels,” he proceeds to enthusiastically trumpet his visions which include the United Nations mandating: “… urgency plans or conferences to halt the rapid decline of Plane Earth’s life giving capacities and wealth,” such as a: “… world emergency plan to stop for at least five years the human population explosion;” “… a world emergency plan for the more rapid reduction of carbon dioxide emissions;” and “… a world emergency plan to avoid further risks of climatic changes;” and many other “ideas” which are, by now, quite familiar. [19] All of this, with the enforcement of “world laws and regulations.

It seems Robert Muller’s delight at being a “world civil servant” is genuine… Is this global governance to be made up of an eco-technocratic elite of civil servants, traditional Iagos and Machiavellian snakes which inhabit all the quangos and corridors of political power, easing, oiling and subverting where necessary? It would seem so. This is not to say that Muller isn’t sincere. He may be a thoroughly decent man. But that isn’t the issue.

Good intentions never have been.

While there is much to praise in Muller’s stream of ideas, his ignorance of the nature of ecology and non-linear change – and more importantly geo-politics – is truly frightening considering the position he found himself. The level of spiritual egocentrism is profound. For exanmple, his comments on population:

“Perhaps the recent increase of terrorism is the beginning of that revolution. The attacks against the US World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were perhaps the opening of it. Among the measures, which can reduce this new world danger, the UN should urgently convene a World Emergency Population Conference. Another is a new, immediate World Marshall Plan, as recommended by the Club of Budapest.” [20]

And the Club of Budapest is Muller’s own bar-code of approval touting the same centralisation and homogenization of human creativity. To Muller, unless we get with the picture, it is not just a danger but a “New World danger!” Is there a New World toaster perhaps? Or a New World Supermarket with New World Baked Beans? Has Muller exhausted the call for a New World —– (fill in the blank) enough?

Urgently convening conferences based on Elite blessings and interminable calls for New World authorities and centralisations were Muller’s speciality and therefore, fairly meaningless, but no less fanatical.

Everything in Muller’s vision is sourced from Alice Bailey and molded into his own prolific worldview which is dangerously naïve, messianic, blind to the dangers inherent in the ideas he is proposing. His impression of humanity is that we: “… are still a very primitive, underdeveloped species” which needs the stewardship of folks like himself desperate for a singular type of New World. Muller further believes: “Communism has died. It is now the turn of capitalism to change or die. The new ideology should be Earthism, the proper management and conservation of our precious, life-nurturing and sustaining Earth. Capital should be used to save the Earth and become eco-capitalism.” Not a word on ponerology, not a word about the fact the very challenges we face are not sourced from the human species but a minority who soil the sandpit. The underdeveloped species of course, clearly doesn’t include Muller who sits on the right hand of God and is therefore his valuable conduit outside such nastiness. [21]

This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination.

“New” is prefixed in front of every possible discipline and domain, from a new political system to a new economics; a new education and a new media and new communications to a new democracy and a new global leadership; a new science and technology to a new anthropology, sociology and new ways of life; a new human biology and a new philosophy, cosmology and long term, view of evolution to a new world ethics and justice and a new world psychology all connected under “the art of planetary management” and group  consciousness. A vast homogenous mass – collectivism at the ground level of a clinical, urban wasteland with romantic, warm and fuzzy trigger words to engender conformity. Will you become one of the chosen few who will be living in the assigned zones of ecotopia; with their neighbourhood police and gated SMART-buildings with round the clock security?

The Earth Charter is a set of principles which enhances and streamlines Agenda 21 which is a framework by which a re-shaping of society according to sustainable principles can be implemented. They go hand in hand. The International Covenant on Environment and Development allows a smooth passage of laws in relation to Charter to go through unimpeded and is being prepared by the Commission on Environmental Law at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which is a monolithic agency straddling more than 700 other international agencies. (You will not be surprised to hear that Maurice Strong is giving the Rockefellers a run for their money by being on the board of the directors of the IUCN as well as everywhere else…)

Alongside corporations who are also patrons of the very same UN philosophies and providers of education materials with their logos stamped on every page, thousands of schools and educational organisations are currently promoting Earth Charter materials. Children are being exposed to entrainment that subtly conforms to the habitual group think and group consciousness hitherto discussed. Many of the themes and principles in the Earth Charter are sound and practical – even visionary – but they sourced from a purview of highly contested computer modelling techniques of the Club of Rome, UNEP and the IPCC who work together to fuel fear and alarm alongside the imperative for change via global governance. Underpinning New Age declarations for Global unity is bad science and cynical perception management that most assuredly does not have the best interests of humanity at heart.

Seat_of_the_House_of_Justice

Seat of the Universal House of Justice, governing body of the Bahá’ís, in Haifa, Israel

Of utmost importance is education towards the idea of a World State and the imposition of a New World Religion or “spirituality” depending on which agency you are involved in. As such, standard religion has to be side-lined or preferably done away with all together. After all, according to commongood.org a forum for Inter-Religious Groups and Spiritual Leaders “… it is clear that our religious institutions have barely begun to articulate the core values of sustainable development.” [22]

It seems the Bahá’í Faith is one of the models which is deemed an exception to the rule.

The New World Religion that is doing the rounds at the UN offices and heavily promoted by Strong and Gorby is the Bahá’í faith. Founded by Bahá’u’lláh in 19th century, it is a monotheistic religion with, of course, a strong emphasis on world government. This is why New Agers, collectivists and UN acolytes have been persuaded (mostly by Strong) to embed the Bahá’í religion within the UN.  Much like the Lucis Trust, it is permitted to have consultative status with the following organisations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM); United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Health Organization (WHO).

The Bahá’í International Community is an agency under the direction of the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel. Drums, rituals and sacred messages at numerous conferences organised by Strong have featured a background of Bahá’í-inspired rituals in praise of Gaia and Mother Earth. Similar to the Lucis Trust and its “Great Invocation” the Bahá’í religion adds a further layer of institutionalised ritual to the UN.

Perhaps we could say that there’s nothing wrong with a bit of ritual and the rehashing of ancient wisdom. After all, don’t we want to live in a world of peace, harmony, tolerance and social justice? Don’t we want to preserve our emerald lands and provide a sustainable way of life which includes access to clean water and plentiful food for the planet’s inhabitants?

Even if it were based upon entirely authentic intentions, forcing it into being won’t work, and it will be especially hollow if we allow a monoculture of laws alongside a ritually-based platform for an authoritarian band of Word Civil Servants” to control the mass of humanity.

See also:

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome

Dark Green X: UN Agenda 21 and SMART Growth


Notes

[1] Ibid. (p.85)
[2] Schneider SH (August/September 1996). “Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial”. APS News (American Physical Society): 5.
[3] op. cit. King; Schneider, 1991 edition: (pp.82 and 159) Interestingly, the 1993 version is worded differently but says exactly the same thing.
[4] ‘Facing Down Armageddon: Our Environment at a Crossroads’ by Maurice Strong, World Policy Journal, May 2009.
[5] ‘Turning the Elephant Around’ By Fred G. Thompson Canadian Association for the Club of Rome, Proceedings: Analysis of the Human Predicament, VoSeries 3 / Number 10 May 2007. (p.17).
[6] Disarming Iraq by George Sedall, p.53.
[7] ‘Mikhail Gorbachev Says Uprisings Signal an Emerging New World Order’ October 20, 2011, Layfayette College, Philadelphia.
[8] p.224; Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century By Stephen Henry Schneider, Published by MIT Press 2004.| ISBN-0262-19498-8|
[9] Where on Earth are we Going? By Maurice Strong 2000. Published by Vintage Canada.
[10] http://www.mauricestrong.net
[11] Spring 1995 issue of The Temple of Understanding newsletter under the headline, ‘Preparing for the Next Millenium.’
[12] http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.gcint.org/what-we-do/earth-dialogues
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Maurice Strong on “A People’s Earth Charter” Interview with Maurice Strong Chairman of the Earth Council and Co-Chair of the Earth Charter Commission. | www. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
March 5, 1998
[18] ‘Paradise Earth Robert Muller’s Ideas & Dreams Nurturing Our Home’ http://www.paradiseearth.us/
[19] http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[20] Idea 2055 http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[21] Idea 6335 Robert Muller ‘s Good Morning World Today’s Idea Dream For A Better World From Robert & Barbara Muller, Friday, August 10, 2007. http://www.goodmorningworld.org/blog
[22] http://www.commongood.info/cooperation

World State Policies I

 By M.K. Styllinski

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

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


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

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

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

These are:

1. Commercialisation through deregulated capitalism

2. Consolidation through cartel corporatism and financial warfare

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

4. Control and its maintenance once achieved.

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

wallpaper-127321-horz_thumb.jpg© infrakshun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inverted Totalitarianism / Huxleyian

Classical Totalitarianism / Orwellian

State domination of economy and business

Corporate domination of State and economy

Active political mobilisation of the populace

Political apathy and ignorance

Open rejection of democracy

Mask of Democracy

Classical and Inverted Totalitarianism

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

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


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

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


The Corporatist-Collectivist Chess board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian dissident takes up the story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

The Z Factor XIV: ZIONISM Rules

By M.K. Styllinski

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist … There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

***

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”

Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.


Zionists and apologists for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians believe that Arabs have no rights on the land before it was stamped “Israel” and that there was no indigenous Arab population there in the first place. This may serve to buffer crimes against Palestinians and the continuing spread of illegal Jewish settlements but it has no place in objective fact.

According to the latest in cultural, anthropological and genetic research the Palestinian people are: “the modern descendants of people who have lived in Palestine over the centuries and today are largely culturally and linguistically Arab.” The evidence further shows that: “Genetic analysis suggests that a majority of the Muslims of Palestine, inclusive of the Arab citizens of Israel, are descendants of Christians, Jews and other inhabitants of the southern Levant whose core reaches back to prehistoric times.” And where: “a study of high-resolution haplotypes [DNA sequences] demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Israeli Jews (70 per cent) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82 per cent) belong to the same chromosome pool.” [1]

The outrageous irony in the face of all this carnage is that Palestinians and Jews are drawn from the same genes – they have the same Semitic origins. The ancestors of modern-day Palestinians have been present in Palestine for thousands of years. The idea that Palestinians migrated there in the last couple of centuries is a persistent myth which has been comprehensively debunked by many academics who haven’t been intimidated by Zionist threats . The evidence also suggests that many of the most vociferous Zionists may not be from what we perceive as traditional Jewish origins at all, but descended from the Khazars but that’s for another post.

Perhaps the most convincing is Norman Finkelstein’s Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995) which presents and open-and-shut case of the true history of Israeli-Palestinian origins and conflict and why these myths seem so intractable. [2] (His latest book: Old Wine, Broken Bottle addresses the toxic influences of Zionism and is a valuable companion). In truth, regardless of historical fictions, it should be obvious to anyone that what happened over two thousand years ago takes on less relevance when ethnic cleansing, dispossession, human rights abuses and an apartheid environment for modern Palestinians is any way to behave, most especially given Jewish history?

palestine-israel© infrakshun

We have taken a very brief look at the myths and propaganda that underpin the Zionist cause. While personally, I certainly have a problem with organised religion as a whole – including Judaism – it is important to reiterate that many Ultra-Orthodox and non-practicing Jews alike do not support Zionism. There are many forms of Zionism including Revisionist, General, Religious, Labour, and Green. The form of Zionism referred to on this blog includes religious and revisionist. It is these forms which are most closely tied to the intelligence apparatus, messianic cults and the Anglo-American establishment and therefore of most interest.

The overriding and common theme of all strains of Zionism is a claim to the land of Israel as a national, self-determined homeland for Jewish people based on the interpretation of religious tradition. These interpretations were riddled with historical inaccuracies at their inception both intentional and belief-based, along with empire-driven, fallacious arguments to justify the expulsion of Palestinians. The result is the Arab-Israeli conflict and the geo-political strategies that have intermingled with Jewish determinism ever since.

There is also the question of Israel as a democracy, which given its record of human rights and religious intolerance falls very short of being the only democratic country in the Middle East. Zionists like to sabre-rattle the importance of maintaining their security against Arab nations while sowing enormous seeds of destabilisation in the world. Israel does not confirm or deny obtaining nuclear weapons but is widely believed to possess them (Ask Israeli whistleblower Mordechi Vanunu [3]

It also harbours chemical and biological weapons which, as we will see, have been routinely used against Palestinian and Arabic peoples despite the international ban on their usage. This is all packaged within the buffer-zone of righteous indignation and moral certitude of Holocaust victimhood. Accusations of anti-Semitism allow Zionists to justify and enforce an apartheid state and the continuance of Palestinian oppression. But we must go back in time a little further to remind ourselves exactly why Zionism is such an important and influential tool of political ponerology in the 21st century.

The aim of the early 19th century Zionist movements was to colonise Palestine hand in hand with the imperial and corporate interests of the German, American, French, Russian interests. The British and Ottoman empires were perhaps the most important parties vying for control. But Revisionist Zionism was growing teeth by returning to Old Testament values and Leninist strategies to make it all happen. After ALL, emancipation meant integration and assimilation which could never be allowed under the old Mosaic Law of separatism.

With the Amaleks in mind, the objectives behind Zionism saw nothing less than the tools of ethnic cleansing and gradual genocide to achieve their aims. Even the Labour branch of Zionism with its “socialist” tint to invasion sought out: “… every tree and every bush to be planted by Jewish ’pioneers’ ” and “… to hire Jews and only Jews” thus helping to break the spirit and the long disenfranchisement and disconnection of Palestine to their land. [4]

Socialism became inverted as it rooted out undesirable workers. Haifa, Gaza, Jaffa, Nablus, Acre, Jericho, Ramle, Hebron, Jerusalem, and Nazareth were successful towns integrating Jews into a culturally diverse society. Foundation builders of modern Zionism such as the Hovevei, or Hibbat Zion (“Those who are Lovers of Zion”) had already established 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897. By the late 19th century tolerance turned to fear and resistance to both the Feudalist Ottoman Empire, Turkish dominance and the encroaching colonisation of Jewish settlers. By 1905 the World Zionist Congress had formerly acknowledged this resistance to Zionist designs.

herzl

“Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” – Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

By the time the first Congress was held in Vienna, 1897, the rich Talmudic communities of Zionists in Russia ensured Dr. Theodore Herzl had embarked on a PR exercise that would span the globe bringing Zionism to fruition as an organized political force. By this time the Kabbalah was already doing its work by offering up a mysticism that appealed to the fizzling romantic aspirations of the British Establishment and glitterati. No better indication of the nature of this political movement would be understood than from a passage in Herzl’s diaries: “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews become worse, this will assist in realization of our plans. I have an excellent idea. I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends.” [5]

Herzl was used and summarily cast aside after suggesting Jewish emancipation for those in Russia.

Although the source of eventual support, there was initially strong resistance to revisionist Zionism in England where many rank and file Jews had no interest in moving from their respective homes. In 1915, as World War I progressed Jews came down firmly against the Zionist cause seeing it for what it was: an “enemy movement that did not have the vast majority of Jews’ best interests at heart:

“… the Anglo-Jewish Association, through its Conjoint Committee, declared that ‘the Zionists do not consider civil and political emancipation as a sufficiently important factor for victory over the persecution and oppression of Jews and think that such a victory can only be achieved by establishing a legally secured home for the Jewish people. The Conjoint Committee considers as dangerous and provoking anti-Semitism the ‘national’ postulate of the Zionists, as well as special privileges for Jews in Palestine. The Committee could not discuss the question of a British Protectorate with an international organization which included different, even enemy elements.’ ” [6]

By 1917, Zionists had cut a deal with German imperialist interests in the region which fit perfectly with the game-changing 1917 Balfour Declaration form the British who were rubbing their hands with glee. There is no question that Britain wanted the gateway into the Ottoman Empire and Africa which Israel could provide. Of equal importance was the part played by American and English Religious movement of millennialism or dispensationalists who saw the creation of Israel as integral to the manifestation of Biblical prophecy.

Author Gershom Gorenberg writes:

“On November 2, 1917, two days after General Edmund Allenby’s Egyptian Expeditionary Force took Beersheba from the Ottoman Turks and prepared to march north toward Jerusalem, the British government announced an entirely different rationale for the campaign: Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to British Zionist leader Lord Rothschild, informing him that the cabinet had approved “a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations: His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…

Five weeks later, Allenby’s army took Jerusalem. For two days after the actual conquest, the general’s arrival was meticulously planned. … Christian armies were returning to the city for the first time since the Crusades. Allenby arrived at Jaffa Gate riding a white horse, with the pomp of a king. Then, before he entered the Old City, he dismounted and walked. A standard account of the general’s reason: His Savior had entered this city on foot, and so would he. [7]

A pomp and ceremony fusion of freemasonry and “End Times” fervour was fizzing away amid the imperialist desires. Or as Gorenberg observed: “Conquering Jerusalem had to not only be considered strategically, it had to be accomplished ‘according to prophecy.’ ” Which is why the Jewish people and Zionists have much to be suspicious about when it comes to so called Christian Zionists presently involved in smoothing the path to the promised land. Though many English politicians and strategists were not caught up in Christian Dominionism enough passengers were aboard this particular juggernaut of mutual interest who cared little about the occasional jostle in beliefs. There was money to be made whether or not souls were destined to be damned or saved.

A future president of the World Zionist Organisation had this comment to make regarding British involvement: “We can reasonably say that should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out there, perhaps more; they would develop the country, bring back civilization to it and form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal.” [8] British and US and banking interests aligned against Germany as well the aforementioned seeding of occult-romanticism harboured by the Establishment ensured that Arthur Balfour delivered a blueprint for Arab exclusion. Despite platitudes and placatory noises sent forth to shocked Arab nations, Balfour’s true sentiments were summed up in the following missive: “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad is rooted in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires of the 700,000-plus Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” [9]

This has been the raison d’être for British foreign policy ever since.

800px-Balfour_portrait_and_declarationArthur Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild


In the 1920s, Zionism grew into its more militantly “Mosaic” expression with Vladimir Jabotinsky as leader and founder of the revisionist branch. As a thuggish spellbinder his oratory and unyielding declaration of an “Iron Wall” created a new directive to wrest Palestine from its Arab owners “by force or not at all.” [10]Inspired by Benito Mussolini, Jabotinsky’s vision appropriated the Nazi symbolism of steel and iron to forge an aggressive and pro-active form of Zionism which appealed to the more pugnacious and brutal proponents of the movement from Likud to the present-day Zio-Conservatives. Jabotinsky brought forth the undercurrents of Jewish fascism and its obsession with racial purity to stir the blood of the new invaders where he claimed:

Zev_Vladimir_Jabotinsky_uniform“The source of national feeling … lies in a man’s blood …in his racio-physico type and in that alone. … A man’s spiritual outlook is primarily determined by his physical structure. For that reason we do not believe in spiritual assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood can become adapted to the spiritual outlook of a German or a Frenchman. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid, but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish.” [11]

True to the tried and tested British Empire policy of breaking nations that continues to this day, the economic destabilisation of the indigenous Palestinian economy began in earnest, where Jewish investment and capital took precedence, effectively handing over the economic infrastructure to Jewish settlers. The settler community needed not only to displace and remove Palestinians but to extinguish their existence from Greater Israel and indeed from any map at all and the British helped them do it.

A serious uprising by indigenous Palestinians lasted from 1936 – 1939 with brutal attempts by the British military to quell it. Mass demolitions of homes ensued with the inevitable shadow of martial law following in its wake. Zionism in fact, sought to eradicate the farming, artisan and town communities of Palestinians and forcibly replace it with an entirely new workforce composed of the settler population. It was to be an ethnic cleansing based on Old Testament/Torah teachings. And true to form, much propaganda began to re-write history in favour of Jewish pre-eminence with Revisionist Zionism acting as the crusading sword.

By 1938, many thousands of Palestinians were assassinated, imprisoned, almost 150 executed and thousands of homes demolished and burned. Haganah was the name given to Zionist forces integrated with British intelligence and Jabotinsky’s National Military Organization or the Irgun. This pseudo-police force effectively acted as a mercenary unit in the pay of British interests, much like the private security firms trained by the CIA, MOSSAD and MI6 in what is now left of Iraq. [12]

After the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947 and by the end of the Arab-Israeli war of the following year, the first Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion showed the impetus behind the creation of the State and ambitions of Zionists as he addressed his General Staff prior to the last offensive:  “Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” [13]

This was merely a military realisation of his aspirations expressed on a number of occasions to the Zionist faithful, one of which was voiced back in 1938 where he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv: “The boundaries of Zionist aspiration include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.” [14]

Zionists have been using governments to slice up Palestine and the world ever since.


 “… it has become an open secret in our world today that there is a 300 pound gorilla in the room—the role of the Organized Jewish Community—generally, though not always correctly, known as “the Zionist movement”—that is a preeminent power in our modern society, not only in the United States but in most of the West and elsewhere across the planet.”

– Michael Collins Piper


The Yesha Rabbinical Counsel made an announcement in response to an IDF attack in Kfar Qanna, Lebanon, in 2006: “according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such thing as ‘innocence’ among the enemy.” [15]

Such cold hatred is nothing new.

In 1947, when the United Nations partitioned Palestine, and May 15, 1948, when the State was formally proclaimed, the Zionist army and militia had seized 75 per cent of Palestine, forcing 780,000 Palestinians out of the country. By the time the Israeli-Arab war of 48’ had finished, several notorious massacres had reached international attention though they were not the only ones. The Zionist terror groups in the shape of IZL, the Irgun and the Lehi or Lohamei Herut (otherwise known as the Stern Gang) descended on the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, murdering over 100 men, women and children. [16]

Labour Zionist Israeli army and Israel Defence Forces or ZAHAL carried out a massacre at Dueima in the same year, an account of which by a soldier and participant in the atrocity was published in Davar, the official Hebrew daily newspaper:

… They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they [soldiers] fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them.

One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up … Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered “good guys” … became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. [17]

In the 1950s massacres were part of the program of total expulsion and eradication of Palestinians from their land and continued in isolated pockets and larger scale attacks throughout the refugee camps and villages of Gaza. Once such massacre was carried out at the village of Kibya in October 1953 where once again, men women and children were murdered this time under the command of Ariel Sharon. The massacre at Kafr Qasim followed the same pattern in October 1956. There were even massacres that were lauded as especially valuable in strategic terms becoming part of the Israeli folklore of ethnic cleansing: “I have always said that if the deepest and profoundest hope symbolizing redemption is the rebuilding of the [Jewish] Temple … then it is obvious that those mosques [al-Haram al-Sharif and al-Aqsa] will have, one way or another, to disappear one of these days … Had it not been for Deir Yassin, half a million Arabs would be living in the state of Israel [in 1948]. The state of Israel would not have existed.” [18]

Deir-YasinDeir Yassin massacre April 9th 1948

In the 1960s the true agenda was beginning to reach the press. David Ben Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs expressed his desire to: “… reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters, [19] and by the 1970s, when an Israeli government memorandum entitled “The Koenig report” was leaked by Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar it laid bare the policy of systemic expulsion of Palestinian people though somewhat euphemistically expressed. Regarding the Palestinian minority the only thing needed was the: “…objective thought that ensures the long-term Jewish national interests”… while stressing the examination of “… the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentrations.” [20]

Indeed, the same Zionist policies and principles have expanded and developed under Jewish fundamentalism and extremist cults presently focused within the United States government. It is worth repeating the fact that many of the original Zionist settlers did not agree with this policy of expulsion and were not adverse to the idea of living with their Palestinian neighbours. It is this principle of Judaism that is also rising up to resist pathological takeover of those who have right human relations at heart, regardless of their religious or ideological affiliations. It is here that the hope for Israeli-Arab destiny lies. [21] 

In the 1980s on the American television show 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace interviewed the late Meir Kahane, the controversial Brooklyn rabbi and Israeli Knesset member. This Rabbi was an advocate for the expulsion of all Arabs from all of Palestine which included “Israeli Arabs” and Arabs living in the occupied territories:

Wallace : “You proposed a law for the Knesset to pass against Arabs that’s really astonishingly identical to the Nuremberg laws of the Nazis under Adolf Hitler.”

Kahane: “Mr. Wallace, one of the problems of Jews is that they wouldn’t know a Jewish concept if they tripped over one. I merely quoted from the Talmud. Most Jews think Judaism is Thomas Jefferson. It’s not.” [22]

And Kahane is correct. There are those Jewish men and women who call themselves Zionist yet appear to know nothing of its history and its true nature. Rather, they prefer to see Arabs as the cause of all their ills past and present thus rationalising and condoning the atrocious conditions that Palestinians live under every day of their lives. A lost generation of children suffering deprivation, abuse and poverty is the result of this acquiescence and support of oppression. Only further embitterment and anger can result.

A major player in the economic and ideological expansion of Zionism was Wall Street Banking cartels overseen by the Rothschilds dynasty. By the late 19th century, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region making the Rothschilds the richest family in the world, their five international banking houses comprising “one of the first multinational corporations.” [23]Indeed, as author Herbert Loffman mentions in Return of the Rothschilds, they: “… had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.” [24]

With the monopoly on oil supply to Europe and the Far East established there was only one problem: another transportation route was needed in order to cope with the volume and the demand for oil. The Suez Canal proved more than economically viable and made Palestine vital to the Rothschilds and their corporate expansionism. Having enormous power in International banking and principle shareholders in most of the important banks of the time, it was easy to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company.

Edmond James de Rothschild began to push for a Jewish homeland in Palestine for two reasons:

edmond-james-de-rothschild

Edmond James de Rothschild

1) to take the heat of the growing socialist dispensation in reaction to the Czar Nicholas II, who had instituted anti-Semitic pogroms against Jews, prompting a huge emigration of Jews Russia into Western Europe. The Rothschild’s oil interests were threatened by Russian Jewish émigrés’ strikes and disruptions to Russian business and thus Rothschilds’ profits. By channelling the political passion towards emigration to the new homeland this acted to release the pressure on their business interests until such time it would be safe to openly resume activate corporate ties in Russia.

2) His enthusiastic push to promote and fund the new Jewish State served to kill two birds with one stone: a new economic venture and leverage for the dynasty and offering further clout and manoeuvrability for short and long-term British interests.

It was preceding the war that a group of prominent Zionists wrote a letter to Hitler detailing their belief that there was no need for any disagreements between the Zionist-revisionists and the Nazis. After all, they only wished to be left alone to set up a “nationalist and totalitarian state” for the Jewish people, in the same way Hitler was busy creating the same for the German people. [25]

Why would the 1933 World Zionist Organization Congress defeat a resolution calling for action against Hitler by a vote of 240 to 43? In fact, the principle distributor of goods to the Nazi regime was the World Zionist Organization throughout the Middle East and Northern Europe. With the help of Wall Street finance, Ha’avara Bank was established in Palestine in order to cater for the wealthy elite of industrialists in Germany, Britain and the US. An indication of this ideological and business relationship between Nazis and Zionists was never more apparent than when Baron Von Mildenstein of the S.S. Security Service was invited to Palestine for a six-month visit:

This visit led to a twelve-part report by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, in Der Angriff (The Assault) in 1934 praising Zionism. Goebbels ordered a medallion struck with the Swastika on one side, and on the other, the Zionist Star of David. In May 1935, Reinhardt Heydrich, the chief of the S.S. Security Service, wrote an article in which he separated Jews into ‘two categories.’ The Jews he favored were the Zionists: ‘Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.’ In 1937, the Labor ‘socialist’ Zionist militia, the Haganah (founded by Jabotinsky) sent an agent (Feivel Polkes) to Berlin offering to spy for the S.S. Security Service in exchange for the release of Jewish wealth for Zionist colonization. Adolf Eichmann was invited to Palestine as the guest of the Haganah. [26]

Wall Street paved the way for Hitler by heavily investing in the Germany economy, building up a cartel system as part of an overall long term strategy for international banking control. Germany was key stage in this process and allowed the crucial directives of The Dawes Plan and The Young Plan to be implemented. Author Anthony C. Sutton describes the background deals which took place:

The Treaty of Versailles after World War I imposed a heavy reparations burden on defeated Germany. This financial burden — a real cause of the German discontent that led to acceptance of Hitlerism — was utilized by the international bankers for their own benefit. The opportunity to float profitable loans for German cartels in the United States was presented by the Dawes Plan and later the Young Plan. Both plans were engineered by these central bankers, who manned the committees for their own pecuniary advantages, and although technically the committees were not appointed by the U.S. Government, the plans were in fact approved and sponsored by the Government. [27]

The German cartel system proved vital in manipulating politicians and their idea of economics whilst allowing Hitler and the Nazis to gain power:

“American financiers were directly represented on the boards of two of these three German cartels. This American assistance to German cartels has been described by James Martin as follows: ‘These loans for reconstruction became a vehicle for arrangements that did more to promote World War II than to establish peace after World War I.’”  [28]

Zionism had an extraordinary influence on geo-politics during this tumultuous period. Jewish thought and Zionist lobbying exerted pressure not just on governments but through the media and social networking of the day. Indeed, as noted psychology professor at the California State University Kevin Macdonald mentions in his 2001 book: Culture of Critique:

During World War II they engaged in “loud diplomacy”…organizing thousands of rallies, dinners with celebrity speakers (including prominent roles for sympathetic non-Jews), letter campaigns, meetings, lobbying, threats to newspapers for publishing unfavorable items, insertion of propaganda as news items in newspapers, giving money to politicians and non-Jewish celebrities like Will Rogers in return for their support. By 1944, “thousands of non-Jewish associations would pass pro-Zionist resolutions” … In 1944 both Republican and Democratic platforms included strong pro-Zionist planks even though the creation of a Jewish state was strongly opposed by the Departments of State and War. […]

Jews not only had a prominent position in the U.S. media, they had seized the intellectual and moral high ground via their control of the intellectual and political movements… Not only were Jewish interests beyond the bounds of civilized political discussion, assertions of European ethnic interest became impermissible as well. Such assertions conflicted with the Boasian dogma that genetic differences between peoples were trivial and irrelevant; they conflicted with the Marxist belief in the equality of all peoples and the Marxist belief that nationalism and assertions of ethnic interests were reactionary; such assertions were deemed a sure sign of psychopathology within the frameworks of psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School;and they would soon be regarded as the babblings of country bumpkins by the New York Intellectuals and by the Neo-Conservatives who spouted variants of all of these ideologies from the most prestigious academic and media institutions in the society. [29] [Emphasis mine]

MacDonald emphasises there are obviously other forces that “relegated the nativist mind-set to the political and intellectual fringe…” as well as the “… liberal Protestantism and the rise of the managerial state, but it is impossible to understand the effectiveness of either of these influences in the absence of the Jewish movements …” [30] Moreover, how ironic and revealing – especially from the bastions of psychoanalysis – that psychopathy should be used as a bludgeoning tool against those that question ethnic preeminence and political control which has produced innumerable instances of psychologically compromised individuals at the fulcrum of many Zionist-inspired operations.

PAL_palestine_land_theft_2_jpg

Palestinian Loss of Land 1946-2008 / Source: “The Maps Tell the True Story” from What Really Happened


The very nature of ethnic diversity means that there are necessarily differences which shouldn’t automatically present a problem. However, MacDonald reiterates the contention that the presence of a comprehensive Jewish ethnocentricity in intellectual and political life has ensured the rise of a “de-ethnicized non-Jewish elite … “… interwoven with a critical mass of ethnically conscious Jews and other ethnic minorities … unique to European and European derived societies.” [31]This activism has concentrated primarily on the social sciences and humanities, politics with a policy focus on immigration and ethnic and mass media. To that end, a paradox is seen in that while advocating separatism and superiority of the Jewish race, certain Jewish intellectual groupings of power established by Zionism within America sought to limit the Social Darwinism of the Anglo-American mind-set and promote the idea of the United States: “… as a set of abstract principles rather than an ethnocultural civilization.” He states further: “At the level of politics, Jewish organizations spearheaded the drive to open up immigration to all of the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations also played a key role in furthering the interests of other racial and ethnic minorities, and they led the legal and legislative effort to remove Christianity from public places.” [32]

But there were other reasons for this move, or it devolved into something entirely different under the general ponerogenesis of American culture. Either way, the Establishment was on the move and the domination of East coast Elite, European fascism and the emerging American Zionists were moving forward in their respective fields but largely aligned to the dream of a “New World Order” which had a distinctly homogenous undertow to its principles; a hybrid blend of collectivist and capitalist perceptions that advocate One World, One religion, a global army and global governance underpinned by a global financial architecture.

In point of fact, post-war history alone shows us that the rise of Jewish power has ensured that such principles hold sway to ensure a particularly Zionist flavour to this emerging Order, or, as MacDonald states:

“Since the 1960s a hostile, adversary elite has emerged to dominate intellectual and political debate. It is an elite that almost instinctively loathes the traditional institutions of European-American culture: its religion, its customs, its manners, and its sexual attitudes. […] This “hostile elite” is fundamentally a Jewish-dominated elite…. The emergence of this hostile elite is an aspect of ethnic competition between Jews and non-Jews and its effect will be a long-term decline in the hegemony of European peoples in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.” [33]

And this hegemony is characterised by a particular cross fertilisation with Jewish Cultural Marxism and the Liberal Establishment programming of Fabian-led collectivism. The professor paints a vivid picture of Judeo-centric preoccupations as fertile ground for ponerisation. It is through inherent qualities missing from Judaism though present in European culture which he explains as “individualism, a lack of ethnocentrism, and concomitant moral universalism.” [34] The intellectual and political movements initiated by Jewish culture and Zionism thus exposed a weakness in the cultural and ethnic integrity of the West which allowed a minority to override it. This is not a problem for Jewish people as a whole when integrating into a new society in its pluralistic sense and without the dictates of Zionism to underpin it. Yet, sadly this is not the case.

To reiterate, MacDonald’s primary reasoning for this state of affairs derives from the idea that:

Europeans are relatively less ethnocentric than other peoples and relatively more prone to individualism as opposed to the ethnocentric collectivist social structures historically far more characteristic of other human groups, including—relevant to this discussion—Jewish groups. …The basic idea is that European groups are highly vulnerable to invasion by strongly collectivist, ethnocentric groups because individualists have less powerful defenses against such groups. The competitive advantage of cohesive, cooperating groups is obvious… This scenario implies that European peoples are more prone to individualism. […] Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few in groups …Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism.

Historically Judaism has been far more ethnocentric and collectivist than typical Western societies…. I suggest that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. This perspective is consistent with ecological theory. [35]

So, from this monotheistic and separative background while turning European culture and values on their heads by claiming the opposite, this means that according to MacDonald: “America had entered into an era when it had become morally unacceptable to discuss Jewish interests at all. We are still in that era.” [36]

Whether criticising the undue influence of Zionism in national or international politics, pushing for US involvement in the Second World War, the creation of a Jewish State or the invasion of Iraq, Libya or Syria – the truth seldom matters when it comes to Zionist interests.

 


Notes

[1] p.221; Israel/Palestine By Alan Dowty, London, UK: Polity 2008 | ISBN 978-0-7456-4243-7. “Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.”
Moshe Gil,’the fact that at the time of the Arab conquest, the population of Palestine was mainly Christian, and that during the Crusaders’ conquest some four hundred years later, it was mainly Muslim. As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders’ conquest.’ Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099 Cambridge University Press, 1983 pp.222-3.
[2] Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict By Norman Finkelstein. Published by 1995.
[3] See: ‘The Case of Mordechai Vannunu – Preeminent Hero of the Nuclear Age’ by Mark Gaffney. Counterpunch, January 21 2003: “In September 1986, Mordechai Vanunu was illegally abducted by agents of the Mossad for revealing to the world press information that confirmed the existence of Israel’s often-denied plutonium separation plant. The plant is buried eighty feet below ground in the Negev desert, and had long escaped detection. Since the 1960s it has been used to recover plutonium from spent fuel rods from the Dimona nuclear reactor, located nearby. The plant continues to be an integral part of Israel’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. Israel is believed to possess at least 200 nukes.
Then Prime Minister Shimon Peres ordered Vanunu’ s abduction to silence the whistleblower, and to bring him to trial for allegedly jeopardizing the securi ty of the state of Israel. But Vanunu’s real ‘crime’ was speaking the truth. And for that he was made to suffer a fate worse than death: eleven years and five months in solitary confinement. Isolation in a tiny cell is a well-known form of torture, and one that can cause deep emotional scars and mental impairment. During this period Vanunu was subjected to constant harassments and humiliations: an obvious attempt by the Mossad to ‘break’ his will, or drive him over the edge. Amnesty International described the conditions of his ordeal as “cruel, inhuman, and degrading.”
Yet, the prisoner held firm as a rock. Nor has Vanunu since wavered from the position of principle he articulated in the very beginning: that the only sane path is full disclosure and abolition of nuclear weapons. From his prison cell Mordechai wrote: “It is a dangerous illusion to believe they [nuclear weapons] can be defensive….Only peace between states can promise security.” / See also: ‘Israel’s Nuclear Programme’ BBC News, December 22, 2003: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency recently urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and surrender its nuclear weapons in order to further peace in the Middle East.”
[4] History of Zionism By Walter Laqueur, London, 1972. “Later that year, he was jailed for 18 years after a trial for treason that was held in secret. Viewed as a traitor and a spy by most Israelis, Vanunu remains in prison to this day and has spent most of his sentence in solitary confinement. Israel’s former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, widely regarded as the architect of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme, testified at the trial that Vanunu had done serious damage to Israel’s security. Mr Peres subsequently said: ‘A certain amount of secrecy must be maintained in some fields. The suspicion and fog surrounding this question are constructive, because they strengthen our deterrent.’”
[5] Part I, pp. 16; The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl Volume 1 Published by Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960 – 1961. Raphael Patai (editor) Translated by Harry Zohn.
[6] p.267; The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed (1956) New edition published by Veritas Publishing Co Pty Ltd. 2004 | ISBN-10: 0958760225
[7] op. cit Gorenberg (p.84)
[8] Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim Weizmann Published by Harpers, 1949. (p.149).
[9] p.96; The King Crane Commission: An American Inquiry in the Middle East by Harry N. Howard Kayhat, University of Michegan 1963 | Digitized August 2007.
[10] First published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, November 4, 1923. Published in English in Jewish Herald (South Africa), 26 November 1937. Transcribed & revised by Lenni Brenner.
[11] p.29; Jabotinsky’s Letter on Autonomy, 1904. Cited in Brenner, The Iron Wall.
[12] p.96; The 1936-1939 Revolt in Palestine by Ghassan Kanafani (New York, Committee for a Democratic Palestine). Published by Tricontinental Society., 1980.
[13] Ben-Gurion: A Biography by Michael Bar Zohar. Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1978.
[14] David Ben Gurion, Report to the World Council of Poale Zion (the forerunner of the Labor Party), Tel Aviv, 1938. Cited by Israel Shahak, Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 1981.
[15] The Palestinian Fascist leader Haj Hussein Al Ameini, the Grand Mufti visited Germany and was on friendly terms with Hitler. Thus we had the perfect seeds of a ponerogenesis that would see fascist leaders on both sides courting the principle destroyer. It would be this foundation of hatred that would propel the social fires burning. However, the power ratio was clearly with Zionst sympathisers and operatives working in Russia, America, England and Israel itself and which would gradually end up brutally suppressing a whole nation.
[16] The exact figure is not known but there is a consensus that it was not below 100. “On the evening of April 9th, the Irgun leader publicly exaggerated the death toll in order to terrorize Arabs in Palestine. This was near the end of the British Mandate as Arab-Jewish fighting escalated. The 254 figure is almost certainly an exaggeration, but not an Arab exaggeration.” – Deir Yasin remembered: deiryassin.org. Rather wholly peaceful civilians there was also armed resistance.
[17] Davar, June 9, 1979. Davar, the official Hebrew daily newspaper of the Labor-Zionist-run Histadrut General Federation of Workers.
[18] Cited in Israel: An Apartheid State, Zed Books, London 1987. By Peter Myers, November 22, 2000; update May 3, 2003.p.8.
[19] The Arabs in Israel by Sabri Jiryis, New York Monthly Review Press, 1976.
[20] The Koenig report – a confidential and internal Israeli government document authored in April 1976 by Yisrael Koenig, a member of the Alignment (then the ruling party), who served as the Northern District Commissioner of the Ministry of the Interior for 26 years.
[21] This small Jewish resistance movement to Zionism continues today. But one example is Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon, from his essay: “Not In My Name: An Analysis of Jewish Righteousness” sees Zionism as “… racist, it is nationalist, and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from Nazism. Only when we understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities.” June 13, 2004. http://www.gilad.co.uk/
[22] 60 Minutes CBS Mike Wallace interviews Meir Kahane 1983.
[23] ‘Rabbinic Council Says Dead Lebanon Kids Not Innocent’ By Rev. Ted Pike, August 8, 2006.
[24] Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, A Reappraisal, By Lenni Brenner published by Lawrence Hill & Co.; Revised edition edition Dec 1983 | ISBN-10: 1556520778.
[25] pp 21-22; Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East By Patricia Goldstone, Published by Harcourt Trade, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0151011699
[26] p.81; Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries, Herbert R. Lottman I.B. Tauris, 1995 | ISBN-10: 1850439141
[27] p.23; Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony J. Sutton, published by ’76 press California, 1976 / New edition by Clairview Press, 2010 | ISBN-10: 1905570279
[28] Ibid. (p.28)
[29] op.cit; MacDonald (pp.16-19)
[30] Ibid. (p.19)
[31] Ibid. (p.21)
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid. (p.22)
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid. (p.25)
[36] Ibid. (p.16)