IMF

Osama and Al-Qaeda II: The “War on Drugs”

“Drug networks are important factors in the politics of every continent. The United States returns repeatedly to the posture of fighting wars in areas of petroleum reserves with the aid of drug-trafficking allies – drug proxies – with which it has a penchant to become involved.”

– Peter Dale Scott, writer, political analyst


US and NATO presence in Afghanistan had long been viewed as an increasing financial burden notwithstanding the rise in suicides and deaths, with many questioning why it is that the respective armies were even there. (50% more US soldiers committed suicide in Afghanistan in 2012 than were killed in the country). [1] As Islamic militants and various strains of Al-Qaeda rebels are currently fighting alongside US, Israeli and NATO backed forces in Syria, the irony has not been lost on many members of the public who are beginning to see that they’ve been had.

A March 2013 Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research study by Linda J. Bilmes and Daniel Patrick Moynihan placed the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in their proper financial perspective by calculating the cost for US taxpayers at $4 trillion to $6 trillion. That is an almost unimaginable number. The so-called war on terror and the fight against Al-Qaeda is slowly losing credibility even amongst the most staunchly nationalistic. Since the US military used 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition a year and imported bullets from Israel, the most militarised country on earth, then we can get some idea of how important this region is. For every rebel killed, it costs around a quarter of a million dollars which means that it could not continue forever – at least not at the same level of expenditure.[2] Controlling the regional drug-trafficking in the country plays a huge role in covert operations as it provides enormous income for black ops away from Congressional oversight. Nonetheless, US/NATO forces were desperate to secure their drug fortunes before pulling out and leaving a skeleton force to watch over them.

opium-fields-15

“An Afghan National Army (ANA) soldier provides security during a satellite patrol along a poppy field in Marjah, Afghanistan, April 17, 2012.” (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. David A. Perez/Released, Source: Public Intelligence )

As we know from early posts in this series, after oil and the arms trade, drug trafficking is the third biggest global commodity with human trafficking following closely behind. Entry into Afghanistan wasn’t just a geo-political move but had multiple purposes, one of which was to allow Anglo-America to hark back to the British East India’s monopoly of Indochina opium by controlling the drug routes, with the CIA as one of the main suppliers. Drug smuggling and terrorism have a tried and tested symbiotic relationship. It is probable that one could not exist without the other. With the recent fines of imposed on HSBC bank for acting as chosen money launderer for drug cartels the world over it is not an exaggeration that underworld propped up the global economic architecture as toxic assets did their work. In 2015, it won’t be so easy.

The global narcotics market is estimated to be worth between $400-500 billion a year in profits with a more realistic figure being around $100 billion. [3] (Estimates focusing on profits, turnover and trade are routinely confused.) Heroin is the No.1 drug of choice for global addicts and organised crime, the intelligence community, commerce and banking which has effectively blurred to the point that there is no real distinction. International banking is saturated in drug money as a normal part of its financial architecture with IMF estimates at $590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars in laundered money flowing through sequestered channels each year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. [4] That means competition for strategic control over these heroin routes.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that in 2003, opium production in Afghanistan generated “an income of one billion US dollars for farmers and US $1.3 billion for traffickers, equivalent to over half of its national income.”  [5] Almost a decade later, profits had increased by 18 percent alone between 2011 and 2012 according to the United Nations’ 2012 opium survey, which was undertaken with the Afghan Ministry of Counter-narcotics. This is one reason why Obama has reneged on yet another promise to withdraw US troops from the region. Secretary of State John Kerry announced a bilateral security agreement in November 2013 between the United States and Afghanistan that would allow for a lasting American troop presence through 2024. Billions of dollars of international assistance will be given to the government in Kabul, and by default, allow dominance in the drug trade to continue.

opium-fields-2

U.S. Marine Corp in Opium field 2012. (Source: Public Intelligence )

Afghanistan is the largest grower and exporter of opium on the planet with a 92 percent market share of the global opium trade. [6] It is therefore no coincidence that the US military still guards the poppy fields in order to protect their multi-billion dollar trade from the Taliban who know exactly why it is so important to US interests. It was only after the September 11th attacks and the rise of the Mujahedeen that the drugs trade began to really take off. After the Bush Administration gave the go ahead for the US military and NATO allies to invade Afghanistan in October 2001 under the ridiculous label of “Operation Enduring Freedom” opium cultivation increased by 657 percent. [7] Today, the CIA’s dominance in the Golden Crescent drug trafficking region was only made possible with help from the US proxy Afghan government members such as Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai who had been on the CIA payroll just after the 9/11 attacks. [8] As well as weapons and training, drugs were a central part of the funding of the Afghan war and the role of the Mujahedeen with BCCI acting as launderer. International narcotics traffickers were crawling all over Afghanistan many of whom were on the payroll of the George H. W Bush’s CIA. The Pakistani government and the ISI were known to be a major facilitator of the drug trade. Even before the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, the CIA had been funding Mujahideen guerrilla groups in the region as a part ISI alliance building.

The CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, and the “Islamic brigades” it created was originally formulated as the usual tactic of triggering civil wars in order to capture resources, be it minerals, opium or oil. In 1973 Afghan Prince Muhammad Daoud deposed the Afghan king with a little help from the Soviet Union, and an Afghan Republic was established. Which is where the CIA jumped in with their plan to fund Islamist extremists, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who would go on to be not only the leader in the resistance movement opposing the Soviets, but the most powerful Mujahedeen drug lord in Afghanistan. [9]

hekmatyr1

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Source: AP/BBC News)

In April, 1985 President Ronald Reagan signed a secret order called the “National Security Decision Directive 166,” which gave the CIA official directives to expel the Russians ‘by all means available.’ Over the next decade the U.S. spent $10 billion to arm and train the Mujahideen. By 1986, while the Iran-Contra scandal was about to loom over the horizon an “overwhelming arsenal of guns and missiles” descended upon Mujahideen from the Reagan administration. Along with these weapons was a massive propaganda push targeting the Afghan schools with “$43 million just for the school textbooks.” This was achieved with the help of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the CIA working together “providing education behind enemy lines,” and: “… military support against enemies lines.” Afghan war chiefs “…were allowed to decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks,” where the content included violence and images of war designed to breed new fighters and condition children resistance towards the Russian invasion. [10] The purposeful stimulation and creation of Islamic fundamentalism was predicated on the CIA’s drug money beginning with Hekmatyar and with a little help from Saudi Arabia, received more than $1 billion.  [11]

Located at the crossroads of Central, South, and Western Asia, overlapping Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, are multi-billion dollar drug routes protected by the US-sponsored government in Kabul. Michel Chossudovsky explains how the narcotics trade is determined by: “A hierarchy of prices” as a farming price in Afghanistan translated to retail price in fashionable cities in the West worth billions of dollars, “… sustained and supported by the US ‘War on Terrorism’.”


hsbcHSBC bank was fined over billion pounds for acting as money launderer for a variety of global drug cartels. Since it was only fined and not closed down it is free to continue its activities. HSBC and Barclays Bank are among many others in the banking industry who were also fined for rigging the market. Since these two banking corporations are the two main pillars of our present financial architecture closing them down wasn’t an option, as it would mean a total collapse. This was a deflection of objective reality that the core of global banking is both the purveyor, and completely dependent on, what is normalised fraud and corruption.


The proceeds of this vast drug trade is handled by the banks in the following fashion:

Drug money is laundered in the numerous offshore banking havens in Switzerland, Luxembourg, the British Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands and some 50 other locations around the globe. It is here that criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade and the representatives of the world’s largest commercial banks interact. Dirty money is deposited in these offshore havens, which are controlled by major Western banks and financial institutions. The latter, therefore, have a vested interest in maintaining and sustaining the drug trade.

… Once the money has been laundered, it can be recycled into bona fide investments not only in real estate, hotels, etc., but also in other areas such as the services economy and manufacturing. Dirty and covert money is also funneled into various financial instruments including speculative stock exchange transactions (derivatives), primary commodities, stocks and government bonds.  [12]

The repercussions of the CIA-Afghan drug lords and the domination of the opium fields meant heroin found an even greater supply from young Americans.  [13] In the 1980s drug related deaths shot through the roof as a result. Independent journalist Andrew Gavin Marshall summarises the impact: “… drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77 percent since 1979” and: “By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60 percent of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin ‘protected by ISI papers from police search.’ ”  [14]

By 1994, in a religious and economic vacuum Afghanistan saw the rise of the Taliban and its attempts to eradicate drugs and opium field production from the Afghan social landscape. The success in significantly reducing opium production, an economic livelihood for the CIA and Pakistani drug lords, was in large part the reason for the appearance of the Northern Alliance, a military-political umbrella organization created by the Islamic State of Afghanistan in late 1996 under the leadership of Defence Minister and CIA asset Ahmad Shah Massoud. The Afghan Taliban had a war on their hands which comprised of the Pakistan’s military, Al-Qaeda and most of the ethnic groups of Afghanistan including Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmen and others.

In 2002, a campaign against genuine human rights abuses was highlighted as a pretext for removing the Taliban from power even though US/NATO forces had created its original power base in order to help fight the Soviet invasion. Now, presiding over a vast increase in military spending for NATO and the US and despite increasing economic problems at home, opium production went through the roof and straight into the pockets of various interested parties, including Afghan drug lords, Al-Qaeda, the CIA, Pakistani ISI and various Northern Alliance parties. It was carnival time.

What is also conveniently forgotten in so much media commentary is the nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits, identified by the US Pentagon officials which is another reason why the Ghazni Province has become such a jewel in the crown of imperial aspirations. Included in the deposits of iron, copper, cobalt and even gold is possibly the largest source of lithium which is crucial in the production of all electronic devices from lap-tops, to mobile phones, weapons to aircraft consoles, which is why the Pentagon has described it as the “Saudi Arabia of Lithium.”  [15]

As New York Times reporter John Risen explains in his 2010 article: “Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country. The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources.”  [16]

2010-06-19-14mineralsgraphicpopup

The United States presence in Afghanistan intended to drive a wedge between those oligarchs and encroaching Chinese interests so that it can corner the market in rare minerals as well as oil and narcotics. However, as the mid-1990s approached, the legacy of US interference in the region and the end of the Soviet-Afghan war had produced a maelstrom of militant Islamic training camps drawing in fighters from all over the world. Osama bin Laden returned from the Sudan in 1996 in order to command his own camps alongside warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who took the lion’s share of control as the civil war raged about them. Afghanistan has become another narco-state of US induced chaos or, as one warlord exclaims:

“… essentially a lawless country. There is no civil law, no government, no economy—only guns and drugs and anger. … “For us, Afghanistan is destroyed. It is turning to poison, and not only for us but for all others in the world. If you are a terrorist, you can have shelter here, no matter who you are. Day by day, there is the increase of drugs. Maybe one day [the US] will have to send hundreds of thousands of troops to deal with that. And if they step in, they will be stuck. We have a British grave in Afghanistan. We have a Soviet grave. And then we will have an American grave.”  [17]

Since 1982 – 1991 Afghan opium production rose from 250 tons to 2,000 tons thanks largely to CIA support and their funding of the Mujahideen. However, bin Laden suffered heavy financial losses in 1991 with the closure of BCCI by US officials and could no longer rely on funding from his CIA superiors. This turn of affairs forced him to launder money from the drug trade to recoup his losses which gradually grew into a financial network, fully merging Islamic militancy with the global drug trade.  [18] According to author Roland Jacquard, “… Some of the money was handed back to organizations such as the FIS [a political party in Algeria]. Another portion was transferred by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Switzerland, the Netherlands, London, Antwerp, and Malaysia.” Money was also “… transferred from BCCI to banks in Dubai, Jordan, and Sudan controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.”  [19]

Author Adam Robinson stated in his investigation into bin Laden: “During the summer of 1991 he discreetly made contact with many of the wealthiest of these individuals, especially those with an international network of companies … Within months, Osama unveiled before an astonished al-Turabi what he called ‘the Brotherhood Group.’”

The Muslim Brotherhood and their vast wealth replaced the BCCI as the main source of funding for Islamic militants and allowed a fascist form of Islamism and the growth of Al-Qaeda to flourish, sometimes straining at the leash of the Anglo-American intelligence apparatus.  [20]

 


Notes

[1] ‘Suicides at 10-year high in US military’ Associated Press, guardian.co.uk, June 8, 2012. “In the first 155 days of 2012 there was 154 suicides among active troops, around 50% more than the number killed in action in Afghanistan, according to Pentagon statistics obtained by Associated Press. This is the highest number in 10 years. Combat exposure, post-traumatic stress, misuse of drugs and debt problems blamed for increase.”
[2] ‘US Forced to Import Bullets from Israel as troops use 250,000 for every Rebel killed’ By Andrew Buncombe, The Belfast Telegraph, January 10, 2011. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/
[3] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (1997) – ‘World Drugs Report’ | ‘Size of the drug market’ Transfrom Drug policy Foundation http://www.tdpf.org.uk | “In the 2005 World Drugs Report the UNODC put the value at US$13bn at production level, $94bn at wholesale level and US$332bn based upon retail prices. It also acknowledged that the US$400bn figure had been criticised by some experts as being too high.”
[4] ‘HSBC money-laundering scandal almost puts Barclays in shade’ – “Being accused by Senate of operating money-laundering conduit for ‘drug kingpins and rogue nations’ is as bad as it gets” by Nils Pratley, The Guardian, 17 July 2012. | ‘Libor or Money-Laundering? Focus on Arcane Rate Rigging Reveals Deeper Media Prejudice’ By Martin Baccardax, International Business Times, July 17, 2012. | ‘Global banks are the financial services wing of the drug cartels’ By Ed Vulliamy, The Observer, July 21, 2012.
[5] The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) http://www.unodc.org/
[6] UNODC World Drug Report 2011: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2011/World_Drug_Report_2011_ebook.pdf (p.20)
[7] ‘War on drugs revealed as total hoax – US military admits to guarding, assisting lucrative opium trade in Afghanistan’ by Ethan A. Huff, Natural News, November 16, 2011.www.naturalnews.com/
[8] ‘Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.’By Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti and James Risen. The New York Times, October 27, 2009.
[9] op. cit. Dreyfuss (pp.260-263)
[10] ‘Back to school in Afghanistan’ CBC News Online, January 27, 2004. | The National, Airdate: May 6, 2002 Reporter: Carol Off, Producer: Heather Abbott ,Editor: Catherine McIsaac. | “American interests were well served. But after the defeat of the Soviet empire, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan. The country descended into civil war. The U.S. gave almost no money to help rebuild after the war against the Soviets and no money to rewrite the school textbooks.”
[11] ‘Sources Claim CIA aid Fuelled Trade Center Blast’ by Colin Milner, Boston Herald, 1994.
[12] pp.232-233; America’s “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky, Published by Global Research, 2005.
[13] The CIA has unquestionably been the agency at the forefront of the drugs and turning much of US society into a drug-dependent culture. On the CIA’s website wwwcia.gov/ we read “Helping Them Say No to Drugs” as the title on their “parents and teachers” page. They go on to say: “The CIA is proud to be at the forefront of the War on Drugs, but we only win this war with everyone’s help.” They even have a “kids page”. Rather like a serial killer giving advice on how to counsel his victims with the knife still at their throats.
[14] ‘The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda:The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis” Part I By Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, September 05, 2010.
[15]’‘U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan’By James Risen, The New York Times, June 13, 2010.
[16] Ibid.
[17] ‘Blow-back from the Afghan Battlefield’ By Tim Weiner, The New York Times, 1994.
[18] ‘Drug trade filled coffers of Taliban, Bin Laden Group,’ By James Rosen The Star Tribune, September 30,2001 | ‘Collapse of BCCI shorts Bin Laden’ By Richard Sale, United Press International, March 1, 2001.
[19] In the Name of Osama Bin Laden: Global Terrorism and the Bin Laden Brotherhood by Roland Jacquard, Samia Serageldin (Editor) Published by Diane Pub. Co. 2002. | ISBN-10: 0756767113 (p. 129)
[20] pp.138-139; Bin Laden: Behind the Mask of the Terrorist by Adam Morrison. Published by Arcade Publishing, 2002. | ISBN-10: 1559706406.

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 IX: The Rockefellers

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

– David Rockefeller


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

clip_image002

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

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

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

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

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

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


41QCVLcm9mL

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

– David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

***

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

– David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

***

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

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

***

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

jdr-senior-jr

John D. Rockefeller Senior and Junior, 1921

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly where the Rockefeller Foundation excels.

210px-29_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

NYC_-_Rockfeller_Center_-_Atlas_Statue

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image003

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

bilderberg1

Bilderberg group connections (click on image to enlarge)

‘Imporre un governo pro Bilderberg destabilizzando le banche italiane’ (‘Imposition of pro Bilderberg government destabilizing Italian banks’) By Sandro Bulgarella


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

Retinger-bernhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estulin also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

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

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

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

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathocrats

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


Notes

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

 

Puppets & Players III: Le Cercle

cercle 1

© infrakshun


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image002Otto von Hapsburg

clip_image004Jonathan Aitken

clip_image006Konrad Adenauer

clip_image008Michael Howard

clip_image010Lord Norman Lamont

clip_image012Brian Crozier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image014_thumb.jpg

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

Chairman/President /Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

The Z Factor XI: Circumcision and Ethnocentrism

By M.K. Styllinski

“We are in a deep hole because we are so heavily biased in favour of Israel. And the whole world knows it.” And they are astounded by it. They can’t comprehend why America, with its great cherished traditions, would close its eyes to the dreadful punishment that we have enabled Israel to inflict on virtually defenceless people.”

– Paul Findley, US Congressman


If we are able to suspend our beliefs and knee-jerk reactions when discussing all things Jewish we’ll discover very quickly that this is one of the most important issues in the world today. Cool heads and critical analysis on this subject is fraught with difficulty. It’s safe to say that Zionists and some avenues of Jewish influence have used all manner of linguistic acrobatics, reverse psychology, double-speak and paralogistical discourse to entrench its socio-political and cultural pre-eminence. As a minority, its institutionalised propaganda is impressive. An industry of victimhood goes counter to the pluralism that popular Jewish discourse claims to espouse. Unfortunately, theological reality proves that these claims are far from true. The highly sensitive truth is that the Jewish community has allowed the parasite of Zionism to feed on a variety of hosts in order to use persecution and past atrocities as political leverage. By holding the world to ransom it secures positions of power.

Israeli policies in the occupied territories, Israeli lobbyists in America and the undercurrent of Zionism flowing through America will continue to create serious problems for the Jewish psyche and the hope for global peace if it is not seen for what it is: a political movement with a history of subterfuge, deception and extraordinary racism.

So, after reading the above paragraph and previous posts, have I immediately been assigned the label of “anti-Semite”?

Unquestionably for some.

Well, there are many taboos and hot potatoes regarding a free, constructive discussion of the issues within Judaism, the MOSSAD, Jewish sects and the Jewish tribe in general. Commentary veers between the bravest Jewish academics like Norman Finkelstein and philosophers like Gilad Atzmon and the more subjective and authoritarian gatekeepers of Zionism such as Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein and David Axelrod. Then you have a layer of the ultra-right wing, anti-Semites stirring the pot … It’s a veritable mine-field of hysteria and pathology.

How did we reach a stage where fear and self-censorship regarding this subject pervades all domains of society?

Why does Jewish identity have the monopoly on suffering?

And is there an historical reason why so much hostility and hatred has been directed at the Jewish community?

I can’t say I’ll be able to answer that, but I can at least add to the chorus of reasonable persons who would like some answers for the sake even a small slice of peace in the world.

Similarly, if this blog is about exploitation of humanity’s psyche by a minority of psychopaths then Jews and Judaism have clearly been both the victims and perpetrators of such ponerological strains. For an ethnic minority of relatively few, the diverse tribe of Jewish people have also managed to exert an extraordinary influence in the modern world. Therefore, no exploration of this kind can be even partially complete without its inclusion. And if you’ve been reduced to walking on glass when discussing issues of “Jewishness” then you’ll hopefully understand why it’s necessary that there is a frank and open debate for everyone’s sake.

For what it’s worth, I consider my Jewish friends and Jewish people as a whole as some of the most creative people on the planet. In my life, I’ve met many young Jewish and Palestinian men and women who just want to live together despite their religious differences. However, Judaism and Zionism continue to play a hugely important – some would say – disproportionate role in Western society, culture and in particular geopolitics. But Zionism and government policies are designed to eradicate harmonious integration of ordinary Jews and Arabs and the natural tendency for humanity to get along.

Psychopaths have had a long and ruthless history hiding behind the label of Revionist Zionism just as they have with the Anglo-American Establishment. And so the Israeli-Arab schism remains one of the worst vortices of conflict on this beautiful planet costing many young lives and causing untold generational pain. That being so, we have to try and understand the incredible resilience and adaptability of this minority in the face of fluctuating hatred and an age-old persecution which never seems to fade. The complex history of the Jewish people is fascinating, and one to which I cannot possibly do justice. But what can be done is to explore the present status quo of Zionism and it effects. Judaism and its Jewish tribes are facing a period of massive soul searching it seems, which will be embraced voluntarily or it will be forced upon them as external events come to a head.

My fear is it will almost certainly be the latter.


Shlomo Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People”

“Sand traces how Zionist ideology drove the project of Jewish nationalism by turning Judaism “into something hermetic, like the German Volk …” (255). He argues that history and biology were enlisted “to bind together the frangible secular Jewish identity.” Together, these engendered an “ethnonationalist historiography” which was typified by the mid-19th century German Jewish historian Heinricht Graetz and his friend Moses Hess, who “needed a good deal of racial theory to dream up the Jewish people” (256).”


In 1947, following on closely from the outpouring of sympathy and grief for the Jewish Holocaust, Zionists were able to secure a vote at the United Nations for the partition of Palestine into two states. Israel served as a valuable strategic interest for the U.S. whereby continual financial assistance ensured a long-term channel into the Middle East. They did it by usurping the waning dominance of the British in the region. Since that time, it has resulted in the gradual ascendance of Orthodox Jewish fundamentalism, Zionist dogma and the present day intransigence of three primary objectives. Firstly, to make the destruction of Palestinian society palatable by claiming a religious moral high ground where paramilitary reprisals are seen as an evil attacking an exclusive mandate from God. Secondly, to expel or “transfer” Palestinians to areas outside Palestine and to “import” Jewish peoples from all over the world in line with messianic prophecy and to offset the increase in their population. Despite promises of free transportation, cash allowances and free housing from land stolen from the Palestinians themselves – this plan failed. But the objective to make life as unbearable as possible for Palestinians, they believe, must in the end pay dividends parallel to US proxy wars carving up the Middle East. This is what the Israeli Government is banking on with assistance from America, representing the third and most pertinent objective overall.

A recent UN-sponsored independent report comprising of academics and past and present government officials from 19 different countries said: “the conflict over Israel and the Palestinian territories is the central driver in global tensions.” At the same time, the UN itself has been severely co-opted and effectively acts as an apologist for the world’s only super power and partner in crime: Israel. [1] [2]

Understanding the root causes includes a comprehension of ponerological factors inherent in the situation. As we have already seen, truly humanitarian peoples have achieved enormous successes despite operating behind the bars of a system of control that defines their limitations. The inaction, ineptitude and total failure of the UN on a wide range of international issues is reflected and sourced from its affiliated agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank both established under the highly dubious 1944 Bretton Woods agreement which came into operation in 1947.

The World Bank earns almost as much from interest and loan repayments as it hands out in new loans each year. Over 60 per cent of the bank’s loans goes to suppliers outside the borrower countries for such things as consultancy services, machinery and of course, oil. Control of the bank is vested in a board of executives representing national governments, whose votes are apportioned according to the amount they have funded to the bank. Thus the USA has nearly 20 per cent of the vote and always appoints the board’s president. Consequently, resolutions, conventions, declarations, protocols, amendments and condemnations have little effect in a world held fast in the cement of opportunistic lies.

US and Israeli hostility towards the world is not a recent dynamic as we can see from the following resolution which both blocked with their habitual “NO” vote. it stated: “The right of every state to choose its economic social system in accord with the will of the people without outside interference in whatever form it takes.” How typical that both powers should block resolutions opposed to the intervention in the internal or external affairs of states or financing the training of journalists and strengthening communication services in the undeveloped world. How typical it is that both should oppose further resolutions regarding nuclear weapons including: a need for a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty; the call for Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons; cessation of all nuclear test explosions; declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states; World-wide action for collecting signatures in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament; Prohibition of the development of new types of weapons of mass destruction and an Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues.

USIsrael1-vert

Following on from Israel’s refusal to place its nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards which was condemned by the UN in a resolution back in 1987, it makes the present day actions of Israel and its call for Arab states to disarm nothing more than the most blatant hypocrisy. It is nauseating to behold successive US governments sanctimoniously calling for weapons mass destruction while Israel sits on its own nuclear illegal facilities and expanding bio-chemical weaponry. The constant and regular dynamic of the US was to oppose all the above. The only exception was an abstention regarding a call for a “convention for the rights of the Child”. Nevertheless, they seem to have had their way by exacting the same petulant demands by covert means. Far from being the epitome of democracy, America reveals its true colours opposing virtually all social, economic, political, ecological and humanitarian resolutions unless it benefits Israel’s and its own interests. It seems Kofi Annan lost any shred of credibility with his support for the World Jewish Congress and its call for a UN general assembly resolution condemning anti-Semitism. It’s that old tired programming whereby criticism of Israel’s policies creates the hysterical reaction of anti-Semitism and any sensible opportunities for discourse on a range of issues gets lost in the froth.

An editorial from sott.net alternative news website put succinctly:

“… Simply stated, if a “goyim” does not at least unconditionally accept and ideally praise the actions of Israel and therefore agree with the opinions of pro-Israeli Jews, then by default, he or she “hates Jews because they are Jews”. The result of this deliberately manufactured “world wide rise in anti-Semitism” can only be bad for ordinary Jews around the world, who bear the brunt of Arab anger at the policies of Sharon and the “Zionists” in Washington. At the same time, this manipulated rise in “anti-Semitism” can only be good for Sharon and his cohorts, giving them, as it does, further carte blanche to viciously attack Palestine and its people in the name of protecting the interests and lives of ordinary Jews. Our conclusion in all of this is that ordinary Jews are being “set up” in some way by their own “leaders”, and there is much evidence that it would not be the first time that this has happened. Clearly, this is the reality of the situation at present, and we find it difficult to believe that Kofi Annan does not understand that this is the case. As such, we must conclude that Annan is a closet supporter of the genocidal policies of Sharon and the Washington “Zionists”, regardless of the moderate humanitarian face that Annan, as head of the UN, is compelled to present to the world.” [3]

And it is the ignorance of some world leaders and many Jewish peoples in general of the psychopathic nature of Zionism at Establishment levels that is driving world Jewry to a catastrophe of biblical proportions if it doesn’t wake up soon.

The various patriarchal oddities and inconsistencies in the Torah, Talmud and the complex mix of Kabbalistic teachings seem to have been appropriated by Chabad as a literal template for dominance by any means. We see the same caricatures and distortions in many religions from Islam, the Catholic Church and Christian evangelism rising up within attached cults. What is more problematic is the fact that standard Judaism offers a peculiar wealth of racist and separatist principles based on the idea of a chosen people which has sadly caused much of the historical persecution in the past. It is tragic because the Jewish people – whether Sephardic or Ashkenazi – have produced some of the greatest creative minds within the human family. Whether that is through the cultivation of a cognitive elite or through a more natural sociological adaptation is a moot point – Maybe it’s a bit of both. Regardless, this leads us to ask as a great many number of folks undoubtedly have albeit in hushed tones: just what is it within Jewish culture and religion that has made it the victim of so many rulers throughout the past? And why can extremism from Chabad to Revisionist Zionism seemingly draw on an endless well spring of essentially pathological concepts? Though Jewish peoples are diverse in belief, the fact remains that Judaism and Jewish identity encourages ethnocentrism and fundamentally supremacist values. This is so much a part of the theology of the Jewish tribal ethos it has become accepted as a convoluted norm. When mixed with transnational power politics it becomes actively antagonistic to the proper functioning of international societies.

Though you would never know it if you read much of the historical literature from the past two hundred years there is little mention of the fact that Matriarchy and the Great Mother Goddess religions flourished for thousands of years in the Neolithic cultures around 7000 B.C., in the Near and Middle East. This was before the arrival of the Grand Patriarch Abraham, the first prophet of the dominator male deity, Yahweh. Archaeologists trace Upper Palaeolithic culture’s Goddess Worship back to 25,000 B.C. with religious practice continuing well into ancient Rome. Abraham only arrived in Canaan between 1800 and 1550 B.C. Then everything changed. [4] (That is not to say that Matriarchy is something to embrace exclusively either, merely that a pivotal change to an authoritarian Patriarchy had detrimental consequences for women, the evolution of Western society and the emergence of Judaism).  Jews believe their spiritual and ethnic origins are sourced from Abraham, a wandering tribesman from the land of Ur now known as Iraq.

The story goes that God collared 75-year old Abraham and offered him a tempting deal. If he followed the Ten Commandments to the letter then he and God Inc. would place Abraham’s progeny and descendants under His protection, thus becoming a Chosen People and … Special. “For you are people consecrated to the Lord your God: of all the peoples on earth the Lord your God chose you to be His treasured people.” (Deuteronomy 7:6). But there was a hefty condition in the small print: the removal of the foreskins of new-born males by the time they reach the eighth day of birth. This must of seemed a tad bizarre even two thousand years ago. [5 ]“God … said to Abraham … You shall circumcise the flesh of the foreskin and that shall be the Covenant between Me and you.” (Genesis 17:9-13). As compensation for this future foreskin hacking, Abraham was then given Canaan as some choice real-estate but with one snag: it was already taken. Since this future covenant of Israel was designed by God and his now Chosen people it was seen as a minor impediment to this God’s will which, as monotheistic Judaism attests, wasn’t a good idea to trifle with, foreskin removal of an infant being a reasonable indicator.

Apart from commanding a divinely ordained method to mark His people it also points to the foundation of Judaism as being an essentially racist doctrine marked out by genital mutilation to get things started. One might say that such an act inflicted on one so young and accepted for thousands of years, may have had negative psychological implications on those most vulnerable: namely the emerging authoritarians of the tribe. [6]  In other words, it becomes clear that this “covenant” between God and the Jewish people is a private contract enforced through the private parts. If that doesn’t engender fear imprinting at so young an age I’m not certain what does. One doesn’t have to be a doctor to see that snipping off the delicate and sensitive end of an infant’s penis is going to mark out some children as lacking something more than just the foreskin. [7]It seems to be nothing more than a form of abuse rationalized as something holy and scared but which in fact has harmful consequences on brain development and the future course of the male adult, one example of which is neuroses and a problem with the processing of emotions. [8]

Aside from the false assumptions, erroneous conclusions and incorrect medical information regarding the benefits of circumcision, what are the implications for children abused in this way as they try to process the relationship between spirituality, sexuality and authority?

screamingbaby


“Freedom is Christ, for a man chooses Christ with his heart, not with his foreskin.”

– Israel Shamir


Circumcision has become the tribal stamp of male Jewish identity since its inception. Beliefs that this ritual protected the baby from danger to acting as a physical sign that you were half way through the mystical gates of heaven by having discarded this seemingly irrelevant piece of skin, were marketed to the Jewish faithful that this was a necessary for the infant male. The fact that God came to be so viscerally associated with the cutting – some might say mutilation – of the male member could be said to be pathological at the outset. Yet, it was also a reminder of the importance of seeding the new race so that it would one day establish a presumably Jewish interpretation of “God’s kingdom on Earth” drawn from the fear of a suitably wrathful Authority. More disturbing still, it was originally standard practice in circumcision ritual for the “mohel” (the expert who performed the circumcision) to take the baby’s “circumcised member into his mouth and with two or three draughts [and to suck] the blood out of the wounded part. He then takes a mouthful of wine from a goblet and spurts it, in two or three intervals, on the wound.” Such a practice still takes place but is confined to ultra-orthodox circles. [9]

However, there are reasons to be hopeful that the practice – also carried out by Islam and some elements of Christianity – is starting to decline. So, too the horrific practice of Female Circumcision. (Some members of the Jewish community who are opposed to circumcision include the following: www.jewishcircumcision.org/ | www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ | www.circumcision.org/) Then of course, there are the occult origins of this practice of child abuse:

The idea of racial superiority and a divine super-race became cemented in what could be viewed as a ritual abuse and land grab philosophy which later found its modern reflection in Revisionist Zionism and Chabad Lubavitch. More left-leaning and Marxist Jews still believe that the Jewish people as a whole are going to lead the human race to salvation, so deep is the original covenant in Jewish traditions. The Israelite God of the Old Testament is vengeful, violent jealous and prone to fits of rage and emotional blackmail and extortion. Or as Nietzsche stated: “A God who Demands.” But what does this covenant, allegedly between “G-d,” actually reflect in the world of the past and today? The dogma enforced was primarily concerned with control using ownership, fear-based allegiance as the tools to accomplish certain objectives that have defined the Middle East and the earth for hundreds of years. Obsession with Israelite genealogies and pedigrees that demand ethnocentric principles of self-aggrandizement along with endless rules and regulations for every possible aspect of daily life exist as a matter of course in both the Torah and the Talmud, the two pillars of ancient Jewish wisdom, the latter believed to be the more influential source for practising Jews and Rabbis today. [10]Both are focused exclusively on the special nature of Jews. Thus, the Mosaic Law of the Ten Commandments such as “love thy neighbour” is really about loving your fellow Jew rather than anyone else outside the faith.

Rabbi Menachem Gerlitz explains the “neighbor” passage:

“ ‘And you shall love your neighbor like your own self ’ – this is an important rule of the Torah. Every Jew must love his fellow Jew with all his heart. The Baal Shem Tov [founder of the ultra-Orthodox Hassidim] used to explain this as follows: Our Torah teaches us to ‘love Hashem your G-d with all your heart.’ How can we prove to ourselves that we are really fulfilling this commandment? Only through the commandment of loving our fellow Jew like our own selves. Only by truly loving each and every Jew, every son of the Chosen People which Hashem selected from all other nations to love, just like a person loves the son of a dear friend.” [11] [Emphasis mine]

This benevolence is not universal in scope; it is an exclusive to a Jewish universe only. This stems from the belief that the gentile is a being of lesser, even animalistic origins, with a propensity for crime and sexual deviancy. Nor was this an angry reaction to perceived persecution but was a mainstay of original sacred texts. One Rabbi Ben-Haim states that “… that according to the prophets, and also according to our sages, the Gentiles are seen as beasts … It is possible that one may see these injunctions as racism; another may call it hatred of Gentiles, whoever he is; but as far as the Jew who adheres to the statement of the Torah of Israel is concerned, this is reality and a way of life which were set for the people of Israel by G-d.” [12](“G-d” is a Jewish spelling, the full word cannot be written) Racism against Gentiles is endemic in the Talmud, yet few non-Jewish academics touch it for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic, while Jewish academics leave it well alone for fear of being labelled a crypto-Jew and betrayer of Judaic law. This stale-mate understandably worries many liberal-minded Jews. The underlying principle in Chabad Lubavitch and extreme forms of both Zionism and ultra-right wing Jewish orthodoxy suggests that it is not simply a left-over legacy of a more brutal era that has no resonance as some Jewish academics would prefer to believe, but represents theory translated into practical action.

A 1987 autobiographical account by Evelyn Kaye, who was raised in an orthodox Jewish community in New York, describes the institutionalised racism which has been perpetuated up to the present day and which must cause great concern when such Rabbi leaders have a special place behind the political power brokers:

The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. It is as tenacious, unreasoned, and impossible as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism. And as intractable…There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. These include:

— all Goyim drink alcohol and are always drunk; — all Goyim are on drugs; — all Goyim hate Jews even when they seem friendly; — all Goyim are anti-semites, no matter what they say and do; — all Goyim have a terrible family life and mistreat their wives and children’ — all Goyim eat pork all the time; — Goyim are never as clever, as kind, as wise or as honest as Jews; — you can never ever trust Goyim.

There’s much more. The essence of anti-Goyimism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into a subconscious or full-blown phobia throughout their lives. In order to avoid being contaminated by these terrible creatures, the Ultra-Orthodox go out of their way to avoid them … Children … manage to grow up without seeing one of these dangerous people close up. Their attitudes are then perfectly formed. They know whom to hate.” [13]

The Judeo-centric vision that demands special treatment and constant psychological deference to a perpetual victimhood becomes somewhat ironic from this perspective. The late Israeli scholar Israel Shahak dug deeper and found that there is even an admonishment that a gentile’s life must not be saved, citing a line from in a book from the Babylonian Talmud (Tractate Avodah Zarah, 26b): “Gentiles are neither to be lifted (out of a well) nor hauled down (into it).” i.e., if a non-Jew falls into a well a Jew is religiously forbidden from saving his/or her life. The highly respected Jewish theologian Maimonides takes this example to comment that “it is forbidden to save [non-Jews] if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued.” [14]

israel_shahak

Israel Shahak

If a source of spiritual wisdom and guidance has, at its root, a dictatorial invective that is set up to teach “special” people how to act, think and feel through a rigidly prescribed set of codified laws then it is surely not surprising that the intervening years were beset with bloodshed. As Evelyn Kaye explains: “The code of Jewish law dictates a range of regulations for sexual intercourse, including when and where it may be experienced, as well as what to think about during the act.” … “There are even rules, about what you may think about while you sit on the toilet.” [15]

As in the Babylonian Talmud, the existence in sacred Jewish texts of violence, xenophobia, child abuse and homophobia is common place, yet the denial of this fact has become an art form. Where are the benevolent, loving teachings which encourage free-will choice?

The Old Testament from which much of Judaic law is drawn is not about spiritual inclusiveness but based predominantly on authoritarian commands, the widening of separatist tendencies and the overriding conquest of land, all of which is grounded in the promise of rapacious gains and rewards on the earthly plane. It is a fear-based call to arms rather than altruism; a vast body of literature premised on what Shahak calls: “innate totalitarianism.” [16]

Pretty strong words from a Jewish author. Nor is he alone in his conclusions.

Traditional Judaism demands that its followers live apart from non-Jews and cultivate the knowledge that Jewishness is distinct from any other religious or secular teaching. This can be seen in almost every facet of Jewish life from the insistence of a nation state to the marriage laws that seek to keep the betrothed firmly within the Jewish community. Historically this separatism based on an assumed superiority has obviously fostered resentment both from other communities and races down throughout the ages culminating in the State of Israel that is indeed a nation apart in almost every possible way. Relationships outside business were strictly banned by the Rabbi hierarchy scared of the possibility of assimilation and the loss of Jewish identity. As already discussed, the “Gentile” meaning “non-Jew” (or the pejorative “Goyim”) was traditionally seen as a threat and like their genetically identical brothers the Arabs, an object of derision and ridicule. No more than twenty years ago in 1988, a survey discovered that “more than a third of Reform rabbis – traditionally the most ‘integrated’ and ‘outreaching’ of the major Jewish denominations – endorsed the proposition that ideally, one ought not to have any contact with non-Jews.’” [17]

During the Jewish diaspora * the resentment created stemmed not from the innocence of the Jewish tribes that romantically traversed the globe in search of spiritual succour but from the repeating patterns of elitism and dogma that meant others’ faith was non-existent. This kind of intolerance and inability to live harmoniously within other belief systems will inevitably lead to mirroring of the same. The tragedies which have befallen the Jewish people and the attachment to the culture of victimhood so often characterised in Jewish history and its relationship to non-Jews, stems not from an unsullied innocence but from a mind-set and religion that courts it.

Turning their sights on Egypt it appears that Abraham and the tribe of Israelites after a period of enslavement returned to Canaan to claim their perceived birth right, the exodus of which has been mythologized with the emergence of Mosaic Laws. The original Canaanites were tossed out amid a ferocious war which came to characterise early Israelite tribal excursions with violent struggles for power and control. Years of warring Israelite monarchies ensued with Israel in the north and Judah in the south. By the third century the diaspora was in effect and Jews were in exile after hundreds of years of fighting, corruption, human sacrifice, and massacres had taken their toll. This led to the end of the Israel of that period, the reflection of which can be found in the Bible. Destruction came on the back of Mosaic Law leading to the scattering of Jews all over the Roman Empire.The legacy of the Torah’s Mosaic Law and the Kabbalistic black magick of the Babylonian Talmud is one of terrible bloodshed enacted by Israelite tribes on behalf of their “G-d.” These are the genocidal roots from which Judaism and Judeo-Christianity has drawn its spiritual nourishment the repercussions of which we live with today. There are legions of examples of the most abject violence in order to secure the Holy Land. As we have seen, there were plenty of people living their lives on the “land of Israel” but ethnic cleansing was deemed the order of the day by none other than the sages of the Torah:

“Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not cities here. But in the cities of the people that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save nothing alive that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord has commanded.” [Deuteronomy 20:14-18]

Recall the siege of the city of Jericho as the superhero Joshua led yet another round of bloodletting:

“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both men and women, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword …” [Joshua, 6-21]

This reads like a manual for psychopaths not the guidance from sacred source of spiritual wisdom for a “Chosen People.” It does beg the question: Chosen for what? Were the Israelites channelling something other than God? Or could it be turned on its head and reinvented towards a more politically correct solution? The religio-historical origins of Jews gleefully enacting destruction on behalf of a bloodthirsty God has been systematically photo shopped out of any self-respecting anthology of Jewish rights to victimhood, in perpetuity. For instance, the Almalekites were a war-like tribe that looked as though they might give the Israelite invaders a run for their money and had the bad luck to inhabit Southern Canaan when the Israelites decided to lay claim to it. The channeled presence of the entity called Yahweh was unequivocal in commanding them to: “… go and smite Amalek, and exterminate everything that is his. Don’t pity him, but kill man, woman, infant and nursling, ox, sheep, camel and ass.” [Samuel 15:2-3]

In Exodus 17:16 it was claimed that it would be necessary to enact a distinctly Zio-Conservative program of conflict so that: “the Lord will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages.” exod17-11It is not hard to see that Chief Amalek has since been transposed onto any ideology or person that takes a stance that is counter to Zionist and many Jewish beliefs. This may also go some way to explaining why Palestinians are treated so abysmally – they are the primary descendants of the Amaleks and thus worthy to be crushed underfoot. Moreover, the Zionist paranoia and aggressive geo-strategy is kept alive by the idea that much of humanity – the Goyim – are none other than the “children of Amalek” and thus to be dealt with in much the same way as they were thousands of years ago.

The only difference is that technological advanced weaponry is now in the hands of such people who have quite possibly inherited more than just monotheistic religion with its tradition of half-truths but perhaps even authoritarian followers who are genetically pre-disposed to primary narcissism and psychopathy, presently enjoying itself in American-Israeli positions of power. Many Rabbis continue to make the connection with the Amaleks and the Arabs in modern day Israel, representing another ponerological manifestation within the teachings of the Jewish community, or as Rabbi David Hartman described it: “…not just a lunatic fringe … but a “… diseased element that is capable of infiltrating into the Jewish self-understanding.” [18]

An equal number of Jewish academics and the public alike dismiss Jewish ethnocentrism and monotheistic roots of intense violence as having no relevance to today. It is true, the early Israelites and their genocidal antics are not exceptional – there are many similar tribes and leaders down through history that become vessels for pathocracies. Yet, we must take pause as our contemporary events show that the Jewish-Christian roots of extreme violence do indeed have special relevance not only in modern Israel but across the geopolitical spectrum presently monopolised by the Zionist elite and for whom such religio-occult principles are vital in an overarching philosophy of control.

The author Alfred Jospe decided to reframe Jewish suffering in a way that would perpetuate the accustomed hand-wringing of unworthiness and at the same time account for why G-d had forsaken them. It wasn’t because the Judaic Law was somehow wrong or not divinely kosher but due to past sins and the denial of their destiny that Jews were having such an appalling time. He stated: “The Jew was persecuted not because God had abandoned or rejected him; [The Jew] suffered because he was not equal to his moral task. In the words of the prayer book, ‘because of our sins, we were exiled from our land’ … Suffering was defined as punishment and punishment in turn was a call to duty. Exile was God’s call to return to the faithfulness inherent in Israel’s role as the ‘chosen people.’ The acceptance of punishment opened the gate to redemption and return to the land.” [19]

Ah, of course, then it all makes sense: punishment for following the dictates of G-d and perpetrating acts of debauchery and excess offers more than a few questions regarding the very idea of God and His Judgment. Yet, rather like the playthings on the chessboard of Greek Gods, the ancient Jewish tribes chose to accept their “duty” (at least according to whoever was creating the chronology of the time) and through incurring God’s wrath, punishment and authority became part of the Jewish identity. This is a co-dependent relationship with a God-like abuser which courted disaster by the very nature of the religion.

The legacy of that era right through the medieval period up to the present day shows that the supremacy of a chosen race still holds a tenacious grip on various strains of Zionism and the schools currently promoting the belief of hate – for that is precisely what it is. The old tired racism of the gentile / Goyim as genetically inferior is still doing the rounds giving striking similarities to Nazi ideology of Aryan purity.

Jewish authors Charles Liebman and Stephen Cohen have shown that students:

“… learn that the first two [Jewish] patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac, each had two sons so that the Jewish son might inherit pure genes whereas the corrupt, impure genes that Abraham inherited from his idolatrous ancestors could be passed on to the non-Jewish son. Only Jacob’s son — those of the third generation — inherited pure genes and were worthy of being Jewish … That there is no outcry against [this] being made part of the religious Zionist high school curriculum suggests the level that Jewish ethnocentrism has reached in some quarters.”[20]

And it is this Jewish ethnocentrism which needs quite a bit of propaganda to draw from and which provides the platform by which political and religious Zionism forges ahead unimpeded by moral or ethical constraints. Something which we’ll look at further in the next post.

 


* Diaspora: from “scattering, dispersion” the movement, migration, or scattering of people away from an established or ancestral homeland” (Webster’s Dictionary).

Notes

[1] ‘No clash of civilizations, says UN report’- A UN-sponsored group says the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of global tensions. By Dan Murphy, CS Monitor, November 14, 2006.
[2] William Blum’s Rogue State (2003) provided a random selection from the seventies and eighties of the U.S. and Israel’s consistent assault, on not only the Palestinians, but the Geneva Convention’s human rights articles and international ethics.
[3] ‘Annan condemns anti-Semitism rise’ Sott.net commentary, 21 June, 2004.
[4] ‘First Hebrews, Canaanites, and Philistines’ | http://www.factsanddetails.com/
[5] Circumcision has potential risks and alters normal, sexual functioning of the penis. If the foreskin is there for a biological reason. According to the venerated and much referenced Rabbi Moses Maimonides, in the Guide of the Perplexed, there is a moralistic and repressive reason for the removal of the foreskin: “As regards circumcision… [s]ome people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man’s moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning.” This may also be seen as an abuse of the rights of the child to have a say in his own body and genitalia, a formal declaration of which took place in Anaheim, California March 3, 1989 called ‘Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision.’ attended by paediatricians, doctors and medical personnel. The text: “We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right. We recognize the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts. Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children’s normal genitalia. Physicians and other health-care providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts. The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims. In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure. We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of circumcision procedures upon unconsenting minors. We support any further studies which involve identification of the effects of circumcision. Physicians and other health-care providers do have a responsibility to teach hygiene and the care of normal body parts and explain their normal anatomical and physiological development and function throughout life. We place the medical community on notice that it is being held accountable for misconstruing the scientific database available on human circumcision in the world today. Physicians who practice routine circumcisions are violating the first maxim of medical practice, Primum non nocere, “First, Do No Harm”, and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
[6] Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. Vanguard Publications, 1997. | ISBN 0964489538.
[7] ‘Circumcision: Harm and Psychological Factors Ignored’ August 4, 2011 – Leading Jewish circumcision opponent Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., highlights the absence of the mention of the harms of circumcision in public discourse: “National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision. The endless search for a medical benefit―from treating epilepsy, irritability, and masturbation in the late 1800s to preventing sexually transmitted diseases today―has always been suspect. Studies show that circumcision is significantly painful and traumatic. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. After circumcision infants exhibit behavioral changes, and there are disruptions in mother-child bonding. Changes in pain response of circumcised infants have been demonstrated in baby boys at six months of age, evidence of lasting neurological effects and a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder. Anesthetics, if used, do not eliminate circumcision pain. Circumcision also has about two dozen surgical risks including, in rare cases, death. Some doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations. Long-term harm is also a consideration, but circumcised American researchers also typically avoid the discomfort of studying the sexual and psychological harm (e.g., erectile dysfunction) associated with circumcision.”
[8] ‘Study Links Circumcision to Personality Trait Disorder’ Intact News, International Journal of Men’s Health, September 22, “Researchers find circumcised men have higher alexithymia scores than intact men. Alexithymia is the inability to process emotions.”
[9] p.45; Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma By Rosemary Romberg. Bergin and Garvey, Publishers, Inc. Massachusetts, 1985.
[10] The Torah is the source of Jewish history and sacred law. It is the Old Testament of the Bible in Christian tradition, which includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Many scholars belief this was really a “cut and paste” job that was not chronological at all but merely made to appear that way being in truth, a mix of different time lines and authors collected and combined together hundreds of years after the alleged events took place. (See: The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack). The Talmud came after the Torah and “… is the comprehensive written version of the Jewish oral law and the subsequent commentaries on it. It originates from the 2nd century CE. The word Talmud is derived from the Hebrew verb ‘to teach’, which can also be expressed as the verb ‘to learn’. The Talmud is the source from which the code of Jewish Halakhah (law) is derived. It is made up of the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah is the original written version of the oral law and the Gemara is the record of the rabbinic discussions following this writing down. It includes their differences of view. […] Between the 2nd and 5th centuries CE these rabbinic discussions about the Mishnah were recorded in Jerusalem and later in Babylon (now Al Hillah in Iraq). This record was complete by the 5th Century CE. When the Talmud is mentioned without further clarification it is usually understood to refer to the Babylonian version which is regarded as having most authority. – [BBC Religions Judaism – Talmud.] Edward Boraz writes in Undestanding the Talmud. A Modern Reader’s Guide for Study: “…the study of the Talmud may be so formidable, challenging, and complex … [that] one may ask, for what purpose? … [Boraz p.1]… [Aside from the ‘mishnaic’ Hebrew and Aramaic of the original texts] the classic commentaries to the Talmud are written in ‘medieval rabbinic Hebrew,’ which is a blend of both Hebrew and Arabic. The language barrier alone is arduous.” [Boraz, p.13] The Talmud also lacks “an inner order … [it] shift[s] from one subject to another in ways that are not readily apparent. Often, the pronominal references are unclear … In short, a talmudic passage seems scattered and diffused, rather than a well-reasoned dialectic inquiry.” Yet this provies a fertile ground for misinterpretation for extremist ends and endless keep busy activities that are akin to a maze where simplicity and truth are never found.
[11] p.195; In Our Leaders’ Footsteps. Volume One: The Baal Shem Tov By Menachem Gerlitz, Oraysoh Publishers and Distributors of All Judaic Works, Jerusalem, 5743, 1983.
[12] The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right. By Ehud Sprinzak, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Published by Oxford University Press, NY, Oxford, 1991. [13] p. 113- The Hole in the Sheet. A Modern Woman Looks at Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism, by Evelyn Kaye, Lyle Stuart, Inc., Seacaucus, NJ, 1987.
[14] op. cit. Shahak (p.80.)
[15] op. cit. Kaye (p.125 and p.17)
[16] Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. By Israel Shahak, Pluto Press. London, Boulder, Colorado, 1994. p.15.
[17] p. 181, The Holocaust in American Life, by Peter Novick, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York, 1999.
[18] Rabbi David Hartman, quoted by Israel correspondent Larry Derfner, The Jewish Week, Queens, NY, March 1117, 1994. Full quote: “There’s a lot in the Jewish religion that can lead to this type of racist understanding. It is there, but there are also many beautiful things there, many powerful things, many deeply spiritual things…What Goldstein did was remind me how dangerous it is to allow the language of Amalek to go unchallenged. Goldstein has challenged me to know the type of human, moral crimes you can commit in the name of making the Land of Israel the exclusive value, and sovereignty over the whole land the ultimate value…It’s not just a lunatic fringe. It is a diseased element that is capable of infiltrating into the Jewish self-understanding.”
[19] pp. 5-24; The Jewish Image of the Jew. Alfred Jospe, In Millgram, A.
[20] p. 60; Two Worlds of Judaism: The Israeli and American Experiences, by Cohen, Charles Liebman, Steven M Cohen, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1990.

Save

Outsourcing Abuse III: Dyncorp, Plan Colombia and Private Armies

By M.K. Styllinski

plan-colombia

“America provides the guns, Colombia provides the dead.”

“The pretext of Al-Qaeda infesting the country was used. It was the same propaganda employed in the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and most of Africa –  in fact,  any other country which has bountiful resources. As the US government retained control, Dyncorp was airlifted in with a fat $10 million contract in the following year for “peacekeeping” and “logistical support,” thus replacing the more costly presence of US combat forces. In other words, this was a proxy army to complete the proxy government.”


Before we return to the topic of Establishment child rape networks I want to continue with the legacy of Dyncorp and other private security firms as outposts of an emerging Pathocracy.  They are important nodes in the expansion of a bankrupt empire and their links to covert drug and the sex trade. Inevitably these companies always have links back to the original source of pathological disease. Dyncorp’s role in Latin America and in particular Colombia is instructive in this regard.

impactos-del-plan-colombia-en-ecuadorThe Free Trade agreements of the Americas walked over the remains of the dead economies of South America, hacked off at the roots by years of U.S. interventionism and later under the auspices of the IMF and World Bank. The colonization has changed but is on schedule and Dyncorp is right in the thick of it to ensure its completion.

The U.S. $1.3 billion Plan Colombia was one example. Critics said that the corporation was involved in “counter insurgency” operations in the war on drugs as well as the monopolisation of oil interests in the region. Paramilitaries and mercenaries are co-mingling in a mix of dirty interests. The corporation’s activities also extend into Bolivia and Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil and Panama where it is also carries out drug interdiction, transport, reconnaissance, search and rescue missions, medical evacuation and aircraft maintenance.

The fact that President Bush had substantial ties to Harken Energy Inc., of Houston, Texas, is well known. Bush Jr. opted for a comfortable desk job with the company in 1986 and received $2 million in stock options, a $122,000 consulting job and a seat on its board of directors for his trouble. Meanwhile, in the Magdalena Valley where Harken Energy and other oil companies peddle their business, right wing paramilitary groups comprising of Colombian military officers, drug traffickers, cattle ranchers and fighting guerrillas are paid to protect oil pipelines. Civilians in Colombia have become the prime targets as rapacious parties compete for territory. The murder of peasants is common place if they do not respond to threats and intimidation to leave land targeted for mining, oil exploration and agriculture. Harken continued to rake in the cash on the backs of dead civilians in the Magdalena Valley, with help from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation.

Paramilitaries protected corporate interests in the region. Death squads operated on behalf of U.S. oil companies and political parties, which were closely entwined in a network of intelligence agencies with the CIA as the guiding hand. After all, Colombia is both the leading recipient of US military aid in the hemisphere and the worst violator of human rights. Connection?

“Plan Colombia” was inflicted on the country for ill-advised reasons during President Bill Clinton’s presidency. The $1.3 billion aid package which was mostly military aid to Colombia and its neighbours, was to usher in “peace, prosperity, and the strengthening of the state” [1] by proposing a military strategy to stop illicit drug cultivation and trafficking. The plan was to be carried out by providing military assistance to the Colombian armed forces and police, and the creation of three anti-narcotics army battalions. However, aside from a slight drop in cocoa plant production, it did none of those things. What it actually did was to build on the destabilisation in the region thanks to 1990s Reaganomic policies and to “increase the dispersion and proliferation of organized crime and the expansion and intensification of political crime and guerrilla warfare.” [2] The plan served to increase politically motivated killings and where “counter-narcotics operations in Plan Colombia fail[ed] to target drugs cultivation in areas under long-standing paramilitary control.” [3]

After a whopping expenditure of $4.72 billion from 2000-2006 with $3.84 billion (81 percent) going to Colombia’s military and police forces, things have only got worse. The reason being, over 50 percent of Colombia’s land is owned by paramilitaries, the monopoly of which is drawn from the paramilitary control of members of Colombia’s Congress at around 30 percent.  It suggests that the CIA, true to its colours, wished to gain control of an important financial resource rather than to decrease its influence in any genuine way.

Dyncorp wasn’t the only one slicing into the pie. AirScan, a based in Rockledge, Florida provides High-Tec air surveillance and is responsible for patrolling the Colombian jungle in Cessna Skymaster electronic surveillance planes, spotting coca plantations and guerrilla threats to the Cano Limon oil pipeline. Military Professional Resources Inc. based in Alexandria, Virginia provides a consultancy service run by former US generals. Its mercenaries were responsible for training the Colombian Army and police officers. An Alabama company working out of the Maxwell Air-force base, Aviation Development Corporation (ADC) flies Cessna spotter planes for the CIA in Peru and Colombia to help target aircraft used by drug smugglers.

droga-panelas1

Cocaine monopolisation: Funding American interests

It was this latter company that caused a brief headache for the PR branches protecting the so called “drug war” when a small plane carrying US missionaries was shot down in Peru by a military pilot killing a young woman and her seven-month-old baby girl. The missionaries’ plane was first spotted by a US Cessna Citation surveillance plane piloted not by the US military but by private contractors hired by ADC. This echoed the shooting down of a Dyncorp helicopter and the subsequent rescue of its pilots by their own search and rescue teams which culminated in a shoot-out with the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Nothing like a spot of Hollywood intrigue to keep the shareholders happy.

Another minor glitch in its operations was discovered in late 2001 when online news journal The Nation managed to obtain a document of a monthly DEA intelligence report from May 2000 in which officers of Colombia’s National Police force intercepted a US-bound Federal Express package at Bogota’s El Dorado International Airport with a parcel containing two small bottles of a “thick liquid” with the same consistency as “motor oil”. The communiqué reported that: “… the liquid substance ‘tested positive for heroin’ and that the ‘alleged heroin laced liquid weighed approximately 250 grams.’” DynCorp spokeswoman Janet Wineriter stated:  “… the viscous liquid that the Colombians tested was not, in fact, laced with heroin; it was simply “oil samples of major aircraft components’ that DynCorp technicians are required to take and send to the US ‘on a periodic basis.’ ” [4]

While the package was traced back to an unnamed employee of Dyncorp who was sending it on to the Andean operations headquarters at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, the government and Dyncorp were tight-lipped regarding details as to why this was entirely innocent and the result of faulty testing equipment. After a slippery tossing of the hot potato between the US Embassy, the Colombian National Police Force (CNP) the DEA and the Colombian State Department (and of course Dyncorp) the problem was shoved under a decidedly rank carpet courtesy of the CNP whose forensic unit decided it prudent not to pursue the matter.

The testing equipment called NARCOTEX was to all intents and purposes, also found to be bogus by the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s Drug Recognition Experts. They could find no evidence of drug technology with that name. A token military doffing of its hat towards those that were intent on its eradication, was all that was needed. (Like the “War on Terror,” the “War on Drugs” is also largely bogus, a topic we will return to much later).

Dyncorp’s presence in Latin America has stuck like mud against the aspirations of its inhabitants since the early 1990s. It was during one of its contracts for helicopter maintenance that some of the long held suspicions about the multinational were further confirmed when one of those helicopters crashed in the Peruvian jungle in 1992. On board were three DynCorp employees, including Robert Hitchman, a covert-ops specialist, who had worked for the CIA in a number of operations ranging from the CIA front, “Air America,” to Libyan black-ops for Colonel Kaddafi. Hitchman was in fact, flying DEA agents and the Peruvian military on missions into guerrilla territory to destroy cocaine labs and coordinate the herbicide spraying program. True to Dyncorp services, he was also training Peruvian pilots to fly combat missions.[5] Colombia was to be a much more extensive capturing of a country’s destiny where Colombian army, paramilitary groups and toxic spraying and fumigation would be stepped up to a degree that would pay big money to ex-military veterans and black ops personnel.

 fumigaciones

Toxic spraying and fumigation

As part of this propaganda the corporation dutifully and profitably went about its $200 million[6] contract to spray 2,550 Square miles of Colombia with Monsanto’s “Round-Up Ultra” herbicide from 2000-2005, under the pretext of eliminating the illegal cocoa crops. An environmental disaster loaded on yet more suffering for the Colombian peoples already being squeezed by Bogota and the U.S. government. With 82 percent of the population living under the poverty line, growing their own food would have been one possibility to feed their families, when they often have no option but to grow cocoa for the insatiable demand in the States.

While a class-action lawsuit was filed in Washington, DC, on behalf of 10,000 farmers in Ecuador and the AFL-CIO-related International Labour Rights Fund, (ILRF) it may not save the thousands of children already suffering the effects of fumigation and spraying. After the initial veiled threats from Dyncorp CEO Paul V. Lombardi, towards Bishop Jesse DeWitt president of ILRF, the lawsuit for indigenous Quiches and farmers from the state of Sucumbío, Dyncorp subsequently used its State Department leverage to ask “…the judge to dismiss the case because it involves national security interests of the United States.” Luckily the Judge after consulting material derived from an investigation by Ecuador’s Acción Ecológica came to the conclusion that Dyncorp had “committed crimes against humanity, torture and cultural genocide.” [7] This ruling finally led to the 2003 court rulings ordering the suspension of aerial fumigation of coca and poppy crops until environmental and human impact studies can be carried out.

However, in clear violation of Colombian law, President Alvare Uribe, a U.S. puppet, continues to do the State Department’s bidding and the spraying has continued. According to Narco News, a Latin American journal that reports on the drug war and (the lack of) democracy in Latin America: “Food crops have been destroyed, rainforest ravaged, tens of thousands of peasants have been displaced because their crops, livestock and water sources have been poisoned.” [8]

Colombia’s armed conflict is the longest-running guerrilla war in the Americas, and with U.S. involvement, shows no signs of decreasing in intensity. According to the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, in 2002 alone “an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 civilians were killed in fighting; were targeted in political assassinations or were ‘disappeared.’ By comparison, the death toll was 3,000 to 3,500 in the previous year and where 4,077 children suffered violent deaths, including political violence and common crime, according to the Colombian Ombudsman’s Office (Ombudsman, Defensoría del Pueblo).” [9]

The crux of the problem in the declining fortunes of the Colombian people and the next generation of children being born into such chaos is U.S. sponsorship and support of guerrilla groups, paramilitaries, government armed forces and national police that have consistently perpetrated violence and abuses against civilians, particularly children and adolescents. There is widespread grievous bodily harm (GPH) and instances of rape in conflict and in domestic life.

Human Rights Watch place the incidences of rape of adolescent girls as 2.5 per every 1,000 young women. “Rape, sexual torture and other forms of sexual violence against women and girls are used as tactics to destabilize the population.” Despite a 2006, $20 million budget to help fund Colombia’s paramilitary demobilization process; the commercial sex trade is gaining ground, with estimates ranging from 20,000 to 35,000 children forced into commercial sexual work. [10] A steady unchecked business in arms trafficking and an equally plentiful supply of child soldiers parallels the figure of over 3 million children who do not attend school. A high percentage of indigenous and Afro-Colombian child soldiers of Between 11,000 and 14,000 are often targeted for recruitment. The U.S. State Department becomes uncharacteristically silent on the subject of support for Uribe and government armed forces that are known to use children as informants and “counter-insurgency” propaganda activities. [11]

403px-Álvaro_Uribe_Vélez

Former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez

Paramilitary leaders unilaterally declared a cease-fire in late 2002, with much trumpeting of the U.S. negotiations which were heralded as more evidence of the US bending over backwards to “assist.” If we look deeper, this “assistance” represents more attempts to find ways to circumvent the maze of interests that continue to carve up Colombia. Most paramilitary leaders at the negotiating table are there due to the possibility of extradition to the U.S. under the demobilisation laws and are haggling away their wealth that was illegally-acquired. Paramilitaries and drug barons are putting themselves forward as human bargaining chips to avoid imprisonment should the need arise. In truth, before 2005, demobilization had not been enforced due to the absence of a legal framework and served to act as yet another sop for Congress. Human Rights Watch reported in 2004: “…the government has been holding ceremonies in which thousands of purported paramilitaries turn over their weapons and become eligible to receive stipends and other benefits. As a result, there is a real risk that the current demobilization process will leave the underlying structures of these violent groups intact, their illegally acquired assets untouched, and their abuses unpunished.” [12]

The U.S. and the European Union actively encouraged the tragically misplaced naming of “Ley de Justicia y Paz” (Justice and Peace Law) while the United Nations Security Council sheepishly turned a blind eye. The Colombian Congress dutifully passed in June 2005 the legal framework for the demobilization of the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), the worst Human rights offender responsible for 80 percent of the most appalling abuses country-wide. They have been a dominant factor in the drug trade with various AUC leaders being extradited to the United States for prosecution on drug trafficking charges. Prison sentences are limited to a maximum of eight years and prosecutors are given a very limited leeway in which to present their charges. Big-wig criminals including drug barons are often blurring the lines between paramilitary groups. It means that they are protected from extradition to the United States by legal semantics and loopholes. Furthermore, safe in the assurance that they will be protected from the harsh realities of their crimes, the turning in of arms amounts to window dressing for Congress and NGO’s because they will not be required to reveal information about the paramilitary financing and methods. On top of this, they will not be detained for any undue length of time.

The CIA and its corporate covers in the monopolisation of the drug wars wish to hold onto and protect their assets while expanding and mopping up drug operations. Drug lords are bought off and given immunity in exchange for their illegal wealth while ex-paramilitaries are “re-integrated” back into the community. The latter means, of course, that these psychopaths have been hired back into the national police and army with a ridiculous assurance that no arms will be given to these men. Given Colombia’s record, this is nonsense. It is also an interesting example of the U.S. predilection for recycling military and special ops personnel back into its cover corporations abroad. We may well have the same practice happening in Colombia, with the priority going to private security firms, replicating the standards that Dyncorp is now so famous for. It seems everyone is a winner, except that is, the citizens of Colombia and its lost children. After all, mechanics, trainers, maintenance and administrative workers, logistics experts, rescuers and pilots and CIA agents with fat pay packets are all busy helping to fleece what is left of the country on a variety of support operations. For Dyncorp and CSC, exploitation ratios are its primary measure of success.

In an article by Journalist Uri Dowbenko he includes an explication of the financial mechanics behind Dyncorp’s free reign in the “War on Drugs” propaganda. Catherine Austin Fitts, former FHA Commissioner in the Bush Sr. Administration and former CEO of Hamilton Securities outlines how they do it where she refers to the creation of Stock Value or Capital Gains as “Pop” in Wall Street jargon:

If DynCorp has a $60 million per year contract supporting knowledge management for asset seizures in the United States,” she says. “The current proxy shows that they value their stock, which they buy and sell internally, at approximately 30 times earnings. So, if a contract has a 5-10percent profit, then per $100 million of contracts, DynCorp makes about $5-$10 million, which translates into $150 million to $300 million of stock value. That means that for a $200 million contract, with average earnings of 5-10percent ($10 million to $20 million), DynCorp is generating $300 million to $600 million of stock value.

Pug Winokur of Capricorn Holdings appears to have about 5 percent ownership, which means that his partnerships’ stock value increase $15-$30 million from the War in Colombia. If the DynCorp team kills 100 people, as an example, then that means they make $1.5 – $3 million per death. That way the Pop per Dead Colombian can be estimated, or, how much capital gains can be made from killing one Colombian. Since DynCorp was also in the Gulf and in Kosovo, we should be able to calculate the relative value of killing people in various cultures and nationalities. Pug Winokur’s partnership, under these assumptions, makes $75,000 to $250,000 of Pop per Dead Colombian. [13]

Of course, Bush’s anti-terror bill injected more financial aid to President Alvare Uribe’s right-wing government and managed to destroy much of the progress on human rights of the last few decades. It also smoothed the way for a doubling of the number of US troops and US contractors allowed in Colombia such as Dyncorp and Textron (the military helicopter firm) which continued from 2005 to 2009. The displacement of an already acutely oppressed people has reached 3 million and is worsening as a direct result of U.S. policy and the outsourcing of its global agenda.

Dyncorp is nothing more than the extension of the Pentagon’s foreign policy strategies from Bosnia to Colombia, Somalia to Haiti. Regime change required? Then call in a private security firm to sow the seeds of discontent by arming and training the waiting oppositions. This is exactly what happened when Somalia had the briefest window of opportunity for a democratic peace. After warlords had controlled the country for over fifteen years the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) had managed to wrest control from these chaotic and bloody factions during the summer of 2006. Despite the very real chance of a respite from war and carnage the US was in the region busily training Ethiopian troops who then invaded Somalia in December of that year backed up by US air raids.

The pretext of Al-Qaeda infesting the country was used. It was the same propganda employed in the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria and most of Africa –  in fact,  any other country which has bountiful resources. As the US proxy government was placed back into power Dyncorp was airlifted in with a fat $10 million contract in the following year for “peacekeeping” and “logistical support,” thus replacing the more costly presence of US combat forces. In other words, this was a proxy army to complete the proxy government. [14]

After the CIA-backed coup in Haiti and the toppling of Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide, Dyncorp was drafted in by the U.S. State Department to protect Boniface Alexandre, yet another US puppet wheeled into to their bidding.  Dyncorp is now busy training police in the country. [15]

129254611_640

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries in 1989 where around nineteen states ratified the Convention and nine states have signed but have yet to ratify. This followed with a further amendment to the convention in 1992 which was similarly ignored. It was also declared that “the use of mercenaries is a threat to international peace and security,” and that all were “Deeply concerned about the menace that the activities of mercenaries represent for all States, particularly African and other developing States” as well as “Profoundly alarmed at the continued international criminal activities of mercenaries in collusion with drug traffickers…” [16] At least three of the countries are officially known to have flouted the Convention. [17] The twenty-two States that have completed the constitutional procedures that bind them to the Convention are: Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Italy, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Suriname, Togo, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay and Uzbekistan. The nine other States that have signed but not ratified it are: Angola, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Germany, Morocco, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia and … The United States. [18]

The extent of this indignation and concern was shown in the 1997 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on mercenaries regarding the growth market in mercenary activity: “In what appears to be a new international trend, legally registered companies are providing security, advisory and military training to the armed forces and police of legitimate Governments. There have been complaints that some of these companies recruit mercenaries and go beyond advisory and instruction work to become involved in military combat and taking over political, economic and financial matters in the country served.” [19] With the United States maintaining a military presence in 148 of the 192 United Nations countries, it is set to remain both a lucrative and controversial field of activity well into the future. [20]0921-indep

While Dyncorp’s associations with the UN already reek of hypocrisy, these naïve protestations are further laid bare when we realize that Lifeguard Security, a company linked to Executive Outcomes, a U.K. mercenary company, was responsible for guarding U.N. offices and residences in Sierra Leone’s capital of Freetown in 2004. The refusal of the U.K. a major manufacturer of weapons and source of mercenaries to sign the Convention was given an embarrassing exercise in exposition with the Equatorial Guinea Mercenaries Coup affair. Sir Mark Thatcher and Simon Mann’s forays into the arms business were highlighted in spectacular fashion, revealing an industry that rarely gets a mention yet is so instrumental in the destinies of government coups everywhere. [21]

Let’s have a brief look at some of these companies.

The Vinnell Corporation, part of the Northrop-Grumman merger in 2000, employs ex-military and CIA personnel as well as having close connections with concurrent U.S. administrations. It has had a contractual relationship to train the Saudi Arabian National Guard since 1975. This led to Bush condemning an attack in Riyadh in May 2003 that killed at least 30 people. it was blamed, of course, on Al-Qaeda.

True to the infantile propaganda that is circulating so effectively via the U.S. media every violent event and atrocity is traced back to the insidious tentacles of Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network. This is very often the role of security companies such as Vinnell that act as foreign policy enforcers. They are there to prop up the regime and to keep dissidents at bay, hence they become targets. This is not dissimilar to the “insurgents” in Iraq who attack those intent on planting bombs and creating the seeds of a civil war. Under cover of chaos it is far easier to go about your business of fleecing the countries resources and laying plans for future geo-political monopolies. The terror wars are fuelling the security business growth and in turn, it is ensuring that terrorism remains a global menace, much to the delight of arms dealers everywhere. Companies such as Vance International specialize in American corporate executives travelling overseas, wealthy foreigners visiting the United States and the extravagance of Hollywood stars. It is renowned for using mostly ex-military men for “asset protection.”

Global Options which provides high-end security, intelligence and investigative services, billing itself as a “private CIA, FBI, State Department and Justice Department wrapped up into one.” Not forgetting its emphasis on “defending corporate America” which should fill us all with confidence. [22] Control Risk Grp.,  and MPRI  specialise in providing training mercenaries for armies worldwide. Although many corporations would feign incredulity at such heinous accusations, security corporations all provide services of “risk mitigation” and “executive or asset protection;” hired by governments, intelligence agencies and the 1% elite to do their dirty work outside of Congressional or Parliamentary oversight. Which makes Sandline International CEO Tim Spicer’s attempt to take the moral high ground particularly ridiculous. With the winding up of his company’s operations he left a petulant message on his now defunct website bemoaning lack of “government support”:

“On 16 April 2004 Sandline International announced the closure of the company’s operations. The general lack of governmental support for Private Military Companies willing to help end armed conflicts in places like Africa, in the absence of effective international intervention, is the reason for this decision. Without such support the ability of Sandline to make a positive difference in countries where there is widespread brutality and genocidal behaviour is materially diminished.”

The reality was that Sandline got caught red-handed doing what it shouldn’t and the government pulled up the ladders and claimed no knowledge which is what they do. The fact that an historical Western corporatism and its pathocratic enablers are the original cause of endemic corruption and destablisation within those countries also seems to have escaped the colonel’s worldview.

Other security contractors making mega-bucks in 2014 include:

  • Erinys – guarded most of Iraq’s vital oil assets
  • Academi – (formerly Blackwater and Xe) owns and runs one of the most advanced private military training facilities in the world.
  • Unity Resources Group – active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia
  • Triple Canopy – won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion
  • Aegis Defense Service – works with the UN, US, and oil companies
  • Defion Internacional – recruits thousands of fighters from developing countries
  • G4S (orginaly known as the Wackenhut Corp.) –  the largest security contractor in the world that has it’s dirty fingers in most of the globes conflicts.  (more on Wackenhut’s history in the next post)

Ethics are not going to be top of the list in any of these businesses that would clearly kill the local nursery teacher if the contract fee was high enough.  What is more, the nature of the US Army and Navy means that they are chock full of the kinds of psychological profiles most attracted to such work which would include psychopaths, sociopaths, jackals and skirtoids which are then used as the pool from which private security firms draw their personnel. Former FBI agents, intelligence directors, Delta-Force, Air-Force, SWAT, Army Intelligence operatives, Secret Service agents, CIA veterans, Navy Seals and ex-Marines – you name it, the demand is there for such men and women. Security services and mercenaries for hire act as funnels to the US military and secret service in order to save money, resources and to actualise foreign policy moves beyond the radar of independent media and the public. Remember of course at a certain level, there is no such thing as a former FBI or CIA agent or any government intelligence operative.

As controversy about rendition and torture continues to bubble, private security firms are merging with the free-market to produce a boom in private finance deals both in Europe as well as the US Private-sector firms are even sponsoring academics and researchers and helping to formulate government penal and criminal justice policy, no doubt tailored towards an increasing reliance on profit over public interest. Stephen Nathan, editor of Prison Privatisation Report International said, regarding then Denmark-based Group 4 and its services: “The increasing influence of the private sector in the criminal justice system means shareholders’ interests come first. Who shapes criminal justice policy? Is it professionals, politicians and the public? Or is it Group 4 shareholders?” [23]

Though the tired suggestion that it is simply market forces and intense competition that has led to the prison services adopting more aggressively commercial approaches, this does not address the issue of rising crime rates of young offenders. For those ready to provide the means to sweep problems out of sight and out of mind it promises to remains an unending money-spinner.

 


End Note: This particular piece was written almost a decade ago. Since that time, Dyncorp International has certainly smartened up its PR and marketing. It has a slick website and a special “Social Responsibility” section and even an “A” rating on the Defence Companies Anti-Corruption Index. Unfortunately, a predator is a predator. While it may do its best to change it’s spots – even extinguish internal corruption and crime about which you will read below –  it is still a corporation which outsources “guns for hire,” complete with logistical and technological know-how. As such, it continues to act as a de-facto arm of the American Empire and fans the flames of conflict simply by doing its job.

The whole idea of US policing the world and is thus an “interference” is a view offered by the progressive left and it is missing the point. It is far worse than this. Companies like Dyncorp are a hugely lucrative part of Corporate America. As the Empire becomes over-stretched, their remit is to facilitate long-term presence in countries through private means. This is not a misguided policy of over-protection and policing, as though this is somehow about good intentions gone awry. It is about the maintenance of a sprawling corporate-security complex offering further geopolitical leverage without committing further troops on the ground. It has the added advantage for military-corporate partnerships to remain a little deeper under the radar when comes to the mainstream media.

The presence of men “addicted to adrenalin” adds to the probability of civil conflict and abuse. Sure enough, this still proves to be the case, despite Dyncorp’s probably genuine attempts at instilling ethics and values training for its office workers. It even supports a children’s charity in the region which, from an historical perspective is truly ironic. Corporate philanthropy and conflict has always gone hand in hand because it’s good PR. But all this is a drop in the ocean when the overarching directive of such companies is destabilisation.  When you have ex-veterans walking around with automatic weapons, hearts pumping and looking for action; roaming around a country that has been destroyed by the very same forces – it’s hardly likely to end well. Corporations working for military, intelligence and US defence attending a children’s charity gala while acting as a stay-behind occupying force won’t work.

What Afghanistan and Iraq really need is ZERO American military presence and CIVILIAN personnel from genuine NGOs who have no political and military affiliations.

Reports in from 2011-2014 suggest that initiatives like Village Stability Operations (ALP) are a euphemism for creating a network of staging posts which maintain a massive presence in regions across Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries formerly trashed by the Anglo-American-Israeli invaders. The only reason these private armies are there is to maintain presence. Re-building infrastructure and assisting the population in recovering from Western aggression only occurs as an incidental practice. The primary objective is to create a country contoured toward Western strategies as they play out in the regions.

Mint Press News reported on the studies by the Congressional Research Service, titled “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security and U.S. Policy”, a report which drew attention to the negative effects private security forces have in regions suffering from civil war, tribal conflict and geopolitical sensitivity. Although, it seems to me that is precisely why such companies are there in the first place …

The report stated:

“An outgrowth of the Village Stability Operations is the Afghan Local Police (ALP) program in which the U.S. Special Operations Forces conducting the Village Stability Operations set up and train local security organs of about 300 members each. These local units are under the control of district police chiefs and each fighter is vetted by a local shura as well as Afghan intelligence. There are about 23,000 ALP operating in nearly 100 districts. A total of 169 districts have been approved for the program, and there are expected to be 30,000 ALP on duty by December 2015. However, the ALP program, and associated and preceding such programs discussed below, were heavily criticized in a September 12, 2011, Human Rights Watch report citing wide-scale human rights abuses (killings, rapes, arbitrary detentions, and land grabs) committed by the recruits. The report triggered a U.S. military investigation that substantiated many of those findings, although not the most serious of the allegations. … In May 2012, Karzai ordered one ALP unit in Konduz disbanded because of its alleged involvement in a rape there. ALP personnel reportedly were responsible for some of the insider attacks in 2012.” [24]

But you won’t hear about that on Dyncorp’s website because outsourcing the empire is unlikely to fade away any time soon. But keep pushing those values and training programs. Who knows? Perhaps that will deliver enough rationalisations for those working within a corporation which actively profits from extending America’s security and logistical reach into resource-rich countries.

We help destroy your country and make money.

Then we help rebuild it and make money.

That way the banksters are also happy. And that, as we know, is all that matters.

 


Notes

[1] The Center for International Policy’s Colombia Project http://www.ciponline.org/ The Plan Colombia (Copy obtained from the Colombian Embassy to the United States, October 1999.) ‘Plan Colombia:  Plan For Peace, Prosperity, and  the  Strengthening of the State.’
[2] Drug Trafficking, Political Violence and US Policy in Colombia in the 1990s Dr. Bruce Michael Bagley, Professor of International Studies, School of International Studies, University of Miami, CIDE ciencias socials, http://www.cide.edu/
[3] ‘Colombia: Stoking the fires of conflict’ Amnesty International, Terror Trade Times, 2001.
[4] ‘DynCorp’s Drug Problem’ by Jason Vest, The Nation, July 3, 2001.
[5] Private Warriors by Ken Silverstein, published by Verso July 2000.
[6] ‘A Plane is Shot Down and the US Proxy War on Drugs Unravels’by Julian Borger, The Guardian, June 2, 2001.
[7] ‘DynCorp Charged with Terrorism Lawsuit Unites U.S. Workers & Ecuador Farmers vs. FumigationPart I of a Series By Al Giordano ‘Lawsuit in U.S. vs. Fumigation on Ecuador Border’ Narco News narco.com.
[8] ‘Fumigations Continue in Colombia Despite Court Ordered Suspensions’ Uribe and Bush Administrations in Clear Violation of Colombian Law By Peter Gorman The Narco News Bulletin April 29, 2004. http://www.narco.com
[9] ‘Colombia’s War on Children’ February 2004, Womens’ Commission http://www.watchlist.org/
[10] ‘The Effects of Armed Conflict on Colombian Children’ October 2004, U.S. Office on Colombia http://www.usofficeoncolombia.org.
[11] Ombudsman’s Office, Human Rights Watch, Coalition to Stop the Use of  Child Soldiers, 2003,www.hrw.org/
[12] Human Rights Watch Colombia: ‘Human Rights Concerns for the 61st Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights,’ March 2005.
[13] Catherine Austin Fitts quoted in Dirty Tricks, Inc: The DynCorp-Government Connection 2002, by Uri Dowbenko.
[14] ‘DynCorp International’ Company profile by Phil Mattera | http://www.crocodyl.org May 19, 2010
[15] Ibid.
[16] United Nations Resolution A/RES/47/84, 89th plenary meeting, 16 December 1992. Use of mercenaries as a means to violate human rights and to impede the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. http://www.un.org/
[17] International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, Resolution 44/34,72nd plenary meeting 4 December 1989. United Nations General Assembly, http://www.un.org/
[18] ‘International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries’ http://www.sourcewatch.org
[19] The Debate on Private Military companies 1997 report by the UN Special Rapporteur.
[20] ‘Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases’ Politi Fact.com Tampa Bay Times:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation
[21] ‘Straw: We did know of Africa coup’ By Antony Barnett and Martin Bright, The Observer, November 14, 2004
[22] http://www.globaloptions.com1047 ‘Crime pays handsomely for Britain’s private jails’ By Nick Mathiason, The Observer, March 11 2001.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Exclusive: Private Security Contractors, Fanning The Flames In Afghanistan? (AUDIO) Presence of US-backed private security in Afghanistan seems only to contribute to the ongoing violence. By Jo Erickson | October 16, 2013.

The “Structural Adjustment” Team I

By M.K. Styllinski

“The causes of the sustained crisis of development in the Third World are extremely complex, but it is certain that excessive reliance on export-led growth in an unstable world economy creates major structural problems that all growth strategies must avoid. But exports are at the core of the IMF philosophy, and its guidance has gravely hindered the struggle of innumerable poor nations to escape their suffering.”

Gabriel Kolko


The World Bank, (WB) The International Monetary fund, (IMF) and The World Trade Organisation (WTO) are responsible for extending Official Culture on a macro-social scale. They are by default, a global cartel spreading a belief which has translated the true meaning of globalisation as a New International Economic order which has led to decades of social, economic and cultural decay for the world.  The unofficial goals of the IMF and World Bank was to always make sure that the consolidation of riches and power would remain in Elite hands and be expanded; fully aware that World War II gave them the opportunity to do just that.

As with so many institutions hastily created during the end and just after the Second World War, The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were founded by US and British Governments at The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 Hampshire, USA. The official line was to develop strong economies for those European countries most affected by the carnage of the War. What it also did was to firmly establish an overriding economic belief to the exclusion of any other. Both are closely allied with Wall Street bankers and the US Treasury so that economic policies that benefit private investors and financial speculators in the free-market are guaranteed to be implemented, come what may.

The best illustration of this is the “Washington Consensus” developed by the World Bank and IMF members in the early eighties and which finalised the process of large-scale outsourcing, financial deregulation, and privatisation. This paid huge dividends for multi-national corporations, the international banking industry, Wall St., and the world’s richest family dynasties but proved to be a social, cultural and ecological disaster for both the working and middle-class in the West and the developing world. It was finally eclipsed by the rise of China but the results live on.

Both the IMF and the World Bank decisions are based on 40 percent of the votes from the G8 countries which is not what you might call “representative.” Considering its toxic effects its more than ironic that the IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet functions in a state of secrecy and legal immunity. Extraordinarily, the World Bank and the IMF are not accountable for their actions under law. It is therefore almost impossible to dismantle this vast banking entity holding so many countries to ransom with almost breath-taking hypocrisy that it is somehow acting as global saviour. At the same time, as with the United Nations, if the US sees something that threatens its interests then it merely has to veto the proposed action by the World Bank and sit back and puff on a cigar. This extends to the design and implementation of loan packages by international bankers and finance staff without any participation from civic society or government policy and most importantly, from those it will most affect.

At 18 percent of the vote the US straddles both institutions and makes sure that the power of their veto always conforms to US and G7 interests. This means the global economy stays within the narrow confines of what is possible and not possible which is defined by the very same institutions in the first place. This in turn, ensures that poorer nations are excluded from all talks despite being present at the meetings.

A flagship example of this reality-disconnect arrived in the form of the “Structural adjustment” policy replaced by the euphemistic “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers” (PRSPs) in 1999. The latter sounded wonderfully altruistic but the framework and “solutions” remain exactly the same, namely, to determine other countries economic policies so that they fall into line with the dominant Capitalist model of the West. That means comprehensively trashing social welfare introducing austerity measures in order to pay for the “generous” loans to rebuild its infrastructure. With its headquarters in Washington, D.C., the IMF describes itself as “an organization of 188 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty.”  The organisation’s stated objectives are to promote international economic cooperation, international trade, employment, and exchange rate stability, including by making financial resources available to member countries to meet balance of payments needs.

The sticking point in all this is that if you increase and promote Neo-Liberal economic policies which are, by nature, elitist and centralist then poverty can only be the end result. Hence the idea of the IMF reducing poverty will still produce large guffaws of incredulity at any self-respecting anti-globalisation gathering. Much like the World Bank, the IMF is better suited as a warden of a global apartheid as described by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in 1980. The IMF and the World Bank have overseen the Structural Adjustment scam for decades and it only becomes comprehensible when one sees these giants as glorified loan sharks for the corporate, banking and military sphere as it is in these sectors that the institutions pay dividends.

When the country becomes the victim of a global economy that causes intolerable strains on its economic infrastructure, then it is persuaded to turn to the very institutions that are part of the problem in the first place. If economic catastrophe looms then the IMF is usually the first port of call. This is an open door not just to loans but the whole economic policy that requires a complete “re-adjustment” to their worldview. It is a Faustian bargain and one which leaves the social fabric of the country irrevocably torn. The prioritization of debt repayment overrides all and any other consideration, where GDP becomes the only measurable unit of human currency so that values, community and local business mean nothing.

In order to ensure that the debt remains viable and the corporations and bankers that oversee the privatization and liberalisation that ensues social welfare programs and other cultural initiatives are inevitably cut in order to feed the new black hole of intervention. Deregulating the markets of targeted countries opens them up to rampant speculation, corporate predators and the endemic corruption that goes with it. This means it is much easier to sell off a nation’s assets at sub-standard prices. Haiti is a case in point. In 2000 the IMF stepped in and carried out food terrorism by forcing the nation to accept highly subsidized genetically modified US rice while making sure that Haiti’s farmers did receive the same treatment. US corporations now have the monopoly on Haiti’s food production, distribution and exports with over 50 percent of rice being sold back to the Haitians. The indigenous farmers meanwhile have become yet more victims of the US monoculture and have ended up working in sweatshops for slave wages. [1]

Under structural adjustment, social spending from government budgets to programs and subsidies are all severely cut or reduced in order to quickly start repaying the debt. The whole way of life changes: hospitals, businesses and schools begin to be sucked into the dollar-sign mentality where materialism replaces values and a sense of community are extinguished. The cost of living rises exponentially while the quality of life plummets. Everything becomes a matter of survival as poverty arrives with a vengeance. Meanwhile, bankers and corporatists are upgrading their yachts and opening new off-shore tax accounts.

As we have seen in spectacular fashion, the IMF’s record of bailing out countries (which is really bailing out the Banksters) continued during the 2008 economic collapse up to the present time. IMF bailouts deepen, rather than solve, economic crises except when countries such as Iceland reject the IMF debt slavery and actually take Banksters to court. [2] Bailouts of billions of dollars amount to shoring up a financial system that favours the status quo rather than staving off collapse. South Korea, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and others have all experienced the consequences of the IMF’s “helping hand” which led to severe economic instability to surface in other countries. Billions of dollars, pounds and euros have disappeared into a black hole which has meant that vast cuts in social systems under the banner of “austerity measures” have been secured so that the taxpayer actually foots the bill for reckless and criminal activities of the bankers themselves. It is no coincidence that large Anglo-American banking firms made billions of dollars of profit after governments showered them with bailouts while the general public in both Europe and America suffered a massive drop in their standard of living with unemployment soaring to levels unheard of. [3]

The number of Mexicans living in extreme poverty increased to over 50 percent during the 1995 IMF-imposed economic reforms and peso bailout and the national average minimum wage fell 20 percent. This is a familiar story and one which has now led to a severe global depression with the bankers kicking the bailout can further down the street in an attempt to cream as much hedge fund benefits from this financial disaster as they can. They knew it was coming as all good high-level speculators do. This is exactly what has happened in the past to some Asian, European and Latin American countries, most famously Argentina which suffered from a protracted and very serious economic collapse in 2001 after being considered a model of compliance from IMF and US treasury loan “largesse.” [4]

To allow an easy ride for foreign investors to plunder countries targeted by the Structural Adjustment Team restrictions to what can be bought, sold and owned is lifted. Interest rates are also increased in order to push up and maximize profitability for the corporate marauders who then syphon it off to their native countries. Meanwhile, local economies and their communities disappear to produce unemployment, immigration and the increase in the inner city slum quota.

Commensurate with this arrival of what is touted as an economic saviour is the dramatic reconfiguration of agriculture as one of the most important influences of the Structural Adjustment Team. Subsistence farming, community-based local produce and environmentally sustainable practices gives way to monoculture farming predicated on pesticides, herbicides, GM food-stuffs and genetically modified crops. The whole nature of a society and a nation are altered from the control of food and food production. Local competition is quickly eradicated as wealthy landowners and managers take over. The rise in famine and malnutrition surfaces rapidly in response to agribusiness, as does the level of environmental degradation from massive exploitation of resources.

Under the IMF’s take on reality, export production is king; a diversified domestic economy cannot work. At least, not if you are a bankers intent on reaping short term benefit. It literally pays to place the country into debt. Almost 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where there is a food surplus and farmers have changed from local to intensive farming for the West. [5] Structural adjustments were a euphemism for turning a country inside out and having its insides picked clean by an economic model that was number-based rather than human-based. In summary, it is another form of global, economic imperialism.

In a desperate attempt to prop up the global financial and centralised government systems to which it owes its existence, the IMF released a report called “Taxing Times” in October 2013, outlining schemes to allow bankrupt governments to accrue more money through higher taxes and even confiscate money straight out of our bank accounts. This occurred in the 2012 financial fiasco in Cyprus which saw those with savings above £100,000 lose over 75 percent to government looting which will serve as a template for a more global enterprise enshrined in law.

Massive transfer of wealth to governments and corporations is what the Structural Adjustment Team do so well. Indeed, since people are very much more aware of the danger of having their pensions and savings stolen by this institution it means it must device more devious ways of preventing that resistance. Which is why the report warms to the European Union’s idea of taxing anyone with more assets than debt so that the global financial system remains tied to debt and fiat currency.

Without debt the IMF and its brothers cannot exist. Though the report is dressed up as targeting the tax–haven rich in reality, it is the middle classes who hold much of the proportionate savings thus offering a vast untapped source of revenue. Woe betide the average wage earner and the rich who are not enmeshed in the Establishment as they will become the targets of a new tax regime designed to continue the present iniquities rather than lose them. After all, the IMF realises that it cannot tax the assets of the 1 percent of its super-rich brethren as it wouldn’t be enough to service government needs. However, factor all those middle-class households with positive net wealth then it represents a bonanza of untapped taxation.  Taxes of 60 – 70 percent are being touted as a means to find new sources to both increase and feed the debt hole. As corporations and private businesses are also seen as a way to inaugurate a massive new global taxation scheme underpinned by regulatory enforcement it really means that the same centralised system will continue to funnel extortionate amounts of money into pointless government programs which underpin unceasing, infinite maw of debt as the arbiter of economic reality. And the IMF want to erect these new taxes in law before people have a chance to understand what it means: a further tightening of the screw of cartel capitalism where private property and personal assets are up for grabs. True structural reforms will remain absent under the IMF stewardship.

The IMF has a partner in crime.

The WTO acts as the oil between ‘free-trade’ nations encouraging global competition and the unrestricted flow of goods and services. But because globalisation means more and more trans-national companies taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie then “competition” has come to mean “exploitation” rather than the now almost quaint notion of measured capitalism proposed by the Keynesian model. The WTO is therefore a tool of corporatism like its partners.

It must be considered the height of hypocrisy regarding the standards of these institutions who insist on countries adhering to democratic reforms as prerequisite to receiving their loans. It is clear however that neither the IMF, the WB, the WTO or for that matter the United Nations  come close to being examples of anything approaching democratic. While the WTO in particular, may be constitutionally democratic, its actions and net results are perfect examples of the opposite where corruption and financial misappropriation is highly damaging to any countries that fall under its influence.

The WTO is essentially a corporate enabler. It makes sure the small print is limited and regulations designed to protect the consumer and the ordinary man and woman in the street are so diluted as to be non-existent. Trade agreements are the WTO’s forte as is the continuing expansion of the corporate net. But to make sure these trans-nationals have unlimited market access, circumvention of the domestic laws, civil rights, access to natural resources and services of vulnerable countries must be carried out and the WTO trade agreements provide this opportunity, dressed up as benefits for all.

Some of the most important and influential agreements from the WTO include:

  • The 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) This “general agreement” means that ways were found to remove any and all domestic restrictions and regulations to trade. It makes a nation’s right to govern itself i.e. its sovereignty is thrown out of the window under the pretext of free trade.
  • The Trade Related agreement on International Property Rights (TRIPS) is perhaps the most dangerous “agreement” formed at the Uruguay round of the WTO talks which permits intellectual property rights to include seeds and plants. It is the basis upon which corporations like Monsanto have held farmers to ransom and prosecuted many for planting unlicensed seeds which have already been genetically modified to have a limited life so that farmers must buy a new batch every year. Thousand year old ties to Nature and her knowledge have been tossed out of the window in a matter of a decade. Peter Drahos writes that “It was an accepted part of international commercial morality that states would design domestic intellectual property law to suit their own economic circumstances. States made sure that existing international intellectual property agreements gave them plenty of latitude to do so.” [6]
  • The Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) allows domestic finance to fall under the domination of corporate dictates while eroding a nation’s ability to have a say in their own policies regarding foreign investments domestic fiscal policy.

What all this means is that GATS, TRIPS and TRIMS are the means by which vulnerable countries are coerced into giving up their economic, social and cultural independence while their often unique resources are plundered – all under law.  They are able to do this because corporate lobbyists have direct access to government policy makers and spend billions of dollars making sure the WTO agreements stay firmly in the court of corporatism. Which is why most developing countries are never able to have a voice or stand up for their rights once they have been seduced by the false promises of loans which are only given on the agreement to implement Structural Adjustment Programs.

 


Notes

[1] Oxfam America Research Backgrounders: ‘Haiti Rice Value Chain Assessment: Rapid diagnosis and implications for program design’ By David C. Wilcock and Franco Jean-Pierren| http://www.files.meetup.com/1337582/Rice%20Value%20Chain%20Backgrounder%20.pdf
[2] ‘Iceland just sentenced its first bankster to prison’ by James http://www.12160.info, Social Network, December 28, 2012.
[3] ‘Eurozone Unemployment Soars to New High’ VOA News, April 2012. – http://www.voanews.com/content/eurozone-unemployment-reaches-record-high/1579633.html | ‘Youth unemployment soars, and it’s not just a phase’ By Heather Stewart, The Guardian, 13 April 2012 -www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/apr/13/youth-unemployment-rising-work-programme | ‘Gallup Finds Unemployment Rate Soars Following Presidential Election’ By Tyler Durden, http://www.zerohedge.com June 12, 2012.
[4] ‘Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again’ – “Argentina’s economic policies during the 1990s were developed under the direction of the IMF. The following article analyses the fatal flaws in these policies.” By Arthur MacEwan, TWN Third World Network via http://www.fpif.org. | http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm
[5] ‘Facts and Figures About the UN Millenium Goals’ http://www.gender-cawater-net / In its 2000 Millennium Declaration, the United Nations set 8 goals for development, called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These goals set an ambitious agenda for improving the human condition by 2015.
[6] p38; Information Feudalism, By Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, New Press, 2003 | ISBN-10: 1565848047.