Rockefeller Foundation

Technocracy I

By M.K. Styllinski

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

– Neil Postman

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

2012-07-21 18.22.48© infrakshun

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

Think of it this way:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

S = Specific / Significant

M = Measurable / Motivational

A = Attainable / Assignable

R = Relevant / Realistic

T = Time-bound / Time-Related

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

He warns us with apparent gravitas:

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

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

1) Economics and energy

2) Surveillance and state controls.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the findings included:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

World State Policies X: MONSANTO and Seeding the Future

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender”

– Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001.



With its astonishingly aggressive lobbying and ruthless application of gene technology, the Monsanto Corporation lies at the top of the GMO pile. if ever there was a psychopath in corporate form, Monsanto fits the bill. As the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides, Monsanto’s most popular brand, “Roundup” has proved to be a health hazard for humans and animals and just about any sentient being unfortunate enough to come into contact with its mass spraying. The Environmental Protection Agency has officially stated that Monsanto is a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites in the United States.

Not content with routinely damaging the health of its employees or residents living nearby, the company was involved in yet another controversy when introduced recombinant Bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production. Unfortunately for Monsanto there were substantial side effects for humans, including the reduction of natural defences against cancer. [1]Cows became seriously ill with various diseases most notably mastitis, an infection of the udder which contaminates milk with pus. It was found that the unnatural increase in milk production at the expense of the cow’s health was ultimately passed on to the consumer along with the high level of antibiotics inflicted on the cows in order to combat the original side-effects. Before selling the operation, it did not stop the company from conducting a large-scale lobbying campaign to prevent labelling of rBST milk which was largely successful.

Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications summed up the regulatory ethos in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.” And when the Food and Drug Administration has been holding hands with Monsanto throughout its career of maximizing profits over people, this statement amounts to nothing more than callous irresponsibility. [2]

With its legendary history of environmental pollution and such heart-warming products as defoliate Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the manufacturing of DDT and widespread innovation in plastics and subsequent spread of PCBs, Monsanto feels right at home when virgin forests need clearing and indigenous peoples require to be forcibly removed if the bribes prove ineffectual. The soya bean crops can and will be planted, come what may. The dominant types of GM foods as transgenic plant products include corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil, all of which Monsanto produces, distributes and directs according to a military-evangelical blend of national and international lobbying. Argentina was an early target of the GMO junta and represents a classic case-study of geo-political strategy working in unison with government and agribusiness’ interests. The soya bean has radically changed socio-economic and environment of the country. The displacement of other forms of often natural crop cultivation, pasture-based cattle ranching and the destruction of virgin forests and grasslands continues apace, with China and Europe benefitting from its substantial exports.

Economically, the divide between the rich and poor always becomes more pronounced when mass farming is introduced. Argentina has seen hundreds of thousands of workers forced off the land and a rise in poverty and malnutrition since the imposition and subsequent dependency on the soya bean. According to official statistics: “20.6 percent of Argentina’s 38 million people are poor. But in the North Eastern region, where soy is king, 37 percent are below the poverty line, and 13.6 percent live in absolute poverty, unable to feed themselves properly.” [3]

individual_monsanto_federal_position-largeThe revolving door of individuals working for Monsanto and Federal government (click on the image to enlarge) Source:

Back in the mid-1970s Kissinger, as a Rockefeller provocateur, had considerable experience in fermenting dissent in other countries. Chile had been a textbook case of black operations let loose against a democratically elected leader and replaced with General Pinochet’s brand of fascism. According to declassified US State Department documents released years after the event, the same formula was envisaged for Argentina in a 1976 meeting between Argentine Foreign Minister, Admiral Cesar Guzzetti; Rockefeller’s political go-between vice-president Nelson Rockefeller and Kissinger as Secretary of State. Author F. William Engdahl notes: “Rockefeller even suggested specific key individuals in Argentina to be targeted for elimination. At least 15,000 intellectuals, labor leaders and opposition figures disappeared in the so-called ‘dirty war.’ ” [4]

Argentina began its trade in slavery and an increase in minority wealth and social divisions. With the help of foreign investment and support from Monsanto and the big six grain conglomerates such as Cargill, wealthy landowners worked to erode traditional workers’ rights and grab as much extra land as they could. Upwards of 200, 000 rural famers and their families have been displaced from generationally owned land, inevitably finding themselves destitute or living hand to mouth on the outskirts of cities or in slum areas. Prior to Wall St. and their banking families descending on Argentina, it enjoyed one of the highest living standards in Latin America. In fact, Soy is now the main export of the nation, amounting to one-third of the country’s total exports. [5]

Both in Latin America and the USA, Monsanto is now able to hold farmers to ransom by forcing them to sign binding contracts where they must agree not to re-use saved seeds. They must also pay new royalties to Monsanto every year. The fact that farmers have been working the land for thousands of years with their own seeds provided by Nature, free of charge is a minor quibble for the corporation and its shareholders. Despite most of the world’s farmers being too poor to afford the company’s GMO license and various other seed fees, most fall under Monsanto’s targeted multi-million marketing and live to bitterly regret it. Such a system is another manifestation of the neo-feudalism so favoured amongst the Establishment. Seeds have become an intellectual property and by extension, the genetic source of Nature as patent.

With the advent of soya bean monoculture and mass farming techniques comes the intensive use of agrichemical herbicides and pesticide, and preferably for Monsanto, their favourite and highly toxic “Round up.” Ironically, parallel to much lower yields with Roundup crops compared to traditionally grown soya, health issues for rural communities, farmers and animals soared as a result of constant exposure to the spraying crops increased. They found their own natural food cultivation destroyed by the chemicals not having the built-in gene resistance found in the large Monsanto designed soya bean crops.

In 2002, it was found by the UK’s Cropscience company that chicken fed glucosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group. And from the same year up to 2005, four Italian universities published articles revealing adverse effects from GM soya which targeted pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice. [6]

In 2005 and 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted an experiment on female rats fed with glyphosate-tolerant GM soya and reported that the female rats produced an excessive number of stunted pups, over 50 percent of them dying within three weeks and the other half, sterile. Accusations of faulty data could not be levelled at the experiment as it was repeated many times with the same result. [7]

Many more studies have not only shown the toxic effects on plants and animals but the economic and environmental unsustainability of herbicide and pesticide use. As the top-soil becomes essentially burned away, more and more agrichemicals are needed to maintain a false fertility derived from a dying soil and zombie crops saturated with chemicals. This inevitably leeches into the animal and human food chain adding to the concern of health issues and the already questionable nature of GMOs themselves. Meanwhile, great profits continue to accrue for the CEOs and their shareholders safely tucked away behind their boardroom desks, buffered from the carnage of the ecological and socio-economic disaster that claims the most vulnerable, a dynamic which has continued to characterise large-scale GMO cultivation.

As F. William Engdahl observes, the consequences for the environment and human health remain worrying:

“By 2006, together with the United States, where GMO Monsanto soybeans dominated, Argentina and Brazil accounted for more than 81 percent of world soybean production, thereby ensuring that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal was eating genetically engineered soybeans. Similarly, this would imply that every McDonald’s hamburger mixed with soymeal would be genetically engineered, and most processed foods, whether they realized or not.” [8]

With the help of WTO sanctions, strong-arm tactics of companies like Monsanto and the background support of a Washington Government firmly on board, the ambitious objective of controlling the world’s food supply by seeding every country with GM crops is well underway. In 2002, aid agencies were instructed by the US State Department to take their orders from the government agency USAID and to:

“… immediately report to them any opposition in a recipient country, to GMO food imports. They were told to collect documentation to determine if the anti-GMO attitude of the local government was ‘trade or politically motivated’ If they determined it was trade motivated, the US Government had recourse to the WTO or to the threat of WTO sanctions against the aid recipient country, usually an effective warning against poor countries.” Even emergency famine relief aid came in the form of: “… genetically modified US surplus commodities, a practice condemned by international aid organizations, as it destroyed a country’s local agricultural economy in the process of opening new markets for Monsanto and friends.”

In the same vein, the cosy relationship between agri-business, GMO firms and the US State Department and its agencies is obvious when food aid organisations ship only grain that has been provided by USAID – and that meant only genetically modified US grain. [9]

In the late 1980s and 1990s Monsanto’s gene technology produced a breakthrough which would enforce the rights of the company’s gene patents and fees. It was a chilling development in biotechnology fittingly named “Terminator” where the seeds would be genetically modified to “terminate” themselves after just one harvest season. A toxin was released before the seed ripened which caused the plant embryo to die. This meant that the thousand year old tradition of saving of seeds for the next harvest would become illegal under agribusiness.

The Terminator seeds or patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) hark back to a project more than twenty years old as part of the early experiments in genetic engineering. By 1998 the US Patent Office had granted joint ownership to US Dept. of Agriculture and the Delta & Pine Land Company for ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’ Patent No. 5,723,765. [10]

In the official D&PL SEC filing it states:

“The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the crop’. […] ‘One application of the technology could be to control unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties … by making such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting.” With almost salacious anticipation: “the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology in varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent seasons as seed.” [11]

The company is clearly saying that dis-empowering farmers is economically viable by preventing any escape from the GM juggernaut once it has duped its passengers into hitching a ride. It is a disturbing declaration of intent and planning which has been pressing ahead since the first GM trials back in 1982.

fluorescentTobaccoA second generation of Terminator technology was developed at the end of the 1990s called T-GURT seeds, or Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. Otherwise known as the ‘Traitor’ process the plant’s fertility and its genetic characteristics can be controlled by the introduction or restriction of a chemical inducer, rather like a light switch which could be turned on or off depending on what you wanted the plant to do. It was cheaper and less complicated to produce than Terminator seeds. Tied to the agrichemicals, it was potentially a big bonanza with total control over what the farmer could and couldn’t do, charging him every step of the way. Of course, the gene resistance to certain pests would be provided by Monsanto or Syngenta who held the patent rights. You wanted your GM crops to flourish then you had to pay. If farmers tried to buy “illegal seeds” from other sources then the chemical compound needed to turn on the resistance gene would be missing. As with any commercialisation and consolidation process, more farmers in the developing world needed to be “persuaded” to climb aboard and the big companies were not afraid of using the tactics of bribery, coercion, and illegal smuggling.

The health issues still loom large in Monsanto’s continuing fortunes. For instance, in 2003, the company’s Bt maize hybrid left five Pilipino villagers dead and many seriously ill. They tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein. [12]  The Law of Unintended consequences frequently arrives in the absence of humility. As many experts have warned, the rise of superbugs and their ability to adapt in response to highly synthetic crops and their chemicals was inevitable. A research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food [13]detailed the problems from the Western corn rootworms which have been busily munching their way through genetically modified maize. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had “… an eleven-fold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population.” Strong resistance to GM corn is becoming the norm. As farmers become dependent on GM crops the outlook is bleak for both agriculture and consumers. Adaptation, resistance and increasing recovery rates amongst the burgeoning population of super-bugs means ultimately the poor and vulnerable and the burgeoning global middle-class will foot the bill, not just for corn which has become a vitally important derivative product, but for a range of foodstuffs and consumables in general.

The drop in GM crop yields will continue just as many farmers continue to plant, while receiving very little in return and where rising costs outweigh the perceived benefits. As food prices steadily rise in response to yet another manipulated economic downturn, Elite families like the Rockefellers are not remotely concerned. After all, they sell organic food and non-GMO food in their various cafeterias and conference venues, [14]so why should they be concerned about their agri-engineering of the world’s populations if it gives them a good return on their money and reduces the population growth that much more?

This hypocrisy gives the global population two forced choices: eat poisoned GM foods or die of starvation.

The Obama Administration carried on the tradition of staying snug and warm in the corporate pocket as the above diagram illustrates. To that end, bought-and-paid-for Congress happily allowed their puppet president to sign into law the Agriculture Appropriations Bill 2013. This effectively gave immunity from prosecution for agri-business, which means MONSANTO has a free reign to do as it pleases.

Rows of a Carrot Field

As we have seen so far in this series,  the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Population Council, the World Bank and the UN Development Program and their close working relationship with the WHO banded together to introduce covert sterilisation programs using vaccinations. Lest we think that the merging of birth control and eugenics is just paranoid ramblings of researchers with too much time on their hands, keep in mind the sources behind the genetic engineering and biotechnology are not necessarily those who work within these fields. It then becomes easier to determine which direction humanity is being led.

Transgenic plants have already taken on frog and fish genes but in the context of birth control the Rockefeller passion for a depopulated world, the geneticists have been busy bees. Take Epicyte in San Diego for example, which held a press conference in 2001 to make an announcement about its work stating:

“Epicyte reported that they had successfully created the ultimate GMO crop-contraceptive corn. They had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants.” [15]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another media darling that has rode the wave of philanthropy and praise while concealing its real agenda. While anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (rather than Climate change) is fast being seen for what it truly is: a politically driven power-grab, this apparently escaped the notice of the billionaire in his TED talk of 2010 where he followed the Al Gore (Goldman Sacs) propaganda of CO2 emissions as the global culprit for ensuing global catastrophe. Eager to show his depopulation credentials by highlighting dire projections of a global population at 9 billion by 2050, he made this curious comment early on in the talk: “… if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.” It is here we see that Bill has enthusiastically bought into the Elite nonsense and has put his money where his misinformed mouth is by pledging $10 billion for vaccines in order: “… to fight disease among the “world’s needy children.” [16] That is an extraordinarily large sum by anyone’s standards and truly admirable if it is founded on real science and long-term beneficial effects.

Unfortunately, neither of those possibilities is likely to be true.


Bill Gates

Bill Gates is famous for his relentless drive and constant activity. He is the CEO of the Microsoft Corporation representing one of the most all-encompassing monopolies on earth. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have used an almost inconceivable amount of dosh dispensed to needy causes around the world. It also helps that multibillionaire Warren Buffet added to the already blistering endowment total of $34.6 billion with a gift of a further $30 billion dollars’ worth of shares in one of his businesses which no doubt made Bill & Belinda supremely happy.

Apart from Gates’ chosen ignorance and/or indifference regarding the toxic health effects and long-time propaganda relating to GM foods and their use and distribution, vaccines are still Gate’s number one passion. His foundation decided to commission Japanese scientists to make another whacky vision a reality by engineering vaccines into mosquitoes that will deliver the inoculations through their bite. Bill & Melinda had stalwart support and involvement from the World Health Organisation, The PEW Charitable Trusts, and government agencies in the United States, England and Malaysia. They secured the development and promotion of the GM mosquitoes under the pretext of eradicating Dengue fever which was virtually non-existent until it suddenly popped up in Florida just after the genetically-modified vaccine carrying mosquitos was released. [17]In truth, GM mosquitos were released into the environment in the Cayman Islands in 2009 but the CIA sponsored experiments in bio warfare had been using mosquitoes in Florida for several decades so it was no surprise to find Dengue fever conveniently appearing to support Bill and Melinda’s quest for mass vaccination and the depopulation they so earnestly seek.[18]

Where Rockefeller’s and Gates’ visions really fuse is through the little known project that has been quietly carrying out its operations in the remote location of Svalbard, Spitsbergen, on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean.

It was claimed by Norway without much fuss in 1925 because no one really wanted it. Nonetheless, on this barren outcrop of rock inside the mountain lies the “doomsday seed bank” or more officially known as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault where a motley crew of Monsanto, the Syngenta and Rockefeller foundations and Bill Gates have been investing millions; squirreling away different varieties of seeds from all over the world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. [19] They have the capacity to store more than 3 million seeds tucked safely away from whatever catastrophe they envisage befalling the Earth’s environment. As F. William Engdahl not unreasonably, asks: “What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?” [20]

Up until 1998, Margaret Catley-Carlson was working for John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council (the eugenics inspired front for “family planning and sterilisation) and now chairs the Rome-based Global Crops Diversity Trust (GCDT) founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), a branch of the CGIAR. Other GCDT members read like an Elite encyclopaedia of Establishment insiders from the weapons industry to Hollywood, biotech companies to bankers, all of whom share the same entropic perception of reality that hasn’t changed for two hundred years. With such rampant colonisation of the developing world; ecologically disastrous consequences from invasive technology like Terminator and Traitor; the death of traditional farming practices and the fake harvest gains they engender, the construction of the Doomsday Seed Vault surely raises urgent questions as to its true nature. It represents a significant biotechnology resource in combination with other seed banks around the world, all of which are owned and run by the same six agribusiness partnerships and their affiliated think-tanks and top-tier organisations. The Svalbard seed vault has the capacity to house over 4.5 million seeds, but to what end?

frohvelv_svalbard_Svalbard Global Seed Vault (left) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation HQ (right)

When you have the likes of Bill Gates, Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and the Rockefellers getting together for a joint venture you can be sure that it is most certainly not for altruistic reasons but to make a big, fat profit. However, they are not just in it for the money. On the one hand, the “Green Revolution” and the monoculture expansion continue to make inroads into Africa while on the other, they preserve seed diversity in a “doomsday vault.”

Is it not chilling that the guardians of this seed diversity are corporations and foundations pushing for a biotechnological free-for-all with a history of rapacious corporate predation and the funding of social control and eugenics?


The nature of psychopaths in power demands the introduction of long-term ideas that facilitate the reduction and dilution of the global population. Social dominators and authoritarian personalities are attracted to romantic notions of a World State and a neo-feudalism in order to maintain Elite bloodlines. Is it possible that eugenic beliefs of Anglo-Saxon superiority and various military-corporate-occult machinations are a cover for the mass culling and manipulation of “normal people” in favour of psychopathic dominance? This obsession with genetically altering nature has a variety of disturbing off-shoots in this context.

If we cast our eye back to the discussion of Israeli ethnic specific weaponry, the advances in genetic bio-warfare and interest in eugenics and place this in context of population reduction, is it really so far-fetched to expect that genetically modified crops may serve a more sinister purpose at the very top of this agricultural pyramid? A book called BattleField of the Future has a chapter written by Lt. Col. Robert P. Kadlec, USAF entitled: “Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare.” Kadlec refers to cost effective and economically viable nature of biological weapons and warfare (BW) stating: “Not only is BW more affordable, but militarily significant quantities of BW agents (kilograms) in legitimate biological laboratories make BW production easy to accomplish and conceal. Any nation with a moderately sophisticated pharmaceutical industry can do so.” He then remarks on GMO-based biological weapons of mass destruction, the use of which: “… under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial. In this context, biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons.” [21] Indeed, MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the “… bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population,” adding: ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ [22]

If we recall the Rockefeller history and Kissinger’s “Food as a weapon” politics and the US military fetish for bio-warfare then we must also entertain the probability that genetic engineering serves a variety of purposes all of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the betterment of humankind. If the spectre of bio-warfare and the weaponisation of food are part of the “invisible hand” of Pathocratic rule then we can expect a future planted with the same dark seeds.

There may be a further reason why the Elite are falling over themselves to eradicate a large quota of the population, build their bunkers and conserve various seed species. Do they have the inside knowledge that “something wicked this way comes”? The rise in cases of Ebola and various strains of Bubonic plague and the possibility of adaptive and muting strains may well indicate a strange confluence of natural occurrences and synthetic manipulation connected with the above bio-warfare. Further, if you are aware that the Earth endures terrain changes and cyclic catastrophes throughout its history with a similar cyclic manifestation of disease carried by cosmic harbingers such as comets and meteors, knowledge of such a confluence may be known by many at certain privileged levels. They may be at least partially aware of myth and science that tells us that we are way over due for another periodic of environmental and cosmological upheaval. Specific preparations would ensue, especially if you seek to retain control and protect your place at the top of the pyramid after the dust and ashes have settled.

Whatever the truth, it seems we won’t have too long to wait before we all find out.

In the next series of posts we will look into how the Establishment has co-opted environmentalism with special attention to the idea of eco-fascism and its traditional alignment to elite ideology.


For news, resources and activism please visit:



[1] Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M (May 1998). “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer”. Lancet 351 (9113): 1393–6. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10384-1. PMID 9593409. / Pollak M (June 2000). “Insulin-like growth factor physiology and cancer risk”. Eur. J. Cancer 36 (10): 1224–8. DOI:10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00102-7. PMID 10882860. / Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL (July 2002). “Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (13): 972–80. DOI:10.1093/jnci/94.13.972. PMID 12096082.
[2] ‘Playing God in the Garden’. The New York Times by Michael Pollan October 25, 1998 The New York Times Magazine. p. Section 6; Page 44.
[3] ‘Soy – High Profits Now, Hell to Pay Later’ By Marcela Valente , Jul 29 , 2008 (IPS)
[4] op. cit. Engdahl (p.178)
[5] Javier Souza Casadinho, “Expansión de la soja en el Cono sur” (“Expansion of Soy in the Southern Cone”), Centro de estudios sobre tecnologías apropiadas de la Argentina Red de Acción en plaguicidas de América Latina (Center for the Study of Appropriate Technologies of Argentina, Pesticide Action Network Latin America) (Source Watch)
[6] GM Crops the Health Effects, The Soil Association 2007 |
[7] ‘Weaponized Food and Medicine is Bad for Your Health’ by Paul Fassa, Natural News, August 25, 2009 |
[8] op. cit. Engdahl (p.190)
[9] op. cit. Engdahl (pp.267-268)
[10] United States Patent 5,723,765 Oliver, et al. March 3, 1998: Oliver; Melvin John (Lubbock, TX), Quisenberry; Jerry Edwin (Idalou, TX), Trolinder; Norma Lee Glover (Quanah, TX), Keim; Don Lee (Leland, MS) Assignee: Delta and Pine Land Co. (Scott, MS) The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of (Washington, DC) Appl. No.: 08/477,559.
[11] op. cit. Fassa.
[12] Ibid
[13] ‘Western corn rootworm and Bt maize: Challenges of pest resistance in the field’ Volume 3, Issue 3 July/August/September 2012. Authors: Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Ryan S. Keweshan and Mike W. Dunbar.
[14] ‘Gates and Rockefeller Cafeterias Reject Monsanto GE Foods 01 March 2012. |
[15] op. cit. Engdahal (p.270)
[16] ‘Gates’ Vaccine Boost’ UPI, Jan. 29, 2010.
[17] PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases –
[18] ‘Viruses and the GM Insect “Flying Vaccine” Solution’ by Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post December 13, 2010
[19] ‘‘Doomsday Seed Vault’ in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t’ By F. William Engdahl Global Research, December 4, 2007.
[20] Ibid.
[21 Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues Editors: Barry R. Schneider, Lawrence E. Grinter Revised Edition 1998. PDF Chapter 10 Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare, Lt Col Robert P. Kadlec, MD, USAF (p.251).
[22] op. cit. Engdahl (Global Research)


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

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

– Henry Kissinger

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

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

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


Kissinger 1971 (wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoken like a true Machiavellian. He continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Cargill food giant logo

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Different name, same story.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

See also:

Redesigning Nature

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



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

World State Policies VIII: Depopulation

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine.

georgia-guidestonesThe Georgia Guide Stones

In Elbert County, Georgia, United States in a secluded field lies a 19 foot, granite monument called “The Georgia Stones” or sometimes known as the “American Stonehenge” erected by “philanthropists” with a strangely familiar ideology. A message comprising ten inscribed propositions in eight modern languages, and a shorter message at the top of the structure in four ancient language scripts: Babylonian, Classical Greek, Sanskrit, and Egyptian hieroglyphs. Ostensibly, it is nothing more than a plea for humanity to live in harmony with Mother Earth. However, the inscription also reads: “Maintain humanity under 500,000, in perpetual balance with nature.” Delightful. Except that is, if you are not listed as one of those granted access to the penthouse suites of the lucky 1/2 a million. Needless to say that the benefactor behind these stones, one R.C. Christian doesn’t say how he would like to eliminate the pesky populations of the world.

The rest of the messages are as follows:

  • Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  • Unite humanity with a living new language.
  • Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  • Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  • Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  • Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  • Balance personal rights with social duties.
  • Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  • Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature.

At the centre of each slab is a small circle, containing a letter representing the respective compass direction (N, S, E and W). And at the top centre of the tablet is written: “The Georgia Guidestones, Center cluster erected March 22, 1980.” Underneath this inscription is a square inside of which is written: “Let these be guide stones to an Age of Reason.” This looks suspiciously like a message from a collection of the usual suspects from the Eugenics or Fabian Society; a gaggle of population control advocates, a dash of Illuminism and a sop to balance, harmony and ecological respect, to round it all off. [1]  (A further small square inscribed with “2014” was also in place in the same year, presumably placed their by the same patrons.  Clearly, 2014 is a pivotal year for someone…)

The average number of children per woman has been declining rapidly for decades. According to official UN data, [2]the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. Yet 40 years later, for the period of 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50 percent to 2.52. This trend has nothing to do with the interference of families like the Rockefellers, but everything to do with a natural self-regulating decrease. These facts however, have little impression on depopulationist beliefs. That is not to say that there are unsustainable levels of population in various countries around the globe but this has everything to do with socio-economic and ecological  factors which, if addressed would significantly alleviate the problem.

English scholar Thomas R. Malthus’ theories on population growth have been greatly influential on the minds of world controllers. His Essay on the Principles of Population published between 1798 and 1826 maintained that populations were chaotic and unprincipled without any constraints on their growth so that eventually famine and poverty would naturally arrive and cull the populations down to size. Like Nature, they had to be tamed and regulated. He predicted that the population growth rate would exceed the growth of the food supply. These flawed ideas concerning population dynamics inevitably fed into the desire for conquest and land acquisition. The leaders of any invasion are always looking for pretexts. Land grabs to support an expanding population that would inevitably spill over its borders became justification enough.

Naturalists and biologists Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin both acknowledged their debt to Malthus whom they saw as an inspiration in the development of their own ideas, Darwin wrote: “In October 1838 … I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population … it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species.”[3]

Followers of Malthus, like acolytes of Freud, reduced everything down to the sexual drive and its spiritual vacuum that would place the 19th and 20th century in a stranglehold of determinism. It was to be a convenient belief for building, colonialism and state domination. The ordinary man became the experiment and the target of Elite subjugation and their self-protection. There would be no room for complex, non-linear set of variables we now know to exist in the formation and maintenance of living systems of ecology.

As we saw with psychoanalysis, the narrow definitions that force beliefs into the category of science are woefully premature. However, it proved very appealing indeed to those stuck in the paradigm of superiority and the potential of a Master Race. Like so many collectivists like  John Ruskin and Bertrand Russell, Malthus was an idealist stuck on the idea of a socialist Utopia. Science had little to do with his theories, however logical they seemed. The Darwinist belief-train was already hurtling at full speed towards shaping a future society by synthesizing Malthusian and Darwinist schools producing Social Darwinism. This fed straight into the fertile ground of Elitism already looking around for a scientific validation for their lofty place on the ladder of evolution.

As we have seen, Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton were instrumental in the development and academic progression of eugenic and population control and their legacy remains strong in the fields of ecology and politics. Yet, in reality, most population experts agree that global population will level out by about 2100 at 10 billion with further decreases following. Global population growth has been steadily declining for decades and it has nothing to do with dramatic attempts to halt it based on hysterical and ideological drives. According to official UN data, the average number of children per woman worldwide for the period 1965 to 1970 was 4.85. From 2005 to 2010, that number dropped nearly 50% to 2.52. That is eminently supportable, especially if we are able to change direction away from the reins of elite psychopaths who created so many of these iniquitous conditions in the first place. [4]


Professor of global health at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, Dr. Hans Rosling’s work focuses on dispelling common myths about the so-called developing world and presents convincing evidence that global populations are decreasing as a natural cycle stating: “The number of children is not growing any longer in the world. We are still debating peak oil, but we have definitely reached peak child.”  The professor is one of many academics discarding the accepted belief in extreme population reduction policies. [5]

This brings us to Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, an associate professor of history at Columbia University. The author does an extraordinary job in tracking the truth of the movement and its current incarnations in some of the most influential institutions of the 21st century. He explores the vast scope of the population control movement and the pressure it brought to bear on any institution, organization and government which could be used to expand the population control agenda and its directives. Foreign aid, feminism, environmentalism, corporatism and non-governmental organisations were merged into a cohesive global propaganda exercise so pernicious and pervasive that it is seen as quite normal today, even though the science is more than suspect. (The applied formula can be likened to the tactics of human-influenced global warming hysteria that we see being employed to great affect). [6]

After World War II and throughout the 1950s there was a population explosion across the world, most notably in the United States and Europe. Causes for this stemmed from an improvement in public health, reduced infant mortality, the development of antibiotics, certain vaccines, pesticides and the invention of DDT and programs to wipe out malaria-causing mosquitoes. It was at the International Congress on Population and World Resources in Relation to the Family held in Cheltenham, UK, in 1948, where the population control planners produced some of the groups and organisations we have explored so far. Julian Huxley and his colleague Joseph Needham head of UNESCO science had their chance to hob-knob with Rockefeller representatives who had already chosen Japan as their first target for experimentation and were at the conference to finalise directives.

Margaret Sanger would immediately form Planned Parenthood after consultations with others in the movement, while the sociologist, economist and eventual noble laureate Gunnar Myrdal also attended on behalf of Sweden. It would be his wife politician and diplomat Alva Myrdal who would become director of social sciences at UNESCO in 1952. Feminism and a high degree of propaganda as proposed by Huxley was thought by Myrdal to be crucial in developing a comprehensive “family Planning” and “family reduction” offensive while also providing for women’s rights.

By 1955, though Russia was among only a very few countries who resisted UN-based population control programs the vast majority of nations in the developing world proved to be easy prey. International Planned Parenthood Federation, United Nations agencies, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, and the major American and European drug companies flocked to vulnerable continents of Asia and India. They began by funding local population studies discovering that population growth rates were increasing in many Third World countries. Connelly’s research shows similar comprehensive Rockefeller-funded studies were carried out on birth control, frequency of sexual intercourse, women’s menstrual cycles, miscarriages, births, and contraceptive use. In the end, India proved extremely resistant to this interference due in part, to the complexities of data gathering that were founded on assumptions and simplistic cultural evaluations which were eventually highlighted by subsequent anomalies and paradoxes. For instance, one village and one region differed so dramatically that it proved difficult to formulate a working blueprint for the programs. Understandably, Indian people did not like interlopers placing them in a sexual laboratory. The sponsored programs were a failure. So much so, that the foundations decided to go about their business in a far more “discreet” way. Population control was about to enter new ground as the revolutionary 1960s moved into view.

Fear-mongering on behalf of the eugenicists’ pet project of controlling the population had a huge boost from over 100 scientists and 39 Nobel Prize winners who signed a petition to the UN urging the organization to take action to protect the world’s resources and achieve a balanced population. The petition predicted dire, even apocalyptic consequences for all if the plea fell on deaf ears: “… there is in prospect a Dark Age of human misery, famine, under-education and unrest which would generate panic, exploding into wars fought to appropriate the dwindling means of survival.” [7] This seems to be a fair assessment of what has happened since, the only difference being it has been perpetrated by legions of corporations, and private armies sanctioned by an Anglo-American, geo-strategic alliance. Population control has proven useful as a justification for all kinds of corruption and misguided thinking, nowhere more so than on the African continent.

It was during the 1960s push that the appeals for funds began to pluck the heartstrings of the well-intentioned. This was especially curious because Africa at that time had both a low birth rate and healthy rate of exports with Africans consuming a very small portion of the world’s resources.
Connelly observes:

“[Africa] featured some of the lowest rates of growth in the world. It is also odd that even sophisticated analysts continued to assume that starvation would represent the first constraint on continued population increases. A broader view of the earth’s “carrying capacity” might have noted declines in commodity prices as well as the fact that poor countries consumed relatively little and their share had actually been shrinking.” [8]

Catch phrases such as “human tidal wave” that would “explode out of national boundaries” and “the decline of civilization” that would follow as a consequence of all these inconveniently coloured poor people who would be labelled both a threat and a victim – “family planning” was the only solution. Where the initial Rockefeller mission failed in India, by 1963, Ford Foundation funding had achieved success in creating programs to distribute IUDs and conduct sterilization programs with further IUD programs promoted by the Foundation in Pakistan, Korea and Taiwan. The success of the Intrauterine Device (IUD) was another matter.

Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher whom we met previously, came up with the idea to use the long discredited product en masse, despite being fraught with a multitude of risks including a high percentage of expulsions, infections, bleeding and pain. At the outset, it seemed that no one but the (male) inventor believed it could work – and of course, Alan Guttmacher. This may have been in part because of the 1962 Population Council convened to assess how the World (de)population programs were fairing country by country.

Bending the ear of Guttmacher at the conference was Mr. J. Robert Willson, Chair of Obstretrics and Gynaecology at Temple University who agreed with the Doctor stating a common perception in medical and academic circles: “We have to stop thinking like doctors … Now obviously we are going to use these devices, they are occasionally going to be put in the wrong patient. Again, if we look at this from an overall, long-range view – these are the things I have never said out loud before and I don’t know how it is going to sound – perhaps the individual patient is expendable in the scheme of things, particularly if the infection the patient acquires is sterilizing but not lethal.” [9]

Eminently logical – unless that is, you happen to be the expendable statistic which rapidly grew from the “individual” to the many.

Foreign aid and the economic framework were tied closely to population control and the multi-million profits that could be made from bogus science and racist ideology. If India did didn’t wish to play ball then all US President Lyndon Johnson had to do was to threaten to withhold U.S. grain supplies and encourage the spectre of starvation. India was boxed in to aid that was inseparable from controlled performance. USAID (with some members often acting as part of a CIA front) would soon have millions more to play with as the lobbyists began to do their work in Congress. New countries were sought so that the family planning model could be introduced. Massive public funding meant massive propaganda and the subsequent ill-informed but greedy exodus of consultants, educationalists, public health officials, activists and scholars eager to cash in, while believing their conscience clean.

The justification for this great leap forward was that every birth prevented was a boon to society. From this calculus emerged the doctrine that having children was anti-social and not having children promoted social good. People naturally began to have fewer children as economic growth accelerated. This had nothing to do with population control programs. Fertility rates had been declining since the end of the 1950s with a peak at in 1957 with 123 births per thousand women. By 1976, there were 76 births per thousand women.

Despite this, the darling of the social biologist Establishment Professor Paul Ehrlich and his 1968 book The Population Bomb was highly influential. Ehrlich presented a hypothesis that had eugenicists and depopulationists clapping in the audience: unless population growth was reduced to zero in America – by compulsory methods if necessary – it would the end of the world as we knew it. Here, we see the China template once again. For Ehrlich: “Population control is the conscious regulation of the number of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.” Society, always society. And it is people like this esteemed biologist who think that it is up to them to decide: “… how to give societies the number of children they need,” otherwise: “…people would still be multiplying like rabbits.” It seems we must all toe the line and: “… hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” [10]

The control of the American populace is the first step in a wider set of measures, the message of which, for Ehrlich is: “… based on ‘do as we do’ – not ‘do as we say.’” Obviously, the concept of values and ethics take on epic proportions of flexibility in Ehrlich’s mind. Sure enough, indoctrination of population control and the related methods of sex education should begin before junior school. The UN should administer a global program, along with financial coercion and incentives. But Dr. Ehrlich goes further:

“If we could, somehow, get a program underway in which the ODCs made a genuine attempt to aid the UDCs [underdeveloped countries], what form might that program take? The specific requirements of the program would vary from area to area. Possibly the first step in all areas would be to set up relay stations and distribute small transistorized TV sets to villages for communal viewing of satellite-transmitted programs… TV programs would explain the rehabilitation plan for each area. These programs would have to be produced with the combined skills of people with great expertise in the subject to be presented and intimate knowledge of the target population. The programs could be presented both “straight” and as “entertainment.”… The programs would use the prospect of increased affluence as a major incentive for gaining cooperation. It seems unlikely that the threat of future starvation would have much impact. If necessary, however, the TV channel could be used to make it clear that the continuance of food supplies depends on the cooperation of the people in the area…” [11]

Ehrlich has either read Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World for inspiration or he was just born that way. He pushes his grand authoritarian vision into the info-tainment arena with Big Brother healthcare making a 24hr appearance: “Obviously, such measures should be coordinated by a powerful governmental agency,” he says, “A federal Bureau of Population and Environment [BPE] should be set up to determine the optimum population size for the US and devise measures to establish it.”

The Population BombJulian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, a host of Fabian socialists and Rockefeller agents of change all agree that the best pathway for their propaganda to take seed is through the education system. Ehrlich is no different when he states: “It is now imperative that we restrict the reproductive function of sex while producing a minimum of disruption in the others.” The professor then conforms to the plan of conjoining the New World of emasculation and gender confusion along seemingly benign lines of female emancipation. In one fell swoop he manages to disparage and denigrate traditional gender roles, the institution of family and thereby community. What he is referring to has nothing to do with true freedom for men and women but a socialised conformity. Motherhood is marginalized and trivialized in favour of a ill-defined “gender equality”:

With a rational atmosphere mankind should be able to work out the problems of deemphasizing the reproductive role of sex. These problems include finding substitutes for the satisfaction and rewards that women derive from childbearing and for the ego satisfaction that often accompanies excessive fatherhood. Implicit attitudes and social pressures within our society toward parenthood, especially motherhood, add up to an even more powerful prenatal policy than our legal system represents. Equal opportunities and salaries for women in business and the professions, which are now being sought by the women’s liberation movement, would strongly encourage them to seek other outlets for their energy and talents besides motherhood. Society would greatly benefit both from the resulting lowered fertility and the productive contributions of women.[12] [Emphasis mine]

Who would argue against the right for women to seek other ways of fulfillment besides motherhood? Yet, in this context that is not the desired objective. After trashing marriage as a licence for sex and accidental births, he offers the solution to society’s population problem (which is really the wish to get rid of “undesirables”) by offering a greater availability of contraceptives and abortion. Dr. Ehrlich suggests halting foreign aid for countries that are “beyond help,” while suggesting the development of mass sterilization agents.

When The Population Crisis Committee decided that juvenile delinquents, drug addicts, and idle welfare recipients were a potential population threat you can see clearly that underlying eugenics meme of “desirables contaminating the gene pool” was resurfacing once again. Listen folks, if you leave it up to us to decide who gets to live and die (with concurrent penalties should people resist) then we could reduce crime and save lots of cash for federal government and welfare programs… What could be more ethical?

Thankfully, some scientists were not taken in by the politics of population control. Much like the issues of global warming, as science began to dig deeper, factual inconsistencies flew in the face of population control advocates. One example from demographic research showing that high fertility was not closely correlated with poverty. Several scientists offered thorough rebuttals of Ehrlich’s “science” to the extent he was roundly discredited. Yet the population control myth persists.

In the 1970s The UN Fund for Population Activities increased funding and so too the propensity for corruption and competition from both UN agencies and foreign governments and their bureaucrats. As increased funding hit record levels and a problem that characterizes so many governmental agencies was how to spend the money fast enough to justify an increased allocation for next year. When research universities and pharmaceutical companies started to get involved in the easy money network, then UN bureaucrats began to invent methods to deflect criticism and keep the media and public away from any snooping. After all, the UN agencies were working to reduce population levels to protect the planet and future generations, what could there be to criticize?

In 1973, some were beginning to question these intentions behind PC, not least the science upon which their ideas were based. The Rockefeller foundation, The Brain Trust and other philanthropic, UN agency minions, could not prove the causal links to justify further fertility programs and therefore the basis for advising governments how to control population growth was somewhat shaky. Yet it was onwards and upwards for the over 900 world-wide projects in operation.

By the end of the 1970s there were accusations of neo-Malthusian agendas from Africa and from some quarters in Europe yet massive propaganda initiatives and programs continued in India. The 1980s saw international sterilization programs being funded to the tune of $35 million worldwide. [13] In the end, a widespread revolt against the population controllers’ directives erupted from the developing world. Matthew Connelly highlights the economic segment of the PC pie-chart where leaders wanted to marry PC and economic development under free trade. The US delegates tried to sell the idea that to push down world fertility made plain economic sense. If not, food riots and revolutions would ensue placing the stability of foreign markets and US investment in a New Economic Order at risk. However, the nepotistic, cosy relationships that existed at the UN for many officials were also beginning to cause opposition.

In 1974, at the World Population Conference in Bucharest, feminists were ironically allowed to assume a population control mandate as representative of women’s collective desire when prominent feminists attacked advocates for conspiring to have an all-male cast. They were so roundly accused of imperialism and colonialism by various delegate groups that International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and speaker David Rockefeller had to hastily backtrack with substantial amounts of egg on their faces. A rethink was in order.

As Indira Gandhi was fighting a rear-guard action of corruption charges and arresting her many accusers causing all kinds of chaos, the population controllers saw their chance to act: Parents who had three children and did not accept sterilization were now jailed. Indian bureaucrats elevated a ‘right to progress’ as superseding individual rights. The new program raised incentive payments for sterilization as well as the age of marriage and women’s literacy. Then things became nasty. In scenes reminiscent of Nazi Germany Indira Gandhi’s State of emergency saw neighbourhoods demolished, human rights trampled on and many people killed in the riots that followed, all for resisting sterilization programs. The World Bank’s response was to provide another $26 million in aid for India based on a precondition that they commit to a sterilization programs. That plan was to take the India and China model world-wide.

The problem of global fertility rates falling and the dire prediction of global famine absent did not help the legitimacy of the world-wide expansion of these programs. Economic development was touted as justification of their continuance but as the Population Council floundered and the IPPF was investigated by Congress after denying that any sterilizations were forced, profits and progress began to wane. 80, ooo sterilizations that took place in 1976 were certainly forced and Congress in a rare state of clarity had evidence to prove it. [14]

populationindiaSource: ‘Population alarmists disregard human feelings’ Canberra Times,

A huge backlash against the depopulationists was beginning and by 1977 the hidden agenda was truly out in the open courtesy of Rimert Ravenholt, head of USAID Office of Population, during an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Ravenholt said that 25 percent of all the fertile women in the world must be sterilised in order to meet the U.S. goals of population control and to maintain “the normal operation of U.S. commercial interests around the world.” According to Ravenholt, these measures were required to contain the “population explosion” which, if left unchecked, would so reduce living standards abroad that revolutions would break out “against the strong U.S. commercial presence.” [15]

The Rockefeller Foundation and The United Nation’s World Health Organization have worked together since 1972 working their birth control “magic” on developing nations parallel to GM crop research. In the 1990s Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines were under the cross- hairs of population reduction from vaccination campaigns, ostensibly against tetanus. On the rare occasions that independent bodies have tested certain vaccines they have tended to harbour less than innocent ingredients, the tetanus vaccine was no exception. Strangely enough, none of these vaccines were offered to men and boys – only women and girls of child-bearing age from 15-45. The Roman Catholic organisation Comité Pro Vida de Mexico, had the vaccine tested and found it contained Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG, a hormone necessary for the maintenance of pregnancy. What was it doing in a vaccine destined to combat tetanus?

When hCG is combined with a tetanus toxid carrier, antibodies are produced against hCG actually reversing the role of the hormone and making pregnancy impossible. None of the women were told that this was effectively an abortion vaccine. Studies in Nicaragua and the Philippines also found the vaccine to contain hCG hormones. In 1995 the discovery of hidden sterilization programs under cover of vaccine initiatives did not go down well with the public and lay clergy in the Philippines. Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines took on UNICEF’s anti-tetanus program and won a court order halting it’s tracks due to the inclusion of undisclosed B-hCG in the vials. “The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.” This Recombinant birth control vaccine still has a functioning patent. The debate rages on as to whether this was mere Catholic propaganda or a genuine “well-intentioned” subterfuge by our global managers. [16] [17]

Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen

The science behind the scare-mongering of a “population bomb” has been comprehensively rebutted and debunked for many years. It is another important example of social engineering designed to provide excuses for systematic depopulation and macro-managment of societies. That’s the goal when you strip it all down to the bare essentials. The simple facts are that the rate of population growth was already long since declining when Ehrlich penned his doomsday scenario. It was also a deeply unoriginal idea having been culled from the warnings of an earlier eugenicist William Vogt and his highly influential book Road to Survival (1948), the biggest environmental best-seller of all time until the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Vogt, like so many other Malthusian-ecologists placed all the world’s problems on the population explosion, the weak and the poor being the culprits who had to be stopped from breeding uncontrollably otherwise everyone’s future would be in jeopardy. But the data simply didn’t add up. Evidence actually showed that people who had a comfortable standard of living had fewer children despite access to a healthier and more abundant food supply, the latter being a most important point to remember.

According to Vogt and Ehrlich and other Neo-Malthusians and eugenicists, industrialisation equalled an increasing birth rate. In fact, this could be observed only in the early stages of the process, followed by a clear and steady decrease. Around the world there is also a large decrease in the number of children women are having as well as a decline in the size of families generally. As one commentator recently penned: “The big story is that rich or poor, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth-control policies or none, most countries tell the same story: Small families are the new norm.” [18]

The many other invasive methods to poison and sterilise the world’s population is a mix of faulty science, the well-intentioned and covert psychopathy. The macabre irony is that resource scarcity, economic disparity and crippling debt all contribute to the unnatural rise in populations directly attributed to cartel capitalism. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a direct consequence of their own misunderstandings of the human and natural world; a result of their imposition of materialist agenda of the 4C’s and the inevitable effects it produced. Ultimately, for the psychopath, this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population by using direct and indirect methods of depopulation policies on a global scale.

Author and philosopher Stephan Verstappen makes the entirely valid point that if we had not had psychopaths holding the reins of power the trillions upon trillions spent on the weapons industry (and wasteful economic debt slavery) each and every American could each have had a small house and plot of land through which to be self-sufficient. Verstappen highlights a common argument that there isn’t enough room to provide decent homes in similarly decent communities. As he makes clear, this is simply more lies and propaganda where we have been made to believe that everyone must live shoulder to shoulder in high-density dwellings. And of course, the SMART technocrats and eco-Intelpro agents would love to continue this argument under the guise of protecting the planet and social welfare. Let’s quote Mr. Verstappen from his recent video: The Myth of Overpopulation:

“If we assume and average of 3 people per family – or one home for every three people – that would mean about 750 people live there [in an average communiity] Including parks and playgrounds, the whole community sits on 12 acres of land. Now let’s take the U.S. population of 320 million and divide them into communities of 750 people each, which gives us: 426, 666 villages. Each village sits on 12 acres so multiply that by 12 which equals 5, 119, 992 acres. Convert acres to square miles and we have just under 8,000 square miles. That means we could fit everyone in America, in a one-storey home, with a front yard and a back yard, with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people and it would all fit easily on the available land mass of the state of New Hampshire, and still have a thousand square miles to spare. That could leave the entire rest of the country, including Alaska, without a single person living there. See now how ridiculous it is to think the entire land mass of the U.S. cannot provide the needs and resources for a low density population taking up less room than New Hampshire.”

Logically, Verstappen takes this further:


Screen-shot from: Paradise Stolen – The Myth of Overpopulation by Stephen Verstappen

“…That means we could fit everyone in the world … in a one storey home, with a front yard and a back yard with plenty of parks and playgrounds and waterways for every 750 people; and the entire world population would all fit easily on less than 75% of the available land mass …. of the State of Texas and still have 80,000 sq. miles of Texas to spare.”

Overpopulation? Maybe, but let’s be honest about the root causes and the clear solutions available. Moreover, we must see exactly how this is being used to corral populations into accepting policies which will make life considerably worse with no prospect of escape.


Note: For more data on depopulation please read Kevin Magur Galalae’s Killing us Softly: Causes and Consequences of the Global Depopulation Policy (2013). Prior to reading a warning must be attached to the book in that after a detailed analysis of the historical methods of GPC the author advocates much the same methods though with the caveat of transparency which does not automatically mean a correct path. As such, he acts as a supporter of population control methods and buys into the myth. These problems will not be solved by adopting the same methods, however “transparent.” Transparency laid over a gullible populace does not equate to accountability. A whole new perception across all societal domains is necessary. The data in the book is often erroneously interpreted and filtered through his own beliefs in order to support what he perceives as a benevolent set of policies to save humanity from itself. He even manages to tie in global warming and cognitive dissonance of the public in misunderstanding the issue of population growth. This is gross naiveté or intentional deception on the part of the author. But this does not discount the research if viewed with a discerning eye. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.



[1] Some have suggested that the messages listed and the themes therein refer to the secret society of Rosicrucians, a parallel branch of Illuminism, long thought to have been spearheaded by Sir Francis Bacon who then became the medium for a new Baconian philosophy of reason or scientific materialism. Whether this is true or not is impossible to say, though Bacon’s book The New Atlantis portrays a land ruled by Rosicrucians. pp.61–68; The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, By Frances Yates, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0415254094
[2] United Nations Population Division Depart of Economic and Social Affairs: World Population Prospect 2010 revision / April 2011.
[3] p.120; The autobiography of Charles Darwin. By Nora Barlow, 1958. New edition 1993 | ISBN-10: 0393310698
[4] For further news on the Population expansion myth see UN data studies here: | Global Population projections from: ‘Seven billion and counting’ By Jeff Tollefson, 19 October 2011, Nature 478, 300 (2011) doi:10.1038/478300a.
[5] See also Has Rosling’s TED Talks at
[6] Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly, Published by Harvard University Press, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0674024230.
[7] op. cit. Connelly (p.190)
[8] Ibid.
[9] op. cit. Connelly (pp.202-203)
[10] p.79; The Population Bomb By Paul Erhlich. Buccaneer Books Inc; 1968. Reprint edition Dec 1995 | ISBN-10: 1568495870.
[11] op. cit. Erhlich (p.150)
[12] Ibid. (p.139)
[13] op. cit. Connelly (p.129)
[14] ‘Relying on Hard and Soft Sells India Pushes Sterilization,’ New York Times, June 22, 2011.
[15] The New Atlantis: Society and Technology ‘The Population Control Holocaust’ by Robert Zubrin. Number 35, Spring 2012.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Recombinant birth control vaccine United States Patent 5733553: Talwar, Gursaran Prasad (c/o National Institute of Immunology, Shadid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, IN) Srinivasan, Jay (Dept. of Biology, Washington University Campus, Box No:1137, One Brookings, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899) Chakrabarti, Sekhar (c/o The National Institutes of Health, (Room 237, Building 4), Bethesda, MD, 20892) Application Number: 08/263483 Publication Date: 03/31/1998 Filing Date: 06/21/1994
[18] ‘On World Population Day, take note: population isn’t the problem’ By Fred Pearce,, Jully 11 2010.

For a more esoteric overview of depopulation and eugenics see: Mark Passio – The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda


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

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

— Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This line is from Persian poet and mystic Omar Khayyam:

 “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

As author and journalist G. Edward Griffin observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3.A default emphasis on class distinction.

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

5. The reduction of parental influence.

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

7. The politicisation of education.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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.


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.


“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.


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.


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.


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.


“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



[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.
[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.
[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 |
[10] IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation. By Edwin Black, Second paperback edition, Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2009 | ISBN 13: 9780914153108
[11] Ibid.

Puppets & Players VI: Council on Foreign Relations

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

– Richard Haas CFR President February 12 2006.

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

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

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

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


Screen shots from the film clip: Council on Foreign Relations


The usual suspects crop up again and again …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The Sex Establishment IV: “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” (SARS)

[Alfred Kinsey’s] “…methodology and sampling technique virtually guaranteed that he would find what he was looking for.”

– James Jones, Kinsey biographer,

Keeping our ideas of ponerology in mind, it seems what Reisman calls the “Sex Establishment” was tasked with a progressive ponerisation of our attitudes to sex and love. As we will discover in later posts, this may have been a spoke in the wheel of a much wider social engineering agenda.

The pioneering academic sex study centres under scrutiny are The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) – thereafter called the “Sex Institute”- which offers extensive training and advanced degrees originally directed by Penthouse Forum Board member and Kinsey co-author, Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Hustler Magazine contributors, Drs’. Ted Mcllvena and Erwin Haberlae. The accreditation curricula includes a wide variety of Kinsey inspired material such as the Sex Institute’s degree program which includes:“ ‘advanced graduate’ studies such as: ‘erotic sensate and massage therapy,’ and focuses most of its scholarly training on student viewing, using and even making, ‘erotic’ films … And the “training in the design and implementation of ‘sex education curricula’ for all ages.”  [1]

Kinsey6Alfred C. Kinsey

So, we have Dr. Pomeroy, co-author and a Kinsey Institute principle, who recommended incest as beneficial to the juvenile to adult readers of Penthouse, Chic, and other magazines and for whom a belief in “positive incest” allows him to still teach child sexuality.

What is more interesting is that:

“These now-accredited Sex Institute experts commonly testify for sex offenders and for businesses which specialize in the production of … pornography. ‘Experts’ from the American Sex Establishment regularly testify in courts and provide their expertise to legislatures and other public agencies.  For example, in 1980, Wardell Pomeroy testified for a pornographer in Happy Day v. Kentucky, a court case in which Pomeroy admitted under oath to seeking funds from the sex industry to produce his own child pornography.” [2]

This may go a little way in explaining the present chaos in the European and US courts in cases of child abuse and custody cases. Though courses under the IASHS curricula offer historical, psychological, anthropological and psychodynamic training, the overwhelming mission is a distinctly Kinseyian one.

One particular form of sexual education in the San Francisco “Sex Institute” and in other universities comes under the formal sounding Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) (now known as “Restructuring”). According to wikipedia entry SARS “is not a traditional academic experience designed to disseminate cognitive information, nor is it psychotherapy directed toward the resolution of personal problems”. What apparently SARS proposes to do – though this is without a citation – is to provide: “… an opportunity for participants to explore and understand their beliefs, attitudes, values and biases within the realm of sex and sexuality.” And according to Kinseyian principles, of course.

Promulgated by Pomeroy himself this process is said to achieve a shift in pedagogical attitude and teaching by incorporating specific images of a hard and soft-core nature which also happens to: “scars the viewer’s brain as it short circuits his and her conscience.” This is particularly interesting in light of ponerological aspects of psychopathy that inflict a progressive dissonance that effectively cuts off the ability to express higher feelings such as empathy. The entrainment of SAR is said to erode “emotional refinements by using high resonance images that “psychopharmacologically and neurochemically mold, coarsen and reform viewer’s brains, minds and memories.” In effect, it channels sexual energy to a strictly mechanical and animalistic perception of sexuality and in Pomeroy’s words: “The SAR is designed to ‘desensitize,’ that is to disinhibit, all viewers.” [3]

This has a particular resonance with the CIA-led mind programming operations under the generic term of MK-ULTRA in the 1950s and 60s. Kinsey himself was indirectly associated with some of the main proponents of such mind experimentation. With Rockefeller funding, one cannot help but wonder if these are offshoots of that same secret research which became purposely mainstreamed into academia.


© Infrakshun

Even before Kinsey left his intensive study of Gall wasps and launched into the field of sexuality, he was an ardent eugenicist who “recommended that a portion of the ‘lower classes’ be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.” [4]  It becomes more worrisome when eugenics appears so frequently as a prominent principle behind Kinsey’s drive to collect “data” as it does with so many of the academic and intelligentsia of his day. For instance, Dr. Herrmann Muller, a co-worker at IU for several years had done research at the “Sex Institute” in Berlin, since it was illegal in the United States. It was also at a time when the German Eugenics programs had full academic approval since before the 1920s, as a definite precursor to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.  In 1943, fellow eugenicist and infamous “scientist” Dr. Ewen Cameron became a fellow Rockefeller guarantor. In 1973 as president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Cameron was a covert CIA “mind-control” researcher who conducted human experiments outside the borders of the United States, at McGill University in Canada, for CIA director Allen Dulles.

Satanist, Aleister Crowley, American Nazi George Sylvester Viereck, aforementioned French paedophile Rene Guyon and occultist film maker Kenneth Anger were all friends and acquaintances of Kinsey. Anger commented on Kinsey as follows:

“Kinsey was obsessed with obtaining the Great Beast’s (Crowley’s) day-to-day sex diaries … To obtain grant monies and maintain the support of the university, Kinsey needed the excuse of research to validate his twenty-four-hours-a-day obsession with sex. However, Prok’s (Kinsey’s nickname) battle cry of ‘Do your best and let other people react as they will’ seemed a variation on Crowley’s ‘Do what thou wilt’ maxim. i.e. ‘Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law’ ”. [5]

Granted, we have no way of knowing the truth of Anger’s claims but the historical saga does not end there. With eugenics, Nazism, and Sex-Magick topping the Kinsey bill, this already heady brew may account for the suspicions which eventually surrounded the so called father of the “Sexual Revolution” and which contributed to an equally dubious counter-culture. His personal and professional life, clearly exhibited a pathological obsession with the mechanics of sex. When you mix a sexual obsessive with the above mentioned friends and acquaintances then it becomes clear that Kinsey’s influence could have contributed to the sexual ponerisation of society more than any other single individual. But as we know – no-one acts in isolation.

It is interesting that Kinsey’s research conveniently excluded incest and physical abuse/battery yet focused entirely on the more salacious aspects of deviancy giving them undue credence, effectively normalising them to the point that perversion and pathology is often a part of mainstream culture. For a man famous for harbouring some very dark sexual demons indeed (and regaling his party friends with the fact that he could insert a toothbrush into his penis, bristle-end first (?) it is safe to say that the type of science he carried out and the subsequent Sexual Revolution he birthed bears the same indelible stamp. [6]

The Kinsey sex studies reported that: “95 percent of American males had violated sex laws seriously enough to put them in jail, 85 percent had experienced premarital sex, 69 percent had used prostitutes, 45 percent were adulterers, as high as 37 percent had experienced orgasm in a homosexual act, and that 17 percent had had sex with an animal.” While this may appear pedestrian to the sensation-saturated 21 century, in 1948 it was shocking in the extreme. [7]

We see the same play-offs between the Christian-right and the liberal left, the former seeing him as a child molesting monster and the latter as a great pioneer and deliverer from the last throes of Victorian values and sexual Puritanism.

In reality, neither is correct.

He was very likely used by such overseers as the Rockefellers for his talents and his well-placed sexual psychopathy to act as one of many shapers of society. Persons such as Kinsey and his sponsors may have played on the lowest instincts in man and brought them to the surface to play an active part in the erosion of family, community and for a laissez-faire mentality to reign. Many of these ex-Kinseyian staff and sexologists are now within the court system pronouncing judgements on who is fit and proper to look after children in custody cases or whether or not sex offenders should be locked up or released into community care…

The effects of the Kinsey reports cannot be underestimated. They were after all, used as education templates within academia, government, charities and non-governmental organisations such as UNESCO where official documents incorporated and promoted an elite package of  humanist, eugenics and Kinseyian themes.

The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University haven’t rested on their laurels. They are still carrying out further “studies” with great gusto.


Screenshot of the “Kinsey Reporter” a mobile smart phone app which logs random data on sexuality for reasons unknown, but certainly not for scientific knowledge.

At they have produced a smart phone app to track sexual activity of users across the globe. It is difficult to know what purpose it serves other than the reinforcement of Kinseyian themes and titillation With a proven flawed metholodology for which the Kinsey Institute is most famous, this hasn’t stopped them from producing a: “… global mobile survey platform to share, explore, and visualize anonymous data about sex.” And where these “scientific”
reports “… are submitted via smartphone, then explored on this website or downloaded for off-line analysis”. None of the information generated qualifies as research or science since there is nothing scientific whatsoever in this data collection. In the same way as the Kinsey reports were completely random and unscientific in their methodology as well as a blatant example of well-funded social engineering, the Kinsey Reporter app follows the same low standards for maintaining the momentum of behavioural change through unrepresentative, unreliable and unverifiable methods which are inherently open to imagination and fabrication.

In summary, the Kinsey Institute reinforces its lack of credibility with more attempts to claim it is conducting scientific research. However, if we view the Kinsey Reporter as another tool of SMART society and the perfect avenue in which to promote Kinseyian sexualisation for societies around the world, then this is a very effective tool. It is another example of how pervasive Kinseyian beliefs have become.

Though it would seem that the most vociferous Kinsey critics are predominantly right wing, “apple-pie” conservatives, they do have considerable justification for their outrage. Admittedly, while foaming-at-the-mouth with Christian indignation doesn’t help and may even obscure the truth, it would be extremely foolish to write off all of their objections as prudish “judgment day” invective. Similarly, it could be said that Kinsey did provide partially valuable data regarding the sexual mores of middle America and that he was genuinely interested in such “research” it is highly likely that he used this as a convenient method by which he could satisfy his paedophilic fantasies and sexual obsessions of sado-masochism, voyeurism, child pornography and molestation.

According to biographer James H. Jones, he was “among the most influential Americans of the twentieth century.” If so, then you can be sure he was used for a specific purpose. Many sexologists and academics dislike having their beloved godfather of sex toppled from his mantle, but when the evidence is carefully pondered, Kinsey’s own sexual demons suggest they had become the driving force in his research, fully exploited by those who provided funding. When one puts the Rockefeller foundation in the driving seat it leaves a decidedly uncomfortable feeling that Kinsey’s detractors are onto something, yet they are shackled by accusations of fundamentalism and undue adherence to parochial, middle-American family values.

In 1948, Dr. Kinsey publicly advocated that adults engage in sexual relations with children, making the “scientific” finding that they “derived definite pleasure” from sexual use by adults. Kinsey wrote those children’s screams of pain, their striking and struggling to get away from their “partner” were all supporting evidence of the child subject’s pleasure from sexual contact with an adult “trained observer.” Dr. Reisman wrote that: “While it is clearly established that these above children’s responses were obtained by adult male child sex offenders, the Kinsey group accepts child offender/evidence re: the child victims.”

Knowing that the nature of the sexual predator in our midst is highly manipulative and with an almost supra natural cunning, it is not without good reason that this is exactly the kind of niche post that such individuals seek out where their molestations can then proceed undetected through a variety of ingenious covers. Teachers, priests, occult students, government officials and sex researchers cloaked by science: all offer the potential for secrecy and Establishment protection for psychopaths to “do as they wilt.”

Mr. Kinsey at no time allowed the question of morality to determine what was scientifically acceptable and went way beyond the bounds of perceived bourgeois repression and conservative restrictions. Perhaps the doctor did indeed have his own mandated stamp of approval that allowed him to do as he pleased and strengthened by the social naiveté concerning the dynamics of psychopaths at the time, which was even more in awe of academic and social status. Which makes the following quote from the Doctor even more delusional:

“We are the recorders and reporters of facts — not the judges of the behaviors we describe.” – Dr. Alfred Kinsey

Clearly, Kinsey was a follower of the Goebbels propaganda principle that “… when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it.”

And the Kinsey Institute have carried on this legacy to great effect.



[2] op. cit. Reisman (pp. 172-174,)
[3] Ibid. | See also pp. 174-175 and the following extract: “In December 1982, George Leonard reported his Attitude Restructuring (SAR) experience in Esquire magazine. [Esquire: The End of Sex, p. 24]   Noting at least 60,000 people trained in colleges and university by the SAR beginning in the early 1980s, Leonard expects his experience is typical: The sensory overload culminated on Saturday night in a multi-media event called the F—korama … in the darkness … images of human beings – and some-times even animals — engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, squeals, moans, shouts, and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto.  Some seventeen simultaneous moving pictures … Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group.  The subjects were nude,..I felt myself becoming disoriented … was she kissing a man or a woman?  I struggled to force the acts I was watching into their proper boxes … and now I couldn’t remember which was which.  Wasn’t I supposed to make these discriminations?  I searched for clues.  There were none.  I began to feel uncomfortable.  Soon I realized that to avoid vertigo and nausea I would have to give up the attempt to discriminate and simply surrender to the experience … The differences for which lives have been ruined, were not only trivial, but invisible.  By the end … Nothing was shocking….But nothing was sacred either.  But as I drove home, I began to get a slightly uneasy feeling.  It was almost as if I had been conned … by my own conditioned response of taking the most liberated position … whatever my deeper feelings…. love had not been mentioned a single time during the entire weekend.”
[4] p.57; Alfred C. Kinsey :A Public/Private Life by James H. Jones, published by W W Norton & Co Inc. 1997 | ISBN: 0393040860.
[5] ‘Sex Experiments of Alfred Kinsey.’ by Jim Keith. 1999.
[6] ‘Alfred’s brush with pleasure’ By Roy Porter , professor in the social history of medicine, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 November 1997.
[7] ‘On Kinsey’s German, Nazi Pedophile Aide; The New York Times Asks: “Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?’ By Dr. Judith Reisman, ‘The Kinsey Coverup’ February 4, 2007 |

The Sex Establishment III: The Kinsey Legacy

“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”

– Alfred C. Kinsey

As the US government gives Viagra to paedophiles and Europe offers Prozac to children, we could be forgiven for thinking that the world is indulging some very dark humour. Bizarre contradictions and paramoralistic laws are in place to facilitate such oddities. [1] Meantime, utter confusion of identity and sexual orientation is being normalised with the fostering of sexual expression that is nothing short of perverse; where pain, suffering and degradation are just “normal” indicators of a “liberal” society finding itself at last. Something is being found all right, but it doesn’t seem to be along the path to a more creative society.

Psychiatry that twists the nature of paedophilia and child molestation to pander for narcissistic desires seems to have partially taken root from the research of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. He and his co-researchers shaped our perceptions of sex and sexual habits and eventually inaugurated the “sexual revolution” and the age of “free love.” Under ponerological influences however, this could never end well. The time was certainly ripe to explore Western sexuality but it seems, once again, this need for awareness and healthy exploration was hijacked.

This culminated in Kinsey’s highly influential book: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male published in 1948 where 200,000 copies of the book were sold within the first two months of its publication. It was followed by his 1953 companion volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which was seen as pioneering by most in the scientific Establishment, proof of which was sealed when Kinsey appeared on the cover of Establishment mouth-piece Time magazine in the same year.

To some he is one of the great minds in the science of sexuality. To others, he is merely one of many sexual psychopaths given the task of ensuring that our sexuality remains irrevocably distorted.


Alfred Kinsey on the cover of Establishment rag ‘TIME’ in 1953

The UK’s Channel Four television programme Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles, first broadcast in October 1998, revealed some interesting facts about Kinsey’s research where the so called “normal sexuality” of test subjects was displaced in favour of an inordinately high number of persons imprisoned for criminal sexual deviancy. Interviews took place with prostitutes, child molesters, rapists and an assortment of petty criminals and the collected information entered into a database as normal examples of the population. There were suspiciously high levels of homosexuality and bestiality. Under the new spirit of “scientific” sexual emancipation however, this wasn’t deemed so…sexy.  Moreover, his research department staffed by young males and females were expected to reveal their sexual histories and participate in explicit sex movies that were shot in Kinsey’s attic … All for research purposes, of course. In summary, the scientific methodology of data collection, statistical analysis and the results that followed were all deeply flawed. [2]

What was perhaps most controversial were the methods by which Alfred Kinsey obtained child orgasms. He stated confidently: “We have now reported observation on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrusts, and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys ranging between infants of five months and adolescence in age.”

Come again? Did anyone at all consider this a red flag? Apparently not.

table34Table 34 from ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’

This included the use of stop watches and “stimulation” of children’s genitals in order to time the duration of response leading to orgasm. His claims that infants “measured in the nursery with special instruments, were found to experience orgasms at the age of four or five months” and that “[o]ne preadolescent child had 26 orgasms in 24 hours,” apparently never caused researchers concern as to how he gathered this data. Indeed, Kinsey’s obsessions with infant and child reactions to stimulation was due to his own paedophilic tendencies.John Bancroft, M.D., emeritus director of the Kinsey Institute, confirmed this preoccupation as the driving forc behind his research in his paper, “Alfred Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research” by stating that Kinsey was “particularly interested in the observation of adults who had been sexually involved with children.” [3]

What is even more worrying about the experiments, and certainly Kinsey’s own ability to interpret basic human distress is the descriptions he gives associated with infants and children during and after orgasm: “sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) … extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting …,” “pained or frightened” expression, and “violent attempts to avoid climax …” [4] Testament to Kinsey psychopathology or ambition (or both) despite these reactions, he concluded that children, “derive definite pleasure from the situation.”

One wonders whose perception of “pleasure” he was really talking about.

According to arch Kinsey critic Judith A. Reisman’s research: “… anywhere from 317 boy infants and 2,035 total children” were subjected to the sex experiments for the Kinsey data in Chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes of his reports. Kinsey’s methodology could be seen as obvious forms of abuse yet this did not seem to worry academics at the Indiana University of his day, nor those who are happy to highlight what might be labelled Reisman’s religious even conservative beliefs, but do not have answers for the questions she raises. The very nature of his research that focused on detailed charts of orgasmic toddlers and infants must lead us to re-evaluate the motives of such research.

It is now common knowledge that Kinsey’s sources for this data came from none other than: “… habitual paedophiles whom Kinsey encouraged to keep careful records of their ‘contacts’ with children, even suggesting that they time the ‘orgasms’ which these children supposedly experienced. One such Kinsey correspondent was a man who claimed to have molested hundreds of children, while another was … a Nazi storm trooper who sexually exploited children in occupied Poland and was eventually accused of murdering a 10-year-old girl in post-war Germany.” [5]

To say that there there were gargantuan flies in the ointment of scientfic rigour would be an enormous understatement.

What were the real reasons that lay behind Kinsey’s sponsored obsessions and why was his own paedophilia, and sadomasochistic preferences overlooked so comprehensively?  Even before the more bizarre aspects of Kinsey’s methodology came to light, the source of his funding provides a clue.

kinseyThe original patron of the Kinsey research in 1938 was the publicly funded Indiana University. In this case, it was the National Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation who have had a long pedigree in social engineering under the cover of philanthropy as well as Nazi business dealings and psychological experimentation via none other than Joseph Mengele (an individual we will explore further in later posts).  The Rockefeller patriarchs also pioneered the support of eugenics in Germany and America and the belief in depopulation as an answer to poverty and “bad breeding.” Marketed as a philanthropic family with its many charitable and educational organisations, its history tells a somewhat different story.  [6]  Reisman states: “…The Rockefeller Foundation’s knowledge of the research flaws [in Kinsey’s data] is certain; however, they continued to fund its use in the Model Penal Code anyway.” [7]

They did so because their objective wasn’t to improve society’s sexual habits but to impose their own agenda.

She continues:

The continuously repeated misrepresentation by Rockefeller and Indiana University that Kinsey had a “well-developed methodology” is refuted by the 1950 report from Warren Weaver, then director of the Natural Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation.  He documented for the Foundation what would have been an insurmountable fact for honorable men: that Kinsey’s data were totally invalid statistically. However, this stubborn scientific fact did not stop the official actions of the Rockefeller Foundation. By 1950, Rockefeller was funding the American Law Institute with the mission to re-craft “fixed” American law including the state laws regarding sex offenders based upon Kinsey’s invalid research. [Emphasis mine]

Without the support of the Rockefeller foundation it is unlikely that Kinsey’s work would have been allowed to come to fruition. What is important to keep in mind is that Rockefeller and Kinsey were on the same perceptual page, a belief that went far beyond the idea of liberating humanity from sexual repression but actively encouraging sexual mores that would inevitably swing to its polar opposite. To understand this better one needs to get inside the beliefs of the Rockefellers and others of their ilk, something we’ll come back to later on in this series.

Although Judith Reisman certainly has her own religious belief, she is more than qualified both academically and from her own experiences of abuse (her daughter was abused at 13) to offer compelling evidence that Kinsey was not what he seemed. She illustrates the depth of Kinsey’s subterfuge and the historical forces behind his placement via an extensive and meticulous research into what has been called the “Kinsey model” which is now used in many institutions and law courts all over America, often by proponents and advocates of Kinsey’s findings. Mix in narcissism, misguided feminism, reflexive political correctness, erroneous psychiatric evaluation atop endemic corruption and it is difficult to see how progress can be made under the current social engineering that makes up our current system of laws.

Reisman summarized the Kinsey Model in the following list from which the Kinsey team suggested to Americans that if they follow their conclusions derived from the analysis of human sexual conduct, American society would benefit in innumerable ways.  Kinsey’s “findings” included the following, suitably buttressed by the traditions of Freudian psychoanalysis to help them along:

  • All orgasms are ‘outlets’ and equal between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and boy, girl, or baby – for there is no abnormality and no normality.
  • As the aim of coitus is orgasm, the more orgasms from any ‘outlet,’ at the earliest age – the healthier the person.
  • Early masturbation is critical for sexual, physical and emotional health.  It can never be excessive or pathological.
  • Sexual taboos and sex laws are routinely broken, thus all such taboos and sex laws should be eliminated, including that of rape and child rape, unless serious ‘force’ is used and serious harm is proven.
  • Since sex is, can, and should be commonly shared with anyone and anything, jealousy is passé.
  • All sexual experimentation before marriage will increase the likelihood of a successful long-term marriage and venereal disease and other socio-sexual maladies will be reduced dramatically.
  • Human beings are naturally bisexuals Religious bigotry and prejudice forces people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.
  • Children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth (‘womb to tomb’); are unharmed by incest, adult/child sex, and often benefit thereby.
  • There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.
  • All forms of sodomy are natural and healthy.
  • Homosexuals represent ten to thirty-seven percent of the population or more. (Kinsey’s findings were always very fluid on this point.) Some educators have interpreted his findings by saying that only four to six percent of the population are exclusively heterosexual so the ‘heterosexual’ bias in the US should be eliminated. [8]

Reisman provides evidence that these “findings” and the 1948 Kinsey model as a whole, were swiftly incorporated into the educational establishment, including the health and social services, the military and most commonly from a Kinseyian “variant” sex model that draws heavily on the above. It is not difficult to see how these models have contributed to the effects we now see in our societies.

The net psychological fallout from this was not merely the hope of releasing sexual hang ups and “blockages” that might be interfering with one’s sexual identity or the ability to lead fulfilling lives. No one would say that this could not be viewed as positive. But what the Kinsey report actually served to do was to create a climate that was sourced not only from faulty data but to inculcate a preference for the pathological.


Alfred C. Kinsey

Inhibition and experimentation with a loving partner was one thing, but if you didn’t feel like indulging in sado-masochism, husband/wife-swapping, pederasty, fetishism, gay sex and orgies then of course there was clearly something wrong with your newly liberated self. After all, half of America was at it, shouldn’t you be too? The man and woman in a loving heterosexual relationship were wondering whether such normality was actually pedestrian.

Perhaps the standard sexual expression of the male-female and loving intimacy was passé?

Following the publishing of the Kinsey reports came in a veritable flood of old and new literature to imbibe the sexual revolution with suitable largesse – or guilty perversity, depending on your focus. As we have seen, the psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley goes into a lengthy discussion in Caricature of Love on the nature of the intelligentsia’s art –  including literature – which had a profound effect on the sexual consciousness of pre and post-war America and Europe. He included examples from Baudelaire, Huysmans, Strindberg, Whitman, Wilde, Swinburne, de Sade, Swift, Gide, and others, finding a remarkable common theme of antipathy towards women at best, and downright loathing and derision at worst. In fact, all authors exhibited pathologies of the perverse and delighted in an overt or passive aggressive narrative toward the feminine, the advocacy of sexual deviancy in general and the denigrating of normal sexual relations between a man and a woman.  (We might say that “normal” here, is where an affectionate and/or loving relationship exists with some form of commitment to each other. Mechanical sex as an end in itself is not the primary motivator).

Again, this is not about prudish aversion to different forms of sexual expression but the intent behind the sexual revolution that was set in motion.

Cleckley cited a number of books that took hold of the public’s newly acquired curiosities immediately after the bombshell of Kinsey’s findings. One of these books he listed was The Ethics of Sexual Acts (1934) by Kinsey’s friend author and occultist Rene Guyon and very pertinent to the mind-set under discussion. In the introduction to the book a doctor breathlessly presents the man as a sex philosopher and an expert in matters of passion, eroticism and sexual freedom serving as a welcome antidote to the anti-sexual puritanism. For this gentleman, the “science” of the Kinsey reports confirmed the doctor’s view that Guyon was a sexual visionary of the highest order.

For instance, he writes:

“… it is amazing how frequently Kinsey’s cold objective figures bear witness to the truth of Guyon’s assertions and tend to support his ideas, which at times may seem extreme.”

The same physician informs us:

“…that Neither Guyon nor Kinsey can find justification for the terms “normality” or “abnormality” in the sexual life of man.”

He also warns us:

Both Guyon’s and Kinsey’s books are high explosives. They are likely to blow sky-high many of our most sacred notions. What arguments can the anti-sexualists and professional moral-izers—forever on the warpath against men like Guyon—advance against Kinsey’s figures and charts? …

Faced by Guyon’s disconcerting candor (and also by Kinsey’s unimpeachable figures) even the liberal-minded scientist, believing himself quite free of prejudices, may suddenly discover that he too has retained childhood inhibitions and that his reasoning is impaired by some deeply embedded, ecclesiastical taboos and subconscious repressions. [9]

Rene GUYONCleckly reminds us that this individual was clearly elated with the antidote to all that repression that he believed Guyon and Kinsey were offering, as whole generations were. In part, of course, this was true. In the introduction refers to Kinsey as standing: “… closely behind Guyon, ready to back up this early crusader with science,” which is false. What this really meant was an exclusively mechanistic, Darwinian and Freudian theory of sexuality, heavily influenced by sex magick and paedophilia.

What the Kinsey report sowed in the mass consciousness and sexual identity was more than just the permission to indulge in sexual acts that could become as extreme as one liked. It was more than seeing the instincts as caged tigers to be let loose in pretty much in any way that men and women felt inclined, to be exacted on anyone who fitted the bill of one’s sexual desires, it was the imposition of a perception of sexuality as a mechanistic function devoid of higher possibilities and thus an open door to pathology. Now, the only limits on the proffered banquet of sexual acts is the landscape of our imagination overflowing with instinctual hunger and valueless desire but isolated from any hope of true intimacy.

Cleckley continues:

“By this theory the author repeatedly ‘proves’ that any and all means by which ejaculation can be attained are equally ‘natural’ ‘A sexual object,’ he announces, ‘is not essential or indispensable for the full satisfaction of the sexual sense. For this purpose, any one mechanical process may be as good as any other, whether this process involves the use of an object or not.’ […]

This being so, if the anal, oral and sexual mucous membranes are all equally suited to play their part in the mechanical process, they are all of equal value, and it is no more necessary to delimit these specific zones than to compare their relative efficacy …

In reality, all this amounts to nothing more than that the anal and oral zones behave like the genital zone …This behavior derives its value from the fact that the cavities in question have all more or less the same form; but we know very well that in onanism the prehensile members [hands] show themselves quite capable of creating an artificial cavity which serves the same mechanical purpose.” [10]

Cleckley highlights the theme of this “mechanistic theory of sexuality,” revealing that just as Kinsey believes “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform” so Guyon attempts to prove the same, where exhibitionism, incest, paedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, and coprophilia “are healthy and equally satisfactory expressions of biologic impulse, entirely normal and commendable.” [11] 

If the object of desire is a sentient being with consciousness rather than just a screw in a machine; (no pun intended) – a set of orifices that must be penetrated – then there is always a chance for the connection to responsibility, values, ethics, empathy, and the deeper potential of love to come into play. But this is not the case. In normalising the pathology listed above it places the mechanical, chemical dominator of instinct squarely in the human consciousness as the destroyer of principles and limits. Narcissistic sex for sex’s sake is to be not only natural, but hip and cool; the forerunner of “free love” and a free society. Is that really what the new flares of psychedelic and sexual freedom were about? Was it free love – or just a free for all? Healing our sexual selves by releasing repression in the Freudian tradition seems to have spilled over into something entirely different.

Guyon, after encouraging the enlisting of prostitutes to pad out the numbers for a good old fashioned orgies states: “It goes without saying also that its justifiability is never called into question by those who have rebelled against repression and have deliberately rejected it from their system of sexual ethics.” In other words, the system sexual ethics actually involves the absence of any ethics at all. Anything goes and you need not be concerned about consequences or the deeper substratum of the human being. Which goes surprisingly close to the idea of “Do what thou wilt,” the maxim of which forms the lynchpin of a particular Satanic occult practice we will look at presently.


The Freudian, Kinsey-Guyon view of sexuality

tumblr_nhrpkdBfkR1sfie3io1_1280(public domain: New Old Stock)

Those who see such free-spirited emancipation as something other than freedom of the body and mind are accused of prejudice, anti-sexuality and retrogression. While the prudish and puritanical are also part of the problem, the issue here is of psycho-subversion by pathological constructs paraded as sexual emancipation. Or, as Cleckley explains, Guyon sees: “…The psychology of these extraordinary acts [which] can be explained as a simple manifestation of preference, and cannot be looked upon as “morbid,” since it has a perfectly natural source…” where: “… all methods are equally normal.”

Now place this worldview in the context of how one views women as literal objects to penetrate and domesticate and man as nothing more than alpha-pistons re-fuelling their engines of desire to conquer and consume. What this perception increases is the idea of a world of consumption, without sexual limits, sex for its own sake and the erosion of values that surround the hope of loving, more cohesive and strengthened relations. Moral distinctions and thus values between communities and society play no part where sensation and the orgasm is the defining factor of liberation. It is a road map for a psychopath’s view of sex, as Cleckley reiterates:

Every mechanical means of producing sexual pleasure is normal and legitimate; there is no room for moral distinctions between the various available methods; all are equally justifiable and equally suited to their particular ends…The personal characteristics of the sexual partner have nothing to do with the physiological manifestations of sexual pleasure itself; the importance attributed to these characteristics is a matter of convention…. […] …the ‘sexual pervert’ has no real existence, nor any proper place in the nomenclature of disease . . . these are not pathological cases; they are, on the contrary, people who have remained in much closer touch with nature, truth and health than those who, willing or otherwise, have succumbed to repression. [12]

These books and others like them, set out to explore sexuality not always in favour of true freedom but to redefine sexual taste and change the normal person’s incentive which is naturally lacking towards what can be safely defined as pathology. Such strains of literary psychopathy infiltrating and warping cultural mores is defined by Łobaczewski as both essential psychopathy and in the case of some of the more literary classics: “asthenic psychopathy”: “This type of person finds it easier to adjust to social life. The lesser cases in particular adapt to the demands of the society of normal people, taking advantage of its understanding for the arts and other areas with similar traditions. Their literary creativity is often disturbing if conceived in ideational categories alone; they insinuate to their readers that their world of concepts and experiences is self- evident; also it contains characteristic deformities.” [13]

Thus, as part of a larger method of social engineering by psychopathological influences, this helps to contour such “tastes” towards their singular preferences – starting in childhood.

We are now in the early part of the 21st century, where we will be able to gauge how successful this direction has been.



[1] ‘US government gives free Viagra to paedophiles’ Times Online, By James Bone, May 23, 2005.
[2] Methods, Sex and Madness by Julia O’Connell Davidson and Derek Layder. Published by Routledge 1994, this edition 2001. ISBN 0415-09764-9.  See Chapter 4 The Survey Method p.83.
[3] Bancroft, J. (2004). Alfred C. Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 1-39.
[4]Kinsey, A. (1998). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
[5] ‘Kinsey’s Crimes Against Children’ By Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Post, May 1999.
[6] For further reading on the Rockfeller dynasty’s relationship to Nazi eugenics and research in psychology read: ‘Rockefeller, Nazis, The UN, & Genocide’ by Anton Chaitkin and Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust by Edwin Black. Published by Dialog Press; First Edition edition, 2009. ISBN-10: 0914153099 / War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black Published by Dialog Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0914153056.
[7] p. 201; Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme Third Edition, Judith A. Reisman, Published by IInst. Media Education, 2003 | ISBN-10: 0966662415
[8] Ibid. Reisman (pp. 170-171)
[9] op. cit. Cleckley (pp.182-183)
[10] Ibid. (pp.183-184)
[11] Ibid. (p.184)
[12] Ibid. (p.187)
[13] op. cit. Lobaczewski, (p.94 )