Structural Adjustment Team

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

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


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

Retinger-bernhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estulin also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

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

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

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

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathocrats

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


Notes

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

 

Puppets & Players III: Le Cercle

cercle 1

© infrakshun


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image002Otto von Hapsburg

clip_image004Jonathan Aitken

clip_image006Konrad Adenauer

clip_image008Michael Howard

clip_image010Lord Norman Lamont

clip_image012Brian Crozier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clip_image014_thumb.jpg

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

Chairman/President /Term

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

The “Structural Adjustment” Team I

By M.K. Styllinski

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

Gabriel Kolko


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The IMF has a partner in crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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