Tony Blair

Osama and Al-Qaeda I

By M.K. Styllinski

“The idea which is critical to the FBI¹s prosecution that bin Laden ran a coherent organisation with operatives and cells all around the world of which you could be a member is a myth. There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.”

Jason Burke, author, quoted in The Power of Nightmares, documentary


The key to understanding some of the key reasons for the September 11th attacks lies in the history of bin Laden and the creation of Al-Qaeda. The problem is still perpetuated by a common public misconception that there is still a case of “us and them” between government forces and Al-Qaeda terrorism. The American public and some within the 911 Truth Movement and MSM are pressing for culpability for members of the Bush Administration and their part in allowing Al-Qaeda to launch attacks on the United States. So called politicians turned whistleblowers are largely criticising failure of intelligence or incompetence without seeing the root causes which lies at the heart the War on Terror as a piece of large-scale propaganda of which Edward Bernays would have been proud. As author and economist Professor Michel Chossudovsky mentions: “… in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up. ‘Revealing the lies’ serves to present Al-Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an ‘outside enemy’, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al-Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.” [1]

Al-Qaeda is more of a mercenary tool of global intelligence than a real terrorist threat. Regime change and resource exploitation are some of its goals. This necessarily incorporates radicalised individuals who serve as patsies and agents furthering the overall geo-strategy. They are a common form of collateral and cannon fodder. There is a wealth of evidence  for the interested researcher confirming the myth of Al-Qaeda from the mouths of whistleblowers, ex-Intel operatives, politicians, statesmen, authors and academics.

Leonid Shebarshin ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper, that Al-Qaeda was an “all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam” in order to target “… the oil-rich Muslim regions.” He further commented: “The U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat…” and with military bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Shebarshin said, “the United States has already established control over the Caspian region — one of the world’s largest oil reservoirs.” [2]

938px-Flag_of_Jihad.svg

The Shahada – the Flag of Jihad often seen flying with Al-Qaeda, Taliban and ISIL (Source: wikipedia)

It is here that the Three Establishment Model (3EM) interests converge. They do so from the seemingly innocuous beginnings of the Safari Club which had its relatively humble beginnings in homage to the colonial hunters of the British Elite, Cecil Rhodes and the Round Table.

Russell E. Train (cousin of John Train, the Pilgrims Society member and former financial advisor to CIA-ally John Hay Whitney) was a co-founder of the African Wildlife Foundation set up since 1961. According to Train’s biography his foundation had drifted away from the Safari Club which was in existence before 1958 and coyly described by him as “a newly formed organization set up by a local group of businessmen who had gone on a hunt together in Mozambique.” [3] Although certainly a white man’s big-game hunting troupe for Pan-European and Anglo-American big-wigs, one of these businessmen and founders was Kermit Roosevelt Jr. who had set up the club as an anti-communist outpost, the evolution of which was given the seal of approval by Henry Kissinger several years later. Among other states, Saudi Arabia had a large hand in financing operations in Morocco, Egypt and Iran, with a view to countering Soviet operations in the Middle East and Africa. [4]

The other important founder was Count Alexandre de Marenches, the director of French intelligence services representing Pan-European Synarchism in the region. It would thus represent the next phase in Anglo-American dominance in Africa. The WWF and the 1001 club were involved in its formation via Train, Arthur Windsor Arundel and Sue Erpf van de Bovenkamp [5]

With Nixon booted out over the Watergate Scandal 1974, this saw the arrival of a new breed of psychopaths in power who would preside over criminal rule just as they did on 9/11: Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld; Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney; Vice president Nelson Rockefeller (brother of David) and George H.W. Bush as CIA Director, who joined the Ford Administration and the Kissinger cabal. Under this motley crew, 1976 would see the consolidation of a coalition of intelligence agencies that would begin the comprehensive carving up of Africa. The Safari Club would become the central hub for American intelligence financing; the organisation of an international network of terrorists; the CIA’s role in the global drug trade; the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of Al-Qaeda.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) formerly a small Pakistani merchant bank was transformed into an ISI/CIA front for the biggest world-wide money laundering enterprise in history. Its job was to accrue a network of banks to finance intelligence in Africa and other nations. Under Bush, the intelligence groups in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran worked closely with the CIA who found could out-source their Intel operations through these nations which otherwise have been logistically difficult not least because French intelligence was still at the helm of the Safari Club.

1977 was the year that the Trilateral Commission were able to exercise their power more actively through Jimmy Carter’s administration, though in truth, the real power was sourced from Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor, just one of many Trilaterals which infested the government at that time. Foreign policy would be steered towards Trilateral objectives which saw the colonisation of Eurasia as vital in eroding the power of the Soviet Union, seen as a continuing threat to US supremacy and resource scarcity. Iran would become the fulcrum of revolution which would lead to the destabilisation of Russia and her interests. “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, [that] there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.” [6] The same old patterns of interference ensued.

Brzezinski_1977

Zibigniew Brzezinski 1977 (wikipedia)

In 1953, the United States’ CIA initiated a coup in Iran under the codename of Operation AJAX, which sought to remove the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Almost thirty years later the Royal Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the dictator of Iran was suddenly no longer useful and Anglo-American allegiances now supported the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini in favour of containment regarding Russia and access to oil. The media propaganda went into full swing for Revolution as preparations for a military coup inside Iran. In 1979, a coup proved unnecessary and Ayatollah Khomeini was smoothly installed as the Ayatollah of an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Much like the kinds of US-NATO-led incursions we saw in Libya and Syria in the last few years, human rights abuses, real and imagined, were floated excessively in the media. As social tensions rose in Iran the Shah’s secret police the notorious SAVAK were encouraged by US diplomats to embark on a campaign: “of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.”

True to form, the Shah fell into the trap laid by Zbigniew Brzezinski who had advised him: “… to be firm” in the face of demonstrations. [7]

After assisting the installation of fundamentalist Islam and just prior to the Iran-Iraq war Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein and gave his support for the war ensuring that arms would be secured with the support of Arab oil-producing nations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. [8] Though this war provided a bonanza for weapons manufacturers in the US, Britain and Russia it also served the American interests in fermenting continuing radicalism in the region so that pockets of conflict and the background of war would serve as cover for securing economic interests.

Meanwhile, as Islamic fundamentalism had been seeded and watered in Iran, Osama bin Laden had left Saudi Arabia to train the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan which the US government were training, arming, and funding to the tune of $3 billion thanks again to Brzezinski transplanting the Islamic foreign policy over to the “holy War.” Very soon, as the late Robert I. Freidman describes in The CIA’s Jihad: “… young Muslim men from across the Arab world, as well as from the U.S., flocked to Mujahedeen base camps outside Peshawar, Pakistan, where they were instructed in everything from making car bombs to shooting down Russian MiGs with U.S.-made Stinger missiles. Most of these recruits were fanatical Islamic fundamentalists who despised America just as much as they hated the Communist occupiers, but the CIA was willing to overlook that.” [9]

Osama bin Laden’s leadership in Afghanistan was vital in driving out Russia. The pretext used on this occasion was that the incumbent Afghan government was communist, which it wasn’t. The enormous investment handled by the CIA meant the creation and consolidation of bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist network with the blessing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – and American tax-payers’ money. [10]  Brzezinski’s strategy to lay a trap for Russia whereby the Mujahedeen’s guerrilla war would embroil the Soviet Union in their own Vietnam was supremely successful, leading to its withdrawal and eventual collapse. [11]

october_87-muja

Afghan Mujahedeen,October 1987. By Erwin Lux (Wikipedia)

Now that the Safari Club had managed to send out word through its extensive network of intelligence, numerous new recruits were harvested for the glorious jihad and holy war taking place in Afghanistan. Ahmed Rashid writing in Foreign Affairs explained: “With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.” [12] Islamic fundamentalism provided ample opportunity for martyrdom with a fantasy paradise of umpteen virgins waiting for their courageous warriors should they take up arms against the Russian infidels.

Bcci_logoBy the time the Reagan Administration took over Vice President George H.W. Bush made sure the BCCI banking funds were on hand for an expansion of operations in Afghanistan and other regions primed for divide and conquer tactics. Journalist Seymour Hersh termed the Safari Club a “private intelligence group [which was] one of George H. W. Bush’s many end-runs around congressional oversight of the American intelligence establishment and the locus of many of the worst features of the mammoth BCCI scandal.” [13]

Australian journalist John Pilger also placed the onus firmly on the Anglo-American intelligence structure: “More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.” [14]

taliban

Taliban fighters

In the early 1980’s Osama bin Laden already had firmly established ties between Saudi intelligence agency (GIP) their favourite Afghan warlord Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and the Intel chief, and possible middle man for the Mujahedeen groups – Prince Turki al-Faisal, bin Laden’s friend. Though bin Laden “… did have a substantial relationship with Saudi intelligence,” as journalist Steve Coll stated, he was likely not an agent. The CIA and the Safari Club were both working through al-Faisal and “ISI stooge and creation” war-lord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan as well as the Pakistani ISI which had now become a powerful adjunct to the CIA thanks to General (later President) Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s military coup of 1977 who assumed the presidency in 1978. [15] It was no coincidence that Haq passed pro-Islamic legislation, created Islamic banking systems, and Islamic courts and introduced a new religious tax for the creation of tens of thousands of madrassas, or religious boarding schools. This was an offshoot of US policy to build radical Islam, via education that would indoctrinate generations of future Islamic militants for decades to come. This extended to the Pakistani military where “Radical Islamist ideology began to permeate the military and the influence of the most extreme groups crept into the army…” [16]

In 1984, bin Laden moved to Peshawar, a Pakistani town on the border of Afghanistan, so that he could help set up and run Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) (meaning “Services Office” in English). This was a front organisation for the Mujahideen which funnelled weapons, money, and willing Jihad fighters from all over the burgeoning militant Islamic network straight into the increasingly ferocious Afghan war. [17] Meantime, Pakistan’s General Akhtar Abdul-Rahman met bin Laden on a regular basis in the city for Intel and financial dealings related to drug profits from the opium fields which by then were totalling around $100 million. By 1985, bin Laden and the ISI – effectively the CIA – were splitting the proceeds. [18]

202_george_bush_sr

George H. W. Bush and BCCI

Rahman was a close friend of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who by now, was a CIA asset and recognised as an international drug trafficker at Interpol. A top US official said that Haq “was our man … everybody knew that Haq was also running the drug trade” and that “BCCI was completely involved.” [19] Then CIA Director William Casey and Vice President George H. W. Bush were fully aware of the connection and while meeting Haq in Pakistan allowed him to move his drug money through the BCCI in return for his role in the program which was to provide Intel, keep the radical Islamic factions at fever pitch and finance the war on terror network. On one such secret visit to training camps near the Afghan border in 1984, the CIA director spoke of a strategy to “… take the Afghan war into enemy territory—into the Soviet Union itself. Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet Union’s predominantly Muslim southern republics.” [20] It proved easy to do so. However, it would only be 3 years later that the two Generals Rahman and Haq would both be killed in a plane crash in 1988, widely believed to have been sabotage conducted by the MOSSAD who were concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation instigated by Haq. [21]

Zia_ul-Haq

Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq circa 1977

In 1990, the blind Egyptian cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman was travelling to the United States in style – and on a CIA-supported, one-year visa as a reward for his propagandizing lectures in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Much to the confusion and consternation of many intelligence agents he was also on a State Department terrorism watch list that should have barred him from the country. Hand-picked as a spellbinder in order to whip up disaffected Arab immigrants for the required Holy War and in turn, to stir the support for Muslim rebels needed to topple the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan, Rahman was proving an extremely useful part of a burgeoning Islamist network of agents. There were “Jihad offices” in Atlanta, Jersey City, and Dallas, the most important being the “Al-Kedah” (meaning “struggle”) set up in Brooklyn, New York, as the Al-Kedah Refugee Centre which served as fertile ground for Rahman and others’ spellbinding skills.

However, the winds of “blowback” were beginning to whistle through the ranks of Arab-CIA assets, most of whom gave lectures at Al-Kedah which would eventually be implicated in the World Trade Centre Bombings in 1993. Over $600 million was funnelled to this precursor organisation to Al-Qaeda and from several smaller outfits benefiting from CIA funds along with rich Pakistani and Saudi Arabian donors. [22] It would continue to be the main financial hub for CIA chaperoned, Al-Qaeda terrorists so that they could form the so-called network of cells within the United States, heavily monitored and managed by the FBI and CIA. In the words of private Washington attorney and former investigative counsel for the Senate Foreign Relation, Jack Blum: “We steered and encouraged these people. Then we dropped them. Now we’ve got a disposal problem. When you motivate people to fight for a cause – jihad – the problem is, how do you shut them off?” [23]

wtc1993

World Trade Centre Bombings 1993 – Another FBI entrapment set up?

But it was much more than simply forgetting to switch off a tap. This was adapted to a much larger, long-term objective where Al-Qaeda would come home to roost and serve as the bogeyman for a highly ambitious attack on American soil. The object of the CIA exercise was to keep other US agencies and even certain team members from looking too closely into the various issues related to assassinations and terrorist attacks on the homeland. As a growing number of FBI and CIA whistleblowers have proven – not always an easy thing to accomplish.

Another CIA asset rubbing shoulders with bin Laden was Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian preacher/spellbinder recruited from a small village Jenin, ostensibly as a diplomatic tool for uniting squabbling rebel factions in Pakistan. He became bin-Laden’s mentor persuading him to join the Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Azzam was asset gold due to his connections the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi intelligence, and the Muslim World League and the Islamic Coordination Council in Peshawar, which supervised the military activities of the Arab Mujahedeen. Meantime, he could sip martinis and chat with the air stewardesses as he travelled for his frequent lectures in New York, at Al-Kifah and the Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn and the Al-Salam Mosque in Jersey City calling for the “spark” of revolution “… that may one day burn Western interests all over the world.” As Freidman wryly mentions, a fact which drew so many of the CIA assets: “Azzam then asked his audience for donations, made out to his personal account at the Independent Savings Bank.” [24]

Having got too big for his Keffiyeh, Azzam was eventually murdered in a car bomb after accruing many enemies, including Osama bin Laden. No one really knew who had pressed the button but most were glad someone had. As with all allegations of foreknowledge and duplicity the CIA always plays dumb. As a New York investigator observed: “Left with the choice between pleading stupidity or else admitting deceit, the CIA went with stupidity.” [25]

From 1984 onwards, the CIA’s ability to twist itself into a spaghetti junction of lies became tragi-comic. As covert importation of Al-Qaeda terrorist and Islamic militants continued via MAK, one Ali Mohammed came to the attention of the media. A  major in the Egyptian army and a US operative he was tasked with training Islamic militants within the US. As yet another visitor to the Al-Kifah Centre and part of the army unit that was responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat he was involved in a special training program for foreign officers at the US Army Special Forces School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as far back as 1981. Mohammed was apparently purged from the Egyptian Army after the assassination and joined the Green Berets, reportedly travelling to Afghanistan in 1992 to aid the Mujahedeen.

In 1984, US officials told the media that they were forced to remove Mohammed due to his religious beliefs which were considered too extreme. Mohamed found his way to the CIA in Egypt and asked to join as a spy. (It’s as easy as that). CIA subsequently decided that he couldn’t be trusted on account of his associations with Hezbollah. He found himself on a terrorist watch list order to prevent him from coming to the US. However, Mohamed turned up with a brand new visa and moved to America sailing through customs without any problems, with the US State Department choosing not to explain to a thoroughly confused media. [26] Like so many of these stories, they are quickly forgotten.

In 1995, it was revealed at the trial of terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, that Mohammed had been admitted to the US under a special visa program controlled by the CIA’s clandestine service. A subsequent search of his New Jersey home turned up forty boxes of evidence which had the D.A.’s office and the FBI looked at it more carefully, would have revealed an active terrorist conspiracy about to boil over in New York. In addition to discovering thousands of rounds of ammunition and hit lists with the names of New York judges and prosecutors, investigators found amongst the evidence classified U.S. military-training manuals. They also found a video made at Fort Bragg featuring the Green Beret Ali Mohammed lecturing U.S. officers and officials on the politics of Jihad. On the video, Ali Mohammed sounds oddly like a radical fundamentalist himself, declaring that the Muslim world will never accept the existence of Israel.

The CIA was lying again and not quite getting away with it. Nonetheless, no action was taken and before long, Mohammed had found himself a wife and had settled into the American dream.

***

cook_robinRobin Cook

The late Robin Cook as UK Foreign Secretary, was outspoken in his resistance to the Iraq war and the lies of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Cook was one of the very few who resigned over the issue to become an ordinary back-bencher, stating: “I can’t accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.” Cook also wanted to stop the export of aerospace jet fighters to General Suharto’s repressive regime in Indonesia. As he told the Guardian: “we will not permit the sale of arms to regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression. We shall spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves”. He was to be a vehement opponent and thorn in the side of the Blair government before his untimely death.

Many insiders believed that Cook was destined for a senior Cabinet post under the Brown premiership but this would have been problematic for the British Establishment who was set on Middle Eastern conquest. As Foreign Secretary, Cook would have had plenty of access to intelligence reports and related operations abroad. He is known to have considerably ruffled some feathers by breaking the official secrets act and discussing policy and future proposals. He was to do this in spectacular fashion by courageously speaking the truth regarding the War on Terror and the nature of Al-Qaeda which was “literally ‘the database’, and in Cook’s words: “… originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahedeen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” [27] The Guardian article appeared just after the 7/7 bombings and the incendiary speeches by Cook. Whatever ball the respected politician had started to roll it was not to last.

Robin Cook’s legacy in standing for truth was corroborated by a former French Intelligence agent Pierre-Henri Bunel, who wrote an article for the World Affairs journal based in New Dehli in 2004 where he repeated so many top level analysts’ conclusions: “The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[28]

This is where global drugs market comes in …

 


Notes

[1] ‘“Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”’ by Michel Chossudovsky – Text of Michel Chossudovsky’s keynote presentation at the opening plenary session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11, Toronto, 25-30 May 2004. http://www.globalresearch.ca 27 May 2004.
[2] ‘Russian Intelligence Chief Says Al-Qaeda A Myth,’ MosNews| March 21, 2005.
[3] p.39; Politics, Pollution, and Pandas: An Environmental Memoir By Russell E. Train, Published by Island Press 2003.
[4] Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the roots of Terror by Mahmood Mamdani, Published by Three Leaves Publishing; Reprint edition, 2005. ISBN-10: 0385515375. (p.84)
[5] ‘World Wildlife Fund: The 1001 Club Mafia dons, intelligence agents, and raw materials executives striving for a sustainable future’ http://www.whale.to
[6] p.67; Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America by Peter Dale-Scott, Published by University of California Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0520258711.
[7] Ibid. (p.81)
[8] The eight year Iran/Iraq war (1980-1988) is remembered as one of the most shockingly harrowing conflicts of the 20th century. It was reminiscent of the First World War in terms of sheer numbers of dead; territory shifting back and forth between the two sides like bone-dry seas, heavy with the burden of teenage corpses and the endless pain of grieving families. It was a lucrative time for the US, Russia, and various European nations eager to extend this barbarism in order to squeeze out the highest profits from a whole generation of beleaguered youths. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East looked on, until the final combined casualty list total reached one million. The combined profit from these arms deals however, is unknown, but we can guess at the obscene sums of money accrued. To further compound the misery and the arrogance of its leaders, nightmarish monuments were erected on the backs of an already broken people: the fountain of blood in Teheran, the soldier statuaries in Basrah and two giant crossed swords clasped by equally giant arms modelled on Hussein himself. They were also cast in a British foundry. It is testament to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s skill as a geo-political tactician and strategist as it is his cold absence of conscience.
[9] ‘The CIA’s Jihad’ By Robert I. Friedman, June 30, 2002. Current View Point -www.currentviewpoint.com
[10] ‘Who is Osama Bin Laden? BBC News, 18 September, 2001.
[11] ‘The Soviets’ Vietnam’. Richard Cohen Washington Post. April 22, 1988.
[12] ‘The Taliban: Exporting Extremism’, by Ahmed Rashid, Foreign Affairs, Issue November-December 1999.
[13] ‘Seymour Hersh and the men who want him committed’, Salon.com by Matthew Phelan, February 28 2011.
[14] ‘Why Good Friends left behind.” By John Pilger, The Guardian, September 20, 2003.
[15] ‘It ain’t over till it’s over’ By Marc Erikson Asia Times November 15 2001.
[16] I Is for Infidel: From Holy War to Holy Terror: 18 Years Inside Afghanistan by Kathy Gannon, Published by Public Affairs, 2005. |ISBN-10: 1586483129. | (pp.138-142)
[17] ‘The Real Bin Laden’ by Mary Jane Weaver, The New Yorker, 2000.
[18] p. 29; Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. By Gerald Posner, Published by Random House, 2003.| ISBN-10: 0375508791.
[19] op. cit. Dale-Scott, (pp. 73-75).
[20] ‘Anatomy of a Victory, the CIA’s Covert Afghan War’ by Steve Coll Washington Post, July 19 1992.
[21] ‘Editorial:Another clue into General Zia’s death’ Daily Times Pakistan, December 2005. […] “former US ambassador to India, John Gunther Dean, suspects that General Zia ul Haq was killed by the Israelis. This is interesting enough but perhaps would not have made it beyond the slew of conspiracy theories that have been cropping up since Zia was killed in a C-130 plane crash if the US State Department had not chosen to ignore Mr Dean and later cashier him on grounds of being mentally imbalanced.
According to Ms Crossette’s account under the title ‘Reflections — Who Killed Zia?’, Mr Dean suspects that General Zia, his top commanders, the US ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphael, and a US brigadier-general were killed by the Israeli secret agency Mossad because Tel Aviv was concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions following a statement by General Zia in 1987 that Pakistan was a “screwdriver’s turn away from the bomb”.But when Mr Dean expressed his views to the State Department at the time and insisted that the US must thoroughly investigate the Israeli-Indian axis, the Department accused him of mental imbalance and relieved him of his duties; this, despite that fact that Mr Dean was a distinguished diplomat who had garnered more ambassadorships than most envoys. Ms Crossette says that Mr Dean, now 80, wants the stigma of mental imbalance removed and is collecting his papers and is ready to share his thoughts. He lost his medical and security clearance because of his views and was forced to seek retirement in 1988.”[…]
[22] pp. 279-280; Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam by Robert Dreyfuss (American Empire Project) Published by Metropolitan Books; 2005 | ISBN-10: 0805076522.
[23] op. cit. Freidman.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] ‘The Masking of a Militant’ By Benjamin Weiser and James Risen – A Soldier’s Shadowy Trail In U.S. and in the Mideast The New York Times, December 1, 1998.
[27] ‘The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means – The G8 must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of such atrocities’ By Robin Cook, The Guardian, July 8, 2005.
[28] ‘Al Qaeda: The Database’ By Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, May 12, 2011 | Wayne Madsen Report 20 November, 2005.

Puppets & Players VIII: Bilderberg Group

bilderberg1

Bilderberg group connections (click on image to enlarge)

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


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

Retinger-bernhard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estulin also states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to the main thrust of Bilderberger designs:

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

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

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

Estulin’s discoveries regarding their objectives are paraphrased thusly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pathocrats

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


Notes

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

 

Puppets & Players IV: The Round Table Group / Movement

“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

— Cecil Rhodes


The British Empire is the most recent expression of pathocratic rule to grace the shores of unsuspecting nations. Almost 90 percent of the globe had been invaded by Victorian stiff upper lips with only 22 countries ever escaping the glorious injection of Christian missionary and military zeal. [1]One individual who was the epitome of strong-arm, British imperialism was Cecil Rhodes. Though the inception of a distinctly British version of a World State extends far back into time we will take up the narrative as Rhodes made his way to South Africa in the year 1870, aged 17 years-old.

Born from a poor but religious family, the story goes that he was sent there to improve his health and to extend business interests with his brother Herbert, based in Natal as a planter on a cotton farm. By 1871, they had made a claim in the Kimberley diamond fields and rapidly amassed a fortune. After only a few years he returned to England and entered Oriel College, Oxford. Though his recurring ill-health is often sourced as the reason it is difficult to imagine how it was possible for a seventeen year-old from a poor family in Hertfordshire could return in just a few years with a fortune and be able to travel as he pleased between Africa and Oxford without completing his degree for almost ten years! The most probable reason for his rapid success and freedom from the normal constraints of Oxford students is that he had been selected by Nathaniel Rothschild to act as agent and facilitator for his African conquest. No doubt Rothschild recognised a kindred spirit in the young, ambitious Rhodes and decided that not only was he on the same page, he would be a very useful political and ideological asset.

In 1888, with the backing of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, Rhodes, at just 24 years-old bought out all rival mining companies in the Kimberley region. He quickly became a most powerful man, entering the Cape House of Assembly as member for Barkly and eventually taking office in the Cape Ministry. The mining industry was under his complete control eventually growing into De Beers Consolidated Mines. By 1890, he had become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony with enormous leverage over the Cape economy as a whole. [2]

22518586

John Ruskin

John Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford and a major player in the rise of the Romantic Movement. He was an architect, philosopher and talented artist who also preached the doctrine of collectivism and elite rule, partly due to the influences inherent in his upper-middle class background and British Empire traditions. Ruskin was sincere in his beliefs and was one of the first true philanthropists of his age, giving away much of his wealth to the poor. His mix of art and elitism was extremely appealing to the Establishment who felt their elevated status and access to education and riches gave them a moral obligation to manage the masses. The rise of Marxism was entirely compatible with persons such as Ruskin as it combined the uplifting of the poor with the collectivist future for the world.

Rhodes was greatly influenced by John Ruskin’s romantic, imperialist philosophy while at Oxford, though Ruskin’s somewhat benevolent colouring was lost in Rhodes’ fanatical racism and belief in the British as the New Olympians. His unfailing confidence in the supremacy of the British Empire reflected his own dedication to white supremacy and the promise of an Anglo-Saxon Global Empire. He became the dominant colonist in expanding British territory, securing the charter for the British South Africa Company which was heavily involved with the slave trade. He made sure that Bechuanaland remained in British possession instead of falling to the Boers; developing the vast areas of land north and south of the Zambezi. The monopoly exerted by Rhodes over the diamond and gold mining industry was already creating tensions in the region most particularly between the Boers and the indigenous populations, the latter seen as less than human by both sides which meant that massacres were frequent and brutal.

The Transvaal region of South Africa was beset by prospectors looking to strike it rich. Kings College, Oxford educated, High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony Lord Alfred Milner was to prove vital to Rhodes’ and therefore, the Rothschild’s expanding ambitions. Like Rhodes, he was a great believer in British supremacy though less bullish insofar as his role as enforcer had a semblance of constructive diplomacy should it prove to be the only option. Rhodes, Milner and the overshadowing Rothschilds safely tucked up in London vowed to dominate the region by every possible means.

clip_image002clip_image004

Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes

Biographer John Flint unearthed the original will of Cecil Rhodes made in June 2 1877 in his own handwriting entitled “Confession of Faith.” Considering the astounding influence this man had on his world and what he set in motion after his death it may be helpful for the reader to step inside Rhodes’ mind more fully and thus understand why he seems to have been used as  a Rothschild agent keen to establish their leverage via the British Empire. Without using British influence in the Middle East the creation of the State of Israel at this juncture would never have happened. The Rhodes document is a platform for extolling the virtues of a master race, systematic genocide, racism; a distinctly British colonialism and the creation of control via a new secret society:

It often strikes a man to enquire what is the chief goal in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on his idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself thinking over the same question the wish came to render myself useful to my country. I then asked myself how could I and after reviewing the various methods I have felt that at the present day we are rhodesactually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit that if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.

Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. […] In the present day I became a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end. […]

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. […] 

… think of those countless 1000’s of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? Do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men. I bring facts to prove my assertions. Does an English father when his sons wish to emigrate ever think of suggesting emigration under another flag, never – it would seem a disgrace to suggest such a thing I think that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag rather than wealth under a foreign one. Fancy Australia discovered and colonised under the French flag, what would it mean merely several millions of English unborn that at present exist we learn from the past and to form our future. We learn through having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses. […]

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object. […]

Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed. […] (In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe…) [3]

In 1891, fuelled by Rothschild funding and his Oxford-based intellectual elite, Rhode’s plans began to take shape. The Round Table and later the Council on Foreign Relations would be the culmination of just such a “secret society” incorporating all of the above principles, differing only in their euphemistic representation, being soft on the ear and easy on the eye, appealing to high society civility and champagne smiles. With well-known journalist William T. Stead and Reginald Baliol Brett, known as Lord Esher, friend of Queen Victoria, and eventual advisor to King Edward VII and King George V, Rhodes formed the membership of what would soon grow into an international organisation. In Professor Carroll Quigley’s second book The Anglo-American Establishment he tells us the plan for such an organization was to act as an inner circle: “… to be known as ‘The Society of the Elect’, and an outer circle, to be known as ‘The Association of Helpers.’ Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Lord Alfred Milner.” [4]

carhodes

“French cartoon depicting Cecil John Rhodes with a bottle of champagne while the Transvaal burns” Source: http://angloboer.com/

However, by 1895, Cecil Rhodes suffered a setback. Large scale operations were carried out in the Transvaal in an attempt to quash insurgent attacks by increasingly hostile Afrikaans who wanted to oust British rule and monopolise the gold. The Jameson Raid was one of the bloodiest disasters for the British colonial designs and forced Rhodes to resign as Prime Minister of the Cape. By 1899, largely due to Milner’s intransigence and belief in British imperialism as the only way to proceed, war between the British and the Boers broke out in 1899, with the annexation of the two Boer states in 1901 and then claimed by the British Empire.

Milner was assigned the administration of the two states which meant he had to rescind the governorship of the Cape Colony, while still retaining the post of high commissioner. During the war concentration camps incarcerating over 27,000 Boer women and children were created with some records reporting more than 14,000 black South Africans died while imprisoned in the camps. [5]Though Milner privately expressed his opposition to the camps he did very little to prevent or to restrict the atrocities inflicted by Lord Kitchener on his departure from the Cape to the Transvaal. It was to be the imperialistic pioneering personalities of Rhodes and Milner who would form the nexus of a British Elite formed in South Africa based on the same Synarchist and supremacist beliefs bubbling away in the crème de la crème of upper class English society.

he remit was to not only spread British Rule throughout Africa but to lay the foundation for a wider global domination just as the British Empire itself was weakening. It was to be called the Imperial Federation of the British Empire. Members included: Lionel Hitchens, J. F. Perry, Robert H. Brand, Geoffrey Dawson, Philip Kerr, Leo Amery, and Lionel Curtis. By 1910 Milner, Cecil Rhodes, and Lionel Curtis had formed the European Round Table Group drawn from the mythology of the Knights of the Round Table and the search for the Holy Grail – Rhodes’ own romantic vision of a strictly British birth right. Lionel Curtis, as so many of his colleagues, also believed in the superiority of a white, Aryan race, harbouring the dream of a one world government that would oversee a New World Order run by an initiated Elite – another variant of the same old Synarchist beliefs.

Nathaniel Rothschild’s financial support was behind the existence of the Round Table through the auspices of his agents such as Rhodes and Milner but there is no evidence to confirm a direct link. For most members Rothschilds’ financial influence was likely immaterial since the momentum of power was extending into multiple avenues of interest for all. Psychopaths were cultivating their clustering abilities once again. Indeed, Rhodes was in it for power and white supremacy, Milner for a “natural” British imperialism and Curtis for a British global theocracy. Much like the degrees of difference that exist in the power brokers of today, the primary directives of world domination encompass all members.

Though Rhodes died before the Round Table was created he left considerable amounts of money in his will for the establishment of a secret society whose purpose was to establish British rule throughout the world. As caretaker of the Rhodes fortune, Milner brought this wish to fruition. Rhodes also set up scholarships at Oxford University so that carefully selected candidates could continue the work of British interests and his visions of a dominant, Anglo-Saxon race. Soon after its formation, the Round Table Publication was produced as an anonymous quarterly magazine containing several reports (or propaganda) that helped to found other Round Table groups all over the world. The first issue of The Round Table was largely written by Philip Kerr and appeared in November 1910. By 1914, the Round Table network was expanded in every dominion of the British Empire the role having been taken on with relish by Lionel Curtis. He would later go on to form the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (or Chatham House) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) acting as a front for both, with a large share of the influence afforded to the corporate giant of J.P Morgan. Once again, Rothschild interests were also lurking in the background with all three making sure their power was at the forefront of operations.

The industrialist John Pierpont Morgan who financed much of the American Elite had originally begun his meteoric rise from London through Rothschild’s Peabody and Company and his own Grenfell Morgan & Co. It was at the Paris Peace Conference that Milner and Morgan’s Wall St. connections and legal acolytes would mingle and join forces.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson had discussions with those in the American Democrat party organized by international banker Bernard Baruch. The Great War was essential to the plans of not only the Anglo-American establishment but the future of Zionism. The Zionists had an important stake in making sure the United States entered the war. While the Rothschild supported American Industrialists the Rockfellers and J.P Morgan were salivating at the chance to wrest financial control from the American people, the Round Table Group and the Zionists were striking a deal. Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, and Colonel Edward Mandell (a Round Table agent and Wilson advisor) were all working on President Wilson so that he had nowhere to turn but toward Elite designs. The German people were further demonised while a false flag attack of the Lusitania “incident” was ushered in to turn the tide of public opinion. The same old pretext of “making the world safe for democracy” was used.

paul warburg-j-schiffZionist Industrialists Paul Warburg (left) and Jacob Schiff

Author Dr. Albert D. Pastore explains Round Table and Zionist wheeling and dealing so that the United States would enter the war by 1916:

The British government and the Zionist leaders struck a dirty deal. The Zionists were led by Chaim Weizmann, the man who one day become the first President of the State of Israel. The idea was for the Zionists to use their influence to drag the mighty USA into the war on Britain’s side, so that Germany and it’s Ottoman allies could be crushed. In exchange for helping to bring the USA into the war, the British would reward the Zionists by taking over Palestine from the conquered Ottomans after the war was over. The British had originally wanted to give the Zionists a Jewish homeland in an African territory. But the Zionists were fixated on claiming Palestine as their land. Once under British control, the Jews of Europe would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine in great numbers. […] it wasn’t long before the German, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires were defeated and their maps rewritten by the victorious powers at the infamous Treaty of Versailles in 1918. In addition to the numerous Zionist bankers who were influencing Versailles, the Zionists also had their own delegation which was headed by Chaim Weizmann.Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the same month that Germany surrendered. But it had actually been prepared 20 months earlier in March 1916 with Weizmann’s influence. 13 The Declaration allowed mass Jewish immigration to conquered Palestine while promising to preserve Arab rights. The Arabs living in Palestine weren’t buying these promises. They protested, but there was nothing that they could do to stop the coming wave of Jewish immigration. This was the first step in creating what was to later become the state of Israel 20 years later. [6]

Everyone had something to gain from the puppetry of Wilson. He was inducted into the designs of the global governance crew and in return he was asked to give backing to the Federal Reserve and income tax, and anyone in the future cabinet. They also cautioned that if they managed to place Wilson in power then it would be wise to follow their guidance should there be a war in Europe, a war that many emerging corporatists like the Rockefellers, Harrimans and the Bush family were busy trying to support. He was offered a front seat on the gravy train and the power and status it offered.

Woodrow Wilson’s intelligence, socialist ideals and religiously tinged self-importance followed a very similar road to power as Fabian member Tony Blair. Wilson presided over 2 million deaths of young men for a road-map of geopolitical re-configuration and greed by several large weapons companies, while Blair oversaw and helped to ensure the invasion of Iraq as a key phase in a larger Middle Eastern push to secure resources, along with the construction and maintenance of Anglo-American network of oil pipelines. He also had a direct part in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis based on the same impeachable religious self-belief despite all the evidence that the invasion had nothing to do with peace and democracy. Unlike Blair, Wilson later expressed dismay at how easily he had been duped.

tonyblair3-horz

Tony Blair (left) and Woodrow Wilson (right)

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson was elected President beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had been against the imposition is of a central bank. As money and lobbying always determines the candidates in most elections, industrialist J.P. Morgan on the advice of Rothschild and Round Table members injected huge quantities of cash into Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party thereby fracturing the Republican vote and placing the unknown Wilson in pole position. After constant pressure for a central bank had been plaguing Congressman for several years, the dream for the industrialists and the demise of democracy was set in motion.

In the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists … acting together to enslave the world … Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is — the Fed has usurped the government.” [7]There was nothing “Federal” about the bank. As it was then, it has remained so up to the present: a private company owned by a consortium of international bankers not subject to presidential congressional oversight, nor any auditing procedures. It gives international banking exactly what it wants – control of the domestic and international markets with speculative and insider knowledge atop a deregulated financial architecture that benefits the few at great expense to the majority.

In the last year of the First World War, a new idea had taken root for an antidote against such destruction. At least that was the propaganda that everyone was eager to believe. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1918 the floatation of a League of Nations was introduced. It was to be an international organization that would settle disputes between nations by using a raft of laws, treaties, and agreements, as opposed to war.

President Wilson’s post-World War I, 14-point plan for peace underscored this new internationalism and “A general association of nations.” In the fourteenth point of the plan it reads: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” [8] In fact, it was British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and the president’s private, non-elected, right-hand man Colonel Mandall House who “advised” Wilson to put forward the idea of the League instructed by the Round Table. Wilson’s well-intentioned League of Nations Commission of Mandates soon followed which was designed to brainstorm solutions to the problems of the world and was to be headed by Colonel House and Cecil Rhodes’ friend Lord Milner. Having already established a network of politically-minded, mostly socialist intellectuals, Milner’s helmsman ship was to prove incisive in the expansion of the Round Table and connected groups.

The League of Nations was the result of a design by Mandell House and Milner both of whom were “socialists” and dedicated to inaugurating a Fabian-led version of world government. Harvard Law graduate, Jerome D. Greene was secretary to the Reparations Commission at the Paris Peace Conference. He was general manager of the Rockefeller Institute from 1910-1912 going on to become a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute, the Rockefeller foundation, and to the Rockefeller General Education Board until 1939. He was also part of Milner and historian Arnold Toynbee’s Oxford intellectual set and well=placed to act as a co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations which was up and running as the American branch of the Round Table in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel Mandell House, and big names in international banking and commerce such as: J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff who had all been involved in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and a fiat currency. So, when the Paris Peace Conference arrived with their specially placed puppet Woodrow Wilson, Morgan and Rockefeller saw their opportunity to introduce their vision of global governance under the cover of Wilson’s peace plan.

Despite those carefully laid plans the US Senate with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge leading the charge rejected Wilson’s 14 Point Plan, primarily due to the restrictions and limitations on Americans’ way of life that would eventuate if the plan was allowed to go ahead. The Senators were not about let a socialist vision of a one world government riding on the fake idealism of internationalism destroy the idea of national sovereignty. On March 8, 1920 ratification in the membership of the League of Nations was rejected. Although the icing on the cake did not happen the idea of a League of Nations had been firmly planted in the minds of many, even if they had no awareness of its real intent. After the war many were looking for solutions so that such an appalling loss of life would never happen again. With the spirit broken in humanity it was easy to implement seemingly benign institutions that fed into that hope.

In 1913, just prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act President Woodrow Wilson published his book The New Freedom in which he declared that since he had entered politics his private discussions between his friends and fellow members of government had revealed what might be called a shadow government working behind the scenes: “Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” [9]Ironically, President Franklin Roosevelt was to reiterate the same point in a letter to none other than arch-insider and Wilson’s close advisor Col. Edward Mandell on November 21, 1933 where he stated: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson …” [10] A network now existed by which a slow but steady march towards world government could take place. Their future seemed assured in that many other international organisations could be overlaid onto the international infrastructure of Round Table Groups.

roundtable-logo-horz

(left) Logo of The Round Table Movement as it is today apparently acting as no more than a cover for operations long since been submerged into the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment. (right) Logo of Chatham House aka The Royal Institute for International Affairs.

With the aftermath of the Second World War a new push to establish a further system of organisations and institutions from which yet another important phase of a New Order could come into being. Professor Carroll Quigley reminds us that the Round Table’s vision was to: “… create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole … controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” As we can see today, the organisations and groups responsible for this ideology are as determined as they ever were. With the Rothschilds and other dominators sitting on their thrones at the nexus of all these groups we can best re-visit and summarise their methods to shape the world by returning to Carroll Quigley’s observations from his book: The Anglo-American Establishment (1966). He offers three means by which they intend to shape societies: “(a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from [certain universities) and the linking of these men to the [Group] by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the [Group] in positions of power shielded much as possible from public attention.” [11]

Today, The Round Table and Rhodes’ legacy has been absorbed into the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and multitude of supportive think-tanks, PR fronts and parent organisations. There is a also The Round Table Commonwealth Journal which maintains a low-key presence with a token tip of the hat to its past. The editorial board is called “The Moot” and is made up of members of European industry and Commonwealth bureaucrats. The real power has certainly been disbursed and strengthened.

 


Notes

[1] Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded by the British The Telegraph, November 5th, 2012.
[2] Chambers’ Encyclopeadia A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge, Volume VIII, 1908.
[3] John Flint, Cecil Rhodes, Little, Brown & Co, Boston 1974; and Hutchinson, London, 1976. pp.249-252
[4] p.3; The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, By Carroll Quigley, 1981, Books In Focus, NY,
[5] ‘The Boer War 1899 –1902’ By G. H Le Le May | http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/africancampaigns/boerwar/boerwar.htm
[6] Stranger than Fiction By Albert D. Pastore 2005
[7] Woodrow Wilson’s speech on “The Fourteen Points Plan” in Congress, January 8, 1918.
[8] Ibid.
[9] p.14; The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People By Woodrow Wilson Doubleday press 1913.
[10] Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), (p. 373).
[11] p.15; The Anglo-American Establishment By Carroll Quigley, GSG Associates publishers, 1981 | ISBN-10: 0945001010

The Politics of Entrapment I

By M.K. Styllinski

 “He said there were very highly placed people there. He talked about judges and politicians who were abusing little boys.”

– Whistleblower Vishambar Mehrotra, a 69-year-old retired magistrate speaking of organised sexual abuse by Establishment individuals from the 1980s.Source: The Independent ‘Child abuse inquiry: Met Police investigate alleged murders of three young boys’


Finally, what many writers and researchers have been saying for decades has broken into the mainstream media. The long-standing rumours and persistent allegations regarding a paedophile ring working out of Westminster which involved a number of high profile Members of the British Parliament is now in the public consciousness – yet another “conspiracy theory” that was fact.

Those under the shadow of perpetrating abuse included a former Home Secretary and Vice-President of the European Commission Lord Leon Brittan who died of cancer shortly after the allegation in January 2015. In July of the same year, Labour MP Simon Danczuk told Parliament that Lord Brittan had been sent a dossier of names and allegations concerning organised paedophilia between 1983 and 1985. He told fellow MPs that the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens during this period had written to then Home Secretary Lord Brittan about these high profile child abusers “operating and networking within and around Westminster” and delivered a dossier of names. [1] A copy of the file was also sent to Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) top prosecutor Thomas Hetherington. Surprise, surprise….The dossier was then conveniently “lost” by officials and Brittan (not so surprisingly) couldn’t recall any further details about it.


“Asked if he thought there had been a ‘political cover-up’ in the 1980s, he replied: ‘I think there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time.”

– Lord Tebbit, former Conservative cabinet minister


Brittan himself had long been associated with child abuse. After his death more allegations surfaced culminating in a search of his property in London and Yorkshire by the metropolitan police’s Operation Midland, a unit set up to investigate the Westminster ring. Brittan had long been accused of abusing a boy at Elm Guest House in the mid-eighties and multiple acts of child rape in 1986 after an alleged attendance of a rent boy orgy. [2] The Independent on Sunday investigations revealed that as Brittan, Cyril Smith and other high profile MPs and well-known public figures were about to be arrested the investigation was shut down with no explanations. [3]

Of course, this would not be the first or last time.

Danczuk had been calling for an inquiry into an organised child rape network since the late eighties. His dogged research had been based on his recently published book Smile for the Camera: The double life of Cyril Smith detailing the nature of a 40-year cover-up of the paedophile offences committed by Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith and which personifies just how easy it has been for child abusers to milk the system.

Lord_Brittan_2011

Lord Brittan, 2011. (wikipedia)

29n06smith-485529Sir Cyril Smith

A report from The Telegraph offers testimony of one David Tombs, who ran Hereford and Worcester social services for over 20 years. The official warned the Department of Health from information he obtained from liaison with police investigations that a paedophile ring was in operation. But what was more disturbing was the inference that it was common knowledge and endemic: “When he alerted Department of Health representatives, he was told by civil servants that he was ‘probably wasting [his] time’ because there were ‘too many of them over there’. Asked what he thought was meant by the word ‘them’, Mr Tombs said ‘those within Parliament and government in Whitehall”. [4]

The up shot of these inquiries have revealed that the Thatcher government knew about the abuse but decided to turn a blind eye in order to prevent destabilising the Establishment structure. [5] That was the more palatable reason for people such as Lord Tebbit who excused cover ups as somehow “what people did”, presumably for the good of the realm. Leaving such nonsense aside, what this writer and so many others were saying more than ten years previously – namely, that paedophilia was encouraged in order to be used as a blackmailing tool – was also revealed by a whistleblower in the MSM by the tabloid newspaper the Daily Express. [6] The details are accurate and fit the pieces of past domestic political and geostrategy perfectly. They confirmed that the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) a British pro-paedophile activist group founded in October 1974 and officially disbanded in 1984, was infiltrated as an under cover operation and clearing house for such activities and represented what is after all, standard practice within military-intelligence apparatus – from MI6, CIA to MOSSAD. Thatcher was nothing if not thorough. It was clear that she knew all about the paedophilia Establishment and sought to protect it for the same dubious reasons. Indeed, according to a newly revealed secret file on senior diplomat Sir Peter Hayman who died in 1992, The Independent, reported “… she told officials not to publicly name a senior diplomat connected to a paedophile scandal despite being fully briefed on allegations made against him.” He was also one of many that Geoffrey dickens named on the dossier as a paedophile. Despite an investigation, he was not prosecuted. [7]

As a result of metropolitan police complicity in the cover up of MPs child abusing activities, as of writing Scotland Yard is currently under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and said it is investigating allegations of ‘historic, high level corruption of the most serious nature’ within the Metropolitan Police force.” There are over 14 referrals of alleged corruption connected to the paedophile ring and sexual abuse claims from the 1970s to the 2005, all of which the IPCC is tasked with investigating. The complete list reported by the is lncuded here:

    • An allegation of a potential cover up around failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offences in south London and further information about criminal allegations against a politician being dropped;
    • An allegation that an investigation involving a proactive operation targeting young men in Dolphin Square was stopped because officers were too near prominent people;
    • An allegation that a document was found at an address of a paedophile that originated from the Houses of Parliament listing a number of highly prominent individuals (MPs and senior police officers) as being involved in a paedophile ring and no further action was taken;
    • An allegation that an account provided by an abuse victim had been altered to omit the name of a senior politician;
    • An allegation that an investigation into a paedophile ring, in which a number of people were convicted, did not take action in relation to other more prominent individuals;
    • Allegations that a politician had spoken with a senior Met Police officer and demanded no action was taken regarding a paedophile ring and boys being procured and supplied to prominent persons in Westminster in the 1970s;
    • An allegation that in the late 1970s a surveillance operation that gathered intelligence on a politician being involved in paedophile activities was closed down by a senior Met Police officer;
    • An allegation that a dossier of allegations against senior figures and politicians involved in child abuse were taken by Special Branch officers;
    • Allegations that a surveillance operation of a child abuse ring was subsequently shut down due to high profile people being involved;
    • Allegations of child sex abuse against a senior politician and a subsequent cover-up of his crimes;
    • Allegations that during a sexual abuse investigation a senior officer instructed the investigation be halted and that that order had come from ‘up high’ in the Met;
    • An allegation of a conspiracy within the Met to prevent the prosecution of a politician suspected of offences;
    • Allegations against a former senior Met Police officer regarding child sex abuse and that further members of the establishment including judges were involved. It is claimed that no further action was taken;
    • An allegation that police officers sexually abused a boy and carried out surveillance on him. There are further allegations of financial corruption in a London borough police force. [8]

Let’s not forget that the presence of a child rape network has always been lurking over successive governements and in my view, an inherent consequence of Statism and all that goes with it. The hue and cry of child pornography became focused in the now infamous allegations of paedophiles within Tony Blair’s New Labour party in 2003. This slipped into internet legend under the snappy title of: Blair’s Protection of Elite Paedophile Rings Spells the End for His Career. (Even at this juncture, the author had succumbed to a heavy dose of wishful thinking by claiming that this would see to the downfall of Mr. Blair and his government. Prime Ministers do not fall anymore, unless deemed expedient that they do so). The article, written by British freelance journalist Michael James for the Scottish Herald, suggested that members of Tony Blair’s inner government were being investigated over child pornography charges and that this information was being used by elements within the US administration to blackmail the British Government into supporting the war on Iraq.


 “… quite extraordinary” and … “a shocking reflection on Parliament” that one year on from allegations and revelations of establishment cover-ups that the public had seen “not one establishment perpetrator brought to justice”.

– John Mann Labour MP commenting on the “Westminster cover up at the highest level”


Further information included speculation concerning Dunblane murderer and suspected paedophile, Thomas Hamilton. Hamilton happened to have connections to the former Secretary General of NATO, Lord George Robertson, also accused of paedophilia, which he strenuously denied, threatening to sue the newspaper when they published similar reports. There are also those who believed this was merely an opportunistic example of a smear campaign concocted by UK intelligence. After all, although paedophilia / child rape clearly exists within the UK Establishment there are equal reasons to remain cautious in light of the blackmail tactic to enforce agendas and political strategies.

_38498291_computer_keys150At the same time, it is disturbing that the disasterous task force Operation Ore, set up to fully investigate allegations of paedophilia and organised child abuse with the authority to investigate the Dunblane connections, simply fizzled out like so many investigations centered around accusations of high level abuse. Not before accusations of incompetence and corruption had surfaced along with innocent individuals imprisoned and no satisfactory answers as to why. Equally, based on the global record and historical whitewashes of the State regarding such issues, it is only natural that we become highly suspicious of the standard: “lack of evidence” in some cases. Expect the same thing to happen with the present Westminster inquiry, Operation Midland and Operation Yew tree, but not before many lower profile figures have been sacrificed for predatory sexual behaviour but not necessarily child abuse and/or paedophilia. In this light, the BBC debacle on Sir Jimmy Savile was very carefully managed so that reporting and investigations stayed firmly within a designated perimeter of exploration. Mainstream media discussion on his links to politicians, Royalty and other VIP members of the Establishment have been largely silent.

Since we understand that child abuse is a way of life in much of the Establishment circles, it is not too hard to see how important a part technology plays in organised networks.

On the subject of internet child pornography, a report in 2006 found that more than half of the 184 Interpol countries had no laws addressing child pornography and where only Australia, Belgium, France, South Africa and the United States had laws which produced what has been called a significant “impact” on the crime. Improvements have been made several years later but we could be forgiven for thinking that the will to prosecute is lacking on the one hand and ridiculously zealous on the other. [9]

It goes without saying that there are certainly paedophiles and molesters for whom the internet is an ideal place to buy, collect and view images of children being sexually abused. We cannot expect such a wonderful tool of exchange to be used exclusively for the greater good, especially with technological horizons pushing the envelope of innovation. It would be foolish to think that sexual predators would not take full advantage of the anonymous and secret opportunities that this global networking medium provides. The process of ponerisation has no defined limits. It touches all societal domains and becomes strategically contoured towards specific goals. Child pornography is no different and has become a minefield of mixed messages, corruption and incompetence, though undoubtedly driven, in part, by good intentions and tireless efforts to bring those targeting children to justice.

But as is ever the case, judging on past and present performances of law enforcement operations regarding child pornography, there is cause for extreme concern on a number of levels which may not be immediately apparent.

 


See also: The Old Boys’ Club I

Leon Brittan: The Bigger Picture” at aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/)

 


Notes

[1] ‘Lord Brittan: The accusations against the former Home Secretary that refused to die’. The Independent on Sunday, James Hanning January 25, 2015.
[2] ‘Leon Brittan ‘attended paedophile parties in notorious brothel’ Sunday Express,By Levi Winchester Jan 25, 2015.
[3] ‘A missing boy and the Australian high commission in London’ by Jacquelin Magnay, The Australian, 31 January 2015.
[4] ‘Warnings of Westminster paedophile network ‘ignored’ because ‘there were too many’ By By Keith Perry and agency, The Telegraph, July 12, 2014.
[5] ‘
Tory child abuse whistleblower: ‘I supplied underage rent boys for Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet ministers’, BMatthew Drake, Daily Mirror, June 13, 2014. | “Senior Tory cabinet ministers were supplied with underage boys for sex parties, it is sensationally claimed. Former Conservative activist Anthony Gilberthorpe said he told Margaret Thatcher 25 years ago about what he had witnessed and gave her names of those involved. His allegations that he saw top Tories having sex with boys comes after David Cameron launched a Government inquiry into claims of a cover-up. Anthony, 52, said: “I am prepared to speak to the inquiry. I believe I am a key witness.””
[6] ‘EXCLUSIVE: Secret service infiltrated paedophile group to ‘blackmail establishment’ Daily Express, By Tim Tate and Ted Jeory June 29, 2014.
[7]’Thatcher stopped officials publicly naming Sir Peter Hayman as suspected paedophile’ The Independent, By Kashmira Gander, February 3, 2015.
[8] ‘Child sex abuse: Watchdog to investigate Metropolitan police over ‘cover-up’ claims involving MPs and officers’ The Independent, By Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith, March 16, 2015.
[9] International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) global study of child pornography laws, April 5, 2006.

The Psychopath: A Different Species? IV

“The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.”

– ponerology.com


To reiterate: the main qualities that distinguish the psychopath from normal persons include the absence of a sense of guilt for antisocial actions; an inability to love authentically; a tendency to be verbose and talkative in a way that is inevitably subjective and self-referencing. Manipulative, insincere, confident, egocentric, cynical, quick to anger, dominating, sensation-seeking, vindictive, and aggressive and above all, wholly lacking any indications of empathy or fear. These are some of the common and wide ranging personality characteristics which conform to the conscienceless individual. Their sole preoccupation is to deceive with the accompanying charisma and magnetic charm that disable all but those who are not armed and ready with the requisite knowledge.

Yet, Those of conscience routinely underestimate the primal depths to which psychopathic individuals may plum.

Łobaczewski states:

… our social, psychological, and moral concepts, as well as our natural forms of reaction, are not adequate for every situation with which life confronts us. We generally wind up hurting someone if we act according to our natural concepts and reactive archetypes in situations which seem to be appropriate to our imaginings, although they are in fact essentially different.  As a rule, such different situations allowing para-appropriate reactions occur because some pathological factor difficult to understand has entered the picture. Thus, the practical value of our natural world view generally ends where psychopathology begins.

Familiarity with this common weakness of human nature and the normal person’s “naïveté” is part of the specific knowledge we find in many psychopathic individuals, as well some characteropaths. [1] [Emphasis mine]

The complexity of ponerology is deep, with variation upon variation creating rich hybrids of pathology that science has yet to just fully recognize, not least to counter. Their expert manipulations and “masks of sanity” are always one step ahead, whether at the heart of the family or the higher echelons of shadow executive governments. What is also problematic are the effects resulting from exposure to a psychopath or psychopathic grouping. “If someone has personally experienced such a nightmarish reality,” says Dr. Łobaczewski, “he considers people who have not progressed in understanding it within the same time frame to be simply presumptuous, sometimes even malicious.” “This experience,” he continues, “[is] unceremoniously rejected by … [people and] becomes a psychological burden for him, forcing him to live within a narrow circle of persons whose experiences have been similar.” When one has interacted with a psychopath and been lucky enough to escape it usually means you are changed for life. [2]

Once again, it bears repeating: the raw truth regarding psychopaths and their unqualified success stems from their absence of conscience. Their total inability to understand and experience empathy and higher emotional feeling, rather than an impediment, fuels their innate desire to consume, extract and deceive. The depths to which essential psychopaths will go to achieve this end is another reason why they can be so successful in corporations and the police or military where high levels of endurance and authoritarianism are required. It also explains why the results of their actions have such catastrophic effects: they will never give up on their selected objective … unless they meet another psychopath with a bigger pedigree.

If we understand that no treatment has ever been effective in curing the psychopath we may then begin to comprehend the pathological results of our society as listed above.

Quoting Łobaczewski :

Approximately 6 percent of the population constitute the active structure of the Pathocracy, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality ….

This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies.…

The 6 percent group constitute the new nobility; the 12 percent group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. …Only 18 percent of the country’s population is thus in favor of the new system of government. [3]

Think again about the prevalence of schizoidal propaganda and how easily people project their own values and beliefs onto pathological material. Without sufficient discernment we can be bamboozled into believing the most outrageous lies. The average number of character disordered individuals may be as high as 20 percent of the population. That means that 80-90 percent of the population has the potential to awaken to the reality of macro-social manipulation. Factoring in recent discoveries of Severe Attachment Disorder, [4] autism and Asperger’s Syndrome which may also have in some cases psychopathic symptoms, the overall figure of psychological deviants may be higher. We may also add a quota of the global population who have had their innate creativity and emotional sensibilities eroded from mass education and post-modern culture of apathy and nihilism along with the speculative umbrella of HAARP and ionospheric experiments of mass mind control. From an equally bizarre contribution and unexpected source we can further include the incidence of potential psychopathy or related subset through the condition of toxoplasmosis. This involves the presence of brain parasites altering the personalities of up to half the world’s population, thus making them more susceptible to manipulation and control. This includes the inclusion of data on suicides, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. [5]

Many factors are undoubtedly at play.  That being so, any in-depth research on their effects are likely to bump up the percentage of pathologically compromised individuals to levels which exceed present estimates.

henry-kissingerHenry Kissinger – Sociopath?

tonyblair3Tony Blair – Pathological Narcissist?

Benjamin-Netanyahu_2641034kBenyamin Netanyahu – Essential Psychopath?

GTY_barack_obama_2_dm_130902_16x9_992Barack Obama – Schizoidal?


It is clear there is still much to learn regarding the true percentage of pathological deviations. It is also no coincidence that under any oppressive regime or form of covert/overt control “psychology is the first discipline to suffer from censorship and incursions on the part of an administrative body which starts claiming the last word as to what represents scientific truth.” [6] We saw this process only too well in downtown America where the Bush-Cheney administration was busy reordering and eliminating scientific thought that did not align with its own principles. This perception remains in place under Barack Obama and in some cases even expanded. Psychiatry with its history as a political tool against dissident oppression and its links to Big Pharma may be an exception to this rule. If it can be used as a way to give medical justification for imprisoning “terrorists” i.e. ordinary activists and citizens who disagree with the government – then it may form a crucial part of front line pathocratic rule.

The herd instinct is strong within humanity and is perhaps one of the most useful ways in which the Pathocracy and its cohorts shape the world towards its own ends. By subverting the networking principle of group consciousness to obliterate independent and creative thought, it becomes easy to erode the positive intuitions and instincts which could contain and isolate evil. Indeed, our lack of knowledge about its presence in politics means we work for it and sustain it, rather than calling it out. As Łobaczewski states: “Our zeal to control anyone harmful to ourselves or our group is so primal in its near-reflex necessity as to leave no doubt that it is also encoded at the instinctual level. Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations.” [7]

As we saw in our snapshots of Official Culture there are presently few opportunities for populations to cultivate the necessary discernment both in the psychological appreciation of their fellow man, the requisite internal observations and crucial environmental indicators. For instance, our ability to achieve silence and contemplation is negligible in the urban world. Our minds are seldom afforded the chance to step off the treadmill of sense-fixated production. Economic hardship is a result of an accumulation of wealth by the psychopathic few, or as cultural political scientist Michael Parenti explained:

We are told that wife-beating, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, and other such pathologies know no class boundaries and are found at all income levels. This is true but misleading. The impression left is that these pathologies are randomly distributed across the social spectrum and are purely a matter of individual pathology. Actually, many of them are skewed heavily toward the low-income, the unemployed, and the dispossessed. As economic conditions worsen, so afflictions increase. Behind many of these statistics is the story of class, racial, sexual, and age oppressions that have long been among the legacies of our social order, oppressions that are seldom discussed in any depth by political leaders, news media, or educators. [8]

Our psychological survival and ability to live meaningful lives depends on our capacity to see these psychological differences in our local, daily life and adopt creative solutions to counter them. Yet, our culture is structured in a way that prevents any focus and attention toward the problems even while so many intuitively recognise and understand that: “in each society on earth contains a certain percentage of individuals, a relatively small but active minority, who cannot be considered normal.” The actions of this minority leave a disastrous psychic footprint upon the world. Our innate ability to retain subjectivity and to cling to comfortable reasons to deny this reality is reinforced by the very same ‘humanoids’.

Psychological ignorance is perhaps the greatest deficit within the field of human awareness, the knowledge of which remains the greatest threat to the minority of psychopaths’ intent on holding onto power. And like a rabbit in the headlights, we are habitually disabled when trying to operate on simplistic assumptions that all of us operate on similar humanistic principles, or as Łobaczewski mentions: when “… some unidentified psychopathological factor comes into play, the natural human world view ceases to be applicable.” [9] In other words, when human values are projected onto narcissists and psychopaths as a result of a standard barometer of a moral and ethical worldview, this is guaranteed to offer faulty judgments and reinforces the predator’s security. The original ideology or manifested group, business, or initiative – whatever it may be – can be imbued with the highest intentions though harbouring the pathogenic infection of its demise.

In Official Culture various domains such as agriculture, art, business and science had within them the initial seed of inclusive desire and group cooperation. Similarly, the peoples behind such ideas and those still adhering to the original principles may not be aware that the institution, government or agency has long been ponerised. After all, as  Łobaczewski observes: “The greater and truer the original ideology, the longer it may be capable of nourishing and disguising from human criticism that phenomenon which is the product of the specific degenerative process. In a great and valuable ideology, the danger for small minds is hidden; they can become the factors of such preliminary degeneration, which opens the door to invasion by pathological factors.” [10] 

It is probable that the Pathocrats (those members of a Pathocracy in key positions of power) believe they must maintain their control on the populace by either keeping us all in survival mode, embroiled in wars or drowning in sensation in order to ensure their genetic traits are perpetuated. To continue and extend their species they must incorporate fail-safe plans that reduce the populations of normal people and the ability of the affluent middle classes to sharpen their awareness and think “outside of the box”. Nonetheless, being a minority and therefore vulnerable, the Pathocrats’ dominance will inevitably weaken as normal people strive and obtain a more balanced playing field. For the psychopaths in all walks of life this would be a catastrophe. For those at the top of the military-corporate complex this is the worst case scenario because: “… the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the Pathocrats, a ‘biological’ necessity.” [11] This may give us some idea as to the source of eugenics and depopulation theories which have made an unwelcome resurgence of late. [12]

The massive PR machine is now tasked with keeping us locked into a media-led “social proof” and societal programming that keeps crime and abuse from being discovered. It has grown into an impenetrable barrier of fear where the herd instinct for self-preservation wins over any moral or humanitarian imperative.

As psychologist Professor Robert B. Cialdini points out:

To discover why canned laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of yet another potent weapon of influence: the principle of social proof. This principle states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct.

The principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.

Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of highway, or how to eat the chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will be important guides in defining the answer.

The tendency to see an action as appropriate when others are doing it works quite well normally. As a rule, we will make fewer mistakes by acting in accord with social evidence than by acting contrary to it. Usually, when a lot of people are doing something, it is the right thing to do. This feature of the principle of social proof is simultaneously its major strength and its major weakness. Like the other weapons of influence, it provides a convenient shortcut for determining the way to behave but, at the same time, makes one who uses the shortcut vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers who lie in wait along its path. [13]

The Pathocrats profit from this self-organised instinct and the carefully selected path they have set before us as the only way – their way. A win-win situation develops as we become inured to the widening distances between what is and what is assumed. This social proof is applied to all areas of academic and media discussions and is a mighty barrier against obtaining true knowledge on the issues of social engineering and control. In the same way, while we decry the erosion of freedoms and the cloak of censorship, we are all self-censoring for the State. “Egotistic thought-terrorization is accomplished by the society itself and its processes of conversive thinking. This obviates the need for censorship of the press, theater, or broadcasting, as a pathologically hypersensitive censor lives within the citizens themselves.” [14]

Did you get the implications of that?  Are we able to see this viral influence in ourselves?

And what of a whole society?

Psychologist Anna Salter’s research into criminal psychopathy is also instructive regarding the stages of deception. Using interviews with psychopaths in US prisons she was able to illustrate why so many of the staff had been seduced by these individuals, not necessarily sexually, but where some form of compromise took place through sometimes highly subtle manipulations. She gives the psychopath’s formula for sniffing out their prey that can not only be applied inside the prison walls, but in the world at large:

Selecting a Targetkey factor: Vulnerability. Weaknesses are ruthlessly exploited via information gathering that appears to be just polite and friendly conversation. In reality, it is the stalking process.

The Law of Reciprocity – key factor: A reliance on a reciprocal response to ostensibly innocent requests, where the psychopath has already obliged the person to respond in kind. Cultural norms tailored to conscience are perfect for the psychopath’s armoury of manipulation.

The Demand and the Leverkey factor: Bonding and the Establishment of a “personal relationship” where the victim feels in control. Many Secrets are known about the victim and thus the psychopath has all the aces. Then the demand, which can be something seemingly minor in nature. But in one inmate’s words: “He’s crossed the boundary right there.” Once the request has been met the demands escalate until dominance is achieved.

Apply this to the home, school, or the family and it may be easier to see why pathologically compromised individuals are so slippery to prosecute, not least to identify.  What is even more disturbing is they can be superficially so likeable. That is, until they have extracted what it is they want from you, and like any arch-vampire, they leave you a shell of your former self – child or adult.

It is through widening our field of awareness that we can give hope to the children that are abused and sacrificed on the altar of psychopathy that continues to be built in our name. We must liberate our psychological awareness to free ourselves from a prison that has been forcibly erected deep inside our psyche. As Dr. Anna Salter stated so plainly: “why does it take thirty years of research for the rest of us to understand phenomena that inmates [psychopaths] grasp intuitively? It seems clear who the real experts are.” [15]

 


Notes

[1]  p.146-147; Political Ponerology.
[2] Ibid. (p.165)
[3] Ibid. (p.152)
[4] Severe Attachment Disorder in Childhood – A Guide to Practical Therapy by Dr. Niels Peter Rygaard authorized by D.P.A., Aarhus C, Denmark Translated from N. P. Rygaard, L’enfant abandonn6. Guide de traitement des troubles de I’attachement. 2005; Printed in Austria SpringerWien, NewYork; ISBN-10 3-211-29705-7.
[5] ‘The Return of the Puppet Masters’ by Carl Zimmer, January 17, 2006 | http://www.carlzimmer.com | ‘How Your Cat Is Making You Crazy’ By Kathleen McAuliffe, The Atlantic, March 2012 Issue.
[6] Lobaczewski (p.49)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Michael Parenti goes on to illustrate the full magnitude of this American Ponerogenic “infection”: “Conservatives are fond of telling us what a wonderful, happy, prosperous nation this is. The only thing that matches their love of country is the remarkable indifference they show toward the people who live in it. To their ears the anguished cries of the dispossessed sound like the peevish whines of malcontents. They denounce as “bleeding hearts” those of us who criticize existing conditions, who show some concern for our fellow citizens. But the dirty truth is that there exists a startling amount of hardship, abuse, affliction, illness, violence, and pathology in this country. The figures reveal a casualty list that runs into many millions.”
[9] op. cit. Lobaczewski (p.54)
[10] Ibid. (p.169)
[11] Ibid. (p.210)
[12] With a convenient mix of Malthusian and Darwinian Theory laced with a touch of eugenics, they have produced a perfect tool for the Pathocracy to decrease the numbers of the global population. While most of the problems of the world have been created by psychopaths in order to service their own needs they now intend to effectively “take out the rubbish” in order to survive. They intend to exploit the earth and what is left of normal well into their own grandiose eternity. For further reading see: The Inherent Rascism of Population Control by Paul Jalsevac (2004).
[13] “The psychologists speculated that, for at least two reasons, a bystander to an emergency will be unlikely to help when there are a number of other bystanders present. The first reason is fairly straightforward. With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced: ‘Perhaps someone else will give or call for aid, perhaps someone else already has.’ So with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does. The second reason is the more psychologically intriguing one; it is founded on the principle of social proof and involves the pluralistic ignorance effect Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. Is the man lying in the alley a heart-attack victim or a drunk sleeping one off? Is the commotion next door an assault requiring the police or an especially loud marital spat where intervention would be inappropriate and unwelcome? What is going on? In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn from the way the other witnesses are reacting whether the event is or is not an emergency.” Quoted from Influence: Science and Practice by Robert B. Cialdini, Published by Longman, 2004.
[14] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (pp.178-179)
[15]  op. cit. Salter, (p.152)

Good Intentions II: Feed The World

“… every seasoned aid worker knew then, and knows now, that there is no necessary connection between raising money for a good cause and that money being well spent, just as there is no necessary connection between caring about the suffering of others and understanding the nature or cause of that suffering.”

– Foreign Aid expert


230px-Live8Logo

Live 8 Promotional poster

Author and Professor of Engineering at Oakland University Barbara Oakley PhD names the entrenched idea of changing the world before changing oneself as a kind of “hyper-altruism” that has had a recent resurgence among the minds of mega-philanthropists such as Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Belinda and Bill Gates. They have donated billions to the needy in Africa and the sub-continent and have encouraged their fellow filthy rich friends to do the same. She quotes The Economist’s Matthew Bishop and Michael Green who termed this new phenomenon as “philanthrocapitalism” which continues to pump huge amounts of money into the foreign aid industry.

So, why are the same problems showing little signs of being affected by such massive financial contributions and in fact are largely getting worse?

According to Oakley:

“Financial altruism detached from strategic and objective thinking has been shown time and again to have detrimental consequences at exorbitant costs. […] Not all aid is bad but debate has continued regarding the efficacy of foreign aid and whether massive investments are of any use.” She makes the further and vital point: “Staring at pictures of starving children can in some sense, hijack analytical portions of the brain. Perhaps it is this that results in some of the ineffectual and pathologically altruistic behaviour that characterizes many foreign aid policies and programs.” [1]

Oakley then discusses the advances in neuroscience that strongly suggest:

“… developing dispassion – the ability to displace ourselves emotionally from a situation that arouses our primal, emote control responses – is vital in being able to help others. In a related vein, developing our ability to use our rational brain to feel compassion for others – without mirroring their emotions – is important for preventing compassion fatigue or burn out often seen in those who care for the suffering.” [2]

We know we need to cultivate objectivity as well as our more intuitive feelings modes so that they work in unison. However, there is something more here than the dynamics of how our rational brains are so easily bypassed by images which elicit the required response. Pathological altruism is exacerbated and encouraged by psychopathy at institutional levels and which requires a total subversion of nobler thoughts that lead to altruistic action. This merely results in the creation of further multi-layered problems rather than the needed long-term amelioration.

It is the reflex of empathy and its altruistic actions which can and do cause harm based as they are on a) guilt that we do not do enough for our fellow-man and b) a lack of knowledge as to how this selfless giving may actually manifest in the world. Rather than facilitate the easing of suffering it can compound the problems, adding insult to injury as this passage from Oakley quoting the Time’s Nancy Gibbs illustrates:

After the 2004 tsunami, aid poured in from all over the world. But included tons of out-dated or unneeded medicines that Indonesian officials had to throw out. People sent Viagra or Santa suits, high-heeled shoes and evening gowns. A year later after an earthquake in Pakistani, so much unusable clothing arrived that people burned it to stay warm. It may make us feel good to put together children’s care packages with cards and teddy bears – but whose needs are we trying to meet? It may not feel glorious but often the greatest need is accomplished quietly, invisibly. Either way, the same principle holds in helping as in healing: First, do no harm.  [3]

And if such a simple, genuine outpouring of good intentions can be so easily go astray, what does this say about the more complex dynamics of our global institutions and foreign aid organisations enmeshed in a world that is by nature operating on a model that is exploitative?

The role of celebrities as entertainers, image makers and icons is ready to be made use of should opportunities arise. When necessary, the good-will and compassion of the people with disposable income and an awakening conscience can move mountains. This show of “people power” is, however, consistently diverted by a financial system that is grossly and purposefully unjust. The role of the media and the celebrity-fest surrounding the Live Aid world-wide concert in 1984 and the Live 8 concert which followed in 2005 is a case in point. Coinciding with the latter concert was the annual G8 Summit hosted by the UK. The G8 is composed of the world’s leading industrialised nations (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United States and Russia).

On the Live 8 website we read:

These concerts are the start point for The Long Walk To Justice, the one way we can all make our voices heard in unison. This is without doubt a moment in history where ordinary people can grasp the chance to achieve something truly monumental and demand from the 8 world leaders at G8 an end to poverty. The G8 leaders have it within their power to alter history. They will only have the will to do so if tens of thousands of people show them that enough is enough. By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children.[4]

Despite having no rules governing its own operations, no formal or legal powers and no mechanisms of accountability, the G8 wields huge economic, military and diplomatic power in the institutions of global governance. These institutions include the UN Security Council, World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. They are products of a system that is the antithesis of decentralisation, the driving force being to achieve new market access for their members. As one aid expert stated regarding Geldof’s initial Live Aid: “… every seasoned aid worker knew then, and knows now, that there is no necessary connection between raising money for a good cause and that money being well spent, just as there is no necessary connection between caring about the suffering of others and understanding the nature or cause of that suffering.” [5]

This applies as much to ourselves as it does to the world at large. “Understanding the true nature and cause of that suffering.” The unpalatable truth is that G8 leaders and those above seem to have neither the inclination nor the desire to alter history unless it benefits their own particular requirements.

These concerts illustrated the well-spring of genuine empathy and compassion which was allowed to be cynically used and exploited via the egos – however well-intentioned – of a collection of celebrities. It was a perfect opportunity for politicians to get in on the act and smile for the cameras while the feckless media sung along. The facts are rather different to the sophistry and rhetoric heard so often from the likes of Bono and Geldof. Their own positions of influence are conveniently used to promote an agenda diametrically opposed to their own wishes to cancel debt and end poverty in Africa.

One has to ask why eleven years later, did we need another Live Aid?

Why did all those in the G8 for whom the suffering of millions have never made the slightest impression, suddenly grow a conscience?

They doffed their hats to Sir Bob because it dove-tailed into their agenda.

Bush, Geldof and Bono

The seemingly inspiring and very well-intentioned Live 8 event served as an actual and symbolic rendering of how our subjectivity is used against us all, directly mirroring the issues in exploitation. In this instance, it is a more intangible but cynical twisting of a potential mass altruism and the devaluing of an innate desire to assist, since we are encouraged to be drawn into the sensation of compassion without due attention to cause or effect or where these emotions are taking us. The very same participants within a system who created that tangible suffering in the first place are also those taking full advantage of directionless conscience. It is a circular feedback that benefits only the status quo based as it is, on the ignorance of the mechanism of politics and bureaucracy and our wishful thinking that we can “change the world,” in this context.

Not one month after the famous Live 8 concert, a much touted headline read: “$55bn Africa debt deal ‘a victory for millions’ which was splashed across the front page of the Observer in June 12 2005 with Sir Bob Geldof’s rhetoric reaching epic proportions stating: “Tomorrow 280 million Africans will wake up for the first time in their lives without owing you or me a penny…”

Firstly, the G8 proposals for HIPC debt cancellation were already inadequate based on debt relief that will be granted to poor countries “… only if they are shown to be “adjusting their gross assistance flows by the amount given.” In other words, their aid will be reduced by the same amount as the debt relief, thus gaining nothing. Paragraph two states that “it is essential” that poor countries “boost private sector development” and ensure “the elimination of impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign”.[6]

So, there we see the real reasons for the winks and smiles.

Let us not forget that debt payments rose in 2006 and have doubled in 2015. This alone dilutes the aforementioned “victory”. It is also the height of hypocrisy that while Bono, Geldof and other entertainers were wooing G8 leaders, British arms sales to Africa had reached £1bn a month before the concert and show no signs of slowing.[7]  This underlined the hollow nature of the event and the truth behind African poverty and debt.  (The hypocrisy is also underscored by Bono’s penchant for shifting his assets to offshore tax havens and investing in the very corporate franchises that he is telling us have to be reformed).[8]

The foundation of Africa’s wealth and resources are largely in the hands of trans-national corporations some of whom are directly or indirectly under the direction of G8 membership. The men in suits and soppy grins are the brokers and beneficiaries of this appalling suffering which continues under the euphemism of an “African Union.” This was signed into effect on July 11, 2000, by 54 nations of Africa. Like the European Union, it has only one peacekeeping force, one Central Bank, one Court of Justice, one currency, and so forth. Essentially, it is a blueprint for control that affords very little rights to Africans by promoting civil war and corruption from which the West can profit. They do this by keeping a cap on any independent development that might eclipse western interests.

Immediately after the Gleneagles meeting had wound down and G8 leaders had been chauffeured away to their sumptuous hotels the Belgian government was already hatching plans to give lenders greater control over poor countries and reneging on agreements to write off 100 percent of their debt. Belgian IMF representative Willy Kierkens is quoted in a document leaked to the activist group Jubilee Debt Campaign to an address to the IMF executive board that “rather than giving full, irrevocable and unconditional debt relief… countries would receive grants.” [9]

The then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the agreed upon total of $48bn a year of aid by 2010 would also include a 100 percent cancellation of multilateral debts of the most indebted countries. Yet Gordon Brown brazenly claimed in a Treasury Committee that this aid increase includes money put aside for debt relief. Blair lied yet again and G8 member countries showed that their signatures symbolised nothing more than a temporary appeasement. [10]

Logo_of_the_African_UnionAfrican Union logo

From Making Poverty History a key working group, one activist argued that there existed the same old spin doctors doing what Alistair Campbell did so ruthlessly when covering up for Blair’s lies in the Downing Street Memos: “‘Our real demands on trade, aid and debt, and our criticisms of UK government policy in developing countries have been consistently swallowed up by white bands, celebrity “luvvies” and praise upon praise for Blair and Brown.” [11] [12]

Yet Make Poverty History is not the only one to be absorbed by the new politics masquerading as New Labour – the new evangelism of the US. It is this New Wave that is shackling African Countries into the false economy of the African Union and the realization that any allotted money can only be accessed if they sign up to World Bank and IMF economic policy conditions.

While Blair, a born opportunist, was busy jumping aboard the Make Poverty History train, he knew all along that the emotional fuel would run out. Why else would he be secretly cutting the government’s Africa desk officers and staff at the same time that the Department for International Development was forcing the privatisation of water supply in Ghana for the benefit of British corporations? [13]

Amelioration of poverty, disease and significant successes do take place. And Geldof is right when he said that there was a global change in attitude. But this has never been the problem. Most normal human beings are immensely keen to help those suffering and in need. But the outpouring of emotion is not enough unless it is supported by effective frameworks (untarnished by political pathologies) through which change can flow. Overall, while temporarily more children were able to go to school and less were hungry the dependency and cycle of that debt remains. The “support” addresses symptoms which, although worthy, amount to sops and buffers around the primary fences of poverty, prolonged and exacerbated by Western exploitation. This includes massive bias towards privatization which comprises one half of the World Bank expenditure on what it considers worthwhile projects. Worthwhile that is, to its own coffers.

More and more conditions have been added to the initial agreements which were already piecemeal and ineffective. There were no real high level negotiations between Bush and Blair other than how best they could capitalize on naivety and gullibility of nations. For this duo it was merely an exercise in extracting the juice of image and hype to buttress their plummeting support on a range of issues. The overriding stipulation surrounding the whole sham of debt relief and the Make Poverty History movement was that it be conditional and tied to the original economic structures that created the problems in the first place.

Throw as much money as you like at these problems it will not alter the cycle of debt and poverty until the structure is re-evaluated and radically reformed.

We can only do that by becoming aware of what we are dealing with and immunizing ourselves against this psychological pathogen in our midst. We do that by learning everything is to know about how such people think and act.  Meantime, compassionate peoples are played by seasoned psychopaths for whom getting fat on power and profit at the expense of others is easy. The fact that 7,000 Africans die every day means nothing. They rely on it to secure their spoils.

There are ample reasons to conclude that Live Aid in 1984 was harmful as well as positive in limited terms. Yet what exactly did all this achieve? A compassion that lends wings to long-term action based on objectively evaluated pragmatic solutions, or a deadly compassion that serves to play into the hands of global leaders? “The fact is that Ethiopia remains one of Africa’s poorest countries, and the whole of sub-Saharan Africa is, if anything, worse off today than it was after Live Aid. Geldof himself has been of two minds. He says that Live Aid “created something permanent and self-sustaining” but has also asked why Africa is getting poorer.” [14]

As well he might.

Yes, just as the Ethiopian famine was a hideous reality, the final results of this great resettlement served the G8 powers admirably. As journalist David Rieff stated, the: “… resettlement policy – of moving 600,000 people from the north while enforcing the “villagisation” of three million others – was at least in part a military campaign, masquerading as a humanitarian effort. And it was assisted by Western aid money…” In effect, UN institutions and donor governments helped a totalitarian project kill thousands of people under the pretext of humanitarian assistance, where “…aid to victims was unwittingly transformed into support to their executioners.” [15]  According to French NGO Medecin Sans Frontieres [16] the death total from deportation and raids came to as many as the lives that were saved. The result was good PR for G8 leaders and more misery for the poverty-stricken.

So, do nothing? Isn’t the “the positivity of the action better than the pessimism of the thought?” As we have seen, it is a little more complex than that. Geldof has to be commended for his seemingly genuine intent and ability to cut through apathy and despair. Yet his passionate comments in a recent report to answer his critics summarises so many whose dynamism and emotional drive are used against them:

‘Behind all of this bitter carping is the corrosively cynical view that none of this works. That because they, as critics, do nothing, nobody else should even try. Well, they’re wrong. You can alter policy. The individual is not powerless in the face of either political indifference or monstrous human tragedy. Let me say it embarrassedly, cornily, almost guiltily. Let me try to say it without sounding like some pious twat. You can change the world. And millions upon millions of you did that this year. This stuff works. Sometimes. [17]

He goes on to discuss the dying baby Birhan Woldu the “little scrap of humanity” now a grown women who was saved by the original Live Aid concert 20 years ago… “all of it was worth it for just her. For that single life.”

It is hard to disagree isn’t it?

In one very real sense he is absolutely right and nothing should prevent such a call to action. But how are we to confront the deeper issues behind this call that is “in the box” of a wider control system that demands the cycles of endless Live Aids? That for one life saved, millions of dead will follow due to a subjective activism that plays into the hands of those several steps ahead. Live Aid camouflages the core issues and thus leads to a perpetuating cycles of the same.

Perhaps what we are facing in the 21st century is not a call to end third world debt or to demonstrate against any one particular political atrocity, of which there are many. It is to raise our awareness to the fact that the very core actions of our world are purposely and intentionally created by a minority of psychologically deviant persons. Until we grasp that fact, which includes an in depth knowledge of the mechanisms of political psychopathy, Geldof’s well meaning, but ultimately naive mission will be co-opted with mathematical precision.

Contrary to what the musician states, this stuff does not work. It never has. As clinical psychologist Andrew Łobaczewski  states: “even normal people, who condemn this kind of [Pathocracy] along with its ideologies, feel hurt and deprived of something constituting part of their own romanticism, their way of perceiving reality, when a widely idealized group is exposed as little more than a gang of criminals.” [18]

And we are still duped by such a gang who know crowd psychology very well indeed.

 


Notes

[1]  (pp.239 -241) Pathological Altruism By Barbra Oakley http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572
[2] Ibid. (p.242)
[3] Ibid. (p.243)
[5] “Cruel to be kind?” by David Rieff, The Guardian, June 24, 2005 – “Live Aid forced the world to confront the Ethiopian famine and raised more than £50m. But as Bob Geldof prepares his Live 8 reprise, aid expert David Rieff argues that guilt-stricken donations helped fund a brutal resettlement programme that may have killed up to 100,000.”
[6] “John Pilger isn’t celebrating victory -‘The illusion of an anti-establishment crusade led by pop stars” Daily Mirror, June 26, 2005.
[7 ‘UK arms sales to Africa reach £1 billion mark’ The Guardian, Antony Barnett, June 12, 2005.
[8] ‘U2 Under Fire For Tax Move’ Irish Examiner, August 9, 2006.
[9] ‘G8 debt deal under threat at IMF’ By Steve Schifferes BBC News, 15 July, 2005
[10] ‘How the G8 lied to the world on aid’ The truth about Gleneagles puts a cloud over the New York summit by Mark Curtis, The Guardian, August 23, 2005: “Russia’s increase in ‘aid’ will consist entirely of write-offs. A third of France’s aid budget consists of money for debt relief; much of this will be simply a book-keeping exercise worth nothing on the ground since many debts are not being serviced. […] … the deal applies initially to only 18 countries, which will save just $1bn a year in debt-service payments. The 62 countries that need full debt cancellation to reach UN poverty targets are paying 10 times more in debt service. And recently leaked World Bank documents show that the G8 agreed only three years’ worth of debt relief for these 18 countries. They state that “countries will have no benefit from the initiative” unless there is ‘full donor financing’.The deal also involves debts only to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the African Development Bank, whereas many countries have debts to other organisations. It is a kick in the teeth for the African Union, whose recent summit called for “full debt cancellation for all African nations”.
[11] http://www.downingstreetmemo.com. “The Downing Street ‘Memo’ is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister’s meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth behind how the Iraq war began.  This site is intended to provide information about the Downing Street Memo and how it fits in with numerous other documents and events that relate to the Bush administration’s march to war.”
[12] ‘Make the G8 history’ By Stuart Hodkinson, Red Pepper, July 2005.
[13] If one visits the newly created Dept. of International Development (DFID) and the G8 websites one would be forgiven for thinking that everything is on track and the world is save in their hands. Toss in some rhetoric, statistics and self-effacing explanations of how hard it is to accomplish significant gains on the Millennium Development goals (yet drive to do all you can for the Department’s “Business Partnership Unit” which reveals the real intentions behind the Department as a whole) and there you have another quango headed by cabinet minister Hilary Benn MP with the inevitable cracks of impartiality will begin to appear if not intentionally created. Set up to filter direct action and further apply bureaucratic obstacles, political manipulation takes the place of clear, unambiguous directives. The case studies, and funding alone, although with merit, indicate a symptomatic and piecemeal approach that once again does not incorporate an overall strategy. that ensures a free-for-all competitive dash where the structure of suffering is allowed to be brushed under the global carpet.
[14] ‘Cruel to be kind?’ by David Rieff, The Guardian, Friday June 24, 2005.
[15] Ibid.
[16]www.doctorswithoutborders.org.
[17] ‘Geldof’s Year’ The Guardian, December 28, 2005.
[18] p.166; Political Ponerology – A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes By Andrew Lobaczewski.

Learning is Fun?

 By M.K. Styllinski

“Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic – it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell where he must memorize that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.”

― John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling


The word ‘school’ comes from the ancient Greek for ‘free time’ which gives you some idea how much the idea of learning has changed over the centuries. [1]  The comfortable arena of cultural studies is fast becoming a venue for salespeople and marketers to hone their skills to manipulate. The world of quasi-academia and corporate outsourcing are setting their sights on more ways to brand the young by surveying huge numbers of focus groups in order to pool vast amounts of information. This data is pored over by countless companies with no child left out of the loop and which why education is seen as ripe for exploitation under the guise of altruistic assistance.

Europe is developing the same problems as US high school classrooms which are battling with insufficient resources and a lack of teachers. Due to the financial impoverishment of education governors have often been forced to relinquish their principles and turn to corporate sponsorship to provide text books and equipment. Educational policies and curricula are also being influenced by the logic of maximum profitability that goes with it. This is inevitably leading to a demoralisation of teachers, a decrease in their autonomy and the weakening of teachers’ unions.  Advertising on campus and colleges is fast becoming normalised by poverty-stricken schools desperate for funding while the takeover of students is creating conformist, consumer identities rather than free-thinking, open minds.

humanlogo

human logo © infrakshun

American Passage Media Corporation has installed billboards in high school locker rooms where it reaches nearly three million students. These billboards, advertise a variety of commercial products ranging from Tampons to Coca-Cola. Lifetime Learning Systems allow Nike, McDonald’s and Hershey to pay for free text book covers exposing millions of students to their ad campaigns. School buses are plastered with Sprite and Burger-King ads while Exxon provides free educational videos to classroom teachers in a cynical attempt to appear environmentally conscious. This is merely more green propaganda that is mimicked right across the corporate boardroom as a strategy to infiltrate ecological consciousness.

Schools are becoming an adman’s dream, with licensing, school promotions, celebrity endorsements, kids clubs, product placements, “advertorials” (adverts disguised as puzzles and games) fusing with an already inadequate educational curriculum. They are slowly losing the battle against the corporate take-over of education. The spin is as blatant as it is ubiquitous: “A ‘Total Health’ program from NutraSweet teaches kids to use NutraSweet to control weight. “Wecology” magazine from McDonald’s teaches the ecological advantages of Styrofoam packaging. ‘Changing,’ a booklet from Proctor & Gamble, teach girls how to use Always, its brand of sanitary pads. Chef Boyardee’s ‘Good Nutrition’ program teaches kids to eat pizza and gives recipes that feature Chef Boyardee products. Colorful posters on classroom bulletin boards advertise Reynolds Wrap, Birds Eye frozen vegetables, Promise margarine, and Bakers Chocolate.”

Even children’s heroes in cinema and sport have long since been co-opted into vehicles to sell to the teenage market and siphon off the already dwindling potential for true learning.  When over 150 school districts in 29 states in US have Pepsi and Coke contracts and where math problems contain Nike logos and Oreo cookie ads it is no wonder that the only messages kids can receive in order to succeed is a commercial one.

The commoditisation of American education is worth over $650 billion and is traded on the stock exchange so it is hardly shocking that Europe is following suit.  According to the European Round Table of Industrialists “The provision of Education is a market opportunity and should be treated as such.” [2] This fits neatly into former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s long-time love affair with the United States and his determination to create one vast UK shopping mall. Blair’s solution to those failing in the global market is to “get out and sell themselves to the outside world”, [3] an ethos which has continued under present UK governments. (Blair has stepped into his own conscienceless legacy in this regard by selling himself and his Empire to any despot and war-monger willing to line his pockets and with it, his pathological narcissism).

There is nothing wrong with selling your wares if the values and basic social structure is given equal attention. Sadly, this is not the case. Politics, big business and education are now fused to the point that local authorities are fighting a losing battle in trying to promote a healthy, balanced learning experience for the next generation of children rather than the next generation of human products to market for global shareholders.  What is not usually understood is that the present state of education is the result of a purposeful and conscious doctrine. The roots of America’s educational system mimic a factory line process precisely for engineering the minds of the young towards a corporate identity that stretches across a broad arena of human endeavours.

19th Century Philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill was scathing about the State education of the twentieth century and knew very well what the corporatists were up to. “A general state education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government — whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation — in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.” Despotism however, comes in many unforeseen guises away from the well-known classical forms of totalitarianism.

Perusing some of the little known documents surfacing in the early part of the last century where much of this form of social engineering was conceived, we find not much has changed. Indeed, it was all looking rosy for the Industrialist and educator alike. A passage from a 1905 dissertation written by the soon to be Dean of Education at Stanford, Elwood Cubberly illustrates the point. He believed schools should act as production lines “in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products … manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.” [4]  He was not alone in his wishes.

In the following year that portentous mask of altruism The Rockefeller Education Board had a grand design for the New American Education system which included the funding and the creation of numerous public schools. The board issued a little known statement part of which read:

“In our dreams…people yield themselves with perfect docility to our moulding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.” [5]

This Rockefeller had continued to do with great gusto, its guiding principles surfacing through most of America’s social and cultural endeavours like a sickly smile slippery hand-shakes.

In today’s culture, education and branding is one and the same. It is only now that the corporate worldview of consumption has been allowed to fuse together. With education being “dumbed down,” the erosion of children’s finer sensibilities has taken place via the “climate of cool” and the hip, post-modern, savvy world of minimalist chic, where the capacity to truly empathise for another is undergoing a process of attrition. The reason the corporate dictates are able to slide so comfortably into education is because the seeds of that partnership were so sown long ago. The school system was already dead before corporatism began picking over the bones.

dumbing

Retired school teacher, author and lecturer John Taylor Gatto with over 30 years’ experience in the American schooling system is blunt concerning the effects of the education system. He describes the gradual adaptation and inculcation to the rise of authoritarianism stamping its mark on the young. The door to social dominators and more psychopathic dynamics which characterise various forms of overt and covert dictatorships always starts through education, something which Gatto noticed early on.

He states:

I’ve noticed a fascinating phenomenon in my thirty years of teaching: schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic — it has no conscience. It rings a bell and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell where he must memorize that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor. [6] [Emphasis mine]

Authoritarianism and institutional psychopathy: these are the key channels by which a long term warping of the human propensity for cooperation, compassion, responsibility and the joy of learning is taking place. Education is where children are made malleable for more pathogenic qualities to do their work. True understanding and thinking from the ordinary populace not ruled by fear and narcissism is not conducive for the propagation of psychopathological traits.

Gatto offers another reason as to why institutions of schooling fail. The prioritization of “…order and harmony over justice and academic development” is a recurrent behavioural strategy at the forefront of Elitist dreams which create docility and compliance while fostering chaos in the world at large. But this hands-off policy pays dividends according to Gatto.

A bizarre enactment of Darwinist natural selection is fostered even encouraged in many private and state run schools. A non-confrontational policy for dangerous pupils along with the terror and pain that goes with it, actually serves to keep a well-oiled, financial machine ticking over that also has: “… a powerful training function.” And it is the inculcation and acceptance of authoritarianism and the psychopathology that promotes it: “Through it, an army of young witnesses to officially sanctioned bad conduct learn how little value good conduct has. They learn pragmatism. Part of its silent testimony is that the strong will always successfully suppress the weak, so the weak learn to endure. They learn that appeals to authority are full of risk, so they don’t make them often. They learn what they need in order to be foot soldiers in a mass army.” [7]

Many schools display a veneer of respectability and operational effectiveness – even selective stats may confirm that all is well. But this “pragmatism” is a cover. The following quotation from John Taylor Gatto summarises what this blog is about. Psychopaths are very much embedded in our daily lives and if not embodied their influences is all around us and no more tragically than in the system we laughably label modern education. The potential and right for all to a receive education should be at the pinnacle of State objectives. Right now, the content and the methods by which we raise children to understand their world is not just falling far short of an ideal it has become something entirely different:

Psychopathic. An overheated word to characterize successful, pragmatic solutions to the control of institutional chaos. Isn’t this process a cheap and effective way to keep student entropy in check at the cost of no more than a little grief on the part of some dumb animals? Is it really psychopathic or only strategic sophistication? […]

Psychopathic. The word summons up flashing eyes and floating hair, men hiding gasoline bombs under their coats in crowded subway cars on the way to Merrill Lynch for revenge. But set aside any lurid pictures you may associate with the term. I’m using it as a label to describe people without consciences, nothing more. Psychopaths and sociopaths are often our charming and intelligent roommates in corporations and institutions. They mimic perfectly the necessary protective coloration of compassion and concern, they mimic human discourse. Yet underneath that surface disguise they are circuit boards of scientific rationality, pure expressions of pragmatism. […]

An older America would have had little hesitation labelling it as Evil. I’ve reached for the term psychopathic in place of Evil in deference to modern antipathies. The whole matter is in harmony with classic evolutionary theory and theological notions of limited salvation. I find that congruence interesting.

The sensationalistic charge that all large corporations, including school corporations, are psychopathic becomes less inflammatory if you admit the obvious first, that all such entities are nonhuman. Forget the human beings who populate corporate structures. Sure, some of them sabotage corporate integrity from time to time and behave like human beings, but never consistently, and never for long, for if that were the story, corporate coherence would be impossible, as it often is in Third World countries. Now at least you see where I’m coming from in categorizing the institutional corporation of school as psychopathic. Moral codes don’t drive school decision-making. That means School sometimes decides to ignore your wimpy kid being beaten up for his lunch money in order to oil some greater wheels. School has no tear ducts with which to weep. [8] [Emphasis mine]

So, if the foundations are so detrimental to the psyche of schoolchildren what is that this system actually teaches and which supplants the idea of a mentally and emotionally healthy, nourished human being?

Gatto comes up with eight psychologically hidden “lessons” that are learned by the young and which are carried into the populace to be seeded in the minds of their own children:

1)        Forgetfulness – “…forcing children to forget how they taught themselves important things like walking and talking. This is done so pleasantly and painlessly that the one area of schooling most of us would agree has few problems is elementary school—even though it is there that the massive damage to language-making occurs.” […] “If we forced children to learn to walk with the same methods we use to force them to read, a few would learn to walk well in spite of us, most would walk indifferently, without pleasure, and a portion of the remainder would not become ambulatory at all.”

2)       Bewilderment and confusion – “Virtually nothing selected by schools as basic is basic, all curriculum is subordinate to standards imposed by behavioral psychology, and to a lesser extent Freudian precepts compounded into a hash with “third force” psychology (centering on the writings of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow). None of these systems accurately describes human reality, but their lodgement in university/business seven-step mythologies makes them dangerously invulnerable to common-sense criticism.”

3)       Assignment of social class – […]The class system is reawakened through schooling. So rigid have American classifications become that our society has taken on the aspect of caste, which teaches unwarranted self-esteem and its converse—envy, self-hatred, and surrender. In class systems, the state assigns your place in a class, and if you know what’s good for you, you come to know it, too.”

4)      Indifference – “By bells and other concentration-destroying technology, schools teach that nothing is worth finishing because some arbitrary power intervenes both periodically and aperiodically. If nothing is worth finishing, nothing is worth starting. Don’t you see how one follows the other? Love of learning can’t survive this steady drill. Students are taught to work for little favors and ceremonial grades which correlate poorly with their actual ability.” […]

5)       Emotional dependency – “By stars, checks, smiles, frowns, prizes, honors, and disgraces, schools condition children to lifelong emotional dependency. It’s like training a dog. The reward/punishment cycle, known to animal trainers from antiquity, is the heart of a human psychology distilled in late nineteenth-century Leipzig and incorporated thoroughly into the scientific management revolution of the early twentieth century in America.” […]

6)      Intellectual dependency – “Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. Good people do it the way the teacher wants it done. Good teachers in their turn wait for the curriculum supervisor or textbook to tell them what to do. Principals are evaluated according to an ability to make these groups conform to expectations; superintendents upon their ability to make principals conform; state education departments on their ability to efficiently direct and control the thinking of superintendents according to instructions which originate with foundations, universities, and politicians sensitive to the quietly expressed wishes of powerful corporations, and other interests.” […]

7)       Provisonal self-esteem – “Self-respect in children must be made contingent on the certification of experts through rituals of number magic. It must not be self-generated as it was for Benjamin Franklin, the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, or Henry Ford. The role of grades, report cards, standardized tests, prizes, scholarships, and other awards in effecting this process is too obvious to belabor, but it’s the daily encounter with hundreds of verbal and nonverbal cues sent by teachers that shapes the quality of self-doubt most effectively.”

8)      The Glass-House Effect – “It teaches how hopeless it is to resist because you are always watched. There is no place to hide. Nor should you want to. Your avoidance behavior is actually a signal you should be watched even more closely than the others. Privacy is a thought crime. School sees to it that there is no private time, no private space, no minute uncommanded, no desk free from search, no bruise not inspected by medical policing or the counseling arm of thought patrols.” […] [9]

The psychic gross national product of all this is an increase in social pathologies, in particular narcissism, where there is an inability to feel empathy and compassion for our fellow man and woman.  The past is past, and anticipation of the future materialist gain determines the present; intimacy and honesty becomes “uncool” and children’s common genius is only glimpsed through the bars of a veritable cage erected over their potential.

That is the reality of state education today.

 


Notes
[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school
[2] European Round Table of Industrialists, November 1998, Job Creation and Competitiveness through Innovation, ERT, Brussels.
[3] ‘Growing social divide in Britain’ By Simon Wheelan, 11 December 1999. World Socialist Website.www. wsws.org.
[4] Quoted in 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.
[5] Ibid. Author’s note: The Rockefeller Empire has had a major effect on American history and society. It has been one of the most influential players in shaping the pathology now inherent in The United States of America.  There are many who say that they represent the best in American Capitalism and philanthropy however contradictory that may be. The German roots of the Rockefeller family include Nazi collaboration, a vast oil empire, the creation of the “super-economy” and the dubious penchant for supporting eugenics and depopulation research. For more information read War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, Published by Four Walls, Eight Windows in 2003.The Rockefellers mind-set and actions have all the hallmarks of psychopathy the concerns of which were voiced most clearly by Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald, in November of 1975: [“The most important issue of our time is the] drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.” Such a statement may sound like a kooky conspiracy theorist ravings but the actions to date cement such a possibility.A long-time admirer of the Chinese totalitarian communist state David Rockefeller offers this self-aggrandizing passage which amounts to both a confession and declaration of intent:“My lifetime pursuits as an internationalist might best be summarized by one rather extraordinary day in 1995. October 23 was a busy day at the Council on Foreign Relations. The fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations had drawn almost two hundred heads of government to New York, and many had asked to speak at the Council. but even then the day was unusual for the diversity of the speakers: Jiang Zemin, president of the People’s Republic of China and heir apparent to Deng Xiaoping; Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic… Yasser Arafat… and, finally, Fidel Castro…. With the exception of Havel, these men had vowed to fight to the death against imperialist America. Now, with the end of the Cold War, they flocked to the center of world capitalism, eager to meet and close deals with American bankers and corporate executives, or at least to be seen with them — even Castro….”    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. 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 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’s Memoirs (Random House, New York, 2002) Chapter 27, pages 404 and 405.To see this hybrid of “super-capitalism and communism” working together it has been necessary to place an “invisible but guiding hand” over education and the psychology of the masses the results and methods of which are heavily  biased towards ensuring that ideological outcome of global governance with a singularly feudalist framework.
[6] 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 15: ‘The Psychopathology of Schooling.’
[7]   Ibid
[8]   Ibid
[9]   Ibid