This is part 2 of a two part post. The first was here.
Bearing in mind Richard North’s take on the elite in this comment, then let’s go to Rifleman 1853 again:
Right, so the political elite have made up their minds what’s best for us, and we plebs and peasants can just shut up and do what we’re told.
Why is it that people happily accept things only up to a point and then refuse to look further? I completely agree that we should only take on board as read that which has been established and not wild speculation but if things beyond the range of vision of the average joe are just as much established, why not take them onboard?
So, it’s not enough for me to just utter the vague term “political elite” without exploring who in the hell they actually are. I began blogging in 2006 and called them The Third Force at first, then took to calling them Them but that hurt me in that it looked too much like aliens, whereas I was referring more to Eisenhower’s military industrial complex and as I explored, other organizations came up – the CFR, TLC, C300, Bilderbergers etc.
Now why would the single word “Bilderberg” raise such heckles, such guffaws? It’s just a meeting of the wheelers and dealers, yes – and what? Why wouldn’t they have a meeting? Etienne Davignon was asked about the people who were invited and he answered, in a German interview, that he and his colleagues were “good talent spotters”.
Again, and what? Of course they are. They would like to influence who is in power, even nominal power such as the PM of this country – everyone wants to influence that, that’s why there are lobby groups. The Bilberbergers are just a lobby group who try to own governments by means of getting their boy into power. Thus they had Brown in 1991 and Blair in 1993 and he denied 1997 after the word had gone mainstream. He was called out in parliament over it.
And it wasn’t the Bilderberg per se who got those bozos into power because there is overlap the whole time. One might just as well have said the IMF got them in or the BIS or C300. I’m not interested in what names the power divides itself into and then turns the discussion to whether the Bilderberg or the TLC or whoever got them in – the point is that there is a power behind these “leaders”.
And look at the calibre of the leaders – Blair, Brown, Balls, Cameron, Osborne, Clark, the Milipedes. What mental characteristics do these people share?
They’re all at it – look at Common Purpose, for example. Ostensibly coming out of the ODPM in Labour’s time, they were heavily connected with Demos and Tavistock.
Now what could possibly be a connection between those two bodies and Chatham House? I ran posts on Common Purpose from 2007 and people just smiled at Mad James. Now, after Brian Gerrish, Ken Craggs, Graham Roberts, Stop CP and many more have done such spade work, CP is mainstream – look at Leveson and what the Mail ran on them.
If I say it in 2007, then I’m Mad James. If the Wail says it in 2012, suddenly they’ve newly discovered something.
Certain bloggers have said we don’t need to look at history.
Why not? To say history is written by the victors is a cop out and the skill of the historian is to take the extant texts and archaeological record and glean meaning from them, taking into account biases etc., e.g. Josephus on Jesus. Again – and what? This is what history is about.
More recent history has Woodrow Wilson writing in The New Freedom :
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. 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.
Now what – are you going to call him a “conspiracy theorist” or might he have known something? Similarly, when Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. said about the Fed:
This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the monetary power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized …
… then there are many today who will take that one on board because we see it in the Geithners and others today. Read Jesse, Zero Hedge, Karl Denninger and Max Keiser. Read Janet Tavakoli.
And what did Lindbergh Snr say?
The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.
And later, Louis McFadden said, on the floor of the house:
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 international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.
Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.
OK, so bear with me here before expostulating “conspiracy theory”, “right wing nutter”. Look at what has actually been said by people who count, people actually supposedly in power. Wilson and many others have identified the money power. Old Dixie himself took on the banks and temporarily won – any American kid knows about that.
But there was also talk of the industrialists, was there not and we could look at anyone from IG Farben to Standard Oil to Carnegie to Exxon [with the double cross in the name]. Cue Eisenhower’s farewell speech and talk of the Military Industrial complex. So we’d probably have to accept that this is a pretty powerful combination of interests, from the central banks to the industrialists.
Are they working together? How can I know? I don’t have the documents.
Let’s move on to other things we actually do have. Every President, at least from Wilson onwards, had a minder. The original was Colonel House, a nondescript of no achievement [see the type the Bilderbergers talent spot, e.g. Ed Balls] and he stuck close to Wilson and “advised” him on policy. He was still advising Roosevelt.
Who the hell was this man? Come to think of it, who were Kissinger and Cheney? Who is Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski? An obscure Pole who wrote in a Machiavellian way. For anyone with political nous, all of these were either very good bedtime reading and the presidents liked them or else they were the ones influencing policy or else they were the presidents’ minders – see Wilson’s reference again to the hidden power.
Now, if these people from the left are identifying part of the political elite, what of Churchill in 1920?
From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
Of course it had. One of the planks of the communist manifesto had the central bank as a feature. And a glance at the champagne socialists today shows how far removed they are from true communist principles. Churchill traced it back to the French Revolution and again – so what? A reading of that time shows that Voltaire was the main philosopher of influence, sitting back and influencing thought – cf. thinktanks today – just as the Frankfurt School heavily influenced people like Keynes in that day and later the 60′s cultural revolution which ran neatly along Marcuse’s critical theory lines.
Now these things are not speculation – they are there for you to dig out if you so wish. What these people wrote is what they wrote and if Leary and others acknowledged the debt, then there is the connection. Now rather than go into denial, I’d rather throw all of this onto the table and see how there is any connection and if I can’t find one, I shan’t try to join dots but just leave it all sitting there on the table for you to make something of.
Let’s throw in now the SPPNA. This was a CFR thinktank policy doc, powerful enough to get Bush, Martin and Fox to the table on March 13th, 2005 and they agreed on its broad principles [see here and here - this latter quoting Richard North and mentioning the CFR discussion on how to handle an international disease pandemic, should it happen to occur in the future].
b. the judiciary
d. social security
e. opens the borders and creates access and egress via the state constructed NAFTA Superhighways
f. creates a free economic zone within NA shores
g is advised by the North American Advisory Council [CFR appointees - p53]
One of my readers, Lord Nazh, poo-poohed it, saying it would never get through. I’m not disagreeing and when the major right media in the States got onto it, it was dead in the water. However, with all due respect, he did not consider that these people have a habit of repackaging and re-presenting in another form – see Lisbon Treaty and the Irish Referendum.
Summary so far
There are elements including communism, the industrialists and the central banks which we can pretty well agree on. Throw in Ike’s MIC.
Well yes – what about that obscure little cult in Germany which listed, in 1776, as its objectives:
1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government
How obscure? In 1798 – George Washington:
It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.
You don’t see that name mentioned by me because it is highly emotive and causes people to shriek with laughter so let’s move on. Remember, I’m not saying these things exist because how can I know? I am saying that people of influence referred to them.
Freemasonry became a major issue in the Presidential election of 1796 in the United States. John Adams won the election by opposing Masonry, and his son John Quincy Adams warned of the dire threat to the nation posed by the Masonic Lodges:
I do conscientiously and sincerely believe that the Order of Freemasonry is, if not the greatest, then one of the greatest moral and political evils.
Now you can laugh me down as a left field blogger but how do you laugh down John Quincy Adams?
And this is the beauty of the historical record. This is not history written by victors but simply history, i.e. someone wrote it and therefore it is to be considered. But if you won’t consider it, i.e. I’ve read it and you haven’t because you’re not interested and if you then continue to speculate politically about who the power is, then I’d suggest you’re tying one hand behind your back in doing so.
I’d suggest that in order to come to a rational conclusion on what this power actually is, you’d need to consider ALL the evidence, not that which has been cherry-picked and suits one’s psychological set. I’m not trying to convince you, I’m not preaching, I’m not remotely interested in how you handle what is presented.
I am interested in presenting it though.
Why? Because if we’re freedom fighting, isn’t it as well to know just what we’re up against? And if you dismiss this with an airy wave of the hand and “well, I don’t believe any of that guff”, I’d like to ask on what historical basis you are rejecting JQ Adams’ and Churchill’s words? That is, what bank of data, of knowledge, superior to the historical record, do you have to present?
Anyone know who said the following and it then went ahead in 1816?
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Anyone know who wrote on the methodology of assuming power which goes:
First you foment a crisis. Then there is an enormous public outcry that something must be done about the problem. So you offer a solution that brings about the changes you really wanted all along, but which people would have been unwilling to accept initially.
Hint – he wrote it in 1821 but if you reject history, then you would know nothing of this. A good example of this would be the killings at Dunblane and Hungerford. In both cases public outrage was accompanied by the passage of stringent new gun legislation in the British parliament; yet serious questions remained unanswered about both incidents.
Ditto the Patriot Act. Ditto Leveson today and the paedo-fear. Ditto these two idiots in Australia and the whole question of press behaviour. Did you note that those two were a mess afterwards but the radio station were unrepentant and defiant? Who was the power in there? Jeff Kennett immediately came in to defend them and he’s a former Premier of Victoria and one of the establishment.
So, any others?
In 1870, John Ruskin was named Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford. He taught his students that the government should take control of all means of production and distribution, and he was prepared to place control of the government in the hands of a single man:
My continual aim has been to show the eternal superiority of some men to others, sometimes even of one man to all others.
As a recent advocate of meritocracy, I’d agree but he was referring to himself and his kind and what characterizes all elitists is that they see themselves as the kind of people who should be in charge. Ed Balls? Maxine Waters? Harriet Harman?
On Feb. 5, 1891, Rhodes [a Ruskin admirer] joined his group from Oxford with a similar group from Cambridge headed by social reformer William Stead. Rhodes and Stead were members of the inner “Circle of Initiates”, the secret society which they founded.
There was also an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers.”
If you think this was a curious historical anomaly, then how do you explain Chatham House today and why do all major political figures who visit these shores address Chatham House audiences? This elitism is at the core of all the major movements, including depopulation.
Why, for example, did Lord Alfred Milner, from 1909-1913, organize the “Association of Helpers” into various Round Table Groups in the British dependencies and the United States? For what purpose? And do you think he had any influence at all on the powers that be at the time?
Oh and just before I forget – who actually reorganized the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921?
Yep, our old friend Colonel House. And soon after its formulation [not forgetting the League of Nations and other pushes by the PTB at that time], on December 15, 1922, the CFR’s Philip Kerr, in its magazine “Foreign Affairs”, wrote:
Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.
We’re not talking of people without influence here – we’re talking about a conduit to the movers and shakers. And let’s face it – why would they aim anywhere lower?
But it’s not just influencing the people at the top which is important. Right through the society, in every council in the UK, are Common Purpose. In America, it came out in various ways, e.g. in 1932, a “Plan for Peace” by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger was published. In it, she called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks,” including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.
The Birth Control League eventuated, changing its name to Planned Parenthood – the nation’s foremost promoter and provider of abortion services. How many were aware of that?
How many were aware of the Demos roots of the Media Standards Trust and the Marxist roots of Demos? Google Geoff Mulgan and find out.
So Churchill does appear to be vindicated here. And corroboration comes from different corners of the world. In 1954, Senator William Jenner said to a US Senate hearing:
We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it ‘democratic centralism.’
The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.
This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.
Now focus on Obama.
And if you mock the connection between the White House, major firms and communism, if you shriek “right wing conspiracy nut”, then what do you make of Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, who in 1953 told a Congressional commission investigating tax-exempt foundations:
We at the executive level here were active in either the OSS [forerunner of the CIA], the State Department, or the European Economic Administration. During those times, and without exception, we operated under directives issued by the White House. We are continuing to be guided by just such directives, the substance of which were to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union.”
Now please tell me one place in this post where I’ve gone off on my own and joined dots? I’m not saying all the people quoted didn’t join dots – they did – but I am suggesting such people were sufficiently in the know to be able to do that. A left-liberal commenter at my place, Don Qui Scottie, said I had a habit of providing links and resting on the authority of those links.
Guilty, m’lud. If I can’t rely on JQ Adams, Churchill, Wilson, Lindbergh, Jenner, Gaither and others of that calibre, then just whom can I rely on?
On Feb. 9, 1950, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which began:
Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.
The resolution was introduced by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), who later stated, by way of explanation:
We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves.
This ain’t thinktanks – this is people in government and moves like this, in the light of the later climate scam legislation and its purposes, e.g. the Davidson and McLaughlin Valdez Principles, shows that “the power”, whoever it is, is behind it.
Or are you trying to say that Taylor acted entirely on his own? The overwhelming record in our parliament of PMBs have been those going for more freedom, not less. Ditto in the States. This was no PMB Taylor introduced.
So we’re really not talking powerless kooks out in the community who are coming up with these things. We’re talking of quite powerful kooks within the processes of power who are coming up with these things – or did Kyoto and all the rest of it happen by accident?
Not to mention Agenda 21.
And what do you make of this one? In 1975 in Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which stated that:
We must join with others to bring forth a new world order… Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.
Now you can ferret out yourselves whether or not that actually happened. Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refused to sign the Declaration saying:
It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.
So just who is David Cameron?
Well, we know he’s a Bullingdon, along with Osborne. We know he’s keeping Osborne, an utter incompetent, in there against the odds. He’s obviously in thrall to the EU, makes populist noises and might even believe his own rhetoric but very quickly succumbs once again.
We all say Cameron is spineless. Wilson again, from 1913:
Some of the biggest men … 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.
I’m suggesting Cameron is in thrall, not so much to the visible EU and Barroso but to the power behind the EU. Very, very simple exercise – who set up the EU?
OK, have you ever explored the people behind the Club of Rome? Have you seen any connection with Chatham House and the Scottish Rite or the Italian families? I’m not going to help you by providing them. That’s for you to explore. Or not.
I am going to suggest though that the vast majority of us are not taking all the foregoing into account. I’m suggesting that the real power is somewhere between all those thinktanks and powerful people in the community. Plus the old money.
I’m also going to suggest that an exploration of the Bertelsmann family in Bavaria is well worth the effort.
When, on Friday morning, October 13th 1307, King Phillip IV, together with the Avignonese Pope Clement V, began suppression the Templars throughout Europe, a large number escaped and found refuge abroad. On the eve of the arrests, the entire Templar fleet mysteriously vanished from the port of La Rochelle carrying with it a vast fortune, the fate of which remains a mystery down to this day.
Rollicking good pirate stuff but that was real bullion, real collateral. Where did it go? It didn’t cease to exist. Coincidentally, trace the rise of usury and banking in Europe. Where did it start from? What is a Lombard? How did the Bank of Amsterdam come about? Who were the names behind that?
Interesting study, that one. Not conspiracy theory – it is coin and notes and it therefore has a history. Exploring that history recalls the words of Deep Throat in Watergate: “Follow the money.”
The EU? It’s a project, is it not? It’s a bit of kite-flying that succeeded beyond the Club’s wildest expectations. I’m suggesting that it has little to do with convincing Cameron not to give us a referendum but that there is a far more invisible power who are the ones fomenting things and always have been.
This power is the one I’ve been blogging against since 2006 and which is not in the least interested in the ramblings of a little blogger like me. The online minions will note it and I’ll be mopped up later, along with LR, Julia and all the others and it won’t mean diddly squat whether you wish to utterly dissociate yourself from this post, it’s author and all it says or not – and I imagine my two colleagues would very much wish to distance themselves a long, long way.
It matters little in the wash-up because all of us, from DK to Leg-Iron to Captain Ranty to me are going to be mopped up once the focus is elsewhere, e.g. after the Leveson legislation has separated us from our readers. At least that’s as the PTB possibily see it.
Others may beg to differ.