Sunday, May 4, 2008

"CHANGES"

ALAN WATT BLURB

"CHANGES"


Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - DECEMBER 28, 2006 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

WWW.CUTTINGTHROUGHTHEMATRIX.COM

Hi, folks. This is Alan Watt at cuttingthroughthematrix.com



Tonight, I'd like to go through a process which some people go through concerning waking up and it has to do with where you've been as to where you go and where you end up because what people do is panic when they notice the world around them is changing in a direction which they had no say in and what they're really noticing are the changes brought on by higher powers you might say all working together from a thousands sources. There are a thousand points of light as they like to call it guiding us into a new era.

The panic really is because we're traditional people. We like tradition. Tribal peoples all have a natural inclination towards tradition. Tradition gives us a feeling of comfort in a world which can sometimes be dangerous where not only on a national or international basis something can go wrong that even down to the personal level and much does go wrong within the personal level and here's the reasons why.

Up until the 20th Century a system had been created by those who ran ancient commerce. The system of trading and banking and interest - interesting guaranteeing the submission of those who owe. There's nothing new in that. The rules of this system are contained within every supposedly holy book in both the exoteric and esoteric forms. Those within the higher secret societies. Not the lowly ones, the Blue Lodges or the lowly Rosicrucian's but the much higher degrees are let in on the secrets, at least some of them and the secrets only make sense to you because you already knew the answers. You just have someone putting it together for you and there are those that they call Adepts who know it naturally anyway because for some reason or another they've been conscious most of their lives or maybe even all of their life.

So we are cultural people, traditional people and the system that was created through commerce and trading and banking which runs the whole show really. Money runs the show. Money makes the world go around. An unnatural system was created but to make that unnatural system work the tribal systems had to be destroyed and they really went to town. If you look at the history of Europe and Britain especially the Romans went to great lengths to destroy the old cultures and hunting down the old priesthoods - the old Druids a remnant from an even older age where the world had also at one time been an international type of society and when I say that I don't mean there was perfection at one time. You must always realize that those who write the books write them in glowing terms and they use terms like the Golden Age and you must remember from whose point of view. That makes all the difference in the world. From whose point of view was it a Golden Age?

And they're different from today when they talk about their wonderful global rationalist system. An Age of Reason supposedly that had many honest people working towards it in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries thinking a rational system where everyone could think for themselves. It would be wonderful. They didn't realize themselves that no it wasn't for everyone to think for themselves. It was for those who believed they had the right to plan everyone else's lives for them because they were the most rational of all according to themselves.

There are always two ways at least of looking at that which is put in front of you. From whose point of view and followers in every system are always used by those who lead the system. I'm sure many in the 18th Century went through revolutions in Europe and America really never knew that a small elite group had planned it that way and they swallowed all the glorious terms to do with the new Age of Reason thinking how free everyone would be. It never dawned on them that the elite families already had decided they were the ones who had reason and no one else had.

And all of it is coded within your language to. In Aramaic and Hebrew they had Ra and Ray and Rhea and often they would use the term 'Rhea' which meant 'the wife' in that language of Ra. On a deeper level it was a part of Ra because Ra is a mystery religion and all religions in fact the god is always male and female in one.

However, they use the term 'Rhea' and reason is 'son of Rhea', the illumined ones and when they brought the commercial system by force and arms using armies and people even to create the armies of countries that had already conquered by that system they brought Rome into hunt everyone down who could remember the old ways and thousands of them were rounded up in parts of England and put inside the big lodges - the wooden lodges and they burned them down. They burned them to death because that's part of the ritual too of cleansing the old by fire. The ritual of fire and they introduced a new system which held for a little while, but because they hadn't totally eradicated the memories on the bard system in those countries once Rome had withdrawn the commercial system didn't proceed as it was going already with the Roman occupation.

It wasn't until the Normans came in with the blessings of the Catholic Church - or Rome behind it. The new Rome you see. The trans-formed - the change of FORM - trans-formed Rome who brought in the money system again and the introduction of money. The mandatory use of money and then taxation and then everyone works to receive money and pay so much back in taxes which are then used to build armies and suppress you even more and make big building projects which you're taxed for again and which impress you and make you feel very small. It's an old well tried and true tested method of subjugation but they had to do something even further because the Catholic Church when it came into Europe made marriage law and they made marriage for life - law.

They had to breed up working populations in those days. There was no intensive farming. Intensive farming in those days meant how many muscles you could get working on the fields for small crops. You also had to have the forms of serfs which are slaves to serve and do all the building projects building the cities where the elite would live. Always ongoing building projects and if you read the writings of the Roman historians who were in much, much earlier before the withdraw as Rome collapsed - ancient military Rome collapsed before the transformation you will see from their own writings that the TRIBAL SYSTEMS IN EUROPE DIDN'T HAVE MARRIAGE FOR LIFE. And not only that, it was quite well agreed that if a male and a female wanted to setup shop the female simply moved in with the male and they would spend two or three months together and if things changed or they didn't get along there was no shame involved. It was just an accepted way of life. She moved back and there was no stigma attached to it. THAT WAS THE NATURAL WAY.

The only ones that were recorded to have fallen entirely mated for life were much, much older and let's be honest folks out there. When you're young your hormones rule your head. You don't really see the person you've just married until much later. Your personality hasn't even developed fully and neither has your partners. So to expect two people to marry and remember the Catholic Church allowed very early marriage in those days. To get married at 15 or 16 or even younger and grow up together on the same path and grow mentally, spiritually and every other way in the same direction. That was impossible and so they reinforced it all with laws and rules and holy laws and biblical laws to reinforce why people had to stay together and because the female is the survivor of the two as every study will always show she is the one to up and leave even today readily - much more readily than the male. Even when its gone as low as it can go the male will still stay there even though it's destroying him and his partner. The wife doesn't. She will plan ahead and vamoose and survive. That's nature. That's just nature.

And so it was always down through time so when they introduced mandatory marriage for life the laws were aimed at keeping the female in the marriage and that's where the concept of sin - ongoing sin was preached every day and every week and all the fires of hell would come on you if you broke God's ways. That was to keep the women there and if the woman did leave for any reason she had no property rights whatsoever. That was a blackmail you see.

Now that that system had served its purpose post-industrial et cetera, all of those rules have been reversed by the same world - the descendents of the same people in charge of the world reversed all the rules and encouraged this building up of marriage because now marriage becomes a threat. People will stand up together - they're more likely to stand up for close relatives and fortunately so but for close relatives rather than other people around them whereas the old tribal system everyone stood up for everyone else. You had to because it was very true when you stood up for someone else you were standing up for yourself at the same time. Not just for immediate family.

The process of 'waking up' as I say is painful and it's generally a shock when people get glimpses of what is coming down the river through all the different sources of media. Little snippets here and there to do with brain chipping, the controlled society.

WE'RE ALREADY IN THE TOTALLY CONTROLLED SOCIETY. IT'S JUST THEY DON'T SEE THE PRISON BARS YET.

You haven't seen all the implementations of the laws come into play but they're there and many of them have been implemented and everyone is being monitored and we were all being monitored long before 9/11 came along. Top sociologists at the United Nations in the 1950s discussed the monitoring of the populations of Europe and America down to the village level and the rural level and how personality profiles were getting kept on everyone from at least 1950 onwards and at that time they used a sort of Cardex system. Now it is all computerized and the big boys have simply given themselves the exoteric right to do what they've always done esoterically and that's monitor and record all your conversations. There's nothing new in this at all. All that is new is if they'd admitted this to the populations 50 years ago there would have been an uproar.

Today, they can admit what they're doing because people have been domesticated. They've been hypnotized. They've been more scientifically designed and reared so the big boys know that very few people will object. Most people today love their bondage to Big Brother. Most people today are Peter Pans. They never want to grow up. They don't have the desire to grow up. They like the idea that professionals those who know what they're doing are in charge of everything.

The only problem is there are a minority who have gone beyond the simple patriot business and the national business and the fact is you cannot mourn for that which was never yours and that was the old system. As I say the predecessors of the present rulers designed the old system as well. We're just mourning the passing away of that which was familiar to us.

Don't let the process of waking panic you. Remember, this has been going on for thousands of years at least one stage after another. Many, many thousands of years. At the end of an age and the old age is passing away now of Pisces new gods are born.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY AND THE GODS ARE SIMPLY DESIGNED BY A VERY HIGH PRIESTHOOD WHO HAVE THE ACCESS TO ARCHIVES OF INFORMATION GOING BACK FOR MILLENNIA AT LEAST AND A NEW GOD IS ALWAYS DESIGNED FOR EVERY AGE.

Under the guise of earth worship and the mother side with the strong arm of the military to enforce laws you're seeing that hermaphroditic system appear all around you, the male and female. Where you have a pretense of caring but you have the might to ensure that you go along with this big building project.

Those who want to look into this deeper should read the non-fiction works of H.G. Wells for instance. Read "The Open Conspiracy". He said, "it's all in the open for those that want to read it," and it's true. It's always been out there in dry books put out by professors who are authorized - certain professors and certain other leaders, a lot of them on the fictional side of writing and now it's film-making too. But they also put out their non-fiction works. Both the ideas and the formulas are given to these people. They don't create them. They front people.

H.G. Wells talked about the system to come right down to even the creeds - the peoples who would be allowed to come through this era into the New Age and it was called the New Age long before the hippy movement of 1960s and the New Age magazine was the official monthly magazine put out by the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and they talked about the age they're creating.

As the old gods pass away people mourn for that which was even though it wasn't theirs. They have nostalgia because they believe in a romantic fashion that the past was somehow better and it wasn't. The "good old days" for every generation are the young days when they are not responsible to an employer or to work for themselves and survive. That's the good old days for every generation is childhood you see and even childhood has been stolen.

Today, scientifically again and it wasn't difficult to do when you understand the mentality of children and what sciences are used to exploit the minds of children. Perfectly understood television of course has been the greatest tool ever designed to hypnotize and it does hypnotize - it's not just proven. They've told us what it does to the human. It puts us into a hypnotic state with the flickering which you don't see consciously. At least most folk don't and all the different messages and subliminals are imparted when your defense mechanisms are down your sensor part of the brain is down. You're simply downloaded and you act out in your life your downloading. That is your program and then you wonder why you've done certain things in your life and things haven't worked out for you. It's designed that way.

That's why you won't find a functional family today and the truth is you didn't find in the last generation either. They lived by convention - a convention that was given to their predecessors by the rulers. That's why they gave a king and queen who came out on a balcony on festive occasions side-by-side. That was your prototype to emulate and the people down below emulated a king and queen even though the king and queen were matched up by priests simply for breeding purposes. The nobility today have no qualms admitting privately that really there is no love between the man and woman. She can go her way. He goes his way. They do what they want as long as they have offspring and keep the power within those families of the financial side of it which they own as well. But the little people down below never knew that. They truly believed that in the romantic nonsense that was put out there the king and queen loved each other.

That's why we haven't had functional families for a long, long, long time and when they were sort of functioning - as I say sort of functioning was because the laws ensured that they had to at least keep their appearances up. There was some form of cooperation between people who are really strangers and if we're very, very honest about it to and we have to be you can't take part of a truth and dismiss the other simply because it's unpleasant or it destroys the romance of the past but prior to the contraceptive pill coming along you could go into the registry offices of most places in Europe and probably North America was the same and you'd find a vast amount of people who got married had a child within a few months after the marriage. That was normal. Not for everyone but for the majority that was normal. Convention made it so.

The system is gone now. It's been totally reversed. The west especially has been soaked and milked. We've built the structures. We've built the system. A lot of the technology that exists today came out of ordinary people taught in ordinary schools and big boys simply stole their ideas. They reaped the harvest and they used this technology and the knowledge against the rest of us today.

We've all worked - every generation has worked towards this great New World Order never knowing most of them what was really going on and today most go to their graves never knowing what really happened. Why the changes took place. Why every part of their system has been altered. What turned their cultures upside down? Most of them will never look into the Greek philosophers who talked about culture creation and how they could reverse the norms in the culture in one generation and those who didn't see the changes and understand them were the very generation involved. It was done so slickly. These are all sciences.

A power elite in any country would never allow this to be done to the people if it didn't benefit that power elite. It's sanctioned by every power elite because it's all one big club. The big world club. Those have body, soul and spirit according to themselves. That's why in a deck of cards you'll find a club. That's why the Masonic coffee houses throughout Europe prior to revolutions were called "the clubs." A club is something you also whack something with over the head.

Upon waking up people panic as I say and because up until that point they think they have been conscious and that they're just now getting into more knowledgeable parts of the structure. The first thing they think is well human beings couldn't have done this. It's too clever. That's the shock setting in and that part is catered for by the big boys who supply the pied pipers who come in and tell you, oh it's the space aliens who did that and a whole bunch of stuff like that. Along those lines. Anything to stop you understanding that whatever you know in this world is antiquated knowledge. The higher sciences have never been taught to you and existed even thousands of years ago.

You've been brought up to believe you're on the cutting edge and that all the magazines out there et cetera are keeping you well IN-FORMED and therefore you've been taken by surprise so smart old you could not be taken by surprise. That's the ego talking so it must be a supernatural thing that's happened. So out come the piped pipers with their stories and cater to you and lead you off taking true intelligence - true knowledge mixing it with the fantasy and spinning you off into the fantasy land which is easy for you to go to because it's rather fascinating. We enjoy the fantasy. We've been brought up and we've been gorged - we're gorging on fantasy. That's what television and fiction is all about and we have an insatiable appetite for fiction. We’re reared that way but we don't have the knowledge and we're not taught critical thinking analysis.

Pied pipers steer you off in a thousand directions because it's appealing to your ego that no wonder you were fooled. You're up against incredible intellects here. Superior supernatural intelligences and those pied pipers are well funded, well funded and there's teams of people behind them to make sure they're ongoing. THEY ALWAYS GIVE US OUR HEROES TO FOLLOW. That's why this agenda has never been stopped.

The other part of this equation is the predictability factor. You see, when you break out of the old we take a lot of the old with you and part of that was a world view that was all simplified for you. Don't worry it doesn't matter what happens or how bad things get there's a god in control of it all and he wrote all this stuff down of what's to happen so it's God's will. He's in charge and it has to happen that way the sequence of events and you take that with you but because you discard the old, you discard the old deity you see but you want that part of predictability. Some kind of insurance policy and so you go off to the people who claim they know the future through supernatural means and you jump into it again the realm of magic where the pied pipers are set up and when they're not using holy books to mislead you they use cards or crystal balls or they channel entities because you demand assurance and insurance against the future. You don't like uncertainty because uncertainty means you'd have to decide for yourself all the time and you've been taught you always have experts.

Prior to the scientific elite - the white coats you had the black coats of priests who decided your future for you. They gave you all the answers. They told you everything you needed to know. Today we're taught all we need to know. It doesn’t mean it's the truth but we're taught all we need to know according to the elite.

If you accept that everything is preordained you've succumbed to psychological warfare. You're already defeated. That is the purpose of psychological warfare.

If you put your faith in a crystal ball or any means of divination outside of your own intellect then you're handing your intellect - in fact, you're throwing your intellect away and taking something else's word for it, something again you think is superior to yourself which means that you must be inferior. Simple psychological warfare.

They are people who today who phone me who've been through the whole New Age scenario who are in a mental prison who have to go through rituals everyday with all kinds of techniques and cards to tell them should they go out. Should they stay in? Should they go here? Should they go there? They use pendulums to swing yes or no just like the ouija board. They cannot decide anything for themselves. They're in a prison and these people are walking in society amongst you but they're in a prison. They have an intellect, the greatest gift they're ever given and yet they throw it away and put their faith in something or someone else something physical outside of themselves.

Others follow those who give the big predictions and if you look at those who give out predictions they'll give maybe out 500 to 1,000 predictions in a year knowing that next year at least a certain percentage of them will probably by the law of averages come true. They never tell you about all those that didn't come true. It's not difficult at all and some of the big ones out there follow the standard routine that's been set up in the past.

If you want to convince someone that this particular person is on to the truth you can take them to court, splash it all over the papers and you've just given them the best publicity they could ever have regardless of the reason they're in court. It's publicity that counts and those who are already following such a person will think well they must be genuine. They've been up in court about it. It's not so much getting up in court that matters. It's what the decision at the end of it that tells you why it was done in the first place.

I've mentioned people like Peter Wright before of MI5 who had all of his books seized. They were ready to be issued to the stores and they were pulped back into mush by an order of the court. You see, that one was genuine. The rest generally for others, the pied pipers is very good publicity and the followers are even more convinced of the truth of the person because they've been in court.

They use to make movies like that when a special service person was to infiltrate a group they set them up to make them look like they had turned or they were deviant or they were really criminal and to be exposed publicly and then the group he was meant to penetrate would approach him. It works every time. People don't think. Others don't want to think. They enjoy the fantastic. It's just another form of entertainment to them. It doesn’t mean that things don't happen to individuals in a supernatural sense but the truth of that is that it only makes sense to the individual concerned. Once you said it to someone else what happened it's hearsay. You can't give someone else an experience. They must have it themselves.

So people fall every year and every decade and every generation for those who pretend to predict the future. We don't have to go into crystal balls to see where we're headed. There's nothing really covered up today. Nothing. We’re going into a totalitarian society where those who claim they have reason have the right to turn us all into robots which will give them no more trouble and that's only one phase of it.

The next phase will be genetically creating humanoids for specific tasks. We're dealing with people who work intergenerationally and plan the future in centuries and always have. Not difficult to guide the world when you own all of the money that everyone is taught to work for. That countries have to go and beg for. Not difficult at all especially when no one else is planning the future and you have all the think tanks working for you to do that very thing.

YOU HAVE NO OPPOSITION and I use to wonder why they were so against the so called primitive societies. The static cultures and that's the key to their defeat. They cannot allow what they call "the herd" to stop moving once they are riled up when they're stampeding to guide us into where they want us to go. We go blindly always looking to the experts to advise us.

If they allow peace for a single generation it's difficult to then motivate the offspring who've been brought up in peace and security to go into another direction. They don't want to leave that field they're in and go into another with a new environment. They'll stay where they are. So they always keep us stampeded with real wars or the threats of wars or rumors of wars, economic depressions, starvation, unemployment, famines, plagues and all the rest of it. It's the same old technique for thousand of years used on every culture and you'll find that when you have an equation which works why would you change it?

A formula. THAT WHICH HAS WORKED IN THE PAST WILL WORK AGAIN ON AN UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE.

Writers like H.G. Wells was well aware that many who came out of the New Age movement or born into it really would attempt to lead it and he was well aware that YOU COULDN'T FIGHT THE NEW AGE BY USING THE NEW AGE and mysticism that's flogged out there has been flogged for a long, long, long time as is all part of the New Age. You can't fight it by using it.

THE MASTERS INVENTED ALL OF THIS STUFF. YOU CAN'T USE THE LEGAL SYSTEM EITHER.

YOU CAN'T GET BACK that which YOU THOUGHT WAS YOURS. IT WAS NEVER YOURS. That's why IT'S NEVER WORKED.

People have tried for decades to use the court system to stop the loss of rights and some for the loss of sovereignty or national sovereignty and so on. Hasn't worked. THE LEGAL SYSTEM BELONGS TO THOSE WHO RUN THE WORLD.

People pray to deities and entities to stop it for them. Hasn't worked. The Christians pray and they're really in double-speak because they created the deity who supposedly planned all this so they're terrified of all the things that are about to happen and yet they're afraid of criticizing the deity because he planned it all in the first place and if you try to stop it then you're going against his plan. Boy there's a number for you. You've really been numbed. Really numbed.

The last place a person wants to look is at the power within themselves. They've never really had to. In fact, they don't have much confidence in themselves at all in this system where we've been brought up to believe that we're so petty and so ignorant really when WE COMPARE OURSELVES TO THE EXPERTS that WE COULDN'T MAKE the RIGHT DECISION ANYWAY EVEN IF WE TRIED. THAT'S A GREAT CON GAME WHICH HAS BEEN VERY, VERY SUCCESSFUL.

But to look towards people who claim to be modern shamans in a sense who were simply using the old Kabbalistic techniques of divination is a LOSERS GAME because if you believe a person has that power to design that means that you're pretty stupid because you become subservient to the other person. It never dawns on you you're as EQUAL AS THEY ARE and perhaps intellectually even a little bit superior. That's up for yourself to decide.

Others ask is consciousness the end goal. Is that all there is because once again taking from past their beliefs or reality they still want a form of assurance.

REALITY IS DIRECTING YOUR PATH FOR YOURSELF AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IF YOU'RE TRUTHFUL WITH YOURSELF THAT THE PATH YOUR TREADING WILL BE FOLLOWED BY OTHERS OF SIMILAR MINDSET DURING YOUR LIFETIME AND MAYBE AFTER YOU'RE DEAD TOO WITH NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE and what greater thing can there be if people truly have the ability to plan and direct their future something that's been unheard of for the people. The public as THEY call them for thousands of years.

IF PEOPLE were CONSCIOUS they COULDN'T BE FOOLED.

It would take a lot more to fool them and not the Disneyland stuff that we've been fed which has been very successful. It would take more than that to fool a conscious population who have memory and a type of education that makes them inquire not only into the past but the techniques used on the past so that they might understand the techniques and the warning signs that are being used today or about to be used.

CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ENEMY OF THE ELITE. That's why THEY keep us so busy hyped up and worried and watching sports or dramas or voyeurism where people pretending to have affairs and sex every five minutes. All the little things - the little drives that people have are blown out of proportion like drugs and fed like drugs on the tit of television has everybody sucking on it daily and it is not for your health.

Those who are awake must also always accept the fact that a good majority of the public decide that the world is too heavy with problems. They don't want to know. Leave me in my own little space with my own little fantasies and go away. Well that's fine do it. Go away. Why waste your time with them. Those people have chosen. Only they themselves can decide to wake up. The dead can be made to walk only when they're trying to stand up for themselves. That's what that means.

When you pickup your bed and walk it's because you've been asleep all your life. That's what the esoteric means but they must want to get up for themselves before you can help them then you can teach them otherwise you're hitting your head against a brick wall.

For those who've fallen for the pied pipers with all of their data which is vastly distorted from the facts of history but which is very fascinating you have to accept they're on their own magical mystery tour and they enjoy it. They've already put themselves in fear position by admitting to themselves that something vastly superior and supernatural controls this whole thing. It's much easier to accept that on an egotistical level that you've been fooled by a supernatural being or beings than by people who put their pants on one leg at a time and go to the bathroom like you and I.

Look at all the words in the dictionaries - looking at an older one all the better. There's more words in them. We're down to linguistic minimalism now as the dictionaries get thinner and thinner and people can't express their thoughts and convey their ideas to their neighbors and look at all the words that begin with CON. Very, very important words. Confederate, constitution, constabulary and on and on it goes. Confidence, and confidence tricksters and the PRIESTS WHO ARE CONS. Always ongoing.

When you get out of the tunnel and you see the light and you see the forest across the field remember the "all seeing eye" didn't miss the field and he knows you want to get to the forest and his mines planted all across that field each one with a flag saying, "come here, I've got it for you." The preachers who did this live on Sirius or they live on some far off little star or they're metamorphs or come here I've got a crystal ball or the answer is in these cards or this divining rod or whatever it happens to be.

It's amazing that if the kingdom of heaven is within you, you don't want to trust it and you wonder why not only yourself but previous generations have been suckered down all of these fake paths and allowed to happen down through time what has happened and what is happening because they don't want to believe their own selves if they just stopped and switched everything off and did some thinking for themselves that at the time most of the answers are within.

It's a sad thing to think everyone could be asked - in fact they do ask this question towards the end of their life for themselves. What have they done with it and once they get through I did this for me or mine and that's generally what it is, is me or mine there's an emptiness there. There's nothing beyond that because they know that once they're gone their memory dies with those who are still alive. Once they are gone their memory is gone too. The second generation and definitely the third forgets. There's no reason to remember in fact.

That's why the ancients - the pharaohs and so on had their names and their statutes in stone and vast sums were paid out of the treasury into the priesthoods to pray for them generation after generation. They believed that once the prayer stopped there was simply non-existence for their primitive spirit you might say. It was important that humans remember them. Very important to them.

Most people today are really the same. Once they're dead it's as thought they had never been. That's an old saying. What have you left behind? What have you changed? Who have you influenced in such a way for the better for others without enslaving them? You'll find that most of the authorized historians down through the ages give us fantastic ideas but those ideas enslave the followers because they're not teaching them to think individualistically. Just the opposite. We tend to think in mass movements yet the masses are the unthinking masses.

IT'S THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BY BEING CREATIVE ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S NO MOTIVATION FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR POWER OR EVEN A NEED TO BE REMEMBERED. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT WAY.

TRUTH CAN NEVER BE ALTERED IN ANY AGE, THEREFORE ANYTHING THAT IS SAID IN ANY AGE TO DO WITH TRUTH IS ALWAYS THE SAME.

It's the elite who have the problem with the word TRUTH and try to redefine it always. That's why they have the Pontius Pilate character supposedly saying "what is truth?" Meaning it depends where you're standing with your point of view. But there are truths which are unchanging. Those things which make us truly human are the emotions which can be very, very giving and yet from the same emotions can come the greatest selfishness. It's dualistic and only we can control them and if we don't control them the others - the elite decided long ago they will do it for us and their system is rigid. There's no leeway whatsoever for decision making down below.

We each have the capacity to change our immediate environment and those around us. The alternative as opposed to the elders in ancient societies who had some wisdom to pass on and who were respected for that wisdom. Today unfortunately we have many elderly who are just as dumbed down as their offspring and their offspring's offspring. They don't have wisdom to pass on. Very few do. That's not the way to end up. We have the one chance here to do it all in every generation and only a few people will accept the challenge and the risk which is what independence is all about. Risk taking.

To end up with a good pension in a retirement home and maybe even a building - they put buildings up in retirement homes where there's doctors on one floor, shops on the other, hairdressers on the other and the hospital in the basement - I mean and maybe the morgue in the basement too. What a thought. What a thought to save up for your working life for that rather than take the risks - the risk of still being independent as you grow older. What's wrong with that? There's nothing at all except the modern stigma because the elderly are kept out of the decision making process. The generations have been scientifically split.

That's all for me tonight. I hope this is not too depressing. It shouldn't be really because behind what I say has a message of hope for those who understand it. Good night and may your god go with you.

Friday, April 18, 2008

French push for EU food response

BBC News


France is urging EU countries to come up with a global initiative on food security in the wake of violence linked to price rises in basic foodstuffs.

Agriculture minister Michel Barnier said Europe could not remain passive and leave the situation to the markets.

As he spoke, UN special rapporteur Jean Ziegler accused the EU of agricultural dumping in Africa.

He said producing biofuels, a key part of the EU's plans to tackle climate change, was a "crime against humanity".

The European Union has set a target of providing 10% of its fuel for transport from biofuels by 2020, which its own environment advisers have said should be suspended.

There are fears that the use of farmland to grow crops for biofuels has reduced the scope for food production.

The European Commission said on Monday that there was no question at the moment of the target being dropped, as work was currently under way to implement it in a sustainable way.

According to a spokesman, less than 2% of EU cereal production is currently used for biofuels.

'Humanitarian tsunami'

The EU is well aware of the risks of soaring food prices and, only last week, Development Commissioner Louis Michel warned of the crisis leading to a "humanitarian tsunami" in Africa.

France will take over the presidency of the EU in July and, in a statement on Friday, four ministers made it clear that the violent response to price rises in Haiti could easily be replicated in 30 other countries.

Protests because of a big increase in the cost of rice have led to a number of deaths in Haiti as well as the fall of the government.

Mr Barnier told French radio on Monday: "We cannot, and we must not leave food for people... to the mercy of the rule of the market alone and to international speculation."

He is proposing four ideas:

  • Production of more and better food to enable Europe to respond to the food challenge
  • To bring together the efforts of various member states to help developing countries rebuild their agriculture
  • To redirect public development aid towards the agriculture sector
  • To ensure that poorer countries do not become the victims of the World Trade Organization's Doha round of negotations.

Last week, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, whose country holds the presidency of the G8 industrialised nations, calling for a "fully co-ordinated response".

He proposed urgent short-term action to tackle immediate hardship and a medium-term response in trade and agriculture.

Dumping claim

The UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, told German radio that the EU financed the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa, "where they are offered at one-half or one-third of their (production) price".

But a European Commission spokesman said it was an old argument that simply was not true anymore.

He said that initial reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy had done away with the link between production and subsidy and further changes would free farmers to respond better to the market.

Farmers to kill off 150,000 pigs

The Chronicle Herald Canada




EDMONTON — In what is being called an unprecedented move, the federal government will pay Canadian pork producers $50 million to kill off 150,000 of their pigs by the fall as the industry teeters on the brink of economic collapse.

The animals are being destroyed at slaughter plants and on pig farms in a bid to cull the swine breeding herd by 10 per cent.

RELATED

  • UN warns of food emergency as prices escalate
  • Most of the meat is to be used for pet food or otherwise disposed of, but up to 25 per cent of it will be made available to Canadian food banks.

    "The value that the market is providing to hog farmers for their breeding animals has fallen to virtually nothing," said Martin Rice, executive director of the Canadian Pork Council on Monday.

    "It is due to the economic collapse of the industry. These are farms that families have spent decades building up. We cannot see relief coming. It is agonizing for them. It takes a toll."

    Producers are weighed down by the cumulative impact of low prices, increasing feeds costs and the high value of the loonie. They are also facing new country-of-origin labelling rules for meat products in the United States that are to go into effect later this year.

    Canada’s 10,000 pork producers are mainly in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

    Farmers who wish to take part in the cull can apply for federal compensation payments until the end of August. Those who qualify for payments must agree to kill off an entire breeding barn of pigs and not to restock the barn for three years. The program is retroactive to November 2007 and farmers have until this November to complete the cull.

    The council estimates that about 50,000 pigs have already been destroyed, with about 100,000 more to come by the fall.

    To ensure that the animals are treated in a humane way, producers are being encouraged to ship their pigs to approved slaughter plants. Producers who live in areas without plants will be asked to ship their animals to a province with such a facility.

    But there is nothing to prevent producers from killing the animals on their farms themselves.

    "We want to minimize the amount of on-farm euthanizing," Rice said. "Before we would approve that application we would need to know how it was going to be done — that it was going to be done humanely and in an environmentally sound way."

    Rice said the U.S. government’s decision to require country-of-origin labelling on meat products has made a bad situation even worse.

    Producers are dealing with American companies that don’t want to buy Canadian hogs or meat products after years of doing business because they aren’t sure how consumers will respond to such labels. The situation is squeezing the hope out of the Canadian industry, which exports much of what it produces to the United States.

    "They cannot look forward to a rebound in their market," Rice said.

    But as pork producers suffer through the downturn, more than 670 food banks across Canada hope to benefit from the swine cull.

    The Canadian Association of Food Banks is working with the pork council to come up with a plan to distribute some of the meat to the 720,000 Canadians who depend on food banks each month. "We are pleased that the government is allowing some of the product within this program to come to the food bank community," said Katharine Schmidt, executive director of the Canadian Association of Food Banks in Toronto. "We are working as hard as we can to see how much we can actually get into the hands of those who need it most.

    "One of the food groups that food banks are always in need of is protein."

    Thursday, April 10, 2008

    Barak Obama lying about his C.F.R./N.A.U ties




    Obama & The CFR



    The 2004 Democratic
    National Convention may be remembered most for a young and energetic
    senator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama's
    speech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and his
    fresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void –
    He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it's
    handling. Excitement and support for the senator eventually
    snowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys a
    popular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of the
    Iraq war has earned him support from a population united in it's
    discontent with the current government. To a select crowd of
    Americans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. To
    other more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on new
    middle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with several
    lobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further US
    militarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obama
    makes his foreign policy goals clear – and he is not anti-war. Is
    Obama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

    In a recent speech
    given to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obama
    outlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing political
    alignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment.
    Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel.
    The U.S. has long supported Israel – this year they were given $30
    billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective,
    less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homes
    destroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has always
    given billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptive
    strikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular in
    the region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclear
    energy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states
    “We should take no option, including military action, off the
    table”. The US has already constructed massive permanent military
    bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation.
    The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues to
    grow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistent
    enemy. This reckless policy leaves the U.S. on the brink of full
    scale war at all times.

    Obama differed from
    many of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated by
    Iraq's oil reserves. Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup of
    the Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action. It has
    been questioned if the U.S. military even has the capability of
    securing the strategic oil reserve. Iran has some of the most
    lucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia and
    Europe. International economies would be disenfranchised with the US
    military disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in other
    countries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S.
    This phenomenon is referred to as “blowback”, or, the
    consequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect,
    Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan and
    Afghanistan to fight amorphous groups of “terrorists”. Regarding
    the war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he does
    not believe nuclear weapons should be used – a small concession for
    an ambitious military operation. This policy still backs preemptive
    strikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at the
    expense of US resources.

    Obama outlines his
    ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs
    magazine. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign
    Relations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he
    is a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New
    York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business
    elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks
    to centralize both political power and market power to craft
    legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR is
    rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult to
    fully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it is
    likely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of the
    CFR include:


    Dick Cheney

    John Kerry

    Bill Clinton

    Al Gore

    Ronald Reagan

    George H. W. Bush

    Gerald Ford

    Richard Nixon


    John, David &
    Nelson Rockefeller

    Condolezza Rice

    Paul Wolfowitz

    Alan Greenspan

    Colon Powell

    Henry Kissinger

    Angelina Jolie
    (Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as an
    ambassador)


    Its membership list
    is a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly a
    century. It should not be surprising that most presidential
    candidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do not
    advertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as
    “liberals” and “conservatives” to control all aspects of the
    debate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election with
    several members in the race from both sides of the isle:

    Democrat CFR
    Candidates:

    Barack Obama

    Hillary Clinton

    John Edwards

    Chris Dodd

    Bill Richardson

    Republican CFR
    Candidates:

    Mitt Romney

    Rudy Giuliani

    John McCain

    Fred Thompson

    Newt Gingrich

    The mainstream
    media's self-proclaimed “top tier” candidates are united in their
    CFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives political
    diversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned to
    instinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden in
    plain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul is
    the only “top tier” candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

    Although many
    politicians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council on
    Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR's
    membership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, with
    several large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.
    Corporate members include:


    Halliburton of
    Dubai

    British Petroleum

    Dutch Royal Shell

    Exxon Mobile

    General Electric
    (NBC)

    Chevron

    Lockheed Martin

    Merck
    Pharmaceuticals

    News Corp (FOX)

    Bloomberg

    IBM

    Time Warner

    JP Morgan/ Chase
    Manhattan

    & several other
    major financial institutions

    Members are united
    in their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidated
    global governance. The CFR's mission is to influence policy through
    the reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFR
    ideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best and
    brightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model.
    Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring an
    element of capital (political status, business influence, money) to
    the group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFR
    headquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table style
    discussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairs
    and make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates “task
    forces” to report “findings and policy prescriptions” (cfr.org)
    for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodical
    Foreign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstream
    media publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFR
    member writes: “The US should make (Pakistani President & US
    intelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be”.
    Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues to
    the readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an article
    titled “Don't Worry, Be Happy”. Currently, the front page of
    CFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radical
    Iranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members in
    government control the nuclear football). Many prominent
    publications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:


    Time

    Newsweek

    US News & World
    Report

    Atlantic Monthly

    Forbes

    & several major
    publishing houses


    Members of the CFR
    in the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into the
    mainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as a
    non-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes a
    one-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or the
    desires of the American people.

    The goals of the
    CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton's
    Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “The
    Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society
    which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries
    should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley
    differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their
    plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his
    book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers
    in that he believes the new world order plan of global government's
    “role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigley
    also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be
    controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As
    Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the
    rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of
    extreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowed
    private central banks to “dominate the political system... ...and
    economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of
    “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he
    believes the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigley
    understands the average person doesn't understand feudalism or
    serfdom and will never read his book.

    Surprisingly, many
    of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic
    process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy
    Admiral Chester Ward writes “The main purpose of the (CFR) is
    promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence
    and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.”.
    This high ranking military officer went on to explain their
    procedures for influencing policy, claiming: “Once the ruling
    members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US
    government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial
    research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments,
    intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound
    and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”.

    The CFR's strategy
    is also being used to promote world government as well as the new
    environmental agenda. Obama and most candidates have made the
    environment a major issue in the policy. The CFR has long suggested
    a global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement as
    a means for its advancement. All CFR candidates align themselves
    with the position that the government has both the ability and
    responsibility to maintain the world's environment. Good intentioned
    individuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, but
    nongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on land
    acquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming. While most
    scientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climactic
    change, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used to
    erode national sovereignty and build up their global authority.
    Proposed “Carbon Taxes” place carbon expenditure ratings on
    mundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2
    is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plants
    thrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higher
    levels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbon
    to the atmosphere, hence a “Carbon Tax” is a tariff for doing
    nothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR's
    own Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause of
    environmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution in
    developing countries. There are serious environmental problems that
    are ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broad
    population.

    Environmental
    protection has already lead countries to willingly surrender control
    of natural resources. The US has ceded control of natural resources
    to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
    Organization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmental
    protection. UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organization
    controlled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador John
    Bolton. The CFR's President Richard N. Haass boldly admits “Some
    governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to
    address the threat of global climate change.”. He adds that this
    “Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty... ...needs to become
    weaker.”. While it is important to be conscious of humans' effects
    on the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see an
    opportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcement
    targeting the US. The CFR openly states its intentions of using the
    environmental movement and other emotional arguments to build up
    global authority and undermine US sovereignty.

    The CFR backs other
    programs that promote regional governments. Another ambitious goal
    of the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the control
    of a central world government. World leaders are moving towards a
    regional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US,
    and Mexico. In 2005, the CFR released a report titled “Building
    an American Community” which sought to eliminate borders between
    the three North American countries. One part of the plan called for
    decreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort to
    dissolve national borders. Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the
    task force that released “Building a North American Community”,
    names the “Amero” as a hypothetical unified North American
    currency similar to the Euro. Carried out with precision, the
    private, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devalued
    the US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resources
    for literal pennies on the dollar.

    The European Union
    is a similar model to the North American partnership. The EU was
    hugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for the
    complicit European power elites to fully implement the union.
    During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times for
    the United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution that
    was also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters. The current
    Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similar
    constitution under a new name. Like the EU, American countries would
    keep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would be
    superseded by a regional constitution.

    Already in place in
    North America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov)
    established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox,
    and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP consolidates
    protection of the North American Union by establishing a security
    perimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalan
    border. This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executive
    authority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight. It is
    a precursor to a trilateral authority between the three North
    American economies.

    A similar measure
    to the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region is
    the NAFTA “Superhighway” which eliminates border restrictions on
    shipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive in
    North America at ports in Mexico. Rather than arriving at the port
    of Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a “port” in
    the mid-west that lies along the shipping lane. This measure has
    been unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway,
    but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertly
    advances. Congress has largely looked away from the issue. Members
    who are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it stay
    secret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it. The
    presidential candidates' association with the the self-described
    “shadow government” compromises the the voting process and
    defrauds the constituency.

    Barack Obama has
    captivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style of
    rhetoric. He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraq
    war. But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit of
    a shadowy enemy under the vague threat of “terrorism” - a policy
    that has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debt
    and untold lives. The war on terror has been crafted to spend the
    US into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state. Money
    continues to be being printed out of thin air by the private
    run-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged with
    over $1 trillion in US dollar holdings. In the middle east, the
    CFR's blank check for U.S. military operations will deplete U.S.
    resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S. sentiment,
    ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA. Obama and
    other CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is not
    promoted on their websites or in any press releases because the
    organization has centralized political power and financial capital to
    set policy the public would otherwise oppose. The career
    politicians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon by
    voters. The Council is one of the major conduits between government
    and business leaders in the US. The CFR is guaranteeing power by
    owning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election. Obama
    is captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedly
    intelligent enough to understand his political niche. Another CFR
    US president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy that
    protects corporate interests and isolates the US. Like his
    colleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions foment
    the long term militarization and balkanization of the middle east
    while resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance an
    illegal foreign policy. Only when the control of the CFR is fully
    exposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.

    Wednesday, March 5, 2008

    Council On Foreign Relations

    "Since its founding... the CFR has been the preeminent intermediary between the world of high finance, big oil, corporate elitism, and the U.S. government. Its members slide smoothly into cabinet-level jobs in Republican and Democratic administrations. The policies promulgated in its quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs, become U.S. government policy." -- Jonathan Vankin (1)

    "As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student, I heard that call clarified by a professor I had named Carroll Quigley." -- Democratic Presidential Nominee Bill Clinton

    When Bill Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, on July 16, 1992, Carroll Quigley's name was not exactly a household word.(2) Quigley, Dean of The School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, had graduated magna cum from Harvard. He made Ripley's "Believe It or Not" for being Harvard's youngest person to receive a Ph.D. After teaching at Harvard and Princeton, he went to Georgetown where for 28 consecutive years alumni selected him as their most influential professor.

    Clinton, Quigley's student, went on to become a Rhodes Scholar, a CFR member, a Trilateral Commission member and a Bilderberger participant. He joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1989, attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1991 and was a current member of the Trilateral Commission at the time of his nomination.(3) Clinton, before the American public, openly acknowledged his Georgetown mentor and clued his followers from the convention podium. He then went on in November to defeat former CFR/Trilateralist/Skull and Bones member President George H.W. Bush.

    The shadowy political and even "foreign" beginnings of the Council on Foreign Relations have long been intentionally obscured. For more than three decades the CFR received no notice by authors, the general public or serious researchers. When mentioned, it is almost always in articles detailing how many of the appointees of a given administration, as usual, have a "CFR connection". (4)

    Santa Barbara sociologist G. William Domhoff wrote in 1978 that the CFR had been the subject of only two "academic studies." This, he said, provided "an impressive commentary in itself on how little social scientists know about policy-making in the United States."(5) A lack of academic commentary has also been paralleled by little coverage in the media or press. It was not until some 37 years after the creation of the CFR that a mainstream magazine article was published in Harper's by Joseph Kraft in July 1958 entitled: "School for Statesmen."(6)

    A major clue was given by Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley in an interview. Quigley, in his best Boston accent, dismissed the Radical-Right interpretation as 'garbage'. But he then added: 'To be perfectly blunt, you could find yourself in trouble dealing with this subject." He explained that his career as a lecturer in the government institution circuit was all but ruined because of the twenty or so pages he had written about the existence of Round Table Groups. As we will see, the CFR was, indeed, a British Round Table creation. This is one of the most important hidden secrets of the NYC-based CFR.

    The story of the British connection to the Council on Foreign Relations may be traced back to George Peabody, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Nicholas M. Butler and Col. Edward House -- all who may be described a British loyalists. A Secret Society was established by Cecil Rhodes in connection with Rothschild, Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. A small highly secret group called the Round Table directed operations.(7)

    The story begins at least when George Peabody moved to London and took up English residence in 1837 -- the same year Queen Victoria ascended the throne. He joined with other merchant bankers who traded in dry goods in "high finance." This consisted of exclusive service to "governments, large companies and rich individuals." (8) Soon after his arrival in London, Peabody was summoned by Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Rothschild offered to pay all his entertainment bills. Hence, the famous Peabody July 4th dinners were bought and paid for by funds from the Rothschilds.(9) In 1837, Peabody was warned, in advance, by his British friends of their decision "to withdraw credits from the worldwide markets and thereby depress commercial values; so he was fully liquid and ready to pounce on the American properties rendered bargains by the British move."(10) In the crash of 1837 Peabody made a fortune purchasing depressed property in America.(11) In 1854 the American Ambassador to London, James Buchanan, stormed out of the room when George Peabody toasted Queen Victoria before President Pierce.(12) Peabody "was the founder of the Morgan financial empire." (13) In 1859 Junius Morgan assumed control of George Peabody and Company. He traded Union bonds. The Civil War was "a bonanza for German-Jewish bankers on Wall Street, who raised loans from the numerous Union sympathizers in Germany." (14) Peabody's American agent was the Boston firm of Beebe, Morgan and Company -- headed by Junius Morgan.(15) When J. Pierpont Morgan was in Vienna, his father wrote that Alexander Duncan had an opening in Duncan, Sherman & Company -- a bank affiliated with George Peabody in London. Pierpont "soon was acting as George Peabody & Company's American representative.(16)

    Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), in 1872, was paid a $150,000 commission for placing $6 million of bonds of a Pennsylvania branch road in Europe. He made another $75,000 on a second trip. While in England in 1873, on one of his frequent trips to Great Britain, he met Henry Bessemer and saw the Bessemer process of making steel. He then organized Carnegie, McCandless & Company with a capital of $700,000 and built a new steel plant named the Edgar Thompson Steel Works (to flatter the president of the Pennsylvania Railroad to get generous rebates). (17)

    In the original edition of Andrew Carnegie's 1893 book, Triumphant Democracy, he stated: "Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams but it will never shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation of the Mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore I say, that surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the United States, the British American Union."(18) In 1948 a bio of Carnegie ended: "There is bound to be universal peace, he believed, through the final interlocking of the national interests throughout the world. At first a coalition of America and England -- a union of the English-speaking race. Then a United States of Europe. And finally a unification of the entire human race."(19) Carnegie was a vice president and generous financial supporter of the Anti-Imperialist League from its formation in 1898 until his death. His profits went from almost $3.5 million in 1887 to $40 million in 1900. (20) He consolidated his holdings into Carnegie Steel Co. in 1899. On December 12, 1900 an informal parliament of "all the biggest men of New York" was held as a dinner party to the president of the Carnegie Steel Company -- "Smiling Charlie" Schwab. After an all night session, some weeks later, Morgan sent Schwab to Carnegie: "Go and find his price." The resulting price of $492,000,000, dubbed a "stupendous ransom," was paid to Carnegie with $300,000,000 in bonds and preferred stock. (21) Carnegie's assets were actually worth only $80 million but Morgan merged other corporations to create U.S. Steel Company controlling 65% of U.S. steelmaking capacity. (22) At the end of his steel career, in 1901, he turned over his Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan who merged it with three other steel giants (the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, the Illinois Steel Company and Colorado Fuel and Iron) to form the U.S. Steel Corporation -- the first billion dollar corporation in America. (23)

    Andrew Carnegie financed three temples of peace: Central America Court of Justice, the Pan American Union and the Palace of Peace at the Hague (which cost $1.5 million to construct in 1903). (24) He was also a member of the Philippine Independence Committee (1904) and a vice president of the Filipino Progress Association (1905-1907). In 1905 Carnegie gave $10 million to provide pensions for retired college professors. Those who gathered at Carnegie's mansion on November 15, 1905, included Charles W. Eliot (Harvard), Woodrow Wilson (Princeton), Arthur Hadley (Yale) and David Star Jordan (Stanford).(25)

    The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was set up in 1910. The initial direction of the fund was given by Carnegie to Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947). Butler got excited about the peril of the Allies in World War I and decided that the best way to establish peace was to help get the United States into the War. (26) Butler was President of Columbia University (1901-1945), helped establish the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and served as its President (1925-1945). Norman Dodd, research director for the Reece Committee, was invited to examine the warehoused records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The minutes, inspected by a Dodd researcher, revealed that in 1910 the Carnegie trustees asked: "Is there any way known to man more effective than war, to so alter the life of an entire people?" The trustees ultimately decided that war was the most effective way to change people. A year later the minutes showed that the trustees asked: "How do we involve the United States in a war?" And they answered: "We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States," by first gaining "control of the State Department." The trustees also sent a confidential message to President Wilson insisting that the war not end too quickly. Dodd also found that all high appointments in the State Department took place only after they had been cleared by the Council of Learned Societies (established by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). (27) The Church Peace Union was established at a meeting at the home of Andrew Carnegie in 1914 with an endowment of over $2 million. (28) Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Otto Kahn backed the 1915 Anglo-French loan. (29) The 1915 loans were said by Morgan to be made for "trade" purposes. (30)

    The League of Free Nations was created in early 1918 (in 1920 it became the Foreign Policy Association). (31) The Foreign Policy Association "grew out of a meeting of nineteen writers, editors, educators, and such with a view to selling Wilsonian policies and the League of Nations to the public." (32) The Foreign Policy Association, however, soon began to play "second fiddle" to the CFR.

    In June 1918, a "more discrete" club of New York "financiers and international lawyers" was formed headed by Elihu Root (an Andrew Carnegie lawyer). (33) The 108 members of the original Council on Foreign Relations were described by Whitney Shepardson as "high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading and finance companies, together with many lawyers." (34) International Bankers provided the money: "In Britain the organization was (initially) called the Institute for International Affairs (IIA) while in New York it operated as the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR). The finances for the group came from wealthy international bankers..." (35) The CFR was founded "by East Coast bankers, lawyers and academicians..." (36) By April 1919, however, the CFR "went dormant." (37)

    A Texan named House was a key individual before and during the Wilson administration. He helped establish the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, coined the phrase "league of nations," drafted the covenant for the League of Nations and presided over the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (C.F.R.).

    Col. Edward M. House (the title came from a Texas Governor) inherited a fortune estimated at around $1.5 million. He was born in Houston, Texas -- the son of a wealthy planter and banker. (38) Originally the House ("Huis") family was Dutch. House's family had lived in England for 300 years before his father came to Texas. (39) Thomas William House came to Texas to fight under Sam Houston and was an American agent for London Banking interests "said by some to the House of Rothschild..." (40) Edward House attended school in England for several years as a young boy: "Much of his youth and adult life was spent in the British Isles, which he regularly visited." (41) The elder House said he wanted to raise his sons to "know and serve England." (42) House surrounded himself with prominent members of the Fabian Society. (43) Between 1892 and 1902 he elected four Texas Governors. (44)

    In the winter of 1911-1912, House wrote Philip Dru: Administrator. House said he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx..." The book was a fictional plan for the conquest of America by gaining control of both the Republican and Democratic parties and using them to create a socialist world government. Central portions of the plan included a graduated federal income tax and a central bank. (45) The book also outlined an inheritance tax and suggested taking functions away from the states. (46) It suggested a conspiracy "insinuated into the primaries, in order that no candidate might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs." (47) House passed the book to his father-in-law in New York City -- Dr. Sidney E. Mezes. Mezes, who read and approved the book, was Director of the College of the City of New York and former President of the University of Texas. House then sent the book to future Wilson cabinet member David F. Houston. Houston declared the work economically sound but said the fiction in it was so thin that he advised it be rewritten as a serious work. (48)

    After his November 1912 election, Woodrow Wilson, on vacation in Bermuda, read Philip Dru. (49) Arthur Howden Smith wrote: "In nine months the Wilson administration completely reorganized the financial structure in accordance with the conceptions outlined in 'Philip Dru.'" (50) From 1912-1914, Wilson's legislative program "was largely the program of House's book..." (51) The New York Times in January 1913 found the authorship of Philip Dru to still be a puzzle. (52) In 1915 House was still trying to conceal his connection as author of the book. (53) Among those who read the novel was Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- then Assistant Secretary of the Navy -- whose mother was then and always a close friend of Colonel House. (54) It was published by B.W. Huebsch -- "a favorite publisher of the Left and for many years a valued collaborator of American Fabian Socialist groups." (55) In 1917 a bookseller wrote regarding the House book: "As time goes on the interest in it becomes more intense, due to the fact that so many of the ideas expressed...have become laws of this Republic, and so many of his ideas have been discussed as becoming laws." He ended with the question: "Is Colonel E.M. House of Texas the author? If not, who is?" Seymour admitted: "Colonel House was, in truth, the author; to his other occupations he added that of novelist." (56) Both Franklin K. Lane and W. J. Bryan commented on the influence of Philip Dru on Wilson. (57) In 1918, Franklin K. Lane, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of the Interior, stated in a private letter: "All that book has said should be, comes about...The President comes to Philip Dru, in the end." (58) House's book has been said to have outlined the next 40-50 years in code (DRU is also said to be the code for David Rex Universe). (59)

    Charles Seymour called Col. House "the unseen guardian angel of the (Federal Reserve) bill." (60) The banker J. Horace Harding held a dinner at which House "convinced the financial overlords that the Democratic donkey, with Wilson in the saddle, would not kick over the traces....The Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Kuhns, the Rockefellers, the Morgans put their faith in House..." (61) On November 17, 1913, Paul Warburg requested an interview, with House, to include Jacob Schiff and Cleveland Dodge. Dodge was grateful for a "substantial subscription for the Y.M.C.A. fund." Warburg did most of the talking. Schiff favored only four regional reserve banks. (62) Schiff said House was the Moses and they would be the Aarons: "He asked if I knew my Bible well enough for this to be clear to be. I told him I did." (63) Schiff then wrote to House on December 23, 1913: "I want to say a word of appreciation to you for the silent, but no doubt effective work you have done in the interest of currency legislation..." (64) After getting the Federal Reserve through, House then turned to international affairs. (65) House "had powerful connections with international bankers in New York. He was influential...with great financial institutions represented by such people as Paul and Felix Warburg, Otto H. Kahn, Louis Marburg, Henry Morgenthau, Jacob and Mortimer Schiff and Herbert Lehman. House had equally powerful connections with bankers and politicians of Europe." (66) Jacob Schiff died on September 25, 1920. Of all the other living bankers named by Smoot, all, without an exception, were later founding members of the CFR in 1921. (67) The original 270-secret crowd that created the Federal Reserve System "were all in the original (CFR) membership." They included Jacob Schiff, Averell Harriman, Frank Vanderlip, Nelson Aldrich, Bernard Baruch, J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller. (68)

    Associates of J.P. Morgan and Company created an American parallel group to the Milner Group before the first World War. (69) The RIIA was an above-ground group: "During the Versailles Treaty talks after the war, Round Table members Lionel Curtis, Balfour, Milner, and others formed an above-ground group called the Royal Institute of International Affairs for the purpose of coordinating Anglo-American cooperative efforts. They decided also to form an American branch, but gave it a different name in order to secure its antecedents. Thus was born the Council on Foreign Relations, originally staffed by J.P. Morgan men and financed by Morgan money." (70) The two groups were established to prevent the American people from reacting with patriotic fury if it was discovered that the CFR was in fact a subsidiary of the British Round Table. (71) The man most responsible for creating subgroups of the Round Table was Lionel Curtis. He established local chapters of the Round Table called the Royal Institute of International Affairs: "In the United States, the Round Table 'front group' was named the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)." (72)

    A savy observer has described the CFR's British front-role: "The interlock problem is conspicuous for another reason, one which has never been addressed by Congress. It seems that certain huge Yankee foundations, namely Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie, have been conscious instruments of covert U.S. foreign policy, with directors and officers who can only be described as agents of U.S. intelligence. According to Quigley, the roots for this can be traced to the establishment of an American branch of the British Royal Institute in 1921, which itself had grown out of the Rhodes Trust. The American branch, called the Council on Foreign Relations, was a largely a front for J. P. Morgan and Company." (73)

    The Council on Foreign Relations Handbook of 1936 stated: "On May 30, 1919, several leading members of the delegations to the Paris Peace Conference met at the Hotel Majestic in Paris to discuss setting up an international group which would advise their respective governments on international affairs. The U.S. was represented by Gen. Tasker H. Bliss (Chief of Staff, U.S. Army), Col. Edward M. House, Whitney H. Shepardson, Dr. James T. Shotwell, and Prof. Archibald Coolidge. Great Britain was unofficially represented by Lord Robert Cecil, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, and Harold Temperley." The May 30th meeting was held at the billet of the British delegation and proposed an Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs -- one branch in London and one in New York. (74) The New York and London locations were appropriate since "nearly all of them were bankers and lawyers." (75)

    The British moved quickly to establish their branch. (76) The establishment of the American branch was much slower. When the American delegates got home their fellow citizens were "absorbed in isolationism and prohibition, throughly inhospitable to the ideas of the League of Nations." (77)

    So far no complete list of the fifty dinner guests has been located. It has been stated, however: "The twenty-one Americans, who, together with (their 29) British counterparts, founded in Paris The Institute of International Affairs, were a diverse group that included Col. Edward M. House, Herbert Hoover, Gen. Tasker Bliss, Christian Herter, and such scholars as Charles Seymour, later President of Yale, Professors Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard and James T. Shotwell of Columbia." (78) There were two camps. One was headed by the U.S. official negotiators Tasker H. Bliss and Edward House along with advisors Herbert Hoover and Thomas W. Lamont -- along with their aides. The other side was composed of the twelve scholars that had served the American delegation in an advisory capacity. (79) Most of the scholars were from Harvard, Yale and Columbia. (80)

    The returning Inquiry scholars lacked the funds to create the envisioned American Institute of International Affairs but offered diplomatic experience, expertise and high-level contacts: "The men of law and banking, by contrast, could tap untold resources of finance...This was the synergy that produced the modern Council..." (81) The money to found the CFR came in part from J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Otto Kahn, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg. (82)

    Another source suggests that the original CFR itself had fund-raising problems: "They took the name of an organization already in existence. The original Council on Foreign Relations had been formed in New York in July, 1918, but in little more than a year had become inactive owing to an inability to raise the necessary funds. It was with 66 members of this original crowd that the peacemongers from Paris merged to form the organization we know today." (83)

    J.P. Morgan's personal attorney, John W. Davis (and later Republican presidential candidate), was the founding President of the CFR. Paul Carvath, the first Vice-President of the CFR, also represented the J.P. Morgan interests. The council's first chairman was Morgan partner Russell Leffingwell. Morgan also had the loyalty of many professors due to his large academic endowments. (84) Paul Cravath was also the founder of the famous law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. (85)

    In summary, the Federal Reserve System, the League of Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations had both common origins and creators. Last, but not least, the CFR was of British -- not U.S. origin.

    1. Conspiracies, Coverups and Crimes 70 (1992).
    2. NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, "Clinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's Going on Here?" (April-June 1993).
    3. NameBase NewsLine, No. 1, "Clinton, Quigley, and Conspiracy: What's Going on Here?" (April-June 1993).
    4. A collection of the charts of F.R.E.E. (Fund To Restore An Educated Electorate, founded by Johnny Stewart of Waco), proves the dominance of the CFR from the Democratic Carter administration, to the Republican Reagan administration, to the Bush and also the Bill Clinton administrations. It truly does not matter which party happens to be in power-the CFR runs U.S. foreign policy regardless of the political party in power. In 1952 and 1956 CFR Adlai Stevenson challenged CFR Ike. In 1960 it was CFR Nixon or CFR JFK. In 1968 it was a choice of CFR Nixon or CFR Humphrey. In 1972 the candidates were CFR Nixon and CFR McGovern. Gary Allen, The Rockefeller File 56 (1976).
    5. G. William Domhoff, The Powers That Be 64 (1978).
    6. An exception to the lack of CFR coverage came in the December 9, 1950 issue of the Chicago Tribune where an editorial said of CFR members: "There is blood on them-the dried blood of the last war (WWII) and the fresh blood of the present one (Korean War)." Des Griffin, Fourth Reich of the Rich 129 (1989). For a relatively early article, See Also: J. Anthony Lukas, "The Council on Foreign Relations - Is It a Club? Seminar? Presidium? 'Invisible Government'? New York Times Magazine (November 21, 1971).
    7. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist 50 (1970)
    .
    8. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan 4 (1990).
    9. Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve 49 (1991).
    10. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America 319 (1985).
    11. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America 344 (1985).
    12. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan 7 (1990).
    13. Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America 307 (1985).
    14. Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan 13 (1990).
    15. Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve 50 (1991).
    16. Cass Canfield, Outrageous Fortunes 68 (1981).
    17. B.C. Forbes, Men Who Made America Great 42 (1917).
    18. Wickliffe B. Vennard, Sr., The Federal Reserve Hoax Exposed 121 (1973).
    19. Henry Thomas and Danna Lee Thomas, 50 Great Americans 241 (Doubleday & Co.: N.Y. 1948).
    20. Robert Green McCloskey, American Conservatism In The Age of Enterprise 146 (1951).
    21. Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons 424-425 (1934).James B. Dill was the man who brought Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan together for the purchase and sale of the Carnegie steel properties.
    22. James Trager, The People's Chronology 679 (1979).
    23. Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy 75 (4th Ed. 1978).
    24. William P. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy 69 (1984).
    25. David Tyack & Larry Cuban, Tinkering Toward Utopia: a Century of Public School Reform 91 (1995).
    26. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence 204 (1958).
    27. William T. Still, New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies 154 (1990).
    28. C. Gregg Singer, The Unholy Alliance 39 (1975). Carnegie was very deferential to Elihu Root who on March 31, 1919, prepared his will witnessed by Silas W. Howland and Clinton Combes (both N.Y. lawyers). The Last Will and Testament 16 (RAF Books 1968).
    29. William P. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy 70 (1984).
    30. Antony Sutton, Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution 53 (1974).
    31. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 5-7 (1996).
    32. Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rockefeller Syndrome 293 (1976).
    33. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 7 (1996).
    34. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 7 (1996).
    35. Michael Howard, The Occult Conspiracy 165 (1989).
    36. G. William Domhoff, The Powers That Be 64 (1978).
    37. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 8 (1996).
    38. Alan Stang, The Actor 2 (1968).
    39. Eustace Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve 25 (1991).
    40. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 160 (1966).
    41. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 160 (1966).
    42. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 160 (1966). House "habitually permitted Sir William Wiseman, head of the British Secret Service in the United States, to sit in his private office in New York and read the most secret documents of the American government. House's father and mother had both been English." Sigmund Freud and William C. Bullitt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study 160 (1966).
    43. G. Edward Griffin, Creature From Jekyll Island 239 (1994).
    44. Alan Stang, The Actor 2 (1968).
    45. John E. McManus, The Insiders 7 (1992).
    46. Alan Stang, The Actor 13 (1968).
    47. Alan Stang, The Actor 14 (1968).
    48. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 154 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    49. Robert F. Rifkind, "The Colonel's Dream of Power," American Heritage 64 (February 1959).
    50. Wickliffe B. Vennard, Sr., The Federal Reserve Hoax Exposed 37 (1973).
    51. Sigmund Freud and William C. Bullitt, Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study 152 (1966).
    52. Robert F. Rifkind, "The Colonel's Dream of Power," American Heritage 62 (February 1959).
    53. Alexander L. George & Guliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House 131 (1964).
    54. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 159 (1966).
    55. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 158 (1966).
    56. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 153 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    57. Rupert Norval Richardson, Colonel Edward M. House: The Texas Years 1858-1912 264 (1964).
    58. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government 44 (1962).
    59. Paul Stevens, "The Origin of the Federal Reserve Act," Vol. LXXXIV, No. 401, American Mercury 10-11 (June 1957). In 1932, FDR, as the Democrat candidate, met Col. House at Magnolia, Massachusetts, as they were returning East from the Chicago Convention. Curtis B. Dall, F.D.R.: My Exploited Father-In-Law 109-110 (1968). It has also been said: "That Roosevelt's legislative program of the 1930's followed the Dru course is beyond dispute: The National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Act, the 'Wealth Tax Act,' the huge measures for relief, the social security program, and the fight to change the structure of the Supreme Court--these are of the essence of Philip Dru's philosophy, and in part follow his practices." Rupert Norval Richardson, Colonel Edward M. House: The Texas Years 1858-1912 264-265 (1964).
    60. G. Edward Griffin, Creature from Jekyll Island 459 (1994).
    61. Alan Stang, The Actor 16 (1968); George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History 36-37 (1932).
    62. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 165 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    63. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 166 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    64. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 174 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    65. Vol. I, The Intimate Papers of Colonel House 175 (Charles Seymour Ed. 1926).
    66. Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government 2 (1962).
    67. Paul Warburg, Henry Morgenthau and Jacob Schiff were also all 33rd degree Masons.
    68. Larry Abraham, Call It Conspiracy 93 (1985).
    69. Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment 260 (1981).
    70. Alan B. Jones, How The World Really Works 7 (1996).
    71. Larry Abraham, Call it Conspiracy 93 (1985).
    72. William Bramley, The Gods of Eden 362 (1990).
    73. Daniel Brandt, "Philanthropists at War," NameBase NewsLine, No. 15 (October- December 1996).
    74. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry (1996).
    75. Robert D. Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations 6 (1984).
    76. Leonard & Mark Silk, The American Establishment 186 (1980).
    77. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 5 (1996).
    78. Council on Foreign Relations-Annual Report: 1979-1980.
    79. Leonard & Mark Silk, The American Establishment 186 (1980).
    80. Leonard & Mark Silk, The American Establishment 187 (1980).
    81. Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry 8 (1996).
    82. A. Ralph Epperson, The Unseen Hand 197 (1985).
    83. Alan Stang, The Actor 43 (1968). See Also: Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign Relations 1, 8-9 (1960).
    84. James Perloff, The Shadows of Power 38 (1988).
    85. Thomas R. Dye, Who's Running America? 151 1983).