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 30^th 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 33^rd 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).

Charles Galton Darwin - The Next Million Years

http://www.scribd.com/doc/210040/Darwin-The-Next-Million-Years-how-to-kill-off-excess-population-1953

"The next million years" Charles's own 10 children all died, two of them in a mental hospital; and then his wife died. She was a Wedgwood. He then married his mother's sister, who was a Wedgwood; and his father, of course, married a Wedgwood; and his grandfather married a Wedgwood. They were already practicing this inbreeding program to try and regain what they thought was their intellect. They believed that's why they had that cunningness, that power of insight. However, in fact, when psychiatrists study it, what they're looking at are really the rationalizations of the psychopath. The Evolution THEORY came from Charles Darwin then was reiterated by his grandson Charles Galton Darwin and was publicized tremendously from getting funding by the elite to justify that the elite is more evolved then the us so they can kill us off its really part of a religion and Eugenics plan which basically originated form Hinduism. The Darwin's were high ranking FREEMASON and PSYCHOPATHS just like all the the elite and into interbreeding like the elite to keep certain traits in the family (selective breeding) we have a white coated priesthood that thinks nothing of taking animals, bashing them on the head with all kinds of gizmos and then reading their brainwaves to see how it affects them. Well why don't they try it with the scientists and maybe knock some sense into them and they use people as well as guinea pigs all the time, all the time. For years through the start of television back in the '50s they were giving you the medical dramas right away to holify, make it holy, the doctors and the nurses and hospital and the science you see of medicine and in no time at all they started in Britain and in other countries where they had national healthcare systems whipping out your tonsils and your adenoids and it became routine to children who are not old enough to understand anything; generally four or five and the excuse they gave again first through drama and then through reality to the public the excuse they gave was "well these appendages well you don't need them anymore you see. We use to be apes and we use to walk around with our heads pointing towards the ground and when we stand up that's why your sinuses get infected then your tonsils get it as well." So we'll just whip these off and same with your appendix; these vestiges of when you were an ape you see and this is taught as fact even though the Darwinian theory has never been proven. A theory is a guess. That's what it means. It's a guess and it only becomes a scientific theory when a bunch of scientists have consensus that that guess might be right. That's all. So your guess is as good as anybody else's. Make a few on all these topics. You'd be surprised what you might find out. We live in a Malthusian world. If you want to go into population control from the bigwigs themselves you can start at least -- it's not the first one but you can start with Thomas Malthus with his "Essay on Population" because Malthus was an economist who worked not just for the British government and for the first big corporations like the East India Company, he talked to governments of all European countries on how to keep the populations in check and he came out with fantastic graphs of how Europe was so overpopulated back in the 1700s and again by the use of pseudoscience and graphs and things he convinced them all that they'd have to reduce the populations because by a hundred years time we'd be crawling over each other like ants and proposed different methods of getting rid of mainly the poor and this is a big part of the old and the "new eugenics program." It's the same ongoing thing. It's had many names. Now it's called "bioethics". Sounds much gentler, fuzzy and nice but Malthus went through the usual spiel about the fittest have the right to survive. Again, all tied around the Darwinian period and remember that Charles Darwin was not the first one to write on this "survival of the fittest." His grandfather actually put a book out long before him before they were all high Freemasons and he talked about putting the poor in England and other countries into special housing units which they would locate in unhealthy areas like swamplands where disease would breed.He also advocated "the poor houses." Now the poor houses in the typical dialectical fashion to one group of people it would seem, well that's not so bad. They're putting up big buildings for the poor unfortunates who's -- the widows and their children who've been left without a husband. He's died in the mills or whatever or he was worked to death in the mines. So they put them in the work houses where to the charitable mind those far removed from the situation would think, "well that's good. That's nice and that's charitable." But Malthus had advocated the setup of these poor houses where they would be fed the worst kind and a minimal type of food and he even had it spaced down to the bed spacing which would be just rugs on the floor, so many feet apart; enough for fleas carrying typhus and other diseases to cross between one person and the next. It was a place to kill off the poor and the average length of existence for a mother and children going in there for life expectancy was maybe five months. So there's your two sides of what sounds like a charitable organization done for other reasons completely. That's the kind of world that existed before and it's far more sophisticated today.

Ten Planks of Communism

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

So I ask you...does changing the words, change the end result? By using different words is it all of a sudden OK? We are so "smart," aren't we??

Mass Psychology and Education

Brent Jessop

“For some reason which I have failed to understand, many people like the system [scientific totalitarianism] when it is Russian but disliked the very same system when it was German. I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels; these people like whatever is labelled ‘Left’ without examining whether the label has any justification.”- Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p56)

What exactly is the purpose of education? Does the government want to teach young people how to think and reason for themselves or is it a form of mass psychology aimed at propagandising the young? These questions are examined through Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book entitled The Impact of Science on Society*.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize in 1957.

Part 1 of this series examines the impact of “scientific technique” on society. The second part explores Bertrand Russell’s views on the stability of a worldwide scientific society. Part 3 deals with population control and the scientific breeding of humans.

Education, a Modern Method of Propaganda

From Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey.” [emphasis mine] - 40

The Intended Result of Education

“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorised propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.” [emphasis mine] - 58

“Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It may be worthwhile to spend a few moments in speculating as to possible future developments of those that are oligarchies.

It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” [emphasis mine] - 61

That is really worth repeating.

“Diet, injections, and injunctions [a command, admonition, etc.] will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

Some Miscellaneous Uses of Education

“…result from the elimination of war [and the establishment of a world government]. A great deal, also, is to be hoped from a change in propaganda. Nationalist propaganda, in any violent form, will have to be illegal, and children in schools will not be taught to hate and despise foreign nations. Active instruction in the evils of the old times and the advantages of the new system would do the rest. I am convinced that only a few psychopaths would wish to return to the daily dread of radioactive disintegration.” - 108

“The nations which at present increase [their populations] rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.” [emphasis mine] - 116

The idea of using education or rather sex education to reduce the population of the west was further promoted in 1968 by Paul Ehrlich in his book The Population Bomb**:

“We need a federal law requiring sex education in schools - sex education that includes discussion of the need for regulating the birth rate and of the techniques of birth control. Such education should begin at the earliest age recommended by those with professional competence in this area - certainly before junior high school.

By “sex education” I do not mean course focusing on hygiene or presenting a simple-minded “birds and bees” approach to human sexuality. The reproductive function of sex must be shown as just one of its functions, and one that must be carefully regulated in relation to the needs of the individual and society.” - 133

For more on Paul Ehrlich’s views on the use of education and other means of population control please read this previous article, Population, Religion and Sex Education.

The Governing Classes Only

Most people reading this article are the products of a state run educational system. If the above is not enough to make you reflect on the merits of universal education and on all of the things you were ‘taught’ as a child (and since then), hopefully the following quote will.

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…” [emphasis mine] - 41

*Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X
**Quotes from: Paul R. Ehrlich. The Population Bomb: Revised & Expanded Edition (1968, 1971). SBN 345-24489-3-150.

George Orwell (1903-1950) - pseudonym of Eric Arthur Blair

English novelist, essayist and critic, famous for his political satires ANIMAL FARM (1945), an anti-Soviet tale, and NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR (1949), which shows that the destruction of language is an essential part of oppression. Orwell was an uncompromising individualist and political idealist. V.S. Pritchett called him "the wintry conscience of a generation " Both the Left and Right have utilized Orwell's works in ideological debate.

"The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection, than one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals." ( from 'Reflections on Gandhi', in Shooting an Elephant, 1949)

George Orwell was born in Motihari, Bengal, India, as the second child of Richard Walmesley Blair and Ida Mabel Limonzin. His father was a civil servant in the opium department and his mother was the daughter of a tea-merchant in Burma. In 1904 Orwell moved with his mother and sister to England, where he attended Eton. His first writings Orwell published in college periodicals. During these years Orwell developed his antipathy towards the English class systems. Also Orwell's years at St Cyprian's Preparatory School in Easbourne were not happy. His bitter, barely disguised attack on St. Cyprian's, SUCH, SUCH WERE THE JOYS, was not published until 1968 for fear of libel action.

At the age of seventeen Orwell had his first experiences as an "amateur tramp" in Plymouth, where he was stranded accidentally without much money. After Orwell failing to win a scholarship to university, Orwell went in 1922 to Burma to serve in the Indian Imperial Police (1922-27) as an assistant superintendent. Like his colleagues, Orwell had a native mistresses. Eventually Orwell's mounting dislike of imperial rule led to his resignation. SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT (1950) is collection of essays revealing the behaviour of the colonial officers. One of his most famous early essays is 'A Hanging' (1931), in which a Hindu man is hanged in a hurry, but with a great routine. "An enormous relief had come upon us now that the job was done. One felt an impulse to sing, to break into a run, to snigger. All at once everyone began chattering gaily."

Orwell returned to Europe and lived as a tramp and beggar, working low paid jobs in England and France (1928-29), where his aunt lived. He picked hops in Kent as a migratory laborer and once Orwell tried to get himself arrested as a drunk to have some knowledge about life in prison. After forty-eight hours he was released. In 1928 he had decided to become a writer, but his first amateurish efforts arose smiles. A poet friend described him "like a cow with a musket." Orwell's experiences in poverty gave material for DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON (1933). However, the author was never a full-time vagrant, but he stayed every now and then with his older sister or with his parents, and plunged to the lower depths of society like an explorer. "The Paris slums are a gathering-place for eccentric people - people who ave fallen into solitary, half-mad grooves of life and given up trying to be normal or decent. Poverty frees them from ordinary standards of behavior, just as money frees people from work." (from Down and Out in Paris and London) From 1930 Orwell contributed regularly to the New Adelphi. In 1933 he assumed the pseudonym by which he would sign all his publications - Orwell was the name of a small river in East Anglia, and George was definitely a British Christian name.

Unable to support himself with his writings, Orwell took up a teaching post at a private school, where he finished his first novel, BURMESE DAYS (1934). In 1936 Orwell married Eileen O'Shaugnessy, a doctor's daughter. KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING, the story of a young bookseller's assistant, appeared in 1936. From 1936 to 1940 Orwell worked as a shopkeeper in Wallington, Hertfordshire. He was commissioned in 1936 by the publisher Victor Gollancz to produce a documentary account of unemployment in the North of England for the Left Book Club. The result, THE ROAD TO WIGAN PIER, is considered a milestone in modern literary journalism.

In the1930s Orwell had adopted socialistic views. Like many other writers, he travelled to Spain to report on the Civil War. He fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party militia and was shot through the throat by a Francoist sniper’s bullet. When Stalinists on their own side started to hunt down Anarchists and his friends were thrown into prison, Orwell escaped with his wife Eileen Blair from the chaos. The war made him a strong opposer of communism and an advocate of the English brand of socialism. Special Branch police had monitored Orwell since the late 1920s, but eventually the authorities decided that he was not a threat to the national security. Orwell's book on Spain, HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, appeared in 1938 after some troubles with its publication. The book was coldly received by left-wing intelligentsia, who regarded Communists as heroes of the war. In Orwell’s lifetime Homage to Catalonia sold only about fifty copies a year.

Orwell opposed a war with Germany, but he condemned fascism. During World War II he served as a sergeant in the Home Guard and worked as a journalist for the BBC, Observer and Tribune, where he was literary editor from 1943 to 1945. Toward the end of the war, he wrote Animal Farm, which depicted the betrayal of a revolution. After the war, Orwell went to Germany as a reporter, but in his dispatches he sent to The Observer and The Manchester Evening News he did not mention the extermination camps or Auschwitz.

Aftewr the war Orwell lived mostly on the remote island of Jura in the Western Isles of Scotland. With Eileen he had adopted a little boy. His wife died in 1945 - "Yes, she was a good old stick," Orwell said to his friend. In 1949 Orwell married Sonia Brownell (1918-1980), who had been an editorial assistant on Cyril Connolly’s magazine Horizon. Her marriage to Orwell lasted only three months. Orwell died from tuberculosis in London University Hospital on January 21, 1950, soon after the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The biting satire of Communist ideology in The Animal Farm made Orwell for the first time prosperous. Another world wide success was Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the classical works of science fiction along with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, and H.G. Wells novels Time Machine, War of The World and Invisible Man. Animal Farm was a satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, particularly directed against Stalin's policies. Orwell's famous works were naturally forbidden in the Soviet Union, but nowadays the novels have been translated even into Chinese.

Led by the pigs, the Animals on Mr Jones's farm revolt against their human masters. After their victory they decide to run the farm themselves on egalitarian principles. Inspired by the example of Boxer, the hard-working horse, the cooperation prosper. The pigs become corrupted by power and a new tyranny is established under Napoleon (Stalin). "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Snowball (Trotsky), an idealist, is driven out. The final betrayal is made when the pigs engineer a rapprochement with Mr Jones. The book was originally rejected for publication in 1944 at Faber and Faber by T.S. Eliot, who wrote: "After all, your pigs are far more intellectual than the other animals, and therefore the best qualified to run the farm—in fact, there couldn’t have been an Animal Farm at all without them: so that what was needed (someone might argue) was not more communism but more public spirited pigs." Since its appearance the book has gained a status of a classic. - Film adaptation from 1955 was a faithful rendition of Orwell's original work, but watered in the end the satire, and presented a socialist viewpoint: the system is good, but the individuals are corruptible.

1984 was a bitter protest against the nightmarish future and corruption of truth and free speech of the modern world. In the story, Britannia has become Airstrip One in the superstate Oceania, which is controlled by Big Brother and the Party. "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power." (from Nineteen Eighty-Four) The Party's agents constantly rewrite history. The official language is Newspeak, and the society is dominated by such slogans as "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", "Ignorance is Strength." Goldstein with his book is supposedly plotting against Oceania, and a target of a hate period. The hero, Winston Smith, a minor Party operative, rewrites the past at the Ministry of Truth. He keeps a secret diary and has a brief love affair with a girl named Julia. He believes that O'Brien, a member of the Inner Party, is not sympathetic to Big Brother. O'Brien enrolls him and Julia in a conspiracy. One day Winston is arrested by the Thought Police, tortured and brainwashed. O'Brien directs Winston's torture and rehabilitation and tells that Goldstein is the invention of the Party. His spirit broken, Winston learns to love Big Brother. Winston and Julia meet briefly one day, they both have gone through the process and have lost their former love for each other. Some critics have related Smith's sufferings to those the author underwent at preparatory school - Winston is finally broken by rats. Orwell has said that the book was written "to alter other people's idea of the kind of society they should strive after."

In 1998 Martin Seymour-Smith listed Orwell's dystopia among 100 most influential books ever written. It has inspired less or more directly a number of other science fiction novels, among them Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 (1953). Orwell himself implicitly acknowledged his debt to Evgeny Zamyatin's (1884-1937) novel We (in Russia My), which was written in 1920 and translated into English 1924. Although Orwell is best-known as a novelist, his essays are among the finest of the 20th-century. He also produced newspaper articles and reviews, which were written for money, but he carefully crafted his other essays for such journals as Partisan Review, Adelphi, and Horizon. Without hesitation he accused that Yeats is a fascist, H.G. Wells was out of touch with reality, Salvador Dali he found decadent, but he defended P.G. Wodehouse. In 'Why Write?' and 'Politics and the English Language' (1948) Orwell argued that writers have an obligation of fighting social injustice, oppression, and the power of totalitarian regimes.

For further reading: George Orwell by L. Brander (1954); The Crystal Spirit by G. Woodcock (1966); Orwell by Raymond Williams (1971); The Unknown Orwell by Peter Stansky (1972); Road to Miniluv by C. Small (1975); George Orwell: The Critical Heritage, ed. by Jeffrey Meyers (1975); A Reader's Guide to George Orwell, ed. by Jeffrey Meyers (19757); George Orwell: A Life by B. Crick (1981); A George Orwell Companion by J.R. Hammond (1982); The Language of 1984 by W.F. Bolton (1984); George Orwell, ed. by Courtney T. Wemyss and Alexej Ugrinsky (1987); Orwell by Michel Shelden (1991); Orwell: Wintry Conscience of a Generation by Jeffrey Meyers (2000); Orwell's Victory by Christopher Hitchens (2002); George Orwell and the Betrayal of Dissent by Scott Lucas (2003); George Orwell by Gordon Bowker (2003); Orwell: The Life by D.J. Taylor (2003) - For further information: Charles' George Orwell Links - See also: Franz Kafka - Suom.: Suomennettu myös valikoima Esseitä (1984) - Other writers witnessing the Spanish Civil War: Ernest Hemingway, Federico Garcia Lorca, André Malraux, Langston Hughes

Selected works:

• DOWN AND OUT IN PARIS AND LONDON, 1933 - Puilla paljailla Pariisissa ja Lontoossa
• BURMESE DAYS, 1934
• CLERGYMAN'S DAUGHTER, 1935
• KEEP THE ASPIDISTRA FLYING, 1936 - Eläköön tuonenkielo! - film A Merry War (1997), dir. by Robert Bierman, starring Helena Bonham Carter, Richard E. Grant, Jim Carter, Harriet Walter
• THE ROAD TO WIGAN PIER, 1937 - Tie Wiganin aallonmurtajalle
• HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, 1938 - Katalonia, Katalonia
• COMING UP FOR AIR, 1939
• INSIDE THE WHALE AND OTHER ESSAYS, 1940
• THE LION AND THE UNICORN, 1941
• ed.: TALKING TO INDIA, 1943
• ANIMAL FARM, 1945 - Eläinten vallankumous - animated movie 1955, dir. by Joy Batchelor, John Halas; film 1999, dir. by John Stephensen, starring Kelsey Grammer and Julia Ormond
• CRITICAL ESSAYS, 1946
• JAMES BURNHAM AND THE MANAGERIAL EVOLUTION, 1946
• THE ENGLISH PEOPLE, 1947
• ed.: BRITISH PAMPHLETEERS 1, 1948
• NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, 1949 - Vuonna 1984 - film adaptations: 1955, dir. by Michael Anderson, starring Edmund O'Brien, Michael Redgrave, Jan Sterling, David Kossoff; film 1984, dir. by Michael Radford, starring John Hurt, Richard Burton, Suzanna Hamilton, Cyril Cusack; film 1985 (Brazil), dir. by Terry Gillam, starring Jonathan Pryce, Kim Greist, Robert De Niro, Katherine Helmond, Bob Hoskins
• SHOOTING AN ELEPHANT, 1950 - Kun ammuin norsun
• ENGLAND, YOUR ENGLAND AND OTHER ESSAYS / SUCH, SUCH WERE THE JOYS, 1953
• A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS, 1954
• THE ORWELL READER, 1956
• SELECTED ESSAYS, 1957
• SELECTED WRITINGS, 1958
• COLLECTED ESSAYS, 1961
• DECLINE OF THE ENGLISH MURDER AND OTHER ESSAYS, 1965
• THE COLLECTED ESSAYS, JOURNALISM AND LETTERS OF GEORGE ORWELL 1920-1950, 4 vol., 1968 (ed. by Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus)
• THE PENGUIN ESSAYS OF GEORGE ORWELL, 1984
• THE COMPLETE WORKS, 1984 (17 vols.)
• ORWELL: THE WAR BROADCASTS, 1985
• THE COMPLETE WORKS OF GEORGE ORWELL, 1998 (20 vols., ed. by Peter Davison, assisted by Ian Angus, and Sheila Davison)

This is where we are headed

This is their world as far as they're concerned. John Kerry's the same with his wife who's involved in the Heinz industry. They said they'd take over the food industry you know 40, 50 years ago, because when you take over the food industry you have war on the people. War, in all times, takes into account economic war, food and water, all the basics when you're having a war on a city or on a whole country on in the world. They go for those primary things. It's just a coincidence of course we have John Kerry who's married to the Heinz Dynasty, who I'm sure have been modifying those foods since they created the company called Heinz. Modification of the food is modification of the people. This has been going on for thousands of years and what you think of as normal (meaning your culture) was not normal at all. It was one of many cultures they could have given you; and they changed culture from the top and the people simply emulate it and copy it. The America of today is vastly different from 20 years ago or 40 or 100 years ago. It's constantly being upgraded as you upgrade a computer program and the public don't even notice. They simply adapt. We got to this point when money was introduced into civilization with cities. That's what civilization comes from is the city. You're a citizen of the city. The definition of a citizen is someone who is born with preexisting duties to a system. If you're born with preexisting duties to a system, it means you're not born free. They talk about Nimrod being the first builder of cities; and a city cannot supply itself with anything it needs to simply survive. It needs an artificial system and it is an artificial system. It must have this thing called money. It can then hire people who don't work for food; they work for money. You buy your food and they tax it back from you and create armies to go off and conquer. Therefore, even guys like Plato said that they would bring their utopia, their world republic into being by using the cities, because in a city the culture is plastic. It is fluid. It is flexible. You can shape it and direct it into any direction you wish them to go and the public adapt so quickly in the city. It doesn't matter what kind of society it is, the public will adapt to it if they think it's normal. A child born into a system where the parents don't know it's abnormal, it means that the child itself will think everything that exists in that system must be normal and they will never question it. That technique has been used for thousands of years to be a form of slavery. Charles Galton Darwin admitted this in the 1950's. He was the grandson of Charles Darwin. He was a physicist and he said, "there has always a form of slavery and we (meaning the elite) are simply creating a more effective form of slavery today." That was in the 1950's. That form of slavery is already here. People are wage slaves. They work like rats work in a laboratory where they pull levers and get a seed, and that rat then begins to think that's normal and that's the only way that you eat. It's the same with people working for money. They are wage slaves. If you add up all the taxes and hidden taxes that you pay, it's about 60 percent of your income. If you go back to the Middle Ages, the feudal system, the average serf who did not own his land had to give 60 percent of all his produce to his lord and he's left with 40 percent to feed himself, his family, any cattle he had and any other labor. The rates are the same from the feudal system to the present system; and yet today, through propaganda they keep telling us we are free. How can you be free if you don't really own the roof over your head? How can you live in a truly advanced society, what they call progress and civilization, when someone that you will never meet in a city far away decides to send the taxman after you and they take that roof from over your head and seize it? That's called stealing, you see. They steal your property and through propaganda and through altering perceptions, the whole population's taught that this is somehow normal. It's incredible how they can distort perception by the use of words. It's the same type that goes with – if you have a highwayman on the road and he draws his pistols and holds you up and demands ransom money or you won't pass, and you pay him off, you see this guy as a highwayman. He's a robber. If a cop does it and demands he gives you a ticket, or even cash as some of them do nowadays, for their bosses, he's doing his duty for the law, the legal system. It's the same act. If the highwayman comes and steals your stagecoach, you know he's stolen it. If the police impound your car, they call it impounding not stealing. It the same act. Perceptions are altered in this system to fool the public and the public are trained to think this is all normal. That's how you distort perception. Even the creation of the United States, there's no doubt about it; it wasn't a sudden idea to have a revolution. It took years of planning and the Founding Fathers admitted that. They had to do negotiations with countries long before -- in advance they could supply them with powder and all the rest of it and logistics. They had the islands all mapped out and ready to go where they would bring all this pirated stuff. They also had treaties made with France who would finance them through this war. It took a lot of planning and preparation to set it off and it was a Masonic led revolution. That's why 33 of the 50-odd Founding Fathers signed the Declaration. It was for the high number 33 because the sun rises on the 30th degree and sets at 33. The same as Jesus comes on the same age of 30 and dies at 33. It's the same old Masonic stuff down through the ages and they do like to stick to their formulas. The Founding Fathers, like all countries that have been created through this technique, England was the first you must remember because the English Revolution was before the U.S. Revolution. Everyone seems to forget that. The colors of the Revolution were red; and then they had the Blue Lodge for the color blue, for open freemasonry, because the sun is blue when everything is out in the open; and white is for the spirit that would really guide it. That's the colors of revolution: red, white and blue. Therefore, every country that had the revolution—Britain, United States and France—ended up with red, white and blue on their flag because it's Kabbalistic and only the Founders understood this religion. The lower peasantry didn't understand anything about it at all. When they got together in the convention hall, they barred the doors. They pulled the blinds. They put sentries on the doors to keep the public out; and that was a Masonic meeting they held in Philadelphia, because they do it in the temple that has no windows. That's why no one could see in. It was a Masonic meeting and they came out and said to the people, "we have given you a government." There was no vote by the people to have that government. The public have no say in the whole thing; and then they give you the foundation myths that George Washington could not tell you a lie and all this stuff. These are called foundation myths that they always give every country. That's to make them feel good about themselves. They had meetings in Europe before the Revolution and they had the Concert of Europe and they had different ones they called them. The elite wanted a world society. They knew the way they were going. They couldn't war amongst themselves, the psychopathic crew, again at the top of this monied system that there are always psychopaths, and then they become inbred psychopaths and then hereditary psychopaths. They knew they couldn't keep on having wars without eventually having a global society, because every war led to a takeover of other countries and amalgamations that started with alliances to become amalgamated to become empires. They knew eventually they'd end up with one global empire but they knew they couldn't do it quickly with the countries that were already known for plundering every country they went into. That was Britain, France and all the other Germanic countries and so on. Therefore they had to create a new knight in shining armor that stood for freedom and democracy and all the this stuff; and so they created the United States of America, the elite. They also knew by the size of the Americas and the natural resources that it would be built up through immigration and manpower to lead the world. They'd be the richest country in the world. They could finance wars. Wars are very expensive and global war would cost an awful lot of money and manpower for a military, so they had to create this; then they gave the world this new one that didn't have a history of plundering other nations when it started off and it led the charge. Today when you go across the world, even 20, 30 years ago when you traveled across the world, you'd meet people coming from Georgetown University and students doing their work abroad to help the peoples; but what they were really doing was bringing the American business system with them and furthering American corporate interests abroad. That's really what they were doing. The U.S. has caused more wars and done more war-like things through international corporatism than any other way. Here's the dilemma. The people have come to this point thinking the past was normal and the money system was normal. Their industry has gone abroad. Most of them saw it happening and didn't recognize it at the time. They floated through the changeover to China as the industry was leaving shores. You can't get America back to a phase because all the industry is gone; and under this economic system, if you don't produce product, then you're a service economy. Service economies, as the big economists tell you, were meant as stop gap measures between industry and something else. If there is nothing else to take its place, the dog that's paddling will eventually flounder and drown. It looks to me like the U.S. is going to be vastly depopulated in the future; and that ties in with books like " Millennium" by Jacques Attali. A man who helped spearhead the unification of Europe and who wrote about the next phase, which is the unification of the Americas in his book " Millennium," written about 1990. He said that eventually when the borders were going down in the Americas, the Latin Americans will flood up and for a while, there will be mayhem as even the big gangs move up. He said it will be similar to Attila the Hun invading Rome et cetera. The Huns and the Goths and Visigoths invading Rome when they come in, but eventually it was settled down. However, that they knew, America would never come back. In fact, the next boat people would be Americans going across the world looking for employment. This has all been discussed at top think tanks at international levels for many years.

The depopulation on one aspect will be say mass immigration out of America eventually, but they also believe at the top that they don't want (and they mean this) they don't want what they call "useless eaters." These guys at the top want an efficient system where you're not born just to enjoy yourself and eat et cetera, but rather to produce for this system. They've said before: if there's no work for you to produce for this system, you are therefore a useless eater and they will not tolerate them to live. They mean what they say. They want to vastly reduce the population over the next 10, 20 years. If you look at all the agreements that have been signed by every country in the world, including the Kyoto Agreement, they want to kick back countries like Canada and America to the pollution standards of pre-1960. Pre-1960 had a much smaller population than today and electricity, your gasoline, all of those things you know. That's the China express that's going by my house, by the way, so they phone up all the Costco stores across Canada.

People like Bertrand Russell and the Council on Population Control at the United Nations have put out these statements that they are going to have vastly reduced populations that will live in these habitat areas. The United Nations has websites up on these habitat areas. What it boils down to is initially the habitat areas are the existing cities that are going to become tremendously crowded, but they also had habitat areas with armed guards and perimeter fences with high-tech homes for the high bureaucratic class that will be running the Americas. This is modeled on the Soviet System where no one could leave their area. They all lived in a form of almost a British third-rate level, except for the bureaucracies that serve the system had dachas in the country where they had servants and they could get away and enjoy themselves. That was the model that we're now based upon. These special habitat areas, high tech ones, the present ones will be for advanced professors and people who have control over parts of indoctrination processes, which is very important. Lenin said it himself. He said you must pay the police, the military and the educationalists very well because they do the indoctrination and they keep people obedient.

The people who are sleeping will stay sleeping. It's been the same in all ages if you read history that the populations, the vast of them will go to the wall rather than admit what's happening. They want to believe the propaganda. They want to believe the six o'clock news. They want to believe that the experts are running their lives for them efficiently. They don't want to know the hard, sad truth about the world. They're perpetual children and that's what socialism is, you see. They'll go to the wall holding on to the myth and stay in denial until they personally get hit or thrown out of their homes, or whatever it may be, and then they'll start howling. Then they'll start mobs and then they'll riot, uncoordinated mobs which will riot and the governments are prepared for this. They've been preparing 30, 40 years for this by building up big internal armies and rapid deployment forces. The British Department of Defence, a couple of months ago in the Guardian Newspaper, released nine pages from the Department of Defence for NATO as well as Britain; and the U.S. is part of NATO. They all signed the same thing; and for the next 20 years they project from the top think tanks in the military, they see nothing but riots and what they call flashmobs from the general population getting increasingly worse over the next 10 to 20 years. They are preparing through their think tanks of every possible scenario of what they must do to handle and control the public, including the use of neutron bombs on selected target groups within the population. This is from the biggest Defence Department on the planet. Now what on earth is going to happen to make Joe Six Pack get off his chair and actually take part in something, albeit rioting? What it will be is the effects of things like Kyoto. They're going to stop giving you your gasoline. It's going to get rationed in the future. They want non-essential vehicles only, eventually, on the road for the habitat areas. They're going to cutback electricity usage drastically, all the conveniences that you have and they're also going to give you less and less employment. You're going to get rioting breaking out, an uncoordinated riot that will be dealt swiftly by the police and the military type forces that are being trained to deal with this now. Once the United Nations has declared the sovereign government of the world and the United Americas has taken place officially, the last part of this signing of the Americas will be done in 2010. By 2010, the Americas have to be united completely with its own form of a Brussels type government; and they even discussed creating the new capital of the Americas in Quebec. That was decided back in the 1990's when they did the Free Trade Negotiations. In 2012, the U.N. is to be made the official government of the world. That means the Congress will be like a provincial government and so will the Canadian one.

They planned to have everyone brain chipped so people won't be able to think at all; and I'm not kidding about that. They've actually done testing on this. This is the big push now making people think it's a natural progression from the computer to the little Blueberry that they have, the little machine to the cell phone and then to the brain chip. People are getting indoctrinated that this is a natural evolution. However, once that brain chip is installed—and they've had world meetings on this at big universities like Loyola University in Louisiana, the World Science Meetings. The chip is ready to go. It does interface with your neurons, your nervous system. It will be able to transmit to your brain and transmit from your brain to central regionalized computers. This is ready to go. All they have to do now is convince the public to accept it and they're doing that through movies and fiction. The youngsters, it's already through their cartoons. They think it's going to be a wonderful idea, but what they're not telling you is once you take this chip and they flick the main switch and the real purpose kicks on, you will no longer be you. What they said at Loyola was – In fact, you'll be unable to even perceive yourself as a distinct separate individual. At the Loyola meeting the professor from Japan who'd been working on this brain chip, which is ready to go, he said that think of it more like the hive rather than individuals. You'll have a hive mentality where you'll hear whispers of instructions going to those around you and whispers of their thoughts going to you back to the main computer. That's exactly what you've been watching on Star Trek with the Borg. That's what the Borg is all about and the Borg are all one. In the New Age movement you hear the mantra that we're all one. Sure, for the New Agers that all of them are going to get their chance. They'll all be one. It's just that they won't retain their individuality to do anything with it.

[thanks to Alan Watt] cuttingthroughthematrix.com

The Unpopular Truth

Because of man's basic needs to get in touch with something he thinks is out there bigger than himself, which is their deity, their god, their creator, whatever, that in all times, especially in the ancient times, priesthoods arose using that knowledge and distorting the truth and saying they had the truth; and because of that they became very dominant over the people. They control the people's minds through religion; and with them, wherever they went, they brought the money system with them. That's very important because the money is a form of slavery. Once you get people to accept money, you can then tax it back from them. You can hire armies and go and conquer other countries. We're really seeing a culmination of thousands of years of this very technique coming to an end with the Middle East, and they're put under the exact same system for global domination. This agenda has been on the table for an awful long time. It also takes the cooperation of all existing religions to go along with this. If you notice, not one of the major religions or religious leaders is warning the public about the future and what it has in store for the general public, either in the cloning field, the genetic engineering field, the eugenics field, and the depopulation programs that they've been putting forward for a long time. None of the religious leaders who have the power and the authority to tell people, "look, start thinking about this." None of them seldom even talk about it or even discuss it. It tells you they're all in on this together at the very top levels. When you stumble across major figures in history like Alexander the Great for instance. Alexander the Great, his mentor was Aristotle the philosopher and Aristotle was married to one of the biggest international money lenders of his own era; and the same money lenders from the Middle East funded the Macedonians and the Greeks. They go into Persia and take it over. They paid for the war in other words and all the people who were taken over had to pay it all back through taxes to repay the money sharks. You find the same thing all down through history. Money-lenders, the leaders that teach and put up front men like Alexander the Great, or maybe a George Bush in our time, it's all the same old con game. They're all interrelated we find through their wives and through their mentors. They're all intermarried and interrelated.

Hermaphroditic has different meanings in the occult industry. In ancient times, they talked about the perfection of the human being where the right brain would be working together – emotion versus reason. It would come to a harmonized point and that was the perfected man or the illumined man as they called it. You'll find the same thing hidden behind major religions. In Genesis, the deity he makes a double of himself and from that double he then subdivides Adam and Eve from it, meaning the deity himself was male and female. That's the meaning in Genesis. You also find the same things in the writings of Plato. The deity they worshiped was male on the front and female on behind when they walked the other way. They're talking about the ultimate perfection is going to be a creature which is neither male nor female, which can self-reproduce. It's an odd agenda, too, you might think, but it's always been here for thousands of years. Now they have talked about the creation of the perfect worker human being that would be both male and female and could self-produce. That way there's no conflict. The world they want to bring in has to be conflict free. Free from conflict of nations or races, ethnic groups but also no conflict of gender conflict. That's what they call their utopia, their peace on earth. However, the elite themselves said they will not alter themselves. They will only alter the worker bees to be more perfect; and one day if you serve the system of the state very well, the honor you will have is the right to reproduce yourself, an exact model of yourself. There is Masonic coding hidden in the language, right through so many different words that we use commonly without thinking of what they really mean. Our language itself was given to us to contain coding, as all the high Freemasons know. The mainstream religions all have (for the west anyway) all came from basically the Hebrew versions and split off – the Christians would say it was the culmination or a completion of Judaism to have a Messiah. Most Jews think the messiah is still to come; and you can have many messiahs within Judaism, anyone who furthers the cause is called the Messiah. Mohammedanism was slightly tailor-made and altered to suit the Arabic peoples, the desert peoples and give them strong laws basically to make it more cohesive as a society. They all come from the same root. You'll find in every region of the world there's always a trinity of religions which are associated from a main root; and so for the west, they gave them Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedism (or Islam) coming from the same source. You'll find in the Far East they give you Shintoism, a form of Japanese Buddhism and another mainstream religion or Taoism as well. You always have a trinity of religions for each region of the planet; and that's how it's set-up, slightly altered for the mentalities of different cultures. That's the only difference there is. You have to realize that what you had was a Roman Empire, that knew it could not continue—it fell towards the end because it could not tax all of its colonies sufficiently to keep Rome in the lifestyle that had accumulated and was used to. They thought religion was a better way to dominate the minds of all people more cheaply, more effectively, especially if you could indoctrinate the young, you will never lose them when they grow up. The Catholic Church, remember, took someone else's religion, the Gnostic religion really. The Gnostics had a Jesus type figure who they said was mythical. He was a myth of a perfected man which they all hoped to emulate, so it was almost like a mascot you might say of a perfected man, not a real person. They were arguing with Constantine when he had the first great meeting in 325 AD to form this new Universal Church as it was called at the time. Since the Gnostics wouldn't go along with the Vatican saying Jesus is a real person, Constantine sent out armies to try and kill off all the Gnostics because they knew, according to them, that it was not a real person that had existed. In Judaism they have references to a Jesus in the Talmud and other writings of Judaism, which would make you think there was at least one character who could have been called Judah or Yehuda, whatever, but probably not Jesus. We know it meant the fish from the Greek, Iesous, and it was for the Age of Pisces, the fish that it was created. In every era it's the same long before that. You had the Ramses line for the pharaohs in Egypt because their lineage began in the reign of Aries the ram. They always give you a religious figure for the particular constellation that rules for 2,500 years or so. Jesus was meant to fulfill a period for 2,000-odd years and then you're into the Age of Aquarius, which we're coming into now, and then he dies off and a new one takes over. Everything is stellar occultic, lunar occultic and solar occultic in the world's history; and the priests down through the ages simply change hats as they did for Rome. The high priests of Jupiter changed their hats overnight and they were now called the Universal Church. Then after hunting down all what they called were the pagan priesthoods, the Roman Church then began to adopt those very tenants of those priesthoods back into their own religion. Very clever people put the Bible together, giving you the simple rules that would give you a really workable society if everyone followed the rules, including those who lead your countries, you see; but never, in any age, have the rulers in this system followed the religion they make the people adopt. We know that by history itself. The leaders have never followed the same rules as the public. Yes, it would be workable for the people if everyone did adopt and follow simple rules. However, these religions are very Hegelian because there's always a truth contained within. The falsehood is well-contained within, but the truth is that they're supposed to be stepping-stones to much higher truths. They're not meant to stay static and become dogmatic as a religion. They're supposed to progress onwards and upwards and carry the person who's truly seeking into a higher realm of understanding towards a creator. If you notice the main deity of Yahweh for both Hebrew is very much of a human character: Very much of a human god with his failings, his anger, his temper, and his favoritism. He can also change his mind when he wants to and kill you if he has a sudden rage. It's really a projection of the human oriental despotic king that you would find in the Middle East at that period. It was something the people could understand.

The Greeks talked about the Demiurgos, the base god at the low level of godhood, claiming there's four levels and that the base god is in charge of the world. He is the Lord of the world and he – because the people are base, they've had stringent patriarchal type rules to make their system work – he's unforgiving. If he puts you off guard, you're never sure if he likes you or dislikes you. However, he's not supposedly the only one. He's one level, so he's a Demiurgos; and Jehovah fits that level perfectly well. If you notice for instance the story of Jacob. Jacob cheats his brother out of the birthright and the blessing by pretending that he is the brother and he fools his own father who's blind or half blind, so he lies, he cheats and he steals the birthright and he disobeyed his father. He broke all the rules and yet the god blessed him for being so crafty and cunning and made him the father of Israel. Now that's how the mafia would work. You have to understand that there's high Masonic rules in there too, because they do believe you should get away with things if you do it craftily and enough cunning and to get your way. The rules of the high corrupt system are also contained in that Masonic Bible, the Old Testament, if you understand them. What deity that's for justice and all the rest of it would ever allow that to happen and actually bless the criminal? The Bible has been rewritten many times, always for political purposes, including the King James version was written to make the people obedient, because King James thoroughly believed that he was God's representative on earth ordained by God. He even wrote a big speech about that. King James said how dare the people inquire as to his decisions. He says "don't they realize that I have the power of God given to me by God to do and say and do as I wish?" That's what he truly believed. In the King James Version, he had all the writers stress that point that the government was put there by God and you should obey it. It was written for a political purpose with a lot of High Masons at the time working on that very project. Francis Bacon and others helped to write the other.

If you go back into the ancient Middle East, into Zoroastrianism really, that was the start of all of these religions. The Zoroastrian religion is the first one to come out talking about a good deity and a bad deity. Later on in Judaism, you have a god and a devil, even though the devil, if you read Job, worked for God. God told him to go and torment people. He was a worker. He was employed by God. Zoroastrianism seems to be the one they've all taken their queue from, and he created Judaism from it and Christianity as well. It's a very mythical figure but it's hard to put Zoroaster. It also calls them Zarathustra; and Zoroaster in the old, old system meant seed of Ishtar. That's where the name comes from, Zoroaster. Zoro also means the man with the mask, like Zorro, and you also have the same thing in the Old Testament with the Zoro-Babel, which means the seed of Babel. Why would anybody who had been a slave in Babylon call themselves seed of Babel? You're looking at coding in there for the wise to understand, and of course the profane are never taught the reasons as they call them. You're looking at very clever people running a system down through the ages, running an exoteric for the public—be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam by teaching a high esoteric tradition for the ones "in the know" at the top who laugh up their sleeves at the public all the time. It's even in the New Testament if you understand what you're reading, you'll find that even George Bush, Sr. said, "Everything is going to the heavenly divine plan." What he's referring to was the zodiac and what they mean, because the zodiac to them is a timetable. Each part of the zodiac is part of this system that must come into play at a particular time according to an old, old plan. The Aquarius is even in the New Testament, where Jesus says to his disciples "go into town. Find the man with the mule and ask for his mule. He'll be carrying a picture of water," and what he's telling them is that Aquarius, the man with the picture of water was Aquarius. The whole thing is astrological. I think that people can find the higher truths beyond the base truths. The laws are given for the base public. I think the individual who is truly seeking will find it if they seek hard enough and they'll even go beyond whichever religion they've been given on the base level, a common religion. Very few do but some are able to do it and use that like a stepping-stone to get up and come in touch with something far greater than themselves, far bigger than the basic Yahweh character with the human characteristics of the battle-angry old man. There's something much greater in the world than that and some people can go – there are even people from Islam who've gone beyond Islam on the same path too, and come to the same conclusions only because they've done the journey themselves. They've left the dogma behind them, the dogma given to the general public who need those basic rules at a certain period in their history. In all ages, in all lands there have been those seek truth. This seeking is an individual search for something more than self and much more than the confines of this worldly system that we live in. It is the seeker who understands there is more than what meets the eye, who is not afraid and makes the choice to going to the unknown. The process of awakening has begun. The discovery is underway.
The same with teaching someone who isn't ready to be taught in higher truths. They'll still try and fight you because there still thinking in their base level one reality. They don't want to let it go and to learn truths you must be prepared to jump out of an airplane without a parachute. You can't take anything with you that's familiar. That's not searching for truth. That's an insurance policy that you're after. An insurance policy that connects you with the familiar. Truth doesn't work that way. It doesn't come with guarantees that you'll have happy endings in the way that you presume. Most people can not even look at themselves honestly. Part of the reason is that they are a composite of what society has conditioned them to be and the culture that they were born into has conditioned them to be. And the other part is ego in the system is promoted. You can't obtain honesty unless you overcome ego. When you see that for thousands of years Christianity alone ruled a good part of the world and people didn't question it. That's all they were told was what was in that book and even then for hundreds of years they weren't even told what was in the book. It was forbidden to read it. Only the priests could read it and even then they'd only read it occasionally. THE BIBLE USE TO BE CHAINED TO THE ALTER UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES. Most of what was being taught was dogma. It was the church dogma. That's why the Protestants put out the Geneva Bible. They weren't Protestants really. They were Rosicrucian's and Masons, they simply transformed into the name Masonry. It was the same movement behind it and for the first time peoples could read things for themselves and say, "my goodness. What's all this dogma got to do with what's in this book?" And really it was nothing. The dogma was there for controlling the people. Well if that was controlling the people for one and a half thousand years at that time do you really think with all the sophistication of today's media where you have instant access to data right to your home 24-hours a day; do you really think it's not being used now. This is your journey. The individual's journey and the more you truly search and are honest with yourself. As they say, "know thyself" is important you will find that it's far more to all of this than just the mundane and it's beyond and greater than the New Age with their hocus pocus and their mind imprisoning techniques. There is far more to this of course than just facts and figures and who did what, when, where and why. But not everyone can go on that journey. It's up to those who can handle the bad news in all of its levels because the bottom level is bad enough. Few can go beyond that but there are some and you have to go through hell before you can see heaven.

Some people have said "well you've got to give the people hope". I wouldn't give them false hope. To give them hope they have to look at the truth. There's no other way to do it. You must look at things honestly including yourself. That's where the hope comes in once you've done that. Until you do for you there is no hope. You'll bend to every wind that blows from the top and I don't say they'll be hope for everyone. Most people will and always have in all ages have chosen what they thought was the easy way. They've chosen the promise of peace and safety. They've chosen to follow a big powerful leader. At least what appears to be so because they will not look to themselves to be champion and people who will not stand up for themselves individually are truly giving away their rights to decide to anything to that which appears to be strong. You are your own champion and you can be the champion for those to come. That's responsibility, a big one. And you won't be popular but then truth never is.

[thanks to Alan Watt]cuttingthroughthematrix.com

The Medicated Child