Handicapped by a Conspiracy Too Monstrous to Believe it!
Handicapped by a Conspiracy Too Monstrous to Believe it!
The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover
Well, here are some of the people behind this master plan to take keep reducing our liberties world-wide. The first expose is by Dr. Henry Makow and the second one is by Dr. Edward Griffin.
Conspiracy Too Monstrous to Conceive by Dr. Henry Makow
The world is in the malignant grip of a satanic cult. People recoil at the suggestion but proof stares us in the face every day.
George W. Bush, President of the "Free World" is a member of "Skull and Bones" a chapter of the Illuminati order. His father, grandfather and uncle are also members.
In his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep" Bush writes, "My senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society so secret I can't say anything more." In Aug. 2000 he said his "heritage is part of who I am."
What a secret society it is! The Illuminati is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms, including the French and Russian Revolutions, Communism, the Depression and Nazism. To affect the course of history only takes money. The people behind the Illuminati have plenty.
It's time we faced reality. Murphy's Law applies to humanity. "If it can go wrong, it will."
It has. The world is ruled by a satanic cult.
THE ILLUMINATI AND THE SKULL & BONES
The Illuminati originates in the Zionist Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, the Templars, Freemasons and assorted interests dedicated to Satan worship and absolute power. On May 1 1776, Adam Weishaupt, a professor at the University of Inglestadt in Germany, founded "The Order of the Illuminati." Many people believe Weishaupt was sponsored by Prince William of Hesse Casel and his banker Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the wealthiest man in the world.
The Illuminati's goal was to destroy Western Civilization and to erect a new world order ruled by them. Its method was to dissolve all social ties (employer, nation, religion, race, family) by exploiting social discontent and promising a golden age of "human brotherhood." This is now called "globalization."
Attracted by the promise of power and change, people served without realizing who or what they were supporting. Weishaupt urged his followers to "practise the art of counterfeit." New recruits were told the Illuminati expressed the original spirit of Christianity. Weishaupt marvelled that even churchmen could be gulled. "Oh! Men, of what cannot you be persuaded?" (Nesta Webster, World Revolution, 1921, p. 27)
The Illuminati had a hand in every so-called "progressive" movement of the past 200 years. Women, said Weishaupt, were to be enlisted with "hints of emancipation." They "can all be led toward change by vanity, curiosity, sensuality and inclination." (Webster, 29) William Huntington, an American who had studied in Germany, founded the "Skull and Bones" (Chapter 322 of the Bavarian Illuminati) at Yale University in 1832. The members wore a death's head on their chests and were sworn to secrecy on pain of death. "The Order" became the preserve of the leading New England families, many wealthy from the Opium trade. These include the Whitneys, Tafts, Buckleys, Lowells, Sloans, Coffins, and Harrimans. The Bush family was dependent on these interests.
For over 150 years, "Bonesmen" have run the world from positions in banking, intelligence, media, law and government. Members included Presidential handler Averell Harriman, anti war leader William Sloan Coffin, Time-Life magnate Henry Luce, Truman war secretary Henry Stimson (responsible for dropping the atomic bomb), pseudo conservative William F. Buckley and many more.
"THE BATTLE IS NOT BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT"
In the 1960's British-born Dr. Anthony Sutton was a Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute when he discovered that, in spite of the Cold War, the US was supplying the USSR with its technology, including weapons used against American soldiers in Vietnam. Sutton dug deeper and discovered that Wall Street had sponsored both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of Nazi Germany. The resulting books which are on line cost Dr. Sutton his academic career.
In 1983, Dr. Sutton received a list of Skull and Bones members and immediately recognized the names of many men who controlled American policy. He published a book entitled "America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones" (1986). He updated and republished this book just before his death last June at age 77. Here are some of his conclusions.
"The Order" is " a purely American phenomenon with German origin." Dr. Sutton compares it to the Round Table, Cecil Rhodes' secret society at Oxford also known as "The Group." The American and British entities consist of 20-30 dynastic families each. Zionist banking interests connect them.
"The links between 'The Order' and Britain go through Lazard Freres and the private merchant banks... 'The Group' links to the Zionist equivalent through the Rothschilds in Britain... 'The Order' in the US links to the Guggenheim, Schiff and Warburg families." (23)
As Dr. Sutton notes, the "Order" had definite anti Semitic tendencies but by the 1960's, many Zionist names started to appear among the 15 annual inductees. See list of Skull and Bones members.
Dr. Sutton believes the "left" versus "right" split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the "The Nation" and "The New Republic" and right-wing magazines like "The National Review were "artificially set up." The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley. Both are "The Order."
Dr. Sutton states: "Sooner or later people will wake up. First we have to dump the trap of right and left. This is a Hegelian trap to divide and control. The battle is not between right and left; it is between us and them."
Similarly, in the international field left and right political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for one-world synthesis, i.e. authoritarian socialism controlled by monopoly capital.
College textbooks present war and revolution as accidental results of conflicting forces. This is nonsense, says Dr. Sutton. They are created and financed by Wall Street to create a new world order. But you won't read this in history books.
"Our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China..." (122)
Dr. Sutton believes The Order has many weaknesses resulting from an inbred gene pool, a shallow power base and a limited worldview. In any future conflict between the authoritarian state and the individual, he believes opposition will take "a million forms."
" No one is going to create the anti-The Order movement. That would be foolish and unnecessary. It could be infiltrated, bought off, or diverted all too easily. Why play by the rules set by the enemy?
The movement that will topple The Order will be extremely simple and most effective. It will be ten thousand or a million Americans who come to the conclusion that they don't want the State to be boss, that they prefer to live under the protection of the Constitution. They will make their own independent decision to thwart The Order and it will take ten thousand or a million forms." (55)
Bizarre as it sounds, our world is the product of a multi generational satanic conspiracy.
(Believe me I would give everything I own to be wrong.)
When we compare this disturbing conclusion with the comforting picture purveyed by Illuminati controlled-mass media and education, we experience "cognitive dissonance," or psychological stress. This is usually resolved by evading reality, dismissing it as "conspiracy theory."
One reader, stirring in his sleep, wrote: "You sir are T-TOTALLY the biggest story teller I have ever heard. If I ever get really bored I will read some of your concockions."
In fact, conspiracy is very plausible. People who control a grossly disproportionate share of the world's wealth will take measures to consolidate their position. They will destabilize the public by inciting a series of wars and other mind-boggling hoaxes (communism, lesbian feminism, multiculturalism). They will subvert faith in a loving God and promote violence and depravity (Satan) instead.
The government-inspired 9-11 atrocity proves a satanic cult controls the US. Bush and his accomplices are criminals, traitors and impostors. But don't look to the Democrats for salvation. Leading contender Sen. John Kerry is also Skull and Bones (Class of 1966.)
The "War on Terror" is obviously designed to forestall domestic opposition and condition people to further subjugation and new world order. What can we do?
Antony Sutton had it right when he said opposition should be individual in character. It should "take ten thousand or a million forms."
Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas at email@example.com.
The Grand Deception - Part One A Second Look at the War on Terrorism
© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
Ladies and Gentlemen, the title of my presentation today is The Grand Deception - A Second Look at the War on Terrorism.
I was flattered to hear in my introduction that I have a reputation for taking complex subjects and making them easy to understand. I hope I can live up to that expectation, but I couldn't help wondering if I can really do that with this topic: The War on Terrorism. How can you make that easy to understand? It's such a huge and confusing topic. I feel like the proverbial mosquito in a nudist camp. I know what I have to do. I just don't know where to begin.
There is a formula I often follow when I don't know where to begin, and that is to start with history. If you discover the history, you should be able to figure it out as you go along. It was Will Durant who said, "Those who know nothing about history are doomed forever to repeat it."
Are we doomed to repeat the mistakes of history in the war on terrorism? If we continue to follow the path we are now taking, I'm afraid that we are. But to find out whether we are repeating the mistakes of history, we need to go back in time. So, I invite you to join me in my time machine. We are going to splash around in history for a while and look at some great events and huge mistakes to see if there are parallels, any lessons to be learned for today. I must warn you that it will seem we are lost in time. We are going to go here and there, and then jump back further, and then forward in time, and we will be examining issues that may make you wonder "What on earth has this to do with today." But I can assure you, when we reach the end of our journey, you will see that everything we cover has a direct relevance to today and, in particular, to the war on terrorism.
THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
Lets start our time machine. We turn the dial to the year 1954 and, suddenly, we find ourselves in the plush offices of the Ford Foundation in New York. We see two men seated at a large, Mahogany desk, and they are talking. They cannot see or hear us. These men are Roland Gaither, who was the President of the Ford Foundation at that time, and Mr. Norman Dodd. Mr. Dodd was the newly appointed chief investigator of what was called the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations. The Ford Foundation was one of them, so he was there as part of his Congressional responsibilities.
It was about 1972 that I happened to meet Mr. Dodd in Virginia. I had a television crew with me, because we were producing a documentary film and had some open time. I called Mr. Dodd and asked if he would be willing to make a statement before our cameras, and he said, "Of course." I'm glad we obtained the interview, because he was advanced in years, and it wasn't long afterward that he passed away. We were very fortunate to capture his story in his own words. (For those who are interested in viewing his complete testimony on video, it is available from The Reality Zone, www.realityzone,com. It's called "The Hidden Agenda" and is available in both video and audio formats. The printed transcript can be downloaded free of charge at www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html.)
So, back to our time machine. The year is 1954, and we hear Mr. Gaither say to Mr. Dodd, "Would you be interested in knowing what we do here at the Ford Foundation?" And, of course, Mr. Dodd says, "Yes! That's exactly why I'm here. I would be very interested, sir." Then, without any prodding at all, Gaither says, "Mr. Dodd, we operate in response to directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."
Dodd almost falls off of his chair when he hears that. Then he says to Gaither, "Well, sir, you can do anything you please with your grant making powers, but don't you think you have an obligation to make a disclosure to the American people? You enjoy tax exemption, which is an indirect way of saying you are subsidized by the taxpayer, so, why don't you tell the Congress and the American people what you just told me?" And Gaither replies, "We would never dream of doing such a thing."
A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
There is much more to be learned from this conversation, but our time is limited, so let's move on. The question that logically arises is, "How would it be possible for people in these prestigious organizations to even dream that they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union?" What an absurd thought that would be! The answer, however, is not absurd at all. To bring this about, all that needs to be done is to alter the attitude of the American people to accept such a move. How could that be done?
The answer to this second question was provided by another powerful and prestigious tax-exempt foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. When Dodd visited the President of that organization and began asking about their activities, the President said, "Mr. Dodd, you have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time consuming for us to answer those questions, so I have a counter proposal. Why don't you send a member of your staff to our facilities, and we will open our minute books from the very first meeting of the Carnegie Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy whatever you find there. Then you will know everything we are doing."
Again, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was a young man at the Carnegie Fund and assumed he had never actually read the minutes himself. So he accepted without hesitation and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment facilities. Her name was Mrs. Catherine Casey who was, by the way, hostile to the activity of the Congressional Committee. She was placed on the staff by political opponents of the Committee to be a watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her attitude was: "What could possibly be wrong with tax-exempt foundations? They do so much good." So that was the view of Mrs. Casey when she went to the boardroom of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. She took her Dictaphone machine (they used magnetic belts in those days) and recorded, word for word, many of the key passages from the minutes of this organization starting with the very first meeting. What she found in those minutes was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her mind, and she became very ineffective in her work after that.
Basically, this is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of the board discussed how to alter life in the United States, how to change the attitudes of Americans to give up their cherished principles and concepts of government and be more receptive to what we will call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about what the word collectivist means in a moment, but they used that word quite often. And they discussed this in a very scholarly fashion. After many months of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that, out all of the options available for altering the attitudes of people in the United States, there was only one that was really dependable. That option was war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security against a deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace declared in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to manipulate the United States into war.
They also said there were other things needed, and these were their words: "We must control education in the United States." They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America - in particular, to control the teaching of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues related to international affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment. Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed how to do that at great length. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and presented to them the proposition that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism, but they were turned down flat. Then they decided - and these are their own words, "We must create our own stable of historians."
They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, "If we provide the money, would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you grant them doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world and in professional historical associations?" And the answer was "Yes."
So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They interviewed them, analyzed their thinking processes, and chose the twenty they thought were best suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future.
Now lets go back to the words of Mr. Dodd, himself. He said: "This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920's the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency."
COLLECTIVISM VS INDIVIDUALISM
Now we must turn off our time machine for a moment and deal with this word collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using the word over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what collectivism is, the advocates of collectivism have a very definite understanding of it, so let's deal with that now.
In order to appreciate the essence of collectivism, we need to step backward and look at the larger picture encompassing the political ideologies that divide people in this age. You find those who claim they are conservatives, and they will debate wildly with those who think of themselves as liberals. Left-wingers disagree with right-wingers. You find people who say they are Socialists or Communists or Fascists or whatever words they choose to identify their point of view. But, when you ask them to explain what those words mean, very few can agree. For the most part, they are merely labels without clear or precise definitions.
Let's put some meaning to them. I think that all of the great political issues, the ideological issues at least, can be divided into two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Basically, a person is either a collectivist or an individualist. We are talking about collectivism vs. individualism. What do these words mean?
First of all I should tell you that, from my observation, collectivists and individualist, for the most part, are all good people. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for the world - for mankind. They all want peace, prosperity, and justice. They want freedom. Sometime they disagree over what the tradeoff should be for freedom; but, still, they all want the good things for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.
THE DANGER OF GROUP SUPREMACY
The collectivist believes the group is the most important element of society; that all solutions to problems are better solved at the group level than at the individual level; and that, the larger the problem is, the larger the group should be to solve the problem. And so they believe in collective action. They believe in organizing group activities to provide for all of the advantages they want people to have. They want to protect people. They want to make sure they don't suffer, that they are well clothed and fed, and that they are treated justly. The solution to all of these problems is a collective solution. "We shall do it through group action." The more complex the problem, the larger the group should be, until finally the most complex problems of all can be solved only by the largest groups of all.
The collectivist sees government as the solution, because government is the ultimate group, and so the collectivist mind can be easily recognized. It always has an affinity to government as the solver of problems. The individualist, by the way, is more skeptical. He tends to look at government as the creator of problems. But that's another issue. We will get to the individualist in a moment. The collectivist sees government as the solver of problems; and, of course, the larger the unit of government, the better. Collectivist solutions gravitate from local government to state government to national government and finally to world government. If there is a really big problem, such as the environmental issue involving the whole planet, the collectivist is convinced that it cannot be solved except through the action of world government.
The collectivist believes that the group is more important than the individual and, if necessary, the individual must be sacrificed for the group. Sometimes that is expressed in terms of "the greater good for the greater number." It's a very appealing concept.
The individualist on the other hand says, "Wait a minute. Group? What is group? That's just a word. You cannot touch a group. You cannot see a group. All you can touch and see are individuals. They make up the group. But the real substance of the group is the individual within it. It's like a forest. Forest doesn't exist. It's a word concept. There are only trees." So the individualist sees that, if you sacrifice the individual for the group, you have made a huge mistake. The individual is the essence of the group. He is the core of the group. The group has no claim to sacrifice its own essence.
Collectivists are often critics of religious and family values, because collectivism demands unquestioning obedience to the state. Since loyalty to family or religious codes often conflict with the concept of group supremacy, they cannot be tolerated in a collectivist system.
THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ drastically over what is the origin of those rights. There are only two possibilities in this debate. Either man's rights are intrinsic to his being, or they are extrinsic; either he possesses them at birth or they are given to him afterward. In other words, they are either hardware or software. Individualists believe they are hardware. Collectivists believe they are software.
part 1 continued at
part 2 continued at
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article