American Resistance To Empire

The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship (Parts I and II)

The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship

Part One: Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism

- by Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 24th, 2005

As antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a ‘scientific dictatorship.’ Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an ‘epistemological weapon’ against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this ‘scientific dictatorship’ is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry.

The Epistemological Cartel

In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel Pouzzner outlines the tactics employed by the elite to maintain their dominance. Among them is: ‘Ostensible control over the knowable, by marketing institutionally accredited science as the only path to true understanding’ (Pouzzner, 75). Thus, the ruling class endeavors to discourage independent reason while exercising illusory power over human knowledge. This tactic of control through knowledge suppression and selective dissemination is reiterated in the anonymously authored document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:

“Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth. Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems. Mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping. All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control.”

- Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203

The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin word scientia, which means ‘knowing.’ Epistemology is the study of the nature and origin of knowledge. This elite monopoly of the knowable, which is enforced through institutional science, could be characterized as an “epistemological cartel.” The ruling class has bribed the ‘bookkeepers’ (i.e., natural and social scientists). Meanwhile, the masses practically deify the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite, and remain ‘ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.’ The unknown author of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars provides an eloquently simple summation: ‘The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?’ (Keith, Secret and Suppressed, 203).

In Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley more succinctly defined this epistemological cartel:

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work’ with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.”

- Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 116

This is the ultimate objective of the elite: an oligarchy legitimized by arbitrarily anointed expositors of ‘knowledge’ or, in Huxley’s own words, a ‘scientific dictatorship.’

The New Theocracy

How did the ‘scientific dictatorship’ of the twentieth century begin? In earlier centuries, the ruling class controlled the masses through more mystical belief systems, particularly Sun worship. Yet, this would all change. In Saucers of the Illuminati, Jim Keith documents the shift from a theocracy of the Sun to a theocracy of ‘science':

“Since the Sun God (and his various relations, including sons and wives) were, after several thousands years of worship, beginning to fray around the edges in terms of believability, and a lot commoners were beginning to grumble that this stuff was all made up, the Illuminati came up with a new and improved version of their mind control software that didn’t depend upon the Sun God or Moon Goddess for ultimate authority.”

- Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78

Priests and rituals were soon supplanted by a new breed of ‘bookkeepers’ and a new ‘methodology of bookkeeping.’ Keith elaborates:

“As the Sun/Moon cult lost some of its popularity, ‘Scientists’ were quick to take up some of the slack. According to their propaganda, the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors, and naturally, those physical laws were only fathomable by the scientific (i.e. Illuminati) elite.”

- Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79

This consciously induced paradigm shift facilitated the emergence of the elite’s new theocracy. The official state-sanctioned religion of this theocracy was ‘scientism': the belief that the investigational methods of the natural sciences should be ecumenically imposed upon all fields of inquiry. This form of epistemological imperialism is not to be confused with legitimate science. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes this distinction in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:

“Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today.” (Hoffman, 49)

Hoffman further elaborates on the folly of scientism:

“The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or ‘cut, burn and poison’ methods of cancer ‘treatment’.” (Hoffman, 49)

It must be understood that this new institution of knowing is a form of mysticism like its religious precursors. Contemporary science is predicated upon empiricism, the idea that all knowledge is derived exclusively through the senses. Yet, an exclusively empirical approach relegates cause to the realm of metaphysical fantasy. This holds enormous ramifications for science. Do we really know what causes anything?

Although temporal succession and spatial proximity are self-evident, causal connection is not. Affirmation of causal relationships is impossible in science. What is perceived as A causing B could be merely circumstantial juxtaposition. Given the absence of known cause, all of a scientist’s findings must be taken upon faith. This is all one can deduce while working under the paradigm of radical empiricism. Thus, the elite merely exchanged one form of mysticism for another.

Returning to Pouzzner’s previous statement, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ is achieved through the promulgation of ‘institutionally accredited science’ (Pouzzner, 75). Now, the elite had to meet two requirements to insure their epistemological dominance: a science specifically designed for their needs and an institution to accredit and disseminate it.

The British Royal Society

The new secular church and clergy of the elite originated within the walls of the British Royal Society. The creators of the Royal Society were also members of the Masonic Lodge. According to Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

“Virtually all the Royal Society’s founding members were Freemasons. One could reasonably argue that the Royal Society itself, at least in its inception, was a Masonic institution – derived, through Andrea’s Christian Unions, from the ‘invisible Rosicrucian brotherhood’.” (Baigent, et al, 144)

Jim Keith makes it clear that the Masonic Lodge ‘has been alleged to be a conduit for the intentions of a number of elitist interests’ (Keith, Casebook on Alternative 3, 20). In service to the elite, the Royal Society Freemasons would re-sculpt epistemological notions and disseminate propaganda. Jim Keith provides a brief summation of the Royal Society’s role in years to come: ‘The British Royal Society of the late seventeenth century was the forerunner of much of the media manipulation that was to follow’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 79).

Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science (i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e., the study of God) were inseparable. The two were not separate repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives. In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz established the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of ‘magnitude, figure, and motion,’ which constitute the ‘primary qualities’ of corporeal bodies, ‘cannot be found in the essence of the body’ (de Hoyos).

Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:

“The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. ‘Eternity’ is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is ‘the impact of another body,’ there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves.”

The same can be established for the body’s cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:

“Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity, or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other. But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command. Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God.” (de Hoyos)

Of course, this conclusion was antithetical to the doctrine of the scientific dictatorship, which contended that ‘the physical laws of the universe were the ultimate causative factors’ (Keith, Saucers of the Illuminati, 78-79). Metaphysical naturalism (i.e., nature is God) had to be enthroned. Meanwhile, God’s presence in the corridors of science had to be expunged. To achieve this, the Royal Society created a Gnostic division between science and theology, thus insuring the primacy of matter in the halls of scientific inquiry (Tarpley).

Blind Reverence to Science

Indeed, biases and presuppositions pervade the very fabric of the elite’s epistemic autocracy. Academia itself has become the official church for this cult of epistemological selectivity. Christian philosopher Ravi Zacharias personally encountered the enormous prejudicial hurdles of scientism during a casual conversation with a few scholars, wherein one scientist makes a shocking confession:

I asked them a couple of questions. ‘If the Big Bang were indeed where it all began, may I ask what preceded the Big Bang?’ Their answer, which I had anticipated, was that the universe was shrunk down to a singularity.

I pursued, ‘But isn’t it correct that a singularity as defined by science is a point at which all the laws of physics break down?’

‘That is correct,’ was the answer.

‘Then, technically, your starting point is not scientific either.’

There was silence, and their expressions betrayed the scurrying mental searches for an escape hatch. But I had yet another question.

I asked if they agreed that when a mechanistic view of the universe had held sway, thinkers like Hume had chided philosophers for taking the principle of causality and applying it to a philosophical argument for the existence of God. Causality, he warned, could not be extrapolated from science to philosophy.

‘Now,’ I added, ‘when quantum theory holds sway, randomness in the subatomic world is made a basis for randomness in life. Are you not making the very same extrapolation that you warned us against?’

Again there was silence and then one man said with a self-deprecating smile, ‘We scientists do seem to retain selective sovereignty over what we allow to be transferred to philosophy and what we don’t’ (Zacharias, 64).

This ‘selective sovereignty,’ vigorously enforced by the epistemic autocracy of the elite, effectively marginalized dissenters and consummated the apotheosis of the ‘bookkeepers.’ Hoffman explains:

“The cryptocracy has successfully harnessed to its own ends the huge potential for promoting secret political-occult agendas to the public, by presenting them as unassailable ‘objective scientific truth.’ Since the bogey of ‘science’ instills in secularists a sort of blind reverence, opponents of political and occult agendas promoted through the propaganda of scientism are quickly stigmatized as ‘Neanderthal,’ especially with regard to their opposition to Darwinism, a dogma proved false by Norman Macbeth in his magisterial Darwin Retried and exposed as a cult by Gertrude Himmelfarb in Darwin.” (Hoffman, 49)

Suddenly, ‘ostensible control over the knowable’ became the Divine Providence of god-like ‘bookkeepers.’ Meanwhile, their opponents became heretics and were ‘burned at the stake’ (i.e., marginalized by academia and other secular institutions). Hoffman states:

“The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the ‘ All Seeing Eye‘ above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill.” (Hoffman, 50)

With the inculcation of the masses into scientism, the unfinished pyramid is almost complete.

Evolution: The Occult Doctrine of Becoming

With the British Royal Society acting as their headquarters of propaganda, the elite had created an institution to provide credibility for their specially designed ‘science.’ Now, they needed to introduce the ‘science.’ Recall that the founding members of the Royal Society were all Freemasons. Thus, whatever ‘science’ these men would design would be derivative of Masonic doctrine. In The Meaning of Masonry, W.L. Wilmhurst reveals the worldview underpinning the new Masonic ‘science':

“This – the evolution [emphasis added] of man into superman – was always the purpose of the ancient Mysteries, and the real purpose of modern Masonry is not the social and charitable purposes to which so much attention is paid, but the expediting of the spiritual evolution of those who aspire to perfect their own nature and transform it into a more god-like quality. And this is a definite science, a royal art, which it is possible for each of us to put into practice; whilst to join the Craft for any other purpose than to study and pursue this science is to misunderstand its meaning.” (Wilmhurst, 47)

Later in the book, Wilmhurst reiterates this theme:

“Man who has sprung from earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution [emphasis added] by becoming a god-like being and unifying his consciousness with the Omniscient – to promote which is and always has been the sole aim and purpose of all Initiation.” (Wilmhurst, 94)

With God’s effective exile from science, man’s position as imago viva Dei (created in the image of the Creator) was summarily relegated to obsolescence. Now, Freemasonry could introduce its occult doctrine of ‘becoming,’ the belief in man’s gradual evolution towards apotheosis.

According to Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, was the first to promulgate the concept of evolution:

“Dr. Erasmus Darwin (1731 – 1802) was the first man in England to suggest those ideas which later were to be embodied in the Darwinian theory by his grandson, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), who wrote in 1859 Origin of Species.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

The Lunar Society

Erasmus Darwin was the founder of the Lunar Society. According to author Ian Taylor, the Lunar Society was active from about 1764 to 1800 and its prominent influence ‘continued long afterwards under the banner of The Royal Society.’ The group’s name owed itself to the fact that members met monthly at the time of the full moon. The membership of this group boasted such luminaries as John Wilkinson (who made cannons), James Watt (who owed his notoriety to the steam engine), Matthew Boulton (a manufacturer), Joseph Priestly (a chemist), Josiah Wedgewood (who founded the famous pottery business), and Benjamin Franklin. It is with the Lunar Society that one begins to identify Erasmus’ ties to Freemasonry. (Taylor, 55)

Interestingly enough, in an article by Lord Richie-Calder, Lunar Society members were assigned the very esoteric appellation of ‘merchants of light.’ This was precisely the same description used for the hypothetical society presented in Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis (Taylor, 55). In her examination of J.G. Findel’s History of Freemasonry, Nesta Webster made the following observation: ‘Findel frankly admits that the New Atlantis contained unmistakable allusions to Freemasonry and that Bacon contributed to its final transformation’ (Webster, 120).

Researcher Ian Taylor adds:

“Webster pointed out that one of the earliest and most eminent precursors of Freemasonry is said to have been Francis Bacon, who is also recognized to have been a Rosicrucian; the Rosicrucian and Freemason orders were closely allied and may have had a common source.” (Taylor, 445)

Still, these are tenuous ties at best. Are there any sources that firmly establish a Darwinian/Freemasonic connection? Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry conclusively confirms a link:

“Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.” (quoted in Daniel, 34)

In 1794, Erasmus wrote a book entitled Zoonomia, which delineated his theory of evolution (Taylor, 58). Being a Freemason, there is little doubt that Erasmus cribbed liberally from the Lodge’s occult doctrine of ‘becoming.’ Before Erasmus had penned his precursory notions of progressive biological development, Freemason John Locke (1632 – 1704) extrapolated the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation into the context of metaphysical naturalism and formulated a theory of evolution (Daniel, 33-34).

The British East India Company had imported the Hindu belief in reincarnation to England where it would be adopted by the British Royal Society. A prominent member of the Royal Society, John Locke studied reincarnation extensively and, working with the occult doctrine as an extrapolative inspiration, developed his own evolutionary ideas. In fact, Locke’s theory of evolution received the support of the male members of Darwin’s family (Daniel, 33-34). Two centuries later, this occult concept of ‘becoming’ would be transmitted to Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species would be born.

Metaphysical Naturalism: The Golem Reborn

Underpinning the concept of metaphysical naturalism is the notion that life originated with lifeless matter. This notion, dubbed ‘spontaneous generation,’ excludes the involvement of a supernatural Creator. Thus, nature became a god creating itself. Louis Pasteur, whose work established the Law of Biogenesis, provided the most succinct summation of this anthropomorphic mysticism:

“To bring about spontaneous generation would be to create a germ. It would be creating life; it would be to solve the problem of its origin. It would mean to go from matter to life through conditions of environment and of matter [lifeless material]. God as author of life would then no longer be needed. Matter would replace Him. God would need to be invoked only as author of the motions of the universe.” (Dubos, 395)

Like all of the ‘false gods’ of antiquity, the voracity of this new deity was soon demolished. ‘Spontaneous generation’ was proven impossible by the Law of Biogenesis. However, this fact did not stop certain ‘men of science’ from chronically deifying nature. For instance, Charles Darwin unconsciously revealed his idolatrous impulses through statements like: ‘natural selection picks out with unerring skill the best varieties’ (Hooykaas, 18).

Evident in such statements is the idea that nature is sentient. After all, only a sentient being holds discriminative tastes and, therefore, ‘picks out’ the recipients of its favor. Moreover, such statements reveal that ‘nature’ itself is a sovereign deity acting as the ultimate arbiter of life and death. This meme has metastasized, presenting itself today as the Gaia Hypothesis. This hypothesis holds that the biosphere is a self-creating, self-sustaining, and self-regenerating entity. Central to this thesis is the contention that both the living and non-living are inseparable (Lovelock, 31-33).

Although the concept of ‘spontaneous generation’ was proven scientifically bankrupt years ago, many continue to resuscitate its corpse. Why does this theme of lifeless matter spontaneously generating life continue to emerge? The answer is because it has been with man for a very long time. It is derivative of the golem, an occult concept presented in the Hebraic Kabbalah. Thirty-third Degree Freemason Albert Pike revealed that: ‘all the Masonic associations owe to it [the Kabbalah] their Secrets and their Symbols’ (Pike, 744). According to this occult text, the golem was an artificially created man whose life was the result of supernatural intervention. The late Isaac Bashevis Singer, who studied the Kabbalah extensively, explained:

“’the golem ‘ is based on faith ‘ that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life [emphasis added]‘ What are the computers and robots of our time if not golems? ‘ The Talmud tells us of an interpreter by the name of Rava who formed a man by this mysterious power’ We are living in an epoch of golem-making right now. The gap between science and magic ‘ is becoming narrower’.” (Hoffman, 115)

Drawing upon the esoteric doctrines of their occult heritage, the Freemasonic members of the British Royal Society re-introduced the golem to the public mind under the guise of ‘metaphysical naturalism.’ Gradually, the corporeal machinations of nature supplanted the miraculous Creator. Of course, these machinations were only intelligible to anointed scientists of the epistemic autocracy. Thus, the ‘bookkeepers’ of the elite became the new expositors of ‘miracles.’ This virtual deification of the ‘bookkeepers’ is evident in Singer’s later statements regarding the golem:

“I was interested in the golem ‘ from my early childhood. I was brought up in the home of a rabbi, and his sermons often spoke of miracles, by the Baal Shem Tov and other wonder rabbis. ‘ I realized early in my life that science and technology had actually created a civilization of miracles. Science is one long chain of miracles.’.” (Hoffman, 116)

Recall the words of Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited: ‘The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles [emphasis added], and mysteries.’ The new dictators do not intend to make the same mistake. With the effective enshrinement of metaphysical naturalism, the British Royal Society prepared to unleash their next golem. However, this golem would be an artificially created ape-man presented to the public imagination under the appellation of Darwinism.

The Darwin Project

In the article ‘Toward a New Science of Life,’ EIR journalist Jonathan Tennenbaum makes the following the statement concerning Darwinism:

“Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Tennenbaum)

Given Darwinism’s roots in occult Freemasonry and its expedient promotion of an emergent species of supermen (i.e., the elite), this is a fairly accurate assessment. Charles Darwin acted as the elite’s apostle, preaching the new secular gospel of evolution. Darwinism could be considered a Freemasonic project, the culmination of a publicity campaign conducted by the Lodge. Evidence for this contention can be found in controversial Protocols of the Wise Men of Sion.

Although an examination of the Protocols and a critique of their authenticity are not the purposes of this essay, it is important to address the questions surrounding their origins. After all, the Protocols have been employed throughout history in numerous genocidal campaigns against the Jews. However, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail provide evidence that the document may be Masonic in origin:

“It can thus be proved conclusively that the Protocols did not issue from the Judaic congress at Basle in 1897. That being so, the obvious questions is whence they did issue. Modern scholars have dismissed them as a total forgery, a wholly spurious document concocted by anti-Semitic interests intent on discrediting Judaism. And yet the Protocols themselves argue strongly against such a conclusion. They contain, for example, a number of enigmatic references – references that are clearly not Judaic. But these references are so clearly not Judaic that they cannot plausibly have been fabricated by a forger, either. No anti-Semitic forger with even a modicum of intelligence would possibly have concocted such references in order to discredit Judaism. For no one would have believed these references to be of Judaic origin.”

Thus, for instance, the text of the Protocols ends with a single statement. ‘Signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree.’ Why would an anti-Semitic forger have made up such a statement? Why would he not have attempted to incriminate all Jews, rather than just a few – the few who constitute ‘the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’? Why would he not declare that the document was signed by, say, the representatives of the international Judaic congress? In fact, the ‘representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree’ would hardly seem to refer to Judaism at all, or to any ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ If anything, it would seem to refer to something specifically Masonic. And the thirty-third degree in Freemasonry is that of the so-called Strict Observance – the system of Freemasonry introduced by Hund at the behest of his ‘unknown superiors,’ one of whom appears to have been Charles Radclyffe (Baigent, et al, 192-3). Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln conclude:

“There was an original text on which the published version of the Protocols was based. This original text was not a forgery. On the contrary, it was authentic. But it had nothing whatever to do with Judaism or an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ It issued, rather, from some Masonic organization or Masonically oriented secret society that incorporated the word ‘Sion’.” (Baigent, et al, 194)

Given the Masonic language, one can completely discard the racist contention that the Protocols constitute evidence of an ‘international Jewish conspiracy.’ Nevertheless, the document holds some authenticity:

“The published version of the Protocols is not, therefore, a totally fabricated text. It is, rather, a radically altered text. But despite the alterations certain vestiges of the original version can be discerned’.” (Baigent, et al, 195)

The remnant vestiges of the original text strongly suggest Masonic origins. Having established the Masonic authorship of the Protocols, one may return to issue at hand: Freemasonic involvement in the promotion of Darwinism. Consider the following excerpt from the Protocols, which reads distinctly like a mission statement:

“For them [the masses or cattle] let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim [the masses or cattle] will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of it will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.”

Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism [emphasis added], Marxism, and Nietzsche-ism (reprint in Cooper, 274-5).

In addition to establishing the Lodge’s official sanction of Darwinism, this excerpt also reveals a direct relationship between Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, and evolutionary theory. This relationship shall be examined in part two of this article.

It was the grandfather of Aldous Huxley, T.H. Huxley, who would act as the ‘official spokesman for the recluse Darwin’ (White, 268). Many years later, Aldous would propose a ‘scientific dictatorship’ in Brave New World Revisited. Whether Aldous made this proposition on a whim or was penning a concept that had circulated within the Huxley family for years cannot be determined. Given the family’s oligarchical tradition, the latter assertion remains a definite possibility. Yet, there may be a deeper Freemasonic connection, suggesting that the concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ may have originated within the Lodge.

T.H. Huxley was a Freemason and, with no apparent achievements to claim as his own, was made a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 26 (Daniel, 34). T.H. Huxley tutored Freemason H.G. Wells, who would later teach Huxley’s two grandsons, Julian and Aldous. Both Julian and Aldous were Freemasons (Daniel, 147). Given this continuity of Freemasonic tutelage within the Huxley family, it is a definite possibility that the Huxlian concept of a ‘scientific dictatorship’ is really Masonic. Considering Freemason H.G. Wells’ endorsement of a ‘scientific dictatorship,’ which he called a ‘Technocracy,’ this is highly likely.

The rest is history. With the publicity campaigns of the Royal Society and the avid defense of evolution apologist T.H. Huxley, Darwin’s theory would be disseminated and popularized. The seed had taken root and, in the years to come, numerous permutations of the elite’s ‘scientific dictatorship’ would emerge.

Continued in Part Two


About the Author

Phillip D. Collins acted as the editor for The Hidden Face of Terrorism. He has also written articles for Paranoia Magazine, MKzine, News With Views, B.I.P.E.D.: The Official Website of Darwinian Dissent and Conspiracy Archive. He has an Associate of Arts and Science. Currently, he is studying for a bachelor’s degree in Communications at Wright State University. During the course of his seven-year college career, Phillip has studied philosophy, religion, and classic literature. He also co-authored the book, The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century, which is available online here.

Neocons and Neoliberals: Two Masks, One Face

Neocons and Neoliberals: Two Masks, One Face

Obama might very well be classified as a “neoliberal”. He appears to be appointing leading neoliberals to key positions in his administration.

If you’re a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years, we’ll now have neoliberals. You may assume that “neoliberals” are new, smarter liberals — with liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic outlook.


In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don’t know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism – not very conservative, huh?)

For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a leading neoliberal? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.

As Philip Giraldi writes: “Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way”.

And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :

“Until now the liberal West’s strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism.”

So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal.

But neocons and neoliberals are very similar to each other. Neocons are alot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberalss are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.

Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.

There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which “branch” of the party is in power. If its the Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.

If its the Republican branch, there’s a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.

But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.

Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and — inevitably as with any country which extends too far — collapse.

Neoliberalism is neither “new” or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.

A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.

Brown calls for new world order

Brown calls for new world order

Prime Minister Gordon Brown believes the world financial crisis offers the opportunity to establish a “truly global society”.

Mr Brown will use a high-profile speech in the City of London to say that Britain, the US and Europe should join together to provide leadership in the creation of a “stronger and more just international order”.

He wants this weekend’s emergency summit of world leaders in Washington to reach consensus on a new framework for the international financial system, featuring a reformed IMF which will act as a global early-warning system for financial problems, he will say.

The Prime Minister promised to work with US President-elect Barack Obama to build a new global society in which the markets are subjected to morality and ordinary people’s interests are put first.

In his annual foreign policy speech to the Lord Mayor of London’s Guildhall banquet, Mr Brown will say that the transatlantic relationship between Britain and Europe and the USA can be the driving force behind the creation of a new international order.

“The alliance between Britain and the US – and more broadly between Europe and the US – can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order,” Mr Brown will say.

“The transatlantic relationship has been the engine of effective multilateralism for the past 50 years.

“As America stands at its own dawn of hope, so let that hope be fulfilled through a pact with the wider world to lead and shape the 21st century as the century of a truly global society.

“And I believe the whole of Europe can work closely with America to meet the great challenges which will test our resolution and illuminate our convictions.”

FBI fights order for deposition of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator, death-row inmate

FBI fights order for deposition of Oklahoma City

bombing conspirator, death-row inmate

By Pamela Manson
var requestedWidth = 0;

if(requestedWidth > 0){
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.width = requestedWidth + “px”;
document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.margin = “0px 0px 10px 10px”;
The FBI is appealing an order that allows a Utah attorney to conduct taped depositions of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols and a death-row inmate.
Salt Lake City lawyer Jesse Trentadue believes that the two inmates have valuable information about his brother’s death in a federal prison – and about the FBI’s alleged withholding of many of the relevant documents requested in his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit.
Authorities say the August 1995 death of Kenneth Trentadue in a cell at an Oklahoma City federal prison was a suicide, but the inmate’s family believes he was mistaken for a bombing conspirator and that guards strangled him with a set of plastic handcuffs in an interrogation that got out of hand.
To support that theory, Jesse Trentadue has filed three FOIA lawsuits. As part of one of those suits, he requested an order allowing the depositions from Nichols and David Paul Hammer, who now is on death row at the federal penitentiary at Terre Haute, Ind.
Lawyers for the FBI objected, saying the agency has made appropriate searches for documents.
U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball granted Trentadue’s request last year. He reaffirmed that order in September after the FBI asked him to reconsider.

Classified order authorizes U.S. military to attack Qaeda anywhere

Mourners shouted anti-American slogans on Oct. 27 in Syria at the funeral of someone killed in a cross-border United States raid. (Hussein Malla/Associated Press)

Classified order authorizes U.S. military to attack

Qaeda anywhere

A Republican civil war? Keep Your Fingers Crossed!

The cause of the GOP’s fall?

A Republican civil war?

The conservative era has ended with “a resounding, bone-rattling crash,” said Rod Dreher in The Dallas Morning News, and “now the scattered and demoralized armies of the right will turn on each other.” This is a new era, and conservatives have to face the “failure of ideology” that produced this defeat. “The duration of conservatism’s exile from power depends on how long its civil war lasts—and who wins it.”

The first thing Republicans need to do is disown “Comrade George W. Bush,” said Deroy Murdock in National Review Online, and the Republican congressional leaders who helped him betray conservatives by spearheading “the most aggressive federal expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” The GOP is supposed to be the party of small government and free markets! It can’t “regain America’s confidence—nor should it—until the guilty parties have been cast into the nearest volcano.”

Accusing Bush of betraying the “true faith” is an increasingly popular conservative refrain, said Jonathan Chait in The New Republic. But that just shows how poorly Republicans understand why voters rejected them. And the fact that so many GOP stalwarts remain smitten with Sarah Palin, “the most Bush-like figure conceivable,” just shows that the future of the Republican Party will look a lot like the present.

Obama Team Reviewing Bush Orders With Eye to Reversing Policy

Obama Team Reviewing Bush Orders With Eye to Reversing Policy

By Edwin Chen

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) — President-elect Barack Obama‘s staff is taking an “across-the-board” look at Bush administration actions and executive orders that Obama may reverse upon taking office, said John Podesta, head of Obama’s transition team.

The potential policy reversals include orders and administrative actions taken by President George W. Bush on climate change, stem-cell research, reproductive rights and oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

“I’m not going to preview decisions that he has yet to make,” Podesta said “But I would say that as a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, and which ones should be repealed, and which ones should be amended.”

Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, spoke on Fox News Sunday, calling Bush’s policies in some of those areas “probably not in interest of the country.”

“They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah that they’re going to try to do right as they — walking out the door. I think that’s a mistake,” Podesta said.

Two orders that may be reversed were among Bush’s first actions after becoming president in 2001. In one executive order, Bush barred the use of U.S. funds by family planning groups overseas that provide abortion counseling. Critics call the policy a “gag rule” and say it hampers medical care.

Susan F. Wood, co-chairman of Obama’s advisory committee for women’s health, said the president-elect also plans on reversing a policy that linked assistance for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers emphasize abstinence from sex and monogamy over condom use.

Stem Cells

Another order from early in Bush’s presidency is the limit on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a restriction that some scientists say hampers research in combating diseases such as Parkinson’s. Obama, like many Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, backs such research.

On climate change and pollution, Obama previously has stated his opposition to the administration’s action that blocked California from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.

Obama is in Chicago this morning and is scheduled to fly to Washington for a largely ceremonial visit to the White House and a meeting with Bush later in the day.

Obama will be inaugurated on Jan. 20. Podesta suggested that he may act quickly.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action,” Podesta said.

Militants attack U.S. supplies in northwest Pakistan


Militants attack U.S. supplies in northwest


By Ibrahim Shinwari


Alleged NATO air raid kills five in Pakistan


LANDIKOTAL, Pakistan (Reuters) – Militants in northwest Pakistan hijacked 13 trucks carrying supplies for Western forces in Afghanistan on Monday as they passed through the Khyber Pass, a government official said.

Most supplies, including fuel, for U.S. and other Western forces battling a Taliban insurgency in landlocked Afghanistan are trucked through neighboring Pakistan, which is also facing growing militant violence.

Security along the road leading to the border has deteriorated this year and soldiers carried out a sweep in part of the Khyber region in June to push militants back from the outskirts of Peshawar, the main city in the northwest.

The trucks were seized at four places along a 35 km (20 mile) stretch of the road, said a senior government administrator in the Khyber region.

“About 60 masked gunmen popped up on the road and took away the trucks with their drivers. Not a single shot was fired anywhere,” the official, Bakhtiar Mohmand, told Reuters.

Mohmand said the trucks were not carrying weapons or ammunition but he was not sure what goods they were taking.

He said he believed militants loyal to Pashtun Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud were responsible.

“Baitullah’s men are behind this as they’re very well-equiped and trained,” he said.

Residents said two Pakistani army helicopter gunships flew over the area after the trucks were hijacked and carried out some firing, killing a civilian.

In Landikotal, the main town before the pass, traders and transport company operators complained that the government wasn’t taking security on the road seriously.

“The government is a silent spectator. They attack our trucks, loot them and kill our drivers in broad daylight, even near security checkposts, but they can’t do anything,” said Eshtiar Mohmand, who owns a trucking company.

About two dozen trucks and oil-tankers have been attacked in the past month, transport operators said.

Many goods for Western forces in Afghanistan are shipped into the Pakistani port of Karachi and trucked through one of two crossings points on the border: Torkham, at the top of the Khyber Pass, or at the town of Chaman, to the southwest.






“The insurgents”

Lebanese Army Confirms Arrest of Five “Terrorists”

Lebanese Army Confirms Arrest of Five “Terrorists”


Hussein Assi Readers Number : 28

10/11/2008 A few days after the footage of the confessions delivered by the Fatah al-Islam members detained in Syria over planning the car-bomb attack that killed 17 people in Damascus in September, Lebanese security forces were seeking to close the network’s file, arresting more of those involved in the terrorist bombings through coordination with Palestinian factions.

The Lebanese Army confirmed on Monday the arrest of five people for “terrorist acts” in Tripoli (Northern Lebanon) and Sidon (Southern Lebanon), Beddawi and Ain al-Hilweh camps. It also called on other “terrorists” to surrender.

On Sunday, one of the militant group’s heads, Mohamad al-Doukhi, was detained by the Lebanese Army in a successful military operation in the Palestinian Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp. Al-Doukhi, who’s known as al-Jarrah, is accused of executing explosions in North Lebanon and cooperating with Fatah al-Islam. According to well-informed sources, a force from Fatah entered the house of al-Doukhi and handed him over to the intelligence unit of the Lebanese army.

Jarrah’s arrest came just hours after Fatah conducted its biggest military showing in Ain al-Hilweh since 1991 on the fourth anniversary of the death of the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

Jarrah’s arrest raised expectations for the imminent arrest of the new head of Fatah al-Islam, Abu Mohammad Awad. Awad, known as the “Prince of Al-Qaeda” has been linked to two deadly blasts in Tripoli and has been named as a potential successor to Shaker Abssi’s leadership of Fatah al-Islam. Palestinian authorities have reportedly asked Awad to leave the camp, but he has not done so because of concerns that he would not be able to escape Lebanon without being captured.

Earlier, Khaled al-Itter, known by the alias “Abul Abed,” was arrested in Tripoli after appearing in the Fatah al-Islam video confessions aired on Syrian television. Itter is said to have been involved in meetings between Fatah al-Islam’s senior members after the group was forced out of the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 after months of heavy fighting with the Lebanese Army.

Meanwhile, Lebanese daily As-Safir reported that the army closed the Fatah al-Islam file in Beddawi camp after Sheikh Hamza Qassem surrendered to the Palestinian forces before being handed over to the army in front of the Al-Quds Mosque in Tripoli.

According to the daily, Army Commander General Jean Kahwaji, Head of Army Intelligence Edmond Fadel, and his representative, Captain Abbas Ibrahim, directly oversaw the two operations in Ain al-Hilweh and Beddawi in coordination with Palestinian forces.

Little shop of horrors: the new Middle East

Little shop of horrors: the new Middle East

By Mark Perry

I once asked one of my Palestinian friends what he thought the United States should do to help the peoples of the Middle East. He was incredulous: “Haven’t you done enough?” In retrospect that pained reply seems the perfect answer to my presumption: I’m from America and I’m here to help.

Sadly, the self-congratulation attendant on Barack Obama’s election has seemingly revived this tradition of selfless altruism. As a former Clinton administration official told me several weeks ago: “We’re going back into the Middle East, but this time we’re going to get it right.” That it did not occur to this official that we aren’t exactly “out” of the Middle East is a testament to American optimism – and amnesia. “Really,” he added, “our capacity for doing good is limitless.”

Spare me.

When asked recently to list the five goals of his presidency, then-candidate Obama ticked them off: improving the economy, working for energy independence, providing affordable healthcare to all Americans, cleaning up the environment and improving education.

The Middle East did not make the list. For good reason: it appears that we’ve “done enough.” And for those who claim, with Colin Powell, that “if you break the china, you own it” here’s a bit of news – no we don’t. America is busy dog-paddling its way out of Iraq, is looking for someone to negotiate with in Afghanistan, has so offended the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia that we are barely on speaking terms and has abandoned the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. We are leaving the china shop in a shambles, but too bad. You don’t “own it” if you can’t pay for it. And we can’t.

That the new Obama administration will re-engage in the Middle East is not in question. It will. But, in the wake of the failed “war on terrorism” (the definition of a “terrorist” has been broadened, apparently, to include anyone who’s not a Republican), the Bush administration’s dream of spreading democracy (so long as you are not Hamas or live in Pakistan) and the galactically stupid war in Iraq (whose purpose is yet to be determined), America will be focused more on – as one of my colleagues described it – “doing politics.”

Which is to say: After nearly 2,500 years of bumbling interventions (from Alexander the Great to Anthony Eden to George Bush), the future of the region is finally in the hands of the people who live here. The challenge for them is simply stated: They have to determine what they want.

On May 17, 2005, George Bush told the International Republican Institute that 60 years of American diplomacy in the Middle East had yielded 60 years of failure. The fault, he said, was America’s – because it had failed to promote democracy. “If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and resentment and violence ready for export.”

While Americans now doubt that democracy can be “promoted” and have turned against the policies (and leaders) that, in the name of democracy, cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, this does not obviate his statement’s essential truth: All of the region’s issues fade to insignificance, so long as the solutions to them remain in the hands of single party thugs, ruling cliques and family kleptocracies. The single most important issue facing the region is whether that will continue.

Unfortunately (or blessedly), the people of the Middle East will not have Americans attempting to “help” them in their search for democracy. We’re leaving your shop, shattered china and all, because our shop is on fire. By the way, it was arson.

Mark Perry is a director of the Washington and Beirut-based Conflicts Forum and the author of “Partners in Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace.” This commentary first appeared at, an online newsletter.

Iranian Economists Slam Ahmadinejad’s `Tension-Creating’ Policy

Iranian Economists Slam Ahmadinejad’s `Tension-Creating’ Policy

By Ladane Nasseri

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s foreign and domestic policies are exacerbating the country’s economic troubles in a time of “crisis,” according to an open letter from 60 economists cited on state-run television.

The economists, including professors from universities and institutions around the country, criticized Ahmadinejad’s “tension-creating foreign policy,” which has “deprived the country of trade and foreign investment opportunities,” satellite channel Press TV said on its Web site, citing extracts from the letter posted late yesterday.

The economists said that billions of dollars in costs are incurred as a result of UN Security Council sanctions that force Iran’s trade to be conducted mostly through intermediaries.

The letter, published in Iranian newspapers today, is the third from economists criticizing Ahmadinejad’s policies since he took office in 2005. Presidential elections are next scheduled for June 2009.

Iran is under three sets of economic and financial sanctions following the government’s refusal to halt its nuclear activities, which the U.S. and its western allies accuse of being aimed at developing weapons. The government in Tehran rejects the claim, citing the need to secure energy for a growing population that already surpasses 70 million.

Energy projects in Iran, holder of the world’s second- biggest oil and gas reserves, are suffering delays following U.S. pressure on international companies to cut back their involvement in the country. The Iranian government has played down the impact of sanctions, saying it possesses the necessary means and technology to proceed with its plans.

`Severe’ Social Problems

The economists also warned against planned changes to Iran’s subsidies system amid the global economic crisis, which is resulting in lower oil revenue for Iran. Ahmadinejad is pushing a program to cancel subsidies on energy and goods to redirect the cash as direct monthly payments to Iranians.

The plans may “before creating stability, result in uncontrollable strq inflation and lead to severe economic and social problems,” according to the letter published in full in Etemaad newspaper. Inflation accelerated to an annual 29.4 percent in September.

Oil revenue accounts for at least half the government budget and Iran risks facing a deficit amid falling prices. Crude oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange closed at $61.04 on Nov. 7 after rising to a record $147.27 a barrel in July.

A Word to the Israeli “Intelligence” System

A Word to the Israeli “Intelligence” System

Kawther Salam

November 9, 2008

Without further introduction, for what do you send me your death squads, you criminal morons? Exactly for what did you send me your fumbling, wannabe “agents” to follow me for hours like thieves, trying to provoke me, calling my friends? What do you want from a Journalist you have already kicked out of her country, you criminal terrorists? Are all the journalists you murdered in Palestine not enough, so that you now expand your terrorism into Europe? It would be easier if you kept these criminals at home instead of sending them to this quiet country, where decency exists and the law is respected.

Your fumblers call my colleagues in Palestine and my friends in Austria in the deep of the night, like bats, giving false names or none at all, hiding their phone numbers, asking stupid questions and telling inane lies to get answers. In Palestine your thugs pressure my colleagues with typical mafia methods: by denying work permits, ransacking their property or arresting and murdering them or their family members when they don’t “cooperate”. Here in Austria, you send people who think that they can get any kind of results by using the same criminal methods.

What did your super-agent “Diego”, the one who called my friend here in Austria,
expect? Did this character think that identifying himself as “a jew” would make anybody tremble in awe? “Diego the super-agent” was scared to leave his phone number and his name. My friend told me that “Diego” came across as a petulant nincompoop who grew more angry the more it became clear to him that he was going nowhere with his bald lies, bad manners and arrogance.

All what you are doing, in Palestine or here, are crimes, and all what you are getting are lies and people who laugh about you behind your back. Of course your intimidation tactics get my acquaintances in Palestine to call me and ask questions on your behalf, but together we tell you lies and laugh about your stupidity behind your back. Is that what you like, you pitiful people?

You kicked me out of my homeland Hebron because the moral degenerates and terrorists from Kach and Jewish Underground, those who squat in the heart of my homeland Hebron don’t like my work as a journalist, and as a result I live in Austria as a refugee. I continue writing the truth, and what I write does not meet the taste of you criminals. So you send me death threats, try to hack my website several times, and since all of that does not make me shut up, you now send a team to intimidate, to harass me, and possibly to murder me. What results do you expect to get from committing such crimes?

In my homeland Palestine you called and threatened me constantly, you harassed me physically, psychologically, and sexually. You denied me the basic right to practice my work as a journalist. You stole my home, my ID, my work, my family, my friends; just like what you did to uncountable other Palestinians. Your crimes against me were so numerous and your threats came so often that I stopped fearing you, because all of your crimes against me blurred into one big picture of ridiculous insanity.

I still wonder why you are calling my friends in Palestine and Europe to ask about me. Why do you send your murderers to Austria to walk behind me? What dirty mission are your criminals planning here? Do you really think that you will get anything favorable at all by sending people to commit acts of state sponsored terrorism in a country where the law is respected? Do you really think that transferring your methods of state terrorism to Austria will bring you advantages? Do you think that murdering one of your victims, a journalist in good standing, will help make Israel look better? I think not. The image of Israel is already as bad as can be in many parts of the world, your so-called “state” is seen by increasingly more people as a bad joke and a disgrace to humanity. Sponsoring acts of international terrorism in a state of law will be a disaster for your failed “state” in every sense. One thing is clear: the incompetent people who you sent have been caught, but not captured, and Israel will be guilty for whatever happens to me from now. If the leaves of autumn fall on my head, Israel will be guilty.

Do yourself a favor and stop sending these cowards. For now your “super agents” have been exposed as laughing stock, but what will happen if next time around one of them is caught? It was enough to shout to have your “super-agents” run away like rabbits. I felt victorious to see you like that because that was your real face: coward, criminally insane petty thieves.

Obama’s Council on Foreign Relations Crew

Obama’s Council on Foreign Relations Crew

Meet some of president elect Obama’s leading foreign and domestic policy advisors and likely administration members, every one of them a prominent member of the Council On Foreign Relations.

Will these people bring about “change” or will they continue to hold up the same entrenched system forged by the corporate elite for decades?

Susan E. Rice – Council on Foreign Relations, The Brookings Institution – Served as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright is a longtime mentor and family friend to Rice. Critics charge that she is is ill disposed towards Europe, has little understanding of the Middle East and would essentially follow the same policies of Condoleeza Rice if appointed the next Secretary of State or the National Security Adviser.

Anthony Lake – CFR, PNAC – Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, who was criticized for the administration’s failure to confront the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and now acknowledges the inaction as a major mistake.

Zbigniew Brzezinski – CFR, Trilateral Commission – Brzezinski is widely seen as the man who created Al Qaeda, and was involved in the Carter Administration plan to give arms, funding and training to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

Richard Clarke – CFR – Former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council under Bush. Notoriously turned against the Bush administration after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Also advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda.

Ivo Daalder – CFR, Brookings, PNAC – Co-authored a Washington Post op-ed with neocon Robert Kagan arguing that interventionism is a bipartisan affair that should be undertaken with the approval of our democratic allies.

Dennis Ross – CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC – Served as the director for policy planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton. A noted supporter of the Iraq war, Ross is also a Foreign Affairs Analyst for the Fox News Channel.

Lawrence Korb – CFR, Brookings – Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Has criticized manor of the invasion of Iraq but has detailed plans to increase the manpower of the United States Army to fight the war on terror and to “spread liberal democratic values throughout the Middle East”.

Bruce Reidel – CFR, Brookings – Former CIA analyst who wishes to expand the war on terror to fight Al Qaeda across the globe. Considered to be the reason behind Barack Obama’s Hawkish views on Pakistan and his Pro India leanings on Kashmir.

Stephen Flynn – CFR – Has been attributed with the idea for Obama’s much vaunted “Civilian Security Force”. Flynn has written: “The United States should roughly replicate the Federal Reserve model by creating a Federal Security Reserve System (FSRS) with a national board of governors, 10 regional Homeland Security Districts, and 92 local branches called Metropolitan Anti-Terrorism Committees. The objective of this system would be to develop self-funding mechanisms to more fully engage a broad cross-section of American society to protect the country’s critical foundations from the widespread disruption that would arise from a terrorist attack.”

Madeline Albright – CFR, Brookings – Currently serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors. Secretary of State and US Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton. Did not take action against the genocide in Rwanda. Defended the sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein. When asked by CBS’s 60 Minutes about the effects of sanctions: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

This is by no means an exhaustive list. Of course, had John McCain become president, being a member of the CFR himself, his administration would have been replete with CFR representatives also. Max Boot, Lawrence Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger, to name but a few, are all CFR members and were all advisors to the McCain campaign.

Please do your own research and add more names in the comments section of this report. It is important to document how these people are a part of the engine of global elitism and do not represent change. Only with this understanding will others wake up to the false left-right paradigm and be able to create the environment for real political change.

Foreign hand: conspiracy or fact?

Foreign hand: conspiracy or fact?

By Gloria Caleb
“We’ve moved from the insurgency phase to the reconciliation phase, but all’s not well. If foreign elements continue to infiltrate Balochistan, they could stir trouble and undermine our efforts to restore peace,” says Lt-Gen Khalid Shamim Wyne, the corps commander, indicating that in spite of the militants’ ceasefire, external forces have a role to play in destabilising the province.

For years, with only intermittent phases of peace in the province, the Pakistani establishment has been on its toes tackling insurgent elements in Balochistan. While the government believes that the trouble has been fomented by foreign elements with the aim of acquiring control over Balochistan’s plentiful natural resources, some independent analysts say that the insurgency is entirely the work of internal elements. Says former senator Sanaullah Baloch: “The unrest in Balochistan is the outcome of home-grown frustration.”

Yet others like Baloch nationalist leader Hasil Bizenjo indicate that it is a mix of both — outside influence and internal issues. While dwelling on the lack of basic facilities that have fuelled Baloch discontent, he adds: “The vested interests of many powers have focussed attention on Balochistan, the energy hub of the area. The establishment should tread carefully.”

With plans for an Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline passing through the province, the development of the Gwadar Port, and its proximity to Iran, it is obvious that Balochistan has attracted the attention of regional and world powers alike.

But political and economic rivalry between the major global powers has also kept interest alive in Balochistan. China’s close economic cooperation with the Pakistan government and its many projects in Balochistan have not gone down well in the US.

“The US believes that China’s involvement in Balochistan will give it greater access to the Gulf and Iran,” says defence analyst, Lt-Gen (retd) Talat Masood. Which is why there is a body of opinion that the US is using Baloch territory in Pakistan to fuel trouble in the Iranian Sistan-Balochistan province by supporting the Jundullah, a militant group fighting for Baloch rights in Iran.

“The US is playing a double game,” says a Baloch analyst, requesting anonymity. “On the one hand it provides the Pakistan army with weaponry to target the people of Balochistan to protect its oil investments. On the other it supports the Jundullah to tackle Iran.”

Although confronted with Iranian fears regarding the development of the Gwadar Port and the competition this would present to Tehran’s facilities, Pakistani officials refute theories that Iran may have a hand in the unrest in Balochistan.“There might be movement of insurgents across the border but it is definitely not government [Iran]-instigated,” says Lt-Gen Wyne. But he is not willing to rule out Indian and Afghan involvement in Baloch militancy.

“There is extensive involvement on the part of India and Afghanistan,” says Maj-Gen Saleem Nawaz, inspector-general, Frontier Corps, Balochistan, although he says that at this point there is “no insurgency” in Balochistan.

He accuses Indian and Afghan elements of propagating the theory of insurgency in Balochistan, adding, “perhaps India and Afghanistan plan to turn it into one”. He confirms the presence of militant training camps in Kandahar and Nimruz in Afghanistan.

His military colleague Lt-Gen Wyne asserts that a transfer of weapons takes place through the extremely porous border area with Afghanistan.

“Since there are more Pakhtuns in this area than Baloch, the former smuggle weapons to Quetta or other parts of Balochistan. These are then transferred to the Baloch [militants].”

Lt-Gen Wyne further questions the presence of Indian consulates in Kandahar.

“Consulates are meant to facilitate trade and travel. The consulates in Kandahar are doing neither. What is their purpose?”

Talat Masood, agrees that India could have a hand in brewing trouble in Balochistan.

“The Indians could be trying to reciprocate Pakistan’s actions in Kashmir.” However, the real problem, he says, lies within.

His views are at variance with those of Lt-Gen Wyne. “All this is highly exaggerated. Consulates have been there (Kandahar) for years. What can they do? You do not need consulates to stir trouble in a vulnerable region.” He nevertheless admits that the focus of rivalry between India and Pakistan has shifted from Kashmir to Afghanistan.

Citing the views of a pro-independence Baloch leader on the run, Hasil Bizenjo says that any help to fight the enemy — in this case the Pakistani establishment — is welcome to the separatists. “States do not break, they are broken down,” he says.

“The problem is the colonial thinking of the government — that the people will try to break the country if they are given their rights.

“This is wrong. If a Baloch gets his rights within the framework of Pakistan he will never demand independence.”

The International Bankers Get Their Hooks Into the Caucasus Countries

The International Bankers Get Their Hooks Into the

Caucasus Countries

Along with IMF loans come severe economic restrictions, intended to cause massive misery.  The “shock doctrine” of economics is class warfare in the disguise of “humanitarian relief.”

IMF bails out Ukraine with massive loan

The International Monetary Fund has approved a $16.4 billion loan to Ukraine. The money, $4.5 billion of which will be given immediately, is intended to help restore Ukraine’s economy and rebuild financial confidence.

The Ukrainian president Victor Yushchenko welcomed the IMF decision to grant stabilisation credit to the country.

In a statement, circulated by his press-service on Thursday, the president thanked IMF experts “for supporting our actions and plans for ensuring a stable functioning of the national economy and the financial system.”

He also said that the IMF’s assistance “will make it possible for the business community, and especially the financial sector, to feel more confident. The national economy will receive a major resource for the development of its priority spheres. The liquidity of the banking system will be guaranteed.”

Last month, the loan was jeopardised by the political crisis in the country, caused by an ongoing conflict between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Timoshenko.

But the deadlock has been resolved and the necessary legislation, required by the International Monetary Fund, has been passed.

“This decision is a signal to the world community on the raising of the credit of confidence for our country,” Yushchenko said.

Report: Pakistan accepts IMF conditions for financial aid

Pakistan has accepted 11 tough conditions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to overcome its pending balance of payment crisis, local newspaper reported on Sunday.

The IMF had proposed 16 conditions for financial assistance to Pakistan during the talks in Dubai last month, and “11 of the 16 conditions have been accepted with slight changes,” The News newspaper quoted a finance official as saying.

Pakistan is lobbying for possible financial help from friendly countries and financial institutions as it faces severe economic difficulties with plunging foreign exchange reserves and high inflation.

Analysts said the foreign exchange reserves can only afford one or two months imports for the country.

The rating agency Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the country’s sovereign debt to level of CCC-plus, close to defaulting on its commitments of external loan repayment.

Shaukat Tareen, advisor to prime minister on finance, said on Oct. 23 that Pakistan needs 4 to 5 billion U.S. dollars in 30 days for stabilizing the country’s economy.

Pakistan now pins its hope on possible loans from member states of Friends of Pakistan group, which will convene a meeting later this month in the United Arab Emirates.

But Pakistan insists it will resort to IMF’s help as the last option as the IMF often provides loans with conditions attached.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza told media earlier that he hopes Pakistan can avoid IMF assistance if it wins billions of dollars in aid from friendly governments.

An IMF package often involves cutting government spending, raising taxes, accelerating privatization, increasing interest rates, etc..

According to the conditions, the Pakistan government has agreed to gradually impose the Central Excise Duty (CED) on services and agriculture sectors at the rate of 8 to 18 percent in place of the General Sales Tax (GST), the finance official told The News newspaper.

The Pakistani currency will also be devalued after slight changes in the discount rate and exchange rate will be decreased officially by 6 to 7 percent, the official added.

Despite all the tough conditions, Pakistan would be compelled to seek the IMF assistance package because no friendly country has so far agreed to extend loan to Islamabad to meet its repayment obligations, the official said.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,

by Naomi Klein

Lessons from Argentina’s economic collapse

Esteban Morales

(Editor’s note: the article that follows is a very sobering account of the effect that the collapse of the Argentine economy (1999 – 2002) had on its citizens, as seen through the eyes of one of them. The economic collapse wiped out the middle class and raised the level of poverty to 57.5%. Central to the collapse was the implementation of neo-liberal policies which enabled the swindle of billions of dollars by foreign banks and corporations. Many of Argentina’s assets and resources were shamefully plundered. Its financial system was even used for money laundering by Citibank, Credit Suisse, and JP Morgan (sound familar?). The net result was massive wealth transfers and the impoverishment of society which culminated in many deaths due to oppression and malnutrition. I am not sure the same thing is about to happen here, but I am sure that there is a distinct possibility that it might. Just food for thought – JSB)

(read here)

%d bloggers like this: