The Illusion of Elite Unity: Elite Factionalism, the ‘War on Terror’ and the New World Order (Part 1)

Terry Melanson

Webmaster/editor of Conspiracy Archive; author of Perfectibilists: the 18th Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati.

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Futureshock says:

    Hi Will,

    It’s quite an old article so I don’t know if you still think the same about this, but I presume you do.

    .
    As said before, I really like your book reviews and otherwise critical articles on the researchers in the scene who fail to document their works, but on the NWO as a concept and on the elite I think the skeptic worldview has gotten too strong a hold on you. It’s quite easy to drown in details, but the helicopter-view is the most important I think. You also only mention the worst researchers out there, like Marrs and Icke. There is a lot more and far better evidence around and you know that.

    .
    I think that to really understand the NWO matter, one must learn the esoteric side. One World Government is only the exoteric explanation, and not even very relevant. While I’m a new kid on the block as it comes to publishing writing on these subjects, I have been researching it for a long time. As you for instance can read in my essay THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM [see website link], for someone like Julian Huxley the New World Order meant nothing less than “the next step in our human evolution”! I already have written multiple essays going further into this subject, and many more will follow. But it goes way way way way deeper than just a silly world government. Many newer articles by the Collins gentlemen on this website also go quite deep and well-researched into this. Do you not agree with their view?

    .
    A short comment by me. Of course there is no complete elite unity and never was. Not everyone in the ‘elite’ is after the same. Politicians are anyhow not very relevant, and also never were. I wouldn’t call them the elite. I’m certain that for instance most presidential advisers are way higher on the real power structure than the presidents themselves. The whole world and the way is has to go is planned decades ahead, incl. all wars, etc. This because the end goal is known and they work by a cosmic time-clock so to speak. But much of the elite in-fighting is fake, that I am sure of. There might be differences in opinion how, but in the end all factions who come into power will work to the world government and world unity. At the top the Cold War was also not real, but it had a very different real reason.
    .

    President Bush and his neocons seemed like a different breed and a rogue part of the so-called Establishment. You wrote:
    —————————————————-
    “ This has become obvious in the new millennium, particularly since the launch of the so-called ‘War on Terror’ by the administration of President George W. Bush in the wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001. With its doctrines of ‘pre-emptive’ war, maintaining US military superiority and demonstrated willingness to sideline the United Nations, the Bush Administration has made it all too obvious that some factions would much rather rule the world directly from Washington DC, rather than via the plethora of supranational institutions based in or controlled from New York, Geneva, Brussels, and Tokyo.”
    —————————————————–

    .
    The short answer is that the US had to become hated by the world, more than it already was. The function why the US was founded is almost over. It’s function was to unite the world under democracy; manifest destiny, the New Atlantis, blabla, and soon it will be brought back to its real status. What you need to understand is that the World Order will not have a superpower like the US, hence this superpower has to be destroyed. And the War On Terror will do just that. Firstly, moneywise because the debt of the foreign wars will be the death knell, just as it was with the Roman Empire. Really some same kind of ‘action plan’ as in ancient Rome is used for the controlled demolition of the US. The other Agenda-point the War on Terror fulfills is the fact that the last few countries in the world that weren’t subservient to the global banking system have been or are in the process of being overturned. This first had / has to be done, before the next phase kicks in. As H.G. Wells already wrote in the 30’s, World War III would begin in Iraq and spread from there to the whole Middle-East and then far beyond that. The war had to happen, and it is orchestrated to last until the world is one and the people chipped. There will never be a moment when one could say “now there are no more terrorists”, so they will sell it as the only way to achieve world peace. That’s one of the major mistakes people make, thinking that the elite means the same with ”peace” as we do. Brainchipping the world has always been the end goal, from the 30’s or 40’s certainly, but I think even before 1900 this was already decided by the REAL rulers behind the scene. Because at the very top they have much more advanced knowledge and techniques. And not even only for total control, that’s once again only the exoteric reason.
    .
    The real unity of the top elites is not in political doctrines, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It goes much much deeper. It’s a Brotherhood of initiates who are bent to unite the world into one single living organism, which will constitute the next step in human evolution. This has been documented more than 100 years ago in great detail and the whole world is living through it today, so there has to be a very strict collaboration behind the scenes on some kind of supranational level. There is absolute unity, but one that we probably never really gonna find out, because it happens in way more secret meetings than that we know of.
    .
    .
    —————————————————
    PS: can’t someone do something about the poor formatting in the comments? It’s not even possible to create white lines between paragraphs, so it becomes one long unclear string of text.

  2. Will Banyan says:

    Futureshock,

    Fascinating comments, but I must disagree as follows:

    1. Yes “The Illusion of Elite Unity” is seven years old now, but as a historical overview of elite factionalism in the US, I think it retains validity and shouldn’t just be dispensed with because it has a few years on it. If we employed that logic, surely we would have collectively cast Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” into the dustbin of “old” books long ago.

    2. Skepticism should be the main driver of any research into the N.W.O. both in terms of approaching the evidence for it, and for considering claims made about there being a N.W.O. conspiracy. The problem I have with a lot of research into these matters is that (a) claims are made with little or no evidence, or with unreliable or invented evidence; and (b) preconceived ideas often take precedence over what the facts actually are. Actually examining the claims made, critically and in detail, actually works to reinforce some of the basic “helicopter level” themes if you like that they are making, whilst exposing all sorts of other more intriguing details that helicopter-level theorists, in their zeal to make a sensational point, overlook. I also note that in your comments you commit the further sin by appealing to evidence that we cannot see or cannot disprove: “There is absolute unity, but one that we probably never really gonna find out, because it happens in way more secret meetings than that we know of.” Convenient. My paper on the Rothschilds and Invasion of Iraq (in Lobster Magazine back in 2012) tried to tackle this approach where people make an accusation, not based on any direct evidence, but more on a belief about the inclinations and powers of a particular group and/or persons. It helps, I think, on occasion, to make the effort to see if the evidence supports a particular claim. In the case of the Rothschilds there was no direct evidence to support the claims made (none of the people making the claims bothered to provide any), but I was able provide evidence of a plausible motive on their part, and to at least show they knew to varying degrees quite a few people who went on to part to play in the decision to invade. No smoking gun, but they were more than well-connected bystanders.

    3. Disagree on the neo-cons. Your theory is not new to me. I think the higher level NWO theorists struggled for years to understand where the neo-cons fit into things and what their objectives were. Because America has been weakened by its adventurism in the Middle East, it is assumed that was the original unstated objective. If researchers, such as yourself, really believe that, then I think much more work needs to be done to try to show why that is the case. One potential angle of analysis might be in terms of: (a) the Bush/neo-cons being collectively stupid enough to think their plan would work and do so to America’s strategic and economic benefit; (b) NWO faction knowing they are wrong, but seeing opportunity to weaken the US, despite risk of enhancing instability in the Middle East; and (c) facilitating Bush/neo-con faction coming to power, 9/11 etc. Now that’s just a wild theory to me. I think (a) is true, but (b) and (c) are speculative. But I think that elite factionalism explains it better and has far more evidence to support it.

    4. There can never be too much detail! My piece on Bilderberg and the 1973 Oil Shock is nearly 9000 words long!

    Your website is very interesting. Some fascinating links and tidbits of information, not that I agree with the totality of your analysis, but we can address that in another time.

    • Mr. Resister says:

      “4. There can never be too much detail!”

      For my little pea-brain there can be. HA. I recently read Brave New World Revisited.
      http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
      And Aldous sheds some light on this in the Foreword.

      ” The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by omission and simplification. Omission and sim­plification help us to understand — but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing; for our compre­hension may be only of the abbreviator’s neatly formu­lated notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have been so arbitrarily abstracted.

      But life is short and information endless: nobody has time for everything. In practice we are generally forced to choose between an unduly brief exposition and no exposition at all. Abbreviation is a necessary evil and the abbreviator’s business is to make the best of a job which, though intrinsically bad, is still better than nothing. He must learn to simplify, but not to the point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the essentials of a situation, but without ignor­ing too many of reality’s qualifying side issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not indeed the whole truth (for the whole truth about almost any important sub­ject is incompatible with brevity), but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and half-truths which have always been the current coin of thought.

      The subject of freedom and its enemies is enormous, and what I have written is certainly too short to do it full justice; but at least I have touched on many aspects of the problem. Each aspect may have been some­what over-simplified in the exposition; but these successive over-simplifications add up to a picture that, I hope, gives some hint of the vastness and complexity of the original.

      Omitted from the picture (not as being unimportant, but merely for convenience and because I have dis­cussed them on earlier occasions) are the mechanical and military enemies of freedom — the weapons and “hardware” which have so powerfully strengthened the hands of the world’s rulers against their subjects, and the ever more ruinously costly preparations for ever more senseless and suicidal wars. The chapters that follow should be read against a background of thoughts about the Hungarian uprising and its re­pression, about H-bombs, about the cost of what every nation refers to as “defense,” and about those endless columns of uniformed boys, white, black, brown, yel­low, marching obediently toward the common grave.”

  3. Will B says:

    Touché!

  4. Futureshock says:

    Hi Will,

    1.] This article certainly still has validity and is sound. Of course old sources are not to be discarded, most of the time the sources that have stood the test of time are the best. I thought more of the way the agenda has proceeded since 2007, which at least to me really looks carefully orchestrated from behind the scenes.

    .

    2.] “I also note that in your comments you commit the further sin by appealing to evidence that we cannot see or cannot disprove”
    —————–
    A sinner? “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [as a wise Stonecutter once said. You know, the one who daily works on his global ashlar.]
    .

    “I think, on occasion, to make the effort to see if the evidence supports a particular claim.”
    ——————
    Yes. But do you then hold the premise that all evidence is available to you / us as researchers? Because that’s of course not always the case. In most of the cases we’ll have to do it with only some crumbs that are thrown to the public. I’ve tried to explain that in my Boredom Of Skepticism-article. There might for instance be a lot proof of Rothschild being caught red-handed, but well outside our sphere of influence, for instance behind paywalls or just classified company documentation, etc. Isn’t it even naïve to think that we as regular folks can ever get our hands on the full literature / documentation / etc, and therefore the full picture? The whole world of literature is so compartmentalized. Therefore sometimes I personally decide to be a bit crude and picture before me how the plans were described 100 years ago, or even 50, and the whole world has been or is in the process of getting there. Soon not one country will be completely solitary. Maybe Korea, but that small country is not very relevant for the world order at large. Is all this possible with a high degree of factionalism? I doubt that. Therefore the best conclusion for me is that there is another level of control above the factions. And that’s where my website’s tries to be about. I focus mainly on the Darwin-Huxley-Galton clique, which has had far more influence on the world as all bankers and politicians combined. And that’s because they are of a special branch of hereditary elite, the doctrinal branch so to speak. The long-term planners for the agenda.
    .

    “Because America has been weakened by its adventurism in the Middle East, it is assumed that was the original unstated objective. If researchers, such as yourself, really believe that, then I think much more work needs to be done to try to show why that is the case.”
    ——————————–
    Well, this is impossible to proof in detail, but if you see the full picture [or think you see], then it’s a logical conclusion. One which many already had stated before they event went into the Middle-East. The best explanation I know is that the Twin Towers represented the Jachin and Boaz, the two pillars of the Temple Of Solomon, which were destroyed too, and “were carried away in pieces for ease of transportation” to never be seen again. [see Wikipedia] This constituted the end of the world power which was prevalent in that Age. The two pillars also represent Male and Female, and the collapse signified the real start of the 21st century; the century in which the Fall will be undone and human will become androgynous again. And this collapse would also end the US as world power. The Petronas Towers were mentioned as the new icon, which are two towers, also called twin towers, but joined by a Masonic-like compass, signifying the alchemical wedding of male and female so to speak. In the greater picture this sounds not unreasonable, but this can of course never be succinctly proven in any way. But almost nothing of the ‘higher’ esoteric conclusions can be proven in detail, but to understand the full picture you have to venture into these grey terrains. The middle road is not to publish these speculations, or with a disclaimer. In my newer essays I’ve also added some thoughts and hunches, because it can also just be the one little spark one of your readers needs to fill it in further.

    .

    “(a) the Bush/neo-cons being collectively stupid enough to think their plan would work and do so to America’s strategic and economic benefit;”
    ——————-
    I think there never was real doubt that ‘their’ plan would fail, because it was a collective plan of the people above them. But they might fall in the “shadowy elite” class which isn’t easy to pinpoint. The Neocons have had to cope with heavy hits, that’s for sure. With some of them almost being indicted, but in the end they stand above the law, they all do. And you see now that the next Bush can make his turn. They were just the “bad cop” so to speak, so Obama could come in as the carefully prepared “charismatic personality”, who, with the help of “the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence”, would bring in “the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society”. [Between Two Ages]
    .

    4. “There can never be too much detail!” Certainly, I also only try to publish articles with some volume and scope.
    .
    PS: “not that I agree with the totality of your analysis, but we can address that in another time.” Yes, would be great. In my article on Cecil Rhodes I came to another conclusion as you too, also some conflicting sources. I’ve typed an e-mail for you addressing some points, but decided not to send it last week, because I thought you wouldn’t like that. It’s one of the more speculative articles, on Rhodes, but my intent with the website is mostly to fill in gaps existing with earlier researchers. Or maybe other / higher levels of communication they maybe do. Through names, etc. This sounds silly, for me too at the start, but too many things match for it to be pure coincidence.

    Greets.

    • “crumbs that are thrown to the public … proof of Rothschild being caught red-handed, but well outside our sphere of influence, for instance behind paywalls or just classified company documentation”

      If the historian is transparent with his source material, then we all have the ability to consult it for ourselves. Other than books, journals and newspapers, archival material may be hardest to consult – but it is not out of reach to the general public at large. Classified material is another matter completely. It is just as much out of reach to the historian as it is to the layman. We work with what we have – the “crumbs” are the same for everyone. I repeat: the “crumbs” are the same for everyone.

      • Futureshock says:

        Terry wrote: “If the historian is transparent with his source material, then we all have the ability to consult it for ourselves. […] We work with what we have – the “crumbs” are the same for everyone. I repeat: the “crumbs” are the same for everyone.”
        .
        Yes, true. You make two important points. The first is that the historians have to be transparent. I know that many important historians have been initiates too, and that many historians were appointed by the ruler he served and wrote ‘his-story’. And I think it’s often more important what they omit than what they do write. Orwell called it “through the memory-hole”, remember? Certainly the last few decades when some historians are literally paid more than a million dollar to write a book. There hasn’t been published one book in history that can possibly be worth so much money. As soon as a civilization creates ‘stars’ it’s on its decline, and the same goes with celebrity historians. That’s how they made Niall Ferguson for instance. And Richard J. Evans is another example. Big names, but made big by the financial powers behind the scene paying them millions for moderate books that omit the most important facts.
        .
        The book Hidden History by Daniel J. Boorstin goes briefly into the flaws of modern historiography. He was of opinion that due to the suffocating way modern science is regulated the non-professional historians, like Churchill, wrote the best history books. This book also contains an interesting chapter on how FDR became the “first nationally advertised president” or something in that regard. With the help of George Gallup and Walter Lipmann if I remember correctly. I don’t have the book at hand, and it lies somewhere in my ‘book-basement’ buried under big stacks of other books. He was the predecessor to Billington as Librarian of Congress. Those guys always have a bit more detail in their books than most of their fellows, because they sit on one of the largest [public available] collections.
        .
        But Quigley might be the best example of how much we and other historians really miss. His books are almost unbearable for other historians because they contain so much detail [unsourced] they don’t know of or have access to. Look for scholars who dared to cite Quigley, there aren’t many, and all write that they are completely in awe of the detail. That’s because Quigley tells us that he had special access to the hidden archives to the CFR. So it seems there is some kind of level above the normal academic level of historiography. Arnold Toynbee was one of the authorized historians too, and with him goes the same. Naïve fellow-historians have dubbed him racist and other slurs just because they didn’t understand that Toynbee wrote the history for the Dominant Minority [as Huxley called them and I adopted this]. Therefore Toynbee added little paragraphs that went into the next step in evolution where the white man [a small part of it] takes evolution in their own hands and wipes out the rest, etc. That’s the goal set out by the early Fabians and before the Darwins and Galtons. The Fabians where just the left-wing arm of the RIIA, the brains so to speak. Almost everything that is our Western civilization can be traced back to this clique and the moneyed powers they were affiliated with.
        .
        Will Durant was also one of their historians, and on my website I have added some quotes from his mind-blowing book The Story Of Philosophy. In THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM one quote at the end. And some more will follow, with a linked scanned PDF of that book, in one of my upcoming articles called APOCALYPSE NEVER; REVEALING THE METHOD OF THE ARMAGEDDON-ENGINEERS. So keep your eyes open for that if you would be interested. This book by Durant gives a deep insight on how the NWO-agenda completes what Plato once started in his Republic. Francis Bacon was the Plato of our Age, and he lives on through the Royal Society, which is more or less the executive science arm of the NWO. In my article INDECENT ATMOSPHERE you can find a bit more background info on that.

        Greets.

        • Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope was more of a textbook for his class – that’s why there’s no citations. Scholars knew about it at the time but weren’t afraid of it or of citing it. They saw it for what it was – a standard textbook for his wide ranging course on the history of civilizations. Quigley wasn’t an historians historian. He was a teacher first and foremost. He hardly ever wrote papers and published them in journals. He was a classroom sort of guy until he died. His peers, on the other hand (including his teachers and mentors) published innumerable works which in turn advanced their own profession and won them accolades. Quigley’s reference to having studied the “secret” records of the Round Table Groups in the 1960s, I think, directly refers to the precise citations included in the posthumously-published Anglo-American Establishment.

          Other authors have since consulted those exact archives – Robert Rotberg, especially, who is considered the expert on Cecil Rhodes. The latter is of the opinion that Quigley exaggerated his case for the continuity of the Rhodes secret societies and took too many liberties with the source material. See his paper “Did Cecil Rhodes Really Try to Control the World?” which examines Quigley’s use of those sources. He didn’t even know who Quigley was until I told him about him. Rotberg uses the same sources as Quigley, yet both came to different conclusions. Having read both authors – both citing the same exact material – I kind of agree with him that Quigley exaggerated his case beyond what the evidence warranted.

          There’s a reason why Quigley is the star boy for conspiracy land. It’s because he was more like them than he let on – his teacher Crane Brinton as well – all the while vociferously denying it. I wrote a bit about my take on some aspects of this in the following: “An Evaluation of Carroll Quigley’s Thoughts on the Illuminati, Buonarroti and the Carbonari.

          As far as Boorstin goes, he was one of the best historians of his generation. He cites everything he writes about, has advanced history quite a bit, and was one of the best storytellers to boot. I haven’t read his Hidden History, but his Creators and Discoverers are unmatched for what they are. By “Hidden History” I assume he means “obscure” or “not widely known” history, rather than the hidden hand of history common among conspiracy theorists.

          Ferguson, on the other hand, is definitely an establishment historian, and dodgy as hell. I don’t trust him, nor his motives. He is an example of the historian who has had access to records that us mere mortals do not – probably after selling his soul, the little rat. Will is more familiar with his books and career than I am and has written an expose of sorts, here: “The Professor’s Progress.”

          • Futureshock says:

            Hi Terry,

            I know of Rotberg. In my article on Cecil Rhodes I also go into him a bit: http://futureshock2050.com/essays/old-man-on-the-mountain.
            Rhodes was very clear about his plan for world domination, and it rhymes perfectly with what other individuals of his level wanted.

            Rotberg was himself a Rhodes Scholar, and I personally think he agitated against Quigley to do some ‘damage control’. I really don’t believe he didn’t knew Quigley. I think the chances are even bigger that Quigley appointed Rotberg as a Rhodes Scholar than the fact theat both wouldn’t know each other. That was one of Quigley’s extra-curricular activities, appointing the Red revolutionairies. And Rotberg, the ‘Red Mountain’ is named as a big one. And if someone is called the ‘foremost expert’ on anything, he’s most of the time made to be that, by the establishment. Rotberg is certainly part of the Globalist establishment.
            .
            Quigley’s books weren’t surpressed for nothing, and the printing plates of Tragedy & Hope destroyed. He was thwarted and sabotaged a lot.

          • I’ve been called the “foremost expert” on the Bavarian Illuminati in the English language. I was not “made to be that.” It’s something that has to be earned. You have to specialize and excel in a single subject and dig up all the minutia available. I am not sure if Rotberg is considered the “foremost expert” on Rhodes or not. But I do know that out of all the citations that Quigley made in his Anglo-American Establishment, only one scholar consulted the same material. That’s why I called him the expert; and that’s why I contacted him and asked him about Quigley. He was literally the only one on the planet who had consulted the exact same material, and yet came to distinctively different conclusions. He thanked me for it, read the book, then wrote a scholarly paper on it, and gave me an acknowledgement for making him aware of it in the first place (though he called me a conspiracist blogger).

            At any rate, Rotberg doesn’t really succeed at debunking Quigley, if that is what you think I mean. He disagrees mostly with the success of the scheme. I actually found a good overview of Rotberg’s article, here: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/15197
            Rotberg’s conclusions amounts to a lot of nitpicking and naysaying on the basis of there being too much “elite disunity” in the org to begin with (of all things!)

            At any rate. We now have on record a scholarly attempt at refutation of Quigley’s conspiracy theory. Before this there was nothing, not even a review. I asked his opinion and he gave it. We all can compare both works for ourselves and see who is the most persuasive.

          • Futureshock says:

            Hi Terry,

            Thanks for the link to Intrepid Report. It’s an interesting article. Didn’t knew the writer John Klyczek, but I will look into his other writings too.
            .
            Time will tell how much of Quigley’s details turn out to be true. Unfortnately more than is good for us. I found the works of Alvin Toffler and Jacques Attali the best in explaining how the new feudal system is implemented. I learned of both by listening to Alan Watt from Canada.
            I cite Attali’s A Brief History Of The Future several times in my articles. This book can only be explained as a NWO-handbook, just like Quigley’s book were. Therefore they need no citations and literature list, because most of the information is from secret archives that others haven’t got access to. But the ‘agenda’ is out there, so nobody can ever say that it really is secret. It’s an ‘Open Conspiracy’ and everything they want to do with the world and the people is published. But as you know too: who reads anymore in these times? That’s why they are able to succeed. That’s how H.G. Wells formulated it too. Some of his non-fiction works have come out way too detailed. See my article MAGGIE MACABRE for a link to the World Futurist Society that goes into Wells.
            .
            Greets.
            .
            I still have hundreds of books to go to use in new articles on my website, with many incriminating passages that haven’t been used before in the ‘conspiracy world’ to quote. So my ‘thesis’ of the NWO-Agenda being the perfecting of the whole world in an alchemical initiation, will become much more clear I hope. But it’s so big it’s almost impossible to comprehend.

  5. Will Banyan says:

    Hi Futureshock,

    The best we can do as researchers, to both come to some sort of plausible conclusion and to ensure our readers know where we are coming from, is to exploit the evidence at hand and not let the desire to speculate, no matter how tempting, override that goal. We should be about discovering the truth, not inventing it.

    Reading your responses I see what could easily be interpreted as a series of excuses for speculation: “do you then hold the premise that all evidence is available to you / us as researchers? Because that’s of course not always the case”; “we’ll have to do it with only some crumbs that are thrown to the public”; “Isn’t it even naïve to think that we as regular folks can ever get our hands on the full literature / documentation / etc, and therefore the full picture?”; “this is impossible to prove in detail” and “almost nothing of the ‘higher’ esoteric conclusions can be proven in detail.” You even use the term “speculations” to describe the “grey terrain” you venture into.

    I agree that some things are impossible to prove, probably because they are wrong or impossible to be right, but also because we do not have access to all the facts – not everything is written, and not all that is written is easily discovered; but that’s no excuse for not trying to find out and to resist the desire to indulge in speculation, no matter how entrancing the results of the latter process might be. to return to my example of my paper on the Rothschilds and Iraq, I was dealing with a lack of evidence presented by the three authors making the claim – David Icke, Nicholas Hagger and Henry Makow – for Rothschild involvement in the Iraq invasion. It was a throwaway claim based almost entirely on their suspicions; in short the allegation was speculation, nothing more. Makow even admitted as much to me, admonishing me when I enquired as to what evidence he possessed to support his allegations. His response was abrupt: “They don’t take pictures and keep public records. If you have to ask this question, you don’t get it.” In other words, there was no evidence, but because there was none, that was the evidence, which fed into Makow’s belief in what the Rothschilds were capable of. It’s this sort of approach, where speculation takes precedence over facts, that gives comfort and ammunition to professional anti-conspiracists. My approach on the Rothschild paper was to exploit Google as much as possible, to consult various databases, and also consults books about the Iraq war and biographies and memoirs of the various players near and far. It took a lot of work over a long period of time, but it enabled me to build up a more plausible scenario for Rothschild involvement and to provide confirmation of their links to some of the players in the whole affair, but without resorting to speculation.

    We have to make do with what we have, but in terms of what is available in the public domain, I really don’t think that researchers are scouring libraries and the profusion of databases anywhere near the extent to which they should. If they had, the anti-N.W.O. theories would arguably be held in much higher esteem than they are now. Instead much of the literature available is considered fodder for academics and aspiring journalists who want to say something profound or amusing about “conspiracy theories” and the people they consider foolish enough to believe in them.

    I note that you also make a number of references to “another level of control above the factions” and, in regards to the neo-cons, you suggest they were perhaps working to a “collective plan of the people above them”, adding that “they might fall in the ‘shadowy elite’ class which isn’t easy to pinpoint.” Do you believe this to be true, or do you know to be true? That is, if the latter is the case, do you have any evidence at all to support such speculation? Who was above the factions I describe? And to whom were the neo-cons deferring to? Or, to step back a bit, are you able to deduce from the words and deeds of the neo-cons that they were being fed instructions or were receiving guidance from elsewhere? Evidence please.

    Send that email.

    • Futureshock says:

      Hi Will,
      .
      “We should be about discovering the truth, not inventing it.”

      That’s a great statement he, and I fully agree. Though it can be aggravating if you know something to be true, but can’t prove it. Or you highly suspect it. And the best is then to not claim it or publish it. But if it were to be true and it would in the end be detrimental to many people, like many NOW-related theories suggest, don’t you agree that the ones who decided not to publish all that they couldn’t 100% proof would regret it in a high degree in the later stages? A good example of this can be found in my article DIVINITY DEFERRED, where I quote some Nazi scientists who didn’t do anything when they saw the German tyranny build up. In that essay I examine three of the so-called Skeptic academics and their studies on conspiracism. I also go into what I think it’s the greater agenda why such people are put in to forcefully and pathologically declare everyone even remotely interested in conspiracy-related material as mentally ill.
      .
      Will wrote: “I agree that some things are impossible to prove, probably because they are wrong or impossible to be right, but also because we do not have access to all the facts – not everything is written, and not all that is written is easily discovered; but that’s no excuse for not trying to find out and to resist the desire to indulge in speculation”.

      I agree too. It’s similar to the point made above. For the researchers who don’t even bother to research there is of course no excuse. And most of the well-known names fall in that category, that’s why I fully endorse your book reviews etc. I had added an article ON THE MOVEMENT yesterday on my website, which is far from complete, but there I also mention that one of the major flaws of NWO-research is quantity over quality. As soon as you make a show or popular website on it, you quickly are urged to publish as much as possible, to not let down your regular visitors I presume. Most people in the Movement are only thrillseekers who don’t understand much of the material at all, and are just seeking for their prejudices to be confirmed. And many of the big names cater on that. It’s something we have to live with, I think. Many of the main claims made might be real, but the arguments or sources given to proof is false. And deep buried in the academic literature the proof is there, but most are not able to find this. Because it’s too much trouble, or maybe even more often, because of incompetence due to not knowing how the academic world works.
      .
      Will wrote: “My approach on the Rothschild paper was to exploit Google as much as possible, to consult various databases, and also consults books about the Iraq war and biographies and memoirs of the various players near and far. It took a lot of work over a long period of time, but it enabled me to build up a more plausible scenario for Rothschild involvement and to provide confirmation of their links to some of the players in the whole affair, but without resorting to speculation.”

      Yes, that’s the correct way to go normally. I most of the time try to work this way too. On my website I almost only use academic material as sources, and sometimes some esoteric books by initiates as Manly P. Hall or so. Those books sometimes fill in the gaps that fall within the academic literature. Those books can never be taken of face-value, and most of the time they even write in the introduction that their book contains both exoteric and esoteric. But sometimes you just understand a statement to be true, because they explain things you didn’t understand before. Or you are made to think you understand, that is possible too.
      .
      “ If they had, the anti-N.W.O. theories would arguably be held in much higher esteem than they are now. Instead much of the literature available is considered fodder for academics and aspiring journalists who want to say something profound or amusing about “conspiracy theories” and the people they consider foolish enough to believe in them.”

      Yes, and the better researchers are thrown into the loony bin on guilt by association. That’s how counter-intelligence works. That’s why they steered the UFO community onto the NWO research, I think. In the early 90’s some good books were published and this had to be neutralized. So guys like Jim Keith and William Bramley [both members of Scientology if I’m not mistaken] were put out to mix the real stuff like mind-control and so on, with fiction like aliens, both ancient and recent, and UFO’s. And on this foundation people like Icke, Jim Marrs, Tsarion and many others built. Most are no conscious agents or so, but it’s so easy to fall for the enticing stuff. One of the less well-known key players in this was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest. His book The Human Phenomenon lays out the agenda of the next step in human evolution. This was published after his death, and I suspect that this book was highly doctored and complemented by the unknown individuals who write the long-tern agendas. Many of them have been Jesuits in the last centuries. Both the New-Age ‘collective evolution’ as the scientific aim for transhumanism etc. was highly influenced by Teilhard. Brzezinski cites him a few times in Between Two Ages, and says that his teachings were “Communism without the dictatorship” or something in that regard.
      .
      Both the thesis and the antithesis of big societal movements always stem from the same source. That’s how the Dominant Minority keeps control and how they achieve Progress; by synthesizing the two into the sought-after higher new system, which will then be the new thesis. Our whole recorded history works on that basis. Sometimes clearly visible and sometimes not, because we only have the “crumbs” to work with.
      .

      Will wrote: “in regards to the neo-cons, you suggest they were perhaps working to a “collective plan of the people above them”, adding that “they might fall in the ‘shadowy elite’ class which isn’t easy to pinpoint.” Do you believe this to be true, or do you know to be true? That is, if the latter is the case, do you have any evidence at all to support such speculation?”

      I think with the Neocons it’s the same as what I’ve just described above. In the US also both sides stem from the same source. We have Obama implementing a new updated version of the Marxist-light policy, so to speak. But the Neocons descend from the Neo-Trotskyites. So both sides have their deepest roots in Communism. There is of course much more to it, but both are bent on world revolution, world domination and the destruction of national sovereignty and nationalism altogether. Nationalism is the main enemy of the Dominant Minority and as soon as they have their chance nationalism will be written into law as a mental disease and later on as a thought crime. Just as in the Soviet Union. The ‘Soviet Experiment’ was a test-bed for the world, the second after the ‘American experiment’. The last experiment is China, the synthesis between Capitalism and Communism and the example for the rest of the world to follow. That’s why Rockefeller endorsed it so openly: it is one of their projects. And with every new project they have been able to further standardize and robotize the masses, and in their final experiment they are planning to perfect this. That’s their deepest desire: perfection, completion, unity.
      .
      This is not the place to go into the Neocons in detail. It’s a long time ago that I have studied them, and I think their show is over anyway. To give one example of a ‘must-be’ scenario which I really think is pushed from a level above the national politics, is the American healthcare thing. Obama won in 2012 so the final version became Obamacare, but if Romney had won it would have become RomneyCare implemented federally. Both are the same to a large degree [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference] and it has to be, because this is the way the US will be brought down to Third World status, as the whole West is planned to go. The plan is that the fixed costs every citizen has, housing, insurance, mortgage, etc. will with about 10-15 years increase to about 100% of the people’s income. This will lead to a complete implosion on travel, which aids their plans of eradicating private transport [Agenda 21] and also travel by plane. All to save our dear Mother Earth of course. And as soon as people become more and more fixed in their own surroundings, slowly the electronic prison grid will start to function, where the electronic gates on bus station, train stations, and airports will only open if you have the right clearance. You and I won’t have that, I’m sure. First this clearance will be on your phone, later the phone will become a microchip. Watch the 2011 movie In Time, by Andrew Niccol. This is the future reality packed into a fictional story, similar to Soylent Green for instance.
      .
      Keep an eye on one of the upcoming essays on my website, called THE U.N. WORLD ORDER. There I give a nice quote of the man who is normally called “the first Neocon” where he openly declares that they would go for world empire, but “of course” not under that name, but several others. Another Neocon ideologue, Michael Ledeen, gave one of its most recent incarnations: “democratic revolutionaries”. This could just have been used by the Bolsheviks and it probably was.

      Everyone uses the farce of democracy, because the Dominant Minority [the group above all] has chosen that system to unite the world. I’m busy writing an article on Democracy too, and this one will be called MOB FOOL; THE MYTH OF DEMOCRACY AND WHY THEY CHOSE IT TO UNITE US. Will be published in about two weeks I hope. Some others have a higher priority.

      • Futureshock says:

        Hi Will,
        .
        I’ve referred to a new article as THE U.N. WORLD ORDER , but I decided to call it PEACE OF MIND; Visions Of Emerging Empire.
        .
        http://futureshock2050.com/essays/peace-of-mind
        .
        Greets.

      • Will Banyan says:

        Hi Futureshock,

        Just a few comments:

        If you know or believe something to be true then you can present it either as unsourced allegation or as an untested hypothesis, so long as you make this clear. Just declaring something to be true, but without providing evidence for it, leaves one open for entirely justified criticism.

        For example, you present your suspicion that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s final work, posthumously published was “highly doctored and complemented by the unknown individuals who write the long-term agendas.” To expand upon this point to justify your suspicion would take a great deal of time, I suspect, but would you be able to explain the grounds for your suspicion? Is that based on your deep familiarity of Chardin’s entire corpus, or because you found a few ideas in there you just thought were odd or undesirable? Moreover, even if you did find some ideas in his final book that were subtly or significantly different or at odds with previous works, do you think it be possible to definitively say if his book was deliberately modified to deliver a different message, or if it represented an evolution in his thoughts? Comparing a version of his final manuscript with what was actually published might be a way of (1) confirming changes were made, (2) assessing whether those changes significantly altered or “doctored” his message; and (3) if (2) is found to be true, to attempt to identify who made those changes and why. I believe some of his papers are at Georgetown University in the U.S.

        I’ve been perusing your website and it’s a little unclear how you deduced that the “Dominant Minority”‘s grand plan contains all the elements you list above.

        Regards

  6. This article’s premise certainly makes sense to me.

    I agree that there is (and, to some extent, always has been) at least some (if not much) diversity among this vast group of worldwide conspirators about what precisely their ultimate goal should be, as well as about how precisely they should go about achieving it. It seems to me that their initiates harbor a diverse spectrum of incorrect beliefs that range from hard-core communism to Fabian socialism to fascism, et cetera.

    And there are changes over time, also. As with any large organization, there are changes in leadership. There are also grand-scale experiments performed which provide results that are analyzed, and which then lead to changes in means/ends accordingly. And there are needed adjustments made to their plans in response to changing circumstances, such as cultural or economic or technological changes, over which these conspirators have no (or limited) control.

    I think that it’s because of a lack of consensus that Mikhail Gorbachev once stated that “Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” So, I think that they’ve been trying to find unity among themselves about their ultimate ends, as well as about what means they should use to get themselves there.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been an astute reader of the Vigilant Citizen website for some time now. One thing that can be concluded from his presentations is the widespread usage of the exact same ‘Illuminati’ symbolism. People in the Far East are subjected to the same images of all-seeing eyes, pyramids and the disturbing allusions to Monarch mind control as Westerners. I am less certain what other parts of the world experience but given the predominance of ‘Western’/US culture, all are ultimately going to be subjected to the same ‘concepts’. The Illuminati symbolism in the Asian pop music culture is in fact so overt and blatant I would argue it strongly motivates the idea of “only one NWO”: The Asians have their own style to this Illuminati garbage but it still uses the precisely same content and concepts. This being simultaneously different yet still the same suggests being indirectly directed but by people with the same agenda.

    If the powermongers were truly fractionalized – which sounds much less conspirational and much more in tune with a ‘classical’ world view – it becomes more difficult to explain such the phenomenon of a global culture: surely, those ‘in the know’ would prefer to avoid the people they wish to lord over to come under propaganda not aligned to their own particular preferred set of dictatorial insanity. More importantly, we see almost universal movement in the direction of globalization and the submission of sovereign national states to supranational entities, which would again in no way be in the interest of fractionalized groupings.

    I do not think your notions here hold much merit. If there were no unified global conspiracy the world would instead be fractured into clashing national states, as was the case prior to the world wars and the formation of these various mega-entities they subsequently motivated in the name of “world peace and preventing this from happening again”.

    • Mass media explains global culture; uniformity in symbolism as well. In addition, Freemasonry is a worldwide phenomenon, the embodiment of mystery and secrecy and the ubiquitous purveyor of the arcane. The all-seeing eye is the perfect example of a meme.

Leave a Reply to Will Banyan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *