[A] dual state exists when a part of the constitutional elite, in order to preserve the current system [of power], forms a hidden power, with a principle of legitimation of its own — outside and in contra-position to that of the formal constitution — in order to permanently condition the political system through illegal methods, without going so far as to subvert the formal one, which partly maintains its efficacy.
Category: Power Elite
Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of the ‘Functional’ Approach to the New World Order
By Will Banyan (Copyright © March 2005)
In the dense academic language employed in the International Relations departments of most universities, “functionalism” refers to that policy of shifting responsibility for resolving various problems from the nation-state to international bodies “indirectly, by stealth.” According to one key academic International Relations textbook, under functionalism “the role of governments is to be progressively reduced by indirect methods, and integration is to be encouraged by a variety of functionally based, cross-national ties.” As international mechanisms expand in scope and authority, “the role of the nation-state would diminish and the prospects for world government [would] become more real” The functionalist approach, quite simply, seeks to undermine the nation-state and build world government, not through a frontal assault but by outflanking it.
Readers of populist accounts of the New World Order would be more familiar with Richard N. Gardner’s formulation of functionalism presented in his article “The Hard Road to World Order” published in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal, Foreign Affairs in 1974. In his contribution to the “quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides conditions for economic progress”, Gardner had endorsed an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece…” This “functional approach to world order”, Gardner explained, would involve “inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis…”
The impact of Gardner’s article on New World Order researchers is not to be underestimated; it is probably the most widely cited Foreign Affairs article in the genre, with many researchers crediting Gardner as the sole architect of that strategy. Dr. Steve Bonta, for example, the Executive Director of the Robert Welch University and a regular contributor to the John Birch Society’s periodical, The New American, declared in 2004 that Gardner was obviously “one of the most influential men alive” and the “intellectual godfather of the modern new world order.” That Gardner’s “program for world order” was still being followed three decades later, argued Bonta in a direct reference to Gardner’s 1974 article, was “testament to his cunning as a global strategist.”
By Will Banyan Copyright © 14 July 2012 (updated 18 February 2015)
Author’s note: First published in 2012 on the Martin Frost website, Mr Baron did write me a heated response, but that served mainly to defend his criticisms of Israel and Jewish power, rather than to acknowledge he had misrepresented A.K. Chesterton’s views in disputing Macklin’s charge that Chesterton’s book was “anti-Semitic”. Note also that as Mr Baron no longer writes for Digital Journal – his tale of woe can be found here – I have updated this essay to put his work for Digital Journal in the past tense. Mr Baron now has a blog.
Up until March 2014, Alexander Baron was a prolific contributor to Digital Journal, writing on all manner of topics, but with a particular focus on music, crime and conspiracies. His efforts on the last topic are obviously noteworthy as he seems to share Robin Ramsay’s impatience with those conspiracy theorists that play fast and loose with the facts, or indeed make the most outrageous claims with little or no evidence. In doing so Baron gives the impression of being eminently reasonable, even intractable in his devotion to evidence over the attractions of ideology, and gratifyingly intolerant of those buffoonish flimflammers David Icke and Alex Jones. Indeed, many of Baron’s missives on Icke have much to commend as he has lambasted the oracle of the Isle of Wight for his embrace of censorship, purveying “nonsense” on 9/11, and for promoting “implausible” stories about the House of Rothschild supposedly “bankrolling Hitler.”
But, to abuse a much-abused cliché, appearances can be deceiving. A visit to Alexander Baron’s other website gives a different and more complete sense of his rather complex and controversial views on political and historical events of some note than can be detected from his Digital Journal pieces alone. Discerning readers would notice something of a gulf between the reasonable Alexander Baron who writes for the Digital Journal and the more controversial Alexander Baron, the Holocaust-denying opponent of “organised Jewry”, whose works grace www.infotextmanuscripts.org. But in his lengthy op-ed piece in Digital Journal defending A.K. Chesterton (1896-1973) author of The New Unhappy Lords: An Exposure of Power Politics (1965), an early and uniquely British take on the New World Order conspiracy, Baron appears to bridge that gap between his two selves. The object of Baron’s ire is the article “Transatlantic Connections and Conspiracies: A.K. Chesterton and The New Unhappy Lords” by Graham Macklin, from the Journal of Contemporary History (April 2012).
Facts, Fallacies and Fantasies about Jewish Power
By Will Banyan Copyright © 30 August 2012
According to their strongest critics, conspiracy theorists (or conspiracists) are, at best “harmless lunatics and amusing eccentrics”, but at worst, they resemble “the totalitarian immersion of cult members into herd thinking.” The litany of conspiracist sins, as compiled by Professor Stephen Plaut from the University of Haifa, is long:
Conspiracism feeds on misrepresentation of facts, outright lying, and tendentious twisting of unrelated factoids into a grand theory. Conspiracists take the logical fallacy, the non sequitur, to incredible heights. They are notoriously prone to rearrangement of their perception of reality based upon the mere power of suggestion.
Chip Berlet, an American researcher long associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center, also charges conspiracists with utilising “common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent.” More colourfully, Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, in his book Among the Truthers (2011), asserts that all conspiracy theorists share the common trait of having “spun out of rationality’s ever-weakening gravitational pull, and into mutually impenetrable Manichean fantasy universes of their own construction.” Of course, neither Professor Plaut, nor Mr Berlet, nor even Mr Kay can be considered disinterested observers when it comes to the apparent dangers posed by conspiracism. But that does not invalidate their essential observation about the fallacies and fantasies that populate the conspiracist sphere.
One of the common fallacies often employed by conspiracists is the “straw man”, which is defined by Wikipedia as:
an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
by Phillip D. Collins ©, July 11th, 2008
Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
This model of economic fascism was adopted by Germany and Italy in the 1930s. And, I submit to you that such a marriage between the state and corporate power has taken place here in the United States.
Does this sound like a baseless contention? Allow me to substantiate it with history.
A form of Corporatism began to infect our constitutional republic in the 1930s. It propagated itself under the euphemistic appellation of “planned capitalism” and was hailed as a desirable inevitability. In 1936, Lawrence Dennis published The Coming American Fascism, a polemic contending that America’s adoption of stringent public regulation and the enshrinement of corporate power would invigorate “national spirit.” However, Dennis believed that economic fascism had a major obstacle to overcome.
Dennis wrote, “It cannot be repeated too often that what prevents adequate public regulation is liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights.”
Dennis proffered a chronocentric portrait of America’s traditional republican model of government, caricaturing it as an outmoded “18th-century Americanism” that would eventually be supplanted by “enterprises of public welfare and social control” (i.e., economic fascism).
by Phillip D. Collins ©, June 18th, 2008
With the presidential elections steadily approaching, a question is being asked with increasing frequency: Who are you voting for? Personally, this questions aggravates me. Why? Because it is framed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. This framework consists of the confining dialectics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, and, of course, Democrat vs. Republican. The latter of these dialectics is, for me, the most frustrating. Why? Because there’s no real difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Whenever the religious adherent of partisan affiliations attempts to “convert” me to their creed, I direct him or her to a quote from an obscure book entitled Tragedy and Hope. In this book, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley writes, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
In truth, the purpose of a two party system is the maintenance of a political cartel. Within such a framework, viable alternatives are overlooked and the same logically bankrupt status quo remains enshrined. To qualify this contention, I will briefly examine one major issue that occupies the mind of the voter: the war. To be sure, this is not the only point of convergence for the Democrats and Republicans, but it is one of the most transparently fraudulent dichotomies on the political landscape. The dominant perception holds that Republicans are “hawks” while Democrats are “doves.” However, history does not bear out this dualistic portrait.
By Phillip D. Collins
Author’s note: The following is excerpted from the forthcoming book, Invoking the Beyond, which I am co-authoring with Paul David Collins.
As all of humanity’s treasured metaphysical propositions (e.g., the soul, the noumenal realm, God, etc.) swiftly vanished behind the barrier that Immanuel Kant arbitrarily erected between noumenon and phenomenon, there was a corresponding tendency among the critics of traditional theistic outlooks to ascribe noumenal characteristics to the phenomenal world. One case in point was, of course, the biologicized pantheism of Darwinism. Ironically, the premises for this latest iteration of pantheism were established by Spinoza, a theoretician of whom Kant was deeply critical. Nevertheless, the Kantian Rift engendered epistemic incertitude concerning noumenon, thereby rendering ostensibly tenable the subsequent incorporation of noumenal qualities into the conceptualization of a self-sufficient immanent order. Essentially, Spinoza suffused the phenomenal world with divinity, which is a categorically noumenal state of being. Another case in point was Georg Hegel, who advanced the notion of a Weltgeist that was directing “an ongoing developmental (evolutionary) process in nature, including humanity” (Taylor 381-82). This process was historically expressed as a “dialectical struggle between positive and negative entities,” which invariably resulted in a “harmonious synthesis” (381-82). Naturally, such a Manichean process would entail a substantial amount of violence and bloodshed. Not surprisingly, Darwinism “gave credence to the Hegelian notion that human culture had ascended from brutal beginnings” (386). To be sure, there are some disparities between a Spinoza and a Hegel, but a common penchant among such thinkers is a propensity to conflate noumenal attributes (e.g., eternality, infinitude, omnipotence, etc.) with objects of phenomenal experience (e.g., nature, the material cosmos, genetics, biology, etc.).
by Paul David Collins ©, March 31st, 2008
The Kunz Murder
Some crime scenes are so grisly and gruesome that they beggar description. One such scene was discovered on March 4th, 1998 by a young teacher at the residence of Father Alfred Kunz (Kennedy 150). Father Kunz was discovered face down in a pool of his own blood with his throat cut (150). While the culprit was never found, there is a body of evidence that suggests Satanism was involved in the murder. A mutilated calf was discovered on a farm fifteen minutes away from Kunz’s dead body (150-151). The calf had its throat slit and its blood drained into a milk pail (151). The calf’s genitals had also been cut off (151). Cult experts consider calf mutilations to be “the calling card or ‘signature’ of Satanists” (151). Kunz’s slit throat was also significant. The oaths of many secret societies include throat slicing as a penalty for revealing a group’s closest secrets (152-53). Was Kunz exposing the operations of a cult? Kunz’s friend and associate, former Vatican insider Malachi Martin certainly thought so. Six weeks after Kunz’s murder, Martin appeared on a radio show claiming to have inside information that Kunz’s murder was carried out by Luciferians (153). Luciferians are not your garden variety devil worshippers, but they are devil worshippers nonetheless.
Kunz’s murder came shortly after he made it known that the format of his hour-long radio show called Catholic Family Hour was going to be modified (151). Malachi Martin, a former Vatican insider and expert on deviant sex rings within the Catholic Church, had become a regular guest on the show (151). The night Kunz was murdered was the exact same night that Kunz’s friend, Father Charles Fiore, took over the Catholic Family Hour show (151). Fiore planned to begin exposing satanic pedophile rings within the Catholic Church (151-52). Fiore was in a perfect position to collect intelligence on deviant sex rings both inside and outside the Catholic Church because of his participation in the Council for National Policy (CNP). Fiore had been on the CNP’s Board of Governors in 1982, and had been a CNP participant in 1984 and 1988 (“Council for National Policy: Selected Member Biographies,” no pagination). Fiore had also been a member of fellow CNP participant Ed McAteer’s Religious Roundtable Council (no pagination).
David Rockefeller’s meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the KGB-influenced removal of Khrushchev and Rockefeller’s meetings with Alexei Kosygin
By Nicholas Hagger (Copyright © 29 December 2014)
Editors note: This is a response to Will Banyan’s earlier article, Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 2).
It is more than ten years since my book The Syndicate first appeared. It provided a context for the activities of the New World Order and focused on the evidence. More evidence has since come through for David Rockefeller’s meeting with Khrushchev on 29 July 1964, and this meeting can now be seen within the context of Rockefeller’s many meetings with Brezhnev’s Premier Alexei Kosygin after the downfall of Khrushchev in October 1964.
On pp.ix–x of The Syndicate I wrote that a judgment has to be made as to whether the New World Order – the elitist, self-serving attempt at world government as distinct from a democratic World State – works for the good of everyone or for the interests of the few. I wrote: “In covering so much ground in one book I realize it often makes assumptions and judgments that may seem questionable, particularly in the case of recent events. As in any court of law, some of the evidence for the Syndicate and its actions will be less than satisfactory – circumstantial, hearsay and inadmissible. But a judgment has to be made.” On pp.275–7 I set out the case for the prosecution and defence and invited the reader to give a verdict. On pp.325–7 I discussed the varying quality of my sources in a ‘Note to the Reader on the Quality of the Sources’.
In The Syndicate I presented (say) a thousand facts like pieces of a jigsaw and fitted them together to convey a picture and pattern. I added 109 pages of ‘Notes/Sources’. I invited the reader to decide whether the whole picture and pattern were accurate. I also invited further scrutiny of the evidence so that readers could be certain of the truth.
We are now looking at just one of the thousand jigsaw pieces and are, for the moment, ignoring the larger pattern. David Rockefeller gives an account of his meeting with Khrushchev on 29 July 1964 in his Memoirs, which arrived too late to be included in The Syndicate (although I was able to add it to the Bibliography of the final proof). He includes a “paraphrase” of the notes his daughter Neva took of the meeting. Neva’s notes (pp.226–231) show that the topics discussed were:
Rediscovering the David Rockefeller-Nikita Khrushchev Meeting
By Will Banyan (Copyright © 15 December 2014)
Of all the seemingly incredible incidents that comprise the mythology about the political power of the now 99-year old plutocrat David Rockefeller Senior, perhaps the most enduring is that his private meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow in July 1964 precipitated Khrushchev’s removal from power just a few months later. While no scholars have established any link between their meeting on 31 July 1964 and Khrushchev’s supposedly voluntary “retirement” on 14 October 1964, at the hands of his Kremlin rivals led by Leonid Brezhnev; many conspiracists remain convinced these events are directly connected. “David Rockefeller went to Moscow in 1964 and had Krushchev fired because he was in the way of business with China,” claims the Out With It! website. “David Rockefeller summarily fired Kruschev (sic)”, the late Eustace Mullins declared in his book The World Order (1984). In his book Hiding in Plain Sight (2000), author Ken Bowers claims:
[David Rockefeller] went to see Kruschev (sic) in Russia in 1964 and told him it was time to abdicate his power and go into retirement. Twenty-four hours later, Kruschev resigned his position (p.131)
Most recently – as of October this year in fact – Servando Gonzalez, writing on the NewsWithViews website, offered this observation at the end of his revisionist and quite contrarian account of the Cuban Missile Crisis:
Unfortunately, Khrushchev did not get rid of Castro, but David Rockefeller got rid of Khrushchev less than two years after the crisis.
In 1964 David visited the Soviet Union and had a two and half hour conversation with the Soviet Premier. We don’t know what the […] subject of the conversation was, but we may safely surmise that David dressed down Khrushchev for his unauthorized attempt to get rid of David’s secret agent Fidel Castro. Barely two months later, David’s secret agents in the Soviet Politburo deposed Khrushchev.