The Deep Politics of God Revisited

Featured-CNP-blurbs

by Paul David Collins ©, March 31st, 2008

The Kunz Murder

CNP | Lucifer's LodgeSome 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).

(more…)

More

Scientology Fronts: Delphian Schools, sntp.net, et al

Featured-Scientology-Delphi-School

by Terry Melanson ©, Nov. 6th, 2007

Scientology is both immoral and socially obnoxious … It is dangerous because it is out to capture people, especially children and impressionable young people, and indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the unquestioning captives and tools of the cult …

The auditing – the processing – begins at an early age. […] In “The Second Dynamic” 1982 edition under the heading “Children’s Confessional Ages 6 – 12″ is a “processing check for use on children”. It is a very long and vigorous interrogation. […] I agree with Dr. Clark [an expert witness] that ‘Scientology training is training for slavery’.

– Justice Latey, in a 1984 High Court decision

Delphian School, Oregon The other day while data mining the interweb, I came across an online PDF of Charlotte Iserbyt’s The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. I’d forgotten how good that book is and got caught up reading it once again. As I reached the passage that highly recommends the book The Leipzig Connection, this time I decided to see whether it was available on Amazon.

It was; and the first review immediately caught my attention:

An Essential Guide to Understanding This Book, June 7, 2001 …

This book, although rooted in fact, was part of a continuing attempt by the Church of Scientology to discredit professional psychology and psychiatry by any means possible. The book was published by the Delphian Foundation, a Scientology organization that runs a church school outside a small town in rural Oregon, and its sole purpose is to slander, by any means possible, modern psychology and anyone and everything associated with it.

While there was indeed a Wilhelm Wundt who was influential in the growth of experimental psychology, and while this new technology was backed financially as part of the Rockefeller family’s attempt to clear its name through public philanthropy, what underlies the thesis of the book is the implicit theory of conspiracy that has played such a large role in the growth of Scientology and in the activities of the group as a whole.

I would advise most strongly that the message of this book be taken with a grain of salt, as the book as written is not what it purports to be and its underlying purpose leads one on a different trajectory intellectually and factually than it might otherwise appear to do.

Buyer beware – question everything in this book, particularly all supposed “facts” as presented .

– By LRH “lance2289″

(more…)

More

Rejoinder: Speculation is not a Substitute for the Facts

Featured-syndicate-sources2

By Will Banyan (Copyright 10 January 2015)

In his response to my article, Nicholas Hagger has sought to shore up the claim made by him and other researchers that David Rockefeller was somehow involved in the ouster of Nikita Khrushchev. In so doing, however, Hagger opts for a number of tactics that only serve to highlight the serious shortcomings of the research methodology utilised in his book The Syndicate; as well as the severe gap between his claims to scholarly objectivity and what he actually delivers. But the primary shortcoming of his defence is what seems to be his argument that the facts are optional and can be disregarded and replaced with speculation if they do not fit with the overall “pattern”.

The “Pattern” Lacks Integrity

Hagger gamely suggests that his book The Syndicate provided “context for activities of the New World Order and focused on the evidence”. His writes that his book “presented (say) a thousand facts like pieces of a jigsaw and fitted them together to convey a picture and a pattern.” This seemingly magnanimous approach apparently involved inviting the reader to pass judgement on whether the “New World Order” was desirable, included caveats acknowledging some of the evidence would not stand up in court, and concluded with a case for the “prosecution and defence”. In short, Hagger seems to be suggesting that The Syndicate embodied scholarly detachment, that it was balanced, and committed to the facts.

(more…)

More

Albert Pike to Mazzini, August 15, 1871: Three World Wars?

Featured-Taxil-Hoax-1

by Terry Melanson, Oct. 5th, 2010

Le diable au XIXe siecle Or, how Michael Haupt said, that William Guy Carr said, that Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile said, that The Cause of World Unrest said, that the confessed hoaxer Gabriel Jogand-Pagès aka Dr. Bataille aka Leo Taxil said about Albert Pike and Giuseppe Mazzini in Le diable au XIXe siècle, v. II, 1892-1894, p. 605 (but actually pp. 594-606). Got it?

I don’t derive any satisfaction from a debunking. I really don’t. Discovering the truth is a reward in itself.

Having a knack for getting to the bottom of a thing also helps with maintaining credibility. Historiography is among other things concerned with source criticism. And while I’m not an academically trained historian, I am quite aware that one should strive to consult the primary source as opposed to relying on the word of secondary or even tertiary accounts.

The matter at hand deals with an alleged “three world war” prediction from famed Mason, Scottish Rite Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike. William Guy Carr was the key purveyor of the tale which, to me, was suspicious at the least.

Off and on I’ve been working at it. And I’ve finally cracked the case.

The “Three World Wars” website and Carr

Let’s begin with the modern populariser of the Pike/Mazzini, 1871 “letter.”

In 2003, an Englishman by the name of Michael Haupt [fig 1] launched [fig 2] his website threeworldwars.com in response to Jihadist terrorism and the American invasion of Iraq. Backed by the knowledge gleaned from a conspiratorial view of history and an obvious impending cataclysm, the words of William Guy Carr, attributed to Albert Pike, seemed to precisely predict the dire circumstances unfolding in the Middle East.

(more…)

More

Check Your Pattern

Featured-Kosygin-Rockefeller

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:

(more…)

More

Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 2)

Featured-Rockefeller-Khrushchev

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.

(more…)

More

Bad Company: Chuck Hagel vs the ‘New’ Foreign Policy Establishment

Featured-Chuck-Hagel

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 25 February 2013 & 01 March 2013)

Author’s note: On 24 November 2014, Chuck Hagel resigned as Secretary of Defense. The circumstances of his retreat from public office were contentious; Obama’s claims that Hagel had determined that it was “appropriate time for him to complete his service” was greeted with derision by most Beltway observers. Most reporting suggested that Hagel’s apparent decision was driven by his failure to penetrate Obama’s inner circle, his frustration with being micro-managed by Obama and his aides, and for finding himself repeatedly “out of step” with the White House on many issues. The irony of this situation is that by the end of his brief tenure, Hagel had earned the affection of those whom had opposed his confirmation (as detailed below), particularly Israel and pro-Israel forces in the US. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yalon praised the outgoing Secretary as a “true friend of Israel” and Abraham Foxman, National Director of the US-based Anti-Defamation League likewise lauded Hagel’s “energetic stewardship of America’s commitment to Israel’s security.” It would seem that Hagel had demonstrated fealty to the wrong master…

President Obama’s decision to replace his outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with former Senator Charles (Chuck) Hagel has rapidly proved to be one of his most difficult and controversial Cabinet-level appointments. At least since Obama’s attempt to nominate US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as the next Secretary of State ended in tears – and the elevation of Senator John Kerry, the Skull and Bonesman Democrat presidential candidate of 2004, into that feted position. Senator Hagel’s primary sin, in the eyes of his Republican interrogators in the Senate, and his detractors amongst the neo-conservative punditocracy, was that this prospective US Defense Secretary was insufficiently pro-Israel.

Ahead of his confirmation hearings in January this year, for example, Hagel was repeatedly accused by neo-con gadfly, William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, of having “anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides” (Dec 24, 2012); “dangerous views on Iran” and an “unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews” (Jan. 4, 2013). Kristol also attacked Hagel for making the apparently “vulgar and disgusting charge” that the US invasion of Iraq was a “war for oil” (Jan. 5, 2013). Heaven forbid! In the same august publication (Jan. 7, 2013), former Bush Administration official Elliott Abrams, a presidentially pardoned felon, casually implied that Hagel was anti-Semitic because of his allegedly “hostile” attitude towards the Jewish community of Nebraska in 1989 over the closing of a USO facility in Israel.

(more…)

More

The ‘Israel Lobby’ Controversy: Elite Factionalism or Elite Conspiracy Theory?

Featured-Israel-Lobby

by Will Banyan © 2008

Author’s Note: This is an extended and slightly revised version of an article which originally appeared in PARANOIA (issue 44) Spring 2007.

The publication in March 2006 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, as a working paper for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and as an article in the London Review of Books, aroused much comment in the American media and academia—most condemnatory. The authors, academics John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt from Harvard University, have had their work widely dismissed as being both conspiratorial and anti-Semitic.

“[T]his paper is anti-Semitic” declared Professor Eliot Cohen from Johns Hopkins University, in the Washington Post (April 5, 2006); nor was it “research in any serious sense,” claimed Marty Peretz in The New Republic, but “the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds.” According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, the authors shared with white supremacist David Duke “the same interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests” (Dershowitz, p.41). Even Stephen Zunes, a left-wing critic of U.S. support for Israel, implied that in subscribing to an “exaggerated claim of Jewish clout,” Mearsheimer and Walt were “flirting with anti-Semitism” (Zunes 2006b, p.15).

At the same time, there were some observers who were clearly overjoyed at the appearance of The Israel Lobby as it seemed to confirm their belief that the U.S. is, in fact, ruled by a “Zionist Occupation Government,” or some other sinister Jewish cabal. David Duke, for example, praised it for having “told the truth about the proverbial gorilla in the room: the Zionist lobby and its enormous political and media power” (Duke 2006). The Israel Lobby, claimed a commentator for Rense.com, left “absolutely no doubt that Israel not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy and our political parties, but our media as well” (Lang 2006).

(more…)

More

Genesis: The Creation of the Saudi Crime Syndicate

Featured-Jack-Philby

by Paul & Phillip D. Collins ©, Oct. 6th, 2007

When it was discovered that money from Saudi Princess Haifa bint Faisal had found its way, into the hands of Al Qaeda operative and advance man for the 9/11 hijackers Omar al-Bayoumi, the Saudi Princess put forward one of the worst alibis ever concocted. Princess Haifa claimed that she was giving the money to a woman named Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat so she could treat her thyroid condition (“The Saudi Money Trail,” no pagination). The good Princess claimed she had no idea that Majeda and her husband, Omar Basnan, were passing the money to Omar al-Bayoumi (no pagination). The problem is that Majeda’s husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a “vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer” (no pagination). According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan “celebrated the heroes of September 11″ and referred to September 11 as a “wonderful, glorious day” (no pagination). Basnan is also known to have “met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States” (no pagination). Princess Haifa also connected to Omar al-Bayoumi through her husband, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Omar al-Bayoumi had worked for Dallah Avco, the aviation services company owned by Prince Bandar’s father, Prince Sultan (no pagination). All of this seemed to suggest that more connected Princess Haifa to Omar al-Bayoumi than just unintended charity.

However, the 9/11 Commission accepted Princess Faisal’s alibi at face value. Why did the Commission give thumbs-up to such a flimsy explanation? The Commission never intended to find the truth behind 9/11. Its job was to cover up the fact that the United States government and the American aristocracy were intimately tied to the amalgam of terrorist financiers and criminals collectively referred to as the Saudi elite or Saudi Royals. This alliance goes back to the birth of the modern state of Saudi Arabia. This genesis story doesn’t begin with a charismatic Arab leader, but with a member of British intelligence: St. John Philby, known also as Jack Philby.

Jack Philby: Saudi Arabia’s Founding Father

Many people are more acquainted with Jack Philby’s son, the notorious Communist double agent, Harold Adrian Russell Philby, also known as Kim Philby. However, Jack’s story is no less important. Jack could be considered the founding father of Saudi Arabia. Jack Philby was a British Civil Servant who was dismissed for sexual misconduct (Loftus and Aarons 25). From there Jack was picked up by British secret service MI6 in 1915 (25). The British secret service was known for its anti-Jewish ranks that viewed all Jews as secret communists (31-2). The anti-Jewish sentiments found in the British secret service had trickled down from the British power elite. The British saw the Balfour Declaration as merely a foreign propaganda tool meant to get American military support during World War 1 (29). The British actually favored more of an Arab presence in the Palestine territory with a small Jewish minority to placate America (29). This is why the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised that Palestine would be “a national home” as opposed to “the national home” for the Jews (29). The Balfour Declaration’s language would allow for a situation where the Jews would be insignificant in the Middle East.

(more…)

More