by Paul Collins & Phillip D. Collins ©, Nov. 18th, 2006
Few who have researched the UFO phenomenon are not familiar with the Majestic 12 documents. This controversial series of documents surfaced in 1984 and have been debated ever since. While a related report’s discovery in the National Archive lends corroborative evidence to the case for the authenticity of the MJ-12 papers, chronological and formatting anomalies within the documents arouse substantial skepticism. However, all debate aside, what is important about the MJ-12 papers is the portrait that they paint for the public mind. The papers present a shadowy group of policy professionals allegedly established by a secret executive order of President Truman on September 24, 1947. The underlying theme of the MJ-12 documents is inherently technocratic. That is, they dignify the concept of a Technocracy. A technocratic society, or Technocracy, can be defined as follows:
Technocracy, in classical political terms, refers to a system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialized knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions. (Fischer 17)
Oxford Professor Carroll Quigley also wrote about a dictatorship of “experts,” suggesting that a cognitive elite “will replace the democratic voter in control of the political system” (Quigley 866). Of just such a democracy of “experts,” H.G. Wells stated:
- Russ Baker has an opinion on the Bilderberg group; writes about it.
- “American New Age was and is, par excellence, a Masonic Age,” says Philip Jenkins. As is Western Esotericism proper.
- Aaron Dykes highlights the ascendancy of information technology kingpins at Bilderberg, hand-in-hand with head spooks and so-called privacy advocates.
- Professed know-it-all Neil de Grasse Tyson’s derision toward the entire discipline of philosophy. Jay rightly tears him a new one.
- Latest installment of Joyce Nelson’s “The Rockefeller Files.” Irving Oil is mentioned in connection with the Energy East pipeline. Multi-billionaire Irving and sons, by the way, run their own fiefdom here in New Brunswick, Canada, with an unmatched media monopoly never-before seen in the western world; so much so, that you never read their name in print in the entire province, unless they are kissing babies or endowing university chairs in journalism.
- John Glad makes his latest case for Eugenics by telling us that Jews believed in it too.
- Military invokes the goddess of wisdom, art and war—Illuminati mascot—to manipulate and gain intel on “social movement mobilisation and contagions.”
- No links to share on Moncton cop killings. Everything thus far has been a sad mix of reactionary rhetoric, cookie cutter conspiracism or statist cop-loving worship. (Irving, in the midst of the tragedy, disgustingly tried to profit from it with Facebook ads linked to their paywall monopoly rag papers)
by Terry Melanson ©, Sept. 28th, 2006
“We’re talking about such an important thing, we’re talking about the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody learning about it, right away you’ve got to be hugely concerned,” [Mel] Hurtig said.
My first thought following the news of the secret meeting of elites at Banff Springs Hotel, Alberta, Canada (Sept. 12-14), was that this amounted to a new group of insiders in the tradition of the Bilderbergers. This assessment turned out to be more precise than I had originally anticipated.
According to a participant at the 2006 North American Forum held in Banff, the Forum began last year as a “parallel structure” to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) for North America, which was announced on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas. As the Banff conference was coming to a close, Thomas Shannon addressed officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa, Canada:
by Paul David Collins ©, Sept. 28th, 2006
Huey Long once asserted that fascism would first appear in America as anti-fascism. Whether you consider the man to have been a hero or a tyrant, Long hit the nail on the head with this assertion. President George W. Bush recently characterized Arab terrorists as fascists. During a press conference held at his Texas ranch, Bush stated that the terrorists “try to spread their jihadist message – a message I call … Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism” (Greene, no pagination). The President’s contention concerning Arab terrorists is, for the most part, correct. There is little difference between a radical Islamic fundamentalist and a goose-stepping Nazi. However, when one examines the American political landscape more closely, the tremendous hypocrisy of Bush’s statement becomes apparent. While denouncing Islamofascism in the public spotlight, criminal factions in the government are actually connected to the terrorists behind the scenes. Islamofascism is not merely the refuge of fanatics; it is a well-oiled, highly intricate, government-sponsored enterprise.
A key character connecting the government to the terrorist network is Grover Norquist. Norquist is a GOP/Bush operative who helped the President gain the support of Islamic people and organizations here in the United States. The Nation magazine referred to Norquist as “‘Field Marshal of the Bush Plan” (Gitell, no pagination). However, Norquist can be characterized as much more than just a Bush supporter. Grover Norquist is best described as the tie between the Administration and Islamists. Seth Gitell elaborates:
The Protestant Norquist is a founding director of the Islamic Institute, a socially conservative Muslim think tank that eschews international issues in favor of domestic issues such as tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. In addition, Norquist’s lobbying firm, Janus-Merritt Strategies LLC, was officially registered as a lobbyist for the Islamic Institute as well as for Abdurahman Alamoudi, the founder and former executive director of the American Muslim Council. Public records show that Alamoudi has done more than $20,000 worth of business with Norquist’s firm, on issues relating to Malaysia. (No pagination)
by Paul David Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006
Recently the Central Intelligence Agency added yet another scandal to its ever-growing list. The scandal involved the outsourcing of torture. The following news article elaborates:
Two nations in support of the White House’s 2003 invasion of Iraq – Poland and Romania – are at the heart of a European Union investigation on human rights abuses and torture claims at camps allegedly run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Poland and Romania, along with Bulgaria, have indicated this week they intend to withdraw troops from Iraq saying the economic and image costs have run too high.
The White House doesn’t directly comment on whether or not the CIA is running secret prisons in Europe to house and torture al Qaeda captives, but vows the claims warrant an investigation.
However, more information from Europe has uncovered at least two CIA special flights landed in France in 2002 and again in 2005, but investigators did not know the final destination of those flights, which used a CIA Learjet and Gulfstream III. But the European Union says more than 300 flights in total have involved clandestine CIA activities. (No pagination).
by Phillip D. Collins ©, Sept. 9th, 2006
Anatomy of a Weltanschauungskrieg
Historically, humanity has divided somewhat evenly into two diametrically opposed camps: those who subscribe to a spiritual, theistic Weltanschauung and those who do not. The philosophical milieu of ancient Greece illustrates this division. In the theistic camp, one would find the likes of Socrates and Plato. In the atheistic camp, one would find Democritus and Protagoras. While the more deistic philosophies of both Lucretius and Aristotle might present some exceptions to this division, one could convincingly argue that deism is little more than a camouflaged form of atheism.
Since the inception of the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, numerous permutations of this philosophical camp have emerged. Materialists, behaviorists, physicalists, functionalists, secular humanists, and Marxists are just a few of the resulting variants. To be sure, the countless theoreticians of these anti-theistic and anti-spiritual camps have had their occasional epistemological feuds. Yet, all share the same core metaphysical convictions: matter holds primacy and the ontological plane of the physical universe constitutes the totality of reality itself.
Of course, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung adamantly opposes most, if not all, religions. However, most contemporary movements that have ostensibly eschewed a spiritual outlook have sociologically behaved like religions. Communism and fascism are two such cases in point. How does one explain this paradox? It is this researcher’s contention that the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung was spawned by an older religion. This religion is purely occult in character and, because it acted as the progenitor for the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung, it remains deeply embedded within the ostensibly secular mind. Thus, even the most stridently secular movements are conceptually predisposed to religious thought and behavior. Ultimately, the anti-theistic and anti-spiritual Weltanschauung is designed to relocate the Eschaton of Heaven and Hell within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Simultaneously, it relocates God within man himself. The final result is a control ideology devoted to the transformation of prima materia and a secular religion devoted to the apotheosis of man.
by Paul David Collins ©, July 20th, 2006
Who’s to blame for the current crisis in the Middle East? Point the accusatory finger at the neoconservatives and their concept of a global democratic revolution. The neoconservatives are a faction of the elite that are essentially running the Bush Administration. They are Trotskyites who have blended their leftist philosophy with Leo Straussian fascist additives and technocratic concepts to form what can be described as a new Jacobinism. Claes G. Ryn describes the new Jacobinism:
Within today’s Western democracies a new Jacobinism is exercising growing influence, especially in the United States. It is working to sever the remaining connections between the popular government and the traditional Western view of man and society. It employs an idiom somewhat different from that of the earlier Jacobinism, and it incorporates various new ideological and other ingredients, but it is essentially continuous with the old urge to replace historically evolved societies with an order framed according to abstract, allegedly universal principles, notably that of equality. Like the old Jacobinism, it does not oppose economic inequalities, but it scorns traditional religious, moral, and cultural preconceptions and social patterns that restrict or channel social and political advancement and economic activity . . .The new Jacobins are more accepting of existing society than were the old Jacobins, for they regard today’s Western democracy as the result of great moral, social and political progress since the eighteenth century. They see it as an approximation of what universal principles require. (21)
Why Are There No Obama Administration Officials in Copenhagen?
By Will Banyan (Copyright © 31 May 2014)
The relationship between President Obama and the Bilderberg Meetings has been the subject of sporadic speculation over the years. One hoary yarn, which receives an occasional airing, is that back in June 2008 Obama and Hilary Clinton, then both rivals for the Democrat presidential nomination had secretly attended that year’s Bilderberg Meeting, then underway at Chantilly in Virginia. There has been no actual confirmation that either of them did attend Bilderberg, but the suspicion – given the initial caginess about their whereabouts – has been sufficient for many to tar Obama as a Bilderberg puppet. The most recent reminder was on Alex Jones Infowars website, which posted excerpts from its Obama Deception video to remind us how Bilderberg “hand-picked Obama for the 2008 presidential election after a series of private meetings in Chantilly, Virginia.”
But missing from Infowars handy little reminder of an as yet unproven allegation – provided on the eve the meeting currently underway in Copenhagen, Denmark – was another more salient and indisputable fact: for the second year running no officials from the Obama Administration were attending Bilderberg. The official list of participants for this year’s Bilderberg Meeting, currently being held in Copenhagen, Denmark, includes 34 Americans. Many of them are former officials, but not one of them is a serving official in the Obama Administration. The nearest and only contender is US Air Force General Philip Breedlove, except that he is a career military officer and not a political appointee, and that he is participating in his current position as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military commander of NATO, and technically represents NATO rather than the US, hence his identification by Bilderberg as an “INT” or international participant.
By Will Banyan (Copyright © 25 May 2014)
Jim Marrs, Our Occulted History: Do The Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens? (William Morrow, 2013).
The term “conspiracy theory” is much discussed and contested these days. In 2013 a number of books were released that attempted to shed new light on this increasingly contentious topic. In his well-received book, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory, Jesse Walker, a US-based writer, presented a “history of the things people believe, not an assessment of whether those beliefs are accurate.” As a social history of conspiracy thinking in the United States, Walker’s book is particularly informative, although its treatment of “New World Order” theories is surprisingly thin, a problem with a lot of books in this genre which seem fixated on the so-called event theories and how conspiracies are represented in popular television shows, films and fiction books. Nevertheless The United States of Paranoia contains many valuable insights into the evolution of conspiracism in the US and how some conspiracy themes have persisted over time. Walker places the appeal of conspiracy theories within the normal human ability for “finding patterns in chaos” and “constructing stories to make sense of events…” As a consequence Walker does not dismiss conspiracy theories outright, acknowledging that some conspiracies are real.
The other major study of conspiracism was Professor Lance deHaven-Smith’s Conspiracy Theory in America. The primary purpose of deHaven-Smith’s book, in contrast to Walker’s observational account, is to rescue the term “conspiracy theory” from its current pejorative context and re-establish it as a core part of the “political science” of the Founders of the US, one with continuing relevance today. DeHaven-Smith also argued that the term “conspiracy theory” had been actively promoted by the CIA in wake of the assassination of JFK as a term to discredit assassination theorists. Conspiracy Theory in America also serves as yet another platform for deHaven-Smith to promote his concept of “State Crimes Against Democracy” or SCADS, to help with the identification of conspiracies by the state.
The treatment of both books by mainstream reviewers also reflects more entrenched biases. Walker’s book has received highly favourable reviews, and has been widely hailed as a “bold and thought-provoking book” (Los Angeles Times) with “deep scholarship and relentless curiosity” (Globe and Mail), and for being “meticulously researched, broadly considered and effervescently written…”(Orlando Weekly). DeHaven’s book, in contrast, has been treated more warily, despite (or even because of) his academic status, his argument being seen as perhaps too radical to warrant popular attention. Indeed reviews appear to be confined to the conspiratorially minded. James Bailey at My FDL, for example, praised it as “excellent…logical and well documented”; while the reviewers at the Citizens for the Truth About the Kennedy Assassination website helpfully suggested, in an otherwise positive review, that deHaven-Smith should have written “either a shorter, or a much larger book.”