Tagged: Skepticism

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

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 to say 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 Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 2)

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

Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 1)

The Problematic Brzezinski “Money Quotes”…
By Will Banyan
Copyright © 20 December 2008

In the rush to condemn President-elect Barack H. Obama as yet another tool of the New World Order conspirators, many analysts have been having great sport exploring the views of one of Obama’s higher profile advisers, Trilateral Commission co-founder and former National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As evidence of Brzezinski’s inclinations towards totalitarian world government many of these earnest analysts have presented what they are claim are quotes from Brzezinski’s most notorious work, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), the book which launched the trilateral concept and ultimately the Trilateral Commission. The problem is that a number of these quotes do not appear to have come from Brzezinski’s book; at least two are fabrications, while another is a misleading compilation of quotes that have been reordered and stripped of their actual context.

Our first example is in a recent article by the current President of the John Birch Society, John F. McManus, “Behind the Obama Agenda”, which appeared in The New American (Nov. 26, 2008). Describing Brzezinski as “arguably President-elect Obama’s most important adviser”, McManus informs us about Brzezinski’s pedigree:

The inspiration for [David] Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission had been Brzezinski’s 1970 book, Between Two Ages, in which the Polish immigrant argued that “national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”

(more…)

More

Two Friendly Queries for Dr John Coleman

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 26 April & 3 May 2008

Author’s note: Two open letters to Dr John Coleman, the allegedly former MI6 agent and originator of the “Committee of 300” conspiracy theory, that were published on the now defunct Martin Frost website in 2008. At issue were two claims made by Dr Coleman to have been the first to have revealed to the public, the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Club of Rome, but in each case the mainstream media had clearly reported on the existence of these bodies first. Nevertheless, Dr Coleman never responded to my queries, nor has he tried to correct his demonstrably false claims.

[26 April 2008]

Dear Dr Coleman

Dr Coleman (incidentally, where did you get your PhD and what was it for?), I write to you as a humble novice in the areas of intelligence, but as you may have noticed I like to get to the bottom of things and don’t believe everything I’m told.

So it is in that spirit that I note that in your speech from 1994, helpfully put on YouTube that you are quick to establish your credentials versus those of others (presumably journalists) who dare to write on matters involving intelligence organizations.  Such people, you state [starting at 7:20], “really have no experience whatsoever” on intelligence matters. As an example of your own experience and reliability on these sensitive issues, you describe your apparent scoop in your book on Mind Control, Metaphysic, Extremely Low Frequency and Weather Modification apparently on July the 8th, 1986:

(more…)

More

A Voyage To Marrs

Book Review

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.”

(more…)

More