I had a lengthy argument with one of my professors the other day. I was told there is no Bildergerg Group, nor is there a Trilateral Commission, and they do not plan for a world government and single world currency. Not only is this obvious to anyone who watches even the mainstream news, for someone in academia, it’s embarrassing, inasmuch as the library I work in has an entire row of works dedicated to globalism, globalization and globalist policy. In this exchange I happened to have Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope on me, so I took it out and promptly read the famous quote from the well-known section:
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Group has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, of any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960′s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, but in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wished to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” - pg. 950, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
He had not heard of Dr. Quigley, though this is a classic work of geo-politics. I then pointed out that the Trilateral Commission’s own website discusses yearly meetings about “global economic governance.” The reply was that I should leave the class if I am going to argue about it. Ironically, the entire discussion started over whether education was tightly controlled from the top down, by the foundations and bureaucracies. “Of course they are not,” he said, as I was asked to hush, and leave. Yet Quigley’s book describes just such a control mechanism in place in all major spheres of influence. In regard to education, R.J. Rushdoony’s The Messianic Character of American Education, as well as the work of Charlotte Iserbyte show very clearly the subversion and co-opting of education for the purpose of mass control. In fact, Tragedy and Hope discusses Lord Milner’s Round Table Groups, upon which the RIIA and Council on Foreign Relations are based. Quigley writes:
“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…” -Ibid., pg. 324
The globalist policy organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission are fronts for the Round Table Groups, which are, in turn, under the mega-banks, which are also in charge of the international corporations. This is why you see the revolving door policy of individuals moving around in the same positions. Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, for example, were finance ministers before taking political positions. Furthermore, this has been the way of things for a hundred years or so, in terms of banking interests, and I have to sit here in a classroom and be insulted, and told that none of this exists, though the ascendancy of the banking power in America is a year from being hundred years old, now. What I should have figured out sooner than I did, was that being intelligent and figuring things out is, in fact, a bad thing.
It is a basic principle of human psychology that humans want to be lied to an enslaved, generally. Consider for example the “rape fantasy” many women have. There is no explanation for this, other than that humans will construct their own means of enslavement. For many of my younger years, I was beholden to the typical idealist folly that men are generally rational and can be educated and awakened to truth. One thing college taught me was that truth is the possession of few, because it is not easily attained. There was still a lingering egalitarianism in my praxis that made me think all humans are capable of transformation through education, but this is simply not the way of our world. Branching out into civilization studies was the great cure for this malaise of mine, and when one steps back, getting as best one can a larger picture of the nature and tendency of man in history, objectivity takes the ascendancy in one’s worldview, over the idealism.
It is an Enlightenment assumption based on the philosophy of that time (i.e., Locke’s tabula rasa and the prevalent scientism) that man can, through education, and installment of some “system,” be it governmental, educational, or otherwise, be perfected. This is also the foundational premise of Marxism, the perfectibility of man based on egalitarian projections and abstractions of “humanity.” This proposition libertarianism shares with its statist and Marxist opponents. The Enlightenment libertarian, newly awakened, is suddenly shocked to find that the world operates on financial fraud, wars, espionage, cloak and dagger operations, religious frauds, and other intrigues, yet the student of history knows these are the norm. Intelligence agencies and spies are an ancient institution as Bible students know, hearkening to Joshua’s spies, Ehud’s assassination of Eglon, and so forth. Empire, or global government, is not new.
There have been numerous successive empires that sought world domination (as much of the world as they were aware of, that is). Private banking and money-lending is an ancient institution as well, as any student of Moshe knows. In fact, the normative state of mankind, historically speaking, is empire. The few instances of republics and “democracies” are few and far between and are all based on that same single, fatal flaw: that man can be perfected through proper education, and become a rational, self-governing being. This can be achieved in certain instances and examples, but not universally. The simplest refutation of this is the numerous cultures that have tried to implement such governmental forms, and have failed, such as previously colonized lands like the Congo or Liberia. If men are not able to govern themselves, they will obviously not be capable of progressing in their social and economic orientations.
Enlightenment libertarians are thus ignorant of human nature and anthropology, as well as genetics, and fail to grasp that the bloodline will always dominate over the demagogues and masses. The Enlightenment libertarian-type acts as if elitism is something newly sprung on the world, as if there is naturally no hierarchy or class system, yet suddenly in our day, this mass fraud has been perpetuated! Scandal! This view itself is the conspiracy theory approach of the Bolsheviks. The members of the American “awakening” to political activism and anti-war sentiment are therefore deluded from not knowing history and human nature. The entire process of the American system is not at all what it appears to be, and while this system of republic elections constantly presents itself to the people as the most just of all systems, the absurdities and incoherencies abound, daily. Anyone who actually thinks the masses can be empowered is a moron and doesn’t know the first thing about history. The naiveté involved in thinking man can be changed through proper education is even more deluded, and will find all of his political activism to be for naught. All one need do to quickly realize this is do what I did: start a conspiracy website and see how well the project of “awakening the masses” goes. In fact, I’m embarrassed I ever had that notion, but it’s typical for anyone in their twenties.
On the whole, these “activists” have little to no knowledge of basic economics, though they have managed to ascertain that the Federal Reserve System is one of international, foreign control. Ironically, most activists then fight for the very thing that sustains international finance capital: Austrian economics. All one need to do understand all this is read Ayn Rand, particularly her book of essays, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which, by the way, includes articles by Alan Greenspan, who was a close friend of Rand. The Federal Reserve is a private bank. David Rockefeller is a private banker. F.A. Hayek is who David Rockefeller did his dissertation on. Do you get it now? I am not saying, by the way, that some kind of mainline leftist, big government regulating agency can be enacted to magically change all this. That, too, is more naive Enlightenment thinking, as if merely enacting laws alters the system. The point is that the activists stupidly fight for the very thing they think they are opposing, and I’m not stupid. The mature analysis of the present reality does just that–looks at the reality.
Quigley again writes on pages 326-7:
“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century, but, at the end of that century, they were being replaced by J. P. Morgan whose central office was in New York, although it was always operated as if it were in London (where it had, indeed, originated as George Peabody and Company in 1838).”
This is laissez-faire, free market capitalism, and to deny that it is, is to limit the freedom of individuals who choose to engage in finance capital. I am not making a moral judgment of the system, just stating a fact. Once you adopt a libertarian stance, there is no coherent reason to say it is “wrong” to establish large institutions of finance capital. Modern activists object that this is not a productive economy, and doesn’t create products or jobs, but merely financial transactions and offshore interests. What do you think free market means–it means free trade, and that means jobs moving offshore, as well as offshore banking interests. Who are you to limit the freedom of those in investment capital? Who are you to call it “evil”? On what moral basis do you establish that this is “evil”? Such moral assessments require a worldview within which one can consistently explicate what is right and wrong, and at least give some basis why. In fact, they need to understand that global capitalism is itself a force for globalization. Duh.
Yet while all this wrangling goes on by activists, the real world continues on, operating as it did for millennia, under a pyramidal structure. In Kierkegaard’s Sickness Unto Death, he gives examples of countless lives that were wasted, such as those who built the pyramid. The usage of the pyramid symbology there is very relevant, since that is the symbol of the elite to this day. Kierkegaard would prepare the way for the elitist philosophy of Nietzsche, and he did so by elucidating this principle that men are afraid of their own freedom, and choose despair and a prison. The masses who built the pyramid were, at least in some degree, complicit in the construction of their own prison, and even erected a huge monument that described their own social structure. Slaves, slaving away to construct a monument to their own slavery. And that is why the pyramid is on the dollar? Because the eye of the pyramid is where the eye of the pyramid is. What do I mean? Where is the locus of world control? It is where the eye is. Where is the eye? One the dollar bill. What does that signify? The the world power is the money power, and all the while the masses battle and grovel over a completely fiat, fictitious medium of exchange, constructing their own pyramid.
“In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts. Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money (gold, certificates, and notes) no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such “created deposits” or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing, although bankers usually refused to express their actions, either note issuing or deposit lending, in these terms. William Paterson, however, on obtaining the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, to use the moneys he had won in privateering, said, “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” This was repeated by Sir Edward Holden, founder of the Midland Bank, on December 18, 1907, and is, of course, generally admitted today.” -Ibid, 48-9