“It is rather alarming to find that only twenty-seven years [after writing Brave New World] quite a number of those forecasts have already come true, and come true with vengeance…Some of them were foreseen, and I think some of them I didn’t have the imagination to foresee, but I t think there is a whole armory at the disposal of potential dictators at the moment.”
– Aldous Huxley [1958]
Known for being one of the most influential dystopian authors of all time, Aldous Huxley, who was a jack of all trades, created his magnum opus, Brave New World in 1931, which was published a year later. Nigh nine decades later, many of his ominous and scholarly insights are manifesting right before our eyes. For these reasons, Brave New World should be read through rather carefully, for it serves as a severe warning not only about what might be coming, but what is already here.
This particular fusion of Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley truly is as fascinating as it is disturbing in scope. The former offers his vision of what a dystopian world might be like, while the latter offers a trenchant examination of Brave New World.
While some may call some of Huxley’s ideas ‘prophetic’ in a sense, it’s more of a logical deduction given the available information that there was at a time. If one has a reasonable amount of quality information, one surely would be able to postulate a reasonable result given humanity’s penchant for falling for propaganda in droves historically. After all, most nations historically don’t operate under true freedom. What’s more, many ‘modern’ nations already implement many of the disturbing trends written about in this sobering, if intense account of could have happened, although in fiction, which is now turning into reality.
Brave New World has been compared to Orwell’s 1984 due to the engineered control grid – each of which carries different methods – and with good reason. Whilst 1984 is ruled with an iron fist, Brave New World is ruled with a velvet one. Endless arguments have ensued in many circles as to which one we are gravitating towards, and it’s definitely intriguing although distressing contemplating such facts.
Huxley does an outstanding job of painting a disturbing portrait within his fictional realm. The individuals within his society – who are essentially drones – have fallen over themselves for the ‘good of all’ – for the collective. The book is littered with countless examples of this.
The individual, who is the foundation of society, is thrown aside, by the wayside.
In respect to this troublesome and pernicious pervasive issue, which is seen more and more nowadays, Huxley noted the following words:
“Brave New World presents a fanciful and somewhat ribald picture of a society, in which the attempt to recreate human beings in the likeness of terminates has been pushed almost to the limits of the possible. That we are being propelled in the direction of Brave New World is obvious. But not less obvious is the fact that we can, if we so desire, refuse to co-operate with the blind forces that are compelling us. As Mr. William Whyte has shown in his remarkable book, The Organization Man, a new Social Ethic is replacing our traditional ethical system – the system in which the individual is primary. The key words in this Social Ethic are “adjustment,” “adaptation,” “socially oriented behavior,” “belongingness,” “acquisition of social skills,” “team work,” “group living,” “group loyalty,” “group dynamics,” “group thinking,” “group creativity.” Its basic assumption is that the social whole has greater worth and significant than its individual parts, that inborn biological differences should be sacrificed to cultural uniformity, that the rights of the collective take precedence over what the eighteenth century called the Rights of Man.”[1][Bold Emphasis Added]
Furthermore, as Huxley notes, the:
“…ideal man is the man who displays “dynamic conformity” (delicious phrase!) and an intense loyalty to the group, an unflagging desire to subordinate himself, to belong.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added]
Talk about a conformity crisis! That’s exactly where society is torpedoing to as we speak. And it all starts in youth, through the public schooling system.
In Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling, Gatto mentions the following explosive remarks:
“Mass education cannot work to produce a fair society because its daily practice is practice in rigged competition, suppression and intimidation. The schools we’ve allowed to develop can’t work to teach nonmaterial values, the values which give meaning to everyone’s life, rich or poor, because the structure of schooling is held together by a Byzantine tapestry of reward and threat, of carrots and sticks. Official favor, grades, and other trinkets of subordination have no connection with education; they are the paraphernalia of servitude, not of freedom.”[3][Bold Emphasis Added]
“Schools are intended to produce, through the application of formulas, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.”[4][Bold Emphasis Added]
“…schools and schooling are increasingly irrelevant to the great enterprises of the planet. No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes. The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders.”[5] [Bold Emphasis]
Gatto minces no words. If you wish to see what is happening, right from the start via the public indoctrination system, READ John Taylor Gatto’s work. It is HIGHLY recommended.
Returning to Huxley, the latter part of Brave New World & Brave New World Revisited also features Huxley’s letter to Orwell. Additionally, and arguably more importantly, the second book, Brave New World Revisited is absolutely mind bending.
Brave New World Revisited includes intriguing information at length that supplements droves of added substance for the reader to familiarize themselves with some of the deeper niches of everything Brave New World stands for. One could view it as a few different essays on many of the most disturbing components and trends, featured in Brave New World, which society is currently following.
Topics which are discussed include conformity, the collectivization of society, the attack on individuals, brainwashing, propaganda, social engineering, distractions within society, chemical persuasion, possible solutions and much more. Brave New World Revisited encompasses nigh 100 pages of additional information that should be essentially mandatory in education.
It would be interesting to see what Huxley would have thought about the precision condition that is currently taking place on a mass scale in society today. There are so many angles to this, that one could write many essays and analyze it in a myriad of ways. Many have, and rightly so.
With the recipes featured in Orwell and Huxley’s books, the system seems to be changing day by day, and not for the better. Propaganda, entrainment technology, social engineering, overmedication of the population, and more, are all being used to maliciously mold society to become not only uniform, but obedient to boot.
Incisive individuals who value freedom and have inquiring minds should not only make this part of their library, but should prepare for what’s already here and much of what’s coming soon.
Couple Brave New World with 1984, and you have the recipe of what the world is beginning to look like, which is a merger of those two ideals. And that’s a very, very disturbing proposition.
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
February 23, 2017
We warned you it would happen, and now it has: The anti-Trump, pro-globalist Left is moving quickly to punish independent media outlets who support the 45th president and treat him fairly with honest coverage of him and his administration.
Earlier this week Alex Jones’ Infowarslost a $3 million-a-year ad content deal when the company, AdRoll, decided to suddenly drop them, despite the high volume of traffic his web properties receive, over charges that the site publishes ‘fake news.’ It doesn’t; in fact, if anyone publishes fake news, it’s the many other web properties the company is continuing to do business with. If this angers you as a liberty-minded person who believes in the constitutional principle of free speech, let AdRoll know you’re angry.
Then there was the takedown this week of conservative provocateur and enthusiastic Trump supporter Milo Yiannopoulos by an alleged “conservative” group called the Reagan Battalion, whom virtually no one had heard of before. The group published a selectively-edited video of Yiannopoulos appearing to condone homosexual sex between adults and 13-year-old boys; the takedown cost him a $250,000 book deal, his job at Breitbart, and an invitation to the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting, which began Wednesday evening. Come to find out, Reagan Battalion actually has ties to the far-Left group Indivisible, as the Gateway Pundit reported. This group is one of those behind the staged protests at GOP lawmakers’ town hall meetings. Board members to the group have indirect links to Alt-Left George Soros groups. (RELATED: Pay attention to these three financial experts if you want to survive the coming financial superstorm)
Shopify, an e-commerce platform, was threatened by organized Left-wing groups to drop Breitbart as a content provider, but the CEO graciously defended his decision not to do so, despite coming under intense pressure from the real purveyors of censorship. He may not like Breitbart’s political slant, but as a true believer in free speech, he refused to cave to the demands of would-be authoritarians.
And now, Natural News is under assault – by Google, a multi-billion dollar company that built everything that it has become on the premise that the World Wide Web ought to be a place where censorship went to die and freedom of speech and expression flourished for all.
We were notified early Wednesday that some 140,000 previously indexed pages – our catalog of stories – has been removed from the search engine giant, almost as if we’d never existed. The reason? We’re not sure yet, but as our founder/editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has observed, it’s very likely an arbitrary decision directly tied to our commitment to the truth, to fair, unbiased coverage of President Donald Trump, and our penchant for taking on the medical, social and political establishments with hard-core vigilance and take-no-prisoners style.
Facts are inconvenient things, we are told, and no one epitomizes that more than those on the insane Left. When they encounter people who simply disagree with them, they always defer to the solutions of banishing them, taking away their ability to express themselves, or shouting them into silence. Never have they resorted to open and honest debate, allowing two separate voices to be heard on the issues so as to allow all of us the opportunity to make informed decisions based on all the evidence and all the facts. In the past, voices of conservative dissent were rarely heard because the Left owned the press; today, however, that ownership has been subjugated by the flourishing of the independent, online media. In cyberspace, the competition of ideals is fully achievable, but that’s a problem for the Left because when shown the light of day, they lose the debates.
Barack Obama and Democrats could have never told Americans that Obamacare would result in the loss of personal insurance plans, that deductibles would skyrocket, that out-of-pocket expenses would rise dramatically, and that you couldn’t keep your doctor. So they lied about the law in order to get it passed. George W. Bush and Republicans could not reveal that provisions of the USA Patriot Act would grant presidents carte blanche authority to order American spy agencies to vacuum up all of our personal data, or they would have never been able to pass it. And so on. (RELATED: All you need to know about the discredited mainstream media, in one Mika Brzezinski quote)
The Internet was supposed to be the final answer to free and open debate, real representative democracy and the free-flowing exchange of ideas – but we allowed it to be hijacked by the same anti-choice, anti-free speech forces the ‘Net was supposed to thwart. That’s the Google faction, by the way.
Well, at least there are ways around this abject censorship. Here’s what we need our wonderful Natural News readers and supporters to do:
— Stop using ‘mainstream’ search engines like Google and Yahoo, as well as social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. They are limiting your information.
— Sign up for the Natural News daily newsletter (below) and get our content sent straight to you.
— Bookmark our site, NaturalNews.com, and check in regularly throughout the day, as we update the site regularly with fresh, informative, truthful content. Same with Censored.news.
Thanks for your continued support. We really do appreciate it.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com Jon Rappoport
October 24, 2016
“In the middle of all the brain-research going on, from one end of the planet to the other, there is the assumption that the individual doesn’t really exist. He’s a fiction. There is only the motion of particles in the brain. Therefore, nothing is inviolate, nothing is protected. Make the brain do A, make it do B; it doesn’t matter. What matters is harmonizing these tiny particles, in order to build a collective consensus, in order to force a science of behavior.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Individual power. Your power.
It stands as the essence of what the founding documents of the American Republic are all about, once you scratch below the surface a millimeter or so.
Therefore, it stands to reason that colleges and universities would be teaching courses in INDIVIDUAL POWER.
As soon as I write that, though, we all fall down laughing, because we understand the absurdity of such a proposition. Can you imagine Harvard endowing a chair in Individual Power?
Students would tear down the building in which such courses were taught. They’ve been carefully instructed that the individual is the greatest living threat to the planet.
If you can’t see that as mind control, visit your local optometrist and get a prescription for glasses.
So we have this astonishing situation: the very basis of freedom has no reflection in the educational system.
You can say “individual” within certain limited contexts. You can say “power,” if you’re talking about nuclear plants, or if you’re accusing someone of a crime, but if you put “individual” and “power” together and attribute a positive quality to the combination, you’re way, way outside the consensus. You’re crazy. You’re committing some kind of treason.
In order to spot the deepest versions of educational brainwashing, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD AGAINST WHICH YOU CAN COMPARE WHAT IS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE INTO THE MINDS OF STUDENTS.
If you lack that standard, you miss most of the action.
If you lack that standard, you have already been worked over by the system.
And in this case, the standard is INDIVIDUAL POWER.
Clean it off, hose off the dirt, polish it, look at it, think about it, remember it.
Then you’ll see some Grade-A prime mind control. Everywhere. Because schools either don’t mention it, or they discredit it.
Back in the days when I was writing on assignment for newspapers and magazines, I pitched a story about individual power to an editor. I wanted to trace its history as an idea over the past ten years.
He looked at me for a few seconds. He looked at me as if I’d just dropped some cow flop on his desk. He knew I wasn’t kidding and I had something I could write and turn in to him, but that made it worse. He began to squirm in his chair.
He laughed nervously.
Then he stopped laughing.
He said, “This isn’t what we do.”
For him, I was suddenly radioactive.
I had a similar experience with a high-school history teacher in California. We were having lunch in a cafe in Santa Monica, and I said, “You should teach a course in individual power. The positive aspects. No group stuff. Just the individual.”
He frowned a deep intellectual frown, as if I’d just opened my jacket and exposed a few sticks of dynamite strapped to my chest. As if he was thinking about which agency of the government to report me to.
Now, for the schizoid part. The movies. Television. Video games. Comics. Graphic novels. They are filled to the brim, they are overflowing with individual heroes who have considerable power. These entertainment businesses bank billions of dollars, because people want to immerse themselves in that universe where the individual is supreme. They want it badly.
But when it comes to “real” life, power stops at the front door and no one answers the bell.
Suddenly, the hero, the person with power is anathema. He’s left holding the bag. So he adjusts. He waits. He wonders. He settles for less, far less. He stifles his hopes. He shrinks. He forgets. He develops “problems” and tries to solve them within an impossibly narrow context. He redefines success and victory down to meet limited expectations. He strives for the normal and the average. For his efforts, he receives tidbits, like a dog looking up at his master.
If that isn’t mind control, nothing is.
Once we enter a world where the individual no longer has credibility, a world where “greatest good for the greatest number” is the overriding principle, and where that principle is defined by the elite few, the term “mind control” will have a positive connotation. It will be accepted as the obvious strategy for achieving “peace in our time.”
At a job interview, a candidate will say, “Yes, I received my PhD in Mind Control at Yale, and then I did three years of post-doc work in Cooperative Learning Studies at MIT. My PhD thesis? It was titled, ‘Coordination Strategies in the Classroom for Eliminating the Concept of the Individual.’”
From Wikipedia, “Cooperative Learning”: “Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another’s resources and skills…Furthermore, the teacher’s role changes from giving information to facilitating students’ learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.”
That is a towering assemblage of bullshit.
“Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.” You could use that quote on the back cover of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. Everyone does not succeed—because the individual never finds out what he can do on his own. That avenue is cut off. He only knows what he can achieve in combination with others. He only knows what he can understand when he borrows from others. He may never glimpse what he truly wants to do in life.
This is a tragic situation, but the tragedy is concealed, because the memory of shifting from individual independence to group dependence is gone. There is no such memory. A child is brought up without independence. Therefore, how can he recall losing it?
He only knows the group and the team and the participation and the praise. He only knows the organizing of his life within a synthetically produced context.
He is taught that this is good and necessary.
So, one day, when a bolt comes out of the blue and he recognizes he is himself, what will he use to grasp that revelation and build on it?
Yes, there are productive groups and teams, and one is always working with others, to some degree. But the core and the starting point is one’s self. That is where the insight and the magic begin. That is where the great decisions and commitments are made. That is where the world is born, every day.
I see no end of writing about this magic, because civilization has been turned upside down by treacherous people who have been fabricating a counter-tradition that will sink the ship.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com Jon Rappoport
October 14, 2016
Rule by technocracy—that is the subject of this article. In such a future, there would be no politicians. They would have been made extinct…
Huxley’s 1932 novel about a World State and its version of Utopia is still one of the most important and relevant novels of our time.
It is the companion piece to Orwell’s 1984. The overt brutal force has been removed from the equation in Brave New World. Instead: all births are synthetic, hatched in artificial womb factories, with accompanying genetic manipulation; no more nuclear families; no more monogamy; education is achieved through hypnotic sleep-learning; a caste system is engineered so the lower, less intelligent classes are happy with their lot, and the upper-level “alphas” occupy the top positions; the castes have little interest in associating with each other.
Technocracy has triumphed.
The theme of life, the basic theme, is Pleasure. Pleasures of the senses. Not of the mind, not of constructive action, certainly not of imagination. Pleasure keeps the citizens of the World State occupied…and if that fails, the ultimate backup is a drug called Soma, which relieves anxiety and depression and stimulates “happiness.”
There are many people living among us today who would opt for that life in a heartbeat. They would see no downside. “Well, of course. Sign me up. I’ve been trying to find that pleasure all along. I’ll take it.”
The 1932 technocrats of Brave New World found a key. Why should they waste time trying to inflict pain on the population as a control mechanism? Why should they risk rebellion and revolution? Go “positive.” Give people pleasure. Absolutely.
All older forms of government fade away. They were just crude experiments in the foothills of the one and only revolution: technology deployed to pacify the world.
By the way, in Brave New World, no one reads books. They’re unnecessary. They make no sense. The “better life” is already a living fact. What possible benefit could a book deliver?
Every time I read Brave New World I see complacent animals grazing in pastures. That’s the picture. Human animals at peace in the fields. Nothing to care about. Nothing to think about. Just bend and chew. Don’t worry, be happy.
As Patrick Wood mentions in his fine and highly recommended book, Technocracy Rising, Huxley began writing Brave New World as a parody of other utopian novels of his time, but he became fascinated with his own ideas along the way, and set his mind to the task of fleshing out a technological end-game civilization.
Brave New World reveals a landscape in which people would be unable to turn around and throw off what has been done to them. They would not consider it. They would have no basis for comparison. They would have no cultural memory. They are living in a universal super-welfare state. Their needs are satisfied—especially the central need: pleasure. It isn’t gained or worked for. It’s given. It’s a fact as basic as rain and sun. It’s there. It’s the shortest distance between the present moment and the next moment.
Isn’t this the fairy tale told about rich and famous celebrities? They can wake up in the morning thinking about what pleasure is immediately there for the taking. They have the means. They have the time. They have the opportunity. In Brave New World, everyone is that kind of creature. By necessity. There is no real choice. Their most base desires are their only desires. Their horizon is shortened.
Source: Red Ice Radio
JaysAnalysis.com
Jay Dyer
July 19, 2016
From hour 1 of a 2 hour interview with Red Ice Radio: “Jay Dyer is a public speaker, lecturer, comedian and author of Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film, as well as the host of the JaysAnalysis Podcast/Esoteric Hollywood. Jay is also a regular contributor to 21stCenturyWire, Soul of the East and the Espionage History Archive. Broaching subjects as wide as satire, metaphysics, film analysis, theology, geopolitics, literature and history, as well as interviewing numerous prominent figures, Jay has authored hundreds of articles read by millions.
In the first hour, Jay deconstructs the events of the 7/7 Dallas shooting spree by Micah X. Johnson during a Black Lives Matter protest that left 5 police officers dead and 9 officers and two civilians wounded. Jay brings to light many details that echo previous staged false flag events and terror plots hatched by the FBI, inflamed by Soros funded NGOs, and propagandized through MSM pageantry. We discuss various anomalies that point to black ops social engineering, including the active shooter drill prelude, the racially charged sniper scenario and the Hollywoodesque bomb bot takedown of the killer. Jay talks about “enlightenment liberalism” that is being exacerbated and capitalized on by the internationalist elite, where the normal distinctions of human nature are being erased in order for a “Brave New World” of blended monoculture to be reconstructed out of the chaos. He says this Manichaean dialectic is part of a long term geopolitical strategy of ramping up tensions and instigating conflicts between extremist elements (i.e. BLM vs police, LGBTQ vs Islam) so that a One World Government dictated by Martial Law can rise up out of the ashes. We look at the volatile conditions that are the result of the multicultural experiment and consider the kind of social glue that would be needed to hold together a culture contrived on unity and oneness. This new pseudo religion is all about perception management and the amalgamation of emotions and opinions as defined by a synthetic 2-D reality of fake news and a hierarchy of victim classes.
In the member hour, Jay talks more about the alchemical aspect of the merging of two opposing forces that is playing out perfectly in the current East/West clash of civilizations. He illuminates the Freemasonic elements we see openly displayed in these Gladio-style intelligence operations, where orchestrated terror events are fronted by patsies and provocateurs of one extreme to propel history towards a “great unification.” Jay explains how a double standard tactic is being applied to create hypersensitivity about race so as to crush down any sort of natural hierarchy that may threaten the globalist hegemony. Then, we analyze the black power/global rainbow unity spectacle of the 2016 Super Bowl – a high profile ritual Jay calls “aesthetic terrorism” that is designed to program the subconscious minds of the masses to accept the media’s definition of terrorism. We look at how this deliberate display of xenophobic propaganda foreshadowed the establishment’s plans for a “helter skelter” race war and a “summer of chaos,” and we break down how the controlled media muddies the Nationalist uprising by propping up contrarian figures like Yiannopoulos and Geller. Later, we discuss how to overcome the slow kill of humanity by the diseased system by recognizing the fundamental flaws of equality and ridding ourselves of the infection of liberalism.”
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Anthony Gucciardi
February 8, 2016
Over 100 million people watched the Super Bowl last night on television, and chances are you may be one of them.
I’m not here to sit on some high horse and judge you for watching football, but I am here to share a very important message to you about what you WON’T be hearing on TV about Super Bowl 50…
Source: Rutherford.Org
John W. Whitehead
June 29, 2017
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.
As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.
For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”
We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”
In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.
Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.
Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.
These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.
For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.
Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.
In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.
As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.
Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.
Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.
Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?
It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.
This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.
Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.
And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.
From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not effected by the oil industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world. And this is the story of those who helped shape that world, and how the oil-igarchy they created is on the verge of monopolizing life itself.
TRANSCRIPT
Oil. From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic product, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern-day lives that is not effected by the petrochemical industry. The story of oil is the story of the modern world.
Parts of that story are well-known: Rockefeller and Standard Oil; the internal combustion engine and the transformation of global transport; the House of Saud and the oil wars in the Middle East.
Other parts are more obscure: the quest for oil and the outbreak of World War I; the petrochemical interests behind modern medicine; the Big Oil money behind the “Green Revolution” and the “Gene Revolution.”
But that story, properly told, begins somewhere unexpected. Not in Pennsylvania with the first commercial drilling operation and the first oil boom, but in the rural backwoods of early 19th century New York state. And it doesn’t start with crude oil or its derivatives, but a different product altogether: snake oil.
“Dr. Bill Livingston, Celebrated Cancer Specialist” was the very image of the traveling snake oil salesman. He was neither a doctor, nor a cancer specialist; his real name was not even Livingston. More to the point, the “Rock Oil” tonic he pawned was a useless mixture of laxative and petroleum and had no effect whatsoever on the cancer of the poor townsfolk he conned into buying it.
He lived the life of a vagabond, always on the run from the last group of people he had fooled, engaged in ever more outrageous deceptions to make sure that the past wouldn’t catch up with him. He abandoned his first wife and their six children to start a bigamous marriage in Canada at the same time as he fathered two more children by a third woman. He adopted the name “Livingston” after he was indicted for raping a girl in Cayuga in 1849.
When he wasn’t running away from them or disappearing for years at a time, he would teach his children the tricks of his treacherous trade. He once bragged of his parenting technique: “I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make ’em sharp.”
A towering man of over six feet and with natural good looks that he used to his advantage, he went by “Big Bill.” Others, less generously, called him “Devil Bill.” But his real name was William Avery Rockefeller, and it was his son, John D. Rockefeller, who would go on to found the Standard Oil monopoly and become the world’s first billionaire.
The world we live in today is the world created in “Devil” Bill’s image. It’s a world founded on treachery, deceit, and the naivety of a public that has never wised up to the parlor tricks that the Rockefellers and their ilk have been using to shape the world for the past century and a half.
This is the story of the oiligarchy.
PART ONE: BIRTH OF THE OIL-IGARCHY
Titusville, 1857. A most unlikely man alights from a railway car into the midst of this sleepy Western Pennsylvania town on the shores of Oil Creek: “Colonel” Edwin Drake. He’s from the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company, and he’s here on a mission: to collect oil.
Like “Dr.” Bill, Drake isn’t really a Colonel. The title is bestowed on him by George Bissell and James Townsend, a lawyer and a banker who started the Pennsylvania Rock Oil Company after they discovered they could distill the region’s naturally occurring Seneca oil into lamp oil, or kerosene. Drake is actually an unemployed railroad conductor who talked himself into a job after staying at the same hotel as Bissel the year before. Calling him a Colonel, it is hoped, will help win the respect of the locals.
The locals think he’s crazy anyway. Seneca oil is indeed plentiful, bubbling out of seeps and collecting in the creek, but other than as a cure-all medicine or grease for the local sawmill’s machinery, it’s hardly seen as something valuable. In fact, it can be a downright nuisance, contaminating brine wells that supply Pittsburgh’s booming salt industry.
Still, Drake has a task to complete: finding a way to collect enough oil to make the distillation of Seneca oil into lamp oil profitable. He tries everything he can think of. The Native Americans had historically collected the oil by damming the creek near a seep and skimming the oil off the top. But Drake can only collect six to ten gallons of oil a day this way, even when he opens up extra seeps. He tries digging a shaft, but the groundwater floods in too quickly.
By the summer of 1859 he’s desperate. Drake’s running out of ideas, Bissell and Townsend are running out of patience and, most importantly, the company is running out of funds. He turns to “Uncle” Billy Smith, a Pittsburgh blacksmith who had experience drilling brine wells with steam-powered equipment. They get to work drilling down through the shale bedrock to reach the oil. It’s maddeningly slow work, with the crude equipment struggling to get through three feet of bedrock a day. By August 27th they’ve drilled down 69 and a half feet, Drake has used the last of his funds, and Bissell and his partners have decided to close up the operation. On August 28th, they strike oil.
Narrator: Then on Sunday, August 28th, 1859, oil bubbled up the drive pipe. Uncle Billy and his son Sam bailed out several buckets of oil. On Monday, the very day that Colonel Drake received his final payment and an order to close down the operation, they hitched the walking beam to a water pump and the oil began to flow. The first oil was to sell for $40 a barrel. Years later a local newspaper interviewed Uncle Billy about the day they struck oil:
“I commenced drilling and at 4:00 I struck the oil. I says to Mr. Drake, ‘Look there! What do you think of this?’ He looked down the pipe and said, ‘What’s that?’ And I said, ‘That is your fortune!’”
Drake’s well proved that by drilling for it, oil could be found in abundance and produced cheaply. Overnight a whole new industry was born. Before long in millions of homes, farms and factories around the world, lamps would be lit with kerosene refined from West Pennsylvania crude.
Daniel Yergin: When the word came out that Drake had struck oil, the cry went up throughout the narrow valleys of Western Pennsylvania: ‘The crazy Yankee has struck oil! The crazy Yankee has struck oil!’ And it was the first great boom. It was like a gold rush.
Overnight the quiet farming backwoods of rural Pennsylvania was transformed into a bustling oil region, with prospectors leasing up flats, towns springing up from nowhere, and a forest of percussion rigs covering the land. The first oil boom had arrived.
Already poised to make the most of this boom was a young up-and-coming bookkeeper in Cleveland with a head for numbers: John Davison Rockefeller. He had two ambitions in life: to make $100,000 and to live to 100 years old. John D. set off to make his fortune in the late 1850s, armed with a $1000 loan from his father, “Devil” Bill.
David Rockefeller: Grandfather never finished high school and went to Cleveland having borrowed $1000 from his father to start a business — paid 9% interest on it incidentally. And he read about the oil business just beginning and got interested, and came to realize it was a very volatile business at the time.
In 1863, seeing the oil boom and sensing the profits to be made in the fledgling business, Rockefeller formed a partnership with fellow businessman Maurice B. Clark and Samuel Andrews, a chemist who had built an oil refinery but knew little about the business of getting his product to market. In 1865 the shrewd John D. bought out his partners for $72,500 and, with Andrews as partner, launched Rockefeller & Andrews. By 1870, after five years of strategic partnerships and mergers, Rockefeller had incorporated Standard Oil.
The story of the rise of Standard Oil is an oft-told one.
Narrator: In a move that would transform the American economy, Rockefeller set out to replace a world of independent oilmen with a giant company controlled by him. In 1870, begging bankers for more loans, he formed Standard Oil of Ohio. The next year, he quietly put what he called “our plan” — his campaign to dominate the volatile oil industry — into devastating effect. Rockefeller knew that the refiner with the lowest transportation cost could bring rivals to their knees. He entered into a secret alliance with the railroads called the South Improvement Company. In exchange for large, regular shipments, Rockefeller and his allies secured transport rates far lower than those of their bewildered competitors.
Ida Tarbell, the daughter of an oil man, later remembered how men like her father struggled to make sense of events: “An uneasy rumor began running up and down the Oil Regions,” she wrote. “Freight rates were going up. … Moreover … all members of the South Improvement Company — a company unheard of until now — were exempt. … Nobody waited to find out his neighbor’s opinion. On every lip there was but one word and that was ‘conspiracy.’”
Ron Chernow, Biographer: By 1879, when Rockefeller is 40, he controls 90 percent of the oil refining in the world. Within a few years, he will control 90 percent of the marketing of oil and a third of all of the oil wells. So this very young man controls what is not only a national but an international monopoly in a commodity that is about to become the most important strategic commodity in the world economy.
By the 1880s, the American oil industry was the Standard Oil Company. And Standard Oil was John D. Rockefeller.
But it wasn’t long until a handful of similarly ambitious (and well-connected) families began to emulate the Standard Oil success story in other parts of the globe.
One such competitor emerged from the Caucasus in the 1870s, where Imperial Russia had opened up the vast Caspian Sea oil deposits to private development. Two families quickly combined forces to take advantage of the opportunity: the Nobels, led by Ludwig Nobel and including his dynamite-inventing prize-creating brother Alfred, and the French branch of the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty, led by Alphonse Rothschild.
In 1891, the Rothschilds contracted with M. Samuel & Co., a Far East shipping company headquartered in London and run by Marcus Samuel, to do what had never been done before: ship their Nobel-supplied Caspian oil through the Suez Canal to East Asian markets. The project was immense; it involved not only sophisticated engineering to construct the first oil tankers to be approved by the Suez Canal Company, but the strictest secrecy. If word of the endeavour was to get back to Rockefeller through his international intelligence network it would risk bringing the wrath of Standard Oil, which could afford to cut rates and squeeze them out of the market. In the end they succeeded, and the first bulk tanker, the Murex, sailed through the Suez Canal in 1892 en route to Thailand.
In 1897 “M. Samuel & Co.” became The Shell Transport and Trading Company. Realizing that reliance on the Rothschild/Nobel Caspian oil left the company vulnerable to supply shocks, Shell began to look to the Far East for other sources of oil. In Borneo they ran up against Royal Dutch Petroleum, established in The Hague in 1890 with the support of King William III of the Netherlands to develop oil deposits in the Dutch East Indies. The two companies, fearing competition from Standard Oil, merged in 1903 into the Asiatic Petroleum Company, jointly owned with the French Rothschilds, and in 1907 become Royal Dutch Shell.
Another global competitor to the Standard Oil throne emerged in Iran at the turn of the 20th century. In 1901 millionaire socialite William Knox D’arcy negotiated an incredible concession with the king of Persia: exclusive rights to prospect for oil throughout most of the country for 60 years. After 7 years of fruitless search, D’Arcy and his Glasgow based partner, Burmah Oil, were ready to abandon the country altogether. In early May of 1908 they sent a telegram to their geologist telling him to dismiss his staff, dismantle his equipment and come back home. He defied the order and weeks later struck oil.
Burmah Oil promptly spun off the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to oversee production of Persian oil. The British government took 51% majority control of the company’s shares in 1914 at the behest of Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, and survives today as BP.
The Rothschilds and Nobels. The Dutch royal family. The Rockefellers. These early titans of the oil industry and their corporate shells pioneered a new model for amassing and expanding fortunes hitherto unheard of. They were the scions of a new oligarchy, one built around oil and its control, from wellhead to pump.
But it was not just about money. The monopolization of this, the key energy resource of the 20th century, helped secure the oiligarchs not just wealth but power over the lives of billions. Billions who came to depend on black gold for the provision of just about every aspect of their daily lives.
In the late 19th century, however, it was by no means certain that oil would become the key resource of the 20th century. As cheap illumination from the newly-commercialized light bulb began to destroy the market for lamp oil, the oiligarchs were on the verge of losing the value from their monopoly. But a series of “lucky strikes” was about to catapult their fortunes even further.
The very next year after the commercial introduction of the light bulb, another invention came along to save the oil industry: German engineer Karl Benz patented a reliable, two-stroke internal combustion engine. The engine ran on gasoline, another petroleum byproduct, and became the basis for the Benz Motorwagen that, in 1888, became the first commercially available automobile in history. And with that stroke of luck, the business that Rockefeller and the other oiligarchs had spent decades consolidating was saved.
But more luck was needed to ensure the market for this new engine. In the early days of the automobile era it was by no means certain that gas-powered cars would come to dominate the market. Working models of electric vehicles had been around since the 1830s, and the first electric car was built in 1884. By 1897 there was a fleet of all-electric taxis shuttling passengers around London. The world land speed record was set by an electric car in 1898. By the dawn of the 20th century electric cars accounted for 28% of the automobiles in the United States. The electrics had advantages over the internal combustion engine: they required no gear shifting or hand cranking, and had none of the vibration, smell, or noise associated with gasoline-powered cars.
Lady Luck intervened again on January 10, 1901, when prospectors struck oil at Spindletop in East Texas. The gusher blew 100,000 barrels a day and set off the next great oil boom, providing cheap, plentiful oil to the American market and driving down gas prices. It wasn’t long before the expensive, low range electric engines were abandoned altogether and big, loud, gas-guzzling engines came to dominate the road, all fueled by the black gold that Standard Oil, Shell, Gulf, Texaco, Anglo-Persian and the other oil majors of the time were drilling, refining and selling.
Perhaps John D.’s greatest stroke of luck, however, was not supposed to be luck at all. Rockefeller had come under increasing scrutiny by a public outraged by the unprecedented wealth he had amassed through Standard Oil. Muckraking reporters like Ida Tarbell began digging up the dirt on his rise to power through railroad conspiracies, secret deals with competitors and other shady practices. The press pictured him as a colossus with bribed politicians literally in the palm of his hand; Standard Oil was a menacing octopus with its tentacles strangling the lifeblood of the nation. Hearings began, investigations were launched, lawsuits were brought against him. And then, finally, in 1911 the Supreme Court made a monumental decision.
Narrator: On May 15th, 1911, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that Standard Oil was a monopoly in restraint of trade and should be dissolved. Rockefeller heard of the decision while golfing at Kykuit with a priest from the local Catholic church, Father J.P. Lennon.
Ron Chernow, Biographer: And Rockefeller reacted with amazing aplomb. He turned to the Catholic priest and said, “Father Lennon, have you some money?” And the priest was very startled by the question and said, “No.” And then he said, “Why?” And Rockefeller replied, “Buy Standard Oil.”
Narrator: As Rockefeller foresaw, the individual Standard Oil companies were worth more than the single corporation. In the next few years, their shares doubled and tripled in value. By the time the rain of cash was over, Rockefeller had the greatest personal fortune in history — nearly two percent of the American economy.
Ron Chernow, Biographer: And it was really losing the antitrust case that converted John D. Rockefeller into history’s first billionaire. So that Standard Oil was punished in the federal antitrust case, but John D. Rockefeller, Sr. most assuredly was not.
To the amazement of the world, Rockefeller’s punishment had in fact been his reward. Rather than being taken down a peg, the splitting up of the Standard Oil monopoly had launched him as the world’s only acknowledged billionaire at a time when the average annual income in America was $520.
Rockefeller’s story was perfectly mirrored by the story of Colonel Edwin Drake. Having struck oil in Titusville and given rise to a billion dollar global industry, Drake had not had the foresight to patent his drilling technique or even to buy up the land around his own well. He ended up in poverty, relying on an annuity from the state of Pennsylvania to scrape together a living and dying in 1880.
For the oiligarchy, the lesson of the rise and rise of Rockefeller was obvious: the more ruthlessly that monopoly was pursued, the tighter that control was grasped, the greater the lust for power and money, the greater the reward would be in the end.
From now on, no invention would derail the oil majors from their quest for total control. No competition would be tolerated. No threat to the oiligarchs would be allowed to rise.
PART TWO: COMPETITION IS A SIN
When asked how he could justify the treachery and deceit with which he pursued the creation of the Standard Oil monopoly, John D. Rockefeller is reputed to have said: “Competition is a sin.” This is the mentality of the monopolist, and it is this justification, framed as religious conviction, that drove the oiligarchs to so ruthlessly eliminate anyone who would dare rise up as a pretender to their throne.
Ironically, it was the competition between the oiligarchs in the early 20th century that helped give rise to an early external threat to their empire: alcohol fuel.
As historian Lyle Cummins has noted of the period: “The oil trust battles between Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, the Nobels and Marcus Samuel’s Shell kept prices in a state of flux, and engines often had to be adaptable to the fuel that was available.”
In many areas where oil wasn’t available, the alternative was alcohol. Ethyl alcohol had been used as a fuel for lamps and engines since the early 19th century. Although it was generally more expensive, alcohol fuel offered a stability of supply that was alluring, especially in areas like London or Paris that did not have predictable access to oil supplies.
Alcohol has a lower heat value, or BTU, than gasoline, but a series of tests by the US Geological Survey and the US Navy in 1907 and 1908 proved that the higher compression ratio of alcohol engines could perfectly offset the lower heat value, thus making alcohol and gasoline engines fuel economy equivalent.
One early supporter of alcohol fuel was Henry Ford, who designed his Model T to run on either alcohol or gasoline. Sensing an opportunity for new markets to boost the independent American farms that he felt were vital to the nation, Henry Ford told the New York Times:
“The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust – almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented.”
Farmers, looking to capitalize on this, lobbied for the repeal of a $2.08 per gallon alcohol tax that had been imposed to help pay for the Civil War. They were aided by those who saw fuel alcohol as a way to break the oiligarchs’ monopoly. In support of a bill to repeal the alcohol tax, President Teddy Roosevelt told the US Congress in 1906:
“The Standard Oil Company has, largely by unfair or unlawful methods, crushed out home competition. It is highly desirable that an element of competition should be introduced by the passage of some such law as that which has already passed the House, putting alcohol used in the arts and manufactures upon the free list.”
The alcohol tax was repealed in 1906 and for a time corn ethanol at 14 cents a gallon was cheaper than gasoline at 22 cents a gallon. The promise of cheap, unpatentable, unmonopolizable fuel production, production open to anyone with raw vegetable matter and a still, swept the nation.
But cheap, plentiful fuel that can be grown and produced locally and independently is not what the oiligarchs had in mind.
A 1909 USGS report comparing gas and alcohol engines had noted that a significant point in alcohol fuel’s favour was that there were fewer restrictions on alcohol engines. For the oiligarchs, the answer was simple: find a way to place greater restrictions on alcohol engines. Thankfully for them, the answer to their problem was already gaining popular support.
In the 19th century, America had a drinking problem. By 1830, the average American over 15 years old drank seven gallons of pure alcohol per year, three times higher than today’s average. This led to the first anti-alcohol movements in the 1830s and 1840s, and the formation of the Prohibition Party in 1869 and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in the 1870s. The movement enjoyed widespread and growing support but had few political successes; Maine flirted with prohibition by outlawing the sale and manufacture of liquor in 1851, but the ban only lasted five years.
This changed with the formation of the Anti-Saloon League in Standard Oil’s birth state of Ohio in 1893. The ASL was started by John D. Rockefeller’s long-time personal friend Howard Hyde Russell and was bankrolled in part by generous annual donations from Rockefeller himself. The ASL, with Rockefeller’s backing, quickly became the driving force behind a national movement to outlaw the production and sale of alcohol.
Rockefeller was a teetotaler himself, not from moral concern but because he was afraid that “good cheer among friends” would lead to his downfall in business. Stephen Harkness, one of the silent partner investors in Standard Oil and a director in the company until his death, had caught Rockefeller’s eye when he made a fortune buying up whiskey in advance of a new excise tax that he had been tipped about and selling it at a huge profit after the tax kicked in.
No, Rockefeller and Standard Oil were not concerned about the moral state of the nation…except as far as it impacted their bottom line. But when prohibition did come in 1920, it had an interesting side effect: although it didn’t ban the use of ethanol as a fuel directly, it did lead to increasingly burdensome restrictions requiring producers to add petroleum products to their ethanol to make it poisonous before it could be sold. Alcohol fuel, now completely unable to compete with gasoline, was abandoned altogether by the automobile industry.
Another existential threat to the vast fortunes of the early oiligarchs was to require an even greater effort at social engineering: public transportation.
By the end of World War I, private car ownership was still a relative rarity; only one in 10 Americans owned a car. Rail was still the transportation of choice for the vast majority of the public, and city-dwellers in most major cities relied on electric trolley networks to transport them around town. In 1936, General Motors formed a front company, “National City Lines,” along with Firestone Tire and Standard Oil of California, to implement a process of “bustitution”: scrapping streetcars and tearing up railways to replace them with GM’s own buses running on Standard Oil supplied diesel. The plan was remarkably successful.
“By the end of the 1940s, GM had bought and scrapped over one hundred municipal electric transit systems in 45 cities and put gas-burning GM buses on the streets in their place. By 1955 almost 90% of the electric streetcar lines in the United States had been ripped out or otherwise eliminated.”
The cartel had been careful to hide their involvement in National City Lines, but it was revealed to the public in 1946 by an enterprising retired naval lieutenant commander, Edwin J. Quinby. He wrote a manifesto exposing what he called “a careful, deliberately planned campaign to swindle you out of your most important and valuable public utilities–your Electric Railway System.” He uncovered the oiligarchs’ stock ownership of National City Lines and its subsidiaries and detailed how they had step by step bought up and destroyed the public transportation lines in Baltimore, Los Angeles, St. Louis and other major urban centres.
Quinby’s warning caught the attention of federal prosecutors and in 1947 National City Lines was indicted for conspiring to form a transportation monopoly and conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies. In 1949, GM, Firestone, Standard Oil of California and their officers and corporate associates were convicted on the second count of conspiracy. The punishment for buying up and dismantling America’s public transportation infrastructure? A $5,000 fine. H. C. Grossman, who had been the director of Pacific City Lines when it oversaw the scrapping of LA’s $100 million Pacific Electric system, was fined exactly $1.
Unsurprisingly, GM and its associates did not remain in the doghouse for long. In 1953 President Eisenhower appointed Charles Wilson, then the President of General Motors, as Secretary of Defense. Wilson, with Francis DuPont of the Rockefeller-connected DuPont family as Chief Administrator of Federal Highways, oversaw one of the largest public works projects in American history: the creation of the interstate highway system. With a war-era excise tax on train tickets still in place and federally funded highways and airports providing cheaper alternatives, rail travel declined a startling 84% between 1945 and 1964.
This social engineering paid off well for Standard Oil and its growing list of petrochemical associates. In the two and a half decades after the outbreak of World War II, vehicle production in Detroit almost tripled, from 4.5 million cars a year in 1940 to over 11 million in 1965. As a result, sales of refined gasoline over the same period rose 300%.
But Rockefeller was not the only oiligarch working to crush all opposition to his monopoly. Across the pond, the European oiligarchs were working to protect their own oil investments from upstart competitors.
In 1889, a consortium of German investors led by Siemens’ Deutsche Bank obtained a concession from the Turkish government for extension of a railway line connecting Berlin to Basra on the Persian Gulf via Baghdad in what was then part of the Ottoman Empire. The Berlin-Baghdad Railway concession was for ninety-nine years and came with mineral rights for twenty kilometers on either side of the line…an especially lucrative deal since the rail cut right through the heart of the still untapped Mesopotamian oil regions south of Mosul along the Tigris River.
For the powers behind the British empire, concerned with the military rise of Germany, this deal was unacceptable.
William Engdahl: Well Germany in the end of the 19th century was looking for outlets for its exports — its industrial exports — as the German economy was growing like China’s has grown in the last 30 years. And they decided that Turkey would be an ideal strategic trade partner for Germany. And Georg von Siemens, one of the directors of Deutsche Bank, came up with a strategy to extend a railway from Berlin all the way down to Baghdad — which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, Baghdad and Iraq today, near the Persian Gulf. German military began training the Turkish military. German industry began investing in Turkey. They saw a huge potential market to begin bringing Turkey into the 20th century economically. Deutsche Bank also negotiated mineral rights — I think it was 20 kilometres either side of the railway — and it was already known in 1914 that Mosul and these other areas contained huge petroleum deposits.
Well, why is that significant? At the end of the 19th century, Jack Fisher–the head of the Admiralty and the head of the Royal Navy–advocated the conversion of the British Navy from coal-fired to oil-fired. That it would have a qualitative strategic improvement in every aspect of warship design. And since Britain didn’t know that they had any oil back then they went to Persia and swindled the Shah out of oil rights in Persia. They went to Kuwait and backed a coup d’etat of the Al-Sabah family to be a British pawn, and they literally wrote a contract with him that nothing that Kuwait does will be done without approval of the British Governor. And Kuwait was known to have oil lying right on the Persian Gulf.
The British looked at this railway plan of the Germans going right down to Baghdad and said ‘My God! You can put soldiers on rail cars and bring them down and threaten the oil lifeline of the British Navy.’ This is a strategic move by the Germans. It also would make Germany independent of the British control of the seas. They would have a landline much like the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” infrastructure for high speed rails going throughout Eurasia into Russia, on into Belarus and Western Europe that removes the United States’ Navy ability to control China and control Central Asia to a great extent.
The British oiligarchs, including the British crown with its hidden controlling stake in Anglo-Persian Oil and the Rothschild’s merchant Marcus Samuel at Royal Dutch Shell, sought to counter this German threat to their commercial and strategic interests. They used Armenian-born naturalized British citizen Calouste Gulbenkian–the architect of the Royal Dutch / Shell merger–in order, as he later recalled “to see British influence get the upper hand in Turkey” against the Germans. If that was his task, it was a remarkable success.
In 1909 the British set up the Turkish National Bank, which was “Turkish” in name only. Founded by London banker Sir Edward Cassel and with directors like Hugo Baring of the Barings banking family, Cassel himself, and Gulbenkian, the Bank set up the Turkish Petroleum Company in 1912. Formed explicitly to exploit the petroleum-rich oil fields of Iraq, then part of the Ottoman Empire, Gulbenkian brokered a deal that forced Deutsche Bank, with its 40 kilometre concessions along the oil-rich Baghdad railway line, into a junior partnership in the company. The stock was split so the British government’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company owned half the shares, with Royal Dutch Shell and Deutsche Bank splitting the other half.
Their plan to take over Germany’s Turkish oil interests had been successful, but in an amazing irony, it didn’t even matter. Gulbenkian finished negotiations for the Iraqi oil concession on June 28, 1914, the same day Archduke Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo. An alliance the British had been brokering for years to constrain the rising German threat, an alliance involving France and Russia, kicked into motion and the world was engulfed in war. By the end of World War I, the British and their allies had taken over Iraq and its oil deposits anyway, Germany had been completely cut out, and Gulbenkian, their scheming servant, received 5% of all oil field proceeds in the newly minted country.
As the century wore on, the oil industry grew beyond the control of the handful of families that had dominated it since its inception. Oil deposits were located around the globe and the resources of entire nation states were marshaled to control them. Now, threats to the oiligarchs and their interests required multi-lateral, multi-national responses and the consequences of those deals were felt worldwide.
The story of the Oil Shock of 1973 as it has been delivered to us by the history books is well known.
Narrator: By the late 1960s the nation relied on imported oil to keep the economy strong. Then in the early 1970s oil-dependent America’s nightmares came true: 13 oil-producing countries in the Middle East and South America formed OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. In 1973 OPEC placed an oil embargo on the US and other nations that had supported Israel against the Arab states in the Yom Kippur war. The American economy went into a tailspin as gas shortages gripped the nation.
Few, however, know that the crisis and its ensuing response was in fact prepared months ahead of time at a secret meeting in Sweden in 1973. The meeting was the annual gathering of the Bilderberg Group, a secretive cabal formed by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1954.
The Dutch royal family not only gave its royal imprint to Royal Dutch Petroleum, they are still rumoured to be, along with the Rothschilds, one of the largest shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell, from the days when Queen Wilhelmina’s Anglo-Dutch Petroleum holdings and other investments made her the world’s first female billionaire right through to today. Bernhard’s guest list at the Bilderberg Group reflected his position in the oiligarchy; alongside him at the Swedish conference were David Rockefeller of the Standard Oil dynasty and his protege Henry Kissinger, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, E.G. Collado, the Vice President of Exxon, Sir Denis Greenhill, director of British Petroleum, and Gerrit A. Wagner, president of Bernhard’s own Royal Dutch Shell.
At the meeting in Sweden, held five months before the oil crisis began, the oil-igarchs and their political and business allies were planning their response to a monetary crisis that threatened the world dominance of the US dollar. Under the Bretton Woods system, negotiated in the final days of World War II, the US dollar would be the backbone of the world monetary system, convertible to gold at $35 per ounce with all other currencies pegged to it. Increasing US expenditures in Vietnam and decreasing exports caused Germany, France, and other nations to start demanding gold for their dollars.
With the Federal Reserve’s official gold holdings plunging and unable to stem the tide of demand, Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods in August 1971, threatening the dollar’s position as the world reserve currency.
Richard Nixon: Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertability of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interest of the United States.
As leaked documents from the 1973 Bilderberg meeting show, the oiligarchs decided to use their control over the flow of oil to save the American hegemon. Acknowleding that OPEC “could completely disorganize and undermine the world monetary system,” the Bilderberg attendees prepared for “an energy crisis or an increase in energy costs,” which, they predicted, could mean an oil price between $10 and $12, a staggering 400% increase from the current price of $3.01 per barrel.
Five months later, Bilderberg attendee and Rockefeller protege Henry Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s Secretary of State, engineered the Yom Kippur War and provoked OPEC’s response: an oil embargo of the US and other nations that had supported Israel. On October 16, 1973, OPEC raised oil prices by 70%. At their December meeting, the Shah of Iran demanded and received a further price raise to $11.65 a barrel, or 400% of oil’s pre-crisis price. When asked by Saudi King Faisal’s personal emissary why he had demanded such a bold price increase, he replied: “Tell your King, if he wants the answer to this question, he should go to Washington and ask Henry Kissinger.”
In the second move of the operation, Kissinger helped negotiate a deal with Saudi Arabia: in exchange for US arms and military protection, the Saudis would price all their future oil sales in dollars and recycle those dollars through treasury purchases via Wall Street banks. The deal was a bonanza for the oiligarchs; not only did they get to pass the price increases on to the consumers, but they benefited from the huge flows of money into their own banks. The Shah of Iran parked the National Iranian Oil Company’s revenues in Rockefeller’s own Chase Bank, revenues that reached $14 billion per year in the wake of the oil crisis.
With the creation of this new system, the “petrodollar“, the oiligarchs had reached unprecedented levels of control over the economy. Not only that, they had backed the world monetary system with their commodity, oil, and brought potential competition from upstart producer nations under their control all in one step.
But for the insatiable appetites of these monopolist titans, mere control over the world’s monetary system was not enough…
PART THREE: THE WORLD IN THEIR IMAGE
In the nineteenth century, railroad conspiracies and predatory pricing had been enough to assure the oiligarchs’ monopoly. But by the time that the British crown, the Dutch royal family, the Rothschilds and the other European oiligarchs began opening up the Middle East and the Far East to oil exploration in the early twentieth century, the goal was no longer to maximize profits or control the oil industry. It was not even to control international diplomacy. It was to control and shape the world itself. Its resources. Its environment. And its people.
In order to achieve this goal, the oiligarchy would need a facelift.
In the current age, with the Rockefeller name now more likely to be associated with Rockefeller Plaza or Rockefeller University than Standard Oil, it is difficult to understand just how hated John D. was in his own day. He was the head of the Standard Oil Hydra, an octopus strangling the world in his tentacles, a cutthroat gardener pruning the competitors from the flower of his oil monopoly. As one of the richest men the world had ever known, he was an easy target for the average working man’s frustrations and a magnet for the poor seeking help.
Judith Sealander, Historian: He received on average 50 to 60,000 letters a month, asking for help. Dozens of people followed him in the street. Literally, crowds stood around the Standard Oil offices waiting for him to come out. Little children, painfully thin, crying in the street and so on. Rockefeller felt overwhelmed.
Besieged by the downtrodden, despised by the working man, hounded by Ida Tarbell and the muckraking press, John D. had the mother of all PR problems. The answer was simple: invent the PR industry. He hired Ivy Ledbetter Lee, a journalist-turned-communications expert who invented the modern public relations industry to burnish the Rockefellers’ tarnished image. It was Lee that suggested giving the family name to Rockefeller Center and filming John D. handing out dimes in public.
Narrator: An early master of public relations, Lee used the media which the muckrakers had used to disgrace Rockefeller to turn him into a sympathetic figure. Ivy Lee recognized early the power of the new moving picture and used newsreels to show a remarkably benevolent Rockefeller.
John D. Rockefeller: I am very grateful to you and to a host of people who are so kind and good to me all the time.
Second Man: Why, because you’re so good to everybody.
John D. Rockefeller: Yes, you are.
As Ivy Lee began to control his public image he became oddly a kind of American character, and people kind of warmed to him in a bizarre sort of way. It was like having Frankenstein on the loose walking around New York City or something like that, with a cane and a long hat.
Narrator: Although this plane never takes off, this photo opportunity was presented as Senior’s first flight. Perhaps Ivy Lee’s most brilliant public relations move was the casting of Rockefeller as ‘The Man Who Gave out Dimes.’
Man off camera: Don’t you give dimes, Mr. Rockefeller? Please, go ahead.
Woman: Thank you, sir.
Man: Thank you very much.
John D. Rockefeller: Thank you for the ride!
Man: I consider myself more than amply paid.
John D. Rockefeller: Bless you! Bless you! Bless you!
These PR stunts seem obvious and ham-handed by today’s standards, but they were effective enough: to this day people leave dimes on the stone marker at the base of the 70 foot Egyptian obelisk that towers over John D.’s final resting place in Cleveland’s Lake View Cemetery. But it was not stage-managed photo opportunities like these that transformed Rockefeller into a public hero.
In order to win the public over, he was going to have to give them what they wanted. And what they wanted wasn’t difficult to understand: money. But just as his father, Devil Bill, had taught him to do in all his business dealings, Rockefeller made sure to get the better end of the bargain. He would “donate” his great wealth to the creation of public institutions, but those institutions would be used to bend society to his will.
As every would-be ruler throughout history has realized, society has to be transformed from the ground up. Americans in the 19th century still prized education and intellectual pursuits, with the 1840 census finding unsurprisingly that the United States–a nation that had been mobilized by tracts like Thomas Paine’s remarkably popular Common Sense–was a nation of readers, with a remarkable 93% to 100% literacy rate. Before the first compulsory schooling laws in Massachusetts in 1852, education was private and decentralized, and as a result classical education, including study of Greek and Latin and a solid grounding in history and science, was widespread.
But a nation of individuals who could think for themselves was anathema to the monopolists. The oiligarchs needed a mass of obedient workers, an entire class of people whose intellect was developed just enough to prepare them for lives of drudgery in a factory. Into the midst stepped John D. Rockefeller with his first great act of public charity: the establishment of the University of Chicago.
He was aided in this task by Frederick Taylor Gates, a Baptist minister that Rockefeller befriended in 1889 and who would go on to be John D.’s most trusted philanthropic adviser. Gates would go on to write a short tract, “The Country School of Tomorrow,” that laid out the Rockefeller plan for education:
“In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.”
Although Rockefeller’s resources weren’t exactly limitless, they might as well have been. In 1902 he established the General Education Board to help implement Gates’ vision for the country school of tomorrow with a staggering $180 million endowment.
The Rockefeller influence on education was felt almost immediately, and it was amplified by help from fellow monopolists of the era who were approaching the topic of philanthropy from the same angle.
Although best known as a steel magnate, Andrew Carnegie’s fortune started on the railroads transporting Rockefeller’s Standard Oil around the country, and was greatly magnified by a lucrative investment in property near Oil Creek that provided steady, profitable oil sales. In 1905 he established the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, a tax-free foundation through which Carnegie and his appointees could direct the development of the education system in the the United States, and, eventually, worldwide. In 1910, Rockefeller followed suit by establishing the Rockefeller Foundation, which became the tax-free umbrella organization for his philanthropic ambitions.
As the Reece Committee–a Congressional investigation into the activities of these tax-free foundations in the 1950s–discovered, it wasn’t long before Carnegie’s Endowment approached Rockefeller’s Foundation with a proposal: to cooperate on their shared desire to transform the American education system in their own image. Norman Dodd, the director of research for the Congressional committee who was granted access to the Carnegie Endowment’s board minutes, explains:
So they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with a suggestion: that portion of education which could be considered domestic should be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment.
They then decide that the key to the success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American History. So, they approach four of the then most prominent teachers of American History in the country — people like Charles and Mary Byrd. Their suggestion to them is this, “Will they alter the manner in which they present their subject”” And, they get turned down, flatly.
So, they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, i.e. “build our own stable of historians.” Then, they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say” “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American History, and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say so? And the answer is, “Yes.”
So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty (20), and they take these twenty potential teachers of American History to London. There, they are briefed in what is expected of them — when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned.
That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association. And then, toward the end of the 1920’s, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future.
That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.
With this base for transformation firmly established, the Rockefeller Foundation and like-minded organization embarked on a program so ambitious that it almost defies comprehension.
They transformed the practice of medicine.
As usual, the oiligarchs that funded this change were also there to profit from it, and once again John D. took his queue from “Devil” Bill’s example. William Rockefeller had called his brand of snake oil “Nujol,” for “new oil,” and Standard Oil spun off “Nujol” as a laxative under their Stanco subsidiary. Manufactured on the same premises as “Flit,” an insecticide also derived from Standard Oil’s byproducts, “Nujol” sold at the druggist for 28 cents per six ounce bottle; it cost Standard Oil less than one-fifth of a cent to manufacture. Pharmaceuticals provided a lucrative new opportunity for the oiligarchs, but in a turn-of-the-century America that was still largely based on naturopathic, herbal remedies, it was a tough sell. The oiligarchy went to work changing that.
In 1901 John D. established the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. The Institute recruited Simon Flexner, a pathology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, to serve as its director. His brother, Abraham, was an educator who was contracted by the Carnegie Foundation to write a report on the state of the American medical education system. His study, The Flexner Report, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were to shower on medical research in the coming years, resulted in a sweeping overhaul of the American medical system. Naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, medical care focused on un-patentable, uncontrollable natural remedies and cures was now dismissed as quackery; only drug-based allopathic medicine requiring expensive medical procedures and lengthy hospital stays was to be taken seriously.
Narrator: The fortunes of Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller financed surgery, radiation and synthetic drugs. They were to become the economic foundations of the new medical economy.
G. Edward Griffin: The takeover of the medical industry was accomplished by the takeover of the medical schools. Well, the people that we’re talking about, Rockefeller and Carnegie in particular, came to the picture and said ‘We will put up money.’ They offered tremendous amounts of money to the schools that would agree to cooperate with them. The donors said to the schools: ‘We’re giving you all this money, now would it be too much to ask if we could put some of our people on your Board of Directors to see that our money is being spent wisely?’ Almost overnight all of the major universities received large grants from these sources and also accepted one, two or three of these people that I mentioned on their Board of Directors and the schools literally were taken over by the financial interests that put up the money.
Now what happened as a result of that is the schools did receive an infusion of money, they were able to build new buildings, they were able to add expensive equipment to their laboratories, they were able to hire top-notch teachers, but at the same time as doing that they schewed the whole thing in the direction of pharmaceutical drugs. That was the efficiency in philanthropy.
The doctors from that point forward in history would be taught pharmaceutical drugs. All of the great teaching institutions in America were captured by the pharmaceutical interests in this fashion, and it’s amazing how little money it really took to do it.
The oiligarchy birthed entire medical industries from their own research centers and then sold their own products from their own petrochemical companies as the “cure.” It was Frank Howard, a Standard Oil of New Jersey executive, who would go on to persuade Alfred Sloan and Charles Kettering to donate their fortunes to the cancer center that would then bear their name. As director of research at Sloan-Kettering, Howard appointed Cornelius Rhoads, a Rockefeller Institute pathologist, to develop his wartime research on mustard gas for the US Army into a new cancer therapy. Under Rhoads’ leadership, nearly the entire program and staff of the Chemical Warfare Service were reformed into the SKI drug development program, where they worked on converting mustard gas into chemotherapy. And once again, the Rockefeller’s own snake oil was being sold as a cancer cure-all.
The oiligarchs’ interest in the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry converged in companies like I.G. Farben, a drug and chemical cartel formed in Germany in the early 20th century. Royal Dutch’s Prince Bernhard served on an I.G. Farben subsidiary’s board in the 1930s and the cartel’s American operation, set up in cooperation with Standard Oil, included on its board Standard Oil president Walter Teagle as well as Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., itself headed by Jacob Schiff of the Rothschild broker family. At its height, I.G. Farben was the largest chemical company in the world and the fourth largest industrial concern in the world, right behind Standard Oil of New Jersey.
The company was broken up after World War II, but like Standard Oil, its various pieces remained intact and today BASF, one of its chemical offshoots, remains the largest chemical company in the world, while Bayer and Sanofi, two of its pharmaceutical offshoots are among the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.
Not content merely to monopolize the fields of education and medicine, the same oiligarchical interests banded together to take control of America’s finances. In 1910 John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s own father-in-law, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of the National City Bank, and Paul Warburg, as well as various agents of J.P. Morgan, met in complete secrecy on Jekyll Island to hammer out the details of what would go on to become the Federal Reserve, America’s central bank. The Fed, established in 1913, would be run by hand-picked appointees of the oiligarchy and their banking associates, including, perhaps inevitably, Standard Oil president and American I.G. director Walter Teagle.
The Rockefeller family would go on to formally enter the banking field in the 1950s when James Stillman Rockefeller, the grandson of John D.’s brother, was appointed director of National City Bank. Meanwhile John D.’s own grandson, David Rockefeller, would go on to take over Chase Manhattan Bank, the long-time banking partner of the Standard Oil empire.
In this move the Rockefellers’ story perfectly mirrored that of their fellow oiligarchs the Rothschilds. Whereas the Rothschilds had supplemented their banking fortune with their oil interests, the Rockefellers supplemented their oil fortune with banking interests.
Springboarding from success to success as they consolidated monopolies across every field of human activity, the oiligarchs’ ambitions became even larger. This time, their goal was to consolidate control over the very food supply of the world itself, and once again they would use philanthropy as the cover for their business takeover.
Narrator: The Green Revolution began in 1943 when plant geneticist Norman Borlaug and a team of researchers arrived on Mexican soil. His goal was to improve agricultural techniques and biotechnological methodologies which in turn would help alleviate starvation and improve the living quality of developing nations. Creating new genetically modified strains of wheat, rich, maize and other crops, Borlaug planned to win the battle against world hunger. The hope was that these new crops and farming techniques would rescue third world countries from the brink of starvation.
That’s exactly what happened. The agricultural innovations brought to the poverty-stricken countries gave the farmers the skills and resources necessary to sustain themselves. This triggered a chain of events that would allow these once-struggling nations to survive. Agricultural exports soared in quantity and diversity and allowed the countries to become self-sufficient.
As the genetically modified crops thrived, farmers were able to use their increased income to purchase newer and superior farming machinery. This increase in revenue made farming easier, more reliable and more efficient. The Green Revolution led to the modernization of agriculture and has had a profound social, economic and political impact on the world.
The Mexican government turned to the Rockefeller Foundation in their endeavour to nourish Mexico through agriculture.
Norman Borlaug, needless to say, was a researcher for the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Green Revolution, for whatever increase in yields it brought about, also created markets for the oiligarchs’ own interest in the petrochemical fertilizer industry and gave rise to the “ABCD” seed cartel of Archer Daniels Midand, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus. These companies, along with their associated interests in the food packaging and processing industry, formed the core of American “agribusiness,” a concept developed at Harvard Business School in the 1950s with the help of research conducted by Wassily Leontief for the Rockefeller Foundation.
The American agribusiness giants shared a common goal: the transformation of third world agriculture into a captive market for their goods. From this perspective, the project was a runaway success. By the 1970s the Rockefeller Standard Oil network and its cronies in the nitrogen fertilizer industry (including DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Hercules Powder) had broken into markets around the world, markets conveniently forced open for them by the US government itself under President Johnson’s “Food for Peace” program, which mandated the use of petrochemical-dependent agricultural technologies (fertilizers, tractors, irrigation, etc.) by aid recipients.
Unable to afford these new technologies themselves, the impoverished third-world “beneficiaries” of this “revolution” relied on loans from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank handled by Rockefeller’s own Chase Manhattan Bank and guaranteed by the US government.
The real costs of the Green Revolution, economic, agricultural and environmental are seldom tallied. Access to these debt-financed petrochemical-dependent technologies exacerbated the difference between the rich landowning class and the landless peasants in countries like India, where land reform and abolition of usury were dropped from the political agenda after the Green Revolution took over.
Even then, the revolution’s main success, its increase in agricultural yields, has been oversold. Yield growth across India actually slowed after the introduction of agribusiness. The environmental destruction is even more devastating. An overview in the December 2000 edition of Current Science notes: “The gree n revolution has not only increased productivity, but it has also [produced] several negative ecological consequences such as depletion of lands, decline in soil fertility, soil salinization, soil erosion, deterioration of environment, health hazards, poor sustainability of agricultural lands and degradation of biodiversity. Indiscriminate use of pesticides, irrigation and imbalanced fertilization has threatened sustainability.”
The Rockefeller Foundation even acknowledges the critiques of the Green Revolution it funded into existence, insisting that “current initiatives take into account lessons learned.” Even so, the Foundation continues to fund research and write reports on how to improve prospects for agribusiness investment in its target markets.
As egregious as the Green Revolution was and continues to be, however, in many ways it was just the prelude to an even more ambitious project: the Gene Revolution. Now the project is not merely to monopolize the technologies, supplies and chemical inputs for agriculture worldwide, but to monopolize the food supply itself through the replacement of the world’s natural seeds with patentable genetically modified crops.
The players involved in this “Gene Revolution” are almost identical to the players in the Green Revolution, with I.G. Farben offshoots Bayer CropScience and BASF PlantScience mingling with traditional oiligarch associate companies like Dow AgroScience, DuPont Biotechnology, and, of course, Monsanto, all funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and fellow “philanthropists” at the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and like-minded organizations.
The convergence of corporate, “philanthropic,” governmental and inter-governmental interests in promoting GM crops around the world can be seen in the bewildering array of research institutes, industry associations, and “consultative groups” devoted to the case. The Rockefeller-funded International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the Rockefeller/Monsanto/USAID brainchild International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), the Rockefeller/Ford/World Bank created Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and dozens of other bland, benign-sounding organizations research and promote GM crops in target markets around the globe, with the profits ending up in the oiligarchs’ coffers.
A representative example of this story is the agribusiness neocolonization of Argentina, where Monsanto ran an elaborate “bait-and-switch” to get the country hooked on its genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans before demanding royalties on the crops that were by then already growing. DuPont then took over, magnanimously beginning a “Protein for Life” programme to foist their own GM soybeans on the country’s poor.
The same scene has played itself out in country after country, where cartel-developed GM crops are foisted on emerging economies through “food aid,” usually during times of famine when those countries are especially vulnerable. Only a handful of countries like Zambia or Angola have outright rejected this GMO takeover of their food supply, generously subsidized by the US government to the benefit of the agribusiness cartel.
Conclusion: Monopolizing Life
From cutthroat pioneers of the early oil industry to Machiavellian social engineers and geopolitics schemers, the oiligarchs have come a long way since the days of Devil Bill’s snake oil cure-alls. But his use of every form of deception and trickery to swindle the public informed how John D. and the rest of the oiligarchs built up their business interests.
As the 20th century drew to a close, it was obvious that for the powerful cartel that built the oil industry–the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the British and Dutch royal families–it was no longer about oil, if it ever really was. The takeover of education, of medicine, of the monetary system, of the food supply itself, showed that the aim was much greater than a mere oil monopoly: it was the quest to monopolize all aspects of life. To erect the perfect system of control over every aspect of society, every sector from which any threat of competition to their power could emerge.
They had been remarkably, almost unbelievably, successful. From oil well to gas pump, farm to fork, hospital to pharmaceutical, drill rig to dollar bill, there was almost no aspect of society that was not under control.
But the oiligarchs are not done yet. Their next project, launched in the late 20th century, is almost too ambitious to be comprehended. It is not about oil. It is not about money. It is about the monopolization of life itself. They have spent decades preparing the path for this takeover and marshaled their mind-boggling resources in service of the task.
And the vast majority of the world’s population, still playing the shell game that the oiligarchs perfected and abandoned long ago, are about to fall right into their hands yet again.
Prince Charles: “Ladies and gentlemen, the battle against climate change is surely the most defining and pivotal challenge of our time. Even in a world full of daunting perils and crises, it is hard to imagine anything that poses a greater challenge and opportunity for humanity.”
We are going to put imagination to a test. You are each encouraged to do this on your own.
Put pen to paper, and imagine the world as it will be during the year 2020.
Let’s begin.
Monsanto‘s stock will be completely eviscerated as more information comes forth regarding their full range of cancerous products and genetically modified food garbage.
Cyber false flags will increase at a monumental rate. Said events will be used by the mainstream media presstitutes and the comptrollers to push further for a digital currency. Most people will be skeptical given the banking /financial establishment’s unstable records.
The powers that shouldn’t be will keep pushing the Vaccine agenda, but they will stir a hornet’s nest as millions of parents, specifically women, will draw the line at forceful vaccinations [such as SB277] which will also merge into a greater agenda, that being forceful medical procedures. Lines will be drawn. The parents will make sure there is hell to pay if anyone touches their children.
People will figure how to breakaway from fluoride. Fluoridation information will go widespread, as information will reach critical mass as countless more towns will continue to clamor for the removal of fluoridation such as this, and this, and this, and this, oh and this. Untold numbers of folks will begin to realize the benefits of real, clean water, and will purchase, and create their own filters as time goes by.
Aspartame will be seen as equal to diseases by a sizeable portion of the population and outright bans will be requested, which storm all the way up to congress as more and more people continue to file thousands of adverse side effects from the consumption of such products poisons.
The mainstream media will no longer be seen by the majority of the populace as the most trusted news source. Their numbers will continue to plummet, which will force buy-outs, mergers and outright shutdowns of entire news stations. More independent journalists will detach from the system and they will be coming out in droves. They will smell blood, and the sharks will circle, for the first REAL time in quite a while.
More cancer cures will be found, and an exponential number of people will find out the truth about the causes/cures for cancer and how Big Pharma/Big Medica and the comptrollers are responsible for the suppression of many [most?] of the cures. An increasing number of people will also begin to seek alternative remedies for their diseases, and even more will learn how to combat diseases in more ways than most can imagine.
Organic, non-genetically modified, gluten free, locally grown fresh foods, will grow exponentially to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, with an outside shot at overtaking 100 billion as more corporations position themselves for the global change. This will propel a tidal wave of companies into a bottleneck for decent portions of the market share. New faces will rise, old ones will fall, but folks still remain weary given the previous behavior of corporations in years past.
Tangible assets will grow in people’s portfolios, and those said assets will become more readily known by the ‘average’ investor. People will take the reins of their financial flagship and steer it where it makes most sense for them, and not the corporations. Savings rate will be the highest its been in decades. Banks won’t be as trusted as before, even though they will continue to clamor for a digital currencies.
Average health in the United States, and in many western nations, will begin to shift due to the unprecedented change of people shifting to real foods. More people will quit smoking and drinking due to the deleterious effects those vices cause on their health.
Homegrown foods will increase at an extremely rapid rate, and people will begin saving bucket loads of money due to this transition. Their health will also benefit greatly from such an endeavor.
Tyrannical government players will continue to play the ‘gun-control’ cards after real shootings coupled with false-flag operations. However, they will realize that similar to the Vaccine Agenda, the Gun-Control card will only be worse for them and will serve to wake people up as its continuing to do.
The controlled descent of the economy will have begin to shift into a holding pattern, as 3D printing, coupled with local/online small businesses which are infused with cash via crowdfunding programs that will continue to take the entire globe by storm as individuals stampede into taking their power back. Manufacturing within the United States will begin to look better than it has in over a decade. Small business will be a boon to the economy, especially local ones.
The fracture that is taking place behind the scenes between different warring factions of the globalist empires – some of them no doubt breakaways – will amplify in breath and scope. Mysterious murders and deaths will litter the American/European/global landscape as hidden players keep vying for power in this global game of chess. Who will win? That’s up to you to decide.
New whistleblowers will emerge within the Cancer, Vaccine, Health, Biotech, Financial and Intelligence structures. Data dumps will be the name of the game, and this will cause chaos behind the scenes.
Lockheed Martin’s stock will continue to grow due to their unprecedented technological innovation directly tied to the Breakaway Structure and powerplayers. Many space related corporations/assets will grow, many of them privately, and a select few will hold more power than people imagine. Space Ports will begin to grow en mass within the BRICS Nations. Space Tourism will be the talk of the day, but false flags will morphon the horizonbeyond our atmosphere in the form of ‘accidents’. Some battle lines will be drawn in the sand in space between the Breakaways and newer players.
But more importantly, you will realize how to play their game, which is by removing yourself from the board completely thus not allowing your time/money/energy to be tapped by such a noxious system.
The question isn’t why would those events take place? The question is why not? Some strong currents of change are already being felt.
The power will ultimately lie in the individual. Will the individual choose to continue the toxic life, or will they realize that there are other doors, other options to be able to live a better, happier, more product life for themselves? Time will tell.
All of this will ensue with billions of choices. You can either help your freedom, or help your slavery. In the end, everyone helps polish one side of the coin or the other.
—————————————–
On the pillars of tomorrow, Orwell and Huxley will be sitting. While relaxing on rocking chairs, volleying back and forth in a heated game of chess, they eventually note the change in the currents of humanity. Each will gaze at each other, nod, smirk, realizing that for the first time in modern times the tsunami of chaos that was heading in our direction, was redirected right at the powers that shouldn’t be.
Then Orwell proceeds to tell Huxley, “Guess Tesla was right?”
“Regarding what?” Huxley counters.
“Last week at our roundtable discussions remember he said ‘Every living being is an engine geared to the wheelwork of the universe. Though seemingly affected only by its immediate surroundings, the sphere of influence extends to infinite distance.’”
“Guess humanity is figuring it out after all…” finalizes Huxley.
Orwell nods in appreciation as they fade away into the memories of the Universe.
A Special Analysis By Richard M. Dolan, April 2011
Our Classified World
Since the time of Pericles, defenders of human freedom have promoted the virtues of open debate within society, and for the full freedom of citizens to investigate their government and world. Whether in a household, a classroom, or a nation, a free flow of critically examined and openly discussed ideas gives us our best chance for intellectual growth and personal achievement.
The legendary physicist, Robert J. Oppenheimer, put the matter succinctly. “There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry,” wrote the man who led the Manhattan Project. “There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.”
Oppenheimer, a man of conscience and intellect who straddled the worlds of free inquiry and national security, was in a good position to understand the deep meaning of his words.
And yet, despite the wonders of the Web, our world is not one in which free inquiry is the rule. It is a world in which our reality is polished and tinted on a daily basis by global power interests, and in which much of what really goes on is classified.
Consider. The Library of Congress adds roughly 60 million pages to its holdings each year, a huge cache of information for the public. However, also each year, the U.S. Government classifies nearly ten times that amount – an estimated 560 million pages of documents. For scholars engaged in political, historical, scientific, or any other archival work, the grim reality is that most of their government’s activities are secret.
What’s especially galling is that the nature of modern scientific and academic work enable such secrecy to thrive. This belies what they are supposed to do, at least according to the proponents of an open society.
One reason for this unhappy situation is simply how science operates. All scientific and academic inquiry is predicated upon being able to work from open and fully accessible sources. As Oppenheimer understood, scientific research must be available for examination by outsiders. The word for this is falsifiability. It’s an important concept in science. If you lack the chance to “falsify” a proposition – that is, to prove it wrong – then it’s not valid. It may in fact be true, but philosophically speaking, it’s not valid.
The enormous volume of classified material means that most of the activities of the U.S. government (and we can assume most other governments and major entities) are impossible to verify one way or another. Because nearly all scientists and academicians are confined to public sources for their research, we end up with a version of reality that excludes the world of secrecy.
Certainly, the track record of scientists and university scholars in the last century bears out the claim that they are ill-suited to exposing runaway secrecy. For they have done so little of it.
To be sure, journalists have fared better. But, really, not much better. These days, most journalists fit the same mold as their colleagues in the laboratories and ivory towers. They work for large organizations with a definite hierarchy, they are given narrowly defined guidelines within which to work, and they usually follow someone else’s agenda.
Those few who try to expose the world of secrecy face the problem of using sources that are not always open, not always falsifiable. That is, by using leaks, by corroborating multiple sources that may hint of something — but do not always confirm. To say nothing of the professional pressures and even censure they often face for doing their work.
And that, my friends, is one reason why secrecy has always been, and will always continue to be, a prerogative of the powerful.
The Trail of Secrecy
The world of secrecy has run away from us, beyond the ability of free citizens to examine and critique. When we trace the evolution of this secrecy, we find it hard to pinpoint just when things turned south. This has been going on for a long time. Modern secrecy is a not-so-surprising outgrowth of our bureaucratic world, a development in all likelihood discussed a century ago by the great Max Weber (although I admit that my once-honed skills as a Weberian are a bit dulled nowadays, I suspect the Great One had a few things to say on this).
Still, there are certain moments that accelerated the process. When in doubt, always look to the wars. In the 20th century, the two world wars were obviously important in creating the massive state secrecy machines that envelop our world today. Enormous intelligence communities were created during those engagements, and once created, such things have a nasty habit of sticking around.
But students of secrecy frequently overlook one of the most important creators of our black-budget world. That is the UFO phenomenon.
Spend any amount of time on this issue, and the UFO-connection becomes self-evident. Imagine yourself as the American President following the Second World War. Your nation has just emerged victorious from the most titanic struggle in human history. Although you now lead the greatest military and economic power on the planet, the war has exhausted a world that desperately needs to repair itself and get on with the process of living.
In this context, you learn that there are “others” who are here. Others with capabilities vastly beyond anything your scientists can fathom. This is because, starting in the 1940s and continuing to our present day, U.S. and other military agencies have been tracking and attempting to intercept aerial objects of extraordinary capabilities and unknown origin. Moreover, in all likelihood, you learn something else: not only are “they” are here, but your military has recovered some of their technology. [Those wanting more information can review my two volumes of history, which document this story. For a short review of some key UFO documents, see here].
Forget Orson Wells and the panic of 1938 – panic might well be happening among the intelligentsia that manage the country and the world.
What would you do?
Well, one thing you would not do is tell the world. You would need information first. Who are these beings? Do we have anything to worry about? What can we learn from their technology and science? How do we keep this from our enemies (e.g. the Soviet Union)? How bad might public panic be? All the logical questions.
You would organize your best people and have them create the groups and protocols to study and control this information. You might have them conduct a preliminary study to decide what the best course of action should be.
You also could not tell Congress, no matter how unconstitutional that might be. Plain and simple, Congress would not keep the secret. For the time being at any rate Congress must not know, so you would reason.
Still, if you want scientists to study the technology, if you want the loyal cooperation of key insiders to maintain the secret, if you want a permanent infrastructure to deal with the ongoing challenge posed by these other beings — if you want all of these things and countless others associated with managing this problem — then you would need money, ultimately a great deal of it. This would not be cheap, not at all. And the appropriations would have to remain secret.
Thus, the UFO phenomenon, which fell into the lap of the U.S. national security establishment right after the Second World War, was one of the key instigators of what we now call the black budget.
The black budget, however, turned out to be only the beginning of the secrecy problem.
What makes a civilization?
At heart and by training, I am a historian. Every so often, a particular question arises in my mind. While admittedly of limited practical value, and certainly not something that most professional historians write about, I find it intriguing to ponder.
What constitutes a distinct civilization?
Definitely one of the broader and more difficult questions. Still, I think that we basically have a feel for the matter. We know that colonial America was part of a different civilization from, say, that of 6th century Byzantium during the reign of Justinian. Or that we today, despite living in a world that owes much to the legacy of the western Europeans of the last few centuries, nevertheless live in a world that Voltaire could scarcely have dreamed of.
To answer the question, we need to consider several factors. Of obvious importance would be the level of science and types of technology it uses, how its members organize among themselves, the coherency and independence of its infrastructure. Then there is the life of the mind: how do the people tend to view themselves and their place in the cosmos? It seems to me that these questions give us a good start toward shedding light on the matter.
One of humanity’s great themes of the past five centuries is our ever-greater connectedness — the slow but steady merging of civilizations. Globalization did not start with the Rockefellers, Rothschildes, Bilderberg Group, or Illuminati. It has been, first and foremost, an inexorable, unrelenting process of technology and economics; the politics are secondary. Since at least the voyages of Columbus and Magellan, it has been binding all of humanity together. Now, in an age of borderless electronic transactions, cellphones, Google, Skype, Facebook, and Youtube, this process – although not quite complete – has shifted into the highest gear.
I would never presume, a la Toynbee, to list every distinct civilization that has appeared on Earth in the course of human history. For my purposes, I only ask this question:
Given that our world appears to be moving toward (an admittedly incomplete) merging of civilizations, is it possible that something might yet buck that trend? Moreover, that such a thing might happen secretly?
Before dismissing such speculation out of hand, consider that even within the past century, our world has seen examples of large infrastructures that were, if not wholly secret, at least fairly isolated from each other and highly secretive. Consider the example of the Cold War. While the U.S. and Soviet Union were not truly distinct civilizations, many people at the time did see it that way. The two societies had a high degree of autonomy from each other. The economic infrastructures were separate to a remarkable degree. Within the life of the mind, they inhabited separate worlds with incompatible ideologies. Secrecy from each other was the basic fact of life. Not only did U.S. and Soviet scientists hide their research from each other, but they sometimes followed entirely different paths, occasionally reaching absurd levels (as when Soviet biologists were forced to regurgitate the fraudulent science of Trofim Lysenko).
But forget the Cold War with its secret and divergent infrastructures. Today, the U.S. maintains a massive secrecy infrastructure, with untold billions (or trillions?) having been siphoned off into it, year after year. In other words, we know that the classified world has an astonishing amount of money and deep secrecy. There is no question of this. What we want to ask is: how advanced is their technology? What key breakthroughs might they have learned?
By way of illustration, I will relate something told to me by a scientist formerly with the National Security Agency. During a private conversation, he told me that at least some computers within the NSA were running at a clock speed of 650 MHz during the mid-1960s. Today, of course, that’s well below the speed of an entry-level PC desktop computer. Keep in mind, however, that this speed was not matched by the consumer market until around the year 2000, a difference of 35 years. Indeed, there were no consumer-market computers in 1965!
Also recall that in 1965, the NSA was only just barely being discussed by the public. Its very existence had been classified at its creation in 1952, and its name was mentioned for the first time, vaguely and in passing, in a 1957 government manual. Only in 1964 was it subject to (a very partial) discussion in a published book. In other words, the NSA had the most advanced computing capabilities in the world, and almost nobody in the world even knew it existed.
Now ask yourself, given (a) great secrecy, (b) great amounts of money, (c) several decades, (d) enough genius-level scientists working for you, and (e) extraterrestrial or alien technology to study, is it possible for key breakthroughs to be made without the rest of the world ever learning of them? Breakthroughs so substantial that they create new areas of scientific study, new technologies, new capabilities, new interactions with these “others,” and as a result a radically new understanding of humanity itself and the cosmos within which we live?
Would such changes result in a clandestine world so different that it might qualify as a separate civilization? One that has broken away from our own?
I think the answer to that is yes.
How the classified world broke away
Let’s now return to UFOs, and build the most likely scenario based on what we know.
One thing is for certain: some agency or group has been operating aerial vehicles that are well beyond the capabilities of any known aircraft. Military jets of the U.S. and other nations have chased them. They do not resemble known types of vehicles. They have sometimes invaded sensitive airspace.
Whether these UFOs are “ours” or “theirs,” it means that an advanced and secret infrastructure must exist in order to account for them, and advanced concepts in physics are being applied by someone.
In addition, there is a strong likelihood that several UFOs have been recovered by military units. This is based on several specific accounts (most famously Roswell but many others), as well as on unconfirmed (but plentiful) statements by military personnel who have quietly relayed their knowledge to researchers. These include descriptions of extraterrestrial bodies being examined, flying saucers being studied and replicated, and a wide range of space-based activity that points to a secret space program.
If, as I believe, some claims of recovered UFOs are true, it would mean there has been a program to study and replicate them. How could it be otherwise? No agency with a crashed or otherwise downed UFO would simply sit on its hands for sixty years, looking at it.
No, it would do everything possible to understand it, no matter how far beyond current science it might be. The group that controlled it would keep it secret at all cost, beneath many layers of deception and deniability. That much is clear. But what would happen next?
At some point, we must assume, breakthroughs of understanding would occur, even if the alien artifacts could not be duplicated. Buried within the protection of a largely privatized national security structure, who can really trace definitively the stories behind some of the key patents of the Cold War? I think a number of developments relating to solid-state electronics, fiber optics, and other useful technologies could well have been inspired by studying exotic freebees.
Such breakthroughs mean attractive ground floor investments, handsome profits, and less-than-zero motivation for revealing the “goose that lays golden eggs.” But let us take the scenario even further. What if even greater breakthroughs of understanding were achieved? A better source of energy, a functioning electro-gravitic propulsion system, or a biotechnology that eliminates certain diseases?
I have no doubt that breakthroughs of that sort would be blocked from reaching the outside world. A new source of energy, especially if it were “free” or nearly so, would demolish the petroleum industry, while certain biotech developments would threaten Big Pharma. These are two of the largest industries in the world.
Major breakthroughs would also threaten to destabilize society and challenge the structure of power. Cheap and portable energy, as implied by flying saucers, would revolutionize our world so completely that no one can truly fathom what the world would look like once it became available. The same can be said for technologies that might enable people to live for 150 years or longer.
But just because certain discoveries and inventions would be kept secret, study on them would not cease. We have seen that by the mid-1960s, the highly secretive NSA had amazingly advanced computing technology for its time; is it possible that breakthroughs in field propulsion were made by the 1960s if not earlier? Such have been the claims of several leaks and rumors over the years. If so, then we would conceivably have had a small flying saucer fleet at some point thereafter.
With a secret fleet of vehicles utilizing field propulsion and able to explore beyond Earth’s orbit, it is easy to see how the cadre of people involved in such a program would develop new vistas of experience and imagination.
Such a group would continue to be funded secretly and covertly by a combination of public and private funds. In effect, it would constitute an invisible empire, with technology superior to the rest of the world, able to explore areas of our world unavailable to the rest of us. It would probably have a significant built infrastructure, possibly underground and “off the grid” in important ways. It might even have interactions or encounters with non-human intelligences behind the UFO phenomenon. Most certainly it would be concerned somehow with managing the problem of “others” here on Planet Earth. All of the above would indicate that the group members would have deeper scientific and cosmological insights.
Yes, this might qualify them as a separate, “breakaway,” civilization.
Such a group would have great independence from the established system of power and control, although I would doubt its members would live in a completely separate environment all the time, like some Alternative 3 scenario. Most likely they would need to work in “our” world, if for no other reason than that Earth is where the action is. They would probably move back and forth between the realities of their deeply classified world and the official reality that the rest of us inhabit. Undoubtedly not an easy life.
What are they doing? What is the end game?
Americans of my generation and earlier were taught that they lived in a free country. We elected our leaders, and if they didn’t please us, we could vote them out and elect someone else. Government was responsible to the people. Secrets and crimes occurred, of course, but as long as the system worked, the wrongdoers could be exposed and brought to justice.
Most people now recognize this belief for the idealized fantasy that it is. One of the key components of a free society is freedom of information, and to a large extent that system within the U.S. has broken down. In my own research and meanderings down the road of secrecy, I have come across a few names that inhabit this deeply clandestine world. One of them, in my opinion at least, ought to be famous by virtue of his career, which was at the highest levels of NORAD. By rights, several other names I have encountered should also be famous. Who knows, perhaps one day they will be. But today, none of them yield a single hit on any web search. As far as anyone would know, they simply don’t exist.
Of course, that’s an old story for those who work in the cloak and dagger world of intelligence, but I think it is especially true for members of the breakaway civilization. Learning about them and their world, therefore, is likely never going to happen until the truth about UFO reality is itself exposed – which it will be one day – and relevant information is forced out by public action. Meanwhile, I speculate about the lives lived by members of this world.
Ask yourself, if it were learned that multiple groups of “others” were here who possessed extraordinary capabilities, had a deep understanding of our world, and were driven by as-yet unknown or unconfirmed agendas, how would the classified world respond?
What follows derives from a combination of logic and confidential conversations I have had in the course of my journeys into this field, as well as discussions with a few other researchers who are also uncovering the same general scenario. Quietly, we are doing what we can to help each other and learn more about all this.
I believe that members of the breakaway civilization are recruited from the militaries of several nations. It appears that the U.S. Navy is a key provider of personnel. But wherever they come from, they work under deep cover, below many layers of deniability. Those of them who have families give no hint to their spouses and children what they really do, which is to monitor and somehow deal with the presence of these other beings. Obviously, these people are lifers. Even after they retire, they are never truly out.
Their interests include not simply advanced propulsion and weaponry, although these are important. My best guess is that other areas include several that are off-limits to respectable science: psi enhancement, memory management, and space-time management. It seems to me that at least some people who are said to be “military abductees” have been taken and used in this manner – but clearly not by the standard military branches. No, this is an operation courtesy of our “breakaway” group, which works with military cover. Such actions are necessary from their point of view, as they know that these “others” operate in a way that can affect space-time reality. They might therefore decide that they need their own cadre to “see” and affect things across space and time.
The breakaway civilization is probably not unified. Certainly, rivalries and competition abound within the U.S. and global intelligence scene. It is probably no different here, and there is no reason to suppose that the original incarnation of “MJ-12” is the only game in town. Within the sprawling U.S. intelligence structure are many opportunities for rogue, or at least divergent, groups. I believe this applies to the breakaway civilization, and the logic is certainly there. The prize, after all, is substantial: knowledge of the most advanced technologies and scientific concepts imaginable. The same diversity, incidentally, seems to apply to the “others.” These beings may not all cooperate with each other, but whether or not there are active hostilities among them I have no idea.
My supposition is based on a combination of the known facts and the additional scraps that have reached me. If I am right, then a web of attitudes and alliances exists behind the scenes. In such a situation, having an accurate scorecard would be quite valuable. Still, I must emphasize I cannot prove this scenario at the present time. I consider it a working theory.
I should think that members of the breakaway civilization might despair of ever educating the rest of humanity on what is going on. Their own reality is probably so far beyond our own, they may rightfully ask, how can they bring us up to speed without causing a worldwide psychological meltdown?
But as I have felt for some time, neither they nor the “others” are the only game in town. The great variable in the secrecy equation is ourselves. That is, the mainstream human civilization that is currently undergoing the most radical transformation in its history. In a mere century we have gone from a society of horses pulling carts to one of advanced computing and space travel. As I have stated in a number of lectures, most experts in the field of artificial intelligence believe we are a mere generation away from the day when your computer will be talking to you, claiming to be a conscious entity. You may well accept that claim. Then there is the future of nanotech, biotech, and quantum computing. Just as Voltaire would not recognize our world today, we can scarcely imagine the world that will exist a mere half-century from now.
Unless it falls off the rails, this train has an inevitable destination: one in which we prove openly and for certain that the UFO phenomenon is real and that there are other intelligences involved in it.
Nothing worth achieving is ever easy. Yet, one day, humanity will pry open its prison door. That will be a joyous day, but also bittersweet — for we will realize that the struggle for truth has not ended. New truths will need to be fought for and won. It is the price we must inevitably pay for having lived so long beneath the heavy burden of such pervasive falsehoods.
Only then will we begin the long process of reintegrating all of humanity into the light of day. And only then — finally then — can we fully rise to the challenges posed, for better or for worse, by these other beings.
TheBreakAway 
