thegreatresoot Online

83 Male from Phenix City       33
         

thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: A while ago, I made a post analyzing and quoting an article titled “Ruling Class Journalists” by Richard Harwood on October 30, 1993 published by the Washington Post. The article outlines how the owners and prominent journalists of media conglomerates making up the so-called free press in the United States of America are by and large members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Harwood calls the Council on Foreign Relations the “nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

He goes through the history of the symbiotic relationship between the press and the Council on Foreign Relations, detailing many of its members. He also makes it clear that the press is part of the establishment and is actively involved in shaping American policy through the Council on Foreign Relations, not merely serving as a watchdog for the public’s interest as Americans have been told.

Today, I’m going to be demonstrating how the banking establishment established near full control over the major organs of the free press even before the Council on Foreign Relations’ creation in 1921.

Congressman Francis Oscar Callaway (TX) spoke before the House of Representatives on February 3, 1917 regarding why wasteful military spending, often on obsolete battleships, resulting in high deficits in the national budget. While speaking on this issue, he referenced testimony of the fact that the Morgan family and J.P. Morgan interests (after J.P. Morgan’s death in 1913) had purchased the most prominent newspapers in the country in order to control public opinion.

He stated that the J.P. Morgan men had “got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States”. Once this committee had been established they selected 179 newspapers and sifted through them to determine how many would be necessary to purchase in order for their banking interest to control the opinions and sentiment of the general public.

They discovered that they would need to only purchase 25 of the country’s most prominent newspapers in order to be able to use them to create, control and manipulate public opinion, “They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month”. Congressman Callaway mentioned how they could use these newspapers to create the public’s opinions regarding foreign policy, financial policy and things of an international nature that were important to the vital interests of the purchasers. He also mentioned how this level of media control would also allow the J.P. Morgan family and interests to suppress everything that was in opposition to their interests.

Callaway mentioned how since March, 1915 these papers were manipulating public sentiment into supporting wasteful military spending that was not necessary or useful to America’s campaign in World War I.

Callaway may have been primarily concerned with wasteful military spending, budget deficits and war profiteering (researching the Nye Committee to learn more about this) as a result of this Morgan owned media cabal. However, this level of media conclusion with banking interests and bloodline families has far more serious implications and dangers in terms of the manipulation of public opinion. This consolidation was a precursor towards the media’s integration into the Council on Foreign Relations and their role as a mouthpiece for the globalist, one-world government establishment.

Remember this information the next time you hear someone claiming that the United States of America, or any country for that matter, has a so-called free press that serves as a watchdog for the public’s interests.


Congressional Record, February 3, 1917, Volume 54 pp. Page 2571 (Francis Oscar Callaway mentioning J.P. Morgan interests buying up and consolidating media control):
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1917-pt3-v54/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1917-pt3-v54-8-2.pdf

“In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.

These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.

This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is “patriotism.” They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.”
17 days ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: This is a quote from president Woodrow Wilson in his book The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People that was published in 1913. In the following two paragraphs, Wilson admits that since entering politics, he’s had people at the highest levels of industry confide him in him that they are afraid a federation of secret societies composed of the most powerful industrialists in the country. He describes these secret societies and organizations as so organized, subtle, watchful, interlocked, complete and pervasive that men don’t dare to openly criticize these groups.

He further states that if aspiring entrepreneurs and businessmen don’t join this federation of secret societies and organizations and adhere to their wishes, that they will find themselves backlisted and unable to even compete within the marketplace. Wilson describes how these organizations and secret societies will put pressure on the new industrialist’s suppliers, customers and retailers to discourage them from even doing business with him and effectively bankrupt him by preventing him from even participating in the market entirely.

This is a very important quote because it demonstrates that even as far back as 1913, the so-called capitalist, free enterprise marketplace didn’t exist as people envisioned it. Instead, the American economy, and the world economy for that matter, operated as a network of interconnected cartels and trusts. Anyone at the highest levels of industry who attempted to bypass this network would be squeezed out purely through predatory pricing. When Wilson also refers to powerful men of commerce and manufacture being afraid of openly acknowledging and criticizing this network, it alludes to these men not just being afraid of bankruptcy but also the possibility of retribution in the form of assassinations and targeted violence.

I bring this up mainly because this network of secret societies and economic organizations, that dominates the marketplace and controls the inclusion of its participants, existed in 1913 and still exists today. Organizations like the World Economic Forum, the Business Council, European Round Table of Industrialists, the Empire Club of Canada, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and many others dominate the economy of the world.

Wilson describes this network of organizations and secret societies operating in a clandestine and subversive nature hiding their activities and presence from the general public. This is similar to the quotes I previously posted from Edward Bernays in his book titled Propaganda where he describes an invisible government who shapes the opinions of the public and operates as the true ruling power of America unbeknownst to the majority of people living under it. It’s important to be aware these networks and powers have existed for a very long time and continue to operate today in the same fashion, albeit with much greater control and through even more different organizations.

This is not the ramblings of some crazy person but the personal writings of the president of the United States. Woodrow Wilson would know very well about this topic considering his history working with many of this groups members including Nelson Aldrich, Frank A. Vanderlip, Henry P. Davidson, Charles D. Norton, Benamin Strong, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, John Foster Dulles, Edward M. House and many others. He helped these men install the income tax amendment, establish the Federal Reserve central bank, bring the United States of America into the First World War and create the global government body in the form of the League of Nations. However, these are massive subjects all of their own and best left for another time.


The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People by Woodrow Wilson:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares." - The New Freedom, A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People by Woodrow Wilson.
1 month ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot got the Taco badge from MartianLiposome 1 month ago Report
1
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: This is an interesting article that was written by David Rockefeller, of the esteemed Rockefeller family, on August 10, 1973 for the New York Times. At the time, David Rockefeller was not only the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations but he was also the Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. David Rockefeller and other Chase representatives were invited to China to negotiate forming a relationship with

David Rockefeller went out of his way to praise not only the Chinese Communist Party but also the effect of the Chinese revolution as a whole, regardless of the cost of upwards of 80 million human lives. He praised the system as “efficient” and “dedicated”. He calls the social experiment under Chairman Mao’s leadership as “one of the most important and successful in human history.”

David Rockefeller praises the economic advancements in China even as he acknowledges the lack of human freedom: he noted that this ranged from constraints on intellectual thought and speech against Chairman Mao’s thought, lack of freedom to travel and lack of freedom of choice of occupation. His only objections to these constraints to human freedom seem to revolve around how this might stifle intellectual creativity among the scientific and academic elite, rather than any concern about how these totalitarian measures effect the general Chinese population. In fact, he seems to praise this efficiency and a single minded community of purpose of this totalitarian regime that allows them to achieve goals without the roadblocks faced by a free society.

We have been taught our whole lives that capitalism and communism lie diametrically opposed to one another on the so called left-right paradigm spectrum. If this is truly the case, you have to wonder why one of the richest capitalists in the world, from one of the richest families in the world, would not only praise but openly conduct business with an economic and political system that's supposedly a threat to not only his wealth, power and possibly his life as well. This was especially true considering the deaths and political persecution of suspected "hidden capitalist roaders" during the Chinese Cultural Revolution that was transpiring in the country while this meeting was taking place.

Of course, the Rockefeller family had a long history funding the communist movement in China before this meeting. This funding came from the Rockefeller Foundation and was channeled to the Institute of Pacific Relations which was used these resources to promote the spread of communism throughout China prior to the revolution.

The Chinese regime and the Rockefellers were cozy enough that the Bank of China chose to let Chase Manhattan Bank represent the Bank of China in the United States after this 10-day visit.

David Rockefeller ends the article mentioning how the future of many nations will be impacted by how they interpret and react to the social innovations and lifestyles that China has developed. He seems to be advocating that western nations should adopt the totalitarian social innovations that China has developed.

This important article demonstrates how the richest international bankers and capitalists in the world have always been funding, directing and managing the communist experiment regimes, while slowly integrating and standardizing both systems together into the totalitarian hybrid system that’s emerging today. I will post more on this subject in the future.


From a China Traveler by David Rockefeller on August 10, 1973 at nytimes.com:
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html

“Given China's vastness, it was only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness of our hosts that the six members of our Chase group were able to see and experience so much during just ten days in Peking, Sian, Shanghai and Canton. In terms of simple geographic expanse, a week and a half visit to China is something equivalent to trying to see New York City in less than one and a half minutes.

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is very real and pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose.

General economic and social progress is no less impressive. Only 25 years ago, starvation and abject poverty are said to have been more the rule than the exception in China. Today, almost everyone seems to enjoy adequate, if Spartan, food, clothing and housing. Streets and homes are spotlessly clean, and medical care greatly improved. Crime, drug addiction, prostitution and venereal disease have been virtually eliminated. Doors are routinely left unlocked. Rapid strides are being made in agriculture, reforestation, industry and education. Eighty per cent of school‐age children now attend primary school, compared with 20 per cent just twenty years ago.

Each step of the trip was choreographed precisely by our hosts and, though virtually all our requests were granted, we clearly saw what they wanted us to. Still, there was little sense of the constant security found in some other Communist countries. Issues such as Taiwan and Cambodia evoke strong positions, but conversation does not founder on ideological shoals. The Chinese seem so totally convinced of the correctness of their own world view that they do not feel they have to push it aggressively.

Despite the constant impressions of progress, however, some gray areas and basic contradictions also emerged. Three major questions remain in my own mind.

First, can individuality and creativity continue to be contained to the degree they are now in a nation with such a rich cultural heritage?

The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. But a stiff price has been paid in terms of cultural and intellectual constraint. There are only eight different theatrical productions in the entire country. The universities are rigorously politicized, with little room for inquiry unrelated to Chairman Mao's thought. Freedom to travel or change jobs is restricted. When asked about personal creativity, one ceramics craftsman answered only that there was not time for individual art if the masses were to be served.

Second, will the highly decentralized Chinese economy be able to adapt successfully to expanded foreign trade and technological improvements?

Considering the problems to be overcome, economic growth in China over the last 25 years has been quite remarkable, with an annual average rise in gross national product of 4 to 5 per cent. For the 1971–75 period, this growth should range between 5.5 and 7.5 per cent a year. These results have depended largely on a wise emphasis on agriculture and a nationwide policy of decentralized, balanced industrial development. The industrial spread reflects strategic factors, the laborabundant nature of the country and inadequate transportation. There are, for instance, now only a handful of commercial jet airplanes in China, and flights are entirely dependent on weather conditions owing to limited guidance facilities common in most parts of the world.

Third, are we and the Chinese prepared to accept our very real differences and still proceed toward the closer mutual understanding that must be the basis of substantive future contact?

I fear that too often the true significance and potential of our new relationship with China has been obscured by the novelty of it all. Pandas and Ping‐Pong, gymnastics and elaborate dinners have captivated our imaginations, and I suspect the Chinese are equally intrigued by some of our more novel captitalistic ways.

In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental phenomenon. The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter century under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one‐fourth of the world's population. When one considers the profound differences in our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is certain to be a long task with much accommodation necessary on both sides.

The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a profound impact on the future of many nations.”
2 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: This is an article that was written by Ida Auken, a representative of Denmark's parliament, at the World Economic Forum website, weforum.org. It poses a scenario in 2030 where private property ownership has been completely abolished.

You can't own a home, a car, cooking appliances or even the clothes that you wear. You will have to use public transportation or bicycle to travel. Your own place of dwelling will be used by strangers for business meetings when you're not there. If you even want to cook something for yourself, you will have to ask permission to have drones deliver the equipment towards you. Shopping will also be prohibited in this new future.

There will also be no privacy in the future has everything you ever do, think or even dream of will be recorded. The author of this scenario just hopes that nobody will ever use it against her!

It's all good, though, because Auken put a disclaimer both at the beginning and end of the article stating that this isn't an admission of some kind of sinister plan or conspiracy. It's just a discussion of where the world COULD be heading.

So, don't worry. This isn't some type of communism, neo-feudalism, or oligarchical collectivism. It has nothing to do with that Great Reset you hear so many people on television talking about. Apparently, once someone put a disclaimer on something and create plausible deniability, they can write and actively plan towards whatever agenda they want to create while anyone who even talks about it (using their own words as evidence) is considered a conspiracy theorist.

Keep in mind, this isn't jimscrazyflatearththeories.com. This is the World Economic Forum. One of the most powerful international NGOs in the world made up of some of the most influential and wealthy leaders in business, banking, academia, science, education, media and other prominent fields. You can find hundreds of similar articles on their website.

Considering how these kind of articles coincide with so many other books and writings by other powerful think tanks and individuals, you would be wise to not just dismiss this as insane ramblings and start to take these kind of proclamations very seriously. Or don't. It's your choice.

"Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030 by Ida Auken, Member of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget), on November 11, 2016.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city". I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

"Environmental problems seem far away"
In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy - the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

The death of shopping
Shopping? I can't really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don't really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

"They live different kinds of lives outside of the city"
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: This is an extremely important article that I uncovered many years ago written by Washington Post journalist Richard Harwood, where he reveals perhaps a bit too much about the innerworkings of the round table group in the United States known as the Council on Foreign Relations and the incorporation of the so-called free press of the United States into its membership and its long-term agenda.

The American people have been told for decades, at least the ones who bothered to dig enough to get an explanation, that the Council on Foreign Relations is nothing but a benign think tank where people from different fields come together to share ideas. They’ve been told that there’s nothing sinister and conspiratorial about this private organization and anybody who suggests otherwise is mentally unhinged. We’ve also been told that while there are wealthy and powerful individuals in our country, there is no such thing as a ruling class in America that collaborate together for their collective benefit.

Well, according to journalist Richard Harwood the Council on Foreign Relations is the true ruling class of the United States. He actually admitted that the Council on Foreign Relations is not made up of ordinary people who look like America but are the people who have dominated America’s foreign relations, foreign policy and the military-industrial complex. In his own words, he said the “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”. He points out that David Rockefeller, of the elite Rockefeller family, served as Council on Foreign Relation’s chairman from 1970 until 1985.

Additionally, major media conglomerate owners, editors and journalists have been brought on board as members of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gives a short history of this process as well as some of the prominent media figures at the time who belonged, and some who still belong, to this organization. Harwood admits the fact that these journalist have joined this organization “is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class.”.

Even more chilling, however, is that Harwood freely admits that the press in the United States does not serve as a watchdog of governments and corporations in the public interest but rather work hand in hand with members of this ruling class in order to advance their collective agenda. In his own words, the press are part of the establishment and share most of their values and world views, “Is there something unethical in these new relationships, some great danger that conflicts of interest are bound to arise when journalists get cheek and jowl with the establishment? Probably not. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

This is a very short article that anyone can spare five minutes of their lives to read and get a better understand of the symbiotic relationship between these powerful institutions. I will post the text and link it down below.

“RULING CLASS JOURNALISTS by Richard Harwood on October 30, 1993 at the Washingtonpost.com:

In its 70-year history, the quarterly journal Foreign Affairs has had but five editors. The fifth, recently appointed, is James Hoge, former publisher of the New York Daily News and before that editor of the Chicago Sun-Times. The quarterly is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, whose members are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.

The president is a member. So is his secretary of state, the deputy secretary of state, all five of the undersecretaries, several of the assistant secretaries and the department's legal adviser. The president's national security adviser and his deputy are members. The director of Central Intelligence (like all previous directors) and the chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are members. The secretary of defense, three undersecretaries and at least four assistant secretaries are members. The secretaries of the departments of housing and urban development, interior, health and human services and the chief White House public relations man, David Gergen, are members, along with the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate.

This is not a retinue of people who "look like America," as the president once put it, but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex. John W. Davis, a Wall Street lawyer, was chosen as the council's first president in 1921 and three years later was the Democratic candidate for president against Calvin Coolidge. His successors at the council were from the same mold -- financiers, corporate lawyers and industrialists. John J. McCloy, described by Richard Rovere years ago as the patriarch of the American establishment, served as council chairman from 1953 until 1970. Allen Dulles, first head of the CIA, was a council director for 42 years and was its president from 1946 until 1950. David Rockefeller succeeded McCloy, serving as chairman from 1970 until 1985. His successor is Peter Peterson.

Today, two-thirds of the council's more than 2,000 members live in either New York or Washington and, as you would expect, include many of the leading figures of American political life: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, McGeorge Bundy, Gov. Mario Cuomo and so on. Captains of industry and finance, the big universities, the big law firms and the big foundations are heavily represented. That is the way it has always been.

What is distinctively modern about the council these days is the considerable involvement of journalists and other media figures, who account for more than 10 percent of the membership. Walter Lippmann was a director of the council in the 1930s, but he was sui generis. It was not until the late 1960s that journalists began showing up with some frequency on the council's board and in the membership lists. Hoge's appointment to the Foreign Affairs editorship is symbolic of their rising influence. So is the election of Leslie Gelb as the council's new president, succeeding Peter Tarnoff, who has gone to the State Department. Gelb for many years was a reporter and columnist for the New York Times and was a State Department official in the Carter administration.

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine, who is now President Clinton's ambassador at large in the Slavic world. The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership. The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly newsmagazines, network television executives and celebrities -- Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example -- and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

The membership of these journalists in the council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. Their influence, Jon Vanden Heuvel speculates in an article in the Media Studies Journal, is likely to increase now that the Cold War has ended: "By focusing on particular crises around the world {the media are in a better position} to pressure government to act. ... Humanitarianism has taken on new dimensions as a component of American foreign policy, and the media are largely responsible."

Somalia is Exhibit A. American troops are there, it is generally believed, because of a decision by NBC to air BBC film of starving Somalian children. It set off a chain reaction in the press and humanitarian concern among the public, forcing the Bush administration to intervene. It is also arguable that the troops will be coming out soon because of film of a captured airman and of a dead soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Is there something unethical in these new relationships, some great danger that conflicts of interest are bound to arise when journalists get cheek and jowl with the establishment? Probably not. They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views. In any case, they must deal with it daily in their professional lives, even to learning which forks to use.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/10/30/ruling-class-journalists/761e7bf8-025d-474e-81cb-92dcf271571e/
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 3 months ago Report
0
SaintSallyJudgesYOU
SaintSallyJudgesYOU: steve ray vaughn
3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 3 months ago Report
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Not available in my country.
3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: This is a passage from a work titled "The Country School of Tomorrow by Frederick T. Gates" from the General Education Board, Occasional Papers No. 1. The General Education Board was an organization that was incredibly influential setting up white public high schools in the south, funding for universities and setting up black schools as well.

It eventually got submerged into the the Rockefeller Foundation when its funding ran out in 1960. Frederick Taylor Gates was a "philanthropic advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr., was the president of the General Education Board, and designed the Rockefeller Foundation becoming one of its trustees in 1913.

This is an important document because it not only demonstrates the influence that the Rockefeller family and their organizations have had in shaping American public and private education, but it also shows their goals as well. They state very clearly that their goals are not to teach and promote students in critical thinking and logic. Nor is the goal to raise students up with the skills necessary to join in higher professions.

He states, "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."

No, instead, he wants these students to "yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand" and to train these people to find themselves just where they are. Basically, train them with just enough education to be better industrial and manual workers than their parents were while keeping them in the same poverty stricken conditions, and of the same level of ignorance, that their parents were in.

Pretty fascinating stuff. I will also link a lecture from former New York State teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto who went in depth about this topic of what the aristocratic elite had as goals when they designed our modern educational system.


"Publications of the General Education Board, Occasional Papers No. 1, The Country School of Tomorrow by Frederick T. Gates

“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 rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of 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. We are to follow the admonitions of the good apostle, who said, ''Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low degree." And generally, with respect to these high things, all that we shall try to do is just to create presently about these country homes an atmosphere and conditions such, that, if by chance a child of genius should spring up from the soil, that genius will surely bud and not be blighted. Putting, therefore, all high things quite behind us, we turn with a sense of freedom and delight to the simple, lowly, needful things that promise well for rural life. For the task that we set before ourselves is a very simple as well; as a very beautiful one : to train these people as we find them for a perfectly ideal life just where they are — yes, ideal, for we shall allow ourselves to be extravagant since we are only dreaming; call it idyllic, if you like — an idyllic life under the skies and within the horizon, however narrow, where they first open their eyes. We are to try to make that life, just where it is, healthful, intelligent, efficient, to fill it with thought and purpose, and with a gracious social culture not without its joys.” – Page 6”

https://archive.org/details/countryschoolof00gate

3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 3 months ago Report
1
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 3 months ago Report
1
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: In his book Propaganda, Edward Bernays discusses the methods by which a small “invisible government” truly runs America and so-called democratic governments in general. He openly admits that there is an unseen power that shapes our ideas, opinions, tastes, and government. Throughout the book, he goes into great depth about how this invisible elite uses propaganda, psychology and organizational structures to manufacture the public into giving its consent and approval to these elites to do what they otherwise already wanted to do. He says himself that most people don’t even know this elite even exists, and he completely supported the existence of this type of system. One merely needs to look at Bernays’ professional career and his family lineage, as well as his modern descendants, to understand the power of this scientific persuasion to manipulate the public against their own self-interests.

“Propaganda (1928) by Edward Bernays

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.

In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.”

http://www.historyisaweapon.org/defcon1/bernprop.html
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Reminder that three years before 9/11, Ash Carter, John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow as members of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote a joint article in their official magazine Foreign Affairs about how a massive terrorist attack would provide the justification for both scaling back people's civil liberties. They said the United States might respond with "draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force". They also recommended creating an umbrella governmental agency to coordinate surveillance information gathering and law enforcement operations with different federal agencies as well as local police departments. *coughs* Department of Homeland Security *coughs*

" Foreign Affairs

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger

Authors: Ash Carter John M. Deutch Philip D. Zelikow | November / December 1998

"The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds. A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

"The United States needs a new institution to gather intelligence on catastrophic terrorism -- a National Terrorism Intelligence Center -- that would collect and analyze information so it could warn of suspected catastrophic terrorist acts ahead of time.

Since this center would have access to domestic law enforcement data, it should not be located at the Central Intelligence Agency. Instead, the National Center should incorporate the highly successful Director of Central Intelligence Counterterrorism Center, which has a narrower mandate than this proposal, and be located in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, the center would be run by an operating committee chaired by the director of central intelligence and including the director of the FBI, the deputy secretary of defense, the deputy attorney general, the deputy secretary of state, and the deputy national security adviser. The National Foreign Intelligence Program, which already provides support for the FBI's National Security Division, would cover the center's budget, while the National Security Council would take up unresolved disputes. The director of the center would come alternately from the FBI and the CIA, and all intelligence organizations would provide a specified number of professionals exempt from agency personnel ceilings.

In short, the center would combine the active intelligence gathering approach of the national security agencies, which are not legally constrained in their foreign investigations, with the domestic authority and investigative resources of law enforcement agencies. This combination is consistent with public trust and respect for civil liberties: the center would have no powers of arrest and prosecution and would maintain a certain distance from the traditional defense and intelligence agencies. The center would also be subject to oversight from existing institutions, like the federal judiciary, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the select intelligence committees of Congress. Such a plan reconciles the practices of foreign intelligence work with the restrictions that limit the reach of law enforcement."

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/catastrophic-terrorism-tackling-new-danger
3 months ago Report Link
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face
Porkchops_on_My_Face: Stop spamming
3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot in reply to Porkchops_on_My_Face: Says the guy who keeps sending people pics of feet and other disgusting stuff.
3 months ago Report
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face 3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Reminder that members of Milner's Kindergarten/Milner's Group and later the Royal Institute of International Affairs (and the subsequent branches of the Round Table Groups) have published their goals for an end to national sovereignty and the creation of an international one-world government for over a century.

"From Empire to Commonwealth by Philip Kerr, Foreign Affairs, December 15, 1922, Vol. 1, No. 2. Pages 97-97.

"What of the future? In my judgment the problems of the British Commonwealth are becoming merged in the world problem. It is no longer a question of maintaining law and order and promoting orderly self-government over sections of the earth's surface, but over the earth as a whole. Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty independent states, brought hourly into closer contact with one another, yet with no real machinery for adjusting their relations save diplomacy and war. Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress in civilization or self-government among the more backward peoples until some kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure, and which will hold in check, under a mandatory or other regime, those deleterious forces of civilization already described.

The real problem today is that of world government. Every month that passes will bring home to people more and more clearly that all political problems - whether of preventing war, of establishing stable conditions for trade and commerce, of ending unemployment and bettering social and economic conditions, of improving constitutional organization - all ultimately come back to the problem of ending international lawlessness upon the earth and establishing some method by which world problems can be discussed and settled by constitutional means rather than by force or the threat to use force."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20028216?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://archive.org/details/jstor-20028216
3 months ago Report Link
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face 3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Reminder that Richard N. Garder, the United States ambassador for both Italy and Spain, as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote an article for their official magazine about how to achieve world government through inventing smaller new institutions and subverting existing institutions rather than putting all their hope in the United Nations. He said that these institutions would do a better job of eroding national sovereignty piece by piece than the old fashioned frontal assault. Later on, they could be combined into a central authority if necessary. He called it building the house of world order from the bottom up rather than the top down.

"FOREIGN
AFFAIRS

APRIL 1974

The Hard Road to World Order by Richard N. Gardner

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations. Such institutions of limited jurisdiction will have a better chance of doing what must be done to make a "rule of law" possible among nations— providing methods for changing the law and enforcing it as it changes and developing the perception of common interests that is the prerequisite for successful cooperation.

In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed.” "


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7UjwZXfLpG6a21IeEgyTHZsSk0/preview
3 months ago Report Link
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face 3 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Nathaniel, 1st Lord Rothschild funded Cecil Rhodes colonialization efforts in setting up British South Africa and Rhodesia. He also helped Rhodes fund and set up De Beers Group, while J.P. Morgan later funded Ernest Oppenheimer in forming Anglo American Corporation (today Anglo American PLC) in order for these elites to monopolize control of the natural resources away from the Dutch Boer settlers. After the Boer wars, these resources were firmly in their control. Cecil Rhodes also received a royal charter for his British South Africa Company modeled after the British East India Company. Lord Rothschild was an executor of Rhodes' will and used that wealth after his death to help set up the secret society, in the form of the Rhodes Scholarship, that they both envisioned, outlined by Cecil Rhodes' writing titled "Confessions of Faith." Later on, that was expanded upon, leading to the creation Royal Institute of International Affairs and the subsequent round table groups.

Here we see the collusion between royalty, banking, business, freemasonry/secret societies, and military to conspire not just to monopolize natural resources but to make a network aimed at creating a one-world government.


"Rhodes Scholarship

Nathaniel, 1st Lord Rothschild (1840-1915) helped establish the Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University, with funding bequeathed in the will of Cecil John Rhodes. This remains the oldest and most prestigious international postgraduate award. Rhodes and Nathaniel knew each other well; he had funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate."

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/family/philanthropy/education

"The management of private investments was the foundation upon which Rothschild banking was built. Since the formation of the first partnership, the Rothschild banking houses managed the assets of, and provided credit to, a small and distinguished clientele, which included Royalty, politicians and noted persons of the day.

Evidence of Rothschild business with a wide range of clients survives in the collections of the Archive. Here is just a sample of the client list of the Rothschild business houses.

Cecil Rhodes, (1853-1902), South African businessman and politician

Rhodes visited London in July 1887 and secured the backing of Nathaniel, 1st Lord Rothschild for De Beers in its bid for the French Diamond Company. Support for Rhodes had been encouraged by Randolph Churchill who had been acting as consultant to Rothschilds, assessing the prospects of gold and diamond mining in South Africa. Lord Rothschild later disagreed with Rhodes and his policies, although he was an executor of Rhodes's will and was instrumental in creating the Rhodes Scholarships from the estate."

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/business/rothschild_clients/
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot: Reminder that as far back as 1877, Cecil Rhodes openly wrote about his plan to form a secret society aimed at creating a world government using the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations as an embryo. He mentioned how it would be based on the model of the Masonic Order, which he was a member of in the Apollo University Lodge, and the Jesuits. He talked about how they would have its members in British schools and universities who would use these systems to carefully evaluate and recruit people into their secret society. He even mentioned that they should specifically search for people who are miserable in normal life who want to find meaning through ruling others. He talked about how it should have its members infiltrate the governments of every group within the British Empire/British Commonwealth to move towards more international governmental integration between these countries and destroy any movement towards nationalism and independence. He also mentioned that their members should be members of and owners of the press because the press rules the minds of the people. He also mentioned that most members of the secret society should be kept in the dark about the true nature and goals of the organization and only some select members would gradually be brought into the group's inner circle to learn more. Finally, he mentioned that he would leave all his wealth after his death to the creation of this secret society *coughs* Rhodes Scholarship, Milner's Kindergarten, Royal Institute of International Affairs, All Souls College *coughs*


"1877:
Cecil Rhodes,
Confession of Faith

I look into history and I read the story of the Jesuits I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders.

At the present day I become a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end.

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.

Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.

Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his County.

(In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe)

Once make it common and it fails. Take a man of great wealth who is bereft of his children perhaps having his mind soured by some bitter disappointment who shuts himself up separate from his neighbours and makes up his mind to a miserable existence. To such men as these the society should go gradually disclose the greatness of their scheme and entreat him to throw in his life and property with them for this object. I think that there are thousands now existing who would eagerly grasp at the opportunity. Such are the heads of my scheme." - Cecil Rhodes

"On September 19, 1877, Rhodes drafted his first will; at that time, he had an estate of only about £10,000. (Although he changed his will quite a number of times in years following, the objective remained the same. After his death, the directors of the Rhodes Trust set up the Rhodes Scholarships as the best way to achieve his objectives.) The first clause of the 1877 will bequeathed his wealth as follows:

To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity."

https://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Rhodes-Confession.htm
3 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 4 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 4 months ago Report
0
thegreatresoot got the Birthday badge 5 months ago Report
2
well L I T
well L I T: Happy happy Birthdayyyyyyyy Steven
5 months ago Report
0
Bodhi_1
Bodhi_1: happy bday!
5 months ago Report
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face
Porkchops_on_My_Face: Happy belated - how old are you?
5 months ago Report
0
Porkchops_on_My_Face
5 months ago Report Link
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot added a new image to his gallery Profile Pictures 5 months ago Report
2
0
thegreatresoot
thegreatresoot changed his profile picture: 5 months ago Report
2
thegreatresoot got the Snow Globe badge from Sthcalguy2 6 months ago Report
0
More