The Climate Change Hoax – The Lie Is In The Cause

“The present warming trend began at least two hundred years ago as the planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age, long before cars and aircraft were invented. Since the mid-19th century the Earth’s temperature has risen by just over half a degree Celsius, but most of that rise happened over hundreds of years.” J Websdale

One of the greatest swindles on the road to tyranny is ‘global warming’, or ‘climate change’. Politically, it is being used to introduce a whole new strata of taxation, regulation and control in the name of ‘saving the planet’ – and it is all a gigantic fraud.

It is not that temperatures aren’t changing, the lie is in the cause

Science is being manipulated to equate climate change with carbon emissions, to support a political agenda; the centralisation of power.

The Con

Aurelio Peccei, a founder of the Club of Rome, part of the Round Table network, said in the organisation’s 1991 publication

The First Global Revolution: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill … All of these are caused by human intervention … The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

The alleged villain is the ‘greenhouse gas’ carbon dioxide belching from exhaust pipes and the industrial system in general. It is claimed that this is collecting in the atmosphere and forming a barrier to stop solar heat from escaping. We are urged to become ‘carbon neutral’ and to watch our nonsensical ‘carbon-footprint’. It is still ok for the rich to pollute as much as they choose so long as they invest in green technologies or pay someone to plant a tree. We even have plans for ‘emissions trading’ in which companies that want to pollute beyond their government-imposed allowance can buy ‘carbon credits’ from those who produce less than their carbon limit.

Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has been sent to every secondary school in Britain as part of the campaign to indoctrinate young people with the false perception that global warming is caused by human activity – with all the potential that notion has for control, taxation, suppression, international law and centralisation of power. Not only is Gore the voice of the carbon-con, he has set up a company to help you buy your carbon neutrality. It’s the London-based Generation Investment Management, which he set up in 2004 with the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood. The company is appropriately nicknamed ‘Blood and Gore’. As one writer put it:

‘So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have to do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start aneco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company’s profits to buy some tax-deductible carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla’s at the start of the movie when they’re all standing around in the little toe [print] wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.’

No Evidence for Carbon-Caused Climate Change

Professor Frederick Seitz, former president of America’s National Academy of Sciences, revealed in a letter to The Wall Street Journal that the IPCC had censored the comments of scientists with fifteen key sections of the science chapter deleted because it didn’t support the political agenda to equate climate change with carbon emissions. Professor Seitz said: ‘… this report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by contributing scientists listed on the title page’.

Two of the deleted sections said:

‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the [climate changes observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.’

Professor Seitz said he had ‘never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report’. The Panel authors admitted that the deletions had been made and said it had been done in response to ‘comments from governments, individual scientists and non-governmental organisations’. In other words, it is a political, not scientific, document from what is a political, not scientific organisation; rather the IPCC report is simply a document compiled to support a pre-agreed outcome and hyped by the spinners to emphasise what they want the people to believe.

Professor John Christy, who is named as a lead author of the report, said it wasn’t true that there was consensus among thousands of scientists that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. ‘I am one scientist and there are many who think that is not true’, he said. Professor Philip Scott from the Department of Biogeography at the University of London continued the theme: ‘The IPCC like any UN body is political. The final conclusions are politically driven’.

Of course, pollution from cars, planes and factories is not a good thing and it would be great if there was less of it to breathe, but that is not the point here. We need to ask if pollution is actually affecting global temperatures, because – in spite of the science – that’s the reason being given to take more of our income in taxes and impose draconian curbs on our freedoms.

The force behind governments and Al Gore also controls the transnational corporations and, in the end, all the money goes into the same pot, whether it be reaped from manipulating governments or manipulating corporations. It’s all a game, a movie that portrays different ‘sides’ when, at the top of the pyramid, there is only one. Global warming is their latest scam – after the ‘Cold War’, the ‘war on terror’, and all the rest. 

So what’s really going on with rising temperatures? We are told that the Earth is now warmer than at any time since records began. That may be true, but when did the records start? A BBC report in early 2007 said the year was predicted to be the ‘warmest since records began’ … in 1914. Other global records apparently go back to … 1860.

What does that actually tell us when planetary cycles can be measured in hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and even millions of years?

A study by a team at Harvard University of some 240 scientific reports showed that today’s temperatures are far from the highest in the last thousand years, and nor are we experiencing the most extreme weather patterns. The team studied data on what are called ‘temperature proxies’, like tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts, and their findings were published in the journal, Energy and Environment. They found there had been a Medieval Warm Period between the 9th and 14th centuries when global temperatures were significantly higher than today. There was also the Bronze Age period 9,000 years ago, known as the Holocene Maximum, when temperatures were some three degrees warmer than today for millennia. How was that ‘man-made’? Forests flourished in North America and elsewhere and there was no global catastrophe, just as there wasn’t with the Medieval Warm Period. The Harvard study also confirms that there was a ‘Little Ice Age’ about 700 years ago when there was a dramatic cooling before temperatures rose again (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 – The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age (from which the significance of today’s temperatures is often measured) much cooler.
Figure 1 – The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and the Little Ice Age (from which the significance of today’s temperatures is often measured) much cooler.

Professor Philip Scott of the Department of Biogeography at the University of London points out:

It’s important people know that climate enabled a quite different lifestyle in the medieval period. We have this view today that warming is going to have apocalyptic outcomes. In fact, wherever you describe this warm period it appears to be associated with riches … What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone. When the temperature started to drop [in the Little Ice Age], harvests failed and England’s vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth.

The Real Reason for Climate Change

The Earth is subject to endless energy cycles that affect the temperature and weather and the easiest ones to see are winter, spring, summer and autumn, as the tilt in the Earth’s axis causes the two hemispheres to receive either more or less solar energy through the year. What happens as we pass through the seasons? The temperature changes. In places like the frozen lands of Canada, they have what they call the ‘meltdown’ when the rising temperatures of spring and summer melt the ice before the fall and winter comes to create it again.

These seasons are only smaller cycles within greater and greater cycles, and these greater cycles ebb and flow the mean temperature by increasing, or reducing, the power of the Sun’s energy. We see this in the warming and cooling periods of history. The greater cycles are like longer versions of our seasons, that’s all, and we are now in a warming period (like the Medieval Warm Period) that will bring weather changes.

National Geographic News reported shortly after the IPCC’s propaganda document was published in 2007 that Mars was also experiencing warmer temperatures, just like the Earth. The same has been found with other planets. What could possibly cause warming on Mars and other planets at the same time? What is common to all of them? How about the Sun?

In 1893, the British astronomer, Edward Maunder, observed that there were barely any sunspots visible on the Sun and this became known as the Maunder Minimum. It corresponded with a very cold period and the graphs are blatant confirmation of the direct link between sunspot activity to Earth temperature (see Figure 2). The Danish Meteorological Institute began a study in 1991 to investigate the connection between sunspots and temperature and they found an incredibly close correlation. Professor Eigil Fri is-Christensen at the Danish National Space Centre said they went back through 400 years of astronomical records and found the same story. It was the Sun, not carbon dioxide, or CO2, that was driving changes in climate.

Figure 2 – The graph of sunspot activity to Earth temperature.
Figure 2 – The graph of sunspot activity to Earth temperature.

The solar physicist, Piers Corbyn, invented (or reinvented) a technique of long-range weather forecasting after studying sunspots and seeing the effect on weather patterns. He made money month after month by betting his forecasts, based on sunspots, against those of the official London Meteorological Office. ‘The Sun is driving climate change, CO2 is irrelevant’, he said. It is not just greater heat from the Sun that causes all the subsequent warming; it is also the effect of solar radiation on other weather systems. The Earth is bombarded by particles called cosmic rays and they combine with water vapour to form water droplets and clouds. The stronger the solar radiation, visible as sunspots, the fewer particles get through to the Earth and so the fewer clouds are created. With fewer clouds, more so does cloud cover.

What makes cosmic rays decrease? Increased sunspot activity and solar radiation heat gets through. Geological studies of cosmic ray and temperature records going back six million years have shown that when solar radiation diminished, allowing more cloud-forming cosmic rays to reach the Earth, the temperature dropped. When solar radiation increased, the opposite happened, not here and there or now and then – every time (see Figure 3)

Figure 3 – The connection between cosmic rays and cloud cover is blatantly obvious from this chart.
Figure 3 – The connection between cosmic rays and cloud cover is blatantly obvious from this chart.

Professor Nir Shaviv from the Institute of Physics at the University of Jerusalem went along with the global warming orthodoxy until he began to do his own research. Then he saw that there were periods in Earth history when we had three times, even ten times, as much carbon dioxide as there is today, and if that did have a big effect on climate then we should see the impact in the temperature reconstruction.

However, that’s not the case. As Professor Ian Clark said: ‘If we look at climate from the geological timeframe we would never suspect CO2 as a major climate driver. You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past’. Dr Piers Corbyn, the ‘sunspot’ weather forecaster with Weather Action, said that none of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by CO2, and Professor Patrick Michaels of the Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, was adamant: ‘Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers’.

The present warming trend began at least two hundred years ago as the planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age, long before cars and aircraft were invented. Since the mid-19th century the Earth’s temperature has risen by just over half a degree Celsius, but most of that rise happened over hundreds of years. The two go up and down together before 1940 when industrial production was a fraction of what it became after the war. Indeed, when production exploded after 1940 the global temperature fell for forty years and did not begin to increase until 1975 – ironically at a time of industrial recession (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 – The Earth temperature-sunspot chart over more than 100 years, showing that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming – not carbon dioxide.
Figure 4 – The Earth temperature-sunspot chart over more than 100 years, showing that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming – not carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is a natural gas produced by all life forms and it is what makes living things grow. Humans produce a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere and this is massively exceeded by volcanoes, animals, bacteria, dying vegetation such as falling leaves, and by far the biggest source of carbon dioxide – the sea. Around 800 years ago was the Medieval Warm Period, and so you would expect a release of carbon dioxide from the oceans about now, according to past experience.

One other thing: if carbon dioxide is the culprit for climate change there should be more warming in that part of the atmosphere known as the Troposphere than there is on the surface. The maximum warming should be about 10 kilometres from the surface, but this is not what is happening. The bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as the surface.

Tim Ball put it this way:

The analogy I use is that my car is not running very well, so I’m going to ignore the engine, which is the Sun, and I am going to ignore the transmission, which is water vapour, and I am going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel, which is the human-produced CO2. The science is that bad. If you haven’t understood the climate system, all the components, the cosmic rays, the solar, the CO2, the water vapour, the clouds and put it all together, then your model isn’t worth anything.

By Julian Websdale

Advertisements

The Crown Empire and the City of London Corporation

World politics today is governed by the Vatican, but also by the Crown Empire. The modern world of so-called Western Civilization began at the end of the 17th century with the blossoming of the British Empire. That empire actually began several hundred years earlier with the establishment of the City of London, which is now an 800-year corporation that controls finance from an entity called ‘The Crown’. This entity is the creator and controller of the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve, the World Bank (IMF – International Monetary Fund), The European Union, and various cartels and corporations across the earth.

The Crown Identity is kept most secret, and The Crown Bank of England took and assumed control of the United States during the Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when its agents, who were really Crown agents (J. P. Morgan), took over 25% of American business.

The Crown has never been the King or Queen of England since the establishment of the corporate body, but the British Monarchy is a figurehead for The Crown, rules parliament in Great Britain and has authority over the Prime Ministers through a Vatican knighthood called the Order of the Garter. The Crown, however, is not the King or Queen of England – they are an established monarchy of the corporate body.

The Crown is the directorate of the corporation, and Great Britain is ruled by The Crown, the City of London which controls the Bank of England – a private corporation. There is a private state existing in Britain within the centre of London. This City, located in the heart of Greater London, became a sovereign-state in 1694 when King William III of Orange privatised the Bank of England, and turned it over to the Vatican banksters who today rule the financial world.

The City/The Crown Corporation is not subject to British Law; it has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag, its own police force – exactly like the Vatican city state and Washington DC Columbia. The Crown Corporation is also separate from the Metropolitan city; its police drive red police cars and their uniforms are different from the Metropolitan Police.

Also, The Crown in London houses the privatised Bank of England and Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and all British Banks. It also houses the branch offices of 385 foreign banks, 70 US banks, as well as Fleet Street newspapers and publishing monopolies. It controls the world media and world intelligence. It is out of The Crown City of London, the headquarters of British Freemasonry overseen by the British Monarchy and the Duke of Kent, that World Freemasonry is governed. This includes the Grand Orient Masonic Order and the Washington DC Scottish Rite.

In 1945 the Bank of England was nationalised by the Labour Government, and is allegedly no longer a private bank, although it governs the US Federal Reserve. It is ruled over by the Rothschilds, who are bankers for the Pope – guardians of the Vatican Treasury.

The City of London also has its own Lord Mayor, different from the current Mayor, who has the power in The Crown Corporation. When the Queen wishes to conduct business in the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar. Temple Bar and their associate franchises come from what is called the Four Inns of the Temples of Court – the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple. The logo of the Inner Temple is a white horse on the sunburst seal of the Jesuit Order. The white horse is a symbol of the British Empire / Order of the Garter / Crown Corporation, and is the same white horse which is the symbol of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). The white horse is a Jesuit symbol – Pegasus. It is the Jesuit Order that governs the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple. The Inner Temple is the core group that governs the City of London Corporation.

The whole Earth is governed by The Crown, through Crown Colonies which belong to The City – The Crown Empire. It governs Africa and still governs China and India. The colonies of the Earth are really just Crown Colonies – The United States of America are states of The Crown.

This being said, however, it is vitally important to remember the following. The Crown Empire uses commercial law (aka international maritime law, or law of contracts) as its means of control. This law does not apply to sovereign, free men and women.

Your name, when spelt out in all capital letters – as in JULIAN WEBSDALE – is a corporation, a trust set up by the government through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born, a corporation/trust is created using his or her name in all capital letters. They do this because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not to living, breathing, flesh and blood sovereign-free men and women spelt in upper-lower or all lower case, as with Julian Websdale, or julian websdale. The living, breathing sovereign man and woman is subject to common law, not the commercial law introduced by governments through legislation.

By  Julian Websdale

Tankekontroll og sosial modifikasjon

Tror du tankekontroll og sosial modifikasjon er bare en stor konspirasjonsteori? Dette intervjuet var gjort i 1985 med tidligere KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov. Her forteller han om 4 trinns som blir benyttet om man skal forme tankemåte ogoppførsel for en hel befolkning, over generasjoner.

  1. Demoralisering, hvilket tar 15-20 år.
  2. Destabilisering, hvilket tar 2-5 år.
  3. Kriser, trenger bare ta inntil 6 uker.
  4. Normalisering


Hvor langt har vi kommet i Norge? Og til alle marxist-kommunistiske venstrevridde;lytt meget nøye til hva Bezmenov forteller om hvilken skjebne dere har i vente!

Stammer vi virkelig fra fiskene eller har den teorien en logisk forklaring?

What is the origin of the Pope’s hat?

Did you ever wonder why the Pope's mitre looks like the head of a fish? What are the origins of this ceremonial hat and what does it truly represent?

Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians, wore a fish hat that is still seen today with Roman Catholic Church’s pope and bishops.

According to Ruben Joseph’s book entitled, Why Are The Young People Leaving The Church, “The miter is derived directly from the miters of the ancient pagan fish-god dagon and the goddess Cybele.  The papal miter represents the head of Dagon with an open mouth, which is the reason for the pointed shape and split top.”

The shape of the mitre represents the tongues of fire that rested on the heads of the disciples gathered in the upper room on  the Day of Pentecost, when God sent the Holy Spirit to the Church.

What the church’s explanation fails to describe is the actual fish eye on the side of the mitre.  Perhaps this is an ember of charcoal from the tongues of fire?Probably not, it’s a fish eye.

The book Nineveh and Babylon by Austen Henry Layard stated:

In their veneration and worship of Dagon, the high priest of paganism would actually put on a garment that had been created from a huge fish! The head of the fish formed a mitre above that of the old man, while its scaly, fan-like tail fell as a cloak behind, leaving the human limbs and feet exposed.

The Wine of Babylon stated:

The most prominent form of worship in Babylon was dedicated to Dagon, later known as Ichthys, or the fish. In Chaldean times, the head of the church was the representative of Dagon, he was considered to be infallible, and was addressed as ‘Your Holiness’. Nations subdued by Babylon had to kiss the ring and slipper of the Babylonian god-king. The same powers and the same titles are claimed to this day by the Dalai Lama of Buddhism, and the Pope. Moreover, the vestments of paganism, the fish mitre and robes of the priests of Dagon are worn by the Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes.

The most prominent form of  worship in Babylon was dedicated to Dagon, later known as Ichthys, or the fish. In Chaldean times, the head of the church was the representative of Dagon, he was considered to be infallible, and was addressed as ‘Your Holiness’. Nations subdued by Babylon had to kiss the ring and slipper of the Babylonian god-king. The same powers and the same titles are claimed to this day by the Dalai Lama of Buddhism, and the Pope. Moreover, the vestments of paganism, the fish mitre and robes of the priests of Dagon are worn by the Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes.

Ea Enki, is a God of Sumerian (Enki) and Babylonian (Ea) mythology.  In Babylonian mythology, Ea was a water god who was half man, half fish hybrid. In Greek mythology, Ea was known as Oannes.  By any name, this fish-god can be traced back to the genetic manipulation of man by Anunnaki, as evidenced by Zecharia Sitchen’s work.  It is believed that, in the daytime, this deity would emerge from the water and was responsible for teaching art, science and writing to the human race.

Berossus, a 3rd century Babylonian priest once wrote,

At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year after the flood appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish’s head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish’s tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws. From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious.

At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year after the flood appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish's head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish's tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws. From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious.

In the book Revelation, H. A. Ironside stated:

The chief priests wore miters shaped like the head of fish, in honor of Dagon, the fish-god, the lord of life - another form of the Tammuz mystery, as developed among Israel's old enemies, the Philistines. When the chief priest was established in Rome, he took the title Pontifex Maximus, which was imprinted on his miter. When Julius Caesar (who like all young Roman of good family, was an initiate) had become the head of State, he was elected Pontifex Maximus, and this title was held henceforth by all of the Roman emperors down to Constantine the Great, who was, at one and the same time, head of the church and high priest of the heathen! The title was afterward conferred upon the bishops of Rome and is today borne by the pope, who is thus declared to be, not the successor of the fisherman-apostle Peter, but the direct successor of the high priest of the Babylonian mysteries and the servant of the fish-god Dagon, for whom he wears, like his idolatrous predecessor, the fisherman's ring.

The chief priests wore miters shaped like the head of fish, in honor of Dagon, the fish-god, the lord of life –  another form of the Tammuz mystery, as developed among Israel’s old enemies, the Philistines.  When the chief priest was established in Rome, he took the title Pontifex Maximus, which was imprinted on his miter.  When Julius Caesar (who like all young Roman of good family, was an initiate) had become the head of State, he was elected Pontifex Maximus, and this title was held henceforth by all of the Roman emperors down to Constantine the Great, who was, at one and the same time, head of the church and high priest of the heathen!  The title was afterward conferred upon the bishops of Rome and is today borne by the pope, who is thus declared to be, not the successor of the fisherman-apostle Peter, but the direct successor of the high priest of the Babylonian mysteries and the servant of the fish-god Dagon, for whom he wears, like his idolatrous predecessor, the fisherman’s ring.

Did you ever wonder why people kiss the Pope’s ring?

Why do so many people of prominence kiss the Pope’s ring?

The Ring of the Fisherman, also known as the Piscatory Ring, is an official part of the regalia worn by the Pope, who is head of the Catholic Church and successor of Saint Peter, who was a fisherman by trade. It used to feature a bas-relief of Peter fishing from a boat, a symbolism derived from the tradition that the apostles were “fishers of men” (Mark 1:17).

The Fisherman’s Ring is a signet used until 1842 to seal official documents signed by the Pope.

According to wiki, In breaking with this tradition:

“At the official introduction to his office, the classic ring remained in its case. It was passed to Pope Benedict XVI by the dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Cardinal Sodano. The ring was designed by jeweller Claudio Franchi, who watched as Benedict placed the ring on himself.”  Although Pope Benedict XVI wore his Fisherman’s Ring daily, it is no longer the custom for popes to wear it at all. Generally, a new pope will either inherit the daily-wear ring of his predecessor, keep an old ring of his own preference, or will choose a new daily-wear style.

Why is it no longer custom for the pope to wear this ring?  Because in astrotheology, we are existing out of the Age of Pisces (the two fish) and into the Age of Aquarius.  The ring no longer symbolizes the Age of Pisces. Instead of seeing the two fish on people’s bumper stickers, we will soon start seeing some sort of sign for the water bearer, Aquarius.

Who is Dagon?

In the bible, Dagon dates back to around the 3rd millennium, B.C., long before the birth of Jesus Christ and was first mentioned in Judges 16:23, where the Philistines offered Dagon a great sacrifice after their idol allegedly delivered Samson to them.

Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.

Judges 16:23

This is just one of the many ritualistic sacrifices that we see in the bible and is no different than any modern day sacrifice, such as 9/11 or any given war.

Why Is The Pope's Mitre Shaped Like a Fish? | In5D.com

Many consider the Canaanites to be part of the Philistines who worshiped worshiped Baal, Astarte and Dagon.  These were some of the early sun-worshiping cultures that have led to many of the metaphors we see in modern religion, e.g. God’s son/sun.

In Mali, there is a tribe called the Dogons, whose legends from their heritage were used by the Egyptians and subsequent dynasties. The Dogon knew of constellations and alignments that we didn’t ‘discover’ until many years later, such as Sirius B.

According to Dogon legend, the Nommos arrived from the Sirius star system in a vessel along with fire and thunder, or as we would say today, in a UFO. The Nommos were part fish and part man and could live on both land and in the sea. They are also referred to as "Masters of the Water", "the Monitors", and "the Teachers".

According to Dogon legend, the Nommos arrived from the Sirius star system in a vessel along with fire and thunder, or as we would say today, in a UFO.  The Nommos were part fish and part man and could live on both land and in the sea.  They are also referred to as “Masters of the Water”, “the Monitors”, and “the Teachers”.

Perhaps frogs, dolphins and whales were placed here by the Nommos?  Even the mystery of mermaids may originate from this premise.

Throughout mythology, we see fish-like people, mermaids and mermen, such as Poseidon or Neptune. An excerpt from Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolismstated:

According to Egyptian mythology, when the judges found Osiris [Nimrod] guilty of corrupting the religion of Adam and cut up his body, they threw the parts into the Nile. It was said that a fish ate one of these chunks and became transformed. Later, Isis [Semiramis] was fishing along the river bank when she fished up a half-man, half-fish. This sea creature was Dagon, the reincarnated Nimrod.  And Dagon is the representation of Nimrod (of ancient Babylon) resurrecting out of the ocean depths as a half-man, half-fish.

Why do we eat fish on Friday?

Why do we see fish frys on Friday? Did you ever wonder why practicing Catholics abstain from eating fish on all days except Friday? 

Why do we see fish frys on Friday?  Did you ever wonder why practicing Catholics abstain from eating fish on all days except Friday?

It is not because of the phonetics of Fry-Day.  The origin of Friday come s from Freya’s Day.  Freya (Fria) is the Teutonic goddess of love, beauty, and fecundity (prolific procreation) and is identified with the Norse god, Freya.

The following is provided by the History of Origin of Fish Symbol:

In Greece the Greek word “delphos” meant both fish and womb. The word is derived from the location of the ancient Oracle at Delphi who worshipped the original fish goddess, Themis. The later fish Goddess, Aphrodite Salacia, was worshipped by her followers on her sacred day, Friday. They ate fish and engaged in orgies. From her name comes the English word “salacious” which means lustful or obscene. Also from her name comes the name of our fourth month, April. In later centuries, the Christian church adsorbed this tradition by requiring the faithful to eat fish on Friday – a tradition that was only recently abandoned.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church:

As to the ritual of his worship… we only know from ancient writers that, for religious reasons, most of the Syrian peoples abstained from eating fish, a practice that one is naturally inclined to connect with the worship of a fish-god.

More fish food for thought

In the Revelation chapter of the bible it states the beast shall rise out of the sea:

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 
Revelation 13:1

Perhaps this is responsible for the term “Holy See” (Holy Sea)?

It is certainly no coincidence that the entire planet abides by Maritime Admiralty Law, which is the law of the sea (Holy See).

As for the pope’s miter, it’s a fish hat and its origin is tied into mythology, ufology, paganism and sun worshiping.

Vi kan fint slå oss til ro med vår skaper har laget denne fantastiske verdenen. Alt vi trenger foreta oss er avsette selvutnevnte monarker, “folkevalgte” stortingsrepresentanter og regjering og bannlyse religion. Gud er med hver og en av oss. Individuelt – ikke flokkmentalitet. Bibelen er loven og leveveien! Mennesket kan aldri bli Gud annet enn i et eget desillusjonert selvbilde. Makten tilbake til folket!

Den Katolske kirke og det okkulte (luciferiske) er identiske – bevisene

Doc Marquis wrote a book entitled ‘Secrets of the Illuminati doc‘. While this topic has been explored before, no author has been able to bring a truly occultic angle to the discussion. In other words, Marquis looks at the plan to bring in the New World Order from the viewpoint of a former witch. In his book, Marquis includes a chapter entitled, “Is It Catholicism Or Witchcraft?” At the beginning of this chapter, Marquis makes a quite startling statement, “I must emphatically state that Catholicism and witchcraft are one and the same…there is no difference between witchcraft and Catholicism.” Then, Marquis examines Catholicism and witchcraft from the vantage point of a former witch.

Marquis identifies several critically important areas in which the practice of Roman Catholicism and witchcraft are identical. We will first list these areas of commonalty and then comment specifically upon them. These common areas are:

Now, let us examine each of these areas of commonalty:

1. The altar in every Catholic church is prominently positioned at the front of the church. The “Mysteries of the Mass” are celebrated on and around the altar. In witchcraft, also, the altar is similarly used for three purposes:

  • To practice certain metaphysical rites, such as the casting of certain spells or to honor occult deities.
  • To hold the tools of magic.
  • To perform human sacrifice.

The Roman Catholic altar also holds their tools of their magic, and they daily perform human sacrifice. Remember, we are looking at this subject through the eyes of a former high-level witch who is now a born-again Christian. This daily human sacrifice is performed according to the false belief in “transubstantiation”, the belief that the priest magically transforms the wafer into Jesus’ body and the wine into His blood. Marquis states, “In other words, every day Christ is being reincarnated and then sacrificed.. they perform daily their human sacrifice in which Christ is …sacrificed for their sins.” It is shocking to realize that the Roman Catholics are daily performing human sacrifice in a manner similar to that of witches throughout the centuries.

2. The Catholic Golden Goblet, or Chalice. “It is this cup that the wine poured into it becomes the…literal blood of Christ. When a witch does a human sacrifice, after the victim’s throat is sliced open, the spilled blood will be collected in a chalice, just as the Catholics do, except the witch’s chalice holds the real thing.” In Satan’s eyes, the Catholics are performing the same rite as the witches.

3. “Candles were introduced to the Catholic mass about 320 A.D. There is no Scriptural reasons for them, unless… you are a practicing witch. Below is a list of different colored candles a witch would use throughout the year. See if you can recall any of these colors used during a Catholic mass:

  • White — Purity, Truth, Sincerity
  • Red — Strength, Health, Vigor, Sexual Love
  • Light Blue — Tranquillity, Understanding, Patience
  • Dark Blue — Impulsiveness, Depression, Change
  • Green — Finance, Fertility, Luck
  • Gold/Yellow — Persuasion, Charm, Confidence
  • Brown — Hesitation, Uncertainty
  • Pink — Honor, Love, Morality
  • Black — Evil, Loss, Discord, Confusion
  • Purple — Tension, Ambition, Power
  • Silver-Gray — Cancellation, Stalemate
  • Orange — Encouragement, Stimulation
  • Greenish-Yellow — Sickness, Anger, Jealousy

“Using these colored candles and the right spells, a witch can cause anything to happen…our Catholic friends are not only using these >occult tools, they also pay for them when they go to various statues and light…candles.”

4. “Incense is a constant tool that is used by priests. They will take a philter (incense burner), walk around the altar, and then wave it out toward the crowd with an invocation…Not only do witches use incense, but they will consecrate their altar and their fellow witches in the exact way the Catholics do…”

5. Bells are also utilized by both Roman Catholics and witches. The bells are actually baptized, and in both witchcraft and Catholicism, altar boys attend the priest in sounding the bells.

6. Witches were praying to images or statues for many centuries before Catholics began the practice.

7. “Until recently, most of the rites of witchcraft were said in Latin…why is it, when the witches stopped using Latin as much as they did, about twenty years ago, that the Catholic mass was stopped being told in Latin? Today, it is spoken mostly in American English, the same way in which a witch’s mass is held.”

8. “…when the Pope, Cardinals, or priests want to give a huge blessing, they will take out a golden scepter, or wand, dip it in holy water, and then wave it on the people…wands are nothing new in the occult. When a witch wants to direct his power he can do it by means of wands.” He can also control the demonic forces at his disposal by using a wand to consecrate a circle with a pentacle inside. Holy water is also used by a witch to purify himself and his instruments, and the water is made holy in both witchcraft and Catholicism by mixing water with salt.

9. The teaching of Purgatory is not found in the Bible. According to Catholic catechism, Purgatory is described as “a logically deduced place. Since a Catholic could not go straight to heaven if he had sinned, and since he could not go to hell if he had not died in mortal sin, there had to be a place in between where he could be purified” — Purgatory. However, the belief in Purgatory is “totally occultic in origin”. Witchcraft teaches that after a person goes through Purgatory, he is reincarnated and is more powerful in his next life than he was before. After several reincarnations, he will become purified enough to live with the gods and goddesses, precisely the same end as the Catholics teach.

10. Both Catholics and Witches teach that the host becomes the actual body of their respective gods. To the Roman Catholic, the host becomes the actual body of Jesus Christ; the witch believes the host actually becomes the body of their pagan deity, “I.H.S. — or Iris, Horus, and Semiramis”. This concept is known in both circles as transsubstantiation.

11. Both witchcraft and Roman Catholicism teach that the universe is comprised of five elements: Spirit, Water, Air, Fire, and Earth. These occultic five elements are also found in the Catholic mass.

  • Spirit — of the wafer god they sacrifice daily.
  • Water — Holy water they use to purify and baptize
  • Air — symbolically used through the incense
  • Fire — used in tangent with the incense burning
  • Earth — The elements of the wafer come from the earth in agriculture, and the flesh of their sacrificed deity, Jesus Christ, also came from the earth.

Doc Marquis’s conclusion is inescapable and damning: The practice of occultism has come full circle from ancient Babylon to the Roman Catholic Institution today.

Her er en video av Doc Marquis hvor bibelen blir benyttet til å avkrefte alle mytene den Katolske kirke lærer sine medlemmer og samtidig viser hvor de egentlig har fått ideene (ritualene) sine i fra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4XnIb2a4ps

I tillegg anbefaler vi at dere leser denne artikkelen: “The Catholic Liturgy is a Satanic Ritual – the Evidence”: http://humansarefree.com/2014/10/the-catholic-liturgy-is-satanic-ritual.html

Kosthold fritt for GMO reduserer helseplager

Undersøkelsen står for 3.256 personer som har sett store forbedringer med 28 forskjellige helseforhold etter at man har gått over til et kosthold fritt for GMO-produkter.

Selv om studien er liten kan man vel konkludere slik at hvorfor skal man ta risikoen ved å spise mat som er laget av GMO eller produkter hvor dyrene er foret med GMO, når all tilgjengelig informasjon tilsier at GMO påfører mennesker helseplager. Vi vil i alle fall ikke være et menneskelig laboratorium, vil du?

Gunhild Stordalen har reklamert ved at GMO er framtiden. Spis hva du vil Stordalen, bare ikke forsøk spre dine (dis)illusjoner over på oss!

Her har man en kort oppsummering av studien: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-16-reverse-28-health-conditions-when-you-cut-out-gmos-researchers-tracked-the-health-benefits.html

For den som vil se mer nøye på materialet finner man dette her: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/93e00d_fc0371813bf846fe808ebe81ab453de2.pdf

Nyere historie – den Katolske kirke & Jesuittene i fåreklær

Bak dette apparatet vi beskriver i innlegget skjuler Jesuittene seg. Den katolske kirke er den reelle spilleren de fleste ikke klarer se fordi de skjuler seg godt bak sin “kristne tro”. Videre kan man merke seg at katolikkene hevder Jesus døde for deres kirke, som ble dannet nesten 300 år etter Hans død og ikke baserer seg på hans lære i det hele tatt…

Vi hadde planlagt legge ut den direkte linken i mellom katolikkene og det okkulte. Ettersom det er viktig at man kjenner hvilket propagandamaskineri Jesuittene har til disposisjon, er det sentralt at man lærer den nyere historien ordentlig først. Innleder med John F. Kennedy sine berømte ord:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence…” stadfestet Kennedy.

“It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit, highly-efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. 

“Its preparations are concealed not published. It’s mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” 

Det later til at katolikkene tok hevd på “konspirasjonsteori” og inverterte dette i tillegg…


DIALEKTIKKEN
Konspirasjonen er ikke kommunistisk eller fascistisk, det er synarchist. Den synarchistiske konspirasjonen manipulerer begge endene av det politiske spekteret, dyrker frykt for trusselen om “kommunisme” for å fremme årsaken til en fascistisk økonomisk filosofi kjent som neoliberalisme. Ved den fordømte “Statlige regjeringen”, arbeider de for overføring av offentlig eiendom til private selskaper, og slaveri av verden til deres banksystem, under Verdensbankens og IMFs visdom.

Forskere i konspirasjonens historie vil ha en tendens til å isolere den beryktede bayerske Illuminati, grunnlagt av Johann Adam Weishaupt (utdannet av Jesuittene) i 1776, som det prinsipielle subversive samfunnet bak verdens hendelser. Imidlertid hadde selv Illuminatien sin opprinnelse i et langt kraftigere og innflytelsesrike hemmelige samfunn, kjent som Martinisme, som overlevde Illuminati, langt utover den ordens død i 1885.

Martinisme er det ultimate djevelske plottet, grunnlagt på en kabbalistisk agenda som ser historiens problemer løses gjennom oppløsning av motsetninger. Men disse motsetningene er ikke lovlige å skje spontant, men i stedet blir bevisst oppmuntret, og gir disse utrolige plotterne muligheten til å presentere verden deres opprettede løsning, slik at de ser ut til at de har kommet til sine egne konklusjoner.

Det er mange dialektikk på spill. I utgangspunktet er de forankret i dualisme mellom Gud og ateisme, eller sannhet mot falskhet. Som Martinistens side mot djevelen, er alt vendt, hvor sannheten blir løgn og falskheten sannhet.

For Martinistene er historien fortellingen om Guds undergang, som ble styrtet av menneskeheten. Det er historien om sekularisme, menneskehetens utvikling vekk fra tilbedelsen av Gud til feiringen av seg selv som det øverste vesen, Nietzsches supermann. Historiens slutt er kulminasjonen av århundrer av menneskelig intellektuell fremgang, av triumfen av “grunner” over “åpenbaringen”.

Imidlertid, hemmende for utviklingen av denne nye verdensordenen er religion. Det nåværende mest truende manifestasjon er islam. Derfor, for å forberede slagmarken til et endelig angrep, vil det være nødvendig å dele verden i en endelig dialektikk: et sammenstøt av sivilisasjoner, sette “Vesten” opp mot “Islam”.

MARTINISME
Konspirasjons forskere har vært besatt av de samme gamle trette temaene, som involverer vanlige syndere, som Illuminati, Bildbergers, Federal Reserve og jøder. Man vil skylde “kommunisme”, den andre “fascismen”, helt uten å fastslå den sanne fienden bak disse falske fronter og betyr: Synarkisme.

Synarchism var en Martinistbevegelse som stammer fra Napoleons Bonaparte umiddelbare sirkler. Martinism startet med den franske mystiker Martinez Pasquales som grunnla Ordre des Chevalier Maçons Elus-Coën de L’Univers (Ordre fra Knight Masons, utvalgte prester av universet) i 1754. En Martinist ved navn Baron de Gleichen skrev at “Pasqualis var opprinnelig Spansk, kanskje av den jødiske rase, siden disiplene hans arvet et stort antall jødiske manuskripter av han. »[1] Ifølge JM Roberts ble Elus-Coën-filosofien” uttrykt i en rekke ritualer som hadde til hensikt å gjøre det mulig for åndelige vesener å ta fysisk form og formidle budskap fra den andre verden. “[2]

Martinisme ble senere propagert i forskjellige former av Pasquales’ to studenter, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin og Jean-Baptiste Willermoz. Willermoz var formulatoren til den korrigerende skotske riten, eller Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte (CBCS), som en variant av Rite of Strict Observance, inkludert noen elementer som kommer fra Elect Cohen Order av hans lærer Pasquales. [3]

Alle disse ordrene kom under myndighet av en enslig grunnleggende avdeling, Willermozs Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité-Sainte i Lyon. Chevalier Bienfaisant overvåket mange avdelinger, inkludert en streng observanse og Lodge Theodore of Good Counsel i München. I 1777 var det inn i denne avdelingen som ble startet Adam Weishaupt, og som han forente seg med sin egen avdeling, Illuminati, som han opprettet året før.

Et viktig medlem av Chevaliers Bienfaisants var Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), som ifølge Isaiah Berlin var en tenker, hvem sine verk inneholder røttene av fascistisk tanke, som han skisserte i «Joseph de Maistre og opprinnelsen til fascismen». Til tross for å bli anerkjent som en hengiven katolsk, var de Maistre også en Martinist. Som forklart av Jerry Muller, var “Maists kristne yrke absolutt oppriktig. Men i hans skrifter er det samfunnets nytte som et element av politisk sammenhold han er opptatt av. “[4] De Maistre anså overskuddene av den franske revolusjonen som de dårlige resultatene å gripe til grunn. Hvis de skal vare, må alle myndighetsinstitusjoner nødvendigvis være irrasjonelle. Bare en absolutt autoritet kan holde mannen i sjakk.

Til de Maistre var Napoleon modelltyrannen. Som en tilsynelatende katolsk, var fiaskoen i den franske revolusjonen, ifølge de Maistre, at den vendte seg mot Guds ord og den katolske kirke og ble derfor straffet av Terror-regjeringen og deretter Napoleon. Ifølge Maistre er all kraft fra Gud, og Napoleon hadde makt, så han så Napoleon som et instrument av Guds vrede.

SYNARCHISM (Den tredje posisjon)
Kilden til filosofien om synarchism var en av de mest beryktede intrigerne av moderne tid, en britisk agent med navnet Jamal Ud-Din al Afghani. Selv om han var grunnleggeren av Salafi-doktrinen for islam, hvorfra hele det 20. århundre terrorisme har kommet, fra det muslimske brorskapet til ISIS, var Afghani samtidig stormesteren for frimureriet i Egypt, samt lærer til H.P. Blavatsky, grunnlegger av det teosofiske samfunn, gudmoren til New Age bevegelsen, sin bok som anses som “skrifter” av frimureriet.

Går under navnet Haji Sharif, kommuniserte Afghani hans avvikende idealer til Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre. Saint-Yves sine bøker ble mye lest av Martinistene, forklarte teorien om synarchisme som et påstått svar på ondskapene som ble produsert av anarkismen og å gi et alternativ gjennom kombinasjonen av fascisme og okkultisme. Synarki kom til å bety “styre via hemmelige samfunn”, som tjener som en prestelig klasse i direkte kommunikasjon med “gudene”, som betyr de opphøyde mesterne av Agartha, en ekte eksisterende i en visstnok hul jord. Der styrte “verdens konge”, likestilt i okkult litteratur med Satan, som leder et skjult hierarki som har styrt menneskeheten i hemmelighet i århundrer.

Opprettelsen av et forente Europa, en ide som er sentral for synarchismen, var en del av visjonen til Saint-Yves, et kall som vises på første side av sin første bok om synarchy, Keys to the East. Behovet for at Europa skal forene seg under en enkelt, synarchistisk stat, ifølge Saint Yves, er forårsaket av islam’s fremmarsj som verdensmakt og truer et svakt, fragmentert og materialistisk Vest. Saint-Yves hevder at det absolutt må være en ny allianse mellom de kristne nasjonene i Europa og Israel mot islam.

Saint-Yves forestilte seg et føderalt Europa med en korporatistisk regjering som består av tre råd som representerer økonomisk makt, rettsmakt og vitenskapelig samfunn, hvorav det metafysiske kammeret binder hele strukturen sammen. Som en del av dette regjeringskonseptet, tilskrev Saint-Yves en viktig rolle for de okkulte hemmelige samfunnene, som består av orakler og som beskytter regjeringen bak scenene.

Saint-Yves tilhengere hadde endelig bestemt seg for å bruke mer skjulte midler, ved å infiltrere medlemmene i nøkkelstillinger i politiske og økonomiske institusjoner som har til hensikt å skape, med ordene fra Richard F. Kuisel, en spesialist i den franske politiske historien fra 1900-tallet, ” en verdensregering av en initiert elite. “[5] Ifølge Gérard Galtier, påvirket synarchismen alle Martinistene og okkultisterne fra begynnelsen av århundret, og” uten tvil hadde de Martinistiske regissørene som Papus … ambisjonen til å hemmeligholde løpet av politiske hendelser, særlig diffusjonen av synarchiske idealer. “[6]

Papus’ død i 1916 resulterte imidlertid i et skisma i Martinistbekjennelsen om sitt engasjement i politikken. Aktivisterne, under Victor Blanchard, som var leder av sekretariatet for det franske parlamentets kammer av varamedlemmer, dannet en utbryter-gruppe, den Martinistiske og Synarchic Order, som etablerte den Synarchist sentralkomitéen i 1922, designet for å trekke inn lovende unge embetsmenn og “yngre medlemmer av store familiebedrifter.” [7] Komiteen ble snart det synarkiske riksrøret (MSE) i 1930, med sikte på å avskaffe parlamentarisme og erstatte den med synarchy.

MSE ble ledet av Vivien Postel du Mas og Jeanne Canudo, husket som en energisk aktør for en europeisk enhet. Postel du Mas var et medlem av Watchers, grunnlagt av en fransk okkultist René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz. Til tross for at han var født av en jødisk mor, brøt de Lubicz sammen med andre medlemmer ut av Theosophical Society for å danne en okkult høyre- og antisemitisk organisasjon, som han kalte Les Veilleurs, «The Watchers», som den unge Rudolf Hess også tilhørte. [8]

Både Postel du Mas og Canudo forfulgte målene til Saint-Yves for Frankrike og et forent Europa. Postel du Mas skrev også den synarkistiske pakten, som argumenterte for, basert på “fire ordrer som samsvarer med det hinduistiske kaste systemet”, at en “oppdeling av folk i orden er naturlig og samsvarer med tradisjon”, og utarbeidet et program for ” usynlig revolusjon “eller” revolusjon ovenfra “, noe som betyr å ta over en stat fra innsiden ved å infiltrere viktige embeter. Det første skrittet var å ta kontroll over Frankrike, før man opprettet “EU”. [9]

Et viktig vitne til deres synarchism var den parisiske utgiveren Maurice Girodias, grunnleggeren av Olympia Press, som publiserte erotikk, samt verk av Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, John Glassco og Christopher Logue. Søkte Postel du Mas og Canudo som ledet en gruppe kledd som Templar-riddere med røde kapp og ridestøvler. Girodias ble fortalt at de var “karakteriserte teosofer med politisk design, og de er knyttet til Count Coudenhove-Kalergi … som er en forkjemper for de forente stater av Europa … Deres mål er å lansere et pan-europeisk politisk parti og å etablere seg i hele verden, begynne med Europa, et samfunn som er lydig mot en åndelig ide. “[10]

Grev Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi var østerriksk politiker og filosof, en pioner for europeisk integrasjon, og også medlem av de Lubicz ‘Les Veilleurs. Coudenhove-Kalergis far var også en nær venn av Theordor Herzl, grunnleggeren av zionismen. Coudenhove-Kalergi skriver i sine memoarer:
I begynnelsen av 1924 mottok vi en telefon fra Baron Louis de Rothschild; En av vennene hans, Max Warburg fra Hamburg, hadde lest boken min og ønsket å bli kjent med oss. Til min store overraskelse tilbød Warburg spontant oss 60.000 gull marks, for å finansiere bevegelsen over de første tre årene … Max Warburg, som var en av de mest fremtredende og klokeste mennene jeg noen gang har kommet i kontakt med, hadde en prinsipp om å finansiere slike bevegelser. Han var oppriktig interessert i Pan-Europe hele sitt liv. Max Warburg arrangerte sin 1925 tur til USA for å introdusere meg til Paul Warburg og finansminister Bernard Baruch. [11]

Coudenhove-Kalergi forsøkte å erstatte det nasjonalistiske tyske idealet for rasemessige samfunn med målet om en etnisk heterogen og inkluderende europeisk nasjon basert på en felles kultur, en nasjon hvis genier var, i Nietzschean-termer, de “store europeerne”, som Abbe de Saint-Pierre, Kant, Napoleon, Giuseppe Mazzini, Victor Hugo og Nietzsche selv, som også ofte nevnte Napoleon som et eksempel på Supermannen. “[12]

Det var gjennom Coudenhove-Kalergi at Saint-Yves visjon om en synarchistisk europeisk union oppnådde alvorlig politisk makt, da han medgrunnla den paneuropeiske unionen (PEU) med arkeprinsen Otto von Habsburg. Aristokratisk i sin opprinnelse og elitist i sine ideer, identifiserte Coudenhove-Kalergi og samarbeidet også med slike politikere som Engelbert Dollfuss, Kurt Schuschnigg, Winston Churchill og Charles de Gaulle. Coudenhove-Kalergis bevegelse holdt sin første kongress i Wien i 1926. I 1927 ble Aristide Briand, som tjente elleve perioder som statsminister i Frankrike i den tredje franske republikk, valgt som ærespresident. Andre personer som også deltok: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Sigmund Freud, Konrad Adenauer og Georges Pompidou. [13]

DEN EUROPEISKE UNION
Den Europeiske Union begynte med etableringen av den Europeiske bevegelsen av Joseph Retinger, som også var en av grunnleggerne av Bilderberg-gruppen. De superhemmelige Bilderberg-konferansene ble finansiert av CIA, og hit ble verdens ledende forretningsmenn, politikere og etterretningsansatte invitert, for det som ble kalt “et uformelt nettverk av innflytelsesrike mennesker som kunne konsultere hverandre privat og konfidensielt.” [17] De årlige Bilderberg møtene begynte først i mai 1954, med en gruppe som inkluderte George Ball, David Rockefeller, etterkommer av Rockefeller olje-dynastiet, Dr. Joseph Retinger, Hollands prins Bernhard, en tidligere SS-offiser og IG Farben-ansatt, og George C. McGhee, deretter av den amerikanske statsdepartementet og senere en av de øverste lederne for Mobil Oil. [18]

Retinger var også en grunnlegger av den Europeiske bevegelsen som ville føre til etableringen av Europarådet og EU. Guidet av Winston Churchill, Averell Harriman og Paul-Henri Spaak, den Europeiske bevegelsen, forklarer Frances Stonor Saunders i “Who Paid the Piper”: CIA og den kulturelle kalde krigen, ble nøye overvåket og finansiert av CIA gjennom en frontorganisasjon kalt Den Amerikanske komiteen for United Europe, hvor Tom Braden var første generalsekretær.

Under krigen hadde Coudenhove-Kalergi fortsatt sitt kall for forening av Europa langs Paris-London-aksen, aktiviteter som fungerte som det virkelige grunnlaget for den fiktive motstandshelt Victor Laszlo i filmen Casablanca. Hans appell for enighet i Europa hadde støtte fra Allen Dulles, “Wild Bill” Donovan, tidligere leder av OSS, og Winston Churchill, som begynte å fremme europeisk enhet fra 1930 og presidert over Europakongressen. Churchill skrev et forord til grevens bok, “An Idea Conquers the World”. I 1947 hadde Coudenhove-Kalergi opprettet Den Europeiske parlamentariske unionen (EPU), som spilte en fremtredende rolle i Europakongressen i Haag. EPU fusjonert senere med den Europeiske bevegelsen og Coudenhove-Kalergi ble valgt som ærespresident i 1952.

I 1949 dannet Retinger den Amerikanske kommisjonen for United Europe (ACUE) sammen med den fremtidige CIA-direktør Allen Dulles, deretter CFR-direktør George Franklin, Tom Braden og William Donovan. “Senere” sa Retinger, “når vi trengte hjelp til den Europeiske bevegelsen, var Dulles blant de i Amerika som hjalp oss mest.” [19] Ifølge Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, og rapportering fra avklassifiserte amerikanske regjeringsdokumenter, “The leders of the European Movement-Retinger, den visjonære Robert Schuman og den tidligere belgiske statsministeren Henri Spaak – ble alle behandlet som innleide ansatte av sine amerikanske sponsorer. Den amerikanske rollen ble håndtert som en skjult operasjon. ACUEs finansiering kom fra Ford og Rockefeller stiftelser, så vel som næringsgrupper nært knyttet til den amerikanske regjeringen. “[20]

Det Europeiske prosjektet i seg selv begynte i 1950 med den franske utenriksminister Robert Schumans kunngjøring at Frankrike og Vest-Tyskland hadde gått med på å samordne sine kull- og stålindustrier. Italia, Belgia, Nederland og Luxembourg tok sitt tilbud om å bli med, som førte syv år senere til Roma-traktaten, som etablerte Det Europeiske økonomiske fellesskap (EØF), hvorfra den Europeiske Union sporer sin opprinnelse.

Robert Shuman ble Europa parlamentets første president i 1958. Men det var Jean Monnet som ble president for den nye enheten, kalt “High Authority” og som var den primære innflytelsen bak bevegelsen. Monnet var på den tiden den mest innflytelsesrike forretningsmannen og økonomen i etterkrigstiden i Europa. I 1936, Vivien Postel du Mas, fortalte Girodias at sammen med Coudenhove-Kalergi var Monnet en innflytelsesrik promotor av synarchistagendaen. En annen av Ulmann og Azeaus MSE-informanter beskrev Monnet som en “sann synarch … hvis medlemskap i bevegelsen aldri var i tvil for de sanne innviede”. [21]

DEN NØDVENDIGE FIENDEN
Det var på grunn av Alexandre Kojèves og Jean Monnets innsats at EU, som var et synarchist-prosjekt, tok sin nåværende form. [22] Kojève (1902 – 1968) var en russisk født fransk filosof og statsmann, og nevø til abstrakt kunstner Wassily Kandinsky.

Kojève, som var éminence grise på det franske departementet Economic Affairs, var en av de tidligste arkitekter av EU og General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Han utøvde stor innflytelse over Olivier Wormser, som spilte en nøkkelrolle i forhandlinger om Roma-traktaten, og Valéry Giscard d’Estaing som ble president i Frankrike i 1974, og som gjennom hele sin politiske karriere konsekvent hadde vært en fortaler for en større Europeiske Union.

Ifølge Barbara Boyd var Kojève “ikke bare en ideolog av universell fascisme, men han var også en ledende figur i de mest kraftfulle fascistiske kretsene fra det 20. århundre Frankrike, synarchists.” [23] Disse kretsene inkluderte Carl Schmitt (1888 – 1985), beskrevet som “Tredje Rikets kronjurist.” [24] Gjennom sin karriere var Schmitt under beskyttelse av Hermann Göring, Hitlers Reichsmarschall under krigen og den ledende synarchistiske figuren i nazistiske Tyskland. [25] I 1933 ble han utnevnt til statsrådsmann ved Hermann Göring og ble president for Unionen av nasjonalsosialistiske jurister. Som professor ved Universitetet i Berlin presenterte han sine teorier som et ideologisk grunnlag for nazistdiktaturet, og en rettferdighetsgjørelse for “Führer”-staten når det gjelder juridisk filosofi.

Schmitt støttet fremveksten av totalitære maktstrukturer i sitt dokument ““The developed the concept of the seizure of power by a powerful determined leader through the pretext of a state of emergency” Schmitt foretrukket en “suveren diktator” som ville kunne ta avgjørende tiltak for å møte statens trusler. Et nødstilfelle presiserer effektivt trusselen om en bestemt offentlig fiende, mot hvem, en legitim karismatisk leder må utøve en suveren beslutning.

Schmitt utviklet også læren om en nødvendig fiende. Schmitt foreslo at det er et domene som er forskjellig fra alle de andre, som han kalte den “politiske”. Ifølge Schmitt har hvert område av menneskelig eksistens sin egen spesielle form for dualisme: i moral er det godt og ondt i økonomi fortjeneste og forpliktelser, i estetikk skjønnhet og stygghet og så videre. Det “politiske” for Schmitt var basert på skillet mellom “venn” og “fiende.” Den politiske eksisterer hvor det eksisterer en fiende, en gruppe som er forskjellig og har forskjellige interesser, og med hvem det er en mulighet for konflikt . En befolkning kan forenes og mobiliseres gjennom den politiske handlingen der en fiende blir identifisert og konfrontert. [26]

Som Bryan Turner oppsummerer in “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism”:

Schmitt argued that the political was defined in terms of the decisive struggle between friend and enemy, and without such a struggle authentic values could not be protected or sustained. More precisely, power involved a struggle between civilizations to define the content of a vibrant ethical life…

Politisk liv kan ikke overleve uten statens suverenitet, og statens suverenitet utgjøres av en leders evne til å ta effektive beslutninger i krisesituasjoner. Demokratisk debatt og overveielse kan bare undergrave kapasiteten til riksregeringen til å handle med vilje og klarhet i synet. [27]

Et medlem av nazistpartiet, Schmitt, var part i å brenne bøker av jødiske forfattere, og krevde en mye mer omfattende rensing, som å inkludere verk av forfattere påvirket av jødiske ideer. [28] I 1934 rettferdiggjorde han de politiske mordene på “the Night of the Long Knives”, en rensing av nazistregimet som utførte mord på flere venstre- og anti-nazistiske ledere, som den “høyeste form for administrativ rettferdighet” og i myndighet av Hitler i et arbeid med tittelen “The leader defends the law.” [29]

Da Schmitt falt ut av favør med SS, reiste han til Spania, Portugal og Italia under sponsing av synarchists, og ga foredrag om hvordan man kontinuerlig legitimerer de fascistiske regjeringer av disse nasjonene. [30] Etter at han ble fanget i 1945 av de amerikanske styrkene, og etter å ha brukt mer enn et år i en interneringsleir, ​​nektet Schmitt ethvert forsøk på av-Nazifisering, som effektivt hindret ham fra stillinger i akademia. Til tross for at han ble isolert fra det mainstream akademiske og politiske samfunn, fortsatte han studier, særlig internasjonal lov.

Fra 1950-tallet mottok Schmitt en jevn strøm av besøkende, inkludert Kojève, og han redigerte Kojèves introduksjon til en “Reading of Hegel”. [31] Kojèves filosofiske seminarer på Hegel antas å ha “dramatisk formet det franske intellektuelle landskapet i dette århundret.” [32] For Kojève skapte etableringen av EØF en konkret form for den hegelske drømmen om å forfalske Europa til et eksempel på en verdensstat som, trodde han, alene kunne klare “alle motsetninger fra tidligere stadier av historien” og å tilfredsstille “alle menneskelige behov”. [33]

Kojèves visjon om en verdensstat ble utviklet fra sin tolkning av Hegel som var basert på en kombinasjon av både Karl Marx og Martin Heideggers tanke. Kort tid etter at Hitler kom til makten, kom Heidegger til nasjonalpartiet i 1933, og ble medlem av partiet til det ble demontert i slutten av andre verdenskrig, selv om forholdet mellom hans filosofi og nazismen fortsatt er svært kontroversielt, spesielt fordi han aldri syntes å uttrykke noe klar anger.

Som Marx trodde Kojève at mannen er historiens bevegelige kraft. I motsetning til de rette hegelierne, hvem identifiserer Hegels Ånd med Gud, følger Kojève venstrehegelerne som følger tradisjonen med Marx versjon av hegelianismen, som i stedet ser historien som formet av mennesket. I Alexander Kojève: “The Roots of Postmodern Politics”, historikeren Shadia Drury beskriver Kojèves historikk, som forråder det kabbalistiske grunnlaget for den hegelske dialektikken:

In contrast to the Right Hegelian interpretation, Kojève followed Feurerbach and Marx in considering God a mere projection of man’s own idealized conception of himself. In this view, the dualism between man and himself (projected as God) is transcended in the course of the historical process. At the “end of history,” man recognizes God as his own creation, and is no longer alienated from himself because he has become one with himself, or his own idealized view of himself. So understood, history is man’s own self-making project. This is the reason that Kojève’s interpretation is often characterized as “Marxist humanism.”[34]

Til Kojève, er revolusjonens alder over. Historienes slutt har lenge blitt avgjort, siden Napoleons kamp i Jena i 1806. Fra den tiden fremover har nasjonene rundt om i verden delt de samme prinsippene, håpene og ambisjonene. Alt siden slaget ved Jena, som ellers feiler som historie, har bare vært et spørsmål om å løse de “anakronistiske oppfølgerne” av Europas prerevolusjonære fortid. Likevel anerkjenner Kojève at det vil fortsette å være motstand av den “syke” som ikke kan gjenkjenne den nye universelle tilstand som selve naturens konklusjon. Kojève hevder derfor at sluttstaten eller universell tilstand vil kreve en universell tyrann.

Som Shadia Drury forklarer, “ved å lese Hegel gjennom linsene til Heidegger, så vel som Marx, fødte Kojève det nysgjerrige fenomenet kjent som eksistensiell marxisme, som er manifestet av Sartre-verkene.” [35] Kojève inspirerte Jean-Paul Sartre ved å legge særlig vekt på terror som en nødvendig revolusjonskomponent. Oppfyllelsen av historiens slutt er “ikke mulig uten kamp”, sa han. [36] På bakgrunn av Hegels dialektikk oppfattet Kojève at “slaven” for å overvinne sin “mester” må “introdusere seg i elementet av døden” ved å risikere livet mens han er fullt bevisst på sin dødelighet. Som et resultat, beskriver forskere Kojève som en “terroristisk oppfatning av historien.” [37] Som Kojève forklarer, er filosofer mindre begrenset av konvensjoner og mer i stand til å gripe til terror og andre tiltak som kan anses som kriminelle, hvis slike tiltak er effektive for å oppnå ønsket ende. [38]

NEOKONSERVATIV

Kojève’s forestilling om Hegels slutt på historien ble senere avansert av Francis Fukuyama, hvor den ble grunnlaget for den fanatiske sionistiske ambisjonen til den amerikanske neokonservative bevegelsen, og deres formulering av et “Clash of Civilizations”, ellers kjent som krigen mot terror, eller mer presist krigen mot islam.

Neokonservative’s verdenssyn ble inspirert av den tysk-jødiske politiske filosofen Leo Strauss, som opprettholde et livslangt vennskap med Alexandre Kojève. Som ungdom ble Strauss omvendt til politisk zionisme og deltok også på ulike kurs ved Universitetet i Freiburg undervist av Martin Heidegger. På grunn av nazistenes oppgang til makten valgte Strauss ikke å gå tilbake til USA, der han tilbrakte mesteparten av sin karriere som professor i statsvitenskap ved Rockefeller-finansierte University of Chicago. Det samme universitetet ble kjent for Chicago School, bastionen av neoliberal økonomisk teori, ledet av Milton Friedman.

En betydelig innflytelse på Leo Strauss var Carl Schmitt, til tross for sin nazistiske fortid. [39] Schmitt’s svært positive referanse var medvirkende til å vinne Strauss et stipend som tillot ham å forlate Tyskland. Til gjengjeld har Strauss kritikk og avklaring av Concept of the Political ledet Schmitt til å gjøre en betydelige prosess for å ta en revidering før sin andre utgave. Strauss skrev til Schmitt i 1932, og oppsummerte konsekvensene av hans politiske teologi som følger:

[B]ecause man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men… the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state.[40]

Kojève og Strauss spilte begge en stor rolle i Schmitt’s etterkrigsrehabilitering. I 1955 adresserte Kojève en gruppe forretningsmenn i Düsseldorf på Schmitt’s invitasjon, og Schmitt forsøkte å arrangere et privat møte mellom Kojève og Hjalmar Schacht. [41] Og gjennom sin karriere i USA sendte Strauss regelmessig sine ledende disipler til å studere under Kojève i Paris. For eksempel reiste Strauss øverste protégé  Allan Bloom til Paris årlig, fra 1953 til Kojèves død i 1968, for å studere Kojève’s Nietzschean-fascistiske tro. Bloom vil vurdere Kojève å være en av hans største lærere. [42]

For Strauss er Kojève’s slutt på historien resultatet av alle feilene i modernitet og dens verdier av liberalisme. Liberalismenes feil er at den har gått fra de gamle menneskers visdom, som anerkjente uunngåelighet av et naturlig hierarki blant menn. Dette førte til at Strauss-etterfølgere, som alle hadde vært ledende eksponenter av Leon Trosky, til å flip floppe til motsatt ekstreme av det politiske spekteret, for å bli “neokonservative”, og tiltalte neoliberal økonomi i kombinasjon med pro-zionisme.

Til slutt ble de sosiale opprøringene fra sekstitallet forårsaket av liberalisme oppfattet av neokonservative som “råtnet” gjennom Amerikas mangel på selvtillit og tro på seg selv. Derfor, for å gjenopplive Amerikas identitetsfølelse, tok de neokonservative tak i Strauss’ oppfatning av behovet for å ty til edle løgner. De ville fremstille mytene at Amerika var den eneste kilden for “god” i verden, og bør støttes, ellers ville “ondskap” herske.

Etter at Nixon ble tvunget til å trekke seg tilbake i 1974, allierte de neokonservative seg med to på høyrefløyen i administrasjonen av hans etterfølger Gerald Ford, som brukte eskalering av terrorisme som påskudd for å vedta en hard linje mot Sovjetkommunismen. De var Donald Rumsfeld, den nye forsvarssekretæren, og Dick Cheney, Fords stabsjef. Mens Nixon hadde startet en periode med avspenning med Sovjetunionen, gjenopplivet Rumsfeld den gamle paranoiaen ved å gi taler om Sovjetens “hensiktsmessighet” i å bygge opp sine militære forsvar i forhold til USAs. CIA nektet påstandene, bekrefter at de var en komplett fiksjon. Men Rumsfeld brukte sin posisjon til å overtale Ford til å sette opp en uavhengig utredningl, som han insisterte på, ville bevise at det var en skjult trussel mot Amerika. Den henvendelsen ville bli drevet av en gruppe neokonservative, hvorav en var Paul Wolfowitz, en personlig protégé av Kojève-student Allan Bloom.

Neokonservative’s nye strategi begynte å oppnå farlige proporsjoner da Wolfowitz, som Dick Cheneys undersekretær for forsvarspolitikk, skrev et “Defense Planning Guidance Paper”, som skisserte USAs strategiske prioriteringer i etterkrigstidens epoke. Lekket til New York Times, foreskrev dokumentet å sikre global overherredømme for USA gjennom militær konfrontasjon med ulike regimer, og ba Amerika hevde sine interesser hvor de eksisterte, med særlig vekt på oljeforsyning og Israels sikkerhet.

Ifølge forfatterne var det på tide for USA å oppnå uovertruffen militær overlegenhet gjennom en massiv oppbygging av landets militære evner. Dette samme verdenssyn ble videreført med etableringen av en spesielt utviklet tenketank, kjent som “the Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). Undertegnene til prosjektet inkluderte Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, og ledende neokonservative, som Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle og Elliot Abrams, som ble funnet skyldig i å lyve om hans rolle i Iran-Kontra-operasjonen, men ble senere benådet av George HW Bush.

Spesielt var PNAC opptatt av den politiske situasjonen i Midt-østen, hovedsakelig dannet av det nye paradigmet formulert av Samuel Huntington og Francis Fukuyama, som spilte opp vestlig sekulært demokrati mot islamsk fundamentalisme. Det vestlige liberale demokrati, blir vi fortalt, er “End of History” i hegelsken, som representerer triumf av århundrer av intellektuelle fremskritt. Fukuyama ble sterkt påvirket av Kojève, som allerede i 1948 trodde at USA var modellen for økonomisk liv i slutten av historien. Langt før den kalde krigen kom til slutt, ventet Kojève Amerikas triumf over Sovjetunionen, forutsatt at det ikke ville være en militær triumf, men en økonomisk en. [43]

Til slutt er Fukuyma’s krav et fremskritt for den samme synarchistiske dialektikken. Med andre ord, i kombinasjon med ankomsten til det sekulære demokratiet, er det den øverste delen av den vestlige sivilisasjonen som markerer kulminasjonen av menneskelig intellektuell evolusjon. I Fukuyama’s egne ord:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.[44]

Det var som svar på Fukuyama’s påstand om at Samuel Huntington utviklet begrepet “Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington mente at mens ideologiens alder var avsluttet, hadde verden bare gått tilbake til en normal tilstand som preget av konflikt mellom kulturblokker. I sin avhandling hevdet han at den primære aksen for konflikt i fremtiden vil være langs kulturelle og religiøse linjer. Han foreslår at det er forskjellige sivilisasjoner, som den høyeste rangen av kulturell identitet, som blir stadig mer nyttig for å analysere potensialet for konflikt.

Som Fukuyama skrev i et Washington Washington-opinionsstykke for 2008, er demokratiets eneste virkelige konkurrent i ideen om ideer i dag radikalt islamisme. [45] Fremstillingen av den fabrikkerte trusselen om islam åpenbart avkledde flere falske politiske mål. Som Gilles Keppel forklarte:

Huntington’s clash of civilization theory facilitated the transfer to the Muslim world of a strategic hostility the West had inherited from decades of Cold War. The parallel drawn between the dangers of communism and those of Islam gave Washington’s strategic planners the illusion that they could dispense with analyzing the nature of the Islamic “menace” and could simply transpose the conceptual tools designed to apprehend one threat to the very different realities of the other.

The neoconservative movement played a crucial role in bringing about this rhetorical permutation. It placed a facile way of thinking in the service of a precise political agenda, aimed at expanding the American democratic model into the Middle East – the only part of the world that it had not penetrated at the end of the twentieth century – and at modifying U.S. policy in the region to give Israel’s security precedence over an alliance with the Saudi petro-monarchy.[46]

Sannheten er at det heller ikke er noe ekte “demokrati” i Vesten. Skammen av de serie diktaturene, der folket blir fortalt hvem som skal stemme hvert fjerde år, er utformet for å skjule at Vesten er sammensatt av oligarkier. Industrielle interesser bruker sin innflytelse over regjeringen, media og utdanningssystemet, for å forfølge sine felles globale ambisjoner. Som oppsummert av Bryan Turner, “har den populære debatten om Huntington-avhandlingen skjult sin intellektuelle avhengighet av en akademisk tradisjon for politisk filosofi som forsøkte å definere suverenitet i form av sivilisasjonskamp mellom venn og fiende, nemlig arven til Carl Schmitt og Leo Strauss .”[47]

By David Livingstone


[1] Souvenirs du Baron de Gleichen, p. 151, cited from Nesta Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, (Brooklyn: A&B Books, 1994), p. 169.

[2] J. M. Roberts. The Mythology of Secret Societies (London: Secker and Warburg, 1972) p. 104.

[3] Jean-Pierre Bayard, Les Rose-Croix, (M. A. Éditions, Paris, 1986).

[4] Jerry Z. Muller, Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present. (Princeton University Press, 1997) p. 135.

[5] Richard F. Kuisel, ‘The Legend of the Vichy Synarchy’, in French Historical Studies, (spring 1970), p. 378.

[6] Maçonnerie egyptienne Rose-Croix et néo-chevalerie, Edition du Rocher, Monaco, 1994; cited in Picknett and Prince, Stargate Conspiracy, (New York: Berkley, 1999) p. 265.

[7] André Ulmann and Henri Azeau, Synarchie et pouvoir (Julliard, 1968), p. 63.

[8] Joscelyn Godwin, “Schwaller de Lubicz: les Veilleurs et la connexion Nazie,” Politica Hermetica, number 5, pp. 101-108 (Éditions L’Âge d’Homme, 1991).

[9] Gary Lachman, Politics and the Occult, p. 193.

[10] Ibid., p. 149.

[11] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism The history and practices of the parasitic financial elite (1984).

[12] Beyond Good and Evil, 256.

[13] “Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.” Spartacus Educational.

[14] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Dope, Inc., (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Co., 1978).

[15] Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi – American Money Plot 1933-1949. (Delacorte Press, 1983) p. 1

[16] Anton Chaitkin, “British psychiatry: from eugenics to assassination” Executive Intelligence Review, V21 #40, (30 July 2002).

[17] Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), p. 129; CBC, “Informal forum or global conspiracy?” CBC News Online (June 13, 2006).

[18] William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, (Dr. Bottiger Verlags-GmbH, 1992) p. 149.

[19] Holly Sklar, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1980) p. 162.

[20] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs.” The Telegraph. September 19, 2000

[21] Ulmann and Azeau, 63.

[22] “Synarchy: The Hidden Hand Behind the European Union,” New Dawn, (March 15, 2012).

[23] Barbara Boyd, “Profile: Carl Schmitt, Dick Cheney’s Éminence Grise.” Executive Intelligence Review, (January 6, 2006).

[24] Waldemar Gurian.

[25] Jeffrey Steinberg, “Synarchism: The Fascist Roots Of the Wolfowitz Cabal.”

[26] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, expanded edition, trans. G. Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)

[27] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism,” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.

[28] Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 59.

[29] Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, 38, 1934.

[30] Barbara Boyd, “Profile: Carl Schmitt, Dick Cheney’s Éminence Grise,”

[31] Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960-1990 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) pp. 235-273.

[32] Mark Lilla, “The End of Philosophy: How a Russian émigré brought Hegel to the French.” Times Literary Supplement, (April 5, 1991) p. 3.

[33] Roger Griffin, Professor in History, Oxford Brookes University, “Europe For The Europeans:Fascist Myths Of The New Order 1922 – 1992,”

[34] Shadia Drury. Alexandre Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), p. 14

[35] Ibid, p. 65.

[36] Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to a Reading of Hegel. (New York: Basic Books, 1969), p. 69.

[37] Drury, Alexandre Kojève, p. 37.

[38] Ibid., p. 147.

[39] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism.” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.

[40] Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, (University of Chicago Press 1995), p. 125.

[41] Jeffrey Steinberg, Tony Papert & Barbara Boyd. “Dick Cheney Has a French Connection—To Fascism.” Executive Intelligence Review (May 9, 2003).

[42] Alan Bloom, “Preface,” Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, p i.

[43] Shadia Drury, Alexandre Kojève, p. 43.

[44] The End of History and the Last Man. (Fukuyama, 1992)

[45] Francis Fukuyama, “They Can Only Go So Far,” The Washington Post (August 24, 2008).

[46] Gilles Keppel, The War for Muslim Minds, p. 62.

[47] Bryan S. Turner. “Sovereignty and Emergency Political Theology, Islam and American Conservatism.” Theory, Culture & Society 2002 (SAGE, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 19(4): 103–119.