It’s a fairly innocuous news item. Well, if not innocuous, at least par for the course:
Saudi and Israeli diplomats jointly announced that they’ve held five meetings in secret since early last year in India, Italy, and the Czech Republic.
“In secret” eh? What’s the difference between meeting in a room and “in secret”? Moving on:
The reason? Iran. The Israelis and the Saudis have a common enemy in Tehran, and they’re increasingly relying on each other now that the United States, contrary to the interests of both, might ease sanctions if a nuclear deal gets hammered out later this year.
Retired Saudi general Anwar Majed Eshki and Israeli diplomat Dore Gold shook hands in front of the cameras during their announcement at the Council on Foreign Relations—a bigger deal than it seems.
Did the same thing leap out at you?
“during their announcement at the Council on Foreign Relations”
Who are the Council on Foreign Relations? They’re just some thinktank, are they not? I mean, they have no official status in government in any country, they’re just a bunch of American thinkers, no?
Just a harmless thinktank?
Those who are aware know fullwell that they are a major arm of Them. Their little excursion in March, 2005 actually got the three leaders of North America together to agree to hand over power of the continent to them, through something called the NAAC, the North American Advisory Council.
That is – policy would be made by a branch of the CFR. Bush had signed its principles and awaited the flak. It came swiftly across the internet, most notably through WND, mainstream pollies and other figures latched onto it and it did not die, it subsided for now.
Until the accession of Bush, 80% of Presidents of the US had been either members or ex-members of the CFR. So who the hell are these people? At least Common Purpose over here was an official arm of the ODPM and is part-funded by the taxpayer. [See Lord Stoddart]
All of these below are worth exploring in their own right, should you have the time and inclination to go beyond their own blurbs or those at the top of Google search:
Flow Laboratories Merle Thomas Corporation, Walden Research, Planning Research Corporation, Brookings Institution, Hudson Institute, National Training Laboratories, Esalen Institute, NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences, Western Training Laboratories in Group Development, National Education Association, International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance & Commerce, Institute For The Future, Institute for Policy Studies*, Samuel Rubin, Armand Hammer, Philip Stern, David R. Hunter, The National Council and the World Council Of Churches, Stanford Research Institute, Charles A. Anderson, Applications of Behavioral Sciences to Research Management Office of Science and Technology, SRI Business Intelligence Program, U.S. Department of Defense Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering, U.S. Department of Defense Office of Aerospace Research, Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Blyth, Eastman Dillon and TRW Company, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Contemporary Technology Industrial Relations NASA-ERC Computer Research Laboratories Office of Naval Research Group, Psychology Systems Dynamics, American Management Association, Committee for Economic Development, GTE, Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), NASA, National Academy of Sciences, National Council of Churches, Sylvania, TRW, U.S. Army
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Navy, U.S. Treasury, Volkswagen Company, Rand Research and Development Corporation, Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, the Club of Rome.
Connection? The Tavistock Institute, supposedly a British institute. Connection? David Bell.Connection? Common Purpose and Demos. Look at the last one on the list, the founders of the EU – a Tavistock conduit. Don’t take my word – explore it yourself.
This is the sort of work they were involved in:
Dr. William Sargent of the Tavistock Institute [MKULTRA] in his 1957 book Battle for the Mind— A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing elaborated on Lewin’s theories by stating:
“Various beliefs can be implanted in many people after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger, or excitement …
The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.
From its own blurb:
Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organisational behaviour, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.
Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology.
Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock influences The National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab “trains” [see Common Purpose again] leading executives of business and government.
Did you notice the asterisk in that long list?
* Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the Institute for Policy Studies and it promoted the drug. This, through Leary and Phillips [Mamas and Papas] for example, resulted in the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, and the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.
Associated groups with common connections and personnel at the upper level:
The City of London Corporation, 108 Livery Companies, the Worshipful Company of Fuellers and the Worshipful Company of Mercers are two of the most prominent.
The Delphi technique which has corrupted research findings came out of a Tavistock offshoot. This is behind many of those studies the MSM suddenly finds which go against accepted wisdom on everything from health to lifestyle.
Reader and commenter Jumican made a good point:
It is not unlikely that such organisations will abound. What really matters is whether or not they have power, more specifically, political power. For example, how did Cameron come to be a candidate for leader of the Tories? Who decided that he was ‘one of the best’? Who decided that the Miliband brothers should be ‘the best’, and who decided that the boy Clegg should be the one? It really is very odd that no one has ever spilt the beans about how the ‘committees’ make these choices. Anyone who has ever been a member of a committee know that they are usually ‘organised’ by a few members of the committee who ‘lead’ and get their way. Out of a committee of twelve people, there need only be about three who ‘know’and are insistent. They are clever, and will let, nay encourage, others to speak, and then they will say, “Good point” but rapidly steer the meeting back their agenda, very cleverly.
Coming back to the CFR – does it have power? Well its founder, Colonel House, certainly did. Plus, on December 15, 1922, Philip Kerr stated in the CFR magazine “Foreign Affairs”:
“Obviously there is going to be no peace or prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”
Skip to the current day and the SPPNA [the CFR NAAC]. If you scan their pdf, you’ll see proposals for a North American Advisory Council to “oversee” and “advise” on policy in the U.S.A, Canada and Mexico by 2010, in the areas of:
# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system
I would call that Junican’s definition of “power”. Power is anyone who consistently influences policy to the extent that you don’t get appointed unless a member.
This post has been a quick glance at who actually does make the policy. Does David Cameron? Does he hell.
And how can one characterize this power? One way is to call it “leading beyond authority”. Sound familiar?