A Double Rainbow appeared over Buckingham Palace as the death of Elizabeth II was announced. Sept 8, 2022. Kala Adams via Twitter.
War is Peace
Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.—George Orwell
As discussed in an Armistice Day essay, the enthusiasm that General de Gaulle may have held at the onset for the peace-keeping prospects of the United Nations and its military arm, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, est. 1949) waned as he came to understand that the defensive force would be dominated by the UK–US consortium —the wily allies whom he disparaged, ‘Anglo–Saxons’ whose interests did not necessarily align with France.
As acknowledged in a 1954 publication by Hastings Ismay, first Secretary General of NATO, “The purpose of NATO was to keep the Soviet Union out; the Americans in: and the Germans down”. A former general in the British Indian Army, Ismay had been Lord Mountbatten’s Chief of Staff in India and Churchill’s chief military assistant during World War II.
The founding Supreme Commander of NATO was an American: General Eisenhower. He had been Supreme Allied Commander of Europe during the war. Eisenhower thought that NATO would eventually become a European alliance –that the US and Canada would bow-out of membership within a decade.1 He ascended to the US Presidency in 1953 and by the time he left Executive Office at the start of the sixties, he had come to hold a different opinion of NATO and the Cold War role that the United States inherited from the world wars as the militant peace keeper (Pax Americana). President Eisenhower’s farewell address admonished the dangers of a “military industrial complex” and a “permanent armaments industry of vast proportions”. He warned of an enemy—not of a particular regime—but of a “hostile ideology –global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method”.
The European Economic Community (EEC) was established amid UN/NATO formation. The EEC was a supranational alliance built on financial interests brokered by the Club of Rome (outlined by the Treaty of Rome in 1957). The EEC is the precursor to the European Union and European Council. General de Gaulle had not been among EEC architects and was apprehensive about the threat that syndication posed to sovereign European nations. A point of policy on which he was emphatic was that Britain should be barred from membership.
Approaching the end of his Presidency, De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO in 1967 –a contentious year of his tenure that saw him interfere with the British plan for Nigeria (Biafran War) and encourage the Québécois to secede from the British Commonwealth. De Gaulle seemed to view the Commonwealth as Empire in another guise. Further provocations of the period included condemnation of the Vietnam War as "the greatest absurdity of the 20th century" (1966)2 and advocacy for Palestinian Arabs while retracting arms for Israel as it entered into the Six–Day War (1967).
De Gaulle’s maverick geopolitical maneuvers may have precipitated his ouster from power, realized by an uprising led by strikes, university students, and Maoist intellectuals. The protests of ‘May 68’ sought to redistribute State power. They coincided with (and may have been related to the months-long color revolution in Czechoslovakia, the ‘Prague Spring’). By all intents and purpose a Coup d’État, May 68 compelled De Gaulle to temporarily flee the country.
After more than six decades of colonialism and nearly a decade of war in French Indochina, France had pulled out of Vietnam in 1954. Postcolonial critique circulated during the 1950s with a call in US Congress delivered by then Senator, John F. Kennedy. His 1957 speech, “Imperialism: The Enemy of Freedom”, rebuked colonialism in Africa, a position De Gaulle came to appreciation in formation of the Evian Accords that conferred independence to Algeria in 1962.
De Gaulle gained the French Presidency in 1958 and in such capacity, he attempted to broker Cold War détente, holding a conference with President Kennedy and Secretary Khrushchev in Paris May–June 1961. It was during this forum that JFK presided over a press conference at the Chaillot Palace, the original location of NATO at which the UN general assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although Kennedy’s speech is remembered for the jovial remark, “I am the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris”, it revealed American enthusiasm for the postwar peace-keeping prospects then promised by consolidation of European powers, the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction, an enthusiasm shared by the majority of senators. While a minority of isolationists such as Robert Taft (R-OH) were resentful that Americans had been misled into successive world wars; the senate majority was constituted of internationalists in support of global governance. They were led by Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) and Richard Nixon (R-CA).
I recall in my first days in the Congress of the United States in 1947, '48 and '49, when the great steps which were proposed on a bipartisan basis by the American people to assist in the restoration of Europe were among the most foresighted and farsighted actions in which my country has been engaged, the Truman Doctrine, the British loan, the aid for Greece and Turkey, the Marshall Plan and later NATO…. There were those who said that Europe after the war would be a prisoner again of its ancient rivalries. Today this continent offers the world the most outstanding examples of strength through unity.—John F. Kennedy
Within two years of the Paris conference, France had withdrawn its Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command and President Kennedy was dead –assassinated one month after issuing National Security Action Memorandum 263 announcing the immediate withdrawal of 1000 troops from Vietnam and withdrawal of the rest of military persons by 1965.
Arguably the most vocal opponent to the Vietnam War on the American front was the Reverend, Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, “Beyond Vietnam” (1967) stands as one of the greatest oratories in American history. It was co-written by Vincent Harding who explained it advocated more than extraction from war, but “getting out of a certain frame of mind, of a way of thinking about ourselves and about the world”. This remains the unrealized project of our times.
Reverend King imagined The Vietnam War from the enemy’s perspective. Through an objective lens, he spied the hypocrisy of American ‘liberators’ who yet refused to acknowledge the Vietnamese struggle for independence as modeled after their own example. He explained to critics of pacifism that his activism was anchored in Christian ministry: in love and tolerance, “in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them”.
The Civil Rights leader distinguished between the military and the Department of Defense, conveying utmost compassion for the soldiers and poignantly asserting, “We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved”. He concluded with a chilling admonition for the ages:
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
—Martin Luther King, Jr.
As indicated by his attempts at Cold War détente, President de Gaulle had maintained diplomatic relations with the US and USSR, France’s World War II allies. He recognized that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of fighting fascism and suffered the greatest death toll of all victors involved in the conflict. The estimated WW II Russian deaths—military and civilian—was a staggering 26.6 million.
Despite Cold War diplomacy, the Cuban Missile Crisis nevertheless came to pass in October 1962, instigated by American distaste for a proximate communist state situated off the coast of Florida. The CIA initiated maneuvers for regime change in Cuba while the Department of Defense positioned missiles targeting the USSR in Italy and Turkey. In tandem, these strategies fomented Cold War tension to existential crisis when the Soviets retaliated, positioning missiles in Cuba aimed at the US. By the grace of God, President Kennedy and Secretary Khrushchev were able to avert nuclear disaster.
April 2022, I posted to social media a speech delivered in Russia by the General’s grandson, Pierre de Gaulle, an advocate for France to once again secede from NATO. The post attracted no likes or comments. Given American sentiment at the time, I suppose I should be grateful that it didn’t attract scorn. By January 2023, De Gaulle’s message urging diplomacy in the Ukraine was attracting attention as the public warmed to his charges of “intellectual dishonesty” and “military escalation” on the part of UK–US, which is to say, the UN/NATO.
Speaking in plenary session of European Parliament last November, representative member Clare Daly of Ireland did not mince words while disabusing colleagues of the notion that “NATO wars for freedom, democracy and human rights”. Like De Gaulle, Daly claimed the Ukraine conflict was driven by financial interests. Imploring mercy for Ukrainians she asserted, “The country’s future is being sold to finance a proxy war that’s tearing it apart”. She concluded with an admonishment invoking Major General, Smedley Butler (the 11th most decorated soldier in American history):
Between Russian tanks and European banks there’ll be little left of Ukraine when this is over. Don’t forget: war is a racket and there’ll be hell to pay for this one. —Clare Daly, MEP
It may come as a surprise to some Americans that Congress last declared war during World War II. Every US war of my five-decade lifetime has been a ‘special military operation’. Even in times of peace, the American military is deployed in most countries around the world with approximately 170,000 active-duty personnel stationed outside the country. This July, Congress voted down an amendment advanced by senators Chip Roy, (R-TX); Rand Paul (R-KY); and Warren Davidson (R-OH) that attempted to preserve the constitutional requirement holding that Congress declare war as a precondition of US military engagement. The senators were concerned that NATO obligations not skirt the Constitution or supersede national interests.
Decisions of war and peace, of life and death, are among the most serious any government makes. The framers of our Constitution knew that, and they prudently vested the power to declare war in the legislative branch — the branch of government most accountable to the American people. As war rages on in Europe, I am proud to partner with my friend Dr. Rand Paul and Rep. Warren Davidson to reaffirm the importance of the fact that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty doesn’t supersede the Constitution. No one has the power to declare war without Congress’ deliberation and our constituents’ consent; it’s high time this body conducted itself accordingly.—Chip Roy (R-TX)
Perhaps the most important question a member of Congress will ever face is whether to commit our nation’s young men and women to war. We cannot delegate that responsibility to the president, the courts, an international body, or our allies. Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not supersede the constitutional obligation that only Congress can declare war.—Rand Paul (R-KY)
George Szamuely, a Hungarian-born senior research fellow at Global Policy Institute is a critic of UN/NATO tribunals and intervention. His book, “Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia” (2013) argues that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia misrepresented what took place in the Balkans in the service of western powers.
Economist and former City of London financier, Rodney Atkinson (brother of comedian, Rowan Atkinson) has studied the formation of the European Union, exposing to confounding effect its roots in fascism. Atkinson has amplified a singular criticism of the conservative American think-tank, Hoover Institution, associated with Stanford University. An essay, “The End of Balkan History” featured in its journal Policy Review, 2007 effectively helped skew understanding of the Bosnian War. Atkinson reproduces an unanswered letter-to-the-editor by American, William Dorich in which the California–based author explained that his gripe correlated to personal grievance, having lost relatives to successive genocides denied by the academics. The letter is archived on Atkinson’s website, “Free Nations” and begins:
I personally took great exception to this unbridled racism since I lost 17 of my relatives during the Holocaust who were burned to death in a Serbian Orthodox church in the village of Vojnic in 1942 by Croatians and their Nazi Catholic priests. I lost the last 5 relatives of my name during Operation Storm in August of 1995 when 200,000 Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” from Croatia. My relatives were too old and too sick to flee. They were found a month later with their throats slit.—William Dorich
I wonder whether Dorich would use the term genocide were the letter written today given the weaponization of the ‘H-word’ that targets everyone who dares invoke it with accusations of interrelating the Holocaust or antisemitism. The law was intended to discredit Holocaust trivialization not to intimidate people invoking an historical event that we are admonished to ‘never forget’.
Approaching Memorial Day this year, a non-profit veteran’s consortium, Eisenhower Media Network (EMN) released a call for “President Biden and Congress to use their full power to end the Russia-Ukraine War speedily through diplomacy”. Devoted to educating Americans about the social, political, and financial destructiveness of the military industrial complex, EMN is supported by Ben & Jerry’s co-founder, Ben Cohen –specifically his outfit, “People Power Initiatives”. ESN took out a full-page advertisement the week before Memorial Day in The New York Times that called the war an “unmitigated disaster” and a “policy error of historic proportions”. It urged understanding of the conflict from the Russian perspective, and provided charts that illustrated the encroachment of Russia by US–NATO military bases. The commentators invoked the Monroe Doctrine and drew comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis. ESN pleaded, “The U.S. Should Be a Force for Peace in the World.”
Browsing the EMN website I came across a video discussion on the anniversary of the Iraq War in which Associate Director of EMN, Matthew Hoh had harsh criticism for President George W. Bush citing a notorious slip-of-tongue in a speech delivered last summer which condemned as tyrannical the “Russian invasion of Iraq”, only to joke about the gaffe. “Our leaders are sociopaths…. They all say they want peace. And they’re all lying.”
The 9/11 attacks were leveraged by US government to escalate terror, surveillance, biosecurity and in attempt to justify UK–US led allied invasion of sovereign countries, from Iraq to Syria. Attempting to track accountability for the devastation that the US Department of Defense has wreaked on the world at the expense of American taxpayers—and more broadly, humanity—The Costs of War project at Brown University estimates:
3.6-3.7 million deaths in post 9/11 war zones bring the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.6 million and counting.—The Costs of War Project, Brown University
Costs asserts through the fiscal year 2022, “The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $8 trillion”, and “The US government is conducting counterterror activities in 85 countries”. Moreover, “Despite the Pentagon’s assertion that the U.S. is shifting its strategic emphasis away from counterterrorism and towards great power competition with Russia and China, examining U.S. military activity on a country-by-country basis shows that there is yet to be a corresponding drawdown of the counterterror apparatus. If anything…counterterrorism operations have become more widespread in recent years”.
A May 24th social media post by JFK’s nephew, presidential candidate, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. made at the time of this essay’s initial publication eloquently and summarily speaks to the matter raised here:
They only pretend to think it was unprovoked. They are lying to us, manufacturing consent for war. The administration has dragged us into a proxy war on false pretenses. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians is on their hands, not to mention over $100 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars.—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Listen to 2024 Presidential candidate, RFK, Jr discuss an historical and modern-day quest for peace in this Memorial Day interview.
Ignorance is strength
All animals are born equal but some animals are born more equal than others.—George Orwell
George Orwell regarded the socialism of the 19th century British Trade Union as egregiously flawed. In the wake of World War I, similar socioeconomic theories swept across continental Europe by Soviets in Russia, Germany, Switzerland, and Holland including the German Soviet for Art affiliated with the German Trade Federation (Arbeitsrat für Kunst/Deutsche Werkbund), organizations stewarded in the 1920s by architects of the United Nations Secretariat and the midcentury skyscrapers of the Rockefeller’s other urban plan: Rockefeller Center.
The socioeconomic theories that undergirded German reconstruction after World War I and the American New Deal of the Depression era were informed by the ideology showcased by a popular fin-de-siècle science fiction novel, “Looking Backward, 2000–1887” (1888). It was set in the year 2000. An international best-seller, it forecast a utopia built upon the benevolence of Big Government. The account was written by American, Edward Bellamy, a socialist who argued for endowing the nation–state with power by which to appropriate private property and industry and thereby serve as employer, benefactor, and broker of a credit system that would provide equitable well-being for all. Orwell’s “1984” (the inspiration for this essay) deconstructs Bellamy’s vision, indeed turns it upside down to expose it as dystopian.
The diverging perspectives of Bellamy and Orwell trace back to an essential question: “Is man intrinsically good or evil”? Gauging by “Animal Farm” (1945), Orwell’s position seems fairly clear.
The communitarian ethos lauded by Bellamy extends a genealogy of collectivism in America, in his native Massachusetts the Shakers suggest an early example. However, Owenite communities abounded. The collectivist ethos gained currency in the Depression and in the latter half of the 20th century with embrace of cooperative communities by the Beatnik and Yippie movements of the 1950s and 60s. Pete Seeger and Bob Dylan drew attention to the folk songs of socialist, Woody Guthrie, including most prominently, “This Land is Your Land” (1940) which, like Orwell’s novel was scripted in opposition to another text (a 1938 rendition of “God Bless America”).
After overriding Constitutional freedoms for the better part of three years, the state of emergency exception enacted by Executive Office was finally suspended May 11, 2023 permitting international travelers to enter the United States without requirement of biosecurity documentation for the first time since 2020. That the US withheld rights and freedoms at all is confounding, to consider the extent of State vigiliance for a virus with a fatality rate commensurate to that of influenza the entire episode remains absurd. The State strategy seemed to have been driven by desire to intimidate, isolate, incriminate.
Looking back to the supposed start of the pandemic, I can’t seem to shake the impression that the British saw Corona coming as they frantically maneuvered to extricate themselves from the European Union. Brexit took effect January 31, 2020 —one day after the WHO declared the public health emergency of international concern that launched the crisis.
No sooner was the world population faced with one existential threat in the form of Corona, than it was promised another with Climate Change. A top-down decree soon mandated myriad agricultural and economic reforms, as outlined in a 2020 World Economic Forum (WEF) publication, “Covid-19: The Great Reset”. In June 2019 the Swiss futures research think-tank partnered with the UN to accelerate implementation of its strategic 21st century plan, Agenda 21 adopted by general assembly on Earth Day 1992 (for which Agenda 2030 is a progress marker).
It strikes me as nearly lyrical that WEF’s publication should inextricably link Davos to the Corona pandemic as the Swiss village is the storied location of the tuberculosis infested spa in Thomas Mann’s “Magic Mountain”.
The Great Reset was not announced by the WEF Director, but by Charles III, then Prince of Wales, perhaps the most endowed of the landed gentry with some estimated 6.6 billion acres in his possession. I suppose for the sake of the planet, it’s a good thing that he’s an environmentalist. Charles explained that the Corona crisis had provided humanity with a golden opportunity to rethink and reconfigure the machinations that govern the world in the interest of a more sustainable and inclusive future. He said, “We have no alternative” but to comply with the reforms. It is precisely the no exit (huis clos) dilemma of these successive existential threats that raises suspicion with respect to their use as vehicles to overrun democracy.
The creative destruction of Reset was swiftly promoted during pandemic year-1 by G7 leaders promising in unison a need to “build back better” as 5G towers rolled out at break-neck speed across the world (beginning—as with the alleged pathogen—in China). In the US, the slogan underscored a 2020 presidential campaign and subsequently a $1.2 trillion-dollar infrastructure investment. I still marvel at the timing of a bridge collapse in Pittsburgh on the very day that President Biden visited to tout the ‘Build Back Better Bill’.
The first European nations to suffer setback from UN/WEF Sustainable Development Goals were the Netherlands and Ukraine, historically bountiful farmlands that were decimated sites of famine during the Second World War (The Hongerwinter and Holodomor). The Dutch were so distressed as to fly their flag upside down and to issue a blockade at the Hague with bulldozers. This year, they deposed their Prime Minister who had been in power for over a decade.
Among the first activists to argue that environmentalism was being weaponized as a Trojan Horse to install another agenda was California real-estate appraiser, Rosa Koire who specialized in valuation of eminent domain. Koire’s, “Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21” lifts a veil to expose the dark side of seemingly innocuous policies about sustainability. Koire died suddenly at the start of the pandemic; her blog, “Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21”, is still available online.
The inability of the American press to critically address the Corona/Climate Crisis tyranny was as shocking as its complicity in promoting it. It came as perverse relief to remember that The New York Times covered up the Holodomor –that its man in the Ukraine received a Pulitzer in the process. Because it meant that this madness has been going on for a long time (and hasn’t sunk us yet).
While it may be in some regard reassuring that futures research outfits convene to strategize mitigation of potential hazards, it was equally astonishing and disappointing to see the accuracy of pandemic predictions to scant benefit of preparedness. Many people have remarked on the uncanny forecasts of tabletop exercises conducted by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a frequent Rockefeller Foundation partner including: Event 201 (2019); and Clade X (2018), both held at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, another long-standing Rockefeller Foundation affiliate.
An earlier Rockefeller Foundation exercise, “Lockstep” (Excerpted from the forum, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”, 2010) envisioned a 2012 pandemic response warranting, “A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback”, and empowerment of non-governmental organizations with outsized influence on governments:
Larger philanthropies will retain an outsized share of influence on the supranational stage…. Technology [would be] shaped by governments’ dual desire to control and to monitor their citizens…
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries.—Rockefeller Foundation, excerpted commentary from the Lockstep scenario, 2010
One wonders how much WEF and other futures research predictions may constitute what American economist, Thomas Sowell disparaged as “fantastical forecasting”.3 The Corona pandemic was replete with faulty models and what Sowell deemed, “Teflon prophets”, people never held to account for inaccurate forecasts.
A notorious such example is provided by Neil Ferguson. Again, striking me as lyrical, he comes from Imperial College, London. Ferguson had previously been the source of inflated projections for foot and mouth disease (mad cow disease), that resulted in the slaughter of 11 million sheep and cattle circa 2001. A remarkable post on a Columbia University statistical modeling forum concludes, “The real scandal is: why did anyone ever listen to this guy?” The post bears full citation:
Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE. In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?
—John Fund
The paternalistic handling of the Corona crisis was contemptible, heavy-handed even in the most socialist of countries where you might imagine a public inured to State authority. A friend in the North of Sweden, where lockdowns were graciously avoided yet lamented, “They’re treating us like children!”
Just who are these sanctimonious tyrants who would have the people of the world obedient for our own good and because they say so? And how is it that they have taken the reins of power?
Unlike the WEF and the UN outfit, World Health Organization which have rightfully drawn criticism for their respective roles in superseding sovereign nations and centralizing power, secretive gentleman’s clubs—arguably wielding more power—remain shielded from public scrutiny. There is the Olympic Club; Bohemian Club; Club of Rome; Bilderberg Meeting; the Trilateral Commission to name a few.
A galvanizing force behind the Treaty of Rome that launched the European Economic Community and the plan for a “United States of Europe” that became the European Union was the Bilderberg Meeting, a private forum for elites to meet with diplomats and discuss world issues, established 1954. Unlike WEF, an associated think-tank that streams sessions, issues publications, and maintains a website, Bilderberg Meetings are held under wraps and allow for confidential armchair negotiation with appointed officials.
Bilderberg was established by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, royal consort and father of Beatrix, Princess of the Netherlands. He was the founding director of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a charity supported by Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark who headed the affiliated British National Appeal. Both WWF branches were inspired by the work of zoologist and evolutionary biologist, Julian Huxley, a recipient of the Darwin Medal of the Royal Society, a British eugenics outfit. Huxley was an agnostic; the first President of the British Humanist Society and the first President of United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He is credited with conceiving the term, ‘transhumanist’. Small world: Huxley worked with Mann on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York. Brave new world: Julian was brother to Aldous Huxley, author of another dystopian novel that uncannily foretells our times.
Before WW II, Bernhard—then Prinz zur Lippe-Biesterfeld—was an SS Intelligence officer attached to the conglomerate I.G. Farben. According to Atkinson, US National Archives holds a copy of Prince Bernhard’s resignation letter from the Nazi Party. It is supposedly signed with the salutation, “Heil Hitler”.4
Since the 1970s, the catastrophizing of overpopulation has been promoted by the elite Club of Rome, a Swiss-based non-governmental organization thought to have been the prototype for WEF. David Rockefeller was chief among its founders in 1968. Several years later Rockefeller formed another alliance, the Trilateral Commission, informed by the geopolitical theories of Henry Kissinger. A key participant in all of these global forums, Kissinger is notorious for his disclosure that as National Security Advisor, “I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department”.5
The Club of Rome is notorious for its Malthusian report, “Limits to Growth,” 1972 (and the related 1974 National Security Study Memorandum, “Kissinger Report”) that strategized means to depopulate the world. “Limits” was published at the First Earth Summit in Stockholm and celebrated on occasion of its 50th anniversary in 2022. The report, “Reinventing Prosperity,” 2016 called for a one-child policy in industrialized countries. A 1991 Club of Rome report, “The First Global Revolution,” likely influenced the UN to adopt Agenda 21 the following year.
As G7 leaders convened at Hiroshima in May to discuss the war in the Ukraine, Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Secretary General of NATO attended the Bilderberg Meeting instead.
As did his compatriot, Børge Brende, President of World Economic Forum.
As did:
Christopher Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe;
Roberta Metsola, President of European Parliament;
Josep Borrell, Vice President of the European Commission;
Paolo Gentiloni, Commissioner for Economy, European Commission;
Thomas Wright, Senior Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council;
Avril Haines, US Director of National Intelligence;
Jeremy Fleming, former Director of British Intelligence (GCHQ);
and Prime Ministers from Finland, Denmark, Canada, and New Zealand.
The forum was attended by shapers of culture, from the conservative Hoover Institution to the liberal Atlantic magazine. Even the director of the Rockefeller institution, Museum of Modern Art attended the Meeting. It is unclear whether centenarian, Henry Kissinger attended remotely; but he has been a regular participant over the years. The Bilderberg website posts the attendees and agenda items. Among 2023 corporate attendees were Alex Karp, CEO, Palantir Technologies, the first Western CEO to have visited with President Zelensky last year and Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer whose Pfizer Foundation has committed $30 million in support of Ukraine as of February.
At long-last the time has come! The Corona pandemic has been officially declared over. It began with Brexit and ended with a King’s coronation. Buoyed by bogus forecasts that cast spells on the whole of society, it took shape as a critical opportunity to instantiate brutal energy reforms and dystopian modes of surveillance once exclusive to the London Police. Corona served as sad backdrop for European war and a monarch’s sorrows. There was the death of the longest royal consort in history: Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. [Perhaps it was fitting that he should pass during a pandemic as his stated wish was to reincarnate as a deadly virus to rid the world of overpopulation.] There was the stripping away of honorary military titles and royal patronages from Andrew, Duke of York and Harry, Duke of Sussex.
As the queen’s death was announced a double-rainbow appeared over Balmoral Castle and Buckingham Palace. I don’t know how to interpret the sign, but I know it did not signify pride.
Highwire Journalist, Jeffery Jaxen issued two brief exposes on the Club of Rome in June. The Origins of Eugenics (0:32:33) traces a lineage of sustainability and social engineering to Darwin, Galton, and the Fabian Society –a British think-tank whose logo is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. For more please see: The Unexpected Origin of the Climate Crisis (0:23:36)
Carlos Enrique, Parhelion in Saskatoon Canada, Christmas morning 2022. CC BY-SA 4.0
Freedom is slavery
He is a slave with a semblance of liberty which is worse than the most cruel slavery.—George Orwell
No sooner did Constantine (AD 306-337) spy the Chi Rho in the sky than the vision of intense light was seen as divination auguring conquest: “In this sign thou shall conquer,” (In Hoc Signo Vinces). The emperor may have witnessed a parhelion or mock sun –a meteorological phenomenon also called a sundog. Nevertheless, the celestial revelation of the Christian cross was immediately appropriated and perverted into a false messianism as imperialism was misrepresented as peace-keeping in attempt to reinstate the Pax Romana.
Constantine was inspired by the galactic interlude to prepare for battle. He put the insignia on the labarum, a military standard that adorned helmets, shields, and flags. He ventured from France (Gaul) across the English Channel to a military base at York (Eboracum) where in AD 306 in the Roman province of Britannia he received the last of his Roman victory titles, ‘The Great’, (Augustus, as credentialed on his monument, the Arch of Constantine: Imperatori Caesari Flavio Constantino Maximo Pio Felici Avgvsto). The arch bears the inscription, “Inspired by the divine”, (instinctu divintatis). It is the model for victory monuments around the world, including The Arc de Triomphe in Paris extolling Napoleonic Wars and the Brandenburg Gate in Potsdam, Germany built by Frederick the Great, the last King of Prussia venerated by the Nazis in their quest to reinstate the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich, AD 800-1806).
According to Nazi imperialism (Reichsidee), the first Empire or Reich was forged by Constantine the West European Emperor who conquered the East, establishing a New Rome in Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey). The second Reich was presided over by Charlemagne (AD 747-814, Charles the Great, King of Franks, King of Italy) a Carolingian crusader who reunited Eastern and Western Europe which had fallen into schism. He was given title Holy Roman Emperor and Father of Europe (Pater Europae) by Pope Leo III on Christmas day AD 800. The third Reich was to have realized the Pan-European project of a federation of regions or “United States of Europe” and the restoration of Christendom.
A literary society—Corona Legentium Aquensis—stewarded by Pan-European elites, (now the Charlemagne Prize Society (Karlspreisgesellschaft)) presides over the Charlemagne Prize, the highest honor of the European Union conferred in Aachen (the burial site of Charlemagne) on Ascension Day. This year’s recipient was therefore announced May 18th: the Ukrainian people and President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The etymology of Carolingian (from the medieval Latin, karolingi means “free man”. The notion that the war in Ukraine intends to defend the liberty of Ukrainians from Russian conquest is fundamental to propaganda advanced by British state media (BBC) and other western outfits keen to maintain public support for the war.
I recall President Zelensky’s March 2022 plea to European Parliament in the wake of the decimation of Kharkiv in which he reconstituted every civic plaza in the Ukraine ‘Freedom Square’ while begging for inclusion in the European Union. Invoking messianic rhetoric, he pleaded:
The European Union is going to be much stronger with us, that's for sure....Do prove that you are with us. Do prove that you will not let us go. Do prove that you are indeed Europeans, and then life will win over death. And light will win over darkness.—Volodymyr Zelensky
The Charlemagne Prize was conferred amid pledges in military support by the United Kingdom and United States (the wily allies that President De Gaulle disparaged Anglo-Saxons), including long-range missiles, operational training of F-16s, and $375 billion dollars of new military funding (even as British heads of state continued to condemn the conflict “Putin’s War” and Congress debated an unfathomable debt ceiling and a proposed $40 billion dollars of additional support to the Ukraine).
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in the course of one year Congress has directed more than $75 billion to the Ukraine, marking it “far and away the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid…and the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry S. Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II.”
In July, a riveting two-part investigative series, “Agent Zelensky” called into question the motivation and autonomy of the Ukrainian leader, suggesting that he is betraying his people —handled by British Intelligence. The exposé is researched, written, and narrated by Scott Ritter, an American military analyst, former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, and former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector. Ritter has consulted with presidential candidate, RFK, Jr., whose son fought with the Ukrainians at the start of the war.
Ritter’s exposé comes as recommended viewing:
This essay is dedicated to Eric Arthur Blair, a British Imperial policeman from Burma who warned of a dystopia in which Big Brother was watching us, a world of neologisms, Thought Police, Newspeak, memory holes, double-think and thought-crimes. I am sorry never to have quite understood the relevance of “1984” before 2020. As Orwell admonishes, “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
As always please feel free to share and comment.
Peace and love,
Poppy
Stephen Ambrose, “Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect (1893–1952). Vol. I.” New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.
David Gowland and Arthur Turner, “Reluctant Europeans: Britain and European Integration since 1945,” Routledge, 2009.
Thomas Sowell, “Vision of the Anointed”, Basic Books, 1995
Rodney Atkinson, “And Into the Fire”, GM Books, 2013, pp.27-28
Reflection on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy," an address by Henry A. Kissinger in commemoration of the bicentenary of the Office of Foreign Secretary, May 10, 1982, Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London