Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Are Globalists losing ground?

The death of Globalist titan David Rockefeller, adviser of every US President since Eisenhower, comes at a time when the Globalist elite is being challenged but remains very much in control.

Gilbert Mercier

Published

on

1,776 Views

Death might be the ultimate equalizer, but in the case of David Rockefeller, considerable wealth brought unacceptable privilege and made  survival to illness obscene by any moral or even medical ethics standards. On August 24, 2016, David Rockefeller received his 7th heart transplant which made him, besides being the grandson of the United States’ richest man and first billionaire, the worldwide record holder for number of heart transplants. Coincidentally, musician Chuck Berry passed away a couple of days before David Rockefeller. While Chuck Berry’s lust for life will be a legacy of pure joy for generations to come, not only on earth but even far in the cosmos, David Rockefeller’s refusal to let life take its natural course came from greed and a lust for power. Rockefeller was the ultimate symptom of the sickness of our world, where quantity matters, and quality does not.

Even though Rockefeller was a key figure and, in many regards, one of the founding fathers of the globalist world order project, the speculations that his death is a major blow to the financial elite is a pie in the sky. The self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe of Wall Street are as arrogant as ever, all of them young crocodiles ready to feast on the carcasses of the old ones. Despite Rockefeller’s passing, the giant Hydra of the globalist swamp still thrives: one of the many heads was lost, a few will grow to take its place. This notion that a board matters more than an organ or an individual is, after all, part of the precept of the globalist doctrine, which David Rockefeller helped to structure in the early 1950s. Setting up networks, groups, or councils of his elite peers was always the Rockefellers’ philosophy, and it became the redoubtable strength of the one-world-order project.

Like all prominent members of  the  globalist syndicate, David Rockefeller had nothing but contempt for the common mortal. Machiavellian plans to manipulate the public opinion, like one would mold a slab of clay, came easily to him. “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order,” said David Rockefeller on September 14, 1994 at a United Nations meeting. Seven years later, almost to the day, the right major crisis would occur in New York City at the World Trade Center.

Under David Rockefeller as CEO, Chase Bank grew through a network of correspondent banks, including some in the former Soviet Union and in China in the early 1970s. Chase reached a network of about 50,000 banks, and it is the largest financial consortium in the world. As a key player in the globalist order, Rockefeller was instrumental in setting up the Chase International Advisory Committee (IAC) in the early 1960s. He was the IAC Chairman until 1999. The IAC was renamed International Council, after Chase’s merger with JP Morgan, and by 2005 included 25 members of the global elite from 20 different countries. This exclusive financial club has included Henry Kissinger, Riley Bechtel, George Shultz, Gianni Agnelli, John Loudon (CEO of Shell), David Packard, Henry Ford II, and current chairman Tony Blair. Ultimate oligarch globalist David Rockefeller was also the driving force behind the creation of the Bilderberg group, where he served for decades as gatekeeper, being the only member of the advisory board. It is through those various channels and groups of people that David Rockefeller quietly but efficiently influenced not only United States domestic and foreign policies but also world affairs.

Rockefeller has been a behind-the-scene adviser of every US president since Dwight Eisenhower. Needless to say, his half-a-century friendship with Henry Kissinger was highly beneficial for both in world affairs. The two men met in 1954, and at first the patronage of Rockefeller was critical to Kissinger’s rise as a top policy adviser. To David Rockefeller’s credit, he was always upfront about his globalist agenda. “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interest of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘Internationalists’, and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure: one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it,” wrote David Rockefeller in his memoirs.

Just like relatively newcomer George Soros, Rockefeller was extremely media savvy, and few news outlets dared to cross the billionaire, who, despite his relatively modest fortune of 3 billion, which is suspected to be highly under-reported, had a lot more sway and political power than his high-tech billionaire colleagues reported to be vastly richer. Rockefeller was a major force personally in the corridors of international power since the early 50s and, through his family network, for more than a century. In the globalist Orwellian construct, David Rockefeller had seniority, not only in age but also in influence, over Henry Kissinger and George Soros. Some fringe anti-globalist conspiracy theorists have recently claimed that George Soros doesn’t really exist and is another persona invented by David Rockefeller. This is nonsense, of course, and just as counterproductive as the characterization of globalists such as Soros, Rockefeller, and Kissinger as anti-Christ blood sucking vultures by Christian fundamentalists who support Trump. As a matter of fact, this type of lunacy is detrimental to valid rational critiques in the fight against a world order that, if successful in its final takeover still in progress, would enslave most humans for the benefit of a few thousand worldwide. This is what we are dealing with here: a prosaic fight for freedom and decent survival for all, not some chimeras extracted from fairy tales.

David Rockefeller was not Satan, but he was, just like his colleague and globalist partner-in-crime George Soros, a consummate kingmaker and puppet master. As such, Rockefeller played a big role in Bill Clinton’s rise to power. In 1991, when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, Rockefeller invited him to the secretive Bilderberg group meeting, which took place that year in Baden-Baden, Germany. It was there that Rockefeller made the statement: “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” During the 26 years since David Rockefeller gave this speech, the lead globalists, their giant corporations, especially those of the military-industrial complex, as well as their obedient political helpers worldwide have worked hard to implement their plan to dismantle national sovereignty.

The BREXIT vote in the United Kingdom and election of Trump in the US were a reaction against the looming monstrosity of a world government dominated by a rarefied oligarchy, but at this juncture the globalists are alive and kicking, as the anti-establishment drain-the-swamp rhetoric seems to be not much more than a flash in a pan. Personality issues, spying rumors, accusations of collusion with a foreign government, and the threat of a so-called deep state are amplified by news outlets, fake and real. It is hard to tell the difference. These supposed issues have fostered a climate of fear and paranoia and been a distraction from real policy issues. Despite a Republican majority in the Congress, the Trump administration has so far essentially ruled by executive orders, some of which have been almost immediately challenged by courts. Level of wealth, rather than competence at a specific job, seems to be the criterion for being hired in the Trump administration. Judging by the facts alone, America Empire Inc. might have a new CEO, but the same people appear to be in control of the board, and if he were still alive, David Rockefeller’s voice would be heard on this. President Donald Trump’s budget proposal tells the story accurately: while most areas of the meager American social safety net could experience a cut, the Pentagon budget would increase by 10 percent. Mr. Trump has always been about money and business. As such, he understands that the military-industrial complex should remain the core division of America Empire Inc. So much for draining the swamp.

Editor’s Notes: Gilbert Mercier is the author of The Orwellian Empire. Composite one by David Blackwell; cartoons four and six Frits Ahlefeldt; composite five by Tom Blackwell; photograph eight by Paolo Di Tommaso; and photograph nine Zach Korb. Part of this article was published as an interview with Sputnik.

This article is republished with the author’s permission.  First published by News Junkie Post.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending