Blueprints for Them

The federalist, bureaucratic model

Within the US, according to Svali, this is how the Illuminati supposedly have it set up:

Level One: Local level: (anytown, USA) sister groups

Level Two: Metropolitan leadership council

Baalim (head) (1), assistants to the head (2) administrators over finances and day to day happenings (4), head trainers (oversee and teach other trainers) (6). The total: 13 members. The Baalim and his two assistants report to:

Level Three: Regional Leadership Council

Head of council (1), Military (2 seats), Spiritual (2 seats), Scholarship (2 seats), Finances (2 seats), Training (2 seats), Sciences (2 seats). Total: 13 members

The seven regional councils each have a leader as noted above, who reports to the:

Level Four: National Council

The heads of the National councils report to:

The Supreme World Council

This council is already set up as a prototype of the one that will rule when the NWO comes into being. It meets on a regular basis to discuss finances, direction, policy, etc. and to problem-solve difficulties that come up. Once again, these leaders are heads in the financial world, OLD banking money. The Rothschild family in England, and in France, have ruling seats. A descendant of the Hapsburg dynasty has a generational seat. A descendant of the ruling families of England and France have a generational seat. The Rockefeller family in the US holds a seat.

Federalist, bureaucratic in its organizational overview.

just another man 1Trouble is though that every major player gaining power has its own world overview, e.g. The Club of Rome with its 10 regions of the world. Except that it’s for nefarious purposes, like the mafia, it could also, organizationally, be like the Church of England or the Vatican – small churches with parish priest, larger areas with bishops, then archbishops and so on.

It taps into the need for humans to organize themselves into hierarchical, bureaucratic structuress, which then lumber themselves with policy books, e.g. the Scout Association, e.g. any yacht club, any boat class association and constrain themselves any which way they can.

With the latter, they then proceed to write longwinded sets of regulations, measurements, saying things like: “No boat shall have, as its foretriangle, greater than the sum of the working area, divided by LOA …” and it goes on like that. Why? Is there some security in being a cog in a formal hierarchy? Is there some security, for the Scout Association, in writing Press on Regardless [POR – Policy, Organization and Rules]?

As mentioned though, everyone with some power has his own organization and own concept of where it fits into the world and more often than not, they themselves in this blueprint are given a seat on the Supreme Council.

The different groups overlap and thus a dog-eat-dog situation occurs, everyone vying for preeminence and trying to sink the others – the very nature of lobbying.

But underneath it all is this mania to organize, to press people into service in support of these blueprints. You see it everywhere, even online in registers of the actors and actresses of the world. How many times have you looked up some actress, and a site listed on Google promises all the stats and pics? You go in and it’s a series of empty boxes, much empty space and you’re invited to contribute something to make it mean something.

A similar thing happened with a bloggroup which a few friends and I set up to promote the small blogger – we even made it to the BBC for an interview once. Thing was – others were seeing this differently, in a hierarchical way and some planned to “move up in the organization”. What organization? I wasn’t aware we had one.

Slowly it was impressed upon me that we needed rules and regulations and I fell into the trap about meetings and quora, the council of admins etc. the organization was effectively dead at that point.

In 2010, we set up The Albion Alliance, dedicated to direct democracy plus getting out of the EU. Trouble again was that so many other organizations had also been set up, many of them troll organizations. There was a bunfight between different English Nationalist groups of which, as I recall, Steve Uncles was a main player who was on some power kick.

So this phenomenon existed which wanted something static in place, along with its P.O & R., officers, its hierarchy but by the very ambition of people to be the “leaders” of a movement, there was a dog-eat-dog fight for the preeminence of disparate elements.

In the wider world, the Masons have their world view, which is different to Davidson, McLaughlin, Strong, Gore and that climate lot, which is different to the Chinese Li family and the triads, which is different to Rotary, the Shriners, the Bullingdon but each sees their senior people as the uberlords, the coordinators.

The dynamics of such organizations

Commenter Junican described it this way:

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.

I was Treasurer of my golf club and saw this sort of manipulation at first hand. Just two member of Council knew each other very well and were well versed in the activities of company boards. They could wind the other members of Council around their little fingers. Via control of the other members, they tried to manipulate me, but I was having none of it.

I had to remind members of Council that I had been elected Treasurer DIRECTLY by the members, and that I had duties as a result (being, essentially, to protect the funding of the club, which encompassed decisions which might effect membership, income, costs, etc).
This sort of manipulation is one of the things which are seriously wrong with our democracy.

I think a few of us have had experience of that – no matter how small and insignificant, no matter how large, the moving and shaking is the same, using the same underhand tricks for leverage.

Dynamically inbuilt organizational death as the very people who join this game are the very people you don’t really want in charge of you.

The business model

As every organization worth its salt in taking over the world must have its cash flow, from legit business through to drugs and wimmin, the vast majority of the major players see themselves as “businesspeople” and businesses tend to access talent and expertise, either employing it, outsourcing or in the political area, accessing thinktanks, which was what that post was about.

Commenter Harry J wrote:

An intricate spiders web of groups and organisations. Who or what is at its centre I wonder?

I’m even wondering if there is a centre or else if there is, that it does not concern itself in the day to day dog-eat-dog, only in creating maximum, enslavement, discord and misery for humans – you can take care of the details yourselves.

So Exxon vying with its Russian equivalent over Sakhalin 1 or 2 is all part of the Great Game, the Great Work of Ages, the Nietzschean Ubermensch model, in which all see themselves as preeminent but with the top man having the means to see off any rival popping up his head and everyone shoring up his or her position at the expense of organizational health.

Great model … not … which they are pleased to call “healthy competition”.

Don’t get me wrong – competition on a fair playing field is s fine model, vastly better than the road to stagnation of the bureaucratic model.  But …

The place of sociopathy

Psychopathy, sociopathy – are these not names for the degree to which someone does not care about anything but the goal?  To hell with people [human resources], to hell with the environment and anything getting in the way.

And its handmaiden is the absence of ethical scruples, their removal, until the whole organization, e.g. the financial markets, have no moral or ethical underpinning of any kind – it’s what one can get away with, as long as one’s bought regulators determine it to be so.

A person can still ride that and make money and money is necessary to run family, home and car.  Nothing shoddy in money itself or even that you have more than me – it’s just the way you got it, how many died or were raped in the process.

The mafia model

The business model I see as running things owes most to the business model, with a nod in the direction of the bureaucratic.  The central purpose is the accumulation of money, power and influence and nothing else matters.

People are friend, foe or someone else to be ripped off.

I once wanted to start a small business in Russia and it was an education.  In your local area, you first went to the police and appeased them, dropping your whisky off and settle don a percentage, then around to the current preeminent mafia in the area [those still alive], drop the whisky off and hear the percentage they wanted, then to the planning regulators [take large boxes of chocolates], then to the various government departments [chocs again] and hope it all works out.

Plus have a bank of cutthroat lawyers on the take behind you.

As I had a product they wanted, I was able to access a “krisha” or protective roof or umbrella and as I wanted nothing in return but to be eased through conflicting regulations, it worked out and everyone was happy.

This is pretty well how I see the world as running – paying some tithe to an uberlord perhaps, definitely with a spiritual nod to the dastardly and time taken to selling your soul, which doubles as a blackmail centre for them to keep you locked in [e.g. Dolphin Square, Washington parties].

The spiritual dimension

If it was only business-is-business, then that would be easily understood by any resident of Sicily.  But it’s more – there is someone inserting  a spiritual element into all this.  Useless to rail, in rationalist terms, against “religion” but “religion” keeps popping its head up, does it not?

You don’t want it to, I don’t want it to but it keeps appearing and it’s certainly not the CofE doing it, in its moral sloth and relativism.  No, someone else keeps inserting this element.

Back to Svali again:

First, please remember that the Illuminati have SIX branches of learning, and the spiritual (where the sacrifices are done) is only ONE part of what they do. I was in Sciences, and used to make fun of people who specialized in spiritual. Yes, everyone has to go to spiritual rituals during certain high days, but I tried to stay as far from it as I could. It’s ugly, crude, and gross, but considered important.

The Celtic branch of spiritual believes that power is passed at the moment between life and death. They will do rituals with children, or even older adherents, where the person is tied down, and an animal is bled to death on top of them. The belief is that the person receives power from the departing spirit, which “enters” the person.

It is also highly traumatizing and horrible to have an animal go through its death throes on top of you. Throw in a few threats that “this will happen to you if you ever tell,” and a quite strong impression is made on small children.

Opening portals and dimensions: I know, this sounds like stuff from a sci-fi film, but these people really believe that there are other spiritual dimensions, and that to pass into them, first a major sacrifice is done to “open a portal”, usually several animals. I have also seen animal sacrifices done to protect from the demonic, or blood used to “close a circle” so the demonic cannot penetrate it.

Let’s stop that one there. Before dismissing it, remember Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, what the CIA’s lads are doing in ISIS, what the Janjaweed did in Darfur – the ferocious bestiality in it. I’m not going to join any dots for you.

The thing is, as she says – THEY consider it important.

Moving onto the Greens and the climate scam. How on earth does concern for ecology, for the environment, become something like this:

The purpose of the World Service Intergroup is to generate a focused, conscious and deliberate intergroup effort to specifically assist the Externalization of the Hierarchy and the Reappearance of the Christ.

The Shamballa force is in reality Life itself; and Life is a loving synthesis in action. We also used the Six Laws and Principles of the New Age to lead us towards creating a vision of how these principles might create patterns for the New Civilization humanity will be constructing over the next 2500 years.

Did I write that?  Did you?  But the people who did have the ear of governments, of the UN. Who is inserting this element into it?

Also, if you join the Masons, these are some of the hardest-nosed businesspeople in the world, one would have thought ultrarationalist, spurning all religion but not.  It’s all about the ancient mysteries, no?  About Hiram Abif and secret handshakes and bestial punishments.

Why?  Why would a grown man, a mover and shaker in the world, roll up his trouser leg and do those things?  Why would a bunch of them appear in California at Bohemian Grove and take part in a ceremony where, in front of a 40 foot owl, some effigy is passed through fire and burning crosses line the sides of the paths, to suddenly light up ion cue?

Bush called it relaxing at the end of a long year.  That’s relaxing?

Why would they do those things and why in that form?  Who determines the form of these things?  Again, I’ll not join any dots for you.


I believe that somewhere within those models mentioned above, in some mixture of them, lies how the world operates at the top.  It does explain a lot, it shows we’re dealing with utter loons whose N1 defence is to call any detractor or investigator a loon.

And investigators, as in Gary Webb, Larry McDonald, David Kelly and many others seem to have a habit of planes crashing, skiiing accidents or Boston brakes.

Again, not for me to join any dots. I would say though that it’s not really a case of toppling LibLabCon, is it? Farage pointed out that 75% of laws are made in Brussels for a start. No, it’s these people above in the post who are the real problem and I’ve been saying and writing that now since 2003. They’re the ones who need to be got to in order for things to change.

4 comments for “Blueprints for Them

  1. Greg Tingey
    February 19, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Whoever wrote this obviously has occasional moments of sanity, but that isn’t really a guide to anything at all …..

    • February 19, 2015 at 8:28 pm

      Good to see you back, Greg, you’ve been missed.

  2. Flyinthesky
    February 19, 2015 at 6:23 pm

    There are a few absolutes to be borne in mind here,

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of a politician, one just has to wary of the motivation of someone who wants to be one.

    The only people who can rectify the situation are the ones whose vested interests, usually their own, will prevent it.

    On the eu situation there are many factions that purport to address the eu question, apart from leaving the eu they have nothing in common with eachother, it’s my way or the highway and none of them are moving on their positions. An ideal situation to get nowhere.

    What proportion of the populace realise what is as opposed to what they are encouraged and coerced into thinking what is. I suggest it is a disappointingly small percentage.

    Until the populace recognise what actually is there is no way forward. Believe nothing, evaluate everything.

    If you don’t see it, congratulations, you’re the ideal citizen, you have been successfully programmed not to look.

    • February 19, 2015 at 8:30 pm

      For many, to look is too much to face.

Comments are closed.