Who’s behind these movements? [1]

Sourcing just the Wells-Crowley connection certainly turned over a few rocks and there were some interesting creatures under there.

http://www.rense.com/general61/satanism.htm

See Harman disciple Marilyn Feruguson’s 1980 Aquarian Conspiracy for a popular exposition of Harman’s views and program for subversion of the United States.

And:

The brothers, Aldous (Hollywood) and Julian (UNO) Huxley were collaborators of H. G. Wells, and were recruited to Crowley’s Satanist cult during the late 1920s.

A source speaking of the history of drug use, rather than the occult:

https://drugs-forum.com/forum/blog.php?b=389

Better was Phoenix Rising: The Rise and Fall of the American Republic Paperback – February 4, 2008, by Donald Lett Jr:

crowley hg wells

Together with other sources, there’s a scene of Crowley about to meet Wells at a Metropole Hotel but not turning up.  No denial of having corresponded though.

A knowledge of history overall comes in here. The late C19th saw the rise of Labour and Communism in official form, it was a time when seances were popular and this went through to the 20s, which was another falling away following a conflagration.

Drugs were a major factor – more usually hashish and opium.  The in crowd in the upper echelons took hashish – it was the done thing, as it later became in the 60s with Leary etc. with the lower echelons.  Drugs for all and today – buggery for all.  John Phillips of pop group Mamas and the Papas, raper of his 12 year old daughter, was a major player with the former at the music festivals.

The WWII and post-war time saw the Cambridge communists.  Point is that each era had its movements in which the luminaries of the day played a big part, e.g. the Frankfurt School.

As the popular press hardly printed any of it, it was down to those movements themselves to provide for posterity the letters and articles, plus there were hostile sources, e.g. Catholic and other Christian sources which were found to join dots more than once.  I can say that, being in that camp more than in Crowley’s.

Never forget the influence of the Masons, especially an influence in Crowley’s case.  There’s an element of lowlifes attempting to become luminaries by outdoing others – Alinsky and Benjamin fall under this heading.  There’s a definite Jewish influence but it’s opaque whether that was Ahskenazi Jew or just Jews.  It may have been one of the confusions for Hitler.

This can be inserted here:

Feb. 5, 1891 – Rhodes joins his group from Oxford with a similar group from Cambridge headed by ardent social reformer William Stead. Rhodes and Stead are members of the inner “Circle of Initiates” of the secret society which they found. There is also an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers.”

1891 – Madame Blavatsky dies. The mantle of leadership for the worldwide theosophical movement falls to Annie Besant, a militant feminist and a member of the Fabian Socialist Society of England. She enthusiastically joins in revolutionary street riots and pens numerous volumes of occult writings to add to those of Blavatsky.

1909-1913 – Lord Alfred Milner organizes the “Association of Helpers” into various Round Table Groups in the British dependencies and the United States.

Just as with the internet today, one does not have to physically meet to be grouped with – look at this blog’s authors/contributors.

This doesn’t get us too much further but does allow of Huxley A to have been in the circle of influence:

http://ac2012.com/2012/08/05/aleister-crowley-myths-actually-true/

Take this one as you will:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/aquarian.htm

Writes author Marilyn Ferguson: “While outlining a not-yet-titled book about the emerging social alternatives, I thought again about the peculiar form of this movement; its atypical leadership, the patient intensity of its adherents, their unlikely successes. It suddenly struck me that in their sharing of strategies, their linkage, and their recognition of each other by subtle signals, the participants were not merely cooperating with one another. They were in collusion. It—this movement—is a conspiracy!”1

Ferguson used a half-truth to tell a lie. The counterculture is a conspiracy—but not in the half-conscious way Ferguson claims—as she well knows. Ferguson wrote her manifesto under the direction of Willis Harman, social policy director of the Stanford Research Institute, as a popular version of a May 1974 policy study on how to transform the United States into Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. The counterculture is a conspiracy at the top, created as a method of social control, used to drain the United States of its commitment to scientific and technological progress.

That conspiracy goes back to the 1930s, when the British sent Aldous Huxley to the United States as the case officer for an operation to prepare the United States for the mass dissemination of drugs.

Before we pooh-pooh “conspiracy”, look at the climate scam and Kyoto. Who were the actual people driving that?  Who had the power?  Who set up the NPCC?  Obviously govt.  Who in govt?  Clinton, Bush.  Also in there Gore.  With Gore you get Strong, with Strong you get Findhorn and with Findhorn you get Blavatsky and Lucis Trust.

There is most certainly at least a loose association of ideas people and power – the task is establishing direct connections.  The “British sent Aldous Huxley” brings in Wells. In post-war America, don’t discount Yuri Bezmenov’s account of the part the KGB played in the Peace Movement and the CIA connections of many of those, e.g. those in Laurel Canyon.

This adds to the picture:

Trained at Toynbee’s Oxford, Aldous Huxley was one of the initiates in the “Children of the Sun,” a Dionysian cult comprised of the children of Britain’s Roundtable elite.4 Among the other initiates were T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, Sir Oswald Mosley, and D.H. Lawrence, Huxley’s homosexual lover. It was Huxley, furthermore, who would launch the legal battle in the 1950s to have Lawrence’s pornographic novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover allowed into the United States on the ground that it was a misunderstood “work of art.”5

Aldous Huxley, along with his brother Julian, was tutored at Oxford by H.G. Wells, the head of British foreign intelligence during World War I and the spiritual grandfather of the Aquarian Conspiracy. Ferguson accurately sees the counterculture as the realization of what Wells calledThe Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution.

There’s plenty on Wells concerning his politics.  Head of FI?  Not vital, only important that he had that connection.

Under Wells’s tutelage, Huxley was first introduced to Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a product of the cultist circle that developed in Britain from the 1860s under the guiding influence of Edward Bulwer-Lytton—who, it will be recalled, was the colonial minister under Lord Palmerston during the Second Opium War. In 1886, Crowley, William Butler Yeats, and several other Bulwer-Lytton proteges formed the Isis-Urania Temple of Hermetic Students of the Golden Dawn. This Isis Cult was organized around the 1877 manuscript Isis Unveiled by Madame Helena Blavatsky, in which the Russian occultist called for the British aristocracy to organize itself into an Isis priesthood.7

“Introduced to”?  There is suggestion earlier that this was not physical meeting but introduction to ideas. Matters little, nothing stands or falls by that nicety.  Meanwhile, you do see that whenever you examine the British upper crust, the occult is associated, in the sense that they embraced it as a cool idea, drugs certainly pop up all the time in accounts and there is always homosexuality – this comes through in all the globalist movement devotees.  Dolphin Square today is just an extension.

This one I’ve seen several sources for which stand apart, i.e. are not repetitions of the same wording:

In effect, Huxley and Isherwood (joined soon afterwards by Thomas Mann and his daughter Elisabeth Mann Borghese) laid the foundations during the late 1930s and the 1940s for the later LSD culture

So there are distinct themes running through 1860 through to the 60s and 70s of the C20th. World upheaval, wars, falling away tween-wars, the counter-culture based on Cultural Marxism right after, devotees firmly believing in a Utopia, either through Aquarius [remember the musical Hair], Stage 5 communism or through the Leary admonition.  Philby, Burgess and Maclean were swept up in it.  It swept the universities.

And one world, not so much govt as how Wells put it was in the consciousness of these movements, which shows in the UN moves worldwide and particularly the EU, whom we’re locked in battle with at this moment.

Wells wrote:

“will appear first, I believe, as a conscious organization of intelligent and quite possibly in some cases, wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction who will presently discover with a sort of surprise the common object toward which they are all moving . . . In all sorts of ways they will be influencing and controlling the apparatus of the ostensible government.” 6

6. H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1902), p.285.

Conspiracy?  More like many minds of a certain bent drawn into an idea, embracing it, making them at one with many others around the world, the world luminaries naturally associating, sometimes meeting – that appears, to me, to be the form of it.  Just as with the “leader” of EU Out and the battle for preeminence here, it was the same then.

Please don’t be silly enough to see the word “conspiracy” and think tinhat. From the above, there is obviously at least a loose association of like minds and that is only logical.  In Mediaeval times it was the guilds.

Sure, dismiss my talk of the diabolical but methinks you’d be hardpressed to deny at least the associations of people sharing key ideas in the last century.  And they keep churning out, these key ideas – who from?  That is a valid question – who from?  Who starts these off?

These things don’t just spring from a virgin birth.  Someone starts them.

And there are always the same common elements. Is it just Masons, is it European Royalty, is it a nefarious Milner’s Round Table, is it Tavistock or Chatham House?  Is it Coleman’s C300?  Is it the Bildebergers or Svali’s Illuminati?  Just how organized are they?

They certainly appear united in a common purpose and have the same techniques – NLP, Delphi and so on.  Where does all this come from?

My question is not so much who are the helpers or to put it a different way – the Association of Helpers – because we know the agents, the agencies, we can name them. What we can’t pin down is who is behind and funding all these?  And funding them they are – organized events and literature involves mega-effort and mega-bucks.  

Who’s providing?

Interestingly, that just came up through another question – who provided ISIS’s Toyota army?

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/the-mystery-of-isis-toyota-army-solved.html

It will be part two of this post.

1 comment for “Who’s behind these movements? [1]

  1. Henry Kaye
    October 12, 2015 at 4:24 pm

    There is no doubt that history is littered by the thoughts and ambitions of people of influence but it does seem to me that those mental processes have become considerably more effective in the past 100 years. I can only put it down to the increasing ease of communication. In the 19th century and earlier it was far more difficult to “spread the word” so to speak than it has become today. Not only does the word get heard more easily but the recruits are massively increased. Because we don’t easily identify those who have been indoctrinated, they all too often end up in positions of authority and power and of course are then in a much better position to achieve their philosophical ambitions. It’s all rather new and we haven’t yet learned how to defend ourselves.

Comments are closed.