Before we even start, let’s deal with these weasel words “conspiracy theory”. A CoTh is a fantastical idea which as yet has little or no hard corroboration.
But what do you call the CoTh which I and other pundits have been touting since 2006 that govts are and have for a century been colluding to bring about a dissolution of the nation state and socially re-engineer the west? Wild idea, yes? I was accused of tinfoil hattery by all the conservative ‘I don’t do conspiracy theory’ Colonel Straights. The term ‘whackjob’ was also used. Nice, eh?
Then Cameron came to power and at that time, certain Labour figures agreed that that’s what they had been doing. Straw admitted it himself, under the umbrella term ‘multiculturalism’. Now, today, we see it happening at full pace in Europe, we see the no-go areas in Sweden and other places and there’s all the rest of it.
We have been quoting this sort of thing for a decade:
1912 – Colonel Edward M. House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes Phillip Dru: Administrator, in which he promotes “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”
This man attached himself to Wilson and helped form the CFR which controls presidents today.
May 30, 1919 – Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House; attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is Chatham House, which most associate with the Capitalists and the Establishment. And it is the Establishment, only not in any conservative way – these are the same champagne communists who have spawned most of Islington. They are anything but free enterprise/bourgeois/conservative.
1921 – Col. House reorganizes the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). For the past 60 years, 80% of the top positions in every administration – whether Democrat or Republican – have been occupied by members of this organization. During that time [this was written during Bush’s time], only two Presidents have not been directly affiliated with the CFR – John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Yet Reagan attended Bohemian Grove:
The criticism has been that quoting isolated nutters who write books about world domination is not the same thing as these ideas coming from people actually in control and influencing policy. Meaning that those in government, according to critics, don’t bother with any of these far out things.
October 28, 1939 – In an address by John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State], he proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.
June 28, 1945 – President Truman endorses world government in a speech: “It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.”
But even that misses the point. The point is that through recorded history and certainly since Voltaire, it’s the writers and philosophers who have influenced policy.
‘Leaders’ are thickheads who know how to get into power by accepting the patronage of the evil muvvers above, then they look around for policies to define them. They are low-quality, malleable people.
Even Cameron kept going back to Chatham House for his ideas:
It is the thinktanks who direct policy [see SPPNA, March 2005, on the NAU, under the NAAC, which is the CFR].
July 1948 – Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR’s “Foreign Affairs,” sees “a New World Order” taking shape:
“How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?”
Feb. 7, 1950 – International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”
Remember the name Warburg – it comes up again further down. And what of actual government who make the laws?
1975 – In Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives sign “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which states that “we must join with others to bring forth a new world order … Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.”
Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the Declaration saying: “It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.”
There are so many more on file – just how many does one need? These quislings above are actively attempting to reconstitute society, hence the MAGA reaction today.
And now comes this, which did the rounds last night on Twitter:
Through his father’s extensive diplomatic contacts, his wealth, and his aristocratic ties to numerous powerful families (and their networks) – Coudenhove-Kalergi started a movement away from the spotlight of the public, but which gained massive and overwhelming support from the pawnbrokers of the time. This Pan-Europan Movement. Via his association with the Rothschild family, Coudenhove-Kalergi was introduced eventually to the Warburgs, a powerful American banking family who bankrolled the Pan-Europa to the tune of 60,000 marks (a fortune at the time).
In essence the Pan-Europa envisioned a New World Order leading to eventual One World Government, but installed in stages and over long periods of time to avoid scrutiny and the inevitable protest of the general public. The process was to be one of “Regionalisation”, where there would be 5 or 6 massive superstates, of which a European Union would be the prototype.
The main purpose of the Superstates would be to centralise powers away from sovereign governments and undermine notions of democracy in the name of the ‘greater good’. To follow – American, Asian, African Unions – something the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) – a shadowy group with massive influence and no oversight or transparency (much like the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and others) – picked up on in their policy papers which drive US and United Nations agendas.
And now he gets to it:
The best way to achieve this is mass uncontrolled immigration, to homogenise the population and erode the power of national, ethnic or religious identity. The resulting masses will be busy infighting (ethnic strife and poverty) to resist creeping totalitarianism, and over time, a more mixed populace will be more malleable and therefore controllable, and a new ‘European’ identity will emerge.
There is also an element of Eugenics (a theory very popular with the aristocracy and academia of the time) – people like Coudenhove-Kalergi believed that a mongrel race would be degenerate and stupid, therefore more controllable – whereas he specifically cites the interbreeding of the Jewish race as one of the reasons why they are superior.
Just how much evidence does one need that these sorts of people do directly influence policy and that therefore, policy has much of the insane to it or at a minimum, deeply anti-human aspects, masquerading as humanitarian and humanistic?
“Inbreeding builds character, weakens the mind – crossing weakens the character, strengthens the Spirit. Where inbreeding and crossbreeding meet under happy auspices, they testify to the highest type of human being the strongest character with the sharpest mind connects.”
Coudenhove-Kalergi, “Practical Idealism”, 1924
What kind of garbage is this? This man was behind the EU ideal, Europe Day, the EU anthem, even influencing the design process of the EU flag – yet we never here about him? He has postage stamps commemorating him in Austria, yet his book is banned in Germany, never reprinted and very hard to find? And all of this, and he has barely a mention in any European literature, even the Charlemagne Prize website? Something doesn’t add up, and that’s an understatement.
We the pundits can’t seem to get it through to enough people just how treasonous these people in positions of power to influence policy have been and still are, just how far they collude worldwide, just how fragmented any sort of resistance by humanity is, muddied by stupid Antifa and SJW things.