Sociobiology was the ‘new’ scientific synthesis that emerged to challenge decades of liberal and Marxist control of the social and anthological sciences with the publication of Harvard biologist E O Wilson’s The New Synthesis: Sociobiology in 1975.[1]

            Sociobiology did not emerge from a vacuum. While the biological sciences that had spawned eugenics and the genetic basis of IQ for e.g.. had been largely supplanted and driven to the catacombs by the onslaught of a cabal of social anthologists with Left-wing political motivation, headed up in the USA by Franz Boas, with counterparts in the USSR headed by Lysenko, a significant number of geneticists remained to put up a rearguard action in the interests of science rather than dogma.[2]

            When Sociobiology mounted its challenge to what is popularly called Political Correctness it had a number of eminent partisans apart from E O Wilson, and one of the primary and most vocal of these has remained Richard Dawkins[3]. Prior to both, Robert Ardrey popularised sociobiological concepts in books such as The Territorial Imperative and The Hunting Hypothesis.[4] The sociobiologists were met not with reasoned argument or a dialectic that engaged all sides in a debate with the desire to reach the truth regardless, but with a barrage of hate, including mobs of Leftist students trying to silence the Sociobiologists by force.[5]

            While Political Correctness remains the dominant force in academe, and academics are often still forced from their positions or pilloried because of what amounts to a new heresy; the influence of Sociobiology as a general movement among scholars is such as to manifest across a variety of disciplines.

            Sociobiology, as the term succinctly implies, explains human social behaviour from the viewpoint of biological imperatives, more specifically of the imperative of an organism to ensure the best chances for the survival and perpetuation of its own genes.

            While Darwin is a starting point, Sociobiology states that genetic survival is one of group or social dynamics rather than hyper-individualism, or at least the imperative of the individual organism to perpetuate its genes or genes most akin to it, manifests in a social manner. Wilson called it “group survival.” Therefore, the individual’s genetic inheritance is best passed on through future generations not by means of the survival of the individual organism, but by the survival of the individual organism’s genes, which might – and often does – amount to the self-sacrifice of that organism. The survival of the individual organism is therefore not paramount, but subjected to a higher instinct. An organism will sacrifice its own life to ensure the survival of other organism’s whose genetic inheritance is most akin to it own.

            Such a paradigm runs counter to the doctrines of Marxism and to orthodox sociology and cultural anthropology, which discount the importance of genetics, or even any contribution of genetics, in determining human behaviour. These view humans as purely economic beings that might shape and be shaped by their environment at will.

            The ideologues of the Left, for decades immediately prior to World War II onwards the dominant factor in academe, argue that genetic doctrines are sociopathic in their outcomes, leading inevitably to racism and genocide. However, practise has demonstrates that it is economic and environmental determinism that has resulted in prolonged terror, on the assumption that by changing the environment human nature can be modified. Hence when the theory doesn’t accord with practise, the ideologue will resort to ever more authoritarian control mechanisms concluding in the most brutal expressions of tyranny, from the mass suicides of Jim Jones’ “paradise on earth”, to the Red Terror of the communists, and the Revolutionary Terror of France[6].

            Given the fundamental genetic character of all living organisms, including the human, and therefore the genetic basis of social dynamics, it shouldn’t be surprising to find that ones’ political ideology is likely to be shaped by genetics rather than environment and social learning processes. Ideology is a reflection of how one looks at society and one’s place in it, and that conception implies, if one accepts the Sociobiological interpretations, one’s chances of perpetuating one’s genetic inheritance to future generations.

            It has been said that one is ‘born’ a certain way as far as disposition and outlook go. If personality for e.g. is genetically shaped, as twin studies indicate, along with dispositions, likes and dislikes etc., then it is not too far a leap to conclude that maybe one’s political identity is likewise genetically based.

 

NEBRASKA STUDY

            A recent study untaken by a team at the University of Nebraska. Led by Douglas Oxley, has concluded that our political views are shaped by biology, and that also accounts for why one’s views seldom change. The disposition to be a liberal or a conservative, is as deep seated a biological trait as any of the other biological imperatives involving the survival of the organism.

            A report in the Dominion Post, citing The Times, states that biology could be an important factor in moulding liberal or conservative beliefs. The study indicates “a persons’ political leanings tend to correspond remarkably closely with physiological traits, indicating that nature, as well as nurture, could play a defining role.”[7]

            “…A likely explanation is that genetic differences in brain activity may affect bodily responses and political outlooks.”

            Twin studies show that identical twins who share all their genes are more likely to have the same political and social views than fraternal twins who have the same upbringing but only a proportion of their DNA.

            In the study 46 Nebraskans with strong political views were asked for their opinions on a range of controversial issues. They were then subjected to frightening or unexpected stimuli and their physiological responses recorded. The results published in the journal Science, showed significant differences in the physiological responses of the two groups which corresponded with broad political categories.

            Those with “markedly lower physical sensitivity to sudden noises and treating visual images” tended to support liberal positions, while those with strong responses tended to be conservative.

            “The scientists considered it likely that ‘physiological responses to generic threats and political attitudes on policies related to protecting the social order may both derive from a common source.’”

            “This was unlikely to be indoctrination by parents and peer groups, they said, because involuntary reflexes could be altered only with systematic training, which usually involves punishment. More probable was that political outlook and startle responses were affected by differences in brain activity…”

            Dr Roger Highfield, writing as Science Editor for the Daily Telegraph[8], states on the study that:

“People who blink the hardest in response to a startling noise or sweat the most when they see a shocking image, tend to endorse political positions that are more protective of their own social groups.”

Attitudes considered by the Nebraska study included those on patriotism, military spending, and the death penalty, opposition to pacifism and immigration, gun control, gay marriage and abortion rights.

            Most significantly Highfield describes those with a set of instinctive attitudes called ‘conservative’, as holding political ideas reflecting ‘protection of their own social groups.’ Conservatism is a protective response mechanism that the study indicates is inherited, and has genetic survival value.

            This is what Highfield succinctly refers to as “gut instincts.” It is reminiscent of E O Wilson’s description of Sociobiology as “group survival.”

            Prof. Matthew Hibbing, University of Illinois, part of the team, comments:

"Though we would all like to believe that our preferences are a more or less rational response to the evidence we see around us, it may be that traits of which we are not aware (in this case, the degree of response to threat) predispose people (no matter where they live in the world) toward a certain type of political beliefs."[9]

 

CONSERVATISM AS PROTECTIVE MECHANISM VS LIBERALISM AS ATROPHIED INSTINCT

What one might tentatively conclude from these findings is that liberals and Leftists are an aberration of nature. They have not inherited basic defence and survival mechanisms that optimise the survival of their genes. The basic survival mechanisms are lacking, and this could well explain why liberals and Leftists generally consider it a matter of individual ‘choice’ regarding such issues as abortion, and “gay marriage” e.g., rather than as a matter for the entire social organism, reflecting its chances of genetic continuity.

Conservatives, and often religious, attitudes that are ridiculed by the Liberal (and the Leftist generally) as “moralistic”, self-righteous, “old fashioned, etc. arise from an instinct no less vital to survival than that of any instinct among other organisms for the protection and survival of their offspring, and of their herd or flock.[10]

In fact the Nebraska study included questions on abortion, gun control and the death penalty, questions that ultimately can be interpreted as matters of optimal genetic survival of the social organism. Likewise the way the conceptions of family and of nationhood, as collective biological survival mechanisms have little or no value to the liberal and the Leftist. Pacifism might also be another such reflection of an aberrant lack of basic genetic survival traits. Supportive attitudes toward Feminism and “gay rights” would be salient e.g.s of genetic self-abnegation, or a minimal regard for genetic perpetuation.

            The conservative, conversely, sees all these elements, the importance of family, of children, and an abhorrence of abortion, etc., as very much part of the process of ensuring one’s genetic survival.

            The genetic foundations of one’s political outlook are not surprisingly often poorly articulated by the individual conservative. The liberal (Leftist) by contrast has an overly rationalised response to his environment that is detached from instinct. The conservative ‘thinks’ instinctively. He feels he is right, but might not quite be able to express exactly why. It is what Dr Highfield has termed one’s “gut instincts”. The conservative is therefore the subject of liberal lampooning in the Archie Bunker, Alf Garnett mode. However, Sociobiology is increasingly showing in an expanding number of areas that Man is still the product of his genes; that the outlook of the Left is a rationalised expression of instinct in an atrophic state. That what is instinctively recognised as healthy and unhealthy in every other living organism is reversed in the human by dominant political ideologies maintained by people literally of atrophied instinct.

            In short: it might be said that the liberal is an aberration of nature, a revolt against his own self as an organism, an aberration bereft of the will to genetic perpetuity; that liberalism (and its variants of communism and feminism) literally means “death”.

            The conservative has an innate sense of the will to perpetuity that pervades all healthy organisms in nature. His “gut instincts” on issues such as immigration control, gun ownership, and opposition to abortion and to “gay rights”[11], etc. emerge from a genetic predisposition to recognise what is detrimental to the social organism.

             

Are there Conspiracies?

Two Book Reviews

 

An online survey on the beliefs of 5700 New Zealanders showed that 22% believe it "likely" that "a secret elite cabal controls world affairs", with 21% responding that they don't know, and 57% stating "unlikely".  (Sunday Star Times, C2, 31 Aug. 08).

Given the ridicule attached to "conspiracy theories" the percentage is encouraging, indicating that a significant proportion of New Zealanders are aware of political realities, or at least discern intuitively that something is amiss.

While such beliefs are lumped in by the Sunday Star Times with superstitions and whether Elvis faked his own death (to which very few responded positively) etc. the ongoing success of alternative news -stand magazines such as Nexus and New Dawn from Australia, and in particular Jon Eisen's Uncensored (NZ) show that many New Zealanders are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with what had been described as the 'village idiot theory of history' - that stuff just happens at random - as portrayed by the mass media.

            The following are two book reviews on conspiracy theories, adapted from an article originally appearing in the first issue of Restoration Magazine.

 

Cyclicity of Conspiracy Theory

            The popularity of conspiracy theories follows cyclic trends after periods of crises. The French Revolution gave rise to the modern theory of conspiracies in general, ascribing the subversion and breakdown of the traditional order to the influences of Masonic coteries, including the Illuminati, from whence other conspiracy theories have followed, often encompassing communism, Zionism, international finance, and such groups as the Bilderbergers, Council, on Foreign Relations, Lodge 322 and Trilateralists.

            The 1905 Russian Revolution popularised the hitherto obscure Protocols of Zion, again with a Masonic theme, but with a Jewish façade, although doctrine of the Protocols has nothing of the nature of Zionism per se about it.

            Since such theories were generally of a ‘right-wing nature,’ and often linked to ‘anti-Semitism’, World War II drove them into disrepute.

            The Cold War revived conspiracy theories, and 9/11 has given impetus to a revival of interest in covert cabals such a Masonry not seen since the Russia Revolution. Impetus has been added with the revival of alternative religions and the questioning of mainstream religion, including the popularity of books such as those about the alleged Prior de Sion by Baigent, et al. They have also revived an interest in the role of the Illuminati.

            The best-selling novelist Dan Brown has contributed greatly to the revival with his novel Angel & Demons. This is a thriller about the Illuminati. Although the historical background has little resemblance to fact, the novel has spawned two books which include chapters on Masonry and the Illuminati.

            Secrets of Angels & Demons by Dan Burstein and A Sura, includes a chapter titled The Illuminati Illuminated, comprising an anthology of interviews with journalists and researchers regarding their views on Illuminati conspiracy theories.

            The Dan Brown Companion by Simon Cox includes a chapter titled Illuminati, in which Cox presents a succinct account of the society.

            Included in his references are Nesta Webster’s Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, and Prof. John Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy, conspiratorial classics among the “Right” but seldom hitherto heard of by the larger public for decades.

            A major publishers has recently come out with a series called “Conspiracy Books”, no doubt to cash in on the renewed interest in such theories. The publisher is Collins & Brown. The series includes: Who Really Runs the World?, Who’s Watching You?, What is Opus Dei?, Who Really Won the Space Race?, Who Won the Oil Wars?, and Who Are the Illuminati?

            Who Really Runs the World? and Who Are the Illuminati? are the two books that are reviewed here.

 

           

Who Really Runs the World?

Thom Burnett and Alex Games, London, 2005.

            Burnett is the pseudonym for a British security and military analyst. Games is a columnist for the Financial Times and former associate media editor for the London Evening Standard.

            The book starts with several chapters looking at contenders for the questions ‘who really runs the world?’ However, most of the book thereafter becomes a fairly standard, although well researched work on globalisation.

            Burnett considers the Illuminati, Lodge 322, Bilderbergers., Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Burnett disposes of each until concluding that the CFR is the most likely culprit. In doing so he too readily dismisses the Illuminati. Burnett’s technique of reductio ad absurdum in eliminating the Illuminati from the scene does not do justice to the mostly well-researched bulk of the book.

            For e.g. Burnett ridicules the notion popularised during eh 19^th C. by the eminent scholar Prof. John Robison in Proofs of a Conspiracy that the Illuminati survived its outlawing by the Elector of Bavaria, by the expedient of simply re-organising as book societies. Burnett finds it laughable that a sinister conspiracy for the establishment of a new world order could continue via book clubs. However the importance of what was at the time subversive literature was a feature not only of Weishaupt’s Illuminati but of other revolutionary societies, and it was this literature that paved the way for the French Revolution. Books and pamphlets at the time were as influential as TV, and Internet are today. The owner of a printing press was as potentially subversive as today’s Rupert Murdoch and other media barons. One needs only recall Benjamin Franklin as a printer for e.g. The French Revolution itself was fomented by a coterie of Masons led by Diderot, called The Encyclopaedists. It is naïve to think that the Illuminati was obliterated by a decree and police action, any more than a communist party apparatus is eliminated by a mere state order and police raids. It was the Illuminati that created the cell structure upon which the communist parties were later modelled, as were numerous Masonic-type revolutionary societies such as those of Babeuf, Blanqui, Mazinni, et al.

            Burnett then arrives at Lodge 322, aka The Order of the Skull & Bones, of which both presidents Bush and rival presidential contender John Kerry are initiates. Lodge 322 is widely believed by conspiratologists to be a continuation of the Illuminati. Burnett again resorts to ridicule to eliminate Lodge 322, not only as a continuation of the Illuminati but even as a contender for world power rulership, despite the elite of industry, banking, politics, education…. among its initiates. He cites only one work on Lodge 322, Ron Rosenbaum’s 1977 article for Esquire, The Last Secrets of Skull & Bones. Rosenbaum points to a common initiatory feature of the Illuminati and Lodge 322, the initiation from a coffin and a reference to a line from dramatist and Mason Lessing:

            “Wer war der Thor, wer Weiser,             Bettler oder Kaiser? Ob Arm, on Reich, in Tode gleich.”

            “Who was the fool, who was the wise man, beggar or king? Whether poor or rich, all’s the same in death.”

 

            Burnett dismisses this as inconsequential, a coincidence, while accepting a vague Masonic connection from Germany.

            He states that the skull and bones symbol of Lodge 322 probably represents a pirate symbol, seemingly not knowing of the importance of the symbol in Masonry.

            As evidence of the unimportant nature of Lodge 322, Burnett states that it’s merely a Yale fraternity, ignoring the fact that members aren’t ‘tapped’ until their final year at Yale, and that the old boy network continues to hold meeting for its ‘patriarchs’ on an island resort, Deer Iland (sic), purchased for that purpose. It is not until after Yale graduation that one becomes a “patriarch’ of the Order.

            Of particular value is the chapter on the Council on Foreign relations (CFR), entitled New Knights of the Round Table, (chapter 4). While the dominate theme of the book on globalisation has been dealt with by many others, the conspiratorial nature of the CFR is described particularly well in this book.

            The knowledge of the CFR was until the advent of the Internet, publicised mainly by sections of the Right, in particular by the John Birch Society. Burnett brings some classic Birchite books to the attention of the general public, namely Gary Allen’s underground best-seller of the 1970s, None Dare Call it Treason, and W Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist. The latter is a review and commentary on the magnum opus of the eminent US historian Prof Carroll Quigley, a mentor of Clinton at Harvard. What makes Quigley unique is not only his importance as a ‘mainstream’ historian but that he was on his own account intimately involved with a conspiratorial apparatus he called ‘the international network’ which he identified as stemming from banking dynasties which seek to create a world state. Quigley as a liberal internationalist agreed with the ideal but disputed the need for secrecy. His expose of the ‘network’ over a few dozen pages of his 1300 page book Tragedy & Hope was sufficient to have him marked for oblivion career wise, and the book was quietly dropped by publisher MacMillan.

            Quigley, Allen and Skousen identify the conspiratorial apparatus as centred around the CFR. Burnett follows this in pointing out the influential role of the CFR in filling Administrations of both Democrats and Republicans, since its founding in 1921, and the role it played in planning the UNO and in formulating post-war foreign policy.

            However, Burnett provides an added contribution that is of particular significance. Whereas US conservatives such as Allen and Skousen and even Quigley have sought to identify this ‘international network’ as being ‘Anglophile’ and as having descended directly from the Round Table Group of Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner et al, who planned a new world order around the British Empire, Burnett points out that this is a misinterpretation.

            Indeed the misinterpretation of this as a “British imperial conspiracy’ in origin, has generated other theories about the eminence of the British Royal Family in alleged conspiracies. It has led to fundamental misinterpretations of history and the role of the CRE and other cabals which were pivotal in eliminating the British and all the other European colonial empires, so that the Money Power could fill the vacuum. (See for e.g. this writer’s Building the New Babel, Renaissance Press, NZ, on how the Money Power eliminated the colonial empires).

            The CFR was joined by a prior US group The Inquiry, founded in 1917 in the aftermath of World War I for promoting the establishment of a world government via the League of Nations. The intentions of these internationalist bankers, industrialists and intellectuals were to unite with the British Round Table Group  which became the Royal Institute of International Affairs. However, as Burnett shows the globalists around the CFR were willing to co-operate with the USSR in establishing a post-war new world order, but they would concede nothing to British imperial interests.

            While Burnett alludes to the role of Pres. Woodrow Wilson’s chief adviser, Edward House, the organiser of both The Inquiry ands the CFR, and mentions the Wilsonian/internationalist agenda, of which the League of Nations was pivotal, he fails to follow through with the pro-Bolshevik activities of this coterie, although mentioning that House’s novel Philip Dru: Administrator was described by House as advocating “socialism as dreamed of by Marx.” Burnett mentions that House went to a socialist publisher for his novel. It was this cabal for which House fronted (much in the manner that Kissinger fronted for Rockefeller interests during his public service career) that pursued a pro-Bolshevik policy during a time in which the Bolshevik hold on Russia was precarious. It was this influence that secured Trotsky’s release from detention at Nova Scotia, Canada, as a ‘German agent’, so that he could proceed to Russia to help foment the Revolution. Wickham Steed, editor of The London Times, reported on the role of House, and bankers such as Schiff and the Warburgs in trying to secure the diplomatic recognition of the Bolsheviks at the Paris Peace Conference. Samuel Gompers, the US trade union leader, himself a Mason, wrote of this also at the time, stating that there was a criminal nexus between the Bolsheviks and international bankers for the mutual exploitation of Russia. It was left to Prof. Antony Sutton of Stanford to write the definitive account on the funding of the Bolsheviks in his Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. It was also Sutton who wrote a series of booklets exposing Lodge 322, and showing its lineage to the Illuminati. Sutton was no fool or yokel, but a Stanford Research specialist, yet he receives no mention from Burnett, nor from the author discussed below.

           

Who Are the Illuminati? Exploring the Myth of the Secret Society.

Lindsay Porter, London, 2005.

            If Burnett provides a convincing case for a globalist conspiracy centred round the CFR, then Porter takes the position that not only is the Illuminati a myth outside a brief existence as a harmless society of intellectuals who didn’t outlast the 18^th C., but that any notion of a long running political conspiracy is mere paranoia or the simplification of history by yokels.

            Porter is described as an author and researcher who specialises in secret societies. Frankly, her research methodology is shoddy.

            Porter’s book is possibly one of the few, which actually reads like an apologia for Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati. While drawing on accounts that show Weishaupt to have been paranoid, dictatorial, and amoral, Porter like Thomas Jefferson during the anti-Illuminati scare in American in the 18^th and 19^th C., nonetheless portrays Weishaupt in sympathetic terms as a misunderstood philanthropist persecuted by reactionaries. Likewise, the Illuminati are portrayed as professing ideals that are nothing more than the democracy now taken for granted.

            While authors who refer to long range conspiracies, often traced back to the Knights Templar (see this writer’s thesis From Knights Templar to New World Order, Renaissance Press, NZ) are ridiculed by Porter, she attempts to form a lineage of her own of “conspiracists” (sic), starting with the French exiled Jesuit the Abbe Barruel, who first wrote of the Illuminati and the French Revolution; closely followed by Dr John Robison, to British historian Nesta Webster, who was the first and most prominent to revive the idea in the early 20^th C., then on to Robert Welch of the John Birch Society during the 1960s, whom she claims was the first to revive the Illuminati theory after World War II to explain the rise of communism. Into this she mixes anyone and everyone who ever so much as mentioned the Illuminati, along with many who didn’t but just opposed some subversive tendency such as communism. Hence lumped together are Sen. Joe McCarthy, always good to slander; Father Charles Coughlin the popular Depression era “radio priest’ who challenged Roosevelt; and Henry Ford the auto manufacturer, who published articles on the Protocols of Zion.

            But Porter particularly relishes the chance to include special attention to David Icke who has added an extraterrestrial dimension by claiming that the Illuminati are hybrid humanoid-reptilian aliens, that include the Bush, Rothschild and Rockefeller families.

            While Porter scathingly attacks Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy, the foundation of modern conspiracy theory, republished by the Birch Society in 19867, she yet has recourse to quote him where she actually attempts to describe the working of the Illuminati. She therefore concedes that Robison is the definitive authority.

            In a chapter on what Porter calls the anti-Illuminati ‘hysteria’ in the USA during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, when the doctrines of the French Revolution were being introduced via Jefferson’s Democrats, she claims that Robison’s work was finally repudiated when a letter arrived from a certain, unidentified Dr Ebeling from Germany, claiming that Robison had been exposed in Europe as a fraud and a bankrupt. Yet this is far from the case. Robison was one of the foremost scientists of his day, the first general secretary of the Scottish Royal Society, who was eulogised by James Watt. Robison was the victim of smear-mongering, including the allegation that he had a form of insanity where he believed that his backside was made of glass. Porter claims that Robison was not sufficiently acquainted with German to translate the Illuminati papers found by the Bavarian authorities. Yet the website of Edinburgh University describes Robison as an eminent linguist. No mention is made of the denigration of his reputation. Robison had himself been a Mason and was concerned at the bad reputation being given to English UGL Masonry by Grand Orient, Illuminati and other forms of Continental Masonry. Porter also quotes George Washington, himself a high ranking Mason, who fully realised the danger of Illuminati doctrines spreading to America.

            Particular venom is reserved for Nesta Webster, whose influence on “conspiracists’ continues. Webster is scorned as “pseudo-scholarly”, and as having been little heeded in her own time. Porter does concede that Webster received commendation from Lord Kitchener as a great historian. Yet one can also add Winston Churchill, and even H G Wells, the famed historian and novelist, who as a Fabian socialist and internationalist on the opposite spectrum to that of Webster, commended Webster’s 1924 book Secret Societies & Subversive Movements as being “a book that all serious people interested in the British situation should to read and think about…. I believe that Mrs Webster’s influence has spread beyond the circle of her actual readers.”

            Other tributes at the time came form The Daily Express, Chicago Tribune, NY Herald Tribune, Daily Mail, The Spectator and many others. Webster was asked to lecture to the British Military on subversion, and these lectures formed the basis of her book World Revolution.

            William Guy Carr, author of Red Fog Over America and Pawns in the Game, is dismissed as a crank that ‘spent much of his life writing about the Illuminati’. There is no mention of Carr as a distinguished Commander of the Canadian Royal Navy, nor as an acclaimed author on naval subjects as well as subversion, who lectured 1944-45 on subversion to the Navy. Porter fails to mention Carr’s books in her Bibliography, which presumably means she ridicules him without ever having bothered to read what he wrote.

            Porter seems to have a lot to say about authors whose books she does not appear to have read.  At one point in attempting o associate Illuminati conspiracy theories with The Protocols of Zion and ipso facto with “anti-Semitism” Porter claims that The Protocols purport to show “secret Jewish rituals.” This is hogwash, despite the book being listed in the bibliography. Indeed, as this writer has shown in my Protocols in Context (Renaissance Press, NZ), the Protocols doctrine are strategy parallel that of the Illuminati, and have scant evidence of what became Herzlian Zionism. There is a direct link between The Protocols, the Illuminati, and Memphis-Mizraim-Martinist  Masonry via de Pasquales, an Illuminatist and founder of Martinist Masonry, Adolphe Cremieux, head of Grand Orient Masonry, Mizraim-Martinist Masonry and the Universal Israelite Alliance, whop was significantly mentor of Maurice Joly, whose novel, Dialogues in Hell, The Protocols were supposedly ‘plagiarised’ from; but none of this is mentioned by supposed authorities such as Norman Cohn (Warrant for Genocide).

            Robert Welch who founded the once formidable anti-communist lobby the John Birch Society, comes in for much condemnation as an individual who revived the Illuminati conspiracy theory after World War II to explain communism. Porter quotes from Welch’s booklet The Truth In Time, yet again we find that according to the Bibliography, not only has Porter apparently not even read The Truth In Time, but the only book she records there by Welch is The Blue Book of the JBS, the founding document which does not even deal with conspiracy themes. .

            Others brought together into a ‘conspiracist’ conspiracy of Porter’s imagination include KKK, Pat Robertson, the evangelist; , the Militias, UFOlogy, along with Webster, McCarthy, Ford, Welch, Robison et al.

            Porter seems to be correct in stating that conspiracy theories on the Eye and Triangle/Pyramid being the symbol of the Illuminati are not correct, despite the widespread belief among ‘conspiracists’. Yet she goes too far in attempting to ridicule the other major ‘conspiracist’ contention regarding the symbol, i.e. that it is incorporated into eh Great Seal of the USA as a Masonic contrivance. She mentions that the symbol is depicted on the US Dollar Bill due to the influence of Roosevelt’s Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace. Yet she seems oblivious as to both Wallace and Roosevelt being 32^nd Degree Masons, both of whom saw great significance in the Masonic symbolism of the Great Seal. Wallace referred to the Masonic doctrine of the completion of the pyramid as placing the USA in a mission to lead in establishing a ‘New Order of the Ages’, the slogan of the US Great Seal, and one used with frequency by both presidents Bush. As for the Eye and Triangle, although not apparently being Illuminati per se, it is an important Masonic symbol, prominently depicted by the Grand Orient of France for e.g., and adorning the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, by the French Revolutionaries, along with other occult, Masonic symbols (see Bolton, From Knights Templar…, op.cit.).

            It is also significant that the Eye and Pyramid adorn the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem, and that the whole building is replete with Masonic symbolism. The building was funded by the Rothschilds and a plaque, also with an eye and pyramid sign, commemorates their contribution.

            If the neglect of Burnett to mention Dr Sutton’s booklets on Lodge 322 is a bad oversight, then Porter’s neglect is outright poor scholarship, and that’s to err on the side of charity. For a book that purports to trace theories on the Illuminati not to mention Sutton’s research, even for the ;purposes of scorn, is unforgivable; especially his final booklet in the series, The Secret Cult of the Order, which was specifically written to show the link between the Illuminati and Lodge 322.

            However, Porter does reserve praise for Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, whose 1970s Illuminatus Trilogy lampoons Illuminati and other conspiracy theories. Ironically what Porter does not mention is that Wilson is an avid and well known admirer of and advocate for British occultist and Mason A leister Crowley, who took over leadership of the Ordo Templi Orientis  (OTO) from the well-connected German spy Theodor Reuss. Reuss himself claimed to have re-established the Illuminati on the basis of family connections. Crowley claimed Illuminati founder Weishaupt, as a “saint” (sic) for his OTO. Hence we come to something of a cycle in which we find Porter lauding Wilson who is an apologist for occultist who claimed the mantle of Weishaupt himself.

Obama: Catspaw of International Finance

By Dr K R Bolton

Editor Restoration Magazine

 

Now that Obama has won the Democratic nomination it becomes ever more relevant to explore the connections of his backers and advisers, as this will give an indication on the direction the USA will head should he win the presidency.

            To consider this as primarily a racial matter – whether in terms of white racism or conversely of liberal anti-racism, is to obscure the role of the Money Power in seeking to control the USA and hence much of the world.

            Obama seems to have arisen from virtually nowhere. Yet he was able to dominate the field with the assistance of bigger funding. A Reuters report carried in the Dominion Post (Obama raised $45 million, Feb. 22, 08) stated that Obama had raised just over $US36 million back in January, three times more than McCain; while Clinton had raised $US13.9 million.

            There is much talk of “change”, of a “new direction”. It is the type of “populist” or even mildly “left-wing” rhetoric that serves as a façade for plutocracy while championing “The People”, just as the Bolsheviks were said to be fighting for the “proletariat” while receiving plutocratic largesse.  As Oswald Spengler observed early last Century, “there is no proletarian, not even a communist movement, that is not run in the interests and direction of Money”, to paraphrase from his Decline of the West. The same can be said for other movements of supposed reform, whether liberal, socialist or social democrat, in which we might include the Democrats.

It will be recalled that Roosevelt promoted the New Deal under the guise of socialistic measures on behalf of the people, yet behind his administration stood plutocrats such as Bernard Baruch. The Federal Reserve Bank was inaugurated under the façade of controlling the money supply on behalf of the people, as attempted by Lincoln, and intended by the US Constitution, yet the Fed was conceived, established and run by the Warburgs, et al. Obama is in such a political tradition.

            Among Obama’s leading financial backers is the omnipresent George Soros. I’ve often cited Soros as one of the primary movers and shakers behind the scenes of much of the trouble in the world, designed to coalesce all nations, cultures and peoples into a universal state. He was one of the major hidden players in the destruction of the Soviet Bloc (which turned soured on the bankers since the time Stalin kicked out Trotsky), and funds the so-called “velvet revolutions”, one of the consequences being the present Russo-Georgian conflict. He is a principal financier of what might still be termed the “New Left”, or “post-New Left, funding sundry causes including narcotics liberalisation, feminism, abortion liberalisation, pretty much anything designed to undermine the traditional structures of a targeted society under the guise of “human rights” and the “open society”, the latter term being the name of his world wide network of subversive fronts.

            Obama;s had Soros funding since his Senate campaign in 2004. CNSNews.com reported at the time that this newcomer and comparative unknown had backing not only from the patriarch, but from four other family members, a daughter, two sons and his wife. According to the report by Robert Bluey, Soros had met Obama a few months previously in Chicago, and was seen as an emerging national leader. (Bluey, Unlike Kerry, Obama coverts Soros’ support, CNSNews. Com, July 28, 2004).

            Obama’s advisers contain some very familiar, old faces for a supposed “man of change” Chief economic adviser is Austan Goolsbee, likely to be Secretary of the Treasury in an Obama Administration. Goolsbee is said to be a member of the crypto-Masonic Lodge 322, aka Order of the Skull and Bones, as are both presidents Bush and John Kerry for e.g. Dr Antony Sutton, Stanford research specialist traced the origins of Lodge 322 quite convincingly to the Illuminati, with such links as similarity in ritual and origins in Bavaria. (Sutton, Secret Cult of The Order, Veritas , Australia, 1986; Bolton, From Knights Templar to New World Order, Renaissance Press, New Zealand, 2006).

            Goolsbee is said to be an initiate from the Yale Class of 91. His membership seems to have been definitively identified by Yale News, although the article now seems to have disappeared down the Memory Hole.

            In foreign policy, Obama’s chief adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter Admin. Brzezinski is a protégée of the Rockefeller dynasty, founding director of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and has served on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). His recent comparison of Putin with Hitler and Stalin accords with Soros’ position. Relations between Russia and an Obama USA are likely to become ever more strained. Considering Soros’ strategy, it could be that the USA under Obama will recede from the Bush era gung ho Yankee global hooliganism, in favour of an internationalist strategy of cultural, political and economic subversion, including increased activity in encouraging “velvet revolutions”; what amounts to a renewed ideology of “world revolution”, a ‘Plutocratic Trotskyism’.

            Other corporate backers of the “people’s man” include:

            Warren Buffet, said to be the greatest American investors of all time.

            Robert Wolf, UBS Americas, Swiss based international bank; formerly with Salomon Bros.

            Paul Volcker, ex-Federal Reserve Bank, honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission for North America.

            Valerie Jarrett, chair of the Chicago Joint Stock Exchange, who served as chair of finance for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign.

            Under the “notable names database”, “Obama for America: organization” those plutocrats listed as backers include:

            James Bell, Boeing, Dow Chemicals.

Warren Buffet mentioned above, who sits on the boards of the Washington Post, Coca Cola and Salomon Bros.

Peter Chernin, News Corp., Fox Entertainment.

Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs.

Walter Eberstadt, Lazard Freres, member of the World Policy Institute, one of those think tanks that combine Leftist and plutocrats.

William Foote, Chase Manhattan, Chicago Fed.

Richard Fuld Jr., Lehman Bros., NY Fed., CFR.

Bill Gates, Microsoft.

David Geffen, music mogul.

Fred Gluck, Rand Corp., CFR.

Lawrence Jackson, Wal Mart, biggest importer of Chinese junk; and well known exploiter of Hispanic labour, hence it s support for ‘multiculturalism’ and open immigration, as generous ‘humanitarians’.

            Vernon Jordan, Lazard Freres, American Express, Revlon, Daimler-Chrysler, CFR, Ford Foundation, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger.

            Olden Lee, Pepsi.

            William M Lewis Jr., Lazard Freres.

            Henry McGea, HBO Videos, Time Warner.

            Matthew McKenna Snr., Pepsi.

            Thomas J Meredith, Dell computers.

            Robt. Pohland, Pepsi.

            Nicholas Rey, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, CFR.

            Alan Schwartz, pres. Bear Stearns.

            Terry Semel, CEO Yahoo.

            Jack Skolds, Exelon Nuclear.

            George Soros, currency speculator.

            Joshua Steiner, Quadrangle Group, Lazard Freres, CFR.

            Franklin Thomas, pres. Ford Foundation 79-96, adviser Warburg-Pincus NY investors, Alcoa Aluminium, Citigroup, Pepsi.

            John Thornton, ex-pres. Goldman Sachs, Ford Motors, News Corp., CFR, National Council US-China Relations (with Kissinger and other plutocratic luminaries).

            Robt. Wright, CEO NBC Universal.

           

            Obama’s wife Michelle, a major factor in her husband’s political life, serves on the board of the Chicago Council for Global Affairs, the Chicago branch of the CFR.

            In Feb. 2008 Sen. Jay Rockefeller, of the omnipresent globalist dynasty endorsed Obama. Sen. Rockefeller is as one would expect a Bilderberger, CFR and Trilateralist.

            We can see behind Obama the coalescing of the biggest international financial interests, including those of Rockefeller, Salomon, Lazard Freres and Goldman Sachs. These are the bankers of whom the eminent US historian Dr Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University Foreign Services School, stated were aiming at:

            “Nothing less than to create a world system of financial control… to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…” (Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, MacMillan, NY, 1966, p. 340).

            Obama almost makes McCain look revolutionary by comparison; yet to this outsider from far off New Zealand, the only real “people’s choice” seems to have been Ron Paul, which explains why he was shut out by the mass media, as Pat Buchanan was in a previous presidential election.

 

 

Russo-Georgian Conflict Originates with Soros Subversion

       

George Soros, the currency speculator is one of the primary elements in subverting traditional societies in order that they better fit into a new world order. Soros backs on a world scale what might loosely be termed the contemporary version of the ‘New Left’. He brings down governments via subversion, moral rot and revolution through financial patronage, akin to what Jacob Schiff the New York banker did to Russia through the funding of revolutionary propaganda.[1] However Soros’ revolutions are far more widespread than that of Schiff.

            Soros has established a network of think tanks, lobbies and fronts to promote sundry causes, from feminism and abortion, to narcotics liberalisation and the stream of ‘velvet revolutions’ that have resulted in ‘regime change’ throughout the former Soviet bloc. [2]

            Soros declares George Bush to be a threat to world peace because of the gung ho gunboat diplomacy Bush directs towards ‘rogue states’. But Soros foments more fundamental discord and conflict through his patronage of subversion and revolution. It is significant that he is one of the chief financial backers of Obama’s presidential campaign, along with a mass of other plutocrats. Obama is a typical e.g. of how a ‘man of the people’, America’s equivalent to a System Leftist, is fronting for Big Money. [3]

            In 2003 Soros targeted Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze for overthrow. Soros’ aim is the destruction of Russia as a world power. Eliminating Russian influence and replacing it with new regimes hostile to Russia is his goal.

            In 2003 Mark MacKinnon writing in the Canadian Globe & Mail succinctly described how Soros applied his revolutionary formulae to overthrowing Shevardnadze, writing of how Soros’ Open Society Institute,

“Sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor (Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Then, in the summer, Mr. Soros's foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution.”[4]

 

            The youthful activists are a living e.g. of how the Left has always served the interests of the Money power, whether Bolsheviks, Social Democratic liberals, or strident nihilists of the SDS variety. This was long ridiculed as “right-wing conspiracy theory” but now operates for all discerning people to see, even mainstream journalists.

            Commenting on the “Velvet Revolution”[5] that had just passed over Georgia, MacKinnon described the operations that went into play, following the same patterns as they had in other Soros targeted states[6]:

“The Liberty Institute that Mr. Bokeria helped found was instrumental in organizing the street protests that eventually forced Mr. Shevardnadze to sign his resignation papers. Mr. Bokeria says it was in Belgrade that he learned the value of seizing and holding the moral high ground, and how to make use of public pressure — tactics that proved so persuasive on the streets of Tbilisi after this month's tainted parliamentary election.

“In Tbilisi, the Otpor link is seen as just one of several instances in which Mr. Soros gave the anti-Shevardnadze movement a considerable nudge: He also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial in mobilizing support for this week's "velvet revolution," and he reportedly gave financial support to a youth group that led the street protests.”

 

            The useful idiots of the Left had done the work of a globalist money speculator, marching under self-proclaimed  ‘high ideals’, again fulfilling Oswald Spengler’s political dictum that, to paraphrase, ‘there is not a left-wing movement, not even the communists, who do not operate in the interests dictated by Money…’[7]

            The Georgian wannabe warlord of democracy and heroic fighter against Russian tyranny, Saakashvili, who went scuttling like a frightened rabbit when he ‘though he heard approaching Russian fighters’, began his political ascendancy as a Soros whore. MacKinnon states:

“[Soros] also has a warm relationship with Mr. Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4. Last year, Mr. Soros personally presented Mr. Saakashvili with the foundation's Open Society Award.

"’It's generally accepted public opinion here that Mr. Soros is the person who planned Shevardnadze's overthrow,’ said Zaza Gachechiladze, editor-in-chief of The Georgian Messenger, an English-language daily based in the capital.

“In the eyes of Mr. Soros's employees, it was all done in the name of building democracy. Laura Silber, a senior policy adviser at Open Society, said the foundation sponsored the exchange because ‘some of the experiences are very translatable’ between Georgia and Serbia. In Georgia's current political climate, she said, ‘it looks more charged than it is’."

“That's not how Mr. Shevardnadze saw it, however.”

 

A lot of mischief has been done throughout history in the name of ‘building democracy’ as the Soros employees describe it. Communism was established in the name of ‘building democracy’, then, as we’ve seen, its Soviet version was subverted and pulled down when it went sour for the plutocrats. The same kind of ‘useful idiots’ who marched against Boer South Africa did so in the name of ‘building democracy’, the outcome of which was to replace an interventionist (nationalist) economic with one of globalisation and privatisation, in the name of ‘human rights’, which the ANC describes as the ‘correct Marxist-Leninist path’. In this instance the Oppenheimer empire played the role in South Africa now played by the Soros network throughout the world.[8]

            The hapless Mr. Shevardnadze was well aware of the machinations against him:

"’George Soros is set against the President of Georgia’," he said during a news conference in Tbilisi a week before his resignation — it was at least the third time during the protests that he had complained about Mr. Soros. He threatened to shut down Open Society's Georgia offices, saying it was not Mr. Soros's business ‘to get involved in the political processes.’"

 

MacKinnon describes the main opposition movements of the time and how Soros subsidized each:

“Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received money from both Open Society and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's National Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze last April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking government corruption.

“All three have ties to Mr. Soros. According to Georgian press reports, Kmara received a $500,000 (U.S.) start-up grant in April, some of which may have been used during the three weeks of street protests when it bussed demonstrators in from the countryside and set up loudspeakers and a giant television screen amid the crowds surrounding the parliament building.

“Rustavi-2 got start-up money from Mr. Soros when it launched in 1995 and more funding a year ago when it began the anti-Shevardnadze newspaper 24 Hours.

“Observers say that Rustavi-2's role during the protests is hard to overestimate. The channel began its campaign years ago when it produced a popular cartoon called Our Yard, in which the animated president was portrayed as a crooked double-dealer.”

 

Soros had originally sought to control Shevardnadze, having met him in the 1980s when Saakashvili was Soviet foreign minister. Even then Soros was setting up his Open Society Institute in Georgia. He soon turned his attentions to justice minister Saakashvili. In 2002 Shevardnadze made the first of his complaints against what he deemed Soros’ subversive activities. Soros responded that Shevardnadze could not be trusted to hold fair elections, and that he would mobilise his street lackeys, adding:

"This is what we did in Slovakia at the time of [Vladimir] Meciar, in Croatia at the time of [Franjo] Tudjman and in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic."

 

            In 2004 Richard Carlson, former diplomat, recently returned from visiting Georgia, wrote of the attention Saakashvili was getting from Soros and the funding of the ‘Rose Revolution’:

“Late last fall, Saakashvili led thousands of ‘spontaneous’ demonstrators, bussed in from around Tbilisi, brandishing flowers as they invaded the president's palace. This was during the freezing Georgian winter when any roses not black and brittle had to be flown or trucked in, courtesy of the same bankroll that funded the fleet of rented buses for demonstrators: that of George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire and egotist. A former member of the Georgian Parliament said that in the three months before the ‘Rose Revolution,’ ‘from August through October, Soros spent $42 million ramping-up for the overthrow of Shevardnadze’”[9]

 

Despite the animosity between Bush and Soros, the dismemberment of Russia serves the interests of both the neo-cons backing Bush/McCain, and their plutocratic antagonists headed by Soros, backing Obama. Both rival power factions are suspicious of Russia, based on its prior record and the path of independence followed under Putin. After 1917 Russia held great promise for the plutocrats, but went sadly astray when Stalin kicked out Trotsky and pursued a path that was not in accord with globalism. Indeed it was Stalin who scuttled the plutocratic aim to establish the UNO as a de jure world government after World War II. It was Stalin who scuttled another internationalist scheme, the Baruch Plan,[10] which would have internationalised atomic energy and in practise placed this under the control of the USA.[11] The “Right”, befuddled by a misguided ideological dichotomy, pounded the war drums against the USSR during the “Cold War”, alongside the Trotskyites who had been co-opted by the CIA into the Congress for Cultural Freedom and who morphed into today’s neo-cons.[12] An Establishment “insider’ historian Dr Carroll Quigley remarked in his magnum opus Tragedy & Hope that the plutocrats’ use of financial patronage as a control mechanism showed little sign of working with the post-Stalin leaders[13]. The plutocrats had succeeded with Yeltsin in a very brief recapture of Russia. Again Russia under Putin is the fly in the globalist ointment. All mainstream media commentary in regard to Russia should therefore be analysed accordingly.

---

[1] Schiff laid the groundwork for revolution in Russia first by funding Japan in its war against Russia, then providing American journalist George Kennan with the funds to agitate among the Russian prisoners of the Japanese. Kennan in paying homage to Schiff as the patron of the 1917 Revolution stated that with this funding 50,000 officers and soldiers returned to Russia as “ardent revolutionaries”. (NY Times March 24, 1917). Bolton, Trotskyism: Tool of Big Business, Renaissance Press, NZ, 2004.

[2] Soros founded the Open Society Institute in 1993 which is ‘at the centre of an informal network of foundations and organisations in more than fifty countries’, according to the OSI website.  Its feminist arm is the Network Women’s Program, in narcotics liberalisation it works through the Drug Policy Alliance and the Lidnesmith Center. Bolton, Useful Idiots of the New World Order, Renaissance Press, 2002, pp. 25-26.

[3] Other patrons of the Obama campaign include Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker formerly of the Federal Reserve; luminaries from Goldman Sachs; Lazard Freres, and Lehmans; Vernon Jordan, Snr. Manager of Lazard Freres, et al., CFR, Bilderberger and Trilateralist. Bolton, Obama: No. 1 House Boy of International Finance, Restoration # 3, June 2008.

[4] McKinnon M., Georgia revolt carried mark of Soros, Globe & Mail, November 26, 2003, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031126.wxsoros1126/BNStory/Front/

 

[5] When a colour is used in conjunction with the word ‘revolution’, this is a code name for a Soros instigated upheaval. Hence when Laura Bush referred to the riots in Burma as the “Saffron Revolution” during an interview with BBC World News (Sept. 28) one had simply to refer to the Soros fronts to trace the source of agitation. Bolton, Myanmar: What’s Behind the “Saffron Revolution”?, Restoration # 2, Nov. 2007.

[6] Soros’ Internet Access & Training Program (IATP) was established as a front for “creating future leaders” in Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In Yugoslavia, Otpor was funded. The prize in Yugoslavia was Trepca, Kosovo, a vast reserve of gold, silver, lead, zinc and cadmium. The Soros sponsored Human Rights Watch provides an incessant flow of propaganda to the media against any states or leaders who are to be targeted with revolution.  In a New Statesman article Neil Clark stated that Soros had a ‘crucial role’ in the collapse of the Soviet bloc. As far back as 1979 Soros gave millions to Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and in 1984 set up his OSI in Hungary where he ‘pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements.’  “Ostensibly aimed at building a ‘civil society’, these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for Eastern Europe’s eventual colonisation by global capital.” Neil Clark, Soros toppled governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, New Statesman, June 2, 2003. (See George Soros’ World Revolution, Renaissance Press, NZ).

[7] “There is no proletarian, not even a communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time being permitted by money – and that without the idealist among its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.” Spengler, Decline of the West, 1918, 1926; Allen & Unwin, London, 1971, vol. II, 402. (Interestingly, Trotsky wondered in his memoirs about the machinations that secured his release from Nova Scotia detainment as a ‘German agent’ when en route from New York to Russia to foment the Revolution.

[8] Harry Oppenheimer of DeBeers and Anglo-American, who played the role in South Africa paralleling that Soros elsewhere, said that ‘nationalist policies have made it impossible to make better use of black labour’. Nelson Mandela laid down the rationale for the destruction of the Afrikaners when he said: “Privatisation is the fundamental policy of the ANC and will remain so.” (Reuters June 12, 1996). Bolton, Building the New Babel: multi-culturalism & the New World Order, Renaissance Press, 2006.

[9] Carlson, R., Georgia on His Mind - George Soros's Potemkin Revolution, The Weekly Standard, May 24, 2004.

[10] Named after the perennial omnipresent presidential adviser and international banker Bernard Baruch. Gromyko, Soviet foreign minister, and Soviet rep. on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, recounted that Washington did not even attempt to hide its intention of controlling nuclear energy under the guise of ‘international control’. Andrei Gromyko, Memories, London, 1989.

[11] For a detailed background on the origins of the Cold War see this writer’s America, Russia & the New World Order – origins of the Cold War & how Stalin stymied a World State, Renaissance Press, 2002.

[12] On how the Trotskyites perennially the whores of international finance, were co-opted into the Cold War against the USSR and evolved into today’s ‘neo-cons’ see Bolton, Trotskyism – tool of big business, op.cit. Also Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War – the CIA and the world of arts and letters, The New Press, NY, 1999. The policy of the USA was to co-opt anti-Soviet communists and socialists, one principal means being the Congress of Cultural Freedom, headed by America’s leading Trotskyite academic Prof. Sidney Hooke. It was in this milieu that sundry feminists and New Leftists such as Gloria Steinem got their start.

[13] Quigley wrote: “Their [international bankers’] desire to win over the opposition… worked with Smuts but failed with Hertzog worked with Gandhi but failed with Menon, worked with Streseman but failed with Hitler, and has shown little chance of working with any Soviet leader…” Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, MacMillan, NY, 1966, 954.

 

 

 

Scott Hamilton’s Conspiracy Theories

 

Since Martin Doutre’s “ancient Celtic New Zealand” theory featured in South Auckland’s community internet magazine Franklin E-Local in October 2008[1], one Scott Hamilton has crawled out of the pile of putrescence known as Trotskyism, to vent his spleen at Doutré and anyone connected with him.

Hamilton has circulated his No to Neo-Nazi Pseudo-History: An Open Letter, which he addressed originally to Winckel, outlining a vast neo-Nazi conspiracy involving a “Celtic NZ circle”. In associating myself as ‘New Zeeland’s leading neo-Nazi’ with Doutré, Hamilton writes, in the course of a shoddily researched biography of me in which he gets names and dates incorrect

“More recently Bolton has been involved with the Nationalist Alliance, a coalition of neo-Nazis created to contest this year’s elections. Members of the Nationalist Alliance have convictions for assaulting Somali New Zealanders and firebombing a marae.”[2]

 

Hamilton was featured on the “Dentith Files” a radio slot on Auckland’s 95bFM on 29 November 08, supposedly in his role as an academic refuting what he sees as a neo-Nazi conspiracy to undermine Maori with the insidious use of theories on Celts predating Maori settlement. According to Hamilton’s conspiracy theory, he calls this the “Celtic New Zealand circle” which features Doutré, and myself as “New Zealand’s leading neo-Nazi”.

The Dentith Files is hosted by Matthew Dentith, on the faculty of Auckland University, who is writing a PhD thesis on conspiracy theories. The Dentith Files apparently exists for the purpose of lampooning conspiracy theories. “Doctor Scott Hamilton” is featured as a supposedly credible academic authority on this “Celtic NZ” conspiracy. That’s correct, a programme devoted to lampooning conspiracies finds nothing contradictory about promoting its own ‘neo-Nazi conspiracy theory’. Perhaps this is not a contradiction, but just an e.g. of Marxist dialectics?

Hamilton credits me with originating this neo-Nazi pseudo-history regarding ancient Celtic New Zealand, stating:

“As a Nazi, Bolton considers that whites are superior to other races, including Maori. It was Bolton who invented the theory of a white indigenous population in a series of writings including his self-published book Lords of the Soil: the story of Turehu, the White Tangata Whenua. Much of the material on the Celtic New Zealand website seems to have been either inspired by or taken directly from Bolton.”

 

There is no such connection or influence from me in relation to Doture’s website[3]. There is nothing on the website from me or influence by me. Some references would be useful, but what can one expect of an academic who’s obtained his degrees from the NZ tertiary system?[4]

In the world of reality, I had no idea of any Celtic NZ connection until reading media reports of Doutre’s book Ancient Celtic NZ in 1999. Until then I had not heard of Doutré, although he does mention the 1987 edition of my booklet Lords of the Soil in his Bibliography[5]. The unorthodox theories about ancient settlement descend directly from the Diffusionist Theory, one of whose most famous proponents in our time was Thor Heyerdahl.[6] To claim me as anyone of significance in this is nuts, but typical of some of those on the loony Left using smear techniques to push a political agenda.

Prof. Kerry Howe of Massey University, in his book The Quest for Origins[7]; which is supposed to be the final word ridiculing these theories,  does not so much as mention me, although Hamilton cites Howe’s book in footnote 14 of his “open letter” as a “thorough critique”; obviously not sufficiently thorough to critique the individual – myself – whom Hamilton claims is the ‘inventor of the theory’. Howe cites Heyerdahl, Doutré, Brailsford, Fell, Childress, Lochore, but the supposed ‘nazi inventor of the theory’ doesn’t get a single mention. Sob.

Continuing with the ad hominem attacks Hamilton writes:

“Both Martin Doutré and Kerry Bolton have written extensively for the website of the One New Zealand Foundation.”

 

There is no extensive association between myself and the One NZ Foundation, nor the Celtic NZ website. Hamilton comes up with one e.g. in a footnote, my article on rat bone carbon dating, which critiques Dr Wilmshurst claim that her tests proved somehow that Maori were indeed the first New Zealand settlers; another non-sequitur from an academic. .

Hamilton then asks Winckel:

“…Don’t you think, though, that a little caution might be in order, when dealing with people like Doutré and Bolton? Isn’t it more probable that the politics of Doutré and Bolton have affected the quality of the ‘research’ on Celtic New Zealand?”

 

What then is one to make of the Marxist ideologue “Dr Hamilton”? Is he claiming that his Marxism does not impact on his so-called scholarship? Silly chap.

Among Hamilton’s claims is that the “Celtic New Zealand Circle” is linked to a world right-wing network that advocates unorthodox theories on an ancient white settlement in the USA and elsewhere, including what he claims is a theory that “Vikings were wandering around America 20,000 years ago.” Where he gets that from he doesn’t state. [8]

I have to wonder whether Hamilton thinks that the proto-Celtic Tocharian mummies of the Tarim Basin, knowledge of which was long suppressed by the Chinese authorities, are all part of a world neo-Nazi conspiracy? The Tocharains are an e.g. very much paralleling the situation with the theories of Doutré et al in regard to New Zealand.

Again on the Dentith interview this nebulous and hitherto unknown “Celtic NZ circle” is associated according to Hamilton with the ‘neo-Nazi” Nationalist Alliance”. The evidence for this link appears to be nothing more than that in its initial phase the website of the Nationalist Alliance reprinted some articles written by me, one of which was in defence of Martin Doutré (which Hamilton for some reason calls a “pamphlet”).  When Doutré was targeted by the pathetic anarchist coterie this time posturing as “Black Mask.”

In the Open Letter referred to above, he states that the Nationalist Alliance in turn has among its supporters an individual who assaulted Somalis. Hamilton is presumably referring to self-professed Nazi Nic Miller, who as far as I am aware never had the slightest association with said Nationalist Alliance[9]. As for me, I have never been a member of the said NA, but of course this will not stop the lunatic Left, of which Hamilton is a part, claiming that I’m the “real leader” etc. The NA has since become an avowedly white racist group with a skinhead base, in which I have no interest.

 

Hamilton’s Campaign Against Jon Eisen & Uncensored

Hamilton has now found it necessary to expand his Nazi conspiracy theory to include Jon Eisen, a “New York Jew” according to Eisen’s own account[10]. And editor of Uncensored magazine. Eisen’s magazine has for the past several years published a wide range of material on unorthodox research, featuring in particular theories on 9/11, chemtrails, life on other planets, globalisation and bankers, and increasingly criticism of Zionism and Israel. What drew Hamilton to come after Eisen was again Doutré, with whom he seems to have an obsession. Eisen had featured an article by Doutré in issue 14  of Uncensored, which has received some favourable comment from Waitaha.[11]

Worse still, Doutré is a guest speaker at the Uncensored Symposium to be held on 26 April at Mt Albert War Memorial Hall. According to Hamilton, the symposium will feature not only Doutré but ‘other’ anti-Semites and ‘neo-Nazis’. He has been trying to influence other guest speakers not to appear, by circulating them with smear-mongering letters, and writing to Auckland councillors trying to have the Hall booking cancelled, on the basis that neo-Nazis using a war memorial hall is some type of sacrilege in a sickeningly hypocritical e.g. of a Trotskyite appealing to patriotic sentiment.

Hamilton wrote to Auckland City Councillor Cathy Casey to prevail upon her to get the Uncensored Symposium cancelled:

“Dear Cathy,

“I am contacting you about the day-long symposium which Uncensored magazine has announced it will be holding on the 26th of April at the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall. Uncensored is selling tickets to the event for fifty dollars, and promising a range of speakers.

“Uncensored magazine is edited by Jonathan Eisen, who is one of New Zealand’s leading conspiracy theorists. Eisen believes that events like the 9/11 attacks, the economic crisis and global warming are the work of a sinister and secret international cabal. Many of the contributors to Uncensored equate this cabal with the Jewish people.

“The January-March issue of Uncensored offers examples of the magazine’s anti-semitism….”

 

Hamilton goes on to claim various neo-Nazi associations for various guest speakers including of course Doutré. However, the Council found that legally they could not deny the hall to Eisen et al.

The topics of the guest speakers include apart form Doutré on “ancient Celtic NZ”, alternative technologies and health therapies, crystal skulls and the like; neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism is not much in evidence.

 

Who is Scott Hamilton?

Hamilton is another academic , a doctor of sociology, whose credentials are upheld as allowing him the final, authoritative word on such ‘amateurs' as Doutré. It is uncertain how sociology qualifies Hamilton for this, although he has apparently worked in the Maori department of Auckland Museum.

Yet doesn't  Hamilton himself has an ideological agenda that just might cloud his supposedly scholarly judgement, while he has the effrontery to claim that the supposed politics of Doutré and myself pervert research?

Hamilton is a Trotskyite communist, according to the research of Trevor Loudon, on his website New Zeal. Hamilton is a member of the minuscule Communist Workers Group, founded by another Auckland University sociologist David Bedggood. Loudon provides some background into the convoluted history of the Trotskyite Left, stating that Bedggood founded the Communist Left at Auckland University in 1981. In 1990 he became leader of the Workers Party, then split to form the Communist Workers Group[12].

The history of Trotskyism in New Zealand is painstakingly detailed on the website of The Communist Workers Group in the tones of utmost historical importance reminiscent of the Jewish Zealots factionalising among themselves in a scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

It seems that Hamilton has a tendency towards smear-mongering, even against fellow Trots. Here’s an indication as it relates to his invective against veteran Trot Bill Logan: Indicative of the frenetic nature of Trot intra-rivalry, one Trot activist Fergusson posting on Marxism Mailing List Archive, had this to say about Hamilton’s antics towards Logan:

Subject: Forwarded from Phil Ferguson

From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 08:46:12 -0700

The NZ wing of the IST, as I have written before, is the Socialist Workers Organisation, previously a hardcore Stalinist outfit, which went from Moscow to Peking to Tirana, and then, overnight in 1994, declared in favour of TonyCliffThought.[13] An interesting indication of the membership standards of the SWO is the way in which people in and around this formerly (some people have doubts about how much has changed) Stalinist group have been carrying out a hate and death threat campaign in relation to Wellington gay figure and left activist Bill Logan
SWO supporter Scott Hamilton, using the email facility of then-SWO member (and current Auckland University Students Association international vice-president) Miriam Bellard sent a number of abusive and threatening emails to Logan. Bellard later pretended it was all not very serious and continued for months to allow Hamilton to use her email facility for abusive and threatening, indeed positively demented emails. Anyway, here's one from Hamilton using Bellard's name and email address:
>>From: Miriam <mbellard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: ibt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Bill Logan has a mince pie nose >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>>>Logan you fat fuck. Fucked any preschoolers >>lately, you stinking poof? People like you >>mate...well, we wouldn't have tolerated them in >>the 40s, back in my day. There was this >>foreman...never mind, that's another story. Peter >>is gpoing to finish you with his SAS knife, then >>we are going to disembowl you and leave you in the >>mangroves down back and for millions of lucky >>insects it's a a - gonna be PAAAARTY time! >>>>Kill yourself Bill. Do it today.
>>    A while back, Hamilton took exception to some article in 'revolution' – not even written by me, but never mind that - and, in the space of three days, emailed me personally *five* abusive and offensive (and, eventually, foul-mouthed) emails. He then had a break for a few weeks, emailed me two more, and another one today. Several of these, he used Miriam Bellard's email address again.
     On the IST list, Bellard tried to pretend that the emails, like that above, to Logan, were a bit of a joke, dashed off when Hamilton was drunk – which would suggest, by the amount of times he emails crazed stuff, that he would have to be drunk rather a lot! Bellard has only just left the SWO, but was a member at the time the worst hate mail was sent to Logan. Both her and Hamilton are still SWO supporters.
     In his most recent email to me, again using Bellard's name and address, Hamilton suggested I 'sleep with one eye open'. When I responded, I got an email back from Bellard herself, saying:
>Ferguson.
>>Neither Scott nor I are members of the SWO. >>Scott has agreed to no longer send you e-mails from my address (I don’t care what he does from his)
An insight into the world of the Cliff tendency in New Zealand!
Philip Ferguson

[End of Marxist Archive Entry].

Welcome to the weird world of Trotskyist Communism and Dr Scott Hamilton, folks.

Hamilton in a typical non-sequitur states that since I am a ‘Nazi’ I believe in the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of non-whites including Maori. This ignores some unpalatable personal facts about myself, such as my first wife and my son being of Maori and Jewish descent, but then Jon Eisen being a Jew doesn’t mitigate his being called an “anti-Semite” by Hamilton either.

So if we use the same technique, but with somewhat more reasonable foundations, we might say that since Hamilton is apparently a Trotskyite, his ideological guru is Leon Trotsky who laid the foundations for the “Red Terror”, the Soviet concentration camp system, advocated the militarization and conscription of labour, blocking armies to prevent desertion and the use of families as hostages to ensure loyalty; Trotsky, the architect of the crushing of the Kronstadt workers’ rebellion, the crushing of free trade unions…. Might we then say that Hamilton is a proponent of all this?[14]

 

“Anti-Semitic?”

Despite all this frenzy about anti-Semites here is what the Communist Workers Group itself said on Palestine and Zionism in an issue of its journal Class Struggle:

“Zionist domination

“It is unfashionable these days to call for a democratic secular Palestine. The Zionist entity, the state of Israel, has succeeded to a great extent in making Jewish people believe that their interests lie in a state that more often than not they will never visit. The Zionist entity has also been very successful in milking the Holocaust to gather public sympathy and support. It is almost impossible to read an article in a mainstream paper in the west that is critical of Israel on any but the most insignificant of details.

“Golda Meir said that there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Part of the Zionist holocaust against the Palestinian people lies in the intent not only to push the Palestinians out of occupied Palestine, but to wipe them off the face of the map and literally, off the pages of history. Throughout the years the Israelis have held that there was no Palestinian entity, and that the Palestinians were just "Arabs" or Jordanians.”[15]

 

The sentiments expressed in Uncensored are no worse than this, yet when non-Trots, including Jews, critique Zionism, it’s called “anti-Semitism” and linked with “neo-Nazism”. Note the Trots are even so ‘insensitive’ as to refer to a ‘Holocaust’ being perpetrated by Zionists against Palestinians. This of course is the acceptable face of anti-Semitism, when it comes from the extreme Left.

 

Sham Research

Hamilton uses the name “Sham Research” for his abortive forays against the world Nazi conspiracy; ironically named given the nature of his own so-called ‘research’.

In the grand tradition of such Marxist academicians as Lysenko, Hamilton, not content with his role as sociologist, has entered the fields of archaeology and anthropology, not that his scholarly abilities could be clouded by his own political agenda, mind you.

On the Dentith Files radio show he pontificated to Matthew Dentith about the story of a friend who once claimed to have found the skeletons of a giant race, stupid prol. Hamilton must at that stage not have had much intellectual curiosity because he declined the opportunity to see the skeletons for himself, content years later to come up with his own explanation as to how archaeological anomalies might surface. To quote Hamilton verbatim from the Dentith Files interview:

 

‘… He’d been doing some work in the limestone country – a beautiful area south of Port Waikato … and he claimed to have found the bones of some ancient giant people. At the time I didn’t know THAT BONES STRETCH AS DECOMPOSITION TAKES PLACE AND AFTERWARDS, SO THAT YOU CAN FIND THE BONES, WHICH, IF YOU MEASURED THEM, CAN APPEAR TO BE FROM SOMEBODY WHO WAS TEN FOOT TALL’.”[16]

 

Having a distrust for so-called academics such as Hamilton, especially if they’ve been through the New Zealand tertiary system, I asked some actual authorities what they thought of Hamilton’s theory about bones stretching during decomposition to create 10 foot long skeletons.

 Robert Brassey stated that this is “definitely a myth.”[17]

Dr Rod Clough of Clough & Associates writes:

“Sounds mythical to me too unless we have been excavating what were truly midgets all these years. One would also expect to see them busting out of coffins all over the place – possibly the origin of zombies and night of the living dead!

“Basically, no on two counts: one of experience with burials and two scientifically. If anything there might be a very slight reduction in bone size but burial conditions would be influential. For instance in a very acid soil with seasonal wetting and drying, the skeleton is likely to break up completely, whereas very dry, cold or wet conditions could lead to excellent preservation. However, in most cases, such as extreme dehydration, there would be a very slight loss of volume.

“Certainly not one I have come across before but the ‘fringe’ are everywhere.”[18]

 

Sham research indeed Dr Hamilton.

DR HAMILTON'S OBSESSIVE DELUSIONS

Dr Hamilton is at it again, with the encouragement of Chris Laidlaw and Radio NZ, having been interviewed on 31 May on the Sunday Morning program apparently as some kind of authority on 'Holocaust denial' in New Zealand. Unfortunately I do NOT have the significance and influence Hamilton and fellow liar Roel Van Leeuwen of Waikato Uni., ascribe to me, and can do little other than write to Radio NZ and Mr Laidlaw on this matter, in the unlikely hope that there's someone there with integrity.

5 June 09

Mr Chris Laidlaw

Radio NZ

 

Dear Mr Laidlaw

I have just listened to a program hosted by Chris Laidlaw and featuring Scott Hamilton, (Sunday Morning program 31 May) supposedly dealing in some manner authoritatively with “Holocaust denial” in New Zealand.’

 

Hamilton seems to have a personal obsession with me, and with Martin Doutré, and I don’t quite see why he has been permitted to spout defamatory statements, while Mr Laidlaw sits their obligingly nodding in agreement as though Hamilton is a credible scholar.

 

Hamilton’s mention of me was entirely gratuitous and without justification, and it seems in recent months he has arisen from nowhere to try and make a name for himself by exposing a non-existent neo-Nazi threat, in similar manner to what Paul Spoonley attempted several years ago; and as the hapless Roel Van Leeuwen, whose thoroughly debunked and fraudulent thesis Hamilton has approvingly cited, is also attempting to do.

 

Hamilton states in the course of the Laidlaw interview that I am a neo-Nazi, that I am a leading holocaust denier, that I work closely with Dr Toben of the Adelaide Inst., who has recently been sentenced to a prison term for contempt of court; the implication being that I am associated with some unsavoury characters. He further states that I am the ‘inventor’ of the ‘Celtic New Zealand theory’. He states that I am an anti-Semite and that I have insinuated myself into the anti-war movement and the Palestinian solidarity movements, and that my anti-Semitism has had an impact on credulous youngsters.

 

All this is thoroughgoing nonsense. Perhaps about 6 years ago some articles I wrote appeared on the website of the Adelaide Inst. That’s the extent of my supposedly ‘close association’ with Dr Toben and the Adelaide Inst. I never heard of any “Celtic New Zealand theory’ until reading of Martin Doutre’s book on the subject in a newspaper article. I had not heard of the theory or of Doutré until then.

 

Possibly around 10 years ago, myself my wife, and a friend marched in an anti-war demonstration. That is the entire extent of my supposed infiltration of the anti-war movement. I know nothing of any Palestinian solidarity movements, and know nothing of my supposed influence over credulous youth in promoting supposed ‘anti-Semitism’.

 

My first wife and my son, with whom I have always been close, are of Jewish and Maori descent; Ngati Raukawa. The Jewish descent comes form my son’s maternal side, which means he would be legible for Israel citizenship if he so chose.

 

Scott Hamilton has previously said that I am part of some ‘Celtic NZ Circle’ (sic), a wide ranging neo-Nazi cabal. He has claimed that I am intimately involved in the One NZ Foundation on the basis of a single article on rat bones appearing on their website. He also stated elsewhere that Doutre’s website includes a lot of material by me. As far as I know, it contains none.

 

In other words, Hamilton has hatched his own lunatic ‘Nazi conspiracy theory’ which has no more basis than a pervasive world Jewish conspiracy, and probably derives from a similar mindset.

 

Hamilton is from what I understand a Trotskyite. Maybe before he pontificates about others as being extremists, he could be asked his opinions on the actions of his ideological mentor Leon Trotsky in the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion, the advocacy of blocking armies, of hostages, militarization of labour, control of unions and justification for the ‘red terror’ and concentration camps? His own mental state can be deduced from the allegedly drunken threats he made against other Trotskyites, with homophobic allusions, according to Marxist websites containing his bizarre correspondence.

 

I will also add that Jon Eisen of Uncensored is a New York Jew, which Hamilton neglects to mention.  Hamilton’s campaign to have the Uncensored symposium cancelled, pontificating that it was a travesty for supposed neo-Nazis (sic) to hold a function in a war memorial hall, is outright hypocrisy (or is he just being dialectical?) given that Marxists such as Hamilton ideologically can have no respect for such sentiments as patriotism.

 

The whole interview was fundamentally dishonest, as is Hamilton himself in his posturing as a great anti-Nazi crusader in apparently trying to establish a reputation for himself in a very shabby manner.

 

I would like an explanation from your staff and from Chris Laidlaw, who gave a platform for another supposed scholar devoid of scholarship. Why didn’t Mr Laidlaw have the integrity to question Hamilton about his own background and reliability as a scholar?

 

Yours sincerely

 

K R Bolton

 

Dr Hamilton’s ‘Drunken Stupidity’

 

By Dr K R Bolton, FCIS, editor Restoration

 

As documented elsewhere in regard to the illustrious scholar Dr Scott Hamilton, sociologist, Hamilton sent nutcase drunken rants threatening another fellow Trotskyite on the basis of the usual obscure Trot factionalism.

 

When another Leftist exposed Hamilton’s drunken antics, hapless Hamilton protested that it was done along time ago when he was young, drunk and stupid, and on the basis of mere politically-driven rumour. The wording as reprinted from a Leftist website, is pretty threatening and crazed, one could say psychopathic.

 

Hamilton in his ‘defence’ explains that he was ‘very young, stupid, and drunk’. But it seems from the further Leftist responses that Hamilton was in the habit of inflicting his comrades with this type of pathology, and not just confined to a few e-mails to Comrade Logan.

 

So what’s changed? The obscure fringe of Trot. fringe obscurity that Hamilton belongs to apparently is not getting him sufficient public accolades, any more than his narcissistic book of banal poetry. (Indeed, Hamilton’s entry on the often rather useless Wikipedia was deleted for his lack of notability).

 

So Hamilton’s embarked on a very cheap and easy career as an anti-Nazi’ crusader. That’s something everybody can love him for. He can get a lot of media attention and admiration from journalists and academics alike; and embark on a smear-mongering campaign against individuals he portrays as neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and holocaust deniers, using the same methods of rumour and one could say, ‘stupid drunkenness’ as those he used against rival Trots. He’s safe in the knowledge that no academic, journalist or interviewer is going to have the integrity to challenge his smears.

After all Paul Spoonley, another sociologist, made a reputation for himself as an ‘expert’ on a non-existent extreme Right-wing threat, and the inept liar Roel Van Leeuwen of Waikato University (whose lie ridden shabby thesis Hamilton has cited) has attempted the same, albeit with not so happy results, as the Van Leeuwen enquiry now nears a year.

 

So can it be assumed that Dr Scott Hamilton is just a ‘stupid drunk’ when he pulls out his allegations in regard to neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and holocaust deniers and pontificates as a scholarly expert on radio interviews?

 

You be the judge…

 

Hamilton’s lame replies in regard to the expose of his ‘stupid, drunken’ tirades

(From Dave’s Part Leftist website, http://www.davidosler.com/2007/05/heres_a_bit_of_bank.html

You got me Will. A long time ago when I was a very stupid young man I sent two drunken e mails to a bloke in a rival far left group who I was told was a paedophile. There was a campaign of rumours being run against this guy by people in another far left group. It was a pretty shabby operation. No excuses, though - they were shockers. I apologised for the e mails shortly after they were written, and since then I've been involved in a series of campaigns on the left and written tens of thousands of words for the left press here and overseas. I've had no problems with anyone (including Phil, who became a collaborator in the anti-war movement, and who published my work in his journal revolution), about the e mails since I apologised, but for some reason you seem to like digging them up. Fair enough - I did write them. But it would be a shame if you were using them to derail a serious discussion of the only socialist revolution going on in the world today.

Shit. Forgot to add that those rumours against Bill L were false. For their own political reasons, some people took a statement that he made saying he didn't agree with the age of consent and deliberately misconstrued it. There was a leafleting campaign against him and a lot of rumours were circulated. It was all pretty sad and sordid, but I don't even know if the people involved are still active on the far left.
Certainly I haven't heard anything about the issue since 2000.

 

Laugh along with (or at) Scott...

 

And this from a Renaissance Press reader:

 

Hamilton's a far-leftist Trot
Who hates Kerry Bolton a lot
He's made up some claims
And called him some names
But frankly, that's all that he's got

 

 

 

 

 

Fatima, Salazar & The Power of A Contemporary Myth

 

Dr K R Bolton

 

Abstract

This essay examines the role of antithetical systems of belief in Portugal, and how the power of myth started by three peasant children at Fatima had the power to transform that country.

 

‘Myth’ is used in the sense not of the popularly considered ‘lie’, but of a tradition that has formed to define a people, nation or culture, which can have power to change whether for good or ill, regardless of the objective factuality. This essay therefore does not consider the question as to the objective reality of the apparitions of Fatima.

 

Introduction

According to the tradition, in 1916 a being of radiant beauty, with golden hair an cobalt-blue eyes and a body that appeared to be made of light pouring through crystal, identified himself as the Guardian Angel of Portugal. He appeared on three separate occasions to three peasant children: Lucia dos Santos, 9; Francisco Marto, 8; and his sister Jacinta, 6.[1]

 

On May 13, 1917 at high noon in the Covada Iria, where they grazed their families’ sheep, the Blessed Virgin appeared to the three children. She appeared five more times to them, promising that on August 13, 1917, she would ‘work a great miracle visible to everyone, so that all may believe.’[2]

 

Whatever significance one wants to give to this as a religious miracle, it is historical fact that it was a political miracle’ with spiritual/religious implications, for without it Portugal might well have turned Communist, or at the very least suffered an extended Civil War of the type experienced by Spain[3], and the course of history is likely to have been changed in a myriad of possibilities.

 

It is this miracle, by whatever category one wishes to call it, that set the stage for the assumption to authority by Salazar, and the inauguration of the Portuguese ‘New State’ based on Catholic social doctrine, and having influences further afield.[4]

 

The Masonic Revolution of 1910

In order to understand the background surrounding Fatima and the inauguration of the Salazar regime, the role of Freemasonry must be considered. Sine the 18^th Century Freemasonic sects of several types had been fomenting revolutions throughout Europe and Latin America, with the aim of toppling all altars and thrones, and establishing a secular order. France was the first to succumb to such a revolution.[5]

 

Freemasonry and the Church have been in conflict since the founding of Masonry.[6]

 

Socialism was the means by which the Masonic lodges were fomenting revolution. The Church saw in both socialism and capitalism twin materialistic and godless systems, and Catholic social doctrine as explicated in papal encyclicals sought to offer an alternative to both.[7] Under this social doctrine rather than class warfare their would be class cop-operation, usury would be eliminated, and the guilds would be restored as the basis of the social and economic system, which might be seen as the re-sacralisation of work, as it had been seen as a sacred duty in the Medieval period.

 

From this social doctrine several major movements arose, and particularly gained ground during the Great Depression. In particular Distributism[8] formed as movement under the influence of Catholic social doctrine. Corporatism became a  mass movement in many states, as people who wished to retain their faith under the distress of economic conditions, turned to answers other than that of godless socialism.[9][10] Social Credit, the system of banking reform elaborated by Maj. C H Douglas was seen by many Catholics as providing a practical application to the Church’s traditional resistance to usury.[11]

 

Because the Church represented the main obstacle to various secularists, atheists, rationalists, and indeed outright Satanists, Freemasonry and socialism generally worked together against the Catholic states with the strongest faith. France, Italy, Spain and Portugal had been rotted for decades by Masonic propaganda, using humanism, scepticism, and rationalism with the backing of various liberal and leftist movements.[12]

 

As for Portugal, the Masonic character of the revolt against the traditional order in that nation have been remarked upon by the Masons themselves: In a website specialising in Masonic history, W. Bro. Don Falconer approvingly cites a source as stating that, “the work of the Portuguese revolution was due to freemasonry, uniquely an exclusively.”[13]

 

Falconer continues that with the proclamation of the Republic, the first provisional government was led by Teofilo Braga, with Antonio Jose de Almeida as interior Minister, and Alfonso Coasta as Minister of Justice, “all of whom were Masons.”[14]

 

In the Parliament more than half the MPs were Masons, in the Government of 1910-1911 50% of the ministers were Masons, with the same proportion for the subsequent Governments until 1926, according to this definitive Masonic source.[15]

 

With the establishment of what was really a coup by lodges within the military the new government was immediately preoccupied with an anti-religious policy, which was considered of greater priority than the distressed economy. On October 10, five days after the inauguration of the Republic, the Government decreed that all convents, monasteries, and religious orders were to be suppressed. All foreign religious workers were expelled and their goods were confiscated. The Jesuits were forced to forfeit their Portuguese citizenship. Anti-Catholic laws and decrees followed in quick succession. In November decrees were passed suppressing religious instruction in schools and prohibiting the wearing of the cassock. The ringing of church bells and times of worship were restricted. The public celebration of religious feasts was suppressed. These laws culminated in the law of Separation of Church and State, passed on April 20, 1911.

 

Alfonso Costa, the author of these laws, declared: “Thanks to this law of separation, in two generations Catholicism will be completely eliminated in Portugal.” The faithful remained faithful to their Bishops, resulting in the exile of the majority of Bishops and the imprisonment of many priests.[16]

 

Fatima Children Kidnapped

1917 was the year of the undoing of the Masonic revolution.

 

The Fatima visions had been occurring since May with the promise that the miracle foretold for August 13 would convert even the most sceptical. When smears and ridicule could not dissuade the masses of pilgrims who travelled great distances to see the children commune with Mary, the press claimed the priests were deceiving the people in order to extract money. The press urged the local authorities to intervene.

 

The Administrator of the district was Artur de Oliveira Santos, aka The Tinsmith, a Freemason with tyrannical powers which he used to impose restrictions on the Church at whim.[17]

 

On August 10 the fathers of the three children received an order to appear with their children the following day at Vila Nova de Ourem. It was a 9 mile journey and Manuel Marto refused to have his two children appear at court so he went alone. Antonio dos Santos however was determined that his daughter Lucy, answer for herself. The Tinsmith was furious at the absence of Francisco and Jacinta.[18]

 

Lucy recalling here experiences before The Tinsmith, wrote:

“At the Administration office, I was interrogated by the Administrator, in the presence of my father, my uncle, and several other gentlemen who were strangers to me. The Administrator was determined to force me to reveal the Secret and to promise him never again to return to the Cova da Iria. To attain his end, he spared neither promises, nor even threats. Seeing that he was getting nowhere, he dismissed me, protesting however that he would achieve his end, even if this meant that he had to take my life.”[19]

 

On August 12 the great pilgrimage began to arrive at Cova da Iria to await the promised apparition the next day. On the morning of August 13, The Tinsmith arrived at the Marto home to see the children. He persuaded the children’s’ father that he wanted to attend the miracle with them, and together they first went to see the village priest. After being questioned The Tinsmith got the children into his carriage, which at first made for the Cova da Iria, but suddenly turned and hurried din the opposite direction. The Administrator attempted to calm the children by saying they were first going to meet the priest at Ourem. The Administrator took the children to his house, believing that if they were kept from Cova da Iria the Fatima miracle would come to nothing.

 

Here they were locked up and told that they would not be released until they revealed the Secret of Fatima. While well treated by The Tinsmith’s wife the next day they underwent nine interrogations, but they remained steadfast.[20]

 

The Tinsmith did not succeed in breaking down the children’s; testimonies of the apparitions. He called a doctor, aiming to have the children declared to be suffering from hallucinations and hysteria. The doctor’s conclusions were never published, itself obviously significant.[21]

 

The children were then imprisoned in a jail full of criminals. They were interrogated separately and threatened with boiling oil. A cauldron of oil a heated in their presence. A prisoner tried to persuade Jacinto to give in to avoid her fate. She replied that she would rather die.[22]

 

Jacinta was led away first. The Tinsmith returned to tell the other two children that she had been killed. He did the same with the other children, both believing the other had been killed, yet they remained steadfast. On the morning of August 15, after a final interrogation, The Tinsmith gave up, and the three were returned to Fatima.[23]

 

Among the 70,000 who flocked to Fatima were many sceptics, intellectuals and atheists. It had rained all morning, and the Cova became a sea of mud and water, the people soaked and chilled. At precisely the solar noon the dark clouds parted, and where the sun would normally stand was an ‘iridescent ball’ or a ‘silvery disc’ as some descriptions have it. Contemporary accounts, including articles in the sceptics’ press relate that the disc revolved with the prism of the rainbow emanating rays off in succession, and swept down the Cova, colouring both landscape and people. The ‘sun’ stopped awhile then wandered about the sky. The disc suddenly stopped as though to crash to earth, but lingered above the heads of the multitude, causing panic, then returned to it place in the sky and to the normal state of the sun. The hitherto drenched multitude then realised that their clothes had become suddenly dry. [24]

 

However, while the miracle of the sun was promised to return even sceptics to the faith at a time when Masonry and atheism seemed to have the upper had, the apparition of Mary also gave children a message in three parts, the exact and complete contents having remained open to heated dispute. This so-called Third Secret of Fatima[25] is not however what this essay is dealing with.

 

Of the political aspects the children were told that Russia would spread its errors (communism) throughout the world. To prevent the triumph of communism all the bishops of the world were instructed at one time and place to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and all Russia would convert to Catholicism. The world wars and revolutions that did subsequently take place would be prevented. [26]

 

Masons attempt to Destroy Fatima Cult

By 1921 Fatima had become the focus of Catholic revival. The Masonic boast that the Church would be wiped out in two generations had been reversed. The Government sent the army to Fatima to try and deny entry to the Cova da Iria. To provide for the many pilgrims the Bishop of Leira-Fatima authorised a well to be dug. Despite the dry and rocky terrain water sprung up and was said to have curative powers. This increased the power of Fatima, and the determination of the Government to wipe it out.[27]

 

On March 6, 1922 the Capelinha, the little chapel built on the site of the apparitions, was dynamited. Only the walls of the chapel remained, but the statue of Our Lady of Fatima had been removed the night before and had been saved.[28]

 

Those responsible for the demolition had placed explosives at four points of the chapel. A fifth, placed on the trunk of the tree on which the apparition of Mary had appeared, had not exploded.

 

Nobody was arrested for the destruction of the chapel. The parish priest led a protest, after which a Mass was celebrate before 10,00 faithful. Again the Masons had failed to crush the spirit of Fatima.[29]

 

Army Intervention

On May 28, 1926 a coup d’Etat headed by army officers overthrew the 1910 regime. A military regime was established under General Gomes da Costa.

 

The army had intervened to establish order after a regime that had since 1910 seen 45 governments. There had been continual strikes and violet clashes between republicans and monarchists.

 

A Masonic officer, Gen. Carmona, assumed the presidency in 1928. However mass dissatisfaction remained and there was a call for more determined action.

 

In 1931 the Bishops of Portugal consecrated that nation in the name of Mary, on May 13, the anniversary of the apparitions.[30]

 

The ‘miracle’[31] of Fatima rallied 300,000 faithful for the consecration that was to save Portugal from the communist revolutions sweeping Europe. Without this it seems even from a secular viewpoint that Portugal would have succumbed to civil war in the same manner as Spain.

 

The Fatima Network, under the direction of Father Nicholas Gruner, states that the Fatima consecration resulted in a three-fold miracle:

 

1. There was a massive resurgence of the Catholic Faith in a nation for years ruled by Masonic secularism and atheism. The number of the faithful quadrupled over the course of ten years. [32]  In 1942 the bishops of Portugal declared in a collective Pastoral Letter:

"Anybody who would have closed his eyes twenty-five years ago and opened them now would no longer recognize Portugal, so vast is the transformation worked by the modest and invisible factor of the apparition of the Blessed Virgin at Fatima. Really, Our Lady wishes to save Portugal."[33]

2. “There was a miracle of political and social reform, in accordance with Catholic social principles. Shortly after the 1931 Consecration, a Catholic leader in Portugal ascended to power, Antonio Salazar, who inaugurated a Catholic, counter-revolutionary program. He strove to create, as much as possible, a Catholic social order wherein the laws of government and social institutions harmonize with the law of Christ, His Gospel and His Church. A fierce adversary of socialism and liberalism, he was opposed to "everything which diminishes or dissolves the family.”[34]
3. Portugal was spared both communist civil war, then raging in neighbouring Spain, and the ravages of World War II, with Salazar maintaining a neutral policy.[35]

 

Prof. Antonio Salazar was appointed finance Minister in 1928 in a new executive headed by Col. Valente de Freitas. Salazar accepted the appointment on condition that he would have the control of the budgets of all ministries[36]. The success of his policies resulted in Salazar becoming Prime Minister in July 1932[37]. The call of a gifted man to authority, inspired by Catholic social doctrine, parallels that of another gifted scholar, Dollfuss called to Chancellorship of Austria that very year, just two months previously.[38]

 

In 1938 a further consecration took place to Mary in gratitude for having spared Portugal from the civil war that had begun in Spain in 1936. In the 1938 consecration, Cardinal Cerejeira declared:

“Since Our Lady of Fatima appeared in 1917 ... A special blessing of God has descended upon the land of Portugal ... especially if we review the two years which have gone since our vow, one cannot fail to recognize that the invisible hand of God has protected Portugal, sparing it the scourge of war and the leprosy of atheistic communism.”[39]

 

Fatima and Salazar’s ‘New State”

With the role of the Church in education and public morality restored, Cardinal Cerejeira declared in 1940: “Honour and glory to the New State which institutes a new order based on the peace and harmony of the Church and State.”

            A sense of the mystical now pervaded the population where once the Masons, liberals and socialists had pushed their atheism and secularism. Arnaud de Lassus writes of the religious upsurge, alluded to above that,

“- Between 1917 and 1933 the number of seminarists rose from 18 to 201 in the diocese of Portalegre, and in the small diocese of Leiria (in which the seminary had been closed up to 1917) from 0 to 75.

“- From 1933 to 1964 the number of secular priests increased by an average of 25%.

“- Male religious had been expelled by the revolution of 1910; they remained legally forbidden until 1926; in 1934 they counted 370, and had risen to 1321 in 1941. The number of women religious showed a similar upward trend.

“This rise in the number of secular clergy and religious was accompanied by what Cardinal Cerejeira called an "admirable and prodigious renewal of religious life in souls" (in his Pastoral Letter for the Jubilee of the Apparitions in 1942). “[40]

 

Salazar received for his efforts praise and blessings from Pope Pius XII who said:

“I bless him with all my heart, and I cherish the most ardent desire that he may be able to complete successfully his work of national restoration, both spiritual and material.”[41]

 

As for the ‘material work of national restoration’, Salazar like Dollfuss in Austria[42], set about reorganising Portuguese social and economic structures on the basis of Catholic Social Doctrine and the papal encyclicals.[43]

 

In outlining the fundamentals of the ‘New State’ Egerton lists these and expounds upon each one at length[44]:

 

First, truth, the people must be kept fully informed by the state.

 

Second, sacrifice, repudiating the old regime where only rights were recognised and not ‘corresponding duties’.

 

Third, national interests above individualist and selfish interests.  This meant that the nation would not be divided by petty, selfish interests, whether economic or party political; where democracy was a facade  “buttressed by the activities of secret societies which sought to exercise completely uncontrolled dictatorship”, as Salazar is quoted as stating.

 

The fundamental structure of the ‘New State’ was Corporatism, which in English might better be understood as ‘guildism’, as it is important to realise that ‘corporatism’ has nothing in common, is in fact antithetical, to ‘rule by business corporations’.  Dr Thayer Watkins, a professor of economics at San Jose State University provides a succinct definition of ‘corporatism’.

“In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an alternative to socialism which would emphasize social justice without the radical solution of the abolition of private property. The result was called Corporatism. The name had nothing to do with the notion of a business corporation except that both words are derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.

“The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining….”[45]

 

Under the corporative state not only are economic functions based on corporations, but the government itself, local, regional and national. The ‘family household’ in Portugal’s ‘New State’ was the basic unit, which was guaranteed property rights against misfortunate such as foreclosure. The head of the family, whether male or female voted for the membership of the parish councils, from which were drawn local governing bodies in the Corporative Chamber. Legislation passed first through the Corporative Chamber before going before the National Assembly. Article 5 of the Constitution described the Portuguese state as a ‘unitary and corporative republic’. [46]

 

Masonry Under the New State

Communism and hence Bolshevism are the bastard offspring of Masonry. Marx himself was a Lodge member. I have traced direct and tangible connections between Marxism and Masonry in my thesis.[47] Marx’s Lodge was Loge des Philadelphes, the same as that of Blanc, Mazinni and Garibaldi. [48]

 

The role of Masonry in the corruption and subversion of Portugal has been considered in this essay, drawing from Masonic sources that are definitive. That Portugal was spared the anguish that Spain went though I have ascribed to the ‘miracle’ of Fatima, for it should in an objective sense be termed as such considering its focus was that of three peasant children who had such repercussions, whether one believes the apparitions were genuine or not. The mythos shaped the nation and provided the miracle.

 

As in Portugal, it was Masonry in Spain that provided the conspiratorial apparatus for subversion, which broke into a civil war in 1936. Franco’s’ English biographer Brian Crozier refers to the Masonic influence in Spanish subversion. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient in Spain, Martinez Barriom, for e.g. entered the Provisional Government in 1931 as a minister, under a Mason Alenjandro Lerroux.  Minister of education was Marcelino Domingo, Assiatnt Great Master of the Spanish Grand Orient. [49] Fatima directly halted the same subversion from destroying Portugal.

 

In Portugal in 1927 an unsuccessful coup was staged against the new regime. On October 31 1927 the Masonic council issued a communiqué s9gned by Dr Ramon dela Feria putting forward a plan to resist the military regime.[50]

 

On April 16 1929 units of the National Guard and the police captured the headquarters of the Grand Orient, the Gremio Lusitano, detaining all who were present. The documents and archives of the lodge were confiscated. [51]

 

The Council of the Grand Oriente, chaired by Jose da Costa Pina, decreed that all lodges would now be organised into small cells to minimize the extent of infiltration by government agents. One can recognise here immediately the same strategy used by the communists. On the last day of 1929 Gen. Norton de Matos was elected Grand Master of the Portuguese Grand Orient. In his message to the Masons he urged them to carry on the work of subversion against the state. One year later in the Grand Diet of the Grand Oriente Norton de Matos referred to the situation in Portugal as ‘deteriorating’, and appealed for “an untiring fight against the dictatorship and the urgency for an organised combat to prevent a complete and ultimate reactionary victory.”[52]

 

Several lodges seized their activities as the result of the absence of officers and the adverse conditions for Masonry. The period 1931-1935 in particular focused on the ‘New State’s’ fight against the lodges. Lamenting that the effects of individualism and liberalism had been eliminated, the Masonic authority describes the Masonic attitude towards the Catholic state:

 

“From the ethical point of view, Salazar adopted the values and moral concepts of the Catholic tradition, with God, Homeland, Family, Authority, Social Harmony, Hierarchy and Morality as core values, which would be enforced under the absolute authority of his system of government.”[53]

 

It might be noted that while the Masons lamented the inauguration of a state based on traditional values and decry the repression of the lodges, nothing is said of the manner by which Catholics were repressed when the Masons and their allies had the upper hand.

 

On January 19 1935 Jose Cabral introduced into the National Assembly a Bill to prohibit membership of secret associations. Before taking office, all public servants would be obliged to swear an oath that they did not belong to any such association. Freemasonry was prohibited under Law 1901 of March 21 1935.[54]

 

Salazar suffered a stroke in 1968 and was replaced as head of state by Caetano. Salazar died in 1970, and the post-Salazar ‘New State’ endured for only four more years under Caetano before being toppled in a left-wing military coup. At Salazar’s funeral tens of thousands attended giving lie to the media image portraying him as a tyrant.

 

Masonic authorities overtly refer to the part played by Masonry in bringing down Caetano and the ‘New State’. They refer to it being worthy to note that Masons were working in embassies and foreign companies to bring pressure on Portugal. As for ‘harmless’ United Grand Lodge Masonry, which is supposed to be antithetical to the Grand Orient and non-political, the same Masonic sources allude to underground Portuguese lodges continuing to operate ‘under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England’.[55]

 

The ‘New State’ had survived longer than any other such effort to establish a corporate social order based on Catholic doctrine. It is apparent from reliable Masonic sources that Portugal was a focus of subversion by the conspiratorial apparatus of the secret societies that have been functioning since before the French Revolution.[56] Chile played out a similar role, with Allende[57] being a Freemason, who was toppled by the much maligned Pinochet. Given the historical enmity between the Church and Masonry this enmity has often taken on, and also often behind the scenes, dramatic struggles on the world stage, the background of which is commonly barely discernible.

 

---