The Basics of Supranational Politics: NGOs, Superclass Index, Four-Establishment Model and Box Models

BY: Joël van der Reijden | DATE: Sep. 16, 2024. | LAST UPDATE: June 21, 2025.

Contents

"[Congressman] Jan de Wit asked me to answer your question. [Our party] is focused on formal political relations … With your question we enter the extra-parliamentary domain of parapolitics; informal, non-public organizations in which influence-forming is practiced, often by persons in influential government positions and/or from the corporate world who together make political decisions without oversight. ...

"Too little concrete information is available about [Le Cercle and hundreds of] other organizations besides Bilderberg to be used in parliamentary sessions. ... As far as I know, the topic [of Bilderberg] has never been discussed in the past 8.5 years [that I've been here in congress]."

Oct. 11 and 19, 2010 emails to this author from G. van Leemput, a foreign affairs and defense aide to Dutch Socialist Party Senator (1995-1998) and Congressman (1998-2014) Jan de Wit. (photocopy 1) (photocopy 2). Predictably, anno 2024, Van Leemput is an antifa-type / "liberal CIA"-type pro-Palestine Israel basher.

"One-third of modern history is still classified [in national security vaults] ... [An] intelligence officer turned art teacher ... displayed a color slide of an abstract sculpture. The piece was over six feet tall, of metal branches all intertwined... It was, to all appearances, a random column of ugliness. Hardly the model for a book. "Don't look at the sculpture itself," our friend advised. "Look at the holes." Inside the twisted sculpture was an orderly pattern of smooth ovals, arranged in perfect balance, making sense of the whole...

"Known history is like the visible surface of the sculpture, a series of harsh, twisted, seemingly unconnected branches. The hidden parts of history, the covert sides, are more orderly and rational, but can be seen and understood only if you are told where to look. The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing; the hidden motives, secret agendas, classified purposes..."

John Loftus 1, president and key founder of the Mossad-, CIA- and MI6-riddled hard-right Intelligence Summit and Jerusalem Summit, together with controversial Mossad-tied Russian-Jewish oligarch Mikhail Cherney.

Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the U.S. and NATO and is often considered a respectable author. However, nothing is ever as it seems, as is being implied by his own metaphor. Even he himself is not at all who he often pretends to be.

"Yes, no, I see the problem. Those documents are not in the dossier. This is not the [same] dossier you received [in previous years]. No, of course [that's] not [right]! The Court [of Appeals] must share all dossiers. ... That's what the Court says, that they sent it. [Skeptical look:] But yeah... Very strange, yes. ... I never [experience this]! ... That procedure [here] is not normal. It just isn't. ...

"It says [in that file of the lower court session], "We are looking at the laptop"... As we see, [strangely] it does NOT indicate WHAT they saw.... [And] these 5 sentences can never be everything, the most important thing, what you said!"

Partial transcript of a secret audio recording, as copied into a Nov. 19, 2023 email of this author to every party of Dutch congress, three days before the elections. 2 Completely ignored, and also buried by the Dutch media. Scandals ideally don't get exposed unless they serve a left-right globalist purpose.

^^

ISGP models

The "Standard Model" of politics

There are different ways to look at the world when it comes to politics. In western countries we tend to look at the various political parties, the elected heads of state, the ministers and their interactions with parliament and the public.

Then we look at the role of the media, which is supposed to serve a purpose besides entertainment. Its most important function is to act as a fourth pillar to the Trias Politica, a reference to the separation of the law-making (parliament), executive (the sitting national and local governments), and judicial branches in many western governments. The media's primary role are to help act as a guardian to the democratic process. If the government has been corrupted, or outside forces try to influence the democratic process in any unfair way, the idea is that there are always untainted media outlets that can investigate and inform the public about it.

After the internal political makeup of a country has been analyzed, including the fact whether or not it has a free media and fair elections, it is generally time to look at the country's external relations. Every country on the planet maintains political, economic and military relationships with other countries. These relations can be good, bad or anything in between.

Over the course of the 20th century, and especially since the end of World War II, these one-on-one or small-circle relations have increasingly been replaced by international institutes where many countries are represented at the same time. Well known examples of these international institutes include the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, the G7/G8 and the more recent G20 meetings. Specifically on the economic front there are the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD and the World Trade Organization. Through all these organizations countries in the West and around the world try to work out their political, military and economic issues.

Where the "Standard Model" breaks down: anything conspiracy

However, sometimes events happen in Western countries that cannot be explained by this "Standard Model". In fact, to someone who is knowledgable or simply pays attention, anomalies to the "Standard Model" can be spotted in the media and in politics every hour of every day. If pointed out, these "anomalies" are usually ridiculed as (unproven) "conspiracies", or "conspiracy theories".

Conspiracies: political omissions: Rockefeller, Soros, CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral, etc.

When we look at "anomalies" that certainly this author has studied well, it is possible to present quite a long list of these that do not fit in the "Standard Model" of politics. If we want to keep the largest amount of readers (relatively) comfortable, we can single out a "first tier" of conspiracies. These actually are so obvious and well-documented, at least on ISGP, that there really is no need to call them "theories". We can just refer to them as very obvious "conspiracies":

Conspiracies: JFK, 9/11, etc.

Realistically, we could mention many other conspiracies that would take additional studying for people to become comfortable with:

Conspiracies: personally observed

Even this author's personal experiences are set outside the "Standard Model" for politics:

"Conspiracy talk" fully acceptable when it suits the agenda

As explained, the "Standard Model" for politics breaks down at conspiracy. Conveniently, in western society there is a mantra that "conspiracies don't exist". That, of course, is not exactly the truth.

It should be pointed out that "conspiracy talk" isn't always banned in the western media. If a potential conspiracy involves an enemy country, all of a sudden rational, informed speculation along these lines is perfectly acceptable, and often done. Think of how just before the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq disinformation in the media and by the Bush administration had resulted in 72% of Americans falsely believing that Saddam Hussein had been involved in the 9/11 plot. 8 Or think about anything related to Vladimir Putin in Russia:

1. Putin and his KGB being behind the September 1999 Moscow Apartment Bombings, in particular the failed one in the Ryazan district. 9
2. The deaths of Putin opponents, including journalists since the 2000s. 10
3. The deaths of oligarchs 11 and military bloggers 12 opposing the Russian-Ukraine War in 2022-2024.
4. The plane explosion of Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin in 2023. 13
5. The controversial prison death of Alexey Navalny in 2024. 14

In all fairness, it doesn't seem that western media and governments ever had much appetite in exposing any Putin or KGB involvement in the Moscow Apartment Bombings, quite possibly because it would add way too much credibility to conspiracy narratives about events back home if it is ever fully proved. Suspicions have been voiced along these lines since 2000 by elite-tied Putin government defectors as Alexander Litvinenko and his oligarch backer, Boris Berezovsky 15, and have not been ridiculed in western media. Even George Soros, in the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-financed Guardian newspaper, was allowed to strongly hint to a conspiracy with regard to the Moscow Apartment Bombings, the subsequent invasion of Chechnya, and the rise of Putin. 16

Government assassinations carried out by the Putin regime are a much more common subject of debate. It's also something that Russia has been doing for decades. It doesn't really impact western conspiracy theory narratives all that much. If it did, the media would likely continually read how "anti-Semites" and "chemtrail believers" are pushing "ludicrous" "conspiracy theories" about Putin killing his political enemies, with some "unknown party" actually fielding these type of conspiracy disinformers to give credence to these dismissals.

That having been said, western media outlets and politicians do have a tendency to fully expose their controlled opposition roles within society whenever an "alt right", "populist" politician is on the rise. To this author it was eye-opening to witness the behavior of the media and politics when Pim Fortuyn rose to prominence in the Netherlands: they all banded together against him, forming one block.

When Donald Trump rose to the U.S. presidency in the 2015-2017 period, the whole world got to see the extreme bias of essentially the entirety of the media against any anti-immigration (on paper) candidate. Trump only received 5% positive media attention - far, far less than even George W. Bush. 17 What we also got to see is that any anti-Trump conspiracy theory, however non-sensical, would be relentlessly promoted by all media outlets. Throughout the Trump years we continually had to read about conspiracy theories of:

1. the Trump administration colluding with Putin in getting elected 18;
2. Trump being blackmailed by the KGB.

Only towards the end of his first term, did these theories collapse. In case of the first theory, all meetings with Russian officials turned out to be legal and really all not that controversial. The most controversial apparently was a "perfectly legal conversation [Trump's national security advisor Michaell Flynn] had during the presidential transition with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak", the only issue being, "Flynn should not have lied, and why he chose to remains a mystery." 19

The second theory was based on the Christopher Steele report, a 35-page "raw intelligence" compilation that was just a straight, Word document without professional watermarks, logo's, or contact addresses. The whole report sounded like a propaganda hit piece, with the only "sources" being "source A said", "source B said", etc. An excerpt:

"The Russian authorities had been cultivating ... Trump for at least 5 years. Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by ... Putin. Its aim was to sow discord and disunity both within the US itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance...

"Source D, a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow, and who reported, also in June 2016, that this Russian intelligence had been "very helpful". ... According to Source D, where s/he had been present, Trump's (perverted) conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where he knew President and Mrs. Obama (whom he hated) had stayed on one their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras..." 20

It's the silliest of exposes ever. It has zero credibility and only adds smoke, yet its speculation was repeated all over the western media. The fact that it later was at least largely discredited is irrelevant. 21 The report did its damage. It put a little doubt in people's head, and even many years later references would be made to "alleged golden showers" and such.

Making matters even worse, the Steele report soon turned out to be paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign 22, and was "leaked" to "liberal CIA" outlet Buzzfeed by the globalist-involved neocon David Kramer in December 2016. 23 At the time, Kramer was working as an aide to Senator John McCain, who was told about the dossier while attending the elite Halifax International Security Forum in Canada, being informed about the existence of the dossier by former British ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood. 24 McCain is the most globalist- and national security-tied senator, situated high up in ISGP's Superclass Index. Through various NGOs, McCain has ben closely tied to the Rockefeller-Kissinger clique.

In short, if "conspiracy theory", no matter how ridiculous, is convenient to western elites, it always is allowed to spread throughout the media. However, if anything suspicious happens in the West along conspiracy lines, it is systematically ignored, ridiculed, and shut down: "Impossible, conspiracies don't happen." It goes so wildly crazy and desperate that even "respectable" outlets as The Guardian - in this case an outlet funded by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations - have started to refer to the term "globalist" as "anti-Semitic". 25

In that sense, there is not a lot of difference between Russian citizens coming up with every psychotic opinion to avoid criticizing Putin, and westerners wringing themselves in every possible way to avoid "conspiracy thinking" or being perceived as "racist". Ask a Russian in 2022-2024 what he thinks about the Russian "special operation" in Ukraine and about 97% refuse to criticize the invasion. Most answer went:

• "I don't know. I don't understand. Sorry." 26
• "I do not know." 27
• "No comment." 28
• "Some say that it was necessary, and some do not... I'm still neutral." 29
• "I'm not competent enough to talk about this." 30
• "I don't think it's good or bad. I accept it as a fact. As long as it does not concern my family, my relatives, I will adhere to a neutral position." 31
• "What can I say about it? War is never good. ... I'm not a politician. I can't answer that." 32
• "I don't like war. ... The less I know about it, the better I live. I don't worry too much about it." 33
• Irish immigrant: "I'm pretty much against war in general, but I'm not pro one side or the other." 34

The pressure in Russia comes from the government, through the police, the judicial system, the media, social media and search engines. It is the exact same in China. And it is the exact same in the West, where citizens not only are almost guaranteed instant social media and search engine bans, but increasingly also risk a conviction for speaking out against immigration. Whereas in Russia the power appears to be in the hands of a dictator, in the West all governments are controlled by this peculiar supranational globalist group, which essentially operates as a privatized CIA. Why Putin and other non-western world leaders never expose this, is yet another great question.

The "Globalist Model" to replace the "Standard Model"

Clearly the earlier-discussed "Standard Model" for politics isn't enough. Arguably it isn't even suited for teaching at elementary schools, certainly not without any context. It's just too much of a fairytale. A much more accurate, complete model is the "Globalist Model".

This model, in a general sense, by no means is unique to ISGP. From the John Birch Society and the conspiracy Nazis of the Liberty Lobby during the Cold War, to the "alt right" of the 21st century, they all attack "the globalists". There's a caveat though: these groups, which used to be kept out of the mainstream media and on ISGP generally fall under the "conservative CIA" umbrella, have always mixed their "anti-globalism" with heavy duty conspiracy disinformation that ensures they remain "fringe". That disinformation involves anything from "globalism" = "socialism" = "communism" rhetoric, with nationalistic Christian fascism essentially being touted as the only solution; to "chemtrails", Holocaust denial, 9/11 pod and no-plane theories, or shapeshifting lizards. This eternal menace of conspiracy disinformation, and the billions poured into it annually, is discussed in a separate section here, because it is absolutely key for new readers to understand.

Over the course of more than 20 years, ISGP's definitions for its "Globalist Model" have been reached completely independent of this conspiracy disinformation circus. There's some overlap, but also considerable differences, expansions and attention to detail. This is how ISGP defines the "Globalist Movement":

1. Pre-WWII the Morgans and Rockefellers, along with other "robber baron" names as Carnegie and Mellon, were the key players that "the globalist establishment" revolved around - known to insiders as "the Internationalists".


2. After WWII only the Rockefellers remained, their primary power base being an increasingly large network of think tanks, with the strongly overlapping membership of the CFR (1921-), Bilderberg (1954-) and Trilateral Commission (1973-) traditionally at the core. Key allies on "the left" and "the right" have included Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Shultz and, eventually, George Soros.


3. It is a multinational-funded supranational network of think tanks and conferences that always seeks to control - and in practice controls - the media, publishing houses, music labels, Hollywood studios, search engines, politics, activism and any "free speech zone" within individual countries. With "free speech zones" think about forums, news site comment sections, podcasts, or "potentially problematic" community centers surrounding typical "male activity": hard rock music, the military, police, guns, conspiracy, etc.


4. It established and controls the basic supranational structures of the EU, G8, NATO, WTO, and United Nations.


5. It operates much more as a tightly-organized security agency than a mere "business lobby".


6. It has had the long-standing habit of privatizing and "outsourcing" intelligence operations in order to take away controversy: from the pre-WWII "Room" and Walrus Club; to the "liberal CIA" Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and other foundations in the early 1960s 35, to the network of the National Endowment for Democracy network since the early 1980s working with its Republican and Democrat counterparts. And more. Much more.


7. Through media control in each country it controls which political candidates - in at least 3 tiers - the masses can become aware of, and thus, possibly, can vote on. The 3 tiers are: mainstream, semi-mainstream anti-establishment ("liberal CIA" / social democrats in the U.S.), and fully anti-establishment activist and/or conspiracy theorist.


8. It is purposely juggling the masses in each country between "the left" and "the right" through sponsored politicians and pundits in the media, podcast sphere, and social media.


9. It controls all conspiracy (disinformation) outlets.


10. Its policies - from Third World immigration and white guilt, to feminism, to climate change action - have been determined at least half a century before they become "all-encompassing" in the media.


11. It is as forceful and propagandist as it thinks it can get away with, using all media, political and activist avenues it has at its disposal - implementing it as if its a life-or-death struggle, without ever backing down.

"Three Establishment" and "Boxes" models as subsets of the "Globalist Model"

This site has essentially been dedicated to proving this central "Globalist Model". It has several sub-models, such as the:

1. Three or Four Establishment Model
2. Boxes Model for conspiracy and politics.

The first is an analysis of the 2,000 NGOs that ISGP uniquely collected over a period of 20 years and counting. ISGP's "Superclass Index" is based on it as well. You can distinguish two main forces within this elite think tank network:

1. Liberal-globalist
2. Conservative-nationalist

Although the total number of elite networks, at least during the Cold War, included three different, cooperating flavors of conservatism, with the Vatican-Paneuropa Network largely being defunct today:

Liberal-globalist
1. Liberal-globalist
   
   
   Conservative
2. Conservative-nationalist in the U.S.
3. Vatican-Paneuropa Network
4. Zionist

ISGP's Boxes Model looks at the liberal-globalist and conservative-nationalist establishment not just from an elite think tank perspective, but from a 3-tier controlled opposition perspective with a bit of additional horizontal spacing. The model below is focused on the United States, but with minor adaptions it also is surprisingly accurate in European politics, where green, labor and socialist parties (read: "antifa", and maybe "liberal CIA" if such funding sources can be unearthed) are very common:

The "alt right" in particular has been labeled "conservative CIA" by ISGP since 2019.

The controlled-opposition aspect is absolutely key, because the very nature of the "globalist movement" is deception. It operates through layer after layer of misdirection, often in very subtle yet very effective ways.

The Boxes Model for conspiracy theory is a good example: the idea is you either believe the official version of events, or are pressured into following some nutty conspiracy guru. And even if you stand your ground (eventually) and refuse to follow the conspiracy guru, the idea is that you are always forced onto the defense by people around you who *assume* you follow the theories of one of these nutty gurus they've seen on television or on social media. Real world experience of this author: "There are plenty of questions surrounding 9/11." Reply by an obese, female government bureaucrat: "What?! Haha! You believe that there were no planes?!" The Boxes Model article talks about this in more detail.

A less contentious way to quickly demonstrate the daily dose of misdirection from the Globalist Movement might be the oversight from the Boxes Model related to Third World immigration.

As many historical polls reveal, and ethnic crime and ethnic IQ numbers quickly explain, the Third World immigration agenda has always been opposed by 70 to arguably over 90 percent of the white masses, not to mention sometimes half of the immigrant groups already here. If "democracy" represents the bottom-up will of the people that influences the creation of political parties and policies of politicians, then certainly this aspect crushes the idea that westerners live in such a political system. Third World immigration always kept going strong, with politicians and the media - under the rather obvious control of elites surrounding the CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission - increasingly heavily engaging in full blown psychological warfare to keep their own people from rising up. That psywar includes:

1. Very sweeping, no-middle ground "anti-racism / everybody is equal"-laws.
2. The hiding of ethnic crime and IQ numbers.
3. Banning Koran burnings by law when they start to happen.
4. "You do not love" and "whites need to repent for colonialist past" propaganda.
5. Pouring billions into Black Lives Matter and hundreds of "independent", grassroots" pro-immigration protest groups.
6. No talk for decades of a need to up the *white* birth numbers, and never explaining that population growth is driven by Africa in particular.

Despite all that, one would think that especially in Europe, liberal-socialist parties would emerge that ALSO oppose Third World immigration - and do so in a rational, practical and moral manner. However, that has never happened, in any western country. All we get the the "conservative CIA" freakshow involving stigmatizing comments, fascist ideas, neoliberalism, libertarianism, anti-nature measures, global warming denial, Covid deadliness denial and more of that ilk.

This makes zero sense, of course, and is one of many anomalies that we see with the "Standard Model" of politics. Within the "Globalist Model" though, it is perfectly obvious why this is the case, as relentless Third World immigration is the number 1 most important agenda of the "globalist movement".

^^

Naming the Beast

Names of the "Nameless Network", a.k.a. the "globalist movement"

To varying degrees people internationally have heard of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and Davos, generally as groups where "members of the elite" come together. They have been discussed in countless conspiracy media outlets, and, with the exception of Davos, in the mainstream media generally go unmentioned or are discussed in a manner to convey a sense of scorn at anyone taking them seriously. When someone actually studies them, which this author has done over the decades, they will quickly find a huge amount of overlap between funding and partaking multinationals and NGOs, board members, visitors, represented government and multinational positions, and promoted policy.

Question: What is this network called? As a whole?

The answer for most people likely is, "I have no idea." Some people familiar with the subject may go "globalist movement" or "new world order", but those still are far and few in between, especially outside of the United States. The "internationalist movement" actually is its insider name, but even to this author it took over 15 years of study to figure this out. And it is a very seldom-used term.

Maybe let that oddity sink in. Then there are more than a thousand other strongly overlapping think tanks and conferences of this kind that extremely well-known multinationals - from Goldman Sachs and Shell to Danone and Google - and multinational-derived foundations, as well as occasional government agencies, together are pouring at least tens of billions of dollars into annually. We all know the multinationals and the governments, and at least some of the foundations, but not the "something"-conferences and think tanks that they finance together. Nothing formal has been written about this network in anywhere close to a complete sense.

Isn't that an odd situation? So before we talk about the agenda of the "globalist movement", we have to acknowledge that it doesn't exist. At least, not according to our school books, media outlets, and politicians. And what isn't supposed to exist, and therefore has no name, is particularly hard to expose. It truly is a "nameless network" of enormous power and magnitude hanging over the planet, almost totally anonymous.

Despite the secrecy, over the decades various conspiracy authors and disinformers, as well as insiders, have been referring to "the globalists" under various names. Let's analyze these names to see if one of them is suitable for use by ISGP:

1. The Illuminati: Formally refers to the 1776-founded deist secret society that has been gone for centuries. Informally it's not necessarily a bad term to use, certainly not tongue-in-cheek, especially not when emphasizing the enormous power concentrated in the globalist movement. It will remain a confusing term though due to the many decades of abuse of the term by conspiracy disinformers.


2. The "Money Trust": Effectively a reference to the core of the Eastern Establishment at the time of the U.S. Congress' Pujo Committee. Published in 1912, the Pujo Committee's report pointed fingers to the Morgans in particular, but also the Rockefellers and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. of Jacob Schiff and the Warburgs, for having an all-powerful influence over the nation's banking and lending industry. 36


3. The Internationalists: In 1959 Cornelius "Neil" Vanderbilt, Jr. wrote about a group of conspiring pre-World War II guests at his mother's residence as having consisted of "wealthy industrialists [and] internationalists of the royalist persuasion". 37 The meeting quite clearly involved names as Morgan and various other "robber barons" known to be involved in the Pilgrims Society and to have been very close to the British royal family.
   
   In subsequent decades media outlets would occasionally talk about Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers - all Pilgrims Society members before entering office - being criticized by McCarthyite ultraconservatives of being "internationalists and pinks" 38; or about an "internationalist wing of American business" funding the CFR 39 or a ""liberal" internationalistic wing of the CIA ... willing to provide clandestine money to domestic progressive causes" 40 Never is the term "international" used. It always is about a group of mysterious "internationalists" behaving "internationalistic".
   
   Even David Rockefeller referred to himself as an "internationalist". He did so in his 2002 memoirs, while defending himself from accusations of being a "globalist":
   
   
   "[Conspiracy theorists are] characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." 41
   
   When that same year Kofi Annan praised David Rockefeller for his and his family's founding and continued influence within the United Nations, he did so by saying, "Without internationalists like you, the international system that we have been trying to build, the international system that we have today, wouldn't be here." 42 Sir Peter Sutherland, a Bilderberg steering committee member, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and Goldman Sachs chairman, in 2015 also proudly proclaimed, "I am absolutely an internationalist." 43
   
   Clearly "internationalist" for a very long time has been the insider term for "globalist". It's a bit of a mouthful and certainly deceptive, because the elites using the term actually always had supranationalism in mind: structures that control individual governments. Countries streamlining their policies internationally is simply the end result of these people's supranationalist efforts.


4. "The Establishment": A rather unspecific term, which nevertheless in the United States generally has been used to denote the exact same network of "internationalists" and the "Eastern Establishment". In 1961 an article appeared in the News & Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, talking about an "establishment" that "makes its influence felt from the President's Cabinet to the professional life of a young college teacher who wants to obtain a foundation grant for research." 44
   
   In 1962 Edith Kermit Roosevelt, intriguingly a member of the super-"establishment" Theodore Roosevelt family, half of whose members were high level CIA officers, expanded on those words with:
   
   
   "The word "establishment" is a general term for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions largely from the Northeast, who wield most of the power regardless of who is in the White House. ...
   
   "The power of the establishment makes itself felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in almost every area." 45
   
   That same year, in May 1962, journalist Richard Rovere wrote a lengthy Esquire article entitled 'The American Establishment', also referring to this same "establishment". 46


5. The "Eastern Establishment": This term came into use during the 1964 presidential campaign of the ultraconservative Senator Barry Goldwater, operating as the choice of Republicans that "made up for all the years of [the Republican Party] being herded by "the Eastern Establishment"." 47 The term clearly was inspired by descriptions of "the establishment" and "the Northeast establishment" in the years immediately preceding the campaign. The rise of Goldwater, a darling of the ultraright American Security Council, coincided with the Republican Party being pushed to the right, away from (overt) control by "the Eastern Establishment, Wall Street, old-school-tie crowd [of] the Nelson Rockefellers [and] William Scrantons." 48 At the time President Gerald Ford was in the White House in September 1974, with Henry Kissinger as his secretary of state and national security advisor and Nelson Rockefeller coming in as his vice president, Ford actually suggested at a first meeting with a group of economists, "Let's have an Eastern opinion on the state of the economy." The economist he specifically addressed at that point answered back, "Mr. President, my Middle Western credentials are impeccable." 49
   
   In reality, it should be clear that the term "Eastern Establishment" encompasses more than just "Republicans". It certainly features the Rockefellers at its core, but this establishment has always transcended political parties.


6. The liberal establishment: Very much used as a substitute for the Eastern Establishment, with the additional benefit that it isn't limited to America's north-east. You can include the allied West Coast establishment in here traditionally surrounding the Bechtels, Bohemian Grove, Pacific-Union Club, Commonwealth Club, Caltech and Stanford; or liberal elite elements from Europe and around the world. ISGP used this term for almost 20 years. The issue though was that the term "liberal" is very confusing, because conservative elites are just as much part of the "liberal" globalist establishment, certainly with the most crucial globalist points: expanding "free trade" zones and allowing Third World immigrants to come into the West. They often offer some token resistance, but this is not to be taken serious.


7. Permanent establishment: A term used by Henry Kissinger during his July 23, 2001 eulogy of Washington Post owner Katharine Graham, also in reference to "permanent Washington". 50 It's a good term. And considering it's been used by someone as Henry Kissinger, it's also an insightful term.


8. The globalists / globalist movement: The most acceptable and certainly most accurate and descriptive term here. The only drawbacks are that it is easily confused with the general concept of globalism, sounds a bit too benign, and doesn't underscore any security state aspects. It's also used a lot by conspiracy disinformers, but it's hard to get around that.


9. The New World Order / World Order (crowd): The former is an unaccepted term in politics yet very often used by conspiracy theorists, as well as sometimes by "insiders". It came into use by the conservative right due to the term being used by globalist-oriented "leftists", from H.G. Wells in his 1940 socialist pamphlet 'The New World Order', referring to a "world social democracy" opposed by anyone from "maharajas to millionaires"; to Nelson Rockefeller calling for a "new world order" involving cooperation with the Soviet Union and "Red China" during his failed 1968 presidential election campaign. 51 Still later, in the 1990s, politicians as U.S. president George H. W. Bush 52 and think tank insiders as Samuel Huntington 53 started using the term to (again) signify their hopes that Russia and Eastern Europe would join the western system of "democracy" and "free market enterprise". Bush actually made it clear that each time "the political map of the world was transformed ... a new world order came about." He used it in a general sense.
   
   Despite being unaccepted, the term certainly is very accurate if one interprets it as meaning that the globalist movement is always moving towards "the next world order" by always working to militarily, diplomatically and economically rearrange countries and bring them under the control of supranational structures. Henry Kissinger alone certainly made a case for that. Until his death in 2023, he continually lectured about "globalization", "a concept of world order", and the "construction of an international order" in places as Davos. 54 In April 1974 Trilateral Commission member Richard Gardner wrote an article entitled 'The Hard Road to World Order' for the CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine, bashing nationalism and praising how:
   
   
   "Transnational private organizations—not just multinational corporations but international associations of every kind [which are funded by big business and big business-derived "liberal CIA" foundations] in which like-minded persons around the world weave effective patterns of global action."


10. The Superclass: This term comes from the 2008 book 'Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making', written by Kissinger Associates managing director David Rothkopf. ISGP's "Superclass Index" is completely independent from Rothkopf's "Superclass List". ISGP's list strictly deals with the amount of NGOs a person has been involved with during his or her lifetime. Of course, usage of a bit of a grandiose term as "superclass" only is acceptable to this author, because an "insider" so close to Henry Kissinger has done so.


11. The "deep state": As far as is known, this term was first coined by Turkish intelligence describing a nexus between mafia and intelligence. Dr. Peter Dale Scott started using it in the post-9/11 era, after which Trump-supported conservative disinformers of Qanon copied the use of the term, the idea being "Trump against the (globalist) deep state". 55 Despite its abuse, it's a good term, considering "deep cover" is an official and old term of the CIA for spies that have assumed a whole new identity:
    
    
    ""Deep cover" agents, like the bogus businessmen, ... are the nearest thing in the American intelligence community to the [British] secret agent. ... The agent continually presents a fabricated identity to his associates and acquaintances, fending off the ones who attempt to come too close. Even other deep‐cover agents with whom he may work off and on for years are likely to know him only by his “funny,” or cover, name." 56
    
    Apart from the "funny" names, this is exactly what is going on with activists and conspiracy disinformers of the globalist movement as well. The term "deep state" also denotes the secret nature of the globalist conspiracy very well. The author doesn't use this term though, largely due to the disinformative associations. And also because it is not clear to the average person that the "deep state" and "the globalists" actually are closely connected.


12. The "real CIA": Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) and associated socialist publications used this term at the time of Watergate in the 1973-1974 period, explaining how the "real CIA" is vastly bigger than the "bureaucratic CIA" and involves the "Rockefeller-CIA Cabal" of CFR elites, corporations and foundations. While EIR seldom sources its claims, and mixes with with a degree of disinformation, mainly that the world is ruled from Great Britain, its "real CIA" theory is considered as accurate as can be going with the available information. It's clear that EIR too never knew what to call this establishment phenomenon that they witnessed.


13. The Octopus: A term used by journalist Danny Casolaro, who, until his controversial and disputed 1991 suicide 57, was looking into network involving CIA operations, mafia and corporations. A key contact of Casolaro in the weeks before his death was the Yakuza- and mafia-tied CIA agent Robert Booth Nichols, with additional shady CIA contacts appearing in the background. 58

Looking at the existing names, we are likely forced to mainly use the word "globalist" and take some of the negatives that come with it.

Renaming the "Nameless Network"

Over the years, this author has mostly privately played with his own terms as to what to call the globalist movement. None of it is ideal, because the "nameless network" doesn't exist in school books, mainstream media, and politics, and its exact inner workings are not precisely known. We just see endless evidence that "it" exists. Therefore, let's try a few more names:

1. Simply "CIA": It's an easy term to use, but also confusing considering most people purely think of the bureaucratic organization that spies on and fights terrorists. You can't really prove either 99% of the time that "the CIA" is involved in media propaganda and "liberal CIA" or "conservative CIA"-type activists walking the street. At the same time, sometimes you can prove it and in many more cases you can demonstrate that thousands of CIA-type conspiracy disinformers are active in our society. Also, the decades-long core of the globalist movement, Rockefeller and Kissinger, maintained extensive ties to various sitting and retired CIA directors, including controversial ones as Allen Dulles and Richard Helms.
   
   In the end, referring to "globalist" operations as "CIA" is a "best estimate" that the CIA and-or retired CIA officers in groups as the AFIO and the OSS Society at the very least play a key, unofficial role in keeping the core of the globalist movement together. But it remains annoying not to have any certainty.


2. Permanent government: This author has used this term since at least 2011 in the NGO Index, not remembering anymore if it was picked up from somewhere else or if it was self-invented. It's a good term. It makes one think.


3. Globalist Party: The author personally likes to use this term instead of "globalist movement", as in, "The globalist party, which controls all national parties." It sounds less vague than "movement" and it is easier to form a picture in people's heads. It also makes people think: "What? Is that a political party?" No, there is no such political party, but there is such a "party" - an informal group of operatives. It's not an ideal term, but it's good alternative to "globalist movement".


4. Globalist Intelligence Agency (GIA): In its May 11, 2019-published Sun Valley article, the author wrote:
   
   
   "The "Globalist Intelligence Agency" (GIA), a term the author first introduces here to describe the combination of globalist business interests and privatized CIA and other intelligence operations ran through them."
   
   It really is a good, descriptive, fresh and all-in-one term. The author may use it a lot more in the future. "Globalist Intelligence Agency" sounds a lot like "Central Intelligence Agency", similar to how "GIA" and "CIA" sound alike, immediately making it clear that you are dealing with covert, intelligence type group focused on globalism. The only drawback is that, as always, the term still needs explanation. But at least the author can claim it is his own term, no matter how much it might get abused down the line.


5. Globalist Security Agency (GSA) A general drawback of the term "intelligence agency" is that it is a bit of an overly benign description of what most intelligence services do. Once an "intelligence agency" starts doing more than simply "intelligence gathering", such as running agents that spread propaganda, disinformation and engage in psychological warfare, quite quickly the term "security agency" might be more applicable. GSA is slightly slower to pronounce though and strides too far from the known "CIA" name. Therefore it is unlikely to be used by this author. Others may like it more though.


6. Supranational Alliance on Terran (SATAN): For a number reasons, including its extremely manipulative and all-encompassing nature, the author is not opposed at all to informally referring to the globalist movement as "Satan". Out of curiosity, in 2023 he started puzzling if he could come up with a proper, descriptive full name for the acronym "SATAN". Soon the term "Supranational Authority on Terran (SATAN)" was pieced together. "Supernational" is possible as well, of course. Similarly, "Alliance" can have a large number of replacements, depending of which type of activity or theory one wants to emphasize: "Activity", Administration", "Authority", etc. There are a lot of possibilities here.
   
   It's a little corny, but also funny, and possibly more accurate than we'd ever imagine. It certainly is an interesting term from a philosophical and religious point of view.


7. The Cockroach Hive: This term came into my head again and again after dealing with the 100-something lawyers in the Netherlands licensed to file cases at the Superior Court of the Netherlands. As a "suspect", you're literally being held hostage, with no voice. It's just a little backroom dealing between the "superior" "law brothers and sisters". That's already a problem dealing with the Prosecutors' Office, lower judges and spineless, powerless little lawyers that are supposed to oppose them, but only gets worse as you get up the chain. You can't be your own lawyer anymore at the level of the Superior Court and no matter what Superior Court lawyer you hire (I tried 10% of the whole lot, both unknown and big names), they literally refuse to file anything that can lead to no other conclusion than manipulation or wholesale corruption, at least when the facts come out to the outside public. In this manner these lawyers serve as an additional national security buffer between them and Superior Court justices.
   
   The thing is, when you argue with all these lawyers, including many with expensive-sounding names or who have been featured in big media, you quickly realize it's an "emperor without clothes" situation. These people are not intellectually superior - at all. They just have some protocol knowledge and for the rest deny, twist, lie, and manipulate - all to curry favor with judges and prosecutors, and protect their careers in that manner. I very quickly went: "These people are insects. There's literally nothing "elite" or "prestigious" about them. They're just giant cockroaches that crawl into your house, refuse to leave, and continue to shit on your head until there's nothing left to feed on." Looking at "elites" like these as lying, slobbering insects or cockroaches might be a much healthier and accurate perspective than actually calling them "elites". Certainly judicial people, and likely all politicians, don't deserve this title. They're a creepy, crawling, slobering, lying insect hive. But as long as they stick together, they are an almost insurmountable force.

The author likely will use all of these terms interchangeably at one time or another, until maybe, some day, a consensus is reached as to what to call the "globalist movement".

^^

Understanding the Beast's vastness

History of ISGP's NGO and Superclass Index: figuring out who knows who

In the previous section we explained the term Supranational Alliance on Terran (SATAN), how it somewhat playfully denotes the extremely manipulative and all-encompassing vastness of the globalist movement. This is not an exaggeration. Studying the globalist movement in an in-depth manner will continually blow your mind, and make you feel like you're staring into Satan's machinations on Earth. It is important for people to get a sense of that vastness, so they get used to "impossible" being daily reality.

One way to quickly get a sense of just how giant and all-pervasive the globalist movement is, without resorting to any kind of "conspiracy theories", is just to look at ISGP's Index of 2,000 NGOs. This is not something that has been created before, especially not when looking at the Superclass Index derived from it. Various websites have run a Wikipedia-style investigation of NGOs. These are mostly great efforts with a slightly different focus. In the end none collected as many NGOs on one site, and certainly not in one oversight, as ISGP. They may copy and catch up with ISGP, similar to how Wikipedia gets more extensive as time goes by, but the inconvenient fact for political scholars and elites around the world is that only one person was first in this regard: this person.

This focus on NGOs and the persons involved in them did not come about as mere happenstance. From the beginning of writing ISGP articles, there's a non-stop lack of "who-knows-who" information. And most of the time you can't know, unless a newspaper or biography happened to mention:

• who played cards with who on Sundays;
• who was regularly golfing with who;
• who explicitly considered who a "friend";
• which couples regularly went dancing together at the local club;
• etc.

You simply can't get this information on even a remotely regular basis. Two leading members of the superclass could socially meet each other hundreds of times over a period of years, and the chances of it ever being captured in a public source still is relatively small. And in order to find it, you'd have to read every article and every biography, including of all suspected friends. It's not practical to work in this manner. Ideally you'd call up each and every CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission member and ask them to provide you with a list of people they consider friends and close associates, and during which time frame. From there you'd put all this information together into a coherent, complete history. This has never been done though, and likely too many people have died by now to give a complete view. So, once again, you simply don't know what has been discussed in the backrooms throughout history.

So how do we remedy this? Well, already from 2005 this author had been gathering the names of globalist and national security NGOs, in addition to compiling thousands of biographies for members of such clubs and groups as the Pilgrims Society, 1001 Club and Le Cercle Pinay. In that sense, in early 2013 it was a natural evolution to list the historic members, directors, trustees and visitors for each of the groups gathered - despite not yet identifying each person as such yet. From there, after seeing so many of the same names again and again, it quickly became a natural process to compile an index of names revealing who the most important persons within this NGO network were, and are. Below is the earliest incarnation of the Superclass Index as far as could be found in web.archive.org. It dates back to April 2013:

By October 2024 this Superclass Index had evolved into what can be seen below. The individuals near the top in the original Superclass Index still are the same. The main difference is that they have been linked to three times more NGOs, and sometimes even more:

This project, of course, still leaves innumerable holes in history. But it also fills countless other ones. At the very least this process very clearly demonstrates who the persons are that people need to pay attention to in order to understand the West's supranational, globalist politics. In reveals the "persons behind the curtain" in a pretty conclusive manner.

Sure, we already knew about all the finger-pointing over the decades to David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Nothing much changed here, except confirming the influence of these individuals once and for all.

But by expanding the NGOs and the names over the years, and adding ever more precise details - positions, time periods, funders, sources, etc. - it allows us to figure out with great certainty who all the closest allies of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger were. Not because we know who played cards with who or Sunday, but because we can quickly see how many important think tank, conference, and social club membership lists and boards are shared. All of a sudden we know that for 15 years person X and Y annually met each other at two company board annual meetings, one annual foundation board meeting, and shared board membership in 6 other globalist think tanks and conferences - which isn't all that uncommon among the friends of Kissinger and Rockefeller.

Read a few speeches on top of that related to the group in question, and all of sudden we *can* get a pretty good sense of "backroom" politics - because now we know who the key players are, where they met, and what their shared objectives are.

As said, it's far from a complete picture, but having the NGO Index and Superclass Index around is an infinitely more convenient situation than at any time before.

To test this system for his- or herself, and get a feel for the incredible power and close-knit nature of the globalist movement: what the reader can do is pick a ranking name from the Superclass Index and search the same NGO page for it. Just keep clicking through all the name entries at the various NGOs. Henry Kissinger would be a perfect example. It won't take long before you go, "Holy s***, what are all these institutes?" Next you find just how small of a group of people keep popping up in so many mainly big business-funded think tanks and conferences - most of whom no ordinary person ever has never heard of.

Manually collecting these institutes over 20+ years continually resulted in this sense of amazement and disbelief. By 2016 I figured that I had found most of the NGOs, certainly the more important think tanks and conferences, and went on to focus on other aspects of ISGP. At that point about 1,500 NGOs were listed.

From early 2020 a person greatly intrigued by the work done until that point, sent this author series of emails eventually with over 400 more NGOs that either had been missed or set up since 2016. Important they all are - as each provides us with a piece of the globalist puzzle - but among the more noteworthy groups were:

1. 1995: Fortune Global Forum
2. 1997: China Development Forum
3. 2004: Yalta European Strategy
4. 2013: Clements Center for National Security


5. 2016: Schwarzman Scholars
6. 2017: Justice for Kurds
7. 2018: Bloomberg Global Business Forum
8. 2018: Bloomberg New Economy Forum

In between this avalanche of mainly second tier, yet extremely important globalist NGOs research-wise, this author would mainly focus on writing various articles. At one point, to make sense of what happened in the run up to World War II, it turned out that Nazi Germany needed to be investigated in "NGO manner", resulting in about 80 big business-funded NGOs being listed from this era. Despite the thousands of books written about World War II, nobody appears to investigated the event around these lines either - quite obvious by looking at all the holes in known membership and discussions that took place in them.

On occasion, important, more modern NGOs continued to be discovered by this author as well. These included:

1. 1977: Alliance to Save Energy
2. 1977: Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaty, Inc.
3. 1990s: Shadow G7 / Shadow G8
4. 2008: Munk Debates in Canada
5. 2008: B20: Business 20 Advisory Group to the G20
6. 2018: "China-US Financial Roundtable"

The first two NGO weren't found until 2023. One looks at names there as Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Laurance Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and scores of additional Bilderberg members, and all you can do is shake your head in disbelief that you didn't know about them before.

Just as shocking was the Shadow G7 / Shadow G8. This group wasn't found until January 2024, and as always "by accident". Somehow I ran into it after learning that Argentina's then-new president Javier Milena, supposedly an "anti-globalist" "alt right" politician, not only used to visit Davos, but also was part of a group called "B20", involving a number of major globalists from ISGP's Superclass Index. Somehow from there the trail led to the Shadow G7 / Shadow G8, a very influential secret advisory body to the regular G7 / G8 that involved Henry Kissinger and scores of leading Bilderberg veterans.

When these discoveries are made, it's just mindblowing. How did I not find these groups while doing this research into the exact same group of persons for 20 years? While having compiled extensive biographies on these persons, always expanding them with each new find?

The fact is that even Google search hasn't been perfect over the decades. Typing in 'Kissinger Rockefeller "board of trustees"', or something along these lines, absolutely did not mean you were going to find every single "board of trustees" with a shared Rockefeller and Kissinger presence - even though a page ultimately turns out to contains those exact phrases and names. It should have given those results, but it never fully worked that way.

In the end, there is this continuous sense of awe - of literally unearthing Satan's gigantic network of manipulation on Earth. The questions that you keep asking are:

1. How many more top think tanks and NGOS could a few dozen people at most be responsible for founding and running?


2. How do they have time to set up and visit so many NGOs?


3. How much money are these multinationals pouring in? Because their names are everywhere as donors. Together it appears to be many billions a year.


4. How much more money could employees be paid if all the NGO money of multinationals would be paid to employees?


5. What kind of different reality do big business executives and top-level former politicians live in compared to the average person unaware of this network?


6. What force keeps these multinationals so unified? Looking how ISGP has been targeted from the beginning by disinformers and infiltrants, the CIA is a major suspect, as it seems reasonable to assume that any company at the globalist level is not allowed to dissent from its principles.


7. How could even I have still missed so many NGOs in 2016?

Another question would be: what are the hundreds of thousands of political scientists streaming off our universities have been doing for tall these years? Why does no one dissent?

Even if one simply focuses on what past heads of state have been doing, you'd imagine that some researchers at some point would have discovered NGOs as the InterAction Council (1983-), the Club of Madrid (2001-), and Collegium International (2002-), all loaded with former heads of state, and start asking questions from there. But nothing. Soros filling his International Crisis Group board with former heads of state and especially past foreign ministers? Decade after decade? Nothing. Crickets. There are so many more avenues than the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral and Davos to discover the globalist movement, but no "scholar" or "journalist" bites and digs in.

The menace of conspiracy disinformation

We mentioned conspiracy disinformation here on a number of occasions. This aspect is extremely important, not just to become aware of how easy it is for "truth seekers" to be send off into a thousand different dead ends for the rest of their lives. But also to demonstrate there clearly is a powerful, hidden force behind the coordination of conspiracy disinformation - to the point it defies a person's capacity to comprehend the existence of such a covert power. We see that same hidden power behind the creation of the planet's multifaceted NGO network - which we just discussed. You can see it - finally, here, on this site - but you just cannot believe it.

The fact remains though that certain conspiracies people really should have no fear of speaking out about, even though the "powers that be" make this as uncomfortable as possible. You simply cannot get around them if you want to discuss political history in a proper, full sense. What should people be talking about? Well, the following:

1. Rockefeller
2. CFR
3. Bilderberg
4. Trilateral Commission
5. Other "globalist" NGOs
6. The "globalist movement"
7. CIA coups
8. Big business CIA coups
9. Race and crime
10. Race and IQ
11. Anti-immigration polls
12. George Soros
13. "Liberal CIA" and antifa
14. "Conservative CIA"
15. Controlled opposition in politics
16. Conspiracy disinformation
17. Big business Nazi-funding
18. 9/11
19. The JFK assassination
20. United Nations

Everything has a time and a place, but these are all very genuine conspiracies that need light shined onto them. At the same time, it is important to denounce conspiracy disinformation. The following are key examples of that:

1. Holocaust denial or "revisionism".
2. Anti-vaccine propaganda
3. Ancient aliens
4. Alien abductions
5. The Anunnaki
6. Planet X and Nibiru
7. Atlantis
8. Great Pyramid 10,000 years old
9. Chemtrails
10. Fake moon landings
11. Flat earth
12. 9/11 no-plane theories
13. 9/11 basement bombs
14. 9/11 pod theories
15. Modern Illuminati
16. "Illumninati bloodlines"
17. Most ritual child abuse
18. More than 2 shooters with JFK
19. A second shooter with RFK

ISGP has a whole page dedicated to genuine and fake conspiracy theory, where more details can be found. The point here is that conspiracy disinformation is one of the biggest problems of our era. Looking at America's "right" in this regard, this has been going since at least the pro-Nazi Liberty Lobby and Christian right John Birch Society. The Liberty Lobby would embrace Holocaust denial, and together with the John Birch Society would equate the "liberal Eastern Establishment" and "socialism" with "communism". They would also never dig overly deep into the globalist movement, as evidenced, for example, by John Birch Society author Gary Allen never writing more than one sentence about the Pilgrims Society.

However, despite all their little distractions and superficialities, both groups did consistently point fingers at the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission. Even pointing fingers to its great enemy, the (Rockefeller-founded) United Nations, is useful, considering decades later more and more people are discovering that this is the biggest antifa institute on the planet, with way too much support for anything from Fidel Castro to Iran's Ayatollahs and Palestinian terrorist groups. Hence, if you were able to ignore mind-numbing discussions between Liberty Lobby and John Birch Society veterans as, "Is the "New World Order" controlled by "the Jews" or "the communist globalists?", you could actually learn something about the West's supranational structures.

Contrast that to social media networks of the 2020s: theories surrounding chemtrails, flat earth, alien vehicle crashes, ancient aliens, and "alien lasers caused the 2023 Maui fires" dominate the conspiracy sections of various platforms, with some videos having tens of millions of views. Covid "hoax", "gender wars" and Third World immigration-type videos are even more prominent. Discussions on the Rockefeller influence, CFR, Trilateral Commission, etc. has been pushed to the background by all of it. Meanwhile, the work of this author has been buried into the deepest abyss by Google and social media.

Quite a bit of today's conspiracy disinformation originates from a network of alternative little think tanks, the only prestigious one being SRI, where Uri Geller was "tested" and the infamous Project Stargate remote viewing project took place. The network:

• Edgar Cayce Foundation: 1931-.
• Stanford Research Institute / SRI: 1946-.
• Round Table Foundation: 1948-1958.
• Foundation / Institute for the Study of Consciousness: 1952-.
• Esalen Institute: 1962-.
• Institute for Noetic Sciences: 1973-

Quite a few people active at these institutes would end up on the 1988-founded Art Bell / Coast to Coast AM new age conspiracy disinformation radio show, which at its peak in 1997 was syndicated on over 500 radio stations and claimed up to 15 million listeners nightly. George Noory became the dominant host of Coast to Coast AM in 2003 and brought a distinct John Birch Society conviction with him with regard to conspiracy. In 2004 Alex Jones - a John Bircher supplemented with modern conspiracy theorizing - first appeared on Coast to Coast AM, together with the first set of 9/11 no-planers. At that point the show quickly became a Who's Who of "everything you need to know in conspiracy theory" - all of it disinformation, of course. Apart from a number of Liberty Lobby-type authors that were more welcome at the pro-Nazi Rense.com conspiracy site or even at the Alex Jones Show, almost every significant alien, ancient alien, new age and other conspiracy disinformation pusher has appeared on Coast to Coast AM at one point or another.

The persons and theories that could predominantly be heard on Coast to Coast AM, quickly spread to all corners of the emerging internet: thousands of third rate conspiracy sites, forums and comment sections on news websites, followed by YouTube, including its comment sections; podcasts and social media. Even the History Channel with its Ancient Aliens series heavily borrowed from "experts" listed in the guest archives of Coast to Coast AM.

Of course, over time the old "experts" got old and died off and were replaced with a new generation, generally copying all the same theories and adding a little twist of their own. Once you have researched all the "original" conspiracy theorists and new age gurus though, there really is no express need anymore to keep doing that with the newer generations - because you know what is nonsense, you know what "alternative experts" have systematically been lying about it before, and hence the same government agencies and elite interests can be assumed to be behind it this time around it as well. The conclusion of ISGP's 'Psychedelics & Elitism' article gives a list of elite ties to all the famous psychedelics gurus. They range from the CIA to classic Eastern Establishment names as the Rockefellers and Mellons.

At the same time conspiracy disinformation would be generated from every new controversial event, right from the moment it happens. A perfect example is the 2023 Maui fire in Hawaii. Search for footage on TikTok at the time, and half the suggested videos talked about some kind of conspiracy. Half of those blamed "the elite" for purposely having set the stage. The other half blamed alien space lasers. That's not a joke. A solid quarter of all the videos this author was fed talked about alien space lasers having caused the fire.

Another good example is the ever-present "second shooter" theory. This was, and still is, a legitimate question with the 1963 JFK assassination, but since then has always been tossed in with any other controversial shooting. It was illegitimately done so with the 1968 RFK shooting, with the 2002 Pim Fortuyn shooting, and also in such events as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. In that last case, in the hours after the shooting Alex Jones already was pointing to a flickering hotel light, claiming that it was proof of a second shooter.

Conspiracy disinformation is a key weapon of the "powers that be", as it greatly muddles discussions, enforces artificially-created stereotypes regarding "conspiracy theorists", and serves as fuel to ridicule, bully and confuse anyone speaking out in favor of a conspiracy. Last but not least: it's the ultimate tool for censorship. Human- and now (secretly) AI-driven bots are generating too much fake news? Well, that's fine. Now the other hand of the globalist movement can "expose the problem" with the aid of "fact checking sites" such as Defeat Disinfo and the Soros-funded Global Disinformation Index, leading to Bilderberg and Trilateral company Google having the perfect excuse to manually start directing its billion+ users toward more "authoritative news sites" - operated by their Bilderberg and Trilateral friends. It censors and gets rid of the ad revenue competition at the same time.

So yes, the moral of the story is: be careful with what you believe, because the fact is that outside of ISGP 99% of conspiracy talk is carefully crafted disinformation. While it may sound absolutely bonkers, among the thousands and thousands of conspiracy pushers on the internet, television, and in books, this author essentially has never identified a genuine conspiracy (theory) pusher. Alternately, just about every conspiracy (disinformation) website or author in past and present has ignored ISGP as hard the mainstream media. Censorship has become extremely prevalent on the internet in particular, but it hardly makes a difference, apart from ISGP being censored, because everything "out there" already was mixed with disinformation.

^^

The globalist agenda

The main agenda: a multinational-controlled "global marketplace" with global government

Considering it doesn't have a formal name and is not supposed to exist, we have to "reverse-engineer" the agenda of the globalist movement. In a way the goal is simple and straight-forward: a multinational-controlled global government, starting with a global market place in which multinationals can buy and sell goods around the world without interference of national governments and the people. As already in 1967 George Ball, the most frequent Bilderberg visitor between 1954 and 1993, even more frequently than David Rockefeller, complained:

"The multinational corporation is ahead of, and in conflict with existing political organizations represented by the nation states." 59

A decade later Walter Wriston was among those expanding on this claim of George Ball. A chair and CEO of Citicorp from 1967 to 1984, a Bilderberg visitor in 1962, 1964 and 1988, and a director of the CFR from 1981-1987 under David Rockefeller, Wriston said:

"A multinational corporation, no matter how large, is essentially helpless in the hands of a nation-state, no matter how small. ... Politicians have been engaged in fragmenting the world, while the multinational corporations have been viewing the planet as one marketplace." 60

In 2001, former defense and finance minister Dennis Healey, a co-founder, 39-year visitor and steering committee member of Bilderberg, acknowledged:

"To say we were striving for a one-world government [at Bilderberg] is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. ... We felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing." 61

"Exaggerated"? Purely because the technology wasn't there yet. Broadband internet had been introduced for about 3 years at that point, with many people not even knowing yet what Google was. "Felt"? The Group of Seven (G7) was founded in 1975 on the advice of Trilateral Commission founders as Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, most of them big business Bilderberg veterans. At least, that's what Brzezinski proudly claimed back in 1989. 62

By the late 1990s Henry Kissinger, the ultimate CFR, Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission insider, was working through the "Shadow G7" / "Shadow G8", to push for a wider G20 group. The G20, in turn, at Davos, founded by Kissinger protege Klaus Schwab, subsequently was pushed as "a harbinger of global governance" 63, with many other references at Davos being made to "global government" since at least the 1990s. Here is one example from 1999:

"[Dutch prime minister] Wim Kok has been named prime minister of the world government ... by the magazine Worldlink [of] the World Economic Forum." 64

Here is another from 2020. It involves the founding mission statement of the Globe Project, with long-time Davos participants Pascal Lamy and Aleksander Kwasniewski on the founding advisory board, as well as former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, a trustee of Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation and a close ally of Henry Kissinger and George Soros in the NGO network:

"The Globe Project['s report] “Global Governance and the European Union: Future Trends and Scenarios (GLOBE)”, addresses the strategic priorities identified in the EU Global Strategy ... to identify the major roadblocks to effective and coherent global governance by multiple stakeholders in a multipolar world." 65

In other words, the "theory" that the multinational-funded globalist movement for decades has been obsessively engaged in the creation of "global government" shouldn't be controversial at all.

Control the media, control the national debate, control the country

If an elite is looking to control a country, it's crucial to control the national debate. The globalist movement does so by always controlling the media, as can probably easiest be demonstrated by looking at the American media's ties to the CFR. If one recruits or buys up all media and publishing houses, it becomes possible to control who can effectively run local and national election campaigns, or which protest groups can gain publicity, or even are viable from the start. In this manner you always end up with reliable allies in the senior positions of government, and their opposition, both in parliament, the media and out in the streets. Some of these people openly are allied to elite interests. Others are operating in a deep cover or semi-deep cover function. This type of variety is crucial to simulate democracy.

In order to keep this system credible, you have to simulate democratic debate. The last thing you want is ordinary citizens in an organic manner creating the main topics of the national debate. Before you know it, they form an anti-globalist or anti-Third World immigration lobby or fighting force that is too powerful to overcome by the trillions of dollars of multinational assets. They might just vote in a communist, or physically overthrow and burn down multinationals. This has to be prevented at all costs by the powers-that-be, so they resort to manually creating a "grassroots" "national debate" that suits their needs. That's where all the NGO-funded "liberal CIA" and more deep cover antifa activists come in, as well as the much smaller, set-up-to-lose "conservative CIA" opposition. It doesn't matter whether it's one feminist activist holding up a sign, or 50,000 useful idiots walking along with a small group of core organizers that maintain the key agenda points: it's only these artificially-created, extremist political boxes who are allowed to receive media attention. Because that's how democracy is simulated and control can be kept over the national debate.

Similarly, Instagram and even more so TikTok, heavily force "liberal CIA" - pro-Third World immigration, LGBTQ, extremist feminism - and conspiracy disinformation content. Meanwhile, search engines as Google, which also controls YouTube; Bing, Yahoo, and the so-called "independent" DuckDuckGo, whose creator is tied in with Bilderberg company executives and arguably the intelligence services as well 66, all increasingly have started resorting to ever stricter censorship. These are all companies tied in with the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission and Davos.

Heavy-duty and very secretive search engine control was implemented by Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission company Google from at least 2015, with regard to ISGP, and from April 2017 on a wider scale as part of openly acknowledged agenda to manually boost "authoritative" websites. 67 By the early 2020s, anything "conservative" - a.k.a. "conservative CIA" - essentially was removed from its indirect search results. In order to find a news site as Breitbart, a user had to actually type in "Breitbart" with every search query. "Free speech zones" as conspiracy sites and forums, despite being dominated by disinformation, all were "deranked", a.k.a. "downranked".

At the Google-owned YouTube, forever ISGP content would be secretly "deranked". This already was an issue back around 2012. By the mid 2020s, YouTube had implemented all kinds of peculiar algorithm edits:

1. Forcefully boosting "fawning" comments.
2. AI ghosting of anti-immigration content.
3. Downranking of all conservative content, similar to Google.
4. Banning tons of conservative content.
5. Making it impossible to find anything but mainstream / "authoritative" channels when it comes to all political content.
6. Continuing to give the right to channels to remove any comment they deem undesirable, resulting in extremely polarized and propagandist replies.
7. Ever stricter demonetization rules to enforce political correctness.

Certainly by 2023, it was raining complaints on YouTube that censorship was getting out of hand. But nothing gets done about until riots break out in the street.

There are more examples of "crowd control" under the globalist umbrella:

• The globalist and "liberal CIA"-tied Wikipedia is mainly edited by a core network of admins, with any kind of controversial edits generally being impossible or quickly undone.


• Political forums are always infiltrated and destroyed by national security trolls, both extreme conspiracy disinformers as well as "rent-a-skeptics".


• Art Bell / Coast to Coast AM, the pro-Nazi Rense radio show, the Alex Jones Show, and countless other podcasts all feature an endless stream of largely overlapping conspiracy disinformers who can only be "deep cover" intelligence cooperatives. It's the same with all prominent and less prominent 9/11 "Truth" researchers, virtually all of them happen to be 9/11 no-planers

All globalist sub-agendas:

The average reader can probably already guess a lot of the artificially-created "democratic" debates, but important to note here is that it is easy to prove that the following debates are artificially created, because billions annually are flowing into "liberal CIA" activist groups to promote them in a tightly organized and systematic manner. These points literally are a "package" that is being pushed onto the masses, with the much smaller "conservative CIA" groups equally dogmatically and disingenuously opposing them. This type of activism only keeps its legitimacy due to the mainstream media, and also most of any alternative media, refusing to expose the sources of funding and coordination for these groups.

The sub-agendas of the globalist movement are:

1. Creating a "global marketplace" by removing all trade barriers.
2. Limitless Third World immigration.
3. Anti-Israel and pro-Palestine/Hamas activism
4. Pro-extremist feminism
5. Pro-LGBTQ
6. Anti-global warming measures
7. Veganism

^A "global marketplace"

Reason(s):

1. It allows multinationals as a whole to continually expand, drive up their stock prices and profit, with limitless cheap labor and other resources available.
2. Also implemented so that multinationals can expand their political influence across the globe. Gain a major corporate foothold in the country and you can start lobbying, buy up media, and even fund your own activists.
3. It appears social well-being and the maintaining of functioning, white, first world neighborhoods and families are sacrificed in the process, because white people are too unified, too intellectual, and have too many labor demands.

Methods:

1. The EU, WTO and NAFTA are examples of such trade agreements.
2. The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) is an example that fell through in 2005, despite support from David Rockefeller, the CFR and the Bush government.
3. The "free market" restructuring of East European economies, as well as others around the world.
4. Expressing desires that the EU should expand to Africa and the Middle East.
5. Individual examples of the "global marketplace" include leading Dutch energy company Eneco being bought by Japan's Mitsubishi, a long-time Trilateral Commission company; or Saudi government business officials, through Davos, negotiating to invest in Brazilian mining.

3rd World immigration

Reason(s):

1. Cheap labor, or, put differently, keeping wages as competitive as possible with neighboring and Third Wold countries.
2. It eventually will allow Europe to be "integrated" into a "free market" zone with the Middle East and Africa, while North America will be "integrated" into Latin America.
3. Other motives can include breaking the unity of labor forces, breaking the unity of citizens as a whole to prevent (non-elite funded, "authorized") protests, riots and patriot-style wars of insurrection; and increasing the corporate surveillance state to counter the roughly 10 times increase in heavy crime, fraud, and threat of terrorism. In this last case think of the banning of paper currency and banks having the authority to monitor every transaction and shut down any account.

Methods:

1. An agenda that continues at the very least until whites are powerless minorities in the West.
2. Hide the vastly higher ethnic crime numbers and considerably lower ethnic IQ numbers for Third World immigrants.
3. Hide polls demonstrating massive opposition to Third World immigration. Also manipulate these polls by not mentioning and separating the immigrant quota, or using other tricks such as excluding 65-plussers while including 16-year-olds.
4. In order to make white people docile and Third World immigrants feel "empowered", introduce the "white guilt" agenda by non-stop attacking white people of:
   1. colonialist guilt;
   2. "racism";
   3. having a lack of "love";
   4. being "fearful";
   5. Etc.
5. Replace as many talking heads on television with Third World immigrants, with the idea that people, over the decades, will become desensitized to it.
6. Enforce ever more extreme racial quotas for Hollywood and miniseries productions, in order to get them produced in the first place.
7. Chastise stars from older, famous miniseries for having been part of miniseries or movies with "mostly white males" or "mostly white" people. 68
8. In general, use all media outlets to continually "police" the entirety of the population on "racism".
9. Rewrite schoolbooks to brainwash children with "Black Lives Matter", "taking the knee", and "colonialist guilt" propaganda 69, while hiding all negative consequences of Third World immigration.
10. Stimulate that it is okay for Third World immigrants to be racist against white people, by "hilariously" calling them "potatoes", "cheeseheads" and "milk bottles" - because this "isn't racist", considering white people consume potatoes, cheese and milk.
11. To "empower" Third World immigrants even more while keeping white people docile, fund and promote groups as Black Lives Matter, with it being completely normal to turn black criminals into heroes and martyrs.
12. Promote interracial sex through social media with secret race-mixing algorithms and through the media with selective fotoshoots and stories, which especially seems to work on women since the TikTok era.
13. Break the police forces' "whiteness" 70, despite Third World immigrants having vastly higher crime numbers and no loyalty to the country.
14. "Police the police" on "racism", firing and prosecuting any agents who publicly criticize immigration. 71 Shut down all private discussion groups of police officers where racist remarks are made, and threaten them with 6 months prison and 5,000 euro fines (probation) if they ever voice discontent about Third World immigrant colleagues again. 72 Investigate and prosecute all agents who use "too much" force trying to subdue extremely obstructive and abusive Third World immigrants. 73
15. On public forums as Reddit, only censor white people from criticizing other races, with the argument that "the rule on hate ... does not protect groups of people who are in the majority [i.e., white people]." 74
16. Use AI algorithms to ghost any and all comments critical of Third World immigration, which Google's YouTube has been doing since about 2019.
17. Pre-screen the comment sections of news media to prevent any anti-immigration criticism from becoming visible, as has been done since at least the early 2020s on Nu.nl, Holland's biggest news site.
18. Aggressively prosecute any white person using racial jokes to criticize black or Arab propagandists in the media or on social media. 75 Don't prosecute the other way around, apart from the fact that it is nonsensical to refer to white people as "rats", "monkeys", or "primitives".
19. Prosecute anyone making any racist (or "homophobic") slurs in the media, with a fine of up to a million dollars. 76
20. Possibly in the future use black and Arab-dominated police units to run concentration and death camps for white dissidents - because white people are less likely to follow orders to torture and kill their own people.

Pro-Palestine

Reason(s):

1. It is hard to come up with any other reason than to enslave and get rid of the Jewish race, because living peacefully with the Palestinians has never worked. Multiple Arab invasions of Israel, starting with the 1948 one after the international recognition of Israel; hundreds of Arab bombings and mass shootings at Jewish malls, night clubs, buses and bus stations in the 1990 and 2000s 77; and the genocidal nature of the October 2023 Hamas invasion, all show that Palestinians are the prime instigators of genocidal, terrorist violence.
2. The reason for looking to get rid of Jews might be because there are only 10 million Jews versus 1.8 billion Arabs, the latter representing a far greater market and region of the world to "integrate" Europe and Israel with. In that sense, the reason to exterminate white people is the same as exterminating the Jews: they get in the way of "integrating" Europe with the Middle East and Africa.

Methods:

1. The United Nations, Soros, Ford and Rockefeller Brother Fund foundations funding a large network of pro-Palestine think tanks and action groups in Israel that sometimes are even more propagandist than the Hamas terrorist organization.
2. Attempts to tear down all walls built by Israel to (successfully) protect itself from terrorism and Third World immigration.
3. Sometimes even the promotion of the return of all Palestinian refugees, followed by a one-state solution, which would make Jews minorities in their "own" country.
4. Use the leadership of the environmental movement to ram Palestinian war and genocide chants through the throats of (very) large crowds of environmental activists. One major example is a November 2023 joint Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion protest that drew tens of thousands of climate protesters, where the predominantly white crowd was forced to listen to speakers and a handful of pro-Palestine protesters near the stage chant, "No climate justice on occupied land", "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" 78, and "Israel is terrorist!" This after the genocidal Hamas attack on Israel a month before. Near 95% of white people looked shocked and embarrassed, with one having to be removed from the stage after grabbing the microphone of Thunberg and saying he only "came here for a climate demonstration." 79 "Liberal CIA" immediately makes sense of this phenomenon.
5. Allow top universities to implement heavy-duty racial quotes in favor not just of black people, but also Arabs.
6. Allow top universities to openly sanction Arab students - often associated with Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) groups, the African and African-American Resistance Organization, and Students for Justice in Palestine, - to chant rallying cries as "Glory for martyrs" and "globalize the Intifada", even right after the October 2023 genocidal attack of Hamas on Israeli civilians, while at the same time shutting down all basic criticism from Jews on these protests, or from white students criticizing Third World immigration or racial quotas. Expect presidents of these universities, who always are tightly locked into the globalist network, to literally fall on their sword to defend these pro-Jihad policies, even in front of Congress. 80
7. Allow top universities to recruit and promote professors based on their anti-Israel stance.

Pro-feminist

Reason(s):

1. When all women have jobs versus being housewives, the economic output of the country doubles with the same number of people.
2. Lower birthrates aren't an issue to multinationals, as children cannot be employed in the workforce for 15-18 years and get in the way in terms pregnancy leaves, part-time employees, and potentially heightened taxes. Immigrants, in contrast, can immediately be added to the workforce.
3. It prevents the traditionally male-dominated workforce, and society as a whole, from effectively protesting, fighting, rioting and overthrowing the powers-that-be when they are being suppressed too hard. Males are much harder to control, as they are much stronger, more violent, more practical, and military-oriented.
4. It's a "gender" and "culture war" to simulate democracy with in a controlled manner.

Methods:

1. Putting women in charge for at least 50% in all upper management in society.
2. Put women in charge as prosecutors and judges, professions they are naturally drawn to. This author has personally, repeatedly observed how women's emotional nature and tendency to cheat, lie and manipulate within the justice system continually needs to be covered up by male colleagues - who have to pretend to not see the issues. Granted, prosecutors, judges and lawyers all appear to be eccentric megalomaniacs.
3. Trying to put women in all male-dominated professions, including the military and police, even though you arguably need two, three, or maybe more of them to control violent males.
4. Aiding women in making false charges of stalking, harassment and rape against men.
5. Feminizing and nurturing men, which in effect means (effective) bans on anything as words as "faggot", "rape" and "murder", self-defense and intervention during robberies (you'll get prosecuted if you fight, with little concept of "self defense"), to banning manual driving.

Pro-LGBTQ

Reason(s):

1. To further decrease traditional family structures and hence, national birthrates, so that an even bigger number of Third World immigrants is necessary, which also helps in speeding up the agenda to make whites tiny minorities in their own countries.
2. It's a "gender" and "culture war" to simulate democracy with in a controlled manner.

Methods:

1. LGBTQ is pushed by continually "celebrating" it, to the point some countries now have "Pride Months": 1/12th of the entire year.
2. Educating young children about how "great" transsexualism and homosexuality is.
3. Putting these demographics up for promotion, including in the army.
4. Propagandizing that it is completely normal for male-to-female transsexuals to compete against biological females, even in combat sports.
5. Installing unisex public restrooms.

CO2

Reason(s):

1. Skyrocketing CO2 levels and rising sea levels are very worrying problems in and by themselves, but that may not be enough to fully explain why elites as David Rockefeller, Maurice Strong and Edmond de Rothschild cared so much about the subject since at least the 1970s.
2. For decades globalist elites involved have been concerned with dwindling mineral, oil and gas reserves, and have been treating the development of alternative energy resources as a national security problem. Climate change presents a perfect opportunity to push through an alternative energy sector without having to worry the populous with any potential ramifications of peak oil, and the controversies surrounding oil politics in general. In fact, looking at the ties of the pushers, we could argue that the peak oil scare was purposely introduced on conspiracy shows in the early 2000s, before the sudden emergence of shale oil, to make people interested in solar energy and other forms of alternative energy.
3. It forms a nice distraction from any of the more sensitive "cultural debates", in that way helping to simulate democracy.

Methods:

1. Hundreds of billions invested into hundreds of NGOs and government climate funds to propagandize and combat the issue.
2. Spreading propaganda about people experiencing "climate fear" or "climate stress".
3. Banning non-electric cars.
4. Forcing homes to remove natural gas.
5. Subsidies for wind generators, solar panels, and heat pumps.

Pro-vegan

Reason(s):

1. Veganism is an effective way to reduce livestock carbon emissions. Seven studies between 2006 and 2022 on average estimated that livestock farming and processing contributes around 15% of global greenhouse emissions, which include CO2, methane and nitrogen. An additional New York Times-published study showed how people who eat an extremely meager 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of meat a day represent 22.5 pounds (10 kg) of carbon use a day, compared to vegans "accounting for 5.4 pounds (2.5 kg) of carbon dioxide a day." 81 A study published in Nature magazine, explained how meat-based "dietary changes ... reduced agricultural emissions by 84–86% globally for the adoption of vegan diets, 69–70% for vegetarian diets, and 44–48% for flexitarian diets." 82
2. In addition, "compared to meat-heavy diets, vegan diets resulted in 75 percent less land use, 54 percent less water use, and 66 percent less biodiversity loss." 83
3. Biodiversity loss in no small part is due to livestock nitrogen emissions, so closing livestock farms makes it considerably easier for governments to reach their mandatory reductions for nitrogen emissions. 84
4. Ammonia is another problematic waste product from livestock farmer that has a habit of getting into the local water.
5. A fully vegan country, even more so when it decreases the growth of large males in particular, might allow for a considerably higher population density.

Methods:

1. Continuing to push disinformation that saturated fats in meats, butter and eggs are the main cause of cancer and heart disease.
2. Don't, or very reluctantly, inform people about the bad effects of hydrogenated and pre-heated plant fats, cheap carbs, sugar, and sugar replacements as high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, sucralose and aspartame - considering there's no immediate desire to ban much of the questionable carbohydrate food with shiny packages.
3. With pro-animal and "save the planet"-type arguments, promote meat free days, such as through the elite-tied Meat Free Monday group, and vegan lifestyles, which is a message especially 45kg Sushi-munching Instagram models seem to like spreading.
4. Replacing meat with artificial alternatives, which have vastly inferior protein quality.
5. Multinationals removing all meat and dairy from company kitchens. 85
6. Multinationals banning employees from eating meat and dairy during company hours.
7. Removing of all consumer meat.
8. Removing of all consumer dairy: butter, cheese, milk, kefir, yogurt, eggs, etc.
9. Dissolution of all livestock, for environmental, global warming and living room reasons.
10. Possibly allow the large-scale eating of insects as a protein source, despite having just over half the protein amount of beef and pork, and many processing issue.

^^

The anomaly of total control

Voting "conservative": not a solution

"Conservative CIA" forces for decades have attacked globalism of being synonymous with "leftism", "liberalism", "socialism", "communism", etc. This has been going on since the 1950s with McCarthyism, but continues into the present day.

A great, more modern example is a September 2019 speech of Brazilian foreign minister Ernesto Araujo to no less than the elite and "conservative CIA" Heritage Foundation - which clearly has been embracing a bit more of America's "alternative right" since the late 2010s. Araujo was part of the "conservative CIA" Jair Bolsonaro administration, and similar to Bolsonaro, a cultic follower the U.S.-based, neocon-tied Olavo de Carvalho. Araujo, who clearly had been briefed on what to say and didn't seem to understand much of his own speech, said:

"Globalism is what came to be the amalgam of the globalized economy with cultural Marxism infiltrated into the institutions. ...

"Globalism works through three main instruments: one is climate change... Another is gender ideology. And another is what some people call oikophobia [fear/dislike of one's own culture], to distinguish from xenophobia. It's the hatred of one's own nation, and as part of that the [concept] of a borderless world. ... Everything that it can use, basically, to divide the people and to subjugate the people, is good." 86

The description of globalism here is quite accurate it appears. Furthermore, "cultural marxism", which indicates the dissolution of genders and races, is a perfectly accurate term as to what is going on with present-day globalism.

There always are issues though with these "conservative CIA" (effectively globalist) forces. These include:

1. The elite aspect of the "right-wing" seldom is anti-Third World immigration: the neocons under the George W. Bush administration at most were against Arab immigration, and even the neocon-allied Christian conservatives, such as Senator John McCain, seldom have been very outspoken against Third World immigration. Libertarians of the Cato Institute and various other places always have promoted unrestrained Third World immigration, with the predictable argument that there shouldn't be any laws on the movement of people.


2. American or West-European "alt right" candidates who get into power never seem to be effective in stopping or reversing immigration. Trump certainly wasn't.


3. Their (seldom effective) anti-immigration policies generally come packaged with isolationist rhetoric, exorbitant military spending and the introduction of neoliberalism, resulting in corporate pollution and exploitation and a gutting of the welfare state. This subsequently drives many voters back into the arms of the pro-immigrant "left".


4. The Nazi network never is far away with "conservative CIA". Even non-American conservative candidates pretty much always are of the traditional John Birch Society or pro-Nazi Liberty Lobby persuasion.

In other words, and as said before, the globalist movement doesn't really offer a choice to the people in the countries it controls. It can take 50 years or 250 years, but one way or another, no matter how citizens vote, the globalist agenda of Third World immigration and related subjects will keep churning on. And that, quite clearly, is by design.

The Globalist Intelligence Agency

In conclusion for this intro article, I would have to refer readers back to the "Renaming the "Nameless Network"" chapter, and specifically to the terms used there, including "Globalist Intelligence Agency" (GIA).

There's no doubt that the globalist movement operates as a kind of "super CIA", here named Globalist Intelligence Agency, or GIA. It does the exact same work as the bureaucratic CIA: spy, infiltrate, disinform, keep docile, polarize, and-or destabilize. But instead of operating in various foreign countries with relative limited means, this globalist "super CIA" uses all mainstream media, alternative media, conspiracy media, publishing houses, parliaments, cabinets, government offices, and "grassroots" activist groups on the "liberal CIA" and "conservative CIA" side in all western countries to bend the population as a whole to its will. Where the regular CIA is restrained by various media outlets and government offices, and often criticized by them, the Globalist Intelligence Agency is not. It always gets what it wants, whether it's through a country's secret service, an NGO, or members of parliament.

At least traditionally in the United States, there has been a close social and working relationship between surviving Pilgrims Society robber baron families and the CIA leadership, best exemplified by the Rockefeller-Dulles relationship (both Pilgrims), but also running through CIA directors John McCone and Richard Helms (Pilgrims family). These connections make sense, because, as ISGP's 'Managed Democracy' article reveals, the Morgans and subsequently Rockefellers and their closest allies literally were behind every "elected" government in the United States, controlling all government offices, and a lot more than that. Even before the CIA existed, Eastern Establishment and Pilgrims Society families as Rockefeller, their Aldrich in-laws, Astor, Bruce, Roosevelt, Field, and others were involved in intelligence operations through "The Room" and Walrus Club 87, or controlled opposition media, most clearly demonstrated with Picture Magazine. ISGP's Pilgrims Society article has a decent history on this, referred to as "Rockefeller CIA".

Essentially the impression one gets is that while these elites often "fronted" for the CIA, they actually were this vastly bigger "real CIA". That's where it gets really problematic though, because why, for all these decades, has there been no meaningful dissent from the elite ranks, with whistleblowers giving us clues how this "Rockefeller CIA", or "Illuminati", system operates? It's simple: the nexus of power in the United States for about a century was centered around the Rockefeller family and their closest allies, such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Yet, when you watch all kinds of interviews with these individuals, also among friends at various elite NGO gatherings, there's just no evidence that these people in any way, shape, or form have some kind of "secret knowledge". They just go through the motions, like corporate and political lackeys, just saying what is expected of them.

This is very strange, because clearly there is some kind of hidden power controlling the West. And it is not just in the West. Earlier this author has already asked questions why no foreign government or intelligence services ever even remotely came close to doing any research along the lines of ISGP, exposing the globalist movement or Globalist Intelligence Agency. China's Baidu censors ISGP and this author's name even harder than anti-China conspiracy disinforming gurus as Alex Jones and Jeff Rense. I also already asked the question if Putin himself is a hidden globalist, this in ISGP's article on Russia's establishments. Putin has a history with Davos, his security services could easily do the work of ISGP, and his supposed "brain", the anti-West Alexander Dugin, engages in a whole lot of typically globalist "Davos speak".

None of this makes any sense.

Dreams of fairies and Satan

And yes, as for this author, the anomalies with the globalist movement, and its "Globalist Intelligence Agency", automatically lead to questions if there is not some kind of supernatural aspect to the level of control that we see on planet Earth.

I can't say with any certainty, except that I personally know the meridian system is real, and have cured and maintained all kinds of chronic ailments with it; and also that I also happen to have a thousand recorded hyper-intense dreams of all kinds like those below, which make me wonder if there is not more going on:

There are "lighter", but not less intense, dreams as well:

There are ways to trigger these dreams, also with the right persons involved, which I won't get into.

This makes sense though. Who else but Satan, or fairies, for that matter, would neuter white men and give all power to women, transsexuals, and low IQ, high crime Third Worlders? While in the past having promoted religion, the patriarchy and colonial abuses as "norms to accept" on to the lower classes? Who pushes Jew hatred and love of Arab terrorism in the West? Who pushes false religions, including atheism; weed use, gangsterism, and even pedophilia - telling the "zoomers" to reject the traditional values of the "boomers"? Who would be looking to destroy relatively high IQ, enlightened white and Jewish societies, burning everything down? Who else but some some dark malevolent force? Some kind of manipulative force?

Mind you, that doesn't mean that women and transsexuals don't have a place in western society. Far from it. But when you put too many in the wrong place, things will not be going well. And that is exactly what is very forcibly being done: putting everybody and everything in the wrong place, watching them fight, and see everything burn down. For another spin on the wheel of life.

I'll leave the reader with this.

^Notes

---

1. 2005, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, 'The secret war against the Jews', pp. 2, 12.
2. Nov. 19, 2023 email of this author to select members of all parties in Dutch Congress (100% ignored), 'Bewijsstukken justitie-schandaal onder minister van justitie, premier kandidaat, en premier Rutte-protege Dilan Yesilgoz' ('Evidence judicial-scandal under Minister of Justice, prime ministrial candidate, and protégé of Prime Minister Rutte, Dilan Yesilgoz').
3. May-July, 1954, U.S. Congress: House, Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations (Reece Committee), 'Tax-Exempt Foundations'.
4. Ibid.
5. *) Dec. 17, 2002, UN.org, 'Remarks at the book signing by David Rockefeller' (un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2002-12-17/remarks-book-signing-david-rockefeller (accessed: Aug. 22, 2022): "Press encounter by the Secretary-General [Kofi Annan] upon arrival at UNHQ (unofficial transcript): ... "And I think as Shashi has said, the Rockefeller family did not begin its international activities with this building. It was then with the Leagues of Nations, they had a lot to do with the League of Nations and David will probably say a little bit about that. And as most of you know, we also got this site thanks to his family to build the headquarters on it. And it's not only that. We often go back to Pocantico to have discussions and I recall the first time we had the ACC where all the UN agencies met to discuss the future of the international system and how we should cooperate, David, Laurence and the whole family were there to welcome us and to tell us this is what Father would have liked to see. And of course since then, senior UN officials meet there to talk. And I want to thank you, David, for your contribution to the international system ... I think without internationalists like you, the international system that we have been trying to build, the international system that we have today wouldn't be here. So thank you very much, David [Rockefeller].""
   *) The United Nations has not just been managed by Third World leaders, but also by the globalist United Nations Association, a historically even more obscure Business Council of the United Nations, in which David Rockefeller (also) was involved; Ted Turner's UN Foundation, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, in which close Soros ally Jeffrey Sachs has played a key role in rallying the Third World against historical western "imperialism".
6. April 27, 1976, New York Times, 'C.I.A. Secretly Owned Insurance Complex and Invested Profits in Stock Market': "The [CIA] agency was involved to some degree in nearly half of all charitable grants by American foundations exclusive of the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie organizations, known collectively as the "Big Three.""
7. Partial transcript of a secret audio recording, as copied into a Nov. 19, 2023 email of this author to select members of all parties in Dutch Congress (100% ignored), 'Bewijsstukken justitie-schandaal onder minister van justitie, premier kandidaat, en premier Rutte-protege Dilan Yesilgoz' ('Evidence judicial-scandal under Minister of Justice, prime ministrial candidate, and protégé of Prime Minister Rutte, Dilan Yesilgoz').
8. May 4, 2003, The New Yorker, 'Selective Intelligence': "A February poll showed that seventy-two per cent of Americans believed it was likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th attacks, although no definitive evidence of such a connection has been presented."
9. Feb. 12, 2017, New Zealand Herald, 'Here's a list of all the Putin critics who wound up murdered'. More sources provided further down.
10. Feb. 12, 2017, New Zealand Herald, 'Here's a list of all the Putin critics who wound up murdered'.
11. Sep. 22, 2022, Euronews, 'Updated: A list of oligarchs and Putin critics found dead since Ukraine war'.
12. Feb. 21, 2024, The Guardian, 'Pro-war Russian blogger who revealed huge Avdiivka losses dies by suicide'.
13. Oct. 5, 2023, NBC News, 'Vladimir Putin hints at wild tale that drugs and grenades caused fatal crash that killed Yevgeny Prigozhin'; Oct. 6, 2023, Reuters, 'Cocaine and grenades? Patriotic bloggers scorn Putin's Prigozhin plane crash theory'.
14. Feb., 17, 2024, Nu.nl, 'Jullie vragen over Navalny: 'Hoe aannemelijk is onafhankelijk onderzoek?' ('You ask about Navalny: 'How plausible is independent investigation?')
15. *) 2002, NTV, TV-6 and Boris Berezovsky-financed film (based on Alexander Litvinenko's 2002 book 'Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within', who worked as a consultant on the film), 'Assassination of Russia' / 'Blowing up Russia', 7:20: "The NTV television channel, then still independent, took an interest in the Ryazan case. In March 2000 it broadcasted an open debate with everyone involved in the affair in its show, Independent Inquiry."
    *) Feb. 21, 2017, National Post (premier Canadian newspaper), 'Arkady Ostrovsky: How Putin built his new Russia with KGB tactics and television': "On March 24, 2000, just two days before Putin was elected president, NTV aired a talk show called Independent Investigation that questioned the official version of the apartment building explosions in the autumn of 1999. It focused on the foiled bombing in Ryazan. The program’s host interviewed former and present FSB officers and tenants who had discovered the bags of the white substance that was first identified as hexogen but that the FSB later claimed was sugar. While the program did not prove anything definitively, it certainly raised the strong suspicion that the FSB was concealing the truth and had actually intended to blow up the apartments. Putin saw this as a deliberate and subversive attack timed for the elections."
16. April 16, 2000, George Soros for The Guardian, 'The means to an end'.
17. Oct. 2, 2017, NPR, 'Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents'.
18. Example article: March/April 2017, Politico Magazine, 'All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts'.
19. Feb. 19, 2020, USA Today, 'If Michael Flynn's 'crime' is all Robert Mueller has, it is time to move on'.
20. Jan. 11, 2017, Newsweek, 'Thirteen Things That Don't Add Up in the Russia-Trump Intelligence Dossier'.
21. Ibid.
22. Feb. 6, 2018, Washington Post, 'The making of the Steele dossier'.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. April 11, 2019 YouTube upload by 'Magnolia Pictures & Magnet Releasing', '[Steve Bannon's] The Brink - Exclusive Clip - Guardian Interview' / 2019, Steve Bannon's 'The Brink' documentary, 59 minutes in (former Trump aide Steve Bannon interviewed by reporter Paul Lewis): "[LEWIS:] Is the term globalist an anti-semitic slogan?
    [BANNON:] Absolutely not.
    [LEWIS:] There are people who would argue that it is. *Immediately moves on* George Soros, I mean, that is widely accepted as an anti-Semitic trope."
26. youtube.com/watch?v=XTdISihqy0s
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. May 4, 2022 YouTube video upload by 'Niki Proshin', 'I asked Russians about Ukraine (and got on TV)' (youtube.com/watch?v=itg3TvbAD-8; only 3 of "about 100" criticized the war)
31. Ibid.
32. youtube.com/watch?v=onW9W399RL4
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. April 27, 1976, New York Times, 'C.I.A. Secretly Owned Insurance Complex and Invested Profits in Stock Market': "The [CIA] agency was involved to some degree in nearly half of all charitable grants by American foundations exclusive of the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie organizations, known collectively as the "Big Three.""
36. December 18, 1912, UPI (founded in 1907 as United Press Associations), 'Investigation shows Morgan, 17 firms control $25.3 billion'. Read the original report for details.
37. 1959, Cornelius "Neil" Vanderbilt, Jr. (IV; 1898–1974), 'Man of the World', pp. 258-264: "[Some] were to be met at my mother's house--wealthy industrialists, internationalists of the royalist persuasion..."
38. December 2011, Volume 41, Issue 4, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Dolores Janiewski, 'Eisenhower's Paradoxical Relationship with the "Military-Industrial Complex"': "Taking Joseph McCarthy's side in his battle with John Foster Dulles, Wood ascribed the clash to "internationalists and pinks" among Eisenhower's advisors..."
39. 1959, Cornelius "Neil" Vanderbilt, Jr. (IV; 1898–1974), 'Man of the World', pp. 258-264: "[Some] were to be met at my mother's house--wealthy industrialists, internationalists of the royalist persuasion..."
40. 1974, Warren Hinckle for Ramparts, 'If you have a lemon, make lemonade', p. 178: "The next day, in Washington, the same arguments were made by other NSA [National Student Association] leaders to Sol Stern, who was writing the story [why its CIA relationship shouldn't be exposed]. They actually advanced the intriguing contention that such a disclosure would be damaging to the enlightened men of the "liberal" internationalistic wing of the CIA who were willing to provide clandestine money to domestic progressive causes."
41. 2002, David Rockefeller, 'Memoirs', p. 405.
42. Dec. 17, 2002, UN.org, 'Remarks at the book signing by David Rockefeller' (un.org/sg/en/content/sg/press-encounter/2002-12-17/remarks-book-signing-david-rockefeller (accessed: Aug. 22, 2022): ""Press encounter by the Secretary-General [Kofi Annan] upon arrival at UNHQ (unofficial transcript): "So thank you very much, David [Rockefeller]."
43. December 5, 2015, Irish Times, 'Peter Sutherland: Moral Merkel. Fragile Europe. 'Sneering' Ireland'.
44. Oct. 18, 1961, News & Courier, Charleston, S.C.: "To understand the United States today, it is necessary to know something about the Establishment. Most citizens don't realize it exists. Yet the Establishment makes its influence felt from the President's Cabinet to the professional life of a young college teacher who wants to obtain a foundation grant for research."
45. January 3, 1962, Amarillo Globe-Times, Edith Kermit Roosevelt, 'Finds Power Elite Has... Funnel Into Capital'.
46. May 1962, Richard Rovere for Equire, 'The American Establishment' (PDF).
47. Sep. 1964, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, p. 31, 'Reports: From San Francisco: Notes on the Republican Convention'.
48. July 16, 1980, Washington Post, 'The Westernization of the Republican Party Barry Goldwater, the Right Stuff, And Ronald Reagan's Republicans'.
49. June 26, 1975, New York Times, 'In Search of the Elusive Elite.
50. henryakissinger.com/ remembrances/katharine-graham/ (accessed: Feb. 9, 2024).
51. July 26, 1968, Piqua Daily Call (Ohio; AP article copied by many regional newspapers), p. 1, ''New World Order' Pledged By Candidate Rockefeller': "Nelson A. Rockefeller says as president he would work toward international creation of "a new world order" based on East-West cooperation instead of conflict. The republican presidential contender said he would begin a dialogue with Red China, if elected, to 'improve the possibilities of accommodations' with that country 'as well as the Soviet Union'. Rockefeller said he would work to end the arms race and said this country and the Soviets must cooperate to prevent small wars in areas such as the Middle East from mushrooming into big ones. Despite a long Communist record of broken commitments and the fact that Communist ideology remains hostile, he said, "We must also face the fact that the imperatives of the modern Charles H. Percy, R-IIL en...""
52. Feb. 28, 1990, presidency.ucsb.edu, 'George Bush: 41st President of the United States: 1989 ‐ 1993: Remarks at a Fundraising Dinner for Gubernatorial Candidate Pete Wilson in San Francisco, California': "Time and again in this century, the political map of the world was transformed. And in each instance, a new world order came about... [Now] we've seen a bold Soviet leader initiate daring reforms. ... We've seen ... Vaclav Havel, move from prison to the Presidential palace in Czechoslovakia. We've seen both the Berlin Wall and the Romanian dictatorship tumble into ruins."
53. Jan. 30, 1997, Charlie Rose interview with Samuel Huntington on his book 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order': "[Rose:] Whatever we said about a New World Order, it hasn't evolved the way you thought it might. [Huntington:] Certainly the euphoria that existed in 1989 after the Berlin Wall came down has disappeared and I think there were great hopes at that time that we were entering a New World Order, that this was gonna be a world in which western ideas of liberal democracy and capitalism would [come to include Russia and] sweep across the world and that a new era of harmony would emerge."
54. Henry Kissinger via satellite link at Davos 2017, in conversation with his old protege, Davos founder Klaus Schwab.
    weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2017/sessions/86544 (accessed: Sept. 12, 2021; Jan. 20, 2017 post).
55. Sep. 16, 2022, AP, 'Trump openly embraces, amplifies QAnon conspiracy theories': "Trump ... reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.” In QAnon lore, the “storm” refers to Trump’s final victory... Trump’s recent postings have included images referring to himself as a martyr fighting ... the so-called deep state.".
56. May 11, 1975, New York Times, 'C.I.A. Covert Activities Abroad Shielded by Major U.S. Companies'.
57. Aug. 31, 1992, Jack Anderson's Washington Merry-Go-Round column, 'Danny Casolaro: Reporter's death appears tied to probe into Inslaw'.
58. 2024, Christian Hansen and Zachary Treitz, 'American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders'. An extremely highly recommended documentary by ISGP.
59. It took weeks to find the original source for this (alleged?) statement (with work still continuing), as the original source - the New York Times for October 22, 1967 - does not appear to have the relevant article in its digital archives. Different aspects of the speech have been (wrongly and properly) cited though in all kinds of reliable and non-conspiratorial literature from 1968 on. For details, see the Bilderberg article.
60. Sep. 15, 1976, Walter Wriston speech in London, England to an unknown organization, 'People, Politics and Productivity: The World Corporation in the 1980s'. A photocopy of the speech is to be found at the link below:
    fordlibrarymuseum.gov/ library/document/0001/ 241332080.pdf (accessed: Sep. 15, 2022)).
61. March 10, 2001, Jon Ronson for The Guardian, 'Who pulls the strings? (part 3)'.
62. March 6, 1989, C-Span, Zbigniew Brzezinski interview with C-Span founder Brian Lamb.
63. Jan. 27, 2010, New York Times, 'In Davos, Signs of Shift in Global Power'.
64. Nov. 10, 1999, NRC, 'Kok krijgt pluim van 'Davos'' ('Kok is praised by 'Davos'.
65. globe-project.eu/en (accessed: May 7, 2020).
66. citp.princeton.edu/people /filters/#advisory-council (Aug. 10, 2020 (first listing of an advisory board) - Feb. 9, 2024): "Gabriel Weinberg, Founder and CEO, DuckDuckGo. ... Ronald Lee '80, Partner, Arnold & Porter. [gen. counsel NSA 1994-1998; chief of staff to the CIA director in 1996] ... Anne-Marie Slaughter ’80 ... Bradford Smith ’81, President and Vice Chair, Microsoft Corporation. ... Richard Sarnoff ’83, KKR Advisor – Chairman, Media [co-chair Bertelsmann Inc. 2008-2011] ... Irene Cheng, Former Managing Director, Lazard Asset Management.".
67. Aug. 4, 2017, WSWS.org, 'Google blocked every one of the WSWS’s 45 top search terms'.
68. Feb. 4, 2014, YouTube upload by "BuzzFeed PR", 'Seinfeld BuzzFeed Brews Package on CBS This Morning 2-4-14'.
69. May 23, 2023, Los ANgeles Blade, 'Newsom demands answers about censorship of text books: Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has declared war against what he has labeled “woke propaganda” to include school curriculum/books'.
70. June 17, 2023, Algemeen Dagblad, 'Op deze manier blijft de Rotterdamse politie een wit bolwerk' ('In this manner the Rotterdam police remains a white bastion').
71. *) Nov. 25, 2023, NOS, 'Politiemedewerkers Midden-Nederland buiten functie na racistische uitlatingen [op social media]' ('Police employees Central Netherlands fired after racist expressions [on social media]'). *) July 19, 2023, Nu.nl 'Agent maakt racistische opmerkingen in privétijd, politie wil hem ontslaan' ('Agent made racist remarks in off-time, police wants to fire him'): "One of six agents [who in Paris, on the way to a Dutch soccer team match, shouted:] that only "one white guy" was to be seen in the streets. Another said: "There's another one with a bomb belt here. Another officer asked the others if they wanted "more or less", to which "less, less, less". That is a reference to the controversial remark of PVV leader Geert Wilders about Moroccans in 2014..
72. May 3, 2023, De Morgen, 'Rechtbank spreekt Antwerpse agenten vrij voor racisme na uitlatingen in geheime WhatsAppgroep' (Actually, 16 of 29 officers received probationary sentences).
73. Feb. 15, 2024, Nu.nl, 'OM vervolgt acht agenten voor rol bij arrestatie waarbij man (32) overleed' ('OM vervolgt acht agenten voor rol bij arrestatie waarbij man (32) overleed': "Volgens het OM duurde het lang om de man onder controle te brengen en vervolgens onder controle te houden. Daarbij werd de man onwel.".
74. June 29, 2020, controversial new policy at RedditHelp.com, 'Account and Community Restrictions: Promoting Hate Based on Identity or Vulnerability' (accessed: June 30, 2020; screenshot).
75. Nov. 11, 2020, Dekanttekening.nl, 'Wat de zaak-Gargard betekent voor de strijd tegen online racisme' (note: really problematic is that many posters cowered before the court and even the complainer - only to still get prosecuted): "[Online statements:] ‘Als je ziet wat voor figuren er staan dan snap je al dat deze mensen onderontwikkeld zijn... No more black face willen ze blank worden die zwarte schreeuwers... Misschien is er nog wel plek in de apenheul.’ ... ‘Jammer dat ze de slavernij hebben afgeschaft, ik zou de zweep erover halen’ en ‘botsplinters voor de pietenhaters’. Het is een greep uit de 7.600 Facebook-opmerkingen die journaliste en columniste Clarice Gargard in 2018 onder haar livestream..."
76. March 25, 2023, Daily Mail, 'Nelson Piquet receives £780,000 fine for racist and homophobic comments...'
77. jewishvirtuallibrary.org/casualties-in-suicide-and-other-bombing-attacks-in-israel-since-the-declaration-of-principles (accessed: July 15, 2023; listing of terrorist attacks from April 6, 1994 and Nov. 23, 2022.) It's possible to see that Palestinian attacks have dropped massively in frequency and effectiveness.
78. Nov. 13, 2023, NRC.nl (major Dutch newspaper), 'Steun voor de Palestijnse zaak ‘verzwakt de klimaatbeweging’' ('Support for the Palestinian case 'weakens the climate movement'').
79. Ibid.
80. Dec. 6, 2023, New York Times, 'College Presidents Under Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism': "[University of Pennsylvania president] Ms. [Liz] Magill replied [with an evil smirk on her face], "If the [genocide] speech turns into conduct [i.e. actually genocide], it can be harassment." ... [Black Harvard president Claudine] Gay echoed the idea that it “depends on the context”... [MIT president Sally] Kornbluth [eventually] said: “I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.”
81. July 21, 2023, New York Times, 'Save the Planet, Put Down that Hamburger'.
82. Oct. 6, 2023, Nature Communications, 'The global and regional air quality impacts of dietary change'.
83. July 21, 2023, New York Times, 'Save the Planet, Put Down that Hamburger'.
84. June 22, 2024, France24, 'Dutch farmers protest livestock cuts to curb nitrogen'.
85. July 20, 2018, France24, New York Times, 'Memo From the Boss: You’re a Vegetarian Now'.
    *) May 19, 2023, Euronews,'Currywurst: The German street food favourite returns to Volkswagen's central canteen' (removed in 2021).
86. Sep. 11, 2019 YouTube upload by 'The Heritage Foundation', 'Brazil Is Back: Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Ernesto Araujo'.
87. 1987, Anthony Cave Brown, '"C": the secret life of Sir Stewart Graham Menzies, spymaster to Winston Churchill', pp. 123-124, 264: "As Sir J. W. Wheeler-Bennett, the royal historian, noted in his biography of King George VI: "Indeed, Britain did not abandon war planning against the United States until 1933. ... Despite the revival of the ancient [Anglo-American] grudge, however, there remained the small but important group of Americans, and a larger group of Britons, who believed that an Anglo-American understanding was fundamental to the containment and perhaps the liquidation of bolshevism. That group included Vincent Astor, a member of the American branch of the British family; Kermit Roosevelt, who had fought in the British army during the war; David Bruce, Andrew Mellon's son-in-law; Nelson Doubleday, the New York publisher; Winthrop Aldrich, the banker; Henry Gray, the New York lawyer; Judge Frederick Kernochan; and what has been described as "a distinguished selection of stockbrokers, philanthropists, and academics."
    The group met monthly at 34 East 62nd Street, New York City, in an apartment "with an unlisted telephone number and no apparent occupant." Known as "The Room," the group was essentially a private intelligence service that worked in collaboration with the British secret service. Later, The Room seems either to have been superceded by, or to have had contact with, the Walrus in New York, a dining club whose members consisted exclusively of leading citizens who were Anglophiles. The principal point of contact with that service was Sir William Wiseman, chief of the the British secret service in New York during World War I, who had remained in New York and become a partner in Kuhn, Loeb, the New York merchant bankers. He became a member both of The Room and the Walrus Club. "Wild Bill" Donovan, a leading Wall Street lawyer and the founder of the OSS ... was certainly a member of the Walrus and was probably also a member of The Room. ... At the suggestion of Vincent Astor, a mutual friend and the founder member of The Room and the Walrus Club, Roosevelt entertained Stephenson at his estate at Hyde Park...
    Stephenson left England in mid-June, traveling by Cunarder with his American wife, Mary. Installing himself on the thirty-third and thirty-fourth floors of Rockefeller Center (which he obtained at a peppercorn rent from the owner, Nelson Rockefeller, a member of the old private intelligence organization, The Room, and of that exclusive diner the Walrus Club)."