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

"[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]."

"[Katharine Graham] of the permanent establishment never lost sight of the fact that societies thrive not by the victories of their factions but by their ultimate reconciliations."

"One-third of modern history is still classified* ... [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... "

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. We shouldn't forget the role of the media, which actually serves 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 legislative, executive, 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/or 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 and the G8 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.

However, sometimes events happen in Western countries that cannot be explained by this standard model. Senior officials of the BCCI bank and police investigators being intimidated by a CIA-Mossad-related "black network", Belgian officials gathering information on a similar "nebula", or Daniel Casolaro committing suicide while investigating another similar "Octopus" fall into that category. Basically, the hundreds of unusual deaths this author has come across over the years can be considered a mystery, because not one of them has ever been proved to be government related - even though that's often where all the evidence is pointing to. My own experiences related to intimidation can be considered outside of the standard political model, because my research was essentially focused on non-government organizations. Then there are cases as:

Anybody who has spent at least a few hundred hours looking into these events can see that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that not all is exactly as the media or our school books are portraying these events to be - however hard it may be for the average person to put in the necessary study hours and to accept the somewhat paradigm-shattering conclusions and social awkwardness associated with these topics. The fact is that influential establishments really do appear to exist and that they are able to organize and get away with conspiracies like the ones above. Unfortunately, no (intellectual or complete) political model exists to explain these events. We'll be introducing such a model in this article.

In addition, what also no one has come up with is a good explanation as to why both the mainstream, alternative and conspiracy media continue to distort the truth to such extremes. Yes, with the mainstream media a basic explanation would involve financial interests and ties to the government and superclass. We actually also see these ties in much of the so-called anti-establishment "new left" "liberal CIA" network, with plenty of evidence existing that the conspiracy media most certainly is controlled by the security services.

Still, what remains quite unexplained to me is that rational conspiracy theory as discussed by ISGP basically is never discussed in any of the small-time publications around the world. It certainly seems to show that people are very easily intimidated and just don't dare to research, do, or speak out about anything that falls outside the norm. That is, when it results in them having to give up everything all at once: money, career, status, women, comfort, possibly health, and that combined with being the subject of endless ridicule or the same old cliche jokes. Even with this though, it remains hard to explain this level of control over truly independent information with only an establishment model. Still, such a model does get us very far, much further than any classic non-establishment model.

As for this new political model that we need, it turns out that over the course of the 20th century, and especially after World War II, a massive amount of private think tanks and social clubs have been set up, much of it financed by a rather small group of banks, multinationals and foundations - and sometimes aided by membership fees and limited government subsidies.

This website has spent over ten years crawling through these networks, in the process gathering and categorizing the names of roughly 1,300 key private groups and "independent" government advisory boards. Some of these groups are focused on economic integration; others more on sustainable development, domestic policy, foreign policy, diplomatic relations or national security. And what they have in common is that no one has learned about them in school. While in the early 21st century an increasing amount of studies are being conducted on these groups - largely in response to the overwhelming amount of conspiracy literature available, not the least of it ISGP - conclusions reached in these studies still haven't made it into national school books or even in a proper, unbiased matter to the mass media. And thus the supranational model of politics hasn't yet seeped into the public consciousness.

There's always the question how much influence the men running this private network (a small group dominates) have, because, frankly, there's almost no testimony from senior government officials to what extent they listen and implement the advice of these men. All of a sudden grown men start giggling like little girls, shrugging off all relevant questions. Bilderberg truly is a great example. The group is closely linked to the Netherlands, because of the role of the Dutch royal family in it. Despite the fact that the group once every few years made the news, before the age of the internet, few Dutch people had really ever heard about it, even though the group has met annually since 1952. Here's what a foreign policy expert of a long-serving member of Dutch parliament explained about Bilderberg to ISGP:

At one point van Bommel brought up a few basic questions involving Bilderberg, the only result being that these questions were laughed off by the state secretary for European affairs, Frans Timmermans, a visitor of Bilderberg meetings. Isn't that amazing? What's wrong with questions about what has been discussed at these meetings? Apparently there in an unwritten rule in Dutch parliament to not discuss these groups.

Judging by U.S. congressional records, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have never been part of the daily discourse either. Why not? Of course, there's only one obvious answer which everyone already knows: influence is coming from these groups. There actually are very, very few instances in which this influence has been clearly documented, simply because the media and politicians - like Frans Timmermans above - not only refuse to address the issue, they prefer to make the masses feel uncomfortable asking these questions in the first place by ridiculing anyone who does.

Still, occasionally we find examples of the influence of these groups. In one instance the influence of the European Round Table (ERT), a group with very close links to Bilderberg, was described. On June 23, 2003, the Belgian Jan Puype, the only independent journalist who appears to have attended a meeting of the ERT, at least until that point, wrote about one of the council's meetings that year which was attended by Romano Prodi, a prime minister of Italy from 1996 to 1998 and again from 2006 to 2008. At the time he visited the ERT, Prodi was president of the European Commission, a position he held from 1999 to 2004. It appears Prodi was groomed by the liberal establishment: as a political science professor at the University of Bologna, he had been a member of the Bilderberg steering committee in the 1981-1982 period. According to Puype, by 2003 Prodi was still influenced by these business elites:

The European Round Table was sponsored by David Rockefeller and two of his closest European friends: future Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon and 1001 Club member Pehr Gyllenhammar. A decade earlier, this Rockefeller group established the Trilateral Commission, with its more blatant display of government influence. Within a year, the leadership of this combined U.S.-Japan-E.U. private group organized its first meeting at the White House with President Gerald Ford (picture above), an effort aided by the fact that David's older brother, Nelson Rockefeller, was vice president at the time. Several years later the Trilateral Commission started grooming Jimmy Carter, drawing a lot of attention to the group when Carter was elected president of the United States and stacked his administration with Trilateral Commission members. Just because the John Birch Society has been about the only news outlet to take notice over a longer period of time, doesn't mean that the Trilateral Commission doesn't have an enormous amount of influence. Related to the Trilateral Commission there is the much older Council on Foreign Relations, with its deep ties to the State Department. The CFR's interest in holding a firm grip over State Department policy was once again confirmed by Hillary Clinton in recent years when she joked (now found all over Youtube):

The first thing that should be obvious to any investigator of this network is that the backgrounds and political, economic and religious ideas of the persons attending these groups are too similar to not conclude that groups as Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and European Rount Table represent the ultimate form of crony capitalism. Basically everyone here has promoted privatization, deregulation and further political and economic integration as the solution to every problem in the world. They are all great supporters of the United Nations. They all warn against the dangers of global warming. These days all of them are pushing extremely hard for Third World immigration, despite massive opposition from the masses and all statistics pointing out that such immigration will only result in the disintegration of western society.

Going back to the Cold War, the vast majority of individuals in this establishment group were staunch supporters of containment and détente. Virtually all strongly disliked the Reagan-backed Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), an incredibly expensive program aimed at creating a space shield against Russian ICBMs.

The list goes on. Of course, it's possible to nitpick and find examples of disagreement among members on how to reach certain objectives. These differences will always be there, as long as there are people. It doesn't mean, however, that there's not a powerful supranational network of private individuals out there with largely similar and somewhat mysterious aims. A lot of the policies also are based on common sense. However, the pro-Third World immigration propaganda of this group and endless stigmatization of Donald Trump, all other "populist" candidates, and the masses as a whole, must be the most obvious example to date of an extremely dogmatic and irrational agenda. Because of it, is has become incredibly easy to spot at this point that there simply is no such thing as an independent media whatsoever. Or, for that matter, look at the extreme propaganda of this group against cryptocurrencies starting in early 2017, when they couldn't be ignored any more.

The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and even the European Round Table are relatively well-known these days, if not for decades. It actually seems to have been part of the agenda to give so much attention to these groups from conspiratorial point of view at the detriment of more sensitive conspiracy-related information. The John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, and more modern conspiracy outlets as the Alex Jones Show, Jeff Rense and Coast to Coast AM have been talking about these groups for the longest time.

Thus, bring up these names and many people will automatically roll their eyes and lose interest, simply because they have experienced an overload of irrational and discredited conspiracy talk from media-pushed conspiracy disinformers. That's an issue, because the Rockefellers and their Eastern Establishment friends most certainly operated on behalf of the CIA and vice versa, in part explaining why so many individuals from this network can be tied to pushing conspiracy disinformation. This CIA-Eastern Establishment cooperation is discussed in great detail in ISGP's Pilgrims Society article.

Apart from some of the key groups just mentioned, there are dozens and dozens of other private groups that can and should be investigated. In November 2010 I actually asked members of congress and party leaders in the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France about one of these groups: Le Cercle, established at almost the same time as the neoliberal Bilderberg group, but in this case deeply tied to Opus Dei, the Knights of Malta, the CIA and illegal covert operations of every possible kind. As expected, every single member of congress, in whatever country, denied knowing anything about the group - which could well be true in most cases, for this site is the first to write extensively about Le Cercle and to have published actual documentation. Equally peculiar, not one member showed signs of having any interest in this group. Strange. Isn't it the job of congressmen to protect the interests of the people they represent?

There was one exception, however. After acknowledging never to have heard about Le Cercle, the previously-mentioned foreign policy assistant to a long-sitting socialist member of congress explained:

One of these groups might well have been the Dutch Republican Society to whom his friend and sole Bilderberg critic Harry van Bommel belongs, together with a small army of anti-Bilderberg and anti-House of Orange conspiracy authors, as well as the assassinated Pim Fortuyn and some of his closest associates. It shouldn't surprise anyone if it one day turns out that all these men were working for Dutch intelligence, much in the same way that the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby in the United States appear to be fronts for the CIA, Pentagon and State Department to control opposition groups.

ISGP's Boxes Model for conspiracy and politics: choices without choice, destiny set

Before we get into which supranational NGOs are the most important, how we can classify these NGOs in a Four-Establishment Model, and what the characteristics of each establishment are, there's an element to modern politics that is more important to grasp and quicker to explain. That is the fact that modern globalist elites run our democracy by simulating democratic debate through the creation of a variety of predetermined, tightly-guarded political boxes. These boxes, or "sides", are allowed to debate ad nauseam all kinds of topics that either don't matter or circumvent the facts that will lead to the undermining of globalist agendas.

There are a lot of names actually for this system or the network running it: the Illuminati, the New World Order, problem-reaction-solution, Machiavellianism, the Hegelian Dialectic, Gang-Countergang and more. The thing is, if political scientists of past centuries and conspiracy theorists throughout the 20th century could come up with the idea of running their own opposition in order to guarantee a certain predetermined outcome, then what are the chances that today's very educated political elites and the intelligence agencies they oversee aren't doing the exact same thing?

To find evidence of this, one only has to look at the nature of the ridiculously dogmatic "left-versus-right" political debates going on in our society. The only choice is just how the masses (the white ones in particular today) want to get screwed over first - economically, militarily, culturally - before the inevitable globalist agenda churns on and reaches its end destination - whatever that might be.

Ask yourself why on Earth no political parties exist in the West that both are socialist/liberal-oriented and - at the same time - staunchly oppose Third World immigration. And not just oppose it, but actually make use of ethnic IQ and ethnic crime data, as well as well-designed polls on public opinion to bring their case to the public. Even though this is exactly what the West-European masses have been calling for for decades at this point, it literally doesn't exist. It's hard to say what is more bizarre: the fact that this type of manipulation exists, or the fact that the masses allow it without asking questions.

Fact remains, once you find out what the handful of key issues are that elites are trying to cover up - JFK, 9/11, making whites minorities in the West - it is amazing to behold how all debate in society is set up to walk around these issues or to discredit them in every way possible. Stage play in the form of artificial, fake debates are going on literally everywhere, from the online conspiracy podcasts to the evening news. Reality is literally being created for us, from A to Z.

Let's take 9/11 as an example. One absolutely key issue to mention when questioning this event includes the fact that the temperatures in the cores of the World Trade Center were measured at "more than 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1,543 degrees Celsius]", combined with lots of evidence of fully liquefied, lava-like steel and concrete; and underground fires that kept burning for over three months. The NIST reports ignore all of these facts, primarily are based on completely theoretical computer models which they tweaked to their liking, and don't even attempt to explain the collapses beyond "global collapse ensued". In fact, the NIST reports are pure fraud. Another issue with 9/11 is all the evidence pointing to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were guided into the country and towards their targets by more than just Osama bin Laden, most notably the CIA's Safari Club network behind President George Bush and secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, also including Saudis as Prince Turki al Faisal and "Bandar Bush", and the Pakistani ISI.

One problem with 9/11 "Truth" is that the above issues are seldom, if ever, as succinctly summarized as has just been done here. But what really gives away that 9/11 "Truth" is totally and completely controlled by "the government" is the fact that a whopping 95% of all prominent and less prominent 9/11 "researchers", including countless Ph.D.'s, architects and even cult leaders as the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan, have claimed at one point or another that the Pentagon wasn't hit by Flight 77, but instead by some kind of drone or missile. In order to reach that conclusion, as has been written down in great detail by this author, one to take countless witness statements out of context, ignore dozens of others, select a handful of photographs, ignore various others, and misinterpret all physical evidence. It's the craziest thing to behold. Yet, 95% of 9/11 "truthers" support this theory. Anyone opposing this theory within this movement has been harshly attacked over it. And more than a few in the remaining 5% are Holocaust deniers or push other highly questionable theories. There literally exists no prominent or less prominent 9/11 researcher that doesn't manipulate along these lines.

ISGP produced similar and very extensive evidence that pretty much all guests to conspiracy shows as Coast to Coast AM, Infowars and Rense have been spreading very systematic and very consistent disinformation. Nuggets of truth are included here and there with these political shows, but literally all facts are distorted, all the time. ISGP also documented in great detail that most "anti-establishment", new left, "liberal CIA" media outlets receive financing from foundations as Ford, Soros, Carnegie, MacArthur, Rockefeller and others. All of these outlets are ridiculing key conspiracies while promoting Third World immigration. Similarly these foundations have been financing a vast network of anti-Trump, pro-Third World immigration activists protesting "populist" governments all over the West - with the media just continuing to pretend that these protests are spontaneous "grassroots" uprisings.

The point here is, is that it's possible for some kind of invisible establishment to not just control the mainstream media, but clearly also run thousands of key agents at the top of our society as journalists, editors and "independent investigators". Then what are the changes that political parties and other pundits have been left alone? Very small.

The good news is that the power of today's establishment still has limits. This can be observed because the elites are running a network of activists that all protest the same issues: pro-open borders, pro-LGBTQ, pro-global warming measures, anti-fracking, anti-(genuine) conspiracy theory, etc. To mainteain secrecy, it would be better to split this virtually unified block of activists into several separate groups with their own financing, but there apparently is not enough money for that. Similarly, these activists all receive funding from the same small set of foundations and corporations. For secrecy, it would be better to have a wider funding base. That's not the case though. Thus, the propaganda and its origins still are relatively easy to figure out, with fingers strongly pointing to foundations as Soros and Ford in particular. In similar fashion, limits in financing led to creation of a clearly-definable "liberal CIA" political box of activism. With more financing, a more full-spectrum block of seemingly independent protestors could be fielded.

As the oversight below makes clear, there all all kinds of other clearly-definable political boxes on the "left" and the "right". They all have their slightly different funding sources, and the more they are to the fringes the harder these sources are to figure out, but all boxes constitute propagand. This is so easy to spot, because not a single box properly deals with conspiracies as JFK, 9/11 or Third World immigration. In fact, individuals in all boxes are lying about it or at the very least withholding key data from the public.

So, what are we seeing in the above oversight? First, there are the mainstream "left" and "right". There are a few differences, but these two generally are seen as pro-corporate and pro-establishment, which has been a long-standing point of criticism. So what happens? Well, an anti-corporate alternative appears: "liberal CIA", represented by the likes of Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders and media as The Nation and Democracy Now!. All they talk about is potential military and corporate takeovers of America, but for the rest ignore key conspiracies and continue to push open borders at all costs. Much of this network receives funding from the "liberal CIA" network of foundations, Hollywood stars not being among the exception.

Along similar lines, an anti-"big government" Libertarian movement appeared criticizing taxes in particular. It's a totally silly movement: ban taxes and you ban the government and any regulations it might put in place to prevent giant corporate monopolies from taking over all of society. If anything, the U.S. needs a stronger, more efficient government; with higher taxes. Ignoring the disastrous influence of Third World immigration, Americans already pay way too little taxes to provide for proper healthcare and social security, proper public schools (even free, such as in certain North-West European countries), good roads, good houses and solid dikes (for hurricane and tornado seasons alone), and so much more. The fact that the Libertarian movement has all kinds of superclass, big business ties, should be a solid giveaway as to its controlled opposition nature. If that doesn't do it, then maybe the prominent idea among elite Libertarians that Third World immigration shouldn't be opposed because "a government can't put limits on people's freedom" really should. ISGP actually discussed all this in the biography of actor Kurt Russell, a leading Libertarian.

Overlapping with the Libertarians, there has also emerged something now dubbed the "alt-right" movement. It's an old movement really and combines the anti-interventionist Old Right, the non-neocon Cold War pro-interventionist New Right, the Religious Right (which can be split among the previous two), the Libertarians (which are largely Old Right), and most importantly, the anti-establishment conspiracy theory-oriented Right, represented by the likes of the John Birch Society and Alex Jones. Because the latter group in particular has grown to be huge in the post-9/11 internet era, mainly because it's the only way to go for immigration opposition and conspiracy thinking, elites have clearly felt the need to control it.

In fact, also this is nothing new. Conspiracy networks have always had a prominent Holocaust-denying conspiracy disinformation Nazi network, initially represented by the General Douglas MacArthur-affiliated Liberty Lobby and later by American Free Press and the Hitler-celebrating Rense.com website. 9/11 "Truth" also contains its fair share of Nazis. There has actually existed a long-standing debate within the conspiracy movement about the nature of "the New World Order", with Holocaust-denying closet-Nazis claiming that it's really "the Jews" pushing the levers behind the scenes, with John Birch Society types not taking it that far.

Thus, it is not a surprise then to see the vast amounts of effort being put by the establishment into trying to paint the rather diverse "alt-right" movement as an extremist, pro-Nazi one. It's quite "extreme" in many ways - if only due to manipulation - but it's Nazi element is very small among the populous. In fact, looking at the Unite the Right Charlottesville rally, among other things, we find ties to the American Security Council and "conservative CIA" networks. It's deep cover, but it is nearly much impossible - also by looking at some of the evidence - that these Nazi elements are not propped up by the globalists and the CIA to "represent" the "alt-right". Certainly the media gives about 95 percent too much attention to it.

Of course, the long-time portrayal of the "alt-right" as being dominated by Nazi thinking has also been extremely convenient in "countering" or "balancing" this movement with the "antifa", or "anti-fascist" movement. This movement has existed for decades. It has some of the same foundation ties as the "liberal CIA" network, but its financing tends to be more obscure. In the EU antifa and immigrant minority groups alike are coordinated by George Soros and the European Union itself. In the U.S. you have CIA assets as Ramsey Clark managing them. These antifa brigades largely consist of communists and anarchists, but where communism used to be a distinctly economic movement, these days the antifa are more into racial and religious communism. Thus, the situation is that most people think that mainly young "left-wing" activists are participating in all kinds of anti-Trump protests and taking down colonial and Confederate era statues, while in reality these are hardcore, fringe communists - who really aren't so much communist as they are globalist. It's a fascinating situation.

So, what's the purpose of all these boxes? There appears to be several interlocked reasons for this:

1. Simulating democratic debate and thus distracting from the fact that there is no functioning democracy.
2. Silencing all reasonable debate taking place at the center.
3. To easily and immediately label, stigmatize and put on the defense anyone who is skeptical about a certain "forbidden" subject, even to the point that people start policing each other on what is "reasonable" discussion.
4. Making the abnormal seem normal for future control over society.
5. Increase the amount of political pressure that can be applied with limited financial resources.

To start with the last reason, we already touched on this a little. A spectrum of political thought is much harder to control and weaponize than a unified block of people. When you have a group of people all having the same ideas on certain key subjects, you can much easier intimidate the masses and opposition with them. That's why - it appears - elites don't want to have more political boxes than necessary; activists cost a lot money. This also appears to be the reason why new left "liberal CIA" and antifa activists all are obsessed with LGBTQ and "racism" and global warming. Having 30,000 activists go to every single rally results in a much more powerful force than having 10,000 protesting LGBTQ, another 10,000 in favor of open border and another 10,000 on global warming. Worse, they might even start fighting each other if not carefully managed. This pooling of activists is especially imperative when financial resources to create and manage these networks is limited, which, despite the billions floating around, it still is. Thus, combining political spectrums into political boxes equals more powerful propaganda, the only downside being that financing and control becomes more obvious to trace and explain to the massess.

To illustrate the third reason - labeling, stigmatizing and putting on the defense - just six months ago I (finally, after years) explained to a girl that it looks as if the World Trade Center was taken down with explosives. So she puts on the usual skeptical look, laughs, and goes, "You think there were no planes?" Isn't it fascinating how she automatically made the connection between "WTC-taken-down-with-explosives" and "no-planes"? That's an artificial construct created by 17 years of conspiracy disinformation at that point, of television shows and conspiracy websites almost exclusively giving attention to 9/11 "truthers" that push no-plane theories. Thus, apart from the already dicy subject, I'm immediately pushed on the defense. Similarly, if you bring up ISGP, many people will immediately start to wonder if you and ISGP believe in the Illuminati, chemtrails, and if the Moon landings never happened. Why? Because elites have funded all kinds of extreme groups that very systematically push this disinformation. "Alt-right" / "conservative CIA", Libertarian, "liberal CIA" and black activist antifa networks are rife with people pushing these theories. Their beliefs on these subjects are so similar and organized that it is clear that some central authority is enforcing these opinions.

I myself experience this pressure almost daily, without knowing exactly who various disinformers are fronting for. Just two hours ago I received a lengthy email of a local researcher asking me in super-friendly ways why "I'm not open to debate" on all kinds of 9/11 issues and if "maybe I want to rewrite" my articles after consultation with a number of regional "experts". It's hilarious. They are twilight zone experiences, but do this long enough and you'll get used to it.

As for the first two points: simulating democratic debate and silencing the reasonable masses in the middle: new left political linguist and political scientist Noam Chomsky has some of the best one-liners on this subject. One example would be:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

Just to immediately demonstrate how tricky this subject is, Chomsky himself is a "liberal CIA" controlled opposition asset. This is evidenced by his extreme, complete denial of any questions surrounding JFK and 9/11, and his support for unrestricted Third World immigration. He himself is guilty of limiting the debate about the three most important issues of our lifetime.

We can debate for hours what "spectrum" really means, but if "left" means "empathic" and "government"; and "right" stands for "selfish" and "corporate", then any modern, healthy society always sits at the center with a variety of different issues, simply because most people are born with the same moral compass and keep each other in check. No social security? People want it introduced, to a degree. Then, after 10 years it is found out that a lot abuse takes place with it? At that point society doesn't instantly swing to the extreme right by banning social security. No, things are simply tweaked a bit to the center: the system becomes a bit more selfish by, for example, lowering monthly payments or forcing long-term recipients into certain types of work. Balance is restored.

It's the same with war: the masses are solidly at the center. They generally don't want to kill or maim anyone, but they also recognize that being a push-over will lead to our own subversion and destruction. After all, there is such a thing as competition and self-interest in this world. Talk to people on the street and almost everyone will understand this. Thus, the masses will largely look away when its own government is staging a coup in a far-from-perfect country, or when it influences a foreign government to counter the influence of another world power. That's just the way the world works. It becomes another story when the only or primary interests benefiting from such a coup are not the masses, but giant corporations, as was the case with the 2003 Iraq War (privatizing oil output); or when coups are causing disproportionate amounts of bloodshed, such as with the death squads in Latin America during the Cold War. Similarly, if a hostile or potentially hostile country is building weapons of mass destruction and ICBMs, they understand that action will have to be taken. For the most part - certainly not among the populous - this is not a "left" or "right"-wing kind-of-thing, even though it is always portrayed as such.

Another example is Third World immigration. A country has no immigrants? Fine, it allows a few percent to come in, either involving refugees or just to get people to mingle and work towards a global society. 10 years later statistics reveal all kinds of crime, IQ and cultural problems emerging? At that point you simply tweak the situation back towards the center and even slightly to the right: a little less "empathy" and a little more "selfishness" - by increasing the native birth rate, stimulating integration (or forcing foreigners out), and closing the border to certain high-crime, low-IQ ethnicities, except with occasional marriages. Virtually anybody, certainly when not under pressure, would consider this a very healthy, logical correction.

The problem, of course, are the elites. Throughout history a small group of wealthy, powerful elites have always had their own ideas on how to shape society - so they set out to control that ball of do-good sheep at the center. The traditional way has been violent, military repression combined with banning all opposite media and other voices, swinging the state to the imperialist, colonialist, fascist extreme right. This has been the way of the world for thousands of years. It appears that as technology, mass media, IQ and general awareness has been rising over the centuries that increasingly sophisticated means had to implemented to keep the populous under control. What started as occasional false flags, patsies and small controlled opposition militias, today has grown into strictly defined political boxes, each with countless deep cover agents and thousands of hopefully unaware followers, that are all played off against one another. A true center-party really doesn't exist, neither in the US or Europe, because on the issue of Third World immigration or conspiracy no moderate, factual debates allowed - basically causing the whole system to slowly disintegrate. Who benefits? One is tempted to say the globalist elites, but in the end it is doubtful that anyone is better off with this system.

Key NGOs studied: Pilgrims, 1001, Cercle

Now that we have discussed today's left-versus-right political boxes and the divide-and-conquer tactics of globalist-oriented elites, it's time to get back on track with discussing the details of this supranational NGO network that is doing all the manipulation.

After a number of years of looking into many hundreds of elite-funded NGOs to varying degrees, a select few of them really stood out as needing priority to study. Virtually no information existed about these groups at the time, despite the fact that they have been gathering many of the most influential persons in business, government, academics and/or national security for many decades. Yes, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission absolutely are extremely important liberal establishment groups to be familiar with. However, for this site the Anglo-American Pilgrims Society was selected for study, because it has much greater membership, is much older and contains the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and literally every other private group and government institute historically associated with the Eastern Establishment. The Pilgrims Society also represents the Anglo-American social network at the core of many of these think tanks and conferences.

The equally unknown 1001 Club turned out to be a very useful addition to the Pilgrims Society, primarily to identify elite and aristocratic old-line associates from mainland Europe and even the world as a whole. Once again the Rockefellers and Rothschilds were part of the picture, this time in addition to the Bechtels and many other interesting names. Despite being a build around a financial trust for the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the 1001 Club has been a treasure trove for elitism and controversy.

On the conservative side Le Cercle and the American Security Council were considered the most important to study. Both existed throughout the Cold War and certainly Le Cercle still exists today as a very important and very secretive conference. These groups gathered the absolute elite of the Christian conservative Anglo-American national security establishment, together with many extremely questionable Opus Dei and Knights of Malta members from mainland Europe and to a degree from around the world. Despite all this, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and their closest friends were always invited as observers to these meetings. Why? Because they served as a bridge to an opposing establishment.

Unsurprising, it is exactly groups as Le Cercle and the American Security Council that the John Birch Society and Liberty Lobby never touched. Alex Jones and Jeff Rense have always censored information about these groups, as they have similarly done with the closely-linked Council for National Policy (CNP). Then again, these alternative media outlets have also always refused to publish on the Pilgrims Society or 1001 Club. It's very obvious that it's their task to limit the acceptable narrative for their followers to groups as well-known groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commissions. All the more reason for ISGP to focus on groups as the Pilgrims, 1001, Cercle and American Security Council.

Eventually ISGP became the first to publish photocopies of membership lists of the Pilgrims Society, the 1001 Club and Le Cercle. It also extensively studied the American Security Council and a number of other groups as the AFIO and OSS Society, making very important but slightly less unique information available on them.

ISGP's Four Establishment Model of western politics

Based on the liberal and conservative old boy networks that slowly were unearthed during years-long studies into various NGOs, seeing how small inner circles within these networks have been making overtures to one another, while also noticing that the same men show up again and again in virtually every (alleged) conspiracy that ever was, an attempt was made to produce a new political model that would explain the existence of elite networks, their involvement in major conspiracies, and how these conspiracies can successfully be covered up. The resulting model has been working pretty much flawlessly since it was first development in 2011, with crucial "liberal CIA" and "alt-right" controlled opposition additions made since 2016. The model has been labeled ISGP's "Four Establishment Model" and divides the supranational NGO network of the superclass and the national elements they influence in the following manner:

1. Liberal Establishment (CIA and State Department)
2. Conservative Establishment (CIA and Pentagon)
3. Vatican-Paneuropa network (Opus Dei and Knights of Malta)
4. Zionist Establishment (Israel and its worldwide communities and U.S. Lobby)

The four-establishment model in four pictures:

1. Picture 1: Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller: The only two persons connected to every aspect of the international liberal establishment: political, economic, sustainable development and national security. The State Department has been their own private playground, although they certainly also have been friends with more than a few CIA directors. The Anglo-American Pilgrims Society is key in understanding this establishment.


2. Picture 2: Ted Shackley: One of the top CIA officers who sat on top of the McCarthyite / conservative / defense / Pentagon / military establishment and who used to work as a key CIA station chief for CIA directors Allen Dulles, John McCone and Richard Helms, three close David Rockefeller friends. Shackley also acted as CIA deputy director of operations under George H. W. Bush, with whom he also was very close.
   
   As head of JM/WAVE in the early 1960s, Shackley is the most likely person to have ran the operation to kill John F. Kennedy with cover from CIA deputy director of operations Richard Helms, CIA director John McCone (Bechtel partner) and vice president LBJ (another good David Rockefeller friend). As for JFK, the Zionists loathed him for trying to force inspections of Dimona and the Vatican-Paneuropa network surrounding Otto von Habsburg - as well as all the afore-mentioned individuals - didn't particularly appreciate JFK's support for socialism in Italy and other countries.
   
   Shackley and the CIA is not exactly the personification of the military ultraright, but the facts is that Shackley largely ran Le Cercle from the late 1970s until his death in 2002 while CIA brothers in arms as James Angleton, Ray Cline and General John Singlaub were deeply involved in the American Security Council. Ultimately it appears the Cold War McCartyites were largely managed by the conservative wing of the CIA.


3. Picture 3: Lord Jacob Rothschild: Closely allied with David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, but at the same time the family is closely linked to the Israeli leadership, Zionist movements internationally and Russian oligarchs as Mikhail Khodorkovsky. There's also a definite tie between the Mossad and various Russian mobs.
   
   Rothschild family members appear to have limited but key ties to the U.S. national security state. Examples you say? Baron Edmond de Rothschild at CSIS (1980s-early 1990s), the chairman of Le Cercle being a Rothschild employee, Jacob Rothschild at the Blackstone Group (both linked to 9/11), Kissinger and Rothschild support for Senator John McCain (WACL/ASC background and of the book Debunking 9/11 Myths), the Rothschilds taking a majority stake in elite CIA-front Diligence LLC, the partner of hyper-controversial Russian military intelligence (GRU) firm Far West (linked to managing international terrorism and the drug trade), along with Halliburton; and James Rothschild at Washington D.C.'s Monument Capital Group with Thomas F. McLarty III (Kissinger McLarty), Frank Carlucci (CIA; Carlyle) and James Baker (State Department; Carlyle).
   
   Jacob Rothschild was an important business partner of two men deeply implicated in the Haut de la Garenne child abuse scandal, but basically all the people here have close indirect ties to such scandals.


4. Picture 4: Otto von Habsburg: Central player in the Vatican-Paneuropa network consisting of Opus Dei members and Knights of Malta from the early Cold War until the post-9/11 world. Allied with Shackley et al through the secretive Cercle group. Not particularly fond of Zionism. His network is equally, if not more so, linked to elite child abuse scandals as other establishments.

Okay, so what follows now is a point by point summary of each establishment individually: liberal, mixed religion conservative, Vatican-Paneuropa, and Zionist. I have created another, shorter summary in ISGP's FAQ.

Liberal Establishment:

1. East Coast Establishment plus West Coast Establishment, globalist-oriented, mainly non-Catholic elements in Europe, and similar elements in Asia.


2. Hollywood Jews - who have little to no (visible) affiliation with West Coast Zionist neocons and the Israel Lobby - are a major ally of the liberal establishment, especially the Democrat aspect.


3. Centered around international banking, commerce, and diplomacy. One hundred percent committed to the globalization process in every possible way. Exercises political power to a large extent through hundreds of NGOs: from think tanks to annual conferences.


4. The traditional "Big Three" foundations, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Ford, belong to this establishment, but are deeply involved to this day in financing "anti-establishment", "new left", "liberal CIA"-type activism, mainly to keep open the borders and quash dissent on the conspiracy front as well.


5. Most key players in the world have been accepted at one point or another to the international advisory committee of JPMorgan Chase or the board of Kissinger Associates. Bechtel is at the core of the West Coast Establishment and closely linked to the Rockefellers and JPMorgan Chase, most recently through men as George Shultz and Riley Bechtel.


6. Inner core in the United States: David Rockefeller and friends as Maurice Greenberg, Peter Peterson, John Whitehead, Warren Buffet, and Paul Volcker. Kissinger Associates people are always brought in as overseers and/or observers of CIA and neocon projects. Completely interlocked with the Rockefeller interests is the George Shultz/Bechtel/Bohemian Grove group on the West Coast. In England and France the Rothschilds are major allies. Other key figures, like Lord Roll, Lord Carrington, Etienne Davignon or Pehr Gyllenhammar have all been at Kissinger Associates. Most of the men mentioned here have belonged to the Anglo-American Pilgrims Society or otherwise the 1001 Club.


7. Direct control of the following media outlets through a network of friends: New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time magazine, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN. These companies are all owned by Pilgrims Society members or a few of their closest friends. In England The Times, the Financial Times and Reuters are among those linked to the Pilgrims.


8. Complete State Department control through the Council on Foreign Relations and the social network of the Pilgrims Society. Right-wing (corporate fascist in the end), but diplomatic.


9. Pro-containment (Kennan) and pro-detente (Kissinger) during the Cold War.


10. Has been overwhelmingly anti-"preventive war", anti-"rollback" and anti-SDI (Star Wars) during the Cold War.


11. Historically completely pro-Arab due to oil interests. Only supports a moderate foreign policy of Israel towards the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors.


12. Pro-Afghanistan invasion in 2001, but mostly anti-Iraq invasion in 2003. Preferred containment of Saddam Hussein.


13. Completely, one hundred percent Anglophile, even for the few intelligence-connected core players who have worked with radical Zionists, like James Woolsey, George Shultz, Alexander Haig, Paul Nitze, etc. The Pilgrims Society alone can easily prove this.


14. One hundred percent committed to the theory of catastrophic global warming. Again, even for the handful of Anglophile, pro-Zionist conservatives as James Woolsey and George Shultz.


15. Conspiracy outlets as the Disclosure Project and those related to it are controlled by this establishment and used to promote world peace, sustainable development and a Gaia-type United Nations religion to people considered the most susceptible to it - and in addition to keep SDI ("space-based weapons") from being revived. Daniel Sheehan, a close friend of the Rockefellers and many other Pilgrims Society members, has played a key role in this aspect of the globalization process. He had earlier been "unleashed" to help curb CIA influence in the Oval Office.


16. Consists of the internationalist "Rockefeller Republican" wing in the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party, certainly by the time Jimmy Carter took office, making the Republican vs Democrat debate largely a non-issue. Favorite presidents: Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Clinton and Obama. Nixon was turned on to Kissinger's detente politics, leaving conservatives, including Kissinger's old mentor, Fritz Kraemer, completely disillusioned with him. Bush 41 was also acceptable.


17. The British Conservative Party - The Tories - is the party of the royalist ruling class in Great Britain that has historically been allied with the (liberal) Eastern Establishment in the United States. The Pilgrims Society is clear evidence of that. Some leading pro-E.U. conservatives go to Bilderberg, but the liberal establishment is also forced to work with non-establishment elements in the Labour and Liberal parties. Tony Blair joining the international advisory council of JPMorgan Chase in 2008 and even becoming chairman in 2010 is a good example of that. There's also traditionally been a ultra-right-wing within the conservative party which disagreed with detente and cooperated with the Conservative Establishment in the United States during the Cold War. Evidence of that can be seen in groups as Le Cercle.


18. Some key names from Canada, a country belonging to the British Commonwealth, are the Bronfmans, the Desmarais family, Conrad Black of Hollinger, Maurice Strong and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Black and Strong were members of the 1001 Club. Andre Desmarais and Brian Mulroney have served on the international council of JP Morgan Chase, while Mulroney could also be found at Blackstone, joining at the same time as Jacob Rothschild.


19. In Japan the Liberal Establishment is allied with the Liberal Democratic Party (considered conservative), controlled from front to back by former Black Dragon Society terrorists and Yakuza elements released in December 1948 by MacArthur as part of a "Christmas amnesty" for rather obvious war criminals. One of the key ones, the billionaire Ryoichi Sasakawa, teamed up with Pilgrims as William Draper, Henry Kissinger and Angier Biddle Duke in the U.S.-Japan Foundation in 1980. Previous to that the Rockefeller group forged links with the old Mitsubishi zaibatsu when the Trilateral Commission was founded. These zaibatsu had been pushed aside by the Black Dragon Society and Dark Ocean Society groups in the run-up to World War II. Sasakawa's political ally in controlling the Liberal Democratic Party and the yakuza, Yoshio Kodama, had been a member of them. Both men allied themselves with the Moonie Cult against communism in the 1960s, with Kodama also becoming a CIA and Lockheed agent. Make no mistake, these men were deeply fascist and considered the leading "kuromaku" - powers behind the throne - in Japanese society.


20. The 1001 Club is one group that shows the Liberal Establishment maintained close ties to Mobutu Sese Seko in the Congo, the Shah in Iran and Suharto in Indonesia.

Conservative Establishment:

The first that must be said is that Republicans are not necessarily conservative at all. They are just pretending to be that way for elections. Generally they still end up supporting all kinds of regional integration, open border and related globalist policies for big business reasons.

Secondly, the dominant neocon streak of the conservative movement also is not fully conservative at all. Key neocons also tend to be rather globalist-oriented, are involved in NGOs as Bilderberg, with the primary difference being a semi-clandestine pro-war, "Israel uber alles" mentality.

Certainly today a pure anti-Eastern Establishment conservative network influential enough to be labeled an "establishment" is tough to single out. Senator Barry Goldwater never was elected president, with supposedly conservative presidents as Nixon and Reagan recruiting Rockefeller men to key cabinet positions, especially the Department of State. Trump largely represents Barry Goldwater thinking - for which he is hated by the international media - but at the same time is a raging pro-Israel neocon and feautures all the characteristics of a controlled opposition asset, similar to his ally Alex Jones.

Despite these issues, a basic history and characteristics of Barry Goldwater conservatives and its neocon take-over/incarnation reads as follows:

1. Centered around the Pentagon, with the CIA also containing a large conservative wing, especially at the operational level. However, much of the time CIA directorships were handed to right-wing Eastern Establishmentarians: General Walter Beldell Smith, Allen Dulles, his Bechtel-allied protege John McCone and Richard Helms - just to name a few examples from the 1940s to the 1970s. Heck, William Colby, George H. W. Bush and really even William Casey all fall into the same category. Still, the CIA has employed large networks of militant conservatives for operations.


2. Old guard conservatives grew out an alliance between General Douglas MacArthur's notoriously fascist cronies, generals Pedro del Valle, Bonner Fellers, Charles Willoughby, Albert Wedemeyer, George Stratemeyer and Robert Wood. They were backed by H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was an ally. Together they attacked President Dwight Eisenhower, a former Pilgrims Society executive and solid Rockefeller Republican, and the Eastern Establishment for being too soft on communism. Among the groups these supporters of MacArthur ran during the Eisenhower years were the National Military Industrial Conferences, hence Eisenhower's expression "Military-Industrial Complex", although he also termed it the "military establishment" and "defense establishment" in the same speech.


3. This group founded the John Birch Society and even the highly anti-Jewish Liberty Lobby (which included General Stratemeyer and General del Valle), responsible today for 95 percent of people's anti-establishment theories, including anti-United Nations, anti-Kissinger and anti-Rockefeller propaganda.


4. Undiplomatic. ultra-right-wing McCarthyites and Christian conservatives from different denominations. A combination of the isolationist old right, the interventionist new right, as well as the religious right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.). Today's much vilified "alt-right" movement is nothing more than a combination and remnant of these three conservative movements.


5. Allied with the Vatican-Paneuropa network in Europe, consisting of Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta.


6. Teamed up with South Korean interests, including the MacArthur-released Sun Myung Moon and his Moonie Cult.


7. Began working with the Israel Lobby in the United States in the 1970s, forming the neocons.


8. Anti-containment, anti-detente and pro-SDI (Star Wars) during the Cold War. Richard Perle (Le Cercle), who was working for Senator Henry Jackson and basically elements in the CIA, was the leader of the anti-detente campaign. General Daniel Graham (American Security Council) was head of the pro-SDI lobby.


9. Anti-United Nations and anti-global warming theories.


10. Consists of intelligence assets and the (often fringe) ultra-right-wing of the Republican Party, as well as a handful of hawks from the Democratic Party. Important examples of this latter case are Senator Henry Jackson, from whose office sprang a small army of leading neocons; "Good Time" Charlie Wilson, also nicknamed "the Israeli commando", and two co-chairman of the American Security Council: William V. Chappell, Jr. and Senator J. Bennett Johnston.


11. Some favorite presidential candidates: Senator Robert Taft, General Douglas MacArthur, George Wallace, Barry Goldwater and Nixon before he was turned on to the policy of detente by Kissinger and Rockefeller. Only when Reagan was elected, did the conservative establishment have the president they really wanted. A favorable election again happened in 2000 when George W. Bush moved into the White House, flanked by the neocons. A later favorite of the conservative establishment has been Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, with McCain being acceptable - but primarily being favored by the "liberal" establishment.


12. Formed action groups to circumvent the State Department's monopoly on international diplomacy, like the International Security Council, funded by the Moonie Cult. Also tried to infiltrate the State Department, as was attempted during the Reagan years with Perle's Madison Group.


13. Key "insider" groups: the World Anti-Communist League, the American Security Council, its post-Cold War incarnation, the Center for Security Policy and Le Cercle for Vatican-Paneuropa relations.


14. Seems to be have been controlled by the CIA at the very top, because MacArthur's generals and persons as Curtis LeMay and other confrontationist "Project Control" supporters at the American Security Council were subordinate to less radical CIA officers they shared their board with: Richard Bissell, James Angleton, Ray Cline, Vernon Walters, William Colby (Le Cercle), William Casey (Le Cercle), Ted Shackley (Le Cercle). These officers in turn worked closely with Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Frank Carlucci, Donald Gregg, Robert Gates and George H. W. Bush.


15. A key person in turning the conservative establishment neocon has been Senator Henry Jackson, who, back in 1973, worked with Ted Shackley and other CIA officers in covering up CIA abuses investigated by the Church Committee. Jackson helped establish the America-Israeli Friendship League in 1971 (with Nelson Rockefeller) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Cheney, Perle, Feith, Woolsey, etc.) in 1973. He also participated in the CIA-MI6-Mossad Jonathan Conferences. In addition to this it was he who ran a Zionist fifth column in his Senate office, from which sprang names as Richard Perle, Edward Luttwak (Perle's roommate at the LSE), Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Richard Pipes and Frank Gaffney, the latter the founder of the Center for Security Policy in 1988, a pro-Zionist, post Cold War continuation of the American Security Council.


16. The individuals the American Security Council liaised with during the Cold War shows how ruthless the persons of this establishment: Roberto Alejos Arzu (tied to an international child abuse ring), Colonel Enrique Bermudez (controlled Danilo Blandon, who started the famous CIA crack cocaine epidemic in the U.S. by selling his cocaine to Ricky Ross), Roberto D'Aubuisson, Stedman Fagoth and Mario Sandoval were among the worst CIA-linked death squad leaders, sometimes also implicated in large scale child or cocaine trafficking. In Africa relations were maintained with Jonas Savimbi of UNITA, who is known to have thrown at least several families in bonfires, and General Christoffel van der Westhuizen, who ordered assassinations on anti-apartheid black ANC leaders and later on was South Africa's mastermind behind the mysterious "third force" that used terrorism and propaganda to try and create a civil war among blacks. Le Cercle had similar associations.


17. Furthermore, the American Security Council had several prominent officers who were directors of Wackenhut, the enigmatic private security firm with its "rumored" CIA links. In contrast to Bechtel, Wackenhut forged no visible links with the Eastern Establishment. Early members were McCarthyites and MacArthur supporters. Cheri Seymour in The Last Circle found evidence that Wackenhut had been involved in highly secret bacteriological warfare research and suspected - like I am also inclined to do - a connection with MacArthur's release of Unit 731 scientists at the end of World War II. Having seen Wackenhut turn up in close proximity of Belgian Dutroux scandal (closely linked to MacArthur II) and underground fascist armies, I suspect we haven't even touched the surface yet of some of the projects of this company.


18. Also at the American Security Council could be found the long-time chairman of Air America and Air Asia, Admiral Felix B. Stump, airlines used by the CIA for drug trafficking. In 1975, three years after Stump had died, Air Asia was bought by the secretive high technology firm E-Systems, also linked to drug trafficking, as well as a number of suspicious deaths. Former CIA director William Raborn, also a director of Wackenhut, served on the board of E-Systems from 1970 until his death in 1990. E-Systems was bought by Raytheon in 1995. Since 1998 former CIA director John M. Deutch has been serving on the board of that company. Deutch may not be entirely disconnected from the events of 9/11.


19. All in all, it seems that these CIA officers linked to the conservative defense establishment have been playing second fiddle to the State Department and the liberal establishment. Nixon brought in Rockefeller friend and long-time Pilgrim and Bilderberg overseer Henry Kissinger to run his State Department and National Security Council.
    
    With both the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations it was George Shultz, a right-wing Rockefeller and Bechtel man, who formed the counterweight to these conservative establishments. During the Reagan administration it were secretary of state George Shultz, a right-wing Rockefeller and Bechtel man; undersecretary of state Whitehead, a close friend of David Rockefeller, and defense secretary and Bechtel employee Caspar Weinberger - all three later Pilgrims Society members - who used their media network to allow Iran-Contra to be exposed. They even had their globalist buddy Daniel Sheehan go after the drugs-for-arms network of Ted Shackley, complete with the usual disinformation.
    
    During the vetting of George W. Bush for president in 1998, George Shultz sent in Condoleezza Rice, Bush's future secretary of state, who had been Shultz's protege at Stanford, the Hoover Institution, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, Transamerica and the Charles Schwab Corporation.

Vatican-Paneuropa Network:

1. Catholic European branch of the conservative establishment which had considerable overlap with the American Security Council and completely supported the ASC's anti-detente and pro-SDI policy.


2. Ultra-right-wing. Knights of Malta and Opus Dei-dominated network.


3. Key founder of many groups has been Otto von Habsburg, the last crown prince of the Vatican-allied Austro Hungarian Empire. Prince Hans Adam II von Liechtenstein, a relative of the Habsburg, is another key player in Europe. Prince Miguel de Bourbon has been another member with long-standing connections to U.S. intelligence.


4. Its primary interest has been the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire by manipulating the European Union, although this agenda has met with stiff resistance from the Liberal Establishment.


5. Le Cercle is the most secretive and highest level group in this network. It works with the CIA, MI6 and intelligence services of mainland Europe and Saudi Arabia. In the past it worked with apartheid governments in Africa and fascist regimes as Franco and Pinochet. Members have overseen underground fascist armies in Europe that were used for false-flag terrorism, assassination, drug running, arms smuggling and the protection of high-level child abuse networks. The primary contact points in the United States of Le Cercle have been the Heritage Foundation and the CIA. Ted Shackley has been a key contact of Le Cercle since the early 1980s until his death in 2002. He worked together with Richard Perle and Britain's aristocratic super spook Julian Amery, who moved in aristocratic circles involving the Rothschilds, the Cecils (also of Le Cercle) and active and retired prime ministers.


6. Notoriously anti-Jewish (and apparently anti-black), as Otto von Habsburg's somewhat ridiculous November 2002 statement to the Austrian weekly Zur Zeit made perfectly clear: "The Pentagon is today a Jewish institution. On the other hand, the blacks are in the State Department: for instance, Colin Powell or especially Condoleezza Rice. It is an internal conflict between hawks and doves. Currently, the Anglo-Saxons, that's to say the white Americans, are playing a relatively minor role." Unsurprisingly, only a small handful of Jewish neocons were welcome to visit Le Cercle, at least during most of the Cold War when Otto von Habsburg's influence on the group was the greatest.

Zionist Establishment:

1. We're not talking here about close to 75% of U.S. Jews who still vote Democrat / globalist, and thus - interestingly - are in favor of massive Third World immigration, including Islamic. Hollywood and entertainment industry Jews are relatively little concerned with Israel's national security and are pretty much completely onboard with the liberal globalist establishment.


2. Built primarily around radical Jewish Zionists, not just American neoconservatives, but also the Israelis. For a list of individual groups and those involved, go here.


3. Consists of Israel, Jewish communities around the world and the Israel Lobby in the United States. It's a very close-knit and survivalist community that is highly politically organized and, despite not being backed by many elite Jews, still has a lot of money available.


4. Some key names who have worked closely with Israel and/or the Mossad: Bronfman, Rothschild, Oppenheimer, Maurice Tempelsman, Felix Przedborski, Bruce Rappaport, Edmond Safra, Max Fisher, Tibor Rosenbaum, Louis Bloomfield, Michael Cherney and John Loftus. Those with Israeli nationality tied to illegal operations include Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Isser Harel, Shaul Eisenberg, Al Schwimmer, Yaakov Nimrodi, Rafi Eitan, Efraim Poran, Abrahim Shavit, Yair Klein, David Kimche, Micha Harari and others.


5. The Mossad seems to operate in just about all Jewish communities around the world and certainly helped set up Israel's "triangle of influence" in the United States in cooperation with AIPAC and CPMAJO. It became so powerful because the Jewish people have a direct and continuing interest in being politically active, have the highest average IQ in the world, follow community leaders, and vote in greater numbers than other ethnic groups.


6. Began to work with conservative networks in the 1970s, forming the neoconservatives. Before that largely ignored, as it has always been by the liberal establishment and its pro-Arab policies.


7. U.S. mafia kingpin Meyer Lansky was a Zionist. Jimmy Hoffa even more so. Top elitist Lester Crown, another Zionist and patron of the career of Barack and Michele Obama, also has a history linking back to these mafia circles, as does billionaire financier Michael Steinhardt and the Bronfmans, which, uniquely, are both globalist and neocon. Individuals as Bronfman, Crown and Steinhardt always are in close touch with Israeli leaders.


8. Back in the 1990s and 2000s Bronfman, Steinhardt and Crown also were members of the secretive and politically very influential Mega Group, founded by the Bronfmans and billionaire Leslie Wexner, the latter a patron of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The Bronfmans, Steinhardt and other Mega Group billionaires put millions in the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, set up right after 9/11 and stacked with neocon extremists as former CIA director James Woolsey, former FBI director Louis Freeh, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Steve Forbes, and others.


9. The leaders of the powerful Solntsevskaya mafia in Russia, Sergei Mikhailov and the Averin brothers, and their ally Semion Mogilevich, all had secondary Israeli passports. Powerful Zionist oligarchs as Pyotr Aven and Mikhail Fridman of Alfa Group have been considered allies of Solntsevskaya, but there were also influential non-Zionist elements, like Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov and Sistema chairman Vladimir Yevtushenkov. Senator Henry Jackson, a mentor to half a dozen influential neoconservatives, created much of the international aspect of the Zionist mafia by linking trade concessions with Jewish emigration from Russia. This led to Russia emptying its jails of many of the worst Jewish criminals and sending them to the West. There's no evidence the Zionist establishment really cared about this, as the Russian IMF scandal and other affairs demonstrate. It's an almost openly criminal network that protects itself by labeling every critic an anti-semite.


10. Mafia-connected Jewish-Russian oligarch Michael Cherney has been working with powerful neocons as Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, and Frank Gaffney, as well as former CIA directors James Woolsey and John Deutch in private groups as the Intelligence Summit and Jerusalem Summit. Senior Mossad officers have also taken part in these groups.


11. Bizarrely, the website of Michael Cherney's Intelligence Summit has been transformed into a simplistic but extreme conspiracy outlet with categories on the site as "Jihad dog killing", "Muslim cannibalism", "Islamic Gangs", "Killing Christians", and "Ukraine Nazi coup". This is mixed in with conspiracy categories as "Illuminati", "FED bank", "CFR", "Club of Rome", "Committee of 300", "Knights of Malta", "Jesuit spy", and "Jesuit pope". Many articles equate the pope with Satan himself. Guess we now know where a lot of this online conspiracy material comes from: the Mossad and CIA.


12. Besides Solntsevskaya, various Russian oligarchs and mafia bosses have worked in close cooperation with Israel, as they are Jewish. The Mossad, CIA and MI6 seem to have been making good use of this asset against communist and nationalist Russian elements. Yeltsin's key neoliberal economic advisors, Zionists Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, were in contact with western establishment circles since 1988.


13. Oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Badri Patarkatsishvili, close to Yeltsin, long-time patrons of Putin, and manipulators of the Chechen conflict, were neighbors of none other than "Nebula" leader Felix Przedborski, an enormously powerful mafia boss/oligarch reportedly protected by a team of retired Mossad agents who were also training Columbian drug cartels.


14. The Mossad first became allied with James Angleton and, after his ouster from the CIA, with Ted Shackley's CIA group. Both Shackley and the Mossad have been accused of drug running, arms smuggling, money laundering, assassination, the plotting of coups and seem to be involved, along with the previous establishments, in the protection of sadistic child abuse networks: see the Rothschild-linked Jersey Island scandal and the ASCO factory of Beyond Dutroux.

ISGP's Superclass Index and index of institutes

Now that readers are familiar with the different establishments that are in existence (at least according to ISGP's Four Establishment Model), it's time to identify the key members within these establishments. Enter ISGP's new Superclass Index, the full list of which today includes names from around the world. As the reader can see, the methodology used is quite scientific. It adds up the amount of important non-government organizations - including numerous "independent" commissions and government advisory bodies - individuals have been involved in throughout their life. It's a very simple, but, as it turns out, also an extremely revealing method.

Without a doubt it can be said that the 170 persons or so in ISGP's American Superclass Index, with another 200 or so internationally, form the the key in understanding who is influencing national and international politics from behind the scenes. They're also key in figuring out who is behind various major conspiracies that have never been solved. Every conspiracy that ever was, can be tied to these individuals or their immediate superclass mentors, who also just happen to be the only persons in the world with the connections to have covered up these conspiracies.

ISGP's index of names and institutes clearly demonstrates ongoing interaction between retired secretaries of state, defense secretaries, CIA directors, national security advisors, other high level government officials, senators, national security experts, bankers and corporate executives, both at the national and international level. Many high level government officials simply never fully retire from politics. Their expertise and connections tend to be used by large corporations, think tanks, some of the most prestigious universities, and the media - all controlled by the same few hundred, at most several thousand, individuals: the superclass. Together this network grooms its favorite candidates for the presidency (or the prime ministership), usually involving an existing congressman, senator or governor who has proved to be reliable. It's often fairly easy to tell which public officials are favored the most for high office, because well before election time, there's a tendency for their names to show up in various establishment think tanks and conferences.

Numerous examples come to mind. Starting out with an example from Europe, Romano Prodi served on the steering committee of Bilderberg decades before becoming president of the European Commission and Italy's prime minister. As for America, Eisenhower was a Pilgrims executive before his election and received major donations from big oil. He hired the Dulles brothers, childhood friends of the Rockefellers, to run his State Department and CIA, with Nelson Rockefeller overseeing special operations for some time. Gerald Ford later had Nelson Rockefeller as vice president. Jimmy Carter was infamously embraced by the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission before he decided to run for president. The Bush clan has world class Eastern Establishment banking credentials as partners of the Dillons and Harrimans going back to before World War II, apart from later CIA and Skull & Bones ties. Clinton visited Bilderberg only once, in 1991, months before announcing that he would seek the presidential nomination and 1.5 years before being elected president of the United States. Clinton is also notorious for apparently protecting CIA drug important into Mena, Arkansas and helping to cover up the train track murders. Ironically, vice president and president George H. W. Bush is one of the chief suspects of having organized this Contra-related scheme.

More recently, in 2008 many in the establishment favored Senator John McCain over Barack Obama. Unsurprisingly, McCain and his father have had decades-long establishment connections, from the Pilgrims Society to the American Security Council and World Anti-Communist League (WACL). However, in case of Obama, his wife, Michelle, served on the board of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, headed by the powerful Zionist superclass member Lester Crown, an important financial contributor to Obama's senatorial and later presidential campaigns. Almost certainly Obama has had a relationship with Zbigniew Brzezinski since his Columbia days in the early 1980s. And certainly during his 2007 election campaign he referred to Brzezinski as "an outstanding friend". One of Obama's CIA directors, General David Petraeus, is another interesting example of superclass grooming. In late September 2008, a month before being appointed USCENTCOM commander, he was invited to a luncheon of the British branch of the elite Pilgrims Society. Petraeus has no establishment background. It is very well possible that powerful people wanted to get a feel of the kind of person he is.

A whole string of interesting cases involve the Munich Security Conference. Chuck Hagel, Obama's secretary of defense since 2013, visited the Munich Security Conference from 2000 to 2005 and has been involved in many other think tanks. Hillary Clinton, Obama's secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, first visited the Munich Security Conference in 2005. William Cohen has headed the U.S. delegation to the Munich Security Conference since 1985, but only in 1997 was appointed Clinton's defense secretary. Porter Goss, an old CIA veteran, AFIO member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, visited the conference in 2000. Five years later he was appointed CIA director. Angela Merkel, elected chancellor of Germany in 2005, visited the Munich Security Conference since 2002. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were also visiting the Munich Security Conference in the years prior to their Bush administration appointments as secretary of defense and assistant secretary of defense.

But maybe to be more exact with regard to this last example, virtually the entire Bush administration was plucked from the Center for Security Policy. Dick Cheney, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were all involved with the CSP throughout the 1990s. Some of them made it to the "Vulcan team" that vetted George Bush, Jr. for the presidency. Condoleezza Rice, a key protege of top superclass member and Rockefeller friend George Shultz and a representative of the liberal elite surrounding the State Department, played an important role in this team. Rice was appointed national security advisor and secretary of state in the largely neocon Bush administration. Colin Powell was Bush's secretary of state during his first term. Curiously, in the 1990s both Rice and Powell, besides numerous other establishment connections, served on the board of the small, elite private group Forum for International Policy (FFIP). Others on the board included Kissinger proteges who served in the first Bush administration and former CIA director Robert Gates, who later served as Bush's and Obama's secretary of defense. On top of that, in the 1990s Powell sat on the board of the controversial Knights of Malta-allied charity AmericaCares, which counted the deep involvement of the entire Bush clan.

As the reader can see, life in the upper echelons of society is 25 percent about what you know and 75 percent about who you know. To a degree this system makes sense. Everybody likes to have people around them that they can trust and who are reasonably like-minded. Also, apart from the vetting process, it can come in handy that a freshly appointed secretary of state or elected president is already acquainted with his foreign counterparts, as well as the national and international superclass. The problem is that the public isn't made aware of the nepotism and grooming that goes on at the highest levels of society. We are still indoctrinated with the belief that everybody can become president or prime minister of his or her country. This is simply not true. For the most part you have to go to certain universities (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Sciences Po, INSEAD, etc.) to be accepted by the existing superclass and on top of that one has to cater to one, two or three existing factions within the superclass to ever have a shot at making it to the highest office. You simply can't come in with your own independent program and expect to be promoted by existing superclass interests and to be given positive media attention. The world doesn't work that way.

At this point it should also be clear that a ton of diplomacy is carried out through the unofficial platforms offered by NGOs. For example, the Dartmouth Conferences have been incredibly influential in U.S.-Russian relationships throughout the Cold War. Bilderberg has played an enormous role in U.S.-European relations since 1954. The Americas Society, founded in 1965, sponsors meetings with Latin American leaders all year long. The Africa-America Institute has been doing the same for Africa since 1953. For China there is the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and relations with Japan are maintained year long through the Trilateral Commission, the Japan Society and other groups. The Munich Security Conference, which brings together political leaders from around the world who are relevant in the field of national security, has been in existence since 1962.

These are just a few examples from a list of about 1,300 relevant NGOs. Needless to say, David Rockefeller has played a key role in many of the groups cited as an example here. Only in relatively recent years, with the sudden death of his son Richard and he himself almost a century old, has Rockefeller showed signs of slowing down with the amount of conferences he visits. Kissinger, over 90-years-old now, is still going strong with giving speeches and visiting conferences: he travels around the world in a wheelchair.

Controlled: the Republican vs Democrat system

The table below, in combination with ISGP's Superclass Index, should make it quite obvious that the Rockefeller group and their primary protege, Henry Kissinger, together with a little help from George Shultz and Bechtel, have dominated U.S. politics since at least the Eisenhower administration (it was less solidified under Truman and, despite Nelson Rockefeller's role with regard to Latin America, largely non-existent under FDR). Of course, ISGP has a separate article on the often-mentioned Pilgrims Society, complete with unique photocopies of membership lists.

One additional thing to keep in kind is that the last complete Pilgrims Society membership list ISGP has been able to acquire dates to 1980. There's no doubt that many other more recent names can be listed as Pilgrims Society members once modern membership lists become available.

John D. "Jay" Rockefeller, IV and Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence Committee - tasked with overseeing the intelligence agencies - an establishment power base in the senate. Sen. Bob Graham, also tied to elite think tanks, has also served on the committee for a long time and as chairman before Rockefeller. Rockefeller has been a pre-2002 member, vice-chair 2002-2007, chair 2007-2009, and regular member since. Congress' counterpart has been led by elites as later CIA director Porter Goss and Jane Harman. [42] ISGP has an Superclass Index so people can check all these ties for themselves.

What does the above list tell us? It tells us that whole Republican vs. Democrat system has been rigged. The liberal Rockefeller establishment is both Republican and Democrat. The masses are encouraged to debate about creationism vs evolution, medicare and tax rates, but when it comes to long-term foreign policy, from economic integration to the War on Terror, the same agenda keeps going, no matter who is in office. That should have become blatantly obvious after Barack Obama came into office. Despite a toning down of the Christian rhetoric and more cooperation with the United Nations and NATO, the War on Terror, foreign interventions and the eroding of civil liberties continued virtually unhindered. Yes, there are definite differences between administrations, but none of them truly represent the people.

We can add to this in recent times the irrational Third World open borders policy that liberal Democrats openly embrace, but is hardly even opposed by neocons as George W. Bush and William Kristol. Trump broke this pattern a little bit, but has been quite ineffective at stopping this train due to various federal judges in the pocket of the liberal establishment.

Below is another way of looking at the top positions of government, the route towards it, and at what level of government the top think tanks and foundations become important. One can see that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the national security advisor and their immediate deputies are basically always involved in the major think tanks and NGOs, both before and after their terms in office. Presidents and their running mates almost always come from the outside and will only get national media exposure after they have been vetted.

Both tier 1 and less desirable tier 2 candidates tend to have superclass ties. As detailed in ISGP's "liberal CIA" article, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader all have been involved in NGOs that took money from foundations as Rockefeller, Ford, or Soros' Open Society institute. The whole idea that these candidates are independent, is a total joke.

We can look at 2004 and 2008 Democrat presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, a favorite in conspiracy disinformation circles for his support for the bogus Disclosure Project and activism against non-existent chemtrails. Bizarrely, Kucinich, Al Gore and Coast to Coast AM visitor Deepak Chopra together sat on the Global Council on Spiritual Politics & Global Citizenship of the United Nations-affiliated World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality. Other councils of this World Commission were stacked with other elites and Coast to Coast AM visitors. In what world does that make any sense?

Similarly on the right, we see candidates as Ross Perot, who has been financing the OSS Society, where he has partied with CIA directors and special operations commanders; Donald Trump, who at one point ran as a presidential candidate for Perot's Reform Party and whose father was a major Barry Goldwater supporter. Why would Trump run around the country for so long pushing the bogus conspiracy theory that Obama's birth cirtificate is fake? The Trump family was close to Roy Cohn, a rather notorious ultraright CIA asset who, similar to the Trump family, was part of the American Security Council clique that rallied behind Senator Barry Goldwater. Why would Trump ally himself so closely with Alex Jones, another Barry Goldwater admirer? Why would Trump's well-connected campaign advisor and initial national security advisor, General Michael Flynn, appear on the conspiracy disinformation show Caravan to Midnight and, along with his son, push the bogus Pizzagate affair? None of it makes much sense.

Even Ron Paul, who ran prominent and relatively successful presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, has a history that includes the John Birch Society, Alex Jones and the Koch brothers. His agenda also is one of the more impractically conservative.

So no, independent presidential candidates do not appear to exist.

The end of the Rockefeller era of globalization?

Decades-long close friends Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller.

One thing that should be taken into account is that the average age of the Rockefeller clique at the top of ISGP's Superclass Index is about 86. David Rockefeller is a solid century old, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger are in their 90s and a lot of their closest friends and proteges aren't lagging behind very far. There's no clear heir to David Rockefeller either, who, along with his family, built almost the complete worldwide network of NGOs in the post-World War II era while closely allying them with the CIA. His son, Dr. Richard Rockefeller, died in a plane crash in 2014. While respected in the medical world and a major promoter of psychedelics legalization, Dr. Richard Rockefeller had no influence in the world of business, politics, or think tanks. The same goes for David Rockefeller, Jr., or the rest of David Rockefeller's children (all daughters): they have been involved in various philanthropic projects, maybe a think tank here and there, but they have virtually no political influence and do not possess the vast riches anymore the Rockefeller family acquired in the late 19th and early 20th century through the oil and banking business.

Apart from David Rockefeller and Laurance Rockefeller, the only member of the Rockefeller family with any political influence heading into the 1990s was Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia's senator from 1985 to 2015, who served as vice chairman and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the years after 9/11. A son of David's brother, Nelson Rockefeller, Jay Rockefeller has been involved in a number of NGOs - including Bilderberg 1971-1972, the CFR, Alfalfa, Trilateral Commission, Japan Society and Asia Society - but his influence on national or international politics never even remotely compared to that of the Henry Kissinger-David Rockefeller duo. Jay is getting into his 80s, so chances are we won't be hearing much from him anymore. And while his son Justin has been active in the NGO world, this also has been at a rather low level, similar to the children of David Rockefeller.

Thus, it will be interesting to see how the liberal establishment, which for almost a century has had the Rockefeller family to rally around, will adapt to this new situation, especially in a world with dwindling national resources, a recalcitrant Russia, an emerging China, rapidly rising CO2 and methane levels, unchecked Third World immigration into the West, and other global challenges.

George Soros and the "liberal CIA" clique involved the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller foundations, Open Society Foundations, and allies as Pierre Omidyar, Bill Gates and other Silicon Valley billionaires appear to be the most readily available successors to David Rockefeller. However, with George Soros approaching the 90, it is hard to see how long the moderate to "new left" wing of the establishment has any major kingpins to rally around. What they do have, however, is Third World immigration that make up such an increasingly large portion of America's voting population that success of the Democrat Party is increasingly hard to prevent.

If we compare the liberal establishment Rockefeller clique to the neoconservatives under men like James Woolsey and Dick Cheney, who find an average age of "just" 69. Include some of the more senior CIA officers, who appear to play a role in controlling the neocon movement, and the average age goes up to about 73 - still two decades younger than the most important members of the Rockefeller clique. However, think tank presence is not all that's needed to hold the reigns of power.

The neocons do not have access to the same amount of funds the liberal establishment does, which has dozens of major foundations and multinationals funding its network of NGOs, including an army of "new left" activists. The neocons also don't have the media on their side. All they have is their alliance with the Christian conservative movement: the isolationist old right, the interventionist new right and the more recalcitrant conspiratorial alt right - all represented by Donald Trump in his 2016 election. The main problem for the neocons and conservatives is that with each new Third World immigrant entering the United States, their power is dwindling. Nearly 100% of the black and Arab votes go to the liberal Democrats and about 75% of the Latino vote. By mid century whites are expected to become a minority in the United States and various key states, including Florida, might already have been swung to the Democrats permanently due to Third World immigration.

In other words, it is kind of hard to say what America's superclass will look like 15 to 30 years from now. Maybe we have Jonathan Soros and a whole network of Silicon Valley billionaires continuing to run the show, basicially implementing their globalist agenda of importing every crime-ridden, low genetic IQ culture into the West. If Third World immigration is somehow reversed, the neocons and Christian conservatives still stand a chance. Would that be a good thing? Hardly. These elements have a tendency to bankrupt the United States by initiating hyper-expensive, pointless, never-ending wars, i.e. the whole War on Terror. Under all circumstances we would need a third way. We need long-term, sustainable social, economic and political policies.

One final thing to remark is that superclass members as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Peter Peterson and Maurice Greenberg, all close friends of David Rockefeller, have been rather pro-Israel and pro-neocon over the years. So, once again, it is incredible to see just how key the Rockefeller network has been over the past century. They literally have their hands in everything. However, none of these individuals will be around in 15 years, so it will remain fascinating to see exactly which elites will be shaping the United States over the coming decades.

State Department, CIA, or something else?

This is a question that comes up rather often when discussing conspiracies: where does the State Department begin and the CIA end? These days a lot of "democracy-sponsoring" goes through a network of think tanks and foundations that includes Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, George Soros' Open Society Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Council for a Community of Democracies and related groups. The boards of these groups are stacked with persons from ISGP's Superclass Index - and they all cooperate and coordinate. A great example of this coordination has been given by the Economics Education and Research Consortium (EERC) in the Ukraine, back when it first established a website. Key founder and honorary chairman of the EERC is the Zionist oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In order to get his funding, Pinchuk went to his friends at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, with directors as David Rockefeller, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, George Shultz, Paul Volcker, Maurice Greenberg, Peter Peterson and Conrad Black. Pinchuk himself joined the board in later years. According to the EERC itself, back when the website was first up many years ago:

Only a few years before, proteges of Peterson Institute directors Peter Peterson and Larry Summers had begun to advise Yeltsin's government on neoliberal reforms. Officially these men were Harvard economists, although Putin later referred to them as "CIA personnel" and "intelligence officers". To make things even more complex, almost everyone involved in the economic reform and subsequent siphoning off of billions in IMF funds were either Jewish or Zionist - usually both.

So where does one establishment end and another begin? Where does Russian Zionism end and the Mossad begin? Where does the CIA end and the State Department begin? Or where does private enterprise begin? It's all nearly impossible to tell. Maurice Greenberg of the Peterson Institute and AIG was very close to CIA director William Casey and at different times has been recommended for the position of deputy director and director of the CIA. CIA directors Walter Bedell-Smith, Allen Dulles, John McCone, Richard Helms, Robert Gates and John Deutch all were/are close friends of this Rockefeller clique. In fact, in ISGP's Pilgrims Society it is discussed in detail how David Rockefeller and friends basically all were CIA assets, and at the same time were operating as an "above CIA" network. William Casey had deep ties to the Pilgrims Society network as well before his appointment as Reagan's CIA director.

Retired CIA directors have always mingled with retired secretaries of state and defense secretaries, always ready to advise the next generation of political candidates. Back in 1993, after George H. W. Bush was defeated by Clinton, this was perfectly illustrated with the founding of the Forum for International Policy (FFIP) and the Virginia Neurological Institute. Both were closely-knit groups with founding directors that included Kissinger protege Brent Scowcroft, Bush's former national security advisor; Kissinger protege Lawrence Eagleburger, Bush's former secretary of state; and Bush's former CIA director, Robert Gates. Other FFIP directors were future Condoleezza Rice, Bush's expert on Russia; and Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush. In 1997, after resigning as CIA director, John Deutch completed the FFIP board.

Rice, Powell and Gates would resurface in the administration of George W. Bush as secretaries of state, national security advisor and defense secretary. Until that time they were involved in numerous NGOs and corporations with other members of the establishment. Powell served on the board of the Knights of Malta- and Bush family-dominated AmeriCares board. He was a director of the Forstmann Little-owned Gulfstream Corporation, together with Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Lynn Forester de Rothschild and George Shultz. In the same period George Shultz brought Rice onto the boards of Chevron, Transamerica, the Charles Schwab Corporation and JPMorgan Chase. These are just a few examples of how Powell and Rice, not to mention Gates, were quite literally groomed by the establishment for future government positions.

Speaking of grooming, there's at least one interesting report that's not been discussed yet on this site. In November 2006 a series of emails was published on the internet, written by a person who claimed to be have been the driver of Paul Dietrich. ISGP stumbled across these emails when doing background checks on Paul Dietrich and his wife, Laura, whose names appeared in a list of visitors of a meeting of Le Cercle, a small and very secretive CIA-Vatican liaison group. ISGP was the first to publish photocopies of membership lists of the group. Who's Who information demonstrated that both Paul and his wife belonged to the Knights of Malta. At the same time it was claimed in these emails that Laura was groomed by a CIA "fast track" program for a high government position, along with Condoleezza Rice.

Checking up on some of the information, Laura Dietrich certainly did work for Bolton [12] and was active at the State Department in returning refugees ("commies") to countries as El Salvador, to be butchered by various CIA/American Security Council/Cercle-related death squad leaders as Roberto D'Aubuisson, Mario Sandoval, Colonel Enrique Bermudez, Stedman Fagoth and others. [13] She was also unusually slim and attractive for a politician. Also interesting is the statement from the alleged former driver that Paul handled an account for Mikhail Gorbachev. Coincidentally, in 1992 Paul was a founding trustee of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA, with George Shultz as chair of the advisory board. In this same period Paul and his wife ran the questionable Institute for International Health and Development (IIHD), which tried to counter the WHO's anti-smoking stance. The younger sister of later PNAC founder William Kristol was executive director of the IIHD.

Looking deeper into some of the other names mentioned, until her death Jeane Kirkpatrick was among the most connected elitists in the west. All the institutes she was involved with can be found in ISGP's Superclass Index. As ISGP's American Security Council article describes, Kirkpatrick played an important behind-the-scenes role in providing U.S. support for terrorism in South Africa aimed to uphold apartheid - in direct opposition to official State Department policy. Certainly if anyone would be in a position to set up clandestine CIA programs it would be Jeane Kirkpatrick. Like the Dietrichs, she is also known to have visited Le Cercle. Rumsfeld and Woolsey, both high up in ISGP's Superclass Index, would have known each other for years through the CIA-linked H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the Defense Policy Board and other non-government groups. Woolsey also just happens to be the number one person involved in Pentagon federal advisory committees. The DOD committee described here, however, doesn't appear to be an official committee, as Laura's name can't be found anywhere in Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) lists. In fact, it can't even be shown that Laura is still alive today.

Whether the above information is true or not, it's hard to talk about State Department policy or CIA policy. Ultimately these are just bureaucratic organizations with PR departments. It's the people running them, including their network of friends, that matter - not the other 99 percent of the employees in the organization. It appears that "realpolitik" is decided on in the back rooms and at dinner parties, much like any other group of friends would make decisions. Persons that are met with can range from heads of major foundations and think tanks, to covert operations specialists, corporate leaders, and representatives of foreign governments. In the same way it's a virtual certainty that the owners of the media are approached through these same unofficial channels for a variety of leaks and cover ups. As ISGP's Pilgrims Society article shows, many chairmen and other board members of major media outlets very much are part of the establishment.

A peculiar neoconservative establishment

Earlier we demonstrated Rockefeller domination of the U.S. political system. At the same time it must be acknowledged that the Republican Party is split among liberal Rockefeller Republicans and a radical conservative wing, which in turn is split into the influential pro-Israel "neoconservatives" and the increasingly marginal traditional right wing: the antisemitic, Christian conservative "old right" and "new right" of the Cold War. The neocons and Christian conservative have been working together against liberals, mainly Democrats, since the 1970s. This peculiar alliance only breaks down within the lowest, controlled opposition John Birch Society, alt-right conspiracy network.

One major problem with these right-wing establishments as a whole really is that they have been dominated by the CIA and the Pentagon ever since the creation of the national security state. ISGP's article on the American Security Council and its neoconservative follow-up, the Center for Security Policy, made this painfully clear, as well as ISGP's article on Le Cercle. More recently, in the Pilgrims Society article, ISGP looked into the financing of the neocon movement through foundations as Olin, Bradley, Scaife, H. Smith Richardson Foundation and Achelis and Bodman. Not only do some of these foundations have clear CIA ties, but some of them also have had liberal establishment elites, including many Pilgrims, on the board for decades, sitting there alongside their conservative counterparts. It really makes one wonder to what extent the "neocons" or even traditional conservatives even exist as a separate establishment or if all of it is little more than just little factions within one larger establishment, controlled in its entirety by the security state.

There's been much talk about the "neoconservatives" ever since George W. Bush was elected president in 2000. There isn't really a definitive answer as to what a "neoconservative" is, although the obvious, yet politically incorrect, answer is that they have an "Israel uber alles" mentality and don't know how to balance a budget if their life depended on it. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have been labeled "neoconservatives". The problem is, as ISGP's index of institutes demonstrates, that these men have been very comfortable with the liberal establishment, having held important positions in groups ranging from the CFR and the Bretton Woods Committee to the Eisenhower Fellowships and the Atlantic Institute of International Affairs. They supported Israel much stronger than almost anyone in the liberal establishment, but does this make them part of an entirely new establishment? Hardly. Throughout the 1990s Rumsfeld even was a director of Gulfstream, together with George Shultz, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and Lynn Forester de Rothschild. He also appeared in the Pilgrims Society. So did Bush's uncle, by the way, Prescott S. Bush, Jr., the brother of President George H. W. Bush. And upon seeing Cheney's puppy dog face when taking a question from David Rockefeller at the Council on Foreign Relations and hearing his introduction--quoted below--and it's immediately clear that Cheney too is extremely close to the liberal establishment:

If Rumsfeld and Cheney aren't true neoconservatives, independent of the liberal establishment, then who are? Well, maybe there are none. Virtually all well known neoconservatives fall into one or more of the categories below:

1. Mid-level Pentagon employees.
2. National security scholars.
3. Executives of CIA and Pentagon-linked think tanks.

Well known neoconservatives include Richard Perle, Edward Luttwak, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Dov Zakheim, Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Pipes and Daniel Pipes. The fact is, while being influential in a whole range of NGOs, these "neocons" never rose to top positions in the U.S. government (structure of promotion listed a few pages earlier). Wolfowitz held the highest office: as Rumsfeld's deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005. Douglas Feith, as under secretary of defense for policy, served under Wolfowitz, and, together with AIPAC henchmen as Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, collected much of the dirty propaganda to make a U.S. invasion of Iraq possible. Back in the early 1980s, Feith served under Richard Perle in the Defense Department.

Bush appointed Perle chairman of the Defense Policy Board in 2001, but this is not an official government position and already in 2003 he was forced to step down. Back when Reagan came into office in 1981, Perle did have an official position at the Defense Department, but counted Fred Ikle and General Richard Stilwell, a former CIA chief in the Far East, among his superiors here. Throughout the 1980s these men were key liaisons to the secretive Cercle group, most likely arranged through the connections of their boss, deputy secretary of defense Frank Carlucci. Carlucci was a friend of controversial CIA spook Ted Shackley, who seemingly controlled the Cercle group. Carlucci is actually said to have made a decision with Shackley, General Vernon Walters (ASC), George H. W. Bush and others, to try and foment a silent CIA coup of the White House in the late 1970s, which took the form of the hawkish Reagan administration. [15] As we know that Carlucci, Shackley and Bush were close associates and friends from the 1970s on and into the 21st century, [16] it's not surprising either that Rumsfeld, a childhood friend and political protege of Carlucci; and George W. Bush, the son of George H. W. Bush, allowed the neocons to return. However, the neocons do not control anything. They are always brought in as assistants.

As has been discussed in some detail in ISGP's American Security Council article, many neocons originated from the office of Senator Henry Jackson to be employed as "detente wreckers", the famous policy embraced by Henry Kissinger, the Rockefellers and the State Department as a whole. Back in the 1970s Richard Perle, Edward Luttwak (earlier Perle's roommate at the London School of Economics), Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith and Frank Gaffney were all employed here.

This shenanigans in the office of Senator Henry Jackson occurred in the same period that a number of CIA-linked "neocon" foundations began building the "neocon" movement - except that half these foundations also contained liberal Eastern Establishment elites on their board. We're talking Olin Foundation, H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the Scaife foundations, Bradley Foundation, Coors Foundation and the Achelis and Bodman Foundation. To illustrate, what was John J. McCloy, a Pilgrim, Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation chair and Rockefeller agent par excellence, doing on the board of the Olin Foundation from the late 1970s until his death in 1989? And that's just where the Eastern Establishment ties of the birth of the neocon movement start.

Going back to Senator Henry Jackson's clique of Perle, Luttwak, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Feith and Gaffney, we can also add Richard Pipes, who used to be on the board of the CIA- and Pentagon-dominated American Security Council and served as an advisor to senator in the 1970s. Gaffney founded the Center for Security Policy, the unofficial neocon successor of the American Security Council. Another, Luttwak, worked at the prestigious CSIS think tank for several decades. In this capacity he has been a permanent consultant to various special operations branches of the Pentagon, the national security council, the State Department, and, unofficially, the CIA covert operations clique surrounding Ted Shackley. Still, Gaffney, Pipes, Luttwak, and fellow-neocon Joshua Muravchik, never held any official government positions. They somehow made a name for themselves as outside consultants.

True, apart from Perle, a few other neocons also held official positions in the U.S. government. William Kristol, the famous founder of the Project for the New American Century, was chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle in the administration of George H. W. Bush. Dov Zakheim was another mid-level Pentagon employee under Reagan who was reappointed during the administration of George W. Bush, in his case as under secretary of defense (comptroller). That's about it. All this stands in stark contrast to the more than 30 NGOs and Pentagon advisory groups Zakheim has been involved in until this point, quite often alongside former CIA director James Woolsey. Kristol held about 20 such positions. His father, Irving Kristol, infamously co-founded Encounter magazine for the CIA.

If anything, the vast majority of neocons, if not all of them, appear to be toys of the CIA and mainly used as liaisons to the Israeli government. As has been discussed by ISGP, the CIA, mainly through the private club of men as Richard Helms, Ted Shackley, Frank Carlucci and George H. W. Bush, has maintained relations with the Vatican-Paneuropa network (Le Cercle), the Saudis (Safari Club), and, seemingly through the neocons, Israel. Just the latest example I ran across is Edward Luttwak, an expert on death squads and coups, who can be tied to Giancarlo Elia Valori through Italintesa and an Aspen Institute-sponsored meeting in Italy. [17] Valori used to be a Cercle member [18] and one of the key players in the P2 Lodge, part of the terrorist Strategy of Tension in Italy. To this day he has top-level friends in the United States and the Israel lobby, and is still suspected to be a major behind-the-scenes power player.

Almost certainly Valori was well-acquainted with Michael Ledeen, another fascist Zionist extremist, at the time of Italy's false flag bombings, the Banco Ambrosiano scandal and the subsequent P2 affair. Ledeen was operating in Italy as a SISMI military intelligence "risk consultant". He primarily worked with controversial SISMI asset Francesco Pazienza, with P2 member General Giuseppe Santovito being the head of SISMI at the time. Both Pazienza and Santovito were close associates of Valori, who in more recent decades turned from a Vatican insider to being one of the closest friends of radical Zionism. [19]

Of course, Ledeen also never held any official government position. He's just an academic and journalist who shows up wherever some kind of conspiracy is suspected, whether it's an assassination attempt on the pope, Iran Contra, or the Iraq invasion. Unsurprisingly, Ledeen has been close to CIA covert operation veterans as William Colby and especially Ted Shackley for many decades.

Senator Jackson himself was closely linked to this same CIA group. In 1973 he worked closely with top CIA officers Ted Shackley, William Colby and James Schlesinger in undermining the Church Committee's inquiries into Richard Helms' illegal CIA projects: MK-ULTRA, the Kennedy assassination, coups, Mockingbird, etc. [20] Jackson is also known to have been a darling of the American Security Council and to have visited the secretive Cercle group of Shackley, although it was mainly Perle or an assistant of his, Pat Balestreri, who showed up as a Pentagon liaison to Le Cercle in the 1980s. Wolfowitz visited Le Cercle in the early 1990s.

How exactly did this network come about? We don't really know the details, but Perle, as well as Wolfowitz, was sent to Jackson's office by Albert Wohlstetter, one of the godfathers of neoconservatism who was a veteran of the RAND Corporation and various national security think tanks, all linked to the Pentagon and the CIA.

Interestingly, Richard Perle is actually not the most connected neocon of all. Ranked far above him on the neoconservative ladder is the ultraconnected CIA spook James Woolsey, the number 2 in ISGP's Superclass Index, right behind Henry Kissinger. Indeed, Woolsey has been involved in more think tanks and advisory bodies than a George Shultz or David Rockefeller. Since 9/11, Woolsey has played a role in almost every think tank and action group set up by the neocons, often alongside Richard Perle and Dov Zakheim. Woolsey, however, has always been intricately connected to the core of the liberal establishment, best illustrated by his support for anti-global warming measures, Yale and Rhodes Scholarship background (Senators of his 1993 CIA senate confirmation hearing were joking about Rhodes scholars taking over the administration and being so deeply involved in intelligence), membership in the CFR since 1975, directorship of the Atlantic Council since 1981, positions at the Smithsonian, and vice chairmanship of the CSIS think tank by 1988 [21], where already at that point he shared the board with Henry Kissinger, Maurice Greenberg, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Claiborne Pell (closest of friends with the Liechtenstein family) the previously-mentioned Etienne Davignon and Baron Edmond de Rothschild. [22] The neocon Edward Luttwak, of course, was equally active at CSIS.

At the same time Woolsey was the ultimate arms industry insider--probably for the CIA--as a lawyer and director of corporations as British Aerospace, DynCorp, Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Litton Industries, Fairchild Industries, Rockwell, SAIC, the Titan Corporation, United Technologies, General Dynamics and also the Carlyle Group. [23] In 1987 and 1988 Woolsey was a member of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Joint Strategic Targetting and Planning Staff at Offutt Air Force Base. Worryingly, this is where part of the Franklin Affair mind control research took place, with Woolsey and his wife, a national security behavioral psychologist, being rather closely linked to the affair. [24]

Woolsey's first association with the neoconservatives, as far as ISGP can figure things out, appears to have been at the Executive Panel of the Chief of Naval Operations when he joined it in 1980. Archneocon Albert Wohlstetter, a RAND scientist and Pentagon consultant who had sent Perle and Wolfowitz to Senator Jackson's office, served on the Executive Panel from 1971 until his death in 1997. Woolsey actually beat him in terms of longest-serving member, still being a member today.

In 1988 Woolsey's neocon ties were solidified when he joined the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) [25], co-founded a decade earlier by Senator Henry Jackson (there he is again) and Iran-Contra veteran Michael Ledeen [26], who, just as Jackson, was close to CIA officers Ted Shackley, of Le Cercle, and Ray Cline, a co-chair of the American Security Council and the U.S. Global Strategy Council. There's every indication that back in the 1970s and early 1980s Ledeen was a key U.S. liaison to the fascist P2 Lodge for Shackley at the CIA and Alexander Haig (Pilgrims and Kissinger protege) at the State Department. [27] Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz (co-chair), Douglas Feith (vice-chair), and even Morris Amitay, AIPAC's executive director, could all be found at JINSA no later than the early 1990s. [28] Ledeen, Perle, and Woolsey stayed on the board of JINSA until early 2012 when a dispute arose with a more moderate lead financier of JINSA and all three prominently resigned. [29] Clearly the three men had grown very close over the decades.

Woolsey, Ledeen and also Perle, through his association with Le Cercle, clearly are all CIA. There's every indication that Woolsey was already CIA when he established Yale Citizens for Eugene McCarthy for President in 1967, a curious anti-Vietnam War candidate apparently in the business of educating hippies to cut their hair and dress properly. In other words, Woolsey's 1993 appointment as CIA director doesn't appear to have been a coincidence and as a lifelong CIA officer, it's also questionable that Woolsey's appointment to the board of JINSA and dozens of later neocon outfits has been a coincidence.

Personally I suspect Woolsey has been picked by the private CIA network set up by Richard Helms and Ted Shackley, and today still counts George H. W. Bush and Frank Carlucci among its ranking members, as the network's chief liaison to the Israel lobby. If anybody is managing the neoconservative movement from behind the scenes, at least from the U.S. side, it would be Woolsey. Woolsey has definitely been close to this CIA group, as his co-chairmanship of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers and the OSS Society, both with George H. W. Bush, demonstrates. Other former CIA officers as James Schlesinger, Frank Carlucci, Richard Helms have also been involved with these groups. Ted Shackley was a key player in the AFIO until his death in 2002. Clearly all these men knew each other very well, but Woolsey's old CIA ties remain obscure. His Pentagon, neocon and liberal establishment ties are very clear, however.

Woolsey and Cheney may both have been assigned to manage the neoconservative movement, as Cheney was a board member of JINSA from 1993 to 1999. Cheney and Woolsey, who reportedly are close, also know each other from the board of the Jamestown Foundation and the Center for Security Policy. Both men appear to be deep insiders to the United States' most illegal black programs, as the men's association with the Russian firm Far West alone seems to indicate. [30] When it comes to any major black program the Pentagon might be running, it's hard to imagine Woolsey not being aware of it to some degree - as a lot of Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAPs) seem to be hidden in private industry. On top of that, Woolsey has served on numerous low profile Pentagon committees. Who the heck has ever heard of the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee (OCSPC), the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Group (DCAG), the Disruptive Technology Committee, the Future of Navy Force Structure (FNFS), or the Navy Personnel Policy (NPP)? Not a lot of people, but Woolsey served on all of them.

This same group, many of whom hardly show up in any of the globalist or neoconservative NGOs, dominates the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB really seems to be the only place where most of the elite of the national security scientists, along with corporate and political elites overseeing various black programs, come together. The head of the DSB is picked by the president. Chairman of the Defense Science Board throughout the George W. Bush administration was William Schneider, Jr., a neocon who could also be found at the Center for Security Policy, Le Cercle and PNAC. These same national security scientists can be found on such bodies as the National Security Agency Advisory Board (NSAAB), the Executive Panel of the Chief of Naval Operations, the NRO Technical Advisory Group, the CIA's National Security Advisory Panel. The Directorate of Science & Technology of the CIA is more important, but this is an official government body - not an "outside" oversight or consultancy group. Until the late 1950s, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB) also featured some of the most elite national security scientists on its board, but this isn't the case anymore today.

Last but not least, there's also incredible overlap with the RAND Corporation, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), SRI International, MITRE, and the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory. The JASON Group, of course, has been housed at IDA, the Stanford Research Institute and MITRE at various times. Some of its scientists are also part of the elite national security network. Of these groups, the RAND Corporation think tank is the most widely connected. Liberal establishment elites, national security scientists and scholars, neoconservative godfathers, persons moving into and out of the CIA - everybody's been on the board here over the years.

IDA and MITRE were part of the civilian national security network created by James Killian under President Eisenhower, who had the most Rockefeller-dominated presidency in American history. The unusual thing about the MITRE Corporation is that it was headed by a single person, James Schlesinger, for almost three decades, from 1985 until his death in 2014. Another top elitist, Senator Chuck Robb, became a trustee in 2001, vice chairman from 2006 to 2014, and chairman since then. Leadership at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA0, a closely-related think tank, has switched around much more often. At this point Suzanne Woolsey, wife of former CIA director and top neocon superclass member James Woolsey, has headed the think tank since 2010.

SRI International was known as the Stanford Research Institute until 1975, when it split off from the university and became a private research institute. Certainly from the 1940s to about 1980 the institute was dominated by the Dulles and McCone-tied Bechtels and, even in later years, by numerous Bohemian Grove friends of the Bechtels. Tellingly, even William Perry briefly served as a director of SRI in the 1981-1983 period, in between government jobs. Perry was one of the men who stood at the basis of TRW, whose other founders could all be found at the Bechtel-dominated California Institute of Technology - Caltech. Historically Bechtel, SRI, Caltech, TRW and the Bohemian have had an extremely close connection. [31]

There's no doubt that this network has been involved in some of the most classified and certainly unusual defense projects of the Cold War. Project Stargate, the famous remote viewing program, was largely ran out at SRI in the 1970s and 1980s. Those employed at SRI have included program director Hal Puthoff; Russell Targ, Ingo Swann and Joseph McMoneagle. Psychic Uri Geller and Richard "Mr. Cydonia" Hoagland could also be found here. All these men became instant hits at the famous radio show of Art Bell, today known as Coast to Coast AM, which is spewing out an endless stream of disinformation - with the help of the afore-mentioned persons. Seeing that the Bechtels and other Bohemian Grove elites were paying the bills at SRI, this evolution of affairs starts to make a little bit more sense.

One interesting question to ponder is if any black programs exist in which revolutionary new energy devices have been developed. That's really impossible to say for a person like me, but what is certainly odd is that so much of this type of science and research is being ignored by governments and most of the mainstream media - not to mention ridiculed. Are the oil companies really that powerful? Long laughed about, cold fusion might just be a reality these days, as demonstrated by a device at MIT of professor Peter Hagelstein [32]; the E-Cat, which seems to be able to produce anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times as much energy as can be found in gasoline [33]; and other reports. [34]

Energy generation by efficiently splitting water (H2O) into flammable hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O), also long considered an impossibility, also is taken serious today. For example, the big business and primarily navy-backed BlackLight Power Corporation [35] is reported to have a working "Hydrino reactor", although it is incredibly curious how the company hasn't reported a single breakthrough in many years. [36] The Sun Catalytix Corporation at MIT, financed by DARPA and since this time overseen by CIA elitist John Deutch, is working on a similar concept. [37]

Elites are involved in other interesting projects. Lightbridge, formerly known as Thorium Power, has had Susan Eisenhower, Sir Ronald Grierson, Lord Guthie and Michael Howard on its board. [38] Thorium is a new, highly-efficient and non-polluting form of nuclear energy. It's an extremely promising form of energy.

The Bloom Box fuel cell is another very interesting - yet less revolutionary - energy generation device, which has already been put to use by major Fortune 500 companies. Colin Powell, ranked high in ISGP's Superclass Index, like Deutch and John Lehman (linked to Blacklight), joined the board of Bloom Box. [39] Quite possibly the most important future energy of all, helium 3, to be used for nuclear fusion, seems to be largely ignored for now. The Moon has enormous supplies of this fuel, right at the surface.

Again, what is oh-so peculiar is that one still has to search very hard online in order to find (reasonably) credible information on these devices - and that in a world with ever dwindling natural resources as oil, gas and minerals. Whatever the reason, what is certain is that the developments surrounding these new energy technologies are closely monitored by the national security aspects of the establishment. And this same establishment is deeply linked to the oil and gas industry (including construction and maintenance): ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, BP, Shell, Halliburton, Schlumberger, Bechtel, etc.

In case of John Deutch, he can also be found at the National Petroleum Council with the executives of all major oil corporations; as well as the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, along with Lockheed's Norman Augustine and top level defense industry insider William Perry. In 2006 John Deutch and MITRE/JASON head James Schlesinger (Superclass Index), another former CIA director, co-chaired the CFR's U.S. Oil Dependency Task Force. Former CIA director James Woolsey, the undisputed number two in ISGP's Superclass Index, is a co-founder of the United States Energy Security Council, in which George Shultz, William Perry, Norman Augustine and John Lehman are all involved; and served on the oil and gas industry-related Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee (OCSPC). Woolsey is also very much concerned with alternative energy, although with less revolutionary energy devices as the ones just mentioned. Curiously, Woolsey, so closely linked to manipulating the UFO community through the Arlington Institute and the likes, has also been named a major player in the cover up of these alternative energy devices. Not by the most reliable source exactly, but most definitely a source Woolsey is acquainted with.

Clearly this establishment group is very well informed of the situation in the world. It's next to impossible that they have not decided to promote research into alternative energy generation devices, as within two or three decades technologies these might become essential to the survival of western society. However, due to the fact that these same people are close to the oil and gas industry, there's a good chance that these devices will not be promoted until the effects of the oil peak (conventional or now unconventional shale oil) begin to cripple the West's economy. Do black programs exist in which these type of energy devices are already operating? It's possible. All that would be needed is severals tens of millions of dollars, a little industrial spying and a team of top notch engineers with an open mind to start making breakthroughs.

Much more can be written about the defense industry aspect, but it is recommended that readers themselves take a look at the names and corporations listed in the index of institutes defense section, or search for the names that appear in ISGP's Superclass Index section labeled 'Top DOD scientists'.

1993, Russia's face of "democracy": Yeltsin with his long-time security chief, General Alexander Korzhakov (behind him), and defense secretary from 1992 to 1996, General Pavel Grachev (to his left). These two men were the leaders of the military "siloviki" faction in this period. In order to prevent a possible coup from the military, Yeltsin allowed top military leaders to fill their pockets any way they could. Grachev in particular seems to have been involved in anything from the drug trade to the illegal sell off of Russian arms. His group pushed for the 1st Chechen War (over Caspian Sea oil control), gave orders to the Far West group, and hated the oligarchs and economic reformers. Tellingly, he and "Party of War" ally Sergei Stepashin were quoted saying during a drunk press conference at the time of the first Chechen campaign:

"[Grachev:] Seventeen-year-old boys are dying with happy smiles on their faces ... [Stepashin:] And now our air force is carrying out the whole program, paying no mind to the peacemakers in Moscow, isn't that right, Pavel Sergeyevich [Grachev]?" [40]

Yeltsin was forced to fire Korzhakov, Grachev and other allies in 1996 in order to get support from the oligarchs which controlled the main TV channels and the economy at that point.

In 2000 Putin and his St. Petersburg friends quickly took control of companies that included ORT (media), NTV (media), Gazprom and Rosneft. Seemingly always overlooked are the defense corporations. A key one is the United Aircraft Corporation, which, since 2006, controls famous military aircraft builders Sukhoi, MiG and Tupolev: "St. Petersburger" Sergei Ivanov was put in as chairman. Another key firm is Almaz-Antey, producer of the world's most dangerous anti-aircraft SAM missile sites: the S-300, S-400 and S-500: "St. Petersburger" Viktor Ivanov was appointed chairman in 2002. In 2002 Putin also ordered the restructuring of Mashinostroyenia, developer of the hypersonic Oniks/Yakhont, BrahMos and BrahMos II cruise missiles that form an extreme threat to American war ships, most notably to aircraft carriers. Oniks reaches speeds of Mach 2.5, the improved BrahMos flies at Mach 3 and the stealthy BrahMos II is expected to reach a speed of no less than Mach 7. The Oniks alone forms such a threat to U.S. warships that in July 2013 Israel attacked a Syrian warehouse where newly-arrived Russian missiles were alleged to be stored.

Promotion film of Almaz-Antey's S-400 anti-aircraft system, destroying America's B-2 Spirit stealth bomber and F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. Russia's S-400 seems to be the best anti-aircraft system in the world by a long shot: 400 km range and at closer range at least limited ability to detect stealth aircraft. The upcoming S-500 is an advanced anti-ICBM system. In terms of anti--aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defense, as well as anti-ship missiles, Russia is ahead of the West. Guaranteeing the safety of carrier battle groups and even stealth aircraft in Central Asia might become a major challenge in the future.

Putin prefers to work with the West, but his insistence on rebuilding the military, the competition for Central Asian resources, and his anti-democratic tendencies, make an alliance with the West nearly impossible. But the fact is, for the Russian people, Putin is the better choice, at least when compared to the hated oligarchs. They will economically corrupt and ruin the country as they did in the 1990s. The problem is, the weaker Russia is - at least militarily - the better it is for the West. Even more so in a world with dwindling natural resources. The last thing the West prefers is to be even more dependent on Russian oil and mineral exports. But as long as the oligarchs are out of power and Russia has a strong military, there's little the West can do about that. The only alternative seems to be mass production of E-Cats and related energy devices.

Update: Just months after finishing up this article a dispute arose between the West and Russia over the Ukraine. Russia has been pressing Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych to back out of treaties with the European Union. In turn the West, with persons from ISGP's Superclass Index leading the process, has been backing pro-EU protests in the country against Yanukovych, even openly embracing fascist/Nazi opposition to Russian influence in the form of Oleh Tyahnybok (who met with the controversial national security senator John McCain, a reported contact of the shady Far West black operations firm, among many other things). Western media and political circles don't have one friendly word to say about Putin. In fact, it seems it has literally become sacrilige to say even the slighest positive or unbiased word about Putin. The Cold War is raging in considerable force again.

Whatever establishment we are talking about, in the end a lot comes down to class warfare. Traditionally all establishments have been hostile to (genuine) socialist politics and its persistent support for labor unions and the rights of the lower and middle classes. The more radical form of socialism, communism, has been the most acute threat throughout most of the 20th century and all four (western) establishments have been doing their best to either contain or eradicate it. Also in Russia the wealthy have always conspired against the lower classes.

Today we have the "new left" "liberal CIA" network that is pretending to be concerned about the lower classes. However, is it? What purpose does it serve to import the crime-ridden, low genetic IQ masses of the Third World here while intimidating the native white massess with the propaganda that everyone - here in the Netherlands I've never heard anyone in person say anything positive about black and Arab immigration, but have heard the opposite endlessly - who opposes it is a racist whose opinions should be ignored? What's social about this agenda? Very little. So once again we have to suspect that some kind of class warfare is going on.

Former prime minister Dries van Agt, once explained that Dutch political parties have a tendency to settle their differences behind the scenes. ISGP is inclined to believe that the establishments surrounding the Atlantic interact in similar manner:

When it comes to establishments, the impression that ISGP has increasingly been having is that important issues are discussed behind the scenes while the media and political candidates are used to sell the ideas of one of these establishments to the public - or to surreptitiously undermine the policies of another establishment. The constant bickering between liberal pro-detente and conservative anti-detente forces, between liberal anti-SDI and conservative pro-SDI groups during the Cold War is a great example of that. In both cases think tank personnel and politicians tied to one of these establishments used the media to basically sway public opinion in their favor - often by trying to come across as "nonpartisan". At the same time key persons in these establishments interacted with each other in the backrooms of corporations, think tanks and socials clubs. It might well be that it is in these backrooms that limits are being set on what can and can't be discussed in public. The Kennedy assassination and 9/11 are ultimate examples of that. Because all establishments were involved in those conspiracies to an extent, and likely also because it would undermine the continued existence of every other establishment, absolutely no one has been allowed to dig into these events, not even to (seriously) implicate an opposing establishment. Compare this to the New York Times, Washington Post and Time magazine once in while exposing CIA wrongdoing, which at least in some cases appears to have been an effort to curb conservative CIA-linked forces in the White House.

The conspiracy movement has generally been manipulated along similar lines. Right-wingers, extreme Holocaust-denying right-wingers, new agers, new leftists, so many with obvious CIA and superclass ties - there's something for everyone, except for people genuinely looking for the truth. Most of this has been discussed in articles grouped in ISGP's Alternative Media Study Center.

I suggest the reader treads very carefully outside the walls of ISGP: counter-intelligence and psychological warfare is a huge pain in the ass. This site is meant to be a safe-haven for all those interested in getting solid answers on conspiracy topics without you having to spent literally your entire life trying to sort fact from fiction.

Below the reader can see a three-establishment model variation, together with the key political convictions of each group. In this case the conservative establishments of Europe and the United States have been taken together, because of their close political and religious objectives.