The World's Most Dangerous Secret Societies: The Illuminati, Freemasons, Bilderberg Group, Knights Templar, The Jesuits, Skull And Bones And Others

by James Jackson

  Both of which may shed an entirely new light on the proposition of “fostering interdependence between nations.”

  The Bilderberg Group

  Within the realm of overt secret societies, the Bilderberg Group enjoys a certain notoriety as operating under policies of exclusivity and privacy. Paradoxically, it has never denied its existence, and lists annual members and chairmen of its conferences openly, even publishing its findings and reports. Yet surrounding them remains a veil of secrecy and elitism that causes the casual observer to ponder what the real motivations are behind their seemingly diplomatic and benevolent facade.

  The Bilderberg conferences were established in 1954 as a private three-day conference between approximately 60 leaders of politics, finance and industry designed to foster dialogue between North America and Europe. The climate between Western Europe and North America was marked by a certain manner of distrust and suspicion, owing to the then-burgeoning influence of post-WWII and Cold War politics on both sides. Seeking a way in which representatives could better establish diplomatic ties, organizer Jozef Retinger—a Polish political advisor then in exile from his native homeland by the Communist regime—sought to contact both top advisors and industry heads from other European nations, who in turn contacted then CIA-head Walter Bedell Smith and Eisenhower advisor Charles Douglas Jackson to lend their support. Subsequently, fifty delegates from 11 European countries and 11 delegates from the U.S. attended the first conference held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in the Netherlands from May 29-31 in 1954. The meetings were a rousing success, and soon became inaugurated as an annual conference held worldwide, with attendees now numbering between 120-150.

  Retinger’s background is worth noting, since his background during WWII remains unclear. It is clear that he met with top leaders of the Polish Underground who were then under Soviet annex in 1944. Yet certain factions viewed him with mistrust; was he working on behalf of German occupying forces? Allied forces? The then-exiled Prime Minister Wladyslaw Sikorski? The question remained unclear, and he survived several assassination attempts before his exile in 1947. What is known is that both Sikorski and Retinger were strong supporters of a European unification, and that the latter helped found both the Council of Europe (a concept which was wholeheartedly proposed and embraced by British Prime Minister—and Freemason—Winston Churchill as early as 1943) and the European Movement International between 1947 and 1949; both of which are direct precursors to the current European Union.

  Briefly put, both organizations were strong promoters of the concept of a fully integrated and centralized “United States of Europe” in which a centralized European parliament and Constitution would be directly applicable to all citizens under its purview, regardless of which respective national region they dwelled in, each subject to applicable centralized law and edict. Enlisting various high-level industrialists and lobbyists and directly influencing United Nations decisions, these integrated European movements disseminated various think-tanks—including the Bilderberg conferences— throughout the 1950s until 1993, when the Maastricht Treaty came into unanimous effect and the architects of a federalized Europe realized their dream some 50 years later with the emergence of the European Union.

  The similarities between the EU and the concept of synarchy mentioned previously in this chapter are altogether striking. True, the former may not speak the mystical language of enlightened despotism (proposed as early as 370 BC by Plato in his Republic) guiding man’s evolution through direct reign and control, but the notion of a singular law, a singular constitution, a singular government all betoken the same quest for omniscient power as predicted by D’Alveydre as early as 1887 (which owes more than a tip of the hat to the initial influence of a central federalized government proposed by the Masonic founding fathers of the U.S.) In fact, one can’t help to think of the ghost of D’Alveydre smiling as he stood in line at the Euro Disney in 1992, knowing that his initial seed would come into full fruition less than one year later. Tyrants can be such thoughtfully patient gardeners at times, indeed.

  These days, the heads and attendees of Bilderberg conferences have included owners from the Washington Post and New York Times; heads of IBM, Google, Unilever, Goldman Sachs, Nestle, BP and Barclays Bank; heads of the Federal Reserve Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Department of Defense; and even foreign royalty and presidents (in a largely symbolic gesture, we presume.) And yet despite this level of combined wealth and prestige, economic disparity both in the U.S. and internationally is at an all-time high; medical and disease-borne crises remain at critical levels; and the effective notion of high-level surveillance techniques has been proven not to be a flight of fancy, but an orchestrated tactic used by several governments—all of whom represent supposedly democratic interests.

  And yet, these multinational corporations continue to see record profits, international tax loopholes, increased presence and a suspiciously high degree of lobbying influence. Wars are fought solely along broadly established economic lines, sanctions are placed into effect, and policies that directly affect public safety are implemented without public approval or knowledge.

  With this in mind, shall we be so quick to rashly dismiss D’Alveydre as a crackpot?

  Dangers of internationalist efforts

  The dangers of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group(s) are directly because, not in spite of, their supposed transparency. By operating in direct view of public scrutiny, they allege benevolence and diplomacy, inviting any casual observer to see for themselves what these meeting seek to accomplish.

  Yet, despite this factor of transparency, both organizations remain rooted in an ideology that embraces a centralized and homogenous culture, both free of the nuances and diversity of traditional nation-states, but also fostering an “interdependence” on the sanctity and unassailability of a unified super-power, controlling each and every aspect of its subjects lives and prohibiting free speech, movement, exchange, dissenting opinion and autonomy by the establishment of universal power. In essence, the most successful realization of the Illuminati dream imaginable.

  Members

  As private organizations, it has only been until very recently that both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg conferences have opened up membership lists to the public due to extreme scrutiny, largely based on their avowed issues of “security” and legal standings as private, non-profit entities.

  Members of the Trilateral Commission have included: Shell Netherlands CEO Dick Benschop; Former National Intelligence Chairman Joseph Nye, Sr.; former Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker; Mattel CEO Robert Eckert; U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller IV and Charles Rangel; former Secretary of States Henry Kissinger and Madeline Albright; Hess CEO John A. Hess; former EU Ambassadors John Bruton, Tomas Hendrik Ilves and Max Jakobson; BAE Systems Chairman Richard Olver; NATO Chairman Pierre Lellouche; ING Vice Chairman Cees Maas; Bain & Company Managing Adviser Robin Buchanan; Atlantic Media Co. CEO David Bradley; Santander UK CEO Ana Patricia Botin; UBS Vice Chairman Lord Brittan of Spennithorne; Toyota Motor Co. Chairman Fujio Cho; Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi President Nobuyuki Hirano; Samsung President Lee-jae Yong; Korean Ambassador Hong-Seok Hyun; AIG Vice Chairman Jakob Frankel; former Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovich; SMS Chairman Heinrich Weiss; Prince Philip of Greece; Siemens CEO Philip Loscher; HSBC Director Rachel Lomax; N.M. Rothschild Advisor Panagis Vourloumis; former Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission on Terrorist Attacks Philip Zelikow; and former U.S. National Security and Intelligence Advisors Dennis Blair and James L. Jones.

  Members and attendees of the Bilderberg conferences have included: Citigroup Vice Chairman Peter Orszag; AXA CEO Henri de Castries; Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris; Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands; former US Congressman Richard “Dick” Gephardt; Former President Bill Clinton; U.S. Senators John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry and Sam Nunn; former Secretaries of State
Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice; Xerox CEO Paul Allaire; former BP CEO John P. Browne; Barclays CEO J. Martin Taylor; F.Hoffmann-LeRoche and Co. CEO Fritz Gerber; Former Director of N.M. Rothschild Norman Lamont; Central Europe Trust Chairman Andrzej Olechowski; Goldman Sachs Chairman Peter Sutherland; Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt; Prince Philippe of Belgium; ALCOA CEO Klaus Kleinfeld; former World Bank Presidents Robert Zoellick and James Wolfenson; EU Ambassador Bjorn Grydeland; European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet; Goldman Sachs CEO Peter Weinberg; Wall Street Journal Editor Robert Bartley; IBM Chairman Louis Gerstner, Jr.; TD Bank President Edmund W. Clark; Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle; Merrill Lynch Vice Chairman Harold Ford, Jr.; Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke; National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander; Novartis Chairman Daniel Vasella; Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos; and Microsoft founder and CEO Bill Gates.

  Chapter Six: COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

  Since its founding in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations has been one of the most prestigious think-tanks devoted to global economic and trade policies in history. Unlike other private entities (such as the Trilateral Commission or Bilderberg group), the Council on Foreign Relations has woven itself into the fabric of American society, becoming a deeply ingrained public informer and policy advisors most American citizens simply take for granted, never questioning how much influence this seemingly “private” entity has over both domestic and international politics.

  Which might be precisely why this 5000-member private “think tank” is viewed with such suspicion by critical observers.

  Few Americans can argue that issues of free trade, financial regulations and economic consolidations are at the forefront of the current U.S. economic system. But how are those policies constructed? Who or what informs them? Why is it U.S. voters get very little say in how policies which affect domestic jobs on the most critical level are implemented? Are these policies in the best interest of the American public? Or do they serve entities that have a much more specific interest in mind; an interest that serves not only global entities, but a wholesale global consolidation of power of which the U.S. represents only one very small aspect—and furthermore, one in which the interests of democracy play absolutely no role whatsoever?

  In order to better examine the role that the Council has played within setting both domestic and international policies over the past 95 years, it’s necessary to go back to the history of the Council and examine the pretext and context in which it was formed.

  Origins of the Council on Foreign Relations

  Immediately following the first World War, America faced a certain dilemma on its interaction with foreign nations, in particular Germany. America had been an initial supporter of Germany during its entrance into the war, but public and government sentiment soon turned against the nation, and support was at best ambivalent; and at worst, critical. After Germany’s defeat, a fellowship of leading scholars, economists and political advisors had been asked to brief then-President Woodrow Wilson (who had famously used the term ‘New World Order’ during his Fourteen Points speech of 1918 when he stated apropos of Germany’s involvement in WWI: “We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world – the new world in which we now live – instead of a place of mastery.”) about options of international diplomacy once the war had ended. At the conclusion of the delegates’ participation in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, they decided to create an Anglo-American private institution called The Institute of International Affairs, which would proffer an independent, non-partisan opinion on international relations. Yet the American public was wary of any internationalist activity as a result of the tragedies of WWI, and withdrew support in a wave of public outcry. The fellowship instead reconstituted under the name of the Council on Foreign Relations and began meeting discreetly to avoid arousing public suspicion until 1922, when they announced their formal incorporation.

  Immediately prior to the outbreak of WWII, both the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations—all of whom have been noted as having distinct ties to the Illuminati, with the Rockefellers serving as the chief “bloodline”—began funding the Council, leading to the establishment of various sub-committees which served to influence both local and national leaders, and subsequently public opinion about growing concerns and threats to international diplomacy. Eventually, the Council’s esteem within the federal government became so great that during the outbreak of WWII they were asked to be strategic advisors on economic, military and political imperatives facing America’s entry into the war. Their prominence within key strategic initiatives of the U.S. Government continued to last through the Cold War and Vietnam (a survey of over 500 government officials conducted between 1945 and 1972 indicated that well over 50% were serving or had served as key members of the Council) up until this very day. Which hastens to ask, why would a private, independent, non-partisan membership organization have such a key and decisive influence over economic, political and military initiatives?

  Perhaps most prescient are the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who stated at the height of the Council’s disproportionate representation in the U.S. government during WWII and the Cold War: “The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

  Criticism of the Council on Foreign Relations

  The Council has been praised by media and political luminaries such as Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria, Senator Chuck Hagel and the actress Angelina Jolie (whose qualifications as a credible source on international policy were obviously so well-established that the Council solicited her membership in 2007) who have gone on record as stating that the Council is an “indispensable resource in an increasingly complex world.” Which is much of what you’d expect from paid Council members; which, in fact, all four are. When former Secretary of State (and both Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg participant, long-running Council chairman and alleged high-ranking Illuminati member) Henry Kissinger was recently asked to comment about the 2008 CFR-sponsored Global Governance Program (which calls for a reconceptualization of national sovereignty, citing the EU’s consolidation of sovereignty as a guiding model; is the previous chapter still in the back of your mind yet?), he commented: “it will give new impetus to American foreign policy... I think the task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity...”

  Not surprisingly, the name of David Rockefeller rears his head again as Council Chairman and major funder)—this time, in a 1991 speech when he stated: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

  Even earlier in 1974, in an issue of the Council’s publication Foreign Affairs, Council member was even less selective in describing overall Council goals implicitly, stating: “The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”

  And perhaps most damningly was the outburst from Council member James Warburg, son of Council co-founder and Federal Reserve architect Paul Warburg, when stating before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on February 17, 1950: “We shall have world government, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether world government will be by conquest or consent.”

  So much for impartial, independent a
nd bipartisan analysis. But what of criticism from independent sources?

  Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and former Council on Foreign Relations member for over 16 years, Chester Ward, explains his disavowal for the Council, citing its existence as a “shadow government” thusly: “The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common; they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government… Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments intellectual and emotional to support the new policy and to confound and discredit intellectually and politically any opposition. The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful one world government.”

  Another former Council member (and mentor to current Council member and former President Bill Clinton) was Georgetown University professor, political theorist and noted historian Carroll Quigley, who stated the matter more succinctly in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope: “The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.”