DIALECTICS, ROCKEFELLERS, AND POPULATION CONTROL
Part 4

 

 

 

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
January 1, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

As I have said many times before, the goal of the globalist power elite population controllers is a World Socialist Government, to be attained via a dialectical process linking regional economic arrangements. These regional economic arrangements such as the European Union (EU), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), etc., have already been formed. The next step was the formation of "partnerships" such as the "ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership" begun in November 2005 to "foster cooperation among all sectors of society, government, non-governmental organizations, business, educational institutions and individual citizens."

ASEAN has also been involved in a "cooperation process" with China, Japan, and South Korea, which on July 26, 2006, was broadened in the areas of economics, financial and fiscal policy, science and technology, health care, culture and education. The next month on August 25, 2006, this was followed by an "agreement" (Trade and Investment Framework Agreement) between ASEAN and the U.S. Then recently on November 16, 2006, President Bush in Singapore urged Asian leaders to set up a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP), including the U.S., Russia, Chile and Australia. This would cover about 40% of the world's population and 56% of its gross domestic product.

President Bush has also long supported a Free Trade Area of the Americas, and if you look at the FTAA website, you can see its purpose is to "unite the economies of the Americas into a single free trade area." Once all the nations of the Americas have their economies united, it will be impossible for the U.S. not to be effected by economic problems in any Latin American nation. This will mean American independence will be negatively impacted. Also relevant to Latin American nations and ASEAN, on December 6, 2006, EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson presented a plan to start trade talks with ASEAN and Latin American nations, with negotiations likely in 2007. Notice that all of this is the expanding or linking of regional economic arrangements, which was how the power elite planned to bring about its goal of a World Socialist Government.

Further relevant to the power elite's goal is the fact that all over the Sunday morning talk shows November 26, 2006, was mention of an upcoming regional conference in the MidEast regarding primarily Iraq among other concerns. And this brings to mind H.G. Wells' THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME, published in 1933.

In this book, Wells projected that after an "age of insecurity" and "period of disorder," the "declaration of a Socialist World-State" would come out of a conference in Basra, Iraq. Regarding this, he noted: "There was nowhere any immediate uprising in response to the proclamation of a World Government. Although it had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere." A World Council will become "the sole government of the world," and even "Russia will be ready to assimilate." A "network of transport and trading controls " will be "about the earth." And a "Bureau of Transition" will be constituted "for the simplification and modernization of the business activities, the educational and hygienic services, production, distribution and the preservation of order and security."

According to Wells, "Modern State nuclei and Control agents (will be) conducting the educational work of the World Council....The New Education, based on a swiftly expanding science of relationship, no longer (will be for) the preservation of a tradition," but rather "propaganda...to the attainment and maintenance of a progressive world-socialism." There will be a "Life-Time Plan" and "training for public service." There will also be "toleration of birth control" with a "disregard of formal marriage."

Wells concluded by saying: "The history of life will pass into a new phase with a common consciousness and a common will....The thesis is that history must now continue to be a string of accidents with an increasingly disastrous trend until a comprehensive faith in the modernized World-State, socialistic, cosmopolitan and creative, takes hold of the human imagination. When the existing governments and ruling theories of life, the decaying religious and the decaying political forms of to-day, have sufficiently lost prestige through failure and catastrophe, then and then only will world-wide reconstruction be possible. And it must needs be the work, first of all, of an aggressive order of religiously devoted men and women who will try out and establish and impose a new pattern of living upon our race."

In case you think Wells' forecast was just a lucky guess, you should also bear in mind that in this same book, written in 1933, Wells also said there would be a Second World War about 1940 arising over a German-Polish dispute! Note in the letter reproduced here Prime Minister Winston Churchill's reference to "the secret circle" when writing to Wells on October 15, 1941, not long before Pearl Harbor. And remember that Fabian Socialist Sir Julian Huxley on December 5, 1941, said he hoped America and Japan will be at war "next week." Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese on Sunday, December 7, the first day of the next week!

Could it be that in THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME, H.G. Wells wasn't "guessing," but rather revealing the plans of the globalist power elite? I have a copy of a letter H.G. Wells wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt on February 27, 1935, which states: "I am coming to America for a couple of weeks, arriving in New York about the 7th March. I shall be so glad if I can have a talk with you and I will arrange my other dates to suit you if that is possible. My address will be c/o The Chase National Bank, Park Avenue, N.Y.C." Remember that The Chase National Bank is Rockefeller's!

Two years after Wells wrote his letter to FDR, the Rockefeller Foundation funded Princeton University's "Radio Project" to study the influence of radio on different groups. Taking a closer look at this, one can see the change in American society over time. In February 1938, Theodore Adorno became chief of the Project's music division and believed that fractious music and musical repetition could change the culture away from "the authoritarian personality" (belief in traditional authority) toward the "revolutionary."

Alice English Monsarrat in her article, "Music---Soothing, Sedative, or Savage?" explains: "A broken meter in the treble played over an insistently regular beat in the left hand, with gradually increasing rapidity almost to the point of frenzy...is capable of producing the identical disintegrating and almost hysterical effect on an organism as if a person would try to rush madly in two directions at the same time. Any psychiatrist knows that it is precisely this two-directional pull of conflicting drives and emotions that is helping to fill our mental hospitals with broken wrecks of humanity." (THE MARXIST MINSTRELS, page 63) Note what Monsarrat is describing is the dialectic applied to music!

Thus the rock music of the 1960s didn't just come about by accident. For example, Frank Zappa of the rock group "Mothers of Invention" said, "The loud sounds and bright lights of today are tremendous indoctrination tools." And Paul Cantor of "Jefferson Airplane" revealed: "The new rock music is intended to broaden the generation gap, alienate parents from their children, and prepare young people for revolution." Part of this "revolution" was "sexual liberation," which John D. Rockefeller III then applauded in his 1973 book, THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

This same year (1973), David Rockefeller established the Trilateral Commission and made Zbigniew Brzezinski its director after reading his BETWEEN TWO AGES (1970). Relevant to the dialectical synthesis used by the power elite, Brzezinski wrote that Marxism "supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality." It should be remembered here that the goal of the Marxists/Communists in America was actually Socialism (synthesis of Capitalism and Communism), as expressed in the Communist Party of the United States of America's new constitution of 1945, which stated: "The Communist Party of the United States..., basing itself upon the principles of scientific socialism, Marxism-Leninism....Socialism, the highest form of democracy, will guarantee the full realization of the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'." (See "Organized Communism in the United States," U.S. House of Representatives Report No.1694, May 28, 1954.)

Brzezinski also referred to a trend toward "more personal, less structured, more subjectively defined attempts at a synthesis of the scientific and the spiritual." And he expressed hope for a "more personalized rational, humanist world outlook that would gradually replace the institutionalized religious, ideological, and intensively national perspectives that have dominated modern history."

David Rockefeller was also chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) at this time (1970-1985), and in his MEMOIRS (2002) he acknowledged that he was "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure." Three years later, in May 2005, Robert Pastor was co-chairman of the CFR task force that produced "Toward a North American Community" which is a blueprint for commencing the integration of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. And in the October 24, 2006, edition of PODER Y NEGOCIOS, Pastor is quoted as saying that while he doesn't want another 9/11 crisis, "having a crisis would force decisions (to create a North American Community) that otherwise might not get made."

This 4-part series began by suggesting that we should not just take events at face value, but we should also look at them as to how they might fit into the plans of the power elite. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush had just finished a successful war against Saddam Hussein and logically should have won re-election. However, the power elite needed a Democrat as president to persuade enough Democrats in Congress to approve NAFTA and GATT, so Bill Clinton became president. An additional benefit to the power elite from Clinton's election was the appointment of 2 CFR members (Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to secure abortion rights (population control), etc.

A planned alternation of power occurred with the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000, but by 2006 the power elite needed the Democrats in control of Congress again in order to pass immigration laws allowing more guest workers, etc., thus facilitating the planned North American Union via the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush ran a surprisingly lackluster campaign and the Democrats won the presidency. In 2006, President George W, Bush could have fired Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense before the election, and most analysts agree that would have allowed enough Republicans in Congress to maintain their seats, preventing a Democrat sweep of Congress. However, in both cases the power elite wanted an alternation of power to achieve certain globalist objectives. Therefore, don't just take elections at face value (what candidates logically should do), but rather look at them in terms of the power elite's goal of moving us inexorably toward their desired world government.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

The American people should defend our independence and freedom, as represented by our flag, against those who would have us absorbed into a world government. There are those today who would destroy our flag in the name of free speech, but there is a difference between "speech" and "action." A person has the freedom of speech to say anything he or she wants against another person, but they don't have the right to destroy physically that person. The flag doesn't represent the government of the U.S., but rather the principles (e.g., freedom) upon which our nation was founded. How can someone claim the right under "freedom of speech" to destroy the flag, when destroying the flag symbolically is destroying the principle of "freedom of speech"?

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3,

� 2007 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale