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]."

November 2010, foreign policy assistant to a long-sitting socialist member of Dutch congress to Joël van der Reijden of ISGP.

"[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."

July 23, 2001, Henry Kissinger, Eulogy for Katharine Graham of the Washington Post.

"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... "

John Loftus, Mark Aarons, The secret war against the Jews, pp. 2 & 12. (*reference to the national security vaults). Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the U.S. and NATO and is often considered a respectable author. However, nothing is ever as it seems, as is being implied by his own metaphor. Even he himself is not at all who he often pretends to be.

The standard model of politics and its limitations

Unique documents first published by ISGP.

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.

One of the first models ever created by ISGP: still accurate.

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:

"To be honest, little can be said with certainty about the way Bilderberg influences [politics]. ... Members of the government go there - the queen and one or two ministers – [but] no report is provided to congress. …



"Besides [Harry] van Bommel there are NO members of congress who have asked formal questions. ... As far as I know, the topic has never been discussed in the past 8.5 years [that I've been here]."

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.

1974 Trilateral Commission board meeting at the White House, with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Elliot Richardson, George Franklin (all Pilgrims until here), Francois Duchene, Max Kohnstamm and a president of the revived Mitsubishi zaibatsu.

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:

"I was a guest at the birthday party of the ERT, which existed 20 years in 2003. That was a surreal feeling. I was the only journalist and walked between De Benedetti, Davignon [chairman of Bilderberg], Leysen, Prodi. 'What am I doing here for God's sake', was I thinking. But it was very interesting to see how things were done, of course...



"I thought I was hallucinating [when Gerhard Cromme of ThyssenKrupp and the CFR began to speak]. Prodi was put in his place like a little kid [for having criticized the United States]. It became even more remarkable when the Commission chairman started to speak himself. He held a speech like 'friends, I will not do it again and I will be good from now on'. A completely different Prodi than the man I saw on television raising his finger against the Americans.



"You can't say that the ERT decides everything that happens in Europe, but her influence is enormous... The ERT has a very efficient way of lobbying. The members write papers on the direction Europe should be going in terms of the environment, competition, technology, etc. Once these papers are finished inside the ERT, the machine starts running. The club sends out a team of delegates consisting of the most important members to the European Commission. Individual members take the messages to their national governments. The ERT thinks very pro-active. She is often the first to work on certain issues. That is also her strength. The introduction of the single currency, the Maastricht-Treaty, the Channel Tunnel, or the [EU's] expansion to the east: that all started at the ERT." [ 1 ]

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):

"It's good to have an outpost of the council right here down in the street of the State Department. We get a lot of advise from the council, so this will mean I don't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future."

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.

Decennial update of one of the first models ever created by ISGP. Having a pyramid in the intro article actually is a little embarrasing, for it feels somewhat "David Ickish", but then again, this is a very handy model. And if Maslow is allowed to have a pyramid, I should too.

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:

"Too little concrete information is available about [Le Cercle and hundreds of] other organizations besides Bilderberg to be used in parliamentary sessions. ... [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."

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.

Liberal establishment (Democrat / Rockefeller Republican / EU) Conservative establishment (almost fully Republican only) Pro-state over religion Sometimes Christianity over state Pro-science over religion Sometimes Christianity over science Anti-religion over social life Pro-religion over social life Pro-higher taxes for richer people Low tax or fully anti-tax, esp. for rich Pro-early stage abortion (only) Anti-abortion of any kind Pro-maternity leave Anti-maternity leave (paid or unpaid) Pro-minimum wage / pro-higher m.w. Anti-minimum wage Pro-union/worker's rights Anti-union/worker's rights Pro-environment Anti-environment Pro-global warming measures Anti-global warming measures Medicare for everyone Medicare for the rich Pro-LGBTQ and feminism Anti-LGBTQ and feminism Pro-weed or even pro-psychelics Anti-weed and anti-psychedelics Pro-hard drug war alternatives Anti-hard drug war alternatives Moderate defense spending Maximum defense spending Pro-diplomacy Little deplomacy Pro-working with NATO/EU allies Pro-America first Pro-human rights Everybody for him/herself Anti-torture Pro-torture Seldom makes up random facts Often makes up random facts TRADE-OFFS/DOWNSIDES TRADE-OFFS/UPSIDES Pro-gun legislation or gun ban Anti-gun bans of any kind Pro-max. 3rd World immigration Blunt rhetoric, few measures Anti-white birth rate fixes Doesn't talk birth rate fixes Anti-ethnic crime/IQ studies/talk Blunt rhetoric, little fact Anti-(good) polls on imm. opinion Doesn't talk science/facts here Pro-minority hate on white Anti-minority hate on white Pro-white genocide - in effect Seldom talk, few measures LGBTQ radicalization (white hate) Anti-, but no good alternative Pro-War on Terror Same, but no budget concerns Pro-domestic spying on all ethn. Same, but even more on Arabs Anti-911 conspiracy research Same. Only attacks (minor) cons. media Talks dominant lib. media bias Atheism/new age only religion alts Religion main way to go

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 chances 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 maintain 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 are 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:

Simulating democratic debate and thus distracting from the fact that there is no functioning democracy. Silencing all reasonable debate taking place at the center. 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. Making the abnormal seem normal for future control over society. 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.

Some important private groups and the interests their members represent.

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:

The four-establishment model in four pictures:

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 : The only two persons connected toaspect of the international liberal establishment: political, economic, sustainable development and national security. Thehas been their own private playground, although they certainly also have been friends with more than a fewdirectors. The Anglo-American Pilgrims Society is key in understanding this establishment.

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



Shackley and the CIA is not exactly the personification of the military ultraright, but the facts is that Shackley largely ran : One of the topofficers 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.

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



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 (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. : Closely allied with David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, but at the same time the family is closely linked to the Israeli leadership,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, Kissinger and Rothschild support for Senator John McCain, the Rothschilds taking a majority stake in elite CIA-front Diligence LLC, the partner of hyper-controversial Russian military intelligence (GRU) firm Far West, along with Halliburton; and James Rothschild at Washington D.C.'s Monument Capital Group with Thomas F. McLarty III, Frank Carlucciand James BakerJacob 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.

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 : Central player in the Vatican-Paneuropa network consisting offrom 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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Anti-United Nations and anti-global warming theories.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ashkenazi Jews living in the U.S. and Europe have the highest genetic IQ of any race, making it relatively easy for them to reach the top of society, no matter where they live. It is not hard to see that this causes friction when too many Jews live in a foreign society. The United States only consists of 2.2% Jews, but it is widely known that they have far above average, sometimes even dominant, influence in entertainment, banking, law, IT, politics and science. Quite similar to how blacks are vastly overrepresented in sports - where Jews happen to be virtually absent.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



Oversight used as part of a fully-sourced 50,000 word article on Russia's establishments. Not published due to time constraints and a lack of funding. Incredibly, 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.



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.

The Munich Security Conference, one of the groups always hopelessly overlooked in conspiracy circles. Many visitors later show up in western governments.

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.

Truman administration (1945-1953): Rockefeller influence

Rockefeller influence within the CFR wouldn't fully take over from the older Morgan dominance until the mid 1950s. We also see this reflected in the Truman administration, where the Rockefeller family still was one of a number of Wall Street, or Eastern Establishment, families influencing the administration - Whitney, Harriman and Bruce being others.

Name State/defense secretary, DCI, etc. Dean Acheson Secretary of state 1949-1953.



Member CFR 1947-. Pilgrims . Himself Yale Scroll & Key, with his son later picked for Skull & Bones. In 1943 his daughter married elite CIA analyst and NSC liaison William Bundy, who became a lifelong close friend of David Rockefeller in 1953. However, even before that David Rockefeller knew him: "I've known the Bundy brothers since they were little boys." David K. E. Bruce Under secretary of state 1952-1953.



Member CFR 1946-. Pilgrims vice president. Authorized a later aborted Guatemalan coup to CIA director Walter Bedell Smith. Walter Bedell Smith CIA director 1950-1953 and under secretary of state 1953-1954.



Member CFR 1952-. Pilgrims executive. Important co-founder of Bilderberg in 1953-1954 with Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller. Largely initiated the CIA's 1954 Guatemala coup in response to the government trying to nationalize United Fruit - strongly tied to the Dulles brothers - and joined the company after his retirement from government. Nelson Rockefeller Chair International Development Advisory Board, tasked with overseeing U.S. foreign aid. Top CIA asset along with John H. Whitney.



Member CFR 1938-. Pilgrims . Averell Harriman Special adviser on foreign affairs. Head Mutual Security Agency 1951-1953 and founder of the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) in 1951, which helped oversee CIA operations.



Member CFR 1924-. Pilgrims . Member of a key New York railroad and banking family. John H. Whitney At the PSB, where he helped oversee CIA operations.



Member CFR 1946-. Pilgrims vice president. Close friend of Nelson Rockefeller and deeply involved in CIA coups to protect big business. Henry Kissinger Consultant to the PSB.



During his time as PSB consultant, Kissinger grew close to CIA director Allen Dulles and the Rockefeller brothers. On became a CFR member in 1956 and decades later also a Pilgrims vice president.

Eisenhower administration (1953-1961): Rockefeller influence

In 1953 David Rockefeller co-founded and helped coordinate the CFR's Corporation Service, the donation organ for corporations. That same year Russell Leffingwell, a former chairman of J.P. Morgan & Company and trustee of the Carnegie Corporation, was succeeded as CFR chairman by John J. McCloy, David Rockefeller's mentor at Chase Manhattan Bank and the CFR. McCloy held the position of CFR chairman until 1970, after which it was handed to David Rockefeller.

Parallel to these developments, we see a quickly growing influence of the Rockefeller family in administration appointments. In effect, the Eisenhower administration was one of the more pure pro-Eastern Establishment, pro-CIA, pro-big business "Rockefeller Republican" governments the United States has seen.

Dwight Eisenhower President Jan. 1953 - Jan. 1961.



CFR member (1948-) and Pilgrims executive before U.S. presidency. Presidential campaign co-funded with Rockefeller and Mellon oil funds. John Foster Dulles Secretary of state 1953-1959.



Founding member of the CFR in 1922, with his brother serving as president in the late 1940s. Pilgrims . Grew up with the Rockefellers. Trustee Founding member of thein 1922, with his brother serving as president in the late 1940s.. Grew up with the Rockefellers. Trustee Rockefeller Foundation 1935-1952 and chair 1950-1951, right before joining the Eisenhower administration. Allen Dulles CIA director 1953-1961.



Member CFR 1927-, president 1946-1950. Later Pilgrims executive. Grew up with the Rockefellers. Brother was chair of the Member1927-, president 1946-1950. Laterexecutive. Grew up with the Rockefellers. Brother was chair of the Rockefeller Foundation right before entering the Eisenhower administration, with Allen offered the Ford Foundation presidency by David Rockefeller if Eisenhower wouldn't appoint him CIA director. Walter Bedell Smith CIA director 1950-1953 and under secretary of state 1953-1954.



Member CFR 1952-. Pilgrims executive. Important co-founder of Bilderberg in 1953-1954 with Prince Bernhard and David Rockefeller. Largely initiated the CIA's 1954 Guatemala coup in response to the government trying to nationalize United Fruit - strongly tied to the Dulles brothers - and joined the company after his retirement from government. Thomas Gates, Jr. Defense secretary 1959-1961.



Member CFR only in 1961. Later Pilgrims executive. Partner in Drexel and Co. since 1940, similar to his father. Intern at J. P. Morgan & Co. in his youth. Friends with the heads of Ford Motors and Bechtel. Very good friend of Eisenhower's secretary of state John Foster Dulles, who grew up with the Rockefellers. Later president and CEO of the J.P. Morgan bank. Nelson Rockefeller Foreign policy and psychological warfare assistant to Eisenhower. Vice chair Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) and chair Planning Coordination Group, which helped oversee CIA operations.



Came in from the Truman administration. Member CFR 1938-. Pilgrims . Key CIA asset.

JFK (1961-1963) and LBJ (1963-1969) administrations: Rockefeller influence

The John F. Kennedy administration of 1961-1963 was very different from the one of Eisenhower. As discussed in ISGP's article on the John F. Kennedy assassination, Kennedy changed foreign policy involving CIA big business coups all over the world, becoming unusually supportive of nationalist and socialist movements. Despite being an anti-communist, he refused to support an invasion of Cuba - known as the Bay of Pigs disaster - or an expansion of the war in Vietnam. Within the borders of the United States he went along with the pro-black Civil Rights movement.

Of course, the Rockefellers were tied as much to the civil rights movement as they were to pro-big business CIA coups. In that sense manbe we shouldn't be surprised that they represented just as strong in the Kennedy administration as they were in Eisenhower's.

Afte