While I believe Carter probably has good intentions, I also believe that the man is likely just as clueless today as he was when he was used as a puppet by those forces now identified as the international Deep State which took over American foreign and internal policy during his 1977-1981 presidency.

Under Carter’s reign, an organization which grew out of the combined influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group took over America under the name of the Trilateral Commission which overturned the last remnants of anti-imperial impulses left over from the vision provided by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, converting America into the self-destructive basket case we have come to know it as today.

Since those Trilateral reforms were so all-encompassing and touch on issues of economic policy, the creation of foreign debt slavery, terrorist financing and green energy, it is worth conducting a brief assessment of how this happened while also looking at some of the key players that made it happen.

The Trilateral Commission takes over

While James Carter became America’s 39^th president in 1977, the Trilateral Commission was actually created in 1973 under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic. The idea of consolidating three global zones of power (North America, Western Europe and Japan) during the height of the Cold War under a unified command structure was the motive behind the creation of this think tank at that time.

A leading figure in the Trilateral Commission who later became Carter’s National Security Advisor was named Zbigniew Brzezinski who referred to this agenda as the “Technetronic era” which he described in 1970 as an age involving “the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” Who would these specialists represent? In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Senator Barry Goldwater called out this foreign beast transforming America in his 1979 autobiography With No Apologies by saying “The Trilateralist Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”

Another American political figure then combating this foreign virus was Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who prophetically wrote The Trilateral Commission’s Rapid End to Democracy on August 4, 1981 stating: “The plan is to combine the collapse of the financial system of the United States and most of Western Europe with other countries to create a ‘global crisis management’ scenario on the largest and most catastrophic scales… the financial crisis is to be used to subject the United States, among other nations so treated to a dictatorship by decree of the IMF.”

Under Brzezinski’s leadership one third of the Trilateral Commission’s members were appointed to top cabinet posts under Carter. Notable members here worth mentioning include Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar), Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman). Just to get across the British pedigree of this group, Brzezinski and Blumenthal were not only Bilderberg members, but 2 of the 9 directors of the Council on Foreign Relations Project for the 1980s. The CFR is the Cecil Rhodes/Roundtable Group that set up in America in 1921 to advance Rhodes’ mandate to recapture America as the lost colony and re-establish a new British Empire.

The Crisis of Democracy                      

In 1975, Brzezinski’s assistant Samuel P. Huntington authored a book called Crisis of Democracy as part of the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project that published 33 books by 10 Task Forces in order to usher in the Technetronic era. Huntington said “we have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lacks authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices which will be necessary.”

Huntington and Brzezinski conducted a foreign affairs reform that began funding radical Islamic schools and political movements beginning with the USAID-led overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The US funding of Al Qaeda and the Mujahedeen was nominally done for the pragmatic reason of countering the Soviets in Afghanistan, however the real reason was to justify a “Clash of Civilizations” thesis that Huntington later published under the presumption that the major religions could have no peace unless a global Leviathan were created to impose order from above. This was a clear cut case of the Pygmalion effect to the extreme.

It is here noteworthy that the Shah, along with many leaders of the Non-Aligned movement were then engaged in a major struggle to break free of the neo-colonial debt-slavery structure under Anglo-American control by using their inalienable sovereign powers to cancel the unpayable debts while unleashing investments into scientific and technological progress using the post WWII “Japan-model”. Japan’s inspiring post-WWII leap from feudalism to an advanced scientific-industrial economy made its membership in the Trilateral Commission that much more important in the minds of the new Olympian gods who feared other developing nations would follow suite.

The Controlled Disintegration of the West

Two months after being appointed Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker gave a lecture in Warwick University London proclaiming “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s”.

Volcker managed this controlled disintegration by raising interest rates to 20-21.5% beginning in 1979- leaving them there until 1982 while also raising reserve requirements for Commercial banks. The effect forever crippled America’s economy with agricultural production collapsing vastly, metal-cutting machine tools collapsed by 45.5%, automobile production collapsed by 44.3% and steel production collapsed by 49.4%. During this traumatic period, small and medium enterprises were intentionally bankrupted across all sectors of the North American and European economies leaving only multinational corporations in a position to afford such interest rates. Volcker’s program paved the way for the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Act that opened up real estate speculation and the 1982 Garn- St. Germaine Act which de-regulated U.S. Banks and advanced the creation of universal/too-big-to-fail banking.

In that same period, third world debtors having to pay 20% interest saw their debts skyrocket by 40-70%. Leaders who resisted this program such as Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, India’s Indira Gandhi, Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara, and Mexico’s Lopez Portillo et al. were systematically killed or overthrown.

When it became evident that an incoming President Ronald Reagan was not favorable to the Trilateral Commission/CFR agenda- pushing for bilateral meetings with Gandhi and Mexico’s Portillo in 1981 in order to assist their industrial growth policies and threatening to fire Volcker, his elimination was quickly orchestrated. After CFR/Trilateral Commission member George Bush was placed as Reagan’s VP (ousting Reagan’s friend Sen. Paul Laxalt during a Rockefeller-run media scandal), John Hinckley- an MK Ultra psych job deeply tied into the Bush family, was deployed to carry out an assassination shooting Reagan in the chest on March 30, 1981.

Reagan never recovered from this attempt and the well-intentioned but highly malleable Hollywood star became increasingly moulded by CFR-Trilateral Commission agents in spite of his tendency to allow himself to be influenced by pro-nation state figures exemplified by his endorsement of the Joint US-Soviet plan for the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 (later corrupted into a unilateral doctrine by Bush Sr.)

Green Depopulation

It should not be ignored that the transformation of the American economy from a pro-industrial growth open system model into a closed system Malthusian model was also an initiative of forces controlling the Trilateral Commission.

In 1974, David Rockefeller III keynoted the Club of Rome/UN World Population Conference in Bucharest stating “There is a need to revise the concept of economic growth. Particularly in recent years, the limits of growth have come into our consciousness. The depletion of resources, pollution, and the energy crisis have made all that very clear. The character and purpose of growth must be changed.”

The agenda for a “post-industrial society” driven by a green infrastructure revolution was laid out in the July 24, 1980 Global 2000 Report that called for energy conservation, population control and environmentalism as the foundation for the new economy. Later that year, the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Conservation Strategy is published paralleling the Global 2000 thesis. The WWF was headed by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhardt during this time and its vice presidents during Carter’s administration included Louis Mortimer Bloomfield whose Permindex Bureau was caught coordinating JFK’s assassination and Trilateral Commission member Maurice Strong who called for a destruction of industrial civilization in a 1990 interview.

This was not just a history lesson

What you have just read may appear on the surface to be a history report but it is much more than that. It is a future report.

It is a future report since your future is being shaped by historical forces that you need to understand if you are going to be able to choose to influence your reality in accord with those historical trajectories that are actually in harmony with the real self-interests of mankind.

The forces of progress and anti-colonialism that the Trilateral Commission sought to snuff out 40 years ago have been revived under the renewed leadership of Russia, China and a growing array of nations who want to have a future. Increasingly, nationalist forces (as confused as they may be) have arisen as an anti-technocratic movement across North America and Europe which offers nations once believed lost to the New World Order, a chance to revive their lost renaissance heritage.

The only thing standing in the way from western nations joining the Belt and Road Initiative, re-organizing the bankrupt financial system and unleashing productive credit to revive the real economy is 1) a lack of understanding of history and 2) a confused sense of the true nature of humanity, as a species above other beasts of the ecosystem- capable of constant perfectibility and creative discovery.

Anything that denies this concept humanity and natural law such as the Green New Deal should be treated as the noxious wet dream of the Volckers, Rockefellers, Brzezinskis and other Trilateral Commission zombies who had a long way to go before qualifying themselves as human.

On March 23, 1979, late on a Friday afternoon, Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman David Rockefeller and his longtime aide Joseph Verner Reed arrived at a town house in the exclusive Beekman Place neighborhood on New York’s East Side. They were met inside by a small, intense and deeply worried woman who had seen her life turned upside down in the last two months.

Iran’s Princess Ashraf, the strong-willed twin sister of the Iran’s long-time ruler, had gone from wielding immense behind-the-scenes clout in the ancient nation of Persia to living in exile – albeit a luxurious one. With hostile Islamic fundamentalists running her homeland, Ashraf also was troubled by the plight of her ailing brother, the ousted Shah of Iran, who had fled into exile, first to Egypt and then Morocco.

Now, she was turning for help to the man who ran one of the leading U.S. banks, one which had made a fortune serving as the Shah’s banker for a quarter century and handling billions of dollars in Iran’s assets. Ashraf’s message was straightforward. She wanted Rockefeller to intercede with Jimmy Carter and ask the President to relent on his decision against granting the Shah refuge in the United States.

A distressed Ashraf said her brother had been given a one-week deadline to leave his current place of refuge, Morocco. “My brother has nowhere to go,” Ashraf pleaded, “and no one else to turn to.” [See David Rockefeller, Memoirs]

Spurned Appeals

Carter had been resisting appeals to let the Shah enter the United States, fearing that admitting him would endanger the personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and other U.S. interests. In mid-February 1979, Iranian radicals had overrun the embassy and briefly held the staff hostage before the Iranian government intervened to secure release of the Americans.

Carter feared a repeat of the crisis. Already the United States was deeply unpopular with the Islamic revolution because of the CIA’s history of meddling in Iranian affairs. The U.S. spy agency had helped organize the overthrow of an elected nationalist government in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah and the Pahlavi family to the Peacock Throne. In the quarter century that followed, the Shah kept his opponents at bay through the coercive powers of his secret police, known as the SAVAK.

As the Islamic Revolution gained strength in January 1979, however, the Shah’s security forces could no longer keep order. The Shah – suffering from terminal cancer – scooped up a small pile of Iranian soil, boarded his jet, sat down at the controls and flew the plane out of Iran to Egypt.

A few days later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an ascetic religious leader who had been forced into exile by the Shah, returned to a tumultuous welcome from crowds estimated at a million strong, shouting “Death to the Shah.” The new Iranian government began demanding that the Shah be returned to stand trial for human rights crimes and that he surrender his fortune, salted away in overseas accounts.

The new Iranian government also wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher. The withdrawal might have created a liquidity crisis for the bank, which already was coping with financial troubles.

Ashraf’s personal appeal put Rockefeller in what he described, with understatement, as “an awkward position,” according to his autobiography Memoirs.

“There was nothing in my previous relationship with the Shah that made me feel a strong obligation to him,” wrote the scion of the Rockefeller oil and banking fortune who had long prided himself in straddling the worlds of high finance and public policy. “He had never been a friend to whom I owed a personal debt, and neither was his relationship with the bank one that would justify my taking personal risks on his behalf. Indeed, there might be severe repercussions for Chase if the Iranian authorities determined that I was being too helpful to the Shah and his family.”

Later on March 23, after leaving Ashraf’s residence, Rockefeller attended a dinner with Happy Rockefeller, the widow of his brother Nelson who had died two months earlier. Also at the dinner was former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a long-time associate of the Rockefeller family.

Discussing the Shah’s plight, Happy Rockefeller described her late husband’s close friendship with the Shah, which had included a weekend stay with the Shah and his wife in Teheran in 1977. Happy said that when Nelson learned that the Shah would be forced to leave Iran, Nelson offered to pick out a new home for the Shah in the United States.

The dinner conversation also turned to what the participants saw as the dangerous precedent that President Carter was setting by turning his back on a prominent U.S. ally. What message of American timidity was being sent to other pro-U.S. leaders in the Middle East?

‘Flying Dutchman’

The dinner led to a public campaign by Rockefeller – along with Kissinger and former Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman John McCloy – to find a suitable home in exile for the Shah. Country after country had closed their doors to the Shah as he began a humiliating odyssey as what Kissinger would call a modern-day “Flying Dutchman,” wandering in search of a safe harbor.

Rockefeller assigned his aide, Joseph Reed, “to help [the Shah] in any way he could,” including serving as the Shah’s liaison to the U.S. government. McCloy, one of the so-called Wise Men of the post-World War II era, was representing Chase Manhattan as an attorney with Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy. One of his duties was to devise a financial strategy for staving off Iran’s withdrawal of assets from the bank.

Rockefeller also pressed the Shah’s case personally with Carter when the opportunity presented itself. On April 9, 1979, at the end of an Oval Office meeting on another topic, Rockefeller handed Carter a one-page memo describing the views of many foreign leaders disturbed by recent U.S. foreign policy actions, including Carter’s treatment of the Shah.

“With virtually no exceptions, the heads of state and other government leaders I saw expressed concern about United States foreign policy which they perceived to be vacillating and lacking in an understandable global approach,” Rockefeller’s memo read. “They have questions about the dependability of the United States as a friend.” An irritated Carter abruptly ended the meeting.

Temporary Havens

Despite the mounting pressure from influential quarters, Carter continued to rebuff appeals to let the Shah into the United States. So the Shah’s influential friends began looking for alternative locations, asking other nations to shelter the ex-Iranian ruler.

Finally, arrangements were made for the Shah to fly to the Bahamas and – when the Bahamian government turned out to be more interested in money than humanitarianism – to Mexico.

“With the Shah safely settled in Mexico, I had hopes that the need for my direct involvement on his behalf had ended,” Rockefeller wrote in Memoirs. “Henry [Kissinger] continued to publicly criticize the Carter administration for its overall management of the Iranian crisis and other aspects of its foreign policy, and Jack McCloy bombarded [Carter’s Secretary of State] Cyrus Vance with letters demanding the Shah’s admission to the United States.”

When the Shah’s medical condition took a turn for the worse in October, Carter relented and agreed to let the Shah fly to New York for emergency treatment. Celebrating Carter’s reversal, Rockefeller’s aide Joseph Reed wrote in a memo, “our ‘mission impossible’ is completed. … My applause is like thunder.”

When the Shah arrived in New York on October 23, 1979, Reed checked the Shah into New York Hospital under a pseudonym, “David Newsome,” a play on the name of Carter’s undersecretary of state for political affairs, David Newsom.

Embassy Crisis

The arrival of the Shah in New York led to renewed demands from Iran’s new government that the Shah be returned to stand trial.

In Teheran, students and other radicals gathered at the university, called by their leaders to what was described as an important meeting, according to one of the participants whom I interviewed years later.

The students gathered in a classroom which had three blackboards turned toward the wall. A speaker told the students that they were about to undertake a mission supported by Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s spiritual leader and the de facto head of the government.

“They said it would be dangerous and that anyone who didn’t want to take part could leave now,” the Iranian told me. “But no one left. Then, they turned around the blackboards. There were three buildings drawn on the blackboards. They were the buildings of the U.S. embassy.”

The Iranian said the target of the raid was not the embassy personnel, but rather the embassy’s intelligence documents.

“We had believed that the U.S. government had been manipulating affairs inside Iran and we wanted to prove it,” he said. “We thought if we could get into the embassy, we could get the documents that would prove this. We hadn’t thought about the hostages. We all went to the embassy. We had wire cutters to cut through the fence. We started climbing over the fences. We had expected more resistance. When we got inside, we saw the Americans running and we chased them.”

Marine guards set off tear gas in a futile attempt to control the mob, but held their fire to avoid bloodshed. Other embassy personnel hastily shredded classified documents, although there wasn’t time to destroy many of the secret papers. The militant students found themselves in control not only of the embassy and hundreds of sensitive U.S. cables, but dozens of American hostages as well.

An international crisis had begun, a hinge that would swing open unexpected doors for both American and Iranian history.

Hidden Compartments

David Rockefeller denied that his campaign to gain the Shah’s admittance to the United States had provoked the crisis, arguing that he was simply filling a vacuum created when the Carter administration balked at doing the right thing.

“Despite the insistence of journalists and revisionist historians, there was never a ‘Rockefeller-Kissinger behind-the-scenes campaign’ that placed ‘relentless pressure’ on the Carter administration to have the Shah admitted to the United States regardless of the consequences,” Rockefeller wrote in Memoirs. “In fact, it would be more accurate to say that for many months we were the unwilling surrogates for a government that had failed to accept its full responsibilities.”

But within the Iranian hostage crisis, there would be hidden compartments within hidden compartments, as influential groups around the world acted in what they perceived to be their personal or their national interests.

Rockefeller was just one of many powerful people who felt that Jimmy Carter deserved to lose his job. With the hostage crisis started, a countdown of 365 days began toward the 1980 elections. Though he may have been only dimly aware of his predicament, Carter faced a remarkable coalition of enemies both inside and outside the United States.

In the Persian Gulf, the Saudi royal family and other Arab oil sheiks blamed Carter for forsaking the Shah and feared their own playboy life styles might be next on the list for the Islamic fundamentalists. The Israeli government saw Carter as too cozy with the Palestinians and too eager to cut a peace deal that would force Israel to surrender land won in the 1967 war.

European anti-communists believed Carter was too soft on the Soviet Union and was risking the security of Europe. Dictators in the Third World – from the Philippines and South Korea to Argentina and El Salvador – were bristling at Carter’s human rights lectures.

Inside the United States, the Carter administration had made enemies at the CIA by purging many of the Old Boys who saw themselves as protectors of America’s deepest national interests. Many CIA veterans, including some still within the government, were disgruntled. And, of course, the Republicans were determined to win back the White House, which many felt had been unjustly taken from their control after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972.

This subterranean struggle between Carter, trying desperately to free the hostages before the 1980 election, and those who stood to benefit by thwarting him became known popularly as the “October Surprise” controversy.

The nickname referred to the possibility that Carter might have ensured his reelection by arranging the hostage return the month before the presidential election as an October Surprise, although the term came ultimately to refer to clandestine efforts to stop Carter from pulling off his October Surprise.

CIA Old Boys

When the hostage crisis wasn’t resolved in the first few weeks and months, the attention of many disgruntled CIA Old Boys also turned toward the American humiliation in Iran, which they found doubly hard to take since it had been the site of the agency’s first major victory, the restoration of the Shah to the Peacock Throne.

A number of veterans from that operation of 1953 were still alive in 1980. Archibald Roosevelt was one of the Old Boys from the Iranian operation. He had moved on to become an adviser to David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan Bank.

Another was Miles Copeland, who had served the CIA as an intermediary to Arab leaders, including Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. In his autobiography,The Game Player, Copeland claimed that he and his CIA chums prepared their own Iranian hostage rescue plan in March 1980.

When I interviewed Copeland in 1990 at his thatched-roofed cottage outside Oxford in the English countryside, he said he had been a strong supporter of George H.W. Bush in 1980. He even had founded an informal support group called “Spooks for Bush.”

Sitting among photos of his children who included the drummer for the rock group, The Police, and the manager for the rock star, Sting, Copeland explained that he and his CIA colleagues considered Carter a dangerous idealist.

“Let me say first that we liked President Carter,” Copeland told me “He read, unlike President Reagan later, he read everything. He knew what he was about. He understood the situation throughout the Middle East, even these tenuous, difficult problems such as Arabs and Israel.

“But the way we saw Washington at that time was that the struggle was really not between the Left and the Right, the liberals and the conservatives, as between the Utopians and the realists, the pragmatists. Carter was a Utopian. He believed, honestly, that you must do the right thing and take your chance on the consequences. He told me that. He literally believed that.”

Copeland’s deep Southern accent spit out the words with a mixture of amazement and disgust. To Copeland and his CIA friends, Carter deserved respect for a first-rate intellect but contempt for his idealism.

“Most of the things that were done [by the United States] about Iran had been on a basis of stark realism, with possibly the exception of letting the Shah down,” Copeland said. “There are plenty of forces in the country we could have marshaled. … We could have sabotaged [the revolution, but] we had to establish what the Quakers call ‘the spirit of the meeting’ in the country, where everybody was thinking just one way. The Iranians were really like sheep, as they are now.”

Altar of Ideals

But Carter, troubled by the Shah’s human rights record, delayed taking decisive action and missed the moment of opportunity, Copeland said. Infuriating the CIA’s Old Boys, Carter had sacrificed an ally on the altar of idealism.

“Carter really believed in all the principles that we talk about in the West”, Copeland said, shaking his mane of white hair. “As smart as Carter is, he did believe in Mom, apple pie and the corner drug store. And those things that are good in America are good everywhere else.”

Veterans of the CIA and Republicans from the Nixon-Ford administrations judged that Carter simply didn’t measure up to the demands of a harsh world.

“There were many of us – myself along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Archie Roosevelt in the CIA at the time – we believed very strongly that we were showing a kind of weakness, which people in Iran and elsewhere in the world hold in great contempt”, Copeland said. “The fact that we’re being pushed around, and being afraid of the Ayatollah Khomeini, so we were going to let a friend down, which was horrifying to us. That’s the sort of thing that was frightening to our friends in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt and other places”.

But Carter also bent to the moral suasions of the Shah’s friends, who argued on humanitarian grounds that the ailing Shah deserved admission to the United States for medical treatment. “Carter, I say, was not a stupid man,” Copeland said. Carter had even a greater flaw: “He was a principled man.”

So, Carter decided that the moral act was to allow the Shah to enter the United States for treatment, leading to the result Carter had feared: the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

Frozen Assets

As the crisis dragged on, the Carter administration cranked up the pressure on the Iranians. Along with diplomatic initiatives, Iran’s assets were frozen, a move that ironically helped David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank by preventing the Iranians from cleaning out their funds from the bank’s vaults.

In Memoirs, Rockefeller wrote that the Iranian “government did reduce the balances they maintained with us during the second half of 1979, but in reality they had simply returned to their historic level of about $500 million,” Rockefeller wrote. “Carter’s ‘freeze’ of official Iranian assets protected our position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it.”

In the weeks that followed the embassy seizure, Copeland said he and his friends turned their attention to figuring a way out of the mess.

“There was very little sympathy for the hostages,” Copeland said. “We all have served abroad, served in embassies like that. We got additional pay for danger. I think, for Syria, I got fifty percent extra in salary. So it’s a chance you take. When you join the army, you take a chance of getting in a war and getting shot. If you’re in the diplomatic service, you take a chance on having some horror like this descend on you.

“But on the other hand, we did think that there were things we could do to get them out, other than simply letting the Iranians, the students, and the Iranian administration know that they were beating us,” Copeland said. “We let them know what an advantage they had. That we could have gotten them out is something that all of us old professionals of the covert action school, we said from the beginning, ‘Why don’t they let us do it?’”

According to The Game Player, Copeland met his old friend, ex-CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton, for lunch. The famed spy hunter “brought to lunch a Mossad chap who confided that his service had identified at least half of the ‘students,’ even to the extent of having their home addresses in Teheran,” Copeland wrote. “He gave me a rundown on what sort of kids they were. Most of them, he said, were just that, kids.”

Periphery Strategy

The Israeli government was another deeply interested player in the Iran crisis. For decades, Israel had cultivated covert ties with the Shah’s regime as part of a Periphery Strategy of forming alliances with non-Arab states in the region to prevent Israel’s Arab enemies from focusing all their might against Israel.

Though losing an ally when the Shah fell and offended by the anti-Israeli rhetoric from the Khomeini regime, Israel had gone about quietly rebuilding relations with the Iranian government. One of the young Israeli intelligence agents assigned to this task was an Iranian-born Jew named Ari Ben-Menashe, who had immigrated to Israel as a teen-ager and was valuable because he spoke fluent Farsi and still had friends in Iran, some of whom were rising within the new revolutionary bureaucracy.

In his own 1992 memoirs, Profits of War, Ben-Menashe said the view of Israel’s Likud leaders, including Prime Minister Menachem Begin, was one of contempt for Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

“Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David,” Ben-Menashe wrote. “As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel’s back.”

After the Shah fell, Begin grew even more dissatisfied with Carter’s handling of the crisis and alarmed over the growing likelihood of an Iraqi attack on Iran’s oil-rich Khuzistan province. Israel saw Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as a far greater threat to Israel than Iran’s Khomeini. Ben-Menashe wrote that Begin, recognizing the realpolitik needs of Israel, authorized shipments to Iran of small arms and some spare parts, via South Africa, as early as September 1979.

After the U.S. hostages were taken in November 1979, the Israelis came to agree with Copeland’s hard-headed skepticism about Carter’s approach to the hostage issue, Ben- Menashe wrote. Even though Copeland was generally regarded as a CIA “Arabist” who had opposed Israeli interests in the past, he was admired for his analytical skills, Ben-Menashe wrote.

“A meeting between Miles Copeland and Israeli intelligence officers was held at a Georgetown house in Washington, D.C.,” Ben-Menashe wrote. “The Israelis were happy to deal with any initiative but Carter’s. David Kimche, chief of Tevel, the foreign relations unit of Mossad, was the senior Israeli at the meeting. … The Israelis and the Copeland group came up with a two-pronged plan to use quiet diplomacy with the Iranians and to draw up a scheme for military action against Iran that would not jeopardize the lives of the hostages.”

In late February 1980, Seyeed Mehdi Kashani, an Iranian emissary, arrived in Israel to discuss Iran’s growing desperation for aircraft spare parts, Ben-Menashe wrote. Kashani, whom Ben-Menashe had known from their school days in Teheran, also revealed that the Copeland initiative was making inroads inside Iran and that approaches from some Republican emissaries had already been received, Ben-Menashe wrote.

“Kashani said that the secret ex-CIA-Miles-Copeland group was aware that any deal cut with the Iranians would have to include the Israelis because they would have to be used as a third party to sell military equipment to Iran,” according to Ben-Menashe. In March, the following month, the Israelis made their first direct military shipment to Iran, 300 tires for Iran’s F-4 fighter jets, Ben-Menashe wrote.

Rescue Plans

In the 1990 interview at his house in the English countryside, Copeland told me that he and other CIA old-timers developed their own hostage-rescue plan. Copeland said the plan – which included cultivating political allies within Iran and using disinformation tactics to augment a military assault – was hammered out on March 22, 1980, in a meeting at his Georgetown apartment.

Copeland said he was aided by Steven Meade, the ex-chief of the CIA’s Escape and Evasion Unit; Kermit Roosevelt, who had overseen the 1953 coup in Iran; and Archibald Roosevelt, the adviser to David Rockefeller.

“Essentially, the idea was to have some Iranians dressed in Iranian military uniform and police uniform go to the embassy, address the students and say, ‘Hey, you’re doing a marvelous job here. But now we’ll relieve you of it, because we understand that there’s going to be a military force flown in from outside. And they’re going to hit you, and we’re going to scatter these [hostages] around town. Thanks very much.”

Copeland’s Iranians would then move the hostages to the edge of Teheran where they would be loaded onto American helicopters to be flown out of the country.

To Copeland’s chagrin, his plan fell on deaf ears in the Carter administration, which was developing its own rescue plan that would rely more on U.S. military force with only modest help from Iranian assets in Teheran. So, Copeland said he distributed his plan outside the administration, to leading Republicans, giving sharper focus to their contempt for Carter’s bungled Iranian strategy.

“Officially, the plan went only to people in the government and was top secret and all that,” Copeland said. “But as so often happens in government, one wants support, and when it was not being handled by the Carter administration as though it was top secret, it was handled as though it was nothing. … Yes, I sent copies to everybody who I thought would be a good ally. …

“Now I’m not at liberty to say what reaction, if any, ex-President Nixon took, but he certainly had a copy of this. We sent one to Henry Kissinger, and I had, at the time, a secretary who had just worked for Henry Kissinger, and Peter Rodman, who was still working for him and was a close personal friend of mine, and so we had these informal relationships where the little closed circle of people who were, a, looking forward to a Republican President within a short while and, b, who were absolutely trustworthy and who understood all these inner workings of the international game board”.

By April 1980, Carter’s patience was wearing thin, both with the Iranians and some U.S. allies. After discovering that the Israelis had made a secret shipment of 300 tires to Iran, Carter complained to Prime Minister Begin.

“There had been a rather tense discussion between President Carter and Prime Minister Begin in the spring of 1980 in which the President made clear that the Israelis had to stop that, and that we knew that they were doing it, and that we would not allow it to continue, at least not allow it to continue privately and without the knowledge of the American people,” Carter’s press secretary Jody Powell told me. “And it stopped” – at least temporarily.

Questioned by congressional investigators a dozen years later, Carter said he felt that by April 1980, “Israel cast their lot with Reagan,” according to notes I found among the unpublished documents in the files of a House Task Force, which had examined the October Surprise controversy. Carter traced the Israeli opposition to his reelection to a “lingering concern [among] Jewish leaders that I was too friendly with Arabs.”

Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski also recognized the Israeli hostility. In an interview, Brzezinski told me that the Carter White House was well aware that the Begin government had “an obvious preference for a Reagan victory.”

Desert One

Encircled by growing legions of enemies, the Carter administration put the finishing touches on its own hostage-rescue operation in April. Code named “Eagle Claw,” the assault involved a force of U.S. helicopters that would swoop down on Teheran, coordinate with some agents on the ground and extract the hostages.

Carter ordered the operation to proceed on April 24, but mechanical problems forced the helicopters to turn back. At a staging area called Desert One, one of the helicopters collided with a refueling plane, causing an explosion that killed eight American crewmen.

Their charred bodies were then displayed by the Iranian government, adding to the fury and humiliation of the United States. After the Desert One fiasco, the Iranians dispersed the hostages to a variety of locations, effectively shutting the door on another rescue attempt, at least one that would have any chance of returning the hostages as a group.

By summer 1980, Copeland told me, the Republicans in his circle considered a second hostage-rescue attempt not only unfeasible, but unnecessary. They were talking confidently about the hostages being freed after a Republican victory in November, the old CIA man said.

“There was no discussion of a Kissinger or Nixon plan to rescue these people, because Nixon, like everybody else, knew that all we had to do was wait until the election came, and they were going to get out,” Copeland said. “That was sort of an open secret among people in the intelligence community, that that would happen… The intelligence community certainly had some understanding with somebody in Iran in authority, in a way that they would hardly confide in me.”

Copeland said his CIA friends had been told by contacts in Iran that the mullahs would do nothing to help Carter or his reelection.

“At that time, we had word back, because you always have informed relations with the devil,” Copeland said. “But we had word that, ‘Don’t worry.’ As long as Carter wouldn’t get credit for getting these people out, as soon as Reagan came in, the Iranians would be happy enough to wash their hands of this and move into a new era of Iranian-American relations, whatever that turned out to be.”

In the interview, Copeland declined to give more details, beyond his assurance that “the CIA within the CIA”, his term for the true protectors of U.S. national security, had an understanding with the Iranians about the hostages. (Copeland died on January 14, 1991, before I could interview him again.)

Much of the controversy over the October Surprise mystery has centered on several alleged secret meetings in Europe between senior Republicans – including then-Reagan campaign chief William Casey and Reagan’s running mate George H.W. Bush – and Iranian officials, including senior cleric Mehdi Karrubi.

A variety of witnesses, including Iranian officials and international intelligence operatives, have described these contacts, which have been denied by Bush and other top Republicans. Though official U.S. investigations have generally sided with the Republicans, a substantial body of evidence – much of it kept hidden from the American people – actually supports the October Surprise allegations.

[For a summary of the evidence on the Reagan campaign’s interference, go to “Second Thoughts on October Surprise.” For more detailed accounts, see Robert Parry’s Trick or Treason, Secrecy & Privilege and America’s Stolen Narrative.]

Rockefeller’s Visit

Evidence from Reagan-Bush campaign files also points to undisclosed contacts between the Rockefeller group and Casey during Carter’s hostage negotiations.

According to a campaign visitor log for September 11, 1980, David Rockefeller and several of his aides who were dealing with the Iranian issue signed in to see Casey at his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.

With Rockefeller were Joseph Reed, whom Rockefeller had assigned to coordinate U.S. policy toward the Shah, and Archibald Roosevelt, the former CIA officer who was monitoring events in the Persian Gulf for Chase Manhattan and who had collaborated with Miles Copeland on the Iran hostage-rescue plan. The fourth member of the party was Owen Frisbie, Rockefeller’s chief lobbyist in Washington.

In the early 1990s, all the surviving the participants – Rockefeller, Reed and Frisbie – declined to be interviewed about the Casey meeting. Rockefeller made no mention of the meeting in Memoirs.

Henry Kissinger, another Rockefeller associate, also was in discreet contact with campaign director Casey during this period, according to Casey’s personal chauffeur whom I interviewed. The chauffeur, who asked not to be identified by name, said he was sent twice to Kissinger’s Georgetown home to pick up the former Secretary of State and bring him to Arlington, Virginia, for private meetings with Casey, meetings that were not recorded on the official visitor logs.

On September 16, 1980, five days after the Rockefeller visit to Casey’s office, Iran’s acting foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh publicly cited Republican interference on the hostages.

“Reagan, supported by Kissinger and others, has no intention of resolving the problem,” Ghotbzadeh said. “They will do everything in their power to block it.”

In the weeks before Election 1980, FBI wiretaps picked up other evidence that connected Rockefeller associates with two of the key suspects in the October Surprise mystery, Iranian banker Cyrus Hashemi and longtime Casey business associate John Shaheen.

According to the FBI wiretaps hidden in Hashemi’s New York offices in September 1980, Hashemi and Shaheen were involved in the intrigue surrounding the Iran hostage crisis while simultaneously promoting murky financial schemes.

Hashemi was supposedly acting as an intermediary for President Carter for secret approaches to Iranian officials about getting the hostages released. But Hashemi also appears to have been playing a double game, serving as a backchannel for the Reagan-Bush campaign, through Shaheen, who had known Casey since their World War II days together in the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s forerunner.

The FBI wiretaps revealed that Hashemi and Shaheen also were trying to establish a bank with Philippine interests in either the Caribbean or in Hong Kong. In mid-October 1980, Hashemi deposited “a large sum of money” in a Philippine bank and planned to meet with Philippine representatives in Europe, an FBI intercept discovered.

The negotiations led Shaheen to an agreement with Herminio Disini, an in-law of Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos, to establish the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Company. Disini also was a top moneyman for Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

The $20 million used as starting capital for the bank came through Jean A. Patry, David Rockefeller’s lawyer in Geneva, Switzerland. But the original source of the money, according to two Shaheen associates I interviewed, was Princess Ashraf, the Shah’s twin sister.

Reagan’s Victory

On November 4, 1980, one year to the day after the Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Ronald Reagan routed Jimmy Carter in the U.S. presidential elections. In the weeks after the election, the hostage negotiations continued.

As Reagan’s Inauguration neared, Republicans talked tough, making clear that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t stand for the humiliation that the nation endured for 444 days under Carter. The Reagan-Bush team intimated that Reagan would deal harshly with Iran if it didn’t surrender the hostages.

A joke making the rounds of Washington went: “What’s three feet deep and glows in the dark? Teheran ten minutes after Ronald Reagan becomes President.”

On Inauguration Day, January 20, 1981, just as Reagan was beginning his inaugural address, word came from Iran that the hostages were freed. The American people were overjoyed. The coincidence in timing between the hostage release and Reagan’s taking office immediately boosted the new President’s image as a tough guy who wouldn’t let the United States be pushed around.

The reality, however, appears to have been different, with U.S. weapons soon flowing secretly to Iran through Israel and participants in the October Surprise mystery seeming to get in line for payoffs.

The bank deal that Cyrus Hashemi and John Shaheen had discussed for months took final shape two days after Reagan’s Inauguration. On January 22, 1981, Shaheen opened the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank with $20 million that had been funneled to him through Jean Patry, the Rockefeller-connected lawyer in Geneva who was fronting for Princess Ashraf.

Why, I asked one of Shaheen’s associates, would Ashraf have invested $20 million in a bank with these dubious characters? “It was funny money,” the associate answered. He believed it was money that the Islamic revolutionary government was claiming as its own.

A second Shaheen associate said Shaheen was particularly secretive when asked about his relationship with the deposed princess. “When it comes to Ashraf, I’m a cemetery,” Shaheen once said…

consortiumnews.com

For many years LGF was perceived to be an ideal instrument for fixing the gold price on the world market, especially for individual contracts and derivatives (paper gold). The rates were used for evaluating monetary gold reserves and liabilities pegged to the precious metal (for instance, bank deposits denominated in gold). The drawbacks of the system were hushed up, no matter more and more questions were being raised, especially during the recent 10-20 years. 

The Bretton Woods system disappeared in the 1970s. Gold stopped being a monetary metal to become a normal commodity. It would have been logical to trade gold with its price fixed as if it were an ordinary operation at commodity exchange. In recent years LGF looked like an anachronism, an old fashioned structure to add to or, to some extent, substitute ordinary markets trading non-ferrous and precious metals. 

The most perspicacious experts noticed that LGF was an ideal instrument for the Rothschilds  to control the gold market. As is known, the gold standard was created by Rothschilds  in the XIX century. After Napoleonic wars the family got hold of major part of European gold, so the gold standard made it fabulously rich guaranteeing stable demand for the precious metal. The Rothschilds  did not sell it to central banks or treasuries of other countries. Instead they granted gold credits. The First World War put an end to the functioning of gold standard mechanisms. The Rothschilds  wasted no time to react. In 1919 they created LGF to control the world gold market through London gold fixing. 

The Rothschilds -controlled N M Rothschild & Sons was the leading bank of the five. It was founded at the beginning of XIX century by Nathan Rothschild. Other members of «golden five» were related to the Rothschilds  by invisible ties. It can be said that LGF was the Rothschilds ’ creature. In 2003 N M Rothschild left gold fixing but it did not mean the family left the business. It controlled LGF behind the scenes. By that time there were many frauds and manipulations affecting the functioning of the market; the situation could have gone out of control. There was a risk of world-wide scandal. To avoid involvement the «financial geniuses» the Rothschilds  decided to go into the shadows. There were a lot of interesting things happening in the world of gold trading. The Rothschilds -controlled media did it best to hush it all up. For instance, the information on tungsten operations hit the pages only ten years after the fact was discovered. 

The elimination of LGF is part of big game played by the «money bosses» – the Rothschilds  and Rockefellers (the both are the leading shareholders of US Federal Reserve System). Gold is what the Rothschilds  are after, while the Rockefellers rely on the dollar – the world currency the Federal Reserve System issues. The correlation of forces (between the Rothschilds  sand the Rockefellers who are partners and competitors at the same time) is defined by the balance between the dollar and gold. It’s a well-known fact that since some time ago the gold has been greatly underestimated. The price has never returned to the peak reached in 1980 ($850 per troy). This is a comparable price. The nominal price has gone up exceeding $1000 since a long time ago. At first glance, one should come to conclusion that the Rockefellers won the battle and weakened the position of the Rothschilds . But there is a great possibility that this is just a trick on the part of Rothschilds  trying to turn the temporary retreat into a strategic win to defeat the Rockefellers. 

There are many indirect signs that the Rothschilds  played the game of lowering the gold price to automatically strengthen the dollar. It’s not financial masochism. The recent twenty years the Rothschilds  used different shady and criminal schemes to buy out the precious metal, so, naturally, they needed the lowest price possible. London gold fixing functioned to carry out this task. They got gold from everywhere they could. Central banks and treasuries were the main sources, especially the United States Treasury. According to official data, there are 8100 tons of gold stored in Fort Knox. The storage has not been audited for sixty years now. According to my estimates, the probability of finding eight thousand tons (the figure offered by the US Federal Reserve System and the Department of Treasury) of gold there is much less than 1%. Former congressman Ron Paul, who is very critical of US financial authorities, believes that the probability is even lower. 

There are many more examples of gold manipulations with the participation of Federal Reserve System, the US Department of Treasury, the Bank of England, the LGF «golden five», many banks of Wall Street and London City etc. At the beginning of the 2010s, there was enough discrediting evidence to make financial bodies of the United States, Great Britain and the European Union react somehow. After the end of the first wave of financial crisis the «untouchable» banks of Wall Street, London City and continental Europe came under investigation to trace manipulations. There were loud scandals, for instance the Libor scandal. There was a series of fraudulent actions connected to the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) and also the resulting investigation and reaction. The Libor is an average interest rate calculated through submissions of interest rates by major banks in London. The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were. The courts handed down sentences severe enough and the banks had to pay billions in fines and compensations. The investigations of possible fraudulent actions were postponed for a long time (the gold market is a sacred place in the world financial system) but finally the time came to examine the operations of LGF. 

Last year it became evident that the fat was in the fire. The nerve of a bank making up the «golden five» failed it. Deutsche Bank tried to sell its place in LGF but no one wanted to buy it. In August 2014 the bank left LGF in fear. Now they were four instead of five with Scotia Mocatta, HSBC, Societe Generale, Barclays Capital left. Before that another financial regulator – the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – had launched an investigation against Barclays Capital. The British authorities tried to hush the scandal up with the help of a ridiculously small sum of around 30 billion euros Barclays was made pay as a fine. The financial bodies of Switzerland and Germany launched inquiries of their own. Besides the LGF participating banks, they also investigated the activities of other big actors on the market of precious metals (gold, silver, platinum). Those actors had close ties to LGF banks and central banks of some countries, including Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The information is explosive. To my mind, it prompted the closure of gold fixing. 

Somehow, the fraudulent schemes practiced by the «big five» (to later become «big four) are often called «manipulations with gold prices». True, the manipulations did take place. For instance, they regulated supply and demand for precious metals. The 2012-2014 investigation of fraudulent schemes practiced in relation to currency rates shows that the regulation of supply and demand did take place. Then why not spread this experience on gold? But the price manipulation was not the main wrongdoing. The major fraud was establishing monopoly on insider information related to prices. The process of prices fixing could last for a few minutes to a few hours. Getting the information of the price just a few seconds before its official announcement enabled to make a huge profit, especially in view of the fact that many speculators like to work with ‘paper gold» (its turnover exceed many times the turnover of physical gold). There is a great probability the Rothschilds  themselves made money by selling the insider information to the bodies under their control. 

It’s hard to predict the further situation creep on the world gold market. The available information shows that the new system of price fixing looks like the most transparent auction with great number of participants. They say Chinese banks and companies will become the leading actors of «gold fixing with broad participation». If so, the gold price will rapidly climb. This process could be regulated by preventing sky high hikes. 

Many things about LGF activities are still not known. One can only guess. One of the guesses says the gold has already gone to the Rothschilds ’ storage. They don’t need the mechanism of lowering prices anymore. The Rothschilds  were the main driving force behind the LGF closure. There is some logic here – the sooner the bucket shop called LGF is closed, the less chances investigators have to get to the bottom of fraudulent schemes practiced by «financial geniuses».

There is another version. Not all the money has been transferred and the risk of leak revealing dirty tricks practiced on gold market has grown. The LGF closure was an emergency action to destroy the traces. 

The third guess. The closure could be a result of bickering between the Rothschilds  and the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers decided to strike at the soft underbelly of the Rothschilds  – LGF. It was known as early as the beginning of 2015 that LGF was to stop functioning. The issue could have been gradually soft-pedalled but, all of a sudden, the US Department of Treasury launched a large-scale investigation related to the possible precious metals market machinations. At least ten banks were suspected: Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Credit Suisse, UBS, Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, Canadian Nova Scotia и South African Standard Bank. Three banks from the list are under strong influence of the Rothschilds, especially Chase. In any case the closure of London gold fixing is a sign of great changes the world financial system is to undergo. 

Lies about Muammar Gaddafi

The Muammar Gaddafi’s gold dinar is the best example of an attempt to make gold an instrument of payments in international trade. The Libyan leader led the efforts to maneuvering away from the dollar and the euro as the only means of international payments. He called upon the Arab-African world to switch over to a single currency – the gold dinar. According to the Colonel’s plans, the measure would constitute a basis for creating a unified state with mixed Arab-Black African population of 200 million. Many developing states supported the idea of Africa’s unification into a single federate state based on a single currency backed up by gold. It was met with repugnance by the United States and some Western nations. No matter how hard they tried to talk him out of it, Gaddafi was adamant. He continued to take new steps to create the unified Africa and introduce the gold dinar. There are two interpretations of the reasons behind the military intervention against Libya – the defense of human rights and the desire to grab the Gaddafi’s oil. Both are wrong. The real reason is the fact, that Colonel Gaddafi was brave enough to follow the example of General De Gaulle. He tried to bring into life the idea of getting away from paper money in favor of gold standard. By doing so he threatened the owners of printing press or, in other words, the major share owners of the private company under the name of the US Federal Reserve System… 

Some states adopt gold for international payments on their own. Usually it is used for smuggling or dark operations. Nepal sets an example; it gets two thirds of its imports from the neighboring India. Gold is used for payments. Partially Nepalese vendors get it from local banks (around 15 kg per day). Another source of gold is the neighboring China. It’s cheaper there in comparison to what it costs in India (4.80 rupee per compared to 5.05 in India). In this case the use of gold is explained by the desire to get profit taking advantage of the difference in golf prices. There are also other reasons for cutting off some states from world trade. Iran is the best example; the West has imposed economic sanctions against it, including the ban on export-import banking transactions freezing the country out of world financial system. As a result, the neighboring Turkey shifted to gold payments for the natural gas imported from Iran. According to the Wall Street Journal Europe, the outflow of gold, measured in billions of dollars, from Turkey is a result of gas payments for Iranian gas… The shift of both countries to gold payments for gas is a result of the sanctions imposed by the United States, which threatens to get tough towards other states using dollar payments for trade with Iran. Gold payments will allow Ankara to avoid the «punishment» from Washington. During the first nine months of 2012 the outflow of gold from Turkey reached record high $10.7 billion, Iran received gold for the sum of $6.4 billion. 

Secret war for gold, or the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds

At first glance, some world events seem to be occasional and have nothing in common. In reality they always reflect the ongoing fight behind the scenes between different groups inside the world financial oligarchy. On the whole, they could be divided into two large camps: 1) those, who defend the existing status quo in the world, or the circulation of paper money, where the US dollar plays the leading part without any back-up; 2) the supporters of idea to get back to gold standards. 

The first camp comprises the owners (major shareholders) of printing press – the United States Federal Reserve System and associated banks (which belong to the very same shareholders of the Federal Reserve System). They are the privileged recipients of paper production. Gold is seen as a dangerous competitor putting the dollar in jeopardy. Those, who belong to the group, will do their best to prolong the life of printing press, including provocation of a major war if need be. First of all, the group is represented by the clan of Rockefellers. There are also some clans of lesser fame. Aside from the Federal Reserve System’s printing press, they all exercise control over the world market of «black gold» and the US military-industrial complex. 

The second camp of gold standard supporters is a motley crew of much broader representation. It includes part of world financial oligarchy, which is not so closely connected to the US Federal Reserve System. It has significant gold reserves at its disposal and exercises control over extraction and production of yellow metal. It is ready to eliminate the printing press in favor of gold standard. The group is mainly associated with the clan of Rothschilds and some smaller clans, which to large extent are drawn to Europe. It should be noted, that the dollar system has discredited itself to the extent the world «gold» oligarchy sees no glitches on the way of recruiting supporters from all walks of life, so it enjoys a broad social base throughout the whole world. Suffice it to remember, the Occupy Wall Street movement, is, in essence, not targeted against the Wall Street banks only, but against the US Federal Reserve System as well, the agency which serves as the bulwark and rear base of the Rockefellers empire. 

The Rothschilds are behind numerous initiatives aimed at legalization of gold as currency metal. But any attack launched by the Rotshields is fought back by the Rockefellers. It’s kind of a seesaw battle at the «gold front», a ding-dong tug-of-war between the Rotshields and the Rockefellers. Now, let’s look more attentively at Switzerland. The battle started two years ago with no outcome in sight. There is no explanation as to why the «parallel» gold money was not launched into circulation in 2012 as previously planned. Swiss and world media stopped highlighting the issue as if upon a command. One can make a conjecture, that the process was stymied by the Rockefellers. Perhaps, the Rotshields and the Rockefellers held talks behind the curtain and managed to reach a compromise: for instance, the US government stops raiding the Swiss banks (for instance, using the accusation of involvement into money laundering for dictators or resorting to other reasons to justify the activities), while Switzerland freezes the process of bringing the «parallel» gold currency into circulation. 

I have mentioned above the «gold» initiatives launched by 13 states of the USA. After Utah introduced gold currency, other twelve states started to hit snags on the way of doing the same thing. I’m sure, that the clan of Rockefellers saw it as a threat for the Federal Reserve System’s future, so it stepped on all economic and political «breaks» to slow it all down. 

Probably, it’s not occasional that there are different limitations imposed on gold buying and selling operations introduced off and on in this or that country. Normally the limitations are explained by the need to fight money laundering (gold is ideally suited for laundering)), financing the fight against terrorism, corruption etc. For instance, in the summer of 2012 the tranquil and civilized Austria banned individual gold banking transactions exceeding $15000 at a time (back then it was no more than eleven ounces of gold). The government said the measure was aimed at supporting the United States in its fight against international terrorism and organized transnational crime. In September 2011 France followed the Austria’s example introducing curbs on individual purchases of gold sold by banks. It’s even tougher in the United States and some other countries. A lot of cities, like Houston, Texas, have made it obligatory to produce identification documents in case of gold buy or sell operations. The gold transactions are watched by banks as well as intelligence units of the Department of Treasure, The Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the Home Security Department. I think the campaign aimed at inflating the threat of international terrorism, is championed by the clan of Rockefellers. In particular, that’s the way they tackle the mission of curbing the use of gold as metal currency. 

War as argument in «dollar against gold» dispute

To assess the prospects for world financial system‘s transition from the current dollar standard to gold standard one has to take into consideration the world military balance, the range of possibilities to use force by the clan of Rockefellers. It would be expedient to remember the events in and around Iraq and Libya. When the leaders of these countries took the bull by the horn and launched practical steps to refuse the dollar as the means of payment for oil and other commodities, the United States immediately launched wars against the «dictators». When Muammar Gaddafi tried to introduce the gold dinar, Libya was supported and cautiously «promoted» by the clan of Rothschilds. Some little known facts provide testimony to the affirmation. For instance, Dominique Gaston André Strauss-Kahn, former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, was the protégé of the Rotshields. In 2011 he supported the idea of bringing the gold dinar into circulation. The clan of the Rockefellers hit back, it delivered a punch against Strauss-Kahn first, and then it struck Libya.

The Strauss-Kahn story is a reflection of deep contradictions in the ranks of world oligarchy over the future of world financial system. Since 2009 Strauss-Kahn was firmly supporting the part of world financial oligarchy, which stood for elimination of the dollar as world currency. In particular, then head of the International Monetary Fund lashed out against the «Washington consensus» – a statement of principles aimed at US dollar’s global dominance. 

Today military interventions against sovereign states appear to be United States responses to the threats posed to the interests of Rockefellers. The objective is to rebuff any attempts to refuse the production of the US Federal Reserve System’s printing press (the secondary goal is establishing control over the «black gold» reserves). But it’s a long time the world got fed up with the dollars forcibly imposed on it by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon and NATO. Washington declares to be «centers of terror» all those, who stand against receiving green pieces of paper of no value. They are subject to military interventions and economic blockades. The clan of Rothschilds skillfully uses the world growing anti-US sentiments to promote its plan to make the world shift to gold standards. 

Unlike in other states, the power in Vatican is of sacral nature, it’s an absolute theocratic monarchy. The Pope holds all the reins as a Roman bishop, a secular clergyman and the sovereign of Vatican City State. It’s not so easy to limit his power. Today we are facing the repetition of the same scheme used to destitute the Holy See of temporal power in September 1870. Those days kind of a play was staged to may it appear the Pope was brought down by revolutionary Italian army. The idea was to transfer Vatican and its land to new Italian rulers along with the debts of around 30 million of scudos (the currency of the Papal States until 1866). The Pope failed to pay it off to the Rothschild family. It is impossible to make the Pope go bankrupt. So the debt restructuration plan was invented to make the wolves (the Rotshields) sated and the sheep (the Pope and his retinue) intact getting away with only sheepskin cut. The loss of temporal power was compensated. In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility for the occasions the pope speaks ex cathedra when issuing a solemn definition of faith or morals. 

Today the Pope sovereignty is questioned again. The only thing is that the inclusion of the Pope’s power into the «new world order» means in practice transferring Vatican’s money to the total control of world banking mafia. It strikes the most close and untouchable Holy See structure – the Vatican Bank, which is the Pope’s bank, not an official Vatican state financial institution; the Pope is the only share holder and fully controls it through an oversight commission of five cardinals. 

Pope Benedict ХVI has come under unprecedented pressure during the last three years. Gianluigi Nuzzi had touched a nerve with his 2010 Vatican SPA, an investigative book on the Vatican banking practices. Then the bank was subject to strict punishment. A part of its assets was arrested. Criminal proceedings were initiated against Tedesci, the head of the Bank those days. Back then the bank was imposed a fine. After that the Holy See made an abrupt turn, financial transparency became the slogan of the day. Vatican started a campaign to be included into the FATF «white list» and adopted a law against money laundering. It asked MONEYVAL (the Council of Europe action against the Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism) to recognize the bank as the only organization matching the international norms. 

The steps taken were not enough, the pressure increased. The appearance of the book called His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI (Italian: Sua Santità. Le carte segrete di Benedetto XVI), published by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, capped the climax. It saw light in May 2012 and portrayed the Vatican as a corrupt hotbed of jealousy, intrigue and underhanded factional fighting. The book showed the Pope was vulnerable to pressure exerted by outside forces. Nobody made precise what exactly forces were meant. Still, somebody paid attention on the fact that the surge of pressure on the Pope coincided with a remarkable event: on May 30 2012 the Rotshields and Rockefellers concluded an agreement on joining the assets of their companies. Rothshild Investment Trust «Capital Partners» (RIT CP) bought a big package of Rockefeller Financial services (RFS) shares. The RFS is responsible for the Rockefellers and other US richest families business.

In July 2012 The 241-page report by MONEYVAL, the committee of financial experts backed by the 47-nation Council of Europe, warned that Holy See regulators lacked the power to oversee how money flows through Vatican City. In January 2012 the Italian central bank blocked all electronic payments in Vatican, debit and credit cards were not received anymore. All Italian commercial banks were forbidden to operate on the Vatican’s soil because it «does not meet the EU common banking standards on vigilance». The pressure grew, so it is logical to surmise that the reason behind the declared resignation of Benedict XVI is impossibility to continue the game of maneuvering. It becomes too perilous: the Vatican old timers still remember the sad fate of John Paul I who launched the reform of financial structures and died 33 days later after his election to the Papacy.

It’s hardly an occasion the last important decision before the death was related to the Vatican Bank; the position of its head had been vacant since May 2012. On February 16 2013 Ernst von Freyberg, a German lawyer and financier, a specialist on merging, became the head of the Bank. What stands out is the fact that von Freiberg is a Knight of Malta. The Order of Knights of Malta is even more influential than Opus Dei, formally known as The Prelature of the Holy Cross that former head of the Bank Gotti Tedeschi belonged to. The order is a rather closed group uniting the Western nobility; it’s also kind of an international business club exerting substantial influence on world politics. The assignment of Ernst von Freyberg can be considered as a one more step on the way to transferring the Vatican financial system to the control of world financial clans. It’s interesting Benedict XVI never saw the new bank director, his candidacy was the choice of Spencer & Stuart, an executive search consulting firm based in Chicago. The agency is called a «headhunter». 

No matter he tried to keep up with the times and meet the requirements of globalization, no matter he facilitated further rapprochement between Catholicism and Judaism, Benedict XVI is still stuck in the mud in the eyes of the many who belong to the powers that be. His conservative views and the adherence to traditional values poorly matched the strategy of global elites. A new Pope will have to apply more efforts to become «tolerant» enough for those who are accustomed to speak on behalf of the world community. A new Pontific will have to be «on modern lines».

The vast territory, known as Patagonia, had long remained a no man’s land until it was divided between Argentina and Chile. It stretches between the Rio Colorado in the north and in the south to Tierra del Fuego, the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the foothills of the Andes in the west. Land development was hard going because of the remoteness, lack of roads and unstable climate. For the first time in 30-40 years of the last century, Patagonia was included in geo-strategic manipulations. It is from this base that the Third Reich was planning the conquest and colonization of South America, and that is why Nazi emissaries were regular visitors to these parts. Under present conditions, when the struggle for biological resources, hydrocarbons, and fresh water reserves are unfolding with more ferocity, the value of Patagonia has grown immeasurably. Now is the time for other equally dangerous emissaries.

Who is Douglas Tompkins? It is hard to talk about all aspects of the activities of this enterprising, adventurous man with a reckless streak. He's good at conspiracy and he is a hoaxer. He never talks about himself too much. The available biographical information about Tompkins is «organized» by him himself. Born in 1943 in the state of Ohio, he did not finish his studies and was expelled from school «for repeated infractions». He was fond of climbing, and was an instructor. He established a climbing equipment company, and then later a tailoring company making tourist clothes. At the peak of his commercial success Tompkins sold his companies and decided to devote himself to the problems of the implementation of «deep ecology», (essentially anti-civilization), the ideas of the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. A radical interpretation of these ideas involves the expulsion of people from the land and for it to be returned to its «original state».

In 1990, Tompkins founded the Foundation for Deep Ecology, which encouraged activists to protect the environment. In 1992, a foundation for the preservation of land was established, The Conservation Land Trust, and its official documents indicated that its activities were designed to protect wildlife in Chile and Argentina. In implementing projects for the expropriation of Chilean and Argentine territories, Tompkins has the support of powerful forces, including the Rockefeller clan. In the online publication «Plan Andino. Tompkins list «(04/08/11) reported that Tompkins had concealed his ties with the clan, even from close associates in environmental NGOs. Contacts are ongoing through trusted intermediaries, including key diplomats in the U.S. embassy. The Rockefeller clan is using their unlimited financial and promotional resources to influence the Chilean leadership, to avoid any actions by the authorities to restrict Tompkins.

In a relatively short period of time Tompkins became the owner of 300 thousand hectares in the province of Palena in the Chilean south, and 200 thousand hectares in Argentina. And that's not all. Tompkins intends to increase his empire in Patagonia one million hectares. The media of these countries have sounded the alarm: a rich American under the pretext of being an «ecologist» is buying up virgin forest land in the region that has strategic reserves of fresh water, and biological resources. In Argentina, Tompkins has implemented «Project Ibera» in the province of Corrientes and parts of Argentine Patagonia. In Chilean Patagonia the American created the «Pumalin Eco Park» from whose territory under various pretexts local residents were evicted. The explanation was that their presence in the park interfered with the purity of the «deep ecology» experiment.

Pumalin Park cut Chile in half. Without Tompkins permission «outsiders» are not allowed on its territory. This agitated the Chilean military. For the first time a thesis of a threat to the sovereignty of the country was expressed by them. Tompkins acting on instructions from the Pentagon and the CIA is forcing Chileans out of Patagonia! The Military got to the root of this operation. In the 1960`s David Rockefeller funded a research project, which was initiated by Henry Kissinger about promising methods of «legal entry» of the U.S. in those regions of the world that are of strategic interest. So they initiated the «Iron Mountain Plan». Among the proposals the environmental issues stand out, because they are “usually supported by different social circles and do not cause unnecessary suspicion among the population». As a consequence, in Chile, there were dozens of environmental NGOs and a “green” Ecological Party, ensuring the realization of the «Iron Mountain Plan». The Tompkins-controlled organizations – Foundation for Deep Ecology, Conservation Land Trust, and Patagonia Land Trust are registered in the U.S. at the same address: Fort Cronkhite, Sausalito, California. In case of claims against Tompkins in Chile, the trials will be held in the United States. Tompkins political activities in Chile are covered by the Embassy of the United States, which continues to defend his interests.

The «Tompkins enclaves» in Argentina are similarly protected. Professor Elsa Brussone working at the «War for Democracy Center” (Centro de Militares para la Democracia), called it a «campaign of intimidation and terror» by the U.S. diplomats in the «defense» of Tompkins interests. Brussone clearly outlined the situation: «Why is he not engaged in this work in his own country, where 40% of water is poisoned, underground reservoirs of fresh water are consumed, and 40 million people live in extreme poverty?” These questions bring a smile and arrogant reaction from him: «The United States will never have a shortage of water». For Brussone it is obvious: «The country that is not the master of its natural resources, land, water, forests, mineral deposits and hydrocarbons, using them for the benefit of its people, is doomed to be a country on its knees before the TNCs, international financial institutions and imperialist powers. Only those countries and those peoples, who are absolute masters of their own natural resources, can be considered as autonomous, free and sovereign».

The Chilean president Sebastian Pinera, a favorite of Washington, and former president Frei Lagos Bachelet came under public pressure and repeatedly stated their intention to take «decisive action» against the «Tompkins Empire».Nothing has materialized. No one wants to deal with the powerful «ecologist» and his backers in the U.S. It is for this reason that the question of the laying through Pumalin Park of a highway which is strategically important to the South (Carretera austral) has stalled. Tompkins resists all attempts at “invasion», and if he temporarily yields in something, it is for tactical reasons. It is from this point of view that Tompkins proposals for the transformation of his possessions in the «national parks» should be considered. The legal documents are accompanied by so many reservations and conditions that they actually establish the right to terminate the agreements with the millionaire under the pretext of «improper use» of land and violation of the dogmas of «deep ecology».

Experts in Chile and Argentina believe that Douglas Tompkins is a «caretaker» in the preservation of the biological resources of Patagonia in the interests of the North American TNCs. It is often argued that the Pentagon and the CIA are the operators of a long-term project to create a support base for the evacuation of VIPs from the United States in the event of some natural disaster or a hypothetical World War. To clarify the reaction to Tompkins and his team to this and the views of others, the Chilean secret service regularly runs information in media channels about the alleged secret ongoing construction work in the millionaires realm.

It is worth noting that the Tompkins example, which is firmly settled in Patagonia, is being followed by other characters of the financial and business elite in the U.S. and Western Europe. Most often heard are the names of Ted Turner, George Soros, Henry Paulson (former director of Goldman Sachs), a British businessman Joe Lewis and others. The methods are the same: create funds with an environmental focus, and proclaim the noble goal of protecting the environment. This is a masked elementary appropriation of the natural resources of other countries. And perhaps overshadows other motives in the «development» of Patagonia: the U.S. elite is deliberately preparing for «The Final Hour». And the catastrophe will not be predicted by Nostradamus or the Mayan Calendar.

Photo: guardian.co.uk

The arguments in the Soviet paper generally concur with President Dwight Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the American people shortly before the inauguration of President Kennedy in January 1961. In his speech, Eisenhower warned the American people about the dangers posed to America’s democracy by the “military-industrial complex.”

There is nothing in the Soviet paper that rings false about the Rockefellers… The oligarchic family has exercised control over America’s foreign policy through their part-sponsorship of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group – all three shadowy organizations of the world’s elite class who determine monetary, foreign, and military policies behind closed doors. Rockefeller funding of Columbia University and the University of Chicago have helped inflict on the United States some of the most brazen neo-conservatives serving inside and outside of government.

The paper states “In 1957, the Rockefeller oligarchy of American oil industrialists controlled a capital of 61.4 billion dollars. The precise size of the Rockefeller fortune is a state secret in America: the American press noted at one time that special measures are taken so that data concerning the largest fortunes of the U.S. are not published.”

Fifty-three years later, the fortunes of America’s elite are still secret as can be seen with the secrecy surrounding Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s taxes and his offshore financial holdings in such locations as the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Bermuda, and, according to some reports, the British Virgin Islands.

But the Rockefellers wrote the book on hiding their immense fortune in corporate contrivances and secret bank accounts, an easy task considering they own Chase Manhattan Bank, which is now known as J P Morgan Chase.

The Soviet article also exposed the Rockefellers’ much-ballyhooed “philanthropy” and “work ethic.” The article revealed: “The Rockefellers do not buy yachts worth many millions, like the Vanderbilt magnates; they do not install doorknobs and water fountains of pure gold in their palaces. But love for luxury is not alien to them. The play house where the children of the Rockefellers frolic cost a half million dollars. Bourgeois newspapers, willingly ‘forgetting’ about such ‘trifles,’ relate with tears of sympathy how the children of the billionaires earn pocket money by raising rabbits, cleaning boots, and even destroying flies at ten cents per hundred.”

Today, the successors of the same “bourgeois” media of 1959 prattle on about how Mitt and Ann Romney had it so “tough” after graduating from college. CNN’s Anderson Cooper, the son of billionaire heiress Gloria Vanderbilt, goes on about how tough it was for him to break into the news media, as if his mother had nothing to do with his rapid ascension in the corporate media.

The Soviet paper paints a picture of the Rockefellers that is similar to today’s Romney family: “The people want to know the truth. And the truth about the wealth of the Rockefellers consists of dark deeds, thousands of ruined families, hundreds of thousands of workers in many countries of the world tormented by work beyond their strength. The truth is the concealed history of many wars – it is oil stained with blood.” Of course, today the same can be said about the Rockefeller-linked Bush family, as well as Dick Cheney, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and the Rothschild family.

The article identifies the Rockefeller clan members in 1959: “John D. Rockefeller II does not direct his wide empire alone. He has five sons – John D. III, Laurance, David, Winthrop, and Nelson. They are all large capitalists. Each has his role, his department. Only Winthrop has not become famous for anything, unless one counts a scandalous divorce.” In fact, Winthrop became famous later when he was elected governor of Arkansas in 1966. His brother Nelson had served as Governor of New York since 1959.

David is the only survivor among John D. II’s sons and he has been a major player in secret organizations like the Bilderbergs and Trilateralists. David Rockefeller’s off demeanor is described in the Soviet article: “The bourgeois press advertises him as the owner of the best collection of insects in the world, and as possessing extremely gentlemanly manners. But when he enters the office of the bank [Chase Manhattan] and the steel doors close behind his back, the lover of butterflies turns into a greedy seeker after dollars. The hired biographers have every basis for calling him ‘the personification of the virtues of Wall Street.’”

Nelson Rockefeller, who, in 1975, would have become President of the United States had two attempted assassins’ bullets hit their target – President Gerald Ford – is recognized in the Soviet article for his scheming in Latin America, scheming that was supplemented by Richard Nixon and Ford Secretary of State and Rockefeller consigliore Henry Kissinger. The article states: “The Rockefellers have long nourished an irresistible attraction for the countries in Latin America: the provocatory smell of oil reaches them from the South American continent. Therefore, Nelson Rockefeller, who had long been trying to turn South America into his family estate, was at one time placed at the head of the so-called “Bureau of Inter-American Affairs.”

The article quotes the left-wing newspaper the Daily Compass, which once published the muckraking columns of investigative journalist I. F. Stone, in describing the Rockefellers’ stranglehold over the U.S. State Department: “The policy of the State Department is born in the offices of Standard Oil. From there it is transmitted to the Department of Defense, where the heads of the Army and Navy approve it. When this policy gets to the State Department, it becomes the policy of the government and is supposed to be confirmed by Congress quickly and without any changes whatever. When an order for laws designed to protect the interests of the oil kings comes from the Rockefeller dynasty itself, the entire Congress – from the small to the great – comes to ‘attention’ and does what the bosses order it to do.”

Considering the recent U.S. and NATO intervention in Libya and Syria, countries where oil is key, little has changed in how U.S. foreign and war policy is manufactured.

The Rockefellers ties to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad are also laid out in the Soviet monograph. The article reveals that the Rockefellers supplied a U.S. intelligence “cut out” – the School of Eastern Studies in Jerusalem – with money from the Arabian-American oil company (ARAMCO). The school, which operated with the full knowledge of the Mossad, trained American officers to conduct espionage throughout the Middle East.

There was a time when the U.S. government and the corporate (bourgeois) press dismissed such articles as the Soviet monograph on the Rockefellers as pure propaganda. In retrospect, the Soviet authors of the article understood in 1959 what many Americans have come late to fathoming: that the United States is being destroyed by a mega-wealthy elite intent on preying on the United States like a swarm of locusts.