Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The "Great Reset" and the Deep State
by Norbert Haering and Paul Scheyer
Sunday Jul 11th, 2021 6:19 AM
Taboo truths, about which the authorities remain shamefully silent, can indeed be kept under the carpet very well for decades. The course of history is massively influenced by these informal, unelected structures that operate in the interests of the old elites. U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned his countrymen against the power of the Deep State. For him, this was still called the "military-industrial complex."
The World Economic Forum is planning the “Great Reset” to prevent it from happening
July 29, 2020 | The club of the world’s richest people and the largest nature-destroying corporations wants the “Great Reset”. Instead of poverty, disease, overpopulation and destruction of nature, the mega-rich promise us a fair world in harmony with nature. Despite its obvious absurdity and the cynicism behind it, this initiative should not be ignored. There is a dark plan behind it.
[This article published on July 29, 2020 is translated from the German on the Internet,]

According to its own description, the World Economic Forum is “THE international organization for public-private cooperation” and has as its main objective “to improve the state of the world”. The foundation, founded in 1971 by German economist Klaus Schwab, lacks neither power nor self-confidence. For years now, almost all the world’s major heads of government have made the pilgrimage to the annual meeting in Davos to pay their respects to multinational corporations and billionaires.

The World Bank, a close collaborator of the Forum, has made it a strategy to only support development projects that the member companies of this club can earn money from. The United Nations (UN) have been made highly dependent on the money of the corporations and can do practically nothing that does not promote their interests or even runs counter to them. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) now acts quite unabashedly as a door-opener for multinationals when it is supposed to help a poor country in difficulty or assess its financial system.

So this powerful organization, the World Economic Forum, has been working for nearly 50 years to make the world a better place, with great success, it claims:

The World Economic Forum has developed a reputation as a trusted platform for informed collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders – reinforced by a track record of success over five decades.

However, if you watch the short film that the Forum has released to get you in the mood for the Great Reset, you can’t help but judge that it has either failed miserably in its main objective, or – more likely – that it wants to improve the state of the world just for its members. In this case the huge profits of the large corporations and the increasing inequality of income, wealth and power would signs of great success.
The film’s mapping of the current situation consists of a hectic sequence of dystopian scenarios: garbage dumps, epidemics, protests against inequality, environmental destruction… Then, on an old computer, the reset button is pressed, and suddenly all is well. Images of shoals of fish in the blue ocean, beautiful green landscapes, happy babies…

After this not so subtle introduction, the video continues with an extremely high profile line-up of testimonial-givers. They include the British heir to the throne, the head of the International Monetary Fund and the Director-General of the United Nations.

So that you don’t have to do it, I have watched it, until my capacity for cliché intake was exhausted at about the middle of the film. Klaus Schwab declared at the beginning that “Now is the time to design the system for the post-Corona period.” UN Secretary General Guterres and Prince Charlestalked about peace on earth and a harmonious society in harmony with nature. Nothing about how we get there.
Improving the state of the world (for the rich)

IMF boss Georgieva stressed the urgency of overcoming the digital divide, i.e. ensuring that US digital companies can make money in every corner of the world. Then she drifted into unintentional sarcasm when she, the head of the organisation that has forced the dismantling of social benefits all over the world for decades, emphasised how important it is “to invest in people, in the social cohesion of society”. One must make the social systems more efficient, she seriously demanded, while her people on their missions in poor countries were probably working on about a dozen social reduction programmes at the same time.What she did not even mention, was the possibility of creating additional IMF money, the so-called special drawing rights (SDR), and distributing it preferentially to developing countries that have fallen into existential distress as a result of Corona. Nor did she mention the possibility of debt relief.

The boss of Mastercard, Ajay Banga, finally explained how the transition to the Great-Reset-paradise can be managed “from the point of view of the companies”, at least in principle: “In order for it to work, the private sector must make it part of its business model”, i.e. be able to make money from it. Otherwise it won’t work, we learn. To do this, you need “enormous trust between the private and public sectors, which is very difficult to achieve”. But thanks to Corona, there is more of that trust now. States now entrust companies with much more data for free processing. More of it, and all will be well.

If politicians and noblemen are only interested in spreading euphonious phrases, and the corporations only want what they have always wanted, namely to earn money, then why all the big boost with star cast?

The path is the goal
The answer lies in the planning for the Great Reset, not in its highly unlikely implementation. They took a page from the Buddhist playbook: The path is the goal. It’s not about a new start, but about steering and monopolizing the discussion about a possible radical new start. Freely based on the motto: If a movement could become dangerous for you and you cannot defeat it, establish yourself in the front row of it.

I’m certainly not the only one who came up with the idea of calling a book-project “Reset”. Subtitle: “How Capitalism Works and How We Can Overcome It”. This kind of thinking is in the air, when in such a deep economic crisis the richest people in the world gain many billions in wealth and the stock markets act – after a brief moment of shock -as if nothing had happened. However, before the World Economic Forum also came up with the “Reset” label, I had already changed the somewhat abstract working title to the more concrete one: “World by the nose ring: How the corporations are taking power and what we can do about it”.

From the enormous interest of the readers of my blog in these topics, I conclude that the feeling that something is going terribly wrong and that a reset is really necessary is very widespread in society. Thus, for those who benefit most from the current situation, there is an urgent need to control the discussion and to either isolate or embrace all those who (could) come up with powerful radical ideas early on. And this is exactly what the Great-Reset-exercise is for.

The next annual meeting in Davos is to be a “twin summit”: On the one hand, the usual rendezvous of the corporation leaders and billionaires with the heads of government and the media. On the other hand, all important stakeholders are to be represented, at least digitally, to help plan the Great Reset. “Stakeholders” is a managerial buzzword for representatives of groups with a stake in the companies’ actions, which have been hand-picked by the companies themselves.

The “Great Reset” will require us to integrate all stakeholders of the global society into a community with common interests, goals and actions.

Let’s take a look at the list of stakeholders that the World Economic Forum is convening. It seems to be somewhat exhaustive, if one takes the following at its word: “The announcement of the ‘Great New Start’ was made by H.K.H. The Prince of Wales and Professor Schwab during a virtual meeting, followed by statements by UN Secretary General António Guterres and IMF Executive Director Kristalina Georgieva. Their statements were supported by voices from all stakeholder groups in world society, including
• Victoria Alonsoperez, founder and CEO of Chipsafer, Uruguay, and a Young Global Leader;
• Caroline Anstey, President and CEO of Pact, USA;
• Ajay S. Banga, Managing Director, Mastercard, USA;
• Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Brussels;
• Ma Jun, Chairman, Green Finance Committee, China Society for Finance and Banking, and member of the Monetary Policy Committee, People’s Bank of China;
• Bernard Looney, Managing Director, BP, United Kingdom;
• Juliana Rotich, Venture Partner, Atlantica Ventures, Kenya;
• Bradford L. Smith, President, Microsoft, USA;
• Nick Stern, Chairman, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, United Kingdom.

Microsoft, BP, Mastercard, an investment company, an IT start-up, garnished with a trade unionist and the head of an American development organization, who was previously a banker and advisor to the World Economic Forum, these are the “voices from all stakeholder groups in world society”. Environmental protection is represented by a Chinese official who has taken up the phoney cause of Green Finance and an economist who advocates at least the modest sum of one percent of the gross domestic product be used for measures against global warming.

If the whole thing was just about discussions between these representatives and profiteers of the status quo, it could safely be ignored, even if it is supported by the Who’s Who of “global governance” (world government).

But the core of the program is something else: Schwab said, according to the Forum’s press release, “The ‘Great Reset’ will require us to integrate all stakeholders of the global society into a community with common interests, goals and actions”. In the video, he is even more explicit about the claim of monopolizing the debate: “This initiative will integrate everyone in the world who has a voice and who has a particularly innovative proposal to improve living conditions.”

The squid extends its tentacles
In order to find all these people worldwide, the World Economic Forum will, over the next six months until the Davos meeting, extend its tentacles, which it has so far left largely hidden. Its network of nearly 10,000 “Global Shapers” in 428 cities (hubs) and 148 countries, will be activated for the purpose. The shapers are something like the junior organization of the World Economic Forum. Its purpose is to identify high potentials who could become influential in business, politics and culture at an early stage, let them network with each other and to introduce them to the World Economic Forum.

If they prove to be sufficiently ambitious and manageable, their careers will be promoted. In this way, Klaus Schwab and the members of his club have someone in an influential position in business, politics or culture almost anywhere in the world whom they can call if they need to know something or need a favor.

For the purposes of the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum has declared these Global Shapers to be the representatives of the young generation, who are to ensure that the reform plans are in the long-term interest of future generations (of elites). In the next six months, the young established people are to identify people in the catchment area of their hub who are pushing noteworthy reform initiatives. They are to invite them to participate digitally in the Davos Great Reset Pauwau via their hub.

That is then only the beginning. Whoever turns out to be potentially impactful and therefore dangerous will be embraced and made to feel important, flown to conferences in all parts of the world, lured with job offers, stipends and other support, imperceptibly entangled in a web of dependencies from which he or she cannot free themselves without fear of falling into insignificance.

This initiative will integrate everyone in the world who has a voice and who has a particularly innovative proposal for improving living conditions.

Or else, one resists and withdraws from the embrace from the beginning. Then, one may have to watch how other reformers with less fear of being corrupted are stylized into beacons of hope.

In this way, the World Economic Forum hopes to make sure that reform movements do not get out of control, for example, those who want to tax away some of the wealth of the mega-rich, or who would strive to ensure that this obscene wealth does not come about in the first place, by reducing the excessive, anti-competitive intellectual property rights, or by strengthening the rights of employees, or by forcing big corporations to pay taxes like everybody else.

That is how it works, albeit rarely presented as openly as in this reform prevention project of the elites called the Great Reset. If they come for you, you know now, what they want from you.
The Deep State
By Paul Scheyer
[This excerpt from the 2018 book is translated from the German on the Internet,]
The term "deep state" is dazzling and rich in innuendo. One thinks of "dark forces" and conspiracies - great cinema, anyway, full of intrigue and sinister backers. But the Deep State is precisely not a flat "club of world conspirators" that pulls all the strings everywhere and at all times. - An excerpt from the 2018 book "The Fear of Elites - Who Fears Democracy?"

Similar to the complex entity that is the state, the term deep state does not refer to a defined organization with a list of members and a big boss at the top, but rather a tightly intertwined milieu of rich people, government officials, intelligence officers and military officers who organize themselves informally and try to secure the influence of their own circles regardless of election results and parliaments.

The emergence of the CIA provides a good example of such networks. The famous American intelligence service was not conceived by the government or parliament after World War II, but by bankers. At the center of the planning was the urbane diplomat and Wall Street lawyer Allen Dulles, who at the time was president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful private elite club - once described by Der Spiegel as the "Politburo for Capitalism" (1) - which essentially represented the interests of the financial sector and which to this day tries to translate the goals of the big banks and export-oriented corporations into official state foreign policy. (2)

Allen Dulles acted for decades as one of the most important links between the money world and politics. (3) In 1946, he was asked by a general in the U.S. War Department (as it was then called) to start thinking about a new intelligence service. (4) Background: The U.S. had occupied several major industrialized nations during the war, including Italy and Japan in addition to Germany. The newly created empire now had to be administered appropriately. The existing U.S. agencies were not sufficient to do justice to this task. Many institutions with worldwide responsibilities were therefore newly created during this period.

Dulles formed an advisory group in 1946 to develop proposals for the structure and objectives of the new intelligence agency. The team he assembled for this purpose included four former Wall Street bankers, an ex-Wall Street lawyer, and an admiral who had also previously worked as a banker. (5) Two years later, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal (also an ex-Wall Street banker) appointed Dulles to chair a committee that, along with two other New York lawyers, would review the work of the newly formed CIA. The lawyers met regularly for more than a year in the boardrooms of a Wall Street investment firm for this purpose. (6)

In short, bankers everywhere. From the beginning, the CIA was an enterprise of the financial sector and the wealthy upper class, a fact that was to change little in the years and decades that followed. Time and again, bankers or corporate lawyers moved into intelligence management, and intelligence officers moved to major banks. This pattern is by no means unique to the CIA, but it is particularly evident there. (7)

Networks against social renewal
It can be said that the deep state in many cases allows the old elites to continue as if revolutions and democratization of the state had never occurred. Freely elected parliaments and public committees do meet, but they often do not play the main role in decisive issues. The networks in the background have a veto and undermine social renewal whenever they see their interests threatened. By their very nature, these groups are conservative and authoritarian.

This is also well documented for the Weimar Republic, where an organized milieu of wealthy industrial leaders and reactionary military officers exerted massive influence on politics and significantly drove the end of the Republic. (8) The transition to fascism was seen by these circles - not only in Germany, but elsewhere as well - as an opportunity to consolidate their standing in society.

A preferred playground of the deep state, as just described with the example of the CIA, are the secret services, precisely because here democratic authorities have the least insight and influence. Policies are constantly being pursued covertly via secret services, and whenever such involvement of the services becomes public through a scandal, such as in 1987 with the Iran-Contra affair in the USA, in 1990 when the "Gladio" structure of NATO secret forces was uncovered, or since 2011 in the German NSU affair, there is usually no comprehensive clarification. Investigations get stuck, files disappear, witnesses die.

Deep Events Shape Politics
Often, the deep state is involved in events that shape public policy for years or even decades, such as political assassinations, coups against democratically elected governments, or events that lead to a state's entry into a war. In political science research, such incidents are sometimes referred to as "deep events" - "deep events" - because of their impact far beyond the day. (9)

Examples include the assassinations of revolutionary politicians Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in 1919 (10), of German Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau in 1922 (11), of UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld in 1961 (12), of the first freely elected president of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba (13), also in 1961, of U.S. President John F. Kennedy in 1963 (14), on civil rights activist Martin Luther King (15) and on presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in 1968 (16), or on Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986. (17) Also included are the Reichstag fire in 1933 (18), the coup d'état against the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 (19), the Tonkin Incident in 1964 (20), which led to the direct entry of the U.S. into the Vietnam War, or the attacks of 9/11. (21)

All of these are controversial and largely unexplained events that gave a new direction to the historical development in a country for a longer period of time. They were always followed by a change of political course or at least a decision that would hardly have had a chance in parliament without the corresponding incident. Without the Reichstag fire, the Enabling Act passed just three weeks later in March 1933 would have been inconceivable; without the Tonkin Incident, the radical expansion of the Vietnam War would not have been possible; and without 9/11, the "war on terror" would not have been possible.

Shadow Government after 9/11
Particularly with 9/11, the workings of the Deep State are vividly documented. On the very morning of the attacks, a shadow government was installed in the U.S. in secret, completely without the knowledge of Parliament. It was not until six months later that the Washington Post, to the astonishment of parliamentarians and the public at large, reported the first scant details under the headline "Shadow Government Works in Secret." (22)

Vice President Dick Cheney had activated, more or less on his own authority, an emergency plan that had already been developed during the Cold War - and had also been regularly rehearsed by him and Donald Rumsfeld personally. (23) This plan was called "Continuity of Government". In the event of the capital being obliterated by Russian nuclear missiles, the constitution was to be suspended and a "reserve government" in a secret location was to take over the running of the country, according to the original plan. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the scenario was changed and the threat of communism was replaced by the threat of terrorism. Instead of Russian missiles, they now braced for an Islamist attack. (24)

But on September 11, no leaders had been assassinated, nor had the capital been destroyed. Nevertheless, Cheney secretly activated the plan, which resulted in his leaving Washington repeatedly over a period of months to command an equally secret second government of about one hundred people in a secret location without the knowledge of Parliament. (25) One could call this a "half coup d'état."

This is particularly explosive because in the first weeks after the attacks, many decisions were made that still have an impact today (start of wars, restriction of civil rights, expansion of the powers of the secret services, surveillance, torture), while at the same time almost nothing is known about the actions and decisions of Cheney's shadow government. The official 9/11 Commission of Inquiry was also left in the dark in this regard. In its final report, it did mention the activation of the plan on September 11, 2001, but admitted that it had not investigated the entire operation in any detail. Only the Investigative Commission's senior leadership had been briefed succinctly on the "general nature" of the plan. (26)

Plans for a state of emergency
As a closer look reveals, the plan for a shadow government and a suspension of the Constitution is part of the permanent fabric of the American deep state. It was developed under President Ronald Reagan, and at that time, in the 1980s, the National Security Council liaison officer in charge of the secret plan was Oliver North - the same shady lieutenant colonel who became the key figure in the Iran-Contra affair mentioned earlier. (27) The Deep State has its own personnel, which one encounters again and again in a wide variety of such events.

Considered by far, "deep events" are in some ways the joker in the political game. When this trump card is pulled out of the sleeve, all other players have to sit out a round (if they are still alive then). Basically, a significant part of recent world history consists of largely unexplained "Deep Events" involving the Deep State. The course of history is massively influenced by these informal, unelected structures that operate in the interests of the old elites. The fact that "Deep Events" and the role of the Deep State have not long been a self-evident part of history lessons in schools could be described, in the words of the Swiss psychoanalyst Mario Erdheim, as a "social production of unconsciousness" (28). On the other hand, it would probably also be unrealistic to seriously expect a state school system to educate about how its own state is being criminally undermined by unelected forces - with the government turning a blind eye.

The constant attempt to sweepingly dismiss such connections as "conspiracy theories" and "spin" seems helpless and reminiscent of the tabooing of violence and abuse within families and "honorable" institutions. The "good" father, the "dear" mother, the "trustworthy" uncle would never do such things. In fact, however, the deep state mistreats the entire society, and one can choose to turn a blind eye to it or not. The latter is unpleasant.

Taboo truths are easy to hide
In this respect, the argument that such crimes cannot be kept secret is hardly convincing. Taboo truths, about which the authorities remain shamefully silent, can indeed be kept under the carpet very well for decades, even if individuals sound the alarm - see the numerous cases of child abuse in prestigious institutions. What matters is how the majority deals with it: do they look the other way, or do they support the enlightened? In any case, the buzzword "conspiracy theory" offers no convincing substitute for a thorough examination of research results and sources, such as those given here in this text.

Much, moreover, is obvious. A first clue as to whether the deep state is involved in a murder, terrorist attack or coup d'état is often provided by the quality of police and judicial investigative work. This is because the clear-up rate is - actually highly illogical - in inverse proportion to the importance of the event. The more important and politically explosive an incident, the rarer it is to observe a clean investigation in which the principals are identified and convicted in regular court proceedings. A lack of or very inadequate clear-up can be taken as a strong indication that the planners have influence over the police and the judiciary. Unless, of course, one insinuates an "investigative breakdown" and "failure of authorities" each time anew - which becomes somewhat exhausting in the long run.

This characteristic runs from the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, where the principal, General Staff Officer Waldemar Pabst (quote: "It was only in the interest of our Germany"), was never brought to justice and instead was interviewed in a friendly manner by Der Spiegel as late as the 1960s, (29) to the shooting of Kennedy (the alleged perpetrator was shot himself, the principal was never identified) to the attacks of September 11, 2001, where the alleged backers of the murders were never identified. September 2001, where the alleged perpetrators are still locked up in Guantánamo today, almost twenty years later, without a court verdict (!).

Obstructions to investigations can be clearly documented in many cases and, while not proof in themselves, are at least a clear indication of the involvement of powerful individuals. The most recent example is the destruction of files and the death of witnesses in the NSU affair. (30)

Deep State as "Permanent Government"
The workings of the deep state became particularly obvious and shrill after the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, when the country's own intelligence services more or less openly schemed against the elected head of state, apparently with the aim of bringing about a "regime change" - i.e., the kind of change of power that is otherwise preferably organized for unpopular governments abroad.
Asked about the deep state, former Air Force general, NSA and CIA chief Michael Hayden said shortly after Trump's inauguration that he didn't particularly like the term and preferred instead to speak of a "permanent government." Its members, of which he himself was one, were sober "professionals": "They vote, they have views, but as professionals they know what to do." (31) This assessment would surely have been agreed to by Waldemar Pabst, Allen Dulles, or Oliver North. Presidents came and went, but the permanent government remained, which was just as well.

In an earlier interview, Hayden described with some pride how far-sightedly the Deep State already takes future U.S. presidents under its wing. This happens immediately after a politician proves to be a promising candidate in the primaries. At the location of the decisive primaries, the company always has its own teams that speak plain language with the respective candidate behind the scenes:

"At that moment, the permanent government-that's people like me-begins to convince the winning candidate of our view of the world, (...) to explain to him that national security looks different from the White House than it does from a hotel room in Iowa." (32)

This apparently didn't work on the first try with the headstrong billionaire Donald Trump. But people like Hayden know the length of the lever they hold. Elected politicians, the general said in a 2015 assessment, are necessary because they provide public legitimacy. But permanent government contributes "expertise and experience." Moreover, this structure prevents excessive "recklessness" in politics. (33) Supervised government, so to speak.

It is rare to hear representatives of the deep state speak so candidly. Apparently, planners like Hayden feel very secure about their cause and their position. No wonder, since they have the backing not only of the financial sector, but also of the press. In any case, the U.S. leading media from the New York Times to CNN, and in Germany from ARD to Spiegel, euphorically applauded the "permanent government" in its fight against Trump, even though the renowned investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald warned early on that such jubilation was ill-considered and that democratic processes should be protected instead: "No one should long for the deep state to take control." (34)

Eisenhower's warning
Such admonitions have been issued by others. Often cited is the 1961 televised farewell speech of U.S. President and ex-General Dwight Eisenhower, in which he warned his countrymen against the power of the Deep State. For him, this was still called the "military-industrial complex." After forty years in the Army and eight years in the White House, Eisenhower thoughtfully summed up:

"In the institutions of government, we must guard against the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial complex. The potential for a devastating growth of misguided power exists and will remain. We must never allow the weight of this nexus to threaten our freedoms or our democratic processes." (35)

Eisenhower's successor, Kennedy, later experienced the consequences of this "misdirected power" firsthand, having transformed himself from an elite zealot and Cold Warrior to a staunch opponent of a nuclear confrontation with Moscow, challenging the deep state that drove that escalation and seeking to eliminate the Soviet Union sooner or later. A compromise, a peaceful settlement, would have thwarted and made impossible the sought-after crushing victory over communism.

Allende: "Entire political structure of the world will be undermined".
A decade later, Chilean President Salvador Allende also addressed the issue in a speech to the UN General Assembly. He had dared to introduce a socialist policy in his country, nationalizing key industries with the approval of parliament, pushing through land reform in favor of small farmers and collectives, and introducing a free health care system for all citizens. For this, the elites affected by the expropriations, together with conservative politicians and the military, fought him tooth and nail. The Western "community of values" declared him a pariah, an outsider who had grossly violated the rules. Before the world public, Allende described his impression of the Deep State in clear terms on December 4, 1972:

"We are faced with forces that operate in the shadows, without a flag, but with powerful weapons in many influential positions. (...) The big capitalist companies want to block the emancipation of the people with their aggression. It is a direct attack on the economic interests of the workers of Chile. (...) International corporations influence fundamental political, economic and military decisions. These companies are global organizations that do not depend on any state and are not controlled by or accountable to any parliament. In a word, the entire political structure of the world is being undermined. (...) Not only the underdeveloped countries are threatened by this danger, but also the industrialized countries." (36)

In the large conference hall of the New York UN building, which was filled to capacity, thunderous applause erupted after this speech and lasted for minutes. (37) Here, an elected politician had spoken from the soul of the representatives of millions of people all over the world.
But the bearer of hope had long been in the crosshairs. Only a year later, Allende was overthrown with the support of the CIA. Decisive for this was also the lobbying of the billionaire banker David Rockefeller, who personally influenced the U.S. government. (38) Henry Kissinger, then security advisor to the U.S. president and a personal confidant of the Rockefeller family, had told the Chilean ambassador in Washington shortly before the 1973 coup the following:

"Latin America is a region of little strategic importance. Chile has no strategic value at all. We can get our copper from Peru, Zambia, Canada. You have nothing that could be decisive. But if this project of socialism à la Allende takes hold, we will have serious problems in France and Italy, where socialists and communists are divided but could take this project as an example and unite. And this would substantially affect the interests of the United States. We will not allow it to be carried to success. Take note of that." (39)

After the coup, Chile was taken over by one of the most brutal and inhumane dictatorships of the 20th century. The regime of General Augusto Pinochet ruled for nearly two decades. During this time, the country served radical supporters of neoliberalism as an experimental laboratory for their hitherto only theoretical ideas of extreme deregulation and privatization, including in the health and education systems. Protection against dismissal was abolished, as was the right to strike, and pensions were switched from the traditional pay-as-you-go financing to a funded system, which flushed billions into the financial sector and made pensioners dependent on the whims of the stock market.

Overall, the result was a drastically deepened social divide between rich and poor. Domestic political resistance was nearly impossible during this period. Thousands of political opponents were murdered, and tens of thousands were tortured. The putschists and their supporters in the Deep State not only reversed Allende's reforms, they made an example of this country.

Promoting or at least tacitly approving such developments is often referred to as "realpolitik. What is meant by this is not questioning the given power relations and accepting the "limits of what is possible. The term has a positive connotation and is associated with "reason. But what is reasonable about oppressing people and killing their most popular leaders - Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Lumumba, Kennedy, King, Palme?

Celebrated realpolitikers like Allen Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzeziński or Dick Cheney (to name only the representatives of the American empire, they exist elsewhere as well), have served no objective reason, but modern princes who financed them and their associations and funding agencies from the CIA to the Council on Foreign Relations. These billionaire financiers are themselves the creators of that reality in which the supposed "real politicians" remain trapped as if in a bubble, disconnected from the sensibilities, desires and needs of the population, often as pitiless as psychopaths. The deep rift between perceptions corresponds to the separation of fortunes. Only the walls around the private property of the princes make an open society impossible.

Who can explain this to the famous billionaire (and former philosophy student) George Soros, who exerts political influence worldwide with his "Open Society Foundations" ("Stiftungen für eine offene Gesellschaft")? Soros strongly opposes authoritarian rule by state leaders without even mentioning the very similar authoritarian exercise of power by entrepreneurs and the super-rich. This double standard runs like a thread through his "promotion of democracy."

The financier attempts the impossible balancing act of earning billions as a speculator while saving the world as a social reformer and modern liberal philosopher. This is schizophrenic and, in human terms, almost tragic.

Politically, it has a devastating effect, as is actually always the case when a single person believes that he is smarter than others because of his wealth, and then derives political claims to run society from his money and "wisdom." In Stalinism, a supposedly superior ideology served as justification for the authoritarian rule of individuals; nowadays, no justification is needed at all - pure wealth ownership is enough. Property empowers.

Paul Schreyer: "The Fear of the Elites - Who Fears Democracy?", 224 pages, Westend Publishers.
More articles on the topic:
Big Pictures (Walter van Rossum, 2/6/2021).
What is behind Corona politics? (Paul Schreyer, 2.12.2020)
Was the Corona crisis planned? (Paul Schreyer, 9/18/2020)
(1) Bittorf, Wilhelm: "A Politburo for Capitalism?", Der Spiegel, issue 50/1975, December 8, 1975, pp. 142-147.
(2) Shoup, Laurence H. / Minter, William: Imperial Brain Trust. The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy, Monthly Review Press 1977, freely available online as a scan here; Dulles was vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1944 to 1946 and president from 1946 to 1950, directly succeeding banker Russell C. Leffingwell, then chairman of the board of Bank J.P. Morgan. - Council on Foreign Relations, Historical Roster of Directors and Officers.
(3) Talbot, David: The Devil's Chessboard: The CIA, Allen Dulles, and the Rise of America's Secret Government, Westend 2016.
(4) The general was Hoyt Vandenberg, and at the time Director of Central Intelligence in the "War Department," the precursor to the "Department of Defense." - Helms, Richard: A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency, Random House 2003.
(5) Ibid; The advisory group headed by Dulles consisted of Paul Nitze (ex-vice president of Dillon Read), Kingman Douglass (ex-managing partner at Dillon Read), William Harding Jackson (managing partner at J.H. Whitney from 1947), Robert A. Lovett (ex-partner at Brown Brothers Harriman), Frank Wisner (ex-Wall Street lawyer), and Admiral Sydney Souers (ex-vice president of Canal Bank & Trust Company).
(6) Scott, Peter Dale: The Road to 9/11. wealth, empire and the future of America, University of California Press 2007, p. 12.
(7) Some examples: Bobby Ray Inman, first director of the NSA from 1977 to 1981, then deputy director of the CIA, later moved seamlessly to head one of the regional Federal Reserve banks. William Casey, in turn, was first a partner in a large law firm, then head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, before moving to head the CIA from 1981 to 1987. Other managers can look back on similar careers. Chad Sweet: 1990-1993 in the CIA's "Directorate of Operations," 1994-1996 investment banker at Morgan Stanley, 1996-2006 vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, 2007-2009 chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security. Kenneth Minihan: 1995-1996 Chief of Military Intelligence at DIA, 1996-1999 Director of NSA, later on the board of Paladin Capital Group. John Deutch: 1995-1996 director of the CIA, 1998-2010 board member of Citigroup. George Tenet also moved from heading the CIA (1997- 2004) to an investment bank. And General David Petraeus, first commander of troops in Afghanistan, then CIA chief from 2011 to 2012, later became a consultant for the financial investor KKR.
(8) Ullrich, Volker: "The Noske-Pabst Connection," Zeit Online, January 15, 2009.
(9) Scott, Peter Dale: "The Assassinations of the 1960s as 'Deep Events,'" History Matters, October 17, 2008.
(10) Gietinger, Klaus: The Counterrevolutionary. Waldemar Pabst - a German Career, Edition Nautilus 2009.
(11) Sabrow, Martin: Der Rathenaumord: Rekonstruktion einer Verschwörung gegen die Republik von Weimar, De Gruyter 1994.
(12) Bauer, Wolfgang: "Dag Hammarskjöld: Was it murder after all?", Zeit Online, June 13, 2017.
(13) Giefer, Thomas: "Murder in Colonial Style. Patrice Lumumba, an African Tragedy," in Blondiau (ed.), Heribert: Death on Order. Politischer Mord im 20. Jahrhundert, Ullstein 2000, pp. 143ff.
(14) Bröckers, Mathias: JFK. Staatsstreich in Amerika, Westend 2017; Kompa, Markus: "JFK – blown away," Telepolis, October 25, 2017.
(15) DiEugenio, James / Pease, Lisa: "The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X," Feral House 2003.
(16) Scott, Peter Dale: "The Assassinations of the 1960s as 'Deep Events'," op. cit.
(17) Baab, Patrik / Harkavy, Robert E.: In the Spider's Web of the Secret Services. Why were Olof Palme, Uwe Barschel and William Colby murdered?", Westend 2017.
(18) Deiseroth, Dieter: Der Reichstagsbrand und der Prozess vor dem Reichsgericht, Tischler 2006.
(19) Risen, James: "The C.I.A. In Iran," The New York Times, April 16, 2000.
(20) Prados, John: "Essay: 40th Anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident," The National Security Archive, August 4, 2004.
(21) Scott, Peter Dale: The Road to 9/11, op. cit.
(22) Gellman, Barton / Schmid, Susan: "Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret," The Washington Post, March 1, 2002.
(23) Mann, James: Rise of the Vulcans. The History of Bush's War Cabinet, Penguin 2004, p. 138.
(24) Then-Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke reported in 2004 that he had updated the 1998 plan in this regard. - Clarke, Richard: Against All Enemies. Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press 2004, p. 167; The relevant presidential directive (PDD-67) was secret. Its exact content was never made public. - More details here.
(25) Scott, Peter Dale: The Road to 9/11, op. cit. p. 236-246; ABC News, "Worst Case Scenario: Secret Plan to Control U.S. Government After an Attack Went Into Motion on 9/11," April 25, 2004; Schreyer, Paul: "The 9/11 Plan: Cheney, Rumsfeld and the 'Continuity of Government,'" Global Research, January 28, 2013.
(26) 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 326, 555 (footnote 9) - Excerpt: "The 9/11 crisis tested the U.S. government's plans and capabilities to ensure the continuity of constitutional government and the continuity of government operations. We did not investigate this topic, except as needed to understand the activities and communications of key officials on 9/11. The Chair, Vice Chair, and senior staff were briefed on the general nature and implementation of these continuity plans."
(27) Mann, James: Rise of the Vulcans, op. cit. p. 142.
(28) Erdheim, Mario: The Social Production of Unconsciousness. An introduction to the ethnopsychoanalytic process, Suhrkamp 1982.
(29) Der Spiegel, "I had Rosa Luxemburg judged" - Spiegel interview with putsch captain Waldemar Pabst, issue 16/1962, April 18, 1962, pp. 38-44.
(30) Spiegel Online, "NSU-Komplex: Aktenschreddern bleibt für Verfassungsschützer folgenlos," November 10, 2016; Crolly, Hannelore: "Warum sterben so viele NSU-Zeugen auf dubiose Art?", Die Welt, February 22, 2016.
(31) CNN, Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, interview with Michael Hayden, March 6, 2017.
(32) Politico, "Full transcript: POLITICO's Glenn Thrush interviews Michael Hayden," March 28, 2016.
(33) Hayden, Michael, "The chasm between the security agencies and the Obama administration," The Washington Times, May 20, 2015 - Excerpt: "One way of looking at the federal government is that part of it is permanent and another part of it is transient. (...) The permanent government brings with it fact-based expertise and experience, both of which are virtues unless they become so dominant as to foster stagnation. The transient folks bring a political legitimacy along with a vision and energy for change that stimulates progress unless they become so obsessive that it fosters recklessness."
(34) Greenwald, Glenn: "The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer," The Intercept, January 11, 2017.
(35) Eisenhower, Dwight D.: "Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People," January 17, 1961.
(36) Salvador Allende's speech to the UN General Assembly, December 4, 1972.
(37) Alden, Robert: "Mr. Allende follows outline of speech," The New York Times, December 5, 1972; video recording of speech here.
(38) Scott, Peter Dale: The Road to 9/11, op. cit., pp. 39-42; Rockefeller himself wrote about this in his memoirs: "In March 1970, well before the election, my friend Augustin (Doonie) Edwards, publisher of El Mercurio, Chile's leading newspaper, told me that Allende was a Soviet dupe who would destroy Chile's fragile economy and extend Communist influence in the region. If Allende won, Doonie warned, Chile would become another Cuba, a satellite of the Soviet Union. He insisted the United States must prevent Allende's election. Doonie's concerns were so intense that I put him in touch with Henry Kissinger." - Rockefeller, David: Memoirs, Random House 2002, p. 432, quoted from: Scott, Peter Dale: The Road to 9/11, op. cit. p. 40.
(39) On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the coup, the Brazilian online magazine Carta Maior published an extensive dossier in 2013, from which this quote is taken. I thank Lutz Taufer for pointing it out, as well as the translation, which Taufer also published in his book "Über Grenzen: From the Underground to the Favela," (Association A, 2017,). - Carta Maior, "40 anos depois daquele terca- feira I e II," September 10, 2013; The interlocutor Kissinger mentioned was Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier, who was assassinated with a car bomb in Washington in 1976 by the secret service of Chilean dictator Pinochet. A young Chilean politician mentioned in Carta Maior's article witnessed the conversation with Kissinger and later recounted it.

Mr. Schreyer, thank you very much for the compact summary! The facts could also go under the title "The unscrupulous world power U.S.A.". My respect for your work. You can also sit down at a table with Dr. Daniele Ganser, where I would then also like to listen. I am not building a bridge to the current situation in Germany, where an extension of the Infection Protection Act is being discussed vehemently. Oh yes, and China, the new rising world power "in spe" does not make the old empire also joy. From the point of view of the USA, I think something is getting out of hand. It will remain exciting... Eyes & ears open!

BERNHARD MÜNSTERMANN, April 13, 2021, 11:30 AM The role of the banks and international financial elites was certainly correctly portrayed in the article. I would like to point out the transnationally active corporations, which are integrated into these networks publicly show no distance to government policy, because they are the profiteers. To get 75% of the turnover !!! from tax funds because of the Corona measures allotted, of it cannot be otherwise as well known the speech.

In addition a similar aspect with view of the constitutional implications: if after 9/11 also for example European insurers and reinsurers recognize this terror event as a case of loss to be covered by the insurances without audible grumbling and despite contrary evidence and include it in the course of loss for the determination of the risk and the resulting costs for the policyholders, then they establish not according to the nominal form but de facto an insurance tax passed on by them across the Atlantic as a surcharge to the disadvantage of their policyholders. In effect, therefore, they are making a poorly disguised claim to a right that, under the Constitution, belongs exclusively to Parliament as the legislature. Actually.

. Wouldn't we have to speak, instead of so-called "lateral thinkers" rather of a so-called "democracy", a so-called "pandemic". The goose-foot rhetoric of the cold war sends its regards. It is strange that people who indulge in extremely adventurously concocted numbers, thought constructs and theories without reflection, exclude those who point out the facts and strive for a discourse and accuse them of being deniers. In psychology, I believe, one also speaks here of projection. The one who says it is himself. The excluded as an illuminated screen of one's own condition.

In the age of the gender star mania, obviously no one takes the trouble to at least speak correctly of conspirators here. I find this embarrassing lapse significant. At some point, someone will surely write a follow-up to Klemperer's LTI.

The deep state is the virus. That turns everything upside down and suspends the rules. Even the grammatical ones. The physical ones anyway. Permanent state of emergency as a prerequisite of life. Parasitic and by definition unable to exist without court and drama. It depends on cells that eagerly and devotedly host it and are convinced that they are doing "the right thing" in doing so.

The deep state is not made up of mysterious sinister men. Family men who invite their neighbors over for a barbecue on the weekend. Opportunists. Emphatic amputees in search of love substitutes with built-in turbo drives. Drama queens.

Allen Dulles, the preacher's son on a world mission - keyword "American Century" - whose wife as well as lover both went to the therapy of C.G. Jung, should actually be mentioned in history in one breath with Hitler and Stalin. He was always good with the Nazis, drank his way through the war in the bars of Switzerland and saved many a man from Nuremberg (Operation Sunrise). Afterwards, he simply made common cause with the gratefully devoted Russophobic East Front sleuth Gehlen and his comrades. The end justifies the means. Many a tried and tested medical method and location - Camp King Frankfurt - also proved extremely useful in a new edition of the human experiments (MK Ultra). The list is long. Very long.

The virus with its methods did not simply vanish into thin air over time. On the contrary. It is still in good health - if you can call it that. It continues to work its way forward, bit by bit. Becomes ever more voracious and brazen. The handwriting, however, remains unmistakably the same. It is still bumbling and open for all to see. The best secrets are hidden in plain sight.

It's never about the facts. That would be even nicer. It's about manipulating people's perceptions. Gaslighting. Getting them all all loopy. Then aluminum planes can fold steel girders like a house of cards, and a president can be hit in the eye from behind by a fist. Or a pandemic can be conjured out of a hat, and the big deaths just won't happen.

Capital is peculiar by Hans Krieger
[This poem published in Dec 2020 is translated from the German on the Internet,]

Capital is peculiar:
Those who accumulated it did so by stealing.
This is easily forgotten, it is not praiseworthy.
But the capital remains. Proprietary.

Capital has a peculiar effect:
Where it grows, morals fade.
Then it's proper that the rich own a lot,
because that only disturbs the have-nots.

Poverty is peculiar to the poor,
their existence is mural.
You are powerless if you don't have anything.
Free? Only from the burden of possession.

Capital is peculiar:
separates and divides our world socially.
What the powerful seize for themselves,
Who does it belong to? Actually to all of us.

Property is sacred, if private.
Private property is protected by the state,
because the private owners control it,
no one can think about common property.
Some think that this is a scandal,
that it should not remain as it is.
The rules should be written differently.
But capital rules legally,
its rule seems totally normal,
because laws are written by capital.
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


donate now

$ 242.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network