In the words of a secret agent who has signed the Official Secrets Act in Britain we find the rationale for what government and supranational organizations have been involved in since Cleopatra, Christopher Marlowe and his own immediate predecessors Crowley and Ian Fleming. David Barrett tells us: "Although the policies of 'need-to-know' and 'compartmentalized knowledge' can sometimes cause more trouble than they're worth, there are very sensible reasons for them; there are many things which do require the highest levels of secrecy. If a careless word at an embassy cocktail party were to reveal how successful Britain was at intercepting and decrypting another country's communications, a simple change of cypher equipment or cypher key generator could throwaway years of painstaking work at GCHQ. Another careless word could cause the life of a long-term, well-established British agent abroad to be threatened, or at the very to be bust open. Lord George-Brown, a former Foreign Secretary (1966-68), raises a disturbing point about security, and the trustworthiness or otherwise of members of the security services and the Diplomatic Service - and, by extension, MPs and Ministers of State. If someone is under suspicion, he writes, Inevitably, much of the evidence in such cases is hearsay or almost unprovable deduction, and one must reckon with the natural wish of colleagues to protect, as it were, a fellow-member of the club, especially when they don't know, and can't really be told, the full extent of the matter. This clearly happened in the case of Burgess and Maclean. (60) MPs themselves are a club; very senior civil servants - 'the Whitehall mandarins' - are a club, members of MI5 and MI6 are a club; the British establishment, whether in public office or not, is a club. Most of these people also belong to various gentlemen's clubs; some belong to that huge but secretive club, the Freemasons. Without casting any aspersions against any of these organizations, or their rules, regulations, restrictions, customs or obligations regarding 'mutual support' and 'members in need', it is not in the slightest surprising if individual members look out for the interests of each other, especially if they are friends and dinner and drinking companions. Over the years favours, large and small, are traded; when someone is potentially in trouble, fellow 'club' members are likely - rightly or wrongly - to help them out. The sort of 'corruption' of which critics accuse Freemasonry is not the fault of Freemasonry any more than two members of any other club helping each other is the fault of that club. In most cases it's questionable whether it's even corruption. Really it's simply human nature, for good and for bad. But those who spend their lives looking for evil, will find it everywhere." (61) That is another way of demeaning the quest for honesty - simply put it down to a 'natural human act' when the essence of cronyism is against the good of society or of questionable ethic. Reading Hegel and Machiavelli gives one great insight into how well our leaders use and train us to be just the kind of unethical people that will accept what they do in a big way. Thus we are accepting of it because we are used to doing the same kind of thing. If you don't know your soul there is room to justify even incest and rape (especially in war). The dialectic or 'playing both ends against the middle' is so well refined that we could easily be convinced there really is no better way - given the nature of the human beast. Recently the coverage blackout on the Bilderbergs (started in the early 50s by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands as forwarded by the OSS - the nation not the religious land [nether-land].) was lifted and Katharine Grahams control of the U.S. publishing interests seems to have diminished as a result. However, there are those who expect the 'octopus' or Medusa has grown a new arm or head. The Masonic Order does this every time they get a little too well known and whenever an organization has a certain number of members. Thus we will see that they really are just important world leaders getting together and we will therefore reasonably expect that is all they ever were. Cecil Rhodes 'Round Table' even had a newsletter, and his Committee of 300 truly had all the best of the leaders. Who could suspect them of arranging wars (like the Boer War that A & E has recently laid at his feet) in order to sell armaments or finance new political regimes like Hitler and Stalin (Rothschilds money went to both). Today it may be the IMF or World Bank and the arbitrage that provides the insiders with all their productive output and interest earned. Who can say the rich really deserve all the tax breaks or national sweetheart deals and matching funds? Cecil Rhodes is an outgrowth of a high Masonic club that was supposedly outlawed in Bavaria and we will touch on Adam Weisthaupt and his Illuminati some more. They were founded on May 1st of the same year the U.S. Declaration of Independence (the famous one, rather than the Mecklenburg one from North Carolina a year before) was instituted. May Day celebrations in Russia are held on that day for no other particular reason, are they? Wow! That is 'heavy' conspiracy talk, and I must be one of 'those who spend their lives looking for evil' as Barrett does say. But isn't that the job of security people? And tell me who protects citizens and the average Joe? |
