Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:


The Council on Foreign Relations is worth a brief study – if only to compare with the Bilderberg Group.

Another elitist, invitation-only organization which operates in almost total secrecy, the council has an equally impressive membership. Among its most famous members are Joe Biden, George Soros, George H.W. Bush, Richard Branson, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie.

It should be noted that many members of the Council on Foreign Relations have also attended Bilderberg conferences and the two organizations are apparently closely aligned…

…We are reminded of a line in the 2000 feature film The Skulls, which perfectly encapsulates our assessment of organizations like the Bilderberg Group and the CFR: “If it’s secret and elite, it can’t be good.”

People come up with all kinds of reasons to justify clandestine activities. Some say the masses are not smart enough and need wise old men to covertly influence voters. Others argue knights of the round table-style groups are needed to ensure the ill-informed public are not allowed to have too much power.

But however the invisible power players spin things, the truth is supporters of such elitist groups are deceiving themselves and others with such justifications.

The bottom line is: Any time a secret group usurps the collective will of the people, it’s wrong. Period.

One small confirmation of the dangers of secretive and elitist organizations comes from within police forces in the US and UK, and relates to Freemasonry. Senior American and British police chiefs have gone on the record recommending that police officers should not be permitted to join any Masonic lodge. The police chiefs concerned invariably cited fears that Freemason police officers would have conflicts of interest. That’s to say officers may at times put the interests of Freemasonry ahead of their police work.

Such dangers are obviously magnified a hundredfold when it comes to high ranking politicians being members of unaccountable organizations like the Bilderberg Group and the CFR.

If the very visible actions of those who are members is destructive, be concerned. If these members are engaged in constructive actions I would be more inclined to believe the best.

Funny thing happened to us in relation to the CFR that I wanted to share with you all...

In mid-2011, when our publication of our novel The Ninth Orphan came out (a book that mentions the Bilderberg group and other secretive, elitist organizations and got some controversial publicity about these matters), we received an irate letter out of the blue from a high-ranking and veteran member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

We wrote about this strange experience in great detail in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy and include their letter and our reply letter in full (though unfortunately we could not mention the person's name for legal reasons).

Anyway, their letter strongly implied we should quit saying there is a far-reaching conspiracy concerning this elite, invitation-only organization...

We found that a bit of a heavy-handed tactic on their behalf and a little bit unsettle as well...BUT it also signaled to us that we are doing something right!

Official story on the CFR (harmless): The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan member organization, think tank. https://www.cfr.org/

Alternative/Conspiracy angle on the CFR (sinister): The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and The New World Order http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013...

Like many things discussed in this group, the truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes, I suspect...

While that's a fair statement and shows your decency, Lance, it's probably wrong. Most people on this list have not spent much time with the rich and/or powerful. They don't know how right the saying "power corrupts" (by a Lord) is. Nor do most people find history interesting and don't realize almost every Roman emperor was replaced by conspiracy. Roman history is no anomaly. Most people merely accept the surface and get on with their day.

Jeffery wrote: "While that's a fair statement and shows your decency, Lance, it's probably wrong. Most people on this list have not spent much time with the rich and/or powerful. They don't know how right the sayi..."

Not sure which "fair statement" you refer to Jeffery... Is it "the truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes"? If so I'd stand by that... the truth usually does lie somewhere between...

Lance, yes, that's the statement. And it's false. As common sense often is. The age of Earth is not somewhere between 4,000 and 4 billion years old. It's 4 billion (at least). It's easy for brains to get ideological topics wrong. Hard for science to make much a dent there. And so our species muddles along.

Jeffery wrote: "Lance, yes, that's the statement. And it's false. As common sense often is. The age of Earth is not somewhere between 4,000 and 4 billion years old. It's 4 billion (at least). It's easy for brains ..."

Sounds kinda absolute... Absolutes always make me nervous.

A safe path. Yet it shies away from the speed of light. From h2o. From dominant genes. From science in general, which I wish could infect ideology. Unlike true belief, the scientific method always allows for correction -- eventually. Otherwise we're like those sailor 500 years ago, half of whom were afraid to sail out of sight of land, the other half wanted to sail directly across the sea, so they took the middle path, stopped in the middle of the ocean. Hopefully they made it back.

To bring science (which has a lot of confirmed facts) into this discussion about politics (which has far less facts and mostly grey areas) is to mix apples with oranges, Jeffrey.
In other words, your definitive statements, or absolutes as Lance stated, are not relevant to a debate on how influential certain elitist political think tanks are (if influential at all) and whether democracy is interfered with or usurped at times.

James, you right it is harder to do political analysis as scientifically as physics. But hard is not impossible. Try this. Get to know some of the rich and powerful. See if you think "power corrupts" approaches an axiom. If you can't get to know any, try living in a more class-rigid society, where the gap between the middle class and the very poorest approximates the gap in a developed nation between the elite and the middle class. See how employers treat house servants, for instance. Then again, see if power corrupts. The notion that our betters practice better or even normal morality is flawed. Like F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "the rich are different from us".

Oversimplifying and kinda off topic in my view. Yes power corrupts absolutely, but there's a lot more going on in the political sphere than just that. There are various mindsets and philosophies at play.

Anyway, the topic, as you may have noticed, is the Council on Foreign Relations. If you have any specific knowledge about that group or similar elitist/secretive think tanks and whatever ambitions they may have, by all means fire away and share.

The question was, do they have influence? Somewhat odd of a question. The stated purpose of that organization (and all political organizations?) is to influence. How influential are they? Let's assume it's too hard for most people to get to know any of them, to go to their meetings, socialize with them after they've been drinking a bit, etc. Make do with reading the research of others. Try G. William Domhoff of UC Santa Cruz. He reveals no secrets. It's all in the public record. It's just that the public does not care. Human nature to think our betters are better. And if not, nothing can be done.

Once I had a father-in-law from the Politburo. He thought it laughable, based on their espionage, that any American believed that the conspiracy that killed Kennedy was a "theory". The distance of space (geography) or time (history of, say, Roman emperors) let's us be more objective about the masters of others, not our own.

Okay, some good points there and I think I get where you are coming from now.

Don't think this is just about "the rich" however, as per your Fitzgerald quote. The point is certain wealthy people, especially outspoken people who are for the many not the few, are never or rarely invited to these off-the-record political think tanks. And if they are invited, many would not attend as a matter of principal. Conversely there are sometimes poor or at least middle income earners (usually civil servants) who are attendees or associated with these groups. Yes the vast majority are rich, but I think there's a subtle difference between great wealth and elitism as a mindset (believing you are superior to the masses).

Of the very rich, not all are political animals. Just as in any class. And not all of them who do influence policy play by the rule of no-holds-barred. Some are more decent than others.

However, when insulated and powerful, anything goes. Like saying, "this country needs a new Pearl Harbor". Like Ford execs debating how many customers to kill before fixing a gas tank. The consequences to them? Zilch. It goes with the territory.

James, I think you're right that people can think well of themselves despite how they behave. Like, a friend came home after a party and woke up the maid to fix her a cup of tea at 3 AM and thought nothing of it. That's what maids are for. Sadly (from my POV), the maid agreed.

The way the real works is that there is an "oiligarchy". We're a hierarchical species. Most of us are fine with that. We say we're civilized but actually we're merely domesticated.

There's always some sort of archy, except in pre-agrarian societies. There people feel much more equal. And treat each other accordingly.

Good points, Jeffery.
I think I understand you more now especially if you boil things down to the individual level and the trends of how individuals tend to react in certain situations (e.g. when given immense power).

Thanks, James. It's a way of thinking. Just trying to imagine the real interaction of real people. Like Einstein's method of climbing onto a light beam and riding it around the universe, watching what would happen. Leaving aside actual people acting, one can read how Chase Bank came from the Rockefeller oil money, as did the Council, and the Trilateral, etc. And it's all true, in the public record. If you have the money to spend, that's one way you spend it. What amazes me is how regular people regard that as secret or conspiracy or somehow unusual. It's totally usual! Anyway, back to writing the next great novel -- and selling it.

Jeffery wrote: "A safe path. Yet it shies away from the speed of light. From h2o. From dominant genes. From science in general, which I wish could infect ideology. Unlike true belief, the scientific method always ..."

Ah, now that's so much clearer. Thanks for the clarification Jeff... Just in case I still don't fully understand, could you summarise that in a sentence or two?

Thanks for asking, Lance. The phrase "conspiracy theory" tars with the same brush events that did happen with events that did not. Like, the first person Gorbachev told that the USSR was done was not anyone in the surface state -- no president or prime minister or king -- but David Rockefeller. That was in the LA Times. So there is no censorship. But it's never repeated. What gets repeated. Putin hacked the last US election. Repeated, repeated. So it feels true (and could be). Yet Gorby telling Rockefeller feels false (and is not). It's a matter of repetition, which is manipulation. As adults, we must resist repetition and the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" to blind people and hide truth. Sorry to be so windy!