Elite Groups, Clubs and Secret Societies for the Rich and Powerful
Printer Friendlier Version
<<< back to [Home]
Council on Foreign Relations
The Skull and Bones Lodge
The Most Noble Order of the Garter
Knights of Malta
Last Updated: 11 October 2013
Whilst jurisdictions are reputed to be officially independent, to what extent are members of various high profile groups, clubs and secret societies actually connected with Freemasonry? Are all members actually high level Freemasons? Is every single attendee actually a high level mason? To what extent are these various groups meetings social or networking affairs, and to what extent are they vehicles for political discussion, strategy planning and influence?To what extent are the various branches and jurisdictions of Freemasonry represented? If all or the majority of attendees are practising (high level) Freemasons, are they actually acting independently of their respective Lodges (i.e. the meeting has no connection with Freemasonry per se)? Or are they representing their respective Lodges/branches/jurisdictions? If the latter, are they selected by their Lodges or Jurisdictions? Or does the Bilderberg Group select attendees? To what extent is the organisation of the Group tied in with Freemasonry? To what extent are the organisations reflective of the dominance of a particular branch of Freemasonry (e.g. the English Grand Lodge - theories discussed above with respect to the outcome of WW2). To what extent are the groups interrelated? Clearly there is some overlap in terms of membership and attendance of all of the groups and societes listed below. Is there a masonic connection? Or is there another secretive organisation involved? To what extent does Freemasonry influence politics and economics today? And to what extent do these groups discussed below influence politics and economics today? One can but only speculate. Perhaps this is no connection at all, and it is just coincidence, but it is probably worth mentioning so readers can make up their own minds. This page sticks to the hard facts about these groups and leaves readers to formulate their own opinions and theories. Some of the most high profile groups are listed below.
Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844, said "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Freemason, wrote in his book Morals and Dogma, page 103 that giving misinformation or fiction to the people is necessary as the truth cannot be comprehended or may even be dangerous to those who are not ready for it; and that the truth should be kept secret. Perhaps he was referring to the majority of freemasons rather than the general public.
Quotes from some of the members of the groups discussed on this page can be found at the link below.
back to top
The Bilderberg Group
The Bilderberg Group was founded by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1954.
Source: Sander Lamme, 1999
Bernhard was a former member of the Nazi party and Reiter-SS. It was a group of influential global players that first met in a hotel in the Netherlands in 1954, and since then, every year it meets, picking a different hotel in a different country. The Bilderberg Group arranges a private meeting every year, to discuss global financial, political and social affairs, attendees including the major political figures (e.g. Tony Blair, George W. Bush), CEOs of oil companies (e.g. Shell, B.P., Carlyle Group), major banks (e.g. David Rockefeller, Rothschild Europe, etc.), royalty, global financial and monetary organisations (e.g. IMF, World Bank), various foundations of financial institutions (The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), representatives/members of think tanks for global policies and political/economic co-operation (e.g. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Trilateral Commission etc., linked to the aforementioned banks and bank foundations), members of socialist organisations, EU commissioners, UN and NATO delegates, and so forth. These meetings are closed off to the press and public (except for The Economist magazine, who are active participants, a global force for economic influence, and do not report on the proceedings).
No formal list of attendees is issued or provided, but every year, a hotel worker seems to leak out a full list of attendees. Attendees do vary each year, but the same organisations and companies are usually represented each year. Many do have existing relationships. Several of the key players and attendees are actually board members on some of the companies listed or directors of some of the organisations represented. Indeed ex-politicians do tend to acquire new jobs and roles within attendee organisations and groups. Past attendees can be found on Wikipedia.
Lists of Bilderberg group attendees ('Bilderbergers') for 2012 to 2005 are available at the links below, which should give readers a feel for who attends these meetings. Attendee lists for previous years can be found by searching on google (i.e. 'Bilderberg attendee list [year]'.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-official-bilderberg-attendee-list-released/ - 2013
The Economist magazine seems to be represented every year, with at least one attendee, sometimes two, yet they never actually report on the meetings in their magazine, presumably as they have agreed not to. The Economist magazine as many other sources of media try to shape the opinions of others in terms of global economics, geopolitics, and usually seem to back one US presidential candidate over another. The Economist, together with the Financial Times (who similarly do not report about the conferences), play probably the biggest role in influencing the financial community in the world. I have read the Economist for many years and finds some of the journalist rather below par if one is to be quite honest, but it is reasonably objective. Their presence at the conferences may well just give them additional perspective of world affairs and give them an editorial edge over their competitors. It does not necessarily have to mean they are 'under orders' to report certain types of stories etc.
It should be noted that Russia and China (and also developing countries) are not well represented in general terms, so how this relates to the claims above about the English Grand Lodge and French Orient Lodge is a matter of debate (bias towards English Grand Lodge and affiliates?) France for example has a better rapport with Russia and the Eastern Bloc than the UK (e.g. negotiating a ceasefire between Russian Federation and Georgia over South Ossetia in 2008). This is of course just speculation and cannot easily be proven either way. However, attendees do predominantly come from Western Europe and America, representing the interests of certain groups within these nations. Is this in the interests of ex-Communist states, Communist states, Muslim states and the developing world? The Bilderberg Group has often been accused of being a group for the US Republican Party. However, it should be noted that there are significant numbers of representatives of socialist parties and organisations from other countries, so whether this is just a product of the Republican party being in power at the time of these meetings is another matter. Also the representation of socialist parties and organisations may perhaps reflect the attendance of members of the French Orient Lodge (if one believes in this theory).
One would not expect total agreement and unity amongst members of the Bilderberg Group and indeed Freemasonry as a whole. Members of the Bilderberg Group tend to be those who have an interest in furthering their own political/economic power and circles of influence. They are not normally 'selfless' individuals, although they may have a desire to self-actualise in terms of political influence to the type of world they regard as 'better' in their opinion, which may well be a form of slightly arrogant philanthropy. Rarely do individuals who seek to further their own ends, but in the framework on some shared socio-political/economic/spiritual goal, always work in unison - but I don't think it is quite like this all the time. An examination of the Board of Directors of many of the companies that attend the meetings will reveal certain names cropping up again and again. There are several reported cases of members who sit on each other's boards of directors who engage in fraud and criminal activity and are caught an imprisoned. They become too greedy, arrogant and sloppy and get caught.
An example of this is Conrad Black, a past Bilderberg Group attendee, and director of Hollinger International, the group that owns The Daily Telegraph. He clearly enjoyed the good life, self-indulgence and power too much that he lost the plot and other Bilderbergers ceased their associations with him. The unity within the Bilderberg Group is clearly fragile, as it is with any groups that promote self-interest, power and greed, e.g. certain elements of Freemasonry, Satanism. Freemasonry itself has been far from united throughout history.
Another example of such activity are the oil and defence contractors involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, after the 2003 invasion. Approximately $15 billion is unaccounted for by the Pentagon for the provision of goods and services, and has been presumably siphoned off by some unscrupulous and corrupt officials and executives amongst the contractors, whilst American and British soldiers continue to die in Iraq, some of whom have not had the proper equipment.
The Labour government in the UK, in the post Millennium years, has awarded numerous government IT and data management contracts to the same contractors, e.g. Capita (also affectinately known as 'Crapita'), despite numerous poor deliveries, performance and numerous problems. Are such contractors not properly evaluated after each delivery/tender contract, or are the tenders being awarded to companies that are 'affiliated' to the government in some way ('old' boys network)?
To what extent are these reasonable but private meetings, promoting international co-operation or perhaps an excuse for networking, and to what extent are they elitist and anti-democratic, excluding the public from knowing what is being agreed or talked about? To what extent are they are bunch of political has beens trying to keep themselves busy and feel important, whilst maintaining connections with those currently in power? Do the companies or organisations represented merely reflect an old boys networking circle? To what extent do their ideologies intersect? The members of this group are not chosen by the public, nor is the public party to their discussions. To what extent are the various branches and jurisdictions of Freemasonry represented? If all or the majority of attendees are practising (high level) Freemasons, are they actually acting independently of their respective Lodges (i.e. the meeting has no connection with Freemasonry per se)? Or are they representing their respective Lodges/branches/jurisdictions? If the latter, are they selected by their Lodges or Jurisdictions? Or does the Bilderberg Group select attendees? To what extent is the organisation of the Group tied in with Freemasonry?
Without actually attending, you will never know. So there is no point jumping to hasty conclusions, but one could keep the thought in the back of one's mind that it is a possibility.
To my knowledge there is not necessarily any masonic connection in the Bilderberg Group, but more the case that some members may be Freemasons like with any other group of professionals or high ranking individuals. Also I do not know of any esoteric component of the Bilderberg Group, so automatically assuming one exists is perhaps not so wise in my opinion and might be totally getting the wrong end of the stick.
If one is amongst some of the most financially and politically influential people on the planet, why not meet up with others in the same position and discuss politics, economics and social issues? The question could be whether this should be in private or not. An official video documentary might put rest to much of this speculation but if such a thing ever happened, some would simply claim it was staged - however, I expect attendees would be too busy to participate in fake video.
It is rumoured that Kofi Annan may be a high ranking Freemason.
Kofi Annan was married to his wife in the UN Meditation Room at the UN Headquarters in New York. It has been described by some as a 'Satanic Temple' (anything inspired by mystery traditions is slated as this in some quarters). Others say it is just a tranquile place in which to meditate.
The building of the room was partially funded by John D. Rockefeller. The room is shaped like a pyramid without a capstone. It is illuminated by a single beam of light which comes from the ceiling, and strikes the black magnetite altar, the largest piece of magnetite ever mined apparently. According to David Rivera in his book The Final Warning, pdf file pages 339-340, David Meyer, a former witch, claimed to have felt a dark presence in this room - which is perhaps a subjective experience - and judging from the rest of the book, I would not give it too much credence (I felt something dark from the Stone of Destiny when I was a Christian etc.) This of course doesn't prove anything, or necessarily have to mean anything, and could well just be in one's mind or a reflection of one's own personal psychology, but one can draw one's own conclusions perhaps.
Freemasonry is not a collection of secret societies, but Lodge meetings are private and not open to non-members. Perhaps the Bilderberg Group is similar in some capacity. As with Freemasonry, members are not permitted to discuss what happens at meetings and refuse to talk to the press and media about it and deny it has any importance or significance politically or economically. So why meet? Perhaps it is just an innocuous exchange of information. However why keep the content secret? It could be that as only certain nations are represented that it is a competitive or trust issue (one block of nations vs another).
back to top
Council on Foreign Relations:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an American foreign policy think tank, a regular contributor in the Bilderberg Group, in the 2003 report, "Finding America’s Voice: A Strategy for Reinvigorating U.S. Public Diplomacy", stated the goverment of the USA may sometimes require a certain degree of deniability, which can be addressed by conducting activities in private.
The CFR's stated mission is to promote the understanding of US Foreign Policy and the Role of the USA in the world. It was formed in 1921 and has attempted to influence US Foreign Policy from its inception, to much controversy.
The CFR was founded by Elihu Root, J. P. Morgan's lawyer, ensuring close connections to J.P. Morgan and influence from J.P. Morgan over the CFR.
Even from its inception, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. was a regular benefactor, making annual contributions, as well as a large gift of money towards its first headquarters on East 65th Street, along with corporate donors. Several of Rockefeller's sons joined the council when they came of age; David Rockefeller joined the council as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. The major philanthropic organization he founded with his brothers in 1940, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, has also provided funding to the Council, from 1953 to at least 1980.'
The Carnegie Corporation contributed funds in 1937 to expand the Council's reach by replicating its structure in a diminished form in eight American cities.
John J. McCloy became an influential figure in the organization after the Second World War, and he held connections to both the Morgans and Rockefellers. He is said to have been one of the most influential people over US Foreign Policy since the Second World War.
Today the CFR has about 5,000 members (including five-year term members), which over the course of its history have included senior politicians in office, over a dozen Secretaries of State, ex-national security officers, lawyers, bankers, professors, ex-CIA members and some senior media figures. As a private organisation however, the CFR maintains through its official website that it is not a formal organization engaged in U.S. foreign policy-making.
Seven American presidents have addressed the Council, two while still in office - Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Journalist Joseph Kraft, a former member of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, said the Council "comes close to being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite - a group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes."
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith resigned in 1970, objecting to the Council's policy of allowing government officials to conduct twice-a-year off-the-record briefings with business officials in its Corporation Service. The Council says that it has never sought to serve as a receptacle for government policy papers that cannot be shared with the public, and they do not encourage government officials who are members to do so. The Council says that discussions at its headquarters remain confidential, not because they share or discuss secret information, but because the system allows members to test new ideas with other members.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment", the NY financial and legal community.
Today, the Rockefellers, the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, J.P. Morgan, the Ford Foundation and Rothschilds, and the CFR are still represented most years at the Bilderberg group meetings.
Some people may find it ironic or amusing that Angelina Jolie as of 2008 has a 5 year membership with the CFR, and in her movie hit Tomb Raider, played the part of Lara Croft fighting a Hollywood take on a modern version of the Bavarian Illuminati! Does the fly that flies too close to the jam get stuck in it?!
Is the CFR really operating in the interest of tax paying, voting American citizens, and indeed those that support transparancy and democracy in the rest of the world?
One web site critical of the CFR can be found at the links below.
back to top
In the modern era, candidates of both major US parties have not infrequently both been members of the CFR. As the voting public are not able to choose who is in the CFR, and what policies it pushes, is this kind of behaviour in the spirit of democracy?
The 2005 Trilateral Commission membership list can be viewed at the link below.
Critical views of the Trilateral Commission can be found at the links below.
back to top
The Skull and Bones Lodge
There are various fraternity organisations at American Universities, but the most notorious is probably The Skull and Bones Lodge, at Yale University, also known as The Brotherhood of Death. This was founded in 1832. The 322 designation is thought to represent the year of founding '32, and the last '2' is claimed by some to signify its status as the Second Chapter of the Bavarian Illuminati (which was 'officially' disbanded at the end of the 18th Century). The Skull and Bones coat of arms can be seen above.
This is a secret society, with masonic style initiation ceremonies and a code of silence and adherence to hierarchy, meeting in a building called 'The Tomb'. It recruits the 'cream of the cream' and the most well connected from amongst the students at Yale University. It is alleged that the Thule Society that Hitler was a member of in 1918-1920 was also known as the German Brotherhood of Death Society, part of the international Brotherhood of Death societies, which the Skull and Bones belongs to. It may or may not have any actual direct connection with masonic Lodges, one cannot really say.
The Nazi SS Totenkopf coat of arms is quite similar to the Skull and Bones coat of arms. Perhaps coincidence? Or perhaps it just reflects an obsession with death or the skull and cross bones image of piracy that both the Nazis and Skull and Bones shared.
Some say that the coat of arms derived from the Jolly Roger, popular amongst pirates in the 17th and 18th Century, the name that perhaps derived from the 'Jolie Rouge', the flag used by the Knights Templar on their war ships in their fight against Saladin.
Or perhaps the fixation with death comes from Freemasonry, and its usage of coffins and the symoblism of death in its initation rites, to symbolise death to the old and being reborn.
A rare photograph of the Skull and Bones circa 1947, is shown below. George H.W. Bush is standing to (your) left of the clock.
The Skull and Bones tomb can be seen below.
Past members of the Skull and Bones, or 'Bonesmen' are listed at the links below. Membership is lifetime, you cannot simply leave!
It is alleged that the CIA was formed by the Skull and Bones, chiefly by people of a finance background. However, the actual members of Skull & Bones are members of Freemasonry Lodges. John Kerry (Democrat) and George W. Bush (Republican), party leaders in the 2004 US Election are both members of the Skull and Bones. Whilst not explicitly related to the Skull and Bones, the candidates of both main parties in the 2008 US Election, John McCain and Barack Obama's wife Michelle Obama, are both affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations (mentioned above with respect to the Bilderberg Group). John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, John, David & Nelson Rockefeller, Condolezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz (who was appointed head of the World Bank after his short stint as member of George W. Bush's administration), Alan Greenspan (former head of the Federal Reserve), Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger etc. were/are all members of the CFR also.
Barack Obama's senior economic advisor Austan D. Goolsbee is a Skull and Bones member.
If the leaders of all major political parties are members of the same fraternal (non-masonic) secret society, then could be this considered to be against the interests of democracy? Could they be colluding in some way or taking instruction from above within that fraternity? One could argue that whoever wins an election, the Skull and Bones Lodge still 'runs' America or has an influence over the President who runs the country. George W. Bush also appointed a number of Skull and Bones members to his administration during his time as president. This however may just be a case of them being trusted and known quantities, which often happens in political office. And automatically assuming that just because people are members of the S&B means that they are colluding or receiving co-ordinated orders from above may well be completely incorrect. Who can tell? Neither aforementioned member has agreed to discuss the Lodge in interview or acknowledged its existance. We should be cautious about jumping to conclusions.
Should members of political office be banned from joining private or secret societies or masonic lodges so that they can be accountable only to the public? This is a sticky issue, against the spirit of personal freedom of the individuals concerned, and would not automatically guarantee that their lines of influence would be fully transparent anyway.
back to top
Another popular 'conspiracy theory' is the events around Bohemian Grove.
This is a private members club, founded in 1872, containing captains of industry, politicans and major financial figures. Again, Tony Blair and George W. Bush have attended. The club, originally known as The Bohemian Club, meets for 2 weeks every summer in an exclusive private location. Some US Democrats have accused the club of being attended by the Republican party.
There is a huge owl figure, referred to by Conspiracy Theorists as 'Molech', which cloaked members gather around and worship. The giant owl figure is reputed to represent knowledge. In addition, a play is acted out, culminating in a symbolic murder. Is this a pagan practice or just symbolic and harmless fun? What is the significance of all this? It does appear to be very strange. It is also likely that those participating in the ritual at Bohemian Grove may do so in a symbolic manner, as is the tradition with occultists, bringing their own religion beliefs with them, and sharing in the esoteric symoblism together (worshipping/embracing the Left-Hand Path goal of illuminism and wisdom), in unity (or perhaps 'unusual' and 'perverse' entertainment for rich elitists).
Source: Aarkwilde, 2004.
Molech is the god associated with sacrifice from Middle Eastern cultures. Other spellings for Molech include Moloch, Molekh, or Molek. Moloch went by many names including, but not limited to Ba'al, Moloch, Apis Bull, Golden Calf, Chemosh as well as many other names and was widely worshipped in the Middle East and wherever Punic culture extended (including, but not limited to, the Ammonites, Edomites and the Moabites). Baal Moloch was conceived under the form of a calf or an ox or depicted as a man with the head of a bull.
Molech is mentioned in the Bible. In KJV, Leviticus 18:21:
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
The Bible also associates Molech with Ba'al, e.g. Jeremiah 32.35 and Leviticus 20:2-5.
Adam Weishaupt developed the Insignia of the Minerval, or third degree of the Illuminati system, as documented in 1788. Three such medallions are known to still be in existence today. This is probably where the owl association with the Bavarian Illuminati originates from, at least in the modern context. However, does this necessarily have to have any bearing on the owl in Bohemian Grove? It is likely an influence in some respect, but perhaps not in the way most conspiracy theorists would believe (i.e. the Bohemian Grove club is just an esoteric recreational club and has no direct relationship with other entities like the Bilderberg Group but there may well be common members as they are influential and successful people etc. Also it depends on what you think the Bavarian Illuminati were about.
Some claim the architecture of the resort corresponds also to the shape of an owl. This is perhaps a matter of interpretation.
Lists of past attendees and members can be found at the link below.
www.greatdreams.com/political/bohemian.htm An extract from the 2008 Attendee List can be found at the link below.
Various claims by Christians about the Bohemian Club can be viewed at the link below. I personally believe that claims of child abuse have been blown out of proportion and are likely made up to discredit the club, or made by psychotic individuals - but you never know.
Photographs can be seen at the link below. The second link shows Alex Jones' interpretation of the 'owl' symbols that appear in the architecture of Washington D.C. and elsewhere.
A video 'Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove' by famous Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones can be viewed at the link below.
back to top
The Most Noble Order of the Garter:
The Most Noble Order of the Garter emblem is shown below.
The Order is the oldest British Knighthood Order. Membership in the order is limited to the sovereign (i.e. The Queen), the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles), and no more than twenty-four members, or Companions; including Lady Margaret Thatcher. The order's uniform has certain masonic parallels. The order also comprises Supernumerary knights and ladies (e.g., members of the British Royal Family and foreign monarchs). Prince William recently become a Knight in 2008.
The Mirror article 2011
To read about connections between the British Royal Family and Nazi Eugenics, please see the Social Darwinism and Eugenics page.
According to David Livingstone's book 'Terrorism and the Illuminati', The Order of the Garter was a continuation of the practices of the Knights Templar. The Templars were accused by the Catholic Church of worshipping the pagan deity Baphomet. However, both of these facts are speculative. The Church of Satan draws some influence from the symbolism and practices of the Knights Templar but then so do most esoteric currents in some capacity. The Knights Templar were probably a mixture of Catholicism and Gnosticism, having many members drawn from French Cathars, and one Catholic branch still exists today.
Winston Churchill, the 33rd Degree Freemason, was a member. It is alleged that the Order was connected with Druid Orders at the time of formation.
Source: Greg Bishansky.
The Stone of Scone, aka the Stone of Destiny, whilst not strictly related to the Order of the Garter, but to coronations of British monarchs, is perhaps of relevance here also. It has been historically used in coronations of Scottish kings and queens up until the 1300s, when King Edward I took it to England. It was stolen in 1950 and taken back to Scotland, whereupon it was accidentally broken into two pieces. It was formally handed over to Edinburgh Castle in 1996 where it still remains today (except for use during future coronations in England). It possibly dates back to the 9th Century AD.
Legends regarding the origin of the stone vary, some say it was the Biblical Jacob's pillow stone. Some say that it was taken to Blarney castle in the 14th Century. 'A king' is reputed to have saved a witch from drowning, and she cast a spell on the stone, so that whenever the king kissed the stone, he gained a 'magic tongue' and was able to talk anyone into anything. It is alleged that this stone thus became known as the Blarney Stone, and that it had been kissed by many visitors since then seeking the 'magic tongue'. There is some speculation that the Stone of Scone was involved in druidic practices. Some even say the Stone of Scone is one of the stones of the ark of the covenant!
I visited the Stone of Scone shortly after it was moved to Edinburgh Castle, and was interviewed by a reporter from the Daily Record. I was of the view that it was good that it was back in Scotland again. I was expecting to 'feel' something from the stone, perhaps of some 'holy' significance (being a unorthodox Christian at the time), having been used in coronations in Christian ceremonies, for monarchs 'appointed by God'. I had recently become an evangelical Christian in 1996 and was a little sensitive in a spiritual sense for a year or so thereafter. I felt a very strong sensation when close to the stone, a very strange, cold and slightly uncomfortable feeling; a little like those he felt when he interfered with objects used as part of an occult ritual in a stone circle earlier in the year. It was not a warm feeling of God but something very strange and uncomfortable. This may well have had some shadow connotations in the Jungian sense, that I was connected to an aspect of my subconscious I did not feel comfortable with. It was my opinion at the time that the stone had been used in some Druidic style ritual(s) and was not embued with the Holy Spirit or similar as one might perhaps naively expect. However I was spiritually very sensitive at the time (in a slightly repressive manner) and this may be why (if something connects with the whole of the psyche on some level). Who knows. I can only find out by visiting again! Assuming no one tries to steal it again! ;-)
back to top
The Pilgrims Society is an organisation formed in 1902-1903 to promote Anglo-American relations, chiefly in the banking and manufacturing sectors. It's membership has drawn from the royalty, decorated military leaders, politicians and influential businessmen.
A list of present and past members can be seen at the link below, and includes various Rockefellers, Winston Churchill, Queen Elizabeth II, Margaret Thatcher, Edmund de Rothschild, Andrew Carnegie and others. Are all these members related to the CFR and Bilderberg group, or perhaps even according to some control the Bilderberg Group and CFR? Or is it an example of these members 'infiltrating' or 'networking' within other, perhaps more senior, organisations?
The address to the Pilgrims Society dinner in 2002 is shown at the link below.
back to top
Knights of Malta:
The Knights Hospitaller, also known as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta, (later known as the Knights of Malta and subsequently the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM)) was a Christian organisation that started as Amalfitan hospital founded in Jerusalem in 1080 to provide care for poor, sick and/or injured pilgrims on their journey to the Holy Land. After the recapture of Jerusalme in 1099, it became a religious/military order under its own charter, charged with care and defence of the Holy Land (by the Catholic Church).
The Order of Malta, SMOM, Grand Priory of England, British Association's web site can be found below.
A list of Grand Masters of the Order of Malta is shown below.
The Order today, whilst remaining a Roman Catholic organisation, claims not to be an exclusively religion institution, nor a military institution by more than name, nor exclusively concerned with advocating human rights, but an NGO concerned with helping the sick and needy around the world, regardless of religion. The Order is administered by the Vatican, a sovereign government. It has associations in 46 nations. The Order's headquarters are in Rome. It is run by a chief excecutive, the Prince and Grand Master aka His Most Eminent Highness - who is accorded the ecclesiastical precedence of a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, and with diplomatic honours due to a sovereign head of state - once elected, serves for life, not unlike the Pope. The Order of Malta is arguably the world's smallest state, having extraterritorial sovereignty over a few buildings in Italy. It's emblem is the white Cross of Malta on a red field. The Order of Malta is the longest lived continuous government in the history of the world. In the UK, the Order has a long connection with the Hospital of St John and St Elizabeth, in St John's Wood, London. The Grand Priory is at this hospital also.
One of the symbols of the Order is the double headed eagle, using the flag of the Order of Malta signifying perhaps dominion over East and West?
The Order has been implicated in the escape of high ranking Nazis and death camp scientists from defeated Germany to the Americas.
The Order's past members also include Nazi war criminals such as Heinrich Himmler, as well as influential businessmen such as David Rockefeller and Rupert Murdoch, and politicians such as Ronald Reagen, Oliver North, Nelson Mandela and Tony Blair.
Some repute that the US government's mercenary army/military contractor, Blackwater, involved in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent reconstruction, has connections with the Order of Malta, although I cannot substantiate this.
The Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, aka Order of St John, is a British-based order of chivalry and is found throughtout the British Commonwealth, the USA and Hong Kong (emblem pictured above). Members are mainly of Protestant faith. The Council of Frnech Langues in 1826 was one of several revivalist movements of the Order of Malta in the 19th Century and sought to raise money to restore a omeland for the Order. It was a private venture, a mercenary army, employing many unemployed English soldiers of the time. Later in the 19th Century it grew into a Hospitaller organisation. It also uses the Maltese Cross as its logo, although white on a black background, including 2 lions and 2 unicorns - not of immediate Christian significance clearly. St John Ambuance Foundation is a member of the Order of St John, and is committed to teaching and the practice of first aid and the provision of ambulance services. I had myself attended various first aid training courses provisioned locally by the Foundation.
back to top
The Round Table movement, founded in 1909, was an association of organisations promoting closer integration and union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. The groups were a collection of lobbying groups in every major capital city in the world, coordinated from the London headquarters. It was a pro-colonial movement.
Cecil Rhodes was the founder of the state of Rhodesia and the De Beers diamond company, and steadfast colonialist and believer in 'cheap slave' labour. He was widely disliked by the British military whilst assisting the British in the Boer war.
Although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders (there no longer being a British Empire) has been much reduced from its heyday during the First World War. Today it is largely a Commonwealth 'ginger group', designed to consider and influence Commonwealth policies. It also continues to run Round Table - The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, and hold dinners and conferences.
David Icke, the famous eccentric and conspiracy theorist, considers the 'Round Table' secret society, presumably meaning The Society of the Elect as described above, as one of the main 'Illuminati' organisations.
back to top
Most 'conspiracy theorists' believe that the 'modern Illuminati' are represented by one or more of the above elite groups described on the this page; that they are all part of one big group, that controls the world. This is based upon historical evidence and assumptions based on the continuity of related organisations and family trees from the time of the Bavarian Illuminati. Whether this is actually the case or not is a matter for the individual to speculate or decide and whether to let their imagination run riot with or not.
These groups, whilst clearly interrelated to some degree in terms of membership are sometimes accused of being one and the same organisation, and are blamed for every disaster, act of war or perceived conspiracy. Whilst some of these may be true, the majority cannot be proven and are often examples of superstition and 'nightmare fantasizing'. In this post-modern and post-enlightenment age, with a large number of historical and present examples of historical dishonest and manipulative government and corporate conduct being exposed in the media over the years, and combined with a gradual distrust in conventional medicine, there is a tendency for many people within our culture to automatically distrust authority figures. This is reflected to a high level in the 'conspiracy theory' scene and alternative medicine field, and mixed in with the facts, a disturbing amount of superstition.
One may of course choose not to formulate an opinion based on 'circumstantial' evidence or speculative arguments, but merely look at the hard facts, which is what this web site has attempted to do in its treatment of the above; and to keep an open mind (which may be viewed as suspicious by some) but not to jump to any wild conclusions based on 'neat superficial patterns'. To label everything that one doesn't like as 'Illuminati' or 'New World Order' does little for one's credibility when discussing such topics with informed individuals, particularly those of a different disposition. The use of these terms is often self-reinforcing and its usage gradually spreads to cover seemingly related events or areas, as it the exact same individuals are responsible, or that stupidity and short sightedness in economic and political decision making, corporate behaviour and resource management are a conspiracy rather than just being stupid, irresponsible or short sighted. The main thing when discussing such controversial topics is to stick to the hard facts and look at who is actually responsible and entertaining all different possibilities, rather than joining the dots in a way that pleases one's ego.
Whilst there may be some explicit or indirect visible esoteric influence in the symbols of some of the above groups, this is not universally so. Some say the members of the above groups are 'all Rosicrucians'; others say that 'they' are 'all Luciferians'. However, whichever 'occult flavour' individuals are, the elite groups seem to share many common beliefs and practices, and the nature of these beliefs is that they can easily accommodate or adopt other related beliefs in their Left-Hand philosophy in a seemingly syncretic manner. There is clearly an occult tradition within Freemasonry, and indeed within the Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove and the Order of the Garter. One can speculate about the members of the Bilderberg Group and its related think-tanks. To what extent esoteric practices remain today is a matter of speculation, but there is clear historical evidence of such activity and also evidence of a considerable degree of occultism in the present day.
Those who share some aspects from both Paths may represent themselves as firmly Right-Hand to the public when in reality this may not be the case at all, e.g. those Presidents and Prime Ministers who claim to be Evangelical Christians or Catholics but are actually members of esoteric Secret Societies and worship an owl once a year at Bohemian Grove (e.g. Tony Blair and George W. Bush). Perhaps Rosicrucianism allows such individuals to blend in and draw on different 'faces' of their beliefs and faiths. This could also be said of Gnostic Luciferianism, but this in general appears to not be the preferred faith of the 'elite' but more counter-culture oriented (although this is a gross generalisation). Modern Luciferianism is perhaps a better fit than Gnostic Luciferianism for the some of the rich and powerful. Who is to say that some Christians cannot adopt a variety of occult practices, pagan deities and Left-Handed ideas (through induction into various orders and societies) and still maintain some degree of their Christian faith, at least in an official capacity?
Tony and Cherie Blair, for example, have a history of interest in magical practices. Tony Blair ironically converted from the Church of England Anglicanism to Catholicism in June 2007.
As has been said regarding Freemasonry, the whole philosophy of keeping the esoteric hidden away in not in the interests of wider society and freedom. If elite groups and individuals are involved in the occult, the big question many may ask is 'so what?' Whatever they get up to in their spare time is their own business, and in a democratic, 'secular', consumerist, westernised societies. What is really of concern is the networking and topics that are discussed, potential strategies agreed and conclusions reached, regardless of who is voted in by the voting public, that could be considered anti-democratic. The voting public do not also have a say in these groups and societies and indeed affiliated multinational companies behaviour (directly).
However, in the interests of a tolerant society and a transparent society, those politicians and officials of the above mentioned groups and societies should declare their membership and be honest about it, instead of denying it or avoiding the question, which frequently occurs. When the public vote for a candidate, they want to know about the person's religious beliefs (if any), what they are like in their personal life and what affiliations they have; as well as what policies they stand for. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect politicians to declare the above affiliations and also to be honest about their spiritual beliefs and practices. If they are involved in the occult, they should just come clean and say so. Of course, in the short term, this may well result in their political suicide, but after a period of readjustment, when the public get used to the idea that one can talk openly about all manner of spiritual inclinations, then it will no doubt be less of an issue, and society will be a more educated and more tolerant place as a result.
By keeping everything secret, it reinforces the fears of such activities. In addition, if the public are essentially chosing between ex-Etonian semi-occultists, then this is something they might want to know, if all candidates they are choosing from are involved in the occult. They might want to choose a candidate who was not an occultist nor had any elite connections and sponsorship. Why indeed should occultists, freemasons and members of secret societies be presiding over the majority, who indeed are not occultists or members of elite groups, and are for the large part either atheists or members of the three main monotheistic religions. Surely they should have someone who genuinely represents their interests? And not a liar who says they are one thing but are actually quite another. There is enough distrust of politicans as it is, without adding to the level of perceived corruption and self-interest and the 'old boys network'!
Traditionally, the mysteries have been kept secret and practiced by a silent minority or elite, behind closed doors, being a philosophy or religion more likely to result in individualist thinking. Mainstream religions have perhaps been thrust upon the masses for the last two millennia to instill moral values of social cohesion and loyalty, to ensure that people are 'dutiful workers' and can be more easily manipulated. One may want to consider that Freemasons were involved in the editing of the King James Bible in 1611, the first widely distributed Bible in English. However, perhaps the elite or secret societies, whilst utilising mainstream religion to subjugate the masses into loyalty and subservience, in some respects, have also become victims of this same 'oppression' themselves, in terms of persecution of the mysteries (or at least amongst those who do not serve their purpose or are allied to them); or rather it merely means that they have to conduct their own additional practices, beliefs and wisdoms in private and in secret, to present a publicly acceptable front and to appear in synch with their voters, consumers and subjects. This is the price they have to pay. But then what leaders, captains of industry and politicians are not accustomed to keeping secrets and conducting illicit affairs?
This is of course grossly generalised, and today, many 'conspirazoids' are evangelical Christians, much as other evangelical Christians are pro-establishment and totally trusting. In addition, mainstream religion plays an increasingly smaller part in the West today than it ever has, and what holds society together is more middle class and working class values, consumerist values and greed. Consumerism and capitalism still allows one to control the population, but of course entrepreneurs are able to make a niche for themselves and take back some of the power to themselves and to go up the pecking order. The concept of Christianity being dominant in the UK in the last 2 centuries (e.g. 1890s to 1940s) is perhaps not strictly accurate either, as many fringe philosophies became very popular, for example, Theosophy, Spiritualism, New Thought etc. which were based on philosophies that were very much closely guarded secrets within Freemasonry up until that point. However, more and more Freemasons published books on such subjects and indeed Crowley himself was instrumental in making the occult more mainstream or popular, against the wishes of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
In my opinion, political candidates and those in political office should have publicly viewable profiles, providing information on their directorships, commercial roles, memberships, affiliations, spiritual beliefs, religious beliefs, education, professional training, work experience, sexuality, personal life and personal history; not unlike myspace or facebook! Presented in an honest manner, rather than a sales pitch and gross distortion, with legal obligations placed on some of the criteria. This is the case to some degree, with personal web sites etc. but not to the degree above which would be more like an interrogation than a marketing tool! People on the whole have no idea who they are voting for, until it is 'too late'! I am not sure there is any way around that however and often the candidates themselves might not know until they are actually there. The same thing is repeated every four years. If a politican is asked a direct question, he or she should answer it, and not deny it or avoid it. Indeed, this rarely occurs on political discussion programmes on the television regarding party related questions, let alone anything else! Perhaps it is time we changed our political culture.
These secretive organisations and fraternities are not working in the interests of a free, tolerant and open society. Whilst in many cases embracing religions and philsophies of 'wisdom', they do not necessarily wish the general public to develop 'wisdom' but to remain 'dumbed down' and 'mis/uninformed' so that they are easier to control and manipulate, for their own ends. This is a perversion of the Left-Hand Path, one which does not want others to share in their wisdom and advancement, which is accustomed to lying and often profits at others expense. Such organisations and fraternities would be more widely respected if they were 'open' and were looking to really promote wisdom and information amongst the 'common people', to be one with the 'people' and not elitists.
If one of the goals of some of these fraternities is to increase the influence of occult practice in westernised societies, the goal would no doubt be better achieved by setting the right example themselves and being open and honest. Hiding in the closet never did anyone any good. Indeed, if we take homosexuality as an example, few people have respect for those that pretend they aren't homosexual but who lead a homosexual life. It may be interpreted as sign of disrespect, dishonesty and cowardice. It also reinforces the stigma attached to it. Please see the Difference page for further discussion on this subject.
It is of course in many LHP private and secret groups, often those of an 'extreme' nature, the goal to further the self as much as possible, in monetary, power and influence terms, above all else. Such goals are best served by covert membership and 'old boys networks'. Membership is often only granted to those who are considered to have attained a certain level of wealth and power. This being considered a true measure of their worth in occult terms, in other words being able to manifest in material terms their Will in their own life; how educated they are in the occult and how many books they have read are not considered to be as important or relevant if they cannot apply it and change the world around them according to their Will. Such goals are rarely best served by 'false altruistic notions' of improving society through openness and education, but merely doing what they can to further their own ends above all else. This is more an attribute of Satanism, the most materialistic form of the Left-Hand Path. Gnostic or Luciferian groups may share some of these elements, but on the whole their main pursuit is intellectual furtherment and wisdom, of course which should be applied to one's own life, but materialistic goals are balanced with others, be they intellectual, spiritual or artistic, and indeed may not feature at all. To be fair, if one is a career person, with a large amount of corporate or political respect, if one is honest about all aspects of one's life, including one's sexual habits and even one's esoteric biases, there is so much prejudice in society (thanks in part to the major institutions of our society perpetuating them) against occultism that it would probably be tantamount to career suicide! However, it would lay the path for others and it would become more and more acceptable to come out about it thereafter. People are just too scared or self-absorbed to be the first.
Some perhaps take the view that the Left-Hand Path (a somewhat more modern development in philosophy and the occult), or rather the secrets of Hermeticism should be kept from the masses, as it was reputed to be in the days of ancient Egypt. From this standpoint, the occult and occult philosophy was always kept behind closed doors and only revealed to the very rich, well 'bred', and influential, often the aristocracy and nobility, within Freemasonry and other Orders. Some argue that the main Monotheistic religions of the Right-Hand Path, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and indeed some Eastern Religions, such as Buddhism, were hijacked by those who wished to change the core message to one of dogma and subservience, in order to affect a greater control over the population; and nominally profess adherence to these national religions, whilst keeping the ancient mysteries and occult practice to themselves and behind closed doors, to those that 'deserved it', to empower them further. Perhaps there is some element of truth in this, or perhaps it is just a reflection of human nature, rather than overt conspiracy, where teachings of prophets get confused, or selectively put forward, or injected with lower minds thoughts and interpretation, simplification and personal bias.
I have noticed that certain members of elite groups that have been seen in magazines or news stories, can be seen to be perhaps ignorant or perhaps nonchalant about matters of health. Often members of elite groups can be seen to be enjoying their priviledged positions and luxurious lifestyles, including often copious amounts of fine foods and champagne, and general self-indulgence of the nervous system and taste buds at the expense of their bodies. This is a far cry from those that are genuinely informed about health and wish to maintain optimum health, without necessary sacrificing 'good times' and hedonism. Perhaps it goes with the territory. For example, Conrad Black was fond of networking in cliquey parties and the drinking lifestyle. BP's CEO Tony Hayward, a visitor to the Bilderberg Group, was photographed in 2007 in the Economist looking very smug and slightly 'evil', sipping a glass of champagne, with the typical 'red' complexion often seen in those who drink too much. We won't talk about 'prostitutes' but I am sure these form part of 'corporate entertainment' in certain circles! [speculation based on certain specific cases exposed in the media].
Leading industrialists, especially those that are affiliated with the above elite groups or that have been referenced on the Eugenics page, are in many cases very wise, but have good and bad motivations like most people, despite their noble view of themselves. They got to where they were by self-belief, positive thinking, opportunism, grasping a gap in the market, dedication, aggressive business practices, persistence, a desire for money and power and a degree of ruthlessness. It is thus that some of these key 'players' are also those whom those interested in personal development, self-empowerment and illuminism turn to for inspirational quotes, along with a variety of historical philosophers and religious figures. Clearly one may well choose to ignore some of the less savoury quotations, for example, revealing some of the arrogant and misanthropic attitudes. But one does not have to respect everything a person has done in their life to learn from them, take the 'good bits' and 'positive parts' and 'toss out' all the 'inhumanity' and greed.
It is also discussed on the Eugenics page that many of the 20th Century's leading industrialists and bankers and other 'key players' have historically helped to fund and promote the Eugenics movement. In the latter half of the 20th Century and the beginning of the 21st Century, these institutions, foundations and descendents of these individuals have also become more active ironically in the environmental movements and in some cases in socialist movements. The Bilderberg Group, Foundations, Institutes and other NGOs related to these parties have over the course of the 20th Century become more active in influencing geo-politics and the world economy. It is clear from many of the statements made by leading Eugenicists in the early 20th Century that the elite of industry and finance regarded themselves as wiser and more intelligent than the 'masses' and it was their philanthropic duty and often birthright to guide humanity and society, and to best 'manage' it, for their own interests, agenda and furthering of their own position, influence and wealth; and their view of what was best for mankind (or that segment of the world population they were interested in preserving and which were expendable/resources); as the 'masses' cannot be trusted to look out for their own 'best interests'. Eugenics is just one tool or goal in guiding society to a 'utopian' ideal in their eyes. However to what extent is this a philanthropic desire to help people be the best they can be and have the optimal conditions for healthy and happy living, and to what extent is it a securing of the best lot for certain countries at the expense of others? And indeed providing nanny state policies and initiatives to stop people looking after and thinking for themselves, to create legislation and market forces that do the thinking for the average consumer? And to what extent are the individual's rights being violated? Is this akin to the behaviour of playground bullies or public school prefects who manage and abuse their 'fags' in equal measure? If you treat people like they are stupid rather than try to educate them, then they will become stupid. This is human nature. Whilst there is some evidence of this shaping of population control policy, civil rights, human rights, global harmonisation and regulation, standisation (usually meaning inferior quality) of food production and nutritional supplements (e.g. Codex Alimentarius, increased security measures based on excessive fears of terrorism, increased monitoring of the public and access to private data, increased use of credit and credit cards (payment pattern tracking), the world economy, banking and globalisation, it is hard to make absolute statements about what effect this has on these areas in all aspects; and indeed what will happen in the future. Perhaps todays' media and information age, and more stringent financial standards, have made it more difficult for disreputable individuals to 'glutton' themselves on their own companies' money or to deceive shareholders/voters; or perhaps such individuals are more arrogant and less careful nowadays. Who can say. We can only look at the past and present and what facts are available.
One could however view that given the inefficiency and incompetence of government departments, civil service, politicians and indeed public companies in many countries, surely the same would be true of a network of rich, arrogant wannabes - if they indeed had great plans for themselves, would they really be able to execute them effectively, given the number of people, bodies and companies involved? Of course, this isn't to say that influence of such individuals is not significant. However, to what extent they are 'acting together' or just networking for greater power (influence in a 'community of interest') is debatable.
The desire of the 'elite' to want to manage humanity could be seen from many perspectives. Perhaps one can look at it from the perspective of the wealthy. Everyone knows that money cannot buy you happiness, and that being excessively rich for many people is exciting for a while, but fairly soon, when you are immersed in luxury all the time, you lose your sense of perspective. Of course, it helps to be grateful, and that is one of the few mechanisms to maintain some kind of perspecive. So for those who are bored of owning a number of Ferraris or Bugattis, or having houses and yachts in different countries, their own aircraft etc. then they can either choose to go back to the bottom of the pile (through self-destructive lifestyles) and start again, and work their way back up, or they can seek to increase their wealth, position and influence in the world. Your degree of influence thus can become the next biggest status symbol. Wealth is rather crass. Power and influence are more desirable for some. Influence can have many aspects. Those illuminists who have very firm beliefs and values may wish to impress those onto the society, to create a feel good factor and to feel like they are giving something back to the world, albeit, in a manner where you can retain control over how this is actually manifested and controlled. They can shape society in their own image or according to their vision, explicit or hidden agenda. This may be a mixture of philanthropy, desire for power, self-righteousness, desire for significance and recognition and status, and general ego massaging. It is a matter of interpretation, as most things in life are compromised and have to be packaged in a slick manner to work.
It is easy to point to the 'elite' as one interrelated entity or united movement, so one can have someone to 'blame', and perhaps the truth is not that simple, and we are just talking about individuals. There is clearly some considerable networking and interrelation between elite groups and organisations as discussed, in certain capacities, reflecting mutual self-interest, but to what extent they represent a cohesive whole that is interested in furthering their own agenda and 'self-actualising' on a global playground and to what extent they are just reflective of slightly fragmented leading capitalists and politicians networking in some 'harmless' capacity is a matter of personal interpretation and speculation. Sometimes there is a conflict of interest, down to certain personal ideas or dispositions. For example, Prince Charles of the British Royal Family is opposed to Genetically Modified Foods, a believer in protecting all religions as opposed to just Christianity (the UK being a Christian nation and not a secular though), fearful of the ultimate consequences of Nanotechnology of the world (e.g. rogue self-replicating 'nanobots' feeding on all matter and turning it into a 'grey goo' of erroneous molecular construction, and interested in environmental issues (as is Al Gore superficially). Other powerful and influential figures in the food industry promote GM food aggressively; and those in the oil industry and in the USA and China are particularly interested in the environment relative to their economic growth and profitability etc So there is plenty of room for disagreement and indeed scope for attempting to impose one's vision and will and have a stake in different areas.
I do not want to appear to be jealous and bitchy of other people's success and the success of successive generations of various family lines. Good luck to them! After all, this is many people's dream, to create an 'empire' of different and successful businesses.However, I am really pointing to the vulgar, anti-democratic, anti-competitive, misanthropic and illegal/fraudulent activities and excesses of such businesses and politicians, their hidden agendas and practices, and the extent to which the public is misinformed about the goods, services and industries that service them.
back to top
back to home