The Club des Cent (sometimes referred to in intelligence literature as the “Cercle des Cent” or simply “Le Cercle”) is a secretive, invitation-only foreign policy group that has operated since the early Cold War period. It is distinct from the gourmet dining club of the same name in Paris (the actual “Club des Cent” for food critics). The intelligence-related group is often called Le Cercle in French sources or The Pinay Circle in Anglo-American ones, named after its most influential early chairman, former French Prime Minister Antoine Pinay.
Origins and Structure
Founded in the early 1950s by Antoine Pinay and French Prime Minister Jean Violet (a lawyer with close ties to French intelligence, particularly the SDECE – the predecessor of DGSE).
Created as a private, anti-communist forum to coordinate Atlanticist (pro-NATO, pro-US–Europe alliance) foreign policy and intelligence efforts outside official channels.
Membership has always been small, elite, and transnational: senior politicians, intelligence officers, bankers, diplomats, industrialists, and occasionally royalty. Former members or attendees include:
Franz Josef Bach (German diplomat and CDU politician)
Alan Clark (British Conservative MP)
Giulio Andreotti (Italian PM)
Otto von Habsburg
Henry Kissinger (attended at least once)
David Rockefeller
Margaret Thatcher (met with the group)
Senior figures from MI6, CIA, French SDECE/DGSE, German BND, Belgian Sûreté, etc.
Involvement in Covert Operations
Le Cercle has never been an operational intelligence agency, but it functioned as a high-level private intelligence coordination and strategy group. Its documented or strongly alleged involvement includes:
Anti-communist propaganda and psychological warfare
Financed and coordinated anti-Soviet and anti-leftist operations in Europe through linked organizations such as the Interdoc network and the Institut de Politique Internationale.
Funded anti-communist trade union activities and media operations.
Africa and the “Françafrique” network
Jean Violet and other Cercle members were deeply involved in French neocolonial networks in Africa, especially through the Safari Club (a 1970s intelligence alliance between France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco designed to bypass CIA restrictions after the Church Committee).
Supported interventions in Congo/Zaïre, Chad, and elsewhere.
1980s anti-neutrality campaigns in Europe
Coordinated private funding and strategy against European neutralism and the peace movement (especially in West Germany and the Netherlands). Linked to the creation of front organizations that received covert CIA and MI6 funding.
The “Clockwork Orange”–style operations in the UK
British Cercle members (Julian Amery, Brian Crozier, Nicholas Elliott) were implicated in attempts to destabilize the Labour government of Harold Wilson in the 1970s via smear campaigns involving MI5 and private intelligence networks.
Support for the 1980s Reagan–Thatcher hardline policies
Acted as a back-channel between European conservative circles and the incoming Reagan administration, particularly on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) deployments in Europe.
Secrecy and Current Status
The group deliberately avoids publicity. Meetings are held twice a year in different countries, always under heavy security and with no minutes published.
After the end of the Cold War, its focus reportedly shifted toward the Middle East, Islamic terrorism, and later Russia/China.
As of the 2010s–2020s, it is believed to still exist in a much reduced form, sometimes under different informal names, with younger Atlanticist politicians and intelligence veterans.
In summary, the Club des Cent / Le Cercle was one of the most important private covert action networks of the Cold War era – not an official agency, but a place where senior Western intelligence officers, politicians, and financiers could plan and fund operations that official agencies could not or would not touch. Its influence peaked in the 1970s–1980s and has significantly declined since, but its model of private–public coordination continues to fascinate researchers of “deep politics.”
UPDATE: The video above worked very well for me. I have a terrible past with somewhat related events and issues. Same kinds of perpetrators, same attitudes, same surreal cruelty. Whether Wick is honest or not, for me, does not matter because her interview works; whether she is describing reality or creating a work of art is fine with me. I tend to believe her. When you are in a position like hers, you know most people will doubt your story or dismiss it outright because there is nothing in their (mind-controlled) experience to allow them to see it.
Prince Leo von Hohenberg is the great-grandson of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and the son of Prince Albrecht of Hohenberg and Rosalind Roque Alcoforado. He delivered a speech on November 16, 2024, at Castle Artstetten in Austria, commemorating the assassination of his great-grandfather, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which triggered World War I.
__________
This is a member of the Western elite I can support. His speech was given one year ago today. I would imagine any progress he has made would be quiet. I hope he is not all-talk and no-action like so many. A year is not a long time for meta-politics, so I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. ABN
My feeling is that now it is “safe” to release the info that Epstein was really a sex trafficker as a side gig and was mainly an intelligence asset of Israel and the US, a big-time financial criminal on behalf of transnational capital (i would argue transnational organized crime disguised as transnational capital), and an arms trader because the people he was helping have stolen so much of America’s wealth and have taken control over so much of the government.
That is why even admitting the true breadth of the scandal and operation doesn’t even seem to move the needle. Criminals are in charge and they run both parties, they have created the infrastructure for neo-feudalism enforced by technology and are herding us into the corral.
Opt out of AI, digital ID and the surveillance state that Epstein associates built now because we still can.
Medieval England had laws dictating who could eat what based on social class.
Nobility: Venison, beef, mutton, game birds. The fattiest cuts. Roasted whole.
Peasants: Barley, oats, peas, beans. Meat maybe twice a year at festivals.
This wasn’t preference. This was LAW. You could be punished for eating above your station.
The aristocracy understood that diet determines class more than birth. Feed someone like a peasant long enough, they become one. Weak bones, poor teeth, stunted growth, no energy for rebellion.
Feed someone like a lord and suddenly they start acting like one. Strong, aggressive, capable of demanding more.
Now we don’t need sumptuary laws. We just price meat out of reach, run fear campaigns about cholesterol, and convince people that quinoa is premium nutrition.
Different century. Same suppression. Better branding.
This is where the insulting phrase, the little people, comes from.
Weakening the people through diet, culling their herd by killing or maiming their strongest; poisoning their wells, the King’s Spies… these were all methods of total control, among many others.
The little people were (and still are) punished harshly for speech and behavior that threatens to liberate them from slavery.
Elites today oppose free speech because it will undermine their evil control of the human population.
They support mass immigration invasion because it dilutes their herds of little people, weakens them, forces them to succumb.
Today’s little people are now diabetic and obese from bad diets and this was not by accident. ABN
BBC lied and manipulated footage from Jan 6. That alone is horrifying, being guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. But Norway’s state broadcaster, NRK, went even further: they used the same techniques in a program for children! Shaping minds, lying and stripping critical thought before it can even form.
A few years earlier, NRK openly declared they wouldn’t report bias when it came to Donald Trump, just as they forbid criticism of the so-called “climate crisis.” Yes, they said that too. People watch NRK. They believe it’s truthful and neutral. That belief, that blind trust, is our biggest problem.
That’s how a migrant who faked a “Nazi attack” in Bergen walks free due to claims of “false memories”, while Norwegians attacked by immigrants are branded racist for daring to be angry.
MAJOR BREAKING: International actors are involved in the State Department led color revolution 🚨🚨
This is not speculation; it’s straight from a recorded call.
Ex-USAID employees describe how, before January 20, they moved internal groups off government systems and into encrypted Signal chats, then quickly linked with foreign partners and NGOs after the inauguration. This attempt at creating a color revolution isn’t new news; this part was already reported in NOTUS earlier this year.
But what’s not reported is the international aspect. One participant explicitly frames it as “a global anti-authoritarian movement,” connecting U.S. officials with “colleagues from around the world who have dealt with this directly.”
They reference coordination with Johns Hopkins, “international democracy and conflict mitigation spaces,” and efforts to mobilize across borders against what they perceive as domestic authoritarianism.
At what point does this become treason?
Hard to appreciate the scale of this effort. Every blue dot is a NGO.
American Buddhist Net 