EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

03/30/2011

 

The Telegraph

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.

“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”

The Association of British Drivers rejected the proposal to ban cars as economically disastrous and as a “crazy” restriction on mobility.

“I suggest that he goes and finds himself a space in the local mental asylum,” said Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the BDA.

“If he wants to bring everywhere to a grinding halt and to plunge us into a new dark age, he is on the right track. We have to keep things moving. The man is off his rocker.”

Mr Kallas has denied that the EU plan to cut car use by half over the next 20 years, before a total ban in 2050, will limit personal mobility or reduce Europe’s economic competitiveness.

“Curbing mobility is not an option, neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system’s dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility. It can be win-win,” he claimed.

Christopher Monckton, Ukip’s transport spokesman said: “The EU must be living in an alternate reality, where they can spend trillions and ban people from their cars.

“This sort of greenwashing grandstanding adds nothing and merely highlights their grandiose ambitions.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html

 

 


Is Soros’s One World Currency a Leftist Plot?

03/29/2011

The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/1947/Is-Soros-One-World-Currency-a-Leftist-Plot.html

Is Soros’s One World Currency a Leftist Plot?

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 – by  Staff Report

Two years ago, George Soros (left) said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed. On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.” – Media Research Center/Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: Soros, up to his old tricks. This leftist billionaire should just go home.

Free-Market Analysis: We’d realized last week (tipped off by a considerate feedbacker) just what George Soros was up to; but before we had a chance to write about it the Wall Street Journal blew the story open last night by picking up a Media Research Center article by Dan Gainor entitled “Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy.” We can safely say that Soros’ planned new Bretton Woods Conference to build a new world currency, starting April 8, is unreported no more.

HOW it is reported however is a bit odd in our view. The article (excerpted above) is written with a conservative slant that makes it seem as if what George Soros has in mind is somehow a leftist attack on the American dollar. Nothing could be further from the truth but this is in fact the way that free-market reporting is increasingly offered in mainstream media. It is a kind of dominant social theme: “These socialists are undermining American values and traditions and must be stopped.” Here’s more on the Media Research Center itself from the Center’s own website:

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

The problem with reporting on Soros from a left-wing angle is that Soros is not really “left wing” at all. He’s an internationalist banker who wishes to create a one-world government (and currency). This sentiment is shared by other internationalist bankers that some might characterize as “right wing” or even “free-market oriented.” It has little to do with “empowering workers” or creating socialist communitarianism.

The labels don’t really matter. Soros may have a more statist and activist approach than some other billionaires, but this is a matter of degree not principle. So we would argue such labels like “leftist” distort what is really occurring and confuse people about how globalist plans are being implemented, and why. It’s useful to analyze the article to see how this bias works.

The article begins by quoting literature explaining that Soros is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.” Soros, the article claims, “wants a new ‘multilateral system,’ or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.” The article also points out that Soros has been at this for a while, and that a 2009 editorial advocated “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture.” Speakers include:

• Paul Volcker [who] is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros’s best-known book, ‘The Alchemy of Finance’ and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.

• Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”

• Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.

Have no doubt about it, the article tells us, “This is a Soros event from top to bottom.” Really? Paul Volcker’s entire career has revolved around service not to Soros but to one of the 20th century’s leading elitists, David Rockefeller, who surely helped place his protégé (Volcker) at the pinnacle of the American banking establishment when Volcker served as Federal Reserve Chairman in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

More recently Volcker headed up a UN Investigative task force that basically absolved the world body of very much wrongdoing in the so-called oil-for-food scandal. How did Volcker end up running the UN investigation? We would venture a guess that it has to do with his continuing ties to the Rockefellers and David Rockefeller in particular. David Rockefeller is very old now and travels in a wheel chair, but he was recently spotted in Chile and there seems no doubt that while the body is failing the mind still remains willing. At one point in his career Volcker served as Rockefeller’s personal assistant.

It is simply perverse to try to build Soros up into some sort of Machiavellian puppet master orchestrating a new world order – and implying that Volcker is part of his coterie. Soros made a lot of money as an international speculator and seems to have a psychological need to continue to raise his profile on the world’s largest economic and political stages. But the one-world conspiracy goes back at least 100 years in its modern incarnation and probably longer. Soros hasn’t been alive that long. He’s a Johnny-Come-Lately relatively speaking.

The article also tries to attribute the IMF-led effort to create a global currency using its SDRs to Soros. Gainor writes, “When Soros called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to ‘reconstitute the International Monetary Fund,’ and while he’s at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.” But in fact, these are all positions that the IMF has taken independently; and positions that have been discussed at great length by the G20. Soros is formally affiliated with neither group.

The article argues that Soros, as a committed leftist, is dedicated to undercutting America’s power in the world in favor of multilateralism. “Soros emphasized that [his monetary concept] needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. ‘The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.’ … That’s what this conference is all about – changing the global economy and the United States to make them acceptable to George Soros.”

In fact, nothing that Soros is trying to accomplish is any different than what the IMF is trying to obtain as well and very publicly. A few months ago the IMF produced a substantial white paper explaining how SDRs could evolve into a true world currency with a global bond market, etc. Last year American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made news by endorsing the idea of such a global currency and indicated that America was willing to play a role in advancing such an effort.

Sure Soros has a role to play in this monetary drama. But the Anglo-American elite operating mostly out of the one-square-mile City of London is evidently and obviously behind this currency evolution. The IMF, Soros, Geithner – even nation-states like China – are instrumentalities not initiators.

The Hegelian Dialectic so beloved of the elite is getting a full workout. Soros is the designated leftist; Murdoch’s media group will provide the “right wing” objections. The Gainor article itself, ironically, is part of the process of dialectical polarization. When the public is sufficiently convinced that there is a large controversy going on between various elite visionaries, there will be a sudden rapprochement – perhaps at Soros’s new Bretton Woods conference.

At some point the two sides will likely enter into a “compromise.” The compromise will not be anything large, but it will be a true “first step.” Soros will pronounce himself satisfied that SDRs are on their way to becoming a real global currency. Those on the other side, perhaps standing with Murdoch, will announce that they too are satisfied. While the rudiments of a world currency have truly been laid, they will point out if they hadn’t fought against Soros’ plans that the damage could have been much worse.

A true world currency could have commenced, they will point out. We managed to stop it and preserve the God-given freedoms of the United States to produce its own currency regardless of international meddlers. But they will neglect to explain that their participation in the process has actually granted the process the legitimacy it needs. This is how the dialectic works. Those on both sides are constantly dissatisfied and even angry. Yet the process is intended to grind on nonetheless until it reaches the goal that the elites have designated.

Conclusion: We would venture to propose that the Gainor article has gone a long way to establishing a nascent dialectic and that therefore the elites may be serious now about creating a one-world currency via SDRs with the IMF as a “super” central bank. Ironically, by attacking such proposals so vehemently and linking them (untruthfully) to Soros alone, the article is laying the groundwork for the very agenda it claims to oppose.

 

 


HUMANITY ITSELF: the globalist’s “pastsy”

03/28/2011

AntiCorruption Society

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2011/03/28/humanity-itself-the-globalists-pastsy/#more-3136

Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruptionSociety acknowledged

HUMANITY ITSELF: the globalist’s “pastsy”

by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011

IN 1991 THE INFAMOUS CLUB OF ROME MADE ”HUMANITY ITSELF” THE CULPRIT AND INC THE BEAST WAS TAKEN OFF THE HOOK

Here is a quote from the infamous 1991 Club of Rome report “The First Global Revolution”.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [1]

This one paragraph is so polluted with garbage, there isn’t anything in it worth recycling. But if you take it apart you can identify not only the worthless junk that has been heaped into it, but the globalist corporate responsibility behind each one. In other words, the Club of Rome was well educated in Corporate-Speak aka perception management or as Ed Bernays perfected it – propaganda.

Obviously the Club of Rome represents the Global-Elite Scum of the Earth (GESE) who decided to define ”a common enemy against whom we[?] can unite” that would motivate folks all around the globe to participate in their so-called ”Global Revolution”. The Club of Rome however, didn’t mention that the GESE had already cast their announcement of their Global Revolution in stone in Georgia in 1980: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. It is also important to note that Henry Kissinger (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1973 – gag me with a spoon) is considered a member of the Club of Rome. Here is an extremely important quote of Kissinger’s that reveals the club’s true agenda: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” Translation: the “Global Revolution” they seek is global governance by the GESE.

The Club of Rome Junk

The first reality to wrap our heads around is that the ‘consumer society’, which requires so many resources to maintain, did not evolve. It was carefully constructed by the industrialists and the Robber Barons for a) profit and b) control. [2] They concluded that if the people had too much time on their hands to think, they’d actually object to the corporate profiteering slavery system that was being built up around them.  So, advertising and the media (including films) was used to create consumerism. Their goal was to get We the People preoccupied with the purchase of ‘stuff’ so We the People would work hard to get it.  The people were ‘socially engineered’ to transition from citizens to customers. Later the term ’consumer’ replaced ‘customer’ thus laying the blame on the public for the vast amount of resources the international corporations were consuming to generate profits for themselves. This strategy was done so subtly that most people were barely aware of it.

Pollution

While the Club of Rome PR folks accurately defined pollution as a global problem, they refused to name those responsible for the lion’s share of pollution across the planet: corporations and the military – not HUMANITY ITSELF! Do we all remember the Super-Fund sites in the US? http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/land/ Who created these toxic dumps? HUMANITY ITSELF or the GESE’s oil cartel’s petro-chemical industry? Who is at fault? Depleted Uranium munitions (radioactive waste), that are currently destroying countries like Iraq, are not being disseminated by HUMANITY ITSELF, but by the GESE’s war profiteering machine.  HUMANITY ITSELF did not decide to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, the GESE did.  HUMANITY ITSELF did not create Depleted Uranium ammunition. The industrial-military complex of the GESE did. And while we are subsidizing ‘Green Energy’, the big dirty power conglomerates are receiving money and growing more powerful while new clean energy industries are dying on the vine.  Four minute interview with environmental reporter Yoichi Shimatsu

Global Warming

As science has already proven that CO2 rises approximately 400 years AFTER global temperatures, the entire global warming argument is not only bad science but is a farce. [3] If indeed the planet is suffering from global warming (not global cooling) it again is not the fault of – HUMANITY ITSELF! The vast quantities of petroleum burned for transportation was a result of the oil cartel buying up the streetcars lines and bankrupting them. This tactic forced the population to purchase cars as their primary means of transportation. This change occurred as a result of the greed of the oil cartel, not – HUMANITY ITSELF! Many people today would prefer not to own a car. Survey’s have indicated that American’s WANT transportation alternatives to the automobile.  Yet, where are our streetcars and trains??? HUMANITY ITSELF is actually being held hostage by the oil cartel. Let’s not forget Who Killed the Electric Car.  Hint: it was not HUMANITY ITSELF!

Water Shortages

If the GESE are so concerned with water shortages and the environment, why does the International Panel on Climate Change promote biofuels? Corn ethanol alone takes 4-5 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced. And where is the moratorium on gulf courses and swimming pools? And lastly why is the company who devised a fabulous water reclamation system being prohibited from selling it?

Famine

In the 70′s agriculture was transformed in the US to ‘commodity production’.  Earl Butz, Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture, established a new farming paradigm telling farmers to “Get Big or Get Out”.  Big agriculture corporations essentially started taking over farming in the US.  Local food systems that had long been able to feed the population were decimated and INC the BEAST took control of food production for the global market place. Then when the government, at the behest of global corporate giants like Archer Daniels Midland, decided to subsidize and promote the worthless fuel corn ethanol, corn which had previously been grown to feed people and animals was diverted into fuel. HUMANITY ITSELF did not make that decision. A select group of unscrupulous politicians who received abundant campaign contributions from big agricultural corporations made that decision. Consequently famine and starvation increased.

Overpopulation

Let’s not forget the GESE agreed on a plan to control/limit the population via genocide at their first Bilderberg meeting in 1954. This plan was revealed in a ‘Technical Manual’ dated 1979. [4] Their stated goals were not protecting the planet or its natural systems. Their stated concern at the time was not even overpopulation, but was insuring their own ’supremacy’. If the GESE wanted to impact overpopulation, they have known for many years how to do it: improving the lives and education of the general population.  Instead however, they are doing the exact opposite.

Conclusion

All of the reasons given by the Club of Rome to describe HUMANITY ITSELF as our common enemy are faulty. HUMANITY ITSELF however does have a common enemy they can unite against. It is the ‘doom machine’, INC the BEAST, and the globalists who not only have constructed it but are profiting from it daily. A different business model is possible.

[1] The Green Agenda of the Club of Rome

[2] Documentary: Human Resources

[3] Global Warming and Scientific Fraud

[4] Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

Related:

INC the (Nuclear Power) Beast

The Corporation

 

 


Naming Names: Your Real Government

03/27/2011

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

Activist Post
This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European’s way of life.

When the “left” is carrying the torch for two “Neo-Con” wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD’s, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.

What’s wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.

The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.

 

International Crisis Group
www.crisisgroup.org

Background: While the International Crisis Group (ICG) claims to be “committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict,” the reality is that they are committed to offering solutions crafted well in advance to problems they themselves have created in order to perpetuate their own corporate agenda.

Nowhere can this be better illustrated than in Thailand and more recently in Egypt. ICG member Kenneth Adelman had been backing Thailand’s Prime Minster Thaksin Shinwatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser who was was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in a 2006 military coup. Since 2006, Thaksin’s meddling in Thailand has been propped up by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, Belfer Center adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and now Robert Amsterdam’s Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House.

With Thailand now mired in political turmoil led by Thaksin Shinwatra and his “red shirt” color revolution, the ICG is ready with “solutions” in hand. These solutions generally involve tying the Thai government’s hands with arguments that stopping Thaksin’s subversive activities amounts to human rights abuses, in hopes of allowing the globalist-backed revolution to swell beyond control.

The unrest in Egypt, of course, was led entirely by ICG member Mohamed ElBaradei and his US State Department recruited, funded, and supported April 6 Youth Movement coordinated by Google’s Wael Ghonim. While the unrest was portrayed as being spontaneous, fueled by the earlier Tunisian uprising, ICG’s ElBaradei, Ghonim, and their youth movement had been in Egypt since 2010 assembling their “National Front for Change” and laying the groundwork for the January 25th 2011 uprising.

ICG’s George Soros would then go on to fund Egyptian NGOs working to rewrite the Egyptian constitution after front-man ElBaradei succeeded in removing Hosni Mubarak. This Soros-funded constitution and the resulting servile stooge government it would create represents the ICG “resolving” the crisis their own ElBaradei helped create.

Notable ICG Board Members:

George Soros
Kenneth Adelman
Samuel Berger
Wesley Clark
Mohamed ElBaradei
Carla Hills

Notable ICG Advisers:

Richard Armitage
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Stanley Fischer
Shimon Peres
Surin Pitsuwan
Fidel V. Ramos

Notable ICG Foundation & Corporate Supporters:

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Morgan Stanley
Deutsche Bank Group
Soros Fund Management LLC
McKinsey & Company
Chevron
Shell

Brookings Institute
www.brookings.edu

 

Background: Within the library of the Brookings Institute you will find the blueprints for nearly every conflict the West has been involved with in recent memory. What’s more is that while the public seems to think these crises spring up like wildfires, those following the Brookings’ corporate funded studies and publications see these crises coming years in advance. These are premeditated, meticulously planned conflicts that are triggered to usher in premeditated, meticulously planned solutions to advance Brookings’ corporate supporters, who are numerous.

The ongoing operations against Iran, including US-backed color revolutions, US-trained and backed terrorists inside Iran, and crippling sanctions were all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Brookings Institute report, “Which Path to Persia?” The more recent UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya uncannily resembles Kenneth Pollack’s March 9, 2011 Brookings report titled “The Real Military Options in Libya.”

Notable Brookings Board Members:

Dominic Barton: McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Alan R. Batkin: Eton Park Capital Management
Richard C. Blum: Blum Capital Partners, LP
Abby Joseph Cohen: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Suzanne Nora Johnson: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Richard A. Kimball Jr.: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tracy R. Wolstencroft: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Paul Desmarais Jr.: Power Corporation of Canada
Kenneth M. Duberstein: The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Benjamin R. Jacobs: The JBG Companies
Nemir Kirdar: Investcorp
Klaus Kleinfeld: Alcoa, Inc.
Philip H. Knight: Nike, Inc.
David M. Rubenstein: Co-Founder of The Carlyle Group
Sheryl K. Sandberg: Facebook
Larry D. Thompson: PepsiCo, Inc.
Michael L. Tipsord: State Farm Insurance Companies
Andrew H. Tisch: Loews Corporation

Some Brookings Experts:
(click on names to see a list of recent writings.)

Kenneth Pollack
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Bruce Riedel
Shadi Hamid

Notable Brookings Foundation & Corporate Support:

Foundations & Governments

Ford Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Government of the United Arab Emirates
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Banking & Finance

Bank of America
Citi
Goldman Sachs
H&R Block
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jacob Rothschild
Nathaniel Rothschild
Standard Chartered Bank
Temasek Holdings Limited
Visa Inc.

Big Oil

Exxon Mobil Corporation
Chevron
Shell Oil Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Daimler
General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Siemens Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Raytheon Co.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Toyota

Telecommunications & Technology

AT&T
Google Corporation
Hewlett-Packard
Microsoft Corporation
Panasonic Corporation
Verizon Communications
Xerox Corporation
Skype

Media & Perception Management

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
News Corporation (Fox News)

Consumer Goods & Pharmaceutical

GlaxoSmithKline
Target
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company

Council on Foreign Relations
www.cfr.org

 

Background & Notable Membership: A better question would be, who isn’t in the Council on Foreign Relations? Nearly every self-serving career politician, their advisers, and those populating the boards of the Fortune 500 are CFR members. Many of the books, magazine articles, and newspaper columns we read are written by CFR members, along with reports, similar to Brookings Institute that dictate, verbatim, the legislation that ends up before the West’s lawmakers.

A good sampling of the most active wings of the CFR can be illustrated best in last year’s “Ground Zero Mosque” hoax, where CFR members from both America’s political right and left feigned a heated debate over New York City’s so-called Cordoba House near the 3 felled World Trade Center buildings. In reality, the Cordoba House was established by fellow CFR member Feisal Abdul Rauf, who in turn was funded by CFR financing arms including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, chaired by 9/11 Commission head Thomas Kean, and various Rockefeller foundations.

Notable CFR Corporate Support:

Banking & Finance

Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co
American Express
Barclays Capital
Citi
Morgan Stanley
Blackstone Group L.P.
Deutsche Bank AG
New York Life International, Inc.
Prudential Financial
Standard & Poor’s
Rothschild North America, Inc.
Visa Inc.
Soros Fund Management
Standard Chartered Bank
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Veritas Capital LLC
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Moody’s Investors Service

Big Oil

Chevron Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
BP p.l.c.
Shell Oil Company
Hess Corporation
ConocoPhillips Company
TOTAL S.A.
Marathon Oil Company
Aramco Services Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Lockheed Martin Corporation
Airbus Americas, Inc.
Boeing Company,
DynCorp International
General Electric Company
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
Caterpillar
BASF Corporation
Alcoa, Inc.

Public Relations, Lobbyists & Legal Firms

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Omnicom Group Inc.
BGR Group

Corporate Media & Publishing

Bloomberg
Economist Intelligence Unit
News Corporation (Fox News)
Thomson Reuters
Time Warner Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies

Consumer Goods

Walmart
Nike, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
PepsiCo, Inc.
HP
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
De Beers

Telecommunications & Technology

AT&T
Google, Inc.
IBM Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Sony Corporation of America
Xerox Corporation
Verizon Communications

Pharmaceutical Industry

GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co., Inc.
Pfizer Inc.

 

The Chatham House
www.chathamhouse.org.uk

Background & Membership: The UK’s Chatham House, like the CFR and the Brookings Institute in America, has an extensive membership and is involved in coordinated planning, perception management, and the execution of its corporate membership’s collective agenda.

Individual members populating its “senior panel of advisers” consist of the founders, CEOs, and chairmen of the Chatham House’s corporate membership. Chatham’s “experts” are generally plucked from the world of academia and their “recent publications” are generally used internally as well as published throughout Chatham’s extensive list of member media corporations, as well as industry journals and medical journals. That Chatham House “experts” are submitting entries to medical journals is particularly alarming considering GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are both Chatham House corporate members.

No better example of this incredible conflict of interest can be given than the current Thai “red” color revolution being led by Chatham House’s Amsterdam & Peroff with consistent support lent by other corporate members including the Economist, the Telegraph and the BBC.

In one case, the Telegraph printed, “Thai protests – analysis by Dr Gareth Price and Rosheen Kabraji,” within which Price and Kabraji make a shameless attempt at defending the Western-backed, Maoist themed, violent protests. While the Telegraph mentioned that Price and Kabraji were both analysts for the Chatham House, they failed to tell readers that the Telegraph itself retains a corporate membership within the Chatham House as does the Thai protest leader’s lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam and his Amsterdam & Peroff lobbying firm.

Notable Chatham House Major Corporate Members:
Amsterdam & Peroff
BBC
Bloomberg
Coca-Cola Great Britain
Economist
GlaxoSmithKline
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Holdings plc
Lockheed Martin UK
Merck & Co Inc
Mitsubishi Corporation
Morgan Stanley
Royal Bank of Scotland
Saudi Petroleum Overseas Ltd
Standard Bank London Limited
Standard Chartered Bank
Tesco
Thomson Reuter
United States of America Embassy
Vodafone Group

Notable Chatham House Standard Corporate Members:

Amnesty International
BASF
Boeing UK
CBS News
Daily Mail and General Trust plc
De Beers Group Services UK Ltd
G3 Good Governance Group
Google
Guardian
Hess Ltd
Lloyd’s of London
McGraw-Hill Companies
Prudential plc
Telegraph Media Group
Times Newspapers Ltd
World Bank Group

Notable Chatham House Corporate Partners:

British Petroleum
Chevron Ltd
Deutsche Bank
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Royal Dutch Shell
Statoil
Toshiba Corporation
Total Holdings UK Ltd
Unilever plc

Conclusion

These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.

To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands. Nothing vindicates this poorly hidden reality better than a “liberal” Nobel Peace Prize wearing president, dutifully towing forward a myriad of “Neo-Con” wars, while starting yet another war in Libya.

Likewise, no matter how bloody your revolution is, if the above equation remains unchanged, and the corporate bottom lines left unscathed, nothing but the most superficial changes will have been made, and as is the case in Egypt with International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei worming his way into power, things may become substantially worse.

The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.

For more information on alternative economics, getting self-sufficient and moving on without the parasitic, incompetent, globalist oligarchs:

The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Alternative Economics
Self-Sufficiency

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.

 

 


The Most evil of Men

03/27/2011

A. H. Krieg

Many years ago two men named Lord Milner KG, GCB, GCMG, PC, (1854-1925), and Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) separately set about to change the world as it then existed. While they went about their tasks in differing ways, the desired end result was their utopian vision of an Anglo-American cabal ruling the entire world in a Fabian socialist state. This much at least is not arguable. Milner set about by funding and founding, the Round Table, Milner’s Kindergarten, and establishing RIIA, the Royal Institute on International Affairs that would some time later spawn the CFR in NYC that then in turn spawned the Trilateral Commission. Rhodes, was active by funding the Fabians, i.e. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford University, whose primary function is to take young men and convert them into Fabian Socialists and departing this world leaving behind over 30 trusts, for funding anti-societal causes. The direct result of these actions was the founding of the British Labor Party and in America the progressive (socialist) Democrat party.

In the 20th and 21st century Milner and Rhodes have been replaced by Gyoergy Schwarz alias George Soros. Like most prominent Ashkenazi Khazars of Hungary he changed his name. This may well have something to do with his and his father’s part time occupation during WWII in which Gyoergy and his father were active employees of the Nazi SS who on a commission basis ratted out Jews for internment in labor camps. Gyoergy said of this; “It was the best time of my life”.

This man has a CV that will make the average man’s hair stand on end. On Sept 16, ’92 (Black Wednesday) Soros’s Open Society Foundation and Open Society Institute (501 (c) (3)) US tax except) causes Soros’s controlled finacial organization, The Soros Fund Management LLC to short the British pound by $ 10 billion. Then in ’97 he expanded his Ponzigoniff actions by shorting the Thai baht and the Malaysian ringgit causing ASEAN, GDP to fall by $9.2 billion in ‘97 and then $218.2 billion in the following year. Total loss to the ASEAN nations was 31.7% of value. Millions of people around the world have suffered finacial loss, loss of pensions, and loss of savings, at the hands of this evil megalomaniac. Why are these things done? Because Gyoergy then puts on his white hat rides into the scene to (“[I’m] here to save your economy”) and buys up everything in sight at 68 cents on the dollar.  He is now playing with the dollar and America. Open Society Foundation has plowed $ 8 billion into social programs to alter our Republic into the socialist democracy that Gyoergy envisions. Considering that this man is an immigrant to our nation and is hell bent on destroying it, one becomes indignant that the powers to be in Sodom have not deported him. The fact that there is hardly a nation in the world that would welcome him, and that includes his homeland of Hungary, should not surprise!

On April 8, we are informed, Soros is sponsoring an economic conference to as Gyoergy says, “establish new international rules and reform the currency system”. I can only assume that means to get rid of the dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with something of his invention. The event we are told will bring together more than 200 academics, business and government policy thought leaders. Well, we had one of those in 1944; it was called the Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire’s White Mountains, with the participation of 730 delegates from 44 nations. That meeting resulted in the adoption of the now totally failed fiat money system that Lord Keynes the Fabian Socialist sold to the world as Keynesian economics. We will now get Schwartz economics, which will in all likelihood be even worse, if that’s possible. The amount of mammon Gyoergy has sunk into this conference is unbelievable $ 50 million, a full two thirds of the speakers are socially, financially or politically tied to Soros. Then the man himself states, “ The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communists but the capitalist threat”.

Not a heartbeat after his op-ed in the NY Times in which he stated, “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII International financial architecture”. Fascinating the Fabian Socialist Keynes has been obliterated from the entire Soros commentary. But the meeting went on; The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) met at the Mount Washington Resort in New Hampshire’s White Mountains the exact same place where the meeting of 1944 took place. Not long before that the INET met in Budapest’s Central European University after CEU got a $206 million grant from Soros. The primary idea is the people like Paul Volcker, Jeffrey Sachs of the $50 million funded by Soros, U.N. Millennium Project, Joseph E. Stiglitz formerly with the World Bank Rob Johnson, and Gordon Brown among others, will produce a great deal of “high quality, breakthrough thinking”. 79 speakers are listed as of this date but 200 are to attend. Soros also funds the Open Society Institute that is the parent of Project Syndicates the largest source of original op-ed commentary in over 456 news sources in 150 nations.

Sorry but academics and politicians are not at the cusp of breakthrough anything, it is exactly this sort of fools that gave us the 1944 convergence and its horrific consequences. Gradually we are then introduced into the agenda by INET board member Robert Skidelsky (I’m beginning to wonder why the meeting is held in Christian New Hampshire it seems to me that an NY reformed synagogue would be more appropriate) that informs us “ [that] currency issues and tensions between the US and China are renewing calls for a global finacial overhaul”. Just speculation here: is there a possibility that Soros has found a willing and able ally to bring down our economy?

In 2009 Soros in a widely circulated (By Project Syndicates) Op-Ed enlightened us yet again with his brilliance; “another stark choice [is] between two fundamentally different forms of organization: International Capitalism (free world) and State Capitalism (communist world). The he informs, “We need a global sheriff” probably Gyoergy Schwarz in his bloated mind.

It becomes absolutely demonic when we learn from various sources that Gyoergy want to restructure and re issue a new global currency, reconstitute the IMF, restructure the UN, Change the UN Security Council, and that he has a established relationship with The Chinese Academy of Social Science, Chinas banking Regulatory Commission, and the director of the Center on U.S. China Relations. Yes sir, he has a new ally, America’s greatest adversary.

I hope you see where all this is going. This is simply an expansion of the Free Trade scenario, which is at the heart of free market and Western economic demise. Multinationalists like Soros don’t really care about anyone but themselves and their inordinate appetite for power and mammon. This Ashkenazi bastard does not deserve to live in our country and I make that pronouncement as an immigrant. He should be deported and his assets confiscated to pay down the national debt!

Dr. Krieg’s new book coming this summer “Rendezvous with the New World Order” $25 to preorder to kriega@frii.com

 

 


A Crucial Constitutional Fact

03/19/2011

The Daily Bell

03 19 11

Dr. Tibor Machan

In my efforts to defend the free society and its basic principles, the idea of natural individual human rights, I run across the objection – advanced by both conservatives and “liberals” – that once a constitution has been accepted, it overrides those principles. Putting it differently, while perhaps human beings do have the basic rights to life, liberty, property and so forth in, as it is called, the state of nature – that is, prior to the formation of a community with a legal foundation – once that state is given up and a community is formed, they no longer have those basic rights. Instead, they have delegated to government or the legal system the authority to limit the previous freedoms they enjoyed. So instead of the constitution limiting the legal authorities or government, it supposedly limits the rights and liberties of the citizenry.

There is some plausibility in this since in the case of contracts when people enter into them they often bind themselves to obligations and responsibilities they didn’t previously have – e.g., when they marry or lease an apartment. So perhaps the constitution is that kind of a document, through which people commit themselves to abide by rules, even serve rulers, they would be free to ignore prior to entering civil society. This certainly is one rationale being advanced in opposition to libertarians who hold that what the constitution achieves, if properly conceived and instituted, is to establish the protection and elaboration of the rights of the citizenry, something they arguably lacked outside civil society.

Yet even in the admittedly murky case of the U.S. Constitution and the founding of the republic, there is evidence any lay person, let alone legal expert, can detect pointing to the libertarian interpretation that a proper constitution does not give away but attempts to secure individual rights. First of all the Declaration of Independence makes it clear what the American founders set out to do with their efforts to institute a government via the U.S. Constitution. The precise road to the establishment of free government may well be complicated but once one realizes that at heart government is supposed to secure the rights laid out in the body of the Declaration, there is little reasonable doubt that the ensuring setting up of a constitutional government wasn’t meat to abolish individual rights, quite the contrary. Government was meant to give security to those rights in light of the plain fact that without a legal system and its competent administration, the rights the individual have would be at the mercy of anyone bent upon violating them. Yes, people do have those rights in the state of nature or prior to entering civil society but their security would be dependent entirely on how well individuals are able to defend themselves, without the benefit of a specialized body of men and women who could be counted upon to provide the expertise needed to make those right as secure as humanly possible.

If one then looks at the U.S. Constitution itself, there are other clues to reading it along libertarian lines. The Bill of Rights not only mentions several of the rights that are to be safeguarded by the legal system but makes explicit reference to non-enumerated rights, ones the citizenry retains even if they are not mentioned in the document. This, it would appear, makes it clear, unambiguous, that leaving the state of nature does not imply at all giving up the basic, natural, individual human rights all human beings have.

The point of joining civil society as far as the American system is concerned isn’t, then, to give up but to secure the basic and all the derivative rights human beings have. Those who argue otherwise aren’t on solid ground. That much is pretty clear, so they must reinterpret the American founding to shore up their case for American statism.  Yet some of the most influential legal scholars advance this untenable position – namely that the law in the American tradition aims to limit the liberty and rights of the citizenry – and numerous prominent law schools teach it as well.

Let me make a final point about rights. Much communitarian thinking from both Left and Rights laments that Americans are too fond of rights but not of responsibilities or obligations. Yet if one realizes that having rights also implies having obligations, this lament is quite misguided. Everyone has the legal obligation or responsibility to respect the rights to everyone else. And that is just as it should be, with other obligations and responsibilities left to be worked out in the private sector, mainly via morality and contract law.


Why Not a Global Currency?

03/11/2011

The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat

by  Staff Report 03 11 11

Special drawing rights issued by the International Monetary Fund could be used as an international reserve currency, Hu Xiaolian, vice-governor of the People’s Bank of China, said Friday. Hu told a symposium organized by the Bank of Paris that volatility in exchange rates among existing reserve currencies – which include the U.S. dollar – affects commodity prices and causes problems for other nations … Hu said the SDRs have “a potential role to play as an international reserve asset.” – Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: The time has come to make a change. The IMF can lead the way to global financial efficiency.

Free-Market Analysis: So much of the world’s economy is in flux these days. The Middle East suffers from serial color revolutions. In Europe, the euro is faltering because of the Sovereign debt crisis. Despite comforting predictions from the Obama administration, America remains mired in a stubborn recession with commensurate job loss and growing inflation concerns while their currency spirals towards the fiat-money graveyard that inevitably hosts all value-delinked paper currencies.

Even China, the world’s engine of prosperity is having its problems. Price inflation has sent real estate into the stratosphere and food too has grown dangerously costly. Chinese leaders are in a dilemma: If they push too hard to tame price inflation, they may choke off the economic growth they so desperately need. If they do not do enough, price inflation will spread and the economy itself will become unmanageable.

Within this context it is tempting to hypothesize that the Anglo-America elite that has created the world’s economy over the past 100 years (see City of London) is willing to let social and economic chaos blossom in order to justify the transition to a true global economy and a global currency as well. The International Monetary Fund has been especially outspoken on this issue, proposing that its SDRs constitute the beginnings of a global currency.

SDRs are international reserve assets supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is not a currency of itself but a “claim” on the IMF member currencies. In point of fact, if a country wants to cash in its SDRs, it has to find another country willing to trade dollars for its SDRs. While the SDR basket includes the pound, the euro and the Japanese yen in addition to the dollar, the dollar remains the settlement currency of choice as it is the most liquid and yet the world’s “unofficial” reserve currency. Between SDRs and the dollar-denominated oil trade, the US Fed has created a global demand for it’s dollar-Ponzi scheme.

SDRs do not stand-alone but are backed by the IMF’s money pool, the result of contributions by all 187 member states to the IMF. It is the money pool itself and the commitment of IMF members to honor the SDRs that provide SDRs (and the US dollar) with their (its) reserve status. At Davos, recently, the IMF published an elaborate road map as to how it could establish SDRs as a reserve currency, complete with a bond market, a repo market and other significant elements needed by a full-fledged currency. The IMF indicated it was a long-term process, but it is perfectly possible that the powers-that-be have a much shorter timeline in mind than the IMF is letting on.

There are several upcoming trouble spots that would seem to add to larger economic woes and make the possibility of an international currency more likely. The upcoming EU negotiations regarding an expansion of the bailout fund may go more smoothly than anticipated but only because the Irish government seems to have capitulated in advance of many of the demands for EU “austerity.” In fact, the just-elected Fine Gael party, now in a coalition with the Irish Labour party, has announced it will honor previous austerity plans for two years while attempting to renegotiate the terms of the US$150 billion bail-out. The program includes cuts in public sector employment and privatizations of state companies – the IMF model, in other words.

Given that the Irish just threw out its previous government on its ear for negotiating the package that Fine Gael is now determined to honor, the likelihood of significant Irish civil unrest has gone up considerably. Of course, some of what Fine Gael is seeking from the EU remains controversial, including interest rate cuts and the possibility that bond holders after all may be compelled to haircuts for securities held in Ireland’s failing banks. But it cannot be denied the possibility of serious unrest within the larger Irish domestic community has gone up considerably.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is facing a “day of rage” and if social unrest spirals out of control in the world’s largest producing oil country, then the dollar as reserve currency would surely be in jeopardy. Currently, the dollar’s reserve status is based on Saudi Arabia’s willingness to maintain dollar exclusivity. By refusing to sell oil in any other currency but dollars, the Saudis (along with other OPEC members) virtually force the rest of the world to use dollars and to keep them in reserve. This in turn basically allows the US leaders to print as much currency as they wish, as inflation can be exported.

The consequences of the fall of the House of Saud would be serious indeed. Whatever hope there is for a world recovery would probably be wiped out by the soaring price of oil. More than that, without Saudi Arabia to enforce the discipline necessary to maintain the dollar-as-reserve currency, there would surely be an increase in currency volatility and corollary swings in the bond markets.

It is surely difficult to establish that all – or any of this – is by design. But the world’s economy is in every way an elite construct, and one watches with a mixture of awe and disbelief as the gears grind and refuse to mesh with ever-increasing frequency. Whether it is Chinese inflation, Japanese malaise, American recession, European austerity or German frustration – it is difficult to find a place on the map these days that is not suffering with some form of economic unease or downright dysfunction.

Earlier this week an ex-Goldman Sachs Analyst Charles Nenner told the Fox Business network that the Dow Jones would soon sink to a level around 5,000 – probably as the result of a major war to be uninitiated at the end of 2012. Nenner runs his own firm, now Charles Nenner Research Center, and uses computer programs to predict market trends. He reportedly predicted the 2008 financial crisis in 2006. He has now urged clients to get out of the stock market entirely.

Such grim warnings are part of a relentless tide of unsettling news sweeping the globe. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Anglo-American power-elite itself is driving hard to establish a level of misery – including fundamental shortages in areas such as food and water – that will drive significant sociopolitical change worldwide – all in the direction of increased global governance and a single world currency. Enter stage left… the UN and the IMF.

Conclusion: The larger question is whether Western populations especially will be apt to acquiesce to such changes, or whether the transition will be waylaid by a general unwillingness of people to be subject such manipulations. We maintain that sweeping programs such as those the elite apparently has in mind are far more difficult to implement in the 21st century than they were in the 20th – thanks primarily to the power of the Internet. That doesn’t mean, however, that the efforts of the elite won’t continue to be tried.


The City of London the historic central core of London is an independent entity about a mile square. Britain’s financial services industry and central bank (Bank of England) are located in the City of London. There is a London Corporation that runs the City; it is not run by greater London. It has its own police force and is headed a Lord Mayor. About 10,000 people call the City “home” but nearly 350,000 work in the City of London including many lawyers and litigators. Historically, the City harkens back to Roman London, founded around 50AD and known as Londinium.

The City waxed and waned for centuries but by the 16th century was taking on its modern profile as a banking and commercial center. A stock exchange was eventually founded and many international merchants made their headquarters in the City. But the 18th century, Britain’s Industrial Revolution was beginning and the Empire itself was expanding. London spread out far beyond the City of London, but the City of London itself gained enormous power as the British conquered one-fourth of the world, colony by colony.

The City of London has its own motto: “Domine dirige nos” – “Lord, direct (guide) us.” It has its own coat of arms and flag. It maintains its unique status as perhaps the world’s oldest incorporated city, with 25 wards that also serve as political districts. Each ward has an Alderman and Beadles, as well as a Ward Club – something like a residents’ association. The City of London supports performing arts centers and administers the Bridge House Trust, which in turn supervises the famous bridges of central, including London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge.

All this is somewhat beside the point, however. What the City of London actually is in reality, is the epicenter of an Anglo-American power elite that has dominated world finance for 500 years or more. The elite’s modern genealogy is said to include Venetian bankers who arrived in Britain and intermarried with English royalty. Today, the world’s most powerful families make the City of London either their home or base of operations. Even the Queen of England bows before she enters the City of London and when she walks in ceremonial parades, her place is a few steps behind the Lord Mayor.

Today, the City of London is the epicenter of central banking worldwide. It is the place from which world wars have emanated and plans for global conquest are apparently hatched there even today. The fear-based dominant social themes that the power elite uses to extract wealth and power from Western middle classes have their home in the City of London. The UN and League of Nations were given birth there.

The EU was likely conceived there. Every centralizing influence in the world today of any note has its roots in the City of London or its sister-municipalities – Washington DC and the Vatican. These three “independent” city-states function as a trilogy of financial terrorism, the building blocks of the New World Order, the epicenter of the unrolling darkness that seeks to organize the world into one large medieval plantation.

The City of London may seem like a quaint, historical backwater but it lies at the world’s current malignancies. The Rothschilds themselves do business out of the City of London and the vastness of resources located in and around the City of London must number in the tens or even hundreds of trillions. Money power is centralized in the City of London and has never been dispersed, despite ever-present talk about how the “City” is losing its clout as a major financial player. It is not.


The Anglo-American axis, within the context of the power, elite, is the unacknowledged cultural cradle of the latest effort to consolidate countries and governments into a global order. One needs to see the axis from a historical perspective to understand its evolution and the strength that it derives from successive waves of immigration.

From Wikipedia we learn that “Anglo-Saxons” – the Germanic tribes that entered England after the fall of Rome -

drove the indigenous people out of most of the region and into Wales. There were at least three tribes. First, the Angles from Angeln, the whole nation of which apparently entered Britain, “leaving their former land empty.” (The etymology, then, would be Anglo-Saxon ‘Engla land’ or ‘Ængla land’.) Second, were the Saxons from Lower Saxony and, third, apparently, the Jutes from Denmark.

The Anglo-Saxons in England were in turn invaded by the Viking Normans. According to Wikipedia, “The name ‘Normans’ derives from ‘Northmen’ or ‘Norsemen’, after the Vikings from Scandinavia who founded (French) Normandy. … In 1066, Duke William II of Normandy conquered England killing King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. The invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England … Eventually, the Normans merged with the natives, combining languages and traditions. In the course of the Hundred Years war, the Norman aristocracy often identified themselves as English. The Anglo-Norman language became distinct from the French language.”

There was yet, perhaps, one more cultural overlay, a most controversial one and part of what may be termed “secret history.” This, according to certain historians was a migration of various Venetian banking families to England during a period of perhaps 200 years (1500-1700). These wealthy and powerful families, some apparently withJewish antecedents, are said to have established themselves within the independent enclave of the “City of London” a financial district and the epicenter of world-spanning Anglo-American financial power. Eventually, these families, inter-marrying with Anglo-Saxons, are said to have become part of the royalty of Britain with familial branches through Europe and especially in Germany, France and Italy.

The “Anglo” power elite that emerged from the above waves of conquest, if such “secret history” is deemed to be true, was highly militant and manipulative – perhaps the most ruthless and vibrant power-culture on the planet. It utilized fiat money and central banking as tools to impose its will throughout Europe. Set back by the communication explosion of the Gutenberg press and resultant Reformation, it nonetheless persevered and created, eventually, a “democratic” facade of governance behind which it could continue to exercise leadership and further consolidate hidden authority.

The American exception, especially as enunciated by the American libertarian philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson, was a conscious attempt to break away from the mercantile authoritarianism of Europe and the Anglo power elite. These “united States of America” were successful in pursuing a republican, agrarian legislative order until the “War Between the States” – partially funded by New York banks controlled by the Anglo elite – put an end to the Republic and ushered in a new order, the Anglo-American axis.

It is this Anglo-American axis (a “special relationship”) that has dominated the Western world for the past 150 years. It is a secretive and closely guarded group of families and individuals with enormous wealth derived from the implementation of mercantilistcentral banking. In recent years, America has provided the military power and to a large extent the corporate vehicles that have projected the “one world” vision of the Anglo-American elite throughout the West, and even to Africa and Asia.

The ruthless progress of the Anglo-American axis – or Empire – depended in large part on secrecy and on the implementation of fear-based dominant social themes that were used to control the expanding populace and to further consolidate wealth and power. These themes were promoted through an intricate array of think tanks, universities and government organizations that first presented the concepts and then provided authoritarian solutions. The introduction of the Internet, like the Gutenberg press before it, has exposed the machinations of the Anglo-American power elite and made visible the secret mechanisms of control via dominant social themes.

The Anglo-American power axis is currently in retreat, its authoritarian promotions giving way to increasingly failed attempts at manipulation via outright force and the implementation of legislation that has not been properly promoted. Since it is impossible for a few thousand to harry the world’s billions into submission via brute authoritarianism, one would assume at some point that the latest efforts at global governance would be abandoned and the Anglo-American power elite would take a step back to come up with new control methodologies as they have before.