Crisis scenarios are the means by which dictators justify control. The most often cited example is Hitler’s “Enabling Act” in the wake of the Reichstag Fire. Another example is the “Patriot Act” in the aftermath of 9/11. Globalist organizations, behind the usual façade of the most idealistic intentions, such as the Club of Rome, have for decades warned of impending planetary doom unless a world control system of inaugurated. While many of the problems addressed by global control enthusiasts are real, attention is deflected away from the fact of those who are making the suggestions for extensive global controls to deal with problems also happen to be those who created the problems in the first place. These are the plutocrats who run a de facto globalist control system, whose aim is to turn it into a de jure system.
Hence, one should raise questions when the oligarchs who run the world financial system draw up world improvement schemes.
One of those in the forefront of exposing such schemes has been Lord Christopher Monckton[1] who has focused on the climate change scenario as part of a world state agenda. Only after threatening a diplomatic incident, Lord Christopher obtained the draft of the Copenhagen treaty that would have imposed an international 2% tax on all financial transactions, a 2% tax on the GDP, and established 700 new United Nations bureaucracies, with the international tax revenue going to the World Bank. However, the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended in disarray without the formal imposition of international taxation and bureaucracy. Lord Monckton stated of the agenda at Copenhagen: “Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government.”[2]
Several decades ago, the oligarchs were pushing a similar scheme of United Nations world government and international taxation on the pretext of ending the debt and other economic disparities between the so-called “North and South,” of the developed and developing worlds, never minding the fact that it is their economic and financial system that causes this disparity. It was aimed at concentrating more power into the hand of the international financial system on the pretext of economic and social justice. The scheme was called the “New International Economic Order,” but like other efforts, was abortive.
Is this World State global warming agenda warned of by Lord Monckton, et al, merely speculation, subjective interpretation, a paranoid conspiracy theory? Or is there very specific evidence as to the oligarchic agenda? Indeed, in 2008, Simon Linnett wrote a policy document on the issue, published by The Social Market Foundation.[3] Linnett is Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London.[4] In the Linnett manifesto, he defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market;” a speculative new global currency. Linnett states that while it must be market forces and free trade that operate in defining the value of the carbon emission exchange, what is required is a world government. Market forces plus an “international institution” with a constitution equals a World State under oligarchic control. He writes: “That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.”[5]
Linnett is open in his belief that this façade of “saving the planet” is actually a method of establishing a “new world order” – as he calls it – where nations cede their sovereignty to the “international institution.” What can be plainer than this?
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely ‘saving the planet’ – perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue.[6]
Linnett is here overtly stating that “climate change” is merely a step along the way of something more wide-ranging that “may well extend beyond that single but critical issue.” In a word, it is for the plutocrats another ruse, like so many of the past and present.
Of various methods suggested to limit carbon emissions, carbon trading is held by Linnet to be the most effective.[7] Implicit in the various measures of Linnett, including funding new technology[8] and changing the consumption habits of individuals is, “that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some of their sovereignty to this world initiative.”[9]
The reluctance to cede sovereignty to an international authority, Linnett argues, must be overcome in order to get India and China into the international system by showing them that all nations are willing to sacrifice their independence for the greater good. Linnett is specific as to what he had previously called “some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty”: “When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion.”[10]
This must be one of the most candid and revealing statements ever made from the “inside” regarding the true aims of the global oligarchy. Here Linnett is affirming that the “central banks”, whether nationalized or not, are merely agencies for the private financial system of credit creation, which provide the international banking system with the means by which the oligarchy controls the monetary policies of nations. Any notion of sovereignty, as well as any party political promises about “full employment” etc. are so much rhetoric because a state is not sovereign when it does not have control over its own monetary policy, which in turn is predicated on control over the issue of a state’s credit.[11]
One is reminded of the statement of eminent Harvard historian and globalist Carroll Quigley, who described the aim of the international bankers as being to create “an international system of control”:
In time they brought into their financial network the provisional banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this… aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers….The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendents of Meyer Amschel Rothschild…”[12]
Linnett is stating that the mainspring of the international system is the creation of central banks, privately owned by the international bankers such as Rothschild, his employer, which dictate the economic and financial policies of every nation in the world, through “direct control of monetary policy”.[13] The system being proposed by Linnett, in the cause of “saving the planet,” is the consolidation of the international banking system under a central authority.
Linnett states that the European nations have already ceded their sovereignty to the EU; the next step being: “to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.”[14]
A “world body is unlikely to start off as such”, states Linnett, but a constitution would allow it to expand.[15] That is to say, it is the old strategy of Fabian-socialism,[16] centralization of control by gradual stages; or one might say, slowly boiling the frog so that he is unaware as to what’s happening until it’s too late to jump out of the pot. Linnett believes that the lead can be shown by the EU, because of the willingness of European states already to yield their sovereignty to a supranational body, with a “senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order.”[17]
“City of London” – Capital of the World State?
The world government that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This should be based in what Linnett calls a “world city.” [18] Linnett suggests that this “world city” or what one might term a “world capital” be London. However, I feel that one can be more precise and state that what Linnett has in mind is not “London” as most people understand the name, but what is called The City, a certain part of London which comprises the headquarters of international finance, which is a sovereign entity like Vatican City, in-so-far that should the British Monarch desire to enter s/he must seek to have her authority confirmed at the gates of The City by the “Lord Mayor of The City.” That Linnett is meaning The City can be inferred by his description: “London is a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).”[19] This description does not fit London per se, but the so-called City of London.[20]
The actual name of this “London” is The City of London Corporation. Its oligarchic citizens call The City “the world’s leading financial centre,” exactly as Linnett describes the “London” he wants as the world capital. This City of London is described as “the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’.”[21] Again exactly in accord with the requirements listed by Linnett as needed for the ‘world capital,” it is stated:
The City of London is at the heart of the world’s financial markets. It is a unique concentration of international expertise and capital, with a supportive legal and regulatory system, an advanced communications and information technology infrastructure and an unrivalled concentration of professional services…[22]
The Lord Mayor of the City of London is “not the Mayor of (Greater) London.” Hence, it should be readily seen that The City or the “Square Mile” is something quite different from the London known to the general public throughout the world. This Lord Mayor is elected for one year, and acts as a global ambassador for the international financial institutions situated there, and is “treated overseas as a Cabinet level Minister.”[23] He lives in the palatial 250-year-old “Mansion House.” On state visits the British Monarch waits at the Gate of The City to seek permission to enter and is presented with the sword of The City by the Lord Mayor.[24]
This at least would appear to be the Rothschild plan: to create an international authority on the pretext of saving the world from global warming, this salvation being somehow achievable by creating a “carbon exchange” as another source of speculative profit for the Rothschilds, et al. The international authority leading towards a “new world order” would have The City of London as its world capital.
One should not mistake this for any type of patriotic or nationalistic sentiment on the part of a CEO employed by Rothschild, who just happens at this stage in his career to be resident in England. The City is not a part of England; it is a sovereign financial state. Its leading functionaries are no more loyal to England than their counterparts are loyal to Germany, France or the USA or whatever other part of the world at which they happen to reside at any given time. Their citizenship is interchangeable according to the requirements of profit maximization. Hence, when someone such as Linnett advocates making The City the capital of a world control system, he does so not as a patriotic Briton (and not, I think, as part of a “British conspiracy” headed up by the House of Windsor) but as an employee of the oldest of the international bankers, the House of Rothschild, whose loyalty, like other such banking dynasties, is not to any nation other than when that nation might serve their interests or provide the weaponry against a recalcitrant state.
Notes:
[1] Lord Christopher Monckton, British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, author, columnist, inventor, and hereditary peer; served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit during 1982-1986.
[2] “Monckton: Secretive Copenhagen Treaty Creates Larcenous Global Government Tax,” http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckton-secretive-copenhagen-treaty-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html
[3] Simon Linnett, Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008). Online at: http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf
[4] For the past decade Linnett has been in negotiation with UK and EU Administrations regarding carbon trading. Linnet, ibid., p. 21.
[5] Ibid., p. 4.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 8.
[8] Of course the funding for all such initiatives would come from the international banks such as Rothschild.
[9] Linnett, op.cit., p. 12.
[10] Ibid.
[11] K R Bolton, “State Credit and Reconstruction: The First NZ Labour Government,” International Journal of Social Economics, Issue 1, Volume 38, 2011.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=0306-8293&show=latest
[12] C Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 51.
[13] The public is generally hoodwinked into believing that central banks such as the Federal Reserve in the USA or the Bank of England are “state banks” that issue the state’s credit under government direction. The state banks are conduits for credit created by the international banking system. The public is hoodwinked into thinking that there is something magical about money creation that only the wizards of international finance can conjure. Few now recall that in New Zealand, as one of several examples during the 1930s, the 1935 Labour Government not only nationalized the Reserve Bank but issued 1% state credit for funding the famous State housing program, albeit only under immense pressure from the maverick Labour MP John A Lee, who insisted that the Fabian-dominated Government implement its election promises on state credit. Lee however was soon relegated to the margins of politics, despite his popularity. See: John A Lee, Money Power for the People, 1937; This Debt Slavery, 1940 Budget speeches by Lee and Harry Atmore MP. Also: K R Bolton, “State Credit and Reconstruction: The First NZ Labour Government,” op. cit.
[14] Linnett, op.cit., p. 12.
[15] Ibid., p. 14.
[16] As an aside, it might be interesting to note that the Rothschilds and other international bankers funded the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (LSE). In her autobiography Our Partnership, Mrs Beatrice Webb describes how she and her husband Sidney, founders of the Fabian Society, were provided with funds by the Rothschilds, Sir Julius Wernher and Sir Ernest Cassel to established the LSE. Funding was also received corm the Rockefeller Foundation. The funding is confirmed by the LSE archives: “British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics and Political Science Archives, 1894-2000, Administrative/Biographical history [description],” http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:N_NBx6kWeJkJ:www.aim25.ac.uk/cats/1/3261.htm
Sir Ernest Cassel established the LSE’s chair of “economic geography.” Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild served as a Governor of the LSE. This is one of many examples throughout modern history of how socialism and plutocracy have marched hand-in-hand.
[17] Linnett, op. cit., p. 18.
[18] Ibid., p. 15.
[19] Ibid., p. 19.
[20] The London branch of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, N M Rothschild, was founded in 1811 at The City.
[21] City of London, “What is the City of London?,” http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Council_departments/whatis.htm
[22] Ibid., “Business”, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/
[23] Ibid., “The Lord Mayor of the City of London”, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/The_Lord_Mayor/
History of Temple Bar, http://www.thetemplebar.info/history:
…This tradition has been preserved for more than 400 years, and the ceremony now is carried out on major state occasions where the Queen halts at Temple Bar to request permission to enter the City of London and is offered the Lord Mayor’s Sword of State as a sign of loyalty.
No matter how one rationalises the ceremony as a mark of “loyalty” by The City toward the Monarch, it is nonetheless the Monarch who is placed in a subordinate position in seeking permission for entry and waiting for a symbolic affirmation of loyalty from The City on each occasion.
No comments:
Post a Comment