Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Paul Joseph Watson (Friday, April 3, 2009). "New World Order: Still A Conspiracy Theory?". Prison Planet. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Regarding the statement - "During the Red Scare of 1947–1957, agitators of the American secular and Christian right, influenced by the work of Canadian conspiracy theorist William Guy Carr, increasingly embraced and spread unfounded fears of Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jews being the driving force behind an "international communist conspiracy"."

my refutation:

arguments against the idea of a Communist Conspiracy are refuted in Blacklisted by History (response to criticism of it, from Evans, is here: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2008-01-01.html).

The ex-Communist Louis Budenz noted the following of his superior J. Peters (Goldberger), who was a member of Bela Kun's regime in Hungary, "As a matter of fact, it was Peters who introduced me to the idea of the conspiratorial apparatus of the Communist Party. ... He told me that the Communist Party is like a submerged submarine: the part you see above water is the periscope, but the part underneath is the real Communist organization; that is the conspiratorial apparatus." (Hearings Regarding Communist Espionage in the United States Government. Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities. House of Representatives. Eightieth Congress. Second Session. Public Law 601. Section 121, Subsection Q (2). July 31 ; August 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 ; September 8 and 9, 1948. United States Government Priting Office. 1948. p.621 - bottom paragraph): http://archive.org/stream/hearingsregardin1948unit#page/620/mode/2up

The Librarian of Congress, James Billington, agreed with Webster that the Illuminati initiated the Revolutionary flame, though he was not nearly as emphatic as her in trying to prove it's continuity. He did say, however, in "Fire in the Minds of Men" (his intellectual history of revolutionaries) that Illuminism exported the revolutionary fervor to France and suggested it lived on. Here are some quotes: (pp. 19-20) "Thus Germany - not France - gave birth to the sweeping, modern idea of revolution as a secular upheaval more universal in reach and more transforming in scope than any purely political change. This concept was transported to Paris by Count Mirebeau, a Former French ambassador in Berlin ... Mirebeau popularized the Illuminist term "revolution of the mind," introduced the phrase "great revolution", and invented the words "revolutionary," "counter-revolution," and "counter-revolutionary."":

Billington also noted that Fillipo Buonarroti, the "Plato" of Revolution, was obsessed with Romantic Occultism (p. 91): , and stated (p. 99) "Whether or not Buonarroti was in effect propagating an Illuminist program during his revolutionary activity of the 1790s. he had clearly internalized a number of Illuminist ideals well before his revolutionary blueprint of 1810-1811. Such borrowings from Illuminism seem substantial enough to challenge the long accepted judgement of the leading student of the subject that, after 1790, Illuminism "having disappeared from history ... lived on only in legend." There seems good reason to believe that Illuminist influence was not so much a "legend" as an imperfectly perceived reality. The same historian's perplexed observation that "the police legend" about Illuminists began to "develop with more amplitude and originality" in the Napoleonic era points to a surprising source of Illuminist influence.":

The idea of secret societies being the force behind Communism was actually first noted not by White Russians but by Benjamin Disraeli, who stated, "Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography" (Colburn & Co., London, 1852, p. 497): "But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish it's choice allies, and what have been the consequences? They may be traced to the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure." (the search function is not working for this book, but go to the page cited and you will see that this is an accurate citation):

In 1856, before the House of Commons, Disraeli stated of these secret societies: "There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House ... I mean the secret societies.... It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe - the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries - is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government; they do not want ameliorated institutions ... they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments. Some of them may go further..." (Hansard, Thomas C. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates: Third Series, Vol. CXLIII. Published by Cornelius Buck, London, 1856. p. 773):

Leon Trotsky, who, along with Lenin, was the most preeminent revolutionary said, in "My Life" (describing his time in the Odessa prisons): "It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress. ... I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development.": http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch08.htm

The British White paper on Bolshevism is an interesting source showing how the Jewishness of Bolshevism was later obfuscated - the initial report shows that it was so Jewish that it may be called Jewish: http://archive.org/details/RussiaNo.1

Most of the Jewish Communists changed their names in order to get rid of the suspicion that Bolshevism was a Jewish Conspiracy (see the Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, p. 793, which noted that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as to “not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.”). Robert Wilton, the London Times Correspondent to Russia during the Revolution, in the French edition of The Last Days of the Romanovs, reprinted the official Bolshevik lists, which presented the proportion of Jews to gentiles in the Bolshevik leadership as much higher than was later claimed, namely, that out of the 556 important functionaries of the Bolshevik State there were in 1918-1919: 17 Russians, 2 Ukrainians, 11 Armenians, 35 Lets, 15 Germans, 1 Hungarian, 10 Georgians, 2 Poles, 2 Finns, 1 Karaim, and 457 Jews. Wilton also noted that the murderers of the Romanovs left behind an adaptation of the Jewish poet Heinrich Heine's lines on the fate of Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans who, according to the Old Testament Book of Daniel, was murdered as God's punishment for an affront offered to Judah. Wilton was deemed an extremely reliable reporter prior to 1917, though he began to be shunned as soon as Zionist circles developed a distaste for his dispatches from Russia (see "The History of the Times" relevant to the time period). The English edition of Wilton's text was censored, but the French edition is more explicit. It also contains the pictures proving his claims that were omitted from the English edition: http://archive.org/download/LesDerniersJoursDesRomanof/LesDerniersJoursDesRomanof.pdf

To illustrate the extent of the historical re-write, it is important to note that The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1914-1944 (Little, Brown & Co., Boston 1968, p. 172) contains a letter in which he says "Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar's, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action." An image of this page is here: http://www.mailstar.net/russell.jpg This is significant, because Russell was the exact opposite of a "Fascist" or "Black Hundreds member", the people who are supposed to have "fabricated" the connection between Jews and Bolshevism. He was a Fabian Socialist and a pro-Communist. So the situation must have been really bad for him to have made such a comment.

From the journal Revolutionary Russia, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2008, in an article entitled "HIDDEN AGENDAS: SPIES, LIES AND INTRIGUE SURROUNDING TROTSKY'S AMERICAN VISIT OF JANUARY-APRIL 1917", is significant, as its documentation goes a long way towards refuting claims that Jewish bankers did not subsidize, or were against, the Bolshevik revolution: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546540802085511 The abstract of that article reads: "Trotsky's short stay in the USA in early 1917, and his subsequent detention in Canada, has spawned many stories and left lingering questions. This article is basically a sequel to the author's `Interrupted Journey: British Intelligence and the Arrest of Leon Trotskii, April 1917', which appeared in this journal in 2000. 1 What follows substantially expands the scope of the earlier article and presents much new information drawn from recent releases by MI5, as well as new American, French and Russian sources. It shows that Trotsky was surrounded by a web of intrigue and agents of various stripes throughout, and even before, his American stay. He became a pawn, knowingly or not, in assorted plots. Above all, the article strengthens the conclusion that Trotsky was the target of a scheme by elements of the British intelligence services to secure his cooperation in revolutionary Russia."

Antony Sutton, while noting elsewhere Schiff's public denial of financing the revolution, nevertheless noted in another work, the following, showing how he said one thing yet did another: "there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236." (Sutton, Antony. Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, Vol. II. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1973. p. 340n).

Evidence is clearest for a Rothschild connection to the Bolsheviks. Mikhail Bakunin, the chief rival of Karl Marx, argued that Marx was creating a false liberation ideology at the behest of the Rothschild dynasty: http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm The Rothschild's influence the Communist project continued onto the ascendancy of the Bolsheviks. Joseph Nedava, in a biography of Trotsky published by the Jewish Publication Society, noted that "A Jewish journalist who knew Trotsky from the period of his stay in Vienna ("when he used to play chess with Baron Rothschild in Cafe Central and frequent Cafe Arkaden daily to read the press there") is even firmer on the Yiddish issue: "He knew Yiddish, and if at a later date, in his autobiography, he pretends to know nothing about Jews and Judaism, then this is nothing but a plain lie. He who had visited at Cafe Arkaden for years on end must have mastered both these matters to perfection. The language in greatest use at that Cafe was - besides `Viennese-German' - Yiddish.""(Trotsky and the Jews, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 5732, 1972, p. 36): So much for Trotsky's "anti-capitalism" then. The Rothschilds also subsidized Stalin. Simon Sebag Montefiore noted in "Young Stalin" (2008), p. 186 that Stalin, prior to the revolution, was "on the Rothschild payroll", and on p. 90, that "Stalin started laughing, almost singing: "I'm working for the Rothschilds": http://books.google.com/books?id=kouXUFhmodEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Also of interest is "Geneva versus Peace" (Sheed & Ward, New York, 1937), in which Comte de Saint-Aulaire, French Ambassador to Great Britain in the 1920s, discussed his meetings with Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. financiers. They had discussions regarding why they financed the Bolshevik Revolution. One of them said (p. 80): "You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International. These opposites, which are at the antipodes to one another in society and in their doctrines meet again in the identity of their purpose and end, the remaking of the world from above by the control of riches, and from below by revolution. ... Our mission consists in promulgating the new law and in creating a God, that is to say in purifying the idea of God and realizing it, when the time shall come. We shall purify the idea by identifying it with the nation of Israel, which has become its own Messiah. the advent of it will be facilitated by the final triumph of Israel, which has become it's own Messiah." This same financier also said (pp. 83-84): "... our essential dynamism makes use of the forces of destruction and forces of creation, but uses the first to nourish the second. ... Our organization for revolution is evidenced by destructive Bolshevism and for construction by by the League of Nations which is also our work. Bolshevism is the accelerator and the League is the brake on the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding power. What is the end? It is already determined by our mission. It is formed of elements scattered throughout the whole world, but cast in the flame of our faith in ourselves. We are a League of Nations which contains the elements of all others. ...Israel is the microcosm and the germ of the City of the future.": http://archive.org/download/LesDerniersJoursDesRomanof/Geneva-Versus-Peace.pdf

The Global News Service of the Jewish people noted that official lists show that almost all the Communists who caused the Holodomor were Jewish (they also noted that Jewish groups wish to obfuscate that fact): http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/06/15/1005888/jewish-group-objects-to-holodomor-lawsuit

Stalin himself said, “In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

It is important also to note that Richard Nixon, who presided over the prosecution of Alger Hiss, revealed that with the exception of Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss, the communist agents operating in the United States were almost all Jewish: "The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy were Chambers and Hiss. ...Every other one was a Jew and it raised hell with us." (Statement of President Richard Nixon in 1971, as recorded at the White House on tape and released by the National Archives in 1999 - as cited in the New York Times, Oct. 7, 1999): http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/in-1971-tapes-nixon-is-heard-blaming-jews-for-communist-plots.html

And regarding the Protocols commentary - Zionist leaders have advocated world government proposals - e.g. David Ben-Gurion, in Look Magazine, January 16, 1962, p. 20 (see this facsimile: http://www.mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg) would predict the end of the Cold War by the end of the 1980s, the pattern of convergence, that is - adoption of Eastern ("socialist") attributes by the West and Western ("capitalist") attributes by the East, and the emergence of a World government led by Israel, which would house the "supreme court of mankind". He presented this as a "positive" development.

The New York Times noted that Nahum Sokolow boasted before the World Zionist Congress that the League of Nations was a "Jewish Idea", and that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of the World: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9

Other Zionist leaders would be more explicit. The motives underlying the Zionist ambition are lucidly expressed in a 1907 New York times article concerning David Wolffson's address to the Zionist congress of the time period: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0D16FD3C5A15738DDDAB0A94D0405B878CF1D3 "Dr. David Wolffsohn of Cologne delivered the closing speech. He dwelt upon the success of the Congress, which, for the first time and in spite of divergence of opinion, had, he said, united in support of the idea if proceeding by political action to practical work for the deliverance of the poor Jewish people. Dr. Wolffsohn declared that the Jewish people must yet conquor the world."

This was repeated in the New York Times upon Wolffson's death, when it recorded the following: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70913FA3D5C13738DDDAE0994D1405B848DF1D3 "In his closing address he pleaded for greater unity among the Jews and said that eventually they must conquer the world."

Tit is important to note that leading Zionists had no qualms about noting the dominance of the Rothschilds in their project. Theodore Herzl, credited by many as being the founder of the Zionist movement (though he was not), originally entitled his book “The Jewish State”, “An Address to the Rothschilds”. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the state of Israel, was addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Balfour%20Declaration

Interestingly, Samuel Landman, in "Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine" (New Zionist Press (New Zionist Publication Number 1), London, (1936), pp. 4-6.), noted: "In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted. In his 'Through Thirty Years' Mr. Wickham Steed, in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to have said after the War, that: 'The Balfour Declaration was the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he wished Germany had thought of it first.' As a matter of fact, this was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett), soon after the War. The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German—especially Nazi—minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme."

Freemasonry: Albert Pike stated in "Morals and Dogma": http://books.google.com/books?id=-IVJ6_9zf9YC regarding the occult origins of freemasonry (and this I don't have a problem with - I'm just including it here as a correction), he stated - "Masonry, successor of the Mysteries, still follows the ancient manner of teaching. Masonry is identical with the ancient Mysteries." (p. 21)

The fourteenth degree of freemasonry states - "The whole world is but one Republic of which each nation is a family and every individual a child.": http://www.ardue.org.uk/university/degs/deg14.html

Illuminati - I have already covered this above.

Round Table groups - There is not evidence that Rhodes abandoned his position - to the contrary, he became only more extreme. The New York Times, in 1902, noted that Rhodes, in 1890, set forth the goal of an establishment of a secret society, which should work towards "gradually absorbing the wealth of the world": http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F00811FB395412738DDDA00894DC405B828CF1D3

Arnold Toynbee was very important in Royal Institute of International Affairs circles, being the RIIA director of studies. Given that position, he certainly would be qualified to state the intentions and objectives of that group, and it’s sister organizations. As recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, Toynbee said that "In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a Universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with out lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national state of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be - perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair." ("The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://www.jstor.org/stable/3015848?seq=7

We know that the tax-exempt foundations interlocked with this group and that the CFR and RIIA were offshoots of it. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., noted on p. 51 of his ultra-orthodox book "A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House" that "The community was at the heart of the American Establishment. It's household dieties were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; it's present leaders, Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; it's front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie Foundations and Council on Foreign Relations; it's organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."

And on a related note - Reuters noted that "Invited as speakers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were groomed at Bilderberg meetings before rising to fame as U.S. President and British Prime Minister respectively." This used to be on yahoo news (http://web.archive.org/web/20010901000000*/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/010523/80/brbbh.html), but it has been removed - fortunately it has been preserved here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/reuters_bilderberg.html

Key tax-exempt foundations have explicitly declared their goal of world government. An example is the American Historical Association's Report on the Commission on Social Studies, supports these claims, and is direct evidence of top-down subversion (a "silent revolution") - this was written on behalf of the Carnegie Endowment: http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2%2FReport_On_The_Commission_On_Social_Studies-Krey-Counts-Kimmel-Kelley-1934-179pgs-EDU.sml.pdf&id=395

"The Commission is under special obligation to its sponsor, the American Historical Association. Above all, it recognizes its indebtedness to the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation, whose financial aid made possible the whole five-year investigation of social science instruction in the schools, eventuating in the following Conclusions and Recommendations." - p. xi "the Commission could not limit itself to a survey of textbooks, curricula, methods of instruction, and schemes of examination, but was impelled to consider the condition and prospects of the American people as a part of Western civilization now merging into a world order." - p. 1 "The Commission was also driven to this broader conception of its task by the obvious fact that American civilization, in common with Western civilization, is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism, and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning and control which call for large-scale cooperation on the part of the people." - pp. 1-2 "the Commission recognizes the further fact of the inter-relationship of the life of America with the life of the world. In all departments of culture-intellectual, aesthetic, and ethical - the civilization of the United States has always been a part of European, or "Western," civilization . To ignore the historical traditions and usages which have contributed, and still contribute, to this unity is to betray a smug and provincial disregard of basic elements in American life and to invite national impoverishment, intolerance, and disaster. Moreover, the swift development of technology, industry, transportation, and communication in modern times is obviously merging Western civilization into a new world civilization and imposing on American citizens the obligation of knowing more, rather than less, of the complex social and economic relationships which bind them to the rest of mankind." pp. 11-12 "there are certain clearly defined trends in contemporary technology, economy, and society of the utmost importance in creating new conditions, fashioning novel traditions, reorienting American life, and thus conditioning any future program of social science instruction." - p. 13 "Under the moulding influence of socialized processes of living, drives of technology and science, pressures of changing thought and policy, and disrupting impacts of economic disaster, there is a notable waning of the once widespread popular faith in economic individualism; and leaders in public affairs, supported by a growing mass of the population, are demanding the introduction into economy of ever-wider measures of planning and control." - p. 16 "Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States as in other countries, the age of laissez faire in economy and government is closing and a new age of collectivism is emerging." - p. 16 "As to the specific form which this "collectivism," this integration and interdependence, is taking and will take in the future, the evidence at hand is by no means clear or unequivocal. It may involve the limiting or supplanting of private property by public property or it may entail the preservation of private property, extended and distributed among the masses. Most likely, it will issue from a process of experimentation and will represent a composite of historic doctrines and social conceptions yet to appear. Almost certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary co-operation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy, a corresponding enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to individual discretion and initiative-a state intervention that in some instances may be direct and mandatory and in others indirect and facilitative. In any event the Commission is convinced by its interpretation of available empirical data that the actually integrating economy of the present day is the forerunner of a consciously integrated society, in which individual economic actions and individual property, rights will be altered and abridged." - p. 17 "While stressing the necessity of recognizing the emergence of a closely integrated society in America and the desirability of curbing individualism in economy, the Commission deems highly desirable the conscious and purposeful employment of every practicable means to ward off the dangers of goose-step regimentation in ideas, culture, and invention, of sacrificing individuality, of neglecting precious elements in the traditional heritage of America and the world, and of fostering a narrow intolerant nationalism or an aggressive predatory imperialism." - p. 23 "The Commission deems possible and desirable an enlightened attitude on the part of the masses of the American people toward international relations, involving informed appreciation of the cultural bonds long subsisting among the nations of Western civilization and now developing rapidly among all the nations of the world, and special knowledge of the increasing economic interdependence of politically separate areas and peoples, and of the emerging economic integration of the globe." - p. 25 "The Commission, under the frame of reference here presented, deems desirable the vitalizing of the findings of scientific inquiry by the best social thought of the present and of the past, and the incorporation into the materials of social science instruction in the schools of the best plans and ideals for the future of society and of the individual." - p. 27 "The implications for education are clear and imperative: (a) the efficient functioning of the emerging economy and the full utilization of its potentialities require profound changes in the attitudes and outlook of the American people, especially the rising generation-a complete and frank recognition that the old order is passing, that the new order is emerging." - pp. 34-35 "Organized public education in the United States, much more than ever before, is now compelled, if it is to fulfill its social obligations, to adjust its objectives, its curriculum, its methods of instruction, and its administrative procedures to the requirements of the emerging integrated order." - p. 35 "If the school is to justify its maintenance and assume its responsibilities, it must recognize the new order and proceed to equip the rising generation to cooperate effectively in the increasingly interdependent society and to live rationally and well within its limitations and possibilities...." - p. 35

The UNESCO director Julian Huxley stated the following concerning the purpose of UNESCO: "That task is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available, and also the first time that man has had the means (in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species. And it is necessary, for at the moment two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East, and not only impede the achievement of unity but threaten to become the foci of actual conflict. You may categorise the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms; or as individualism versus collectivism; or as the American versus the Russian way of life; or as capitalism versus communism; or as Christianity versus Marxism; or in half a dozen other ways. The fact of their opposition remains and the further fact that round each of them are crystallising the lives and thoughts and political aspirations of hundreds of millions of human beings. Can this conflict be avoided, these opposites be reconciled, this antitheses be resolved in a higher syntheses? I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen - only I do not know whether it will happen before or after another war." (Julian Huxley, "UNESCO: It's Purpose and It's Philosophy", p. 61): http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0006/000681/068197eo.pdf In the UNESCO book "Towards world understanding", Volume 5, it is stated, "As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family which infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.":

One of the first motivators used by adherents of the World government ambition was using public fears of nuclear War, that we must have "one world or none". Perhaps the most vocal proponent of this idea was Bernard Baruch, one of Roosevelt's key "advisers", who after WWII promoted the idea of building up the UN into a World Government with atomic powers: http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html

Baruch, who stated to a Senate Committee after World War I: "I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true."

...stated the following after WWII, in an address to the UN Atomic Energy Commission as recorded in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

“Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation … Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. … We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States – a formula certain to benefit the world’s future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation. … Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.”

Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist, and foiled this, so the cold war was on. Stalin would later face some problems where he was located, and be murdered: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html

Baruch interestingly stated before a Senate Committee in 1948: “Although the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.” He was one of the first people I am aware of to use this term

The disgusting thing here is that, as Maj. George Racey Jordan showed in his diaries, Roosevelt's other key adviser, Harry Hopkins, supplied the Soviets with atomic weapons during WWII: http://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries And throughout the war, the West still supplied essential technology to the Soviet Union, as revealed in the research of Dr. Antony Sutton, popularized in his book “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/

State Department Publication No. 7277 - entitled "Freedom From War", written in 1961 (which corresponds to Public Law 87-297) stated the following: p. 10: "The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes." it also called for (p. 11): "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force" it also called for (p. 12): "The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations." This was later updated in a document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race. This becomes especially infuriating when you consider the information disclosed in Sutton's Hoover Institution studies, showing that this "threat" was assisted all along, and built up to act as the anti-thesis, leading to a new synthesis. Public Law 101-216 reinforces Public Law 87-297, and was passed on October 12, 1989. Facsimiles of all these documents, and more, are in the following pdf file from a pro-gun organization. You can ignore the commentary, and just focus on the documentation, which is very important: http://www.libertygunrights.com/doubterbinder/Doubter%20Binder%20-%20High%20Quality%20-%20Complete.pdf

Then, from Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, we have the following document (signed by George Schultz), which she aptly describes as follows: "Copy of Agreement between United States (President Reagan) and the Soviet Union (President Gorbachev) related to many fields of endeavor, but with special reference to merger of U.S.A. and Soviet (Russian) education systems. Important excerpts follow regarding the purpose of the agreements: "The facilitation of the exchange, by appropriate organizations, of educational and teaching materials (including textbooks, syllabi and curricula), materials on methodology, samples of teaching instruments and audiovisual aids." "The Parties will encourage exchanges of representatives of municipal, local and state governments of the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R . to study various functions of government at these levels."

A copy of the document is here: http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD/Agreement_Between_US_and_USSR_in_all_Educational_Fields-1990-41pgs-GOV-EDU.sml.pdf&id=187

Remember that this was still when the "Cold War" was raging, and Reagan was issuing his "evil empire" rhetoric.

However, it is important to note that many globalist theoreticians argued that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built: “In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-’world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”: http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf

In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (Cf. Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. "Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation" Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118)

Communism did not “fall”, but dialectically synthesized into the Communist-Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism. This, is of course being implemented via regionalism. The EU would follow this pattern of Capitalist-Communist convergence (and other Continental Unions are to follow). The Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, proved this in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration", which shows that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: http://ia601603.us.archive.org/12/items/ArticlesOfInterest/87502960-EUSSR-The-Soviet-roots-of-European-Integration.pdf

a document leaked by wikileaks concerning regionalization in North America stated the following, in contrast to the claims of deniers: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html

"An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers. Our research leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both "security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the options for continental integration. While in principle many of them support more ambitious integration goals, like a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them."

But, although giving lip service to popular sentiment, it is (or was, until leaked) still a clandestine initiative, and the document stated that it would be implemented gradually, mostly by appealing to the interests of the multinationals, and not by public referendum (p. 2):

"There is little basis on which to estimate the size of the "upside" gains from an integration initiative concentrating on non-tariff barriers of the kind contained in NAI. For this reason, we cannot make claims about how large the benefits might be on a national or continental scale. When advocating NAI, it would be better to highlight specific gains to individual firms, industries or travelers, and especially consumers."

I would like to make a digression and discuss the Rothschilds - who are of relevance to what will be revealed below. The historian Niall Ferguson, despite his apologetics for the Rothschilds in his biography of the family, nevertheless noted, in other works, the fact that Nathaniel Rothschild (the individual whom David Loyd George called the "dictator" of England), dominated Rhodes' imperial and mining operations. Ferguson wrote that , "Rhodes could not have won his near monopoly over the South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of capital in the world." (Niall Ferguson, "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power", New york, Basic Books, 2004, p. 186) Ferguson elaborated, "It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899, the Rothschilds' stake was twice that of Rhodes. In 1888 Rhodes wrote to Lord Rothschild: 'I know with you behind me I can do all I have said. If however you think differently I have nothing to say.'" (Ibid., p. 187)

The following might appear as a digression, but it's not. In "The Jews and Modern Capitalism", we find that Jewish Amsterdam bankers were the power behind the establishment of the Bank of England. The Encyclopedia Americana stated the following about the Bank of England: "Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control ... its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state ... The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors ..." (it would later become more "nationalized", but still act as a conduit for credit created by the international banking system - similar to the FOMC.) In 1960 the Radcliffe Committee examined the functions of the Bank of England. Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence (from the committee investigation), stated (p. 9. 4.: ) - "Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in place of cash it is possible for banks to create the equivalent of cash . Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customers account; or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case an increase in it's deposits will occur." The Report of the Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking, and Credit Systems, published in 1956, stated () "The process called "creation of credit" or "creation of money" is no new development. Its origin in England in the seventeenth century as a development of the activities of the goldsmiths is described in the following passage from The Theory of Credit by Macleod (first published in 1891), Vol. II, Part II, at page 520." (That text just describes the history of fractional reserve banking, and is available here for the interested reader) The New Zealand report also noted that following about this system: "The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses who appeared before us."

A similar situation exists in the United States with the Federal Reserve. some people think that those instantiating the system were merely "benevolent planners". An actual look at the system they designed dispels that notion. Insight into the system they designed comes from the interrogation of Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Eccles in the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 2233: http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/historicaldocs/678/download/68568/1947hr_directpurchgov.pdf p. 31: "Mr. PATMAN. NOW, in order to get our definitions straight a little 
further, our economy is based upon debt; our bank system and our 
money are based on debt; that is right, is it not?
 Mr. ECCLES. Money is created by bank credit.
Mr. PATMAN. Yes.
 Mr. ECCLES. That is right. And the bank reserves are created by
 the central bank. 
Mr. PATMAN. With some exceptions, if all the people were to pay
their debts to the banks and the United States Government should
 pay its debts, there would not be any money to do business with,
would there, except just a little, like Civil War money, and coins, and
 things like that, probably about four or five billion dollars; is that
 not right? 
Mr. ECCLES. That is right. That is what happened after 1929.
 With debt contraction- we have never had a period of prosperity
 when there has not been an expansion of debt on balance, by either
 the Government or by the private individuals or corporations, or by
 both. Whenever debt has contracted on balance, you have had a 
depression. From 1929 to 1933 I think there was a total debt con
traction, as I recall, of something like $30,000,000,000. This was bank 
debt and also private debt.
 Mr. PATMAN. Well, is the reason not obvious, that since our money 
is based upon debt, and our bank system also, and money is created
 through the bank system by debt, that we can only be prosperous if
 we go into debt, and if we pay our debts, why, we are in a depression;
 is that not right?
 Mr. ECCLES. YOU have got to distinguish between bank debt and
 debt outside of the bank. The expansion of debt to the banks creates
 deposits and deposits, of course, are always available to be withdrawn 
as currency. In other words, the growth of debts to banks, whether
 in the form of public debt, such as the ownership of Government 
bonds, municipal debt, or private debt, creates deposits. That is 
where the great growth of bank deposits has come from, largely
 through the growth of debt, and largely Government debt. And
 that, of course, is responsible for our very large, what we term, money
 supply." See also the following exchange given in the Hearings on the Retirement of Federal Reserve bank stock, Volumes 1-2, p. 41., : PATMAN: "Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee buys a million dollar bond you create the money on the credit of the Nation to pay for that bond, don't you?
ALLEN: That is correct.
PATMAN: And the credit of the Nation is represented by Federal Reserve Notes in that case, isn't it? If the banks want the actual money, you give Federal Reserve notes in payment, don't you?
ALLEN: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal Reserve notes.
PATMAN: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as reserves."

To create this debt money, the FOMC works with banks called "primary dealers" that are, at present, international: http://newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html So we're dealing with a cartel. And given that money is created via loans, but since loans have interest rates attached to them, there is always more money owed than is in circulation. Hence all real wealth inevitably gravitates to the financiers making use of this "technique", and this occurs in any country with the modern central banking system. It is important to note that according to 31 USCA §714, it is the functions of the FOMC, where the action really is, that are exempt from audits: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/714 Some of the most eminent economists in the United States have condemned this debt slavery system, and outlined it's origins. Irving Fisher was hailed by Milton Friedman as "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced.": Robert Hemphill was the first credit manager of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, who wished to end fractional reserve lending, believing instead that banks should keep 100% reserves, and collaborated with Fisher on this: He drafted a bill that Fisher supported called S.3744: He noted, in the forward to Fisher's text 100% Money, the following: "If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon this picture, the tragic absurdity of our helpless position is almost incredible, but there it is.": Commenting on all this, Hemphill stated, before the House of Representatives: "... there has been for 200 years, since one certain man came into power as a financial genius, Mayer Anselm Rothschild, who was born in 1790 since he came into power there has been a constant, organized, shrewd conspiracy to convince the people of the world that this is not true, to convince men against their own judgment, against a thing which is self-evident. And that conspiracy has involved the press, it has involved the pulpit, it has involved a conspiracy to mislead people about the importance of a very simple thing - money. The interests who promote this confusion profit by retaining for themselves the monopoly of manufacturing our money.":

All of this becomes particularly interesting when you consider the tax situation as revealed by the Grace Commission: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf p. 12 (of the document, not the pdf): "Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

• One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
*Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken.
*With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."

Of course, it is important to keep in mind what the fundamental source of this debt is, and how it keeps on expanding, beyond the actual amount of money in circulation, due to the interest attached to it.

The Rothschild apologist Niall Ferguson denied that the Rothschilds scored a financial coup d’etat when, with advance intelligence, they started dumping securities as the battle of Waterloo was ending, creating the expectation that they knew Napoleon had won, when, in reality, they knew that Napoleon had lost, and they thus monopolized Britain’s market in consols, which formed the basis of British debt. In reality, historian Ignatius Balla had established that this had indeed occurred in a book that was almost suppressed (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A06EFDF133BE633A25755C2A9679C946296D6CF), but was proven accurate in a court case (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A05E5D8133EE733A25752C0A9629C946496D6CF). It was also discussed by Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton on p. 49 of his biography of the family. The financier Henry Clews noted in "The Wall Street Point of View", Vol. III, p. 253, "The Consolidated Act in 1757 ... by which the debts of the nation, including annuities, were consolidated or brought together into one scheme, and average rate of interest being struck at three per cent. hese "consols", ... are kept in account in the Bank of England and virtually form the great bulwark of its deposits." () As monopolizers of British Bank of England consols, the Rothschilds won control of the Bank of England, henceforth they ruled England, and collected interest on the debts they were owed, which of course exceeded the amount of money in the society in the first place, since money was/is created as a debt to the nation via book entry!

Frederic Morton noted that "We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic. We cannot estimate how many liveried servants, how many Watteaus and Rembrandts, how many thoroughbreds in his descendants' stables, the man by the pillar won that single day."

The Cyclopaedia of Commercial & Business Anecdotes printed in 1865 stated: "The Rothschilds, Wealthiest Bankers in the World. The House of Rothschild is the impersonation of that money power which governs the world."

Baron Philippe de Rothschild described his family as "the richest and most powerful family in the world."(De Rothschild, Philippe, Littlewood, Joan. The Very Candid Autobiography of Baron Phillippe De Rothschild. NY; Ballantine Books. 1984. p.283)

The British economist John A. Hobson’s seminal book “Imperialism” published in 1902, in a section entitled “Economic Parasites of Imperialism”, states: http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/searchbooks.pl?searchtype=BookSearchPara&id=hbsnImp&query=rothschild

“Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?”

Andrew Carnegie, the famous industrialist who was connected to these circles, also discussed how much more powerful City of London financiers were than the monarchy in his text "Triumphant Democracy" (p. 380) - "My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in `the king's Name,' who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs."

Former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said "The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson" (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373)

Kent Cooper served as general manager of the Associated Press from 1925 to 1943, and then became it's executive director. In "Barriers Down", pp. 6-9, he noted that by the beginning of the 20th century, the news agencies Reuters, Wolff, and Havas were a triumvirate that together monopolized international news. On p. 21, he noted that in his circles, the account was that international bankers, led by the Rothschilds, assumed ownership of those agencies at the beginning of the 20th Century. Relevant excerpts are here: http://ia601603.us.archive.org/12/items/ArticlesOfInterest/100111352-Barriers-Down-Excerpts.pdf

Thus we know why they were subsequently seldom mentioned in the world's media, since they owned the media.

The 1919 Encyclopedia Americana noted that "The political events of 1813 raised the House of Rothschild to the important position it has SINCE occupied in the commercial and financial world" It stated further that "much intermarriage among cousins indicates the family is destined long to retain control of European finance"

Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton noted that, "hough they control scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one bears the name Rothschild. Being privately held partnerships, the family houses never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet or any other report of their financial condition."

Even on their website, the Rothschilds note that they are de facto, an agency separate from governments, that acts in an "advisory" capacity, writing, "We are widely regarded as the adviser who best understands the needs of governments and the benefits of a discreet, long-term relationship.": http://www.rothschild.com/gfa/our_clients/governments/

In May 2011, a Swiss banker, who would not be named for fear of the consequences, was interviewed by the Russian magazine NoviDen. He revealed the mentality of these people, what they like to do in their spare time: http://web.archive.org/web/20110723115139/http://noviden.info/article_239.html

"hese people are corrupt, sick in their minds, so sick they are full of vices and those vices are kept under wraps on their orders. Some of them like Strauss-Kahn rape women, others are sado maso, or paedophile and many are into Satanism. When you go in some banks you see these satanistic symbols, like in the Rothschild Bank in Zurich. These people are controlled by black-mail because of the weaknesses they have. They have to follow orders or they will be exposed, they will be destroyed or even killed."

He also noted that, "The big banks are training their staff with Anglo-Saxon values. They are training them to be greedy and ruthless. And greed is destroying Switzerland and everybody else."

He also noted, regarding the powerful policy steering group known as the Bilderberg group: "You have the inner circle who are into Satanism and then there are the naive or less informed people. Some people even think they are doing something good, the outer circle."

So - why did I include all that? Merely to note that also of relevance are recordings of the recent 4th World wilderness Congress that preceded the 1992 Earth Summit. Here people like you and I are called "the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth". And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that "sustainability" measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is "no better person" to spearhead this project than Edmund Leopold de Rothschild, and that he (Rothschild) "epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUdgiehz9dU

We can see the outlines of this operating today. - in a document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf) - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N.M. Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document). In the document, he defines "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and states: "That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.... 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.... Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative." He notes that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". 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." He furthermore states that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading." He states "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and 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." He states that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."

Documents retrieved from the congress from which audio of Edmund de Rothschild was taken state the following (in the introductory email, I endorsed Mullins - an endorsement which I redact because he is such a problematic source, but I stand behind everything else in the email prefacing the document): http://archive.org/download/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125/1-1-the-cobdenClubsPapers.pdf Excerpts are as follows: "The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction. Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970's recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected. The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ... Compulsory cooperation is not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures" and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose. The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. ... We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 ... We stand with Lord Milner's credo. We too are "British Race Patriots" and our patriotism is "the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race". Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system? ...The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. ... outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council. The Security Council of the U.N. will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. ... All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution."|}Pottinger's cats (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)