David Cameron has said it:
“The other feature of our modern world, of this new world, is the sense of insecurity and danger, particularly in foreign affairs and security. The world that maybe some people dreamed of at the conference back in Bournemouth when it looked as if maybe history would end, that Liberal democracy would triumph, that free market economics would slowly progress and we would have a new world order, that world is not going to happen.”
2007 Conservative Party Conference. [–]
Gordon Brown mentioned it a few times:
“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address the balance of the old. In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order. What they meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization. And it’s only now that we can begin to understand that the world order that globalization brings and what it’s going to look like. It’s driven forward now not just by the balance of military strengths, the cold war times or ordinary political power. It’s being driven forward by a seismic shift in economic power that we see around us. But what does the new world order mean for countries like ours who are looking to succeed? I suggest that the countries that are going to succeed are those that combine flexibility, free trade, open markets, with proper stewardship of the environment and investment in education, infrastructure and innovation. And the question for us is how we meet and master all these challenges to ensure Britain enhances its competitiveness in the process and realizes what I believe is our destiny of success in this new world order. So, in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, a new world is emerging. It is a new world order with significantly different and radically new challenges for the future.”
2007, CBI Speech. [–]
Tony Blair discussed it:
“We need now a powerful revival of our alliance. In the world so rapidly changing around us, we cannot take a narrow view of our interests or a short-sighted view of our destiny. We can’t afford to take fright at these changes and go back into isolationism. We can’t avoid the challenges. But we can master them. Together. The transatlantic partnership was never just the foundation of our security. It was the foundation of our way of life. It was forged in experience of the most bitter and anguished kind. Out of it came a new Europe, a new world order, a new consensus as to how life should be lived.”
Apr 21, 2008, Atlantic Council Speech. [–]
Nick Clegg cut to the chase:
“After the economic 9/11, we will face a new world order.” [–]
With the four most prominent UK politicians in recent years talking about a New World Order, it may be of interest to learn what the term actually means. It is often brushed aside as a phrase used by crazy conspiracy theorists or the religious far-right in the United States. Although different groups of citizens do regularly use the term, it was actually coined by academics and politicians; used most often to reference a need for a global system based on westernized political and social ideas. The ideology was born before the “conspiracy theory”, and thus theories have developed due to a lack of transparency within Government and the dubious actions of the powerful people who have used the term publicly.
Former US President, George Bush Senior used the term on a number of occasions.
“This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”
16 January, 1991. [–]
His successor Bill Clinton has used the term:
“…and after 1989 President Bush would say, a phrase I often use myself that we needed a New World Order.” [–]
George W. Bush brought in the founding fathers when referencing the esoteric “New Order of the Ages” from the Great Seal of the United States:
“We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner Freedom Now – they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.”
January 2005, Reelection Speech. [–]
President Obama also mixed it up a little:
“We have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation…We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by our side in Afghanistan and around the globe.”
May 2010, West Point Military Academy [–]
The meaning of New World Order and similar phrases like one world order or international order, is not that complex to understand. Nor is it a hidden mystery, secret or elaborate conspiracy theory. It simply means a new order within the world. A new political or financial system, a new way of managing things across the world.
When an elected official talks of a New World Order or a similar concept, they are talking about a shift in the structure of the world’s governing system and the way single countries interact within the whole. They might be doing this as an observer of the way things seem to be changing, or they might literally be calling for a new global system themselves.
As citizens of the world, we are all impacted by chnages; so when our elected officials or other influential people discuss or call for a New World Order, it most certainly affects us.
DEMOS, a prominent UK think tank, who produced a report in 2010 on the role conspiracy theories play within extremist groups [–], labeled the New World Order a conspiracy theory that could radicalize extremists. However at the same time they stated that it does exist, but only in the context of a “values-based approach to Global Governance“.
Is this a contradiction?
They don’t appear to consider that the very notion of global governance is the contested agenda of the groups they define as extremists and conspiracy theorists.
A basic mainstream definition of the term can found on Wikipedia. It summarizes that the New World Order is:
…primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. [–]
However in collectively coming together to solve alleged world-wide problems we are at the same time building wide reaching bureaucracies and chains of command that can create further problems if gone unchecked, specifically in regard to the subversion of power away from the average citizen.
For example, the European Economic Community was one such collective effort to solve the problem of damaged economies and Hitlerian ideology. Wikipedia states:
After World War II, moves towards European integration were seen by many as an escape from the extreme forms of nationalism which had devastated the continent. [–]
But since its formation the European Union has become a central vehicle for globalization, the process of building a tightly integrated world order.
“Globalization (or globalisation) describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade”. [–]
Different empires for thousands of years have tried to build an integrated world order, many with centralized control. They all failed for various reasons.
Following the the likes of the British Empire but before modern globalization, humanity had generally operated under an order of separate countries and nations, with their own cultures, political systems, religions and hierarchies of control; while maintaining agreements to trade products and the earth’s resources.
There were at times power struggles, such as Soviet Communism vs Capitalism (the cold War) and exploitation of resources, but sovereign nations like Britain were supposed to answer only to the democratic people.
The EU has gone well beyond its initial goals, to the point of encroaching on the national sovereignty of member states and taking power away from the democratic people and in to the hands of a centralized bureaucracy in Brussels.
Its stated goal as quoted from the EU website is:
…the progressive integration of Member States’ economic and political systems and the establishment of a single market based on the free movement of goods, people, money and services. To this end, its Member States cede part of their sovereignty under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which empowers the EU institutions to adopt laws.
The expansion of Global Governance in this context is quite clearly far beyond a “values-based approach” to solving global problems, and has now become an established power structure that millions of people do not accept and were not given a democratic vote on. It is unsure when this “progressive integration” will stop.
Furthermore Herman Van Rompuy the first President of Europe, who was not directly voted for by the people, declared Global Governance during his debut speech:
“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.” [–]
He also declared the democratic nation state redundant: “In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion – it is a lie.” [–]
Some may find it ironic that Adolf Hitler wrote about creating a New World Order [–], and self evidently tried to establish this new order within Europe by military force. To some degree his dream has been accomplished through the slower and more elaborate European Union.
Global Governance has always been on the mind of powerful men.
Indeed, it’s not just politicians, academics or crazed dictators that have called for a New World Order. Powerful bankers and corporate leaders have also pushed for the advancement of Global Governance.
“The powers of financial capitalism had far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”
Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)
And herein lies one of the main problems with the concept of global governance. As we mount “collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems”, no matter how “values-based” those initial efforts might be, entities in banking and business stand to gain through profiteering and further control of markets. This brings with it a whole slew of new problems as these interests become conflicted by additional power.
If we go on peace keeping missions via the UN or NATO to aid war torn regions, or mount an effort to combat terrorism in the middle-east, corporations stand to make millions from pillaging resources, security contracts or for the structural rebuilding of those regions. Bankers stand to make profits from the implementation of new banks, or at least the ability to exert influence over countries through the lending of money for restructuring, or the the lending of money to the war machine, or both. These parties have a vested interest in spreading the conglomerate of western style democracy and monopoly capitalism, because it allows them to expand their corporate and financial empires all over the globe.
Private security firm Blackwater and oil company Halliburton have made millions from the illegal invasion of Iraq [–][–], which was originally sold in part as an ideological war to remove the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, his WMDs and to free the Iraqi people from tryanny. The actions of these companies have caused a laundry list of controversies. Both have been accused of crimes including murdering innocent civilians, extortion and human trafficking; some of which has been investigated by the US Justice Department.
This does not portray a “values based” image as the world globalizes. It present an image of ruthless monoply-capitalism, that is destroying peace the world over. The original values-based image of removing an evil dictator who posed a threat to the world was disgraced, because there were no WMDs! [–]
“You actually cannot sell the idea of freedom, democracy, diversity, as if it were a brand attribute and not reality — not at the same time as you’re bombing people, you can’t.”
Naomi Klein, Shock Doctrine Author
An October 2001, BBC News article is entitled Blair’s Push For New World Order:
The prime minister’s trip to the Middle East was the first time we saw in practice the theme of his party conference speech about establishing a new world order.
Before he was discredited we heard a lot about Tony Blair’s role in unifying the world against terrorism and the alleged rouge nations of the Middle-East. But alongside this facade of a somewhat reasonable aim were huge corporate and financial factors like the Halliburtons and Blackwaters. Since stepping down as Prime Minster Blair himself has made millions from business dealings and the advising of financial institutions in a geopolitical climate he himself helped to create.
…it emerged he had carried out secret deals worth up to £20million with a South Korean oil firm with extensive interests in Iraq, and with the Kuwaiti royal family, who are thought to have paid him £1million to write a report.[–]
In the Summer after the illegal invasion of Iraq JP Morgan Chase, the mega investment bank was selected to operate the Trade Bank of Iraq, giving the Western money powers access to huge oil reserves. They managed billions of dollars to finance imports and exports and led a group of 13 banks representing 13 countries to run the bank for three years.[–]
It just so happens that Tony Blair, who misled the public in the lead up to the invasion went on to be paid £2 million a year as an advisor to JP Morgan. This is clear evidence that there may have been an ulterior motive to Blair’s ideological war-mongering. [–]
Blair’s foreign policy guru Robert Cooper has cast further doubt on what Blair’s New World Order really was. In a Guardian Article he openly called for imperialism. “What is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values.” [–]
The middle-eastern invasions were in part sold as human rights missions to liberate the people, but in turn they’ve given the money interests and politicians imperialist control over parts of the region. Imperialism is always imperialism, no matter what the PR spin.
The motives and results of the push for global governance are therefore demonstrably blurred. The war on terror and the general globalization of westernized democracy and monopoly capitalism cannot solely be explained as “values-based” or the ideological effort to collectively solve world problems, especially not when the reasons given to the public (WMDs) have turned out to be lies. There are also motives to make profits and to expand business empires, which often go against any positive ideology that might be present, and if you dig deeper you end up at the door of imperialism, powerful countries that want to extend their rule over others.
Worryingly we also see the fascist merger of corporation and state. Dick Cheney for example was the CEO of Halliburton before becoming Vice President in the Bush Jr administration, which then invaded Iraq and allowed Halliburton to make massive profits.
Corporations have huge influence over all sides of politics. Before he was elected Prime Minster, David Cameron would take £50,000 for a personal luncheon. [–] Unfortunately the average citizen cannot have lunch with Cameron and nor do they have £50,000 to give in contributions.
Goldman Sachs is a perfect example of how corporate lobbyists influence the actions of the state. President Obama received a total of $994,795 from the investment bank in campaign contributions. [–]
As financial analyst Max Keiser passionately explains:
“Goldman Sachs are scum– that’s the bottom line. They have basically co-opted the government; they’ve co-opted the Treasury Department; the Federal Reserve functionality; they’ve co-opted the Obama administration. Barack Obama dances to Goldman Sachs tune. And they are really crooked and abominable in what they’ve done. Just remember, Hank Paulson took Congress hostage– took them in the backroom and said ‘give us $700 Billion or we’re going to crash this market. He’s an arsonist; he’s an outlaw– and yet he’s praised.” [–]
In another example of corporate power, we can look at the 1953 coup of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. This was carried out by US and British Intelligence agencies [–]; not to advance a peaceful world order, but to prevent Iran from controlling it’s own oil supply, and to protect the corporate interests of BP. Iranian militants retaliated by the taking of US hostages from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. [–]
Today Iran is clearly a target of western leaders and their Israeli allies, who claim they are a nuclear threat, despite this being debunked on a number of occasions.[–] But even then isn’t it the west itself that helped cause the animosity that Iran holds towards us but staging coups and interfering in their affairs? How can Tony Blair or other politicians morally propose Global Governance systems, such as sanctions or military action, to threats that are extremely exaggerated and that they actually helped to create?
While claiming to fight the war on terror on one hand, the Bush administration was financing and backing terrorist group Jundullah within Iran, in order to destabilize the country. [–]
In light of all this, could it be that the financial & corporate elite and the politically disingenuous, instead of being opportunists riding on the back of the “vales-based” political ideology of global governance, are actually the ones driving the ideology, and using political rhetoric about world peace, saving the planet and spreading freedom, to increase their power and to suit their financial and business interests, which obviously benefit from a further globalized and centralized world?
“We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
James Warburg [1896~1969] Banker. Feb. 17, 1950, to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
In light of these congruent political, corporate and financial factors, it’s worth taking a closer look at the roots of Global Governance, and the parties invovled in actively pushing for a New World Order throughout history.
Council on Foreign Relations & Chatham House:
The roots of the CFR and Chatham House do not sit with democratic politicians, humanitarians or great thinkers. They are traced back to English-born mining magnate Cecil Rhodes an ardent believer in white supremacy, and British colonialism. His monopoly of the diamond industry through the De Beers Mining Company, and use of forced labour made him and his associates incredibly wealthy and powerful. Their sights were set on empire.
Prof. Carroll Quigley summarized:
In 1891, Rhodes organized a secret society with members in a “Circle of Initiates” and an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” later organized as the Round Table organization. In 1909-1913, they organized semi-secret groups known as Round Table Groups in the chief British dependencies and the United States. In 1919, they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs [Chatham House]. Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and the United States where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations. After 1925, the Institute of Pacific Relations was set up in twelve Pacific area countries. They were constantly harping on the lessons to be learned from the failure of the American Revolution and the success of the Canadian federation of 1867 and hoped to federate the various parts of the empire and then confederate the whole with the United Kingdom.
Today the US branch of the Rhodes system, the Council on Foreign Relations is recognized as the ‘most influential foreign-policy think tank’ in America [–]. As stated on its website, their mission is to be “a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.”[–] However a consistent theme since the Council’s official inception in 1921 is that a New World Order needs to be created through Global Governance. Therefore their advice to politicians and businessmen will often fall within this ideology
A program started in 2008 for example is called “International Institutions and Global Governance” which aims to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century. [–]
Step back to 1948 and it was the same agenda:
How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?…Out of the prevailing confusion a new world is taking shape… which may point the way toward the new order… That will be the beginning of a real United Nations, no longer crippled by a split personality, but held together by a common faith.
Sir Harold Butler, July 1948, in the CFR’s Foreign Affairs journal.
Whether all members are conscious of it or not, Global Governance is very much the core principal of the CFR. The first incarnation of the think tank was called “The Inquiry”, signed off by President Woodrow Wilson in September 1917 and directed by his influential advisor Edward Mandell House [–], who is now best known for his somewhat prophetic novel “Philip Dru: Administrator” [–], which sees a dictator take control of the United States and then instigate socialism, central banking, a graduated income tax, and tax-free foundations for the wealthy. Other than the dictator and full blown socialism, all became a reality.
Colonel. Edward Madell House
The Inquiry saw about 150 scholars assemble to plan the postwar strategy for the world. It was in these closed board rooms that ‘Wilson’s’ Fourteen Points were drafted. They were globalist in nature, calling for the removal of “all economic barriers” between nations and most importantly the formation of “a general association of nations.” After being presented on the world stage they formed the basis for the end of World War I, the emergence of the League of Nations and in turn the United Nations, the world’s most powerful institution for global governance today.
Ray Stannard Baker, President Wilson’s official biographer said that “Practically nothing – not a single idea – in the covenant of the League [of Nations ] was original with the President”. The ideas were coming from behind the curtain from Colonel House, the unelected Inquiry and the Round Tables. Not very democratic or representative of the general populous.
20 or so members of the Inquiry went to Paris with Wilson for the Peace Conference, which resulted in the German economy being held captive to pay repartitions. Whether intended or not this ultimately aided the Rise of Adolph Hitler; the savior for the German people. Businessmen and Bankers were also amongst the attendees, including Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch.
The conference attendees embraced ‘Wilson’s’ plan for peace, including the formation of a League of Nations. However, under American law, the covenant had to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, which failed to do so, apparently distrusting any supernational organization. Undaunted, Colonel House, along with both British and American peace conference delegates, met in Paris’s Majestic Hotel on May 30, 1919, and resolved to form an “Institute of International Affairs,” with one branch in the United States and one in England. The English branch became the Royal Institute of International Affairs. This institute was to guide public opinion toward acceptance of one-world government or globalism.
Jim Marrs – Rule By Secrecy.
Author Donald Gibson noted in Battling Wall Street The Kennedy Presidency:
“The Royal Institute had been created in 1919 to perpetuate British power in the world, and it helped to create the Council on Foreign Relations as part of an effort to link England’s upper class and its foreign policy interests to those of the United States.”
Robert D. Shulzinger noted in The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs, other than Colonel House, who was now firmly in mainstream politics, out of the other founding members of the CFR “nearly all of them were bankers and lawyers”; not exactly the types of people we associate with world peace.
The British branch of the Council, The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Now shortened to Chatham House) was elitist and globalist to the core. The founder and honorary secretary was Lionel George Curtis, who wrote such books as ‘The Commonwealth of Nations (1916)’ and later ‘The Commonwealth of God (1938)’, arguing that the United States must rejoin the British commonwealth and that the Commonwealth must evolve into a world government.
The first chairman was Earl Robert Cecil a lawyer, and Arnold J. Toynbee CH. became director. He would later call the concept of nationalism a “false god”.
Other founding members were also of the elite nobility: Eustace Sutherland Campbell Percy 1st Baron Percy of Newcastle PC, Sir John Anthony Cecil Tilley CB PC KCMG KCVO, Baron Noel-Baker, and Sir George Walter Prothero, to name but a few.
Later Waldorf Astor, 2nd Viscount Astor of the corporate/political dynasty served as the Institutes’s chairman from 1935 to 1949.
Like the CFR, Chatham House is as openly globalist now as it ever was. A quick look at their 2010 events schedule brings up ‘The Role of Transatlantic Relations in the New World Order -Thursday 8 July 2010 17:00 to 18:00’ – where Minister Davutoğlu will comment on the search for a new global order.
A March 2010 paper entitled Beyond the Dollar: Rethinking the International Monetary System, calls for “A multicurrency reserve system for a multipolar world economy” – essentially the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights, a form of world currency; A system that would be open to serious abuse by powerful bankers, many whom caused the very financial crisis being used to justify it.
In an official 75 year report, Chatham House member Laurence Martin summarizes the purpose of the Institute:
Seventy-five years ago the founders of what was to become Chatham House believed that a new world order was coming into being and that, to help its realization, they had devised a new and fruitful way to improve understanding of international affairs.
The preeminent source on this British/American push for global governance, who has been quoted throughout this article is Dr. Caroll Quigley, who wrote the book “Tragedy and Hope” in 1966.
People might be quick to dismiss his information as conspiracy theory, but that becomes a lot harder when we find that he mostly sympathized with their goals and was granted access to the first hand historical documents. He represented the club, he wasn’t an outsider trying to expose it. Thus his findings should be taken with utmost credence. He explained:
There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
Quigley wished for the agenda to be more open, but there has always been a lack of transparency regarding the ideology for global governance, which is partly responsible for its opposition and some of the more far-fetched conspiracy theories.
Powerful think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs are not necessarily secret societies, but they operate outside of the Government and therefore the scope of the average democratic citizen. These globalist groups can influence policies that affect the people of a nation, but the people are not in a position to influence them back because they aren’t privy to the chain of command. The very concept of developing wide reaching global systems is often counterintuitive to the democracy the average person believes they have.
“Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated! That threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.”
Henry Kissinger, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting.
Most citizens do not even know that their elected officials could be part of a group of people pushing for global governance, actively going against the sovereignty of their nation.
Since its inception a who’s who list of powerful people have been CFR members. Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, to name but a few.
And don’t be fooled in to thinking this is a Republican issue.
Richard Howard, a journalist for the Washington Post wrote an expose in 1993 stating, “The President [Clinton] is a member. So is his Secretary of state, the deputy Secretary, all five of the undersecretaries and several of the assistants.”
A more modern list includes Hilary Clinton, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Al Gore, NY mayor Rudy Giuliani, Condolezza Rice, Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve, neocon Paul Wolfowitz, Colon Powell and even actresses Angelina Jolie! [–]
Obama wrote articles for the CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine before becoming President [–], and his own administration is full of CFR members, including Madeline Albright, Richard Clarke and Zbigniew Brzezinski. [–]
One of the more well known figures in global governance is David Rockefeller and the rest of the Rockefeller clan, who made their fortune in banking and oil, and now use it for political gain.
David is an instrumental member of the CFR as well as other globalist groups and institutions like the Bilderberg Club, the Trilateral Commission, World Bank and IMF. His father John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land that the United Nations headquarters sits on [–]. Of course it’s located in New York, representing the unequal power within the UN.
In his 2002 biography David Rockefeller admitted the push for a globalized New World Order:
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Of course a lot of people do not know who David Rockefeller is or that he has admitted to centralizing the world’s power structure in to fewer hands. That might be because as Prof. Quigley said, they keep it under wraps. Some of the news media also conspire to keep it a secret.
The Trilateral Commission founded by Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who admittedly helped mold the foundations of what would become elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups during the Soviet Afghan War, was created to unite the trilateral powers of Europe, North America, and Asia. David Rockefeller told the Trilateral Commission in 1991:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years.”
Another example of this “discretion” is found if we go back to a 1976 edition of Transition Magazine (Africa’s leading intellectual journal; so well away from the average person’s inquisitive eyes). The late Californian senator Alan Cranston wrote: “The more talk about world government, the less chance of achieving it…because it frightens people who would accept the concept of world law.”
But don’t the democratic people have the right to be frightened of world government? Isn’t it a form of propaganda to keep the debate away from the people?
The World Federalist Movement (now merged with other groups) was set-up primarily to push for Global Governance.[–] The late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, who had an immense following and an important position that shaped people’s perceptions through the media, was a World Federalist and was given the WFA’s top award. During the acceptance speech he was treated to a personal video message from Hillary Clinton [–], congratulating him for supporting what we can assume was the same agenda that she herself supports. A New World Order.
In accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at the ceremony at the United Nations, Cronkite said:
“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”
With the media on-board it’s a lot harder to to bring the debate in to the mass public arena. What right do an elite have to develop an agenda without first bringing it to the public, without making it a central issue to all political campaigns?
In the UK all three mainstream political parties whether knowingly or unknowingly, or whether justly or unjustly, can be described as globalist in nature. Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg have all called for a new world order.
Cutting through the rhetoric, Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats all agree when it comes to issues that require global systems and further global integration.
For example they are all pro European Union, the system that forces the country to cede its sovereignty to Brussels without a democratic vote.
They are all invested in the hotly debated theory of man made Global Warming, which brings with it global regulations and global carbon taxes.
Despite the disastrous economic collapse, they are all happy to keep the global banking system in its current form, which allows corporate banks to create money out of thin air through the fractional reserve system, and then force the people to be indebted through the Government credit line. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has openly called for a more integrated world financial system as the solution to the recession.
And they are all pro war in the middle-east, which is aiding the expansion of corporate globalization.
Many people do not consider this core set of policies when going to the polls, because the media choose to focus on smaller framed differences. For example instead of debating on the failed monetary system, what to replace it with and what punishment the culprits should face, they debate on how many cuts to make and over what time period to make them.
Instead of debating about being in or out of the EU, they debate about superficial factors within it, because they agree that the EU itself is needed.
Instead of debating the reasons for and against the wars in the Middle East, they will debate on strategy, funding or time-frame, because they agree that the wars themselves are just.
Instead of debating the underpinning science of global warming, they debate how best to invest in green energies and how to develop carbon schemes, because they agree with the theory itself.
Is it anti-democratic for parties to believe in the same things? No…but it is anti-democratic to present them in the media as the only choices, without also bringing up the implications of global governance. Believe it or not there are more than 3 political parties in the UK, and some of those are banking reformists, anti-Europe, global warming skeptics and anti-war.
One World Company Ltd
We’ve discussed the meaning and implications of the New World Order, established that the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and other groups operate with the goal of global governance, and that this goal is often hidden from the general public with some of the media on-board.
These groups are also aided by corporate and financial interests that lobby and utilize trillions in order to advance the global systems that suit their needs.
Although they might not always know the outcome, in hindsight several major events such as World War II, show how the elite often help cause the very wars and problems they later benefit from, as we foolishly accept their further integrated global systems to save us.
The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest, was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II…The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 — and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.
Antony C. Sutton, Wallstreet and the Rise of Hitler.
Are the Rockefeller family working for world peace when they aid men like Hitler, or are they really out for power in a centralized global society? It would have been much harder to create the United Nations and the EU without Hitler being used as a bogyman example of what might happen without them.
George Bush’s grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany…The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. [–]
Can a family that made their money from oil and Nazis be trusted when they call for a New World Order?
Institutions like the World Bank and IMF also appear disingenuous in their quest for world and international systems, often providing the mechanism for corporations to expand across the globe.
John Perkins whose whistleblowing book became a best seller, sheds more light on the operations of the international loan system.
We will identify a country that has resources our corporations covet, like oil. And then, arrange a huge loan to that country from the World Bank or one of its sister organizations.
But the money never actually goes to that country, instead it goes to our big corporations to build infrastructure projects like hydroelectric power plants, industrial parks, ports. Things that benefit a few rich people in that country, in addition to our corporations, but really don’t have the majority of people involved. However, those people, the whole country is left holding huge debt, and such a big debt that they can’t repay it and that’s part of the plan, that they can’t repay it.
And so at some point we economic hit men go back to them and say “listen, you owe us a lot of money, you can’t pay your debt so sell your oil real cheap to our oil companies. Allow us to build a military base in your country or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world like Iraq, or go with us on the next UN road.”
To have their electric utility companies privatised, their water and sewage system privatised and sold to US corporations or other multinational corporations. So there’s that whole mushrooming thing and it’s so typical of the way the IMF and the World Bank work. Is you put a country in debt, and such a big debt it can’t repay it. And then you offer to refinance that debt, and pay even more interest. And you demand this quid pro quo, which you call a conditionality, or “good governance” which means basically that they’ve got to sell off: their resources, including many of their social services; their utility companies; their school system; sometimes their penal systems; their insurance systems, to foreign corporations.
John Perkins the Economic Hitman.
Lets not forget, third world and financially ruined countries only need loans because corporations have pillaged their resources and powerful western governments have interfered in their politics.
The machine that decimated them then offers a dubious solution that ultimately still benefits the machine. Is the World Bank and IMF there to give financial support on a global scale, or is it there for corporate interests to exert control on a global scale?
In Memorandum 200 [–], written by Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State and National Security advisor, he lays out official US foreign policy regarding population control. Kissinger (a nobel “peace” prize winner) explained that the threat of competition from developing nations such as Africa posed a serious problem for America’s strategic, economic, and military interests, so by the year 2000 he advised that “a two-child family on average” should be reached throughout the world. The plan was to utilize the UN, the IMF and World Bank to fund the measures through their aid and loan programs. Countries obtaining aid would also have to agree to implement population reduction policy as a prerequisite.
This didn’t always go down well, so the globalists had to adopt a more sugar-coated approach. In a 1992 operations evaluation [–], the World Bank wrote, “Political sensitivities about population-control policies of foreigners made it difficult for Bank staff to breach the topic with governments…The Bank’s current approach in Latin America is to focus on reproductive health and safe motherhood as the rationale for family planning.” The report continued, “If the Bank wants to work in countries that do not accept population control as the rationale, it must base its population program on a broader and more flexible set of principles. This could start from a recognition that the overall objective is promotion of sustainable development in living standards…”
The Club of Rome, another “think tank” was formed in 1968 at a private estate in Bellagio, Italy, owned by the Rockefellers, and was fundamental in steering the modern day environmental ideology.
They claim “we are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse” and “our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society.”
How real is that threat? It’s still hotly debated. Many scientists disagree that man made CO2 is the driver of global warming.
Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist who claims the Sun regulates the climate, was the only person to predict and warn the public that there would be record cold spells in the UK in 2010. The warmists were still forecasting a mild winter!
We now know from the revelations of climate gate and what has followed, that the man made theory of global warming is failed science based on fraudulent data…why are they doing it?
Tony Blair gave a bit of a clue when he said the Iraq war was right, despite there being no WMDs to justify it…they have another motive. It’s about control of world energy supplies, it’s about creating a new bubble of false value through carbon trading, which is now worth over £100bn a year.
At the same time such a world mechanism of so called aid and carbon assistance to the third world will enable control of developing world economies to keep the west ahead.
Piers Corbyn, 2009. [–]
And the Club of Rome are admittedly not out for facts about the climate anyway.
In their own words the club has stated that divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The Club of Rome, 1993, The First Global Revolution. [–]
So when Bill Gates (a corporate billionaire), gets up on stage and shows a jovial equation claiming that because Humans = CO2 we must subtract humans [–], it might be worth having a more indepth debate about the forces behind the theories of man made climate change and population reduction. Is this really about sustainable development and saving the planet, or something closer to Henry Kissinger’s aim of keeping the corporate competition from developing?
“His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period, when really a ‘New World Order’ can be created. It’s a great opportunity.”
Henry Kissinger on Obama’s Presidency, 2009, CNBC.
Daniel Estulin, an investigative journalist and author prefers to call the push for global governance, One World Company Ltd. Judging by the corporate interests involved, he makes a solid case.
“…somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.”
David Rockefeller – Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.
Estulin focuses his work on the Bilderberg Group, an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. In a speech to the European Parliament in 2010 he stated:
In the world of international finance, there are those who steer the events and those who react to the events. While the latter are better known, greater in numbers, and seemingly more powerful, the true power rests with the former. At the centre of the global financial system are the financial oligarchy, today represented by the Bilderberg group.
The Bilderberg organization is dynamic, in that it changes with the times, absorbs and creates new parts, while excreting the remains of the decaying parts. Members come and go, but the system itself has not changed. It is a self-perpetuating system, a virtual spider web of interlocked financial, political, economic and industry interests.
Now, Bilderberg isn’t a secret society. It is not an evil, all-seeing eye. There is no conspiracy even though a lot of people with their infantile fantasies see it as such. No group of people, and I don’t care how powerful they are, sit around the table in dark room, holding hands, staring at a crystal ball, planning the world’s future.
It’s a meeting of people who represent a certain ideology.
Not One World Government or New World Order as too many people mistakenly believe. Rather, the ideology is of a ONE WORLD COMPANY LIMITED.
Back in 1968, at a Bilderberg meeting in Canada, George Ball, the then Under-secretary for Economic Affairs with JFK and Johnson said: “Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate management to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?”
The idea behind each and every Bilderberg meeting is to create what they themselves call THE ARISTOCRACY OF PURPOSE between European and North American elites on the best way to manage the planet. In other words, the creation of a global network of giant cartels, more powerful than any nation on Earth, destined to control the necessities of life of the rest of humanity, obviously from their vantage point, for our own good and in our benefit – THE GREAT UNWASHED AS THEY CALL US.
Here is a headline from a 2010 TimesOnline article on Bilderberg:
Shhh … It’s Bilderberg Time – It’s a secret conference. Top powerbrokers go there. But what if there’s no there there?
This immature coverage of the meeting is commonplace in the mainstream media, who fail year after year to mount any serious investigation.
Admitted UK attendees have included Prime Minsters Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Edward Heath, Alec Douglas-Home (former Chairman of the Bilderberg Group) and Margaret Thatcher. As well as well known politicians Ken Clarke (on the steering committee), George Osborne, Peter Mandelson and Ed Balls.
I guess it’s not important then?
On the US side attendees have included Presidents Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton and Obama. As well as Hilary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Rick Perry and representatives of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Not important at all.
Microsoft, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, IBM, Deutsche Bank, ABC News and CBC have all had representatives attend.
And Royalty like Prince Charles, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Sofía of Spain and Juan Carlos I of Spain, have also attended.
In truth you can’t get a more high profile Euro-American meeting, and the democratic citizens of the many nations represented deserve full disclosure from their elected officials who attend, especially when the corporate world is so deeply involved.
The EU itself seems to have been one of the many projects nurtured by the Bilderbergers.
The 1955 Bilderberg summary report, leaked online notes the “Pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market.” And “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”
Two years later, the European Economic Community (EEC) was born.
Belgian viscount and Bilderberg-chairman Étienne Davignon confirmed in an interview with the EU Observer that it was Bilderberg that also helped to create the EURO currency.
It’s foolish to label those who fear a New World Order (the very term used by those in power) right wing conspiracy theorists, anti-corporate communists or Christian end times nutters. Everybody perceives globalization in a different way according to their belief system. But they DO perceive it. Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative, or whether you don’t vote at all, the agenda includes YOU and your family. At the very least we should have open public debate on the pros and cons of global governance before it becomes a full blown reality.
You can make the argument that as one species, yes we do need to come together and aim for equality and world peace. The so called “values based approach.” The concept of nations and races is a dividing principal that may be holding us back. Global governance is not inherently bad.
However those in power consistently prove themselves to be immoral and destructive. They do not practice what they preach. Coming together for world peace is one thing. Being secretly forced together in to a control system operated by an elite class is something else entirely.
The very secrecy of the global governance agenda makes it unclear how much of it is organized conspiracy and how much is coincidental. However with the evidence presented in this article it would be extremely naive to think that there aren’t groups of people actively pushing for a nefarious New World Order. Whether they think in such broad terms or not.
No matter what got us here, the world is becoming further and further integrated, with power in fewer and fewer hands. Perhaps it’s time to truly discuss the implications of that, rather than framing it as either a conspiracy theory or something well-meaning politicians are calling for.