Historical Analysis of the Global Elites: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing’

Part 1: 5,000 Years Setting the Stage

By Robert J. Burrowes

According to a video published by the World Economic Forum in 2016, by 2030 ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll Be Happy.’

See «8 predictions for the world in 2030’.

Clearly, if this prediction is to come true, then many things must happen. Let me identify why the World Economic Forum believes it will happen and then investigate these claims. Among other questions, I will examine whether those who will own nothing will include the Rothschild, Rockefeller and other staggeringly wealthy families. Or, perhaps, whether they just mean people like you and me.

In fact, a primary intention behind the Elite’s ongoing technocratic coup, initiated in January 2020, is to trigger a process of depopulation, as well fundamentally reshape world order including by turning those humans left alive into “transhuman slaves”, drive the global economy to collapse and implement the final redistribution of global wealth from everyone else to this Elite.

Let me start with the briefest of histories so that what is happening can be understood as the ultimate conclusion of a long-standing agenda, identify who I mean by the ‘Global Elite’ (and its agents), then present the evidence to explain how this is happening and, most importantly, a comprehensive strategy to defeat it.

Needless to say, in the interests of keeping this study manageable, many critical historical events – including how imperialism and colonialism, the international slave trade, a great number of wars and coups, Wall Street support for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and precipitation of the Great Depression in 1929, were used to advance the Elite program – are not addressed in this investigation. But for accounts of the latter two events which provide evidence consistent with the analysis offered below, see Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution and The Secrets of the Federal Reserve.

A Brief Economic History

Following the Neolithic revolution 12,000 years ago, agriculture allowed human settlement to supersede the hunter-gatherer economy. However, while the Neolithic revolution occurred spontaneously in several parts of the world, some of the Neolithic societies that emerged in Asia, Europe, Central America and South America resorted to increasing degrees of social control, ostensibly to achieve a variety of social and economic outcomes, including increased efficiency in food production.

Civilizations emerged just over 5,000 years ago and, utilizing this higher degree of social control, were characterized by towns or cities, efficient food production allowing a large minority of the community to be engaged in more specialized activities, a centralized bureaucracy and the practice of skilled warfare. See ‘A Critique of Human Society since the Neolithic Revolution’.

With the emergence of civilization, elites of a local nature (such as the Pharoahs of Egypt), elites with imperial reach (including Roman emperors), elites of a religious nature (such as Popes and officials of the Vatican), elites of an economic character (particularly the City of London Corporation) and elites of a ‘national’ type (especially the monarchies of Europe) progressively emerged, essentially to manage the administration associated with maintaining and expanding their realms (political, economic and/or religious).

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 formally established the nation-state system in Europe. Enriched by the long-standing and profitable legacy of their control over local domestic populations, support for the imperial conquest of non-European lands, colonial subjugation of indigenous peoples and the international slave trade, European elites, backed by military violence, were able to impose a long series of changes over national political, economic and legal systems which facilitated the emergence of industrial capitalism in Europe in the 18^th century.

These interrelated political, economic and legal changes facilitated scientific research that was increasingly geared towards utilizing new resources and technological innovation that drove the ongoing invention of machinery and the harnessing of coal-fired power to make industrial production possible.

Beyond this, and following several centuries of more and less formal versions of it, Elite political and economic imperatives drove the ‘legal’ enclosure of the Commons to force people off their land and into the poorly-paid labour force needed in the emerging industrial cities. In these cities, an ongoing series of developments in the organization of work in factories, electrification, banking, and other changes and technologies dramatically expanded the gap between rich and poor. Along with subsequently imposed changes to education and, later, healthcare, national economies and the global economy were increasingly structured to profoundly disconnect ‘ordinary’ people from their land, traditional knowledge and long-standing healthcare practices to make them dependent while dramatically reinforcing an institutional reality progressively consolidated since the dawn of human civilization: Elite control ensured that the economy perpetually redistributed wealth from those who have less to those who have more.

As noted by Adam Smith, for example, in his classic work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations published in 1775: ‘All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind’.

And this was exemplified, for example, by the 150-year struggle between the bankers working to establish a privately-owned central bank in the newly independent United States and those Presidents (such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln) and members of Congress who worked tirelessly to defeat it. In fact: ‘Most of the founding fathers realized the potential dangers of banking and feared bankers’ accumulation of wealth and power.’ Why?

Having observed how the privately-owned British central bank, the Bank of England, had run up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament had been forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, the founders in the US understood the evils of a privately-owned central bank, which Benjamin Franklin later claimed was the real cause of the American Revolution.

As James Madison, principal author of the US Constitution argued: ‘History records that the Money Changers used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance.’ Another founder, Thomas Jefferson, put it this way: ‘I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.’ As it turns out, the battle over who would get the power to issue US money raged from 1764, changing hands eight times, until the bankers’ final deceitful victory in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. ‘The battle over who gets to issue our money has been the pivotal issue throughout the history of the United States. Wars are fought over it. Depressions are caused to acquire it. Yet after WWI, this battle was rarely mentioned in the newspapers or history books. Why? By WWI, the Money Changers with their dominant wealth had seized control of most of the nation’s press.’ Watch The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America (with the relevant section of the four-part transcript of the video available here: ‘The Money Masters: Part I’.)

Why the objection to a private central bank? Well, consider the formation and ownership of the inaccurately named Bank of England, established in 1694.

By the end of the C17^th, England was in financial ruin: 50 years of more or less continuous wars with France and Holland had depleted it. So government officials asked the bankers for the loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. What did these bankers want in return? ‘The price was high: a government-sanctioned, privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing.’ It became the world’s first privately-owned central bank and, although it was deceptively called the Bank of England to make people think it was part of the government, it was not. Moreover, like any other private corporation, the Bank of England sold shares to get started. ‘The investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up 1,250,000 British pounds in gold coins, to buy their shares in the bank. But only 750,000 pounds was ever received.’ Despite that, the bank was duly chartered in 1694 and started the business of loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.

Let me restate that for clarity: The British government legislated to create a privately-owned central bank (that is, a bank owned by a small group of wealthy individuals) that loaned out vast amounts of money it did not have so that it could make a profit by charging interest.

This practice is called ‘fractional reserve banking’ to make it sound like some sophisticated economic concept rather than a deceitful practice that, should you or I do it, we would be jailed. ‘In exchange the Bank would loan the British politicians as much of the new currency as they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people.’ In other words, the Bank could not lose.

So, as William T. Still notes: ‘legalization of the Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain.’

‘Unfortunately’, he goes on, ‘nearly every nation now has a privately controlled central bank, using the Bank of England as their basic model. Such is the power of these central banks, that they soon take total control over a nation’s economy. It soon amounts to nothing else than a plutocracy, rule by the rich.’ Watch The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America (with the relevant section of the four-part transcript of the video available here: ‘The Money Masters: Part I’.)

Before proceeding, if how the banking system works isn’t your strong point, this brief video does a good job of spelling out essential points in a non-technical way. Watch ‘Banking – the Greatest Scam on Earth’.

And for a thoughtful explanation of the meaning and history of money, see Nick Szabo’s superb article  ‘Shelling Out: The Origins of Money’.

In any case, the fundamental point is simple: After 5,000 years, the various processes by which local elites, then ‘national’ elites, then international elites, and now the Global Elite have continuously asserted their control to enhance their capacity to shape how the world works and to accumulate wealth has now reached its climax. Thus we are on the brink of being herded into an Elite-controlled technocracy in which, as the World Economic Forum makes clear: By 2030 ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll Be Happy.’

So you will own nothing.

And why would you be happy about that? Because you will be a transhuman slave: an organism that no longer even owns their own mind.

Who is the Global Elite and How does it Operate?

Many authors have, directly or indirectly, addressed this question and each has come up with their own nuanced combination of wealthy individuals and families, their political connections, as well as the financial instruments and organizational structures through which their power is gained and exercised.

For the purposes of this study, I am going to define the Global Elite as those families that had acquired their vast wealth and firmly established their preeminent political and economic power in global society by the end of the 19^th century. These families have thus played the central role in shaping institutions and events both before but also since that time, thus providing the framework in which other wealthy people have since emerged.

In order to perform their fundamental role in shaping the modern world to serve their purposes, this Elite has facilitated the creation of a vast network of agents – corporations, institutions, other families and individuals – who are owned and/or controlled by this Elite and act as ‘fronts’ to advance Elite interests. In any given period, the Elite families remain largely unchanged (while succeeding generations of individuals further the families’ interests) but the organizational and individual agents through which these families work vary, depending on Elite aims in the contexts it precipitates.

Let me briefly illustrate my approach by using one family – the ‘House of Rothschild’ – as a case study before moving onto a wider description of how Elite families use their wealth to shape corporations, institutions, events and people to serve their own purposes.

This example is drawn from the official Rothschild Archive and two (sometimes conflicting) Rothschild-authorized accounts of the family’s history written at different times. See The Rothschild Archive, The House of Rothschild – Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848 and The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait.

In addition, the account draws on sources that report neutrally on Rothschild involvement as well as some sources that are critical. These sources are cited in context below.

By the mid-18^th century, the ancestors of Mayer Amschel had long been small merchants in the town ghetto of Frankfurt. But, as a Jew without a family name and before street numbering was used, Mayer was also known by the name some ancestors had used on the house sign where they once lived: Rothschild (Red Shield). With more ability than other merchants and having been sent to learn the rudiments of business in the firm of Wolf Jakob Oppenheim, he became a dealer in rare coins, medals and antiques, the buyers of which were almost invariably aristocratic collectors, including William, Hereditary Prince of Hesse-Kassel. It was this business that enabled Mayer Amschel to accumulate the capital to move into banking, a natural outgrowth of his policy of extending credit to some of his clients. His wealth started to increase rapidly as he focused more on state and merchant banking, both local and international.

Image: Jacob Rothschild (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

With a policy of seeking little profit from interest on loans while seeking trade concessions in other areas, seeking clientele only among ‘the noblest personages in Germany’, secret bookkeeping in parallel with the official one and, later, deploying his five sons to replicate his style and activities in England (Nathan, who, after a few years in Manchester, established himself in the City of London), Paris (Jakob, known as James), Naples (Kalman, or Carl), Vienna (Salomon) as well as Frankfurt (where eldest son Amschel eventually succeeded father Mayer), the Rothschild dynasty and ‘multinational business model’ quickly established itself throughout Europe. Critically, it was serviced by the maintenance of close relationships with leading political figures and salaried agents working in financial markets who provided essential political and commercial news, as well as private communications channels (including coaches with secret compartments) that worked with enormous efficiency.

And it was this ‘Red Shield’ communication network, later operating under Royal patronage, combined with a certain audacity, that enabled the Rothschilds to profit handsomely from a variety of adverse circumstances including the restrictions on trade between England and the continent which characterized the Napoleonic period, and the Napoleonic Wars as well. This included smuggling vast amounts of contraband goods from England to the continent and transferring a substantial hoard of gold bullion through France to finance the feeding of Wellington’s army.

Most spectacularly, and despite family efforts to suppress awareness of this fact, the Rothschilds profited enormously from their privileged notice that Wellington defeated Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, as recorded by William T. Still and Patrick S.J. Carmack in their 3.5 hour documentary The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America (with the relevant section of the four-part transcript of the video available here: ‘The Money Masters: Part II’.)

How did this happen?

Following a long series of wars across Europe and the western Mediterranean, during which he was very successful, rapidly promoted and, in 1804, elected Emperor of France, Napoleon was eventually defeated. He abdicated and was exiled to Elba, an island off the Tuscan coast, in 1814 but escaped nine months later in February 1815.

As he returned to Paris, French troops were sent out to capture Napoleon but such was his charisma that ‘the soldiers rallied around their old leader and hailed him as their emperor once again.’ And, having borrowed funds to rearm, in March 1815 Napoleon’s freshly equipped army marched out to be ultimately defeated by Britain’s Duke of Wellington at Waterloo less than three months later. As Still remarks: ‘Some writers claimed Napoleon borrowed 5 million pounds from the Bank of England to rearm. But it appears these funds actually came from Ubard Banking House in Paris. Nevertheless, from about this point on, it was not unusual for privately controlled central banks to finance both sides in a war.’

‘Why would a central bank finance opposing sides in a war?’ Still asks. ‘Because war is the biggest debt generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough to hold out the vain hope of victory, and the ultimate winner is given enough to win. Besides, such loans are usually conditioned upon the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished.’

While the outcome of the battle at Waterloo was certainly in doubt, back in London Nathan Rothschild planned to use the outcome, no matter who won or lost, to try to seize control over the British stock and bond market and possibly even the Bank of England. How did he do this? Here is one account. ‘Rothschild stationed a trusted agent, a man named Rothworth, on the north side of the battlefield, closer to the English Channel.’ Once the battle had been decided, at the cost of many thousands of French, English and other European lives, Rothworth headed immediately for the Channel. He delivered the news to Nathan Rothschild, a full 24 hours before Wellington’s own courier arrived with the news.

Rothschild hurried to the stock market and, with all eyes on him given the Rothschild’s legendary communications network was well known, others present observed Rothschild knowing that if Wellington had been defeated, and Napoleon was again at large in Europe, the British financial situation would become grave indeed. Rothschild began selling his consoles (British government bonds). ‘Other nervous investors saw that Rothschild was selling. It could only mean one thing: Napoleon must have won, Wellington must have lost.’

The market plummeted. Soon everyone was selling their own consoles and prices dropped sharply. ‘But then Rothschild started secretly buying up the consoles through his agents for only a fraction of their worth hours before.’

Fallacious? As Still concludes this recounting of the episode: ‘One hundred years later, the New York Times ran the story that Nathan Rothschild’s grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with that stock market story in it. The Rothschild family claimed that the story was untrue and libelous. But the court denied the Rothschilds’ request and ordered the family to pay all court costs.’

In any case, having built their initial fortune using various means – some of which, as just illustrated, were neither moral nor legal – throughout the 19^th century the Rothschild family continued to accumulate wealth through the international bond market, which they played a key role in developing, as well as other forms of financial business: bullion broking and refining, accepting and discounting commercial bills, direct trading in commodities, foreign exchange dealing and arbitrage, even insurance. The Rothschilds also had a select group of clients – usually royal and aristocratic individuals whom they wished to cultivate – to whom they offered a range of ‘personal banking services’ ranging from large personal loans (such as that to the Austrian Chancellor Prince Metternich) to a first class private postal service (for Queen Victoria). The family also had substantial mining interests and was a major industrial investor backing the construction of railway lines in Europe in the 1830s and 1840s. But, apart from its other interests, the family continued to be heavily involved in ‘the money trade’.

‘From 1870 onwards, London was the centre of Britain’s greatest export: money. Vast quantities of savings and earnings were gathered and invested at considerable profit through the international merchant banks of Rothschild, Baring, Lazard, and Morgan in the City’. See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, p. 220.

But what, exactly, is the City?

The City of London Corporation, an independent square mile in the heart of London, was founded in about AD50 and quickly established itself as an important commercial centre which ultimately gave birth to some of the world’s greatest financial institutions such as the London Stock Exchange, Lloyd’s of London and, in 1694, the Bank of England. The City’s ‘modern period’ is sometimes dated from 1067.

However, as explained by Nicholas Shaxson, the City ‘is an ancient, [semi-foreign] entity lodged inside the British nation state; a “prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world”, as a 19^th century would-be City reformer put it…. the corporation is an offshore island inside Britain, a tax haven in its own right.’ Of course, the term ‘tax haven’ is a misnomer, ‘because such places aren’t just about tax. What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering. The notion of elsewhere (hence the term “offshore”) is central. The Cayman Islands’ tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the 50,000-odd Caymanians, but help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us.’

In the words of Shaxson:

The City’s ‘elsewhere’ status in Britain stems from a simple formula: over centuries, sovereigns and governments have sought City loans, and in exchange the City has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of Britain must submit. The City does have a noble tradition of standing up for citizens’ freedoms against despotic sovereigns, but this has morphed into freedom for money. See ‘The tax haven in the heart of Britain’.

As Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor explain it then, by 1870:

City influence and investments crossed national boundaries and raised funds for governments and companies across the entire world. The great investment houses made billions, their political allies and agents grew wealthy…. Edward VII, both as king and earlier as Prince of Wales, swapped friendship and honours for the generous patronage of the Rothschilds, Cassel, and other Jewish banking families like the Montagus, Hirschs and Sassoons…. The Bank of England was completely in the hands of these powerful financiers, and the relationship went unchallenged….

The flow of money into the United States during the nineteenth century advanced industrial development to the immense benefit of the millionaires it created: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt and their associates. The Rothschilds represented British interests, either directly through front companies or indirectly through agencies that they controlled. Railroads, steel, shipbuilding, construction, oil and finance blossomed…. These small groups of massively rich individuals on both sides of the Atlantic knew one another well, and the Secret Elite in London initiated the very select and secretive dining club, the Pilgrims, that brought them together on a regular basis. See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, p. 220.

To choose one example from those just listed, you can read an official account of the Rothschild family’s early involvement in oil production, including its ‘decisive influence’ in the formation of Royal Dutch Shell, in the Rothschild Archive. See ‘Searching for Oil in Roubaix’.

Beyond their investments in the industries just listed, however, the Rothschilds had significant media interests: Their Paribas Bank ‘controlled the all-powerful news agency Havas, which in turn owned the most important advertising agency in France.’ See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, p. 214.

And, by the late 19^th century, direct Rothschild investment in major ‘armaments companies’ (now better known as weapons corporations) and related industries was substantial with official biographer Niall Ferguson candidly noting ‘If late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its “military-industrial complex” the Rothschilds were unquestionably part of it.’ See The House of Rothschild – Volume 2 – The World’s Banker, 1849-1998, p. 579.

Of course, as noted previously, the Rothschild family is not the only family that uses its wealth to exercise enormous economic and political power and to profit from war, but the evidence suggests that it has long been the most deeply entrenched in the institutions, including those it has created, that facilitate the exercise of this power. Moreover, it is linked to many other wealthy families through a multitude of arrangements as will be shown.

Consider the following examples of how the power of wealth is exercised and note the names of some other wealthy families.

Invariably working ‘in the background’, elite figures spend considerable time manipulating ‘well-positioned’ people, and none are more adept at this than the Rothschilds. To cite just one of many examples, ‘both the great estates of Balmoral and Sandringham, so intimately associated with the British royal family, were facilitated, if not entirely paid for, through the largess of the House of Rothschild’ thus maintaining the long-standing Rothschild tradition of gifting ‘loans’ – that is, bribes, as the brothers had long before privately acknowledged – to royalty (and other key officials).

Of course, this manipulation of people is done to ensure the creation of particular institutions or to precipitate or facilitate a particular sequence of events. Just one obvious example of this occurred when the British government was manipulated into the Boer War of 1899-1902 by ‘the secret society of Cecil Rhodes’ as it was originally known and of which Lord (Nathan) Rothschild was a founding member along with Alfred, later Lord, Milner who succeeded Rhodes as head of this exclusive secret club. While the British public was given a more palatable pretext for this war via the media, it was fundamentally fought to defend and consolidate the rich South African gold-mining interests of wealthy businesspeople, including the Rothschilds. By the time the war ended, the Transvaal’s gold was finally in their hands. The cost? ‘32,000 deaths in the concentration camps, [of whom more than 26,000 were women and children]; 22,000 British Empire troops were killed and 23,000 wounded. Boer casualties numbered 34,000. Africans killed amounted to 14,000.’ See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, pp. 23 & 38-50 and The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden.

History: The Federal Reserve Cartel: Freemasons and The House of Rothschild

The US Federal Reserve System

In his classic work The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, in which he describes the formation, structure and function of the US Federal Reserve System, which governs banking in the United States, G. Edward Griffin identified the seven men and who they represented, at the secret meeting held at the private resort of J.P. Morgan on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia in November 1910 when the System was conceived (and later passed as The Federal Reserve Act in 1913).

The seven men at this meeting represented the great financial institutions of Wall Street and, indirectly, Europe as well: that is, they represented one-quarter of the total wealth of the entire world. They were Nelson W. Aldrich, Republican ‘whip’ in the US Senate, Chair of the National Monetary Commission and father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr.; Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, President of the 1st National Bank of New York; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York, representing William Rockefeller; Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company and later to become head of the System; and Paul M. Warburg, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, representing the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe.

But lest you think that there is some ‘diversity’ here, long-standing ties generated from huge financial injections at crucial times meant that several other key banks owed much to Rothschild wealth. For example, in 1857 a run on U.S. banks saw the bank Peabody, Morgan and Company in deep trouble as four other banks were driven out of business. But Peabody, Morgan and Company was saved by the Bank of England. Why? Who initiated the rescue? According to Docherty and Macgregor, ‘The Rothschilds held immense sway in the Bank of England and the most likely answer is that they intervened to save the firm. Peabody retired in 1864, and Junius Morgan inherited a strong bank with powerful links to Rothschild.’ Junius was the father of J.P. Morgan. See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, p. 222.

A similar thing happened when Nathaniel Rothschild headed the Bank of England committee that rescued Barings Bank from imminent collapse in 1890. But other big banks ‘were beholden to or fronts for the Rothschilds…. Like J.P. Morgan, Barings and Kuhn Loeb, the M.M. Warburg Bank owed its survival and ultimate success to Rothschild money.’ To reiterate then: ‘by the early twentieth century numerous major banks, including J.P. Morgan and Barings, and armaments firms, were beholden to or fronts for the Rothschilds.’ And this had many advantages. J.P. Morgan, who was deeply involved with the Pilgrims – an exclusive club that linked major U.K. and U.S. businesspeople – was clearly perceived as an upright Protestant guardian of capitalism, who could trace his family roots to pre-Revolutionary times, so by acting in the interests of the London Rothschilds he shielded their American profits from the poison of anti-Semitism.

But the connections do not end there. Superficially, ‘there were periods of blistering competition between the investment and banking houses, the steel companies, the railroad builders and the two international goliaths of oil, Rockefeller and Rothschilds, but by the turn of the century the surviving conglomerates adopted a more subtle relationship, which avoided real competition.’ A decade earlier, Baron de Rothschild had accepted an invitation from John D. Rockefeller to meet in New York behind the closed doors of Standard Oil’s headquarters on Broadway where they had quickly reached a confidential agreement. ‘Clearly both understood the advantage of monopolistic collusion.’ The apparent rivalry between major stakeholders in banking, industry and commerce has long been a convenient facade, which they are content to leave much of the world believing. See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War, pp. 222-225.

Beyond business and financial links of this nature, of course, there is marriage. For example, according to  Dean Henderson: ‘The Warburgs, Kuhn Loebs, Goldman Sachs, Schiffs and Rothschilds have intermarried into one big happy banking family. The Warburg family… tied up with the Rothschilds in 1814 in Hamburg, while Kuhn Loeb powerhouse Jacob Schiff shared quarters with Rothschilds in 1785. Schiff immigrated to America in 1865. He joined forces with Abraham Kuhn and married Solomon Loeb’s daughter. Loeb and Kuhn married each others sisters and the Kuhn Loeb dynasty was consummated. Felix Warburg married Jacob Schiff’s daughter. Two Goldman daughters married two sons of the Sachs family, creating Goldman Sachs. In 1806 Nathan Rothschild married the oldest daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, a leading financier in London.’ See Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, p. 488.

So to return to the foundation of the US Federal Reserve System, according to Griffin:

The reason for secrecy was simple. Had it been known that rival factions of the banking community had joined together, the public would have been alerted to the possibility that the bankers were plotting an agreement in restraint of trade – which, of course, is exactly what they were doing.

What emerged was a cartel agreement with five objectives:

stop the growing competition from the nation’s newer banks;

obtain a franchise to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending;

get control of the reserves of all banks so that the more reckless ones would not be exposed to currency drains and bank runs;

get the taxpayer to pick up the cartel’s inevitable losses; and convince Congress that the purpose was to protect the public.

It was realized that the bankers would have to become partners with the politicians and that the structure of the cartel would have to be a central bank. The record shows that the Fed has failed to achieve its stated objectives. That is because those were never its true goals. As a banking cartel, and in terms of the five objectives stated above, it has been an unqualified success.

To reiterate Griffin’s key point: ‘a primary objective of that cartel was to involve the federal government as an agent for shifting the inevitable losses from the owners of those banks to the taxpayers.’ And this is confirmed by the ‘massive evidence of history since the System was created’.

Or, in the words of economics Professor Antony C. Sutton, who carefully detailed the longstanding links between Wall Street and the family of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, including Roosevelt himself (a banker and speculator from 1921 to 1928): ‘The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of a few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public interest.’ See Wall Street and F.D.R.

And, as U.S. Congressman Louis Thomas McFadden, chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, observed in 1932: ‘When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that… this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate – a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.’ See ‘Speech by Rep. Louis T. McFadden denouncing the Federal Reserve System’.

Equally importantly, creation of the Federal Reserve was just one of many preliminary steps taken over a 25-year period by a select group of men in key positions who conspired to ignite The Great War to both shape the future world order and profit enormously from the death and destruction. You can read detailed accounts of what took place, including key players, their motives and instigation of the Boer War in South Africa, touched on above, as part of the process, in books such as these:

Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War,

The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden,

The House of Rothschild – Volume 2 – The World’s Banker, 1849-1998 and

Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years.

There is also a thoughtful summary in ‘A crime against humanity: the Great Reset of 1914-1918’ and an excellent video on the subject: ‘The WWI Conspiracy’.

The primary cost of World War I was 20 million human lives, but it was immensely profitable for some.

The Bank for International Settlements

Another critical development in this period was the creation of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – as ‘the central bank of central banks’ – in 1930. As described by Professor Carroll Quigley, the BIS was the apex of efforts by elite bankers ‘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.’

But the push started many years before with Montagu Norman (Bank of England) and Benjamin Strong (the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) both committed advocates. ‘In the 1920’s, they were determined to use the financial power of Britain and of the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.’

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 private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. The B.I.S. as a private institution was owned by the seven chief central banks and was operated by the heads of these, who together formed its governing board.

But, Quigley points out:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.

The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchant’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.

These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. This dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds through bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupe, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates. In this system the Rothschilds had been preeminent during much of the nineteenth century. See Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, pp. 242-3 & 245.

Ensuring that this select group of international bankers could operate without any form of accountability to any other authority in the world, the BIS ‘Headquarters Agreement with Switzerland’ Articles 4 and 12 specifically identify a range of ‘privileges and immunities’ that, among others, provide that ‘The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction’ and ‘members of the Board of Directors of the Bank, together with the representatives of those central banks which are members of the Bank’ with ‘immunity from arrest or imprisonment’. See ‘Agreement between the Swiss Federal Council and the Bank for International Settlements to determine the Bank’s legal status in Switzerland’.

In plain language, the BIS and its members are beyond the reach of governments, key international organizations and the rule of law. They are accountable to no-one. And this is why the BIS was never held to account for its commission of war crimes. See ‘History – the BIS during the Second World War (1939-48)’. For an excellent and detailed account of the Bank for International Settlements, see Adam LeBor’s Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World.

Beyond this, as Sutton notes, because politicians sympathetic to financial capitalism and academics with ideas about world control are kept in line with a system of rewards and penalties, ‘in the early 1930s the guiding vehicle for this international system of financial and political control’ was the BIS, headquartered in Basle. The BIS ‘continued its work during World War II as the medium through which the bankers – who… were not at war with each other – continued a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas, information, and planning for the post-war world.’ In this sense only, the war was irrelevant to them. See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp. 11-12.

So while elite figures, including the Rothschilds, continued to shape institutions and events to restructure world order and make it more profitable for themselves, virtually everyone else in the world was an unwitting victim of their secret programs, many at the cost of their own life.

A notable exception was US Major General Smedley Butler who at least spelled out the critical role that war played in wealth creation for the elite. Following more than three decades of highly-decorated service in the US Marine Corp, Butler later described his experience in the following terms: ‘I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.’ See ‘Major General Smedley Butler’.

In his book published in 1935, he wrote:

‘War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious…. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives…. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.’

He went on to describe some of the individuals and corporations that made huge profits out of World War I. See War Is A Racket.

World War II

And, just a few years later, World War II demonstrated that ‘war is a racket’ yet again. By carefully penetrating the cloak of deception behind which it was hidden, Professor Antony C. Sutton considered original documentation and eyewitness accounts to reveal what remains one of the most remarkable and under-reported facts of World War II. In his account of this orchestrated conflagration, Sutton carefully documents how prominent Wall Street banks and US businesses supported Hitler’s rise to power by financing and trading with Nazi Germany, reaching the unsavory conclusion that ‘the catastrophe of World War II was extremely profitable for a select group of financial insiders’ including J.P. Morgan, T.W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric, Standard Oil, and the National City, Chase, and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and scores of others in ‘the bloodiest, most destructive war in history’. See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler.

To illustrate the complex and wide-ranging collaboration between US business interests and the Nazis throughout the war, consider just one example: On the eve of World War II the German chemical complex of I.G. Farben, which included the banker Max Warburg (brother of Paul of the US Federal Reserve) on its Board of Directors, was the largest chemical manufacturing enterprise in the world, with extraordinary political and economic power within Hitler’s Nazi state. The Farben cartel dated from 1925 and had been created with financial assistance from Wall Street by the organizing genius of Hermann Schmitz, a prominent early Nazi who, through I.G. Farben, helped fund Hitler’s seizure of control in March 1933. Schmitz created the super-giant chemical enterprise out of six already giant German chemical companies.

So critical was I.G. Farben to the Nazi war effort that it produced 100% of its lubricating oil and various other products, 95% of its poison gas – ‘enough gas to kill 200 million humans’ – used in the extermination chambers, 84% of its explosives, 70% of its gunpowder, and very high proportions of many other critical products including aviation fuel. As Sutton concludes: ‘Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I.G. Farben in the first place and almost certainly no Adolf Hitler and World War II.’ See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp.17-20.

The cost in human lives of World War II was 70-85 million. But there was no cost to those Wall Street corporations and their fellow war profiteers that collaborated with Nazi Germany. Just massive profits.

Following World War II

Documenting what had become the long-standing collusion between political, corporate and military elites, sociology Professor C. Wright Mills published his classic work The Power Elite in 1956. This scholarly effort was among the earliest of the post-World War II era to document the nature of the US elite and how it functioned, highlighting the interlocking power of corporate, political and military elites as they exercised control over US national society and went about the task of exploiting the general population.

But a weakness of the account by Mills was his failure to grapple with the already long-standing power of a global elite to manipulate key events in any one country, and certainly the United States, even if much of this was done through the relevant national elite(s).

This ‘global reach’ of the Elite is again clearly apparent in any study of ownership of the world’s oil resources. In his 1975 book The Seven Sisters, Anthony Sampson popularized this collective name for the shadowy oil cartel that, throughout its history, had vigorously worked to eliminate competitors and control the world’s oil. See The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies and the World They Shaped. Several decades later, Dean Henderson simply observed that ‘After a tidal wave of mergers at the turn of the millennium, Sampson’s Seven Sisters were Four Horsemen: Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, BP Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell.’ Beyond this, however, Henderson noted the following:

The oil wealth generated in the Persian Gulf region is the main source of capital [for the international mega-banks]. They sell the Gulf Cooperation Council sheiks 30-year treasury bonds at 5% interest, then loan the sheiks’ oil money out to Third World governments and Western consumers alike at 15-20% interest. In the process these financial overlords – who produce nothing of economic import – use debt as their lever in consolidating control over the global economy.

See Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, pp. 168, 451.

And, following a series of mergers and then the 2008 banking crisis, four giant banks emerged to dominate the US economy: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Moreover, these banks, along with Deutsche Bank, Banque Paribas, Barclays ‘and other European old money behemoths’, own the four oil giants and are also ‘among the top 10 stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation’ giving them vast control over the global economy.

See Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, pp. 470, 473.

So who owns these banks? By now it should come as no surprise that several scholars at different times during the past 100 years have investigated this issue and come to essentially the same conclusion: the major families, increasingly interrelated by blood, marriage and/or business interests, have simply consolidated their control over the banks. Apart from scholars already mentioned above, in the 1983 revision of his book, Eustace Mullins noted that a few families still controlled the New York City banks which, in turn, hold the controlling stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Mullins identified the families of the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers, Warburgs and others.

See The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, p. 224.

Several scholars have written on the subject of elite power since Mills with Professor Peter Phillips penning the 2018 book Giants: The Global Power Elite which reviews ‘the transition from the nation state power elites described by Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital around the world. The Global Power Elite function as a nongovernmental network of similarly educated wealthy people with common interests of managing, facilitating, and protecting concentrated global wealth and insuring the continued growth of capital.’

Aside from the obvious criticism that Phillips effectively repeats the mistake made by Mills in assuming that there was no pre-existing ‘transnational power elite’ even if in different form, Phillips goes on to usefully identify the world’s top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and J.P Morgan Chase, that collectively manage (by now) more than $US50 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the globe.

More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 individual directors of the seventeen global financial Giants and the importance of those transnational institutions that serve a unifying function – including:

the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20, G7, World Trade Organization (WTO),

World Economic Forum  (WEF), Trilateral Commission,

Bilderberg Group(with a review of Daniel Estulin’s book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group here:

‘“The True Story of the Bilderberg Group” and What They May Be Planning Now’),

Bank for International Settlements and the Council on Foreign Relations

(see ‘One World Governance and the Council on Foreign Relations. “We Shall have World Government… by Conquest or Consent.”’) – and particularly two very important global elite policy-planning organizations:

the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (which has 55 members).

And Phillips carefully explains why and how the Global Elite defends its power, profits and privilege against rebellion by the ‘unruly exploited masses’: ‘the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide security…. The whole system continues wealth concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses.’ Advocating the importance of systemic change and the redistribution of wealth, Phillips goes on to argue that ‘This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war, starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a species-level threat.’

Hence, it is worth reiterating: War plays an ongoing and vital role in the exercise of Elite power to reshape world order to maximize wealth concentration by the Elite. If you want further evidence of this, you might find these recent reports instructive: the US Congressional Research Service report

‘Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2022’,

the Tufts University Fletcher Center for Strategic Studies report ‘Military Intervention Project (MIP) Research’

and an article and video that summarize and discuss these two reports in ‘US launched 251 military interventions since 1991, and 469 since 1798’.

But, as the discussion above and below illustrates, war is not the only mechanism the Elite uses.

For an account which focuses on identifying many of the world’s largest corporations, in many industries, and then illustrates the interlocking nature of corporate ownership while demonstrating that they are all owned by the same small group of giant asset management corporations – notably including Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street – this video is very instructive: ‘Monopoly: Who Owns the World?’

And for a penetrating critique of BlackRock and its overall strategy to acquire vast worldwide control, including by using its Aladdin investment analysis technology (which employs massive data collection, artificial intelligence and machine learning to derive investment insight),

see ‘BlackRock: Bringing Together Man and Machine’

and this three-part series by James Corbett: ‘How BlackRock Conquered the World’.

In the ‘Monopoly’ video, you will again see the names of some familiar individuals and families who own significant shareholdings in these corporations and asset management firms. After showcasing families such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans, the narrator simply observes in relation to Vanguard that its ‘largest shareholders are the private funds and nonprofit organizations of these families’.

And if you think that national Elites in countries like China and Russia are somehow not involved in all this, you might find it interesting to read articles that discuss the wealth and political influence of the Chinese ‘immortals’ and the Russian oligarchs –

see ‘China’s red aristocracy’ and

‘List of Oligarchs and Russian elites featured in ICIJ investigations’ –

or to read the ‘Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development’.

Beyond this, however, Emanuel Pastreich points out that if anyone attributes responsibility for Chinese policies in relation to data collection and control based on QR codes and contact tracing, they inevitably identify the Chinese government.

‘But the truth is that few, or none, of these policies were made up or implemented by the Chinese government itself, but rather that the Chinese government is occupied by IT corporations that report to the billionaires (often through Israel and the United States) and bypass the Chinese government altogether.’

Pastreich goes on to offer some insight into how key Elite intelligence and finance corporations are driving the technocratic social control policies being implemented under cover of the ‘virus’ in China.

See ‘The Third Opium War Part One: The agenda behind the COVID-19 assault on China’and

‘The Third Opium War Part Two: The True Threat Posed by China’ or watch

‘Western Tech & China: Who Serves whom?’

In fact, as Patrick Wood points out, referencing a much earlier book of his own and Professor Antony Sutton – see Trilaterals Over Washington Volumes I & II  – ‘Thanks to early members of the [Elite’s] Trilateral Commission, China was brought out of its dark ages Communist dictatorship and onto the world stage. Furthermore, the Trilateral Commission orchestrated and then facilitated a massive transfer of technology to China in order to build up its non-existent infrastructure….  As a failed Communist dictatorship, China was a blank slate with over 1.2 billion citizens under its control. However, Chinese leadership knew nothing about capitalism and free enterprise, and [key Trilateralist Zbigniew] Brzezinski made no effort to teach them about it. Instead, he planted seeds of Technocracy…. In the 20-year period from 1980 to 2000, a transformation took place that was considered nothing short of an economic miracle; but it was not of China’s doing. Rather, it can be fully attributed to the masters of Technocracy within the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.’ After listing several key features of China’s technocracy (5G, AI, social credit scores…), Wood concludes that ‘China is a full-blown Technocracy and it is the first of its kind on planet earth.’ See this article on China as one of Wood’s 12-part series on technocracy: ‘Day 7: China Is A Technocracy’.

And in relation to Russia,  Riley Waggaman simply observes that ‘As for “COVID-triggered” economic restructuring: the Russian government has openly embraced the World Economic Forum’s Fourth Industrial Revolution. In October [2021], the Russian government and the WEF signed a memorandum on the establishment of a Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Russia.

Russia has already adopted a law allowing for “experimental legal regimes” to allow corporations and institutions to deploy AI and robots into the economy, without being encumbered by regulatory red tape. Returning to Gref and his digital Sbercoin: Russia’s central bank is already planning to test-run a digital ruble that, among other nifty features, could be used to restrict purchases.’ See ‘I believe we are facing an evil that has no equal in human history’.

Moreover, according to Mikhail Delyagin, a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation: ‘In the 90s, under Yeltsin, the external management of global banksters was carried out through the IMF and through [Russian oligarch Anatoly] Chubais. Now under Putin, external management will be done by Big Tech, social global platforms, and Big Pharma through the WHO. Exactly the same management.’ Cited in ‘Duma deputy: “Protect yourself and Russia from a coup d’état!”. Russian lawmaker issues video appeal to the nation. Will anyone listen?’

Separately from this, bear in mind that the Elite, as well as its agents and organizations (including those in China and Russia), have vast wealth stashed in ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ (better known as tax havens): locations around the world where wealthy individuals, criminals and terrorists, as well as governments and government agencies (such as the CIA), banks, corporations, hedge funds, international organizations (such as the Vatican) and crime syndicates (such as the Mafia), can stash their money so that they can avoid regulation and oversight, and evade tax. Just how much wealth is stashed in tax havens? While this is impossible to know precisely, it can only be measured in tens of trillions of dollars as well as an unknown number of gold bricks, artworks, yachts and racehorses.

See ‘Elite Banking at Your Expense: How Secretive Tax Havens are Used to Steal Your Money’.

How is this possible? Well, it is protected by government legislation and legal systems, with an ‘army’ of Elite agents – accountants, auditors, bankers, businesspeople, lawyers and politicians – ensuring that they remain protected. The point here is simple: if you have enough money, the law simply does not exist. And you can evade taxes legally and in the full knowledge that your vast profits (even from immorally-acquired wealth such as sex trafficking, gun-running, endangered species trafficking, conflict diamonds and drug trafficking) are ‘lawful’ and will escape regulation and oversight of any kind. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

But legal systems facilitate monstrous injustice in other ways too. For example, they ensure that owners of corporations are enabled to ruthlessly exploit both their workers and all taxpayers as well. For a thoughtful and straightforward account of how this works, see this article by Professor James Petras: ‘How Billionaires Become Billionaires’.

And to briefly revisit a subject discussed above: Who owns the US Federal Reserve System now?

According to Dean Henderson writing in 2010, it is ‘the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.’

Henderson goes on to state that ‘The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing these money powers as halfbaked conspiracy theory. The word “conspiracy” itself has been demonized, much like the word “communism”. Anyone who dare utter the word is quickly excluded from public debate and written off as insane. Yet the facts remain.’

See Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, pp. 473-4.

Other scholars in the field agree.

In his exceptionally detailed investigation into three major historical events of the C20^th – the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the rise of Hitler – Professor Antony Sutton identified the seat of political power in the United States not as the US Constitution authorized but ‘the financial establishment in New York: the private international bankers, more specifically the financial houses of J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, and in earlier days (before amalgamation of their Manhattan Bank with the former Chase Bank), the Warburgs.’

For most of the twentieth century the Federal Reserve System, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (which is outside the control of Congress, unaudited and uncontrolled, with the power to print money and create credit at will), has exercised a virtual monopoly over the direction of the American economy. In foreign affairs the Council on Foreign Relations, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessmen, and politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, a power center that unilaterally determines U.S. foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged – and obviously subversive – foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits, if you will), for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families. See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp.125-126.

So what has changed?

Nothing has changed.

But it is not just fine scholars who have reached this conclusion. Consider David Rockefeller’s delusionary whitewashing of his own family’s key role in the killing, devastation and destruction outlined above: ‘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…. one of the most enduring [conspiracies] is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world’s economy…. [but these people] ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted from our active international role during the past half-century’. See Memoirs, p. 483.

If you are wondering how all of this happens without any significant pushback from within elite circles, there is a simple answer: They are all insane and control to maximize resource accumulation has become the perpetual substitute for their destroyed capacity to engage emotionally in their own lives and empathize with their fellow human beings. For more detail, see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ and ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So while some of us occasionally ponder how we can contribute more to improve the human condition and the state of the world, and then endeavour to do something along those lines, there are plenty of terrified people whose daily life is consumed (consciously or unconsciously) by the question ‘How can I take more?’ And people like that have been taking more since the dawn of human civilization and, no doubt, earlier.

The Global Elite is simply those who have been insanely ruthless and organized enough to take more, whatever the cost to humanity and all other life on Earth.

The Post World War II Superstructure to Transform World Order, Destroy the World Economy and Capture All Wealth

So how, precisely, is the Global Elite driving the transformation of world order, the collapse of the world economy and capturing final control of all wealth?

There are three parts to the answer to this question: 1. The foundations progressively laid over the past 5,000 years, as outlined above; 2. The superstructure (including such institutions as the United Nations, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) that has been built since World War II and, more recently, under the guise of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development agenda, to impose global governance on the human population and, particularly, to intrude global financial governance into every aspect of our lives. In the words of Iain Davis and Whitney Webb, this is because the UN’s sustainable development goals ‘do not promote “sustainability” as most conceive it and instead utilise the same debt imperialism long used by the Anglo-American Empire to entrap nations in a new, equally predatory system of global financial governance’ – see ‘Sustainable Debt Slavery’ – and 3. The final part relates to political, economic and, especially, technological measures being imposed as part of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ under cover of the fake narrative about a Covid-19 ‘pandemic’.

If we briefly consider elements of the post-World War II superstructure, for example, both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have historically used debt to force countries, mostly in the developing world, to adopt policies that redistribute wealth to the elite via their banks, corporations and institutions. But corporations have employed their own ‘economic hit men’ to do the same thing: By identifying and ‘persuading’ leaders of developing nations, using a variety of devices – ranging from false economic projections and bribes to military threats and assassinations – to accept enormous ‘development’ loans for projects which are contracted with western corporations, countries quickly become entrapped in debt. This is then used to force those countries to implement unpopular austerity policies, deregulate financial and other markets, and privatize state assets, thus eroding national sovereignty. See The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

If you want to read further evidence of the role of the World Bank and the IMF as agents of Elite policy against nation-states, you might find the US Army’s manual of unconventional warfare interesting. See ‘Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare’. Originally released by Wikileaks in 2008 and described by them as the US military’s ‘regime change handbook’, as elaborated by Webb, ‘the U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions – such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS] – are used as unconventional, financial “weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war,” as well as in leveraging “the policies and cooperation of state governments.”’ See ‘Leaked Wikileaks Doc Reveals US Military Use of IMF, World Bank as “Unconventional” Weapons’.

Beyond this, however, what we have seen since the UN, increasingly a tool of corporations since the 1990s, adopted its Sustainable Development Goals is a dramatically expanded set of mechanisms designed to enslave the bulk of the human population, not just those in ‘developing’ countries, and take complete control of Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Among many initiatives, for example, the Global Public-Private Partnership has been presented by Klaus Schwab and Peter Vanham, on behalf of the World Economic Forum. See Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet summarized in ‘What is stakeholder capitalism?’

While this sanitized account obscures the threat it poses to humankind, Iain Davis and Whitney Webb have thoughtfully critiqued it – see ‘Sustainable Debt Slavery’ – noting that even a 2016 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report – see ‘Public-Private Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Fit for purpose?’ – also found it ‘unfit for purpose’. So what is it? According to Davis, the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) is a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners: the Bank for International Settlements, central banks, global (including media) corporations, the ‘philanthropic’ foundations of multi-billionaires, policy think tanks, governments (and their agencies), key non-governmental organizations and global charities, selected academic and scientific institutions, labour unions and other chosen ‘thought leaders’. (You can see an instructive diagram in the article cited below.)

The G3P controls the world economy and global finance. ‘It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media’, typically distributes the policies through an intermediary such as the IMF, WHO or IPCC and uses governments to transform G3P global governance into hard policy, legislation and law at the national level. ‘In this way, the G3P controls many nations at once without having to resort to legislation. This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in the G3P (an authoritarian hierarchy) extremely difficult.’ In short: global governance has already superseded the national sovereignty of states: ‘National governments had been relegated to creating the G3P’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.’ See ‘What Is the Global Public-Private Partnership?’

As Davis notes: We are supposed to believe that a G3P-led system of global governance is beneficial for us and to accept that global corporations are committed to putting humanitarian and environmental causes before profit, when the conflict of interest is obvious. ‘Believing this requires a considerable degree of naïveté.’ Davis clearly perceives ‘an emergent global, corporate dictatorship that cares not one whit about truly stewarding the planet. The G3P will determine the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. There is no opportunity for any of us to participate in either their project or the subsequent formation of policy.’ Davis goes on: ‘in theory, governments do not have to implement G3P policy, in reality they do. Global policies have been an increasing facet of our lives in the post-WW2 era…. It doesn’t matter who you elect, the policy trajectory is set at the global governance level. This is the dictatorial nature of the G3P and nothing could be less democratic.’

Another initiative was launched at the COP26 conference in November 2021. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is an industry-led and UN-convened alliance of private banking and financial institutions that announced plans to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to ‘transform’ the global financial system. See ‘Our progress and plan towards a net-zero global economy’.

But this report makes it clear that GFANZ will simply employ the same exploitative tactics that the ‘economic hitmen’ and agents such as the multilateral ‘development’ banks (MDBs) – including the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – have long used to force even greater deregulation on ‘developing’ countries to facilitate supposedly climate and environmentally-friendly investments by alliance members. In fact, composed of several “subsector alliances”, including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance and the Net Zero Banking Alliance, GFANZ commands ‘a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests’. Moreover, the ‘largest financial players’ who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander and HSBC as well as the CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund. In essence then, as Whitney Webb goes on to explain it:

[T]hrough the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends….

Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of ‘saving the planet,’ its plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world. See ‘UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System’.

But, again, it is not just their fellow human beings over whom the Elite wants total control. They want that control over nature too, and that is yet another project in which the Elite has been long engaged.

Hence, in September 2021, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced the launch of a new asset class, jointly developed with Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) – whose founding investors included the Inter-American Development Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation – for Natural Asset Companies: ‘sustainable enterprises that hold the rights to ecosystem services’ that enable natural asset owners ‘to convert nature’s value into financial capital, providing additional resources necessary to power a sustainable future’.

According to the IEG: ‘Natural areas, underpinned by biodiversity, are inherently valuable in and of themselves.’ See ‘Natural Areas’. Either unaware of their ignorance or, perhaps, making hypocritically tokenistic use of some key words often-expressed by indigenous peoples and deep ecologists (including the inventor of the term ‘deep ecology’, Professor Arne Naess, in his 1973 article ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement’) – the IEG goes on to express this ‘value’ in strictly economic terms: ‘They also contribute life supporting services upon which humanity and the global economy depends. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and genetic resources; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling.’

And in its report on this subject, the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Nature-Based Solutions urged investors, corporations and governments ‘to create and strengthen market-based mechanisms for valuing nature.’ See ‘Scaling Investments in Nature: The Next Critical Frontier for Private Sector Leadership’, p.14.

Elaborating the IEG’s delusional conception of how further business investment in natural resources will work, Douglas Eger, the CEO of IEG, suggests that ‘This new asset class on the NYSE will create a virtuous cycle of investment in nature that will help finance sustainable development for communities, companies and countries.’ Really? I wonder how. But IEG’s motives are more likely revealed in this fact: ‘The asset class was developed to enable exposure to the opportunities created by the estimated $125 trillion annual global ecosystem services market, encompassing areas such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity and clean water.’

See ‘NYSE to List New “Natural Asset Companies” Asset Class, Targeting Massive Opportunity in Ecosystem Services’.

Hence, to clarify: corporations are now engaged in the largest land and resource grab in history. This will enable Elite corporations to privately own the ecosystem services of a pristine rainforest, a majestic waterfall plunging into a lagoon, an expansive grassland, a picturesque cave, a magnificent wetland, a trout-filled lake, a beautiful coral reef or other natural area and then sell clean air, fresh water, pollination services, food, medicines, and a range of biodiversity services such as the enjoyment of nature, while displacing the world’s remaining indigenous populations.

So what about the Commons? ‘The Commons is property shared by all, inclusive of natural products like air, water, and a habitable planet, forests, fisheries, groundwater, wetlands, pastures, the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, outer space, caves, all part of ecosystems of the planet.’ Or are corporations finally about to own the Commons as well? See ‘Mother Nature, Inc.’

Are we to reduce everything in nature to its value as a profit-making commodity?

As Robert Hunziker concludes his own critique of this initiative: ‘The sad truth is Mother Nature, Inc. will lead to extinction of The Commons, as an institution, in the biggest heist of all time. Surely, private ownership of nature is unseemly and certainly begs a much bigger relevant question that goes to the heart of the matter, to wit: Should nature’s ecosystems, which benefit society at large, be monetized for the direct benefit of the few?’ See ‘Mother Nature, Inc.’

More could be written about this, as Webb, for example, has done in ‘Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class’.

But if you believe that corporations – extensively documented to destroy pristine natural environments in their rapacious efforts to exploit fossil fuels, minerals, rainforest products and a vast range of other products, as well as force indigenous peoples off their land to do so: see, for example, ‘Seven (of Hundreds) Environmental Nightmares Created by Open Pit Mines (and the Obligatory Tailings Ponds) that have Caused Irremediable, Highly Toxic Contamination Downstream’ – are about to become ‘virtuous investors’ in nature when 4 billion years of Earth’s history and 200,000 years of indigenous people living harmoniously with nature have an impeccable record of preserving ecosystems and their services, without the involvement of these ‘virtuous investors’, then you will do extremely well on any gullibility test you attempt.

In Part 2 of this investigation, I will examine how the Global Elite is implementing its final coup to take complete technocratic control over all life on Earth and what we must do to prevent this happening.

I thank Anita McKone for thoughtful suggestions to improve the original draft of this investigation.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Robert J. Burrowes, Global Research, 2023

https://www.globalresearch.ca/historical-analysis-of-the-global-elites-ransacking-the-world-economy-until-youll-own-nothing/5803053

Tyranny by the Numbers: The Government Wants Your Money Any Way It Can Get It

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead

The government wants your money.

It will beg, steal or borrow if necessary, but it wants your money any way it can get it.

This is what comes of those $1.2 trillion spending bills: someone’s got to foot the bill for the government’s fiscal insanity, and that “someone” is the U.S. taxpayer.

The government’s schemes to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned dollars have run the gamut from wasteful pork barrel legislation, cronyism and graft to asset forfeiture, costly stimulus packages, and a national security complex that continues to undermine our freedoms while failing to making us any safer.

Americans have also been made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the taxpayers.

According to the number crunchers with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in order to spend money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, the government is borrowing roughly $6 billion a day.

Basically, the U.S. government is funding its existence with a credit card.

Let’s talk numbers, shall we?

The national debt (the amount the federal government has borrowed over the years and must pay back) is more than $34 trillion and will grow another $19 trillion by 2033.

The bulk of that debt has been amassed over the past two decades, thanks in large part to the fiscal shenanigans of four presidents, 10 sessions of Congress and two wars.

It’s estimated that the amount this country owes is now 130% greater than its gross domestic product (all the products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the citizens).

In other words, the government is spending more than it brings in.

The U.S. ranks as the 12th most indebted nation in the world, with much of that debt owed to the Federal Reserve, large investment funds and foreign governments, namely, Japan and China.

Interest payments on the national debt are more than $395 billion, which is significantly more than the government spends on veterans’ benefits and services, and according to Pew Research Center, more than it will spend on elementary and secondary education, disaster relief, agriculture, science and space programs, foreign aid, and natural resources and environmental protection combined.

According to the Committee for a Reasonable Federal Budget, the interest we’ve paid on this borrowed money is “nearly twice what the federal government will spend on transportation infrastructure, over four times as much as it will spend on K-12 education, almost four times what it will spend on housing, and over eight times what it will spend on science, space, and technology.”

In ten years, those interest payments will exceed our entire military budget.

This is financial tyranny.

We’ve been sold a bill of goods by politicians promising to pay down the national debt, jumpstart the economy, rebuild our infrastructure, secure our borders, ensure our security, and make us all healthy, wealthy and happy.

None of that has come to pass, and yet we’re still being loaded down with debt not of our own making while the government remains unrepentant, unfazed and undeterred in its wanton spending.

‘We the People’ Are the New, Permanent Underclass in America

Indeed, the national deficit (the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it takes in) remains at more than $1.5 trillion.

If Americans managed their personal finances the way the government mismanages the nation’s finances, we’d all be in debtors’ prison by now.

Despite the government propaganda being peddled by the politicians and news media, however, the government isn’t spending our tax dollars to make our lives better.

We’re being robbed blind so the governmental elite can get richer.

In the eyes of the government, “we the people, the voters, the consumers, and the taxpayers” are little more than pocketbooks waiting to be picked.

“We the people” have become the new, permanent underclass in America.

Consider: The government can seize your home and your car (which you’ve bought and paid for) over nonpayment of taxes. Government agents can freeze and seize your bank accounts and other valuables if they merely “suspect” wrongdoing. And the IRS insists on getting the first cut of your salary to pay for government programs over which you have no say.

We have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, but we’re being forced to pay through the nose, anyhow.

We have no real say, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn and forcing us to pay for endless wars that do more to fund the military industrial complex than protect us, pork barrel projects that produce little to nothing, and a police state that serves only to imprison us within its walls.

If you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your property and your money, you’re not free.

It wasn’t always this way, of course.

Early Americans went to war over the inalienable rights described by philosopher John Locke as the natural rights of life, liberty and property.

It didn’t take long, however—a hundred years, in fact—before the American government was laying claim to the citizenry’s property by levying taxes to pay for the Civil War. As the New York Times reports, “Widespread resistance led to its repeal in 1872.”

Determined to claim some of the citizenry’s wealth for its own uses, the government reinstituted the income tax in 1894. Charles Pollock challenged the tax as unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Pollock’s victory was relatively short-lived. Members of Congress—united in their determination to tax the American people’s income—worked together to adopt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Pollock decision.

On the eve of World War I, in 1913, Congress instituted a permanent income tax by way of the 16^thAmendment to the Constitution and the Revenue Act of 1913. Under the Revenue Act, individuals with income exceeding $3,000 could be taxed starting at 1% up to 7% for incomes exceeding $500,000.

It’s all gone downhill from there.

Unsurprisingly, the government has used its tax powers to advance its own imperialistic agendas and the courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s power to penalize or jail those who refused to pay their taxes.

While we’re struggling to get by, and making tough decisions about how to spend what little money actually makes it into our pockets after the federal, state and local governments take their share (this doesn’t include the stealth taxes imposed through tolls, fines and other fiscal penalties), the government continues to do whatever it likes—levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly—with little thought for the plight of its citizens.

To top it all off, all of those wars the U.S. is so eager to fight abroad are being waged with borrowed funds. As The Atlantic reports, “U.S. leaders are essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan.”

Of course, we’re the ones who have to repay that borrowed debt.

For instance, American taxpayers have been forced to shell out more than $5.6 trillion since 9/11 for the military industrial complex’s costly, endless so-called “war on terrorism.” That translates to roughly $23,000 per taxpayer to wage wars abroad, occupy foreign countries, provide financial aid to foreign allies, and fill the pockets of defense contractors and grease the hands of corrupt foreign dignitaries.

Mind you, that’s only a portion of what the Pentagon spends on America’s military empire.

The United States also spends more on foreign aid than any other nation, with nearly $300 billion disbursed over a five-year period. More than 150 countries around the world receive U.S. taxpayer-funded assistance, with most of the funds going to the Middle East, Africa and Asia. That price tag keeps growing, too.

As Forbes reports, “U.S. foreign aid dwarfs the federal funds spent by 48 out of 50 state governments annually. Only the state governments of California and New York spent more federal funds than what the U.S. sent abroad each year to foreign countries.”

Most recently, the U.S. has allocated nearly $115 billion in emergency military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine since the start of the Russia invasion.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in a 1953 speech, this is how the military industrial complex continues to get richer, while the American taxpayer is forced to pay for programs that do little to enhance our lives, ensure our happiness and well-being, or secure our freedoms.

This is no way of life.

Yet it’s not just the government’s endless wars that are bleeding us dry.

We’re also being forced to shell out money for surveillance systems to track our movements, money to further militarize our already militarized police, money to allow the government to raid our homes and bank accounts, money to fund schools where our kids learn nothing about freedom and everything about how to comply, and on and on.

There was a time in our history when our forebears said “enough is enough” and stopped paying their taxes to what they considered an illegitimate government. They stood their ground and refused to support a system that was slowly choking out any attempts at self-governance, and which refused to be held accountable for its crimes against the people. Their resistance sowed the seeds for the revolution that would follow.

Unfortunately, in the 200-plus years since we established our own government, we’ve let bankers, corporate turncoats and number-crunching bureaucrats muddy the waters and pilfer the accounts to such an extent that we’re back where we started.

Once again, we’ve got a despotic regime with an imperial ruler doing as they please.

Once again, we’ve got a judicial system insisting we have no rights under a government which demands that the people march in lockstep with its dictates.

And once again, we’ve got to decide whether we’ll keep marching or break stride and make a turn toward freedom.

But what if we didn’t just pull out our pocketbooks and pony up to the federal government’s outrageous demands for more money?

What if we didn’t just dutifully line up to drop our hard-earned dollars into the collection bucket, no questions asked about how it will be spent?

What if, instead of quietly sending in our tax checks, hoping vainly for some meager return, we did a little calculating of our own and started deducting from our taxes those programs that we refuse to support?

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we’re no longer living the American dream.

We’re living a financial nightmare.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org.

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image source

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/government-wants-money-any-way-it-can-get-it/5854374

The Global Economic and Social Crisis Is a “Crime of Unimagined Proportions”

Man as a self-responsible being must not hand over power to anyone!

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Recent publications on the global crisis have prompted me to repeat an appeal already made to fellow citizens a year and a half ago: “Say NO to the new dictators and their crimes against humanity!” These have already begun to “thin out” humanity with their Corona emergency measures and killer vaccines, plunging it into social and economic chaos (1).  

Worth mentioning in this context is, on the one hand, the new PDF ebook by Michel Chossudovsky: “The Worldwide Corona crisis, Global Coup d’état against Humanity” (2) and, on the other hand, an interview by the Austrian author and politician Gerald Grosz about the failure of governments as a “crime of unimagined proportions” (3). 

But it is not only governing politicians who are “supplied” by unscrupulous and financially strong backers who fail disgracefully: we citizens also fail because we are so manipulated by our traditional upbringing by state and church that we are capable of anything except saying NO. As a result, we keep falling for the lures of supposed authorities and march along with them – as we once did under Hitler.

World political situation has become confusing and more worrying

When I reflect on the current world political situation, Michel Chossudovsky’s book, published a quarter of a century ago, The Globalization of Poverty “GLOBAL BRUTAL. Unleashed World Trade, Poverty, War” (German Edition) comes to mind (4):  

“Humanity, after the Cold War era, has been plunged into an economic and social crisis of unprecedented rapid impoverishment of large parts of the world’s population. Entire economies are collapsing, unemployment is rampant. (…). The New World Order feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the natural environment. It creates social apartheid, fuels racism and ethnic struggles (…) and often plunges countries into destructive conflicts between different ethnic groups.” (…).

This global crisis is more devastating than the Great Depression of the 1930s. It has far-reaching geopolitical implications. The economic dislocations are accompanied by regional wars, the break-up of nation states and in some cases the destruction of entire countries. It is by far the most severe economic crisis in modern history.” (5)

Don’t these book excerpts apply to the current world political situation? What is missing is the danger of a nuclear world war.

As long as man has not recognised himself as a self-responsible being, but delegates the solution of the pressing problems of humanity to politicians, the world will not change.

Do not delegate the solution of humanity’s problems to politicians

Governments cannot be trusted, neither today nor in the future. Especially in recent years, many weak, ignorant and corrupt aspirants have been elevated to authoritative political posts in the Western world, knowing that they will one day bless and rubber-stamp political crimes concocted by the well-known “world conspirators” such as Klaus Schwab (WEF) and others. 

Already in the last century, the Russian writer Lev Nikolayevich Count Tolstoy (1812-1910) wrote in his political pamphlets that this was no accident:

“One could still justify the subordination of a whole people to a few people if those who governed were the best people; but this is not the case, has never been the case and can never be the case. The worst, most insignificant, most cruel, most immoral and especially the most mendacious people often rule. And that this is so is no accident.” (7)

Many adults look up to these rulers like children – and this has consequences: Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind. Adults can then no longer think independently and judge rationally. That is why they hand over decision-making power to professional politicians.

Man as a self-responsible being must not hand over power to anyone!

Ignorant people are so sluggish that they prefer to be guided by supposed authorities rather than by their experience and reason. This was already written 250 years ago by the French Enlightenment philosopher Paul-Henry Thiry d’Holbach in his book “System of Nature” (8).

Since history is a work of human beings, human beings must be changed when one wants to change the world. They must realise that they are autonomous beings who can take their destiny into their own hands and must not hand over power to anyone else. When these people approach the problem of war, for example, they are able to distinguish: Which people are waging war? Is it only the others, the rulers – or are we ourselves also part of it?

Scientific psychology is the appropriate instrument for this self-knowledge. It is a science about man, about human nature: how he becomes, how he grows up, what experiences and knowledge he acquires, how he finds his way in life. His experiences are imparted to him above all by his parents and teachers. He is then the product of his experiences and impressions in childhood.

Already in the first years of life – at the age of five to six – the child has a compass. It then knows how to behave. It also has an opinion about the other child and about the father, mother and siblings. It already has its character and knows its position in the world.

Enlightenment and education are the most important protective measures against war and all other inhumane and freedom-stealing “orders” of the corrupt authorities. The authoritarian education of the past created a type of human being who only knew the categories of “ruling” and “serving”. No wonder that this type of person could neither solve social problems nor eliminate war. Religious and social ideologies as well as privileges in social life prevent people from understanding the unity of the human race. Thus second thoughts are sown among those who would depend on it to secure a tolerable existence on this earth.

Today we know that only psychological methods of education – renunciation of inappropriate authority and the use of violence as well as an understanding of the child’s soul – can develop people who are immune to the entanglements of power madness and no longer possess a subjugated mentality.

It is not yet possible to say when the conscience of humanity, whose call of admonition goes through the centuries, will finally make itself heard. But since the existence of the human race depends on people professing all-human solidarity to a far greater extent than before, we should leave no stone unturned in taking the appropriate psychological measures.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel holds a doctorate in education (Dr. paed.) and a degree in psychology (Dipl.-Psych.). He was a teacher for many decades (retired headmaster) and as a retired psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education as well as an education for public spirit and peace. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes 

(1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/der-manipulierte-mensch-ist-zu-allem-fahig-auser-nein-zu-sagen/5747724 

(2) https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-pdf-ebook-the-worldwide-corona-crisis-global-coup-detat-against-humanity-by-michel-chossudovsky/5791054

(3) https://de.rt.com/europa/154103-es-ist-verbrechen-an-demokratie/

(4) Zweitausendeins. German first edition 2002

(5) op. cit., p. 23

(6) op. cit., p. 1

(7) https://www.globalresearch.ca/leo-n-tolstoi-rede-gegen-den-krieg-aufruf-an-die-menschen-du-sollst-nicht-toten/5777397

(8) https://www.globalresearch.ca/returning-man-nature-paul-thiry-dholbach/5798348

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-economic-human-crisis-crime-unimagined-proportions/5799039

The Hegemonic UN-WEF-NATO Triad: U.N. “Sustainable Development” (SDG 2030) = Endless Wars, Poverty and Famine Worldwide

«The United Nations as it exists today is useless, inoperative, dysfunctional and an instrument of the empire». Padre Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

We commemorate Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. 

“Those of us who do understand the nefariousness of the empire, and the ever-increasing danger it represents, must be clear that the effective defense of life on planet Earth, including that of the human species itself, inexorably demands the existence of an independent and democratic world forum for a genuine and effective defense of the rights of Mother Earth and of humanity.

That is why we insist, repeat and say time and again that the United Nations as it exists today is useless, inoperative, dysfunctional and an instrument of the empire. That is why it no longer enjoys any confidence or credibility whatsoever. 

Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann.  Managua, 28 February 2011

This article is dedicated to the memory of my mentor and lifelong friend Padre Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann.

In 2020, the National University of Nicaragua (UNAN) established the Centro de Desarrollo Miguel d’Escoto Brockman (CEDMEB).

Padre Miguel d’Escoto’s Legacy will Live Forever. 

Introduction 

The UN System has over the years become of an instrument of U.S. hegemony. In the words of Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann:

“We must wrest it from those who have usurped it so that we, the truly concerned for the future of the Earth, can inject new life, relevance and effectiveness into our world Organization.”  

Appointed by Washington, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has more than usurped our trust. He is the epitome of ambiguity and DoubleSpeak, particularly in relation to the dramatic social and economic crisis affecting the Global South. 

“Poverty is increasing and hunger is growing… the conclusion is clear, the world is failing developing countries.” said UNSG General Antonio Guterres in his opening presentation at the September 2023 G77 Conference Venue in Havana.

Global poverty has become part of a convenient political “narrative”. What has Guterres done to reverse the tide of global poverty? Nothing!

“Guterres got the UN job only because he is gullible and corruptible. He is drumming the drums of the ruling elite’s narrative – be it covid, climate or the energy crisis; or whatever else may hit the crisis-board. Fossil fuel causing climate change is a scientifically proven lie. No trillion dollars can undo it.” (Peter Koenig)

Guterres is not only an instrument of the White House, his 2030 UN Sustainable Development Project is being carried out in coordination with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF), which represents the interests of the global financial establishment. Needless to say, Big Money calls the shots. 

The UN-WEF Partnership

A strategic partnership was signed in 2019 at a meeting held at UN headquarters between UN Secretary-General António Guterres and WEF Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Signing of the WEF-UN Partnership 

The 2030 UN Sustainable Development Project is the WEF’s “Great Reset” by another name. 

This partnership is in blatant violation of the UN Charter. The UNSG is in conflict of interest. He has provided a Green Light to the implementation of the WEF’s Agenda on behalf of powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians, which essentially consists in impoverishing the entire planet. 

What should have been debated by the G77 in Havana in September 2023 is the nature of this insidious WEF-UN partnership. It’s a neoliberal agenda to the nth degree on behalf of “Big Money”, to the obvious detriment of the Global South. It is part and parcel of the WEF’s “Great Reset”:

“The UN-Forum partnership will focus on aligning financial systems and accelerating finance flows toward the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Collaboration will seek to build a shared understanding of sustainable investing, especially in small island developing States, least developed countries and landlocked developing countries, and identify and take forward solutions to increase SDG investments” (emphasis added)

To consult the text of the UN-WEF partnership click here

“Aligning Financial Systems” 

While Guterres refers rhetorically to the failed  “global systems and structures”, he is visibly involved in “aligning financial systems” to the detriment of heavily indebted developing countries, which are the victims of U.S. dollarization. 

While the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) launched in the early 1980s prevails, the Neoliberal chessboard has become increasingly complex.

“Aligning financial systems” goes far beyond the imposition of “IMF economic medicine”, which historically has triggered mass poverty throughout the Global South.

While the dollar denominated external debt remains the instrument of economic subservience, “Aligning financial systems” is intent upon opening the door to privatization on a large scale affecting entire sectors and regions of both developing countries and the West. 

The large portfolio investment funds including BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard (coupled with Wall Street’s banking cartels) are the driving force. “Their holdings are colossal. BlackRock manages nearly $10 trillion in investments. Vanguard has $8 trillion, and State Street has $4 trillion” (NYT)

“BlackRock Owns the World”

The portfolio companies have strategic investments in all major regions of the World.

BlackRock operates Worldwide with 70 offices in 38 countries. 

“These oligarchs are accompanied by some super-giant financial institutions, like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity and more which control an estimated 25 trillion dollars-equivalent in assets, giving them a leverage power of well-over a 100 trillion dollars, as compared to the world’s GDP of some 90 trillion dollars. In other words, they can manipulate, control and pressure every government on Mother Earth to do their bidding. (Peter Koenig)

Video: BlackRock, the Company that Owns the World

Below are three major BlackRock initiatives.

In the case of Ukraine, the levels of indebtedness are beyond description. The agreement with BlackRock is tantamount to the privatization of an entire country.  

BlackRock In Brazil’s Amazon Rain Forest

The amounts invested in the Amazon are colossal under the auspices of the three portfolio investment giants: “The 20 institutional investors plowed a combined $54.1 billion into nine mining conglomerates … “Of that amount, $14.8 billion came from just three U.S. firms — BlackRock, Capital Group [a US Financial Services Company] and Vanguard — with BlackRock alone pouring $6.2 billion into the mining companies.” (Mongabay) 

BlackRock In Kenya

“BlackRock Alternatives’ public-private finance vehicle, Climate Finance Partnership (CFP), has acquired a 31.25% stake in Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP), the largest wind farm in Africa. The stake was purchased from Vestas, Finnfund, and the Investment Fund for Developing Countries for an undisclosed sum” (Kenya Wallstreet Journal)

Ukraine is Being Bought Up by BlackRock and JPMorgan

In recent developments, BlackRock together with JPMorgan “have  come to the rescue of Ukraine”, whose external dollar denominated debt is beyond description. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 2023)  

The stated objective is “to attract billions of dollars in private investment to assist rebuilding projects in a war-torn country”. (FT, June 19, 2023) 

The Privatization of Ukraine was launched in November 2022 in liaison  with BlackRock’s  consulting company  McKinsey, a public relations firm which has largely been responsible for co-opting corrupt politicians and officials Worldwide not to mention scientists and intellectuals on behalf of powerful financial interests.

In late December 2022, president Zelensky and BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink agreed on an investment strategy.

.

The Hegemonic Triad:

UN-WEF-NATO

UN-NATO “Cooperation”

In parallel with the UN-WEF Partnership, the United Nations under Secretary General Guterres has developed a strategic relationship with NATO.

While it is described as a dialogue, NATO is increasingly embedded in the UN system, allegedly endorsing “peace support and crisis management”. The realities are otherwise: the UN is endorsing the US-NATO hegemonic agenda of Global Warfare:

“The complexity of today’s security challenges has required a broader dialogue between NATO and the UN. This has led to reinforced cooperation and liaison arrangements between the staff of the two organisations, as well as UN specialised agencies. (NATO, July 2023

Stoltenberg and Guterres

The UN Secretary General’s “Public Relations Ploy”

Providing a “Human Face” to Global Capitalism 

UNSG Antonio Guterres has launched a stereotyped public relation’s ploy which is intent upon presenting the UN-WEF-NATO Agenda as a means to resolving the climate crisis, eliminating poverty as well as instating “World Peace”. it’s a lie. 

In 2021, in preparation of the 76th UN General Assembly, the UNSG appointed  “advocates” to endorse the Sustainable Development Goals

In September 2021, the UN Secretary-General appointed four new advocates of the SDGs as part of a reprehensible public relations ploy:

• the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, Kailash Satyarthi;
• the president of Microsoft, Brad Smith;
• the k-pop superstars BLACKPINK 
• Chile’s STEM activist – science, technology, Valentina Muñoz. (Chica Rosadita)

This is how public opinion and media coverage is manipulated at the UN General Assembly.

Censorship in applied. Independent analysts are not invited. 

I have high regard and admiration for the k-pop singers, but for UNSG Antonio Guterres to have invited them to present a carefully prepared script (on his behalf) to the UN 76th General Assembly was improper and unbefitting. 

Also in 2021, Valentina Munoz (La Chica Rosadita) of 19 years old was invited by Guterres to endorse the UN Agenda 2030 in an address to the UN General Assembly: 

Chilean left-wing activist Valentina Muñoz advises the United Nations on Agenda 2030: “This is no longer a negotiation. That’s why it’s called an agenda and not a wish list.” pic.twitter.com/8N4VFoFagj

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 24, 2023

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-un-wef-nato-triad-u-n-sustainable-development-sdg-endorses-endless-wars-poverty-and-famine-worldwide/5833396

The Digital Revolution of Artificial Intelligence: Beneficial Economic Creative Destruction or Systemic Dehumanization

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

“The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development… incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. That process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” —Joseph Schumpeter(1883-1950), American economist and political thinker of Austrian origin, in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1942.

“Every change is a menace to stability.  That’s another reason why we’re so chary of applying new inventions. Every discovery in pure science is potentially subversive; even science must sometimes be treated as a possible enemy. Yes, even science.” —Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British author of the 1932 futuristic novel Brave New World, ch.16.

“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” —Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), British author, in his essay ‘Adonis and the Alphabet’, 1956.

“Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal.” —Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born theoretical physicist, 1917.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) is probably the most important thing humanity has ever worked on. I think of it as something more profound than electricity or fire.” —Sundar Picha (1972- ), chief executive officer (CEO) of Alphabet Inc. and of its subsidiary Google, in 2018.

Introduction

The digital revolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI), currently evolving very rapidly, is a technological innovation that uses complex computer programs and sophisticated mathematical algorithms. These robotic systems and AI-based models, powered by AI chips and using super computers, can automate repetitive tasks, produce texts and quickly process vast quantities of data, in complementarity with humans.

However, beyond the economic benefits that would result, there is the threat of a gradual replacement of human beings by intelligent robots, in a number of functions and activities that lend themselves to such a substitution.

Such technological advances have great potential to profoundly upend national economies, businesses and societies in decades to come, when new capital investments replace older obsolete capital investments, and some categories of workers would be replaced by intelligent machines that require more specialized workers.

This could even possibly lead to a dystopian ‘Brave New World‘, if autonomous brain-machines, in the next futuristic era, are capable of self-improvement and are able to think by themselves, and possibly, could even learn to program other brainy machines, with hardly any human input.

The Global Impact of Industrial Revolutions

All technological inventions produce positive advances but can also be accompanied by various disruptions and negative effects.

For example, the invention of the knife, which can be used to cut bread; but it also enables one to cut someone’s throat. Likewise, the invention of dynamite and explosives helped the mining industry, but it also made wars deadlier and increased the destructive power of terrorists tenfold.

The same is true of the discovery of the fission of the atom, which led to the development of nuclear energy. This invention made it possible to produce electricity; it also made it possible to build atomic bombs and destroy entire cities and their inhabitants.

It is difficult to know precisely, in advance, what purpose a new technology will serve, for good or for evil, for economic progress or for human regression.

Questions Raised by Artificial Intelligence (AI)

As with any new technology, the AI applications today and their generalization in the future will undoubtedly create winners and losers, and not only in the economic field, but also in politics, geopolitics, social affairs, biology, in arts and even in military conflicts. It is therefore important to assess whether the winners will be more numerous than the losers, or whether it will be rather the opposite, with a small number of successful operators and a large number of expendables.

For instance, what will be the consequences of Nvidia’s AI systems or of the pre-programmed conversational robots, such as those of ChatGPT (Open AI), Copilot (Microsoft) or Gemini (Google)? Will they improve the standard of living and the quality of life of the greatest number, or will they allow some to get rich, but render entire categories of workers obsolete and impoverished? In such case, they could end up increasing income and wealth disparities.

Indeed, each new industrial revolution in the past made some successful capitalist pioneers ultra rich. For instance, there was a period in the United States, in the late 19th century, called the era of the Robber Barons. It was a time characterized by rich monopolists (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Mellon, etc.), in the industries of steel, oil, railroads or finance, who crushed competitors, rigged markets, and corrupted governments.

At the political and geopolitical levels, is it possible nowadays that some malicious oligarchies could use such digital machines to better monitor and control people and to more easily launch wars in the future?

All of this is far from being of purely theoretical concerns. The U.S. Pentagon is already planning to use intelligent robots and drones, controlled by Artificial Intelligence, to wage the wars of the future.

The Short and Medium Term and Longer Term Economic Effects of AI and the Four Industrial Revolutions Since 1760

In economics, the notions of short-term (1-4 years), medium-term (4-9 years) and long-term (10 years or more) can vary, depending on the economic and financial sectors. For the economy as a whole, it is possible to refer to short, medium and longer term economic business cycles. For example, many years passed between the invention of the first giant computer, as large as a building, in 1946, and the innovation of the portable computer on the computer market, in 1977, and then the arrival of Apple’s Macintosh computers, in 1998.

The first industrial revolution (1760-1870) began in the mid-18th century in Britain, in the textile industry. For the first time in history, overall production and consumption in a country could grow faster than population, thanks to the productivity gains that technological innovations and production techniques made possible.

The discoveries of new sources of energy, such as those coming from gas and oil, in addition to that of coal, as well as electricity, were at the center of the second industrial revolution (1870-1914). This led to innovations in means of transport (railway, steamboat, automobile and airplane). Increased industrialization then caused a demographic migration from the countryside to the cities, which accentuated the phenomenon of urbanization, resulting in the creation of large cities and mega-metropolises with high population density.

The third industrial revolution (1930-2010) is characterized by the innovation of nuclear energy and the advent of the information age, mainly during the second part of the 20th century. It was made possible by the invention of the microprocessor and by the creation of the first computers, followed by the innovation of the Internet, satellites and wireless communication.

As for the ongoing fourth industrial revolution (arising from applications of Artificial Intelligence, an expression first introduced in 2011, at a conference held in Germany to design a new industrial policy for that country based on high technology strategies), it would be wise to distinguish an initial period of shock and transition, and a longer period of gradual acceptance and maturity, which can extend over several decades, even a century or more.

A Difficult Transition of Layoffs, in the Short and Medium Term, for Workers in the Tertiary Sector Most Threatened by Digitalization and Automation

Already, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Goldman Sacks investment bank, among others, have attempted to quantify the net effect that applications of Artificial Intelligence will have on different categories of workers. For the IMF, 40% of jobs in the world could be affected, in one way or another, by the development of AI. These will mainly be jobs in the tertiary service sector, which risk being replaced, or affected to varying degrees, by intelligent robots. Indeed, we can classify jobs likely to be affected in one way or another by AI systems in three categories:

1- jobs potentially substituted or replaced, (such as support or secretarial jobs in banks, insurance companies, accounting offices, libraries, etc.);

2- jobs not threatened by AI because they are performed either outdoors or because they require physical activity ( e.g. carpenter, plumber, electrician, painter, roofer, hairdresser, etc.);

3- the vast majority of jobs will be influenced to a certain degree by AI, particularly in finance, education, health, medicine, engineering, administration, cybernetics, video games, etc.

For example, in a study published in March 2023, Goldman Sachs estimated how much Artificial Intelligence could influence employment for the entire American economy. Their conclusion was that AI could replace 7% of current jobs, mainly jobs of office and white-collar workers, in years to come. However, the majority of jobs, 63% of the total, can be expected to be complementary to AI, would benefit from productivity gains and could even increase in importance. On the other hand, some 30% of jobs, mainly manual jobs, would hardly or not at all be affected by AI.

The Role of Politics, Supervision and Regulation of Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Artificial Intelligence revolution can undoubtedly both replace and create jobs, and, by increasing labor productivity, create wealth. However, this risks causing some upheaval in certain labor markets and resulting in significant layoffs of workers in some industries.

This is why governments, responsible for the general interest, must ensure that there are no major economic and social excesses and adapt educational programs to the qualifications required in the future. They must also ensure that workers potentially penalized by layoffs are compensated and that the new wealth thus generated can benefit society as a whole, and not just a handful of operators. This will not be an easy task because there is international competition between countries to monopolize the beneficial impacts of the new technologies.

Currently, the countries that are at the forefront of regulating Artificial Intelligence technologies and AI systems are the European Union, China, the United States and the United Kingdom. The EU has put forward a preliminary regulatory and digital strategy framework called the AI Act. The objective is to identify acceptable and unacceptable risks that will arise from the applications of new digital technologies. Likewise, in June 2022, the Canadian federal government introduced the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (LIAD) as part of bill C-27, i.e. the Digital Charter Implementation Act of 2022. The purpose is to guide AI innovation in a positive direction and to encourage a responsible adoption of AI technologies by Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Conclusions

Does the advent of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution herald an extraordinarily promising breakthrough for humanity, or does it rather carry a risk of great confusion and civilizational regression?

Indeed, many questions come to mind: will humans master the various Artificial Intelligence systems so that they serve not only the private economic and industrial interests behind their applications, but also that of displaced workers and the common interest? Is it possible that these systems will become so pervasive and so powerful that they could end up becoming forces of control, dehumanization and enslavement for large numbers of people?

A first conclusion is that no one can definitely answer these questions with precision and with full knowledge of the facts. And if we ever do get the answers, it may be too late. Consequently, everything will depend on the uses that we make of this new technology.

The digital revolution of Artificial Intelligence therefore raises more questions than it gives answers, as it is a technology that is expected to evolve and find new applications, good or bad, over time.

A second conclusion is that countries and economies that fall behind in adopting the AI technology could experience economic difficulties in the years and decades to come. Even those economies in the forefront of the new industrial revolution could expect an increase in incomes and wealth disparities.

A third conclusion is that the innovation of intelligent robots driven by Artificial Intelligence certainly opens up a new field for gains in labor productivity through creative destruction,  in a certain number of professions and industries. However, it is rightly a cause for concern, as it could also facilitate cheating, falsification, confusion and dehumanization of human beings in many areas.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He was Minister of Trade and Industry (1976-79) in the Lévesque government. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University. Please visit Dr Tremblay’s site or email to a friend here.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

---

The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles

by Rodrigue Tremblay, Preface by Paul Kurtz

Publisher: ‎ Prometheus (April 27, 2010)

Hardcover: ‎ 300 pages

ISBN-10: ‎ 1616141727

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1616141721

Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma. This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together. In the face of the obvious challenges to international stability-from nuclear proliferation, environmental degradation, economic turmoil, and reactionary and sometimes violent religious movements-a code based on the “natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings” is needed more than ever. In separate chapters the author delves into the issues surrounding these ten humanist principles: preserving individual dignity and equality, respecting life and property, tolerance, sharing, preventing domination of others, eliminating superstition, conserving the natural environment, resolving differences cooperatively without resort to violence or war, political and economic democracy, and providing for universal education. This forward-looking, optimistic, and eminently reasonable discussion of humanist ideals makes an important contribution to laying the foundations for a just and peaceable global community.

Click here to purchase.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/digital-revolution-artificial-intelligence-beneficial-economic-creative-destruction-systemic-dehumanization/5851343

“Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”: Secret Gathering Sponsored by Bill Gates, 2009 Meeting of “The Good Club”

Is Worldwide Depopulation Part of the Billionaire’s «Great Reset»

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

For more than ten years, meetings have been held by billionaires described as philanthropists to Reduce the Size of the World’s Population culminating with the 2020-2023 Covid crisis.

Recent developments suggest that “Depopulation” is an integral part of the so-called Covid mandates including the lockdown policies and the mRNA “vaccine”. 

Flash back to 2009. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Billionaires Try to Shrink World’s Population”.

In May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.

This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club”. 

Among the participants were the late David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg  Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and many more. 

In May 2009, the WSJ as well as the Sunday Times reported: (John Harlow, Los Angeles) that

“Some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.”

The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e,. the reduction in the absolute size of the World’s population.

To read complete WSJ article click here.

According to the Sunday Times report :

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

…

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest.  …

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.(Sunday Times)

Shrinking The World’s Population

The media reports on the May 5, 2009 secret gathering focussed on the commitment of “The Good Club” to “slowing down” the growth of the World’s population.

“Shrink the World Population” (the WSJ Title) goes beyond Planned Parenthood which consists in “Reducing the Growth of World Population”. It consists in “Depopulation”, namely reducing the absolute size of the World’s  Population, which ultimately requires reducing the rate of birth (which would include reduced fertility) coupled with a significant increase in the death rate.

Secret Meeting: At the Height of the H1N1 Pandemic

On April 25, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) headed by Margaret Chan declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). And a couple of weeks later, the “Good Club” met in NYC at the height of the H1N1 swine flu pandemic which turned out to be a scam.

It is also worth noting that at very outset of the H1N1 crisis in April 2009, Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, London was advising Bill Gates and the WHO:  “40 per cent of people in the UK could be infected [with H1N1] within the next six months if the country was hit by a pandemic.”

Sounds familiar? That was the same Neil Ferguson (generously supported by the Gates Foundation) who designed the coronavirus Lockdown Model (launched on March 11, 2020). As we recall, that March 2020 mathematical model was based on “predictions” of 600,000 deaths in the UK.  

And now (Summer- Autumn 2021) a third authoritative “mathematical model” by the same “scientist” (Ferguson) was formulated to justify a “Fourth Wave Lockdown”. 

Saving Lives to Achieve “Depopulation”

Was an absolute “reduction” in World population contemplated at that May 2009 secret meeting? 

A few months later,  Bill Gates in his TED presentation (February 2010) pertaining to vaccination, confirmed the following;

“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.

According to Gates’ statement, this would represent  an absolute reduction of the World’s population (2010) of the order of 680 million to 1.02 billion.

(See quotation on Video starting at 04.21. See also screenshot of Transcript of quotation)

TED Talk at 04:21:

The COVID-19 Endgame: Global Governance, “Digital Tyranny” and the Depopulation Agenda

“The Good Club” Then and Now

The same group of billionaires who met at the May 2009 secret venue at the Rockefeller University in Manhattan, have been actively involved from the outset of the Covid crisis in designing the lockdown policies applied Worldwide including the mRNA vaccine and the WEF’s “Great Reset”.

The mRNA vaccine is not a project of a UN intergovernmental body (WHO) on behalf the member states of the UN: It’s a private initiative. The billionaire elites who fund and enforce the Covid Vaccine Project Worldwide are Eugenists committed to Depopulation.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-may-2009-meeting-of-the-good-club-billionaire-club-in-bid-to-curb-overpopulation/5742626

The Transnational Capitalist Class. The Billionaires, The Trillionaires. “Stake Holder Capitalism” and The New World Order

By Rick Thomas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

***

In 2011, the Great British Class Survey was conducted, in collaboration with academics from the University of Manchester, the London School of Economics, and the University of York. The British have always been obsessed with class, so it is not surprising that British academics would attempt something of this nature.

The survey polled 161,400 people, and in a fit of obviousness, they concluded,

“We demonstrate the existence of an ‘elite’, whose wealth separates them from an established middle class.”

They also concluded that class distinctions had broadened into a multitude of seven classes. This is an expansion of the Marxist model of class division of capitalists and workers that has dominated academic circles for at least a hundred years.

According to Karl Marx:

1. Capitalist bourgeoisie — If you control the means of production this is you.
2. Worker — Oppressed and exploited proletariat with no control of the means of production. Sells his or her labor for profit.

The survey included “unusually detailed questions based on social, cultural and economic capital.”

For the economic capital section, the survey asks how much money you make and how much money you have in the bank, plus the value of your house.

Secondly, to determine your cultural capital, it asks what kind of cultural activities you participate in. This is based on high brow culture—preference for interests such as classical music, historic architecture, museums, art galleries, jazz, theatre and French restaurants. And the other, for emergent culture—appreciation and participation in such activities as video games, social networking, sports, hanging out with friends, working out at the gym, and rap or rock concerts.

Thirdly, social capital was measured using the position generator originated by Nan Lin, an American sociologist, in 2001, which measures the range of social connections. People were asked if they knew anyone in several dozen occupations.

Seven Classes

The study found there are seven distinct classes:

1. a wealthy elite
2. a prosperous salaried middle class consisting of professionals and managers
3. a class of technical experts
4. a class of new affluent workers
5. an aging traditional working class
6. a ‘precariat‘ characterized by very low levels of capital and ongoing precarious economic insecurity
7. a group of emergent service workers

This is an incomplete list in my humble opinion, because it fails to mention the homeless who are a separate class of non-persons, comparable to the Dalit caste in India. Homeless people have virtually no rights and squeeze out a fragile existence as urban nomads.

The most interesting group #7, the precariat, are the working poor who often fall into homelessness, when things go sideways in the economy or in their personal lives. The word precariat is a neologism of the words precarious and proletariat, coined by economist, Guy Standing, in his book, The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class.

The survey claims that the Elite class has a “mean household income of £89k (152K CDN), almost double that of the next highest class, and the average house price is £325k (556k CDN), considerably higher than any other class.” However, this elite class is only the upper middle class. The real elites make far more money than a meagre £89k per year. Many of them make that much in a day.

Other sociologists have gone further to sub-divide the wealthy into several categories:

Millionaires or High-Net-Worth Individual (HNWI) – those with $1 million or greater in investible assets. There are approximately 15 million HNWIs in the world according to the World’s Wealthiest Cities Report 2023 by Henley & Partners.

Multimillionaires or Ultra-High-Net-Worth-Individuals (UHNWI) – those with $30 million or greater net worth. There are 211,275 UHNW individuals in the world, with a total combined net worth of US$29.7 trillion.

Billionaires – According to Forbes, there are 2,640 billionaires in the world who are collectively worth about $12 trillion. The number of billionaires has been doubling every 10 years. In 2013, there were 1426 billionaires, worth $5.5 trillion. In 2003, there were 476 billionaires worth just $1.4 trillion.

Trillionaires – This class does not even exist in the media or academic circles. Above the billionaire class are the invisible trillionaires, who are never mentioned by Forbes, or any other list of the wealthy. Nobody really knows how much they are worth. Generally speaking, it is assumed by the alternative community, that people like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are at the top of this list, and the best guess is that there are about 300 trillionaire families at the top of the heap. These families are mostly American, British and European aristocracy, with a handful of Russian oligarchs and Hong Kong Chinese thrown in for good measure. They include the DuPont, Astor, Cabot, Oppenheimer, Schiff, Warburg, Russell, Onassis, Morgan, Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Vanderbilt, and virtually, the entire European monarchy.

“The Vacuum Cleaner Class”

This elite class of families are “a vacuum that cleaner class” who have crawled over the whole planet, vacuuming up enormous wealth in the last couple of decades. The economic crisis of 2008 and the pandemic of 2019 created opportunities for the uber wealthy to buy up more property, banks, real estate and stocks.

Another study conducted in 2011 by the University of Zürich applied mathematical models to the top 43,060 transnational corporations. The study concluded that a “super-entity” of 147 corporations control 40% of the world’s wealth. These corporations exhibit very high levels of interconnectedness—directors sit on multiple boards and each of these corporations have heavily invested $403 billion in each other. Out of these 147, the top 17 have $41.1 trillion in assets and operate in virtually every nation on Earth.

The majority of these corporations are American, and most are financial institutions.

Davos 2023: Fragmenting the World

The Transnational Capitalist Class

Referring to the upcoming WEF in 2024, Tracy Francis, a senior partner at management consulting firm, McKinsey & Co, claims the value of the Davos meeting is in

“the human interaction of a multitude of different types of entities—start-ups, nonprofits, governmental organizations, business. There’s a lot of talk about a new world order, but I do think that just being together in person and exchanging ideas increases connectivity.”

Davos is the yearly conclave for the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a term coined by Leslie Sklair, in his book of the same title. The strength of the TCC lies not only in their phenomenal wealth, but in their ability to interconnect and create think tanks and policy-making networks. The Transnational Institute describes the main purpose of the World Economic Forum is

“to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s “Mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.”

The WEF has forged an agreement with the United Nations to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” by deepening institutional coordination and collaboration between the UN and the WEF.

Much more disturbing is that the agreement grants transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System at the expense of States and public interest actors.

This “preferential access,” gives corporations special oversight privileges, making them, in conjunction with the WEF, a higher executive authority. “This agreement between the UN and WEF formalizes a disturbing corporate capture of the UN. It moves the world dangerously towards a privatized and undemocratic global governance,” said Gonzalo Berrón of the Transnational Institute.

Stakeholder Capitalism

Contrary to the epic rants of many in the alternative community, who swear on their grandmothers’ graves, that we are experiencing a global communist takeover—what is actually happening is the creation of a transnational capitalist techno-state.

Klaus Schwab, the author and finisher of Stakeholder Capitalism (not Stakeholder Communism) has been advocating his peculiar brand of capitalism for five decades. Communism is when the workers control the means of production. Capitalism is when the capitalists control the means of production.

Schwab and the World Economic Forum portray Stakeholder Capitalism in warm and fuzzy tones:

“The stakeholder model Schwab suggests, is one where government, business, and individuals collaborate.”

“Various stakeholders of an economy don’t only look after their own interests, but that of society as whole, leading to a system of stakeholder capitalism”.

Stakeholder Capitalism is essentially the attempt to bring all the stakeholders to the bargaining table. The World Economic Forum is the bargaining table. The stakeholders are any individual, corporation, nation, city, NGO or entity with wealth, power and global influence. Some of the main institutions that sit at the table are the UN, World Bank, BIS, IMF, G20, WHO and NATO.

This week, January 15-19, the WEF syndicated crime extravaganza will go down in Davos, Switzerland. Approximately 3000 stakeholders will fly in private jets to attend the annual conclave. According to the WEF website, members will include:

• 60 heads of state (national crime bosses)
• all major international organizations (private control grid)
• the Forum’s 1000 partners-in-crime
• as well as civil society leaders (gangsters-in-training)
• foremost experts (paid liars)
• young changemakers (useful idiots)
• social entrepreneurs (propaganda artists)
• and the (always compliant) media

This transnational oligopoly of crime bosses will sit with Godfather Klaus Schwab.

They will schmooze, plot and scheme, and finally, come to agreements on a multitude of global policy issues that will impact the future of our planet.

None of these policy decisions will have any consultation with the public. In fact, most of these decisions will be made in back-door meetings. The public will not even be informed of the existence of these policies, until after these agreements are signed and ratified by orgs like the United Nations, WHO, and the G20.

The Transnational Capitalist Class Question

The most pressing question of our time is how do we reign in the Transnational Capitalist Class, who answer to no one, are unelected, and have so much wealth and power that they are virtually omnipotent globally? Combined with this is the difficulty of access to them and their institutions, which have increasingly become deaf to the world around them. They are insulated by their wealth—they fly around in private jets, live in gated communities and sail in private yachts. They live above the law, accountable to no one except themselves.

The foremost goal of many conservatives is to preserve the nation-state system at all costs. Most conservatives view national sovereignty as a sacred cow, along with the free market. Many believe we need a Libertarian utopia where no one pays taxes, the market is unregulated, government is local, decentralized, and ideally as minimal as possible.

This is most likely never going to happen. The world is interconnected with trade, transportation, media and communication at an unprecedented level, never before witnessed in world history. It cannot be unconnected. The reason the TCC has been able to achieve their goals is because of this global interconnectedness.

Evolution Versus Revolution

A quick review of about twelve thousand years of human history reveals a gradual evolution from tribal clans to farming villages to market towns to city-states to feudal kingdoms to parliamentary monarchy to the nation-state system that began in 1648 with the signing of the Westphalian Treaties.

There are many forces outside of the control of the TCC, such as gravity, mortality and evolution. The transition to a global system of government is the next stage in the political evolution of our planet.

Evolution is not just biological—it occurs on all levels. Human beings have experienced the evolution of our political, economic, cultural and social systems over thousands of years. The unprecedented explosion of science and technology that occurred through the Scientific Revolution was also outside the control of the TCC, despite their obvious success at exploiting and profiting from this revolution.

The nation-state system is deteriorating, and being replaced by a multipolar system, not because the TCC are the causal agents of this transition, albeit they are actively embracing this change in order to further their goals and agendas. Those who are clinging for dear life to the lifeboat of national sovereignty are destined to be cast adrift on the oceans of change.

It does not matter what system of government is put in place, whether it is a municipal, provincial, federal or even a global government. What matters is if the freedom and rights of the citizens are protected and enforced. Without freedom of speech, assembly, press, worship and transit, We the People have nothing. Even democracy can be totalitarian if the elections are only a choice between various tyrants.

What is needed is some serious judo, using the full weight of the TCC against them, or more accurately with them. An interconnected network of citizens needs to be created on an unprecedented level—a movement of unparalleled solidarity, unity and commitment. This means breaking down the traditional ideological barriers between the left and right, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat. It also means speaking with One Voice, and directly challenging the Transnational Capitalist Class.

A New Social Contract

A new Social Contract needs to be signed and ratified, between We the People and the TCC. So far, there is no social contract with the TCC, and they have no desire to have one. They want a stakeholders’ contract only, that ensures their rights, but none for the rest of the planet. Their ultimate goal is to eradicate all rights and freedoms on Earth.

It is virtually impossible to unseat them from their Halls of Power. A violent revolution on a global scale against the armies of NATO, along with the vast security apparatus of the TCC would be a formidable challenge, and unlikely to be met with any success, unless the revolutionaries directly confront the members of the aristocratic global family with appropriate force.

Force is not violence.

The employment of unified, constant and unrelenting social force upon the architects of the new world order is an achievable goal. The battle needs to be taken to their private residences and their private offices. The TCC must be forced through social pressure to hand over the keys of the kingdom to the people.

Almost all previous social movements were national in character, such as the black civil rights movement in the United States. The women’s suffrage movement had more of an international flavour, but the right to vote was a national challenge, that each nation undertook in order to enshrine women’s rights in national charters. We have a global challenge to force the TCC to obey the rights of citizens across the entire global spectrum.

Clauses and agreements need to be inserted in all the policies of the WEF, UN, WHO, G20 and the rest of the TCC network. The rights and freedoms of all citizens of the Earth need to be protected, not only by the rule of law, but also enforced by the people. Any government, whether it is local or a world government, must guarantee the safety and security of its people. If the TCC wants legitimacy as a global government, it must guarantee peace and prosperity. There can be no peace and prosperity without the guarantee of civil rights.

Organizations like the WEF need to be pressured to allow representatives from across the spectrum of classes, who are not currently represented. The WEF needs to be forced to become a more democratic institution, where attendees from the other various classes are permitted.

Sound far-fetched? Maybe it is, but so far, the efforts to oppose the WEF have not been successful. Ordinary citizens are not allowed entrance to the meetings. The fee for attendance is over $70,000, which makes attendance exclusive only to the Transnational Capitalist Class.

How are we going to negotiate with them, if we are not even allowed in the door? We need to get our foot in the door, even if it means kicking the door down. Schwab and his mafia bosses must not be permitted to continue with their plans for enslaving the entire planet. Unless we crash the Davos party, it will be caviar, steak and lobster on the menu for them, and insects for us.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Rick Thomas is a musician, activist and the author of How to Defeat the New World Order. For social activism: VictoryCanada.today and for all articles: Substack. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Rick Thomas, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/transnational-capitalist-class/5846305

Meet the “New Normal”: Manipulation, Impoverishment, Worse than the “Old Normal”. You Are Still the Enemy Within

By Colin Todhunter

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Today, we are witnessing the nudging (manipulation) of the population to accept a ‘new normal’ based on

• a climate emergency narrative,
• restrictions on movement and travel,
• programmable digital money,
• ‘pandemic preparedness’ courtesy of the World Health Organization’s tyrannical pandemic treaty,
• unaccountable AI and synthetic ‘food’.

Whether it involves a ‘food transition’, an ‘energy transition’, 15-minute cities or some other benign-sounding term, all this is to be determined by a supranational ‘stakeholder’ elite with ordinary people sidelined in the process. An undemocratic agenda designed to place restrictions on individual liberty, marking a dramatic shift towards authoritarianism.

In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulation-privatisation neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of the state, trade unions and the collective in society.

We are currently seeing another ideological shift:

Individual rights and freedoms are said to undermine the wider needs of society and the planet – in a stark turnaround – personal freedom is now said to pose a threat to national security, public health or the climate.

As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by an economic impulse. This time, the collapsing neoliberal project.

In the UK, poverty is increasing in two-thirds of communities, food banks are now a necessary part of life for millions of people and living standards are plummeting. Indeed, the poorest families are enduring a ‘frightening’ collapse in living standards, resulting in life-changing and life-limiting poverty).

In the US, around 30 million low-income people are on the edge of a ‘hunger cliff’ as a portion of their federal food assistance is taken away.

In 2021, it was estimated that one in eight children were going hungry in the US. Small businesses are filing for bankruptcy in the US at a record rate.

The Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, says that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. This is similar to the response of Rob Kapito, co-founder of the world’s biggest asset management firm, BlackRock. In 2022, the unimaginably rich and entitled Kapito said that a “very entitled” generation of (ordinary working) people who have never had to sacrifice would soon have to face shortages for the first time in their lives.

While business as usual prevails in Kapito’s world of privilege and that of major arms, energy, pharmaceuticals and food companies, whose megarich owners continue to rake in massive profits, Kapito and Pill tell ordinary people to get used to poverty and the ‘new normal’ as if we are ‘all in it together’ – billionaires and working class alike. They conveniently use COVID and the situation in Ukraine as cover for the collapsing neoliberalism.

But this is part of the hegemonic agenda that seeks to ensure that the establishment’s world view is the accepted cultural norm. And anyone who challenges this world view – whether it involves, for instance, questioning climate alarmism, the ‘new normal’, the nature of the economic crisis, the mainstream COVID narrative or the official stance on Ukraine and Russia – is regarded as a spreader of misinformation and the ‘enemy within’.

Although the term ‘enemy within’ was popularised by Margaret Thatcher during the miners’ strike in 1984-85 to describe the striking miners, it is a notion with which Britain’s rulers have regarded protest movements and uprisings down the centuries. From the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 to the Levellers and Diggers in the 17^th century, it is a concept associated with anyone or any group that challenges the existing social order and the interests of the ruling class.

John Ball, a radical priest, addressed the Peasants’ Revolt rebels with the following words:

“Good friends, matters cannot go well in England until all things be held in common; when there shall be neither vassals nor lords; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves.”

The revolt was suppressed. John Ball was captured and hung, drawn and quartered. Part of the blood-soaked history of the British ruling class.

Of Economic Crises and Pandemics – Facebook as Fact, Government as Truth, Big Pharma as God

Later on, the 17^th-century Diggers movement wanted to create small, egalitarian rural communities and farm on common land that had been privatised by enclosures.

The 1975 song ‘The world Turned Upside Down’ by Leon Rosselson commemorates the Diggers. His lyrics describe the aims and plight of the movement. In Rosselson’s words, the Diggers were dispossessed via theft and murder but reclaimed what was theirs only to be violently put down.

Little surprise then that, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used the state machinery to defeat the country’s most powerful and trade union and the shock troops of the labour movement, the National Union of Mineworkers – ‘the enemy within’. She needed to do this to open the gates for capital to profit from the subsequent deindustrialisation of much of the UK and the dismantling of large parts of the welfare state.

And the result?

A hollowed-out, debt-bloated economy, the destruction of the social fabric of entire communities and the great financial Ponzi scheme – the ‘miracle’ of deregulated finance – that now teeters on the brink of collapse, leading the likes of Kapito and Pill to tell the public to get ready to become poor.

And now, in 2023, the latest version of the ‘enemy within’ disseminates ‘misinformation’ – anything that challenges the official state-corporate narrative. So, this time, one goal is to have a fully controlled (censored) internet.

For instance, US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently awarded Accrete a contract for Argus to detect disinformation threats from social media. Argus is AI software that analyses social media data to predict emergent narratives and generate intelligence reports at a speed and scale to help neutralise viral disinformation threats.

Image copyright guirong hao | Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Accrete AI is a leading dual-use enterprise AI company. It deployed its AI Argus software for open-source threat detection with the US Department of Defense in 2022.

In a recent press release, Prashant Bhuyan, founder and CEO of Accrete, boasts:

“Social media is widely recognised as an unregulated environment where adversaries routinely exploit reasoning vulnerabilities and manipulate behaviour through the intentional spread of disinformation. USSOCOM is at the tip of the spear in recognising the critical need to identify and analytically predict social media narratives at an embryonic stage before those narratives evolve and gain traction. Accrete is proud to support USSOCOM’s mission.”

‍This is about predicting wrong think on social media. But control over the internet is just part of a wider programme of establishment domination, surveillance and dealing with protest and dissent.

The recent online article ‘How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics‘ notes that, on any given day, the average person in the US is monitored, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways.

The authors of the article ask us to consider some of the ways the US government is weaponizing its surveillance technologies to flag citizens as a threat to national security, whether or not they have done anything wrong – from flagging citizens as a danger based on their feelings, phone and movements to their spending activities, social media activities, political views and correspondence.

The elite has determined that the existential threat is you. The article ‘Costs of War: Peterloo’, written by UK Veterans for Peace member Aly Renwick, details the history of the brutal suppression of protesters by Britain’s rulers. He also strips away any notion that some may have of a benign, present-day ruling elite with democratic leanings. The leopard has not changed its spots.

As we saw during COVID, the thinking is that hard-won rights must be curtailed, freedom of association is reckless, free thinking is dangerous, dissent is to be stamped on, impartial science is a threat and free speech is deadly. Government is ‘the truth’, Fauci (or some similar figure) is ‘the science’ and censorship is for your own good.

None of this was justified. It only begins to make sense if we regard the COVID restrictions in terms of trying to deal with an economic crisis by closing down the global economy under cover of a public health crisis (see the online articles ‘What Was Covid Really About? Triggering a Multi-Trillion Dollar Global Debt Crisis’ and ‘Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s Ground Zero’ which outline how COVID policies can be explained by economic factors not health concerns).

The economic crisis is making many people poorer, so they must be controlled, monitored and subjugated.

The transitions mentioned at the start of this article along with the surveillance agenda (together known as the ‘Great Reset’) are being accelerated at this time of economic crisis when countless millions across the West are being impoverished. The collapsing financial system is resulting in an interrelated global debt, inflation and ‘austerity’ crisis and the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in history.

As a result, the powers that be fear that the masses might once again pick up their pitchforks and revolt. They are adamant that the peasants must know their place.

But the flame of protest and dissent from centuries past still inspires and burns bright. So, with that in mind, let’s finish with Leon Rosselson’s lyrics in reference to the Diggers movement (Billy Bragg’s version of the song can be found on YouTube):

In sixteen forty-nine
To St. George’s Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people’s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the laws
They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs

We come in peace they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the lands in common
And to make the waste grounds grow
This earth divided
We will makе whole
So it will be
A common treasury for all

Thе sin of property
We do disdain
No man has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Spring up at their command

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feed the rich
While poor man starve

We work we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now

From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers’ claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed
Only the vision lingers on

You poor take courage
You rich take care
The earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

---

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Colin Todhunter, Global Research, 2023

https://www.globalresearch.ca/meet-new-normal-still-enemy-within/5831748

Historical Analysis of the Global Elites: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing’

By Robert J. Burrowes

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This was originally published in March 2022.

A the March 2022 gathering of US congressmen to hear the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the event by crying out, “Slava Ukraini”—“Glory to Ukraine”—no less than five times. This expression has become popular in Washington, London, and elsewhere as of late, with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also bellowing out the cry in a session of the House of Commons and on Twitter.

American President Joe Biden, while not yet tackling the two Ukrainian words, claims at every moment that the more than one billion dollars’ worth of armaments he has poured into Ukraine—enough for every citizen to kill every other multiple times over—is to defend the “freedom” and “dignity” of that nation.

The origins of the term “Slava Ukraini” reveal something about the real relationship of the US and NATO to Ukraine’s working masses of all ethnicities and linguistic groups—Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish, Polish, etc. As biographer Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe explains in his book about Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, “Slava Ukraini” was part of the salute delivered by members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which were collectively responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of Soviets, Jews and Poles during World War II.

Neither the United States nor the EU nor any of their related institutions care now or have ever cared about the people of Ukraine, much less their liberty. Even as they have been using the country as a cat’s paw in their battle with Russia—as a result of which massive amounts of firepower are making their way into the hands of today’s Ukrainian fascists, and parts of the country are being blown to bits—the US and the EU have been economically strangling the Ukrainian people for decades.

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn (R) greets Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovich (L) at the IMF Headquarters April 12, 2010 in Washington, DC. [Photo: International Monetary Fund, Stephen Jaffe]

As measured by GDP per capita, Ukraine, with its 44.13 million inhabitants, is the poorest or second poorest country in Europe. It competes with Moldova, with about 2.6 million people, for these inauspicious titles.

The bottom 50 percent of Ukraine’s population gets just 22.6 percent of all the country’s income and 5.7 percent of its wealth. The top 10 percent own nearly 60 percent of Ukraine’s net personal assets, according to the World Inequality Database, a publication put out under the directorship of three of the globe’s leading specialists in inequality—Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman. In 2018, Ukrainian households’ average net savings stood at minus $245.

The median household income in Ukraine is around $4,400 a year, about on par with that of Iran, whose economy has been operating under crushing sanctions for years. The average wage in Ukraine is estimated to be just €330 a month, and the state-mandated minimum a worker can be paid is €144. According to the Ukrainian government, an individual ought to be able to survive on less than half that amount, as the subsistence minimum is €64. Retirees who are at the bottom rung of the pension scale take home €50 a month.

Comparing Two U.S.-Government Catastrophes: Bush’s 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and Obama’s 2014 Coup in Ukraine

The country’s Institute of Sociology reports that the typical Ukrainian family spends 47 percent of its total income on food and another 32 percent on utility bills. In 2016, nearly 60 percent of people were poor according to government standards, including 60 percent of kids. That poverty rate dropped to “only” 37.8 percent in 2019. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization found that in 2020 15.9 percent of Ukrainian children under 5 were malnourished, and in 2019 17.7 percent of women of reproductive age were anemic, a condition caused by lack of iron in the diet. That number has been steadily rising since 2004. Twenty-four percent of the population is obese.

Between 2014 and 2019, the birthrate fell by 19.4 percent. Ukraine’s mortality rate is extremely high—14.7 per 1,000 people. It is well above that of many countries in Africa, the poorest continent on the globe. Its suicide rate, according to the World Bank, ranks 11th in the world. With deaths outstripping births by more than two to one and hundreds of thousands emigrating annually in search of anything better, the country’s population has shrunk every year since 1993. There are 8 million fewer Ukrainian citizens today than there were 30 years ago.

One could go on. Apart from the super-rich and a narrow layer of middle and upper-middle class people concentrated in the major cities, Ukraine is a sea of deprivation.

This is a direct outcome of economic policies imposed on the country by the very states that today parade around declaring their love for Ukraine. In an immediate sense, the current situation has its roots in the 2014 US-backed coup that brought to power a government in Kiev that immediately signed an association agreement with the EU requiring it to implement severe austerity measures. But it has even deeper roots.

The social and economic disaster in that country can be traced back to the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and the restoration of capitalism in all of the newly independent nation states, which saw their full integration into global financial and trade networks. Through a series of policies collectively known as “shock therapy”—worked out in close collaboration with Western advisers—nationalized property was transferred to private hands. Former Communist Party officials and their children, economic managers and directors of major Soviet factories and sections of industry, as well as criminal elements active in the shadow economy, won out at the expense of the working masses, through a combination of outright theft and bargain basement fire sales of Soviet resources.

Out of this wrecking operation, competing factions of big business emerged in Ukraine that were centered in Donetsk in the east and Dnipropetrovsk to its west, with coal mining and processing, energy production and transit, and metallurgy being their main sources of wealth. Banking and media empires emerged, and new sources of profits were soon realized in consumer products and agriculture.

The ranks of Ukraine’s billionaires began to grow from this period forward—Victor Pinchuk ($1.9 billion), Renat Akhmetov ($7.6 billion), Igor Kolomoyskyy ($1.8 billion), Henadiy Boholyubov ($1.1 billion), Petro Poroshenko ($1.6 billion), Vadim Novinsky ($1.4 billion), and on. For decades, Ukrainian politics has been consumed by conflicts, alliances, splits in alliances, and warring among them, which have intersected with the question as to whether the country would be pulled into closer economic relations with Europe, maintain its strong ties with Russia, or somehow manage the two simultaneously. The warfare has unfolded as geopolitical tensions between Washington and Moscow have grown, with Ukraine understood as a key zone of competition.

During the 1990s, even as great sums were being accumulated at one end of the spectrum, Ukraine’s economy was in free-fall. With per capita GDP declining by 8.4 percent between 1993 and 1999, its economy was among the worst of any European country. Inflation was at times completely out of control, reaching an annual high of around 376 percent in 1995, thereby wiping out the savings and spending power of Ukrainian workers early in the process of market restoration.

“Many young people, who lacked alternatives in the early 1990s, joined gangs and were used as pawns in the process of accumulation by criminals,” observes political economist Yuliya Yurchenko in her 2018 book Ukraine and the Empire of Capital, with warfare between competing business clans producing at times bodies in the streets. A two-and-a-half fold increase in crime between 1988 and 1997 was largely driven by various forms of “theft, robbery, swindling, and extortion” and “bribe taking, counterfeiting, and trading in narcotics,” she notes.

During this time, Ukraine received 10 loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in the start of what would be a near-constant process of borrowing from international financial institutions over the course of the 2000s and 2010s. The terms of the loans have centered around a 1994 “Memorandum on Questions of Economic Policy and Strategy” signed by Ukraine and the IMF that, in the words of Yurchenko, “effectively limited Ukraine’s government decision-making power.”

Agreements with other international financial institutions, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, drafted on the principle of cross-conditionality—i.e., creditors set terms that coincide and reinforce one another—established similar limits. The noose around the loan recipients’ neck tightens in multiple directions.

Lenders demanded that the government in Kiev end policies that created obstacles for foreign trade, eliminate price regulations, reduce the state budget deficit, cut subsidies to “unproductive” industries, make manufacturing outlets more competitive by modernizing their plants and laying off workers, privatize more state-owned property, cut budgetary expenditures by targeting social programs and pensions, and impose value-added taxes such that the collection of money from sales would fall more heavily on consumers as opposed to business.

While these processes have accelerated and/or slowed down at times depending on whether the administration in Kiev has been more US- or more Russian-allied, every Ukrainian government has been a partner in implementing the demands of global capital. Having emerged out of the ashes of the great barbeque that was the breakup of the Soviet Union, the ruling class of Ukraine is a comprador class in the most complete sense of the term.

In 1998, for instance, Ukraine’s parliament granted President Leonid Kuchma the authority to impose a 30 percent reduction in government expenditures. This was done because the IMF told the country to do so. “In addition to meeting fiscal and monetary targets, the government must pass legislation on privatisation, tax reform, energy and agricultural sector restructuring, and flushing out its massive ‘shadow economy,’” observed an August 1998 article in the Financial Times.

“The reforms,” writes Yurchenko, “created mutually reinforcing negative effect on the economy by opening up outdated industry for competition with foreign transnational corporations and by reducing financial state support for enterprises and citizenry thus making the latter poorer and the former even less competitive with expected negative aggregate consumption and potential revenue drop.”

Ukraine’s debt continued to balloon over the course of the coming years, increasing from $10 billion in the period from 1997-2002 to $100 billion in 2008-2009, the equivalent of more than 56 percent of the country’s GDP and more than double the total value of all its exports at that time. While it has fluctuated in recent years, it is basically at the same level today as it was a decade ago. As a result, Ukraine has ended up in a constant cycle of indebtedness, careening at times towards default due to broader crises in the world economy, such as the 2008-2009 crash.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The original source of this article is World Socialist Web Site

Copyright © Andrea Peters, World Socialist Web Site, 2023

https://www.globalresearch.ca/impoverishing-ukraine-what-us-eu-have-been-doing-country-past-30-years/5826084

The Dark Origins of the Davos’ Great Reset

By F. William Engdahl

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on October 31, 2022

***

Important to understand is that there is not one single new or original idea in Klaus Schwab’s so-called Great Reset agenda for the world. Nor is his Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda his or his claim to having invented the notion of Stakeholder Capitalism a product of Schwab.

Klaus Schwab is little more than a slick PR agent for a global technocratic agenda, a corporatist unity of corporate power with government, including the UN, an agenda whose origins go back to the beginning of the 1970s, and even earlier. The Davos Great reset is merely an updated blueprint for a global dystopian dictatorship under UN control that has been decades in development. The key actors were David Rockefeller and his protégé, Maurice Strong.

In the beginning of the 1970s, there was arguably no one person more influential in world politics than the late David Rockefeller, then largely known as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.

Creating the new paradigm

At the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the international circles directly tied to David Rockefeller launched a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks. These included

The Club of Rome;

1001: A Nature Trust, tied to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF);

the Stockholm United Nations Earth Day conference;

the MIT-authored study, Limits to Growth;

and David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Club of Rome

In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO. ^[i] That was the beginning of what would become the neo-Malthusian “people pollute” movement.

In 1971 the Club of Rome published a deeply-flawed report, Limits to Growth, which predicted an end to civilization as we knew it because of rapid population growth, combined with fixed resources such as oil. The report concluded that without substantial changes in resource consumption, “the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

It was based on bogus computer simulations by a group of MIT computer scientists. It stated the bold prediction, “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.” That was 1971. In 1973 Klaus Schwab in his third annual Davos business leader meeting invited Peccei to Davos to present Limits to Growth. [ii]

In 1974, the Club of Rome declared boldly, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Then: “the world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, over-population, food shortages, non-renewable resource [oil-w.e.] depletion, environmental degradation and poor governance.” ^[iii] They argued that,

‘horizontal’ restructuring of the world system is needed…drastic changes in the norm stratum – that is, in the value system and the goals of man – are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place. ^[iv]

In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome further argued:

Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. ^[v]

That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda2030 and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.

David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong

By far the most influential organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a billionaire oilman named Maurice Strong.

Canadian Maurice Strong was one of the key early propagators of the scientifically flawed theory that man-made CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens “the planet”, so-called Global Warming.

As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.”

Strong stated his radical ecologist agenda:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [vi]

This is what is now taking place under cover of a hyped global pandemic.

Strong was a curious choice to head a major UN initiative to mobilize action on the environment, as his career and his considerable fortune had been built on exploitation of oil, like an unusual number of the new advocates of ‘ecological purity,’ such as David Rockefeller or Robert O. Anderson of Aspen Institute or Shell’s John Loudon.

Strong had met David Rockefeller in 1947 as a young Canadian eighteen and from that point, his career became tied to the network of the Rockefeller family.[vii] Through his new friendship with David Rockefeller, Strong, at age 18, was given a key UN position under UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. The UN’s funds were conveniently enough handled by Rockefeller’s Chase Bank. This was typical of the model of “public-private partnership” to be deployed by Strong—private gain from public government. [viii]

In the 1960s Strong had become president of the huge Montreal energy conglomerate and oil company known as Power Corporation, then owned by the influential Paul Desmarais. Power Corporation was reportedly also used as a political slush fund to finance campaigns of select Canadian politicians such as Pierre Trudeau, father of Davos protégé Justin Trudeau, according to Canadian investigative researcher, Elaine Dewar. [ix]

Earth Summit I and Rio Earth Summit

By 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations in New York and Secretary General of the upcoming Earth Day conference, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Earth Summit I) in Stockholm, Sweden. He was also named that year as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation – which financed his launch of the Stockholm Earth Day project.[x] In Stockholm the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created with Strong as its head.

By 1989 Strong was named by the UN Secretary General to head the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development or UNCED (“Rio Earth Summit II”). He oversaw the drafting of the UN “Sustainable Environment” goals there, the Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development that forms the basis of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, as well as creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN. Strong, who was also a board member of Davos WEF, had arranged for Schwab to serve as a key adviser to the Rio Earth Summit.

As Secretary General of the UN Rio Conference, Strong also commissioned a report from the Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, authored by Alexander King which admitted that the CO2 global warming claim was merely an invented ruse to force change:

“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.” [xi]

President Clinton’s delegate to Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted the same, stating,

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” [xii]

At Rio Strong first introduced the manipulative idea of “sustainable society” defined in relation this arbitrary goal of eliminating CO2 and other so-called Greenhouse Gases. Agenda 21 became Agenda 2030 in Sept 2015 in Rome, with the Pope’s blessing, with 17 “sustainable” goals. It declared among other items,

“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…Social justice, urban renewal, and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only ‘be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

In short private land ownership must become socialized for “society as a whole,” an idea well-known in Soviet Union days, and a key part of the Davos Great Reset.

At Rio in 1992 where he was chairman and General Secretary, Strong declared:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are , [xiii] (emphasis added)

By that time Strong was at the very center of the transformation of the UN into the vehicle for imposing a new global technocratic “paradigm” by stealth, using dire warnings of planet extinction and global warming, merging government agencies with corporate power in an unelected control of pretty much everything, under the cover of “sustainability.” In 1997 Strong oversaw creation of the action plan following the Earth Summit, The Global Diversity Assessment, a blueprint for the roll out of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, an inventory of every resource on the planet, how it would be controlled , and how this revolution would be achieved.[xiv]

At this time Strong was co-chairman of Klaus Schwab’s Davos World Economic Forum. In 2015 on Strong’s death, Davos founder Klaus Schwab wrote,

“He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board.” [xv]

Before he was left UN over an Iraq Food-for-Oil corruption scandal, Strong was member of the Club of Rome, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Rothschild Foundation. Strong was also a director of the Temple of Understanding of the Lucifer Trust (aka Lucis Trust) housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City,

“where pagan rituals include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for blessing. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a sermon, as worshippers marched to the altar with bowls of compost and worms…” [xvi]

This is the dark origin of Schwab’s Great Reset agenda where we should eat worms and have no private property in order to “save the planet.” The agenda is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate billions of us “ordinary humans.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

[i] Biographies of 1001 Nature Trust members, Gianni Agnelli, accessed in http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm

[ii] Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum: A Partner in Shaping History–The First 40 Years: 1971 – 2010, 2009, World Economic Forum, p. 15, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_First40Years_Book_2010.pdf

[iii] Quoted from Club of Rome Report, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, cited in http://www.greenagenda.com/turningpoint.html

[iv] Ibid.

[v] The Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974, quoted in Brent Jessop, Mankind at the Turning Point – Part 2 – Creating A One World Consciousness, accessed in http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=154

[vi] Maurice Strong, Opening Speech to UN Rio Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro, 1992, accessed in http://www.infowars.com/maurice-strong-in-1972-isnt-it-our-responsibility-to-collapse-industrial-societies/

[vii] Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green: The Links between key environmental groups, government and big business, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1995, pp. 259-265.

[viii] Brian Akira, LUCIFER’S UNITED NATIONS, http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/religion_cults/news.php?q=1249755048

[ix] Elaine Dewar, op cit. p. 269-271.

[x] Ibid., p. 277.

[xi] What is Agenda 21/2030 Who’s behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/

[xii] Larry Bell, Agenda 21: The U.N.’s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The Clouds, Forbes, June 14, 2011, https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/14/the-u-n-s-earth-summit-has-its-head-in-the-clouds/?sh=5af856a687ca

[xiii] John Izzard, Maurice Strong , Climate Crook, 2 December, 2015, https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/

[xiv] What is Agenda 21/2030 Who’s behind it ? Introduction, https://sandiadams.net/what-is-agenda-21-introduction-history/

[xv] Maurice Strong An Appreciation by Klaus Schwab, 2015, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/maurice-strong-an-appreciation

[xvi] Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The UN, Maurice Strong, Crestone/Baca, CO, and the “New World Religion”, September 2017, https://naturalclimatechange.org/new-world-religion/part-i/

Featured image is from The Unz Review

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William EngdahlISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Click here to order.

The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © 

F. William Engdahl, Global Research, 2024

https://www.globalresearch.ca/dark-origins-davos-great-reset/5797113