A summary of the powers behind 21st
century world politics
David Howard LL.B (Hons), Dip.
Counselling
Introduction
People around the developed world are
beginning to notice more and more the old divisions between the
parties seem to be closing, with fewer and fewer differences, and
unlike the old opposing policies it seems whoever they vote in
nowadays they seem to agree on the main policies, with the only
variations in the details. I have been investigating this and it
appears to be an open network of organisations of ex and present
political and business leaders holding regular policy meetings, and
then either using them publicly or privately to try and guide the
world to follow their view of how things should be.
The top of the official pile here is
the United Nations itself, making rules by unelected bureacrats which
gradually are being given legal force in all member countries whether
or not the residents are aware of it or not. The European Union is
the open side of this collective form of government, with growing
powers and most rules again made not by the European Parliament, a
mainly second chamber with very limited powers but the long term
civil servant level group the European Commission, making many of
their decisions in private and handed the authority by the parliament
by a consensual delegation. They have even reached the level of
replacing the governments of Greece and Italy directly with unelected
bureacrats in 2012 in case anyone didn't realise their scope.
My own delving back to history took the
main roots back clearly as far as a meeting in 1967 with various top
level high flyers and environmentalists, including James Lovelock,
one of the first of a huge influx of many in his mould. The theme
from day one was finding ways to apparently protect the planet from
human influence, but in fact the solutions were always about
rationing energy and free movement, along with huge rises in taxation
and redistribution of wealth to the third world. The other,
potentially sensible side was reducing the world population,
ostensibly by 80% back to what was called a sustainable level. Of
course, educating and encouraging smaller families worldwide was the
only practical way of doing it, but restricting energy and food would
do the same thing as well, using a term such as managed euthanising.
I will get into those details later.
The bottom line is that all these
shared policies are not a coincidence, anyone who has signed up to
this collective policy, based on a 1991 little known UN legal
document named Agenda 21 for sustainability, will not be using
Liberal, Labour or Conservative policy but UN policy regardless. The
coincidences become more of a plan once you learn the sources.
Besides needing a little translation from the jargon Agenda 21 is
written as an environmental document, and has actually invented the
term sustainability as part of a standard public relations propaganda
campaign of choosing old or new words and creating new meanings for
them. Sustainable actually means whatever you use can be replaced,
but that is as far as the dictionary allows it, Agenda 21 once
converted to standard English goes way beyond that and more.
---------------------------------
How it works
In
any political system you have those who lead and those who follow.
The leaders know their facts and figures and use their positions and
related charisma to operate the usual form of propaganda, that
actually written in great detail by Josef Goebbels, and taken over by
the Soviets and American business (as public relations) to persuade
enough lower politicians and the mass of the general public to vote
them in. This is called 'problem-reaction-solution', where they
identify a policy they know would never be voted for or accepted then create an imaginary situation where the people would be so terrified
they'd call for an urgent immediate solution which just happened to
be exactly what they wanted anyway. To quote Benjamin Franklin,
- Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
But the example
of using the fear of terrorism to increase restrictions and
surveillance worldwide, which no one would ever have wanted or needed
had they not had the fear of something which in fact happens less
than every year or more in nearly every country who has brought in
such measures. But once the bombs had been detonated in public places
the public per country were only too happy to accept spot checks,
cameras everywhere, and official surveillance of private
conversations and the like. Regardless of whether the terrorism in
these cases was as bad as they claimed, the operation worked
perfectly. So if you wanted a world government, tax, and
redistribution of wealth (mainly to those who create the rules as
always), no one would vote for it besides a few fringe elements, but
if you think of the perfect problem that needs world action then
either aliens (even they couldn't conjure those up) or the
environment would work. So, to quote the Club of Rome's 1991 publicly
available report 'The First Global Revolution' ,
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."
This
pretty well speaks for itself. They wanted a policy and here was the
solution, for one of the very rare times fully stated as an illusion
and not a true problem. So open and honest, all available online, and
never reported by the media. The same could be said for the creation
of the European Common Market (as it was then) as the alleged problem
there was the threat of another war between its members, although the
reports which have emerged since, including comments by Edward Heath,
that it was never about a market but a gradual move to full political
and economic union, which has steadily occurred per new treaty ever
since. The common position here is the leaders all know the truth,
but speak as if they do not so they can maintain any illusion they
want in public. So currently for example engineering companies like
Siemens know perfectly well that wind turbines use at least as much
power as they produce, from the active electricity required to turn
the blades to the wind and the brakes to stop them spinning too fast
to the power stations on constant standby to take over the majority
of times they aren't producing. But as it's both a waste of time
trying to beat the system with science and associated taxes and
penalties for not doing so, and the subsidised profits available for
taking it on board mean it's a lot easier for them all to join the
bandwagon. Using the simplest physics, without a focussing lens
sunlight is far too diffuse to generate anything more than a small
fraction for a household, and proved if any government reduces the
subsidies neither wind nor solar would exist outside small local
applications as without them it is just a vast outgoing which is
probably never going to pay itself back otherwise. The same goes for
the majority of scientists who create and claim to rely on climate
modelling. The fact the figures 20 years after the original ones
bears no relation to the temperature or sea level rises since, mainly
because besides never having to compare the effects of added CO2 in
living memory or before when such technology wouldn't have been
capable of it at all, the climate is the most complicated non-linear
system we know of, which is exactly why its machinations created
chaos theory. It is chaotic as small changes can produce wide and
complex results, which are not the same twice, and therefore
virtually unpredictable besides the very basics. But you need to
study it first to know it, and 90% of voters at the very least have
not at any significant level. David Rockefeller himself set up the Club of Rome in 1968 at his Bellagio estate, and in his 2003 memoirs affirmed any question of his personal role:
"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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
There are almost identical statements all around the place, each corroborating and confirming the other, yet still despite making open admissions the media have left the gap between the source and the people. Without the media how can the people know, and unless the people know it will carry on. Therefore you can only conclude the media are part of the system, there is no other explanation to avoid what is some of the most radical news of the century.
Henry Kissinger said, "Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this
"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 is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
There are almost identical statements all around the place, each corroborating and confirming the other, yet still despite making open admissions the media have left the gap between the source and the people. Without the media how can the people know, and unless the people know it will carry on. Therefore you can only conclude the media are part of the system, there is no other explanation to avoid what is some of the most radical news of the century.
Henry Kissinger said, "Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this
evil. The one thing everyman fears
is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being
granted to them by their world government," Address to the Bilderberg
Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by
Daniel Estulin)
So a system and
pattern is forming, fringe benefits such as promotions, massive
grants and making government policy are easily enough to take the
genuine consensus of any group of professionals onside, the consensus
being the balance of having enough members of the plan to take the
rest with them as a passive and helpless minority. I have a diagram
of a network of mutual financial and political support fitting
everyone from the Club of Rome and related members to the
politicians, charities, professionals and energy companies, all of
which take huge otherwise unavailable benefits through a collective
collusion. But unless the media both learn the truth (which by their
very nature are party to) and share as well (which in the main they
will not) it then the people will remain in ignorance ruled by
whichever illusions their lords and masters have chosen to totally
manipulate them (the citizens are operating the same consensus
mechanism through credibility, if the majority believe the illusion
they'll always vote for the solution) they will remain ignorant,
exploited and repressed. But once the cover is blown, then this
generation at least will be very unlikely to be caught again. Lose
their trust and they'll gain their freedom.
Although most of
their aims are fairly obvious and connected, the purposes for them of
other aspects such as wealth redistribution remain obscure to
outsiders but are still clear aspects, but besides the personal gains
already mentioned, my main site presents clear and ongoing plans for
a world government, created through the need for a world carbon tax
which is not possible without a world government (of course, how can
we reduce CO2 if everyone doesn't work together?), and a world carbon
currency, one which is not based on assets but on rations, each
credit only lasting a year so impossible to build up any personal
wealth or security. None is a conspiracy theory as it's all
documented and recorded, and simply never reported so how can anyone
oppose something they're not aware of. I'm not even saying a world
government is a bad thing per se, just that if you are voting you
must be aware of what you are actually voting for.
Spotting the clues
Like a magician,
once you know the ways tricks are done they are no longer taken in by
them. The only difference here is the audience know it's an illusion
but just don't know how it's done. This way people need to be shown
the ways and then see them and say 'Now I know what that phrase
really means, who coined it and why, and it means if someone in power
uses it then they can't be working for us'. Therefore if Barack Obama
or anyone else mentions something like clean energy (this includes
nuclear, the most poisonous and toxic material known to man) you know
they are part of that group. The old multi party system where people
really did have a choice, and most politicians did want to help has
all but died in the 21st century. Instead the
international organised UN led cabal is in charge, and the people
have all been spun the same lines the banks are too big to fail and
we'd all be poor if we left the EU etc etc ad nauseam, and as unlike
those who check for themselves they believe every word of it and vote
accordingly. The fact keeping interest rates low for instance is
actually for the banks and government's personal benefits, as only
they really pay the base rate while the people pay whatever the banks
want to charge regardless, traders can borrow short term and make
huge bets and the small profit made in a day or two will be massively
increased on a few million or more of someone else's money. The added
bonus of low interest rates is it both devalues currency and as a
result sends investors to commodities, artificially forcing up prices
from gold to food to oil. So basically everyone suffers except those
manipulating the market.
There's no need
for it to happen at all now in any way, not now the internet is here
as the media is everyone who chooses to use it. Everyone can now be
an insider, the magic circle is blown and anyone who wants to see how
they do it can. Using Goebbels' rules, and simple methods of hypnosis
using repetition until a meaningless word or phrase becomes part of
the language, as if asked most people would discover it's impossible
to explain what it means, they have cult-style programmed the mass of
the population to use their ow invented (and utterly empty) words and
phrases of 'green jobs', 'sustainability', 'clean energy', 'carbon
footprint' and any other carefully thought up neologism that either
changes the meaning of existing words (eg sustainability) or makes up
entirely new ones (carbon footprint) but makes people imagine they do
mean something absolutely vital to change a problem that never
existed and they know it. And so do I. The climate and wind turbines
can both be measured adequately to test, and freely available online.
But if Al Gore and James Hansen tell you to expect metres of sea
level rise (note, in the future, which no one can predict outside a
linear system) people accept it. The actual sea level rise was 8
inches for a few centuries and heading for about the same already, as
driven by half heat expansion and half melting land ice, so you would
need a fairly substantial rise in temperature for more. At least 2C,
probably 3 according to the UN. So as temperatures are rising under
0.5C a century of course a greater sea level rise would be
impossible. Unlike future modelling present measuring is relatively
direct, and any other figures they throw at you will either need to
be consistent with the greater (deduction) or be wrong.
Follow the money
This can tie up
the most concrete data which anyone can easily follow, and if a
politician for example makes a law which takes money from taxes to
make a 525% guaranteed profit renting land for wind farms then if
their families and pension funds all rush to do so then the fact they
made the law they are personally benefitting from then in any other
circumstances it would be considered insider trading and market
manipulation, which in many areas are against the law. Of course a
good tyrant or dictator is above the law, either by owning the police
and armed forces so they can do what they like, or in the west they
simply change the law to make what they want to do legal for them.
Therefore although Enron were convicted of fraud for inventing energy
credits based on nothing and trading fresh air for years before
someone picked it up, they simply legalised it as carbon trading, as
Ken Lay of Enron briefed President Clinton and VP Gore before it hit
the fan. Al Gore pays vast carbon credits, but to his own company and
became a billionaire as a result. All the banks such as Rothschild's
are only too pleased to be able to cash in on trading an asset they
don't own, can't see or touch, and can't deliver as it makes their
business a lot easier, especially when half the countries put a floor
price on it guaranteeing the value can't drop below a certain amount.
That sure makes trading a lot more predictable, more so as it's not
actually optional (like wind and solar, as who would use them if not
paid to?) but compulsory in most countries who use it so the citizens
are forced to pay for them by law.
Such principles, such as the
grant and promotion trail and vast excess profits through restricting
fossil fuel production, as it means oil is suddenly forced way up
above market price through again what is standard market
manipulation, using fixed demand for an essential commodity and
raising the price so people spend less on luxuries to pay to survive.
Not illegal but thoroughly immoral, and incredibly profitable, as by
selling the identical amounts of fuel they get a few times as much
money for the same assets as the supply has been restricted. The
Environmental Protection Agency in America alone has refused so much
oil drilling and exploration they have doubled the prices there and
typical of operations worldwide. The BBC have admitted telling the
staff a few years ago not to go heavy on the balance on global
warming as the science is settled, and then the director of the
pension fund invested huge amounts in a company called the
Institutional
Investors Group on Climate Change, which is managed by Peter
Dunscombe, who also works for the BBC pension fund.
Yes, climate
change is a profit making business. Who'd have thought it? So of
course, Mr Dunscombe wouldn't want the world's largest media
corporation to wreck their own pension investments and his own main
source of income. Those examples come thick and fast wherever you
look in the current situation. This is just a few examples of how the
whole system operates, and I have many pages of details linked to
this general summary.
Beating the system
Knowledge is
power. Repetition, using their own principles of PR against them is
the key. Just as they invent meaningless phrases and have children
mindlessly parroting carbon footprints whenever their parents turn a
light on we can learn the good stuff and repeat that, as I say, until
the Club of Rome and Ottmar Edenhoffer become as familiar as Princess
Diana. That is the task required, and not by any means a tough one.
Replace the disinformation with information. Take the truth out of
the shadows and into the open. People will learn, spread, and when
enough know the reality it won't be possible to maintain the
illusion. Ron Paul, Nigel Farage, Peter Lilley, Robert Halfon, these
politicians prove by dismissing the current nonsense they are the
small minority not in on it. President Obama has not made a single
speech I've listened to without mentioning 'clean energy' regardless
of the topic involved. He could make a speech wishing his VP a happy
birthday and still have to get it in. Basically once you've learnt
the phrases only an insider would use, if someone uses it don't trust
them. As these buzzwords really only exist at all to manipulate, no
politician uses them unless they're trying to do so. When Fukushima
melted down I was waiting for President Obama to pay them a personal
visit to see how clean the radiation really was, but he never did it.
But he still talks a good talk.
There is a
single model which is near enough to allow everyone to understand the
current system, which is the mafia. A highly organised and connected
criminal organisation, above and outside the law, and maintaining
their power through the combined sticks and carrots of bribery and
threats. That's all you need to know, as they can only operate in a
country where the authorities are involved, or they'd wipe them out.
In 2011 the mafia became the largest industry in Italy with 7% of the
GDP, something absolutely impossible if not part of the system rather
than outside it. A clean government will always keep a clean house. I
will finally list a few items which are screaming exposures of the
system I want everyone singing like the national anthem. UN Agenda 21
for sustainability, which is operated locally through the ICLEI. That
means when your council stop emptying the weekly rubbish and the
government restrict new reservoirs they're operating it directly.
It's published online, as are all the Club of Rome reports, and not
by the media who could, but the conspiracy theory that really exists
is why would they shun such a fantastic story with perfectly
verifiable sources? Ottmar Edenhofer, the IPCC head of economics
admitted it all in a 2010 interview, saying
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the
world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the
illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Now this is pretty direct and unequivocal, and most people hearing this direct from the organ grinder, the main man himself, would be hard pushed not to take it pretty seriously and literally. That is if anyone besides the German newspaper who interviewed him had shared it with anyone. But it's online and he's said it, and I'm telling you as no one else has. It's no longer a theory or an informed guess, we have been told many times (see my main site http://understandingfraud.blogspot.com ) and again using the power of constant repetition make these quotes as familiar as Princess Diana or the X Factor. Then their days of power will be over. There will simply be no illusion left to maintain. I hope this summary shows how the interconnected network work together like a smoothly running machine, and I have left no gaps in the picture (all details are supplied as above), and simply hand it all over for everyone to make up their own minds, based on the facts presented. There is no speculation here, everything is taken from published and tested reports, and once you see the big picture how it all fits together, any new information is clear as to where it goes or has come from. Everyone needs to know, and when enough do it will no longer be possible to continue.
By Rothschild you mean Jews, right?
ReplyDeleteGod forbid, that's when people say 'Zionists' as code, when of course true Zionism was ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. Since then it's been no more logical to use the term as support for any other country as once one is established then it should be accepted equally as any other. I simply pointed out Rothschild's as they are running carbon trading, which till recently was considered fraudulent. Which of course it is, it is just now legal and fraudulent. I'll edit the point as it clearly wasn't direct enough.
Delete