Wikistrat is a startup out of Australia by way of Israel. The fact that it comes through Israel is indicative of its focus on taking a product – a service line – and globalizing it rather quickly, early in the process. If you know anything about the startup culture in Israel, it immediately embraces that sort of globalizing ambition. (Thomas Barnett, Chief Analyst, Wikistrat, Casey Research, October 10, 2012)
***
The 4 New Laws of Globalization:
The dogma of globalization is the privatization of all material goods. All will be privatized, internationalized and sold for profit. Everything is a commodity; everything has its price; everything can be bought and sold!
Workers are only factors of cost and always exchangeable human resources. The control of all natural resources, of the supply of energy, potable water, global currency as well as gene manipulated food are indispensable prerequisites for the domination of worldwide cartels.
No government may hinder the free movement of capital or the return of profits. Nations must be brought into reciprocal dependence, so that they are no longer able to exist independently.
States which oppose this are “rogue states.” Opponents of this globalization must be destroyed. That is what globalization ideologue Thomas Barnett demands: “We shall kill them!” The ultimate goal is “the synchronization of all nations on Earth,” as we learn on page 70. That will be achieved by a mingling of races with the goal of a “light brown race” in Europe (page 66). To this end, Europe will receive 1.5 million immigrants annually from the Third World (page 43). The result will be a population with an average IQ of 90, too stupid to comprehend, but smart enough to work. European nations would never again appear as competitors, a thousand year old culture would be destroyed. For all who oppose this goal, the globalizers have a simple solution: “Kill them,” that is what one learns again and again, for instance on page 51, page 67, or page 111. (Richard Melisch quotes “security analyst” Thomas Barnett in The Final Act: The Declaration of War of the Globalizers, translated from the German)
Globalization could just as well be called “Americanization,” or an updated, simplified version of the Protocols. Those who are paid to spin such primitive fantasies see themselves as pioneers, when they are only retards who prefer to wreck civilization because, for them, the attainment of wisdom is an impossible challenge.
The origins of the European Movement date back to July 1947, at a time when the cause of a United Europe was being championed by notables such as Winston Churchill and Duncan Sandys (Churchill’s son-in-law) in the form of the Anglo-French United European Movement. The UEM acted as a platform for the co-ordination of the organisations created in the wake of World War II. (European Movement International—“Making Europe Move!”)
A Macedonian police officer blocks migrants in the no-man’s land between Greece and Macedonia, Aug. 20, 2015. Thousands of migrants planned to catch trains that would take them to the Serbian border on their way to EU-member Hungary. (AP PHOTO/DARKO VOJINOVIC)
The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), founded in 1948, was an American organization which sought to counter the Communist threat in Europe by promoting European political integration. Its first chairman was ex-wartime OSS head, William Joseph Donovan. The structure of the organization was outlined in early summer of 1948 by Donovan and Allen Welsh Dulles by then also reviewing the organization of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in response to assistance requests by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and Winston Churchill. Declassified American government documents have shown that the ACUE was an important early funder of both the European Movement and the European Youth Campaign. The ACUE itself received funding from the Rockefeller and Ford foundations. The U.S. policy was to promote a United States of Europe, and to this end the committee was used to discretely funnel CIA funds - by the mid 50’s ACUE was receiving roughly $1,000,000 USD per year - to European pro-federalists supporting such organizations as the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the proposed European Defence Community. (Wikipedia)
***
To a European, the first striking fact about the United States is its unity. Not so in Europe. Cross a mountain range like the Pyrenees or a river like the Rhine, and suddenly language, ideas, food and everything is different. Some parts of Europe live in the 13th Century, some in the 16th, some in the 20th. (André Maurois (Émile Salomon Wilhelm Herzog), French author, The Rotarian, June, 1949)
However this was meant, there is no arguing this fascinating diversity within this one continent. (Coudenhove-Kalergi, as “professor at New York University” and “Secretary General of the European Parliamentary Union,” also contributed an article entitled “Europe Pulling Together” to this number.)
“Europe must federate or perish,” asserted British Labour Party Leader Clement Attlee, in 1938 (Deputy Prime Minister under Churchill, 1940)—even before the war. Attlee, as Labour Prime Minister, passed the UN Charter with Anthony Eden in 1945. (John Foster Dulles, repeated this claim in a speech, February, 1947).
Why must Europe, an entire landmass and home then to about 500 million people, perish if it didn’t amalgamate? Among the many little men secretly conniving to turn this gloriously diverse continent into a homogenous bloc was Jean Monnet, whom his biographer and adviser (Francois Duchene, director of the “Institute for Strategic Studies”) flatteringly called “The First Statesman of Interdependence”—a wondrous euphemism for globalisation.
From 1919 to 1923, he was deputy general secretary of the League of Nations, from 1946 to 1950, head of the agency for industrial planning. Monnet was also a close adviser of France’s Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, who already in 1940 had European unification in his sights. And he was significantly involved in the Schuman-Plan which led to the creation of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. In 1952, he became its chairman.
In 1955, Monnet created the “Action Committee for the United States of Europe.” (Wolfgang Hingst, USA – EU – NATO – Die Fatale Dreieinigkeit, 2003, author‘s translation)
John Strachey, Secretary at the War Ministry, called the Schuman-Plan a “plot,” a conspiracy on the part of European financiers.
Declassified American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe... It funded and directed the European federalist movement. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.The leaders of the European Movement ... Robert Schuman and the former Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. Daily Telegraph, September 19, 2000)
There followed in fairly quick succession the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), Euratom (1957), the Treaty of Rome and the European Economic Community (EEC) (1958), the Maastricht Treaty (1993) and European citizenship, the single market, the Schengen Agreement(1995), monetary union (1999), in full force 2002, and the Treaty of Lisbon (2009); accompanied by the hordes of bureaucrats in institutions to regulate and run this completely unnecessary mashup: the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. “The Europeanization of Domestic Legislatures” (2012) estimates that “the proportion of Europeanized legislative decrees is almost always above 50%, with peaks of 80%.”
The EU is a creation of the U.S. The EU plus NATO is the extended arm of the USA. The basic concept is the weakening of European nations through loss of sovereignty, the erection of a forefront against the East. That was clear already during the first years after the end of the Second World War. The U.S. e
xercised enormous pressure to push through European integration. Heads of state were deceived, public opinion manipulated. The USA was intended eventually to remain the only sovereign nation, which also dominated the world. Thus the USA placed itself beyond the legal and international community.
Sovereignty is a concept from the distant past, an outdated barock ornament of politics. The goal was clear already then: only the United States had a right to sovereignty. The present consequence: the USA boycotts the International Court, initiates wars of aggression without a UN Mandate against Irak, are indifferent to international agreements (Kyoto Protokoll). (Wolfgang Hingst, op. cit.)
Today, we can read about the EU that its founders were “... visionary leaders (who) inspired the creation of the European Union we live in today. Without their energy and motivation we would not be living in the sphere of peace and stability that we take for granted. From resistance fighters to lawyers, the founding fathers were a diverse group of people who held the same ideals: a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe.” (europea.eu) Furthermore: “The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War.” (ibid.)
By all these means we shall so wear down the Goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government. In place of the rulers of to-day we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super -Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers, and its organisation will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world. (L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward, p. 127/allegedly forged Protocol No. 5)
***
In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all. (Strobe Talbot, Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992)
Control is centred in fewer hands, while these same hands spin the interconnected webs of debt. The result is that trade, transactions and social relations have become interdependent, thus progressively obliterating national distinctions. This has loosely been called “globalisation.”
Globalisation has been sold as an international convenience and an inevitability, when, in fact, it has resulted in international dependence and, therefore, international indebtedness to these people, as ultimate creditors. It also allows nationally significant banks to be sued for immense sums by U.S. authorities, on the pretence of “money laundering,” or trading with “rogue” states, or some other charge, in order to drive these local powerhouses into debt.
“Billionaire Soros wins CIC Globalist of the Year award” (National Post, Toronto, 16 November 2010)
“Imagine taking on the Bank of England by betting against the value of the pound and winning. Soros (Gyorgy Schwartz) could and did in 1992 - making $US 1 billion in the process.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 15 November, 1997). If the Bank of England is still private and run by the same types that founded it, Soros could have been enabled by insider information to enrich himself through that gamble, allowing him subsequently to fund such subversive “philanthropic” ventures as the Open Society Institute, as yet another Rothschild front for world domination.
“Globalisation” facilitates the blending of political and trade blocs. As major international banks and corporations impose their will on governments through persistent “lobbying,” the priority of trade over other considerations becomes increasingly obvious. While the EU strives to harmonize international civil legislation, it also conquers markets. Creeping examples of this worldwide supremacy of mercantilism are NAFTA, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a trade agreement between the US and the EU, “covering approximately 50% of global output,” according to the OECD (“better policies for better lives”), the latter, a monstrous conspiracy whose terms include the right to sue member countries whose laws appear to limit investors’ right to maximum profit.
Here is a forerunner:
Tobacco company Philip Morris is suing Uruguay at the World Bank’s court of arbitration. Following years of legal conflict the Lausanne-based group deposed a complaint in March at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Philip Morris’s action is against the anti-Tobacco measures of Uruguay’s president José Mujica. They claim such measures hurt the free trade agreement which exists since 1991 between Switzerland and Uruguay. Damages and losses are said to amount to two billion dollars. (Le Matin Dimanche, May 11, 2014)
So an American tobacco company, presumably for tax reasons based in Switzerland, is suing a sovereign Latin American nation intent on protecting its people from a harmful habit, under a Swiss trade agreement, because local legislation reduces its profits. Switzerland is in the front rank among Western countries which have recently drastically altered their laws in favour of non-smokers. Why doesn’t Philip Morris sue Switzerland for any disadvantage its laws may have caused the company?
Humanity is moving ever deeper into crisis...it is a crisis brought about by cosmic evolution irrevocably intent on completely transforming omnidisintegrated humanity...into a completely integrated, comprehensively interconsiderate, harmonious whole. (Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path, 1981)
***
Today’s (1980) world-power-structures struggle is one between the USSR and big capitalism, which we now call lawyer capitalism, which deliberately took the world’s private-enterprise corporations out of the fundamental jurisdiction of America. They have kept their USA operations going in a seemingly normal way, so people in U.S. America haven’t really realized that these companies are officially situated elsewhere despite the incredible amplification of those great corporations’ annual profits, whose annual totals payable to these corporations’ stockholders are of the same magnitude as the annual increase in the USA’s joint internal and external debt increases.
…Sum-totally, what has been taken from the people of the USA runs into many trillions of dollars. In the quarter of a century since Eisenhower, America has become completely bankrupt, with its world leadership, its financial credit, and its reputation for courage, vision and human leadership gone.
…In one way, the USA and USSR citizens are in much the same socioeconomic position. The Communist Party which runs the USSR consists of 1 % of their total populations, while the USA is controlled by about the same 1 %, who are the Lawyer-Capitalist strategists of the great USA corporations.’ (ibid. p.113)
Buckminster Fuller, brilliant though he was, posited a better future. He does not seem to have grasped the whole picture: he did not understand that what he termed “cosmic evolution,” far from being the operation of a “harmonious” universal law, was merely the interference of abysmally petty and evil earth-bound ambitions.
The danger of this power, carefully veiled from the eyes of the people, lies in its international nature. While the official government must retain its national limitations, being confined to a specific territory, which is the area on which its sovereign rights may be exercised, international finance does not know any national boundaries, and, like an X-ray, penetrates through the tissues of national formations. For this reason, concealed political plans can be carried out by the banking Leviathan quite unnoticed by the respective national governments; combinations may be created outside of ethnographical or state boundaries to the detriment of vital national interests. It should be added that modern States themselves are largely under the influence of the banking group as such, national financial systems being based upon mutual indebtedness and upon ever-increasing internal and foreign loans. Interest paid by States on these loans sometimes reaches enormous sums. Thus, not only is the banker in a position to derive the lion’s share from such transactions, but he is also able to put the State in an extremely difficult finan
cial position in case he should refuse to provide the necessary money (...) Money, instead of performing its natural function of a means of exchange and a scale of value, is being used for purely gambling enterprises, deprived of any social purpose. (The World at the Crossroads, Boris Brasol, Hutchinson, 1921, p. 4)
This analysis of conditions in 1920 seems familiar in 2014:
Besides wild profiteering, the thousands of nouveaux riches who sprang up in every country as a result of the war, the general devaluation of the currencies, the high cost of living and finally the wave of unemployment throughout the world largely contributed to the natural causes of world unrest, tending to accentuate social strife and inequality. Next comes the sweeping process of international gambling in depreciated currencies, keeping billions out of production and thus hampering the work of reconstruction. (ibid. p. 330).
***
A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure of Europe whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt. In the old Europe wealth had been measured in land, crops, herds and minerals; but a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to which the title “credit” had been given. (Life of Napoleon, McNair Wilson, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1937)
***
In a word, the peasant inherited from the aristocrat; he was disinherited by the usurer. Here is the true history of the disinherited, not in France alone, but in Russia, in Austria, in Poland; everywhere that the worker lives by tilling his own soil the abolition of feudalism has led to the domination of the money-lender, and the money-lender is in most cases a Jew. (Nesta Webster, World Revolution, The Plot against Civilization, p.93)
***
The possession of the land has always brought influence and power. In the name of social Justice and Equality we shall parcel out the great estates; we shall give the fragments to the peasants who covet them with all their powers, and who will soon be in debt to us by the expense of cultivating them. Our capital will make us their masters. We in our turn shall become the great proprietors, and the possession of the land will assure the power to us. (Rabbi Reichhorn of France, who some claim never existed, La Vieille France, 21 October 1920 (No. 195)/10 March, 1921, (No. 214)
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 23