July 16, 2012
“An absolute valued pretext for their absolute control model”
Aaron Dykes on the subject of “climate change” in an interview with Lord Christopher Monckton- May 23, 2012
What on earth would qualify as an adequate description of the general push towards Global Governance? How would one encapsulate the subject in one overarching catchphrase? The more you try to do so, the more impossible the task. Indeed, the sheer vastness and complexity of the globalist’s endeavor is in itself a massive wave holding a lot of researchers back, reflecting the old Nazi-concept of the bigger the lie, the easier it is to discourage those reporting on it. Yes: in the economic, political and biological spheres there is a comprehensive plan in place to seize upon crises (not one, but many), engineering them in fact- to provide the Hegelian framework for problem-reaction-solution with the aim of establishing once and for all a new world order- their new world order that is. The grandest of schemes, certainly.
Every tyrant has used certain pretexts to destroy liberty and crush dissent, deeming all means justified to accomplish its stated goals. It was either the threat by an outside force- a specter haunting the woods around the village- or some natural disaster the gods had in store for us if we did not increase our offerings double quick. It is no different in our time, where the specter manifests itself as a bearded boogieman, anthropogenic global warming, and the global financial meltdown.
One Currency To Rule Them All
On June 23, 2009, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi of the European Central Bank, gave a speech at the Aspen Institute Italia called The world after the crisis: Designing the future. A monetary order for the XXI century. In his speech, Smaghi stated:
“(…) We have been searching for a new monetary order since the fall of the Bretton Woods agreement, in the summer of 1971, and even that order was not so orderly, after all.”
Smaghi concludes that the IMF/World Bank has taken its rightful place as head honcho of the “international monetary order”, undermining the autonomy of nation-states as it proceeds with its long-term plan of a global government and a single world currency:
“The fact that the crisis has restored the IMF to its place at the heart of the international financial system should provide some hope in this respect. (…) Most of the IMF’s shareholders seem to favour making IMF financing easier. (…) In sum, a new world monetary order- (…) requires a mechanism to keep imbalances in check. Key elements of such a mechanism include a prominent role for the IMF in two essential areas: strong and effective surveillance in crisis prevention, and responsible lending, with appropriate limits and conditionality, to countries in need.”
Here it is. Surrendering national and even regional economic power to a world body, a world bank, is the main goal of the transnationalists. And all this in the name of “preventing” crises- for which- by the way- the central bankers are more often than not responsible in the first place.
In a speech delivered in 2000, member of the executive board of the ECB, Sirkka Hämäläinen stated:
“In conclusion, I should like to come back to Paul Volcker’s prophecy. He might be right, and we might one day have a single world currency. Maybe European integration, in the same way as any other regional integration, could be seen as a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world. If and when this world will see the light of day is impossible to say. However, what I can say is that this vision seems as impossible now to most of us as a European monetary union seemed 50 years ago, when the process of European integration started.”
The prophecy by long-term chairman of the Fed, Paul Volcker, the speaker is referring to went something along the following lines: “if we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense, no?” But, as it turns out, 50 years ago this process she talks about was far from impossible to imagine. In fact, as the Bilderberg memos of 1955 reveal, plans for a world government were well beyond the stage of wishful thinking or geopolitical daydreaming fifty years ago. It is- after all- a much older plan envisioned way back and pursued by the same nobility responsible for centuries of oppression in Europe. Their feudal model has been passed on from generation to generation, like the blue blood racing through their veins.
On another occasion, Hämäläinen repeated her wish for a global economic integration:
“As a longer-term vision, one should see European integration as a step towards improving global co-operation and securing peaceful and balanced development in the whole world.”
Meaning of course, global government must replace the sovereignty of the nation state of old. In this context the word “peaceful” translates to the absence of war- for once potentials rivals are eliminated, there is no longer conflict. A consolidation of power, in other words, by the central banks of the world. Jurgen Stark, at the international conference of central bankers and economic educators in 2006, presses the point that only an independent central bank should be given the instruments of setting interest rates, maintaining price stability and overseeing the economy as a whole:
“Central Bank independence is nowadays enshrined in many central bank laws and statutes around the world. In order to ensure that this achievement also prevails in the future, broad public awareness of the benefits of central bank independence is essential. Fostering and preserving such awareness requires, in particular, that the independence of a central bank, once granted, is respected by the government in question and not undermined by political interference.”
Stark describes this effort of guaranteeing the omnipotence of central banks by propagandizing people and elected governments as improving “economic literacy”. In reality it is a synchronized effort by the central banks to consolidate power and qualifying anyone who criticizes their monopoly as economically illiterate- the old Keynesian mind trick. Stark:
“Furthermore, to underpin its institutional independence, a central bank also needs to be given functional, personal and financial independence. Functional independence implies that the central bank can apply its own judgment in the conduct of monetary policy with the aim of achieving the objective specified in its mandate. A key element of a central bank’s functional independence is its lasting control over the money base and its ability to freely choose the instruments which it uses to implement its policies.”
Both the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have claimed that political oversight and transparency will be somehow disastrous for their operations and, subsequently, the world economy. They want it all, it seems- and they want it now. The rational behind all these outrageous preconditions can be summed up with the words of Jean-Claude Trichet, the last president of the ECB, in 2005:
“We Europeans know that we can deliver structural reforms: we have done that efficiently in the past. The new state of the world is only adding new reasons to proceed in a direction which has been the European strategy since the late ‘50s, and has contributed, over almost half a century, to productivity progress, prosperity and jobs.”
In a prepared speech, condensed in spoken form at the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York on April 26th 2010, Trichet discerns three ingredients of which “the significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today” consists.
“In the area of central bank cooperation”, Trichet stated, “the main forum is the Global Economy Meeting (GEM), which gathers at the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) headquarter in Basel”.
“Over the past few years, this forum has included 31 governors as permanent members plus a number of other governors attending on a rotating basis. The GEM, in which all systemic emerging economies Central Bank governors are fully participating, has become the prime group for global governance among central banks.”
“I have participated in the G20 meetings from the very beginning.”, Trichet bragged in 2007 . On the same occasion he also described the GEM as “the most important forum for central bankers in the world, which I have the privilege to chair.”
“Overall”, Trichet continues at the CFR-meeting, “the system is moving decisively towards genuine global governance that is much more inclusive, encompassing key emerging economies as well as industrialized countries.”
Aside from the fact he accurately paraphrases the key-ingredients of Agenda 21, Trichet mentions three distinct arms of the“global governance” as envisioned by the central banks.
“The significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today is illustrated by three examples. First, the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or government. Second, the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the BIS as the prime group for the governance of central bank cooperation. And third, the extension of Financial Stability Board membership to include all the systemic emerging market economies.”
Here it is again. Far from being some vague conspiracy theory, what we are hearing here- straight from the lion’s mouth- is a clear example of conspiracy fact. Trichet’s definition of Global Governance? Just so you know who exactly the money-changers are who are now screaming for one world government, here it is:
“There are numerous definitions of global governance. In the economic and financial sphere I will propose that global governance comprehends not only the constellation of supranational institutions – including the international financial institutions – but also the informal groupings that have progressively emerged at the global level. Those informal forums (G7, G10, G20, etc.) are key in improving global coordination in all the areas where decision making processes remain national – whether in helping to work out agreed prudential standards and codes or to facilitate where appropriate, the coordination of economic macro-policies.”
One currency to rule them all, one currency to find them, one currency to bring them all and in the darkness bind them- one could say, superimposing Tolkien’s Ring-mantra over the objectives of the world’s central bankers. It is ironic to hear for example George Papandreou, former Greek Prime-Minister laud the exact same global governance for which he was later sacrificed by his global string-pullers. Addressing the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, 5 time- Bilderberg attendee, president of the Socialist International, and then prime minister of Greece, Papandreou stated that “at this time, we are observing the birth of global governance”, after which he added: “We must, however, agree to an obligation and be committed to carrying this out.”
The interesting thing is that Papandreou published a version of the same speech on his own website, but with an altered, yet certainly more revealing, text:
“This is global governance in the making. But we must agree, and agree to a binding commitment.”
He also admitted he was not there only in the capacity of Prime Minister of Greece:
“The Socialist International, which I also represent here, has proposed, among other measures, funding through an international carbon tax, green bonds or transaction taxes, transforming foreign debt into equal funds to be used by poor countries for climate change adaptation.”
Now let’s see: Papandreou attended the Bilderberg conferences of 1995, 1998, 2000, 2004 and 2005. So it may not come as any surprise that the Papandreou calls for global governance to “stop climate change”- which is of course as absurd as calling for the planet to stop turning. In between Bilderberg meetings, on May 8, 2003, the Prime Minister showed us a glimpse of the master plan, namely:
“Creating a new Europe, means creating a new concept of identity for Europe itself, for all the countries in it and to a certain extent for the world too. Europe has a unique dimension here. What is happening in this globalizing world. We are seeing the difficulties of integration into the world system, into a global village. We are seeing a difficulty in creating global governance.”
The plan of the Socialist International as well as their sugar-daddies, the Bilderbergers, is to remove any difficulties they may encounter while setting up their world government.
Crisis As Catalyzing Instrument For Global Governance
In a document written by the American National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) titled Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture the agenda from now to 2025 for global government is outlined is outlined in some detail. It discusses the many obstacles in the quest for achieving global government:
“While not being policy prescriptive, the report shares a strong belief—as exemplified by multilateralist approaches of the US and EU governments to resolving global problems such as the recent financial crisis—that global challenges will require global solutions.”, the document reads.
Stressing that issues such as proliferation and cybersecurity are already subject to sufficient international cooperation, the document states:
“(…) we focus on such issues as intrastate conflict, resource management, migration, and biotechnology. Although recognized by many as ongoing challenges, we believe the long-term impact of these issues on the strength of the international order has not been fully appreciated.”
Recognizing that the push for global governance (which is a euphemism for global government) is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide, the authors blame a “multipolar world” for this fact:
“Diverse perspectives and suspicions about global governance, which is seen as a Western concept, will add to the difficulties of effectively mastering the growing number of challenges.”
The document also recognizes international unease with large-scale military adventures- “if (…) driven by the “West””. Furthermore, it proposes an “overall framework to manage the interrelated problems of food, water and energy.”
“Other over-the-horizon issues”, the document goes on to say, “—migration, the potential opening of the Arctic, and risks associated with the biotechnology revolution—are likely to rise in importance and demand a higher level of cooperation. These issues are difficult ones for multilateral cooperation because they involve more preventive action. Under current circumstances, greater cooperation on those issues in which the risks are not clear-cut will be especially difficult to achieve.”
The document goes on to outline several “potential scenarios” of future developments that may threaten the “international system”, the first being that “formal institutions remain largely unreformed and Western states probably must shoulder a disproportionate share of “global governance” as developing countries prevent disruptions at home. This future is not sustainable over the longer term as it depends on no crisis being so unmanageable as to overwhelm the international system.”
The second scenario projected is that of “fragmentation”, or “Powerful states and regions try to wall themselves off from outside threats.” The third scenario is the most worrisome- not according to the authors of the document, but to all of free humanity:
“Under this scenario, severe threats to the international system—possibly a looming environmental disaster or a conflict that risks spreading—prompt greater cooperation on solving global problems. Significant reform of the international system becomes possible. Although less likely than the first two scenarios in the immediate future, such a scenario might prove the best outcome over the longer term, building a resilient international system that would step up the level of overall cooperation on an array of problems. The US increasingly shares power while China and India increase their burden sharing and the EU takes on a bigger global role. A stable concert could also occur incrementally over a long period in which economic gaps shrink and per capita income converges.”
Mentioning the possibility- even desirability- of a “looming environmental disaster” or conflict as a means to establish world government is the preferred path ahead, according to the authors. But, even more disturbing that global governance to “combat” looming threats, is the possibility and desirability of “designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities”, pondered upon by the US and EU intelligence councils.” Here is the quote in full:
“In addition, biotechnology—which the OECD thinks will potentially boost the GDPs of its members—can drive new forms of human behavior and association, creating profound cross cultural ethical questions that will be increasingly politically contentious. Few experts believe that current governance instruments are adequate for those challenges. For example, direct modification of DNA at fertilization is widely researched with a goal of removing defective genes; however, discussions of future capabilities open the possibility for designing humans with unique physical, emotional, or cognitive abilities.”
Global Biocratic Governance
Only a global framework, say the authors, can make sure an overall revamping of mankind will take place, including a transhumanist by global engineers to cull the overall human population. In 2009, the crisis was provided in the shape of the H1N1 virus in 2009, which resulted in an unprecedented amassing of pharmaceutical resources, providing for the first time a legitimization for the administering of vaccines to a great quantity of people worldwide. In March of 2009, the people who brought us key Pentagon documents on Strategic Information Warfare (SIW) and advisories on igniting wars with China and other “super regions”, published a document titled Initial Evaluation of the Cities Readiness Initiative. Published just a month before the “swine flu” outbreak in Mexico and subsequent created panic, the document had arrived just in time to deal with the response and readiness of cities in case of a bio-terrorist attack or, as now applied, a “naturally” occurring disease outbreak.
In the study that the RAND-corporation did at the request of the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) on the existing Cities Readiness Initiative, the infamous globalist think- tank provided a favorable review of the existing program but added a few improvements of its own. Besides several mentions of emergency response in regards to disease outbreaks- amongst which a disturbing mention of mass vaccination plans- the main thread of the piece points to an increased central planning of actions as opposed to a decentralized response coordination. The tone is set at the very start of the “technical report”, where the authors explain:
“Over the past decade, concern about the threat of bio-terrorism, pandemics, and other large-scale natural disasters has spurred large federal investments in state and local response capabilities.”
“Since 2004”, the report continues, “CRI (Cities Readiness Initiative) has expended some $300 million to improve the ability of the nation’s largest metropolitan regions to provide life-saving medications in the event of a large-scale bio-terrorist attack or naturally occurring disease outbreak. Administered by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Division of Strategic National Stockpile (DSNS), CRI seeks to help awardees respond to a large-scale anthrax attack or other large-scale public health emergency by providing antibiotics and other life-saving medical supplies to 100 percent of a planning jurisdiction’s population within a 48-hour time frame. The program currently includes 72 metropolitan regions and covers an estimated 57 percent of the of the U.S. population.”
Related to the extend of the CDC’s jurisdiction in times of such an emergency is the Division of Strategic National Stockpile (DSNS), that acts as a medical reserve in case local and state medical resources become exhausted. Lisa Schnirring, a staff writer for the Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, sums up the most prominent findings by RAND’s researchers:
“The program’s focus on a single scenario- an aerosol anthrax attack- along with specific targets has helped recipients prioritize their resources and reach out to vital partners, the authors reported. However, they found that areas with decentralized public health systems had a harder time forging relationships with other first responders, often because of the sheer number of jurisdictions.”
RAND therefore advises more central planning in regards to emergency response. Bio-terror attacks and disease outbreak are mentioned in the same breath so as to bring out a common and federal response for both later on. In a so-called “working paper” issued by the RAND corporation prepared for the U.S. Department of Health in 2007, several drills are being proposed where different departments (CDC/DSNS and others) can practice and streamline their efforts. Under the headline Embedding Drills in Routine and Small- Scale Events Might Increase Relevance, the report mentions some earlier situations in which real events were combined with emergency response drills: (page 11):
“Several jurisdictions are already using non-routine practices or small-scale emergencies to test large-scale response capabilities. For example, several jurisdictions used the influenza vaccine shortfall of 2004 as an opportunity to test the public health department’s incident command structure during an effort to mass vaccinate a large number of individuals in a single day (Seid. et al., 2006). Other jurisdictions have used annual flu clinics to test mass dispensing procedures for the SNS-program, which alleviates some of the costs associated with recruiting volunteers to act as test patients.”
In the same RAND- working paper, the authors conclude that an adequate mass counter- measure response is far from perfected and that further drills may be necessary in order to improve on the details (page 49):
“While there is strong evidence that CRI (Cities Readiness Initiative) has improved planning for mass countermeasure dispensing, we were unable to assess jurisdictions’ ability to implement their mass dispensing plans in emergency conditions. Given the rarity of large-scale public health emergencies, demonstrations of these operational capabilities must come largely through exercises.”
The RAND people advise more frequently held exercises by lack of real emergencies, to test the ability for mass dispensing plans (read: mass vaccination efforts). As we learned under the report’s “Embedding Drills in Routine and Small-Scale Events Might Increase Relevance”, real events can be used to test and further improve their effectiveness. As we have learned from the tragic events of 911, real threats and emergency response drills are not mutually exclusive as one is designed to cloak the other. More often than not the edges are blurred, so it is impossible to say where the real event ends and the exercise begins and so on. This is the true curtain of smoke behind which the globalists seek to thicken the fog of war. As all of the different divisions are compartmentalized to focus on their small part within the great infrastructure, only the people at the very top have the entire map laid down in front of them on which the chess pieces are moved around according to their designs. In light of the swine flu outbreak, we have obviously experienced a huge psyop drill to both assess the current status of centrally planned coordination of countermeasures (such as mass vaccinations) and acclimate the general public to such central coordinated actions in case of emergencies, whether real or feigned. But there is a third reason for such a psyop- and it fits in perfectly with the global agenda being pushed by the very same institutions that fostered the economic crisis, and are continuously crying for world government.
Almost six months after a mass exercise in Southeast Asia was held, the Rockefeller Foundation published a document titled The Global Challenge of Health Systems. It is a summary of Pocantico II- a meeting held under auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation with high- ranking attendees including the Deputy Secretary General of the UN, Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro. In the preface of the publication, the Foundation’s managing director Ariel Pablos-Mendez explains that all attendees are in agreement when it comes to global response and coordination needed for future “emergencies”:
“The participants agreed that the (Rockefeller) Foundation should support efforts to rethink the overall global architecture of health institutions.”
Later on in the report (page 5), the authors elaborate on these “efforts” and recent steps taken to ensure that all heads are pointed in the same direction:
“Recently a number of initiatives have been launched to help strengthen health systems, including those by Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and a network of ministers of Foreign Affairs. The Rockefeller Foundation itself is supporting a joint initiative of the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations to rethink the architecture of international health institutions.”
To assist in this process of “rethinking” this global architecture in regards to global pandemic outbreaks, the report mentions that:
“…The group agreed there would continue to be the rising threat of global pandemics. While new diseases may be emerging at roughly the same rate as before, the trends of globalisation speed their spread and thus increase the threat of new pandemics. Globalisation trends make it essential for health systems to improve surveillance and develop appropriate rapid response approaches.”
Slowly the picture becomes more clear, doesn’t it? As developments throughout the first decade of the 21st century have clearly showed, the global financial crisis has been seized upon as the perfect pretext for world government. The global “terrorist threat” serves the same purpose. A global pandemic outbreak, such as the 2009 H1N1 scare, was an attempt to revitalize global governance of health institutions, most notably the World Health Organization and its UN affiliates, giving the power behind the throne the tools it needs to come up with a global response.
In order to adequately maintain control, the elite mostly uses feigned events along which these policies can be moved forward. Real natural calamities are loose canons, as are genuine external threats, because they often times (though not always) refuse to align with the designs of the elite. The insincerity of the arguments in favor of a one world system is the new world order’s Achilles’ heel- and the infowarrior’s greatest weapon. Therefore by exposing the “absolute valued pretexts”, as Aaron Dykes described them, we automatically expose the salesmen pushing them. The truth is the elite’s biggest problem that refuses to go away; it’s the pebble in their shoe and, possibly, their future undoing.