Lars Schall - March 12, 2011

Mr. Engdahl, is the oil price by and large driven by massive speculation? Mike Norman, the Chief Economist at the Wall Street firm John Thomas Financial (http://www.johnthomasbd.com), wrote to me in October of last year for example:

“Total NYMEX open interest in crude is 1.4 m contracts or about 1.4 billion barrels of crude. Daily volume of crude traded on NYMEX is over 1 billion barrels per day. Total daily global demand is only 83 million barrels per day. The amount traded on one single exchange is more than 10 times total daily consumption. It’s a giant casino with prices being driven up by speculators and consumers having to pay more and more.” (i)

What’s your opinion on that?

FWE: I wrote back in the 2008 period, when oil briefly spiked-up to $ 147 per barrel and Goldman Sachs was issuing client-advisories that it was going quickly to $ 200, and when JP Morgan was advising the Chinese government that China ‘buy all the physical crude you can get your hands on because it is going to $ 200,’ at that point I wrote that roughly 60-70% of the price of oil then was pure speculation, manipulated by the GSCI, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index. It’s a perfect scenario that they have created on Wall Street to control the oil price irrespective of supply and demand. (ii) I would just add that the crucial ingredient these days is not the NYMEX for the global oil price benchmark, but the ICE Futures in London.

Why do I say that? Because the ICE Futures is a daughter company of the International Commodity Exchange of Atlanta in Georgia, owned by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase etc. – the big oil banks that benefit enormously from the inside. There is absolutely no serious regulation of the ICE Futures. The British keep their hands off it, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, since 2006 under the “Commodity Modernization Act of 2000“ allows ICE Futures to trade energy futures without disclosure to CFTC in the U.S. market through London. So, in fact, it has deregulated and taken away from any government supervisory role the entire trade in energy futures, especially oil.

Full story

Terry Melanson (Feb. 5, 2011)

I’ve only watched three episodes of Meltzer’s show, online, and each of them was dissatisfying. The latest one on the Georgia Guidestones was especially so.

The Meltzer gang of ostensible noobies, drive up to the monument in a brand new Porsche Cayenne. (Way to go guys, my kind of sponsor!) After giving the stones a quick look, they are approached by Raymond Wiley who proceeds with an accurate but cursory account. Wiley mentions that people have suspected a Malthusian, new world order agenda behind it. I would also have included the words “population control” and eugenics. But guess what? Not a single mention of it again in the whole episode. Instead they focus on the Rosicrucian angle and neglect to actually get to the bottom of the message. Hey, History channel “researchers” – you do know that Mr. “Christian,” in a booklet, actually expounded further on the matter, don’t you? More on that later.

Back on the road, Bud starts talking about trying to find out the identity of R. C. Christian, and whether he was really involved with the Rosicrucians. Scott, however, interrupts with a better line of thought: “Don’t you wonder what’s running through the mind of a person who conceived of that [whole] idea?”

(more…)

Chris White combines tenaciousness with a rare clarity of thought. Whether or not you agree with his opinions, his stance, or his motives, White’s particular brand of criticism is timely, perhaps even necessary.

I’ve never been involved with the so-called “truth movement.” My own awakening to the machinations of the elite occurred in the early 1990s. Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell and David Icke weren’t around back then (perhaps Maxwell was; toiling in obscurity somewhere). I was reading Gary Allen’s None Dare Call it Conspiracy and William T. Still’s New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies, while listening to Wild Bill Cooper’s ‘Hour of the Time’ on a cheap short wave radio – before Waco, before the OKC bombing, and a decade before 9/11. However, at the same time I was also into Robert Anton Wilson, Michael Howard’s The Occult Conspiracy, John White’s theories of an imminent Pole Shift, Richard Noone’s Ice: the Ultimate Disaster, anything and everything on Nostradamus, John Anthony West’s Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt and a plethora of “hidden history” proponents. I took these various authors with a grain of salt; cautiously sceptical, until further investigation.

It’s the latter milieu that resonates with the material David Icke is known for: a curious and confusing fence-straddling which acknowledges the conspiratorial hidden hand of history while at the same time somewhat admiring much of its core doctrine.

Obvious to point out is the fact that knowledge is inherently neither good nor evil. However, from the Christian stance of Chris White, there are certain teachings – and the practical application thereof – which are disconcerting to say the least. Instead of flirting with, even promoting the doctrine found within the (Blavatsky/Bailey) theosophical strain of western esotericism, White feels, rather – as do I – that it should be discredited or shown for what it is.

The word “debunk” is an unsettling word. And for the true critical thinker it has long since become unpalatable. It immediately brings to mind argumentative and dogmatic sceptics; the high-horsed, self-professed know-it-alls; the Michael Shermers and James Randis of the world. And besides: a debunking can be construed as a ridiculing. Perhaps another title for the documentary would have been recommended. (Ironically, Michael Barkun – the academic conspiracy theory debunker – fittingly described Icke as a “New Age Conspiracist.”)

————–

David Icke Debunked

The role of the corporate elites’ secretive global think tanks

Andrew Gavin Marshall - October 19, 2010

We now stand at the edge of the global financial abyss of a ‘Great Global Debt Depression,’ where nations, mired in extreme debt, are beginning to implement ‘fiscal austerity’ measures to reduce their deficits, which will ultimately result in systematic global social genocide, as the middle classes vanish and the social foundations upon which our nations rest are swept away. How did we get here? Who brought us here? Where is this road leading? These are questions I will briefly attempt to answer.

At the heart of the global political economy is the central banking system. Central banks are responsible for printing a nation’s currency and setting interest rates, thus determining the value of the currency. This should no doubt be the prerogative of a national government, however, central banks are of a particularly deceptive nature, in which while being imbued with governmental authority, they are in fact privately owned by the world’s major global banks, and are thus profit-seeking institutions. How do central banks make a profit? The answer is simple: how do all banks make a profit? Interest on debt. Loans are made, interest rates are set, and profits are made. It is a system of debt, imperial economics at its finest.

In the United States, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, creating the Federal Reserve System, with the Board located in Washington, appointed by the President, but where true power rested in the 12 regional banks, most notably among them, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The regional Fed banks were private banks, owned in shares by the major banks in each region, which elected the board members to represent them, and who would then share power with the Federal Reserve Board in Washington.

In the early 1920s, the Council on Foreign Relations was formed in the United States as the premier foreign policy think tank, dominated by powerful banking interests. In 1930, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was created to manage German reparations payments, but it also had another role, which was much less known, but much more significant. It was to act as a “coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Essentially, it is the central bank for the world’s central banks, whose operations are kept ‘strictly confidential.’

Full story

The Daily Bell - Oct. 6, 2010

Dominant Social Theme: The world needs a central bank and the IMF is ready to be one.

Free-Market Analysis: As we have written plenty of times before, it’s startling to see how fast the Anglo-American power elite is willing to move now toward a more specific and comprehensive global governance. When we read this article, even just the beginning, it was obvious to us what was going on. And then we came to this sentence: “It means a de facto obligation to provide unlimited liquidity in euros…but the IMF is not a central bank for the world.” Exactly. Is there a sub dominant social theme in the article. Perhaps so: “Pushback will continue but the IMF’s expanded role is inevitable.

Indeed, the IMF is being cast in some places as an inevitable precursor to a world central bank. It need only graduate from SDRs to bancors and then expand its monetary authority. Of course we’ve covered this evolution in the past, but we didn’t take it very seriously. The world moves slowly and is a complex place. But as we’ve seen (and commented on) over the past year, the Anglo-American elite seems to have shed any inhibitions about moving slowly or deliberately toward global governance goals.

It is in a race of some sort, though who or what it is running from or towards is not clear. But in picking up the pace in a kind of mad dash toward some unseen finish line, it is abandoning at least a century of deliberate, promotional construction designed to bring Western citizens in line with its goals. We’ve written we have no explanation. Let’s say for argument’s sake there are 6,000 in the ranks of the Anglo American familial elite. That still leaves six billion people that one needs to “bring along” presumably. But convincing people seems about the last thing on the mind of elite these days so far as we can tell. In aggregate, it gallops madly forward, careening out of control, oblivious to obstacles, increasingly leaving a trail of ruin behind.

Full story

Transcript:

Everyone agrees that climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity.

That’s the constant claim of the polital elite - and it’s a lie. Everyone does not agree. Thousands of scientists dispute the very existence of man-made global warming, citing natural cyclical changes that saw vineyards in Roman northern England and a Swedish army march over the frozen Baltic in 1658 to Copenhagen.

As an army of global Warming zealots marches to Copenhagen, the truth is that their Orwellian consensus is based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship, and fraudulent statistics. In the words of leading climatologist Professor Richard Lindzen: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll back of the industrial age.”

In fact, there will be no bemused amazement, for the reason for this hysteria is clear: it is designed to provide the excuse for a political project of the globalists to replace national democracy with new world order global governance. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do the globalists’ common purpose to tax and control us while making billions for corporations in the Green industrial complex.

The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology: a secular religious hysteria, complete with Pope Al Gore, carbon credit indulgencies and the pursecution of heretics. But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will [come] out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.

Dana Milbank - November 11, 2009

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

Full story

Washington, DC Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Following his United Nations General Assembly interruption of November 22, 1948 in Paris calling for “one government for one world” to outlaw war, former Broadway actor and WWII B-17 bomber pilot World Citizen Garry Davis-whose brother, Bud, was killed at Salerno-supported by an original group consisting of Albert Camus, L’Abbé Pierre, Robert Sarrazac, and Albert Schweitzer, (full list below*), and endorsed by Albert Einstein, declared The World Government (of World Citizens), on September 4, 1953 from the City Hall of Ellsworth, Maine.

(more…)

Andrew Gavin Marshall - August 19, 2009

This article is the 5th and final part in the series, “Global Power and Global Government,” published by Global Research.

Part 1: Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
Part 2: Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order
Part 3: Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
Part 4: Forging a “New World Order” Under a One World Government

Transnational Totalitarianism

Global trends in political economy suggest that “democracy” as we know it, is a fading concept, where even Western industrialized nations are retreating from the system. Arguably, through party politics and financial-corporate interests, democracy is something of a façade as it is. However, we are entering into an era in which even the institutions and image of democracy are in retreat, and the slide into totalitarianism seems inevitable.

The National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2025, stated that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[1] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.

The nature of totalitarianism is such that it is, “by nature (or rather by definition), a global project that cannot be fully accomplished in just one community or one country. Being fuelled by the need to suppress any alternative orders and ideas, it has no natural limits and is bound to aim at totally dominating everything and everyone.” David Lyon explained in Theorizing Surveillance, that, “The ultimate feature of the totalitarian domination is the absence of exit, which can be achieved temporarily by closing borders, but permanently only by a truly global reach that would render the very notion of exit meaningless. This in itself justifies questions about the totalitarian potential of globalization.” The author raises the important question, “Is abolition of borders intrinsically (morally) good, because they symbolize barriers that needlessly separate and exclude people, or are they potential lines of resistance, refuge and difference that may save us from the totalitarian abyss?” Further, “if globalization undermines the tested, state-based models of democracy, the world may be vulnerable to a global totalitarian etatization.”[2]

Full story

Bret Burquest - July 13, 2009

Isn’t it interesting how all our problems seem to be global these days. A global war on terrorism, a global economic crisis, the need for a global currency, global trade, global health concerns, global warming, etc.
It’s almost as if someone is pushing for a one-world government, with a one-world monetary system, a one-world police force, a one-world set of rules and a population of obedient worker bees to keep the whole economic engine going at full throttle.

Except for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, Pindar, powerful international bankers, Skull and Bones, global elitist power brokers, the Military-Industrial Complex, the CIA, the KGB, the Federal Reserve, the international Communist conspiracy, the Knights of Malta, the Club of Rome, the 13 ruling families of the Illuminati (Rothschild, Bruce, Cavendish, De Medici, Hanover, Hapsburg, Krupp, Plantagenet, Rockefeller, Romanov, Sinclair, Warburg, Windsor) and the ghost of Adam Weishaupt, I can’t imagine who would have a motive to create a one-world government and slither their way to the top of the pyramid of power to rule the world.

Global problems, such as global warming, require global solutions.

Full story

Olga Chetverikova - April 23, 2009

As the world financial and economic crisis comes into its own, the Western political leaders and elites are seeking to impress on mankind the idea that this upheaval will end up ‘turning the world into something different’.

Even though the picture of the ‘new world order’ remains vague and fuzzy, the main idea is quite clear: A single global government, goes the argument, has to be established if we don’t want general chaos to prevail.

Every now and again, Western politicians mention the need for a ‘new world order’, a ‘new world financial architecture’, or some kind of ‘supranational control’, calling it a ‘New Deal’ for the world. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first to say so, while addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2007 (that is, before the crisis).

Full story

Andrew G. Marshall - April 6, 2009

Introduction

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global “quantitative easing”. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”[1]

The article continued in stating that, “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China.” Further, “The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.

It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

Full story

Constance Cumbey - February 15, 2009

In April, 1981, in one evening, I was to write these words which later were to become much maligned in certain Christian circles — ones I was to eventually learn had deeply compromised with New Age/Apostate interests such as Paul N. Temple and his Institute of Noetic Sciences as well as Rev. Moon and his Unification Church. They were to become part of a chapter in my 1983 released book, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW. They were part of a chapter entitled “THE AGE OF AQUARIUS? OR THE AGE OF THE ANTICHRIST.” If you have my book which has been out of print since Huntington House went out of business in 2003, you will find this chapter from pages 36 to 43. These words were brought to mind by learning that today Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Russian Prime Minister and open devotee (per Wayne Peterson) of “Maitreya the Christ”, introduced a resolution into the European Parliament for a World Water Authority.

Full story

From Dennis Cuddy’s latest:

The final element of the Rockefeller Plan is the political/New World Order component, which will be covered in this Part of the series and in Part 5. I’ve written many times before about the famous author H.G. Wells and how he knew in advance when World War II would begin, about Churchill’s “secret circle,” and that the final “World-State” would arise from a conference in Basra, Iraq, among other things. In 1939, Wells authored The New World Order regarding the coming world government. Relevant to the Rockefellers, I have two letters from Wells to President Franklin Roosevelt. In the April 14, 1934 letter, Wells tells FDR “any letters sent to me at the Chase National Bank, Park Avenue, New York will reach me.” And in the February 27, 1935 letter, Wells tells FDR that he’s coming to New York, and he says “my address will be c/o the Chase National Bank, Park Avenue, N.Y.C.” Chase National Bank was the Rockefeller’s bank, and one may therefore assume Wells was close to them.

Related: Basra: Bethlehem of the New World Order

Gotcha! Left: Rachman at the 2003 Bilderberg Meeting in France; right: Rachman's mug at his blog

“Rapporteur” Gideon Rachman wrote a piece for the Financial Times on Dec. 8th, 2008: “And now for a world government.” Let’s take a look.

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

Perhaps you have never believed it, but the elite conclave to which you have been privy certainly have. You neglected to mention your previous attendance of the 2003 and 2004 Bilderberg meetings at Versailles, France, and Stresa, Italy, respectively. You see, commoners - dubbed “useless eaters” - have been keeping tabs on the elite confab for 20+ years (call it grass-roots journalism). In 2003 and 2004, you were listed thus: GB - Rachman, Gideon - Brussels Correspondent, The Economist. Traditionally, “Rapporteurs” have been allowed to attend meetings such as these on condition of subservience and silence. To the commoners who expect “rapporteurs” to do their job and “report”; it’s called “breach of trust” and collusion. To the “global governance” internationalists; it’s called “Chatham House Rules.”

(more…)