September 14, 2012
On September 12th 2012 the Dutch people have convinced themselves they actually had something to choose from on election day. The current ruling party in the Netherlands was declared winner, it's leader (a self-proclaimed “liberal” named Mark Rutte who attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference) recently shoveled some 4 billion euro into the pockets of European bankers, with an option of some 140 billion euro more, when the European Commission deems more cash-injections necessary. Meanwhile the little people were allowed their glorious day of self-deception in the voting booth. Some of the political parties on the ballot pretended opposition to EU supreme rule, others openly embraced it. I have watched leaders of all major parties in the Netherlands openly proclaim that losing national sovereignty- in some cases abolishing altogether- is really a good thing- and all scepticism to the rule of European technocratic commissioners must either be met with accusations of xenophobia, or horrific specters of doom must be sketched if there is no immediate compliance to EU dictates. As a Dutch citizen, it's truly disheartening to witness these hordes of people voting themselves into oblivion, and doing so with a self-complementary smile- probably thinking they are actually voting for this or that party- while they are in fact tightening the chains that hold them bound to unelected commisszars. Therefore, the election results were not somewhat, but completely insignificant- a shameless dog and pony show designed by a transnational elite to keep the masses in a steady propaganda-slumber, while they happily vote themselves further into a technocratic construct that would put emperor Nero to shame. Whatever incidental party declares “victory” over the other shades of gray, it's clear that the true winner sits behind a desk, laughing in his fist, knowing that slowly but surely, over the course of not years but decades, the peoples of sovereign nations are wrapping what's left of their constitutions in a blue flag sprinkled with white stars. And in due time, this flag will be wrapped into an even bigger flag depicting the globe, signifying global government. In any case, here's a picture of the real winner of elections held all throughout Europe, and he's not even on the ballots!
The sad state of affairs is being worsened by the decision of the German constitutional court recently to legitimize continuous cash flows into the pockets of banking elites throughout Europe. In addition Merkel an all the other political heads of state are increasingly calling for more power to the European Bank to buy up bonds and inject additional financial life, hoping to resuscitate the corpse that is Europe. 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 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.” But, as it turns out, 50 years ago the 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 geopolitical daydreaming fifty years ago.
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.
Another former ECB executive, 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, of course, it is a synchronized effort by the central banks to consolidate power and qualify anyone who criticizes this unhealthy 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. 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 “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.”
Trichet’s definition of Global Governance? Just so you know who exactly the money-changers are who are now screaming for one world government at the top of their lungs, 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.”
“Gradual, successive stages”
In 1970, long-time member and chairman of the Bilderberg group viscount Étienne Davignon published a report in which the ministers of Foreign Affairs of six European nations pledged to further the European agenda through mostly informal gatherings.
The report, to which the ministers of Foreign Affairs of all major European nations pledged allegiance, admits that the further integration of nations must follow a gradual, incremental path in “successive stages”.
The report, named after the viscount himself, was published in the bulletin of the European Communities in November of 1970 and details how the European power-elite has planned European integration, not by chance- or as wishful thinking on the part of the political and economic elite, but rather through “successive stages and the gradual development of the method and instruments best calculated to allow a common political course of action”, so states the Davignon Report. Here is the quote in full:
“(…) implementation of the common policies being introduced or already in force requires corresponding developments in the specifically political sphere, so as to bring nearer the day when Europe can speak with one voice. Hence the importance of Europe being built by successive stages and the gradual development of the method and instruments best calculated to allow a common political course of action.”
The minsters involved also stated that this common political course can be best achieved by setting an example in foreign policy before it can spread to a common economic calling:
“(…) foreign policy concertation should be the object of the first practical endeavors to demonstrate to all that Europe has a political vocation. The Ministers are, in fact, convinced that progress here would be calculated to promote the development of the Communities and give Europeans a keener awareness of their common responsibility.”
Furthermore, the report stresses that not so much through formal, but rather informal meetings should this incremental push be coordinated into completion. Although the Report attempts to project the illusion of democratic oversight by stating that “Public opinion and its spokesmen must be associated with the construction of the political union”, the Report goes on to say that the “Ministers and the members of the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament will hold six monthly meetings to discuss questions which are the subject of consultations in the framework of foreign policy cooperation. These meetings will be informal, to ensure that the parliamentarians and Ministers can express their views freely.”
Informal, in this respect, means outside the reach of journalists- in the same way the annual Bilderberg meetings are described as informal gatherings where transnationalists can share thoughts without some irritating news person running around recording their exchanges. Yes, the most significant of “informal” meetings, we have come to learn, has been chaired by none other than Mr. Davignon himself in the last decade.
In an attempt to downplay Bilderberg’s importance in setting policy, Davignon told the BBC in 2005: “It is unavoidable and it doesn’t matter. There will always be people who believe in conspiracies but things happen in a much more incoherent fashion.”
Well, not so according to the Davignon commission which he chaired back in the early 1970s, and the subsequent Davignon report which he co-wrote. In the report, Davignon and his co-conspirators outline that all these informal meetings are anything but “incoherent”.
It appears Mr Davignon tells a different story in every interview. In March of 2009 Davignon bragged to the EUobserver online newspaper that the creation of the Euro was helped by the Bilderberg Group in the 1990’s:
“A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said.”
We now know of course that the process toward a single European currency, as well as single European “voice” has been in the making much longer than that.
In the leaked transcript from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting (chaired by prince Bernhard of the Netherlands by the way) participants speak of the “pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market”, and the desire is expressed to “arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”
According to a scholarly 1995 paper there was indeed a common and thought-out strategy at the root of the European Union, describing Davignon’s work on utilising “transnational networks and expertise to launch the drive for a technological research programme for the EC”:
“The actions of the Commissioner for Industry in the Thorn Commission, Etienne Davignon, were a precursor of the strategies followed by the Delors Commissions. Delors presented the single market programme as a response to a changing international situation which had reduced the competitiveness of the European economy, and so posed problems for European governments.”
European Integration and World Government
On September 7, 1992, two term President of the European Commission Jacques Delors gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled The European Community and the New World Order. Invoking the famous New World Order-speech of George H.W. Bush in 1991, Delors took its meaning one step further, speaking of “world government”, “transferring sovereignty” and a “worldwide single market”.
The speech is especially interesting when we take into account that Delors took part in the Bilderberg meeting just four months earlier, held in Evian-les-Bains, France: the same conference in which Henry Kissinger delivered his famous speech concerning people and their willingness to relinquish their individual rights “for the guarantee of their wellbeing granted to them by their world government.”
Starting off by saluting the audience which he addressed, Jacques Delors bowed and stated: “I would not presume to offer such an illustrious audience as this the last word on the new world order of which President Bush spoke in September 1990 when the Gulf Crisis was building up.”
“The interdependence of the world’s nations seems somehow inevitable”, the European Commission chairman continued, “though it must evolve in an orderly fashion; the reality is there, but we have not yet grasped it fully enough to devise the principles and rules of the new international game.”
One of Delors’ main “accomplishments” was writing the so-called Delors Report: a document in which he outlined how a European economic and monetary union could be established as quickly and effectively as possible.
Submitted in 1989, the Delors Report envisions three stages along which the road to world government will be reached. It comes as no surprise that the most important factor within this process is the complete and total “independence” of the European central bank.
The first stage would be accomplished with the completion of a single European market. The second stage would consist primarily of the merging of the different central banks into one giant European central bank like an octopus, spreading its tentacles across the continent. The third and final stage he proposes would see the establishment of a single European currency. The main thread of the report is: total monetary independence should be transferred from the elected politicians to the unelected network of central banks throughout the European continent, consolidating power with the help of a single currency. Of course, today we know that his report was anything but an idle document written by a transnational daydreamer. It was actually the policy blueprint for the elite, outlined in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. As current events unfolding in the “eurozone” point out, the Report describes the coming implementation of the proposed “stages” with staggering accuracy.
As the speech by Jacques Delors progressed, it appears he became increasingly bold in his statements to his audience, allowing himself to be swept away by his own “eloquence”:
“Today many economists speak of the transition to a new stage- a quantum leap to a worldwide single market. There is plenty of evidence of this; the international credit card in the consumer’s wallet is particularly symbolic.”, Delors notes in his speech for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Using the excuse of “promoting democracy”, he advocates the destruction of national sovereignty of nation states as a remedy:
“International apathy about human rights violations will not be able to hide behind pretext of immutable, inviolable national sovereignty much longer.”
As it turns out, also in this respect Jacques Delors has proven himself a prophet- as the borders are eroding worldwide while the central banks consolidate power. After he elaborates further on the fact that globalisation is often counteracted by grass roots movements, attempting to preserve national sovereignty, Delors throws up his arms and sighs:
“I would add- and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government. This is why, although the need for a new world order is self-evident, our era is one of trial and error or, as the harsher critics among us would have it, of impotence, inability to take on world challenges.”
Here it is. The President of the European Commission readily admits that world government is the plan. He also admits that economic integration, as happened less than a decade later, is not sufficient when this goal is to be achieved. Again: this is exactly what Ettienne Dávignon was aying when he spoke of the succesive stages by means of which further European integration will be secured.
Speaking on the role of the European Commission in the creation of the new world order, Delors mentions the plans of the Anglo-American establishment for a North-American Union:
“Our trading partners are gradually being won over to the idea that regional integration has a dynamic impact on all, and the European model is an inspiration for others- witness the recent agreements concluded by the United States, Canada and Mexico.”
Indeed, the merger of the three nations into one North-American community ranked and ranks very high on Bilderberg’s list of objectives.
“I believe”, the European Commissioner stated, “it is not too presumptuous to claim that it (the European Community) still has something revolutionary about it, that it is something of a “laboratory” for the management of interdependence.”
However, he complains, “(…) giving birth to institutions to which sovereignty is to be transferred and which are to be given power manage cooperation and settle disputes is a slow and arduous process.” Delors goes on to emphasize: “The contribution that the Community as such can make to the new world order can, to use an image of the plant world, be considered something of a hybrid, what is produced by crossing a world power with an international organisation.”
In closure, Delors expresses his ultimate belief and that of his fellow conspirators: “The conclusion, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that the Community’s contribution to a new world order is, like the Community itself, something original: a method which will serve as a reference, a body whose presence will be felt.”
A European Federation
Following the ruling by the German constitutional court, current chairman of the unelected European Commission Barroso held a textbook tyrannical speech before the going-through-the-motions European Parliament- a body which has refined the art of upholding the fig leaf of democratic legitimacy while in fact only an advising capability exists- if even that.
In his speech, mister Barroso stressed that the time for a European Federation has now come. Quite literally preaching to the quire, the chair must have known this proposed Federation of European nation-states was a dream long cherished by the founder of the body he spoke to. That same ideological frontrunner of the EP, H.R. Nord (nicknamed “mister Europe”) in a 1945 article which I have translated out of Dutch, made clear that European integration was but a steppingstone towards global government, indicating that all integration of the world’s regions are regional means to a global end.
In his first article, “For a Federal Europe”, Nord states right out of the gates that: ‘The problem of a New World Order is now more acute than ever. Now the war is ended, and simultaneously the prime stimulant of cooperation between the superpowers, it is of the greatest importance people realise what is required of us if we are to regain peace: an effort no smaller than the one which led to the defeat of the enemy.’ According to Nord though, the recently created United Nations was not strong enough to lead this effort. Referring to the Charter of the United Nations, agreed upon by the first member-states in the months after the war, he criticizes its main principle of “sovereign equality of states” with the argument that sovereignty is what got them into this mess in the first place.
“They have not dared to state that it was exactly this ‘sovereign equality’ that constituted the greatest obstacle on the road to a better order of states.”
Nord therefore advocates doing away with sovereignty of nation states altogether, replacing it with a grand European federation, the very federation Barroso argued for a couple of days ago. This great regional consatruct can, according to Nord, decide the fate of member-states with perfect impunity. He makes his case for a federation as opposed to a league of nations, which was in place during the rise of Hitler but had not been able to keep him from his tyrannical trajectory. Nord also makes clear that he is certainly not the first to advocate such a European federation. ‘In the last 30 years, propaganda has been made for this idea of a federation, especially for a European federation, from many different sides. One has to keep in mind though, that a federation is not an objective in itself; it is rather a means to a particular end.’ According to ‘mister Europe’, this ‘end’ is beyond debate: ‘A federation that will eventually include all nations of the world. It is clear that such an ideal will only be realised in the very long term; but there is every reason to proceed with the first step as soon as possible. And where can this first step better be taken than in Europe.”
In the second part of his trilogy, “Federal Union and Resistance Movement”, Nord explains that the idea of one European “bloc” was widespread during the darkest years of Hitler’s reign, especially in underground literature put out by several resistance movements throughout occupied Europe. A European Federation, writes Nord, must be based on the principles of the Atlantic Charter: an allied plan for the world after the foul dragon was slain. But he also writes, that “these principles cannot be accomplished unless the different nations are prepared to surrender the dogma of absolute state sovereignty to unite within a federal organisation. The current lack of unity and coherence between the different parts of the world makes it impossible to try for a world federation.”
In order for this European Federation to adequately function, Nord makes it perfectly clear that nations should “definitively surrender their sovereign rights to the federation regarding defense, foreign policy, international finance and exchange.” In another paragraph Nord also writes that “no national defense will be allowed.”
The author points out that his ideas are certainly not his to take the credit for. He makes clear that the plan for this future federation was already outlined by the International Comity for European Federation in March of ’45 during a conference in liberated Paris. ‘The International Comity for European Federation’, Nord writes, ‘firmly emphasizes that it considers a European federation to be nothing more than as first step towards a world federation. If it currently restricts its activities to the advancement of a European federation, it is because it wishes to have a practical objective, and also because it is convinced that Europe, with all its pressing difficulties, should be the first to accept a federal solution.’
His third and final article goes into the “Practical consequences of a European federation”. Such a federation of course cannot function without a federal constitution, Nord argues. In regards to military matters within this new transnational construct, the author is crystal-clear: “national armies will cease to exist. Just like foreign policy, defense will be completely under the control of the federal government. (…) The production and sales of arms will also be put under federal control, and therefore be taken out of the hands of individuals and national states.”
All these statements and writings from the past a clear picture emerges. Despite elections held in individual member-states, the plans for further economic, political, and military integration, prescripted for many-a-decade, are being implemented stage by stage, decade by decade, perfectly insensitive to incidental election processes designed to satisfy the masses into believing their voice counts.