A Rothschild Plan for World Government

Crisis scenarios are the means by which dictators justify control. The most often cited example is Hitler’s “Enabling Act” in the wake of the Reichstag Fire. Another example is the “Patriot Act” in the aftermath of 9/11. Globalist organizations, behind the usual façade of the most idealistic intentions, such as the Club of Rome, have for decades warned of impending planetary doom unless a world control system of inaugurated. While many of the problems addressed by global control enthusiasts are real, attention is deflected away from the fact of those who are making the suggestions for extensive global controls to deal with problems also happen to be those who created the problems in the first place. These are the plutocrats who run a de facto globalist control system, whose aim is to turn it into a de jure system.

City of London CorporationHence, one should raise questions when the oligarchs who run the world financial system draw up world improvement schemes.

One of those in the forefront of exposing such schemes has been Lord Christopher Monckton[1] who has focused on the climate change scenario as part of a world state agenda. Only after threatening a diplomatic incident, Lord Christopher obtained the draft of the Copenhagen treaty that would have imposed an international 2% tax on all financial transactions, a 2% tax on the GDP, and established 700 new United Nations bureaucracies, with the international tax revenue going to the World Bank. However, the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended in disarray without the formal imposition of international taxation and bureaucracy. Lord Monckton stated of the agenda at Copenhagen: “Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government.”[2]

Several decades ago, the oligarchs were pushing a similar scheme of United Nations world government and international taxation on the pretext of ending the debt and other economic disparities between the so-called “North and South,” of the developed and developing worlds, never minding the fact that it is their economic and financial system that causes this disparity. It was aimed at concentrating more power into the hand of the international financial system on the pretext of economic and social justice. The scheme was called the “New International Economic Order,” but like other efforts, was abortive.

Is this World State global warming agenda warned of by Lord Monckton, et al, merely speculation, subjective interpretation, a paranoid conspiracy theory? Or is there very specific evidence as to the oligarchic agenda? Indeed, in 2008, Simon Linnett wrote a policy document on the issue, published by The Social Market Foundation.[3] Linnett is Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London.[4] In the Linnett manifesto, he defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market;” a speculative new global currency. Linnett states that while it must be market forces and free trade that operate in defining the value of the carbon emission exchange, what is required is a world government. Market forces plus an “international institution” with a constitution equals a World State under oligarchic control. He writes: “That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.”[5]

Linnett is open in his belief that this façade of “saving the planet” is actually a method of establishing a “new world order” – as he calls it – where nations cede their sovereignty to the “international institution.” What can be plainer than this?

That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely ‘saving the planet’ – perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.

Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.

The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue.[6]

Linnett is here overtly stating that “climate change” is merely a step along the way of something more wide-ranging that “may well extend beyond that single but critical issue.” In a word, it is for the plutocrats another ruse, like so many of the past and present.

Of various methods suggested to limit carbon emissions, carbon trading is held by Linnet to be the most effective.[7] Implicit in the various measures of Linnett, including funding new technology[8] and changing the consumption habits of individuals is, “that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some of their sovereignty to this world initiative.”[9]

The reluctance to cede sovereignty to an international authority, Linnett argues, must be overcome in order to get India and China into the international system by showing them that all nations are willing to sacrifice their independence for the greater good. Linnett is specific as to what he had previously called “some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty”: “When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion.”[10]

This must be one of the most candid and revealing statements ever made from the “inside” regarding the true aims of the global oligarchy. Here Linnett is affirming that the “central banks”, whether nationalized or not, are merely agencies for the private financial system of credit creation, which provide the international banking system with the means by which the oligarchy controls the monetary policies of nations. Any notion of sovereignty, as well as any party political promises about “full employment” etc. are so much rhetoric because a state is not sovereign when it does not have control over its own monetary policy, which in turn is predicated on control over the issue of a state’s credit.[11]

One is reminded of the statement of eminent Harvard historian and globalist Carroll Quigley, who described the aim of the international bankers as being to create “an international system of control”:

In time they brought into their financial network the provisional banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this…  aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers….The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendents of Meyer Amschel Rothschild…”[12]

Linnett is stating that the mainspring of the international system is the creation of central banks, privately owned by the international bankers such as Rothschild, his employer, which dictate the economic and financial policies of every nation in the world, through “direct control of monetary policy”.[13] The system being proposed by Linnett, in the cause of “saving the planet,” is the consolidation of the international banking system under a central authority.

Linnett states that the European nations have already ceded their sovereignty to the EU; the next step being: “to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.”[14]

A “world body is unlikely to start off as such”, states Linnett, but a constitution would allow it to expand.[15] That is to say, it is the old strategy of Fabian-socialism,[16] centralization of control by gradual stages; or one might say, slowly boiling the frog so that he is unaware as to what’s happening until it’s too late to jump out of the pot. Linnett believes that the lead can be shown by the EU, because of the willingness of European states already to yield their sovereignty to a supranational body, with a “senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order.”[17]

“City of London” – Capital of the World State?

The world government that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This should be based in what Linnett calls a “world city.” [18] Linnett suggests that this “world city” or what one might term a “world capital” be London. However, I feel that one can be more precise and state that what Linnett has in mind is not “London” as most people understand the name, but what is called The City, a certain part of London which comprises the headquarters of international finance, which is a sovereign entity like Vatican City, in-so-far that should the British Monarch desire to enter s/he must seek to have her authority confirmed at the gates of The City by the “Lord Mayor of The City.” That Linnett is meaning The City can be inferred by his description: “London is a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).”[19] This description does not fit London per se, but the so-called City of London.[20]

The actual name of this “London” is The City of London Corporation. Its oligarchic citizens call The City “the world’s leading financial centre,” exactly as Linnett describes the “London” he wants as the world capital. This City of London is described as “the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’.”[21] Again exactly in accord with the requirements listed by Linnett as needed for the ‘world capital,” it is stated:

The City of London is at the heart of the world’s financial markets. It is a unique concentration of international expertise and capital, with a supportive legal and regulatory system, an advanced communications and information technology infrastructure and an unrivalled concentration of professional services…[22]

Kerry Bolton

Kerry R Bolton
Kerry R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (Athens), and the Institute for Higher Studies on Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (Lisbon). He has doctorates in theological studies, Ph.D. h.c. and certifications in psychology and social work studies. He has been widely published by the scholarly and wider media on a variety of subjects. 

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • These power hungry secret society is fabricating global problems. Those which are visible and successfully propagated to people are global warming and crime against women. Rockefeller foundation is the biggest sole investor in feminism industry.

  • jenL

    @Prassoon Suryadas: Learn how to spell properly.

  • jenL

    @Prassoon Suryadas: Sorry. I apologise for my rudeness.

  • TrueLife

    True story. Friend’s neighbor moonlights as waiter for high level staffing firm. Arrives at vast estate high above in the hills above this Western USA city. Owned by a neice of Rothschild banking dynasty. He is totally transfixed with seeing his favorite movie stars, celebrities and singers. Typical American.
    He is doing his duties when who should walk in but Henry Kissinger. He is there he tells the hostess to “pay his respects”.
    This guy is pretty dumbfounded. Lots of mega rich at the party.
    Tending to to another duty he finds out the guy in front of him is the head of MI-5.
    He is really spooked.
    It really is much more real than anybody even imagines. They are all connected.

    • Mary

      Typical American? No. Not really. Typical and normal Americans are no more fascinated with this nonsense and are just as disgusted with it as are “normal and typical” people from other countries.

  • We/ they (cannot) run this world effectively without a biblical veiwpoint. The truth is in his word. As (only) with that veiw it will be possible, without… (not).
    We need to promote God in all and everythingi=! It’s a nobrainer

  • FormerFBI

    This is an excellent article explaining the power elite corporate system that is currently behind all of the destabilization in the Middle Eastern countries in order to double-cross and bankrupt the oil producing countries and establish their One World Government system. Mayer Rothschild made this profound statement, “allow me to country’s wealth and I care not who writes its laws.” What people don’t realize is that these greedy oligarchs finance both sides and utilize to its effectiveness their system of problem, reaction and solution. They create a problem, wait for a reaction to the problem and pose as saviours to bring about these presumed solution which only benefits the elite families and their corporate interests.

    • Mary

      Which side of this does the FBI work for?!

  • charles

    this is very inspiring. We could end all wars as well and have everyone on earth on a diet of cat food except a few chosen if we can get electronic implants in every person so that they obey rotschild as well. we would end all conflict and all envy since he would choose the 1000 persopns in the world who would have wealth. all the rest would work for food- the work ethic builds character. besides money is so corrupting

  • Damien Rothschild

    There is no way to stop the House of Rothschild. We are already too powerful. We create the credit of the world and this makes slaves out of every worker without them having the slightest clue that they are enslaved by us. We are the fountain and source of all the money in the world. And thus we rule the world from behind a curtain. Governments have become our puppets. We make and break politicians with ease. Big business and big media are the servants of big money and have no choice but to take their orders from us. All of the world is in debt to us and now there is nothing you can do about it. That so much power resides in a single family is a clear sign that our bloodline has been favored by the one true God, that brilliant light of the world, Lucifer. We are the Royal Family of modern Israel. It is our money that conquered the world and created Israel and it is a Rothschild that will soon be revealed as the Messiah who shall rebuild Solomon’s Temple and rule the new world order from Jerusalem. All of these things are slowly coming about. No one can stop us because we own everyone including you, the reader. We even own your mind and that is why you are so confused in the maze we have created with our media. If you survive the chaos we are creating for all of the world, you will bend your knee to Rothschild, the Messiah or you shall perish.

    • Mary

      Thanks, Damien. If you’re so all powerful, blah, blah, blah….why hide and sneak around? Losers…every one of you.

  • Brad Homewood

    Although I’m deeply skeptical of his motivations, I’m always grateful when somebody helps to expose the new world order that’s openly being pursued by the dominant bloodlines of the planet, like the Rothschild’s and their blatant exploitation of Global Warming and all things environmental.
    I share Christopher Monckton’s opposition to a world government, but not his contempt for peer reviewed science, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway in their book – Merchants Of Doubt, have meticulously exposed, the ideologically driven tactics used by the denialist camp, which hitherto, have unfortunately been relatively successful in muddying the waters, and stalling progress.
    Be that as it may, Christopher has in a sense done us all a favour, proving the old axiom that politics creates strange bedfellows, he has illuminated one of the numerous flaws in the Rothschild endorsed global ETS, that nation states would have to surrender some of their sovereignty.
    Alternatively a modest carbon tax can be implemented by the nation state without surrendering any sovereignty at all, it can then be imposed on imports from countries without a carbon tax, and rebated to industry exporting to those countries, neutralising the prospect of carbon leakage, while also denying the globalists their grab for power.
    Your article in this addition about Nano-Thermite and 9/11 is testament to the importance and potency of peer reviewed science, for which there is no feasible or realistic alternative, giving it its due respect is in the best interests of us all, and a powerful antidote to the dark agenda being pursued by the global elite.

  • Chris

    In reply to Brad Homewood, May 7, 2011 6.05am:

    You wrote, “I share Christopher Monckton’s opposition to a world government, but not his contempt for peer reviewed science.”

    Brad, have you ever heard the expression, “A little knowledge is (or can be) a dangerous thing?” Yes, in theory, peer review is supposed to be used before scientific papers are published in reputable scientific journals. But in practice, as far as climate science is concerned, it is “crony review”, not peer review. The cronies are members of a relatively small club of adherents to the man-made global warming theory and non-adherents are not allowed to join this club. In other words, non-members rarely get to peer review papers related to climate science, even when they have the standing of such people as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT. I bet you haven’t read the climategate emails nor have you even read the critiques by knowledgeable people of those emails. There’s quite a lot about peer reviewing in those emails.

    In the science of climatology, the peer review process has been seriously distorted by intimidation the blackballing of those scientists who write papers that the man-made global warming believers don’t like. Not only that, similar threats are made against any editor of a journal that publishes such papers. The scientists involved in the climategate affair and their like-minded friends all knowingly peer reviewed each other’s papers which, as far as I know, is not the way genuine peer reviewing should be done. I believe the author of a paper should not know who reviews his or her paper.

    You named two authors, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway, who wrote a book “exposing the ideologically driven tactics used by the denialist camp”. Why don’t you simply read what these “denialists” themselves say instead of reading second-hand what they say? As far as I can see, their only ideology is attempting to keep science honest.

    I have a science-based university degree and before climategate I believed in the theory of man-made global warming. Or, to be more accurate, I never even questioned it and assumed what the media was telling me was true. Since climategate, I have spent many hours trying to discover the truth by reading, as much as possible, first hand what the “denialists” have to say. It’s a complex question and, as Richard Lindzen says, it comes down to the question of which scientists you trust not to lie to you.

    • Brad Homewood

      In reply to Chris,
      Your assertions of a “crony review” process, and a “small club” implies that NASA, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, CSIRO, Union of Concerned Scientists, Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the prestigious journals – Nature, Science, and Scientific American, just to mention a few, are all turning their collective backs on the discipline they have devoted their lives to, you have not provided a motive for this apparent apostasy, nor have you named a single reputable scientific institution that endorses your position.
      The best you have done is present Richard Lindzen, who a quick search on Google reveals, not surprisingly, is on the payroll of oil and coal companies, who he consults for at the modest price of $2,500 a day (Climateprogress.org).
      He also attended the denialists Heartland conference, which was so extreme that a moderate denialist like John Christy avoided for fear of “guilt by Association, ” the Heartland Institute has a long history of unethical behaviour that Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway trace back to 1993 when they peddled dangerous lies on behalf of Philip Morris, as well as attacking Rachel Carson for the important and seminal work she did exposing the dangers of DDT, this Tobacco Strategy has been used by the ideologues quite effectively, distorting the science on smoking, asbestos, second hand smoke, acid rain, ozone hole, nuclear winter, and now global warming, why? because they oppose government regulation.
      Richard Lindzen as you point out is a Professor of Meteorology, with your science- based university degree I’m sure you would understand that Meteorologist deal with relatively short periods of time, Climatologists on the other hand deal with long periods of time, and have the most expertise when it comes to this topic.
      The American Geological Institute surveyed 3146 earth scientists, and found that 90% believe global warming is real, with 82% agreeing human activity is involved, the strongest consensus was found amongst Climatologist, with 97% agreeing that humans are contributing to climate change.
      But lets just pretend for a second that your right, global warming isn’t occurring, what then do we do about ocean acidification from CO2 (70 academy’s of science’s agree), the fact that burning coal is responsible for 41% of the 117 tons of Mercury that goes into the atmosphere in the US alone, then into the food chain, and what about the enormous quantities of water used at coal fired power stations (20% of Australia’s water on a dry continent), I guess it does comes down to who you trust.

  • This is in reply to Brad Homewood who replied to Chris:

    The scientific profession has been co-opted. See http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/03_Disease/031121.dead.scientists.2.html for proof of many scientists being murdered. Any wonder why the remaining scientists are keeping their mouths shut and even distorting information as they obviously fear for their lives.

    I have a lot more if you want to debate me on this as the infiltrator you are. Indeed, I have so much that it would not all fit in this format.

    • Mary

      George Soros was put in charge of the International Global Fund on “green” initiatives. This, almost more than anything else, tells me that the global warming scam is aimed at shifting funds from us….to them. Global warming is not real and trading carbon credits is equal to trading fairy dust.

  • Pat

    The Rothschild Dynasty makes money off of both sides of every war. World War I never should have happened but the Rothschild banking cartels wanted money and power plus an excuse to build a league of nations!

  • Skeptic & Proud of It

    Chris,

    You owe it to yourself to stop drinking the AGW Kool Aid! MIT’s Dick Lindzen in the pocket of Oil Companies? The Heartland Climate Change Conference extreme?

    I’ve got geology and environmental engineering degrees, flew hurricanes for a couple of years, performed remote sensing research at both poles and most of the Atlantic and Pacific, and have developed numerical models. I also had a chance to attend the most recent Heartland CC conference at the end of June in DC. For the first time in years I was present for serious discussions of global warming by world renowned scientists with decades of experience in there respective fields. There were some luke-warmists there who questioned how much man’s activities could be contributing to global warming but no scientists who claimed that global warming hadn’t taken place throughout the history of the earth! And there were many scientists who debunked most of the claims of the AGW crowd–but based on science, real data, and knowledge of the models the UN and fellow travelers were basing their conclusions upon–not personal attacks on the people they disagreed with–practically the sole tactic of the AGW alarmists and their enablers!

    And your attempted smearing of folks like Richard Lindzen, Bill Gray, Roy Spencer, Pat Michaels, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, and so many others simply because energy companies hire some of them to perform studies and evaluations for them is entirely without merit! Entire industries are being shut down by the AGW Zealots and their fellow travelers in the media and regulatory agencies. Should these endangered companies be hiring the same young climate modelers who are essentially making up numbers and calling them “data” that supports AGW to keep the funding from government, universities, NGOs, and other advocacy foundations flowing in? This is what the UN and fellow climate alarmists are desperate to find–and this is what everyone is paying for! The research to counter such claims is a small pittance by comparison.

    But the models don’t come close to representing the earth processes that are the real causes of cyclic changes in global temperatures–none of which have not fallen in the normal range of natural variability! And what real credentials does Richard Hansen have to challenge the scientists that were at the Heartland climate conference? He isn’t a meteorologist, or an oceanographer, or an astrophysicist, or a climatologist, or a paleogeologist, or a chemist or any related scientific discipline to global warming! This clown is an astronomer, for Pete’s sake! And not one of the dire predictions he made in front of Congress in 1988–or since–has come even close to what has occurred–tending to miss the mark –always too high–by around 300%! So where does he or so many others in the AGW camp come off questioning MIT’s Dick Lindzen (AP Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and authors of dozens of texts and hundreds of research papers and peer reviewed articles on climate? Or Willie Soon’s proof that the greenhouse gas cap isn’t effectively trapping enough of the earth’s heat to validate any of the climate models–a fact that now even NASA agrees with if you’ve seen any of the recent reports on satellite data that have come out over the last couple of weeks. But Dick Lindzen and Dr. Soon have published peer reviewed papers on large amounts of long wave radiation being picked up by satellites escaping freely into space –and rising steadily with higher global temperatures and decreasing as temperatures have cooled –for years.

    As to your list of agencies, why do you think there are something like 22 climate models today? Try counting the Federal agencies competing for budgets, personnel, and resume content and you will see a far stronger correlation than you ever see between CO2 and global temperatures since 1850! And if you want an even higher correlation, try reviewing Willie Soon’s papers to see the strong correlation (79%) between solar irradiance and global temperatures (as opposed to the 21% correlation between CO2 levels and the same temperature database. Do yourself a favor and spend two days at the next Heartland sponsored climate conference and make up your own mind.

    Is Heartland a free market, limited government, libertarian organization? No doubt. And wouldn’t it be in character for such a libertarian organization to stand behind a tobacco company selling legal products that lawyers were trying to demonize and make retroactively liable for billions in penalties for contingency lawyers, politicians, and people who knew that smoking was dangerous but were too weak or stupid to stop? I’m not supporting the tobacco industry but they existed legally and Congress could have made cigarettes illegal at any time but couldn’t ween themselves from the tobacco taxes. So why weren’t the lawyers going after Congress? And what justified them from going after tobacco companies beyond the fact that they ere in a dying industry but still had deep pockets? And what does this irrelevant attack against Heartland have to do with whether the content of the climate conference was valid or not? Just about as much as the ad hominem attack on every scientist you disagree with simply because some energy company hired them at one time or another to perform research–nothing!