25 02 2010



“We are at present working discreetly, but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.” Arnold Toynbee

A—The Basis of Local Government
B—City of London Corporation
C—The Beginning of Socialism in London
D—Fabian Society
E—Fabian Society “Five Year Plan”
F—Fabian Society Privatization of the World
G—Communist “Sustainable Development”
H—World Conservation Bank
I—Communist “SmartGrowth”
J—Pauperization of Pensioners and the Middle Class


The modern system of local and regional government can be directly traced back to Babylon, when in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time (605-562 B.C.), the city was divided up into ten distinct regions or districts ruled by princes, under whom were mayoral governors, captains, judges, treasurers, councillors and sheriffs. In modern times the system of local government that we have throughout the world is derived exclusively from the City of London Corporation.


The City of London Corporation is a Masonic, private, independent, sovereign state occupying approximately one square mile within the heart of the greater London area inside the old Roman walls of London.

It either directly or indirectly, controls all mayors, councils, regional councils, multi- national and trans-national banks, corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by eight British- controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and last but not least, the communist European Union and communist United Nations Organization.

The supreme ruler of the City is the Lord Mayor who is elected once a year and lives in the Mansion House. The City has a resident population of about 5,000 that rises to about two million during the week when people surge in and out each day to work.

The financial centre of the world, it is often termed the ‘wealthiest square mile on earth. ‘The full title of the Square Mile’s governing body is the ‘Mayor, Aldermen and Commons of the City of London in Common Council Assembled.’

Photo: The Lord Mayor 2006

The Court of leadership consists of the Lord Mayor, 25 Aldermen and 130 Common Councilmen.

All of the giant, largely Jewish international banks and corporations in the City of London that control the world are members of one or another of the Twelve Great Livery Companies domiciled in Guildhall (or the Hall of the City of London Corporation).

As the result of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ between the sovereign and the City merchants and bankers made many hundreds of years ago, the Lord Mayor is officially head of the Corporation and is allowed to operate independently of the sovereign. However, the wealth of the world held in the Corporation ultimately is the Sovereign’s, because, should the gentleman’s agreement break down, the sovereign has the power to “rescind” the Corporation’s independence.

The Queen sometimes refers to the Corporation as “The Firm.”

While ostensibly the power of the monarchy appears to be diminishing as the Queen voluntarily gives her Commonwealth countries their independence and they become republics chartered to the United Nations, and she actively works toward abolishing the sovereignty of Britain as the UK is broken up and divided into regions of the European Union her City of London Corporation multi-national banks and corporations are quietly taking over the world.

Photo: A statue of a heraldic dragon tops the present-day Temple Bar marker in front of the Royal Courts of Justice.

In ancient times the City marshals and sheriffs were employed to ensure that all the “council” rates and taxes were paid to the City on behalf of the king.

After the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066, who first brought the Jewish bankers to London from France, the Jews developed written credit agreements for the king, (in French called “mort-gages” mort ‘death’gage ‘bond’) and it was the marshal’s and sheriff’s jobs to ensure that all the interest payments of these “deathbonds” were paid to the Jews on behalf of the king.

During the reign of Richard I (the Lionheart) after the serious downturn in the economy as the result of the cost and tax impositions of the Crusades, (read “Blondel’s Song” by David Boyle to understand how 25% of the wealth of England was required in standard Silver Ingots to free Richard the Lionheart from not Saladdin but the Holy Roman Emperor!”) Many farmers, business people and peasants had defaulted on their “mort-gages” throughout England.

As the result, the Jews promptly commenced seizing the commoner’s property for not paying the interest, rates and taxes to the City and King.

Subsequently, a rapid increase in hate against the “King’s Jews” was initiated. This led to the massacre of Jews at York in 1190. New York in America was later named by British Jewish immigrant bankers in memory of the event.

For 100 years the commoner’s hate against the “King’s Jews” fermented until 1290, when, under pressure from the people, Edward III finally suspended the Mayoralty and reluctantly banished all Jews from his kingdom when 16,000 left England and didn’t begin to return until around the reign of Elizabeth I 1558-1603) when the enormous power of the City really began to accelerate with the opening of the world’s first stock exchange in London and has continued unabated to the present day.

While there have been rare occasions when the Lord Mayor and Commalty of the City, as a result of their colossal wealth and power have been able to subtly out-manoeuvre the monarch, as to their cost, Richard II, Charles I and James II were to learn to their fate generally speaking this has been the exception rather than the rule.

Ultimately, whoever successfully rules must have the “will” of the people. Historically, in the City many although certainly not all monarchs, have ruled with the “will” of their subjects.

But rarely, if ever, have the bankers, rich barons or knights been respected in this position.

More often than not they’ve been consistently hated.

Even when monarchs have done a poor job, provided they have still had the “will” of the people, the wealthy bankers’ position has been extremely “perilous” to say the least.

After forty years of misrule by Henry III, the Lord Mayor, Thomas Fitzthomas (1261- 1264) and the Aldermen defied the king.

On this particular occasion the Lord Mayor ended up being thrown into the Tower where he died.

Henry III vetoed nine Mayors in his long reign, and jailed another who died in prison.

On one occasion the threat to the Lord Mayor’s massive wealth and power has not come directly from the monarch, but from the people themselves.

Mayor Nicholas Brembre (1383-1385) had been a king’s man during the peasant’s revolt, and was knighted by Richard II for curbing the ambitions of his uncle, John of Gaunt.

But Brembre had few friends among the common people having deposed the popular Mayor Adam Stable, and when he re-imposed the hated Poll Tax which had caused the revolt, the mob turned on him.

He was given a mockery of a trial and was then hanged, drawn and quartered. Understandably, therefore, from the time of Richard II most of the “Lord Mayors” in the City of London and others in the realm became very “cautious” and “hesitant” about any proposal which could be seen as an “unreasonable demand” to levy rates or taxes for the City and king.

However, today these events have all but been forgotten. From the time of William the Conqueror in 1066 up to the time of the Reformation the City of London Corporation was Roman Catholic.

(The modern global “company” and “corporate” business system that we know today grew out of the old Roman Catholic dioceses in England which were the world’s first “corporations”).

During the reigns of Henry VIII (1491-1547) and Elizabeth I (1558-1603) when the Church of England, knights and barons took over the assets of the Catholic Church in England, the City then became Protestant.

Gradually, as the people of England apostatized and turned away from the Protestant King James Bible and Christianity in general, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in the late 1800′s the City and Monarchy became rabidly Socialist.


The religion of Socialism is based primarily on the teachings of the pagan Greek philosopher and writer Plato, and especially his book The Republic, in which 400 years before the time of Christ he dreamed of a “World Republic” headed not by a president, but by a royal “world philosopher king” or “prince” like himself of course!).

Both Karl Marx and Hitler were great students of Plato. It is only inevitable that the planned reformed United Nations and EU will one day be headed by this “Philosopher Prince”.

Socialism officially first began in 1880 in London when H. M. Hyndman founded the Rose Street Club which was dedicated to the destruction of Christianity in England.
In 1884 the group changed its name and came to be called the Social Democratic Federation.

Its early members deceptively called themselves “Christian Socialists”. Later the group’s membership included the Jew, Karl Marx’s daughter, Eleanor Marx
and her husband Professor Aveling. Behind the scenes the group was largely controlled by Engels, Karl Marx’s partner.

Because Hyndman would not obey the orders of Engels, Eleanor Marx and her husband split off with William Morris the poet and others and started an opposition group which they called the Socialist League.

On January 4, 1884, members and past members of the Social Democratic Federation, the Socialist League and others founded the Fabian Society.


The first meeting of the Fabian Society was held at the home of Mr. E. R. Pease, a member of the London Stock Exchange.

Two of the leading members were George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb.

Other early members were Eleanor Marx, theosophist and occultist Annie Besant, and author H. G. Wells.

The name of the society was suggested by the Spiritualist, Frank Podmore, who named it after the brilliant, elderly, third century Roman general, censor and consul, Quintus Fabius (Maximus Verrucosus 303-203 BC) who was made a dictator in 221-217 BC and, with his small band of fighting guerrillas and superior cunning, successfully defended Rome by defeating Hannibal’s much bigger and mighty Carthaginian army through “gradualism” and “terrorism” during the time of the second Punic War.

Initially he kept to the hills and cunningly hampered the enemy’s progress by cutting off their food and supply lines with “delaying tactics” until Rome could assemble enough men to defend the city successfully.

During the war, his slow, “gradual,” delaying tactics were greatly disapproved of by his soldiers and the civilians and earned him the name of ‘Cunctator’ the ‘Delayer.’
But later, after the triumph, his skill and wisdom was highly appreciated. He died in his 100th year in 203 BC.

The only difference between Fabian Socialism and Communism is that Communists take your house by directly sending in the “secret police” to knock your front door down Fabian Socialists do it much more subtly and cleverly by “gradually” taking your individual rights away, by “gradually” increasing property taxes and rates, and finally, when you can’t pay them, they send in their regional “council tax inspectors” to take your house away but the end result is the same.

British PM Tony Blair and President George Bush Junior’s globalist “war on terror” is a classic Fabian Socialist strategy.

The philosophy of the Fabian Society was written in 1887 and included the statement: “The Fabian Society acknowledges the principal tenet of Marxism the abolition of private property etc.” (Of course this does not apply to the elect oligarchy at the top who end up owning the lot!).

Fabian Socialism is a “mixture” of Fascism, Nazism, Marxism and Communism all bundled together.

However, it is much more deadly because it is much more clever and subtle. Sidney and Beatrice Webb published a book of 1143 pages in defense of Bolshevism. It was entitled Soviet Communism: A New Civilization.

In April 1952 the Webbs were exposed before a US Senate Committee on the judiciary when Soviet Colonel I. M. Bogolepov, a former Red Army officer stated that the entire text had been prepared by himself in the Soviet Foreign Office. Appropriately, the defiant coat of arms of the Fabian Society (commissioned by author/playwright co-founder George Bernard Shaw) today (now archived) is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Until recently it also appeared on the Fabian glass window (now removed) in the Beatrice Webb House at Dorking, Surrey. Today the Fabian Society is among other things the intellectual wing of the British Labour Party.

Before Tony Blair became British Prime Minister in May 1997, he was Chairman of the Fabian Society.

Since the 1997 British general election there have been around 200 Fabian MP’s in the House of Commons, some of whom have formed almost entire Labour Cabinets including Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Peter Hain, Patricia Hewitt, John Reid, Ruth Kelly, Alan Milburn and Clare Short.

Headed by Tony Blair, Fabians now dominate the entire British government.

They are resident in all parties and sit on all important select committees, commissions and organizations allied to the government.

A good web-site on the subject is:

The Fabian Society literally controls the European Union. German-born Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston since 1997, and member of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was one of two House of Commons’ Representatives on the European Convention and a member of the Presidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The Presidium was the drafting body that created the draft Constitution for Europe. In her book, The Making of Europe’s Constitution, published in December 2003 by the Fabian Society, p. 20-21, Gisela writes: “In the early months, the Presidium members would meet in a small room in the Justus Lipsius Building some fifteen minute walk from the European Parliament.

Attendance was limited to the thirteen members, the Secretary General Sir John Kerr, his deputy and the press officer. Sir John Kerr, a former Permanent Secretary of the British Foreign Office, conducted the proceedings inside the Presidium and in the plenary sessions of the Convention with deft diplomatic skill as might be expected from someone who John Major called ‘Machiavelli’ in his autobiography.

The best description of his talents I heard was: ‘When Kerr comes up to you and asks for the time, you wonder why me and why now?’

On several occasions, we would retreat to the Val Duchess a small palace used by the Belgian foreign minister. It was at one of the dinners at Val Duchess that the skeleton of the draft constitution was given to members of the presidium in sealed brown envelopes the weekend before the public presentation.

We were not allowed to take the documents away with us.

Just precisely who drafted the skeleton, and when, is still unclear to me, but I gather much of the work was done by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and Sir John Kerr over the summer.

There was little time for informed discussion, and even less scope for changes to be made.”

There is another important idea, a method more than a principle which becomes closely associated with Fabianism.

Sydney Webb called it ‘permeation.’ Today it would be called ‘consensus.’ Webb put it this way. Most reformers think that all they have to do in a political democracy is to obtain a majority. This is a profound mistake.

What has to be changed is not only the vote that is cast, but also the mental climate in which Parliament and Government both live and work.

That I find to be an accurate description of the approach I and my colleagues have tried to bring to the affairs of the nation in our first term of office.”

In the last century, members of the British Fabian Society dynastic banking families in the City of London financed the Communist takeover of Russia.

Trotsky in his biography refers to some of the loans from these British financiers going back as far as 1907.

By 1917 the major subsidies and funding for the Bolshevik Revolution were co- ordinated and arranged by Sir George Buchanan and Lord Alfred Milner.


The British plan to take over the world and bring in a “New World Order” began with the teachings of John Ruskin and Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University.

Rhodes in one of his wills in 1877 left his vast fortune to Lord Nathan Rothschild as trustee to set up the Rhodes Scholarship Program at Oxford to indoctrinate promising young graduates for the purpose, and also establish a secret society for leading business and banking leaders around the world who would work for the City to bring in their Socialist world government.

Rothschild appointed Lord Alfred Milner to implement the plan. At first the society was called Milner’s Kindergarten, then in 1909 it came to be called The RoundTable. It was to work closely with the London School of Economics founded in 1894 by
Fabian Socialist leader Sidney Webb (Lord Passfield).

Today former Rhodes Scholars (such as Bill Clinton), Fabian Business RoundTable members, and graduates from the London School of Economics (the primary Fabian Socialist training school in the world) dominate the global banking, business and political systems in every country.

The British Fabian Society plan to takeover the world by the City of London financial community was first published in a book entitled “All These Things” by a New Zealand author and journalist, A. N. Field.

The book was first published in 1936 by Omni Publications in the United States (and censored in New Zealand). The document, called “Freedom and Planning” was secretly circulated in 1932 by the inner councils of the members of the Political Economic Plan, otherwise known as “P.E.P.” in London.

The then chairman of the organization was a City of London Jew, Israel Moses Sieff, who was the reputed author of the plan.

The headquarters of P.E.P. were at 16 Queen Anne’s Gate, London.

Mr Sieff was also chairman and financier of Marks and Spencer’s’ chain stores and vice-president of the British Zionist Society.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.

Centred around City of London Jewry’s international financiers in the Bank of England subsidiary, the Bankers Industrial Development Company, the essence of the document “Freedom and Planning” was (and still is) to gradually “Sovietize” the world based on their “Five Year Plan” inaugurated in Moscow in 1927-28 in the Soviet Union.

Basically the plan involved the subtle transfer of the entire productive capacity of each country throughout the world into a series of great “State-owned” departments, which would then be “corporatized”, then “privatized” to City of London Corporation International banks and corporations which they control.

Individual property ownership would be severely restricted, with most of the land, sea, fisheries, rivers, lakes, ports, railways, communications, media, roads, electricity, energy, food, water, waste management, housing, farms, commercial property, schools, hospitals, police, social welfare, Inland Revenue etc. transferred into statutory corporations, companies or land trusts which indirectly would be owned by City of London banks.

The “peasants” would still be allowed to own their own clothes, and small assets like furniture, cars and boats etc., but the main assets of each country would be owned by their multi-national corporations and banks.

In essence the City of London Corporation would become the “One World Earth Corporation” and would privately own the world.

Similar to the experiment carried out in the in the USSR, the whole world would eventually be transferred into a Communist “United Nations” World Soviet Socialist Republic, where each country would be “regionalized” and ruled through “Regional Councils” through a United Nations dictatorship called a “Parliamentary Assembly” which would be just another name for a Soviet “Central Committee” and all independent, sovereign, national governments would be totally abolished.


As the result of the P.E.P. Plan originally formulated in 1932, right now every country’s “State assets” (owned in trust by the State on behalf of the people) are being frantically “privatized” by City of London-controlled banks and corporations primarily under the directions of two leading Fabian Socialist writers Sir Roger Douglas and John Redwood.

Sir Roger Douglas’s book “Unfinished Business” and John Redwood’s book “Public Enterprise in Crisis” are the primary handbooks being used by central and local government finance ministers and officers all around the world to sell off each nation’s “family silver” and State assets with the more “sensitive” public assets being transferred into Fascist-type Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) which are designed to make the public masses and peasantry “think” that they have some degree of control when in reality they have none as the real ownership of the assets are held by the City of London banks and corporations who fund them.

Until relatively recently, John Redwood was head of N. M. Rothschild & Sons London global Overseas Privatization Unit that is coordinating the entire global privatization process.

Sir Roger has been contracted as a consultant by City of London Banks, the World Bank and others to advise on national privatization programs as well.

Fabian Society “Regionalization” of the World through UN and EU Control of Regional and City Councils.

All of the countries in the world currently are being “regionalized”.

Presently, for example, the whole of the United States is being “regionalized” and the EU Committee of the Regions, based in Brussels, is “regionalizing” every country in the European Union.

As the result of this radical “regionalization” process, Britain has now already been effectively abolished, having been divided up into 9 separate regions of the EU, plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

This cunning process, which is being “gradually” implemented to destroy the power of the central national government in each country, is commonly referred to as “Devolution” by the Queen and Fabian Society.

Unlike the rest of the autonomous regions in the UK which, like most of the other regions in the EU that have become virtually powerless through their representation in the European Parliament which is now only a “talking shop”, the City of London Corporation as a separate region by itself within the Union now rules it.

This is because all of the Commissioners are appointed (not elected) to the European Commission by City of London-controlled business leaders and bankers in their respective countries.

Right now throughout the UK all city councils and regional councils are dramatically increasing their rate demand on their constituent’s properties, while at the same time they are quickly expanding their debt levels for unaffordable capital works programs via loans from City of London banks which policies are deliberately intended to prepare for the councils’ “privatization” whilst transferring the local government in each country to “regional councils” which ultimately will become or be controlled by “Regional Parliamentary Assemblies,” identical to the old structure in the former Soviet Union which first regionalized then abolished the national governments before they set up their republican socialist police state.


In 1992 at the “communist” United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, co-chaired by former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and N. M. Rothschild-London agent Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong, the UN unveiled a radical environmental philosophical agenda which “inverted” the traditional values reflected in the Bible, Magna Carta and US Constitution (which put man under God at the head of his creation and dominion i.e. a man’s rights were to have superiority over those of animals, fish, plants, trees and forests etc.)

At the Earth Summit in Rio, an old pagan concept was introduced which “inverted” all of our existing, constitutional, democratic, personal and property rights and values espoused by Christianity and transferred them to the environment and the religion of mother-earth Gaia worship.

In this religion, a tree becomes more valuable than a human being. A rare bird more valuable than a hospital. This United Nations program of action unveiled in Rio was called Agenda 21. It is 300 pages long and is very complex.

Primarily it is designed to be implemented with other radical UN documents such as the Global Biodiversity Assessment (1100 pages), promoted by the UN Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II.

The first Habitat conference was held in 1974 and specifically identified private property ownership as a threat to the peace and equality of the environment.
It proposed to revolutionize the development of the land and cities of each country under strict “Soviet-style” environmental guidelines, called “Sustainable Development.”

The UN’s communist secret agenda through “environmentalism” and “sustainable development” is very cunning and has deceived a lot of well-meaning people.
Most people genuinely want to protect the environment and ensure that the earth’s resources are “sustainable” for future generations there is no doubt.

But the communist goal of “sustainable development” and “environmentalism” has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment or sustainability it is all about abolition of property rights, and ultimately, collectivization of housing and farms under corporate State control.

Under this system, farmers and property owner’s rights would be effectively extinguished and overridden by strict Environmental and Sustainable Development resource consents and laws.

They would be told where they could farm, what “sustainable” land they could “develop,” (sustainable development) what trees they could plant or cut down, what fertilizer if any they could apply, and they would need “consents” and licenses for everything under the sun.

City dwellers would be in the same dire predicament, and have their homes confiscated, or they’d be severely fined, if they cut down a heritage tree, washed their car, boat or dishes using detergent, or used the privatized corporation’s water when they shouldn’t, especially if they were nabbed under their friendly “Neighbourhood Watch Scheme,” which scheme, incidentally, was first implemented in the Soviet Union.

Socialism is very subtle.

The penalty for cutting a tree down without the appropriate government consent would become worse than murder.

Not only would you have to license your dog, to own a dog you would have to be licensed too.

Farmers would need to be licensed to operate their collectivized farms, spray weeds, care for cattle and drive their tractors under new Soviet-styled “health and safety” laws.

All tradesmen and professional workers would have to be accredited and licensed, as would all Christian pastors and churches, and any other persons or institutions that could be likely to criticize their Soviet bosses.

All potential young parents would need to have a license to have children, and if there was any family genetic weakness of some sort in their state-controlled doctor’s medical records, no license would be given.

In the end you would need a license or permit to take your boat on a lake, take your kid fishing off a wharf, or travel between towns or cities.
In other words full-blown Marxism.

The United Nations policy of “Sustainable Development” introduced in 1992 at the UNCED at Rio de Janeiro, and implemented through Habitat II and the UN World Commission on Environment and Development is taken directly from the USSR Constitution, chapter 2, article 18, which reads:

“In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”

Not only was N. M. Rothschild agent, Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN 1992 Rio Earth Summit, he personally worked with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint three of his own Earth Charter Commissioners to the 12-man advisory panel of the Johannesburg Summit.


In September 1987, the 4th World Wilderness Congress was held in Denver, Colorado, USA, which established the World Conservation Bank.

The congress was setup by none other than London’s (late) Baron Edmond de Rothschild, chairman of Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild, Geneva, Switzerland, and one of the trustees of the International Wilderness Foundation that sponsored the conference.

Approximately 1500 of the world’s most powerful bankers and leaders attended the congress, which was chaired by Rothschild agent and Canadian multi billionaire, Maurice Strong.

At the congress, Edmond de Rothschild designated eminent financier I. Michael Sweatman to be the first president of the World Conservation Bank. Sweatman wrote the forward of the banks charter.

Leading insiders of the biggest banks and UN agencies in the world were present, including Maurice Strong “Mr Sustainable,” David Rockefeller head of the ChaseManhattan Bank “Mr Development” and Mr David Ruckleshaus head of the UN Environmental Protection Agency “Mr Environment” of course!

The World Conservation Bank is destined to become the final World Bank and the “de-coupling mechanism” for City of London parent banks to take over the assets of every country of the world.

The essence of their secret plan is this: After an orchestrated period of global financial chaos triggered by a major war in the Middle East or man-made state of emergency or natural disaster, in which most of the world’s banks will be deliberately collapsed in the process, (wiping everybody’s savings out in the crash), key City of London banking parent creditors, are going to take over all the “mort-gages” (death-bonds) and assets of the world, and transfer them to the World Conservation Bank.

The plan is very esoteric and cunning, and very difficult for most to understand. Already most government treasury departments are preparing for such an event.
As part of the preparation for this momentous event, all of the world’s individual currencies are to be merged into two or three major currency groups, two of which are the euro and US dollar.

Finally, these currencies are to be replaced with the World Conservation Bank’s new electronic global currency, the “Earth Dollar.”

This new currency is deceptively to be issued against the collateral of 34 percent of the Earth’s surface that is presently being transferred into huge UN Heritage Parks and Conservation areas in every country across the globe, under the crafty deception “Sustainable Development.”

In short, the biggest banking conspiracy and deception ever to face mankind!

George W. Hunt, (95 Camino Basque, Boulder, Colorado 80302, U.S.A.), a US businessman, attended the congress and produced a video about it exposing their wicked and incredibly deceptive plans. On his video he plays excerpts of key speeches recorded at the congress.

One such speech was made by David Lang, a leading US financier and close personal friend and business partner of Maurice Strong, who said: “When the auditor finally gets his hands into the balance sheet, I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder unfortunately which populates the earth. We have to take an almost elitist program that we can see beyond our swollen bellies and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some sort of simplistic definition.”

“CANNON-FODDER!” this is what these leading, arrogant, banking conspirators of the UN “Sustainable Development,” “SmartGrowth,” and World Conservation policies think of the world general population.

THESE are the wicked men that all the millions and millions of naïve local/central government politicians and business leaders throughout the world are now following.


The main business facilitators and organizations of the UN Sustainable Development policies in the Asia-Pacific Region are the Pacific Rim Institute of Sustainable Management, the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Melbourne-based Sustainable Investment Research Group (SIRIS).

Equity in this group, SIRIS, coincidentally, is held by IOOF Funds Management and broking house JBWere that provide research for N.M. Rothschild & Sons’ Ethical Share Trust based in London.

The 1995 session the United Nations General Assembly passed a number of rules. Rule 61, 62 and 63 gave local government, civil organizations and private citizens the right to participate directly in the development and implementation of these documents. Directed by the IMF, World Bank, UN, and Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum, the philosophy of “sustainable development” basically says that there are too many people on planet earth and there are not enough resources to go around.

What we need to do is urgently reduce the population, preserve, conserve, and “ration” the remaining resources and that the United Nations is the only body that can do it.

The World Bank already has a huge statistical database on countries and individuals what they produce and what resources they consume, water, energy, food, raw materials, heat, waste, health, social services etc.

If the net figure is a plus, they are considered to be good productive world citizens. If it is a negative, they are in line for liquidation. These are all basically the same old Socialist/Communist ideas as the “Marxist/Leninist” philosophy and “planned economy” that permeated the old Soviet Union.

In 1992 at Rio, another key “Soviet-styled” strategy proposed by the Agenda 21 Programme of Action from the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) was “SmartGrowth.”

This agenda can be found in a UN companion book called “Global Biodiversity Assessment” published by Cambridge University Press.

It proposes to model all the cities of the world on the Israel Moses Seif P.E.P plan, and the “planned” economic system of development used by Lenin and Stalin under the old Communist Soviet system of local government. The UN “SmartGrowth” legislation in the United States was first passed in the State of Maryland in March 1997. Since then, it has been gradually introduced by city and district councils all around the worl. Of course, rarely if ever will you hear of the policy coming from a foul brood of UN international bankers. While virtually all of the general public are oblivious of this fact, usually individual councils will be happy to credit themselves as authors of the plans.


Just as there is a “close relationship” between the remuneration rises of leading local body politicians with the overall level of council rate-rise demand, so there is a “close relationship” between the level of council rate-rise impositions and the financial status of people living in each council ward or constituency. The Fabian bankers already “own” the properties held by ratepayers with a “mort-gage” on them.

This includes all private homes, farms, businesses and commercial property, local and central government debt. All young people with student loans and welfare beneficiary groups also come under this category. By and large central bankers believe this group is not a worry as they are already under their strict control and firmly in their grip through welfare dependency or mort-gage “death-bond” fealty. But the one group that Fabian Socialists hate the most are the “freehold” property-owners. Hence, this group, more often than not, is the “middle class” that is predominantly comprised of middle-aged citizens and more particularly pensioners who are generally the most asset-rich.

As a result of this phenomenon, all global residential property taxation and ratepayer tax policies are now being subtly targeted against these particular groups to confiscate all their properties. Essentially the Fabian City of London banks envisage this to be achieved through a variety of measures.







    BE FREE!!

    The England I Love,
    And Shall Forever Love
    By Mike James in Germany
    26 February 2010
    …While the British people are being led by their easily-tweaked noses
    into yet another sham general election in which the choice they make
    is severely circumscribed by an evil system of usury and the prospect
    of no change in the circumstances of a people befuddled by decades
    of sinister, police-state, Tavistock Institute conditioning,
    almost nobody is asking:
    “For how much longer must we tolerate living in a nation beholden
    to only special interest groups, International Jewish Finance,
    a “Punch & Judy” show behind which the British Crown’s servitude
    to The City of London has prostituted Britons to a life of indentured
    class-riddled servitude and without a chance in hell of
    extricating ourselves from the demonic Soviet European Union



    The global currency intelligence publication with independent country and currency reports, which enjoys a global reputation for calling crucial currency, economic and related geopolitical developments – and publishes highly sensitive intelligence on Financial Warfare and official corruption issues that are typically sidestepped by the ‘mainstream’ media. Published since 1969, International Currency Review has been edited since 1970 by Christopher Story FRSA, a former occasional adviser to Lady Thatcher, and remains the only dedicated independent currency publication in the world. It is reviewed and consulted by international agencies, by private investors, bank analysts, intelligence and official structures, financial institutions and large corporations worldwide. Leading universities subscribe too. The publication also undertakes investigations into secretive geofinancial intelligence activities and transactions which no other journal addresses. Its top authoritative reporting and investigative work is respected throughout the international financial community. Because International Currency Review has been engaged in sensitive financial studies for decades, it is in a position to shed light on financial issues and scandals that the ‘mainstream’ media sidestep, for fear of official or underworld retaliation.


    One more thing. The British National Party (BNP), which exploits the Union Jack (UK flag) in all its publicity, was exposed several years ago to this Editor as a covert operation run by German ‘Black’ intelligence. One key achievement of this operation has been precisely to STEAL and ERADICATE national sentiment along with the flag, so that anyone expressing views such as that Third World immigration needs to be controlled or stopped, that the integrity of the nation state is paramount and sacrosanct, and that pride in one’s country is meritorious, is in danger of being labelled (by the Great Brainwashed) as a BNP ‘fellow-traveller’.

    On 18th April, it was reported that the London organiser of the BNP, Bob Bailey, is the husband of a German Embassy diplomat. He married Ms. Martina Borgfeldt in Australia in 1999 after meeting her while serving in the Royal Marines in Africa. The current Diplomatic List shows that this woman is an ‘assistant attaché’ at the German Embassy in Mayfair, Central London. Mr Bob Bailey lives in accommodation provided by the German Embassy in London.

    In a damage limitation exercise, an anonymous spinning source ‘close to the German Embassy’ said that Mr Bailey had never told his wife that he was a BNP leader, and that she only found out about it when confronted by her superiors. Mr Bob Bailey is leader of the opposition grouping on Barking and Dagenham Council, which he hopes to take control of on 6th May.

    As such, he holds a public position and therefore his political affiliation is manifestly in the public domain. Accirdingly, the source of this ‘spin’, presumably an operative taking orders from German intelligence, was engaged in a clumsy attempt to cover up the fact that the British National Party is indeed, as we ourselves found out several years ago, a covert confusion-building operation run by Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst, its purpose being to smother genuine British national pride and to reinforce the oppression of ‘nationalism’ – which, if it were to flourish, would threaten pan-German hegemony strategy and the internationalist agenda.


    Camilla Cavendish writes in an op-ed. piece in The Times, page 21, subtitled: ‘When voters say they want change, they mean an end to a system which favours cheats: in banks or on benefits’:

    ‘Politicians and bureaucrats could not see that they had fostered a language of bureaucracy and suspicion that was alienating to people who used public services. They stuck to stubborn mantras that exam results were better, nurses angelic. People stopped believing that politicians could understand their lives or speak their language’.

    ‘Politicians only sensed the anger once the economic tide began to ebb. The credit crunch showed that bankers who had flaunted their wealth as evidence of their superior merit had indulged in the most childish pass-the-parcel schemes that plunged the world economy into the dark [sic]’.

    ‘Most bankers emerged unscathed and unrepentant, while people who had acted prudently and saved for their futures found themselves paying for the profligacy of those who had racked up enormous debts. Low interest rates benefited mortgage holders at the expense of British savers who are still watching their money shrink in accounts that banks brazenly change every month’.

    ‘By the time the expenses scandal broke, bringing the realisation not only of so many MPs having their noses in the trough, but just how big the trough actually was, people had stopped listening’.

    • However, because the next Government will be fully signed-up to the internationalist agenda, which overrides preoccupations with domestic issues except wherever they can be moulded to accommodate the internationalist (World Revolution) remit, any expectation of ‘change’ in this crucial respect, would be unwarranted.


    Yet, all of a sudden, a five-pointed star was deliberately built into the specially constructed door, with its window into the ‘New Order’ being unveiled to the gullible members of the general public in attendance, who thought they were there to hear ‘what the leaders have to say’ and to learn about their policies. Instead, they were dumb witnesses to an empty, controlled, and debilitating charade orchestrated in order to sustain the illusion of ‘democracy’ so as to delude the population into believing that the votes to be cast on 6th May are meaningful: whereas the truth is that the main British political parties are all fully signed up to the same sterile internationalist agenda.

    RIP Christopher Story FRSA..God-Bless!

  2. January 16th, 2010
    Fabians Forget the History of their Evil Cause
    The Fabian socialists are having their “Causes to Fight For” conference today. A rally of freedom hating statists who will throw soundbites to a tweeting mob. For over a hundred years the Fabians have tried to increase the power of the state at the expense of society. If there is one consistent aim from the time of the Webbs, through from Oswald Mosley up to Sunder Katawala today, it is to undermine a free, property owning society. Fabians realise socialism will never triumph as long as people have capital and independence.

    For most people their single biggest asset, and society’s bulwark against socialism, is their family home. It is why socialists want penal inheritance taxes and opposed letting low income families get on the property ladder. Council house sales turned former state dependents into property owners, promoting upward mobility and vote switching from a Labour Party which wanted to keep them as clients, to parties which encouraged popular aspirations. Even today Fabians still want to extend state socialism further at the expense of home ownership. The past hundred years of the Fabians have had even darker times too.

    In preparation for their Challenging Extremism session at the conference, Sunder Katawala wrote a not unjustified diatribe against the Daily Mail for historically endorsing the Blackshirts. Very thin ice for a Fabian to be on given that the Blackshirts were founded by a leading Fabian – Oswald Mosley.

    In the first few decades of the twentieth century the Fabians were the biggest advocates of eugenics. Leading Fabians and founders of the LSE, Sidney and Beatrice Webb believed “What we as eugenicists have got to do is to ‘scrap’ the old Poor Law with its indiscriminate relief of the destitute as such and replace it by an intelligent policy of so altering the social environment as to discourage or prevent the multiplication of those irrevocably below the National Minimum of Fitness.” In the 1930s Archibald Church introduced a bill for eugenic sterilization to stop “those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community” from reproducing. Church was a Fabian.

    Prominent Fabians such as H G Wells, Bernard Shaw and the Webbs led the way in combining the ‘progressive’ ideologies of socialism and eugenics. It doesn’t stop there either. As The Guardian reported last year the “Fabian socialists provided the intellectual justification for the eugenics policy that led to the stolen generations scandal.” For a century the Fabians have sought and sadly often succeeded in undermining the traditional family, property rights and individual freedom. Their cause is evil.

    at January 16, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Sundar’s selective memory…….

    Revel Barker recalls a time when the far right found support from some surprising quarters – even the Daily Mirror

    by Revel Barker
    Saturday, July 10th, 2010
    In the run-up to the 2010 general election, while some national newspapers agonised over backing the Liberal Democrats, there was no doubt where two would position themselves. The immigrant-bashing, rabidly right-wing Daily Mail was resolutely pro-Tory. The Daily Mirror was solidly behind Labour – although perhaps a little less enthusiastically this time, since it worries about backing losers.

    This should not have come as a surprise to anyone. The Mail supported British fascists before the Second World War. The pre-war Mirror stood virtually alone in Fleet Street and opposed fascism so violently during the 1930s that its directors were on a Nazi hit list. The Mirror has a long and honourable history of standing up to the far right. It gave vital support and resources to the Hope not Hate campaign against the British National Party, for instance.

    However, sometimes things are not entirely what they seem. Last year, I revised and republished Publish And Be Damned, originally published in 1953. This is Hugh Cudlipp’s classic history of the tabloid revolution and the first 50 years of the Daily Mirror. It contains his the memory of Harold Harmsworth, Lord Rothermere, who founded the paper and also owned the Daily Mail which he “dedicated to many causes, some noble, some repellent”. Rothemere “contrived to cajole the nation into accepting Hitler and his unholy clique as a group of energetic right-wingers. His allegiance to the Germans was viewed in Britain with ­suspicion; his admiration for Oswald Mosley was received by the public at large with the contempt it deserved.”

    But a look at the archive files tells a slightly different story. On January 20 1934, the Daily Mirror contained a photograph of a Mosleyite giving the fascist salute in a puff for a piece in following day’s Sunday Pictorial (later to become the Sunday Mirror). “Give the Blackshirts a helping hand” was the headline, followed by a quote from the article. “The patriotism and discipline of the Blackshirts set a practical example to the young men and women of Britain, who are being defrauded by old gang politicians of the share to which they are entitled in the control and organisation of their country’s affairs.” The author was Lord Rothermere.

    By that time, he had sold most of his Mirror shares in order to invest more in the Daily Mail. So he was effectively a guest writer. The Daily Mirror not only promoted the article in the Sunday Pictorial, it reprinted it word for word the following Monday – along with addresses in seven major cities at which its readers could enrol in the Blackshirt movement, which was described as “the party of youth”.

    The newspaper noted: “Its leader, Sir Oswald Mosley, is only 37 and a man of proved courage and outstanding ability, well fitted by his gifts of personality and eloquence to marshal the vast but neglected energies of his own generation for an effort of national reconstruction similar to that which has imparted such vigour to Italy and Germany.

    “The idea that this new factor in our political life is linked with some foreign organisation has no foundation whatsoever. The British Blackshirt movement is 100 per cent constitutional and national. Persuasion, not violence, will be its path to power. Blackshirts use force only in self-defence against the attacks of revolutionary communism, which is the avowed enemy of the crown and constitution of this country.

    “Nor is there the slightest ground for believing that the Blackshirts are, or ever will be, antagonistic to such bodies as the Jews, the trade unions or the Freemasons. There is no parallel in this respect between other countries and our own.”

    Couldn’t that be interpreted as “admiration for Oswald Mosley”? And did the public receive it with contempt? We don’t know. If any Mirror readers reacted to this pro-fascist piece in any manner, they didn’t make it into print in the paper’s lively letters pages. Nevertheless, there was no more in similar vein in the daily paper, although the Sunday Pictorial in April contained a profile of Mosley as “Britain’s political white hope” in “a powerful and challenging article” by G Ward Price, its top special correspondent in the mid-1930s. And the Daily Mirror continued to cover Mosley’s activities, major speeches and rallies, generally reporting them neutrally, roughly one story a week throughout the rest of 1934.

    In the months following Rothermere’s Blackshirt propaganda, sales of the Daily Mirror reached what Cudlipp described as “the bottom of its circulation curve”, with daily sales of around 700,000 copies. The following year, Cudlipp and Bill Connor (Cassandra) joined the editorial team and the balance changed slightly. The Mirror supported Stanley Baldwin’s National (predominantly Tory) Government in the 1935 election and then took the anti-appeasement line. A year or so later, Cassandra fetched up in Germany, covering Nuremberg rallies, visiting Berlin and Prague, poking sarcastic fun at Hitler and reporting on life under Nazi rule, which didn’t appeal to him.

    Editorial director Harry Guy Bartholomew – the man largely credited with turning the Mirror from a failure into a massive success – believed that supporting fascism was costing the Daily Mail circulation. His paper threw itself firmly at the working class and promoted Winston Churchill instead. But it generally cut back on its political and foreign reporting and concentrated more on hearth and home. What was the use of bothering readers about an obscure revolution in Bolivia, features editor Basil Nicholson asked Cudlipp, if they were kept awake at night by indigestion.

    Mixed with sensational crime coverage and the introduction of cartoons and pin-ups, this approach proved to be a winning formula. By the time war broke out and newspaper production was “pegged” to conserve newsprint, the Mirror’s circulation had increased by nearly a million a day. Cassandra, a former advertising copywriter, drew up a “Hitler: Wanted – Dead Or Alive” poster when war was declared and the paper became fervently patriotic. But when the Mirror later criticised senior officers and the war Cabinet, Cudlipp wrote: “Churchill demanded an inquiry and Government investigators examined the list of [Mirror] shareholders to ascertain whether Goebbels, or Himmler, or Hess, or even Hitler was among them.” Perhaps the war leader remembered the Mirror once providing a platform for fascists.

    Its circulation doubled to comfortably above three million when paper rationing ended, the Mirror further antagonised Churchill by backing Labour in 1945 with its “Vote for him” (the returning ex-serviceman) campaign. The reaction of Tory Central Office was to advise its constituency officials not to buy the Daily Mirror and order the Daily Sketch instead. A Conservative Cabinet minister told Cudlipp that the Mirror’s support was estimated to have gained 100 seats for Labour.

    “The Mirror is not and never has been a supporter of any government”, the paper proclaimed. But. “We are of the left and so is the majority of the nation.” Its future path was clear and the Blackshirt-supporting days were consigned to the dustbin of history.

    Revel Barker is a former Daily Mirror reporter and managing editor who now edits a website for mainly retired journalists. Publish And Be Damned by Hugh Cudlipp is published by Revel Barker at £12.

  3. Contempt from the public?
    More bullshit- Mosley was admired by Britons..hence his meetings were full to bursting.
    An injured British soldier from the first world war trenches – why not?

    Trueism …
    “History is a set of lies agreed upon.”

  4. Pingback: Laigle’s Forum » Blog Archive » Just as I told you: Sharia law coming to Libya

  5. Maurice Strong is a famous Nazi criminal with plastic surgery.
    The brave men and women in America will not allow tyranny to overtake the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s