Posts Tagged ‘ elitists ’

The Elite’s Plan For Global Extermination

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 6, 2011

In a bombshell new video interview, historian and author Webster Tarpley exposes how White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, is a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century.

 

Holdren calls himself a “neo-Malthusian” in his own book, and as Tarpley explains, is a historical pessimist who has rejected the idea that America and humanity as a whole can progress through ingenuity, industry and economic growth. Instead, Holdren sees humankind as a cancer upon the earth. Holdren wants to set up a “Science Court,” where potential developments could be blocked by government decree if they don’t conform to the planned society necessary under Holdren’s “planetary regime”. He also seeks to institute “de-development” worldwide to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty and roll things back to “pre-industrial civilization” where average life spans would not be much more than 30 years.

Holdren’s co-author, Paul Ehrlich, is a discredited crank who wrote books in the 70′s claiming that England would not exist as a land mass by the year 2000 because of climate change. As Tarpley explains, Ehrlich’s warning of a “population bomb” has proven incorrect, with population in Europe, Japan and the United States falling when immigration is removed from the equation.

The UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050 and indeed that underpopulation is going to be the real long term issue. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”

Holdren’s limit for global population is set at 1 billion people, meaning that under his program nearly 6 billion people would have to be wiped off the planet in one way or another.

The Elites Plan For Global Extermination tarpley3 The Elites Plan For Global Extermination tarpley4 The Elites Plan For Global Extermination tarpley2

The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends. What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, David Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

Tarpley emphasizes how Holdren advocates “triaging” entire countries like India and Bangladesh, consigning them to doom by suddenly withdrawing all aid, an act of indirect genocide that would outstrip Adolf Hitler’s body count in terms of numbers alone. This is a man who acts as a government science czar with executive powers under a supposedly “liberal” administration.

In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.

This is a pivotal interview in which Tarpley pores over the information contained in Ecoscience at a level of detail never previously documented, to warn how the mind set that Holdren imbues, which is shared by almost all the top elitists running our world, poses a direct threat to our very survival in the 21st century.

We encourage all our subscribers to watch this video now at Prison Planet.tv by visiting the “video reports” section. Not a member? Please click here to subscribe and get instant access to this interview, along with thousands of hours of material, including daily access to the live video stream and video archives of The Alex Jones Show.

Advertisements

We’ve Gone from a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Powerful Men Making Laws in Secret

Washington’s Blog
May 28, 2011

Preface: Some defendants are no longer allowed to see the “secret evidence” which the government is using against them. See this and this.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges can throw out cases because they don’t like or believe the plaintiff … even before anyone has had the chance to conduct discovery to prove their case. In other words, judges’ secret biases can be the basis for denying people their day in court, without even having to examine the facts. Judges are also becoming directly involved in politics with the other branches of government.

Claims of national security are being used to keep the shenanigans of the biggest banks and corporations secret, and to crush dissent.

But this essay focuses on something else: the fact that the laws themselves are now being kept secret.

America is supposed to be a nation of laws which apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or power.

Founded on the Constitution and based upon the separation of powers, we escaped from the British monarchy – a “nation of men” where the law is whatever the king says it is.

However, many laws are now “secret” – known only to a handful of people, and oftentimes hidden even from the part of our government which is supposed to make laws in the first place: Congress.

The Patriot Act

Congress just re-authorized the Patriot Act for another 4 years.

However, Senator Wyden notes that the government is using a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act different from what Congress and the public believe. Senator Wyden’s press release yesterday states:

Speaking on the floor of the U.S Senate during the truncated debate on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT for another four years, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) – a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — warned his colleagues that a vote to extend the bill without amendments that would ban any Administration’s ability to keep internal interpretations of the Patriot Act classified will eventually cause public outrage.

Known as Secret Law, the official interpretation of the Patriot Act could dramatically differ from what the public believes the law allows. This could create severe violations of the Constitutional and Civil Rights of American Citizens.

***

I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for ten years, and I don’t take a backseat to anybody when it comes to the importance of protecting genuinely sensitive sources and collection methods. But the law itself should never be secret – voters have a need and a right to know what the law says, and what their government thinks the text of the law means, so that they can decide whether the law is appropriately written and ratify or reject decisions that their elected officials make on their behalf.

As TechDirt points out:

It’s not just the public that’s having the wool pulled over their eyes. Wyden and [Senator] Udall are pointing out that the very members of Congress, who are voting to extend these provisions, do not know how the feds are interpreting them:

As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have been provided with the executive branch’s classified interpretation of those provisions and can tell you that we believe there is a significant discrepancy between what most people – including many Members of Congress – think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and what government officials secretly believe the Patriot Act allows them to do.

***

By far the most important interpretation of what the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S. government and this interpretation is – stunningly -classified.

What does this mean? It means that Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret. Most members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. Even if these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor without violating classification rules.

Here’s Wyden’s speech on the Senate floor.

The Surveillance State and Unauthorized Wars

Former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald noted last week:

The government’s increased ability to learn more and more about the private activities of its citizens is accompanied — as always — by an ever-increasing wall of secrecy it erects around its own actions. Thus, on the very same day that we have an extension of the Patriot Act and a proposal to increase the government’s Internet snooping powers, we have this:

The Justice Department should publicly release its legal opinion that allows the FBI to obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process, a watchdog group asserts.

***

The decision not to release the memo is noteworthy… By turning down the foundation’s request for a copy, the department is ensuring that its legal arguments in support of the FBI’s controversial and discredited efforts to obtain telephone records will be kept secret.

What’s extraordinary about the Obama DOJ’s refusal to release this document is that it does not reveal the eavesdropping activities of the Government but only its legal rationale for why it is ostensibly permitted to engage in those activities. The Bush DOJ’s refusal to release its legal memos authorizing its surveillance and torture policies was unquestionably one of the acts that provoked the greatest outrage among Democratic lawyers and transparency advocates (see, for instance, Dawn Johnsen’s scathing condemnation of the Bush administration for its refusal to release OLC legal reasoning: “reliance on ‘secret law’ threatens the effective functioning of American democracy” and “the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government.”

The way a republic is supposed to function is that there is transparency for those who wield public power and privacy for private citizens. The National Security State has reversed that dynamic completely, so that the Government (comprised of the consortium of public agencies and their private-sector “partners”) knows virtually everything about what citizens do, but citizens know virtually nothing about what they do (which is why WikiLeaks specifically and whistleblowers generally, as one of the very few remaining instruments for subverting that wall of secrecy, are so threatening to them). Fortified by always-growing secrecy weapons, everything they do is secret — including even the “laws” they secretly invent to authorize their actions — while everything you do is open to inspection, surveillance and monitoring.

This dynamic threatens to entrench irreversible, absolute power for reasons that aren’t difficult to understand. Knowledge is power, as the cliché teaches. When powerful factions can gather unlimited information about citizens, they can threaten, punish, and ultimately deter any meaningful form of dissent …

Conversely, allowing government officials to shield their own conduct from transparency and (with the radical Bush/Obama version of the “State Secrets privilege”) even judicial review ensures that National Security State officials (public and private) can do whatever they want without any detection and (therefore) without limit or accountability. That is what the Surveillance State, at its core, is designed to achieve: the destruction of privacy for individual citizens and an impenetrable wall of secrecy for those with unlimited surveillance power. And as these three events just from the last 24 hours demonstrate, this system — with fully bipartisan support — is expanding more rapidly than ever.

 

***

So patently illegal is Obama’s war in Libya as of today that media reports are now coming quite close to saying so directly; see, for instance, this unusually clear CNN article today from Dana Bash. As a result, reporters today bombarded the White House with questions about the war’s legality, and here is what happened, as reported by ABC News‘ Jake Tapper:

Talk about “secret law.” You’re not even allowed to know the White House’s rationale (if it exists) for why this war is legal. It simply decrees that it is, and you’ll have to comfort yourself with that. That’s how confident they are in their power to operate behind their wall of secrecy: they don’t even bother any longer with a pretense of the most minimal transparency.

Secret Memos

Secret laws are not a brand new problem.

As I’ve previously noted:

Scott Horton – a professor at Columbia Law School and writer for Harper’s – says of the Bush administration memos authorizing torture, spying, indefinite detention without charge, the use of the military within the U.S. and the suspension of free speech and press rights:

We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.

Yale law professor Jack Balkin agrees, writing that the memos promoted “reasoning which sought, in secret, to justify a theory of Presidential dictatorship.” Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says that the memos are the “very definition of tyranny”. And former White House counsel John Dean says “Reading these memos, you’ve gotta almost conclude we had an unconstitutional dictator.”

State of Emergency Cuts the Constitutional Government Out of the Picture

As I wrote in February:

The United States has been in a declared state of emergency from September 2001, to the present. Specifically, on September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That declared state of emergency was formally put in writing on 9/14/2001:

A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001 . . . .

That declared state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11 to the present. President Bush kept it in place, and President Obama has also.

***

On September 10, 2010, President Obama declared:

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:

Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.

***

Continuity of Government (“COG”) measures were implemented on 9/11. For example, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, at page 38:

At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated he had just talked to Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One, and (3) a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C.

***

The Washington Post reported in March 2002 that “the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution.” The same article goes on to state:

Assessment of terrorist risks persuaded the White House to remake the program as a permanent feature of ‘the new reality, based on what the threat looks like,’ a senior decisionmaker said.

As CBS pointed out, virtually none of the Congressional leadership knew that the COG had been implemented or was still in existence as of March 2002:

Key congressional leaders say they didn’t know President Bush had established a “shadow government,” moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation’s capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration’s move.

Among Congress’s GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.

Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.

Similarly, the above-cited CNN article states:

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Friday he can’t say much about the plan.

“We have not been informed at all about the role of the shadow government or its whereabouts or what particular responsibilities they have and when they would kick in, but we look forward to work with the administration to get additional information on that.”

Indeed, the White House has specifically refused to share information about Continuity of Government plans with the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, even though that Committee has proper security clearance to hear the full details of all COG plans.

Specifically, in the summer 2007, Congressman Peter DeFazio, on the Homeland Security Committee (and so with proper security access to be briefed on COG issues), inquired about continuity of government plans, and was refused access. Indeed, DeFazio told Congress that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the plans by the White House (video; or here is the transcript). The Homeland Security Committee has full clearance to view all information about COG plans. DeFazio concluded: “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott warned:

 

If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

Indeed, continuity of government plans are specifically defined to do the following:

***

  • Those within the new government would know what was going on. But those in the “old government” – that is, the one created by the framers of the Constitution – would not necessarily know the details of what was happening
  • Normal laws and legal processes might largely be suspended, or superseded by secretive judicial forums
  • The media might be ordered by strict laws – punishable by treason – to only promote stories authorized by the new government

See this, this and this.

***

In 2007, President Bush issued Presidential Directive NSPD-51, which purported to change Continuity of Government plans. NSPD51 is odd because:

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the President may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack, or to any ‘other condition.’ Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new Presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate.

So continuity of government laws were enacted without public or even Congressional knowledge, and neither the public or even Congress members on the Homeland Security Committee – let alone Congress as a whole – are being informed of whether they are still in effect and, if so, what laws govern.

Postscript: As I’ve repeatedly noted, economics, politics and law are inseparable and intertwined. As Aristotle pointed out thousands of years ago, “The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.” Without the rule of law, the state crumbles, and the government bonds and other investments crumble with it.

As I wrote last year:

What’s the hole that is swallowing up the economy? The failure to follow the rule of law.

The rule of law is what provides trust in our economy, which is essential for a stable economy.

The rule of law is the basis for our social contract. Indeed, it is the basis for our submission to the power of the state.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. That’s what humanity has fought for ever since we forced the king to sign the Magna Carta.

Indeed, lawlessness – the failure to enforce the rule of law – is dragging the world economy down into the abyss.

participation in our local government and the growing alternative media, and it results in the seizure of the unwarranted influence that has allowed a group of criminal international bankers to contrive their own international army, an international court, and the ability to wage war against entire nation-states with absolute impunity.

CIA Is Behind Mid-East Uprisings

“In order to create order out of chaos and rearrange the geopolitical map, the globalists betray their former puppets for a new crop of autocrats and brutal thugs. That is precisely what is happening now in the Middle East and North Africa – the globalists are working behind the scenes to overthrow corrupt military dictatorships in order to allow an Islamic consolidation of power that will feed the paranoia of the West and initiate the plan for a new war.

Middle East Uprisings: Order Out of Chaos

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 21, 2011

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday called on Muslims to “remove” the United States from the Islamic world.

“The main problem in the Muslim world is the presence of the United States. It is the biggest problem. We need to address that,” he told a gathering of Shiite and Sunni scholars during an international conference on Islam held in Tehran.

Khamenei said Muslims around the world must preserve the “people’s movement in Egypt.” He said it was the duty of both the people and dignitaries of Arab nations and the entire Islamic community.

Khamenei, however, failed to mention that while Mubarak is gone the same gaggle of military generals now control the government in Egypt. The previous so-called civilian administration and the Egyptian High Council of the Armed Forces are basically the same body.

Also not mentioned by Khamenei is the fact Sami Hafez Al-Anan (Al-Enan), the chief of staff of the Egyptian military, was in Washington for two days and visited the Pentagon after the protests began in Egypt. He was likely receiving further instruction.
Posted Image
On the surface, the bloody protests in Bahrain (home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet) and elsewhere in the Muslim world seem to be bad news for the United States. In fact, the exploding events are high theater and will not result in vaguely defined democracy for the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and least of all the Palestinian territories.

Liberals love to hate Glenn Beck, but something he said recently makes a lot of sense. He said the “revolution” in Egypt is the beginning of a caliphate in the Middle East.

Beck’s task is to play the false left-right paradigm like a Stradivarius, so naturally he ties in the so-called Left in his analysis.

Posted Image
“For Beck, current events in Egypt are occurring as a result of their connection to his pet-list of far-Left ideologues, like Van Jones, and a host of organizations and unions allegedly linked to Soros. While many of these connections are legitimate, Beck obscures altogether the long history of Pentagon intervention in foreign politics. The CIA and U.S. military have, for decades, sponsored and created radical Islamic factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and more,” Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes wrote on February 12.

Jones and Dykes conclude that in fact a complex series of destabilization efforts all across the Middle East are underway and ultimately these efforts will result in war in the region. “Control over the region, along with Central Asia, is believed to be essential for global domination. This aspiring New World Order will divide these nations in order to conquer them, even as they consolidate the major regions under a larger world government,” they write.

http://www.youtube.c…?feature=player

The idea of a Muslim caliphate and the imposition of sharia law are central to the destabilization plan. In the U.S., neocons and other Islamophobes and Likudniks have long warned about the absurd possibility of global sharia law and the threat posed by Islam.

On the propaganda front, Anjem Choudary, Abu Izzadeen and Sayful Islam serve as dupes for the corporate media as it fans the flames of anti-Islamic hysteria. Choudary, who once said “the flag of Islam will fly over the White House,” told Fox News he will lead a demonstration rallying Muslims to establish Sharia law across the United States.

Choudary’s organization, the radical Islamist group Islam4UK, is accused of operating as a front for British intelligence. It is connected to al-Muhajiroun and its leader, Omar Bakri Muhammad, who has admitted being associated with MI5.

Another useful individual for the globalists is the popular Egyptian Sunni televangelist Youssef al-Qaradawi. He has called for a Muslim United Nations and a modern version of the Prophet’s caliphate that would form a pan-national superstate. He is one of the most influential Islamic scholars in the world today. He also happens to hold a prominent role within the intellectual leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic transnational movement that was long ago penetrated by the CIA and British intelligence.

As I noted in 2006, MI5 and British intelligence have a long and sordid history of sponsoring and engaging in terrorism. Hichem Karoui, writing for Media Monitors Network in 2001, documents the heavy hand of British intelligence in Islamic terror.

Western intelligence is fomenting the popular rebellions now spanning the Islamic world. We are witnessing the next chapter in the infamous “clash of civilizations” agenda spawned by the neocons at the behest of the global elite who are engineering order out of chaos not only in the Arab and Muslim world, but in much of the third world where smoldering resentment and class warfare threatens to erupt at any moment.

Posted Image

On February 4, during Friday prayers, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for an Islamic regime to be installed in Egypt. It remains to be seen if this will be the case.

It is not known if Khamenei realizes that the Islamic regime in Iran was installed by the globalists. As William Engdahl documented in his book, A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, the globalists covertly supported the Iranian revolution.

“In November 1978, then president Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski,” writes Engdahl. “Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead ‘case officers’ in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.”

In order to create order out of chaos and rearrange the geopolitical map, the globalists betray their former puppets for a new crop of autocrats and brutal thugs. That is precisely what is happening now in the Middle East and North Africa – the globalists are working behind the scenes to overthrow corrupt military dictatorships in order to allow an Islamic consolidation of power that will feed the paranoia of the West and initiate the plan for a new war.

http://www.prisonpla…t-of-chaos.html

So You Think The Royals Are Irrelevant Huh?

  Now why would you think that the Royal family would be inviting dictators around the world to the wedding?  Here is a brief  low down on the ‘Royal Family’..

Modern British Royalty: Eugenicists, Nazis and Neo-Feudalists

  • The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Steve Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
April 26, 2011

Secrets Of The Royal Wedding Exposed

The upcoming royal Wedding of William Mountbatten-Windsor, heir in waiting to the British throne has the UK media in a frenzy of vomit inducing worship and stomach churning sycophantic fawning. Even the US media is pouring over the royals to such an extent that commentators have pointed out that had the modern day corporate media covered the Revolutionary War, it would have firmly supported the British.

The US fought a bloody war of independence against British control of its government and economy, yet the American media has fast become fascinated with an institution that represents everything America is not. This despite the fact that in a recent poll only 6% of Americans said they were at all  interested in the event.

Two billion people are estimated to watch this weekend’s royal wedding. Despite the three war fronts, radioactive meltdown in Japan, the evolving 2012 presidential field and any number of other stories, the media’s collective lens will be turned exclusively on a snobbish pompous ceremony that is costing already extremely strained British taxpayers tens of billions to stage.

While the British government balks at the unfolding events in Syria and elsewhere where protests and demonstrations are being brutally curbed, those wishing to protest the antiquated old world elitist values Britain is still forced to accept as “cultural” under the monarchy will be met with stern resistance and a gargantuan police presence this weekend on the streets of London.

Meanwhile, over 40 monarchs from around the world will take their seats at the wedding, among them the dictators and ambassadors from countries with appalling human rights records such as Swaziland, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. Though he was invited, the Crown Prince of Bahrain, whose Gulf state has violently suppressed democracy protests in recent months, has respectfully declined, in order to avoid a public relations scandal. The leaders of Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, whose military forces have aided the vicious crackdown will all be there, however. The Libyan Ambassador to Britain had his invitation rescinded when it was recently decided that Libya should be bombed back into the stone age.

In addition, a gaggle of “celebrities” have been invited, blatantly in an attempt to whip up more media hype and place a 21st century context on what is essentially a medieval ceremonial show of power.

As London Independent writer and noted Republican Johann Hari has highlighted, the frenzy surrounding the royal family has “a subtly deforming effect on Britain’s character that the ultimate symbol of our country.”

“Our sovereign, is picked on the most snobbish criteria of all: darling, do you know who his father was? Kids in Britain grow up knowing that we all bow and curtsy in front of a person simply because of their unearned, uninteresting bloodline. This snobbery subtly soaks out through the society, tweaking us to be deferential to unearned and talentless wealth, simply because it’s there.”

The pomp and hype of this occasion is part of a deliberate ongoing social engineering campaign to rebuild celebrity and importance around a parasitic and tyrannical elite that still pulls all the strings on the world stage.

First Black President Grovels To Virulently Racist Royal Family 020409Queen

This was also emphatically emphasized during the first state visit to London by president Obama in 2009.

Prior to meeting the Queen and her notoriously racist husband, Prince Philip, Obama announced that he “loves” her and that “in the imagination of people throughout America” the queen stands for “decency” and “civility”.

How repugnantly ironic that the first black president of the so called “free world” should refer to the most entrenched prejudiced and elitist institution in Europe as an icon of “civility”!

How disgustingly deplorable that the president should call “decent” a bloodline that has for centuries declared itself as God’s appointed rulers over half of the planet, killing, torturing and maiming anyone who crosses it in order to hold on to that mantle.

Reports also circulated regarding Obama practicing bowing and brushing up on courtly etiquette ahead of the meeting.

Traditional royal protocol dictates that men do a neck bow and women do a slight curtsy — though a handshake is considered acceptable as long as the queen offers her hand first, Politco reported.

When the President met the Queen in a room used to stage audiences with foreign dignitaries, Obama bowed his head and quietly said to her: “Thank you so much for having us” before turning to the Duke, bowing once more and adding: “It’s a wonderful honour.”

Michelle Obama curtsied to the Queen, however, later on she was treasonously caught inappropriately putting her hands on the glorious Monarch. The London Telegraph even issued a report on how the move was “a departure from what is considered appropriate protocol when meeting the Queen.”

Perhaps the most revealing part of the meeting, however, came from the mouth of Prince Philip who could not contain his virulent xenophobia, even in front of the cameras and the press.

In the small talk, the Queen and the Prince asked the President and his wife about their grueling schedule since arriving late on Tuesday evening.

“The time lag,” said the Queen

“You’re just trying to stay awake!” said Philip.

Then the President told the Royals: “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, David Cameron…

“And I’m proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings.”

A guffawing Prince Philip then blurted out: “Can you tell the difference between them?”

Apparently Barack Obama replied that he had no trouble telling them apart.

Then Philip, with a wave of his hand, directed the Obamas to turn around for the camera, to which the president nervously replied “of course”.

The Obamas and the Queen managed an astonishing set of uncomfortable false smiles, while Philip didn’t even bother attempting it.

The foursome then joined other world leaders in sipping champagne and devouring canapés, including mini Cornish pasties, smoked quails’ eggs, foie gras and rolls of duck filled with melon.

Watch video of the cringe inducing exchange:

Prince Philip serves as a telling link between the modern day royal family and it’s despicable history. He has made so many racist remarks in public, that they literally fill an entire book.

In 1984 he asked a Kenyan woman “You are a woman, aren’t you?”.

In 1986 he told British students in China ”If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.”

In 1998, during a tour of Papua New Guinea, he told another British student, ”You managed not to get eaten then?”

While on a tour of a company near Edinburgh, Scotland, he saw a poorly wired fuse box. “It looks as though it was put in by an Indian,” he remarked.

During a small town visit in Scotland, in a brief conversation with a driving instructor, he asked, “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the (road) test?”

In a 2002 visit to Australia, Prince Philip asked an Aborigine, “Still throwing spears?”

Also, he once told a group of deaf children standing near a Jamaican steel drum musician, “Deaf? If you are near there, no wonder you are deaf.”

The list goes on and on. While the media often laugh the remarks off as “gaffes”, they take on a more serious nature when Philip’s background and the organizations he is involved with are more carefully examined.

First Black President Grovels To Virulently Racist Royal Family 180208philipfuneralIt is well documented that Prince Philip’s sister, Sophia, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler’s honour. Indeed, all four of Philip’s sisters married high-ranking Nazis. The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his 1947 wedding to the future Queen of England meant he was allowed to invite only two guests.

Two years ago, more revelations of Philip’s Nazi links emerged in a book that featured never before published photographs of Philip aged 16 at the 1937 funeral of his elder sister Cecile, flanked by relatives in SS and Brownshirt uniforms.

Another picture shows his youngest sister, Sophia, sitting opposite Hitler at the wedding of Hermann and Emmy Goering. Philip was forced to concede that his family found Hitler’s attempts to restore Germany’s power and prestige ‘attractive’ and admitted they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’.

Philip also helped start the World Wildlife Fund in 1961 with former Nazi SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who is closely affiliated with the founders of the Bilderberg international power group, and Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley’s brother, who was also the President of the British Eugenics Society.

In the past, Philip has also attended the ultra secretive ritualistic meeting of elites at Bohemian Grove, where he “stole the show” with an “amusing but salty speech” in 1962, according to the Grove’s own literature (pictured below).

First Black President Grovels To Virulently Racist Royal Family 220106Philip

Philip was also trained in the Hilter Youth. His belief in Nazi ideology is clear when one looks atwhat he has said on the subject of overpopulation.

In the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

Borrowing the idea from American scientists who pioneered the field in the 1930′s, the Nazis advanced the pseudo-science of eugenics and incorporated it into Adolf Hitler’s dream of the Aryan super-race. Bearing in mind Philip’s Nazi connections, his views on the subject of overpopulation are unsurprising, but shocking nonetheless.

Just last year he reiterated these views, announcing that there are too many people in the world, and attacking large families in a television interview, despite the fact that Prince Philip himself has four children and eight grandchildren.

His son, Charles, the next King of England, has continued such ideology as he tours the world in private jets lecturing about the impact of climate change and how too many people are killing the planet.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • FREE Extreme Emergency Kit with qualifying purchase!

Charles, who has inherited the entire Duchy of Cornwall estate, which stretches over 135,000 acres across 23 counties mainly in the south-west of England, is also a “patron” of the genocidal Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

Charles’ fellow patrons at the OPT include Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock, who recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.

Charles and the OPT are closely affiliated with The Royal Society, a 350 year old elitist institution granted royal charter status by King Charles II. The Royal Society is also crawling with eugenics enthusiasts and depopulation fanatics.

John Sulston, currently heading a major Royal Society global population study, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.

All of these neo-feudal elitist groups, posing as environmental groups have made it their raison d’etre to introduce hefty carbon taxes on the populations of the developed world and to literally de-develop the industrialized world by cutting carbon emissions by over 90%. It is therefore no surprise that the royals are willing participants.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

The royals’ zeal to thin the population of undesirables has little to do with so-called “green credentials,” as is fatuously argued by the corporate media.

As Alex Jones documents in his seminal documentary End Game, this mindset is endemic amongst the elite.

Skip to the bottom of this article for a vast selection of similar quotations from Prince Philip, all advocating culling the “surplus” human population.

First Black President Grovels To Virulently Racist Royal Family 120105harryRacism within the Royal family is not restricted to Prince Philip, however.

In early 2005 Philip’s grandson, Prince Harry, was forced to publicly apologise for donning full Nazi regalia including a badge of the German Wehrmacht and a swastika armband.

Pictures of Harry wearing the uniform were taken at a friend’s birthday party in Wiltshire, which had the fancy dress theme “colonial and native”.

In 2008 Harry was once again forced to issue an apology for referring to an Asian army colleague as “our little Paki friend” and joking with another that he “looks like a raghead”, an offensive term for an Arab.

In the same week Harry’s father and Philip’s son, Prince Charles, caused another race row after it emerged that he had been calling an Asian friend by the nickname “Sooty”.

In 2004 a rather disgusting story emerged in the U.S. media regarding Princess Michael of Kent, who is the wife of Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin. Princess Michael’s father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was also exposed in the 1980s as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.

The Princess reportedly turned to a table of black New Yorkers in a busy restaurant and chided them for being noisy, adding “You need to go back to the colonies.”

When asked to explain her comments by one of the diners the Princess reportedly said “I didn’t say go back to the colonies, I said, Remember the colonies,” adding that “In the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good.”

Just think about it. A German-born British aristocrat — whose father was in the Nazi SS — in the United States telling African Americans who have been here for centuries to “remember the colonies”? The LA Times noted.

The late Queen mother was also said to be virulently racist by close aids, last year Edward Stourton, the presenter of the BBC’s flagship radio program Today, described her as “a ghastly old bigot”.

According to others, the Queen mother referred to black people as “nig-nogs” or “blackamoors”, opposed all forms of immigration, and thought black Africans incapable of running their own countries. She backed white minority rule in Rhodesia and lamented that former apartheid leader P.W. Botha got bad press.

The Queen mother also criticised Lord Mountbatten, viceroy of India, “for giving away the empire” and his wife because “her mother was half-Jewish”.

Despite all of this the media consistently referred to her the as “nation’s favourite granny”.

But it gets worse…

Before the war began the Queen Mother was a supporter of making concessions to Hitler and the Nazis, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.

For some 50 years royal documents were held in vaults at Windsor Castle that detailed the abdicated king Edward VIII’s relations with Hitler and the Nazis. They included captured German documents describing the Windsors’ meeting with Hitler in 1937 and plans to restore Edward, the Duke of Windsor to the throne if the Nazis won the war. Some of these documents still remain hidden from the public.

While many have described the Edward VIII and his wife as known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, relatives of Wallis Simpson, the American woman whom Edward had an affair with, and the reason for his abdication, have suggested that in fact Edward was excommunicated by the rest of the royal family because he wasn’t friendly enough with the Nazis.

Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, George V and George VI were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland.

The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria’s grandson King George V – an honorary Field Marshal in the German army – thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor, the name of a small town in the home counties of England.

Today many people in Britain suggest that all these facts are no long relevant because the royal family has very little power. This is a huge myth. The Queen is the head of state and as such she can simply replace the British government at any time she chooses, should she wish to do so. The royal family still owns vast swathes of land throughout Britain and the rest of the world, and the Queen still presides as head of state in Canada and Australia.

******

Prince Philip, In His Own Words: We Need To ‘Cull’ The Surplus Population

Here is a re-cap of some of the things “HIS ROYAL VIRUS”, Prince Philip has said in public concerning “culling the population”

Reported by Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August, 1988.

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.

I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.

Press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the “Caring for Creation” conference of the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology, May 18, 1990.

It is now apparent that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions, such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic philosophies of the revealed religions.

Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

For example, the World Health Organization Project, designed to eradicate malaria from Sri Lanka in the postwar years, achieved its purpose. But the problem today is that Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times the housing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Little wonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] … that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems.

Preface to Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988, p.|8.

I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surplus population.

Lecture to the European Council of International Schools. Montreaux, Switzerland, Nov. 14, 1986.

The great difficulty about “life” is that we humans are part of it, and it is therefore almost impossible to study objectively…. It therefore tends to be anthropocentric and gives scant attention to the welfare of all the other life-forms which share this planet with us.

…|When the Bible says that man shall have “dominion” over God’s creation, the choice is between understanding dominion as in “having power over,” or dominion as “having responsibility for.”

“Conflict Between Instinct and Reason”

Fawley Foundation Lecture. Southampton University, Nov. 24, 1967.

The conflict between instinct and reason has reached a critical stage in man’s affairs, largely because the explosion of facts has revealed the instincts for what they are and at the same time it has undermined traditional philosophies and ideologies. The explosion of facts has effectively altered mankind’s physical and intellectual environment and when any environment changes, the process of natural selection is brutal and merciless. “Adapt or die” is as true today as it was in the beginning.

Introduction to “Exploitation of the Natural System” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.

It took about three and a half billion years for life on earth to reach the state of complexity and diversity that our ancestors knew as recently as 200 years ago. It has only taken industrial and scientific man those 200 years to put at risk the whole of the world’s natural system. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, some 300,000 species of plants and animals will have become extinct, and that the natural economy, upon which all life depends, will have been seriously disrupted.

The paradox is that this will have been achieved with the best possible intentions. The human population must be properly fed, human life must be preserved and human existence must be made safer and more comfortable. All these things are obviously highly desirable, but if their achievement means putting the survival of future generations at risk, then there is a pressing obligation on present generations to apply some measure of self-restraint.

Address to Edinburgh University Union, Nov. 24 1969.

We talk about over- and underdeveloped countries; I think a more exact division might be between underdeveloped and overpopulated. The more people there are, the more industry and more waste and the more sewage there is, and therefore the more pollution.

The Fairfield Osborne Lecture, New York, Oct. 1 1980.

If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time. The situation can be controlled, and even reversed; but it demands cooperation on a scale and intensity beyond anything achieved so far.

I realize that there are vital causes to be fought for, and I sympathize with people who work up a passionate concern about the all too many examples of inhumanity, injustice, and unfairness; but behind all this hangs a deadly cloud. Still largely unnoticed and unrecognized, the process of destroying our natural environment is gathering speed and momentum. If we fail to cope with the challenge, the other problems will pale into insignificance.

Introduction to “The Population Factor” section of Down to Earth by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1988.

What has been described as the “balance of nature” is simply nature’s system of self-limitation. Fertility and breeding success create the surpluses after allowing for the replacement of the losses. Predation, climatic variation, disease, starvation–and in the case of the inappropriately named Homo sapiens, wars and terrorism–are the principal means by which population numbers are kept under some sort of control.

Viewed dispassionately, it must be obvious that the world’s human population has grown to such a size that it is threatening its own habitat; and it has already succeeded in causing the extinction of large numbers of wild plant and animal species. Some have simply been killed off. Others have quietly disappeared, as their habitats have been taken over or disturbed by human activities.

Humans are the Greatest Threat to Survival

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.”

Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?

A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.

Address to the Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee in London, March 11, 1987.

I do believe … that human population pressure–the sheer number of people on this planet–is the single most important cause of the degradation of the natural environment, of the progressive extinction of wild species of plants and animals, and of the destabilization of the world’s climatic and atmospheric systems.

The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches six and then 10 billion…. All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.

Address at the Salford University Degree Ceremony, July 16, 1973.

There may be disagreements about the time scale, but in principle there can be little doubt that the population cannot go on increasing indefinitely. Resources presently being used will not last for ever and pollution in its broadest sense, unless severely checked, is bound to increase with population and industrial activity.

Address to All-Party Conservation Committee in London, Feb. 18, 1981.

I suspect that the single most important gift of progress to conservation has been the development of human contraception techniques.

The survival of the “most important”

Interview with HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981 titled “Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation.

Q: Is birth control part of the solution?

A: Yes, but you can’t legislate these problems away. You’ve got to get people to understand the need for it: the more important people, the ones who have responsibilities have got to do it because they’re at the receiving end. They’ve got to accept the measures.

The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

As long ago as 1798, Malthus explained what happens when the factors limiting the increase in any population are removed. One of the factors noticed by Darwin was that all species are capable of producing vastly greater populations than can be sustained by existing resources; populations did not increase at the rate at which they are capable was the basis for his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The relevance to natural selection of this capacity for overproduction is that as each individual is slightly different to all the others it is probable that under natural conditions those individuals which happen to be best adapted to the prevailing circumstances have a better chance of survival. Well, so what? Well, take a look at the figures for the human population of this world. One hundred fifty years ago it stood at about 1,000 million or in common parlance today, 1 billion. It then took about a 100 years to double to 2 billion. It took 30 years to add the third billion and 15 years to reach today’s total of 4.4 billion. With a present world average rate of growth of 1.8%, the total population by the year 2000 will have increased to an estimated 6 billion and in that and in subsequent years 100 million people will be added to the world population each year. In fact it could be as much as 16 billion by 2045. As a consequence the demand on resources of land alone will mean a third less farm land available and the destruction of half of the present area of productive tropical forest. Bearing in mind the constant reduction of non-renewable resources, there is a strong possibility of growing scarcity and reduction of standards. More people consume more resources. It is as simple as that; and transferring resources and standards from the richer to the poorer countries can only have a marginal effect in the face of this massive increase in the world population.

Speech at the Margaret Pyke Memorial Trust Dinner in London, Dec. 14 1983.

So long as they [birth control methods] … remained taboo subjects the chances of making any impression on the human population explosion were that much more remote.

In the introduction to the IUCN Red Data Books which list all animals and plants under threat of extinction, it says that virtually everywhere the major threat to a wild species is loss of habitat to a rapidly increasing human population requiring more space in order to build villages and cities and grow more food. But starvation and poverty cannot be eradicated solely by increased food and resources at the expense of what remains of the natural world. Any increase in the provision of food and resources must be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the human population.

Address on Receiving Honorary Degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.

The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.

The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.

The Chancellor’s Lecture, Salford University, June 4, 1982.

The object of the WWF is to “conserve” the system as a whole; not to prevent the killing of individual animals. Those who are concerned about their conservation of nature accept that all species are prey to some other species. They accept that most species produce a surplus that is capable of being culled without in any way threatening the survival of the species as a whole.

A Question of Balance by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Michael Russel (Publishing) Ltd., 1982.

It is curious how many philosophers from Plato to Keynes’ time have believed in and advocated the control of society by “philosopher kings.” According to Plato, “its kings must be those who have shown the greatest ability in philosophy,” but–realistically–he added, “and the greatest aptitude for war.” Such people may exist in the imagination and occasionally someone with the necessary qualities may briefly dominate the stage of history, but it is a naive appreciation of human nature to imagine that such processed paragons can be invested with the necessary powers and not be tempted to take advantage of their situation.

Former Obama Adviser Van Jones Helping to Push ‘Human’ Rights for Mother Nature

  The agenda of the elitist couldn’t be more clear now.  What used to be passed off as a ‘Crazy Conspiracy’ is being confirmed in mainstream media.  There is NO scientific proof behind manmade global warming.  The New World Order views you as no different than the environment just as Hitler viewed the Jews as subhuman  beings.  This has to to with control and money.  Another form of population control and to concoct a new way to get your money through taxes and fees.  Yes…the New World Order is already here…notice the term in the article ‘Global environmental governance’….should indicate a red flag! If not you need to wake up!

Van Jones, the Obama administration’s controversial former “green jobs czar,” has found a new calling: helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans.

The new movement is almost certain to be showcased at a U.N.-sponsored global summit on “sustainable development” to take place in Rio de Janeiro in May 2012, when similar issues of “global environmental governance” are a major focus of attention.

Jones is taking up the challenge as one of the newest board members of an obscure San Francisco New Age-style organization known as the Pachamama Alliance, which has been creating a global movement to make human rights for Mother Nature an international reality — complete with enforceable laws — by 2014. The Rio summit will create an important midpoint for that campaign.

Jones joined the alliance’s board last December, shortly after the organization announced creation of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature to carry the concept around the world—and install it not only in international law but in the statutes of communities and municipalities across the U.S.

He resigned from the administration in September 2009 after making public apologies for some of his past actions, including the signing of a 2004 petition that questioned whether the Bush administration had deliberately allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to happen, and his previous affiliation with a self-described communist organization, the Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM).

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature “is working to build a movement of millions of educated and inspired individuals, with thousands of successful cases of enforceable Rights of Nature legislation having been enacted at local and national levels, by the end of 2014,” according to the Pachamama website.

The group also is running a parallel media campaign, called “Four Years. Go.,” to build enthusiasm for the same rapid environmental change, using “personal communication, social media and a rich web presence to inspire a movement of people who recognize the urgency, and the opportunity, of this time and stand for using the next four years, through 2014, to literally change the course of history.”

Organizing and advocating just such a radical “green” restructuring of the U.S. economy is the skill set that brought Jones to the Obama White House staff as a “green jobs czar” in the first place.

Jones has continued to advocate those ideas since leaving the administration, as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely associated with financier George Soros, and at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson Center for International Affairs.

Now, his green community organizing skills apparently are going global, along with the Pachamama Alliance’s rights-for-nature campaign. Telephone calls and emails to Jones, his assistant and the institutions where he now works as a fellow, as well as to the San Francisco offices of the Pachamama Alliance, had not been returned before this article was published.

The movement that Jones has joined shares its goals with some of the more radical governments represented at the United Nations, notably Ecuador and Bolivia, both nations with substantial territories in the Amazon Basin, and both with close ties to the socialist government of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

Bolivia last week sponsored an “interactive dialogue” on “Harmony With Nature” at the United Nations that included promotion of the same notion of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Mother Nature. By no coincidence, the U.N. debate was scheduled immediately prior to this year’s April 22 Earth Day celebrations—renamed “Mother Earth Day,” at the United Nations.

This year, the global celebrations also start an unofficial countdown to the U.N.-sponsored global summit in Rio de Janeiro next year.

The summit, known in U.N. shorthand as Rio + 20, is intended as a 20th anniversary successor to the famous Earth Summit of 1992, which gave enormous stimulus and legitimacy to the global environmental movement. This time, its aim is to produce new efforts at “global environmental governance,” meaning a strengthened international regulatory framework for environmental issues, and to provide new momentum for a global “green economy.”

Next year’s summit may also offer the “Rights of Nature” movement a chance to unveil at least a draft version of such a universal declaration, a prospect welcomed by the Bolivian sponsors of the April 20 debate at the U.N.

“Rio + 20 is a good opportunity to have that step forward,” said Pablo Salon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N. “It would be like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Salon sees such a declaration as the kickoff to a longer-term campaign to create legislative reinforcing the new Nature rights, and he noted in an interview with Fox News that the Bolivian government asserts it is the first country to give the rights of nature equal status with human rights in its legal system. Bolivian President Evo Morales has frequently said that “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism.”

Salon also told Fox News that his country is working with an offshoot of the Pachamama Alliance, known as the Pachamama Foundation, on its nature rights campaign, but emphasized that the Pachamama group is “one of many networks” Bolivia is working with on the issue.

Among other things, the Pachamama Alliance claims that through the Pachamama Foundation—a “sister organization” it created in 1997 among native peoples of the Amazon Basin — it was instrumental in helping to install the same “fundamental rights for nature” it espouses into the constitution of Ecuador in 2008.

The constitution includes such provisos as “Nature has the right to be completely restored,” and it mandates the government ban “introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic heritage,” among other things.

On its website, the Pachamama Alliance says that its co-founder and current CEO, Bill Twist, continues to “guide the work in Ecuador” through the the Pachamama Foundation. On its own Spanish language website, the foundation, which is ostensibly an organization of indigenous peoples in one of the most under-populated areas of the Amazon, says it is the alliance’s “national counterpart.”

The foundation says its main purpose is to “promote an alternative and innovative model of development, based in good living and with an emphasis on recognition and respect for human rights and the rights of Nature.” It is promoting an alternate monetary system for use among native peoples in the Amazonian region.

Also, according to a recent posting by the Pachamama Alliance, the Ecuadorian foundation has forged a strong relationship with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the U.N.’s flagship anti-poverty arm, as an official monitor of UNDP investment in the Amazon region.

The website says that its foundation oversees eight development projects financed by UNDP’s Small Donations Program. The projects are “aimed at improving social-environmental problems through community ecotourism, organic cacao production… capacity and awareness building,” among other things.

Its website also boasts its own YouTube channel for the offerings of its mini-production company, PachaProducciones.

The foundation, in other words, is well positioned to become a poster-child in the walk-up to next year’s Rio environmental summit—in the new movement for a radical regime of global environmental law that Van Jones has agreed to help organize.

Invisible Empire A New World Order Defined

This movie is brought to you via infowars.com and the Alex Jones Youtube channel. Alex supports people distributing his movie freely but would very much appreciate your support (See www.infowars.com for details).

Bill Of Rights (Abridged)-A Quick Reference Guide

Please use this as a quick reference point in correlation to many of the posts that will be seen here. As American Citizens it is crucial that you know what rights are guaranteed you under the Constitution of The United States.  Slowly these rights are dissipating by your elected (An unelected) officials.  America is slowly becoming a police state.  This is not by accident, it is a carefully and cleverly designed plan that is currently being carried out by global elitist under direction of what is commonly referred to as ‘The New World Order’.  ‘The New World Order’ is not coming….it is here!

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

Constitution of the United States
Bill of Rights

The following is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the “Bill of Rights”, these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Each amendment’s title is linked to a set of detailed annotations presented on the Findlaw website.

 

 

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

  1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Right to keep and bear arms

  1. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

  1. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

Right of search and seizure regulated

  1. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Provisons concerning prosecution

  1. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

 

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

  1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
 
Right to a trial by jury

  1. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

 

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

  1. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Rule of construction of Constitution

  1. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Rights of the States under Constitution

  1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.