In 2007 Peter Mandelson said in an address to Chatham House, ‘We are living in a period of global change that is deeper, faster and broader than we have ever known’.  Mandelson was talking about the destruction of the nation state and the imposition of global governance, i.e. the New World Order.  The global change referred to by Mandelson is not accidental: as Stephen MacMillan points out, ‘it has been the objective of a cabal of international bankers who have been pushing for the creation of a “world system” for over a century.”

The Plan for One World Government

In February 1891, a group of elitesCecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lords Esher, Rothschild, Salisbury, Rosebery and Milner – drew up a plan for a secret society that aimed to bring all habitable portions of the world under their influence and control. (See Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, New World Order: The Founding Fathers)

This society became the Round Table, and from it developed the US-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and eventually the Bilderberg Group founded in 1954, the Club of Rome (1968) and in 1973 the Trilateral Commission, the brain child of David Rockefeller.

All of these organisations are dedicated to global governance, and there is extensive overlap in terms of the principle players. Daniel Estulin, in his book Bilderberg commented:

When you examine the CFR’s member list, you will find that 90% either sit on the Trilateral Commission or belong to the Bilderberg Group. (p. 126)

David Rockefeller was a common denominator amongst these groups, being heavily active personally and financially with  the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and Bilderberg.  Another figure involved with all three is Henry Kissinger, who had a close relationship with David Rockefeller.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan

In 1922 Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the ‘Pan-European Movement’, which aimed to create a New World Order, starting with Europe, which he expounds in his book «Praktischer Idealismus».  Kalergi’s book attracted the interest of Baron Louis de Rothschild who put him in touch with one of his friends, banker Max Warburg, who in turn funded Kalergi’s movement.

The destruction of the nation state is an important part of the strategy to achieve global governance.  The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan has been described by some as a plan for the genocide of the people of Europe). 

‘[…] what Kalergi called for was not only the destruction of European nation states but also the deliberate ethnocide of the indigenous, mostly Caucasian race of the European continent. This he proposed should be done through enforced mass migration to create an undifferentiated homogeneous mass of serfs to be dominated by a wealthy self electing elite.’ (cymrusofren)

Kalergi’s legacy lives on in the European Society Coudenhove-Kalergi which gave Angela Merkel its ‘European Award ‘ in 2010.

The Bilderberg Group

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg group is illustrative of a shadowy network of super-elites who often make decisions in secret meetings that come to impact the lives of millions. The annual conference is attended by between 120 and 150 elites who meet to discuss global issues with a focus on North American and European challenges. It encompasses a range of individuals: from the heads of multi-national corporations to the leaders of nations; banking executives to media titans. (Steven MacMillan, BBC Bias, Brexit, the EU, Bilderberg and Global Government)

Bilderberg is believed to have been the creation of Victor Rothschild and Laurance Rockerfeller, older brother of David. According to a popular quote, Agnelli of Fiat revealed that these two handpicked 100 of the world’s elite for the first Bilderberg conference. ‘Their purpose was to regionalize Europe’. Nicholas Hager in the The Secret American Dream also credits responsibility to the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who ‘worked together to unify Europe and were responsible for the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the Common Market, a forerunner of today’s European Union.’  The Treaty of Rome was drafted by Robert Rothschild, cousin of Victor Rothschild.

Neither Laurance Rockefeller nor Victor Rothschild are known to have attended that first meeting.  David Rockefeller, brother of Laurance, was present, and regularly attended until his death, along with various Rothschilds or Rothschild agents, and Bilderberg is still considered by many to be a Rothschild/Rockefeller enterprise.

Whereas the CFR only has American members, the Bilderberg Group has members from the US, Canada and Western Europe.

‘The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America […] In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.’ (Bilderberg Meetings website)

The key word is ‘globalised’.

In his book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, (reviewed and summarised by Stephen Lendman here), Daniel Estulin described the Group’s grand design as ‘a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.’ This conclusion is essentially confirmed by Bilderbergers themselves: David Rockefeller, for example, wrote on page 405 of his Memoirs,

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Denis Healey, a Bilderberg Group founder and steering committee member for 30 years, told Jon Ronson:

‘To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.’

Bilderberg objectives

The Group’s grand design, according to Estulin, is for ‘a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one “World (Central) Bank” using one global currency.’ Their ‘wish list’ includes:

  •  ‘one international identify [observing] one set of universal values’;
  •  centralized control of world populations by ‘mind control’; in other words, controlling world public opinion;
  • a New World Order with no middle class, only ‘rulers and servants (serfs)’, and, of course, no democracy;
  • ‘a zero-growth society’ without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
  •  manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
  •  absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
  •  ‘centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies’; one size fits all globally;
  •  using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
  • expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
  • making NATO a world military;
  •  imposing a universal legal system; and
  •  a global ‘welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination’.

One Europe

The creation of the European Union was an important step toward that end of a single global community.  European unity, and a common currency, were discussed if not in 1954, then certainly at the second Bilderberg meeting in Garmisch-Patenkirchen, 1955, whose minutes are available and read:

The discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference. […] A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency.

Incremental steps to a ‘united Europe’ (listed in Lendman) include the establishment of the six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, the Treaties of Rome establishing the EEC and the European Atomic Energy Commission in 1957, the European Court of Justice, also 1957, the 1968 European Customs Union (1968), the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 creating the EU, the introduction of the euro in January 1999.  (Former Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon publicly acknowledged that Bilderberg played a role in the introduction of the Euro.)

‘Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty “as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in ‘working groups’ in Brussels or Luxembourg.”’ (Lendman)

George Soros, Bilderberg enabler

The public face of the CFR/Bilderberg plan for global governance is George Soros, Bilderberger with close ties to the Rothschild family.  While Soros appears to have a finger in a large number of pies, his activities have a common purpose, the breakdown of the nation state and the creation of one-world government

Soros is heavily involved in three strategies which aim to disrupt, divide, weaken and ultimately destroy societies:

1) regime change effected by coups such as in the Ukraine or the wars on Libya and Syria  (see also Chris Kanthan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine – Same Playbook, Same Puppet Masters)

2) mass migration

3) fake liberalism,  ie promoting extremist causes in order to create alienation and division.

Suppressing dissent

Soros, his NGOs and his adherents gain acceptance, or compliance, for all of these through moral blackmail and name calling: save the Arabs from being raped by Gaddafi’s blacks (and destroy Libya); save ‘Aleppo’ or ‘save East Ghouta’ (and destroy Syria); save the refugees, and at the same time invite anyone of a mind to become a refugee – the Soros/Merkel plan – and dramatically alter the character of Europe.

Anyone who questions any of the Soros agendas is a war-crimes denier, fascist, neo-Nazi, racist, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist.  Name calling is accompanied by intimidation, deplatforming and violence, citing moral outrage as a justification. Using violence and intimidation for political ends is one definition of fascism.

The Remaking of Europe Through Mass Migration

Soros is involved in the migrant crisis at a number of levels: he promotes the wars that produce refugees, his NGOs facilitate the movement of people at a practical level, from providing guidebooks to arranging transport, and above all he works assiduously to gain political support for mass immigration.

Soros was responsible for the Merkel Plan, ie Angela Merkel’s startling invitation to all refugees to come to Europe.  In 2015 he laid down a to-do list for European countries in their response to the migrant crisis:

1) The EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly
2) The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs
3) Placing refugees where they want to go – and where they are wanted – is a sine qua non of success.
4) the EU must provide adequate funding to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to support the four million refugees currently living in those countries.
5) The EU would need to pay to frontline countries at least €8-10 billion.
6) The EU must immediately start building a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency and eventually a single EU Border Guard. The current patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems does not work (because the EU forbids it!!).
7) safe channels must be established for asylum-seekers. The next logical step is to extend safe avenues to the frontline region, thereby reducing the number of migrants who make the dangerous Mediterranean crossing.
8) The EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to act as sponsors.

Although George Soros may be the public face of the elites’ plan for the destruction of Europe, the Rothschild involvement is apparent beyond the family’s connection with Soros.  In Austria for example the task of supervising and supporting asylum seekers is given to a private company, the Swiss company ORS, in 2014, this firm being awarded  around EUR 21 million of taxpayers’ money by the Austrian Ministry of the Interior. ORS is in part owned by Barclays Bank, the ‘Rothschild Battleship‘.

Rothschild also has ties with Amnesty International, one of many ‘charities’ funded by Soros to facilitate war and migration (see Alan Buttle’s Amnesty International Exposed).

The UN´s Special Representative for International Migration is Peter Sutherland, European Commissioner, and Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and a former member of the board of Rothschild’s Goldman Sachs . He supports uncontrolled immigration into Europe and the elimination of homogeneity.

Jeremy Corbyn: Soros’s flag bearer in Britain

See also Jeremy Corbyn and George Soros

Corbyn is seen as the working class hope to end austerity and save the NHS, and for that reason anyone seen to be of the left who criticises him is accused of being a traitor.  However Corbyn’s policies on migration and ‘social justice issues’ are of the extreme left, alien to the same working classes who call him a hero, and intended to be alienating.

Corbyn is totally committed to mass migration into the United Kingdom and Europe, employing the Soros strategies of moral blackmail and name-calling in order to intimidate and silence any opposition, declaring limits on immigration to be inherently racist, thus ignoring considerations such as jobs, crime, and social cohesion, and assuming that these are of no value to others.

Corbyn supports not only women-only short lists (of doubtful value to the average woman while granting a privileged status to a few), but also the inclusion of transgender women on those lists. These policies, and employing as an advisor a black transgender woman who sees racism as a white problem and only a white problem, are going to lose rather than win votes from the working class, whether black or white, male or female. The Labour party’s decision to charge white people more to attend a rally addressed by Corbyn in Loughborough in February was probably never going to fly – in any case it was illegal – but that wasn’t the idea. The purpose was to arouse disbelief, anger, disempowerment and racism.

By embodying on the one hand old-fashioned Labour values of social welfare and free healthcare, precious to the British working class, and on the other hand the Soros priorities of mass immigration and extremist liberal policies, unpopular with that same working class, Jeremy Corbyn personifies division.

For all his talk of ‘hope’ and ‘solidarity’, Corbyn’s language is consistently divisive, focused on ‘othering’ any differing views on immigration or social issues. Those who disagree are ‘full of hate’, who ‘create division’ – in a short speech attacking Theresa May’s migrant polices, Corbyn used the terms ‘hate’, ‘hatred’ and ‘full of hate’ at least seven times.

Corbyn links Brexit, and Brexiteers, with racism, attacking the Tories for fanning ‘the flames of fear over immigration, whipping up hatred in the referendum campaign, egged on by their Ukip sidekicks’.  Corbyn’s hate speech is not confined to UKIP supporters but includes other dissidents such as those protesting at Charlottesville: even the New York Times conceded that some of the protesters were nothing more than ordinary conservatives wanting free speech or opposing the removal of part of their history, but Corbyn condemned all as neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Corbyn’s attacks on UKIP supporters and protesters in the US is just one expression of the Soros strategy to suppress dissent.  Labour’s purges of activists who speak the truth, such as Ken Livingstone , are another.

Jeremy Corbyn is supported by groups such as Hope not Hate, who have more than once been described as fascist, due to their strategies of achieving political ends through intimidation, such as the demise of UKIP and all opposition to immigration, through intimidation, and now Jewdas, a ‘far-left’ group characterised by its use of violent language such as ‘f..k the police‘, and ‘f..k the Queen‘. But by using the strategies of moral blackmail, verbal abuse and exclusion, rather than active violence, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the acceptable face of fascism.

With regard to the other arm of the Soros strategy, war and regime change, Corbyn’s role is somewhat murky. While British voters, opposed to Blair’s immoral warring but also desperate for an end to Tory austerity, are happy to be lulled into seeing Corbyn as a kind of peacenik, Corbyn acts as a gatekeeper, opposing bombing while at the same time condemning Syria and Russia for their actions to defend Syria, fundraising for an entity that demands a no-fly zone in Syria, and with a defence policy that maintains military spending (and presumably military activity) at the same level.

It will be interesting to see how Labour’s foreign policy will play out in the event of the Party becoming government. In any case, extremist liberal policies and mass immigration are likely to continue, and free speech will continued to be under attack.

In the run-up to the British general election of 2017, Ken Craggs argued in Corbyn and the Rothschilds:

‘Regardless of which political party you vote for in the general election, the Rothschilds are who you’re getting.’