In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
… to immediately know what you’re dealing with. Is there anyone left still not au fait with the antecedents of the EU’s early form?
During World War II, Bertelsmann was the biggest single producer of Nazi propaganda. Owner Heinrich Mohn and his son Reinhard Mohn were both members of the SS [and the latter was a member of the Club of Rome, which ushered in the EU through its agent, Edward Heath].
Readers of this post would already be aware but I wonder how many outside are aware of the interconnections. This site brings much of it together, linking Club of Rome, Rockefeller, Global 21, Kiel Institute and Global Economic Symposium. The logo is Bertelsmann’s at the top. This lot produced the pamphlets distributed by the German Health Department supporting paedophilia [incest] in the home with toddlers – that’s been posted many times – here and here are two of them.
And it’s no leap to bring in the Club of Rome’s environmental qualifications:
Club of Rome Member, Jacques Delors, was the mastermind behind the EU´s second pillar, the Euromediterranean Project. The parodic UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was based on a series of forged information:1. NASA-GISS repeatedly caught redhanded forging global temperatures, 2.the Climategate, and 3. the Jamal, and the 4. IPCC-Worldgate, 5.the Amazongate, 6.the Himalayagate scandals and even more.
If it’s nasty, if it brings in state intervention on the strength of shoddy science, the C of R’s your club. And if you think this is all European and nothing to do with us, think again. Yes, this is now old news but it illustrates the point:
Arvato AG is one of the most important components of Bertelsmann AG ‘s world-wide activities. After the RTL Group, it is the most important subsidiary in turnover and profitability of the conglomerate.. In 2004 Arvato increased its turnover and profits before tax and dividends to 3.756 billion euros and 310 million euros respectively.(*5)
The firm controls enterprises from printing works to call centres and is increasingly targeting service provision in finance, logistics and out-sourcing. Through a joint venture with the large German printers Gruner & Jahr and Axel Springer, Arvato plans to become the market leader in European newspaper printing this year. This cooperative venture, to be vetted by the the EU Commission at the end of May, would control about 25% of the market.(*6) .
Within the framework of a world-wide print media offensive (“Growth and Innovation”), Bertelsmann is building a 110 million euro plant in Treviglio in Italy and a 170 million Euro printing works in Great Britain (Liverpool).(*7) . Here Arvato is attacking the British firm Polestar. A print order from News Corporation (Rupert Murdoch) with an estimated value of 1 billion euros over ten years will not go to Polestar but to its German competitor (*8)
It’s a legitimate question what exactly is wrong with a firm expanding its activities. In general, yes but in the case of interconnected groups with quite dodgy reputations, attempting to impose their worldview on each nation – that’s worthy of scrutiny. Particularly looking at its principals and following them back through their careers.
When a club boasts world movers and shakers as its members, when its blurb dedicates itself to reshaping, to being change agents after first defining what needs changing, entirely without citizen level input, when they produce something like this, speaking of “reshaping the international order”, then you know the world has trouble on its hands.
People, this is very, very nasty. Why do you think contracts are not going to British industry but to the French and Germans?
From the beginning, the club was global in scope:
Eduard Pestel was one of those deeply concerned about the undifferentiated global approach adopted in Limits to Growth. As a professional systems analyst (he had established his own Institute for Systems Analysis in Hannover in 1971) he was the obvious person to produce a better one. Accordingly, even before the Meadows Report was published, he and Mihajlo Mesarovic of Case Western Reserve University had begun work on a far more elaborate model (it distinguished ten world regions and involved 200,000 equations compared with 1000 in the Meadows model).
The research had the full support of the Club and the final publication, Mankind at the Turning Point, was accepted as an official Report to the Club of Rome in 1974. In addition to providing a more refined regional breakdown, Pestel and Mesarovic had succeeded in integrating social as well as technical data. The Report was less readable than Limits to Growth and did not make the same impact on the general public, but it was well received in Germany and France, in particular.
… and at the highest levels of movers and shakers:
Peccei persuaded the Austrian Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, to host a meeting in February 1974 on North-South problems which brought together six other heads of state or government (from Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Senegal, Sweden and Switzerland), senior representatives of three others (Algeria, the Republic of Ireland and Pakistan) and ten members of the CoR Executive Committee.
A mistake would be to accept that the C of R was Eurocentric because, just in its funding alone, it is global. The EU was merely an experiment, flying a kite to see how it would work, tweaking here, putting procedures in place there. Much harder to make the connection between the C of R and Common Purpose, as the two are in different echelons in the plan for Europe, the latter far more at ground level, in RDAs, in every council in England.
That Common Purpose is working to the EU blueprint for the broken up England is not seriously questioned – in other words, they’re not working with a unitary England as their model in any way.
It’s getting away from the central focus of the C of R but it’s quite instructive to research, among other things – Paul Warburg, Freedom House, the Institute for Policy Studies, the LSD counter-culture, MK Ultra, the Human Ecology Fund, the CIA, Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard, Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, the Tavistock Institute, James Paul Warburg, Marcus Raskin, McGeorge Bundy [one of 13], the Ford Foundation, the Stanford Research Institute, Bechtel, Kaiser, the Ditchley Foundation, Cyrus Vance, Rockefeller again, Winston Lord and the Council on Foreign Relations.
You’ll have to do that yourself. The interconnections, often not formal, are curious, to say the least. Where does that leave you and me? With a headache. With this degree of clout, altering the whole face of world society, centralizing it, getting it to think the one way, using the same seeds, entering the same penury, at the mercy of these people, whilst we are fragmented and at each other’s throats, pooh-poohing anything someone else reveals ["I don't do conspiracy theories"], let alone what is bleedingly, obviously happening in your own eyes out there – what effing chance do we have?
Why would Arvato wish to control printing presses? There are just so many questions, they do have answers but are you willing to accept those answers?
The part which upsets me more is not so much these people – let’s face it, they’re our official enemies, increasingly easier to identify and just doing their job of destroying us – no, it’s the quislings at our level in society who are aiding and abetting the programme who are the problem. Two days ago I had a twitter altercation with one of them – a CP graduate – and there was scarcely any point wasting time with the brainwashed who was trying to present them as a fine organization who ran a fine thinktank. The value in that was that maybe fifty people might have, out of curiosity, googled Common Purpose and had their eyes opened.
Why, when I asked Roger Helmer about CP, did he immediately cut the discussion, instead of giving a “Well, Virginia, we politicians know everything …” type answer? There are lower level CP graduates reading this now, utterly convinced my attitude is tosh. Talk to Graham Roberts about that – here, here , here and here. Anyone wading in with some of the things we assert would need his head read, if these people are half as bad as we make out, if he went in unarmed.
All you have to do is 1. your own research and the toughy – 2. ask the right questions.