Together with Wall Street, The City forms the hub of the plutocratic system that controls most of the world, and is presently engulfing the few remaining states that it does not control, through the time-proven tactics of plutocracy: revolution ostensibly in the name of ‘the people’.1
Because The City is situated in England, and because it is often confused with the ancient capital, London, there has been a lot of obfuscation as to the character of the plutocratic system that is partially based in The City.
This is to misunderstand the nature of international capital, which owes no steadfast loyalty to any system of government, head of state, religion, ethos, nation, ethnicity or culture. Any such allegiance is conditional.
What is ‘The City’?
The City of London Corporation is described in its promotional statements as “the world’s leading financial centre,” and as “the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’.”2
The City of London is at the heart of the world’s financial markets. It is a unique concentration of international expertise and capital, with a supportive legal and regulatory system, an advanced communications and information technology infrastructure and an unrivalled concentration of professional services…3
Since the demise of the British Empire, worn out by two world wars that benefited it not a jot, Wall Street has popularly become identified as the international financial capital.
Again, this is due to the error in thinking that British imperial interests were synonymous with international plutocracy, and because Britain is no longer a world power, ‘London’ is subordinated to New York.
However, The City of London Corporation is neither synonymous with Britain nor British interests, other than when these happen to coincide with the interests of international finance. That is why, even though the British Empire has been defunct for over half a century, The City remains, in the words of its promoters, “at the heart of the world’s financial markets.”
Hence while Britain and the Commonwealth has a symbolic Head-of-State in the Monarch, the analogous Head-of-State for The City has precedence over the British Sovereign. The Lord Mayor of the City of London Corporation is “not the Mayor of (Greater) London”; nor is he a ‘mayor’ in the limited sense of the word.
He assumes the position as ‘Head-of-State’, not of merely a borough or a county. This Lord Mayor is elected for one year, and acts as a global ambassador for the international financial institutions situated in The City, and is “treated overseas as a Cabinet level Minister.”4
He lives in the palatial 250-year-old ‘Mansion House’. On state visits the British Monarch waits at the Gate of The City to seek permission to enter and is presented with the sword of The City by the Lord Mayor.5
This tradition has been preserved for more than 400 years, and the ceremony now is carried out on major state occasions where the Queen halts at Temple Bar to request permission to enter the City of London and is offered the Lord Mayor’s Sword of State as a sign of loyalty.6
No matter how one rationalises the ceremony as an ostensible mark of ‘loyalty’ by The City towards the British Monarch, it is nonetheless the Monarch who is placed in a subordinated position in seeking permission for entry and waiting for a symbolic affirmation of loyalty from The City on each occasion.
It should be kept in mind that ‘international finance’ is exactly that: international; not Dutch, German, British, or American. Jewish bankers might be loyal to Judaism or to Israel, and the French Huguenots who went to London had a religious identity. But international finance is not bound to the states of its residence.
The ‘modern’ financial system did not originate in Britain, or even in the Occident. Ezra Pound, the famous poet who was also an avid opponent of usury-banking and an advocate of Social Credit banking reform, traced the premises of the ‘modern’ usurious financial system back to “the loans of seed-corn in Babylon in the third millennium BC.”7
As indicated above, international finance can shift focus over the world as the requirements of commerce dictate. As for the shift of the Money Power to England, this can be traced to the English Civil War, and even to the Reformation, where a Cromwell was significant in both.
Thomas Cromwell, Secretary of State, who “represented the mercantile community,”8 as distinct from the traditional landed interests, urged Henry VIII to suppress the religious Orders in 1533. Brooks Adams states of this in his historical masterpiece, The Law of Civilisation and Decay, that:
In 1533 Henry’s position was desperate. He confronted not only the pope and the emperor, but all that remained of the old feudal society, and all that survived of the decaying imaginative age.
Nothing could resist this combination save the rising power of centralised capital, and Henry therefore had to become the mouthpiece of the men who gave expression to this force. He needed money, and money in abundance, and Cromwell rose to a practical dictatorship because he was fittest to provide it.9
Adams details how the era of Henry VIII and the Reformation was the beginning of the speculative, capitalistic system.10
Additionally, “The sixteenth-century landlords were a type quite distinct from the ancient feudal gentry. As a class they were gifted with the economic, and not with the martial instinct, and they throve on competition.”11
The expansion of commerce in the wake of the Age of Exploration, and the formation of the British East India Company in 1600, five years after the East India Company in Holland, were symptoms of this historical trend that had already been set in motion by the Reformation.
The merchant interests felt constrained by the Monarchy and another Cromwell, Oliver, came forward, like his great-great-grand-uncle Thomas, to radically change England in the interests of money. The British Empire was expanding towards Asia and buccaneering was establishing fortunes. However,
As the city grew rich it chafed at the slow movement of the aristocracy, who, timid and peaceful, cramped it by closing the channels through which it reached the property of foreigners; and, just when the yeomanry were exasperated by rising rents, London began to glow with that energy which, when given vent, was destined to subdue so large a portion of the world.
Perhaps it is not going too far to say that, even from the organisation of the East India Company, the mercantile interest controlled England. Not that it could then rule alone, it lacked the power to do so for nearly a hundred years to come; but, after 1600, its weight turned the scale on which side soever thrown.
Macaulay has very aptly observed that but for the hostility of The City, Charles the First would never have been vanquished, and that, without the help of The City, Charles the Second could scarcely have been restored.12
From the middle of the 16th century capital accumulated, and “the men adapted to be its instruments grew to be the governing class.”13
Adams states of the era, “In 1688, when the momentum of England suddenly increased, the change was equivalent to the conquest of the island by a new race.”14
London became the centre of this global expansionist acquisition, a new Rome, where the wealth of the world was deposited:
These hoards, the savings of millions of human beings for centuries, the English seized and took to London, as the Romans had taken the spoil of Greece and Pontus to Italy. What the value of the treasure was, no man can estimate, but it must have been many millions of pounds – a vast sum in proportion to the stock of the precious metals then owned by Europeans.15
What Adams calls a regime of merchants ruled England from 1688 to 1815. The wealth they accumulated, states Adams, became the primary source of power, and it was in the hands of a new breed of merchant: the bankers.
“With the advent of the bankers, a profound change came over civilisation, for contraction began.”16 The value of money as distinct from the mercantile concern at the value of wares was the concern of the bankers.
At the close of the 18th century “the great hoards of London” passed into the hands of the bankers, the “most conspicuous example” being the Rothschilds.17
It is here that we see a dichotomy arising between the old merchant, including the mercantile adventurers, such as Robert Clive of India to Cecil Rhodes, and on the other hand, the merchant bankers epitomised by the Rothschilds. It is here where the two are often mistaken as forming a common power elite.
Dr. Carroll Quigley18 described the character of international finance and the move of its centre to The City: “Financially, England had discovered the secret of credit. Economically, England had embarked on the Industrial Revolution.”19
Here we discern immediately a dichotomy operating within British power-politics: that of usury-based finance, which is cosmopolitan and parasitic; and that of the ingenuity of the Englishman and Scott as inventor and entrepreneur, as creator.
It was this creativity and inventiveness, coupled with the bravery of the British military and the dedication of the British administrator, that was pressed into the service of parasitic finance, behind the cover of the British flag and Crown. These two factors at work: one cosmopolitan and one British, are often confused as being one and the same.
Credit had been known to the Italians and the Netherlanders long before it became one of the instruments of English world supremacy. Nevertheless, the founding of the Bank of England by William Paterson and his friends in 1694 is one of the great dates in world history.20
Quigley explained, far more succinctly than economists, that the basis of the debt finance system is “fractional reserves.” This method had its origin in the realisation by goldsmiths that they did not need to hold the equivalent of gold reserves in their vaults to the amount of paper certificates issued representing the value of gold.
As there was unlikely to be a run on the vault by its depositors all demanding at once the return of their gold deposits, the goldsmith could issue paper certificates far in excess of the value of the amount of gold in his vaults.21
Fractional reserves remains the method of international finance, albeit no longer with the need for gold reserves.
In particular, it should be kept in mind that the basis of the system is usury, where interest is charged for the loan of this bogus credit. Not only must the principal be paid back in real wealth – productive labour or creativity – but added interest.
Quigley remarks that “in effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing.”
According to Quigley, William Paterson, having obtained the Royal charter for the Bank of England in 1694 remarked, “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”22
The centre of gravity for the merchant bankers had long been Amsterdam. The “Republic of the United Provinces,” which included Holland, had from the start accorded Jews, as the catalysts of incipient international free trade, equal protection.23
According to Dr. Stanley Chapman, Professor of Economic History at Nottingham University, the Sephardic Jewish community in Amsterdam had become adroit as lenders to foreign governments.24
Shall we, then, say there had been a ‘conspiracy of Dutch merchants to rule the world’? I think not. Yet neither can it be said in justice this was a ‘Jewish conspiracy’. The establishment of the Bank of England was a Protestant affair with anti-Catholic underpinnings.
From France came the Huguenots who, like the Dutch Sephardim, had established international connections through family networks across Europe and had also formed a community in The City, by the mid 18th century.25
The English Revolution of 1642-1648, which established the republican Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell in 1649, enduring under his son Richard until 1659, had opened the way for a shift of international banking from Amsterdam to London.
The impetus for British imperial expansion had started under Cromwell. The merchant coterie of Amsterdam, which had backed Cromwell, was permitted entry into England. Menasseh ben Israel had appealed to Cromwell on the grounds of mercantile profitability to any nation that gave the Jewish merchant bankers freedom, as Amsterdam had done.
Menasseh assured Cromwell that profit was the best reason why the merchant bankers should be permitted into England:
Profit is a most powerfull motive, and which all the World preferres before all other things: and therefore we shall handle that point first. It is a thing confirmed, the merchandising is, as it were, the roper profession of the Nation of Jews…26
Menasseh proceeded with explanations as to why this is so, due to the lack of opportunity from the time of the Exile, to possess a state of their own and to till the land, leading Jews to “give themselves wholly unto marchandising.”
Their dispersion throughout the world enabled them to form networks across borders, to engage in commerce, with a common language that transcended the linguistic barriers of others.27
While the supremacy of Money in England was set in motion by Henry VIII’s Reformation, and the English Revolution a century later heralded the triumph of the merchant, it was not until the usurpation of the Throne by William III of Orange in 1688, with the deposing of James II, that the Bank of England was established. From then on a National Debt was owed to the usurers.
From the time of King Henry I talley sticks had served as the King’s currency. These talley sticks were carved sticks broken lengthwise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer kept one half, and the King spent the other half into circulation,28 like President John F Kennedy did in 1963, when he issued $4 billion ‘United States Notes’ directly into circulation via the US Treasury, circumventing the Federal Reserve Bank.29
Eventually, the two halves would be matched to prevent counterfeiting. The talley sticks could be used as exchange for commerce and in payment of taxes. They circulated in England for 726 years until eliminated on the demand of the Bank of England in 1826.30
Although William was the maternal grandson of Charles I, he was born in Holland and destined to fulfil the legacy of Cromwell in placing England under the bondage of the merchant bankers, then centred in Holland. The anti-Catholic sentiment that had started under Henry VIII was a catalyst in assuring William support in driving James II from the Throne.
Under William the authority of the Monarchy was reduced, and that of Parliament enhanced. The epochal act of William was to grant the Charter to William Paterson to establish the Bank of England. This acquiescence might be explained by William having “heavily borrowed in Amsterdam to fight his continental wars.”31
The link between the bankers of Amsterdam and of London was maintained even into the 19th century, and by the mid 18th century there was a considerable colony formed in the City by the scions of the Amsterdam banking families.32
The idea for the Bank of England came from the example of the Wisselbank, founded in 1609 which, according to the Bank of England’s account, was the lender to the City of Amsterdam, the Province of Holland and the Dutch East India Company, exercising a monopoly over state borrowing and coinage.33
The move to establish such a bank in England gained momentum “after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when William of Orange and Queen Mary jointly ascended the throne of England.” The political economist Sir William Petty wrote that the power of England would be magnified if there were a bank to lend the Throne credit.34
He did not explain why it could not be a state bank issuing its own credit, and had to be a private bank accruing interest on credit that it makes out of nothing, as its founder, William Paterson, explained. According to Petty such a bank would “furnish Stock enough to drive the Trade of the whole Commercial World.”35
The Bank of England explains that after the rejection by Parliament of several proposals the bank and a “Fund for Perpetual Interest” were accepted, having gained support from The City on recommendation by Michael Godfrey, “a leading merchant.”36
In 1734 the Bank of England moved into a ‘vast’ purpose-built building, nicknamed ‘The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street’, in The City.37 It was from the founding of the Bank of England that “the funded National Debt was born.”38 The present-day description of credit by the Bank of England is quite illuminating. The Bank’s historical account states that at the time credit was called “imaginary money.”
Until then ‘the man in the street’ had simply thought of money as coins, but this ‘shibboleth’ was now overturned. Money could take other forms “that had no intrinsic value.”
“The 18th century was a period dominated by governmental demand on the Bank for finance: the National Debt grew from £12 million in 1700 to £850 million by 1815, the year of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.”39
In 1946 the Bank was ‘nationalised’, but as in the nationalisation of other such banks, such as New Zealand’s Reserve Bank in 1936, this means little, as the real authority comes from the creation of credit by the international merchant bankers.
However, as the Bank’s account states, in 1997 the Government formally handed its financial authorities over to the Bank and it “thus rejoined the ranks of the world’s ‘independent’ central banks.”40
The purpose of these ‘central banks’, which the general public believes are controlled by governments, was to bring into their
financial network the provincial banking centres… to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.
The men who did this… aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers…41 The centre of the system was in London, with major offshoots in New York and Paris, and it has left, as its greatest achievement, an integrated banking system…42
Rothschilds: Lords of International Finance
From the establishment of the Rothschild banking dynasty in England by Nathan M Rothschild, The City becomes synonymous with that dynasty. Further still, these suddenly ‘British’ Rothschilds become ‘British’ imperialists in the manner a chameleon changes his colour according to survival needs.
It is the insinuation of the Rothschilds into the British power-structure that has generated much discussion of a ‘British’ imperial conspiracy centred around Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, and the so-called ‘Round Table Group’ that they founded to extend British influence throughout the world.
It is further frequently claimed this emerged as an ‘Anglo-American’ conspiratorial ‘network’ that continues to the present in attempting to establish ‘Anglo-American’ global hegemony.
Theorists of this ‘Anglo-American network’ most frequently cite Harvard historian Dr. Carroll Quigley, who had access to what were presumably the papers of the Council on Foreign Relations.
For reasons not known to this writer, Dr. Quigley, informative on so much in the course of his magnum opus, Tragedy & Hope, erred in thinking that an oligarchic ‘Anglo-American network’ was formed in the aftermath of World War I and continues to the present.
We shall briefly examine this error in due course. However, for the moment Quigley had some pertinent things to say about both the Rothschilds and the “international system of control” that was developing.
Quigley stated that one of the primary reasons the centre of international finance shifted to London was because the British upper class, which was not as rooted in noble birth as in money, “was quite willing to recruit both money and ability from lower levels of society and even from outside the country, welcoming American heiresses and central-European Jews to its ranks.” This allowed the power structure to take on a cosmopolitan flavour.
(We might note this vulgarisation of the English ruling-class seems to have begun during the time of Henry VIII).
Quigley described the development of the financial network by the international bankers into a world control system, and the assumption of the Rothschild dynasty to primacy:
In time they brought into their financial network the provisional banking centres, organised as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies… The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendents of Meyer Amschel Rothschild… whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces.
Rothschilds five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples, and Paris, as well as Frankfort, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled.43
Quigley pointed out these bankers were “cosmopolitan and international rather than nationalistic,”44 and this, by the very nature of their business, is what they remain.
Brooks Adams states that towards the close of the 18th century the boards of The City passed from the merchants to merchant bankers, “the most conspicuous example [being] the family of Rothschild.”45
Mayer Amschel had established his fortune by handling the financial affairs of William IX of Hesse-Kassel, who had been paid well by the British Government for supplying troops against the American revolt. At the time Amsterdam had been the capital of international banking, but the Napoleonic invasion of Holland had led to the closing of the Amsterdam Bourse, “the leading Continental exchange.”
Mayer Amschel and several others were situated to provide William IX with funds.46 Additionally, in 1800 Mayer Amschel had become Imperial Crown Agent for the Emperor of Austria. He was what Derek Wilson described as “one of the first of a new breed of businessmen – the truly international merchant banker.”
Wilson states that for centuries the Jews had played a prominent part in “long distance commerce” due to their communal loyalty with which they were able to create a “commercial sub-culture.” However, they were reliant on the patronage of rulers.
Now, the revolutionary tumult in Europe had swept away traditional rulers and placed money on a footing of power.
In 1798 Nathan Rothschild set up shop in England and in 1806 he became a “naturalised Englishman.”47 The Rothschilds were backing the coalition against Napoleon, who was upsetting the Continental system of finance.
In 1808 Nathan took over the financial affairs of the Landgrave William IX in England. That year he moved his business to 12 Great Helen’s Street, The City, under the name of N M Rothschild and Brothers.48
With agents throughout Europe, the Rothschilds were valuable allies in organising smugglers and couriers in the war against Napoleon. By now, on the initiative of Nathan Rothschild, “the nerve centre of Rothschild operations had shifted from Frankfurt to London.”49
Wilson reiterates that through Nathan’s family and his “large network of agents and couriers he was better informed about European affairs than any man in London – including members of the government.”50
Wilson is altogether too charitable in ascribing ‘patriotic’ – British – motives to Nathan, in contrast to what he frankly says about the lack of national ‘patriotism’ among the other Rothschild brothers toward anything other than “loyalty and responsibility to the Chosen People.”51
Rather, Nathan and the rest of the dynasty were assisting in the fight against Napoleon because the upstart was undermining the financial system.
Quigley explains that the credit creation mechanism developed by the international bankers, as previously described, was to become one of the chief weapons in the victory over Napoleon in 1815.
“The emperor, as the last great mercantilist, could not see money in any but concrete terms, and was convinced that his efforts to fight wars on the basis of ‘sound money’, by avoiding the creation of credit, would ultimately win him a victory by bankrupting England.”52
Hence, the war against Napoleon was in part a war between two systems of economics involving the reorganisation of Europe.
The British Empire & Cecil Rhodes
It is a significant error of interpretation for historians such as Carroll Quigley or E C Knuth53 to suppose there is an ‘Anglo-American’ network working for world rule on the edifice of English sentiments.
It is also erroneous to assume that because the merchant bankers found it opportune to lend credit to governments that ruled over empires, these bankers, who are cosmopolitan, have an enduring commitment to some type of nationally based imperialism, whether it be ‘British’, ‘American’, ‘German’, ‘Dutch’, etc.
The theory of the ‘Anglo-American’ network written about by Quigley was adopted by conspiracy theorists such as W Cleon Skousen.54 The basis of these theories centres on Lord Rothschild being the banker to Cecil Rhodes. The theory states that Lord Natty Rothschild was part of Rhodes’ secret society, the Round Table Groups, that aimed to spread the benevolence of British imperialism over the world.55
These imperial ideals were said to be motivated by the teachings of the Oxford art historian John Ruskin, who exhorted his students to take British culture to the ends of the Earth.
While Lord Rothschild saw the Empire as the means by which commerce could be spread and maintained by force of arms, the support was pragmatic, and owes nothing to a commitment to any British ideals as envisaged by Rhodes et al.
Derek Wilson writes of this in relation to Lord Rothschild’s opposition to Gladstone’s ‘flabby’ foreign policy:
“But Lord Rothschild was not an unbridled expansionist. This is clearly shown by his relationship with a man who was an unbridled expansionist – Cecil Rhodes.”56
When diamonds were discovered in South Africa, the Rothschilds bought into the Anglo-African Diamond Mining Company Ltd., which was amalgamated with DeBeers. In 1887 Rhodes returned from South Africa to Britain to ask Lord Rothschild for financial backing.
Lord Rothschild saw this as the means of establishing commercial stability in South Africa against their main rival, the Barnato Diamond Mining Company, which also ended up merging with DeBeers.57
For Rhodes, making money was a means of spreading British imperial ideals. Not so for Rothschild, although Rhodes persuaded himself Natty was of like mind.
“He was wrong. Lord Rothschild was not an unreserved imperialist, as Rhodes gradually discovered.”
In 1888 Rhodes made a will nominating Natty to administer most of his estate for funding The Round Table Groups. Wilson writes:
In response to Rhodes’ suggestion that company funds be used to finance territorial expansion, his banker advised: “if… you require money to finance territorial expansion, you will have to obtain it from other sources than the cash reserves of the DeBeers Company.” And Rhodes cannot have been very pleased to learn, in 1892, that Rothschilds had floated a loan for the Boer government of the Transvaal.58
The Rothschilds were interested in commercial stability, not British imperial expansion. By the time of the abortive Jameson Raid organised by Rhodes against the Boer Transvaal Republic in 1895,
he had long ceased to have close and cordial relations with Natty. Probably he never grasped the fact that, though the Rothschilds disliked Gladstone’s policy of colonial retrenchment, they were not advocates of unbridled imperialism for its own sake.59
Hence, when a few decades later imperialism became a hindrance to unbridled international free trade, the international bankers used the newly emergent power of the USA to scuttle the old European Empires over the course of half a century, and the oligarchs moved into the power-vacuum of the new decolonised states.60
This myth of the ‘Anglo-American network’ for world control is centred around a supposed alliance between the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the US globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),61 founded in the aftermath of World War I by the US power elite.
Again, this assumed alliance is erroneous: the proffered alliance between the two bodies never eventuated. Far from there being accord between supposed ‘Anglophiles’ on both sides of the Atlantic, there was a breach. Peter Grose, the CFR’s historian, mentions that both sides soon rejected the suggested alliance before it eventuated.62
The Rothschilds were concerned with Britain’s imperial links “for sound commercial reasons,” but with “maximum freedom of trade.”63 It was inevitable that ‘free trade’ and the old European imperialism were going to conflict.
The role assumed by the USA in subverting and destroying the old empires can be discerned by ‘The Fourteen Points’ decreed by President Woodrow Wilson as the blueprint for the post-war world in 1918;64 and by the ‘Atlantic Charter’,65 imposed on Britain by President F D Roosevelt in 1945, both of which focus on international free trade as the basis for the world economy and specifically repudiate the old empires.66
Soon after World War II the Rothschilds increased their focus on Wall Street, and their hitherto relatively small Amsterdam Incorporated was reformed as an investment bank named New Court Securities, its share capital being taken up by the Rothschild banks in Paris and London.
Where hitherto the Rothschilds had mainly been concerned with negotiating loans with states, they were now involved in the rapid post-war expansion of Western commerce and industry,67 freed up by the destruction of the old empires, and the inauguration of a new era of international financial agreements, formalised by the Bretton Woods Agreement.
This is what the biographer Wilson calls the Rothschilds’ “new, deliberate internationalism”;68 no longer constrained by nation-states and imperial ideals.
However, The City remains a focus. The Rothschilds led the way in forging links between Tokyo and London. Edmund co-led a delegation from The City to Tokyo in 1962 and received The Order of the Sacred Treasure from Emperor Hirohito.
Regardless of these new avenues opened up for post-war globalisation and free trade, certain plutocratic traditions remain features of The City: the ‘Gold Fixing Room’ at the Rothschild offices, New Court, continue to be the place where the leading London bullion dealers daily sit around a table “to agree on the price of gold.”
N M Rothschild “continues to be the most important bullion dealer” in Britain.69 Of the “four hundred and eighty banks in the city,” Rothschild remains supreme.70
London: Capital of the World
However, other avenues for profit besides the traditional dealings in gold bullion are emerging. The one for our era is credits for greenhouse emissions, and with this profit also comes new schemes for world control.
In 2008 Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, wrote a policy document on the issue.71 Linnett defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market.”
He states that while it must be free trade that operates in defining the value of the carbon emission exchange, what is required is an “international institution.”
He writes that “such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.”72 Linnett frankly states that this involves a “new world order”:
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely ‘saving the planet’ – perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order…73
Of various methods suggested to limit carbon emissions, carbon trading is held by Linnet to be the most effective.74 Implicit in the various measures, including funding new technology and changing the consumption habits of individuals is, “that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some of their sovereignty to this world initiative.”75
“When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion.”76
The system being proposed by Linnett, in the cause of “saving the planet,” is the consolidation of the international banking system under a central authority. Linnett states that the European nations have already ceded their sovereignty to the European Union; the next step being, “to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.”77
“If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order.”78
The world authority that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This would be based in what he calls a “world city.”79 Linnett suggests that this “world city” should be London, The City, due to it being “a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).”80
Whatever might be said about Wall Street, or the shift of global political power to Washington and New York, clearly The City still holds sway in the thinking of some of the primary oligarchs of international finance.
By Dr Kerry Bolton, Newdawnmagazine.com / Footnotes:
- K R Bolton, Revolution from Above, London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011, passim.
- City of London, ‘What is the City of London?’,www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Council_departments/whatis.htm
- Ibid., “Business”, www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/
- Ibid., ‘The Lord Mayor of the City of London’,www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/The_Lord_Mayor/
- ‘History of Temple Bar’, www.thetemplebar.info/history
- Ezra Pound (1944), America, Roosevelt & the Causes of the Present War, London: Peter Russell, 1951, 6.
- Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation, London: MacMillan, 1896, 230.
- Ibid., 233.
- Ibid., 245.
- Ibid., 245.
- Ibid., 292-293.
- Ibid., 294.
- Ibid., 298.
- Ibid., 305.
- Ibid., 321.
- Ibid., 321.
- Carroll Quigley, of Harvard University, and the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University, was a scholar of considerable reputation, until he wrote a few dozen pages on the conspiratorial nature of international finance – albeit in a sympathetic light – in his 1,300 page magnum opus Tragedy & Hope in 1966.
- Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, New York: Macmillan co., 1966, 48.
- Ibid., 48.
- Ibid., 48.
- Ibid., 49.
- ‘The Estates General of the Republic of the United Provinces: Declaration Protecting the Interests of Jews Residing in Holland’, 13 July 1657; in Paul R Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz (ed) The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, New York: Oxford University Press, 1980, 16.
- Stanley Chapman, The Rise of Merchant Banking, Oxon: Routledge, 2006, 2.
- Ibid., 4.
- Menasseh ben Israel, ‘How Profitable the Nation of the Jews Are’, ‘to His Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland’, in Paul R Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz (ed) The Jew in the Modern World, op. cit., 9.
- Ibid., 10. The editors remark that although Menasseh’s mission to Cromwell in 1655 was “ostensibly unsuccessful, it did prepare the way for the resettlement of the Jews in England.” (Ibid., 12 Note 1).
- L. LaBorde, ‘The Unholy Alliance’, Silver Trading Company, Article #18, 12 February 2012,www.silvertrading.net/articles_metals_18_the_unholy_alliance.html
- J F Kennedy, ‘Executive Order 11110’, 4 June 1963.
- L. LaBorde, op. cit.
- Stanley Chapman op. cit. 2.
- Stanley Chapman, Ibid., 3.
- ‘Major Developments’, Bank of England,www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments.htm
- Ibid., www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments.htm#2
- ‘Visit The City: the Bank of England’, www.visitthecity.co.uk/index.php/attractions/view/448/
- Ibid., www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments.htm#2
- Ibid., www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments.htm#3
- Ibid., www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history/major_developments.htm#5
- Carroll Quigley, op. cit., 51.
- Carroll Quigley, Ibid., 50.
- Ibid., 51.
- Ibid., 51-52.
- Brooks Adams, op. cit., 322.
- D Wilson, Rothschild: A Story of Wealth & Power, London: André Deutsch Ltd., 1988, 17.
- Ibid., 21.
- Ibid., 33.
- Ibid., 34.
- Ibid., 41.
- Ibid., 42.
- Carroll Quigley, op.cit., 49.
- E C Knuth (1946), The Empire of ‘The City’, Milwaukee, Wisc.; reprinted 1982 (no other publication details).
- W Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist: A Review & Commentary on Dr Carroll Quigley’s Book Tragedy & Hope, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1971.
- Carroll Quigley, op. cit., 131; W Cleon Skousen, op. cit., 30.
- Derek Wilson, op. cit., 303.
- Derek Wilson, Ibid., 304.
- Ibid., 305.
- A K Chesterton, The New Unhappy Lords, Hampshire: Candour Publishing Co., 1975, passim
- Carroll Quigley, op. cit., 132-133; W Cleon Skousen, op. cit., 31.
- Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2006. The entire book can be read online at: Council on Foreign Relations: www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html; K R Bolton, Revolution from Above, op. cit., 24-25, Note 5.
- Derek Wilson, op. cit., 305.
- W Wilson, ‘Fourteen Points’, 1918, www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1918wilson.html
- Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill, ‘The Atlantic Charter’, 14 August 1941,usinfo.org/docs/democracy/53.htm
- E Roosevelt, As He Saw It, New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946, 31, 35.
- Derek Wilson, op. cit., 397.
- Derek Wilson, Ibid.
- Ibid., 436.
- Simon Linnett, Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential, London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008. Online at: www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf
- Ibid., 4.
- Ibid., 8.
- Ibid., 12.
- Ibid., 12.
- Ibid., 18.
- Ibid., 15.
- Ibid., 19.
© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.