現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> Ψ空耳の丘Ψ37 > 586.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> Ψ空耳の丘Ψ37 > 586.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
| Tweet |
JEWS & WEALTH
by Vic Martel (author of the forthcoming book, "Varna Sutra: The Inevitable Clash between Aryan and Semite." )
"Wherever JEWS penetrate a Gentile State their single purpose is to suck the vital juices from the host nation and implant their own culture." (James von Brunn, HWE, Kill the Best Gentiles, PARASITISM USA, p. 165)
"The World is ruled by very different personages than thosewho are not behind the scenes would imagine." (BENJAMIN DISRAELI, JEW, British Prime Minister, 1868)
"The Trilateralists don't secretly rule the world, the Councilon Foreign Relations (CFR) does that." (WINSTON LORD, former Chairman of the CFR.)
JEWISH NUMBERS
"In regard to the fallacy of the 'six million slain Jews of World War II', this is designed for the propagandizing of Whites. Over the ages, there has not been a more reprehensible lie. Even on the face of the matter, the public should be suspicious. For instance, the popular and widely read World Almanac demonstrates, through logic, the absurdity of the 'six million' claim. In 1940, the Almanac showed 15,315,359 Jews in the world (New York World Telegram, p.129). This was at the commencement of the Euroepan war. Then, some short period after the war, in 1949, the Almanac listed 15,713,638 in the world (New York World Telegram, p, 289). It defies the mind to know how Jewry could have lost '6 million' by 1945 and then show a surplus populationm by 1949!
In 1966, the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation, an official-Jewish operation, indicated that 1,593,292 Jews had perished in the war. This still-ridiculous figure was principally given for Jewish interests. The White public was yet besieged by the 'liberal' mass media with the '6 million' count. An abundance of evidence now exists (and continues to emerge) to totally refute the propaganda." James Combs, Who's Who is the World Zionist Conspiracy, p. 19.
THE ROCKEFELLERS
[This extreme left, Jew-descended family has to be eliminated] "Possibly the best example of a 'gentile front' is the Rockefellers, MUCH TIED IN WITH JEWRY PERSONALLY AND FINANCIALLY. The Real Estate Newspaper of New York (September 18, 1951) touched on one association. Elias Cohen, the reporter, stated that Jacob Schiff of Kuhn-Loeb held power of attorney over old John D. Rockefeller's wealth. Kuhn-Loeb Bankers granted Rockefeller a secret rebate on the oil he shipped over their Pennsylvania Railroad.
In their background, the Rockefellers are of Jewish descent. Nelson Rockefeller suggested this himself. Stephen Birmingham's book, The Grandees, America's Sephardic Elite, confirms the Jewish heritage of the Rockefellers (Harper and Row, 1971, p.4). ...The Rockefellers have long coordinated with their superiors in the goal of destroying America." (James Combs, Who's Who in the Zionist World Conspiracy, p.32: The Rockefellers)
OWNERS OF FED RESERVE
"The FED is a privately owned corporation. The wordﾒFederalﾓ is as meaningless, as 'Federal' Tire Company....The FED is NOT an agency of the U.S. government,although it was created by Congress, and theoretically can beabolished by Congress. It owns personal property and realestate.Its employees do not draw U.S. Government paychecks...Owners of FED Class-A stock have never been officially revealed. Educated guesses indicate that the following are the largest stockholders: The House of Rothschild, JEWS; Lazar Freres Bank of Paris, JEWS; The Schiff family, Kuhn-Loeb Co., JEWS; The Lehmann family, JEWS; The Rockefellers; Israel Seif, London, JEWS; The Bank of England, JEWS, etc...The FED is one of many ILLUMINATI centralbanking systems embedded like fat leeches in World population streams...At this writing the United States (We the People) are over Six Trillion Dollars in debt. Men in debt labor for others."
- Von Brunn, p. 118-119 "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care notwho makes its Laws." - ANSELM MEYER ROTHSCHILD.
"JEWS have no religious scruples regarding money wheregoyim are concerned. They now have the means to carry outtheir war of annihilation of the West. They would not surfaceas a fighting unit and openly attack their hated enemy.They remained invisible. Their strategy was to organize theentire JEWISH People into a Fifth Column whose purpose isto penetrate the West and destroy everything." (von Brunn, p. 109) "With the understanding that commercial banks, as asChase-Manhattan; and International Bankers as Kuhn-LoebCo., are integral parts of JEWRY'S World Banking Empire, let us take a look at an investigation by the State of New Yorkof some commercial banks:...(p. 133)
"The Rockefeller Institute is a subsidiary of the CFR. The Rockefellers, of JEW descent, merged their Chase bank with Warburg's (JEW) Manhattan Bank, and placed a subsidiary of Chase-Manhattan on Karl Marx Square in Moscow to finance the so-called "Cold War," even as we fought no-win wars in Korea and Viet Nam.
Steven Birmingham's book, The Grandees: America's Sephardic Elite (Harper & Row) confirms Rockefeller's Jewish heritage.
In 1973 David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission(TRI), he appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski, security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, to direct it. For many years David Rockefeller chaired both groups (CFR/TRI)." (p. 90)
CFR Case Study #76 (1959) states: The United States must strive to build a new International Order... including states labeling themselves Socialist. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.DAVID ROCKEFELLER, JEW, Chairman CFR/TRI.
http://www.holywesternempire.org/page2.html
"Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great Nation tohave its destiny presided over by a traitorous Federal ReserveSystem acting in secret with International Usurers." (LOUIS T. McFADDEN, Chr. House Banking Committee, 6-10-32.)
ROCKEFELLER INTERNATIONALISM
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 10, Number 3 (April-May 2003) "Throughout the 20th century to the present day, the Rockefeller family, via philanthropy and power politics, has been pivotal in the move to create a so-called New World Order.
THE ROCKEFELLERS' NEW WORLD ORDER VISIONS, 1920-2002
The Rockefeller family,...has used its fortune, originally amassed in the 19th century, to establish a philanthropic network that has had a significant influence on government policy throughout the world for nearly a century. This fact has long been recognised by researchers into the "New World Order", who contend that Rockefeller family members are among the key players, if not the primary architects and paymasters, behind the alleged secret plot to establish a dictatorial "One World Government". Back in the 1970s, for example, Gary Allen declared in his book, The Rockefeller File, that "the major Rockefeller goal today is the creation of a 'New World Order'--a one world government that would control all of mankind".
Contemporary NWO researchers have been no less certain of Rockefeller culpability. The ever-controversial David Icke describes the Rockefellers as a pivotal family in the "bloodline hierarchy" that is striving to implement the "Brotherhood Agenda" of "centralised control of the planet". Were it not for the Rockefellers and their "manipulation of the United States and the wider world", writes Icke, there would be "far greater freedom" in America and the "world in general".
By examining the specific proposals of the Rockefellers, we can see that for the elite architects of the NWO it has not been a case of either global institutions or a one-world market, but a careful combination of both approaches, with regional blocs as stepping-stones to the establishment of an authoritarian, market-oriented system of "global governance".
In fact, the Rockefeller family has been at the forefront of efforts to convince, cajole and coordinate governments in support of this project throughout much of the 20th century through to the present day. Indeed, the strategies commonly associated with both the "corporate-led" and "collectivist" models of global governance--i.e., American leadership, the United Nations, free trade, neo-liberalism, international financial institutions, regional free trade blocs, population control, global environmental regulation, Atlantic Union and world federalism--the Rockefellers have supported for nearly a century either directly or through the various elite policy-planning organisations they have funded, founded or controlled.
Power-hungry Nelson Rockefeller, second son of John D. Rockefeller, Jr, had a plan for a New World Order that would make nation-states redundant. There are two competing interpretations of Nelson's foreign policy vision during his political career. The first is of a diehard anti-Communist, dubbed by some journalists as the "Coldest Warrior of Them All", and a militarist-imperialist who believed the US should "act aggressively whenever events abroad threatened its own interests" (Chapman). Proponents of this view point to Nelson's "necrophiliac ambition" (Fitch) of providing each American family with its own nuclear fallout shelter, his calls in 1960 for a 10 per cent boost in Defense spending, his attacks on Eisenhower for letting the US fall behind the Soviet Union in the famed (but illusory) "missile gap", and his apparent eagerness to use tactical nuclear weapons against Communist insurgents.
The second interpretation, in contrast, presents Nelson as "a leader in the campaign to submerge American sovereignty in a World Superstate".
"I think Nelson Rockefeller is definitely committed to trying to make the United States part of a one world socialist government," declared John Birch Society founder Robert Welch in 1958.
Far from being the ultimate Cold Warrior, Nelson is portrayed as a covert supporter of the alleged plot by the super-rich to use Communism to subvert the sovereignty of the US and of other "free nations" worldwide...
However, in his longer-term outlook, Nelson was undeniably a Wilsonian liberal internationalist--something he had already demonstrated intermittently since the 1940s. For example, Nelson was instrumental, through the controversy generated over his push to have Argentina included in the United Nations, with ensuring that Article 51--which allows for groups of states to form alliances to repel aggression--was included in the final UN Charter.
But at the same time, not content with the UN system that included the Soviets, and determined to "purify" Central and South America of "alien commercial influence", Nelson was a strong supporter of regionalism, particularly the goal of a Western hemisphere "united under US leadership".
During the Eisenhower Administration, Nelson had been one of the strongest supporters of the Atlantic Union concept, despite Secretary of State John Foster Dulles's patronising dismissal of his views as "premature".
It was also during the late 1940s and early 1950s that Nelson, in support of his goal of encouraging Western hemispheric unity--or, more precisely, establishing US economic dominance over Latin America--had established the American International Association for Economic and Social Development (AIA) and the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC). The AIA was ostensibly intended to promote development in Latin America and combat "poverty, disease and illiteracy", while IBEC was supposed to encourage capital investment. The founding president of both institutions, Nelson naturally painted AIA and IBEC as being designed to achieve the desirable goal of development. Yet, in truth, Nelson was driven by a baser aim of breaking down national barriers to penetration by American companies in line with the shift in Rockefeller wealth from oil to international banking and Third World investment.
In describing the activities of AIA and IBEC, Nelson employed language that is often employed by contemporary advocates of globalisation. "Today," Nelson stated in the late 1940s, "capital must go to where it can produce the most goods, render the greatest service, meet the most pressing needs of the people." Discussing IBEC operations in Latin America, Nelson noted that because of the "big problems" confronting "our way of life", it was essential that they demonstrate "that American enterprise can ... help to solve these problems that are vital to our everyday life and to our position in world affairs". He said the US needed to "master such problems if our system is going to survive".
For all his rhetoric on helping people, ultimately it was protecting and extending "our system" that was paramount for Nelson. Nelson's "New World Order" The culmination of these influences was effectively a slightly updated version of the Wilson-Fosdick world order model that comprised free trade, regionalism, supranational institutions, American leadership and the defeat of Communism. Nelson willingly and repeatedly endorsed this policy package in his drive for the White House. Central to Nelson's platform was the contention that global change, specifically economic interdependence, was making the nation-state redundant. As far back as 1951, Nelson had used the word "interdependence" to describe the economic relationship between the Western countries and the developing world.
But it was in a 1960 essay in Foreign Affairs that Nelson asserted that "the central fact of our time is the disintegration of the nineteenth-century political system ... [t]he great opportunity of our time is not the idea of competition but of world cooperation".
Similarly, in his lectures on federalism at Harvard University in 1962, Nelson claimed:No nation today can defend its freedom, or fulfil the needs of its own people, from within its own borders or through its own resources alone. ...the nation-state, standing alone, threatens, in many ways, to seem as anachronistic as the Greek city-state eventually became in ancient times ...
Nelson argued that as the nation-state was becoming "less and less competent to perform its international political tasks", the prevailing structures of international order had disintegrated, leaving "an historical political vacuum".46 The old world order based on the 19th-century balance of power was no more, now that "international relations have become truly global"--a factor which demanded a "new concept of relations between nations" in the form of a "framework of order in which the aspirations of humanity can be peacefully realized ... "
At the same time, Nelson was critical of the role of the United Nations, arguing that it "has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order as events now so compellingly command". He charged that the Soviet Union and its allies had weakened the UN. The Communist bloc, Nelson claimed, had dedicated itself to "the manipulation of the UN's democratic processes, so astutely and determinedly, as largely to frustrate its power and role". But the threat posed by the Communist bloc extended beyond damaging the UN, to attempting to realise its own "cruel design ... for world order". The Communists had "taken our words, our forms, our very symbols of man's hopes and aspirations and ... corrupted them to mislead and to deceive in their quest for world domination".
During the 1968 presidential primaries, however, Nelson was less pessimistic about the UN, maintaining that the international organisation was not a failure. "On balance," Rockefeller stated at a Republican Party fundraising dinner in California, "the record shows that the United Nations' strength has grown..." The question for Americans, however, was twofold: "How well can the United Nations serve the United States' national interest, and how effectively can it promote a more stable world order ... ?" Nelson's answer was that both were possible. Although the US could not hope to control the UN completely, it could still act in America's "national interest" (usually a code for business interests) by maintaining world order using the resources of other member-states. UN peace-keeping operations (PKOs) he said "have made a vital contribution toward the building of a more stable world order" and had done "multilaterally what the United States might have had to do itself at much greater cost". Actions through the UN were "often the best way of controlling dangerous crises", as "unilateral actions" such as Vietnam "frequently tend to boomerang". It was "perfectly clear", insisted Nelson, that UN PKOs "have strengthened world order and ... also advanced United States policy objectives".
It was therefore in America's interest, according to Nelson, to "take the initiative in strengthening the role of the UN as mediator and peace-maker", as the UN "can and must be utilised as a primary instrument" in the quest for a "better world". In support of this goal, Nelson advocated that the US take the lead in "bringing disputes to the UN before they 'go critical'" and "encourage strong leadership" by the UN Secretary-General, including greater emphasis on "preventive diplomacy ... quiet diplomacy, and less reliance on voting per se for the achievement of our national objectives". Insisting that the UN's peace-keeping functions needed to be strengthened, Nelson advocated encouraging "small countries" to set aside troops for UN PKOs, developing new sources of revenue for PKOs, and a greater focus on "peace-making".
...Nelson Rockefeller also advocated the long-time liberal-internationalist argument that the US should promote global free trade to strengthen the free enterprise system and thus link together the other non-Communist parts of the world. He said there should be a "continuation and expansion of a liberal US trade policy" on the grounds that it not only helped developing countries but it benefited the US economy.
And in an argument that continues to be heard today as "open regionalism", Nelson argued that the formation of regional free trade groupings could be a means to establish global free trade:The regional arrangements in Europe and the Hemisphere should be used as patterns for the economic organization of other parts of the world. For the key fact is that no nation is capable of realizing its aspirations by its own efforts. Regional groups pursuing ever more liberal trade policies towards each other could thus be a step towards the goal of a free world trading system.
Philanthropist, plutocrat and former banker David Rockefeller has been promoting his "one world" vision among global powerbrokers since the 1960s, while dismissing claims that he's part of a cabal out to control the planet. David's key role in promoting global political and economic unity is not only explicitly recognised but is openly celebrated within the power-elite. At celebrations for the 25th anniversary of the Trilateral Commission's US group in 1998, a roster of adoring Establishment heavyweights repeatedly toasted the "sense of vision" (Berthoin), "farsightedness and leadership" (Ogata), "great munificence" (Black) and "sense of obligation" (Kissinger) of their Honorary Chairman. The "first global history of mankind is about to start", claimed Georges Berthoin, a former European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and it was all due to David Rockefeller, the "gentleman-pioneer of the trilateral world".
Similarly, at a book signing for David's new autobiography, Memoirs, held in late 2002 at the United Nations headquarters in New York, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hailed the plutocrat's contribution to world order:
I think without internationalists like you, the international system we have been trying to build, the international system we have today, wouldn't be here. So, thank you very much, David.
Lacking Nelson's hunger for publicity and overt power, David's career path took a somewhat different course. Educated at Harvard, the London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of Chicago, David became the only one of Junior's children to have earned a PhD. The subject of his dissertation, essentially an attack on government regulation of business activity, was "Unused Resources and Economic Waste" (1940). Upon completion of his studies, and contemplating a career in politics, David returned to New York in 1940 to work as secretary to New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia. In mid-1941, tiring of local politics and seeking "administrative experience", David started work with a new government body, the Office of Defense, Health, and Welfare Services. This proved to be short-lived, though, and with the outbreak of the war David enlisted in the US Army, going on to serve as an intelligence officer in North Africa and France.
Returning to the US in 1946, David went to work for the "family bank", Chase Manhattan. He started as a low-ranking officer, but, thanks to the Rockefeller family's controlling interest, he rapidly rose through the ranks and in 1969 became Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. David ran the bank until his retirement in 1981, but continued to play a role as Chairman of the bank's International Advisory Committee.
Although David later liked to boast that he was "the first member of the family since Grandfather who has had a regular job in a company and has devoted a major part of his life to being in business", it was apparently "not an easy decision" as he still desired to work with government or in philanthropy, particularly on international affairs.
But, in truth, neither avenue has ever been closed to him.
The Education of an Internationalist
David attributes much of his internationalist fervour to the influence of his parents, his overseas travelling experiences and his changed world outlook following World War II. He writes that it was his parents who first impressed on him "the importance of the world beyond the United States". His father, Junior, "was a staunch supporter of the League of Nations" and, through the Rockefeller Foundation, "one of the principal funders of health, education, and cultural endeavors around the world".
But there were other influences, including David's education at Harvard University and the University of Chicago during the 1930s, and his early membership of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1949 and the Bilderberg Group from 1954. David joined the Council on Foreign Relations in 1949, his surname ensuring election to its board of directors. David naturally understates the CFR's influence on his thinking, merely observing that he found it to be the "best place" for pursuing his "interest in global affairs". Tellingly, David admits his motivation for joining the CFR was his determination to "play a role" in the process of ensuring the US provided leadership in building "a new international architecture" following World War II. While David correctly identifies the wide range of views among the CFR's members, for him the Council's enduring value has been its role in devising schemes for world order that conform with his Wilsonian vision. For example, marking the CFR's 75th anniversary in 1997, David hailed the Council's role as America's "premier school for statesmen", observing that it was from the CFR's War and Peace Studies project that America's post-war plans for a "just and durable international system" had emerged, and from more recent CFR studies that "awareness of global economic interdependence gained particular prominence in national policy discussions".
In 1954, David was selected by President Eisenhower to be one of the founding US members of the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderbergers have long been controversial, with many researchers attributing to the annual secret gathering a role in establishing the European Union and facilitating the planning of a world government.
David insists, naturally, that the "truth" is that Bilderberg is no more than an "intensely interesting discussion group" which does not reach a consensus. What Bilderberg discusses, David does not say, preferring to characterise the cabal as a unique networking opportunity. Bilderberg, David said in 1990, gave him "an opportunityフo become acquainted with some of the leaders of Europe and the United States on a very informal basisバne got to know them on a first-name basis".
Other Bilderbergers, however, such as former British politician Denis Healey, admit there is a Bilderberg consensus, with most Bilderbergers believing that "a single community throughout the world would be a good thing".
Such a consensus would have obviously reinforced David's globalist inclinations, making the Bilderbergs more than merely an unusually well-connected social rendezvous.
This is but a small sample of the influences on David's globalist outlook, but it also illustrates his reliance on the ideas of others. Despite his PhD, David is not quite the theoretical mastermind behind the New World Order that he appears to be. Instead, like most plutocrats intent on changing the world, he appropriates the ideas of others, usually Establishment academics and technocrats, incorporating them into his own global vision when it suits his purposes. But, David admits, he has "never been particularly dogmatic" in his political or economic beliefs, preferring to support "effective people andパractical policies".
Thus, for David, ideas or prot使市 can be discarded once they are no longer useful to him or his ultimate goal of "a more integrated global political and economic structure".
THE "PROUD INTERNATIONALIST": DAVID ROCKEFELLER (1915 - )
Towards "One World"
The cornerstone of David's New World Order vision is US leadership. David traces his devotion to the concept to when he "returned from World War II believing that a new international architecture had to be erected and that the United States had a moral obligation to provide leadership to that effort".
In the immediate post-war period, according to David, America "played a pivotal--and, for the most part, a highly constructive--role in the world".
This role David has insisted on maintaining, irrespective of changes to the global political landscape and America's position in it. Despite America having lost much of its strength, "[w]e are still a major power in the world and, as such, have a responsibility we cannot shirk", David proclaimed in 1980 to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
In fact, "we must restore our rightful role in the world by reasserting the strength of our currency and our economy", David argued in a 1979 address that warned of America's economic decline.
Although crucial, US leadership has not been the only component of David's vision; undermining national sovereignty through economic integration has been of equal importance. As the only trained economist of his generation of Rockefellers, having been taught by the leading free trade and free market theorists of the 1930s and 1940s, David has long been aware that the power of national governments can best be undermined by steadily reducing their control over economic matters. In fact, he has always regarded government regulation as an obstacle to prosperity and often argued for the need to "prune the forest of rules and let the economy grow".
But in advocating the lifting of restrictions on business, whether through deregulation or free trade, David has always recognised that this will erode national autonomy. For example, in a lecture he gave in Manchester, UK, in 1975, David singled out multinational corporations (MNCs) as one of the other main drivers of this process, describing them as "the most important instruments in the unprecedented expansion that has taken place in world trade".
The Death of the Nation-State
Like his father before him, and his brother Nelson, David has long regarded the nation-state as a dying institution. Over the past 40 years, in numerous forums, David has declared that the world either is becoming or is already "interdependent" both politically and economically--an outcome he disingenuously attributes to inevitable historical forces rather than his own deliberate design. In a 1963 address, for example, David referred to the "increasingly international character of American business and the consequent interconnectedness among the world's financial markets".
In the 1970s, he often spoke of "our interdependent world", "today's interdependent world", and of how "we are all part of one global economy".
As the Reagan era dawned, David continued to treat the death of the nation-state as a fait accompli, describing "the inevitable push toward globalism" and how "the exponential growth of world trade and international economic competition has given rise to a truly interdependent world economy". In fact, in 1980, David prophesied that "[b]y the year 2000, the term 'foreign affairs' will be an anachronism".59 He even claimed in 1985 that most Americans have "a strong belief in the interdependence of mankind".
By the 1990s, with the concept of globalisation fast becoming the business buzzword of the decade, David could confidently talk of "the emergence of globalised competition and an integrated world economy".
Most recently, in Memoirs, David leaves no doubt that he thinks we should regard the erosion of national sovereignty as both inevitable and unstoppable:Global interdependence is not a poetic fantasy, but a concrete reality that this country's revolutions in technology, communications, and geopolitics have made irreversible. The free flow of investment capital, goods, and people across borders will remain the fundamental factor in world economic growth and in strengthening of democratic institutions everywhere.
But the more important question is, what does David believe should fill this growing vacuum? What sort of "more integrated global political and economic structure" does the plutocrat have in mind? David's own answers, though fragmentary, reveal a commitment to the concept of global governance. As defined by the Commission on Global Governance, the term refers to an international order in which nations are no longer the dominant political institution, but must share authority not only with the UN system but also with "non-governmental organizations (NGOs), citizens' movements, multinational corporations, and the global capital market".
Having worked hard over the past 40 or more years to erode the power of nation-states--and having created countless other problems of a global nature in the process--David now turns to international institutions, MNCs and NGOs to fill this governmental gap.
Firstly, David has long had a favourable view of international institutions, especially those founded by the US, believing they hold the key to realising his aim to "erect an enduring structure of global cooperation".64 His commitment to the UN, for example, can be seen in his membership of groups including the United Nations Association of the USA, Allies of the United Nations, and the Emergency Coalition for US Financial Support for the United Nations. In his message to the UN poster exhibition, For A Better World, in 2000, David claimed that, ever since the UN was created in 1945, he has been "one of its staunchest advocates". He continued:There are many who believe the United Nations, through its multiple missions of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and the support of sustainable economic development, is the embodiment of hope for mankind. I agree.
David has also identified the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, the IMF and the World Bank as "constructive international activities".
In a "globalized economy", he once wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "everyone needs the IMF"--for without it, "the world economy would not become an idealized fantasy of perfectly liquid, completely informed, totally unregulated capital markets".
Secondly, as for the role of the MNCs, David notes that the retreat of state power caused by deregulation has provided many opportunities for the business sector to assume a more political role. In 1996, David argued that with governments reducing their social expenditures, it was up to "business leaders and their corporations [to] expand their involvement" in the "not-for-profit sector".68 Or, as he put it to Newsweek in 1999:In recent years, there has been a trend in many parts of the world toward democracy and market economies. That has lessened the role of government, which is something business people tend to be in favour of. But the other side of the coin is that somebody has to take the government's place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do that.
This includes supporting the UN, as in 1994 he told the Business Council of the United Nations that "business support for the numerous internationally related problems in which [the UN] is involved has never been more urgently needed".70 Yet, in the early 1990s, David reportedly boasted that MNCs had moved beyond being able to help governments to being in control: We are now in the driver's seat of the global economic engine. We are setting government policies instead of watching from the sidelines.
Thirdly, David sees a crucial role for NGOs, including the various philanthropic foundations (a sizeable number of which he controls), in addressing global problems. The message had already been delivered in 1989 by the then President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Peter Goldmark, Jr, at a three-day conference celebrating the 150th birthday anniversary of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. "Every major foundation should have an international dimension to its program," said Goldmark. "In a period of planetary environmental danger, global communications, intercontinental missiles, a world economy and an international marketplace of ideas and arts and political trends, there is simply no excuse not to." David admitted that Goldmark's speech came with his blessing, if not direction, with a decision made to be "meaningful" by focusing on "philanthropy for the 21st century" instead of merely praising John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
The true scope of David's "philanthropy for the 21st century" has become more evident throughout the 1990s, with the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund all providing funding to NGOs, either through direct grants or indirectly via organisations such as the Funders Network on Trade and Globalization. Many of the NGOs that have received Rockefeller-sourced grants--such as the World Development Movement, The Ruckus Society and the Center for Public Integrity--are ostensible opponents of the same corporate globalisation agenda that David has done so much to promote, while others are proponents of strengthened and "democratised" international institutions and laws.
Nevertheless NGOs, through their currently unrivalled ability to circumvent normal diplomatic processes by claiming to represent "civil society", have proved to be very effective, generally publicly unaccountable organs for both eroding national sovereignty and building global governance. As some analysts have observed, NGOs are at the forefront of a "new diplomacy" that "devalues national sovereignty in favour of multilateral agreements" in which interest groups seek to "accomplish internationally what they cannot achieve domestically" (Davenport). The NGO approach, another analyst warned, involves the "undermining of decision-making systems based on constitutionalism and popular sovereignty", in favour of a system that "posits 'interests' (whether NGOs or businesses) as legitimate actors along with popularly elected governments" (Bolton).
Although some NGOs are adamantly opposed to David's pro-market and pro-free trade agenda, his overall strategy appears to be to co-opt, compromise and ultimately control as many of the NGOs as possible, utilising them as a vital third force both for creating and, in some cases, managing the emerging structure of global governance. As for those NGOs that cannot be deradicalised and accommodated, and insist on pursuing more revolutionary anti-capitalist agendas and methods, they have been deprived of funding and left to the mercy of state oppression.
Clearly, the NGOs have their uses, but David will not tolerate the anti-corporate rhetoric actually becoming policy--especially if it threatens his own goals. "One World", Ready or Not.
In Memoirs, David admits without any trace of irony to his goal of building "a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world". Considering the tangible evidence of David's New World Order agenda, much of it from his own public statements and writings, it would be churlish to dismiss as "right-wing nuts" or proponents of "wacky conspiracy theories" those who have long been suspicious of the plutocrat's activities.
But what is particularly striking about David's New World Order vision is that, despite his sometimes flowery rhetoric about democracy, he has never engaged the voting public on his agenda. Instead, he has used his power and influence to convince, cajole and even coerce political leaders and government officials into supporting policies for which ordinary voters have never asked.
In a working democracy, the exercise of such unelected power should be a serious matter. Publicly acceptable attitudes, however, ensure that those who object to David Rockefeller's methods and objectives remain marginalised and easily ridiculed. Even though at exclusive gatherings the power-elite will continue to give thanks to David Rockefeller for his unstinting service in promoting "international cooperation", the requirements of the existing political order demand that the significance of these celebrations be denied.
As for the self-described "proud internationalist", the globalisation process he has helped unleash is proving unstoppable, if only because relatively few political leaders are willing to challenge the "consensus".
http://www.dowz.net/articles/vicmartel/jewswealth.htm
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。