October 30, 2010



Rockefeller Study Outlines “Doom Decade”:

Life For All But Super Wealthy Will Be Hell On Earth

Rockefeller Study Outlines Doom Decade: Life For All But Super 
Wealthy Will Be Hell On Earth 160710world
Terror attacks, natural disasters and a surveillance security crackdown
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.comFriday, Jul 16th, 2010
In our leading articletoday we provide an overview of the nightmare future envisaged by a recent Rockefeller Foundation study which describes a global dictatorship tightly controlled by the world’s elite and super rich.
The Rockefeller blueprint for a new world order entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” predicts four future narratives.
One narrative in particular, “Hack Attack” outlines a scenario in which Technology is demonized as a criminal weapon prevalent in a world where civilization has all but collapsed.
“Devastating shocks like September 11, the Southeast Asian tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake had certainly primed the world for sudden disasters. But no one was prepared for a world in which large-scale catastrophes would occur with such breathtaking frequency.” the report states.
“The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the “doom decade” for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change.” it continues.
The study envisages nation states all over the world literally losing control of their public finances and the ability to retain order and stability with “violence and crime more rampant”. It also envisions global coordination and interconnectedness between nations breaking down altogether to be replaced by proxy wars and low level conflict.
“By 2030, the distinction between “developed” and “developing” nations no longer seemed particularly descriptive or relevant.” the report states.
The only ones able to prosper in such an environment (surprise surprise) are the global elite and the super wealthy:
“The global have/have-not gap grew wider than ever. The very rich still had the financial means to protect themselves; gated communities sprung up from New York to Lagos, providing safe havens surrounded by slums. In 2025, it was de rigueur to build not a house but a high-walled fortress, guarded by armed personnel.” the report states.
As a backdrop to this chaos, the study attacks advanced technology, in particular the internet, depicting it as a tool for criminals and terrorists:
Rockefeller Study Outlines Doom Decade: Life For All But Super 
Wealthy Will Be Hell On Earth 160710net2“Technology hackers were also hard at work. Internet scams and pyramid schemes plagued inboxes. Meanwhile, more sophisticated hackers attempted to take down corporations, government systems, and banks via phishing scams and database information heists, and their many successes generated billions of dollars in losses.” the study prophesies.
“The internet is overrun with spam and security threats and becomes strongly associated with illicit activity — especially on “dark webs” where no government can monitor, identify, or restrict activities.” the report states elsewhere.
Of course, the solution to fight such envisioned evils is to implement a highly sophisticated surveillance security system:
“Identity-verification technologies become a staple of daily life, with some hitches — a database of retina recordings stolen by hackers in 2017 is used to create numerous false identities still “at large” in the mid-2020s.”
“The positive effects of the mobile and internet revolutions were tempered by their increasing fragility as scamming and viruses proliferated, preventing these networks from achieving the reliability required to become the backbone of developing economies — or a source of trustworthy information for anybody.” the study outlines.
The message here is clear, the internet revolutionized global communication and enhanced the spread of knowledge, yet it is in its current form uncontrollable, and as such constitutes a great danger to the only ones who can continue to prosper in this nightmare new world order; the global elite.
While communication technology is demonized, other so called advances, such as genetically modified crops are lauded as progressive, despite being mired in controversy in today’s world. The study envisages the by now decimated poorer classes actually benefiting from “backyard and garage activities” including the mass production of GMO foods.
However, the report draws the line on such technological advances when it comes to the production of cheaper medicines and vaccinations, which it intimates will be deadly if allowed to be mass produced outside of elite control.
This study is not a work of dystopian fiction. It has not been written for entertainment value. This is what the Rockefeller Foundation and the elite Global Business Network envisage unfolding in the new world order. This study is deadly serious, and those involved with it’s funding and publication are not playing games.
Furthermore, the scenarios outlined in the report are not simply falling into place naturally, they are being actively implemented. Economic collapse and authoritarian social control are being fomented in front of our eyes by design.
The self correcting free market has been strangled and snuffed out by a combination of government intervention and offshore bankster looting of the planet’s wealth. As this situation continues to worsen, without meaningful corrective action, it is not difficult to imagine the social unrest we are already witnessing becoming global in its scope.
The report compliments these conditions with propaganda and fearmongering over climate change and natural disasters, as well as huge terror attacks.
It takes the overriding agenda of elite social engineers and places it into a not too distant future as a way of normalizing the prospects it outlines. As the report notes in it’s introduction, the scenarios outlined “allow us to imagine, and then to rehearse, different strategies for how to be more prepared for the future — or more ambitiously, how to help shape better futures ourselves.”
Read the report in full below:

The Big Picture of the Truth - The Calling by Max Igan

George Carlin and Bill Hicks tell it like it is

The EU is an Antidote to Democratic governments,

Argues President Barroso

'The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durrão Barroso, has offered one of the few utterly honest arguments for European integration. The reason we need the EU, he suggests, is precisely because it’s not democratic. Left to themselves, elected governments might do all sorts of things simply to humour their voters:
Governments are not always right. If governments were always right we would not have the situation that we have today. Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.

This was, in large measure, the original rationale for European unification. The founding fathers had come through the Second World War with – perhaps understandably – a jaded view of democracy. They fretted that, left to themselves, electorates might fall for demagogues. So they deliberately designed a system in which supreme power was wielded by appointed Commissioners who didn’t need to worry about public opinion.'

David Cameron, according to the Press Association, has claimed a "spectacular success" (in our time) in pegging the EU budget rise next year to just 2.9 percent.

But he hasn't - and there is every possibility that the budget will end up rising by the six percent or so endorsed by the EU parliament. To claim "victory" at this stage is like a football manager calling for his team at half time when he is a goal down, lacks a striker, has no goalkeeper and the referee is working for the opposition.

Far from being a "spectacular success", therefore, this is an example of spectacular stupidity. Or, as MEP and Social Democrat leader Martin Schulz tells The Daily Telegraph, "The negotiations have barely begun - it is not for Mr Cameron to announce their conclusion." His promise is "nonsense" and he is "setting himself up for a fall".

Now, Schulz may be a vile individual – in fact, there is no question. He is a vile individual. But, on EU parliamentary procedure, he knows what he is talking about. Cameron doesn't, as the picture shows (below right) – where he is caught describing his level of knowledge and understanding of EU institutions and their procedures.

And, if you are thinking it can't be that bad, you would be right. It's actually worse. Cameron has walked into a minefield, eyes wide shut, committing an act of quite extraordinary hubris. It amounts to almost suicidal stupidity. It really is spectacular.

His problem is, of course, that he has no power to deliver the goods. He is not even party to the negotiations. The European Council, which he has just attended, has no jurisdiction nor locus in the annual budget negotiations.

All he has managed to do is get the signatures from twelve other member states on an informal letter which simply re-affirms the Council (of Ministers) "common position" which was agreed last August, dropping the payments figure from €130.1bn to €126.5bn. But that is simply a negotiating position, agreed by not 13 but 27 member states. That "position" went before the conciliation committee on 27 October, and the parties have 21 days from that date to agree on a "joint text".

The Committee, not Cameron, has the baton. If it can agree, the final budget could be approved as early as mid-November - but not before. And it would be a very rash man who predicted the outcome.

The procedure, however, is arcane. In the final analysis, the initiative lies with the EU parliament. Here, its position is straightforward – and powerful. Its response to the EU Commission proposal for a 5.9 percent hike – and the 5.9 percent was a Commission, not a parliament proposal – was to increase the figure from €130.1bn to €130.6bn, bringing it to about six percent. That is its negotiating position. The difference is between the Council's €126.5bn and the parliament's £130.6bn.*

Not only is the parliament not going to accept the Council's 2.9 percent, if by some strange – and extremely unlikely – chance the Council actually stuck to its position, the parliament has a veto. It can pull the budget and force the whole procedure to start over, causing a humungous crisis in the EU, which can be laid at the door of the member states.

That ain't going to happen. The Council negotiating team is going to compromise on a figure somewhere between 2.9 and 6.0 percent, most likely at the higher end.

Cameron claims the letter he has got is a "guarantee" the rise will not be any bigger than 2.9 percent. "What we've done is guarantee, with the support of other member states, that this is 2.9 percent," he says. "They've given their word - 2.9 percent and no further. That's the word they've all given. That's the word I've given."

It is not a guarantee. The letter has no status whatsoever. His "word" is an empty promise. If Cameron thinks he has actually got a guarantee (or given one) - he is delusional. Moreover, his advisors should be fired. If he is listening to them, they are turning him into a laughing stock.

Even then, Cameron's other great "victory" is founded on sand. This, we learn of via The Guardianwhich headlines: "David Cameron secures link between EU spending and national budgets". From now on, the strap says, "the people who set the EU budget will have to take into account cuts that are being made at national level."

This is simply not true. What we get out the European Council Conclusions is by no means as firm as Cameron claims. Read it for yourself. It says:
Heads of State or Government stressed that, at the same time as fiscal discipline is reinforced in the European Union, it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming Multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path. Respecting the role of the different institutions and the need to meet Europe's objectives, the European Council will discuss at its next meeting how to ensure that spending at the European level can make an appropriate contribution to this work.
The "money quote" is that the European Council has agreed to discuss to how the EU can make "an appropriate contribution" to helping national governments reduce their debt. That is all – very far short of making a firm link, or any link at all between the EU and national budgets. At best, it is simply a commitment to discuss the issue in very general terms. Cameron is vastly over-selling what he has achieved.

Altogether then, we have a truly weird situation. Prime ministers very often grandstand at European Councils, but their posturing usually has a basis in reality. Cameron's positions have none. Effectively, he has climbed out on the most exposed limb he can find and now seems to be offering invitations to anyone who wants to saw it off.

I do not ever recall a British politician who has displayed such a poor grasp of the issues and put himself in such a [politically] dangerous and exposed position. With neither exaggeration nor hyperbole, one can truly say that the man is plumbing new depths.

* As the Wall Street Journal blog points out, the EU budget is also reckoned on an accrual basis. This allocates commitments to spending to specific years, regardless of when the funds are disbursed. By the payment method, the EU budget in 2010 is €122.9 billion; by the commitments method it's €141.5 billion. The council wants a 0.2% increase in commitments and parliament 1.1%.

Chamberlain pic from Anoneumouse.
Links to this post