How The Elite Dominate The World – Part 5: The Endgame Is Complete And Utter Global Domination

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Do you want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a global socialist “utopia” in which everything about their lives is micromanaged by bureaucrats working for a worldwide system of government instituted by the elite?  To many of you this may sound like something out of a futuristic science fiction novel, but the truth is that this is exactly where the elite want to take us.  This is their endgame.

Their agenda has been quietly moving forward for decades, and if we don’t take a stand now, future generations of Americans could very well end up living in a dystopian nightmare with none of the liberties or freedoms that we enjoy today.

Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, Dr. Carroll Quigley, wrote about this network of elitists in a book entitled Tragedy and Hope…

In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments…my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known…because the American branch of this organisation (sometimes called the “Eastern Establishment”) has played a very significant role in the history of the United States in the last generation.

In other parts in this series, I have discussed the tools that the elite are using to achieve their goals.  In part I, I talked about how debt is used as a tool of enslavement, and in part II I explained how central banking is a system of financial control that literally dominates the entire planet (Part III and Part IV here)  Professor Quigley also mentioned this system of financial control in his book…

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.”

Today, a system of interlocking global treaties is slowly but surely merging us into a global economic system.  The World Trade Organization was formed on January 1, 1995, and 164 nations now belong to it.  And every time you hear of a new “free trade agreement” being signed, that is another step toward a one world economy.

Of course economics is just one element of their overall plan.  Ultimately the goal is to erode national sovereignty almost completely and to merge the nations of the world into a single unified system of global governance.

The United Nations is the apex of this planned structure, and the globalists are always looking for ways to transfer more power to this institution.  For example, that is what the Paris Climate Accord was all about.  Since the climate affects everyone, it gives the globalists a perfect excuse to argue that the world needs to “work together”.  The following comes from the official UN website…

To address climate change, countries adopted the Paris Agreement at the COP21 in Paris on 12 December 2015. The Agreement entered into force less than a year later. In the agreement, all countries agreed to work to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and given the grave risks, to strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Implementation of the Paris Agreement is essential for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, and provides a roadmap for climate actions that will reduce emissions and build climate resilience.

“Protecting the environment” sounds like a reasonable goal, right?

Well, when you click on the link for the “Sustainable Development Goals”, it sends you to a website where you can read about the 17 pillars of the plan to “end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all” that were agreed to by all of the members of the UN in September 2015.

This plan is also known as “Agenda 2030”, and when you dig into the details of this plan you quickly realize that it is literally a blueprint for global government.

Sadly, most Americans don’t realize this, and neither do they understand that this has been the goal of the elite for a very long time.  For instance, during an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1992, President George H.W. Bush made the following statement…

It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.

Say what?

Once you start looking into these things, you will see that the elite are very openly telling us what they intend to do.

One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a quote from David Rockefeller’s book entitled Memoirs…

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

As David Rockefeller openly admitted, they are “internationalists” that are intent on establishing a one world system.

Candidates for Congress are not supposed to talk about this stuff, but if I am elected I am promising to fight the globalists on every front.

We are literally in a battle for the future of our children and our grandchildren.  If the globalists have their way, American sovereignty will continue to erode and the United States will slowly but surely be merged into a one world system.

But that isn’t going to happen on our watch.  Those of us that love liberty and freedom are going to take this country back, and we will never stop fighting the insidious agenda of the globalists.

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

China's Electric (A.K.A. Coal-Fueled) Car Companies Soar On Promise Of Petrol Vehicle Ban

A few weeks ago we highlighted an "inconvenient fact" for the publicly traded electric car manufacturers and the environmentally-conscious Left, namely that, according to Morgan Stanley, electric cars generate more CO2 than they save.  As a stark reminder to our left-leaning political elites who created these companies with massive taxpayer funded subsidies in the United States, Morgan Stanley pointed out that while electric cars don"t burn gasoline they do have to be charged using electricity generated by coal and other fossil fuels.

This is where Tesla, along with China’s Guoxuan High-Tech fall short.

“Whilst the electric vehicles and lithium batteries manufactured by these two companies do indeed help to reduce direct CO2 emissions from vehicles, electricity is needed to power them,” Morgan Stanley wrote. “And with their primary markets still largely weighted towards fossil-fuel power (72% in the U.S. and 75% in China) the CO2 emissions from this electricity generation are still material.”

In other words, “the carbon emissions generated by the electricity required for electric vehicles are greater than those saved by cutting out direct vehicle emissions.”

Morgan Stanley calculated that an investment of $1 million in Canadian Solar results in nearly 15,300 metric tons of carbon dioxide being saved every year. For Tesla, such an investment adds nearly one-third of a metric ton of CO2.

Which seems like the perfect backdrop to report on the recent comments of Xin Guobin, vice-minister of industry and information technology, who told a forum in the northern city of Tianjin over the weekend that his ministry had started “relevant research” for establishing a timeline to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles in the Chinese market.  According to The Guardian, Xin said the policy would be implemented "in the near future."

“These measures will promote profound changes in the environment and give momentum to China’s auto industry development,” he said in remarks broadcast by CCTV state television.

“Enterprises should strive to improve the level of energy saving for traditional cars, and vigorously develop new energy vehicles according to assessment requirements,” he said.

China produced and sold more than 28m vehicles last year, according to the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.

Ironically, China generates 65% of its power, more than double the U.S., from the "dirtiest" fuel available: coal.  So, while the move to electric cars will undoubtedly be praised by blissfully ignorant politicians and environmental lobbyists, the end result will be even higher carbon emissions.

Of course, this is hardly a China-centric development as Bloomberg recently noted that almost 80% of the global auto market is pushing toward a phase-out of petroleum cars in favor of more "environmentally friendly" electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, aggregate global electric vehicle sales are expected to overtake internal combustion engines within about 20 years.

Ironically, the end result of this effort to "save the environment" will be more expensive vehicles, landfills full of lithium-ion batteries and more coal-fired generation plants...but, somehow we suspect those "inconvenient facts" are lost on our politicians and enviros who seem determined to subsidize Elon"s trip to Mars.

Oh well, at least electric car investors in China are having a good day...

China"s new energy car shares surging, after govt official said over the weekend China to make timetable for banning diesel and petrol cars pic.twitter.com/uIeZkilMhZ

— YUAN TALKS (@YuanTalks) September 11, 2017

Das Fears Rising Social Tensions As "The Old Are Eating The Young"

Authored by Satyajit Das, originally posted at Bloomberg.com,

Around the world, a generational divide is worsening...

Edmund Burke saw society as a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. A failure to understand this relationship underlies a disturbing global tendency in recent decades, in which the appropriation of future wealth and resources for current consumption is increasingly disadvantaging future generations. Without a commitment to addressing this inequity, social tensions in many societies will rise sharply.

Central to the issue is that the rapid rise in living standards and prosperity of the past 50 years has been largely based on rising debt levels, ignoring the costs of environmental damage and misallocation of scarce resources.

A significant proportion of recent economic growth has relied on borrowed money -- today standing at a dizzying 325 percent of global gross domestic product. Debt allows society to accelerate consumption, as borrowings are used to purchase something today against the promise of future repayment. Unfunded entitlements to social services, health care and pensions increase those liabilities. The bill for these commitments will soon become unsustainable, as demographic changes make it more difficult to meet.

Degradation of the environment results in future costs, too: either rehabilitation expenses or irreversible changes that affect living standards or quality of life. Profligate use of mispriced non-renewable natural resources denies these commodities to future generations or increases their cost.

The prevailing approach to dealing with these problems exacerbates generational tensions. The central strategy is “kicking the can down the road” or “extend and pretend,” avoiding crucial decisions that would reduce current living standards, eschewing necessary sacrifices, and deferring problems with associated costs into the future.

Rather than reducing high borrowing levels, policy makers use financial engineering, such as quantitative easing and ultra-low or negative interest rates, to maintain them, hoping that a return to growth and just the right amount of inflation will lead to a recovery and allow the debt to be reduced. Rather than acknowledging that the planet simply can’t support more than 10 billion people all aspiring to American or European lifestyles, they have made only limited efforts to reduce resource intensity. Even modest attempts to deal with environmental damage are resisted, as evidenced by the recent fracas over the Paris climate agreement. Short-term gains are pursued at the expense of costs which aren’t evident immediately but will emerge later.

This growing burden on future generations can be measured. Rising dependency ratios -- or the number of retirees per employed worker -- provide one useful metric. In 1970, in the U.S., there were 5.3 workers for every retired person. By 2010 this had fallen to 4.5, and it’s expected to decline to 2.6 by 2050. In Germany, the number of workers per retiree will decrease to 1.6 in 2050, down from 4.1 in 1970. In Japan, the oldest society to have ever existed, the ratio will decrease to 1.2 in 2050, from 8.5 in 1970. Even as spending commitments grow, in other words, there will be fewer and fewer productive adults around to fund them.

Budgetary analysis presents a similarly dire outlook. In a 2010 research paper, entitled “Ask Not Whether Governments Will Default, But How,” Arnaud Mares of Morgan Stanley analyzed national solvency, or the difference between actual and potential government revenue, on one hand, and existing debt levels and future commitments on the other. The study found that by this measure the net worth of the U.S. was negative 800 percent of its GDP; that is, its future tax revenue was less than committed obligations by an amount equivalent to eight times the value of all goods and services America produces in a year. The net worth of European countries ranged from about negative 250 percent (Italy) to negative 1,800 percent (Greece). For Germany, France and the U.K., the approximate figures were negative 500 percent, negative 600 percent and negative 1,000 percent of GDP. In effect, these states have mortgaged themselves beyond their capacity to easily repay.

A final revealing measure is the concept of lifetime net tax benefit, which measures the benefits received over a person’s life by calculating the difference between all taxes paid and all the government transfers that he or she has received and will receive. A 2010 study from the International Monetary Fund found that in the U.S. the lifetime tax burden was positive (tax paid was less than benefits received) for all age cohorts above 18 years, with the largest benefit accruing to those over age 50. But the figure for future generations is negative (benefits received will be less than taxes paid), meaning they’ll have to meet the obligations of their elders.

Such measurements probably understate the shortfall, as they fail to account for the cost of environmental damage or higher commodity prices resulting from resource shortages. Future generations will bear the ultimate cost of present decisions or inaction. As in Francisco Goya’s famous painting, “Saturn Devouring His Son,” today, the old are eating their children.

Trump Didn't Kill The Paris Agreement - It Was Already Dead

President Trump recently removed the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, heralded by many as a major win for global climate action. The Paris Climate Agreement, signed during the Obama administration, attempted to include the entire world and managed to amass 195 signatories.

Given that international climate negotiations are notoriously difficult, that can only be evidence of two things: either the Paris agreement was a truly monumental agreement in which the entire world came together to respond effectively to a global problem or it was so toothless that nobody bothered to object. All things considered, it was probably the latter.

The agreement itself contains very few direct requirements, instead relying on nations to interpret independently and work toward various ill-defined goals. This problem led James Henson, the “father of global awareness of climate change” and an ex-NASA scientist, to condemn the agreement as a fraud. It lacks any enforcement mechanism, instead relying on nations voluntarily to reduce emissions.

Assuming that countries will voluntarily subject themselves to emissions reductions brings into question the need for an international agreement in the first place. Why else would Exxon, Shell, Peabody and other fossil fuel companies traditionally hated by the environmental movement defend the accord? The excitement of many Paris agreement supporters following these statements exposes their naivete.

People worldwide lauded the accord for including 195 countries, but the inclusion of so much of the developing and undeveloped world may have neutered the agreement. Including undeveloped nations in a global climate agreement presents a double bind. Either the outcome will stymie much-needed and fossil fuel-dependent development, or the agreement will not do much at all.

The Paris Agreement, again, took the latter approach by failing to make meaningful change. The agreement’s already vague and unenforceable requirements for developed countries are even more diluted for lower income countries. Interest in the agreement among many low-income countries likely stems from the $100 billion earmarked for payouts to assist in adaptation and mitigation.

Yet even the source of these funds are up in the air, with international public pledges still well beneath the agreed-upon amount. If the money does materialize, the agreement fails to outline any monitoring to make sure funds are used appropriately or a mechanism for their transmission. If mitigating emissions is really the only goal, that money would probably be more effectually spent where sizeable emissions are actually occurring — the developed world.

Including the entire world in climate agreements is unnecessary and, as illustrated above, is likely to reduce their effectiveness. If an international agreement does prove useful for addressing climate change, a better agreement would place responsibility for carbon emissions squarely in the lap of those who emitted them: large, developed countries.

The United States and European Union alone are responsible for more than 50 percent of emissions since 1850. Thus, there’s no reason to complicate negotiations with a worldwide agreement, nor to add to the developing world’s biggest challenge of tackling poverty. If less developed nations are considered at all, it should be to carve out room for their emissions to grow as they develop.

The Trump administration’s decision to leave the Paris agreement may have ramifications such as straining diplomatic relationships, but the claim that Trump is undoing the ultimate solution to global climate change cannot be justified by a plain reading of the agreement’s text. Hand-wringing over the United States’ exit fails to recognize that the Paris agreement is more of a symbolic vanity project for world diplomats than an actionable plan for addressing climate issues.

Studying The Climate Doesn't Make You An Expert On Economics And Politics

In response to the Trump administration"s announcement that it was pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, some of his critics declared that anyone who likes "science" would have supported the accord. 

Not surprisingly, Neil deGrasse Tyson rushed to declare that Trump supported the withdrawal because his administration "never learned what Science is or how and why it works."

But what does "Science" (which Tyson capitalizes for some reason) have to do with it? 

We know that Tyson is of the opinion that there is global warming. We also know that many other physical scientists agree with him. 

But, it does not follow logically that agreeing with Tyson on the matter of climate change must necessarily mean supporting the Paris Climate Agreement.

After all, the Paris Climate Agreement isn"t a scientific study. It"s a political document that lays out a specific public-policy agenda. 

Agreement or disagreement with the accord might hint at one"s opinions about climate science. Or it might not. One can agree that climate change exists and that human beings have a large role in the phenomenon. Agreement on this matter, however, does not dictate that one must also agree with the political policies outlined in the Paris document.

The two are totally independent phenomena. 

Science and Politics Are Not the Same Thing 

An analogy might help illustrate further:

Scientific inquiry tells us that obesity is bad for one"s health. Let"s imagine then, that in response to rising obesity rates, a large number of politicians gather and sign an agreement — let"s call it the London Obesity Avoidance Deal (LOAD). The supporting politicians claim that the deal will reduce obesity and that failure to abide by the agreement will spell a health crisis for humanity. 

Does this mean, then, that any politician who doesn"t sign onto the agreement is an "obesity denier"? Does a failure to approve of the agreement prove that the dissenters believe that obesity is not a real thing? 

Obviously not. 

Those who refuse to sign the agreement may be of the opinion that the LOAD does little to actually reduce obesity. Or, the dissenters may feel that the deal fails to properly compare costs and benefits when imposing its directives. Opponents may feel that "the cure is worse than the disease." 

In any case, dissent from the deal has nothing to do with denying the existence of obesity or the science behind the studies on the matter. 

The Problem with Paris 

The same is true of the Paris deal. Those who disagree with it may very well be — and probably are — taking issue with the specific provisions of the deal which may actually prove to be more costly to people than the presumed global warming itself. 

But, for physicists like Tyson — i.e., people who know nothing about economics or political institutions — public policy is like a magic trick. A group of politicians get together, declare that they"re going to solve problem X, and then problem X is magically solved, so long as everyone supports the "solution." 

But what if the policy prescriptions of the Paris politicians are wrong? Or, what if the cure is worse than the disease? 

Presumably, the agreement is supposed to improve the lives of real-world human beings by improving their standards of living. 

If this is true, then, the Paris agreement must accomplish several things: 

1. It must rely on good science about the climate.

 

2. It must accurately predict the effects of climate change on standards of living.

 

3. It must endorse public policies that will do something to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on standards of living.

 

4. It must demonstrate that these public policies will in fact mitigate the effects of climate change.

 

5. The agreement must demonstrate that the costs of the proposed public policies themselves are lower than the costs of the climate change. 

If the Paris agreement fails to do any of these things, it should be rejected. If the net effect of the agreement is to make people poorer, then the agreement is of no value. 

Now, without making any judgment about climate science itself, we can see just from looking at the Paris agreement that it could easily be rejected on the basis of numbers two, three, four, and five in our list.

After all, the agreement is based on policy predictions that are wildly speculative.They attempt to make predictions about the global economy decades in the future (a notoriously unreliable endeavor) and they fail to honestly take into account the true costs of imposing far-higher energy costs on most of the world"s poor and working classes — which is what the agreement would do. 

In fact, the agreement doesn"t even mention the cost to households that would face higher energy costs under the agreement. The only costs mentioned are the costs of adapting to climate change. In other words, the agreement assumes that there is no downside for households in the agreement"s provisions. That"s a huge red flag right there. 

Also ignored is the opportunity cost of adopting the agreement"s provisions. In real life, adoption of the agreement"s policy prescriptions will lessen growth by reducing access to basic energy resources. In addition to reducing household wealth, this will also reduce tax revenues. Money spent on higher energy costs is money that can"t be spent elsewhere — on things like health care, and research into better agricultural practices. Yet, at the same time, the agreement calls for massive redistribution of wealth and large amounts of government spending on various programs such as "emergency preparedness" and more government "insurance" to pay for the effects of natural disasters. 

Thus, the agreement calls for more spending, while reducing the ability of both the public and private sectors to engage in that spending. It"s a self-defeating endeavor. 

Other opportunity costs include the impact on the production of fresh water. As I noted in a 2015 article: 

A second major factor here in the necessity of energy is fresh water. The California drought has reminded us that fresh water is a scarce resource, even if the government likes to treat it as if it were not. But even as larger populations demand more water, fresh water can be produced through the use of energy via desalinization and pump-based aqueducts.

Today, most such schemes are still uneconomical because the problem of water scarcity can usually be solved through cheaper means such as importing food from wetter climates and through cheaper aqueduct systems that are primarily gravity-based.

In the future, however, as water does become more and more scarce as populations grow, the most practical answer will indeed become more energy-intensive solutions.

By centrally planning and artificially limiting energy usage, however, what the global warming lobby wants to do is raise the price of water processing, and by limiting the use of such methods, also inhibit technological progress by preventing practical experience in the use of water processing and fresh water production.

The Paris Climate Agreement supporters will no doubt retort that the provisions of the agreement will somehow amazingly prevent the need for more spending on clean water in the future by reducing global temperatures. Based on what evidence? Based on a computer model for what will happen decades from now?

With such flimsy evidence, it"s easy to see that it might be wiser to stick with policies we have now that are likely to produce a bird in hand — rather than the two birds in the bush merely promised by the Paris agreement. 

We already know we can help the poor now with cheap energy, more productive capacity, and a robust economy. The Paris agreement only promises to help hypothetical people in the future based on a theoretical and untried public policy regime. 

Many prudent people will elect to go with the former. 

Moreover, many of the global warming lobby"s own people deny that the Paris agreement does much of anything to reduce temperatures anyway. Thus, prudence would dictate a renewed interest in investing in technologies and poverty-relief measures (such as those that encourage more trade and capital investment) that we know will help the poor right now. Adopting policies that cripple our ability to invest in these measures — as the Paris agreement does — only makes matters worse. 

Nevertheless, in the imaginary world of physicists and climate scientists who can"t comprehend the complicated realities of economics and public policy, simply wishing something to be so makes it so. If we just wish really hard that all our problems are solved, surely the good people in government will make it happen.