A Rothschild Plan for World Government

by Dr. K R Bolton
Published: Mar. 24, 2011 – Foreign Policy Journal

Crisis scenarios are the means by which dictators justify control. The most often cited example is Hitler’s “Enabling Act” in the wake of the Reichstag Fire. Another example is the “Patriot Act” in the aftermath of 9/11. Globalist organizations, behind the usual façade of the most idealistic intentions, such as the Club of Rome, have for decades warned of impending planetary doom unless a world control system of inaugurated. While many of the problems addressed by global control enthusiasts are real, attention is deflected away from the fact of those who are making the suggestions for extensive global controls to deal with problems also happen to be those who created the problems in the first place. These are the plutocrats who run a de facto globalist control system, whose aim is to turn it into a de jure system.


Hence, one should raise questions when the oligarchs who run the world financial system draw up world improvement schemes.

One of those in the forefront of exposing such schemes has been Lord Christopher Monckton[1] who has focused on the climate change scenario as part of a world state agenda. Only after threatening a diplomatic incident, Lord Christopher obtained the draft of the Copenhagen treaty that would have imposed an international 2% tax on all financial transactions, a 2% tax on the GDP, and established 700 new United Nations bureaucracies, with the international tax revenue going to the World Bank. However, the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended in disarray without the formal imposition of international taxation and bureaucracy. Lord Monckton stated of the agenda at Copenhagen: “Once again they are desperately trying to conceal from everybody here the magnitude of what they’re attempting to do – they really are attempting to set up a world government.”[2]

Several decades ago, the oligarchs were pushing a similar scheme of United Nations world government and international taxation on the pretext of ending the debt and other economic disparities between the so-called “North and South,” of the developed and developing worlds, never minding the fact that it is their economic and financial system that causes this disparity. It was aimed at concentrating more power into the hand of the international financial system on the pretext of economic and social justice. The scheme was called the “New International Economic Order,” but like other efforts, was abortive.

Is this World State global warming agenda warned of by Lord Monckton, et al, merely speculation, subjective interpretation, a paranoid conspiracy theory? Or is there very specific evidence as to the oligarchic agenda? Indeed, in 2008, Simon Linnett wrote a policy document on the issue, published by The Social Market Foundation.[3] Linnett is Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London.[4] In the Linnett manifesto, he defines “greenhouse emissions” as the new form of “social market;” a speculative new global currency. Linnett states that while it must be market forces and free trade that operate in defining the value of the carbon emission exchange, what is required is a world government. Market forces plus an “international institution” with a constitution equals a World State under oligarchic control. He writes: “That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match.”[5]

Linnett is open in his belief that this façade of “saving the planet” is actually a method of establishing a “new world order” – as he calls it – where nations cede their sovereignty to the “international institution.” What can be plainer than this?

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, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.

Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.

The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue.[6]

Linnett is here overtly stating that “climate change” is merely a step along the way of something more wide-ranging that “may well extend beyond that single but critical issue.” In a word, it is for the plutocrats another ruse, like so many of the past and present.

Of various methods suggested to limit carbon emissions, carbon trading is held by Linnet to be the most effective.[7] Implicit in the various measures of Linnett, including funding new technology[8] 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.”[9]

The reluctance to cede sovereignty to an international authority, Linnett argues, must be overcome in order to get India and China into the international system by showing them that all nations are willing to sacrifice their independence for the greater good. Linnett is specific as to what he had previously called “some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty”: “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.”[10]

This must be one of the most candid and revealing statements ever made from the “inside” regarding the true aims of the global oligarchy. Here Linnett is affirming that the “central banks”, whether nationalized or not, are merely agencies for the private financial system of credit creation, which provide the international banking system with the means by which the oligarchy controls the monetary policies of nations. Any notion of sovereignty, as well as any party political promises about “full employment” etc. are so much rhetoric because a state is not sovereign when it does not have control over its own monetary policy, which in turn is predicated on control over the issue of a state’s credit.[11]

One is reminded of the statement of eminent Harvard historian and globalist Carroll Quigley, who described the aim of the international bankers as being to create “an international system of control”:

In time they brought into their financial network the provisional banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, 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 and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers….The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendents of Meyer Amschel Rothschild…”[12]

Linnett is stating that the mainspring of the international system is the creation of central banks, privately owned by the international bankers such as Rothschild, his employer, which dictate the economic and financial policies of every nation in the world, through “direct control of monetary policy”.[13] 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 EU; the next step being: “to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading.”[14]

A “world body is unlikely to start off as such”, states Linnett, but a constitution would allow it to expand.[15] That is to say, it is the old strategy of Fabian-socialism,[16] centralization of control by gradual stages; or one might say, slowly boiling the frog so that he is unaware as to what’s happening until it’s too late to jump out of the pot. Linnett believes that the lead can be shown by the EU, because of the willingness of European states already to yield their sovereignty to a supranational body, with a “senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. 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.”[17]

“City of London” – Capital of the World State?

The world government that Linnett proposes he calls the World Environment Authority (WEA). This should be based in what Linnett calls a “world city.” [18] Linnett suggests that this “world city” or what one might term a “world capital” be London. However, I feel that one can be more precise and state that what Linnett has in mind is not “London” as most people understand the name, but what is called The City, a certain part of London which comprises the headquarters of international finance, which is a sovereign entity like Vatican City, in-so-far that should the British Monarch desire to enter s/he must seek to have her authority confirmed at the gates of The City by the “Lord Mayor of The City.” That Linnett is meaning The City can be inferred by his description: “London is a world financial centre (possibly ‘the’ world financial centre).”[19] This description does not fit London per se, but the so-called City of London.[20]

The actual name of this “London” is The City of London Corporation. Its oligarchic citizens call The City “the world’s leading financial centre,” exactly as Linnett describes the “London” he wants as the world capital. This City of London is described as “the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’.”[21] Again exactly in accord with the requirements listed by Linnett as needed for the ‘world capital,” it is stated:

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…[22]

The Lord Mayor of the City of London is “not the Mayor of (Greater) London.” Hence, it should be readily seen that The City or the “Square Mile” is something quite different from the London known to the general public throughout the world. This Lord Mayor is elected for one year, and acts as a global ambassador for the international financial institutions situated there, and is “treated overseas as a Cabinet level Minister.”[23] 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.[24]

This at least would appear to be the Rothschild plan: to create an international authority on the pretext of saving the world from global warming, this salvation being somehow achievable by creating a “carbon exchange” as another source of speculative profit for the Rothschilds, et al. The international authority leading towards a “new world order” would have The City of London as its world capital.

One should not mistake this for any type of patriotic or nationalistic sentiment on the part of a CEO employed by Rothschild, who just happens at this stage in his career to be resident in England. The City is not a part of England; it is a sovereign financial state. Its leading functionaries are no more loyal to England than their counterparts are loyal to Germany, France or the USA or whatever other part of the world at which they happen to reside at any given time. Their citizenship is interchangeable according to the requirements of profit maximization. Hence, when someone such as Linnett advocates making The City the capital of a world control system, he does so not as a patriotic Briton (and not, I think, as part of a “British conspiracy” headed up by the House of Windsor) but as an employee of the oldest of the international bankers, the House of Rothschild, whose loyalty, like other such banking dynasties, is not to any nation other than when that nation might serve their interests or provide the weaponry against a recalcitrant state.


[1] Lord Christopher Monckton, British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, author, columnist, inventor, and hereditary peer; served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit during 1982-1986.

[2] “Monckton: Secretive Copenhagen Treaty Creates Larcenous Global Government Tax,” http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckton-secretive-copenhagen-treaty-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html

[3] Simon Linnett, Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008). Online at: http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf

[4] For the past decade Linnett has been in negotiation with UK and EU Administrations regarding carbon trading. Linnet, ibid., p. 21.

[5] Ibid., p. 4.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 8.

[8] Of course the funding for all such initiatives would come from the international banks such as Rothschild.

[9] Linnett, op.cit., p. 12.

[10] Ibid.

[11] K R Bolton, “State Credit and Reconstruction: The First NZ Labour Government,” International Journal of Social Economics, Issue 1, Volume 38, 2011.


[12] C Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 51.

[13] The public is generally hoodwinked into believing that central banks such as the Federal Reserve in the USA or the Bank of England are “state banks” that issue the state’s credit under government direction. The state banks are conduits for credit created by the international banking system. The public is hoodwinked into thinking that there is something magical about money creation that only the wizards of international finance can conjure. Few now recall that in New Zealand, as one of several examples during the 1930s, the 1935 Labour Government not only nationalized the Reserve Bank but issued 1% state credit for funding the famous State housing program, albeit only under immense pressure from the maverick Labour MP John A Lee, who insisted that the Fabian-dominated Government implement its election promises on state credit. Lee however was soon relegated to the margins of politics, despite his popularity. See: John A Lee, Money Power for the People, 1937; This Debt Slavery, 1940 Budget speeches by Lee and Harry Atmore MP. Also: K R Bolton, “State Credit and Reconstruction: The First NZ Labour Government,” op. cit.

[14] Linnett, op.cit., p. 12.

[15] Ibid., p. 14.

[16] As an aside, it might be interesting to note that the Rothschilds and other international bankers funded the Fabian Society’s London School of Economics (LSE). In her autobiography Our Partnership, Mrs Beatrice Webb describes how she and her husband Sidney, founders of the Fabian Society, were provided with funds by the Rothschilds, Sir Julius Wernher and Sir Ernest Cassel to established the LSE. Funding was also received corm the Rockefeller Foundation. The funding is confirmed by the LSE archives: “British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics and Political Science Archives, 1894-2000, Administrative/Biographical history [description],”

Sir Ernest Cassel established the LSE’s chair of “economic geography.” Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild served as a Governor of the LSE. This is one of many examples throughout modern history of how socialism and plutocracy have marched hand-in-hand.

[17] Linnett, op. cit., p. 18.

[18] Ibid., p. 15.

[19] Ibid., p. 19.

[20] The London branch of the Rothschild international banking dynasty, N M Rothschild, was founded in 1811 at The City.

[21] City of London, “What is the City of London?,” http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Council_departments/whatis.htm

[22] Ibid., “Business”, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/

[23] Ibid., “The Lord Mayor of the City of London”, http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/The_Lord_Mayor/

History of Temple Bar, http://www.thetemplebar.info/history:

…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.

No matter how one rationalises the ceremony as a mark of “loyalty” by The City toward the Monarch, it is nonetheless the Monarch who is placed in a subordinate position in seeking permission for entry and waiting for a symbolic affirmation of loyalty from The City on each occasion.

K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno. Recent publications include ‘Trotskyism and the Anti-Family Agenda,’ CKR website, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University (October 2009); ‘Rivalry over water resources as a potential cause of conflict in Asia,’ Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, and Russia and China: an approaching conflict?, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010; Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009.

Source: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/



How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth

The History of the House of Rothschild

DOCUMENTARY – Global Warming or Global Governance? – (83 min.)

PRESENTATION – Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking at Bethel University on Global Warming

VIDEO – Criminal Rothschilds

“Catastrophic Global Warming”, Ecological Brainwashing and World Government

Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

Copenhagen, Carbon Emissions and World Government

Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is One World Government

Rothschilds & Rockefellers: Trillionaires Of The World

VIDEO – Environ-Mentalism: A New Religion for a New Age

The Rothschild Octopus

The Climate Religion and Copenhagen I. UN: “Environment Should Compete with Religion, So That We can Shape People and Countries”

VIDEO – The Rothschilds Exposed

DOCUMENTARY – The Money Masters – How International Bankers Gained Control of America

Who Are The Illuminati?

Crisis as a Means to Building a Global Totalitarian State

The Origins of Modern Banking

The Aim of the Financiers: A One-World Government With a One-World Currency

25 Comments on “A Rothschild Plan for World Government”

  1. Dwight Baker says:

    Taxation has been the driving force all along, to shift our work [money]
    Into whose pocket it went into.
    By Dwight Baker
    March 27, 2011

    First Very Good Article one in which required me to study for many of the words were not those commonly used by me or those that I interact with.

    Therefore for me to try and follow your tangent of thought to get to the core took a bit of time but I did arrive, thanks so much for that lesson in good teaching. That is to say to teach one must first get the pupils attention.

    The big banking powers now —-have no place to go —but try and get bigger and more powerful —-that is their sole task at hand. For it is not the security that they and theirs are lacking —-for they have more than enough of all the earths riches.

    I submit —-it is inbred, cohered and/or with force or peril instilled in them that those things are simply not enough. As for me personally and my understanding of human beings as taught —one that gets on that path becomes one or has been one from birth —- sociopath. And then, how can any one sane, sanguine and local community minded pay much attention to such idiocy?

    Thus is my understanding of the Global Banking Crisis that we all in some way —- must get through without being a non-intrusive puny puppet-like victim.

    MY TAKE on some of the things tried in the past – some that failed and others that worked.

    The hippie generation did not work for the dropouts had no understating of survival other than on the backs of moms and dads. So they tried but found over time found out that work must be done to survive and that did not fit their motif or molded culture.

    On the other hand in the town Ozona Crockett County Tx after the income tax had been enacted for some years, the IRS arrived to collect back taxes due from those who had large Ranching and Land operations. Ozona had become a Mecca for the rich so on Main Street Mansions were built side by side – that was where the Large Landowners and Ranchers lived.

    The IRS went door-to-door demanding to be paid. The Ranchers and Landowners met with the county sheriff and decided what they must do. During the next few weeks the Sheriff escorted the IRS agents out of his county and told them not to come back. Letters come down from IRS headquarters in Washington DC, threaten the Income Tax protestors with acts of violence if they did not pay. Nothing happened much after that I guess it could be said a Mexican Standoff.

    Now, has that been the only time in American History where a local Sheriff took on the seemed unlimited Powers Found in Washington DC? NO!

    The Gangster led Chicago has story after story of the Federal Government trying to get them to comply but went away empty handed.

    The same is true all around but the stories told of people saying NO is not savvy to print or show on a screen.

    Folks we must all respect common laws those that are written in our hearts if we are human and led by our God conscience. All others laws and demands for Taxes owed are suspect at best and worse than worse if we oblige to give in and pay.

    What is the cure today? Form local co-ops using a document called Memorandum of Understanding – work with whom you like and leave the others out — buy cheap in quantities pay cash not check and then spread around to those in the group. As a co-op challenge all illegal things and laws imposed on you and yours, and fly under the radar screen best as you can.

    Give to deserving others best as you can for that is the only pride we find in living.

  2. hybridrogue1 says:

    Oh, okay…yea, I read this. Hah, great info.
    Thanks Dwight,

  3. Dwight Baker says:

    We are not Brits
    By Dwight Baker
    March 27, 2011

    We can own land if we want too, the Brits have not been allowed much land to buy for those in Royalty I guess got it for free. Thus the term Land Barons. Yes they provided sub standard housing and food but bottom line was slavery. Hello sounds a bit like Share Croppers.

    Woody Guthrie poet and songsters sang his heart thus he is one of the best in doing. Yes Woody saw a lot and knew far more than me but the great treasures that belong to We the People was not available for him to know then.

    Who can put their finger on how much of our Rich and Abundant America is owned by us but operated by our Federal Government house of Thugs? I do but you go and find out for yourselves, study does good to bring around the mental juices we all need more of.

    Our Oil revenue is more that what does the IRS collect. But where does all that money go —WHO KNOWS. I DON’T.

    I do know that the crooked politician behind the scenes is nothing more than a rich ranchers son from Colorado appointed in a post that he knows nothing about. Saying Post that is what he needs to do ‘Put in fence post ‘ go back to Colorado and live a lavish life. Out of sight and way from us taking care of the real business at hand ‘Cleaning up our Gulf of Mexico’

    Our Rich Resource that we all own is now dying or dead. Because of BP.

    So what can each of us do about that use these words often in this order let the google sniffers and snitchers know we all know?

    The BP 92 Day Stall that killed All

    If you want that explained contact me for the info.

    • Tron HonoH says:

      They are an inalienable part of China’s territory according to historical facts and international law; Japan’s claim untenable –

      Situated in the East China Sea, due east of Fujian province and northeast of Taiwan, the Diaoyu Islands are the farthest eastern islands of China. They are about 190 nautical miles from the Dongshan Island of Fujian province, 90 nautical miles to the northeast of Keelung city of Taiwan, and 78 nautical miles from the Yunaguni Island of the Ryukyu Islands. The Diaoyu Islands refer to a group of islands that include the main one, Diaoyu Island, and some smaller islands and reefs like Huangwei Island, Chiwei Island, Beixiao Island, Nanxiao Island and three other islets. They are scattered in a sea area at 123 degrees 20 minutes ~ 124 degrees 45 minutes east longitude and 25 degrees 44 minutes ~ 26 degrees north latitude, covering a total land area of 6.5 square kilometers. The surrounding waters of the islands have rich fishing resources and have long been an important fishing ground for people in Fujian and Taiwan of China since ancient times. The well-known Emery Report pointed to the existence of abundant oil and natural gas resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea.

      (1) The Diaoyu Islands are an inalienable part of China’s territory.

      China was the first country that discovered and explored the Diaoyu Islands and obtained sovereignty by occupation. Since ancient times, the Chinese have fished, collected medicinal herbs and sought shelters on these islands and in their surrounding waters. No later than the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), the islands had been discovered, explored and named by the Chinese. Ancient Chinese books, such as the Book on Voyage Routes and the Voyage with a Tail Wind, kept a complete record of the navigation routes used by Chinese fishermen in this sea area. Due to the natural conditions at sea and the possession of technology such as ship-building at that time, only the Chinese military and civilians could reach the islands during the monsoon season. They navigated through the islands and sought haven there in stormy weather. They carried out economic activities such as fishing, collecting herbs and picking fruits. For about five centuries until 1895, China had never been interfered in its exercise of these rights.

      One cannot speak of the Diaoyu Islands without mentioning Ryukyu Kingdom. Ryukyu Kingdom was a vassal state of the Ming and Qing dynasties to which it paid tributes, while the latter sent envoys to grant honorific titles to the kings in Ryukyu in recognition of their rule. The Diaoyu Islands were on the navigation route from China’s mainland to Ryukyu Kingdom. Chinese officials on mission to Ryukyu all referred to these islands as their navigation marks. They put down in the official documents such as the Record of the Mission to Ryukyu with detailed descriptions of their voyages through the Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Island and Chiwei Island and repeatedly confirmed the boundary between China and Ryukyu. Historical facts tell us that the Diaoyu Islands do not fall into the domain of Ryukyu. China’s historical records and official documents all show that it was the Chinese people who first discovered, developed and utilized the Diaoyu Islands. According to the international law of that time, discovery means occupation and occupation means obtainment of territorial sovereignty. Therefore, China obtained sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands by occupation.

      The Chinese government exercised effective rule and administration, and strengthened its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. Successive Chinese governments all included the Diaoyu Islands into the confines of China’s territory and exercised sovereignty and effective rule by taking measures to develop, utilize and administer the islands. In 1171, General Wang Dayou guarding Fujian established military camps on Penghu Islands and sent officers to station in the islands. Taiwan and its affiliated islands including the Diaoyu Islands were under the military command of Penghu and, in terms of administration, they were under Jinjiang of Quanzhou, Fujian province. Both the Ming and Qing dynasties incorporated the Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands into their territory and designated them as part of the maritime defense areas. The Book on Managing the Sea (1562, Ming Dynasty) and Imperial Map of Chinese and Foreign Lands (1863, Qing Dynasty) made clear descriptions about the area. Historical facts show that the Chinese government has administered the Diaoyu Islands in various ways and effectively exercised and strengthened its sovereignty over the Islands.

      (2) Japan’s arguments about its claim of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands are untenable.

      There are mainly two legal arguments that Japan has evoked to justify its occupation of the Diaoyu Islands: First, occupation of so-called terra nullius, second, acquisition by prescription (prescriptio acquisitive). Both arguments are untenable.

      By international law, the object of occupation shall be limited to terra nullius. Terra nullius refers to land which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state or over which any prior sovereign state has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. The fact is that Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islands have been subject to the sovereignty of the Chinese government as its sea defense area since the Ming Dynasty. They are an inalienable part of China’s territory. Due to the inhospitable natural environment, these islands are not permanently inhabited and fishermen only take up abode on these islands for seasonal activities. But having no permanent residents does not make these islands terra nullius. The Diaoyu Islands are not terra nullius. They are China’s territory. The Japanese government and society are well aware of this fact. The official archives of the Japanese government and documents and correspondence of Japanese officials all record and give evidence to this. For example, in the letter to Home Minister Aritomo Yamagata, then Japanese Foreign Minister Kaoru Inoue wrote in explicit terms that these islands had already been given Chinese names by the Qing government and that the Japanese government had been admonished by the Qing government for coveting these islands. Since the Diaoyu Islands are not terra nullius, Japan’s so-called occupation is non-existent. Ex injuria jus non oritur (A legal right or entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act or omission) is a fundamental principle of international law. Japan’s so-called occupation is mala fide, illegal and unjustifiable; it therefore does not have the legal effect as what may arise from occupation recognized by international law.

      The other argument that Japan presents is “long and continuous effective administration”, that is, to obtain sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands based on acquisition by prescription (prescriptio acquisitive).

      “Acquisition by prescription” of territory has been all along an extremely disputable issue in international law. Those against it totally deny the legitimacy of prescription as a way to obtain territory. They are of the view that this is “merely a legal argument serving expansionist countries for occupying others’ territories”. Those for it see prescription as a way to obtain territory, it is defined as “the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty over it, and during such a period as is necessary to create under the influence of historical development the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.” International judicial practice has never clearly confirmed the status of “prescription” as an independent way to acquire territory. As for the exact time span of the “period as is necessary”, international law has no final verdict to make it 50 years or 100 years.

      If we put aside the legitimacy of “acquisition by prescription” and merely examine the key factors, it is clear that both the Chinese central government and the Taiwan local authority have been firm, explicit and consistent on issues concerning China’s sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and in opposing Japan’s attempt to steal them. They have launched protests, especially diplomatic protests, against official and government-supported civilian activities, including setting up a lighthouse on the Diaoyu Island by Japanese right-wingers, “nationalizing” the lighthouse by the Japanese government, paying the “rent” for land on the Diaoyu Islands to those so-called non-governmental owners, and submitting a chart specifying the so-called baselines of the territorial sea of the Diaoyu Islands to the United Nations by the Japanese government. Japan can never gain legitimate rights over the Diaoyu Islands through occupation no matter how long it may last.

      (3) Agreements between Japan and the United States cannot grant Japan sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

      In the wake of World War II, the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the outcome of the Anti-fascist victory clearly defined the territory of Japan. According to the Cairo Declaration issued by China, the US and the UK in December 1943, their purpose is that “Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of World War I in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese” shall be restored to China. “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed”.

      The Potsdam Proclamation issued in 1945 reaffirmed that “the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine”. On Jan 29, 1946, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Instruction No 667 explicitly stipulated the range of the Japanese territory, which included the four major islands of Japan (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu Islands north of 30 degrees north latitude. The delimitation of the Japanese territory by the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation is clear-cut. The Diaoyu Islands are not included in the Japanese territory in any way.

      On Sept 8, 1951, Japan and the US concluded the San Francisco Peace Treaty in the absence of China and the Soviet Union, two victorious countries in the war against Japan, putting Nansei Shoto south of 29 degrees north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands) under the US trusteeship. The Diaoyu Islands were not mentioned in the treaty, nor by the Japanese government’s later explanations thereof. On Dec 25, 1953, the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands issued the Civil Administration Proclamation No 27 on the geographical boundaries of the Ryukyu Islands and defined the areas administered by the US government and the Ryukyu Civil Administration as the islands, islets, atolls, rocks and territorial waters along 24 degrees north latitude and 122 degrees east longitude.

      This proclamation included the Diaoyu Islands, China’s territory, into their areas of administration. These islands were also included in the areas to be returned to Japan under the Japan-US Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed on June 17, 1971. The Japanese government takes the above-mentioned agreement as the legal ground for its claim of territorial sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

      On Dec 30, 1971, the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointed out in its statement that “the incorporation by the United States and Japan of China’s Diaoyu and other islands into the area of reversion under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement is totally illegal. It does not in any way change the territorial sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China over the Diaoyu and other islands”. The US government also stated that returning the administrative authority over these islands gained from Japan to Japan does not in any way undermine relevant sovereign claim. The United States cannot increase the legal right Japan had prior to its handover of the administrative authority over these islands to China, nor can it undermine the right of other claimants because of the return of the administrative authority to Japan. All the conflicting claims over these islands are issues that should be resolved by the parties concerned among themselves. On Sept 11, 1996, US State Department spokesperson Nicholas Burns said further that the US neither recognizes nor supports any country’s sovereign claim over the Diaoyu Islands.

      On Sept 1951, the Chinese government issued a statement regarding the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed by the US and Japan without the involvement of the Chinese people and the lawful government of China. It pointed out the illegal nature of the treaty. The “trusteeship” and “reversion” deriving from the treaty included the Diaoyu Islands, thus violating China’s territorial sovereignty and becoming the source of the territorial dispute between China and Japan. The San Francisco Peace Treaty and other relevant documents have no right to cover or determine the ownership of the Chinese territory, and cannot have any legal judgment that extends the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands to Japan.

      The Diaoyu Islands are an inalienable part of China’s territory. The so-called administrative authority the US “got from” and “returned to” Japan is unjustified. Japan’s claim over the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands on that basis has no legal ground in international law.


      Japan has never given up its attempt to gain sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. It first destroyed China’s markings on the islands, then renamed the islands, and built a heliport and other facilities. In recent years, Japan went even further. It abetted what it called “civilian actions” to create a fait accompli of “actual control” of the Diaoyu Islands, followed by government renting and “takeover” actions. All this aim to pave the legal grounds for its occupation of the Diaoyu Islands and gradually win recognition from the international community. However, Japan’s claim to sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands and its encroachment are illegal in the first place. Therefore, its carefully designed “government actions” have no legal ground and do not constitute the execution of state power. They never had, and will never have, any legal effect.

      Article II of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone promulgated in 1992 makes clear that the Diaoyu Islands and other islands are Chinese territory, and reaffirms the legality of China’s ownership of them. In 2009, a Chinese marine surveillance and law enforcement ship was sent to the Diaoyu Islands in repudiation of Japan’s “acquisition by prescription”. This was also a concrete action of China’s exercise of sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

  4. Diane Di says:

    I am very concerned / afraid of what the future holds for our children / grandchildren. Perhaps even sooner – we are continually being bombarded with lies from those in “authority” (what a joke).
    We need to pull back the curtain of denial – ask questions, demand answers.

    Every level needs to be questioned – our food supply first and foremost – as well as our water. Of course we are being dragged into another fraudulent war for oil, and control of all resources, just like the others.

    People, please stop supporting this and other corporate funded initiatives.
    BP is no different from GE.
    One hand washes the other – and – is funding government and main stream media.

    If people would only stop believing this nonsense & just listen to other media for only 10 minutes. Russia Today / Al Jazeera / Democracy Now.
    I’m not saying they are perfect, however they do supply alternative views.

    I can’t express my contempt for mainstream media. Once you know the truth, everything is such an obvious and deliberate lie.


    • Robert Marshall says:

      I am afraid most American have allowed the Washington think tank to do their thinking. There are good sources to find the true stories without listening to the CIA run news media. Actually the CFR has people in every faucet of the government as well as the news media.How many know what the AIPAC is and how they influence congress. If you thought the US taxpayer gave three billion per year to Israel be prepared for a shock. This year so far Palestine has recieved no dollars. It is never overa milllion while Israel has a military power that has nuclear weapons capable of destroying the Middle East.Every American that supported the Iraqi War knowing it was a lie is guilty of helping the US Global Hegemony.

  5. Dwight Baker says:

    A Man without a Mission is a Relic #1
    By Dwight Baker
    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    Off way off in the distance is Judgment Day yet many live as though that is not true. Denial of pending death is not a subject that many will delve into.

    Many that I know want to gripe and complain —not worry much about the Day of Judgment. Yet some of the less worthy to do anything much at all have risen to the top of the peak to look out and say ‘I did my best’.

    Thus work has proven to be the best of the best while alive. For what waits for us in death no one knows. So why not make the best of the best while alive and ‘Work’.

    BP had drilled a well in the same formation Macondo and it proved not able to drill — for in it like the Macondo well was highly porous and natural gas come screaming at them many times. The records show that they abandoned the well and moved the Deep Horizon over to drill the Macondo well. So, who did not know in BP management they were on perilous footing?

    Katrina come raging in and the dikes holding the water back got blown up.
    Shambles comes for property and people in epic proportions.

    What could be the connection? I have well rounded and grounded suspicions that our Gulf has been a target to destroy for a very long time. Much like North Africa is today has its head in the gallows by the same bunch.

    What could be the reason to take the Gulf coast out —-needed bad land.

    Where in the World Is Calcasieu Parish, and Why Does It Have So Many Industrial Facilities?
    Words from http://www.mapcruzin.com/mossville/reportondioxin.htm

    Calcasieu Parish is located in southwest Louisiana. The western border of the parish is the Texas state line and its southern border is just a few soggy miles from the Gulf of Mexico. There is a major east-west 1-10 interstate that runs directly through the parish and its major cities of Lake Charles, Westlake and Sulphur, as part of its connection between Jacksonville, Florida and Los Angeles, California. Access to the Gulf of Mexico was made possible more than 50 years ago when a ship channel was dug in the major north-south waterway called the Calcasieu Estuary. The Calcasieu Estuary is a 40+ mile-long network of bayous, lakes, and a river that flushes down from the north of Lake Charles directly to the Gulf of Mexico.

    Location helped play a large role in the industrialization of this swampy area, transforming it into a booming petrochemical center. Similar to its toxic neighbor “Cancer Alley,” located about 150 miles to the east, Calcasieu Parish has a high concentration of toxic petrochemical industrial factories. See GIS Map of Industrial Facilities in Calcasieu Parish, appendix 1. “Cancer Alley” is infamous for the more than 130 manufacturing facilities that pollute the approximately 100-mile stretch of the Mississippi River Corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. On a per square mile basis, Calcasieu Parish surpasses the mass industrialization along the Mississippi River. There are more than 53 industrial factories in Calcasieu Parish, and more than forty of these plants are located within a 10-mile radius.

  6. Dwight Baker says:

    A Man without a Mission is a Relic #2
    By Dwight Baker
    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    About 50 years ago, Calcasieu Parish became a favorite location for some of the nation’s major war time oil and gas refineries. The access to natural resources, global markets via the land and sea, and a willing group of local politicians eager to grant tax breaks and zoning changes to attract these fledgling industries to make Calcasieu Parish their home. After the war, these refineries developed products from their waste material, and thus the birth of plastics. There is a major salt dome located under the parish. Salt consists of sodium and chlorine. Chlorine, when combined with the petroleum refining by-product ethylene, becomes the building block for vinyl plastic. Calcasieu Parish rode the wave of the industrial future and became the home to more vinyl production than any other community in America.

    Source: Environmental Defense Scorecard, 1997 TRI Data
    1 LOUISIANA PIGMENT CO. 3,122,196 lbs.
    2 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. 2,242,249 lbs.
    4 PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. 546,705 lbs.
    5 CONDEA-VISTA CO. (now GEORGIA GULF) 449,449 lbs.
    6 ARCO CHEMICAL CORP. 228,885 lbs.
    8 WESTLAKE POLYMERS CORP. 182,981 lbs.
    9 OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP. 153,788 lbs.
    10 W.R. GRACE AND CO. 137,400 lbs.
    11 OLIN CORP. 55,828 lbs.
    12 CALCASIEU REFINING CO. 44,341 lbs.
    13 MONTELL USA INC. 32,686 lbs.
    14 CARBOLINE CO. 22,538 lbs.
    15 BIOLAB INC. 17,494 lbs.
    17 WESTLAKE STYRENE CORP. 12,168 lbs.
    18 RESIN SYS. INC. 9,070 lbs.
    20 CERTAINTEED CORP. 4,500 lbs.

  7. Dwight Baker says:

    A Man without a Mission is a Relic #3
    By Dwight Baker
    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    These industrial facilities must comply with the laws and regulations of the federal Clean Air Act among others. The EPA has delegated to the LDEQ the authority to issue air permits and enforce them. The LDEQ has been viewed as rubber-stamping permits for polluters. In the case where a large industrial facility seeks a permit to release 100 tons per year or more of listed toxic chemicals, the EPA must review the draft permit that the LDEQ plans to issue. The EPA’s responsibility here is to determine whether the permit should be issued or not. In only 5 cases in the country, two of which occurred in Louisiana, the EPA denied a state draft permit for a large facility. Each of these EPA decisions required massive citizen protest and legal challenges.

    Companies that are permitted to pollute are required by federal law to annually report to the EPA and states the amount of chemicals they release into the air, water, or land, inject underground or transfer to off-site facilities. The EPA then organizes these reports in a database called the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and makes it available to the public. The most recent and complete TRI data available to the public are based on toxic emissions in 1997. Only preliminary TRI data have been pre-released to report on the emissions released in the year 1998. The EPA plans to finalize the 1998 TRI report by June 2000.(3)
    Louisiana ranks second in the nation in toxic releases in 1997, but 10th in the nation according to the 1998 TRI figures. The drop in ranking is not due to any pollution reductions in the state. To the contrary, emission levels have increased in Louisiana since 1997. The lower ranking is due to changes in TRI reporting requirements that for the first time include seven new categories of emissions, such as releases from mining operations and electric utility generation.(4)
    According to the 1997 TRI data, there were 9,635,278 pounds of total environmental releases and 331,446,121 pounds of production-related wastes in Calcasieu Parish. According to this data, the largest category of toxic releases was to the air at 6,063,638 pounds of air emissions. In 1998 the total environmental releases in Calcasieu Parish went up to 9,722,916 pounds, an increase of 87,630 pounds. Releases to air also increased by 9,040 pounds for a total of 6,072,678 pounds in 1998.(5)

  8. Dwight Baker says:

    A Man without a Mission is a Relic #4
    By Dwight Baker
    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    Calcasieu Parish is ranked in the 90th percentile in the United States for all five categories of high environmental releases of toxic chemicals, cancer risk related to toxic releases, air releases of recognized carcinogens, air releases of recognized developmental toxicants, and air releases of recognized reproductive toxicants.(6) See Tables 1-B and 2-D below. Many of the chemicals released have serious human health impacts.

    To close: I have my well rounded and grounded opinions for the reason why I study: Now study if you wish then make up your own mind

    The BP 92 Day Stall that killed All

  9. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

  10. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

  11. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. from → New World Order ← “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – A Summary No comments yet […]

  12. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

  13. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_bg", "ffffff"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_text", "333333"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_link", "772124"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_border", "eeeeee"); GA_googleAddAttr("theme_url", "58181b"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "business"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "economy"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "new-world-order"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "bis"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "dr-carroll-quigley"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "federal-reserve"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "fractional-reserve-banking"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "global-elite"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "international-banksters"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "occupy-wall-street"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough"); Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. from → Economy, New World Order ← Who Really Controls the World? No comments yet […]


  15. […] A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

  16. […] Continue reading A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

  17. […] Continue reading A Rothschild Plan for World Government […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s