The City of London is a separate sovereign State located in the heart of greater London and not
subject to British law. It is a Corporation. The City of London and London City
is not the same. In fact City of London does not belong to UK, England, Great
Britain or Britain. The City is
not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA. The City of
London is a privately owned corporation operating under its own flag, with its
own constitution and free from the legal constraints that govern the rest of
the country.
See also: http://worldtraining.net/City.htm http://worldtraining.net/NAU.htm also: THIS PAGE is part of a series on the New World Order,
a regime that rules you without your knowledge or consent: http://worldtraining.net/NWO.htm http://worldtraining.net/NWO2.htm continuing
up to http://worldtraining.net/NWO25.htm
Goldman Sachs
couldn't do God's work without City of London, the Western oligarchy's
'European Headquarters'
Niall Bradley Sott.net 25 Jan 2015 The British EmpireÕs seamless integration into
a US-led Western Empire has been so successful that its enemies rarely know
what theyÕre fighting against. Above, the Ôbelly of the beastÕ
in Europe, the City of London, Inc. Noam
Chomsky once wrote, regarding censorship, that while you will not find the
truth on the front pages, it's very often in plain sight on the business pages.
The following gem in yesterday's Guardian
isn't quite 'splainin' things up front, but
with geopolitics and Western oligarchs' 'balance-of-power' strategy in mind, it's
not difficult to see what 'God's emissary' was getting at: Britain must remain in Europe, says Goldman Sachs
president
The Guardian - Sat, 24
Jan 2015 The head of one of the world's leading investment banks has
said Britain should remain in the EU, describing London as "a great
financial capital of the world". Goldman Sachs' president and chief
operating officer Gary Cohn said it is the best thing "for all of us"
that the financial services industry stays in London."All
of us", of course, refers to other Western oligarchs
like Cohn. Mr
Cohn told the BBC: "I think for the UK it's imperative to keep the
financial services industry in London
ÒWe all want to stay in London - it is our European headquarters.Ó
i.e., London is the Western
oligarchy's base of operations for ruling over Europe. "I think that having a great financial
capital of the world staying in the UK and having the UK be part of Europe is
the best thing for all of us."Prime minister
David Cameron has pledged to hold an in-out referendum on Britain's membership
of the EU if the Conservatives regain power in the general election in May. Same old Tories, same
old liars. That's exactly what Cameron promised his 'base' in order to
win the last elections.
Cohn's comments
came after the chancellor, George Osborne, told an audience in Davos that he wanted Britain to stay in the EU provided
certain treaty changes could be agreed.He
risked angering Britain's European partners by saying that continental
countries needed to follow Britain's economic model in order to foster growth.
What Cohn, as
head of a leading Western oligarchial institution, is
cheering for is the Anglo-American arrangement that has brought the Western
Empire undisputed hyperpower status. London's
primary purpose in the EU is to facilitate 'balance-of-power' control of
Europe, lest it be lost to Eurasian integration, i.e., Continental Europe
realizing - in the course of conducting normal trade relations - that its
natural allies lie to the East, not the West.
That's why the UK
is perennially non-committal about its integration within Europe:
ideologically, the British liberal elite detests
European 'socialist notions' about long-term investment capital in
public infrastructure (ya know, things that would
actually benefit ordinary people), and so it only 'keeps its foot in the door'
in order to periodically sabotage European moves in that direction, which
might lessen Europe's dependence on American military 'protection'.
We get a hint of
this 'ideological divide' in the article's last sentence: 'Britain's economic model' is the economic model that has destroyed
whole countries and populations over the last several hundred years - the
psychopathic, Chicago School, 'Shock Doctrine' stuff, which amounts to,
"You give this to me for free, I gamble it for both of us on the Great
London Casino, where I reap whirlwind profits and some of it trickles back down
to you... some day. Maybe. If you don't agree, I'll kill you and your family
and take it all anyway."
European
countries are also fond of the British model, hence their own blood-stained colonial history, and ongoing flirtation with
casino capitalism. Nevertheless, the 'continental model' has shown that it can
accommodate more civilized economic thinking and normal, fair trade relations -
"I build this for you, you pay me
with goods and/or cash."
The British and
American elites lose no opportunity to denigrate anything that doesn't conform
100% to neo-liberal 'free trade' because they have learned that it is in the
crucible of such industrial furnaces that threats to their hegemony arise. Given
the way in which the psychopathic Western oligarchs see the world - where
7-some billion of its inhabitants are property to be moulded
and traded - this means, of course, that the City of London's overarching
mandate as a financial 'forward base' goes beyond just controlling the EU: it uses financial
weapons of war - speculative attacks on non-compliant countries'
currencies, blockades in the form of economic sanctions, etc. - to maintain
and entrench Western hegemony over the entire planet.
So the UK - 'Airstrip One', as Orwell aptly
termed it in 1984 - will never voluntarily leave the EU; suggestions along that line are just hot air
from the British Foreign Office to stir paranoia among other European leaders
that they'd somehow 'suffer' without the presence of the UK and its hive of
financial terrorism in the EU. There is still an opportunity, however slim, for
someone smart to take power in Europe and call London's bluff: boot the UK out
of the EU and be done with the noose around Europe's neck.[1]
Notes :
[1] No, I'm not talking about another Hitler. It's no coincidence that
that imbecile - besides being an absolute monster - had a strategic vision that
involved Nazi-occupied Europe playing a subservient, vassal-state role to the
Western Empire. Which is pretty much the status of the EU today. Funny that...In
a discussion witnessed by Hitler's official interpreter, Paul Schmidt, Hitler
told Mussolini he was convinced it would not serve any useful purpose to
destroy the British Empire. "It is, after all, a force for order in the
world," insisted Hitler.
Hitler had
written in 1924 in Mein Kampf about Germany's future and the need for
Lebensraum Òliving roomÓ :"If one wanted land and
soil in Europe, then by and large this could only have been done at Russia's
expense, and then the new Reich would again have to start marching along the
road of the Knights of the Order of former times.
For such a
policy, however, there was only one single ally in Europe - England. With
England alone, one's back being covered, could one begin the new Germanic
invasion... To gain England's favor, no sacrifice should have been too great.
Then one would have had to renounce colonies and sea power, but to spare
British industry our competition."In 1940, Hitler's outlook had changed very little. Rudolf Hess was
constantly at his side to remind him as well of his earlier lessons in
geopolitics. As Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, half Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Austria, and now most of France all had been incorporated into the New European
Order of the Third Reich, Italy, and Spain bound to it by alliance, Hitler came
back to the idea of re-carving the world between a land empire of Eurasia
dominated by Germany, and a global oceanic empire dominated by Britain.
Hitler was
preparing for the great battle, and it was to be in the east, not the west. He
wanted England's assurance that she would "cover Germany's back," or
at least not embroil the Reich once more in a catastrophic two-front war. Von
Rundstedt's senior staff officer, General Gunther Blumentritt, described a private meeting of Hitler with his
military command in the days after Dunkirk, and his surprisingly generous
settlement with Vichy France. At the discussion, Hitler had told the officers
the war with France would be over in some few weeks.
"After that
he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be
free for an agreement with Britain. He then astonished us," Blumentritt recalled, "by speaking with admiration
of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence and of the
civilization that Britain had brought into the world." Hitler told his
generals, "All he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge
Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies
would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support
Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere."
Von Rundstedt
told Blumentritt after that meeting, "Well, if
he wants nothing else, then we shall have peace at last." Von Rundstedt
was as naive about the agenda of his adversary, England, as was Hitler. It was
a fatal flaw they both shared with the entire leadership of the anti-Hitler
opposition within the German General Staff and Foreign Office. Fritz Hesse, an adviser to Ribbentrop in the Foreign Ministry,
recounted a discussion he had held with Foreign Office Under-Secretary Ernst
von Weizsaecker. Von Weizsaecker
had told Hesse, referring to England, that the circle
of Hitler opponents in high places was convinced that, "while no
understanding with Hitler would be possible, that they - the conservative,
Christian and highly influential circles - they would be able to reach such an
understanding.
"What a tragic error!" Hesse noted. "No one in Berlin seemed to grasp that for the Anglo-Saxons it was fully irrelevant who ruled Germany." Hesse cited Halford Mackinder's quote about 'Who rules east Europe rules the Heartland,' and its implications for British geopolitical policy, as support for his argument. He continued, "No one in the opposition in Germany understood that Germany could have peace only if she rejected most, in fact all, that Hitler had gained, and that then, a reintroduction of the entire Versailles System had to be expected. And Beck, Goerdeler, and many others in the opposition were in no way prepared to accept that." Hitler had won the Battle of France. What he did not grasp however, was that he had also just lost the larger war. ~ 'Halford MacKinder's Necessary War
', by F. William Engdahl