Its not very often that I take the time to recommend a book for reading. I have so much of my time taken up with other things, and just reading the plethora of documents that comes out of the EU is time consuming enough.
However, here a book that is well worth reading. Although the book is US centric, it follows closely the theme of this blog, it outlines and highlights the road that the elites are taking us down, whether we want to travel that road or not. At every stage Representative government loses, the democratic deficit gets bigger.
Following the UN conference on Sustainable Development in Istanbul Joan Veon was compelled to write her first book “Prince Charles, the Sustainable Prince” published in 1997.
After reading this, you will understand why the nation never really took to Charles, but couldn’t put their finger on exactly why.
Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince
by Joan M. Veon
Paragraphs of Key Importance
However, our look cannot only deal with the man, but must deal with his politics, an empowered United Nations and empowered multinational corporations. The politics of the Prince, specifically the environmental philosophy, are enshrouded in “sustainable development” which is a merger between communism and capitalism. This merger then necessitates a new form of governance through public- private partnerships. The picture is complete when one considers both the empowered United Nations (which the Royal family directs) and empowered multinational corporations (which Charles influences through the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. When all of these are placed into operation through public-private partnerships, all of society, as we know it, will change. We must understand each of these in order to know the “day and hour.”
Chapter 1 – The Rhodes Legacy
Of particular interest with regard to the Milner (Kindergarten) Group was how the world would be ruled once under the British Empire. According to Quigley, “They feared the British Empire might fall into the same difficulty and destroy British idealism and British liberties by the tyranny necessary to hold on to a reluctant Empire. And any effort to hold an empire by tyranny they regarded as doomed to failure …. the Group feared that all culture and civilization would go down to destruction because of our inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the national state, just as Greek culture and civilization in the fourth century B.C. went down to destruction because of the Greeks’ inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the city-state. This was the fear that had animated Rhodes, and it was the same fear that was driving the Milner Group to transform the British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations and then place that system within a League of Nations” The United Nations became the successor to the League of Nations in 1945. While there are a number of major differences between the two organizations, the biggest difference was an empowered United Nations. The decisions of the League [of Nations] Council were essentially recommendations, whereas “the decisions of the [United Nations] Security Council are legally binding upon the Members of the United Nations.”
Chapter 3 – Philosophical Components of the Agenda
(1) Public-Private Partnerships
What is “public-private partnership?” Public-private partnership is just what it says it is. First, it is a business arrangement, sealed by an agreement or in some cases, a handshake. The terms of the partnership will vary, according to partners and objectives. Second, the parties in the partnership are public and private entities. Public entities refer to government — -local, country, state, federal or global agencies. Private refers to non governmental groups such as foundations, nonprofit groups, corporations, and individuals. For example, foundations could include the Ford, the Rockefeller, or the local “good-works” foundation; nonprofits could refer to non governmental organizations like The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc.; and corporations could be any corporation from a small one to a multinational like Exxon, Johnson Wax, 3M, Black and Decker, or Giant Foods. Lastly, individuals could be any person — such as a businessman, rancher, or dentist.
A public-private partnership will always have as its goal a business-making venture that requires some form of “governance.” The question is, since the players will vary in experience and wealth, who has the most power? We know from life itself that whoever has the most money has the power. For example, when a public-private partnership is comprised of governments, such as the County Department of Environmental Initiatives, the State Department of Environmental Resources; a number of private entities, like a Land Trust (foundation) and The Nature Conservancy (nonprofit); along with a corporation such as Black and Decker, the players with the most money control the partnership. In this case, it would be The Nature Conservancy, with assets of over $1B, and Black and Decker Corporation, with a capitalization of $1.6B. Representative government loses.
Pubic-private partnerships were “unveiled” in June 1996 at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat II, held in Istanbul. In an interview I conducted with Dr. Wally N’Dow, Secretary- General of the Habitat II conference, he said, “We have got to a point where we cannot not partner with the private sector, as governments, as the civil society, as NGO’s, but also as people active in international development such as the UN. That is what Istanbul tried to convey.” In a follow-up interview with Dr. Noel Brown, former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and currently Special Advisor to the Group of 77, he said of public-private partnerships, “I believe that the future of the UN will rest on effective partnering with the private sector — with business and industry. But I also believe that the environment and the environmental community must also rethink its mission and redefine its role as we enter the phase of globalization and as we are on the threshold of the twenty-first century.”
While this concept may appear to be new, public-private partnerships have been used for the last twenty years in America as a method of providing financing to low-income families. HUD and its Office of Community Planning and Development has used public-private partnerships to create affordable housing since 1990. In addition, Maryland, Oregon, and Minnesota have implemented state-level public-private partnerships. It should be noted that as public-private partnerships continue to rise in the United States, our Constitution is being eroded as a result of the shift in power.
It should be noted that as public-private partnerships continue to rise in the United States, our Constitution is being eroded as a result of the shift in power. The key to governance in the twenty-first century is the partnership between business, the private sector, and government.
(2) Gaia – The Philosophical Shift
As mentioned, the first United Nations environmental conference was held in 1972 with the second one, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), held twenty years later. UNCED, also called the “Earth Summit,” was an unveiling of the philosophical shift from the Judeo-Christian world view to Gaia. The Programme of Action, called Agenda 21, is 297 pages long, and a second related document, Global Biodiversity Assessment, is over 1,100 pages long. Together these documents contain an agenda that can only be called evil, as the implementation of the action items will turn freedom into bondage and life into misery as all of what we know today will be replaced with a planned electronic society in which our only value will be to produce. This is the agenda Prince Charles is facilitating. In feudalistic times only the king and nobility owned land and had freedom. So, too, under United Nations rule, feudalistic times will return and the lights of freedom will go out. Charles has nothing to lose and the world to gain.
Chapter 4 – Sustainable Development
Let me provide for you my own paraphrased definition of sustainable development, which I think is simpler to understand and embraces all of their points: The world has too many people and if we do not reduce the number of people on planet Earth, they will use up all of the earth’s resources so that future generations will be left without any resources. The United Nations is the best global body to monitor and manage and preserve the resources of the planet.
The Philosophy of Sustainable Development
Where does this concept come from? Before I went to the June 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, I was trying to figure out just where sustainable development came from. The number of people serving on the World Commission on Environment and Development who were Communist, Marxist or Socialist provided my first clue. In thinking about that, it occurred to me that this philosophy is not in our Constitution. I then looked in a constitution opposite of ours, the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1977). I found my answer in Chapter 2, Article 18, which states,
In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”
In the executive summary of the book Business as Partners in Development Creating Wealth for Countries, Companies and Communities, the authors write, “In most cases, the debate is no longer about extreme alternatives — about communism versus capitalism, the free market versus state control, democracy versus dictatorship — but about finding common good.”
The Result of Sustainable Development
This same interconnectedness can be seen in the merging of environment, economics and social issues into one. This is another aspect of the public-private partnership concept. As the environmental ideology permeates all aspects of life, it takes on a spiritual dimension that mirrors the Gaia philosophy, which is paganism. When the three become one through partnership, they form a philosophical approach that will change representative government in America. As the precepts of the Constitution are eliminated through new (UN policy guided) legislation, the power of the Constitution is eroded and in its place are public-private partnerships, which run parallel to representative government and form the new governance for the twenty-first century. This is a new twist to the concept of world government that most people visualize, and is the key to understanding how important is the Prince of Wales and the corporations to which he is providing leadership.
Chapter 5 – Public-Private Partnerships and Governance are ONE
It is on the global level that a number of key concepts and philosophies come together. Charles has adopted a very radical environmental agenda that calls for a planned society, using the environment and sustainable development as the reason for the change in governance (government) and freedoms. Public-private partnerships are the modus operandi to effect this change. The definition of governance by the UNDP (Chapter 4) is that public-private partnerships and governance (government) are one. In other words, sustainable development equals governance equals public-private partnerships equals ONE (government). We will be controlled on the local from the global through public-private partnerships.
Quote from James Gustave Speth:
Just as important, we look forward to a growing role in supporting the involvement and participation of NGOs and civil society organizations, including private business, in forging partnerships of many types — partnerships [public-private] that are an integral part of the web of global governance and the glue that holds our troubled world together. (emphasis added)
Chapter 6 – The Empowerment of the United Nations
In order to understand the power which Charles has, we must look at the increased strength of both the United Nations and transnational corporations. It is not enough to state “Charles is powerful,” one must explain how he is powerful in order to understand the magnitude of the day and the hour. Not only is the Rhodes legacy complete through the United Nations, but the apex of the global governmental structure is being revealed through his actions and activities.
The Global (UN) to the Local Connection
Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, a Rhodes Scholar, was on the presidential delegation along with two other mayors from the United States. I asked him what his presence meant. He replied in part, “Well, what I have tried to do here is to let other members of the delegation and those from around the world know how important this conference is to mayors in the United States. We just wanted people to know how important this conference is. It is the beginning of a new era with local government officials being listened to in the development of UN documents and we see this as kind of the wave of the future.” Just as local chamber of commerce chapters receive direction from the International Chamber of Commerce, so too, are mayors receiving direction from the global UN level.
Chapter 6 – Multinational Corporations
The following is a message from Dr. David C. Korten, president of the PDC Forum. The following are excerpts from his Internet message:
On June 24, 1997, the CEOs of 10 TNCs [transnational corporations] met over lunch at the United Nations with the UN leadership and a number of senior government officials to chart a formalization of corporate involvement in the affairs of the United Nations. I attended the lunch. I found it a shattering experience for it revealed a seamless alliance between the public and private sectors aligned behind the consolidation of corporate rule over the global economy ….
Chapter 7 – Fascism and the Empowerment of Corporations
Many multinational and transnational corporations have assets and sales in excess of the value of most small and midsize countries. As if this power were not enough, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris is lobbying to pass the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), which would give corporations unlimited rights in any country that signs the agreement. In the words of Tony Clarke, Director of the Polaris Institute in Canada,
“The MAI is designed to establish a whole new set of global rules for investments that will grant transnational corporations the unrestricted ‘right’ and ‘freedom’ to buy, sell and move their operations whenever and wherever they want around the world, unfettered by government intervention or regulation. In short the MAI seeks to empower transnational corporations …. by restrict[ing] …. what national governments can and cannot do.”
I think the best definition of fascism, which basically points to everything the Prince of Wales believes and is doing, is: “Fascism adheres to the ‘philosopher-king’ belief that only one class — which is by birth, education or social standing — is capable of understanding what is best for the whole community and of putting it into practice.”
Chapter 8 – The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum
The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum is an educational charity with close to 50 multinational corporations from the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, and several other countries on its executive directorate. The U.S. corporations who work very closely with the prince include: 3M, American Express, TRW, Coca-Cola, SmithKline Beecham, ARCO, CIGNA, DHL Worldwide Express, Levi Strauss & Company, The Perot Group, and U.S. WEST International. Additional partners are the American Chamber of Commerce, American Hotel & Motel Association, The Atlanta Project, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The City of Charleston, the Ford Foundation, the Kellog Foundation, Eli Lilly, the New York City Housing Partnership, the Office of Ronald Reagan, the Soros Foundation, Texaco, Tufts University, Turner Broadcasting, USAID, and Warnaco, to name a few.
The Forum is accountable to a board and council made up of the international CEOs and directors from the above listed principal supporters and funded by its members with programmes funded by other sponsors, international development agencies, and foundations. It works with the World Bank Group, United Nations agencies, the European Commission, Overseas Development Agencies, and a number of bilateral agencies from the UK, Japan, and North America.
“The mission of the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (PWBLF) is to promote continuous improvement in the practice of good corporate citizenship and sustainable development internationally, as a natural part of successful business operations. It aims to work with members and partners to:
1. Demonstrate that business has an essential and creative role to play in the prosperity of local communities as partners in development, particularly in economies in transition;
2. Raise awareness of the value of corporate responsibility in international business practice;
3. Encourage partnership action between business and communities as an effective means of promoting sustainable economic development.”
The PWBLF operates in 26 countries and concentrates on post-Communist countries and developing economies. It has held 26 high-level international meetings in 18 countries involving 5,000 corporate, government, and non governmental leaders.
Chapter 9 Charles — The Hidden Prince
In an interview that Prince Charles gave on BBC’s “Newsnight” program in 1994, “he expressed his devotion to his work for Britain and the Commonwealth. He said, ‘so much I try to do is behind the scenes. So it is difficult for people to understand how all the things fit together.’ He also asserted that there is a common theme to all his projects and insisted they will turn out to be for the long term good.”
Charles — The Defender of Faith
As a result of my personal study and in light of the above, I have come to believe that when the United States ratified the United Nations Charter, we and the other countries of the world who were not part of Britain’s Commonwealth reverted back under British rule through the United Nations organizational structure. Therefore, the fulfilment of the Rhodes Trust is complete.
King Charles III
There has been much speculation with regard to when Charles will become king. I surmise that he does not need a throne, for he already has one. The environmental agenda via sustainable development, and public-private partnerships with the world’s largest and strongest multinational corporations, many of which have cash flows and assets exceeding that of most countries, provide Charles his throne. It appears that he rules behind the scenes, encouraging, expanding, pushing, and strengthening the agenda of the United Nations, partnering with the World Bank and other global agencies, all of which are advancing world government, a philosophy with which he is not uncomfortable. After all, there have been many kings, popes, and world leaders who have tried to attain it.
You can purchase this book through the Women’s Independent Media Group
About the Author
As a Certified Financial Planner, Joan studied financial trends and she began to notice an alignment indicating a world currency. During the next 16 years Joan to interviewed and ask key questions of prime ministers, presidents, kings, and heads of state in her role as a credentialed, independent, International Journalist reporting for USA Radio News Network.
At times, as the only American reporter, Joan covered over 103 international meetings, including: the G7, G8, G10, G20, and Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel Switzerland; attended yearly the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland; and twice a year covered the IMF World Bank meetings. In addition she attended UN meetings on the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, Sustainable Development, the Earth Summit, Climate Control, the International World Court, and numerous others.
On October 18, 2010, Joan passed away after a courageous three year battle with breast cancer. She was 61 years old.