FTO | Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO recently said that the EU is the “laboratory of international governance”, meaning the emerging one world government sees the European Union as a model for building a one world government.
He pointed out his belief for the need of global governance in his speech at the Bocconi University in Milan, Itialy on November 9 2009.
This comes as the Copenhagen Climate summit starts and is said to be the place where world leaders will sign away their countries to form global governance. Earlier this year a “new world order” was also announced at the G20 summit in Pittsburg.
Tuesday, December 8. 2009
Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the WTO says EU the “laboratory of international governance”Wednesday, October 28. 2009
UN chief calls for ‘global governance structure’ to oversee greenhouse gasses
By Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in an opinion piece published by The New York Times, laid out a number of benchmarks for success in the upcoming global climate talks, planned to be held in Copenhagen.
Among them, Ki-moon argued in the Tuesday edition that a "global governance structure" must be levied to ensure that nations collaborate on how resources are deployed and managed.
The editorial, entitled "We Can Do It," urges world leaders toward the accomplishment of three key points: Curbing emissions, investing in green growth for third world nations and establishing a supranational structure to oversee resources.
"Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation," Ki-moon wrote. "Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty."
He continued: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built."
A United Press International report referred to Ki-moon's benchmark as "a new climate change regime set to replace the Kyoto Protocol."
The secretary general's editorial comes amid doubts of the potential for a successful global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. On Monday, a U.N. official with the Climate Change Support Team said, "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go," according to the Associate Press. He reportedly added that it is unlikely a treaty will emerge from Copenhagen.
While the secretary general has praised the Obama administration's strong backing of global climate action, "support for climate change as a political issue is [...] declining in the United States," CBC News noted.
"[A Pew Research] poll of 1,500 adults found just over half of Americans favored setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, while 56 per cent supported U.S. participation in international agreements.
"But more alarming [...] was that the poll found only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that the Earth has grown hotter in the past few decades, down from 77 per cent in 2006."
"American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen," The Guardian noted. "But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen."
Raw Story | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in an opinion piece published by The New York Times, laid out a number of benchmarks for success in the upcoming global climate talks, planned to be held in Copenhagen.Among them, Ki-moon argued in the Tuesday edition that a "global governance structure" must be levied to ensure that nations collaborate on how resources are deployed and managed.
The editorial, entitled "We Can Do It," urges world leaders toward the accomplishment of three key points: Curbing emissions, investing in green growth for third world nations and establishing a supranational structure to oversee resources.
"Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation," Ki-moon wrote. "Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty."
He continued: "A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built."
A United Press International report referred to Ki-moon's benchmark as "a new climate change regime set to replace the Kyoto Protocol."
The secretary general's editorial comes amid doubts of the potential for a successful global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. On Monday, a U.N. official with the Climate Change Support Team said, "it's hard to say how far the conference will be able to go," according to the Associate Press. He reportedly added that it is unlikely a treaty will emerge from Copenhagen.
While the secretary general has praised the Obama administration's strong backing of global climate action, "support for climate change as a political issue is [...] declining in the United States," CBC News noted.
"[A Pew Research] poll of 1,500 adults found just over half of Americans favored setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, while 56 per cent supported U.S. participation in international agreements.
"But more alarming [...] was that the poll found only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is strong evidence that the Earth has grown hotter in the past few decades, down from 77 per cent in 2006."
"American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen," The Guardian noted. "But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America's greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill - which does not have solid support even among their own party - before the meeting in Copenhagen."
Friday, October 23. 2009
Fall of the Republic by Alex Jones (HQ full length version)Tuesday, October 13. 2009
Waco Siege “Enforcer” To Rule Over Global Police Force
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | Man who both approved and covered-up government slaughter of 76 people, including 20 children, will lead move to establish international model of law enforcement
UN and Interpol officials will meet today to discuss the formation of a “global police force” that would enjoy access to a worldwide database of DNA, biometric and fingerprint records. The effort will be spearheaded by a man known as “The Enforcer” who helped federal authorities both conduct and cover up the murderous Waco siege which killed 76 people in 1993.
“Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say,” reports the New York Times.
The emergence of a global police force is of course something that people like Alex Jones have been warning about for well over a decade. The global police force, just like the world army, is a key centerpiece of the march towards a dictatorial global government.
Those who were once called paranoid conspiracy theorists for claiming that the plan all along has been to centralize law enforcement into a global body run by the world government under the auspices of the UN and Interpol have been proven right once again.
For a taste of what Americans who aren’t so favorable to taking orders from foreigners on home soil can expect, consider the fact that the secretary general of Interpol, and one of the men at the forefront of setting up the global police force, is none other than Ronald K. Noble.
Noble, who is known as “The Enforcer,” has been instrumental in working with Chinese authorities to provide policing in the Communist country for major national events. However, his most notorious role was in ordering and then, in his position as Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury, whitewashing the actions of the BATF following the federal government’s murderous siege on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco which killed 76 people including more than 20 children and two pregnant women in April 1993.
As Carol Moore writes, “Noble had approved the decision to go ahead with the raid,” and therefore, “had little interest in issuing a report that either would challenge significantly the BATF’s investigation or modus operandi or would admit these led to crimes against the Davidians.”
Noble ignored in his report more than a dozen eyewitness reports, along with photographic and video evidence, of a BATF helicopter firebombing the Waco church during the siege. He also ignored David Koresh’s July 1992 invitation to the BATF to inspect the Waco compound, which if it had gone ahead could have prevented the siege and the murder of 76 innocent people altogether.
“During the hearing, Friend-of-Bill Webster Hubbell denied repeatedly that he and Clinton had discussed the Waco situation informally, and improperly. However, an Associated Press article claimed Hubbell had revealed he was giving Clinton updates on Waco. And House staffers discovered a memorandum in which then-Treasury official Ron Noble asserted Hubbell would take the matter up with Clinton if the Treasury Department’s review did not downplay BATF errors. Clearly, Noble condones covering up government crimes against citizens,” writes Moore.
Noble was picked directly for the position of secretary general at Interpol by fellow Waco siege accomplice, former Attorney General Janet Reno.
During his September 2005 secretary general re-election acceptance speech in Berlin, Noble attributed Interpol’s ‘rebirth’ to the events of 9/11, saying that the terrorist attacks allowed the organization to go from being treated as largely irrelevant to setting it on the path to becoming an international police force.
Noble told the New York Times that one of the main roles of the global cops would be to stop people to check their identities against a global database.
“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” Mr. Noble said. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”
As we previously reported, Interpol is setting up a huge biometric facial scan database of international travelers so they can cross-check everyone against a database of terror suspects, international criminals and fugitives. The database will hold the records of every citizen who has ever traveled in and out of the virtually every country in the world, representing intelligence agency style bulk interception of information.
According to the NY Times report, Interpol agents would be given special electronic passports that would allow them to speedily cross international borders.
“With the meeting of justice ministers on Monday, which coincides with a general assembly of Interpol police members, the group is expected to debate the global police issue and to craft a declaration that would lead to an action plan for international police peacekeeping within 12 months,” reports the Times.
The danger of having a global police force conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil under the control of Interpol and the UN is self-evident. Global cops who do not have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution have no obligation to follow it. Operating outside of the realms of the U.S. legal system, global cops will have carte blanche to snatch, grab and intern citizens without recourse. A highly centralized system of policing guarantees hardly any liability whatsoever and therefore encourages rampant illegality and police brutality.
With many experts predicting a Soviet-style collapse of the United States within the next few years, the prospect of U.N. peacekeepers and Interpol global cops ordering Americans around is a harrowing possibility.
The fact that this move is all being spearheaded by a man known as “The Enforcer” who was instrumental in ordering the killing of 76 innocent people at Waco, including 20 children, and then covering it up, should send shock waves through the liberty movement and lead to intense scrutiny on Noble’s position at Interpol and his agenda to head up a global police force.
Noble attributed Interpol’s ‘rebirth’ to the events of 9/11, saying that the terrorist attacks allowed the organization to go from being treated as largely irrelevant to setting it on the path to becoming an international police force.
Noble told the New York Times that one of the main roles of the global cops would be to stop people to check their identities against a global database.
Noble told the New York Times that one of the main roles of the global cops would be to stop people to check their identities against a global database.
UN and Interpol officials will meet today to discuss the formation of a “global police force” that would enjoy access to a worldwide database of DNA, biometric and fingerprint records. The effort will be spearheaded by a man known as “The Enforcer” who helped federal authorities both conduct and cover up the murderous Waco siege which killed 76 people in 1993.
“Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say,” reports the New York Times.
The emergence of a global police force is of course something that people like Alex Jones have been warning about for well over a decade. The global police force, just like the world army, is a key centerpiece of the march towards a dictatorial global government.
Those who were once called paranoid conspiracy theorists for claiming that the plan all along has been to centralize law enforcement into a global body run by the world government under the auspices of the UN and Interpol have been proven right once again.
For a taste of what Americans who aren’t so favorable to taking orders from foreigners on home soil can expect, consider the fact that the secretary general of Interpol, and one of the men at the forefront of setting up the global police force, is none other than Ronald K. Noble.
Noble, who is known as “The Enforcer,” has been instrumental in working with Chinese authorities to provide policing in the Communist country for major national events. However, his most notorious role was in ordering and then, in his position as Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury, whitewashing the actions of the BATF following the federal government’s murderous siege on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco which killed 76 people including more than 20 children and two pregnant women in April 1993.
As Carol Moore writes, “Noble had approved the decision to go ahead with the raid,” and therefore, “had little interest in issuing a report that either would challenge significantly the BATF’s investigation or modus operandi or would admit these led to crimes against the Davidians.”
Noble ignored in his report more than a dozen eyewitness reports, along with photographic and video evidence, of a BATF helicopter firebombing the Waco church during the siege. He also ignored David Koresh’s July 1992 invitation to the BATF to inspect the Waco compound, which if it had gone ahead could have prevented the siege and the murder of 76 innocent people altogether.
“During the hearing, Friend-of-Bill Webster Hubbell denied repeatedly that he and Clinton had discussed the Waco situation informally, and improperly. However, an Associated Press article claimed Hubbell had revealed he was giving Clinton updates on Waco. And House staffers discovered a memorandum in which then-Treasury official Ron Noble asserted Hubbell would take the matter up with Clinton if the Treasury Department’s review did not downplay BATF errors. Clearly, Noble condones covering up government crimes against citizens,” writes Moore.
Noble was picked directly for the position of secretary general at Interpol by fellow Waco siege accomplice, former Attorney General Janet Reno.
During his September 2005 secretary general re-election acceptance speech in Berlin, Noble attributed Interpol’s ‘rebirth’ to the events of 9/11, saying that the terrorist attacks allowed the organization to go from being treated as largely irrelevant to setting it on the path to becoming an international police force.
Noble told the New York Times that one of the main roles of the global cops would be to stop people to check their identities against a global database.
“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” Mr. Noble said. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”
As we previously reported, Interpol is setting up a huge biometric facial scan database of international travelers so they can cross-check everyone against a database of terror suspects, international criminals and fugitives. The database will hold the records of every citizen who has ever traveled in and out of the virtually every country in the world, representing intelligence agency style bulk interception of information.
According to the NY Times report, Interpol agents would be given special electronic passports that would allow them to speedily cross international borders.
“With the meeting of justice ministers on Monday, which coincides with a general assembly of Interpol police members, the group is expected to debate the global police issue and to craft a declaration that would lead to an action plan for international police peacekeeping within 12 months,” reports the Times.
The danger of having a global police force conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil under the control of Interpol and the UN is self-evident. Global cops who do not have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution have no obligation to follow it. Operating outside of the realms of the U.S. legal system, global cops will have carte blanche to snatch, grab and intern citizens without recourse. A highly centralized system of policing guarantees hardly any liability whatsoever and therefore encourages rampant illegality and police brutality.
With many experts predicting a Soviet-style collapse of the United States within the next few years, the prospect of U.N. peacekeepers and Interpol global cops ordering Americans around is a harrowing possibility.
The fact that this move is all being spearheaded by a man known as “The Enforcer” who was instrumental in ordering the killing of 76 innocent people at Waco, including 20 children, and then covering it up, should send shock waves through the liberty movement and lead to intense scrutiny on Noble’s position at Interpol and his agenda to head up a global police force.
AFP | Interpol, the global police organisation, said Monday it will provide enhanced technical and advisory support to the United Nations in the world body's peacekeeping missions worldwide.Interpol director of legal affairs Joel Sollier told reporters in Singapore that his organisation "will provide advice and consulting services in the area of policing during peacekeeping operations."
He said Interpol's support will include field information to police officers as well as assistance in areas such as investigation techniques.
"Interpol is not going to send troops out into the field here and there throughout the world," Sollier said on the sidelines of Interpol's 78th general assembly that began Monday in Singapore.
"What Interpol is going to do is provide technical assistance, technical support. It will provide advice and consulting services in the area of policing during peacekeeping operations."
About 64 foreign, justice and home affairs ministers from around the world endorsed a declaration committing Interpol to help the UN strengthen the role of police forces in peacekeeping and rebuilding operations in countries recovering from conflict.
The ministers were among 800 delegates from 187 member countries attending the general assembly which ends Thursday.
UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations police adviser Andrew Hughes said Interpol's help is important because rebuilding efforts are often complicated by trans-national crime syndicates keen to exploit the situation.
"On every front, whether it's capacity building, interim law enforcement or close operations support, we need the help of Interpol... we need all of the technical expertise that Interpol can bring to the equation," Hughes said.
The number of police forces involved in UN peacekeeping operations are expected to increase to 15,000 in the next two months from 6,000 in 2005, UN officials said.
Government officials in recent years have recognised the crucial role of police forces to complement soldiers in peacekeeping and peace-building missions, UN and Interpol officials said.
For example, countries recovering from conflicts need police expertise in managing border movements and in having access to secure international police communications and global databases, they said.
Wednesday, September 30. 2009
The Group of Twenty & the Evolution of Global Governance
By Joan Veon
News With Views | In 1994 when I covered my first global meeting, there was a press briefing by the Commission on Global Governance on their forthcoming report, Our Global Neighborhood. The man giving the briefing was one of the co-chairs, Sir Shridath Ramphal who was not only president of Guyana but also president of the (British) Commonwealth Association. As I read the glossy brochure, I thought he meant “global government” to which he replied “No, no, no we mean global governance.” When I asked about a global currency, he laughed and said, “No, not for a long time.”
The meeting recently held in Pittsburgh comprised the third meeting of the heads of state and finance ministers from the Group of Twenty nations: the developed countries led by the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and Germany and the top developing countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey, as well as the European Union. Together, they represent 85% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product-GDP and 80% of world trade.
The Group of Eight-G8 began meeting in 1973 when Richard Nixon called together the leaders of four countries to determine how the world would be run economically now that he had put the world currencies on a floating basis when he removed the last ties the dollar had to gold in 1971. A formal meeting was held in 1975 in France with five countries and soon it was seven countries known as the Group of Seven until 1998 when Russia was officially admitted. Since 1975, whatever decision these seven or eight countries came to was law and if the rest of the countries of the world knew what was good for them, they would follow suit. In short, the Group of Eight acted as a “Global Board of Directors” for the world. Over the years, they expanded their purview to include every facet of government: labor, education, transportation, trade, housing, finance and the environment.
Under their auspices, the floating exchange between countries was perfected to the point where it was easy to raid any countries currency which did not do what they were suppose to do as mandated by the strong countries, there was the oil crises of the 1970s, and the fall of the shah of Iran who was the peacekeeper of the Middle East. The final pieces were added to the international infrastructure: the World Trade Organization, the regional groups like the European Union and the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, the International Criminal Court, and the tearing down of economic barriers between the countries of the world by calling on the U.S. to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
In 1998, the Group of Eight decided to become more integrated as they deviated from just economic concerns to the daily concerns that each country faces: health, education, growth, trade, etc. Tony Blair talked about the need to work together on all these issues so that each country could help each other and they could learn from one another. This is called integration, not advice. The final Communiqué which the G8 issued (then the G5) in 1975 was just a few pages to over one thousand pages in some years. Indeed they became a venue of “global governance.”
As a result of the 2007-2009 Credit Crisis, it was former President George Bush who called together the leaders of the developing countries to meet with the leaders of the developed countries last November. They instantaneously became their own powerhouse. At the second meeting in London this past April, they empowered the International Monetary Fund with $1.1T including a new offering of Special Drawing Rights-SDRs and they changed the Financial Stability Forum to the Financial Stability Board and greatly empowered its structure by giving them a plenary structure and several Steering Committees. The Financial Stability Board is part of the growing architectural pieces at the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland.
In an interview with Professor John Kirton of the University of Toronto who heads up the unofficial secretariat of the Group of Eight and Twenty, he said of global governance, “It has come to mean, steering, shaping the global order through processes. Not only government of nation-states assisted by intergovernmental organizations, but a broad array of actors that have an important and legitimate place.” When I asked about how they and their roles had changed, he responded that the G20 had “institutionalized itself in an integrated way with the G8 so that next year in Canada, there would be a coming together of the two global governance institutions.” It was announced in Pittsburgh, that next year the G20 would meet at the same time that the G8 meets on economic issues. The G8 will continue their oversight of all other issues they currently govern. This is no small feat. Does anyone really understand the magnitude of what is happening?
When I asked Professor Kirton about the evolution of definitions of global governance since 1994 when we first met, he said, “Yes, there are many definitions for a global community [to be] attracted to a global concept. [You have the] command hierarchy in sovereign nation-states, [then there is] a middle range – a guiding steering process when more formal institutions are necessary but a broad array of actors from civil society have an important place.” In other words, the global level is to be guided by civil society which includes non-governmental organizations, “celebrity diplomacy” created by the rock star, Bono, and others.
In fact, Professor Kirton was adamant that the United Nations has seen its day since they have been unable to respond to a changing world. He pointed to the UN Security Council which has the same five permanent members in today’s world and that it does not even include Japan (G8 member) or China and any of the other developing countries.
The truth of the matter is that the coming together of the major developing countries with the G8 is a turning point in world history. If Bush is copying Nixon who created the G8, the truth of the matter is that we have continued to have serious economic crises. But it also points to a stronger power over the nation-states: the presidents and prime ministers who will ask their governments to implement what they have agreed to. It does point to a world governmental structure in which the laws of the nation-states have and are being changed to conform to what is agreed to on the global level. It leaves out the poor countries of the world which have no voice in this newly empowered governance structure.
It also points to a shift in world power. As you study the economics of the G20, they have a total GDP of $47T and public debt of $29T or 63%. Now we can talk all we want about global governance, interdependence, etc. but the truth of the matter is that there is more than one way to conquer a country. In the old days, it was a physical invasion, brute force, end of story. But in today’s electronic society, it is through banking, the stock exchange, the bond exchange, and the derivatives market. Basically, there has been no physical invasion, no black helicopters and no physical carnage. Today, it is debt. What difference does it make if the house has no or little equity versus the finances of a country? The Group of Twenty is indebted to the central bankers of the world. The agenda of the United Nations, the G8 or the G20 is basically a front for the real powers that run the world: the central banks which are private corporations that lend money to governments by printing it.
The bottom line: the United Nations and the G8 have not brought or kept world peace, they have not prevented war and neither have they improved the finances of any country. Furthermore, they have not improved the state of the world either. The only thing they have done is set up an infrastructure that reduces the power and sovereignty of the nation-state. In essence they have de-stabilized the world. Who really runs the country and the world? He who has the gold makes the rules and it is not governments!
News With Views | In 1994 when I covered my first global meeting, there was a press briefing by the Commission on Global Governance on their forthcoming report, Our Global Neighborhood. The man giving the briefing was one of the co-chairs, Sir Shridath Ramphal who was not only president of Guyana but also president of the (British) Commonwealth Association. As I read the glossy brochure, I thought he meant “global government” to which he replied “No, no, no we mean global governance.” When I asked about a global currency, he laughed and said, “No, not for a long time.”The meeting recently held in Pittsburgh comprised the third meeting of the heads of state and finance ministers from the Group of Twenty nations: the developed countries led by the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia and Germany and the top developing countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey, as well as the European Union. Together, they represent 85% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product-GDP and 80% of world trade.
The Group of Eight-G8 began meeting in 1973 when Richard Nixon called together the leaders of four countries to determine how the world would be run economically now that he had put the world currencies on a floating basis when he removed the last ties the dollar had to gold in 1971. A formal meeting was held in 1975 in France with five countries and soon it was seven countries known as the Group of Seven until 1998 when Russia was officially admitted. Since 1975, whatever decision these seven or eight countries came to was law and if the rest of the countries of the world knew what was good for them, they would follow suit. In short, the Group of Eight acted as a “Global Board of Directors” for the world. Over the years, they expanded their purview to include every facet of government: labor, education, transportation, trade, housing, finance and the environment.
Under their auspices, the floating exchange between countries was perfected to the point where it was easy to raid any countries currency which did not do what they were suppose to do as mandated by the strong countries, there was the oil crises of the 1970s, and the fall of the shah of Iran who was the peacekeeper of the Middle East. The final pieces were added to the international infrastructure: the World Trade Organization, the regional groups like the European Union and the Free Trade Areas of the Americas, the International Criminal Court, and the tearing down of economic barriers between the countries of the world by calling on the U.S. to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
In 1998, the Group of Eight decided to become more integrated as they deviated from just economic concerns to the daily concerns that each country faces: health, education, growth, trade, etc. Tony Blair talked about the need to work together on all these issues so that each country could help each other and they could learn from one another. This is called integration, not advice. The final Communiqué which the G8 issued (then the G5) in 1975 was just a few pages to over one thousand pages in some years. Indeed they became a venue of “global governance.”
As a result of the 2007-2009 Credit Crisis, it was former President George Bush who called together the leaders of the developing countries to meet with the leaders of the developed countries last November. They instantaneously became their own powerhouse. At the second meeting in London this past April, they empowered the International Monetary Fund with $1.1T including a new offering of Special Drawing Rights-SDRs and they changed the Financial Stability Forum to the Financial Stability Board and greatly empowered its structure by giving them a plenary structure and several Steering Committees. The Financial Stability Board is part of the growing architectural pieces at the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, Switzerland.
In an interview with Professor John Kirton of the University of Toronto who heads up the unofficial secretariat of the Group of Eight and Twenty, he said of global governance, “It has come to mean, steering, shaping the global order through processes. Not only government of nation-states assisted by intergovernmental organizations, but a broad array of actors that have an important and legitimate place.” When I asked about how they and their roles had changed, he responded that the G20 had “institutionalized itself in an integrated way with the G8 so that next year in Canada, there would be a coming together of the two global governance institutions.” It was announced in Pittsburgh, that next year the G20 would meet at the same time that the G8 meets on economic issues. The G8 will continue their oversight of all other issues they currently govern. This is no small feat. Does anyone really understand the magnitude of what is happening?
When I asked Professor Kirton about the evolution of definitions of global governance since 1994 when we first met, he said, “Yes, there are many definitions for a global community [to be] attracted to a global concept. [You have the] command hierarchy in sovereign nation-states, [then there is] a middle range – a guiding steering process when more formal institutions are necessary but a broad array of actors from civil society have an important place.” In other words, the global level is to be guided by civil society which includes non-governmental organizations, “celebrity diplomacy” created by the rock star, Bono, and others.
In fact, Professor Kirton was adamant that the United Nations has seen its day since they have been unable to respond to a changing world. He pointed to the UN Security Council which has the same five permanent members in today’s world and that it does not even include Japan (G8 member) or China and any of the other developing countries.
The truth of the matter is that the coming together of the major developing countries with the G8 is a turning point in world history. If Bush is copying Nixon who created the G8, the truth of the matter is that we have continued to have serious economic crises. But it also points to a stronger power over the nation-states: the presidents and prime ministers who will ask their governments to implement what they have agreed to. It does point to a world governmental structure in which the laws of the nation-states have and are being changed to conform to what is agreed to on the global level. It leaves out the poor countries of the world which have no voice in this newly empowered governance structure.
It also points to a shift in world power. As you study the economics of the G20, they have a total GDP of $47T and public debt of $29T or 63%. Now we can talk all we want about global governance, interdependence, etc. but the truth of the matter is that there is more than one way to conquer a country. In the old days, it was a physical invasion, brute force, end of story. But in today’s electronic society, it is through banking, the stock exchange, the bond exchange, and the derivatives market. Basically, there has been no physical invasion, no black helicopters and no physical carnage. Today, it is debt. What difference does it make if the house has no or little equity versus the finances of a country? The Group of Twenty is indebted to the central bankers of the world. The agenda of the United Nations, the G8 or the G20 is basically a front for the real powers that run the world: the central banks which are private corporations that lend money to governments by printing it.
The bottom line: the United Nations and the G8 have not brought or kept world peace, they have not prevented war and neither have they improved the finances of any country. Furthermore, they have not improved the state of the world either. The only thing they have done is set up an infrastructure that reduces the power and sovereignty of the nation-state. In essence they have de-stabilized the world. Who really runs the country and the world? He who has the gold makes the rules and it is not governments!
Monday, September 28. 2009
Bilderbergers Want Global Currency Now
But nationalists and populists around the world ready to fight to retain financial sovereignty
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
American Free Press | Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.
The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation’s currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg used its immense power to get Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan elected over the Liberal Democratic Party, which had led the nation for 64 years. Hatoyama obediently called for an Asian economic bloc, similar to the EU, complete with a regional currency.
Bilderberg’s goal is an “Asian-Pacific Union” and an “American Union,” both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The “American Union” is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the “amero.” Fortunately, Bilderberg’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using “free trade” propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN.
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
American Free Press | Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation’s currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg used its immense power to get Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan elected over the Liberal Democratic Party, which had led the nation for 64 years. Hatoyama obediently called for an Asian economic bloc, similar to the EU, complete with a regional currency.
Bilderberg’s goal is an “Asian-Pacific Union” and an “American Union,” both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The “American Union” is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the “amero.” Fortunately, Bilderberg’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using “free trade” propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN.
Thursday, July 16. 2009
Hillary Clinton: ‘CFR Tells Government What It Should Be Doing’
Secretary of State happy she doesn’t have to travel as far to get her orders
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s opening remarks during her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday will have done little to dampen accusations that the elitist CFR pulls the strings of the U.S. government.
Clinton effectively said that she was happy the CFR had created an outpost in Washington DC because it meant she did not have to travel as far to get her orders.
Here’s the full quote, according to the official transcript.
“I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department.”
“We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Clinton’s admission that the CFR tells the government what it should be doing is somewhat more concrete an influence than the mere “talking shop” perfunctory role that apologists claim the CFR assumes.
As we previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s first appointment as Secretary of State, George Mitchell, was not only a CFR member, but a former director of the globalist organization. Mitchell got his start in politics with the aid of another CFR member, former President Jimmy Carter.
Obama’s first appointments were also almost universally CFR members. As we wrote at the time, “It looks like the White House is shaping up to become a branch office of the CFR and Bilderbergers, but then this is simply business as usual. For years, the CFR — with its associate memberships in such international units as the Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and Bildebergers — has infested not only the White House, but the State Department, the NSC, the Pentagon, and much of the federal government.”
During the speech, Clinton outlined her vision of the “global agenda” and how a “global consensus” should be formed to help shape it by means of a “global architecture”.
Watch a segment of Clinton’s speech below.
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s opening remarks during her speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday will have done little to dampen accusations that the elitist CFR pulls the strings of the U.S. government.Clinton effectively said that she was happy the CFR had created an outpost in Washington DC because it meant she did not have to travel as far to get her orders.
Here’s the full quote, according to the official transcript.
“I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department.”
“We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Clinton’s admission that the CFR tells the government what it should be doing is somewhat more concrete an influence than the mere “talking shop” perfunctory role that apologists claim the CFR assumes.
As we previously reported, Hillary Clinton’s first appointment as Secretary of State, George Mitchell, was not only a CFR member, but a former director of the globalist organization. Mitchell got his start in politics with the aid of another CFR member, former President Jimmy Carter.
Obama’s first appointments were also almost universally CFR members. As we wrote at the time, “It looks like the White House is shaping up to become a branch office of the CFR and Bilderbergers, but then this is simply business as usual. For years, the CFR — with its associate memberships in such international units as the Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and Bildebergers — has infested not only the White House, but the State Department, the NSC, the Pentagon, and much of the federal government.”
During the speech, Clinton outlined her vision of the “global agenda” and how a “global consensus” should be formed to help shape it by means of a “global architecture”.
Watch a segment of Clinton’s speech below.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Friday, July 3. 2009
Nafta Superhighway Returns From The Dead
Rick Perry set to push revamped agenda to sell freeways to foreign-owned private companies and convert them to toll roads
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | The Trans-Texas Corridor, part of the NAFTA Superhighway projected to link the United States with Canada and Mexico as an integral cog of the North American Union, is back on the agenda after Texas Governor Rick Perry lied in claiming that the proposal was dead earlier this year.
The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan-American Union networked by a NAFTA Superhighway has long been a Globalist brainchild, but fierce opposition to the plan from activists across the country has stalled the plan at least temporarily.
A key component of the NAU transport system was the proposed Trans Texas Corridor, a massive 4,000 mile network of highways that were to be sold to the Spanish company Cintra and operated as toll roads - creating a huge new tax on the American people which would be paid directly to a foreign-owned private company.
Texas Governor and Bilderberg invitee Rick Perry launched a PR stunt in January when he claimed that the Trans Texas Corridor was dead, when in reality as Jerome Corsi and others pointed out, the project was merely to have its name changed and its design slightly altered.
“Close examination shows Perry’s declaration from Iraq involves yet more public relations efforts by the governor and TxDOT to defuse criticism from voters and reposition a hugely unpopular initiative by dropping the designation ‘Trans-Texas Corridor,’ or ‘TTC,’ while still allowing TxDOT to proceed with the components of the original TTC plan that had been scheduled for implementation now,” wrote Corsi.
Corsi’s warning that the TTC was still very much in the pipeline has proven accurate with the news that the authority of the Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT, will run for at least 2 more years with a fresh injection of $2 billion in state funds that will be allocated to new transport projects.
Using the cover of a special session of the legislature, Perry will push “a measure that allows private companies to build more toll roads across the state,” according to the Houston Chronicle.
“Gov. Perry wants to get the legislature to reauthorize through 2013 the ability of Texas to enter into Comprehensive Development Agreements, or CDAs, with foreign developers to develop Texas highways under public-private partnerships,” Hank Gilbert, a board member with TexasTurf.org, or Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, told World Net Daily.
“We are fighting to defeat any attempt by Gov. Perry to extend CDAs,” he said. “Without CDAs, TxDOT will have a difficult time getting foreign development companies to come into Texas to convert our freeways to toll roads.”
Perry’s attempt to force through toll roads owned and operated by foreign companies as part of the wider agenda for a NAFTA Superhighway and a North American Union is a perfect example of how those in power try to neutralize dissent by pulling dirty tricks - claiming a project is dead and then simply renaming it and continuing with the same agenda.
However, the many activist groups opposed to the Trans Texas Corridor were well prepared for this bait and switch. The resistance to the agenda for a NAFTA Superhighway will now rally to fight Perry’s move to sell off key infrastructure to foreign corporations, and in turn create a huge new tax for already financially battered Americans.
By Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet | The Trans-Texas Corridor, part of the NAFTA Superhighway projected to link the United States with Canada and Mexico as an integral cog of the North American Union, is back on the agenda after Texas Governor Rick Perry lied in claiming that the proposal was dead earlier this year.
The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan-American Union networked by a NAFTA Superhighway has long been a Globalist brainchild, but fierce opposition to the plan from activists across the country has stalled the plan at least temporarily.
A key component of the NAU transport system was the proposed Trans Texas Corridor, a massive 4,000 mile network of highways that were to be sold to the Spanish company Cintra and operated as toll roads - creating a huge new tax on the American people which would be paid directly to a foreign-owned private company.
Texas Governor and Bilderberg invitee Rick Perry launched a PR stunt in January when he claimed that the Trans Texas Corridor was dead, when in reality as Jerome Corsi and others pointed out, the project was merely to have its name changed and its design slightly altered.
“Close examination shows Perry’s declaration from Iraq involves yet more public relations efforts by the governor and TxDOT to defuse criticism from voters and reposition a hugely unpopular initiative by dropping the designation ‘Trans-Texas Corridor,’ or ‘TTC,’ while still allowing TxDOT to proceed with the components of the original TTC plan that had been scheduled for implementation now,” wrote Corsi.
Corsi’s warning that the TTC was still very much in the pipeline has proven accurate with the news that the authority of the Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT, will run for at least 2 more years with a fresh injection of $2 billion in state funds that will be allocated to new transport projects.
Using the cover of a special session of the legislature, Perry will push “a measure that allows private companies to build more toll roads across the state,” according to the Houston Chronicle.
“Gov. Perry wants to get the legislature to reauthorize through 2013 the ability of Texas to enter into Comprehensive Development Agreements, or CDAs, with foreign developers to develop Texas highways under public-private partnerships,” Hank Gilbert, a board member with TexasTurf.org, or Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, told World Net Daily.
“We are fighting to defeat any attempt by Gov. Perry to extend CDAs,” he said. “Without CDAs, TxDOT will have a difficult time getting foreign development companies to come into Texas to convert our freeways to toll roads.”
Perry’s attempt to force through toll roads owned and operated by foreign companies as part of the wider agenda for a NAFTA Superhighway and a North American Union is a perfect example of how those in power try to neutralize dissent by pulling dirty tricks - claiming a project is dead and then simply renaming it and continuing with the same agenda.
However, the many activist groups opposed to the Trans Texas Corridor were well prepared for this bait and switch. The resistance to the agenda for a NAFTA Superhighway will now rally to fight Perry’s move to sell off key infrastructure to foreign corporations, and in turn create a huge new tax for already financially battered Americans.
Tuesday, June 9. 2009
Elitist Confab in Montreal: Adapting to a New World Order – Day 1
By Sam Labrier
Infowars | MONTREAL — Today marked the first day of the four-day Conference of Montreal, this year entitled “Adapting to a New World Order.” Present at the conference is a who’s who of international finance and politics, including the heads of the World Bank and the IMF, Presidents, Prime Ministers, and a large assortment of other Bilderberg and NWO elitists.
Presiding over the whole affair is none other than Paul Desmarais Jr., a member of Montreal’s leading Bilderberg family. This is the fifteenth anniversary of the Conference of Montreal. The conference is taking place at the Bonaventure Hilton in downtown Montreal until Thursday.
The whole place was under a heavy police lockdown, and getting footage from inside was next to impossible without proper media credentials. Nonetheless we were able to get information from media sources inside about what is being discussed.
According to reporters we spoke with, today’s meetings dealt mostly with the economic crisis and what strategies should be employed to deal with it. When we asked if there was any mention of the North American Union, we were told that would be happening on Wednesday. One of the reporters gave us the schedule for the next four days and indeed, on Wednesday, there is a Luncheon at noon entitled “The Americas and the New World Order” headlined by Madeleine Albright which may or may not be a discussion of the North American Union. The descriptive blurb in the schedule describes it thusly: “How can the Americas make changes to play their part in the establishment of a more stable, and fair, basis for international prosperity?”
Several unmarked police cars escorted people out of the building all day, and though protesters burned an effigy of Mr. Desmarais on the sidewalk in front of the Hilton, no one was arrested. The police came along after the protesters had dispersed and extinguished the remaining embers.
Some notables from the list of guests this year include:
Madeleine Albright, Former U.S. Secretary of State
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director, IMF
Robert Zoellick, President, The World Bank Group
Jean-Claude Trichet, President, European Central Bank
Guillermo Ortiz Martinez, Governor, Central Bank of Mexico
Mark Carney, Governor, Bank of Canada
Alvaro Uribe, President of the Republic of Colombia
Angel Gurria, Secretary-General, OECD
In addition there are numerous ministers from governments all over the globe and from the UN, as well as executives from General Electric, Goldman Sachs, Cisco Systems, GDF SUEZ, The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others.
Each day of the conference has a different theme. Today’s theme was Economy and Governance. The meeting opened at 8:30 a.m. with a lecture from the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, entitled: “Towards a New Global Order.” Other events today had titles like “A New World Governance” and “Thriving in a New Financial Order.” Cocktails after a long day of running the globe were at 5.
The themes for the next three days are:
Tuesday, June 9: Energy, Health and Sustainable Development
Wednesday, June 10: International Trade and the Americas
Thursday, June 11: International Finance
The closing luncheon on Thursday at noon entitled “The Economic Crisis and the Role of Central Banks: How Far Can They Go?” sounds like a snore-fest at first, with two Central Bank governors, Mexico’s and Canada’s, giving a speech. However, the lecture’s subtitle indicates that it is something we should all hear: “NAFTA and the Economic Recovery: The Required Joint Action Between North American Central Banks.”
A full list of all the events of the four-day conference can be downloaded in PDF form here:
http://www.conferencedemontreal.com/fileadmin/pdf/2009/Program.pdf
Monday, February 2. 2009
Wars And Economic Failure Have Been Marching Us Towards One World Government
By Bob Chapman
Once the Illuminati have control of the world’s most prolific and profitable oil supply, they can use it to force other nations, as well as their own people, to accept one-world government by turning off the taps.
Both the US and Israel have created the best enemies that money can buy, because the objective is to cause as much bloodshed and destruction as possible, for as long as possible, in order to provide fun and profits for the benefit of their respective military-industrial complexes. After all, you need a scapegoat on which to blame the destruction and loss of life that is necessary to rake in trillions of dollars in war profits, to implement genocides and population control agendas, to exert your political will, to rob other nations of their resources and to satisfy the limitless bloodlust of the satanic, megalomaniacal, trillionaire sociopaths who run the shadow governments in both the US and Israel.
The Illuminati, however, have conspired to achieve their objectives while simultaneously preventing the US and Israel from becoming too powerful, prosperous and independent to want to surrender their sovereignty in favor of world government. After all, why would the people of any free and prosperous nation with superior military and economic prowess on a global basis ever succumb to a one-world, Marxist-fascistic, Orwellian police state of feudality? That is why our respective militaries have been forced to suffer nothing but losses, stalemates and incomplete victories since the end of WWII. This process of implementing wars for profit without achieving too much military power and economic independence has been achieved by hamstringing US and Israeli military operations with incomplete or scaled-back objectives, moronic rules of engagement, insufficient manpower and equipment and implementation of defective military strategies which ensure that operations will devolve into a complete cluster-f–k, thus always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Why did Roosevelt provoke the Japanese, and allow them to destroy our battleships in Pearl Harbor, while the carriers were conveniently on maneuvers off shore? Was is because he was worried the Japanese might find out we had broken their code, or was it to hamstring our navy to make sure the war would drag on in the Pacific for years to ensure that the Illuminist military-industrial complex made mega-profits and took us out of the Depression which the Illuminists themselves had caused? Couldn’t we have prevented the attack, saved several thousand lives and used the old ships until the new ones were built, and still have beaten the snots out of the Japanese? Did Admiral Kimmel have to be disgraced? Why did we ship defective weapons to nationalist forces in China, thus allowing the communist forces to take over after WWII? Why was General Patton assassinated by our own military when he sought to push the soviets back to their own borders, and why did we then set communist Russia up with a new kingdom in the Yalta sellout of Eastern Europe? Why did we abandon the Hungarian freedom fighters at the last second in 1956 and allow the communists in Soviet Russia to slaughter them? Why did we not bomb the Chinese troops in North Korea for a sure victory as desired by General MacArthur, who was later disgraced by the evil Illuminist puppet, Harry Truman, instead settling for a division of Korea into North and South sectors by a demilitarized zone which we still occupy to this day? Why did we cut short the TET Offensive in Vietnam, which would have brought us to a complete victory according to the leading North Vietnamese General who admitted he and his troops would have been done for, thus settling for a later loss instead after a long, bloody and expensive war? Why did we stop short of taking Baghdad in the First Gulf War? Was it because we were winning too speedily with too few casualties for the Illuminists to make their usual gargantuan war profits? Was there not enough bloodshed to quench their thirst the Illuminati’s thirst for blood? Why did we use depleted uranium in both Gulf Wars so as to sicken and kill our own troops? Was it to make the medical and pharmaceutical industries flush with cash and to cut pensions short, thus saving hundreds of billions of dollars? Was it to reduce the number of patriotic veterans who might violently object to the implementation of world government? Why did it take more time to beat a bunch of rag-head terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan numbering in the mere tens of thousands than it took to win WWII? Why did we use a small fraction of the number of troops recommended by our senior military commanders for the so-called War on Terror? Why were our troops continually ill-equipped and running excessively long tours of duty? Was it because we wanted to extend the war and wear out our military in order to reduce the number of US troops, and the potential for objection to world government by our patriotic veterans, by replacing them with mercenary killers who could care less? Why did we cause a civil war on top of the war to remove Saddam, due to the supposed errors in judgment that were made in our strategies for conquest? Was it to extend the war while channeling hundreds of billions to Illuminist contractors and mercenaries via no-bid contracts? Why did Clinton give our nuclear secrets to the Chinese? Are you beginning to get the picture?
In 1947 to 1948, Israel was sold out by Britain as it gave up possession of Palestine, which left them with indefensible borders and a country less than ten miles wide in some sections, thereby ensuring continual conflict with the Arabs. This vicious redrawing of borders to foment conflict is something the British Black Nobility are experts at after centuries of practice. They thought that the Arabs would destroy Israel which was becoming a thorn in their side because they wanted a piece of the Middle East oil action, and Israel was putting a crimp in their plans. But then Israel won miraculously in the face of an overwhelming attack by several Arab nations simultaneously, and Truman saw his chance to use Israel to gain a foothold in the Middle East, a base of operations for Illuminists of the US faction. Incidentally, Britain lost virtually its entire empire after screwing Israel, a nice bit of poetic justice and divine retribution for their treachery. But Israel did not press its advantage, winning by simply surviving, in its first war with the surrounding Arab states. Many of the Palestinians left the Palestinian territories bordering on Israel during this conflict, thinking that Israel would be easily defeated and that they would get to take over all the Israeli lands, as well as get their own back. Their desire to get this abandoned land back is the basis for the so-called "right of return." Frankly, in attacking Israel, the Arabs forfeited their rights to their own lands by failing to respect Israel’s borders, as did the Palestinians by cooperating in the war to destroy Israel. The surrounding Arab states could and should have taken all the displaced Palestinians in, but instead left a good portion of them along Israel’s new occupied lands as a hemorrhoid for Israel to deal with, allowing their Arab brethren to live in poverty and squalor rather than take them in after telling them to leave and then losing the war. They use the Palestinian territories as a base from which they can terrorize Israel and eventually destroy them. They have no intention of giving Israel peace, but instead want to take them apart piece by piece via the corrupt Oslo process and the so-called Roadmap to Peace, which should be termed the Roadmap to Israel’s Destruction.
In its 1967 Six Day War, which was a preemptive strike by Israel in an act of self-preservation against Arab states massing troops along its miniscule borders, Israel could have been more aggressive, but they pulled back and started negotiating with the Arabs after less than a week of fighting, when they could have extended their borders and made them more defensible. Why? Was it because the US insisted to protect its US oil interests with the Arabs? Was it because, in any case, the US Illuminists did not want Israel to become too powerful and extend their borders too far, because they wanted to destroy Israel when they had finished using it as a base of operations for Middle East conquest? Why did the US withhold aid from Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War until it was almost too late, thereby almost destroying Israel in the process? Was it because Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State, wanted to bloody Israel’s nose to show them who was boss, and that they had better do as they were told, or else? Why, after Israel blew through Lebanon in the First Lebanon War and surrounded Arafat and his PLO, did they allow him to escape to Libya? Why did they tolerate the PLO for so many years when they could have easily eliminated them? Why did they allow Hamas to be eligible for elective office when they are sworn to the destruction of Israel? In the second Lebanon War, why did they use a tiny fraction of the forces used in the First Lebanon War against an enemy that was far more entrenched and dug in than in the first war? Was it because they were not supposed to win at the insistence of the US? Were they told to keep Hezbollah in place to keep fomenting terror and trouble, thus generating profits for the US and Israeli military-industrial complexes? Why does the US fund Saudi Arabia which then funds Hamas’ operations? Is it not convenient for oil companies to have an excuse to gouge consumers every time the Middle East ignites in conflict? Is not the whole peace process just a way to dismantle Israel after US and Israeli Illuminists are finished with it? You better believe it!!! Are you starting to get the picture again?
The fact that the US is the top-ranked military power in the world, and that the Israeli military is the top-ranked military in the Middle East, is no coincidence. Israel, of course, derives much of its strength from money and aid provided by the US, and it is, in essence, a satellite base for the Illuminist operation to create a region of oil hegemony in the Middle East where oil is the cheapest, and therefore the most profitable, to extract. Additionally, the control of this crucial resource provides great political clout and the opportunity for economic extortion in the great play for power. Russia is currently doing something similar with natural gas. Once the Illuminati have control of the world’s most prolific and profitable oil supply, they can use it to force other nations, as well as their own people, to accept one-world government by turning off the taps, by driving the price up to extortionate levels or by driving the price down to levels that are economically unsustainable for competing nations who would prefer to pass on a one-world system.
In addition to the manufactured wars for profit and the attempt to put a stranglehold on critical commodities and other resources, is the Illuminist economic destruction agenda which is being played out right before your eyes in the US and around the world. This destruction was brought about by the intentional creation of a conspiratorial daisy chain of fraud throughout the mortgage and consumer loan industries via derivatives traded in the unregulated OTC derivatives market, accompanied by intentional regulatory failures by the Fed and the elitist bootlickers in our government along with legislative machinations that opened the Pandora’s Box previously closed and locked by Glass-Steagall, AND NOT BY UNINTENTIONAL MISCALCULATIONS OR ERRORS IN JUDGMENT — THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING!!!
The products spawned by that daisy chain of fraud were spread throughout the world like a deadly poison, only to be cut off unexpectedly and serendipitously by Meredith Whitney of Oppenheimer when she exposed Citigroup’s subprime derivatives as being toxic waste weapons of mass financial destruction. In addition, here in the US, the Illuminati have used free trade, globalization, off-shoring and outsourcing, along with both legal and illegal immigration, to bust our unions, and to destroy our domestic manufacturing sector by shipping it overseas, along with the productive, good-paying jobs produced by that sector. In place of those jobs in the manufacturing sector, we now peddle toxic waste derivatives, flip hamburgers and greet people entering department stores. These are the new "wonderful" jobs driving our new economy. The idea here was to knock the snots out of everyone around the globe, and especially in the US, so they will beg for a one-world solution, which will of course be offered in true Hegelian Dialectic fashion.
Wednesday, January 28. 2009
How Realistic Is A North American Currency?
Commentary: Uniting U.S., Canada, Mexico money could result from crisis
By Todd Harrison
Wall Street Journal | Thomas Jefferson once said: “When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hang on.” As the global financial system pushes on a string, investors are desperately trying to hold tight.
The New World Order is upon us, full of hope, promise and a fair amount of fear. In our recent discussion regarding the direction of our country, we noted the risks of catering to conventional wisdom and the implications for the U.S. dollar.
The Minyanville mantra is to provide financial news you need to know before you know you need it. That’s a fine line to walk, as foresight often flies in the face of mainstream acceptance.
In 2006, it seemed counterintuitive to forecast a “prolonged socioeconomic malaise entirely more depressing than a recession.”
For years, the notion of an “invisible hand” was conspiracy theory until we learned that the Working Group on Financial Markets was a central policy tool. See Minyanville column.
And now, as we gaze across our historically significant horizon, we must open our minds to thoughts and ideas that may seem foreign to folks conditioned by the past and stunned by the present.
Read full article
Wednesday, January 14. 2009
Globalists 'Salivating' Over Collapse of U.S
Warning issued over drive for Constitution Convention
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily | Globalists are "salivating" over the possibility of a Constitutional Convention at which issues such as the 2nd Amendment could handily be dismissed, according to a leader who warns Virginia likely is the next target for the drive.
"There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition," Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin wrote in his latest commentary.
"The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America's independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union – in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law."
Read full article
Saturday, December 20. 2008
Kissinger Calls For New International System Out Of World Crises
Says global necessities should foster an “age of compatible interests”
By Steve Watson
Infowars | Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger has repeated his routine call for a new international political order, stating that global crises should be seen as an opportunity to move toward a borderless world where national interests are outweighed by global necessities.
Speaking with Charlie Rose earlier this week, Kissinger cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.
"I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it." Kissinger said, referring to the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations.
The former National Security advisor and Secretary of State compared the current world climate to the period immediately following the second world war, which led to the creation and empowerment of global bodies such as the UN and NATO.
"If you look back to the end of the second world war, many people now think that the period between the end of 1945 and 1950 was in many ways the most creative period or one of the most creative periods of foreign policy, but it started with chaos and fear of Russian invasion of Europe and governments that were very weak." Kissinger stated.
"The new administration is really coming into office at a strange period in this sense," he continued. "It looks like a period of horrendous crisis all over the world. And we ourselves are in a severe crisis financially, but at the end of it our relative position in the world is actually stronger than it has been in the sense that Russia, China, India all have strong reasons to contribute to a quiet international environment because of the preoccupation they must have with their domestic affairs."
"They do not wish and have good reasons not to wish for an international atmosphere of crisis. So Paradoxically, this moment of crisis is also one of great opportunity." Kissinger commented.
Interviewer Charlie Rose, who has previously listened to Kissinger’s calls for a new world order, recognized the direction the conversation was taking and urged Kissinger to elaborate:
"When you talk about a new structure, I’m not sure, you’ve used the term new world order, what is it? Is it simply a world order that is defined by new interest and new mutuality of interest?" Rose asked.
"That’s certainly how you have to start. I know the view that you start by converting the whole world to our political philosophy. I don’t think that can be done in one or two terms of an administration. That is an historic process that has its own rhythm." Kissinger replied.
"There are so many elements in this world at the moment that can only be dealt with on a global basis, and that’s unique," Kissinger continued. "Proliferation, energy, environment, All of these issues necessitate a global approach, so you don’t have to invent an international order. So every country has to mitigate its pure national interests by the global necessities, or define it’s national interests by global necessities But it cannot push its own technically selfish interests only by throwing its own weight around." he stated.
Kissinger also related that he has been struck by how much the move toward a new global order has been enhanced by the recent crises.
"The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force." he said.
"This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests."
Kissinger claimed that the key players in international politics, India, China, Russia, America, Europe, should recognize they have parallel concerns and work together to forge what he termed an "age of compatible interests".
"I’m not saying that leaders will be up to all the opportunities that I may perceive but I think they can start moving in that direction and I’m actually fairly hopeful that we will be moving in that direction." Kissinger said.
Monday, December 8. 2008
Financial Times: “And Now for a World Government”
By Gideon Rachman
Financial Times | I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.
So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.
First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.
Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.
But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.
Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.
A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.
The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.
These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.
But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.
So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.
But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.
There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.
But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.
The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.
Recent Comments