Historian and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger observed, "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as words and money." By "words," I assume he means the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Even H.G. Wells, a strong proponent of a planned world state at the turn of the 20th century, spoke of the sacrifices its creation would entail: "The establishment of the world community will surely exact a price - and who can tell what that price may be? - in toil, suffering, and blood."
The attack of 9-11 is seen by many anti-globalists as the first volley in a series of manufactured attacks that will lead to the establishment of martial law in the United States and eventual absorption into a One World government. As with 9-11, the collapse of Wall Street was predicted well in advance by anti-globalists, and viewed as only the first in a series of fabricated economic assaults that will culminate in the creation of an American Union (AU) with Canada and Mexico, and a new regional currency, the Amero.
The next president, they say, will proceed with this march toward the New World Order by continuing to dismantle the Constitution and the country's infrastructure, and will utilize more false flag attacks, economic hardship, and fear to create such a state of panic that the American people will welcome the use of extreme measures to restore security.
NO, THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS NOT ALL ONE BIG HAPPY FAMILY
Many within the truth and anti-globalist communities regard a vote for Obama or McCain as simply a vote for a different finger on the same New World Order fist (a fist that is poised to squash freedom). Regardless of who becomes the next president, the globalists' plan will move forward.
Given the known history of the global elite in general and the CFR in particular, such an analysis is overly simplistic. From the start, not all of the world's elite were on board with the plan for global government as it was being put forward. At some point early in the 20th century, the global elite diverged into two main camps, those referred to as the Fabian Socialists, and the Fascists. While it seems that both camps agreed to work together toward the common desire for global government, the form this government would take was a point of contention.
Indeed, there was so much contention that in 1933, Sen. Prescott Bush, the grandfather of G.W. Bush, led an elitist plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And during the Vietnam War, the CFR experienced a deep rift between those who supported the war, and those vehemently opposed to it and who felt that Rockefeller's handpicked chairman, William Bundy, was a war criminal. Just because the global elite sit on the boards of the same organizations and bunk together at their Bohemian Grove annual retreats, doesn't mean they are all in agreement over the best direction for the world.
Of course, what is still very disturbing is that the global elite do apparently agree on the creation of a one world government. The idea of one world government initially gained acceptance by being promoted as a means of achieving peace, justice and fairness for the majority of peoples around the world who had been continually overrun and abused by Empires that put into place colonial dictatorships around the world, squelching human freedom and dignity. After the U.S. Civil War and the bloodbath of World War I, it seemed clear to many leading intellectuals of the day that something needed to be done. But what began at the turn of the last century as a convergence between idealistic humanists, intellectuals, global royalty and the economic elite, has predictably deteriorated into something else entirely. The probably well-intentioned intellectuals and academics and their naive idealism have steadily been replaced by ever more and more cynical corporate directors and Machiavellian politicians who pursue policies designed to amass their own economic power, global influence and control.
The division between the elite has likewise taken on a corporatist bent wherein the "socialists" are now the 'neo-liberals', and the fascists are now the 'neo-conservatives.' It is not so much ideals that separate the two camps, as it is efficacy: what approach is likely to be the most effective and hold the greatest prospect for success? It seems clear that there is a large contingent within the global elite who don't really care which approach is taken, so long as it benefits a one world government where corporate interests are paramount.
So, for we Americans, what difference does it make whether we elect the candidate backed by the neo-liberal wing of the CFR (essentially Obama-Brzezinski), or the CFR's neo-con-backed candidate (McCain-Kissinger), since both are carrying out the globalist agenda?
First, let's look at what we know about each of these groups. While both camps are firmly corporatist and "free trade", their military and geopolitical objectives are different. The neo-liberals, still called "socialists" by the neo-cons, favor a world federation where peace and stability is maintained largely by ensuring that social needs of the population are being met.
The neo-cons, that appear to have the majority of the clout of the military industrial/intelligence complex, seek an Empire-type global system with the U.S. as the ruling and sole super-power, and where perpetual conflicts, military strength, and a massive security intelligence apparatus ensure the security of the global state. They view the "socialist" system as a threat to their "freedom" to amass unrestricted power and wealth, and likewise, the neo-liberals are uneasy with the neo-cons. This disharmony between different visions has led the neo-con wing to repeatedly out-maneuver the neo-liberals and steal the past two presidential elections. Whereas the neo-liberals would likely seek an international armed forces (like the U.N.?) for military operations, the neo-cons favor an end to national armies in favor of privatized forces such as Blackwater. When people appear astonished by the Bush administration's treatment of the U.S. armed forces fighting in Iraq (lack of body armor, opposing veterans benefits, the Walter Reed fiasco, etc), one needs to view such policy as part of an overall effort to reduce the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military to the point where mercenary forces will ultimately be needed to replace the present personnel. Likewise, other government "failures, " like Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, the recent economic collapse, Iraq, Afghanistan, --none of these are from incompetence, but are rather failures by design. The idea was never to win in Iraq and get out, but to get mired and stay, all the while placing continual stresses upon the military, and the federal budget by continuing to pay weapons and military contractors.
Recently, the overall globalist goal has not been to strengthen the position of the U.S., but to weaken it: economically, militarily, and socially.
The most simplistic response to this is to say that the presidency doesn't matter, or that voting doesn't matter, because everything is controlled by the elite anyway. But if it doesn't matter who wins, then why have the Republicans seen fit to steal the last two presidential elections, and are trying to steal a third? And just as notably, why haven't the Democrats (or the media) said anything or done anything about these illegal election thefts?
There are those who maintain that American politics is all part of the well-acted veneer, theatrics played out to convince us that this is important stuff, and where decisions and policies are decided. President Clinton's mentor, the late Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley said as much in his tome Tragedy and Hope (about the elite world order), when he wrote: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
Even H.G. Wells, a strong proponent of a planned world state at the turn of the 20th century, spoke of the sacrifices its creation would entail: "The establishment of the world community will surely exact a price - and who can tell what that price may be? - in toil, suffering, and blood."
The attack of 9-11 is seen by many anti-globalists as the first volley in a series of manufactured attacks that will lead to the establishment of martial law in the United States and eventual absorption into a One World government. As with 9-11, the collapse of Wall Street was predicted well in advance by anti-globalists, and viewed as only the first in a series of fabricated economic assaults that will culminate in the creation of an American Union (AU) with Canada and Mexico, and a new regional currency, the Amero.
The next president, they say, will proceed with this march toward the New World Order by continuing to dismantle the Constitution and the country's infrastructure, and will utilize more false flag attacks, economic hardship, and fear to create such a state of panic that the American people will welcome the use of extreme measures to restore security.
Many within the truth and anti-globalist communities regard a vote for Obama or McCain as simply a vote for a different finger on the same New World Order fist (a fist that is poised to squash freedom). Regardless of who becomes the next president, the globalists' plan will move forward.
Given the known history of the global elite in general and the CFR in particular, such an analysis is overly simplistic. From the start, not all of the world's elite were on board with the plan for global government as it was being put forward. At some point early in the 20th century, the global elite diverged into two main camps, those referred to as the Fabian Socialists, and the Fascists. While it seems that both camps agreed to work together toward the common desire for global government, the form this government would take was a point of contention.
Indeed, there was so much contention that in 1933, Sen. Prescott Bush, the grandfather of G.W. Bush, led an elitist plot to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And during the Vietnam War, the CFR experienced a deep rift between those who supported the war, and those vehemently opposed to it and who felt that Rockefeller's handpicked chairman, William Bundy, was a war criminal. Just because the global elite sit on the boards of the same organizations and bunk together at their Bohemian Grove annual retreats, doesn't mean they are all in agreement over the best direction for the world.
Of course, what is still very disturbing is that the global elite do apparently agree on the creation of a one world government. The idea of one world government initially gained acceptance by being promoted as a means of achieving peace, justice and fairness for the majority of peoples around the world who had been continually overrun and abused by Empires that put into place colonial dictatorships around the world, squelching human freedom and dignity. After the U.S. Civil War and the bloodbath of World War I, it seemed clear to many leading intellectuals of the day that something needed to be done. But what began at the turn of the last century as a convergence between idealistic humanists, intellectuals, global royalty and the economic elite, has predictably deteriorated into something else entirely. The probably well-intentioned intellectuals and academics and their naive idealism have steadily been replaced by ever more and more cynical corporate directors and Machiavellian politicians who pursue policies designed to amass their own economic power, global influence and control.
The division between the elite has likewise taken on a corporatist bent wherein the "socialists" are now the 'neo-liberals', and the fascists are now the 'neo-conservatives.' It is not so much ideals that separate the two camps, as it is efficacy: what approach is likely to be the most effective and hold the greatest prospect for success? It seems clear that there is a large contingent within the global elite who don't really care which approach is taken, so long as it benefits a one world government where corporate interests are paramount.
So, for we Americans, what difference does it make whether we elect the candidate backed by the neo-liberal wing of the CFR (essentially Obama-Brzezinski), or the CFR's neo-con-backed candidate (McCain-Kissinger), since both are carrying out the globalist agenda?
First, let's look at what we know about each of these groups. While both camps are firmly corporatist and "free trade", their military and geopolitical objectives are different. The neo-liberals, still called "socialists" by the neo-cons, favor a world federation where peace and stability is maintained largely by ensuring that social needs of the population are being met.
The neo-cons, that appear to have the majority of the clout of the military industrial/intelligence complex, seek an Empire-type global system with the U.S. as the ruling and sole super-power, and where perpetual conflicts, military strength, and a massive security intelligence apparatus ensure the security of the global state. They view the "socialist" system as a threat to their "freedom" to amass unrestricted power and wealth, and likewise, the neo-liberals are uneasy with the neo-cons. This disharmony between different visions has led the neo-con wing to repeatedly out-maneuver the neo-liberals and steal the past two presidential elections. Whereas the neo-liberals would likely seek an international armed forces (like the U.N.?) for military operations, the neo-cons favor an end to national armies in favor of privatized forces such as Blackwater. When people appear astonished by the Bush administration's treatment of the U.S. armed forces fighting in Iraq (lack of body armor, opposing veterans benefits, the Walter Reed fiasco, etc), one needs to view such policy as part of an overall effort to reduce the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military to the point where mercenary forces will ultimately be needed to replace the present personnel. Likewise, other government "failures, " like Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, the recent economic collapse, Iraq, Afghanistan, --none of these are from incompetence, but are rather failures by design. The idea was never to win in Iraq and get out, but to get mired and stay, all the while placing continual stresses upon the military, and the federal budget by continuing to pay weapons and military contractors.
Recently, the overall globalist goal has not been to strengthen the position of the U.S., but to weaken it: economically, militarily, and socially.
The most simplistic response to this is to say that the presidency doesn't matter, or that voting doesn't matter, because everything is controlled by the elite anyway. But if it doesn't matter who wins, then why have the Republicans seen fit to steal the last two presidential elections, and are trying to steal a third? And just as notably, why haven't the Democrats (or the media) said anything or done anything about these illegal election thefts?
There are those who maintain that American politics is all part of the well-acted veneer, theatrics played out to convince us that this is important stuff, and where decisions and policies are decided. President Clinton's mentor, the late Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley said as much in his tome Tragedy and Hope (about the elite world order), when he wrote: "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
