New World Disorder

By David Ignatius

Friday, May 4, 2007; A23

After the Iraq debacle, nearly everyone seems to agree that "unilateralism" in foreign policy is a bad thing. Leading the march of born-again multilateralists is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been meeting with representatives of Syria, Iran and several dozen other nations in the hope that they can apply a collective tourniquet to Iraq, where America's go-it-alone approach is failing.

The "neighbors" meeting is an example of the kind of cooperative problem solving that everyone favors in theory. The difficulty is that nobody today has any real experience with how a genuinely multilateral system might work. And the more you think about it, the more potential obstacles you begin to see in the passage from unilateral hell to multilateral heaven.

The nuclear strategist Herman Kahn pondered this problem in a 1983 essay on "multipolarity and stability." Kahn made his name by "thinking about the unthinkable" -- namely, the consequences of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. But he recognized that the bipolar world of the Cold War had an inherent stability. The two superpowers understood the rules of the game, and because the dangers of conflict were so great, they learned to discipline themselves and their respective allies.

A multipolar world eventually would be stable, too, Kahn argued. He hypothesized that by 2000, there would be seven economic giants -- the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil -- and that they would gradually work out orderly rules. The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn warned, would be in moving from a bipolar to a multipolar world.

We are now in that process of transition, and it's proving just as volatile as Kahn predicted. American power alone is demonstrably unable to achieve world order; we can't even maintain the peace in Baghdad. But no multilateral coalition has emerged as an alternative. The United Nations, the nominal instrument of collective security, allowed itself to be run out of Iraq by a terrorist bomb in the early months of the war.

The multilateral world is disorganized on several levels. First, it's not clear what the "poles" of the emerging order are or how they will align. Is the Muslim world a pole? If so, who will lead it -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan? Can the Muslim nations of the Middle East put aside their traditional rivalries and act responsibly in resolving a crisis? That's what the meeting of Iraq's neighbors this week is testing. An exhausted America finally seems ready for a multilateral exit strategy from Iraq, but are the neighbors able to deliver it?

Does Russia intend to organize a new pole of its own? President Vladimir Putin certainly sounds like he wants to regain a share of Moscow's old influence. But listening to an acrimonious debate last weekend at the Brussels Forum among diplomats from nations that once made up the Soviet bloc, it's obvious that this pole would be anything but stable. While a Putin ally was enthusing about the new Russia, someone in the back of the room -- a Georgian? an Estonian? a Pole? -- shouted out: "Liar," and you wondered for a moment if punches would be thrown.

The disorder goes deeper. Most of the major nations are on the cusp of political change. The United States is the most obvious example: George Bush will leave the White House in less than two years, but to whom? Public rage over Iraq is buffeting the two politicians who, just a few months ago, were their party's front-runners, Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton. The only certainty about the next president is that he or she will represent an America that is angry and unpredictable.

Big changes are coming in France and Britain, too. Gaullist foreign policy will outlive President Jacques Chirac, just as the Atlantic alliance will survive the departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair. But both moorings will probably be looser -- adding additional drift. And what should we expect from a post-Putin Russia -- assuming he follows through on his promise to retire next year?

I listened to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say during a news conference in Tehran last year that the post-1945 world order was ending. All of its institutions, starting with the United Nations, were becoming irrelevant, he argued. A new world would be shaped by rising powers that would create new rules of the international game.

At the time, I thought it was more of Ahmadinejad's crazy rhetoric. But I suspect that this vision of a world in transition may be correct: We're all multilateralists now, but we inhabit a world that makes the Cold War seem like the good old days.

The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

The USS Liberty Case: The Israel Who Attacked Us Then is Destroying Us Now

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
by Mark Dankof

Every once in a while, one runs across a story that stimulates tears, anger, and contemplative reflection at the same time.

I don't think I've ever encountered anything quite like the story of the USS Liberty and what happened to it on June 8th, 1967. Eric Margolis's tome on the subject in 2001, entitled, "The USS Liberty: America's Most Shameful Secret," and James Ennis's June 1993 piece entitled, "The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years" for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, will provide the uninitiated with the synopsis of what happened.

In short, Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, knowing full well who and what it was. 34 dead Americans and 171 wounded was the result.

Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara deliberately ordered the American naval fighters scrambled to help the Liberty, launched from the USS America and the USS Saratoga, to stand down. Captain Ward Boston, the legal counsel for the U. S. Navy Board of Inquiry that "investigated" the Liberty tragedy, now admits to Mark Glenn of the American Free Press that the former was ordered to cover up the voluminous data which proved the Israeli assault was not an "accident," as claimed by the Zionist State. Compounding the outrage, Jewish U. S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Jay Cristol, wrote a book with the assistance of the Israeli government and intelligence community, entitled "The Liberty Incident," the transparently fraudulent character of which is fully exposed by William Hughes in the latter's online article, "USS Liberty Smearing Backfires."

Cristol is neither a professional historian, combat veteran, or intelligence analyst. His data and simian analysis in The Liberty Incident contradicts the sworn testimony of Liberty survivors, Dean Rusk, Admiral Moorer, and 3 different CIA reports from the period--one of which fingers Israeli General Moshe Dayan as the one who ordered the brutal assault on the American naval vessel--which even included the strafing of lifeboats and their occupants, a criminal act in complete violation of the Geneva Convention.

But what is new or startling about this? After all, Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine, chronicled by Ilan Pappe's definitive work on the subject, has involved acts of terror and murder on an ongoing basis that include the laundry list of such deeds emanating from luminaries like Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Ariel Sharon. The bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the pogram at Deir Yassin, and the Sabra and Shatila refugee camp slaughters in Lebanon in 1982, are but the tip of the iceberg. But in an America where Corporate Media, Capitol Hill, the Bush Administration, and the State-run Educational Establishment are Zionist-Occupied Territory, such bloody blights on history are not the work of terrorists, but "freedom-fighters." Just ask the Zionist mouthpieces for the ersatz American Right at Murdoch's Fox News.

But now comes America's War on Terror in Iraq--and maybe Iran. After running a tab currently at $500 billion, with 655,000 Iraqi dead and the United States death toll continuing to mount steadily each day, signs indicate that the American Natives Are Restless. The talk--chronicled by Sy Hersh in The New Yorker--that the Bush Administration is contemplating the utilization of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, is giving pause to even the marginally sane. Present extension of Army tours in Iraq and cannibalization of National Guard units for the same, may be followed by a return to military conscription if a preemptive attack on Ahmadinejad's regime ignites a conflagration throughout the Islamic world, followed by Iranian asymmetrical military attacks against American assets at home and abroad. Is an apocalypse unveiling before the eyes of a public still mesmerized by the World Series, the Super Bowl, and Anna Nicole Smith?

The restless natives need to become the Angry American Natives, steamed by a government run by an evil foreign lobby, that has sent its children to die in a war dictated not by the Constitution of the United States or the legitimate national security agenda of the Nation--but by the denizens of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem who epitomize the radical evil of the clinically demonic ideology known as Zionism. When the Angry American Natives figure out that Israel has been pushing the buttons of this war, along with driving the American foreign and domestic policy agenda since 1948, they will be driven to act in the interest of national survival and the recovery of the Old Republic. The clock is ticking. Time is running out.

And what should be the rallying cry of patriots euphemistically known as Angry American Natives, in the prosecution of a real War that involves family, church, home, and hearth in a fight-to-the-death struggle against Globalist Internationalism, Zionism, and the New World Order?

Remember the Liberty!

Email this • Subscribe to this feed

posted by Blackie at 10:12 PM

Normative prognosis of American Quagmaire

Sat, 2007-02-17 02:07

By Prof Jan R. Hakemulder - Syndicate Features
Prof Jan R. Hakemulder is Chancellor, Intercultural Open University, The Netherlands.

It is indisputable that the most powerful ideas of our times came from Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the Clash of Civilizations and Francis Fukuyama’s postulate of The End of History & The Last Man; they provided the worldview and doctrinal basis for the Project New American Century (PNAC).

A single casting vote of the US Supreme Court late 2000 brought the Bush Administration to White House translating this PNAC to global strategy.

The result: the US sinks ever deeper in the quagmire of its Iraq invasion, more ‘Iraqs’ are in the making across the entire region, and Iran’s emergence as the regional nuclear superpower remains unhaltable.

Surely, we, as humanity, are getting closer to another ‘Cuban Missile Crisis’; and the book, Normative Prognosis, 2011’ by Prof Asiananda of Sri Aurobindo Chair for Human Unity, I know, has come out of the author’s premonition that we might not have the same luck as was in 1962!

That fatal bullet in 1914 in Sarajevo which unleashed the long drawn out European civil war of World War I & II followed by the Cold War turning the twentieth century into bloody landscape of a hundred million deaths may be upon us again, this time at nuclear threshold of Armageddon proportions.

PNAC is discredited and gone, but the Huntington postulate of the clash of civilizations will go on as the war on global terror and counter terror; and Fukuyama’s liberal and libertarian Last Man who cares alone for his body for maximizing its pleasures in the so called pursuit of happiness and who dreads ‘body bags’ has now surrendered to the jihadi First Man who happily consumes his body in suicide squads for the glory of his Spirit and the Paradise.

In as much as the US voter abhors body bags, the US has no other way but to relinquish its unipolar superpower status in the world leaving behind the dreadful anarchy of the ‘second nuclear age’ and delivering us again to another Sarajevo of incalculable consequences for the twenty-first century.

If Huntington and Fukuyama were ideas that led our world to this pass, countervailing ideas might also save and redeem it, it is in this sense this book describes the repressed and suppressed central reality of the bleeding civilizational and planetary wounds of our time and pleads for their healing as a geopolitical priority for preventing the next Sarajevo. There must emerge a saner and more balanced sense of New Reality after Huntington, Fukuyama, the PNAC and so on.

A receding ‘American Century’ flowing into the New Asian Century and human millennium cannot come forth from a Washington that remains imprisoned to the Huntington-Fukuyama paradigm; it can come about alone from a ‘New America’ that recaptures and self-renews the ‘New World Man’ of the Old American Frontiers instituting the Novus Ordo Seclorum inscribed in the Great Seal of the United States of America; this is the Pax Americana of Hope, the City upon the Hill John Winthrop long ago presaged, which John Kennedy renewed in the revolutionary call of his inaugural address: “My fellow citizens of the world”, and which was vaguely coming out in the Global Ecological Marshal Plan Al Gore has proposed; upon this matrix must be envisioned the Glasnost II if this Sarajevo is to be prevented as very well argued out in Prof Asiananda in his latest book.

Reminiscent of the Christopher Columbus passage from the old world to the New World, humanity stands at the threshold of the passage from our planet to cosmos: the poles of the Moon have enough solar energy that human colony there around 2024 is now a viable NASA Project; our generation that was fortunate enough to witnessing the turn of the new millennium is the one privileged to make that leap from planet to cosmos.

Upholding such a geopolitical vision as the ‘common civilizational adventure of all humanity’, we are able to come out of our present civilizational confrontation and planetary deadlock. This is the Pax Americana of Hope, the Pax Indica of the Spirit, the Pax Humana envisaged by Asiananda as the New Order of the Ages.

Living in the Nazi occupied Netherlands and my life by chance spared by fate from the lot of the millions who lost it, peace became the passion of my life; my UNESCO assignments for adult education in Africa taught me the potential of education in peace building, I felt impelled to do something more tangible for peace and founded the Intercultural Open University, a quarter of century ago; our work in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, in China and Japan convinced me of the convergence of the High Civilizations which since time immemorial flourished regionally now in the single global civilization, I visualize this as the coming of the New Global Silk Road, heralding nothing short of the Second Axial Period marking the planet’s passage to cosmos.

This is the vision that has gone into the founding of the Sri Aurobindo Chair for Human Unity at our University which my friend and colleague Prof Asiananda has been holding now for a decade, he has remained committed to renewing and revalidating Rajiv Gandhi’s Action Plan (for a non-violent, nuclear weapon–free New World Order) enabled through the transformation of the UN Security Council in the Round Table of the New Human Commonwealth. Such a transition of the status quo Yalta Order is normative and historically inevitable, and has to be the order of the day after Huntington Fukuyama and the demise of the PNAC.

Prof Jan R. Hakemulder The writer is Chancellor, Intercultural Open University, The Netherlands. This article is excerpted from his preface to Prof Asiananda’s new book, ‘Normative Prognosis-2011’

- Syndicate Features -

Unilateral force has nothing to do with global democracy: Vladimir Putin

Related
Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy 02/10/2007
---
The US has overstepped its borders in every way. We must build a new world order to ensure security and prosperity for all

Vladimir Putin
Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

The universal, indivisible character of security can be expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is security for all". As Franklin D Roosevelt said at the onset of the second world war: "When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries is in danger."

These words remain relevant today. Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global standoff pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the cold war left behind live ammunition, figuratively speaking. It left ideological stereotypes, double standards and other remnants of cold war thinking.

What then is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it describes a scenario in which there is one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And this is pernicious, not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this, certainly, has nothing in common with democracy. Because democracy is the power of the majority in the light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

We, Russia, are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves. I believe that unipolarity is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. The model itself is flawed: at its root it provides no moral foundations for modern civilisation. But witnessed in today's world is a tendency to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And even more are dying than before. Many more.

Today we are witnessing an almost unrestrained hyper-use of force - military force - in international relations, a force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. One country, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.

This force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, threats such as terrorism have now taken on a global character. I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and is changing so quickly.

The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a truly exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states. However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And yet the fact is that these conflicts are killing people - civilians - in their hundreds and thousands.

At the same time we face the question of whether we should remain unmoved by various internal conflicts inside countries, authoritarian regimes, tyrants, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Can we be indifferent observers? Of course not. But I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the charter of the United Nations. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN.

Another important theme that directly affects global security is the struggle against poverty. On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world's poorest countries - sometimes substantial financial resources (which tend to be linked with the development of that same donor country's companies). And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously retain their agricultural subsidies while limiting some countries' access to hi-tech products.

And let's say things as they are - one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness, but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, say, a region such as the Middle East, where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.

It is obvious that the world's leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.

Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always exercised its prerogative to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

· This is an edited extract from a speech delivered on Saturday by the Russian president at the 43rd Munich conference on security policy securityconference.de

Lady Lynn de Rothschild throws her support behind Hillary

Who is this supporter?
---
"...Barclays Bank, Hollinger (Owned by Canadian Privy Councilor Conrad Black; Evelyn de Rothschild sat on the same board, as did Kissinger and many other very important globalists."
---

"...Zionists Henry Kissinger (Fritz Kraemer and Rockefeller protege; friend of Jacob and Evelyn de Rothschild..."

---

"Sir Evelyn and Lady (Lynn) de Rothschild who have a house this summer at Edgartown. The ebullient American, Lynn, was at dinner in a gauzy little nothing, sporting an enormous ring. Vogue's Billy Norwich gazed at it and asked if the bauble came from JAR (Joel Rosenthal's multi-coveted international gems shop). Lynn laughed and showed that the ring was just a bunch of colorful beads held together on an elastic string. "I paid only a few dollars for it in a local dress shop." Billy pressed, "Well, do you have any good jewelry, Lady de Rothschild?" She laughed. "Lord de Rothschild, does your wife have any good jewelry?" Evelyn just smiled and sat back in his chair. He seems very proud of his Yankee girl and he is getting used to the way Americans tease him... Lynn was deeply involved in the recent Live 8 event and was even instrumental in getting U.S. television to carry the show after they dragged their feet, worrying that the event might become politicized. She spoke with Karl Rove several times seeking and getting White House help."
---
Related

Lady Lynn De Rothschild Profile - Forbes.com

---

Hillary Clamps Down
Right Out of Campaign Gate, Senator Clinton Tells Fund-Raisers There’s Only One Very Hungry Democratic Presidential Candidate! Lady Lynn de Rothschild E-Mails 50 of Her Dearest Friends

By: Jason Horowitz
Date: 1/29/2007
Page: 1

Hassan Nemazee is a very powerful Democratic fund-raiser.

As one of the premiere money people in a pivotal check-writing town, Mr. Nemazee’s apartment has been the site of visit after visit by prospective 2008 candidates hoping for a taste of his homemade Chinese food and considerable financial influence. Practically since the day the 2004 race ended, he has obliged, arranging small audiences of key donors on a regular basis.

That’s all over now.

Just three days after Hillary Clinton officially entered the race by announcing the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, Mr. Nemazee winnowed his dinner list down to her alone.

“You basically don’t want to deal with this stuff anymore, because you are taking too much time out of your day,” Mr. Nemazee told The Observer. “I mean, you’ve seen all these people. Just sit down in the last 24 hours and make your decision—and just go with it.”

After months of speculation, Mrs. Clinton’s formal step into the 2008 Presidential race has drastically and immediately changed the political lives of all the candidates seeking to extract cash from New York and other donor-heavy locales. Her folksy and pillow-propped “Let the conversation begin” announcement in a Saturday-morning Web video finally set in motion a massive donor network-in-waiting, simultaneously ending the conversation that Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and the other members of an increasingly crowded field of candidates hoped to have with key fund-raisers.

“It is absolutely time for people to make a choice,” said Fred P. Hochberg, dean of the Milano School for Management and Urban Policy at the New School and a major fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.

“The check-raisers will need to decide,” he added, “because they are not going to be credible with a donor if they are raising for different Presidential candidates.”

The sheer scale of what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do, if she can do it, will leave little room for her rivals to profit from the traditional Democratic money network. As soon as she announced, Mrs. Clinton began collecting contributions outside the public financing program, allowing her to avoid the spending limits that go along with it. She was the first candidate to do so for both primary and general campaigns since the program began in 1976.

Mrs. Clinton clearly thinks that her fund-raising network can do better than the $150 million made available through public funding, and an aide to Mrs. Clinton said that the campaign plans to raise $65 million this year alone.

Her major backers have already hit the phones, trying to give her the insurmountable financial advantage that political analysts say has already chased away once-promising candidates Mark Warner and Evan Bayh.

Alan J. Patricof, a prominent venture capitalist and Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign chair, has been one of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s most reliable and prodigious fund-raisers. By Monday afternoon, he said he had already reached out to 25 donors in New York.

“Every person said they would support her financially to the maximum extent. I’ve never seen anything like that before,” said Mr. Patricof. “There have got to be at least 20, 30, 40 people like me who are making calls. There are a lot of people making the calls.”

The fund-raising operation—overseen by campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who came on as Mrs. Clinton’s scheduler 15 years ago, and finance director Jonathan Mantz, who worked for New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine—moved quickly after this weekend’s announcement.

Maureen White, the former national finance chair of the Democratic National Committee, told The Observer that she started reaching out to donors “bright and early” on Saturday morning, and as of Tuesday had made nearly 90 phone calls soliciting contributions, with an “overwhelmingly positive response.”

Francis Greenburger, a prominent literary agent and Democratic donor who sits on Mrs. Clinton’s finance committee, said that he immediately got on the phone to pitch a half-dozen deep-pocketed friends.

Lady Lynn de Rothschild, a diehard Clinton supporter with an extensive social network, said that a senior member of Mrs. Clinton’s staff sent her an e-mail about the announcement while she was in Delhi. Back at home in London on Monday, Lady de Rothschild said that before getting the official word, she felt “like a horse chomping at the bit” and had begun drafting an e-mail soliciting maximum financial support for Mrs. Clinton, which she expected to send out to about 50 friends on Wednesday.

“Now is a time that we should really step up and support her. Those of us who have really waited a long time, we’re the ones who should be doing our all as early as we can,” said Lady de Rothschild. “We have to feel really energized. We can’t be complacent about this one. There are going to be enough people on the other side working against her.”

“It is hard for other candidates,” added Mr. Nemazee, who was mentioned around the time of Mrs. Clinton’s announcement as one of a number of unattached bundlers being courted by Mr. Obama’s campaign. “There is just so much oxygen available. There are only so many people out there who know how to do this and are willing to do this.”

Mrs. Clinton’s rivals seem to be braced for the onslaught, and some are sounding defiant tones about their ability to make headway in the shadow of the Clinton machine.

“I raised $2 million last year in New York in the midst of Hillary’s run,” said Senator Joe Biden, who is hoping to raise $20 million by the end of the year. “Will I raise the most money? I don’t know. But I will raise enough money.”

Mr. Obama has already lined up some major donors like billionaire George Soros, and has demonstrated a willingness—if not an actual ability—to compete with Mrs. Clinton for donors on her home turf.

Mr. Edwards is counting on the ability to tap into his base of trial lawyers and old hedge-fund associates for money, although he has consciously decided to spend most of his time over the last few months looking for support among voters in the early primary states.

“He won’t raise as much as Hillary, but he certainly will raise money in New York,” said Richard Thaler, vice chairman of Deutsche Bank Securities and a major donor to Mr. Edwards. “I think Edwards is going to be able to raise the money nationally—No. 1, because a lot of people like him and see that he can win in places like Iowa and Nevada and South Carolina, and that he is highly competitive in New Hampshire. And people want to win this election.”

And some of the other contenders, such as Senator Chris Dodd and Mr. Biden, now lead powerful committees that will inevitably make them attractive to certain strategic-minded contributors.

“They all have instant bases,” said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign. “They can draw their own internal sources from their respective home sources and states. And there are new donors that have come into the fold since the Clinton Presidency that they can perhaps tap into. Some need $100 million to be credible, others probably need 10 to 15 million. As long as they get their message out, they can succeed.”

How effectively they can get the message out, though, is an open question.

On Sunday, when Mrs. Clinton made her first flesh-and-blood public appearance after declaring the formation of her exploratory committee over the weekend, there were a dozen rows of seats filled with reporters pecking at laptops, surrounded by babies bouncing on their mothers’ knees and supporters hoisting their camera phones in the air. Behind the plastic seats, reporters crouched on the cold floor between the tripod legs of television cameras. With the microphone dead onstage, the room resounded mostly with the machine-gun blasts of camera shutters each time one of the children interacted with the candidate.

When Mrs. Clinton spoke, she projected her voice to the back of the room, especially when asked about the battle ahead.

“I’m looking forward to it,” she said. “It’ll be a great contest with a lot of talented people, and I’m very confident. I’m in, I’m in to win, and that’s what I intend to do.’’

The same can be said of her donors.

“We’re all staffers for Hillary,” said Lady de Rothschild, who added: “My apartment is good for 30, 40 people. Things are going to scale up a lot.”

copyright © 2006 the new york observer, llc | all rights reserved

The New World Order: Bilderbergs

Posted Monday, 29 January 2007


“They are seven kings. Five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come.

When he comes, he must continue a little while.” [1]

Abstract

The Bilderbergs – who are they and what do they do? An aura of mystique surrounds the name, casting shades of reflections of the power elite who supposedly rule the world. Presidents, royalty, prime ministers, global industrialists, and financial leaders from around the world are said to be members of the secrete organization that meets once a year to set the direction and course of international affairs, world events, and global policies.

The first Bilderberg conference was held at the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeek Holland in May 1954, from which it derives its name. Created as a secret and supportive adjunct of NATO and the Marshall plan of the 1940s, the raison d’etre behind the group was to promote post war trans-Atlantic cooperation between America and Europe. It has since evolved into much more.

Certain leading power-brokers on both sides of the Atlantic were of the opinion that Europe and America were not united in their global policies, and that a meeting of both the mind and spirit was needed to forge a more powerful international union whose final goal was world governance.

Unofficial and hence unreported discussions were deemed most prudent to foster a better understanding of the complex global forces affecting Western Civilization since the end of the war. From these meetings came forth the seeds that eventually grew into the geopolitical policies of the North Atlantic States (NAS).

Foot Prints In The Sand

The dominant signature of the meetings emphasized a globalist view that minimized national sovereignty in favor of a one world government or New World Order (NWO). Towards this end the United Nations (UN) was of prime importance as the anchor and central locus of power as the command center for international affairs.

Testimony of the power and influence of the Bilderberg Group is contained within the following quote taken from the Congressional Record of remarks in the United States House of Representatives:

"This unprecedented period of European cooperation is more than a product of simple nation-state diplomacy. One of the key institutions that has fostered unity and cooperation with the Atlantic Community beyond the old concepts has been the Bilderberg Group." [2]

The Ideal

The origin for European and American unification as a super-state can be traced back to a speech given in 1946 by one Joseph Retinger, at Chatham House, the meeting place of the European Round Table Group examined in earlier papers of this series.

During the war, Retinger was the secretary general of the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILEC). As such, he had contact with many world leaders who eventually became leading forces of the Bilderberg Group: the global power-brokers if you will. His following statement sums up the global and elite racist views that were the seed germ of one world government.

“The end of the period during which the white man spread his activities over the whole globe saw the Continent itself undergoing a process of internal disruption........ there are no big powers left in continental Europe....... [whose] inhabitants after all, represent the most valuable human element in the world.” [3]

Not long after his address, Retinger was invited by Averell Harriman, US ambassador to the United States, to drum up American support for global governance. It didn’t take much time or effort for Retinger to affect acceptance for an international corporate state to promote a capitalist system of elite collectivist control over world finance for self-profit.

“I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner in J. P. Morgan's [bank], Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan [chair of General Motors], Charles Hook, President of the American Rolling Mills Company, Sir William Wiseman, [British SIS and] partner in Kuhn Loeb [New York investment bank], George Franklin and especially my old friend Adolf Berle Jr. [CFR], were all in favor, and Berle agreed to lead the American section [of ILEC]. John Foster Dulles also agreed to help.” [4]

The aftermath of the war left many Nations weak and worn from the desolation of war: both in human terms of death and the resulting social disruption of society, as well as financial costs that placed additional strain on the social fabric already weakened and torn by the specter of death that surrounded all those who had survived to carry on the task of rebuilding that which was destroyed: the life works of their loved ones.

As connected as Retinger was, however, he could not form the group on his own without help. He turned to one of his most wealthy and powerful friends: Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard was a major player in Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell Oil), as well as Société Générale de Belgique: a supranational global corporation. There is much more about the Prince that could be said, but we will suffice to say it takes a Prince to know a Prince. One of the previous electors of Hesse-Kassel comes to mind – during the 18th century.
The Ploy

Such overwhelming post-war devastation creates a gapping hole in the soul of society – resulting in the need for a reason to carry on: some kind of hope – any hope - that life can continue on as before. The resulting gestalt is fertile breeding grounds for supranational powers to step in and offer the reassurance that is so sorely sought after. A helping hand at any cost is easily accepted under such duress and hardship. History is rife with similar examples.

Springing up from the ground, as did the Spartoi warriors of the Ismenian Drakon’s teeth, came five supranational organizations and one hybrid offspring for world governance:

* United Nations (Roosevelt)
* The International Monetary Fund (Lord Keynes)
* The World Bank (Lord Keynes)
* The Marshall Plan (General Marshall)
* The North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO (Ernest Bevin)
* Bretton Woods Agreement (hybrid offspring)

To not follow in the cast set by the above international organizations would represent the taking on of powers equal to the trials of Hercules’s or Jason’s quest for the golden fleece. There is much more here then meets the eye. Trials and quests carry on until they are no more – or until those that carry them on cease to be. Dragon Slayers are a rare breed.

Who’s Who

The following is a limited list of some of the international power elite that attend the Bilderberg Group meetings. They have been filmed going and coming from the yearly meetings, as well as some being identified by eyewitness accounts by those at the meetings, as published in several major news papers.

Guests

* Guest at the 2003 Bilderberg Meeting included Carlos M. Collazo.

Richard N. Haass (2004), president, Council on Foreign Relations

* Guests at the 2004 Bilderberg Meeting included John Edwards, James Wolfensohn, Melinda Gates, and Mario Draghi.

* Guests at 2005 Bilderberg Meeting included Vernon Jordan and Mark Warner and may also have included, according to the Financial Times of May 2, Natan Sharansky and Bernard Kouchner.

* Guests at 2006 Bilderberg Meeting included Vernon Jordan, George Pataki, Richard Perle, Dennis Ross, and prominent Canadians Paul Desmarais, Frank McKenna, Heather Reisman and Globe and Mail publisher Philip Crawley, Mahmood Sariolghalam (Iran National University), Siv Jensen, leader of Norwegian political party Fremskrittspartiet, Johann Olav Koss, and chairman of Scandinavian Airlines Egil Mykleb

News Media

* Alexandre Adler, French conservative journalist (2003)
* Paul Gigot - Editor of the Editorial Page of The Wall Street Journal; 2003- Present
* Martin Wolf - Financial Times columnist
* Juan Luis Cebrián - Ex-director of El País Spanish journal, delegated advisor of PRISA
* Peter Jennings USA Anchor Man

VIP’S

* George Osborne(2006) - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer 2004-Present
* Harald Norvik (2006), former CEO of Statoil.
* Josef Ackermann (2005), CEO of Deutsche Bank
* Daniel Vasella (2005), Chairman and CEO of Novartis
* David L. Aaron, Deputy National Security Advisor
* William J McDonough New York Federal Reserve
* Étienne Davignon, conference chairman in 2005
* William Luti, deputy undersecretary for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs
* Former Pentagon advisor Richard Perle

Royalty

* Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King of Sweden
* Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Queen Sofia of Spain, wife of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
* Infanta Cristina, daughter of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain
* Philippe, Duke of Brabant, Crown Prince of Belgium

Heads of State

* Fredrik Reinfeldt, elected Prime Minister of Sweden, 2006 – Present
* Margaret Thatcher(1975), former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
* Jean Chrétien (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 1993 - 2003
* Paul Martin (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 2003 - 2006
* Stephen Harper (2003), Canadian Prime Minister, 2006 - Present
* Bill Clinton, (1991), US President, 1993 - 2001
* Tony Blair (1993), current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
* Kostas Karamanlis (2003), current Prime Minister of Greece
* Angela Merkel (2005), current Chancellor of Germany

Le crème de le crème as they say. The list is about as elite as it gets, although the very top or inner

echelon is not listed nor seen in public.

They remain in the shadows – away from the light of day. Darkness is their preferred habitat, to provide the cover they covet at any cost.

In their delusional mind, to be known is a sign of weakness – the same as darkness abhors the light.

Long Range Goals

The Free Trade Area of the Americas is to include the entire Western Hemisphere except for Cuba under Castro.

Once Castro is gone (which could be any day now according to reports of his ill health) the Free Trade Area would then evolve into an American Union similar to the European Union.

But that was back then, when the blueprints were first drawn up – now, instead of an American Union, the elite collectivists are talking and planning on a North American Union of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. See: SPP.Gov (click on link for detailed info).: S Home

An Asian-Pacific Union is to eventually emerge as the third super state region. See: Shanghai Cooperation Organization (click on link for details). The world would then be divided the into three supranational regions, providing the international elite easier governance (rule) and more control of banking and finance (profit).

Once the elite collectivists have it down to three regions, they will then seek two, and finally one: the ultimate manifestation of their one world government New World Order. One government and ONE CURRENCY – giving them complete monopoly over the entire globe.

The United Nations (UN) is the prototype model for the centralized institutional control of the one world government. In the God-Father’s words:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.” [5]

Beginnings - Endings

As we have seen in earlier papers of this series, the idea of a New World Order goes back before World War I, even prior to the American and French Revolution. In other older and ancient forms it can be observed since the rule of Rome, Alexander The Great, and Genghis Kahn – all who tried to conquer and rule the world. It cannot be done and will never be done, but for some the lesson comes hard and long for some – but it comes nevertheless. Time is on its side.

Since the dawn of man there have always been those whose only desire was to rule the world. They willingly killed, raped, plundered, and placed into slavery any who stood in their way. The good must remain united and strong to carry on against these lost souls, to not only turn them back from their wayward path, to not only help the world’s progression, but to turn them back to face the light of day – so that night is no more. So has it been written.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of World War I we saw the League of Nations and Round Table Groups spring up from the remnants of the war. Although these groups had an international flavor never before flaunted upon the world stage, they never realized their supposed goals of one world government or global rule.

Even the power elite find it hard to agree with one another on just what form the New World Order must take, and exactly who the leading alpha males at the top should be. The lust for power and the greed of profit runs deep, and are like a plague that knows no bounds – it spreads its way across the land – the abomination that walks the earth as the scourge of mankind, neither asking for, nor giving - any quarter.

The League of Nations and Round Table Groups sowed the seeds of that which was yet to come. But first to be visited upon the land was a great battle like none before: World War II. Once again the supposed war to end all wars. In thousands of years man has yet to learn that war cannot end war – only peace and good will ends wars; just as light dispels darkness.

The United States was the sole world power to emerge from the war. Europe had been devastated and much of it lay in ruin. The first task was to rebuild Western Europe and to create a North Atlantic alliance against the Soviet Union: commonly known as NATO. The Marshall plan was the means by which to rebuild Europe.

Internationalism or Totalitarianism

At the Bretton Woods meeting, the United States utilized its new position as the lone super power in the world – both militarily and monetarily. The U.S. was in possession of most of the world’s gold reserves, which at that time still backed most world currencies. It also had the largest industrial base and strongest economy of any nation on earth. The U.S. Dollar was the reserve currency of the world, which together with the international monetary fund and world bank, formed the basis of the global elite’s institutional mechanisms to foster the beginnings of a one world monetary system.

Although it appeared that the United States was leading the world, it was really the corporate military industrial complex within and without the U.S., together with the elite international financiers who owned most industries that was steering world policy. The United States had always been an isolationist country. It had to be dragged into World War II. So too its acceptance and membership into the entanglements of international institutions had to be had by stealth, much as the spider builds his web to trap his unwary host. This is a point most often misunderstood in the field of geopolitics and political science: the difference between the vehicle of power and the power that employs the vehicle, as a mode of transportation, to spread its force of will - across the land.

Nation states make war with one another – they have geographical boundaries that define one combatant from another. Often times more than one nation state will join with others against a common foe, be it a single nation or a group of nations. However, capitalists or international money changers know no national boundaries; their pursuit of profits scans the entire globe. This is an important distinction to remember and is often overlooked when discussing the geopolitics of world governance. There are Nation States, and there are supranational organizations of international capitalists - whose interests are not always one and the same. In the end it is the money changers who control the day.

High Priests of Globalization

With the advent of international institutions and transnational corporations, the idea of the nation state is becoming of less and less importance. It is similar to a group of children playing monopoly – why settle for one or two of the properties on the board when the entire board is offered for the taking?

At first this global interpenetration of nation states was between Europe and the United States. The rise of the European Union is most obvious in its design and purpose, both in its geographical zone of influence, as well as in its common currency – the Euro. It is zone number one on the map of the New World Order. The European Union is not in direct competition with the United States in the ways believed by most scholars or politicians. It is the prototype of that which is yet to come.

The resistance of Britain in accepting the Euro and membership within the European Union is a most interesting conundrum. This did not happen by accident but by design. The question remains: by what design? For what purpose? Usually, by following the money, the design and intent of those who pull the strings can be discerned. Along these lines runs Britain’s backing of the United States in attacking Iraq. All pieces of the mosaic.

The Dioscuri Twins

The two great Aryan Nations, twin stars of the constellation Gemini, are striding together across the world stage in support of one other. But is it the nations acting in concert – or the elite money changers within and behind not only both nations – but all nations? And for what purpose other than world dominance and supremacy? Transnational corporations and the elite collectivists who own them know no boundaries in the pursuit of profit.

It is a grave mistake to think that all, or even most, nation states within the common market seek to destroy one another in their competitive search for profit – refusing any type of cooperation between rival factions. Such is not the case, as the nation states are not the key players: the elite money changers that finance them are the dominant force.

The Bilderberg Group and other similar organizations are the joining together of the elite collectivists of the world, united in cooperation to form a one world government and New World Order that places the entire global marketplace under their control: a truly “common” market if you will. One that assures that the pickings will be easy. One hand washes the other: why bite the hand that feeds you?

“Rather than constituting an all-powerful secret Atlantic directorate, Bilderberg served, at best, as the environment for developing ideas in that direction, and secrecy was necessary for allowing the articulation of differences rather than for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge. In this sense Bilderberg functioned as the testing ground for new initiatives for Atlantic unity.” [6]

The Soviet Union’s Demise

Since the 1940’s, and in the aftermath of World War II, the United States has been regarded as the sole superpower in the world. This consensus is based on two points:

* The overwhelming superiority of U.S. military power

* The dominant role of the U.S. Dollar as the reserve currency of the world

With the downfall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world was no longer bipolar but unipolar. A fascinating and telling question is what caused the collapse of Russia? Was it a direct military confrontation with the U.S. or any other nation? No it was not.

Then what or who took down the Soviet Union – a one time equal rival of the U.S. for world supremacy? What power is greater then the military power: the money power.

For awhile after WWII the Soviet Union was a major military threat to the United States, at one time surpassing the U.S. in troops and weapons systems. This was the reason for the cold war.

To fund its war machine Russia took on too much debt – enticed as they were by the international bankers and merchants of death to procure more and more weapons, while spending more and more money, which meant borrowing more and more money or credit. The money changers knew full well what they were doing as they lined their pockets with profit, and what the consequences would be. It was all part of their plan. If nothing else – they are not stupid.

It cost the money changers nothing to create the money to loan the Soviet Union as credit, allowing the bankers to collect the interest payments and to foreclose on any unpaid loans, enabling them to confiscate private property that was put up as collateral. A collectivists dream come true: tag sales of national scope and size.

Soon the Soviet Union was experiencing a monetary debt crisis. The ruble was devalued and many loans were in default. Government bonds ceased to be issued as the interest rates were over 150% and the government had no money to pay the interest with anyways. The Soviet Union had been taken down – by monetary, not military means.

American Hegemony

The question naturally arises: why didn’t the U.S. find itself in the same position as the Soviet Union? Had not the U.S. increased its budget and total cost procurements to stay equal with, if not ahead of Russia? – Yes it had.

So why didn’t the US experience a debt crisis as did Russa? Because the U.S. Dollar is the reserve currency of the world, which means that the United States is in a monetary and financial position unlike any other nation on earth. The US is able to create all the money it wants, and to then buy all the goods and services it wants from its foreign trade partners, paying them with paper fiat debt-money. Almost three quarters of world trade is done in dollars. Thus the world is dependent upon the US Dollar. This was the purpose behind the Bretton Woods Agreement. Remember – the bankers if nothing else are not stupid.

Foreign nations must do something with all the US Dollars they accumulate, and they do: they buy US Treasury Bonds, helping the US to retain it hegemony over the world’s monetary system. In other words the US exports inflation to the world – who then turn around and reinvest those very same dollars in US Treasury Bonds, basically subsidizing the largest debtor nation on earth – the United States.

Compact With The Devil

Most countries have to control their trade deficits, either that or face the destruction of their currency by devaluation and loss of purchasing power. The foundation of the US Dollar’s supremacy is its role as the petrodollar: oil is brought and paid for only in US Dollars, a compact made between OPEC and the United States. In return, the US agreed to militarily defend and provide weapons to OPEC. A compact made with the devil.

Every nation needs to get dollars to import and pay for oil, some more than others. This means that the majority of their trade is done with countries who use the dollar, especially the US. They must have, and thus seek out - US Dollars. Japan who is dependent on oil imports is a prime example. Japan needs to import oil. To pay for the oil Japan needs US Dollars. Thus Japan’s trade surplus with the United States. Another compact made with the devil.

National or International Policy

Most if not all analysts will concur that the above events and policies are the national policies of the United States and the reactions from similar nation states affected by the policies. It is a mistake to view world affairs and international policies as national in scope, as opposed to INTERNATIONAL.

As stated earlier – nations have BOUNDARIES and geographical limits. Nation states make war with one another or with groups of nation states. They do not go to war against the entire rest of the world besides themselves and or their allies.

The money power is greater than the military power, as the military war machine can only exist if there is money to pay for it. The money power is controlled by the international elite money changers who not only control central banks – they created central banking.

They also created the International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, The United Nations, The Bretton Woods Accord, NATO, and the World Trade Organization, to name but a few of their progeny. As this series of papers has shown – the various secret and elite organizations that decide on all important global policies is made up of various political leaders, royalty, industrialists, and very important people from different NATION states. Collectively they are beyond the scope and influence of mere nations – even that of the United States.

Furthermore, the international money changers and their co-conspirators, who are captured by more then the pursuit and worship of Lucre, have not yet been mentioned or revealed as part of the elite cartel. That will come in due time.

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men....

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” [7]

“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.” [8]

“In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive....Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.” [9]

The End of the Gold Reserve Standard

Another misunderstanding of the world power game is the conventional and mainstream theories espoused by academics, politicians, and the news media. It is not their fault – the international elite specialize in obfuscation, illusion, and delusion – besides the fact that they own all major world media outlets. The news is reported how they want it reported.

By 1971 gold was leaving the United States faster then water through a sieve. US Federal Gold Reserves had fallen precipitously. Foreign nations were demanding gold in payment to settle international trade accounts – according to the contractual obligations of the Bretton Woods Agreement, as signed by all the powers. The starch ally of the US, The Bank of England, even joined the French in demanding US gold for dollars. No honor amongst thieves.

The Nixon administration finally decided that enough was enough. All foreign accounts were defaulted on regarding payment in gold, such payment to be made with Federal Reserve Notes or paper fiat debt-money. There are those who contend that this break with the gold standard ushered in a new system of monetary policy controlled by private international banks. This was not a new system of control – it was a consolidation and strengthening of the preexisting system that the elite money changers had already established and put in placed. This was just a newer more powerful model: now they wielded even more power.

Once the gold standard fell by the wayside, the 1970’s witnessed a plethora of paper fiat credit, created and extended by the large international banks. One of the results of this boom in credit issuance was the oil crisis. Prices of oil went sky high. This was due to the fact that the OPEC oil Sheiks had figured out that they were being paid for their oil with US dollars that were continually losing purchasing power. Hence they wanted a greater quantity (higher prices or more units) of US dollars to make up for the loss of purchasing power (quality) of the money being exchanged for their oil. They were almost as smart as the bankers.

Intended Consequences

With the over issuance of the US dollar came the debasement and loss of purchasing power that always occurs with paper fiat monetary systems. In order to try to protect the falling dollar, Paul Volcker, the existing Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time, raised interest rates to record levels to stem the dollar’s demise. Little is revealed of the ironic twist that Volcker had played in going off the gold standard. Easy come – easy go.

Record high interest rates played havoc with third world countries that had borrowed from the IMF and the World Bank. In the early 1980’s Mexico defaulted on its external debt. Thus began the third world debt crisis, the onus of which, is almost always placed on the shoulders of the debtor – when in truth the cause was the malinvestments and improper lending practices of the elite international banks that caused a false sense of prosperity, when in truth the world was inundated by debt and higher prices due to the loss of purchasing power of the medium of exchange – primarily the US dollar.

The international monetary fund performed according to the script written by the elite collectivists. They came in and mopped up what was left in the wake of the devastation; assuring that the loans would be paid off: how? – by the further extension of credit via bridge loans, all tied to Draconian measures of international control over the monetary, financial, and economic policies of individual nation states. Serfdom 21st century style.

This resulted in the intended consequence of the destruction of many national economic systems that then became the breeding ground for transnational corporations to come in and take advantage of the dire circumstances. Cheap labor was exploited, as was the construction of factories that were under much less stringent regulations and building costs than existed in the United States or Europe; hence they were much cheaper or “cost effective” to own and operate – at least for the elite collectivists. But what of the indigenous people? Did anyone care to ask them? Qui Bono?

The European Union & The Euro

Both the Euro and the European Union’s role in the global scheme of world power is generally misunderstood. Most often both are viewed as a DIRECT tool for global domination or hegemony. While this is true on one level – such is not the level that is espoused by most academics or politicians.

It must be remembered that the European Union and the Euro are the brainchild of the international elite, just as central banking and all international institutions are. They were created as the prototype or model of one world government and one world money. Hence the breakdown of national boundaries resulting in a zone of influence.

Likewise is the Shanghai Organization zone, and the North Atlantic Alliance zone. All three result in the reduction of nationalism in favor of internationalism. The individual citizen is at the bottom of the food chain, when in fact they are sovereign and come before both nations and supranational zones of governance.

People come first; nations second; and international organizations last. All forms of government are for the people, by the people, and of the people. Governments receive their granted powers from the people, to serve the people, and to protect their god given and unalienable rights. So it is written. So it will be. So it is. Until night is no more.

“The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth,

and is of the seven; and he goes to destruction.” [10]


Come visit our new website: Honest Money Gold & Silver Report
And read the Open Letter to Congress


[1] Revelations 17:10

[2] Congressional Record of remarks in the United States House of Representatives

[3] Retinger 1946, p. 7

[4] Pomian 1972, p. 212

[5] Attributed to David Rockefeller at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting Baden, Germany

[6] Van der Pijl p. 183

[7] Woodrow Wilson - In The New Freedom (1913)

[8] Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope

[9] Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995

[10] Revelations 17:11

-- Posted Monday, 29 January 2007

Anger Mismanagement: The Imperative Option

By James T. Moore on Dec 16, 06

In response to the public’s current penchant for anger, even at the slightest social or personal provocation, the psychological community is having a field day with group therapies, stress counseling, and exercise regimens.

In short, Anger Management has taken the mental health industry by storm, and is in its glory days. It is ideal therapy for the reason-deprived citizens who have temper tantrums, bash skulls at football games, occasionally hit their spouses, and are major contributors to road rage.

On the other hand, when you look beyond the local scene into the murky depths of world politics, international crises, erroneous foreign policy, and domestic secrecy and cover-ups Anger Management doesn’t work at all, because otherwise well-meaning Americans—God help them--- don’t see or hear anything to get angry about.

Millions of peaceful, non-confrontational citizens mind their own business, seldom think past their daily news, never get into trouble, and on hearing shocking political news on TV, sadly shake their heads and say, “Isn’t that just awful.” No anger, no indignation, no disgust, nothing. In such cases, Anger Management isn’t needed, but Anger Mismanagement has a big patient list waiting.

Anger Mismanagement means not trying to halt or manage your anger but to have the courage and conviction to hold nothing back, to let it all out, when and where it does the most good, and is most needed.

Anger Mismanagement finds its purpose in today’s American politics, with its hegemonic world conflicts and dominion, stupid foreign policy decisions, and domestic
corruption promulgated by greedy, agenda-driven human beings working in secret political back-alleys that honest, ethical people find abhorrent, decidedly un-American, dangerously unconstitutional, and often on the cusp of treason.

Anger Mismanagement is badly needed here:

How did you feel when you heard that illegal aliens are stampeding into America and the Bush administration turns its back on the problem?

If you started to get angry but “managed” it, you copped out on your country.

You should have been spitting mad, and said so. When your ancestors came over here they had to take the oath of allegiance, learn some English, and have their beards inspected for lice. And none of them got a free anything. That should make your blood boil.And when you heard that Bush has signed a document that will make America, Mexico, and Canada one nation called the North American Union, what was your reaction? Did you think: “I don’t like it, but now at least I won’t need “papers” to go back and forth,” Instead, of venting your anger you “managed” it, and in so doing, you lost your cedibility as a concerned citizen. You may also lose your country.

If this law passes, America will lose its sovereignty, cheap labor will cross borders, our standard of living will suffer, and the American dream will become a nightmare. All because you and others didn’t bother to get blistering mad about it.

And when you heard that the Bush administration is intent on making America part of the New World Order, was your first thought: “What’s the big deal? We all live in the same world, don’t we?”

Yes, we do. But knowing that most of the world doesn’t have our high standard of living. and that our founders suffered and died to give us the freedom and independence we enjoy, you still didn’t get your back up. You are determined not to get angry. How noble. But when America is gradually reduced to “third world” status and you’re scuffling just to sustain your family with the necessities of life, you’ll kick yourself for not getting fighting mad soon enough. And well you should.

And when you discovered that a cabal of neo-con “new worlders” are actually running our government, NOT the true Republican party, you might have said to yourself: “Why get upset ? Doesn’t ‘neo-con’ mean “new Conservative? What’s wrong with that?” Plenty. Neo-cons are an elite cabal of well-educated, well-healed “one worlders” who “stole” the mantle of Conservatism and are now implementing the systematic dissolution of the United States in a treacherous power play that will usher in tyranny, with the destroyers of our Constitution calling the shots. But you didn’t bother to voice any anger and demand a halt to this dangerous development. You sat back and did nothing. What happened to the courage and patriotism you bragged so much about?

And when, after four years, 2,900 American soldiers and marines are dead, 30,000-plus are wounded, thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens (including children) have been killed, top generals concede the war is being lost, the cost of the Iraqi war ($380 billion so far) is draining our economy, you hear President Bush, in denial of reality, say: “We will not cut and run, we will stay the course.” you were disgusted and your anger boiled to the top, But you put a clamp on it and never let it out.

Why, for God’s sake? Have Americans lost their grit and guts? Have we become a nation of silent observers as “Rome burns.” Are we willing to accept the worst thing that can happen to America and to us, without a murmur, a complaint, a dissent? Without a fire in the belly, clenched fists, and a healthy outburst of justified anger?

In the movie, “Network”, activist Howard Beale stands before the TV cameras and angrily takes the big corporations and the collusive Government to task. He rails at the culture of corruption, mishandling of public funds, gross irresponsibility, rampant nepotism, and disenfranchisement of the middle class. Then in a booming voice he challenges the TV audience to open their windows and shout to the world: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore! I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!” And the streets, one by one, rang out with anger.

Are there no more Howard Beales left in America?

ω ω ω ω ω ω ω ω

By James T. Moore on Dec 16, 06 | Email | Profile Permalink

The Democrats' Not-So-Secret Plan?

The Democrats' Not-So-Secret Plan
By Cliff Kincaid | December 7, 2006

The plan is quite simple: increase the U.S. armed forces by 100,000, and use them and NATO for "collective security."

Some are saying that congressional Democrats came to power without a plan. In fact, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, architect of the Democratic victory, co-authored a book in 2006 called The Plan. Its subtitle: Big Ideas for America. One of them, in the critical field of foreign policy, is a "new strategy to win the war on terror" by reforming and strengthening multilateral institutions. The book cites Will Marshall's call for a doctrine of "progressive internationalism" and cites the work of Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton and author of the book, A New World Order.

The plan is quite simple: increase the U.S. armed forces by 100,000, and use them and NATO for "collective security." The U.N., meanwhile, will be assigned duties in the areas of "economic and social assistance" to the rest of the world.

The military phase is actually an old plan. It was originally proposed by George Soros, who wrote Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO, back in 1993. He figured that NATO could take on the military responsibilities of the New World Order until the U.N. was ready to do the job.

Will Marshall's book, With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, includes a chapter by Slaughter, "Reinventing the United Nations," which urges fulfillment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which will cost the U.S. $845 billion, and creation of a "more globally inclusive NATO."

Not surprisingly, Slaughter cites the views of Senator Joseph Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who she notes has argued for "reorienting" the U.N. and Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

He once wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal under the headline, "How I Learned to Love the New World Order." He has emerged as one of the strongest advocates of making NATO, once an anti-Communist alliance, into a military arm of the U.N. He also supported creation of the International Criminal Court.

Biden is a Vietnam War draft dodger and plagiarist who was forced out of the 1988 presidential race when his plagiarism was exposed. He supported the U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), some of whose fighters were trained by Osama bin Laden. Radical Islamists are now poised to take over Kosovo and make it into an independent state, if the U.S. and the U.N. give it their final approval.

The New World Order: Secrets

Posted Wednesday, 6 December 2006

The New World Order: Ages of Time

The New World Order: The Players

Honest Money Gold & Silver Report

“Who was the fool, who the wise man, beggar or king?

Whether poor or rich, all's the same in death.” [1]

Abstract - The New World Order: Secrets

In last week’s part two of the series, we ended with several quotes from Professor Carroll Quigley, a world renowned scholar who had written quite extensively about secret societies and other elite groups, whose sole purpose was to establish a New World Order.

The following part of one such quote reveals important insights into not only Quigley, but the entire subject as well.

“In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.

I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [2]

Notice that Quigley states that he had no aversion to the “network” and that he was close enough that he was allowed to examine its papers. He also states that for MOST OF HIS LIFE he had been close to it and its instruments.

Quigley is talking about a “network”, which in his own words was comprised of secret societies, and one that included wars and the killings of tens of thousand of Africans and the capture and placement into slavery by as many more – yet he says he doesn’t have any aversion to it?

Would secret societies allow a non-member to examine its papers and secret records, especially a world renowned scholar and writer? For what reason would they allow that to occur?

Also, notice how Quigley did not agree with the network’s Atlantic versus European Power point of view. These are all very subtle pieces of the puzzle we shall return to.

Paradigm Shifts

We have seen the huge part that World War I played as a major pivot point in the dynamics of paradigm shifts, the acting out of political intentions, and their subsequent affect on society and human behavior, both on the national and international level.

Prior to WWI the emphasis was on the nation state. After WWI the focus was on internationalism - government no longer constrained by national borders, however, this change did not occur all at once. It slowly made the transition from one view to the other.

In part one of the series it was shown that the established world view perceived the purpose of World War I to be the war to end all wars. It did not accomplish its stated cause; instead, it laid the groundwork for World War II. It was as if a purposeful design had somehow formed and followed a desired function.

What World War I did accomplish, and with surgical precision, was the end of the Old World Order, and the preparation of a fertile crucible: the human race – to accept the New World Order. It laid the groundwork for the transition phase to begin, but it was not completed until after World War II.

Groups

The world was now the stage to several powerful groups with the same basic goal: the establishment of a New World Order. However, each of these groups had their own particular twist as to how the knot should be tied. Yet the thread running through the strains remained the same.

There were several main groups that were born from the same genetic makeup, and in turn they spawned other sub-groups. The exigesis is similar to throwing a stone into the water.

The force of impact creates concentric circles, or waves of energy, that emanate out from the center source. The further out from the center, the weaker the force. The closer to the center, the more powerful the force. All comes forth from the center source of power.

The following are the main groups. There were others as well, but not as powerful as these:

• The Club of Rome in Italy

• The Fabian Society in England

• The Round Table Group in Britain

• The Council On Foreign Relations in the U.S.

• The Institute for Pacific Relations in the U.S.

• The Royal Institute for International Affairs in Britain

As with all endeavors there must be a source of money to finance whatever is undertaken. This was true even with the elitist groups. Some had members that were either wealthy or had well placed friends with money – or both. Sir Abe Bailey and the Astor fortunes were two main contributors. Rhode’s and Rothschild’s were two more. Lazard Frere another.

The money power is the most dominant force in the world, even greater than military power, for without funding there can be no military power. He who holds the purse strings has control over whatever entity they are financing; consequently, the money changers are often the dominant force behind all such elite groups.

Dawn or Sunset

The dawn of the 20^th Century was witness to a much weaker British Empire than that which had ruled the world throughout the 19^th Century. Britain’s dominance had come from two main sources of strength: it was home to the Industrial Revolution that had allowed great wealth to be amassed, and this wealth gave rise to not only a commercial superiority, but a military superiority as well, especially on the high seas.

Britain’s slow decline as the world’s greatest power came from a weakening of its two above mentioned sources of its strength. With all great empires that try to rule the world, from Rome to Alexander, to Genghis and Charlemagne, they all end up failing because of what can best be describe as over reach.

If any nation tries to conquer the world, driven by the lust of greed and desire for power – that nation ends up defeating itself. It is the law of thought – of destiny, and can be no other way – it is what it is.

The war against Germany and its allies had accelerated the loss of Britain's global dominance. By 1917, Britain was nearing a financial crisis, as its gold reserves and American bonds had almost all been depleted to fund the war. In steps the U.S. financiers, especially Morgan and Rockefeller.

The Round Table

In 1910 Lord Milner, Cecil Rhodes, and Lionel Curtis formed the Round Table Group. Of no minor significance is the name, which is a reference to King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. The knights were also an elitist group, in search of the Holy Grail nonetheless.

The exact purpose of the Group is not easily discernible, as it had three founders that each had a bit of a different world view in mind. Not often brought up in discussions on the Round Table is the issue of unseen powers behind the scenes – they who paid the bills.

We have previously seen how Rhodes was somehow allowed ten years to go to Oxford while taking trips to and from Africa. Rhodes had no money when he started off for Africa, except for the money that Nathan Rothschild put up to back him. Rothschild was the financial power behind Rhodes. What was Nathan’s world vision and gain in all this – gain, and nothing more.

Rhodes was many things, but at the top of the list was the fact that he was a white supremist. All other peoples were inferior and were to be ruled by the white Aryan super race. Truth be known, Rhodes’ view was no different then Nietzsche and Hitler’s.

He was an elitist’s elitist - down to the bone. For Rhodes the Round Table Group was a means to a greater end. He died before the Group was actually formed, his vision left undone. Rhodes believed that if the American Colonies had not been lost to Britain that a New World Order would already have been complete.

It was Milner as caretaker of Rhode’s trust money, and Curtis as the visionary, who together finally created the Round Table. Milner was best described as an Imperialist. His world vision was for Britain to remain the super power of the world based on a nationalistic point of view that would establish a supranational form of government. Rhode’s world view was to rule the world based on an international style of a one world government – run by the elite White Aryan Race. Milner was a racist as well, but not of the scope of Rhodes.

Milner was most interested in forming a British Imperial Federation to secure Britain’s place in the world. For him the Round Table was the means and the end was a consolidated British Empire. Milner was a doer not a thinker. His was a hands on approach that did not involve internationalism.

Visions or Delusions

The delusional mind is most fascinating in how it works. It can say one thing yet do the complete opposite, and then rationalize it all to itself. For example, both Rhodes and Milner were involved with the killing of tens of thousands of Africans, as well as the trade of tens of thousands more into slavery. The rest were perceived as chattel, subservient to their masters.

Yet they both preached world peace – a world peace where one was either one of the superior elite, or one of those ruled over as an inferior, or dead. Simple and neat, at least for the elitists. If you asked those who were subservient indentured chattel, or those that had been killed, not many would vote in favor of such a twisted vision of world peace.

But one never knows for sure, some say that in the end most want security more than freedom. Presently, within the United States, the surrender of precious freedoms in return for promised security, can be seen taking place before our very eyes.

Implementation

After the unexpected death of Rhodes, all was left to Milner and Curtis to complete. Curtis was obsessed with a one world government – Milner was not. He was more interested in seeing the British Empire consolidate its holdings in a United Federation across the globe. This is an important point to recognize: Milner was not interested in forsaking any British sovereignty for an international organization, as was Curtis, and Rhodes, before he died.

In 1910, Milner finally agreed to formally recognize the Round Table Group, and to have it publish reports to spread its propaganda – they named the publication: The Round Table.

Soon other Round Table Groups sprang up across the British Empire: Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and New Zealand all had chapters.

Milner saw the Federation of the British Empire to be the end result of the Round Table. Curtis on the other hand, saw the Federation as a step towards a global government or New World Order. Curtis was much closer to Rhode’s world view than was Milner.

Tentacles

By the end of the war in 1914, the network had to be expanded. Lionel Curtis took the challenge on quite readily. He formed various organizations in all of Britain’s dominions, as a cover for the select elect to build their New World Order.

In Britain he established the Royal Institute of International Affairs, whose inner core consisted of the members of the Round Table Group. The United States saw the Council on Foreign Relations appear in New York, which was a front for J.P. Morgan and Company who had direct ties with England’s Round Table Group, and a smaller version in New York, as well.

During the Paris Peace Conference, many of Morgan’s boys meant and became involved with Milner’s boys. Morgan was one of the big financiers of the elite in America, although he heralded from England through Peabody and Company, and had Grenfell Morgan & Co. in London. This meant that ultimately Rothschild was behind Morgan, as he had set Peabody up as his emissary. Peabody in turn started Morgan off in business. The roots runs deep – the seed the same.

Legal Eagles

Morgan also had a number of other wall street firms that he was associated with, especially legal firms. Elihu Root, Russell Leffingwell, and the Dulles brothers were a few of Morgan’s legal experts. This legal connection is generally not recognized for the large part it plays in the establishment of the New World Order. Some say that the biggest crooks are they who carry the laws around with them in their brief cases. Owen Young of the Young Plan for war reparations was a Morgan boy, as was Dawson, Lamont and Davis.

Jerome D. Greene, Harvard Law graduate, was general manager of the Rockefeller Institute from 1910-1912, he then became a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute, to the Rockefeller foundation, and to the Rockefeller General Education Board until 1939.

From 1917-1932 he was with the firm of Lee, Higginson, and Company. In 1918 Greene was appointed executive secretary of the American section of the Allied Maritime Transport Council, which was stationed in London. While in London, Greene lived in Toynbee Hall, which has been founded by Milner of the Round Table Group. In 1883, Milner and Toynbee had formed a group of political intellectuals at Oxford University.

New York by Way of London

Thus Greene had direct contact with the members of the Group. At the Paris Peace Conference he was secretary to the Reparations Commission. Upon his arrival back in the United States he helped establish the Council on Foreign Relations, which served as the New York front for Curtis's Institute of International Affairs.

Through Wilson, Morgan and Rockefeller pushed for their version of the New World Order at the Paris Peace Conference. Britain’s weakening position can be seen in that Wilson’s Fourteen Point plan was the core of the Peace Agreement.

It must be remembered, however, that Colonel Mandall House was behind Wilson’s plan, and that he had designed the plan with Lord Milner. Both House and Milner were elite socialists. Thus the depth of the inner core of the elite affected the outcome no matter which “side” prevailed.

This is their signature mark – to control both sides through their clandestine resources of power, seeing which side appeared to be winning as the end approached, and then removing their support from the weakening side – thus insuring the winner and sealing the final fate of both sides.

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge led a majority of US Senators that were dead set against Wilson’s 14 Point Plan, especially in regards to its limiting and restricting of American freedoms, be they at home or overseas. The Senators saw Wilson’s plan for what it was – a socialistic attempt at a New World Order that sacrificed nationalism for internationalism. Nevertheless, Wilson refused to compromise. The US Senate rejected membership in the League on March 8, 1920.

Blue Bloods

Steady minds in the US had prevailed, at least for the time being, however, collectivists don’t give up easily, if at all. The elite international family dynasties have carried the battle on for centuries – they see it as their heritage to pass on to their progeny. It is in their blood they say – blue bloods born to conquer and rule.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands." [3]

This ends part three. Next week part four to continue the story of the New World Order.

“Read no history: nothing but biography,

for that is life without theory.” [4]

---

[1] Skull & Bones Engraved Motto

[2] Tragedy and Hope by Professor Carroll Quigley

[3] Arnold Toynbee, "The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International Affairs, November 1931, p. 809

[4] Benjamin Disraeli