Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘new world order’

This lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, was presented at the 2006 Ludwig von Mises Institute Supporter’s Summit, “Imperialism: Enemy of Freedom.”

Imperialism takes many forms, and is driven by many motivations, but its result has this in common with all forms of state interventions: it fails to achieve the overt aims of its proponents and it leaves the subjects touched by it less free.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

In the 70s, this film was produced by G. Edward Griffin to announce the very issues that a movement of people are finally waking-up to today. Is this perhaps the first documentary made to expose the underlying powers of governments?

Some will automatically wish to dismiss these statements as fact, but to have any desire to seek the truth would surely allow one to have an open mind. The greatest conspiracy may be – the conspiracy to make you laugh at the idea of ‘conspiracy’. Free your mind.

Full video (Google)
Playlist (YouTube)
Download (windows media, 49 MB – 47 minutes)

Conclusion:

1) There is an has been, for some time, a conspiracy among some of the richest people in the world – a conspiracy that virtually owns the money systems of the major, non-communist nations. This monopoly is protected by the power of the respected governments, and is used to perpetuate the conspiracy’ vast wealth, by the creation of money out of nothing.

2) In the United States, this monetary fraud is perpetuated though the Federal Reserve System. Although the executive branch theoretically has some control over this system though occasional appointments, in reality, it is this system and those behind it who control the executive branch.

3) The capitalist conspiracy, in this country, surfaces to public view in the form of the semi-secret Council on Foreign Relations. It’s members exercise their control over the nation through government, tax-exempt foundations, centers of education, and the mass-communications media.

4) On the surface, the capitalist conspiracy appears to oppose communism. It spends billions of dollars on spectacular military displays of anti-communism all around the world. But never to the extent of seriously harming the enemy, and certainly not to the extent of defeating it. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the conspiracy always has nourished and aided communism, both at home and abroad. It does this, not because it is pro-communist, but because it needs the appearance of a formidable foe, and the chaos by-product of a managed conflict, to advance its own goal of totalitarian world government.

5) There is much evidence indicating that the capitalist and communist conspiracies both are directed by a single, master-conspiracy which may have continuity with the Order of the Illuminati, which was founded [240] years ago. But this historical question is not nearly as important as the immediate question of what can be done about it today.

6) As for our response, we must begin to dismantle the conspiracy’s machine of big-government. We must restore American independence. We must return our schools to local control. We must protect our police forces from federal aid, which is a certain path to a national police force controlled from Washington. We must denounce revenue sharing as a transparent device leading to control over local government. We must raise-up men for political office who not only talk about reducing government, but who will do it once elected. And that means men who are totally independent of establishment politics.

7) We must reduce the Federal Reserve System to a service function of clearing checks between banks only. Merely turning the system as it stands over to the Federal Government, as some have suggested, will not solve the problem. The same people would control it either way. The root of the evil is that money is created out of nothing, and the insiders could to that today just as easily directly through government, as they do through the Federal Reserve System. The ultimate solution is to prevent anyone, in or out of government, from manipulating the money supply. And the only way to do that, is to return our money to the gold and silver standards.

8) We must expose conspiracy to public view. If somehow, every American could be made aware of the facts contained in this presentation. If it were possible to circumvent the establishments channels of mass-communication and carry this message person-to-person to our friends and neighbors and fellow club members, the conspiracy would collapse – like a house of cards.

G. Edward Griffin – Ron Paul vs NWO Establishment

Read Full Post »

Have you peed your pants yet?

North American Army created without OK by Congress
U.S., Canada military ink deal to fight domestic emergencies
Posted: February 24, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In a ceremony that received virtually no attention in the American media, the United States and Canada signed a military agreement Feb. 14 allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.

The agreement, defined as a Civil Assistance Plan, was not submitted to Congress for approval, nor did Congress pass any law or treaty specifically authorizing this military agreement to combine the operations of the armed forces of the United States and Canada in the event of a wide range of domestic civil disturbances ranging from violent storms, to health epidemics, to civil riots or terrorist attacks.

READ FULL

Read Full Post »

This article can be read on the CFR website, here. It can also be read on this page, in full, and explained.

Please watch the videos below, and continue to learn about this outstanding treat to American sovereignty.

Sovereignty and globalisation
Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations
February 17, 2006
Project SyndicatePublic enemy

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds.

Let me translate: There are over 190 countries in the world, they “co-exist” (are in partnership) with “independent actors” such as terrorists and drug cartels, institutions (regional and global), banks and bankers. They even have an acronym for them, the “NGOs“.

The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

He says: Terrorists, drug lords, bankers, etc. have control over these many countries of the world (which isn’t entirely a bad thing). “Sovereignty… is being eroded.”

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states.

In other words, new mechanisms – not the states – are needed to govern the world.

This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

The corporations that are members of the CFR should be the representatives of the world government.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

States will have to give-up their sovereignty and become subject to the new world order.

This is already taking place in the trade realm.

The new world order agenda has already begun.

Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Governments will prefer to give-up their sovereign rights to the order of the WTO.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change.

Global climate change is being used as a “threat” to get governments to concede their sovereignty.

Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

The Kyoto Protocol was a success, now a successor is needed to get more and larger governments “adopt common standards”.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

Globalization is the end to sovereignty as we know it.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.

Eliminating borders, globalization increases the flows of everything (including viruses, weapons, pollution, drugs…); contrary to the principals of sovereignty.

Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Sovereign states fear “forces beyond their control”.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.

Globalisation destroys sovereignty.

States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

“Forces beyond their control” will destroy the sovereignty of states; they cannot defend themselves from globalization.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power.

The fear of terrorism can be used to overthrow government.

Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Iraq showed how a sovereign can be targeted against based only on presumptive (or false) evidence.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

If a government is accused of having intention to use a nuclear device, nothing could protect them.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The ‘war on terror‘ can use the excuse of government scruples to eliminate a state’s sovereignty.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

NATO is an example of violating a sovereign state under the excuse of genocide and mass killing.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

Sovereignties must agree to principals against terrorism, WMDs, and genocide, or they will be open to attack, and remedied, [by another government].

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

Sovereignty must be redefined for “the era of globalization”; to be better suited to an international system of world government.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

The main challenges to Order are between global forces and states, not between states.

Read Full Post »

Watch the video responses. Show to everyone you know!

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

In the biography of the Bush family, they are called “the most successful political dynasty in American history.” It started with G. W. Bush’s great grandfather Samuel Prescott Bush, becoming associated with the Rockefellers, led to his presidency of Frank Rockefeller’s steel and railway industry – which reaped profits from the soon-after WW1 and has been growing ever since.

His son, Prescott Bush, was a federal government official in charge of coordination and assistance to major weapons contractors. He was also admitted to the Skull & Bones society when at Yale University, he lied about getting medals during his military service, and later married into the George Herbert Walker family to inherit control of one of the oldest partnership banks in the United States, which funded the growth of the Nazi Party.

And then George H. W. Bush and his son became presidents of the United States – to become known for their use of the aggressive foreign policy seen today – to reap profits for themselves and other elite involved in the military industrial complex as well as investment bankers, with the agenda of secret societies – and with the aim and intent to steal America and sell-it-off for the power to control the world.

“Time is running out!”

Read Full Post »