Aftermath News

Entries categorized as 'Global Government'

Gary Hart Warns of False Flag Attack, Lies About New World Order

May 7, 2008 · No Comments

Hart hails a “New World of globalization, eroding national sovereignty and a revolutionary changes in warfare.”

Why Is Gary Hart So Fearful Of Discussing His “New World Order”?

Prison Planet | Apr 30, 2008

CFR member contradictory, deceitful about context of term - ex-Senator repeats warning that Neo-Cons looking to stage incident as pretext to attack Iran

by Paul Joseph Watson

Note the black inverted pentagram behind him on the Democratic Leadership poster - PW

Former Senator Gary Hart seems to be having difficulties remembering his last lie because he fouled up again in his latest confrontation with We Are Change by reversing his assertion that he never used the term “new world order,” contradicting his previous falsehood, but still seemed fearful of discussing exactly what the term meant.

In the clip, Luke Rudkowski quotes Hart’s response to 9/11 at a September 12th Council on Foreign Relations in which he called for the disaster to be used to “make lemonade out of lemons” and create a “new world order”.

Hart lies by claiming the term was only used to highlight right-wing hostility to the phrase “new world order” which is completely false as you will see later and he also contradicts his previous response to the question in which he claimed to have never used the phrase “new world order” in his life.

Seemingly wary of the fact that a lot of people know exactly what “new world order” means now (global government, loss of sovereignty and individual liberty), Hart is frightened of admitting to using the phrase and refuses to discuss its meaning.

Full Story

Categories: Crime & Corruption · Global Government · Globalization · Operation 9/11 · Perpetual War · Social Engineering · Terror Psyops · Uncategorized

Revolution in Military Affairs: From Computer Generated Insurgents to Bioelectric Implants

May 5, 2008 · No Comments

Old-Thinker News | May 4, 2008

By Daniel Taylor

In July of 1994 the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) produced the paper titled Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War that uncannily forecasted the future in a “hypothetical future history” written in the year 2010.

The hypothetical situation contains many disturbing predictions, several of which have come true, some partially. After a series of terrorist attacks, foreign policy “fiascos” and various disputes between “supporters of multinational peace operations” and “isolationists”, a small number of “revolutionaries” recruits members in all branches of the U.S. government and shift American foreign policy to a practice of pre-emption.

Computer generated insurgents claim responsibility for attacks that U.S. forces carry out, pharmaceutical drugs are used as a part of national security strategy, “attitude shaping campaigns” are directed against the American people, traditional boundaries between military and law enforcement are abolished, subliminal conditioning is used in combination with propaganda, and bioelectric tags are implanted in citizens. By 2010 the revolutionaries’ goals were met.

All of this will likely sound eerily familiar to followers of current events, or for that matter anyone who lived to see the events of September 11th 2001, its resulting wars, and its truly “revolutionary” effects in the reorganization of government and law. The Bush administration’s signature legislation, the Patriot Act, has infringed on multiple sections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Posse Comitatus, which has protected Americans from the military engaging in domestic law enforcement since 1807 was reversed when the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was passed last year.

The Neoconservatives reign in the United States holds striking similarities to the scenario outlined in the 1994 SSI report. Interestingly, the document clearly stated that, “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the other Third World caricatures of the Soviet Union are perfect opponents for a RMA-type [Revolution in Military Affairs] military.”

Full Story

Categories: Big Brother Surveillance Society · Big Pharma · Bioweapons · Depopulation · Global Government · Intelligence Agencies · Mind Control · Perpetual War · Police State · Social Engineering

UN covered up peacekeeper crime and corruption

April 29, 2008 · 1 Comment

The 18,000-member force in Congo is the UN’s largest peacekeeping operation. It has been plagued by sexual abuse and corruption scandals.

Telegraqh | Apr 29, 2008

By Our Foreign Staff

The United Nations covered up evidence that peacekeeping troops were involved in smuggling gold and ivory and trading arms with rebel fighters in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it has been claimed.

UN peacekeepers in Congo are accused of smuggling gold and trading in arms.

A BBC investigation claims to have obtained new witness accounts which contradict UN claims that no weapons transfers occurred.

The UN launched an investigation into the Pakistani and Indian peacekeepers after the allegations were first aired last year, and although there were indications that a Pakistani soldier had been involved in drug smuggling, no evidence of arms trading turned up.

The BBC’s Panorama programme, returning to the region to follow up its original report, said it found witnesses who backed claims of arms trading between the UN and militia in the mining town of Mongbwalu.

They said weapons were given to militias there to guard the perimeters of gold mines and to secure the region. A former militant, who was not named, told the BBC he saw seven boxes of ammunition being brought from a UN camp to resupply a militia called the Nationalist and Integrationist Front during a battle.

Former leaders of the militia jailed in the capital, Kinshasa, also claimed they received weapons from UN peacekeepers.

A previous BBC report also claimed that a separate contingent of Indian peacekeepers had flown a UN helicopter into Congo’s Virunga National Park to trade ammunition for ivory with a Rwandan rebel group whose commanders directed Rwanda’s 1994 genocide.

In July, the UN said it had opened an investigation into charges that Indian peacekeepers sold arms to Congolese militias near the Rwandan border.

The BBC said “confidential UN sources” said they had been blocked from thoroughly investigating the allegations of arms trading for “political reasons”, saying this suggested that reports were buried to avoid embarrassment to key allies in US anti-terrorism efforts and major contributors to UN missions.

The UN has said it was looking into charges that the probe by its internal watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, was obstructed by peacekeepers.

A UN spokesman in Congo said the BBC report did not appear to raise new allegations, and added that investigations are continuing into accusations of misconduct. “It is clear that there were cases of unacceptable conduct by individuals, but there is no proof to establish the traffic mentioned,” said Kemal Saiki, a spokesman.

He said UN investigations had yet to turn up “irrefutable proof” of weapons or munitions transfers. Pakistan denied the previous allegations against its peacekeepers, and spokesmen for the country’s Foreign Ministry and its military could not be reached for comment on the latest claims.

The Indian Army told the BBC that the previous UN probe showed nearly all allegations were based on hearsay.

The 18,000-member force in Congo is the UN’s largest peacekeeping operation. It has been plagued by sexual abuse and corruption scandals.

Categories: Crime & Corruption · Global Government

British prime minister calls for global `interdependence’

April 19, 2008 · 3 Comments

AP | Apr 18, 2008

By DENISE LAVOIE

BOSTON (AP) — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in his first foreign policy address in the United States, called Friday on the U.S. and Europe to lead a new era of global “interdependence” aimed at solving international problems such as terrorism, poverty and climate change.

“We urgently need to step out of the mindset of competing interests and instead find our common interests, and we must summon up the best instincts and efforts of humanity in a cooperative effort to build new international rules and institutions for the new global era,” Brown said to about 350 invited guests at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.

Brown cited Kennedy’s Independence Day speech in 1962, when the president proposed a “new and global declaration of interdependence.” Brown said Kennedy’s call for public service “still reverberates around the world and always will.”

Noting Kennedy’s creation of the Peace Corps, Brown called for the creation of “a new kind of global peace and reconstruction corps,” which he described as an organization of trained civilian experts available any time to rebuild states.

Brown also talked about U.S. leadership following World War II, including the Marshall Plan, which funneled millions in economic aid and technical assistance to help rebuild Europe.

“We must summon inspiration from the vision, humanity and leadership shown by those reformers to guide our actions today,” he said.

Brown called on the World Bank to focus on reducing poverty and said the institution should become a bank for both development and the environment by transferring billions in loans and grants to encourage the poorest countries to adopt alternative sources of energy.

The British leader, who has set a mandatory target in the U.K. to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050, insisted that a new global pact on reducing carbon emission must be agreed on by the end of 2009.

He said the deal, which would replace the Kyoto Protocol, should be led by the United Nations and needs to set binding targets for all developed countries.

Brown praised President Bush for leading the world in an attempt to root out terrorism and “our common commitment that there be no safe haven for terrorists.”

Brown said the United States and Europe should act as “hardheaded internationalists,” and use “diplomatic, economic, and yes, when necessary military action — to prevent crimes against humanity when states can no longer do so.”

Categories: Global Government · Global Warming Hoax · Globalization · Social Engineering · Terror Psyops

Tony Blair popular choice as EU president

March 18, 2008 · 11 Comments

Telegraph | Mar 18, 2008

By Bruno Waterfield

Tony Blair is a popular choice to become the first president of the European Union, according to a pan-Europe opinion poll.

The Financial Times Harris poll, carried out in five countries, showed that most Europeans would like to see a prominent political figure as EU president.

The post, created under the Lisbon Treaty, comes into effect next year.

Fifty per cent of Britons backed a high-profile figure, rising to around 80 per cent in France, Italy and Spain. Only the Germans were less enthusiastic, with 45 per cent favouring a political star.

Mr Blair scored well inside and outside his own country. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was the only other figure to enjoy the same widespread popularity, and she is not a candidate.

In France, after backing from President Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr Blair had a 12 per cent support rating. It rose to around 17 per cent in Italy.

The survey was a blow to candidates such as Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister.

Related

EU citizens want top figure for president

Financial Times

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Tony Blair, the former British premier, are the only two politicians who get a clear level of support in countries that are not their own.

Categories: European Union · Global Government

Iraq war implementer Tony Blair calls for UN ‘climate revolution’

March 17, 2008 · 1 Comment

Blair climate

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaks at the opening of the 4th Ministerial Meeting of the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development in Chiba, near Tokyo, Saturday, March 15, 2008. Blair said the world needs an economic ‘revolution’ to save it from global warming in the climate change conference.

BBC | Mar 15, 2008

Mr Blair believes the UN is the key to reaching a climate agreement

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for a “global environment revolution” to tackle climate change.

Mr Blair is on a visit to Japan to discuss global greenhouse gas targets.

In a speech to a meeting of G8 ministers building on the 2005 Gleneagles summit, he stressed the need for a “global deal”.

He suggested it should be led by the UN and that failure to act on climate change “would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible”.

During his visit, organised by Climate Group, Mr Blair is due to meet climate change experts from China, Japan, Europe and the US.

He is attempting to guide attempts to secure a deal involving China and the US to slash emissions by 50% by 2050, on the first part of a trip that will also take him to China and India.

He said: “Unfortunately the source of the emissions is irrelevant. It is the fact and amount of them that matters.

“The UN machinery is valiantly striving to put this deal together. The UN and the UN alone is the right forum to reach the global agreement.

“What I found, whilst still in office as prime minister, was that countries had their own environmental policy. They talked to other nations of course, but there was no centre where it was brought together.”

Varied roles

He also said that he could “see no way of tackling climate change without a renaissance of nuclear power”.

Mr Blair, who stood down as prime minister last year, is also a peace envoy to the Middle East Climate Group for the “quartet” of the EU, Russia, the US and UN.

He also works as an advisor to investment bank JP Morgan and insurer Zurich.

Last week it was announced he would run a seminar on faith and globalisation at Yale University in the US.

In February Mr Blair said he would work to attract investment to Rwanda, as the central African country rebuilds its economy following the genocide of the mid-1990s.

Categories: Global Government · Global Warming Hoax · Social Engineering

Inside the hush-hush North American Union confab

March 17, 2008 · 1 Comment

State Department talks open borders, EU links

WorldNetDaily | Mar 13, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi

WASHINGTON — A largely unreported meeting held at the State Department discussed integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada in concert with a move toward a transatlantic union, linking a North American community with the European Union.

The meeting was held Monday under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy, or ACIEP. WND obtained press credentials and attended as an observer. The meeting was held under “Chatham House” rules that prohibit reporters from attributing specific comments to individual participants.

The State Department website noted the meeting was opened by Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Daniel S. Sullivan and ACIEP Chairman Michael Gadbaw, vice president and senior counsel for General Electric’s International Law & Policy group since December 1990.

WND observed about 25 ACIEP members, including U.S. corporations involved in international trade, prominent U.S. business trade groups, law firms involved with international business law, international investment firms and other international trade consultants.

No members of Congress attended the meeting.

The agenda for the ACIEP meeting was not published, and State Department officials in attendance could not give WND permission under Chatham House rules to publish the agenda.

The meeting agenda included topics reviewing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, and the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC.

The SPP, declared by the U.S., Canada and Mexico at a summit meeting in 2005, has 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups that seek to “integrate and harmonize” administrative rules and regulations on a continental basis.

Several participants said the premise of the SPP is to create a North American business platform to benefit North America-based multi-national companies the way the European Union benefits its own.

Others noted the premise of the TEC is to create a convergence of administrative rules and regulations between Europe and North America, anticipating the creation of a “Transatlantic Economic Union” between the European Union and North America.

Participants pointed out that transatlantic trade is currently 40 percent of all world trade. They argue that trade and non-trade barriers need to be further reduced to maintain that market share as a framework is put in place to advance transatlantic economic integration.

Still, some participants argued that many corporations in North America already have moved beyond a North American focus to adopt a global perspective that transcends even the Transatlantic market.

“Supply chains and markets are everywhere,” one participant asserted. “What’s to stop global corporations from going after the cheapest labor available globally, wherever they can find it, provided the cost of transporting goods globally can be managed economically?”

Other participants argued regional alliances were still important, if only to put in place the institutional bases that ultimately would lead to global governance on uniform global administrative regulations favorable to multi-national corporations.

“North America should be a premiere platform to establish continental institutions,” a participant said. “That’s why we need to move the security perimeters to include the whole continent, especially as we open the borders between North American countries for expanding free trade.”

One presentation on the agenda identified four reasons why administrative rules and regulations need to be integrated by SPP in North America and by the Transatlantic Economic Council, bridging together European Union and North American markets:
Standardization – to keep prices low and productivity high;

Investment – for every $1 traded, $4 is invested; right now 75 percent of investment in the U.S. comes from the EU, and 52 percent of the investment in the EU comes from the U.S.;

Productivity Improvements – to lower production costs and stimulate trade; and

Open Borders – to facilitate the free movement of labor to markets where employment opportunities are available.

The discussion pointed out the SPP trilateral working groups and the Transatlantic Economic Council were being supported by top-level Cabinet officers and the heads of state in both the EU and in North America.

Progress in EU-U.S. regulatory integration was noted in financial market coordination, investment rule cohesion, trade security measures and efforts undertaken recently to preserve intellectual property rights.

Before the meeting began, concerns were raised informally by participants worried that the Ohio Democratic Party primary had prompted both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk of renegotiating NAFTA.

Participants at the State Department meeting pointed out U.S. political candidates could be expected to argue “protectionist themes opposed to global economic integration” as a tactic, without necessarily being committed to taking aggressive steps once in office.

“The political dialogue misses the point of economic reality,” one participant argued. “There is a J-curve correlation between when a currency like the U.S. dollar depreciates and when exports kick in to increase. We should accelerate the J-curve and our discussion about it, to help the local politics catch up with the international reality.”

Part of the discussion was devoted to concerns that national regulators in North America and Europe were too reluctant to abandon provincial regulatory advantages.

“Regulators by nature are advocates, and they are hard to move,” one participant grumbled. “What we need is more diplomats and negotiators to identify solutions, otherwise the bureaucrats will bog down the progress we need to see coming out of the SPP and TEC.”

“North America is already an integrated continental economy and a continental-wide business platform,” another said. “What we need now is more regulatory convergence. ‘Harmonized’ should mean that once approved, the same set of administrative regulations and procedures ought to be ready throughout NAFTA, SPP and the TEC.”

As WND previously reported, the Transatlantic Economic Council, or TEC, was created by President Bush at an April 30 summit meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the current president of the European Council, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

WND also reported the Transatlantic Policy Network, a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels and advised by a bi-partisan congressional policy group chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, has called for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

A complete membership list of the current 60-person Advisory Committee on International Policy is published on the State Department website.

ACIEP members include corporate officers from General Electric, Exxon Mobil, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Archer Daniels Midland, United Parcel Service, Citibank, Proctor & Gamble, Hunt Oil, CMS Energy, Boeing, 3M, Goldman Sachs and Cargill.

The most recent “Summary of Discussions” published on the Department of State website was for the Dec. 18 ACIEP meeting.

A published article on the State Department website includes photographs of the Dec. 18 ACIEP meeting, listing by name several participants who were photographed in attendance.

Categories: Borders and Immigration · European Union · Global Government · North American Union · Phony US/EU 'Rift' · Social Engineering

Author suggests Africa create secret society power structures like the US Council on Foreign Relations

January 28, 2008 · 6 Comments

Former Dircetor of the Council on Foreign Relations, US Vice President Dick Cheney, gives the secret sign (Photo and caption courtesy of We Are Change)

allAfrica.com | Jan 10, 2008

Zimbabwe: How Secret Societies Shape Western Politics

by Mabasa Sasa

IN the foreword to his book, Captains and Kings, Taylor Caldwell dedicates his work to those young men and women disillusioned by the way the world is being run but do not know why or how.

Caldwell’s book tries to outline — through fictional characters — how shadowy societies that purport to be concerned with following economic, political and social trends are actually the prime creators of these trends and that they manipulate these for their own benefit.

Of course, it all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but then again the Taylor Caldwells of this world will tell you that it is a manifestation of the power of secret societies that many people dismiss their existence and influence as the stuff of overworked Hollywood imaginations.

Interestingly though, most — if not all — research into the workings of secret societies has tended to focus on these bodies, that have evolved into veritable institutions in their own right, within the context of occidental civilisation with very little explorations into their linkages — historical and contemporary — with Africa.

A Zimbabwean writer using the pseudonym Kufara Gwenzi has, however, tackled this academic and practical deficiency in the study of secret societies by penning his own research into these bodies and unlike Caldwell’s book, Gwenzi’s work is based on a reality buttressed by meticulous research.

The soon to be published manuscript, titled “Seeing Beyond the Cotton Wool: Understanding the Form and Structure of Caucasian Power” is a breathtaking exploration of secret societies, where they came from, their role in today’s politics and the implications of their existence for countries like Zimbabwe.

But the book goes further and makes a daring suggestion; that it is time Africa started creating such power structures designed to protect our national and continental interests in much the same way institutions like the American Council for Foreign Relations do.

For Gwenzi, this is not a staggering idea considering that secret societies have part of their origins in the works of Pythagoras (582-507 BCE) who was himself a student of African Mystery Society teachings in Egypt for over two decades.

The African Mystery Schools in Ancient Egypt, explains Gwenzi, were aimed at educating and passing on esoteric knowledge from one generation to the next.

Gwenzi writes: “Pharaoh Thutmosis III, who ruled ancient Egypt from 1500-1447 BCE, organised the first esoteric brotherhood of initiates founded upon principles and methods familiar to those perpetuated by the Rosicrucian Order today.

“Moses, a son of the tribe of Levi, educated in Egypt and initiated at Heliopolis, became a High Priest of the Brotherhood under the reign of the Pharaoh Amenhotep. He was elected by the Hebrews as their chief and he adapted to the ideas of his people the science and philosophy which he had obtained in the Egyptian mysteries; proofs of this are to be found in the symbols, in the Initiations, and in his precepts and commandments.

“The wonders which Moses narrates as having taken place upon the Mountain of Sinai, are, in part, a veiled account of the Egyptian initiation which he transmitted to his people when he established a branch of the Egyptian Brotherhood in his country, from which descended the Essenes.”

The narrative gets rather interesting here and it is highly unlikely that it will endear Gwenzi to dogmatists and fundamentalists at all.

The author quotes Manetho, a High Priest at Heliopolis in his work, The History of Egypt, saying the “dogma” of an only God was passed onto Moses by the Egyptian Brotherhood as founded by the Pharaoh who established the first monotheistic religion known to man.

Moses himself admits to this training in Exodus 2:10 (also referred to in Acts 7:22) and Gwenzi contends that he then transmitted this esoteric knowledge to 70 elders as outlined in Numbers 11:24.

Enough of that.

Pythagoras, on being equipped with this knowledge subsequently created his Pythagorean Brotherhood and formulated the principles that were later to influence the thoughts and works of Plato and Aristotle, who are in turn credited with being the ideological fathers of occidental civilisation.

Gwenzi contends that all major civilisations have grown on the back of the activities of secret societies as evidenced by Egypt’s own greatness and the power and influence that Greece had following Pythagoras’ education in Africa.

In Japan, the author contends that “the social, political and economic fabric is premised on the Bushido (Way of the Warrior) Code of the Japanese Samurai. It originates from the Samurai moral code and stresses frugality, loyalty, martial arts mastery and honour till death”.

Chinese civilisation is oft-credited to Confucius and Confucianism in which the principles of order and filial piety are emphasised.

However, it is the manner in which secret societies have evolved and are currently deployed in America and Britain that is of prime concern for Africa and necessitates the creation — or re-creation — of our own similarly unique structures of power and policy control.

In Britain, the emergence of these societies as serious power brokers is tied closely to the monarchy regardless of whether a man or a woman sits on the throne at any given time and presently Queen Elizabeth II serves as the Grand Patroness of the Freemasons.

The British Freemasonic Order functions with a strong brotherhood and “old boys” basis in the fields of law, security and government.

“According to a BBC report,” writes Gwenzi, “more than 200 judges and over 1 000 magistrates in Britain owned up to being Freemasons,” indicating how far-reaching the tentacles of secret societies are.

Gwenzi further contends that America’s founding fathers sought to “recreate in America the same energies which guided the Africans of the Nile Valley by using African science, architecture and symbols (with no credit to them)”.

Hence, eight signatories to the US Declaration of Independence were Freemasons and nine of those who appended their signatures to the founding constitution came from the same secret society.

Masonic orders and other secret societies such as the Rosicrucians and the Illuminati have been patterned after Egypt’s Ancient Mystery Systems and today they form the crux of Western political, economic and social governance.

Various brotherhoods, and now sororities as well, are the recruiting grounds from which secret societies earmark potential future leaders in diverse fields.

They are consequently mentored and moulded from college age to become the type of political, economic and social leaders they are today and that is why no matter which of America’s two large parties is in power the country’s foreign policy objectives remain largely the same.

These fraternities include Skulls and Bones, Scroll and Key, Wolf’s Head, Elihu and Berzelius.

In recent history, William Taft, Prescott Bush, both George Bushes and John Kerry are among leading American politicians who were nurtured by Skull and Bones.

Those who are “educated” through Skull and Bones are well versed in 12 particular areas that include education, use of media as a tool, control of wealth/banking, foreign policy, psychology, religion and even philanthropy among others.

The idea is to ensure continuity and a development projection that suits the needs of their civilisation and those who control it from behind the scenes, which is essentially what the Ancient Egyptians were doing millennia ago.

Gwenzi says: “The Bilderberg Group is reputed to be the most secretive organisation in the world, comprising presidents, royal families, ministers, top industrialists and financial leaders.

“The Bilderberg strictly consists of ‘Western’ elite, i.e. of the United States of America and Europe. It resolutely excludes Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.”

There is also the insidious Council for Foreign Relations which is a “branch of an international group of a secret group of elite Anglo-Americans that has shaped world events for over 100 years”.

“It operates on the basis that people’s actions are strongly influenced by their knowledge base. People act on their beliefs. You can manipulate a person’s actions by corrupting their knowledge base, warping historical truth, or ignoring it completely.”

Gwenzi says the CFR is the American arm of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, commonly referred to as Chatham House.

Chatham House was created in 1920 by the Rhodes group then known as the Cliveden Set, which was renamed the Round Table Group RTG, named after the British King Arthur, who had a group of political advisors called the Knights of the Round Table.

The eponymous Rothschilds Family — creators of the American Federal Reserve — funded the Round Table Group and its early purpose was to train young political activists and business leaders to be loyal to the British government and do the bidding for the British policy.

They have the monarch as their patron and their “chief financial supporters of Chatham House have been the wealth of South African mining tycoon, Sir Abe Bailey a British (of Jewish origin), and the Astor family (owners of the British Times newspapers). Sir Abe Bailey’s son, James Richard Bailey, was the founder of South African Drum magazine and was married to former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s daughter.”

Apart from the CFR in the US, Chatham House has branches in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, India and Holland and in these countries they are often called Institutes of Pacific Relations.

It is the people behind these societies-cum-institutions that determine policy and then come up with all the studies and reasons why such policies should be pursued.

They then deploy their awesome artillery through the media and other means to convince people that the chosen path is the best way forward.

This perhaps could explain why the developing world accepted structural adjustment when the best development brains in the world, including World Bank and IMF staff, knew these proscriptions could only lead to disaster for poor countries.

Gwenzi also details how the organisations like the IMF and World Bank function. Ultimately his conclusion is simple: either we come up with our own robust and well-defined structures of power or we will forever be vassal states.

Categories: Global Government · Illuminati · Occult Agenda · Organized Crime · Secret Societies

UN transformation proposed to create ‘New World Order’

January 21, 2008 · 4 Comments

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.

Independent | Jan 20, 2008

By Andrew Grice in Delhi

The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world’s new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. Last night, British sources revealed “intense discussions” on UN reform were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.

UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus for change first.

His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: “I support India’s bid for a permanent place – with others – on an expanded UN Security Council.” However, he is not backing Pakistan’s demand for a seat if India wins one.

Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100m a year on setting up a “rapid reaction force” to stop “failed states” sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. “There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow,” he will say. “So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.”

He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.

Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a “partnership of equals” between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation against terrorism. He announced £825m of aid over the next three years – £500m of which will be spent on health and education.

Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers from Commonwealth countries. He said: “Cricket is one of the great things that bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some of the great players in the modern era honoured.”

Read Andrew Grice atindependent.co.uk/todayinpolitics

Security Council membership

The UN Security Council’s membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the UN’s most powerful body.

Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council – in 1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

Decisions made by the council require nine “yes” votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the assembly.
. . .

Related

Australian PM sets forth plan for a New World Order

Categories: Global Government · Globalization · Social Engineering

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe’s economy

January 19, 2008 · 1 Comment

Rules, regs to be integrated without congressional review, a step toward world government

WorldNetDaily.com | Jan 16, 2008

By Jerome R. Corsi

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa said the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with creating the Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure. The infrastructure would not require congressional approval, like a new free-trade agreement would.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the “Merkel initiative” would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU “in a very quiet way,” without introducing a new free trade agreement to Congress.

No document on the TEC website suggests that any of the regulatory changes resulting from the process of integrating with the EU will be posted in the Federal Register or submitted to Congress as new free-trade agreements or as modifications to existing trade agreements.

In addition to Bennett, the advisers to the Transatlantic Policy Network includes the following senators: Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.; Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; and Gordon Smith, R-Ore.

Among the 49 U.S. congressmen on the TPN’s Congressional Group are John Boehner, R-Ohio; John Dingell, D-Mich.; Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; and F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc.

WND contacted Bennett’s office for comment but received no return call by the publication deadline.

A progress report on the TEC website indicates the following U.S. government agencies are already at work integrating and harmonizing administrative rules and regulations with their EU counterparts: The Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A step toward world government

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book “Union Now” called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union as a step toward world government. The new federation, with an international constitution, was to include the 15 democracies of U.S., UK, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, the founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett as TPN chairperson with reviving Streit’s work “seven decades later.”

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in 1939.

One example is Bennett’s claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product under a common regulatory standard that would become “the de facto world standard, regardless of what any other parties say.”

Similarly, Streit wrote in “Union Now” that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa openly acknowledged that “transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end.”

“As understood by Jean Monnet,” he continued, “economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it.”

Transatlantic Common Market by 2015

Last February, the Transatlantic Policy Network formed a Transatlantic Market Implementation Group to put in place “a roadmap and framework” to direct the activity of the Transatlantic Economic Council to achieve the creation of the Transatlantic Common Market by 2015.

The Transatlantic Economic Council is an official international governmental body established by executive fiat in the U.S. and the EU without congressional approval or oversight. No new law or treaty was sought by the Bush administration to approve or implement the plan to create a Transatlantic Common Market.

The U.S. congressmen and senators are involved only indirectly, as advisers to the influential non-governmental organization.

In a February 2007 document entitled “Completing the Transatlantic Market,” the TPN’s Transatlantic Market Implementation Group writes, “The aim of this roadmap and framework would be to remove barriers to trade and investment across the Atlantic and to reduce regulatory compliance costs.”

The document further acknowledged the impact the Transatlantic Common Market agenda would have on U.S. and European legislators: “The roadmap and framework will necessarily oblige legislative and regulatory authorities in both Europe and the United States to take into consideration from the outset the impact their acts may have on transatlantic economic relations and to ensure that their respective governmental bodies involved have the necessary budgetary and organizational resources to work closely with each other.”

Full Story

Categories: European Union · Global Government