UN-Globalist Collectivism and Political Disclosure

Discussion in 'UN-Globalist Collectivism and Political Disclosure' started by admin, Jan 28, 2018.

  1. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,199
    Globalist Feminist Wisdom Exposed!

    westerndefenceministers-.

    marise-annpayne-.
    natoecho.

    Monday, 21 January 2019
    German Defense Chief: Unleash NATO on Opponents of “World Order”

    Written by Alex Newman



    10f3c127620d19171e5ff46bf5b147ee_M.

    In a rambling column celebrating the controversial North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said that the alliance's military force was needed for use against opponents of the “rules-based international order.” The bizarre screed comes as more and more people across the Western world and beyond turn against the globalist “world order” that von der Leyen says must be preserved, even by military force if need be. Among the most prominent critics has been the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who globalists claim is seeking to blow it all up.
    The opinion piece, "The World Still Needs NATO" published in the far-left New York Times, offers a great deal of insight into the role globalists hope NATO will play in the emerging “world order” they are seeking to foist on humanity. For instance, NATO is not just a military alliance, but “a political alliance as well,” von der Leyen admitted. But amid historic skepticism about the alliance expressed openly by President Trump and the millions of American voters who elected him, the pro-NATO propaganda smacks of desperation. In short, it seems NATO's future is uncertain at best. And globalists, apparently recognizing the threat to their dangerous agenda, have launched a full-blown public relations campaign to shore up support for the scheme.

    A “stronger NATO will serve the security interests of all members,” claimed whoever wrote the piece for von der Leyen, probably PR professionals. “Most of all, it will send a clear signal to those opposing the rules-based international order: We trans-Atlantic allies are ready and willing to defend our soil, our people and our freedom.” Did you catch that? A strong NATO is needed to protect against those who oppose the “rules-based international order.” Indeed, she argued that NATO was not just about bases and troops, but about defending the “world order,” a term often used by globalists to refer to the institutions of global governance foisted on humanity — primarily using deception — since the end of World War II.

    But the German official's message, while veiled, was still easy to discern. Consider, for instance, the examples offered by von der Leyen earlier on in her column about who opposes this “world order.” Among them: The government of Russia's Vladimir Putin, the mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictatorship, the “Islamic State” terror group that even globalists admit was armed and trained by NATO governments, and unspecified “authoritarian regimes developing nuclear weapons.” While the “challenges” are each different, “they have one thread in common: They emanate from actors who oppose the international order,” claimed von der Leyen, adding that these alleged foes seek “to undermine or even change the rules” of the “world order.”

    In other words, if you oppose the globalist vision of a “rules-based international order” controlled by the globalist elite — complete with the destruction of self-government, individual liberty, and Western Christian civilization — you are the enemy. And you are probably a Russian-backed Islamist terrorist authoritarian of some sort, because who else would oppose the glorious world order of technocracy, open borders, and Big Government? The remedy for such threats to the world order, the German official said, is the unleashing of military force — particularly the globalist-controlled NATO's military force, which according to its own charter has always been under the United Nations.

    Ironically, though, the reality is that the same globalists who control NATO literally created the very threats that von der Leyen and other globalists now claim justify the existence of NATO.

    Consider, for example, the regime in Communist China. As this magazine and other sources have documented extensively, the murderous Chinese dictatorship has been aided and abetted at every step of the way by globalists in the Council on Foreign Relations and its allied Deep State organizations around the world. Indeed, from the beginning, subversive globalists such as George Marshall, a CFR member who served as secretary of state and secretary of defense, deliberately ensured that the mass-murdering Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-Tung would defeat nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. He actually bragged about it!
    Then, subversive globalists had to ensure that Communist China would prosper despite the backwards nature of communism, which is unproductive even under the best of circumstances. And they barely bothered to conceal their efforts or their affinity for the barbaric dictatorship. The late globalist mastermind David Rockefeller, a self-proclaimed member of a secret internationalist “cabal” “conspiring” against America to build a “one-world order,” celebrated the regime in a 1973 column in the New York Times. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history,” he wrote after a trip to China, omitting the fact that Mao murdered some 80 million people.

    More recently, globalists have continued promoting the brutal regime as leader of the “rules-based international order.” Billionaire globalist George Soros, for example, said Beijing should “own” it. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns ... the current order,” he told the Financial Times. The next year, Soros claimed China had a “better functioning government than the United States.” And with the full support of globalist Western governments, Beijing has been quietly taking over the architecture of the “New World Order,” just as Soros and others demanded.

    Even former NATO chiefs have joined the China-as-NWO-leader bandwagon. “The West has failed to accord China — not to mention the other major emerging economies — the degree of influence in today’s global governance structures that it merits,” complained globalist socialist Javier Solana, former secretary-general of NATO and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. “The West must still do more not only to welcome China to the table of global governance, but also to accept and cooperate with the institutions that the Chinese are now creating... China’s move into multilateral processes is good news for the world.”
    Then consider the Islamic State, or ISIS, another creation of the same globalists behind NATO. On the campaign trail, President Trump famously called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the “co-founders” of ISIS. Obama was dubbed the “Most Valuable Player” for ISIS. To be fair, the dynamic globalist duo had plenty of help co-founding ISIS from other leading NATO governments, including those ruling the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey. But Trump was nevertheless correct, as official documents and even former Vice President Joe Biden have revealed.

    A 2012 intelligence report by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) confirmed that the Obama administration and other NATO governments knew all along that al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists were the “major forces driving the insurgency” — and that NATO governments, including Obama, were supporting the insurgency anyway. “There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist [fundamentalist Islam] principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime,” the document states. That salafist principality is today better known as ISIS.

    Vice President Biden spilled the beans on that publicly in a speech at Harvard, too. “There was no moderate middle,” he said. And so, U.S. allies, including NATO members, “poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad; except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world,” Biden said. “All of a sudden everybody’s awakened because this outfit called ISIL, which was Al Qaeda in Iraq, which when they were essentially thrown out of Iraq, found open space in territory in eastern Syria, worked with Al Nusra who we declared a terrorist group early on, and we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them.”
    Before helping to bring about the rise of ISIS by supporting al Qaeda in Syria, NATO governments were busy in Libya openly partnering with al Qaeda there, too. The situation became so outlandish that senior U.S. intelligence and military officials were accusing Obama of “switching sides” in the terror war — a potentially treasonous act. Meanwhile, lawmakers noted correctly that Obama had made NATO into al-Qaeda's air force in the Middle East. Before that, even Hillary Clinton has admitted that the U.S. government helped create al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    So obviously, with the same globalists behind NATO openly building up the threats they claim NATO is needed to defend against, those threats are not what NATO is really needed for. And if the German government was actually interested in defending its soil or its people, as von der Leyen claimed, it would not have opened its borders wide to millions of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa — many of them violent Islamists determined to massacre “infidels.” And as for “freedom,” German authorities regularly jail people for what they say, terrorize homeschooling families merely for homeschooling, and despise genuine freedom.
    So what is NATO really for? Interestingly, von der Leyen was probably telling the truth when she said that NATO was needed to defend the “world order” globalists are creating from those who oppose it. Indeed, the German defense boss said NATO was an “irreplaceable building block” for the “international order” globalists dream of imposing on humanity. The emerging European Union military being built by EU globalists will “add to NATO's strength,” von der Leyen said. The question is who are those enemies of the world order? The column did not mention Trump or his supporters, but they may well be the most significant threat to the “world order” agenda at present, as top globalists have said publicly.

    Many globalists before von der Leyen have made the true purpose of NATO clear as well. In the late 1940s, then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson, one of NATO’s chief American promoters, revealed that NATO was created to be “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” Indeed, the UN is mentioned a half-dozen times in the treaty underpinning NATO. In the 1995 NATO Handbook issued by the outfit, the alliance itself boasts that it was “created within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” In short, NATO is the military arm of the New World Order.

    It is and always has been, as well, a scheme to put America's armed forces at the disposal of the UN and its member regimes — including those ruling Russia and China, both of which sit on the Security Council — while bypassing Congress. Under America's Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But under NATO and the UN, Russia and China can vote to send U.S. forces into war under the UN charter, as occurred in 2011 in Libya when Obama, responding to an illegitimate UN resolution, used U.S. forces as part of a NATO operation for “regime change.” Look at Libya today.

    The pro-NATO PR campaign by globalists such as von der Leyen comes shortly after reports that Trump asked senior U.S. officials about pulling out of NATO. While Trump has publicly claimed that the U.S. government supports NATO, the reality is that American voters elected him in part because he was threatening to blow it up throughout his entire electoral campaign. Among other terms, he called it “obsolete.” It is much worse than obsolete. Meanwhile, across the Western world, so-called populist movements are increasingly demanding an end to globalist outfits such as NATO, the EU, and more. Globalists are getting worried.
    It seems that von der Leyen's plea in the Times is a desperate attempt by the globalist Deep State to preserve at least a semblance of public support for an increasingly unpopular tentacle of the “world order” machine. After all, as she made clear, globalists need it to advance their agenda — an agenda of globalism and tyranny that has now come out of the closet. For those who value liberty and self-government, the threat that NATO would be used against opponents of the “world order” offers even more ammunition in the campaign to expose and disband this globalist military organ. American troops did not sign up to defend the “world order,” but their own nation and its Constitution. It is time for the U.S. government to get out.

    Photo: vetkit/iStock/Getty Images Plus
    Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
  2. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,199

    The power behind global politics: capitalist, marxist, socialist, communist, fascist, ...
    Economic control of the executive branch
    -Is the TPP good for Australia?-
    recycle.
    tech1. tech2.
    tech3. tech4. tech0.



    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7QlOTi86Nk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkDiBOO4H0
    Elon Musk.

    Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.​
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2019
  3. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,199
    Coming to Australia Soon!
    (Here already?)
    A Green Revolution aka Deevolution
    gnd1. gnd3.

    Friday, 08 February 2019
    Alex in Wonderland: AOC’s Green New Deal Would Make Economy Reel

    Written by Selwyn Duke

    She’s not as ambitious as Stalin or Mao with their five-year plans — she needs 10 years. But that’s all it will take, claims Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), to completely overhaul the American economy, achieving net-zero CO2 emissions, a total fossil-fuel phase-out, and the combustion engine’s and air travel’s elimination. A long way from stealing tips at the bar, it’s her version of Year Zero.

    gnd.
    But zero is precisely what our economy would be if the greenhorn congresswoman got her way with her “Green New Deal.” Unveiled Thursday morning, it’s a top-down, Big Brother scheme that promises the world and to save the world and, fancifully, to turn a profit in the process.
    Calling it perhaps “the most far-reaching proposal to ever be considered in Congress,” Fox News writes that Ocasio-Cortez’ plan would also “upgrade or replace every building in America to ensure energy efficiency and give economic security even to those ‘unwilling’ to work.” (By the way, if this comes to pass, count me “unwilling.”)
    “‘Today is the day that we truly embark on a comprehensive agenda of economic, social and racial justice in the United States of America,’ she said alongside Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and other lawmakers outside the Capitol. ‘That’s what this agenda is all about,’” Fox also reports.

    The resolution is non-binding, a mere vision at this point of Democrat “thought leaders’” intentions for our future. These thinkers don’t, however, include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who assuredly finds Ocasio-Cortez an irritating threat to her power — as she dismissively characterized the upstart’s scheme as the “green dream or whatever they call it.”
    Yet 2020 Democrat presidential hopefuls were much more receptive, with figures such as senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J) all happily co-sponsoring the resolution. As they tweeted:
    Screenshot_2019-02-08_Kamala_Harris_on_Twitter.

    Screenshot_2019-02-08_Cory_Booker_on_Twitter.

    Screenshot_2019-02-08_Elizabeth_Warren_on_Twitter.

    Of course, these politicians know a certain principle well: It costs nothing to promise and posture.
    That is, unless it ultimately makes you look radical and stupid. Fox News’ Dana Perino, appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight’s Thursday edition (video below), theorized that this just might, in fact, happen with these Democrats.



    Carlson called the proposal “reckless and dumb.” Yet it’s hard to really get a sense of how truly radical and risible but yet dangerous the resolution is without reading it yourself. Aside from what has already been mentioned, however, here are some highlights (lowlights?). The plan promises
    • the development of high-speed rail “at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) noted that this “would be pretty hard for Hawaii” (nah, not once we complete Obama’s intercontinental railroad);
    • a “job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security”;
    • “access to nature” (whatever that means);
    • to build electric “charging stations everywhere”; and
    • to eliminate all nuclear power plants.
    The resolution ignores science and sanity and can read like Bart Simpson meets the Bolsheviks. Just consider the following passage from the Green New Deal FAQ released by Ocasio-Cortez' office to PBS:
    “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”
    The resolution is rife with divisive lies. It cites as a problem the male-female wage gap, when it has been definitively shown that it’s a function of the sexes’ different career and lifestyle choices, not discrimination, and that trying to eliminate it hurts married women and their children. It bemoans how white families have 20 times more wealth than black families, ignoring that Asians earn more than whites. Why?
    Because whites are the “intersectional” leftists’ scapegoat and the common enemy used to help bind the disparate left-wing groups together. There’s no percentage in attacking Asians (yet).
    Ocasio-Cortez’ one saving grace in her Green New Deal is that, like a doctrinaire Marxist, she’s often blunt about her intentions. “Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases,” the FAQ acknowledges. And the FAQ’s “Overview” section boasts: “This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.”
    Yet clear goals don’t necessarily denote clear thinking. Comically tragic here is that this whole scheme is based upon the unscientific global-warming thesis, whose adherents’ computer-model predictions have failed time and again. Yet the alarmists still insist that, this time, they surely must be right.
    This just reflects environmentalist doomsayers’ history, though. How bad have their predictions been? Hint: We’re all supposed to be either dead of starvation by now or living among 22.6 million other miserable American survivors.
    The kicker is that even if man’s CO2 emissions were creating a warmer planet, so what? The Left often touts “science,” but here’s what science also has told us:
    • Plants and animals do better in warmer times with higher CO2 levels.
    • The world will end because of too little CO2 — in approximately 1,000,000,000 A.D.
    • We’re poised to enter a new ice age.
    • Reducing the global temperature three-tenths of one degree by the century’s end — meaning, postponing so-called “global warming” less than four years — would cost $100 trillion.
    And believe these assertions or not, perhaps countless trillions are what the Green Raw Deal would cost. Ocasio-Cortez blows this off like a valley girl with daddy’s credit card. She says this is our WWII; it’s more like our Waterloo.
    The freest nations (e.g., us) have the cleanest environments, and, in fact, China emits more CO2 than the United States and the European Union combined. We can morally preen and posture, but do you think China and, for that matter, India will follow us over the green cliff?
    It has been fashionable to make jokes about Ocasio-Cortez, but don’t laugh. For what makes her set so dangerous is that they’re ignorant of most everything — except how to gain power.
    CFSA21-banner.
    Photo: AP Images


    Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2019
  4. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Messages:
    3,199
    A 4-Year Timewarp from January 27th, 2016 to January 28th, 2020, coinciding with US election cycle

    agenda2.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2019 at 12:23 AM

Share This Page