Manufactured Economic Crisis

The timing of the meltdown is a truly remarkable coincidence, and does raise the question of whether or not it is orchestrated.

Anti-capitalists wish to destroy the system in order to remake it into a global economic system.

Buffet and Sorors aren’t selling they are offering to buy!!!!!

WARREN Buffet, according to the Forbes list, is the richest man in the world. He has an estimated wealth of about $62b or more than the size of the East African economy. He has made his money by first investing on the stock exchange and later own-buying whole companies. The 77-year old billionaire made his first stock purchase when he was 13.

Buffet’s success has come from buying good companies selling at a discount. When the market is generally overvalued, he has the discipline to refrain from buying because everyone is buying.

In the run up to the current financial crisis, Buffet has been out of the markets accumulating up to $40b in cash in the process.

Since the crisis begun last year, Buffet has been in the market, his latest deals have been multi-billion dollar share purchases in investment bankers Goldman Sachs and US conglomerate GE. Share purchases in good companies heavily discounted by the investing masses.

Buffet is famously quoted as saying, “We are fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.”……..

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/654007

Soros too.

These monopolists work to create panic, then when it crashes they come in and buy up as much as they can as cheap as they can. At the same time, their socialist counter parts in the political arena use the crisis as an opportunity to make news laws and gain a choke hold on society and business.

If you have not heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. read about it here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Modern “Rome” burns while the people fiddle

The pessimism of an optimist

Oil is at an all time high, the dollar diving to new lows against the Euro and other foreign currencies. Gold meanwhile continues its surge despite attempts from the power brokers, Feds, and banking institutions to keep the price down.

I have realized for years that the global economy which has been built largely upon mere trust in the value of US dollar was one based on illusion. As long as almost everyone believes in the illusion it is perpetuated. It becomes apparent, however, when the cracks appear and the walls bow and begin to show signs of stress that something is horribly wrong.

For years the framing inside the walls and under the floor has been eaten away by termites while the keepers have continued to cover them over with layers of plaster, sheet rock, and particle board.

Why is the dollar worth anything? The feds print paper at will, why should it keep its value? It is only worth what most people believe it is; for years now that has been enough. The value of anything, however, is a perception. Even those things which have intrinsic value under certain circumstances may be worthless - A prospector dying in the desert of thirst may very well go in the direction of water rather than gold. What then is all that paper worth, much of which exists merely electronically and is never even printed?

The dollar has survived so long merely on the basis of trust. That trust was embraced by the world. However, in case you haven’t been paying attention, greedy people in the banking and financial institutions have destroyed that trust globally by making loans that were worthless and luring investors from around the world to buy them up and get burned.

At present the politicians and financiers are trying to simply put another layer of plaster on the walls, but the walls have become too heavy and there are no studs in them to hold them up.

What happens now? What happens is what is happening; people are getting out of the house before it comes down. At some point everyone else will notice how many people are leaving and panic will set in - when they stampede for the door the vibration will bring it all down.

Will another FDR arise to save us? FYI, politicians are all controlled by the the same systems, powers and people; there is no hope or salvation in any of them; FDR did not save us.

And what happened in the 1930’s after the depression set in? There was another world war because there was a global power vacuum. What do you think will happen if the US leaves a power void in the world today?

I really hate to be the bearer of such tidings, but this is what I see - I speak as I see.

I will venture to make a few predictions here.

The US economy will collapse.

This will create a global power vacuum in which Russia, China, and others will position themselves to take as much advantage as they can. They will work together to hurt the US and make sure the US does not recover as the major economic power.

Eventually China will move to take Taiwan.

Because of the waining power of U.S. there will be a surge in outbreaks of violence, conflicts, and war among countries. Within the US lawlessness will prevail.

There will be another war waged to eliminate Israel.

Europeans, who are dependent upon Russia for much of their energy will pragmatically determine that it is in their best interest to play ball with the Russians and will work to appease the ever-threatening Russian bear which will have reverted back completely to the ways it operated when it was the USSR. It is, therefore, possible that the Euro may replace the dollar for global trade.

Due to the failure of the global community and the US to confront terrorism adequately, there will be major terrorist attacks involving the use of WMD. Furthermore, the world will again experience use of nuclear weapons.

A leader will arise, who with his politico groupies and other world leaders will unite with promises of peace and to “save us” with global socialism - but socialism will not likely be called socialism - it will be called by other names, and acronyms and compassionate sounding slogans to sell government systems and programs which take power and rights away from the people.

Now, for those who have followed me this far, it may seem that I am not the most optimistic person you have encountered having fore casted economic disaster, global chaos, lawlessness, and world war. I would, however, take issue with the tag of “pessimist”, for, as I wrote previously, I speak what I see.

It is, therefore, that my last prediction is one of optimism: In the end, the good guys win, they always do.

RAS - 3-15-2008

Iran’s Nukes and the N.I.E. Report

A recent report on Iran’s nuclear program by the NIE said Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003. This assessment is rejected by Israel and some other intelligence experts. As for the NIE report itself, you must realize that there are elements in the US State Dept. and intelligence community which are hostile to the current administration. This report was fabricated and released by “doves” who are driven by the fear of a US attack on Iran by the current U.S. Administration. They probably believe Iran’s program is at a stage where there is still time to stall until the election next year when Bush will leave office, and a new president which will workout a diplomatic solution will take power.

John Bolton understands this and has already come out calling the report ‘a quasi-coup against the president.’

“Too much of the intelligence community is engaging in policy formulation rather than “intelligence” analysis, and too many in Congress and the media are happy about it,” Bolton said Thursday in an article published in the Washington Post.

The EU is lost; the US is paralyzed by political polarization; Israel is alone and without leadership. I pray I am wrong, but it appears that the situation may deteriorate until a large scale of death and destruction presents itself. There then may be a strong surge of self defense but by that point the situation will be very critical. Why are the black looming clouds always disregarded in mass before the storm?

Welcome to the New World Order

We are currently living in an age of transition when the world as we know it today will be changed radically. This transition is brought on by modernization and globalization combined with the unification and consolidation of powers. Unfortunately, although knowledge has been built upon from generation to generation, giving mankind more power than in any time in history, at the same time, mankind has been in mass reverting back to tribal instincts and away from freedom of the individual based upon invisible absolute principles.

Tribalism has always been the rule in some cultures, however, these natural impulses are not exclusive to undeveloped societies. The modern collective society where individual character development is replaced by social programming, and the conscience replaced by decree, can become every bit as barbaric and as cruel as any other primitive culture.

The main difference between tribal societies with advanced sciences and primitive tribal cultures is the amount of power the formal is able to amass. World War II is an example where the intellect was worshiped while the focus on morality and the value of life were disregarded. The result of scientific achievement combined with moral degradation was, in that case as always, catastrophic.

Intellect is perceived as power, a concept which alone holds in contempt the principle that good is the greatest power. The greatest societies are those which were built upon a foundation of good and just principles, not mere intellect. The words “when America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great” are not without merit.

While there are many dangers facing the world today, the greatest threat is not posed by terrorists. This statement is not to diminish the terrorist threat which is very real, but to magnify a threat that is much greater and is to be found in the governmental workings of the world’s most powerful nations today.

Radical Islam would have little wherewithal whereby to achieve their ambitions without sponsoring nations. Moreover, the nations sponsoring radical Islam are also enabled, either actively or passively, by the most powerful nations in the world. It is, therefore, that militant Islam could be defeated if the will of the nations were to do so.

The will of the nations to seriously confront the danger posed by Islamic extremists does not exist for various reasons. In western democracies capitulation is founded upon the fear of global disruption which would ensue at home and abroad. In some other nations there is another reason which is more nefarious. Nations with malevolent ambitions have found it to their advantage to use Islamic extremism to their advantage by proxy in order to displace the West and assert themselves as global powers. This is true of Russia and China which both are fighting an asymmetrical war against the West in general, but primarily against the United States.

These ambitions which are all but ignored by the West are harder to deny in the case of Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is much more blunt about his beliefs and goals.

Russia and Venezuela whose incomes are based on energy resources reap great profits form higher oil prices due to a Middle-Eastern crisis and global terrorism. The alliance, however, between these nations and others including hostile Islamic nations goes beyond economics and establishing control of energy supplies. There is an advantage to confronting the West through Islamic proxies in that resources and attention are diverted away from the rising threat of nations which have totalitarian underpinnings.

Western powers have through global enterprise built and empowered nations such as Russia, China, and others, to the point they are now ready to challenge the West. Although these nations are often alluded to as though they are aspiring democracies, the political and economic reality is that the structure of these formally communist nations resembles the fascist regimes of the 1930’s.

The West currently is faced with an intense asymmetrical war which involves economics, technology, politics, and confrontation by proxy; nevertheless, westerners in large choose to live in denial. There will come a point however, when these nations openly assert themselves, what takes place between now and then on their part is merely positioning and maneuvering in order to gain an insurmountable advantage.

Possible scenarios

Russia and China are emerging global powers. They have no aversion to formation of a world order on their terms; the main obstacle in their view has been the United States and to a much lesser degree Europe. On the other hand, there are elitists in the west also who have no aversion whatsoever to a world order with these countries, insomuch that they have set about dismantling and condemning Western power at every opportunity.

Many proponents of a global order believe so fool heartedly in it that they disregard any risk involved and would be pleasured to see it irregardless of the initial cost to humanity. It is very possible that a catastrophic event such as global economic upheaval, terrorism with a nuclear devise, or some other man made cataclysm may provide the catalyst to form a multipolar global society. In any case, the end result will be catastrophic.

The West has been sold out for decades by its politicians, elitists, and global corporations; this shall manifest itself in no small way. Chiefly the United States and Britain have been the stalwarts of freedom and democracy, and a number of smaller democracies still rest upon US strength for what freedom they do enjoy. Once US power ceases from being the predominate world power global chaos will follow and world stability will cease.

A Volitile Global Medely

It is often argued who is the greater threat to the state of Israel, Russia or the United States. The answer to that is that both threaten Israel’s survival, but in different ways. The US threat is posed diplomatically in an attempt to make everyone, if not happy at least pacified to the point there will exist a fair amount of global stability, which in turn keeps the oil flowing and the world operating relatively smoothly. This policy based on multiculturalism and appeasement is embraced also by the Europeans who are even more adamant about it.

The threat from Russia on the other hand is different. It is more strategic in nature and is directed at giving Russia more influence and control in the Middle-East. In past wars between Israel and Arabs states Russia has not remained neutral; Arab re-supply lines have always lead back to the Soviets. Not that much has changed since the fall of the USSR; in the most recent conflict in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, Hezbollah was armed with sophisticated weaponry supplied by Russia via Iran and Syria.

Thus, Israel now faces two types of threats, the threat of war from the east, and the threat of peace from the west. These two threats combined create a an even greater threat which is the true danger Israel faces today.

To underscore the peril is this Debka report, Moscow Releases Nuclear Fuel for Iran’s Bushehr Reactor

“Russian president Vladimir Putin put teeth in his threats and his cynically helpful alternative suggestions regarding the deployment of US missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly 304 disclosed on June 8 that the week before the G8 opened in Germany, Moscow released the long-withheld nuclear fuel for Iran’s atomic reactor in Bushehr. It was delivered 24 hours before Israel launched its new military imaging satellite Ofeq-7, bringing forward the Iranian threat to Israel, …..read more….

Israel’s enemies have been fighting a war of attrition using asymmetrical tactics to weaken the Jewish state. Russia is interested in power, the US and Europe are interested in peace and stability, the Islamic and Arab nations are all interested in war. This is volatile mix.

Democrats, Satan, and the ‘fairness doctrine’

MSNBC along with a number of other media organizations are reporting an attempt will be made to reinstate the “fairness doctrine.” This is of course, an attempt to counter the voice of talk radio since conservatives dominate that media.

No doubt, if achieved, this will be yet another control enacted by government to manipulate and confuse information in the free market place of ideas.

By why would they stop there; and just where will they stop?

In pondering those questions and the effects of laws which control or manipulate free speech, my imagination got the best of me — or, maybe not. What follows is a piece I have put together for the purpose of making a point,

Democrats: Bibles must contain Satan’s side

Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi revealed a proposal for a bill today that would require Bibles carry an opposing view.

As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) prepare to push the return of the Fairness Doctrine to the front burner, language is being discussed which not only targets talk radio, but the Bible also.

“No book has been so dominating, sold more copies, or been read more than the Bible, however, the bible is very divisive and only presents one point of view. In the name of all fairness, it’s time for that to change” Pelosi said.

The bill, if enacted into law would require bible publishers to provide, at their expense, an equal number of pages for Satan and his disciples to present their side of the story.

“For too long this book of hate has been allowed to spew one side unopposed, there must be a voice of reason to create an equilibrium of good and evil” Pelosi stated to loud applause before a group of activists from Democrats for Equal Voice In Literature and Scripture, also known as DEVILS.

On the Senate side, Hillary Rodham Clinton said that while she supported legislation which would require equal access for Satan to readers of the Bible, a conflict of interests may keep her from voting on an issue that would obviously benefit her lifetime employer.

When the senator was asked why Satanist don’t write their own bible, Clinton responded, “This is about a monopoly. There is no other book that is so widespread and with so many readers that has been the best selling book in the world for so long. If we are going to be fair about this, the only solution is to include an opposing view in the scriptures.”

While Satanist have in the past written many books, all of them have failed in comparison. “The fact is, scripture has been controlled for centuries, whenever anyone tries to add or take away anything, bigoted religious fanatics rise up to censor any diversity” Lou Seffer, founder of DEVILS, said in an interview.

House Democrats did not respond to a question on whether they will be able to find enough bipartisan support to pass the bill.

The “Axis of Oil”

With the focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism it is easy to be distracted from other events that may have a greater impact upon the future and actually play into the hands of Islamic extremists. The article By Gary Dorsch entitled Can the “Axis of Oil” Topple the US Dollar, linked at the bottom, is quite long, but with the price of energy rising and the dollar devaluing it is well worth the read to get a clearer picture of where things stand now and what could unfold in the days ahead.

I would suggest that if you can’t find time or handle reading this much info on the web (I confess, I have a hard time finding time for this much information and thus skimmed it, but I intend to give it a thorough going over), that you skim over it to get the gist, as this writer is very knowledgeable on the issue and the article packed with information and loaded with details.

It is my opinion that having lost the arms race, Russia, along with other confederate states, is waging a global economic war against the west in general, and the US in particular. There is a great incentive for the Europeans in this financially because the Euro will continue to rise as the dollar declines and can eventually replace the dollar as the world’s main currency for exchange if they will only capitulate to the “Axis of Oil”.

Moreover, Russia is putting Europe over a barrel (of oil) as Europe has become dependent upon Russian imports of natural gas and petroleum for energy. This became obvious recently when Putin put the squeeze on gas export supplies and prices, and the Europeans started squealing.

The ramifications of globalization may not be as the western elitists intended when they decided they could export democracy by creating “free” global markets including totalitarian states hoping that capitalism would induce freedom.

In fact, the reverse may be happening as these authoritarian societies become wealthier and more powerful while continuing to exercise more and more control over their own nations and people while exerting pressure internationally.

Article Link:

Can the “Axis of Oil” Topple the US Dollar?

The New World disOrder

[Alternative title: A liberal begins to figure it out]

Anyone on the right or left who is paying attention to global politics should realize by now that there has been a shift away from national sovereignty (unilateralism) to some degree in favor of multilateralism. Nationalist have always proclaimed the dangers of such policies. It is apparent however, that even those who favor a multi-polar global society realize that it is not without risk.

New World Disorder

David Ignatius | Washington Post Writers Group

[….]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 had 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……

Contrary to what it may seem, there is more stability in a world of nationalism than internationalism due to conflicting geopolitical, cultural, and national interests which will inevitably arise regardless of international law. Therefore, we are not ensured security or long term stability by capitulating to other nations or a group of nations in hopes of world peace. Peace, or least stability, is only possible through the exercise of strength, both politically and militarily if necessary. Stability is based on deterrence not friendship of nations or even common interest, for interest are fluid and may fluctuate or change completely putting nations at variance.

A multipolar world eventually would be stable, too, Kahn argued. [stable, but likely to evolve into totalitarianism] He hypothesized that by 2000, there would be seven economic giants - the U.S., 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[…..]

I agree with the writer that we are in transition. I would add that this transition is particularly perilous for Israel. Israel is an outcast nation. No other nation is singled out for condemnation or draws so many resolutions at the United Nations. Israel is often not invited to participate in world affairs and in many cases disallowed participation; even in times of crisis after disasters when lives are at stake and Israel has offered to assist in the rescue and recovery efforts they have been denied.

It should come as no surprise then that the sacrifice of Israel is seen as the practical solution to the conflict in the Middle-East, and as a way to appease the appetite of Islamic nations in hopes that the so called Arab “moderates“ will gain control in their countries and coexist peacefully in the multi-cultural global mish-mash they hope to create.

This pragmatic globalistic approach is both an immoral and absurd way of thinking bordering on insanity.

[…]I listened to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tell 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 who 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 [my note: Hillary before the CFR said "we are all internationalist" - close enough], but we inhabit a world that makes the Cold War seem like the good old days. Full article link

US hegemony is waning and there is a shift of global power currently taking place. Russia, China, and others will become major power brokers. There has been an attempt to forge a New World Order from before the time Bush Sr. was in office; however, the stickler has been, according to a recent Russian document, over whether this world order should be based on values or common interest.

The West has insisted on a foundation of human rights, the Russians and others maintain that common global interest should be the foundation. It appears the Russians may be winning out.

Question: What proportion of the world would believe that Israel ceasing to exist would be in the best or common interest of the world? The answer may or may not surprise you.

Even this liberal Washington Post writer David Ignatius who traveled to Beirut to attend the Hezbollah convention in 2003 and has referred to Hezbollah as “alleged terrorists” in his articles can see the transition taking place and dangers associated with it.

The US is going the way of ancient Rome, Israel would be wise not to follow. Nationalism is the only recourse against the consolidation of power at the international level.

Rebel without a Religion?

There has much discussion over the meaning of the words “Ismail Ax” which were written in red and discovered on the arm of Virginia Tech shooter Cho Sueng Hui when his body was found.

One of the most convincing and reasonable explanations I have read comes from an article by Jerry Bowyer entitled, Ismail Ax: The Shooter Was Another ‘Son of Sacrifice’

Without going into the details of Bowyer’s explanation, in his final paragraph Bowyer discusses one of Cho’s writings and concludes,

“Cho Sueng-hui cum Ismail Ax hated the American society to which he had been brought 15 years earlier. His play McBeef (a poor pun from an English Lit major on Macbeth) is one endless screed against the corruption of American culture. A cheesy re-telling of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it involves a young man abused by his step-father, a former NFL football player. The son, throws epithets at his father calling him a ‘Catholic priest’. And makes derisive comments about McDonalds. It seems that none of the foundational structures of Western Civilization, Christianity, capitalism, family, are spared his rage. In other words, he really meant what he said in his last words: “you (that is us, America) made me do this.”

It seems apparent that there is a certain mind-set which some people develop that can manifest itself in various forms such as Nazism, Communism, Islam, or in this case, even an improvised freelance set of personal beliefs without a home. Furthermore, in western styled democracies there is a degree of this antagonism which works through ideologues who ascribe to the extreme right, or the even more prevailing leftist dogmas; although, other than instances involving activist such as Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski, reactions usually tend to be less extreme.

However, this catalyst of hatred can find a home in any civilization and Islamic culture has made an institution of it, which sees itself as a victim and everything else as an irredeemable evil which can only be destroyed.

I have no doubt that this is the spirit that built Islam and that currently Islam is the most visible example of this frame of mind.

But beware, Islam is not the only breeding ground, it is but one vehicle, and we would best remember how many people the Communists and Nazis slaughtered in their quest.

Islam is a conspicuous enemy but not the only one affected; there are other nations and societies, which if they come to possess enough power, will create a conducive environment in which the people can be convinced they are victims and the “us versus them” mentality can be exploited and flourish.

It is a mistake to believe that the force which drove this young man is not prevalent to varying degrees in many places. It would be easy to write-off what happened at Virginia Tech as an aberration which produces a few isolated cases from time to time. Notwithstanding, this mentality of hatred, if it gains traction within a society, can become mainstream and embedded in the culture as evidenced by what took place in Germany 70 years ago, or what took place under Stalin or Mao, or what is occurring presently in Islamic societies.

The Marxist-Islamic Cartel

Today, April 9th, 2007, the world’s leading natural gas exporting countries will gather in Doha Qatar. At issue is the creation of a new natural gas cartel. The cartel, which for a start would bring together Russia, Iran, Algeria, Qatar and Venezuela is meeting with the goal of laying the ground work for the creation an alliance that will be the most important energy player worldwide.

The adverse effects of the creation of such a cartel would be felt mainly by North America, Europe, Israel and other Democratic nations.

Global Threats Leading to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Takeover
By David Jonsson

[….] The future enemies of Europe and the United States [I would add Israel - RT] will be a mutation of current and past foes both domestically and internationally. In confronting these forces, knowledge of their ideologies, objectives and determination will make all the difference. The domestic foes may be either sympathizers or via actual operatives. In the period following the downfall of the Soviet Union, this is the first time that favorable conditions have emerged on the side of the Leftist and Islamists around the world to challenge the hegemony of the West…..

………The lack of attention to plan and address the dangers of dependence on imported oil from the Middle East and Venezuela has allowed the transfer of enormous financial reserves to these countries to fund their development for control. Europe’s nightmare is further compounded by the potential for a world natural gas cartel. The Leftist/Marxist — Islamist Alliance through joining together a global cabal of nations for the control of the world’s energy infrastructure, finance, media and transportation assets present a real and current danger to the West.

Russia has effectively created a noose around Europe controlling their import of natural gas……..

……Without diminishing the threat posed by the near term events in the Middle East, it is important nonetheless to recognize that they are a distraction, a deliberate provocation designed to keep our eyes focused on the wrong enemy. The true threat is and always has been the worldwide communist movement joined by Islamists, spearheaded by Russia, and Communist China. While the Iraq and Iran crises continues, the strategy of the Grand Chess Masters—Russia the bear and China the dragon, along with their pawns the Leftists, Marxists and Islamists, continue to develop and put in place their strategy for the ultimate goal of world domination. ——- Global Politician/Article Source

This has been a contention of mine for some time. The Russians and the Chinese are interested in the expansion of global power. The situation in the Middle-east has allowed them to use Iran, Syria, and others by proxy to that very end by distracting and weakening the West while at the same time strengthening their relations and economic ties with Islamic states and organizations in order to gain influence in the region and control energy supplies.

Islam is a great threat, but alone it would be much less so. What constitutes the totality of the threat is the empowerment of Islamic nations by the likes of Russia and China which provide diplomatic cover internationally while at the same time are engaging in transfers of arms and technology to Islamic states and organizations. It is an alliance of convenience for all parties involved.

Add to this league certain oil producing countries in South America which embrace a Leftist agenda and you have the makings of a confederacy capable of presenting a formidable challenge to western hegemony, power, and wealth.

On the other hand, this presents an even greater threat to the State of Israel seeing that the Islamic element of the cartel is critical to the strength and effectiveness of the alliance. Such being the case, Islamic members will hold sway over the Middle-Eastern policies of the other members to the detriment of Israel.

Middle-East Peace: A Dead Branch

The Middle-East “peace process” by any name is a severed branch from a tree. While its leaves may appear green, it is effectively dead. You can pretend it is alive but it is only a matter of time until the leaves are obviously brown and falling off.

The leaves have been turning brown and falling off the branch of peace for some time now but world leaders, including some in Israel keep pointing to the few remaining leaves which are destine to fall declaring there is hope.

This they do because the repercussions of Middle-Eastern policies of all nations over the last few decades are disastrous, but no one wishes to face this harsh reality - For the nations have built themselves up on the foundation of a globalized economy dependent upon a continuous flow of oil.

The world’s economy has become so interdependent that even nations who despise each other rely on each other.

Even the Saudis and the other oil producing nations who hate western civilization are reliant upon the revenues.

It is this dependence that perpetuates the “peace process” even though there are no “roots” to supply life to it - It is a facade that continues until the last leaf falls, which inevitably it must.

This explains the grasping of dead leaves by a desperate US State Department in its most recent attempt to resurrect the dead branch.

This is evident, consider tone in the following article from The Sun News, Sunday, March 25th:

After years of neglect, Israeli peace at forefront
By Warren P. Strobel
Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - It’s a cruel irony, but one all too familiar to those who have followed the tortuous history of Middle East peacemaking.

After six years of rejecting the conventional wisdom that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was at the core of the Middle East’s turmoil, the Bush administration is devoting itself to the cause of Middle East peace in its remaining 22 months.

And its timing could hardly be worse.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left Friday for a four-day trip to the region that U.S. officials and foreign diplomats think will achieve little in the near term.

Almost nothing seems to be working in her favor. The latest political development was the formation of a Palestinian unity government whose platform echoes that of dominant faction Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist group. It makes no mention of recognizing Israel or renouncing violence, positions on which Washington and the international community insist.

Meanwhile, two weak politicians are leading Israel and the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s government has lost almost all public support since last summer’s war in Lebanon, and the report next month from a government-appointed commission on his performance during the crisis may cripple him altogether.

The clout of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also has waned since Hamas defeated his moderate Fatah faction in January 2006 legislative elections, built up its military wing and engaged in weeks-long street battles with Abbas’ forces.

Army Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, in charge of security coordination with the Palestinians, reportedly told a House of Representatives panel in closed session this month that Abbas’ power was eroding dangerously.

Hamas, which took power in elections that Rice encouraged, is now an “organic” part of the Palestinian political system, said former State Department official Aaron David Miller, who advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

“She runs head-on into the Hamas problem, which is going to make her task galactically harder,” said Miller, author of a forthcoming history of U.S. mediation in the conflict.

Rice seems determined to press forward, nonetheless….. Full Article Link

This effort to keep the process going is evidence of how hopeless the situation has become and how desperate world powers are to keep it alive. It is not peace that they believe to establish but the process itself - For, it is the process that is relied upon to sustain the calm - this perpetual process has become a substitute for peace and it is evident that it is coming undone.

What will Israel and the US surrender to keep it alive a little bit longer?

Economic Barbarians

The shape of things to come is partly evident in an article published March 11 2007 in the Financial Times under the heading The new Seven Sisters: oil and gas giants dwarf western rivals

The article notes a shift in global power from the West to the East through manipulation of energy supplies by an affinity of nations in the East, Middle-East and in South America.

If the West is “Rome” then in the global economic struggle for control these nations represent the barbarians.

An excerpt from a recent article in the Financial Times which exposes this new cartel:

…….As oil prices have trebled over the past four years, a new group of oil and gas companies has risen to prominence. They have consolidated their power as aggressive resource holders and seekers and pushed the world’s biggest listed energy groups, which emerged out of the original seven sisters – ExxonMobil and Chevron of the US and Europe’s BP and Royal Dutch Shell – on to the sidelines and into an existential crisis.

The “new seven sisters”, or the most influential energy companies from countries outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, have been identified by the Financial Times in consultation with numerous industry executives. They are Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom, CNPC of China, NIOC of Iran, Venezuela’s PDVSA, Brazil’s Petrobras and Petronas of Malaysia.

Overwhelmingly state-owned, they control almost one-third of the world’s oil and gas production and more than one-third of its total oil and gas reserves. In contrast, the old seven sisters – which shrank to four in the industry consolidation of the 1990s – produce about 10 per cent of the world’s oil and gas and hold just 3 per cent of reserves. Even so, their integrated status – which means they sell not only oil and gas, but also gasoline, diesel and petrochemicals – push their revenues notably higher than those of the newcomers.

Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, an industry consultancy, says: “The reason the original seven sisters were so important was that they were the rule makers; they controlled the industry and the markets. Now, these new seven sisters are the rule makers and the international oil companies are the rule takers.”

The implications of this cannot be understated for the values of these nations that are taking over energy supplies will change the complexion of the world. There is currently a global shift of power taking place by the shift of money from open capitalistic societies to formally closed societies such as Russia and China.

Because these forces are more in line with each other (as closed totalitarian societies) at some point there will be movement to use their consolidated power to establish global dominance. Until then the West will find itself in the coils of a large Boa being slowly squeezed.

Also consider, most of these nations, if they do not already hate the US & Israel, would act in their own interest to the determent of both to increase their wealth and power. There will be therefore a pact among them in order to build a confederacy - and it is likely that nations such as Russia and certainly Venezuela will acquiesces to the Arabs, for they need the Arabs on board if they are going to build a bloc that is successful in cornering energy supplies. This of course will effect their policies and create strained relations with the West and Israel.

For the time being they will squeeze the West, for they still depend on US dollars for the inflow of their wealth and will suck out what they can. However, eventually they will reach the point that they can shift away from the dollar and destroy the economies of the West without too much negative impact on their nations. The key to doing this is Europe.

Europe may be spared in this if they play ball with the energy giants, for a shift is most feasible from the dollar to the Euro, and the Europeans would come on board with the anti-Western axis in exchange for the free flow of energy supplies to Europe. It is not that far fetched that Europeans may do that, France would have no problem doing it now and we have recently seen how that Russia can put the energy squeeze on Europe. How much more if they work in concert with other oil producing countries?

Think about it — An anti-Western confederacy consisting of Russia, Venezuela, and the Arab oil producing nations. China which often votes with Russia may very well see it in their national interest to go along. All that is needed then to gain the upper-hand is a replacement for the US dollar as the international currency for oil exchange - enter the Euro - the temptation and pressure on the Europeans will be to much for them to resist and they will play ball with the energy cartel and their international policies will reflect this bondage. The implications for the US and Israel will be quite devastating in a number of ways.

For further reading see:Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?

Multi-cultural Imperialism

For whereas in times past empires were based upon the the ruling power of kingdoms and nations, this new imperial beast arising in the world today is supranational.

Ever since the League of Nations there has been an ongoing effort to form a global society, but diverse ideologies have hindered the synthesis of nations — Multi-Culturalism is an attempt to overcome many of the barriers.

One of the ironic aspects in this is the clash between totalitarianism and democracy which has been an obstacle to global synthesis. What is most ironic about the clash is that the wealthy elitists who wish to create a controlled society with Marxist underpinnings, only seem to be able to do so by using free market capitalism to weaken closed societies while gaining control in open ones.

For it is not that any of the powerful nations, open or closed, such as Russia, China, the USA or the EU oppose a new world order, for they all aspire to it. The conflict is over the composition of it, for they all wish it to be patterned after their ideologies, and they all want to be a controlling force behind it.

However, there is currently a global shift of power taking place by the shift of money from open capitalistic societies to formally closed societies such as Russia and China. The idea is to eventually come to a middle ground between closed and open societies where synthesis can take place. This middle area between Eastern and Western ideologies is identical in many ways was to what Mussolini called fascism. Free societies are becoming more controlled as power is being shifted from the middle class to the corporate class by the creation of monopolies. On the other hand closed societies are embracing corporate capitalism, even if only a means to empower themselves as a nation - but there is no true freedom, liberty, or democracy.

The dream of the Multi-Culturalists is to rid the world of national allegiances by recognition of all cultures as equal parts of a supreme global society. Thus, any nationalism such as Zionism is seen as being divisive as well as American patriotism. “We are the world” is the song, “We are all equal” is the mantra.

This is a dream that can only turn into a nightmare when a true clash of civilizations inevitably takes place - For not all ideas, nor are all beliefs, religions, or cultures equal - And the carnivores will devour the weaker beast.

Will there be a Reformation of Islam?

Christianity and Judaism in juxtaposition of Islam

Is there the possibility that Islam will go through a reformation such as the Reformation of Christianity which took place in Europe transforming the religion? To answer this we must first understand the nature of the religions.

The Bible can be made to say almost anything if you pick and choose from it. Such was the case with Christianity, for it was the absence of scriptural information which contributed to the manipulation and persecution of the people by the Church in the Dark Ages. The violence perpetrated by Christianity for the most part came at a time when it was unlawful to posses copies the holy scriptures unless you were a member of Church hierarchy.

The Church changed only because the people became more informed. For beginning from the time that the full text of the Bible became available to the common people, there started a movement which first lead to Protestantism and has resulted in the Evangelical movement today. This transformation did not happen over night and there still exists today remnants of the old totalitarian Romanistic Christianity of yesteryear. Notwithstanding, at present, many Christians now hold Israel and the Jewish people in high esteem; and this favor comes NOT in spite of Christian scriptures, but because of them, for it was disclosure of the full text which turned the tide against anti-Semitism in Christianity.

This change is impossible within Islam for there are no undisclosed versus in the Koran that are being withheld. Therefore, it is not possible that by releasing more information a context of goodwill and peace will emerge.  In fact, for Islam the opposite is true; for the reverse must be done and Koranic scripture must be taken away or annulled rather than revealed to make Islam a religion of peace.

Judaism on the other hand never preached world conquest or the coercion of all of mankind by the sword. There was a commandment for the conquest of Canaan but it was limited to a specific area and directed at 7 specific groups in those areas; also it was limited to the time it took to subdue the land, after which Israel would exist in peace among the nations to become an example to the nations.

Israel was told that they could make peace with all nations which offered peace except those seven which were appointed to destruction. Why were they appointed to destruction? - According to scripture they were murderous people who were sacrificing their children in burnt offerings and were beyond reform.

How many people today would object to a UN resolution empowering civilized nations to go against a blood thirsty nation that was burning their first born children on alters and threatening the world? (However, the UN would not do that nor would nations follow, for it is happening today in the sense that Islam is sacrificing its children even unto the death by teaching its new generations to become martyrs - first born, second born, third born, all of them)

To sum it all up, Islam will not reform, it is the antithesis of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The conflict between Christianity and Judaism is theological more than political, we can live with differences, but Islam is political and totalitarian. In the end it will defeat all or will be defeated.

A New Direction

Although it was not billed as a major event it was a noteworthy one, and even as it went largely unreported by the mainstream media, to the extent that it was reported many details were left out.

It was Oct 31, 2006 in New York, the speaker was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the host was The Council on Foreign Relations.

Although Clinton’s statements were to me striking at the time, they are even more reveling in context to the political landscape in Washington at present.

With the Bush Administration floundering, barring any unforeseen events, the call for a “new direction” may continue to gather momentum.

Many of us who follow current events already understand to a degree what this “new direction” is but the recent comments of Hillary Clinton make the alternative direction even more discomforting than the current one.

At present Hillary Clinton is one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party. It is possible that she could be the next president. Whether or not that happens she will remain greatly influential and the following comments may give a window into the future direction of American foreign policy and a loss of sovereignty to international consensus.

In a major policy address, Senator Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called for a “sea change” in US foreign policy that would include direct talks with Syria, Iran and North Korea and greater US engagement in promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

“Let us never negotiate from fear, but let us never fear to negotiate,” she declared, quoting the late president John Kennedy. “Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they’re
a sign of leadership.”

But she is talking about negotiating with terrorist, that is not a sign of weakness?

Her speech, delivered at the New York headquarters of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, also called for a “phased redeployment” of US troops from Iraq by the end of the year

“Phased redeployment” - nice soft way to say give up and surrender.

Clinton said Washington needs a bipartisan policy based on a blend of “both idealism and realism in the service of American interests” in which diplomacy is given a much higher value than the administration of President George W Bush has accorded.

Neville Chamberlain Diplomacy served European style! - Works every time - Not!

“This administration’s choices were false ones,” she declared. “Internationalism versus unilateralism; realism versus idealism … I think it’s fair to say we are now all internationalists and we are all realists.” …

Yes! let’s form an international collective body of power to forcibly solve the world’s problems! For Sovereignty of nations….Ops…rather, unilateralism is divisive!

….. until relatively recently she opposed withdrawing US troops, a position that has alienated the Democratic Party’s activist base.

But with the Iraq war having become increasingly unpopular, even among Republican candidates, and a growing number of voters seemingly losing confidence in Bush’s conduct of the “war on terror”, Clinton has apparently decided to become bolder in her attacks on the administration, as she was on Tuesday even as she appealed for bipartisan support. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton, who has harshly - but only rarely (apparently in order not to steal the limelight from his spouse) - criticized Bush’s foreign policy, told a private gathering on Tuesday evening that he had helped draft the speech.

Billary Clinton 2008! What you see is not all you get.

The senator said three principles should underlie a “bipartisan consensus” on national security: the renewal “by word and deed” of “internationalism for a new century”, in which Washington accords a “decent respect for the opinions” of other nations; an affirmation that direct negotiations with enemies “are not a sign of weakness”; and the blending of idealism and realism that she said had long characterized traditional US diplomacy “until a small group of ideologues” - an apparent reference to neo-conservatives and other hawks - came to power under the Bush administration.

“This administration has abandoned [the] tension [between realism and idealism] for a simplistic division of the world into good and evil. They refuse to talk to anyone on the evil side,” she said….

But isn’t Bush the evil side, or is it the terrorists? By all the rhetoric it’s hard to tell sometimes who is perceived the greatest threat. Also confusing is the fact that Arafat was the most frequent foreign guest at the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency. I guess it all depends on what the definition of evil is.

… In particular, Washington should respond to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s call for more troops in Afghanistan and “improve the security situation with Pakistan”.

Here comes NATO again as the world police and peacemakers/keepers to enforce UN resolutions.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, she charged the Bush administration with “disengag[ing] at crucial moments”, although she indicated support for reported plans by Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the democratically elected Hamas government. “As events unfold, we need to be prepared, in close coordination with our Israeli ally, to resume America’s indispensable role in finding a just and lasting resolution,” she said.

She also came out squarely for bilateral talks with North Korea, noting that all of Pyongyang’s neighbors had called for direct negotiations. Past engagement with North Korea, she noted in an implicit reference to her husband’s policies from 1994 to 2001, had prevented Pyongyang from developing plutonium bombs and testing long-range missiles, both of which it has done in the past four months.

Yes Pyongyang did it all in 4 months - amazing! It had nothing to do with the US being taken in by N. Korea under Clinton.

So, how do you think this “new direction” will work out?

Is it really a new direction, or just the same old direction of appeasement being followed whole heartedly instead of half way?

source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK02Aa01.html

I could not find a record in US publications of most of Hillary’s comments although there were a few reports with sparse details. Ultimately I had to go to an Asian publication to get quotes made in New York that directly impact US Policies.

Farris Wheel Elitists

‘Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever?’ - Orson Wells as Harry Lime speaking to Joseph Cotton’s character in Carol Reed’s Classic Thriller “The Third Man” (1949).

The conversation takes place high atop a Ferris wheel in post WWII Vienna when Harry Lime is confronted by an old friend who has sought him out only to uncover Lime’s evil scheme to sell tainted penicillin on the black market. Lime points out the people moving about down below - ‘You see those little dots down there? - And if one of those dots were to stop moving, what would you care, really?’

It is metaphoric, being atop the Farris wheel represents the elitist mindset of those who see themselves as far above the masses of common people - those below are but little dots; they all stop moving at some point in time, but even so, there will always still be plenty more. They are so numerous, so dispensable and indistinguishable that their lives are insignificant, when one passes there is already another to take their place. Crimes against them are impersonal, for these little “dots” (people) looked down upon from far above are inconsequential in the whole scheme of things.

Such is the mind-set of the elitists both presently and down through history. The prize and the agenda is greater than the lives of the individuals involved - For it is often that rulers and governments sacrifice their people if they perceive gain, they are but fodder in their eyes - but how it is even more often that they sacrifice other nation’s people as both an end and a means to achieve their goals.

Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Nazi Germany, Russia, Communist China - where does the list start - where does it stop? - The New World Order, global courts, international law, a multi-lateral multi-cultural global society after the order of the Roman fasces.

A most riveting historical account of this elitist mind-set is chronicled in a recent article by Gil White entitled THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE: Part 4 - The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah (’Holocaust’)

In their time these were the elitists atop the Ferris wheel, so without conscience, being unaffected by the mass murder taking place in Europe - Even more so considering that steps were averted without regard which would have prevented future mass exterminations.

This mind-set works today, it is the collectivist mindset of elitists who pragmatically calculate possible outcomes, giving greater weight to desired circumstances than any value placed on an individual life, or two, or three, or four, or a hundred, a thousand…..or possibly twenty million - How many are too many? - In The Book, One.

In the elitist mind practicality takes precedence over conscience for the agenda is superior to the very lives of those who are recruited to serve it.

Although George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was written as a satirical analogy of Soviet Communism, it also bears out a repetition which takes place commonly in societies that come to power and plays itself out repeatedly, if only in different scenarios.

The historical record is that reactions of unbridled human nature to specific circumstances form consistent patterns. These repetitive cycles which take place in human society are well expressed in Animal Farm metaphorically. This is why they who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it, for the innate nature of mankind is subject to temptations of absolute power.

As in the past, this cycle is taking place today wherever corruption in government is overthrowing the remaining bastions of self rule, the only difference is in the details, and often when there is a clash of powers it is not good verses evil but evil challenging another evil, for it all comes down to a struggle for power between elitists. The powers work but the people regard them not until it is too obvious and too late.

World events in times past were the result of aspirations for power. Often human lives were weighed against desired outcomes and the sacrifice was made, sometimes setting in motion a counter force willing to make an equal or greater sacrifice to stop it. Moreover, it will happen again.

The moral bankruptcy of powerful elitists is that they view the end goal above all, higher than any morality or immorality of actions or events which need occur to bring it about.

As it was then, so it is now, the elitist world powers are currently weighing our lives and our world against a perceived world they imagine to create, and we are without much weight in their minds.

Prespectives on the New World Order

There are basically four groups of thought regarding the advent of a New World Order. We will call them, the skeptics, the anti-globalist left, the anti-globalist right, and the internationalist.

The first group are the skeptics who believe that the New World Order exists chiefly as an imaginative idea embraced by paranoid conspiracy theorists, or else it is an unrealistic ambition that is not attainable anytime soon due to the many obstacles and complex divisions of the world’s cultures.

The remaining three groups do believe that the world is converging into a global society, however, they differ on their perspectives of it. The first of these three groups are the anti-globalizationist on the left who believe that there is a conspiracy consisting mostly of powerful right-wing elitist who are bigoted, racist, and predominately white. These greedy white elitists who are obsessed with gaining more wealth and power reside for the greater part in the United States and fall into the fascist category having embraced a vision akin to Hitler‘s. Furthermore, they are seen as preying upon the ignorance and bigotry of conservatives and fundamentalist Christians in order to build a power base wherewith they can take control of society and further their imperialistic global agenda through U.S. power.

The next group of believers is a counter group to the former. Many adherents are conservative and religious. They also believe that there is a movement towards a one world controlled society which they attribute to secular progressive socialism. For the religious people in this group, a part of the foundation for their belief is derived from scriptures which depict a totalitarian global society in the last days united against God and his people. This world government determines to force all the inhabitants of world to submit to international law and sets its face against Christianity and Israel.

Others are convinced of a movement towards a socialist one world society simply by current tends, the weakening of nation-states in favor of international consensus, social and economic globalization, relaxation of borders, and the growing reliance on the United Nations along with recent movement towards an authoritative global judicial system.

Interestingly enough, groups on the left and right opposing the New World Order see each other as behind the move towards it, even as they both cite many of the same sources and point to the same evidence and events to substantiate their belief that a movement exists. They even go as far as acknowledging many of the same proponents who are pushing for a new world order, but they relegate them to each other’s side. There also exists a fringe in both groups that ascribe to the belief that there is a sublime Zionist plot involving Jewish internationalist which are the master-minds of behind this global conspiracy - This in light of the fact that the preponderance of individuals who advocate a world federation of nations are not Jewish, some are anti-Semitic, and most are anti-Israel.

In the last group are the cosmopolitans, internationalist who believe in the emergence of a global society, embrace the vision of it and facilitate its establishment. Many of those who fit into the anti-globalization left category fit into this group also, for their hostility to globalization is not an objection to a one world government, but to the shape and consistency of such a government. Generally speaking, leftist who oppose globalization do support international law but hate global capitalism. The answer to globalization in their view is world socialism fashioned upon Marxist philosophies. Thus leftist will support internationalism if it meets their specifications.

Who is right?

Is there truly a conspiracy for a one world order? If so, is who is behind it, and is it viable?

It is my belief that there does exist a movement towards internationalization. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense per se but rather a course of natural developments brought on in large part by BIG BUSINESS and global financial institutions who hold international interests.

For while the idea of a new world order may conjure up images of Hitlarian individual with political power who takes over the world by military force, what actually has happened is national interests are merging into common international interests.

Because the assets and financial interests of Giant corporations and banks are spread around the globe they have an agenda to protect and as much as possible continue to grow them. What we are seeing then is the globalization of economics and shared resources creating the necessity for control and harmony that can only be achieved by a universal governing system. And a universal governing system demands a degree of conformity among those who are governed.

Politicians in order to obtain power require the backing of these financial giants if they are to be viable candidates. They must be willing to service the financial institutions and international agenda in exchange for support. Therefore, not only have corporations merged with other corporations, but corporations have merged with politicians who will do their bidding in exchange for power. For this reason many of the higher up politicians share the same globalist agenda as international corporations, for through their collective power they imagine to practice social engineering on a global scale.

I often cite HG Wells who perceived this development taking place and said that world socialism was inevitable due to modernization of communications and transportation, which would dissolve national borders.

It’s the economy stupid!!!!!! Big business benefits by an international consumer base, societies have more goods at lower prices, but there is a trade off in that it changes the world we live into a global society which will lead to monopolies not only in commerce but in politics.

A globalsociety would not necessarily be bad if it was a just a free society that regarded individual rights, but because there will exist a monopoly of power it will over time become tyrannical. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge University, Professor Lord Acton declared, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The corruption of United Nations should be an indication of how the consolidation of power at the international level will work. If it is as bad as it is with limited powers, what would such a body do with unlimited power?

There is no room in this New World Order for Israel as a Jewish Nation or for American unilateralism or American patriotism or for free independent states.

Government consolidation of power works just like in economics where powerful corporations consolidate and merge to increase power, eliminate the competition and create a monopoly. The only difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power - although money and power are close relatives which overlap.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”? The term “conspiracy” is used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion in order to discredit the notion.

Whether in business or politics, consolidation of power is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation - Why would it take place in business but not in politics?

Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history. Humanity today is in a place where it can realize not only the greatest benefits but the greatest oppression in history all depending on how the consolidation of power is used.

The historical trend is that gradually over time when the consolidation of power becomes great enough, those with that power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem unreasonable that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government? Without some separation of powers and nations corruption is destined to become universal and that is the threat we all face.

Is there an Elitist Conspiracy?

Do powerful elitists control finance, media, and to a great extent politics - and do they have an agenda for an authoritarian global society? Furthermore, do they conspire together, manipulate information and shape policies to achieve this?

Government consolidation of power works just like economics where powerful corporations merge to become more powerful and eliminate the competition to create a monopoly. The difference is that instead of it being for money it is for power - although money and power are close relatives.

Why would it work differently? Why, when it happens, do people shrug it off as just “conspiracy theory”?

It is a natural evolution of the stronger devouring the weaker, due in part to man’s flawed nature which introduces greed and unrestrained desire into the equation - Why would it take place in business but not in politics?
Today because of the power of high technologies and communications consolidation and control can take place on a larger scale and micro-management is possible to a greater degree than any time in history.

Gradually over time when the consolidation of powers become great enough, those with power use it to overcome the competition either by assimilation or elimination. Why then should it seem surprising that so many like minded people and organizations could eventually gain control and weed out opposition, not only in economics but in the higher levels of government?

For while it is true that in free societies you can vote, when the consolidation of power reaches the levels it has presently, all of the viable candidates are ones supported to some extent by those in the upper echelons, being that they possess the resources necessary to make a run for office. Thus, with few exceptions, you choose your candidate, but only from a pre-chosen field.

The process that leads to a monopoly of power has taken place in media, government, and finance, separately and together as a group, and so they work together to increase and maintain their power. Again, it is merely the natural course of power, it has been and will be as long as the world exists. I don’t know if “conspiracy” is the best term for it, especially since it is a term used purposely with a connotation implying paranoia or delusion to discredit.

However, I am so convinced that this is taking place in the world that any ridicule I would suffer for espousing it would have minimal or no effect. I have studied and followed it too long for it to be otherwise.

It seems so elementary, but for some reason people see what they wish to see and disregard the rest.

The NATO Precedent

There has been much debate surrounding the facts of what actually took place over the past decade in the former Yugoslavia - who were the good guys, who were the bad guys, or if they were all bad guys. The larger issue however, is the intervention of NATO by the international community, for this will have longer lasting effects and greater ramifications globally in the future. What has been expressed here is a concern that the use of NATO in the Balkans is a harbinger of how the international community may settle future conflicts.

There is widespread political advocacy for an approach of multinational consolidation of power to manage world affairs and elitists in mainstream media support this notion. The common belief of these media elitists may well be expressed in Andy Rooney’s statement on CBS’s “60 Minutes” (October 12, 2003) when he said referring to the United Nations: “There has to be some power in the world superior to our own.”

This is merely and echo of Walter Cronkite, who received the World Federalist Association’s 1999 global governance award, and declared that “we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government” and that America must “yield up some of our sovereignty.” Afterwards Hillary praised both Cronkite and the WFA in a video-taped address.

When Bill Clinton was president his agenda was to facilitate international law and one step was that he signed the Treaty of Rome for the International Criminal Court, although he was unable to get it ratified. He also wrote a letter of support for world government to the World Federalist Association (which has now merged with the Campaign for United Nations Reform to form Citizens for Global Solutions (motto: Building a World Community Under Law)

Who is the World Federation that these elitists praise and support? - WORLD FEDERALIST ASSOSIATION.

Why is this important and what does it have to do with Serbia, Israel, the USA and the rest of the world? - Because, Kosovo was, and still is in the process of global engineering, and it won’t stop there.

On January 13, 1993 Warren Christopher discussed with Sen. Joseph Biden’s Committee on Foreign Relations the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. “to foster the creation of a new world order.”

That is exactly what happened later in the former Yugoslavia and we are likely to see more of it in the future in the Middle-East with Israel being the focal point.

Why do I say that? Read the mindset of elitist politicians.

When Joe Biden U.S. and Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican from Nebraska) returned from their trip to the Middle -East Hagel said,

the Middle-East has moved “from periphery to center” in the U.S. foreign policy strategy and called on U.S. leaders to develop “a fabric of global alliances and coalitions” to deal with the region.

[this is a call for the consolidation and assertion of power by multinational coalition]

“America can no longer hover ‘over the horizon’ to defend and promote its interests in the Middle East. America must work through a multilateral, long-term coalition,”

“Ideologies, both nationalist [Zionism] and religious [Islam], animate and radicalize the politics of the Middle East, much like Europe hundreds of years ago.”

[In singling out nationalism, he seems to be blaming Israel's nationalism as much as Islamic terrorism]

“Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens continue, and Israeli Defense Forces have killed women, children, and UN employees, and new Israeli settlements continue to be built on the West Bank. This cycle of violence must end.”

[Self defense is equated with terrorism as part of the cause]

In the Middle East as in Northeast Asia, our interests in disarmament and regional stability are best served by working with our allies, not by acting impulsively, preemptively, or unilaterally.

Fifty years ago last month, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president. I mention this because this anniversary reminds us of Eisenhower’s policy of multilateralism … clear thinking, collective security,……America, now more than ever, requires steady statecraft, through coalitions of common interest,……. Henry Kissinger put it well in a Washington Post op-ed last week when he wrote that: The ultimate challenge for U.S. foreign policy is to turn dominant power into a sense of shared responsibility……….as if the international order were composed of many centers of power………”

“President Truman and General Marshall were architects of a post World War II world that formed alliances for collective security and coalitions of common purpose to deal with the realities and complications of a new world order. Organizations like NATO and the United Nations were part of – and remain integral to – this new hopeful world with new dangerous challenges.”

Now contrast that thinking the thinking of John Bolton in his 2001 essay THE RISKS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FROM AMERICA’S PERSPECTIVE where he writes,

Explicitly espousing a foreign policy of “assertive multilateralism,” President Clinton launched an ambitious experiment in a U.N.-led “nation building”…[he] engineered a series of international agreements……..This penchant for multilateral solutions also reflected an enduring if often badly mistaken legalism that has permeated American foreign policy during the twentieth century….

No international organization that exists today honestly meets any acceptable test for accountable law-giving, law-interpreting, or law-enforcing institutions….

…..Proponents of international governance see the United States as the chief threat to the “new world order” they are trying to create. Small villains who commit heinous crimes can kill individuals and even entire populations, but only the United States can neutralize or actually thwart the “new world order” itself…..

[The Treaty of Rome] We are nowhere near the end of the list of prospective “crimes” that can be added to the statute. Many were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations. The most popular was the crime of “aggression,” which was included in the statute but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, “aggression” can at times be something in the eye of the beholder.Thus, Israel justifiably feared in Rome that its preemptive strike in the Six-Day War almost certainly would have provoked a proceeding against top Israeli officials. Moreover, there is no doubt that Israel will be the target of a complaint concerning conditions and practices by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The United States, with continuous bipartisan support for many years, has attempted to minimize the disruptive role that the United Nations has all too often played in the Middle East peace process. We do not now need the ICC interjecting itself into extremely delicate matters at inappropriate times.

Any surprise Bolton is gone? Anyone who stands against them is demonized and targeted for elimination.

In my opinion, the elitists’ view is that there needs to be a new world order - a multi-national collectivist union that works together as an arbitrator and enforcer not only to judge nations but to impose “peace,” “stability,” and to serve “ justice”

Kosovo is a precedent for the future.

The Arbitrary Morality of the Europen Union

On February 2, 2007 an article appeared in UK’s The Daily Telegraph entitled EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law reveals that legislation is to be taken-up by the EU in the spring which raises issues of prosecution of free speech. It appears that under the law a person could face up to 3 years imprisonment espousing their views.

According to the article the law would be a double edge sword which could cut many ways depending upon the personal views of those who wield the power of it at the moment. It is another example of how traditional values are being replaced by collective consensus which then find their way into legislation. Even more disturbing is that in this case the law would be supranational.

EU Plans Far-reaching ‘Genocide Denial’ Law

People who question the official history of recent conflicts in Africa and the Balkans could be jailed for up to three years for “genocide denial” under proposed EU legislation.

Germany, current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, will table new legislation to outlaw “racism and xenophobia” this spring……

…..Deborah Lipstadt, the professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, Atlanta, believes the German proposals are misplaced. “I adhere to that pesky little thing called free speech and I am very concerned when governments restrict it,” she said yesterday.

“How will we determine precisely what is denial? Will history be decided by historians or in a courtroom?”

Berlin’s draft EU directive extends the idea of Holocaust denial to the “gross minimisation of genocide out of racist and xenophobic motives”, to include crimes dealt with by the International Criminal Court.

The ICC was set up in 2002 following international outcry about war crimes and alleged genocides in the former Yugoslavia and in Africa. It was felt that the courts in those countries were either unable or unwilling to ensure justice was done.

The draft text states: “Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable: ‘publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in’… the Statute of the ICC.” [There you have it, the International Court decides what you can and can't say based on what they say is a "crime" or what is not - Do you see the implications for Israel and other nations who are in the minority opinion of international consensus? - me]

General Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, courted controversy two years ago by questioning the numbers killed at Srebrenica in 1995.

He took issue with the official definition of the massacre as genocide and highlighted “serious doubt” over the estimate of 8,000 Bosnian fatalities. “The math just doesn’t support the scale of 8,000 killed,” he wrote.

Balkans human rights activists have branded Gen MacKenzie an “outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier” and, if approved, the EU legislation could see similar comments investigated by the police or prosecuted in the courts after complaints from war crimes investigators or campaigners.

A German government spokesman said: “Whether a specific historic crime falls within these definitions wo