Tag: New world order

THE HIDDEN EMPIRE

Most US citizens believe that the US is a country & the President is the most powerful man on earth. The US is not a country. It is a corporation. And the president is President of the Corporation of the United States. He & his elected officials work for the corporation, not for the American people. Since the US is a corporation, who owns the corporation of the United States?

*WARNING* FB have BANNED ALL LINKS to this text. Circulate by way of photo and text.

(We’ll see if they take this down)

THE HIDDEN EMPIRE:

1. City States.

Did the world wars, revolutions & big events of human history happen naturally or coincidentally, or were they calculated & pre-planned? If they were pre planned, who planned them?

The answer to this question can be found within the boundaries of 3 of the worlds most powerful cities. Those 3 cities belong to no nation & pay no taxes. They are Washington’s District of Columbia, which is not part of the City of Washington or the US. The inner city of London, which is not part of London or England & Vatican City, which is not part of Rome or Italy.

These cities, called City States, have their own independent flag, their own separate laws & their own separate identity.

2. Vatican City – Spiritual Capital.

Gracing the walls of St Peter’s Basilica is the Vatican-approved image of God. An angry bearded man in the sky, painted by Michael Angelo. Cruel/violent images of God’s tortured son, suffering, bleeding & dying with thorns gouged through his skull/nails pounded through his feet & hands are on display throughout the Vatican. These images serve as reminders that God allowed his son to be tortured & killed to save the souls of human beings who are all born sinners.

The Vatican rules over approximately 2bn of the worlds 6.2bn people. The colossal wealth of the Vatican includes enormous investments with the Rothschilds in Britain, France, USA, with giant oil & weapons corporations like Shell & General Electric. The Vatican solid gold bullion, worth billions is stored with the Rothschild controlled Bank of England & the US Federal Reserve Bank.

The Catholic Church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence, possessing more material wealth than any bank, corporation, giant trust or government anywhere on the globe.

While 2/3 of the world earns less than $2 a day & 1/5 of the world is underfed or starving to death, the Vatican hoards the world’s wealth, profits from it on the stock market & at the same time preaches about giving.

So how did the Vatican accumulate all that wealth over the millennium? One method was to put a price-tag on sin. Many bishops & popes actively marketed gilt, sin & fear for profit, by selling indulgences. Worshippers were encouraged to pre-pay for sins they hadn’t yet committed & get pardoned ahead of time. Those who didn’t pay-up risked eternal damnation. Another method was to get wealthy land owners to hand-over their land/fortune to the church on their death bed, in exchange for a blessing which would supposedly enable them to go to heaven.

Pope Leo the fifth rebuilt St Peter’s Basilica, by selling tickets out of hell & tickets to heaven.

During the dark ages, the Catholic Church not only hoarded the wealth they collected from the poor, but they hoarded knowledge. They kept the masses ignorant & in the dark by denying them a basic education. They also prohibited anyone from reading or even possessing a Bible, under pain of death.

Between 1095-1291 AD the Pope launched 7 blood baths called the Christian Crusaides, torturing, murdering, beheading & mass murdering hundreds of thousands of Muslims & Jews in the name of God. The Pope’s brutal solders were called Knights Templar or Knights of the Temple of Solomon & evolved into today’s secretive brotherhood called the Freemasons.

Between 1450-1700 AD the Catholic Church followed up their holy terror with the inquisition. Based on rumours of practicing witchcraft, the Catholic Church hunted down, tortured & burned-alive 10’s of 1000’s of innocent women at the stake.

During WWII the Vatican was criticized for supporting Hitler & his Nazi regime. To this day, the Vatican is still under investigation for plundering Nazi gold from the Swiss bank accounts of Jewish holocaust victims.

Over the past 5 decades more than 1,500 priests & bishops have been identified in the sexual assault of tens of thousands of boys & girls in their trusting congregations & orphanages.

Why is the filthy rich institution preaching spiritual values of poverty & chastity while cardinals, bishops & priests cover-up their crimes of sexual abuse? Why has the church fought & resisted the compensation claims of their sexually, emotionally & spiritually traumatised victims?

3. The City of London – Economic Capital.

Like Vatican city, London’s inner city is also a privately owned corporation or city state, located right in the middle of greater London. It became a sovereign state in 1694 when King William III of Orange privatised & turned the Bank of England over to the bankers. Today, the City State of London is the world’s financial power centre & the wealthiest square mile on the face of the Earth. It houses the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Lloyds of London, the London stock exchange, all British banks, the branch offices of 385 foreign banks & 70 US banks. It has its own courts, its own laws, its own flag & its own police force. It is not part of greater London, or England, or the British Commonwealth & pays no taxes. The City State of London houses Fleet Street’s newspaper & publishing monopolies. It is also the headquarters for world wide English Freemasonry & headquarters for the world wide money cartel known as The Crown.

Contrary to popular belief, The Crown is not the Royal Family or the British Monarch. The Crown is the private corporate City State of London. It has a council of 12 members who rule the corporation under a mayor, called the Lord Mayor. The Lord mayor & his 12 member council serves as proxies or representatives who sit-in for13 of the worlds wealthiest, most powerful banking families, including the Rothschild family, the Warburg family, the Oppenheimer family & the Schiff family. These families and their descendants run the Crown Corporation of London.

The Crown Corporation holds the title to world wide Crown land in Crown colonies like Canada, Australia & New Zealand. British parliament & the British prime minister serve as a public front for the hidden power of these ruling crown families.

4. The District of Columbia – Military Capital.
Like the City States of London & the Vatican, a third city state was officially created in 1982. That city state is called the District of Columbia & is located on 10sq miles of land in the heart of Washington. The District of Columbia flies its own flag & has its own independent constitution.

The constitution for the District of Columbia operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex Fori, which bares no resemblance to the US Constitution. When Congress passed the act of 1871 it created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. This treasonous act allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the original constitution of the United States & outside of the best interests of American Citizens.

Although geographically separate, the city states of London, the Vatican & the District of Columbia are one interlocking empire called Empire of the City.

The flag of Washington’s district of Columbia has 3 red stars. One for each city state in the 3 city empire. This corporate empire of 3 city states controls the world economically, through London’s inner city, militarily through the District of Columbia & spiritually through the Vatican.

5. The U.S.A. – A Crown Colony.

A sobering study of the signed treaties & charters between Britain & the US exposes a shocking truth. The US has always been & still is a British Crown colony.

King James I was famous not for just translating the Bible into the King James version. But for signing the first charter of Virginia in 1606. That charter granted America’s British forefathers a licence to settle & colonise America. The charter also guaranteed that future Kings/Queens of England would have sovereign authority over all citizens & colonised land in America, stolen from the Indians.

After America declared its independence from Great Britain, the Treaty of 1783 was signed. That treaty specifically identifies the King of England as the Prince of the United States & contradicts the belief that America won the War of Independence.

Although King George III of England gave up most of his claims over American colonies, he kept his right to continue receiving payment for his business venture of colonising America.

If America had really won the War of Independence, they would never have agreed to pay debts & reparations to the King of England.

America’s blood soaked War of Independence against the British bankrupted America & turned its citizens into permanent debt slaves of the King. In the War of 1812, the British torched & burned to the ground the Whitehouse & all US government buildings. Destroying ratification records of the US constitution.

Most US citizens believe that the US is a country & the President is the most powerful man on earth. The US is not a country. It is a corporation. And the president is President of the Corporation of the United States. He & his elected officials work for the corporation, not for the American people. Since the US is a corporation, who owns the corporation of the United States?

Like Canada & Australia whose leaders are Prime Ministers of the Queen & whose land is called Crown Land, the US is just another crown colony. Crown colonies are controlled by the Empire of the 3 City States.

6. Obelisks

At the centre of each city state is a towering phallic shaped stone monument called an obelisk that points skyward. In DC city state, the obelisk known as the Washington monument was dedicated to the Freemason George Washington by the Freemason Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. 250 Masonic lodges financed the Washington obelisk monument, including the Knights Templar Masonic order.

At the heart of London City State, is a 187 ton 69 foot tall Egyptian obelisk called Cleopatra’s Needle. It was transported from Egypt & erected on the banks of the river Thames.

In Vatican city, another Egyptian obelisk towers high above St Peter’s square.

Obelisks are phallic shaped monuments honouring the pagan sun god of ancient Egypt called Amen Ra. The spirit of this pagan god is said to reside within the obelisk.

For more info check out this video: watch?v=oYJzXkcJgEU

November 23, 2012
Growing ties between Egypt, Turkey may signal new regional order

The emerging alliance between Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan reflects two Islamist leaders maneuvering to reshape the Middle East.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, left, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, Turkey, in September. (Kayhan Ozer /Turkish Prime Minister’s Office / November 13, 2012)

By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times

November 13, 2012, 5:46 p.m.

CAIRO — Egypt and Turkey are forging an alliance that showcases two Islamist leaders maneuvering to reshape a Middle East gripped by political upheaval and passionate battles over how deeply the Koran should penetrate public life.

The relationship may foreshadow an emerging regional order in which the sway of the United States gradually fades against Islamist voices no longer contained by militaries and pro-Western autocrats.

Each country has a distinct vision of political Islam, but Turkey, which straddles Europe and Asia, and Egypt, the traditional heart of the Arab world, complement each other for now. Turkey’s strong economy may help rescue Egypt from financial crisis, while Cairo may further Ankara’s ambition to rise as a force among Islamic-backed governments.

What bonds and rivalries may ensue is unclear, but they are likely to affect what rises from the bloodshed in Syria, the influence of oil nations in the Persian Gulf, future policies toward Israel and the volatile divide between moderate and ultraconservative Islamists. The nations offer competing story lines playing out between the traditional and the contemporary.

“Turkey has done a good job so far of balancing the relationship between the religion and state. It is secular,” said Ahmed Abou Hussein, a Middle East affairs analyst in Cairo. “This is not the case in Egypt. We haven’t found the balance between religion and state yet. We’re all confused, not only the Islamists.”

The two countries recently conducted naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea. Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi visited Ankara in September and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to arrive in Cairo this month with promises of closer cooperation and a financial aid package that may reach $2 billion.

“Our history, hopes and goals bind us together to achieve the freedom and justice that all nations are struggling for,” Morsi said on his trip.

The nations’ deepening ties come amid international and domestic pressure emanating from revolutions that are recasting political rhythms in the Middle East and North Africa.

Erdogan is moving to fashion Turkey’s democracy into a model for Arab governments even as he has been criticized by human rights groups for the arrest of thousands of Kurdish activists. Morsi is seeking to restore Egypt’s global stature after years of diminishment under deposed leader Hosni Mubarak.

Turkey’s diplomatic finesse and economic allure have allowed it to deftly exert its regional influence. But the civil war in Syria has shredded relations between Ankara and Damascus and left Erdogan, who has threatened Syrian President Bashar Assad with wider military action, searching for a plan to end the conflict on his border.

Turkey has also drawn the ire of Iran, a Syrian ally, for signing on to a U.S.-backed missile shield. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki this year called Turkey a “hostile state” and accused it of agitating sectarian tension in his country.

Erdogan, who learned his wiles as a boy selling sesame buns on the streets of Istanbul, is more flamboyant than Morsi, the son of a peasant farmer. But Morsi has proved a canny politician: In a visit to Tehran in August, he signaled a thaw in Egyptian-Iranian relations while at the same time angering Iran by condemning Assad’s crackdown on dissent.

Egypt’s deeper problems bristle on the home front, including unemployment, poverty, crime and decrepit state institutions that became more glaring after last year’s overthrow of Mubarak. Both Morsi and Erdogan, who rose to power nearly a decade ago, curtailed the political influence of their nations’ generals, but each has been accused by secularists as having authoritarian streaks tinged with Islam. The countries have a tendency to harass and arrest dissidents and journalists.

A closer fusion of Cairo and Ankara stems in part from the influence Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood had on Islamist organizations across the region, including Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party. While the Brotherhood was being persecuted by Mubarak, a brash Erdogan riveted the “Arab street” with his populism and chiding of leaders, such as Mubarak, for their compliance toward the West.

The question is, how will Erdogan and Morsi maneuver the politics of a Middle East that both want to influence, and which Egypt regards as its historic and strategic territory?

“I don’t think Egypt even under the Muslim Brotherhood would appreciate a Turkey that would nose around on Egypt’s political turf,” said Kemal Kirisci, a professor of political science and international relations at Bogazici University in Istanbul.

But Turkey offers Egypt a pragmatic — some analysts suggest modern — approach to the West, the global economy and stability. A member of NATO, Turkey is aspiring to join the European Union. Its talks with the EU have been strained, but the process forced economic and social reforms that have benefited Erdogan as he increasingly looks to the Middle East and North Africa to expand commercial interests. Arab news media have reported that Turkey’s trade with the Arab world is targeted at $100 billion over next five years.

“What is interesting about Turkey’s success is its commitment to practical visions and plans,” said Seif Allah el Khawanky, a political analyst. “Morsi’s administration doesn’t have this.”

Both countries are working toward new constitutions. Turkey’s politics spring from a secular democracy and a history of defined political parties that have tempered the influence of Islam. Turkish women who wear hijabs are banned from political office. Egypt’s Islamist-dominated government, however, is pushing for a constitution firmly rooted in sharia, or Islamic law, and there is little inclination among conservatives to import the Turkish model.

That difference is partly defining the immediate aftermath of the Arab Spring. Islamist groups long suppressed by Mubarak and other autocrats are imposing their political and religious visions on nations with underdeveloped or divided secular parties.

“The Islamist parties in Turkey are past implementing religious ideologies. They’re working more on economic policies and reform,” Hussein said. “The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis will have to change their rhetoric to fit the needs of Egypt and the world…. The Turks refer to their example as the Turkish experience. They are brilliantly trying to sell this so-called experience in Syria, Egypt and other Arab countries.”

[email protected]

Special correspondent Reem Abdellatif contributed to this report.

November 15, 2012
Turkey and the new world order

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu during a joint press conference on October 20, 2012: well-known for a foreign policy which has been dubbed “neo-Ottoman” |AFP PHOTO/MOHAMMED HUWAIS

Supporters of Turkish EU membership often claim that this would prove that democracy and Islam are compatible. But it is the Turks themselves who have demolished this argument.

In a keynote speech by İbrahim Kalın, Prime Minister Erdoğan’s chief adviser, at the Istanbul Forum in October, Dr Kalın spoke of a post-Western political order in which the West does not have a monopoly over the democracy debate and the global human rights discourse. Furthermore, he claimed that the failure of secular humanism to secure freedom, rationality and equality has led to the search for a post-secular age.

In fact, the European model of secular democracy, politics and pluralism seems to have little traction in the Arab and larger Muslim world.

It is often asserted that the EU is a community of values, and after the start of accession talks with Turkey in October 2005 Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn emphasized that pluralism and free speech are basic values which cannot be compromised. However, Dr Kalın said there was “a mental gap” between Islamic and Western notions of what constitutes sacred, religious rights and freedom of expression. Consequently, Turkey has expanded the classical definition of foreign policy as advancing a state’s national interest to include value-based considerations. As Turkey now occupies a pivotal place in the new geopolitics, it accordingly seeks to pursue a value-based and principled foreign policy.

Dr Kalın failed to define these values, but as Turkish foreign policy is determined by internal dynamics, the answer can be found in a statement by Mustafa Özel, a driving force behind MÜSIAD, the Islamic Independent Industralists and Businessmen’s Association, in 1996. According to Özel, the preservation of Turkey’s domestic unity cannot be preserved through an ideology imported from the West but through a true connection with Islam, “the key source of our world view”.

Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, is well-known for a foreign policy which has been dubbed “neo-Ottoman” and builds on principles outlined in his key work, “Strategic Depth” from 2001. According to Professor Davutoğlu Turkey’s strategic depth rests on its geographical and historical depth and on engagement with the countries with which Turkey shares a common past and geography as well as shared interests and common ideals.

In a speech in Sarajevo in October 2009 Davutoğlu explained: “Like in the 16th Century, when the Ottoman Balkans were rising, we will once again make the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, together with Turkey, the centre of world politics in the future. That is the goal of Turkish foreign policy and we will achieve it.”

A new world order

In a speech made at an AKP congress in Konya in April the Foreign Minister was more specific. “On the historic march of our holy nation the AK Party signals the birth of a global power and the mission for a new world order (nizam-i âlem).

This is the centenary of our exit from the Middle East … whatever we lost between 1911 and 1923, whatever lands we withdrew from, from 2011 to 2023 we shall once again meet our brothers in those lands. This is a bounden historic mission.”

It should be noted that nizam-i âlem is an Ottoman concept, according to which the world order in all its aspects – political, social and economic – was ruled by religion (Islam).

A fortnight later Davutoğlu outlined his vision for the Middle East in the Turkish parliament. “A new Middle East is about to be born. We will be the owner, pioneer and servant of this new Middle East.” However, this vision has collided with reality.

Prime Minister Erdoğan’s cordial relationship with his “brother” Bashar al-Assad and the “long-term strategic partnerhip” between Turkey and Syria have turned to hostility with Turkey’s support of the Free Syrian Army against the Assad regime.

However, Turkey’s attempt to draw the UN Security Council into the conflict with support for a safe zone for Syrian refugees has failed. And NATO has been content to express its solidarity.

Iran’s support for Assad reflects the struggle for regional hegemony betweeen Turkey and Iran and threatens Turkey’s policy of “economic interpendence” with Iran. Around 90 percent of Iran’s exports to Turkey consists of hydrocarbons, as Iran has become Turkey’s largest supplier of crude oil and its second larger supplier of natural gas.

Turkey’s relations with Russia have also become strained after Turkish F-16s forced a Syrian airliner flying from Moscow to land in Ankara on suspicion that it was carrying arms. Another consequence of the conflict is that Turkey has had to abandon joint plans for a free trade zone with visa-free travel together with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Erdoğan has offered to build a trilateral mechanism together with Iran to deal with the crisis but after the failure of the Sunni rebels to seize Aleppo the issue may be solved on the battlefield. Turkey’s nightmare is a Kurdish alliance between Turkey’s PKK and Syria’s PYD (Democratic Union Party) with support from Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government.

Together with the standoff between Turkey and Israel after the Mavi Marmara incident and Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus, Davutoğlu’s policy of “zero problems with neighbours” has seen its day. All that remains is to resolve the standoff with Europe, and Prime Minister Erdoğan has given the EU until 2023, when the Turkish Republic will celebrate its centenary, to make up its mind.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.

November 12, 2012
The Coming World Crisis

“Chapter 7 – The Coming World Crisis

[…]

Before the nations of the world ultimately embrace a system of global government, they must first have a reason to do so. Humanity, convinced that permenant world peace cannot be attanied without the creation of a powerful world authority capable of pretecting countries from one another, will eventually sacrifice the current world order – seeing no
alternative. Significant strides have already been made in this directionsince the turn of the century, end if history repeats itself, further “progress” will be made soon.

Two world wars have already been fought in the twentieth century. In each case, an aggresive power was used to ignite a crisis that drew in the rest of the world; and both times the aggressor was defeated. After each war, as supranational organization was established for the alleged purpose of
promoting world peace, first the League of Nations, then the United Nations. Each organization has brought us one step closer to the realization of a one world government. The United Nations today is the closest thing to world government that humanity has ever known. Unlike the incomplete League of Nations, which consisted of only 63 countries and did not include the US, the United Nations consists of 159 nations, nearly every country in the world. Its infrastructure is all-encompassing and includes the World Court, the UN peace-keeping forces, and specialized organizations ranging from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to the World HealthOrganization (WHO). It oversees dozens of additional agencies ranging from UNESCO to UNICEF, covering virtually every aspect of life. The UN lacks only the power to implement and enforce its strategies.

Could a third world war be used to finally lead mankind to accept a New World Order? If so, how might such a war begin? Who would be its main players? And what would be the outcome? To answer these important questions we must examine those areas where current events and the blueprints of the conspirators coincide with what the Bible teaches must yet take place.

A Possible Scenario

I believe that insiders will initiate a world crisis only if they feel it isnecessary to get the public to accept their New World Order. The mere threat of a major world conflict could be enough to scare the public into accepting such a change-especially when coupled with the existing problems of world hunger and global debt, and the created panic over the environment. As their campaign slogan openly proclaims, “Global Problems Demand Global Solutions!” Historically, however, wars have been effective in advancing the cause of
world government; the fact is, major changes occur more easily during times of crisis.

Unlike the previous world wars in which Germany was the main instigator, the world’s next major conflict will undoubtedly be sparked by the hotbed of tensions surrounding the Middle East. If not Iraq a second time, then perhaps Iran or Syria.

This writer believes that Syria might play a significant role in ushering in the New World Order, if not as an instigator of war, then as a middle man for negotiating peace. It is too critical a nation to remain on the sidelines for very long and, contrary to popular belief, Syria -not Iraq- is the most powerful Islamic military state in the Middle East. It therefore merits close watching.

During the past several years, Syria appears to have been laying the groundwork for its own attack against Israel. Syrian troops now hold long sought after positions in Lebanon and have been prepared for such an invasion since early 1984. According to the USA Department of Defense publication, Soviet Military Power, Syria has also become the site of the largest Soviet arms build-up in the Third World, having contrasted for 19 billion dollars in military hardware. It currently boasts the largest number of Soviet military advisors of any Third World country. (1)

The Syrian government, meanwhile, has effectively turned the tables by falsely warning its people of a coming Israeli attack on Syria, although Israel has repeatedly denied such allegations. (2) According to the Jerusalem Post during one of Syria’s propaganda campaigns several years ago it took a personal statement from Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzak Shamir, to maintain peace. Shamir voiced his “incomprehension” at Syrian “nervousness”, “which, he said, had triggered several strong Soviet warnings to Israel in recent days.” (3) I beleive the Syrian government was deliberately misleading its people in order to justify its own “pre-emptive” strike against Israel down the road. For these reasons, I have chosen to use Syria as our example in this scenario (although a similar scenario could beconstracted using Iraq, Iran, or even Libya).

If the powers-that-be were to move Syria against Israel, it would be Syria’s fatal mistake, planned this way by the conspirators in order to precipitatea world crisis. Unlike previous invasions, the Jewish state this time would have almost no time to respond. Its back would be to the wall quickly as Syrian MIGs would strike over Jerusalem within 4 minutes. Israel would be faced with a very difficult decision -either allow itself to be conquered, or else launch its nuclear arsenal against Syria and possibly Iraq. In late 1986, “London’s Sunday Times printed an article stating that Israel may havea stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads.” (4) So we know that a nuclear exchange is a very real possibility.
There is an Old Testament prophesy concerning Damascus, the capital of Syria, which has yet to be fulfilled. Isaiah proclaimed: “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.” (Is. 17:1). As it is, Damascus is the oldest standing city in the world, never having experienced mass destruction. This prophesy must be fulfilled some time before the return of Christ.

Having lost several thousand of its military advisors in the exchange and with world opinion seemingly turned against Israel for her use of nuclear force, the Soviet Union could seize this opportunity to do what it has long desired – move against Israel. Arab pressure on the Soviets to invade Israel would add to the temptation.

If the Soviet Union came to the rescue of Syria, it would suddenly find itself on opposite sides with the United States. What could happen next is unthinkable. Mankind will have been brought to the brink of destruction.

Wicked man high places have been contemplating such a crisis for years. In a letter to the Italian revolutionary leader Giuseppe Mazzini dated 15 Agust 1871 Albert Pike, the leader of the Illuminati’s activities in the United States and the head of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry at the time, describeda distant final war, which he felt would be necessary to usher in the New World Order. (5) According to Pike, this conflict between two future superpowers would be sparked by first igniting crisis between Islam and Judaism. He went on to write:

We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which, in all its horror, will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism, the origin of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then, everywhere, the people, forced to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization; and multitudes, disillusioned with Christianity whose deistic spirits will be from that moment on without direction and leadership, anxious for an ideal but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the uiversal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out into public view; a manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and Atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time. (6) (*)

Should such a crisis be permitted to occur, the amount of destruction would be staggering. Humanity would tremble with fear believing that man is about to destroy himself. For even if Soviet Union or the United States were eliminated as military powers, over 30 countries would still have nuclear capacity. It would be a time of despair and mass confusion. Add to this the resulting chaos of global financial markets, which are already on the brink of disaster; the economic turmoil would only contribute to the world’s state of panic.

(1) US Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power, 1986 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1986), 133

(2) Post Diplomatic Correspondent, “Jerusalem incomprehension at Syriannervousness,” The Jerusalem Post, (12 April 1984): 1, col. 1-2.

(3) Ibid.

(4) “Israel’s Nuclear Prowess – A Leak by Design?” US News and World Report(10 November 1986): 8.(5) Salem Kirban, Satan’s Angels Exposed (Roseville, GA: Grapevine Books, 1980), 158-161(6) Myron Fagan, The Illuminati-CFR, Emissary Publications, TP-107, 1968.
This letter between Pike and Mazzini is now catalogued in the British Museum in London (According to Salem Kirban, Satan’s Angels Exposed, 164). Parts of this letter are also quoted in “Descent Into Slavery” by Des Griffin

(*) It is a pure coincidence that the most powerful figures of the Middle East are Freemasons? Have they been destined to trigger the conflict about which Albert Pike wrote? A prominent Arab Christian leader recently informed me that according to his contacts in Lebanon, King Assad of Syria and King Hussain of Jordan are both Freemasons. If this is true, we could be closer to the New World Order than people realize. (He was uncartain about whetherSaddam Hussain belonged to the same secret society.)

A few months ago, the son of this same Arab Christian gave me a masonic document – a membership certificate – which he found in Lebanon, issued by a Phoenician Lodge located in Lebanon. However, the document notes that the Lodge is under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Jordan, which is under the authority of the Arab Supreme Council. For at least several centuries,Jordan has been a bastion of secret societies in the Middle East and has much more influence in the regions behind-the-scenes politics than most people realize. The same masonic symbol appearing on our dollar bill and found at ancient occult worship sites throughout the world, the all-seeing eye, is prominently displayed on the certificate.

Source: “En Route to Global Occupation” by Gary H. Kah, 1991, [Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, Louisiana]

Tanrıyı Kıyamete Zorlamak – Kağan Kurt – 1.Bölüm by HoneyMedia

September 17, 2011
A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF

Alert: IMF are exploiting financial crisis towards one world currency

–HD

Changes Suggest Shift in How Global Economy Is Run

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009

Inside a cavernous assembly hall in downtown Washington, dignitaries gather twice a year for routine meetings of the International Monetary Fund. Before long, though, the room could take center stage in the IMF’s transformation into a veritable United Nations for the global economy.

Surrounded by blond wood paneling and a digital screen the size of a cinema’s, central bankers and finance ministers would meet to convene a financial security council of sorts. Serving almost as ambassadors to the IMF, they would debate ways to put out the world’s economic fires and stifle reckless policies before they ignite new ones.

Bowing to a new economic world order, the IMF would grant fresh powers to the likes of China, India and Brazil. It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve.

That image of a radically transformed IMF — whose role in the global economy had turned largely advisory in recent years — is now coming together through internal IMF documents, interviews and think-tank reports. Finance ministers from major nations will begin grappling with the formidable details of the IMF’s makeover this weekend when they converge in Washington for the fund’s biannual assembly.

The changes, broadly outlined by President Obama and other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in London earlier this month, could take months, even years to take shape. But the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.

The IMF’s mission is expanding so broadly that its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, said in an interview that the organization — which underwent deep cuts last year before the financial crisis swept the globe — may boost staffing in coming months, potentially creating dozens of high-paying jobs in the District.

“The IMF is changing, and with it, there will be a sea change in the way the world economy is run,” said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “Their role will dramatically shift. You’re talking about monitoring fiscal stimulus, moving toward tighter regulations for financial institutions. You’re talking about global economic management in a way we have never seen.”

Already, the economic crisis is triggering a profound cultural shift, with the IMF moving away from its long-held mission to spread the gospel of capitalism around the globe.

Founded at the end of World War II to maintain stability in global currency markets, it later became known as the lender of last resort for nations in crisis, particularly as financial fires raced across Asia and Latin America in the 1990s. Its bailouts, however, were the bane of many poor countries; they often came with demands for fiscal austerity and free-market reform as the cures for developing nations — even if that meant nations had to cut back on programs for health care and schools.

The IMF, Strauss-Kahn suggested, will become less ideological. Critics maintain the fund is still attaching too many restrictions to its longer-term bailouts for poor countries. But the IMF has signed off in recent weeks on no-strings-attached credit lines for countries with solid economic track records, offering $47 billion to Mexico and $20.5 billion to Poland.

“If the fund is considering a country and is technically convinced that privatization of any enterprise is needed to fix the country today, let’s privatize. But if it’s a general idea of privatization that has nothing to do with the problem, let’s forget it,” Strauss-Kahn said. “At the same time, if nationalization will help, let’s do it.”

Developing nations — including some that were once down-and-out clients of the fund — are now coming to the IMF’s rescue as part of the pledge made by leaders in London to beef up the organization’s war chest to $1 trillion. In exchange for better representation on the governing board, China, which has fewer voting rights than Belgium, is set to give more than $40 billion. Brazil, which received a massive IMF bailout in the late 1990s, is pledging $4.5 billion.

There is even talk that the next managing director — traditionally a European, while an American ran its sister organization, the World Bank — may come from the developing world. “Why not?” Strauss-Kahn said.

For an organization long demonized by the developing world, such changes were once unthinkable. “I spent 20 years of my life carrying posters that said ‘IMF out,’ “ Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former union leader, said last week in Rio de Janeiro. “Now the minister of finance says we are going to lend money to the IMF.”

The IMF is also moving toward taking the lead role as the global economic watchdog. An intense debate, however, remains over the scope of the edicts it may issue as well as the power it will be granted to enforce them.

Along with the Switzerland-based Financial Stability Board, the IMF is set to develop benchmarks for financial governance, from guidelines on executive pay to methods to prevent the spread of toxic assets through global banks. But no one is talking seriously about allowing the IMF to impose sanctions to force compliance as the United Nations does. There is even a strong reluctance to grant the IMF powers such as those held by the World Trade Organization in Geneva, which issues binding rulings on violations of global trade law.

Instead, the IMF is likely to wield what Strauss-Kahn called “the strength of truth telling.” Put another way, the organization’s public pronouncements would carry the force of the nations seated at its table, including the world’s most powerful industrialized and developing economies.

Some critics, however, say that may not be enough. A case in point: An internal IMF document recently called for Eastern European nations to adopt the euro as their currency to stabilize their economies, even without the approval of euro-zone nations. But stiff opposition from Western Europe has thus far prevented that document from being made public.

Additionally, some smaller European and low-income nations remain skeptical about the creation of a financial security council, arguing they would not be well represented. Even within the IMF, there is a debate over the council’s purview and makeup. Some see the council turning into a venue to hash out major economic disputes, such as U.S. and European charges that China is keeping its currency artificially weak.

Others say it should steer away from country-specific rulings. Another camp argues the fund should not exist at all. Even Strauss-Kahn has sought to dispel the notion of too grand a role for the IMF, saying its primary mission should remain monitoring and surveillance rather than enforcement.

“The fund is supposed to take on a more regulatory role, holding accountable even wealthy countries,” said Moshin Khan, the IMF’s former Middle East and Central Asia director. “But I will have to see that happen to believe it. Whenever I’ve seen them going after the bigger countries, if the countries don’t like what the fund has to say, the fund doesn’t say it.”

Source: The Washington Post, April 20, 2009

April 21, 2009
A New World Order

An end of hubris

Nov 19th 2008
From The World in 2009 print edition

America will be less powerful, but still the essential nation in creating a new world order, argues Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state and founder of Kissinger Associates

Reuters

The most significant event of 2009 will be the transformation of the Washington consensus that market principles trumped national boundaries. The WTO, the IMF and the World Bank defended that system globally. Periodic financial crises were interpreted not as warning signals of what could befall the industrial nations but as aberrations of the developing world to be remedied by domestic stringency—a policy which the advanced countries were not, in the event, prepared to apply to themselves.

The absence of restraint encouraged a speculation whose growing sophistication matched its mounting lack of transparency. An unparalleled period of growth followed, but also the delusion that an economic system could sustain itself via debt indefinitely. In reality, a country could live in such a profligate manner only so long as the rest of the world retained confidence in its economic prescriptions. That period has now ended.

Any economic system, but especially a market economy, produces winners and losers. If the gap between them becomes too great, the losers will organise themselves politically and seek to recast the existing system—within nations and between them. This will be a major theme of 2009.

America’s unique military and political power produced a comparable psychological distortion. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union tempted the United States to proclaim universal political goals in a world of seeming unipolarity—but objectives were defined by slogans rather than strategic feasibility.

Now that the clay feet of the economic system have been exposed, the gap between a global system for economics and the global political system based on the state must be addressed as a dominant task in 2009. The economy must be put on a sound footing, entitlement programmes reviewed and the national dependence on debt overcome. Hopefully, in the process, past lessons of excessive state control will not be forgotten.

The debate will be over priorities, transcending the longstanding debate between idealism and realism. Economic constraints will oblige America to define its global objectives in terms of a mature concept of the national interest. Of course, a country that has always prided itself on its exceptionalism will not abandon the moral convictions by which it defined its greatness. But America needs to learn to discipline itself into a strategy of gradualism that seeks greatness in the accumulation of the attainable. By the same token, our allies must be prepared to face the necessary rather than confining foreign policy to so-called soft power.

Every major country will be driven by the constraints of the fiscal crisis to re-examine its relationship to America. All—and especially those holding American debt—will be assessing the decisions that brought them to this point. As America narrows its horizons, what is a plausible security system and aimed at what threats? What is the future of capitalism? How, in such circumstances, does the world deal with global challenges, such as nuclear proliferation or climate change?

America will remain the most powerful country, but will not retain the position of self-proclaimed tutor. As it learns the limits of hegemony, it should define implementing consultation beyond largely American conceptions. The G8 will need a new role to embrace China, India, Brazil and perhaps South Africa.

The immediate challenge

In Iraq, if the surge strategy holds, there must be a diplomatic conference in 2009 to establish principles of non-intervention and define the country’s international responsibilities.

The dilatory diplomacy towards Iran must be brought to a focus. The time available to forestall an Iranian nuclear programme is shrinking and American involvement is essential in defining what we and our allies are prepared to seek and concede and, above all, the penalty to invoke if negotiations reach a stalemate. Failing that, we will have opted to live in a world of an accelerating nuclear arms race and altered parameters of security.

In 2009 the realities of Afghanistan will impose themselves. No outside power has ever prevailed by establishing central rule, as Britain learnt in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th. The collection of nearly autonomous provinces which define Afghanistan coalesce in opposition to outside attempts to impose central rule. Decentralisation of the current effort is essential.

All this requires a new dialogue between America and the rest of the world. Other countries, while asserting their growing roles, are likely to conclude that a less powerful America still remains indispensable. America will have to learn that world order depends on a structure that participants support because they helped bring it about. If progress is made on these enterprises, 2009 will mark the beginning of a new world order.

Source: www.economist.com, Nov 19th 2008

“New World Order” transmutes into “Age of Compatible Interest”

March 29, 2009