Transcript:

Everyone agrees that climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity.

That’s the constant claim of the polital elite - and it’s a lie. Everyone does not agree. Thousands of scientists dispute the very existence of man-made global warming, citing natural cyclical changes that saw vineyards in Roman northern England and a Swedish army march over the frozen Baltic in 1658 to Copenhagen.

As an army of global Warming zealots marches to Copenhagen, the truth is that their Orwellian consensus is based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship, and fraudulent statistics. In the words of leading climatologist Professor Richard Lindzen: “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections contemplated a roll back of the industrial age.”

In fact, there will be no bemused amazement, for the reason for this hysteria is clear: it is designed to provide the excuse for a political project of the globalists to replace national democracy with new world order global governance. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do the globalists’ common purpose to tax and control us while making billions for corporations in the Green industrial complex.

The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology: a secular religious hysteria, complete with Pope Al Gore, carbon credit indulgencies and the pursecution of heretics. But the heretics will have a voice in Copenhagen and the truth will [come] out. Climate change is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao.

Dana Milbank - November 11, 2009

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

Full story

Washington, DC Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Following his United Nations General Assembly interruption of November 22, 1948 in Paris calling for “one government for one world” to outlaw war, former Broadway actor and WWII B-17 bomber pilot World Citizen Garry Davis-whose brother, Bud, was killed at Salerno-supported by an original group consisting of Albert Camus, L’Abbé Pierre, Robert Sarrazac, and Albert Schweitzer, (full list below*), and endorsed by Albert Einstein, declared The World Government (of World Citizens), on September 4, 1953 from the City Hall of Ellsworth, Maine.

(more…)

Andrew Gavin Marshall - August 19, 2009

This article is the 5th and final part in the series, “Global Power and Global Government,” published by Global Research.

Part 1: Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System
Part 2: Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order
Part 3: Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve
Part 4: Forging a “New World Order” Under a One World Government

Transnational Totalitarianism

Global trends in political economy suggest that “democracy” as we know it, is a fading concept, where even Western industrialized nations are retreating from the system. Arguably, through party politics and financial-corporate interests, democracy is something of a façade as it is. However, we are entering into an era in which even the institutions and image of democracy are in retreat, and the slide into totalitarianism seems inevitable.

The National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2025, stated that many governments will be “expanding domestic security forces, surveillance capabilities, and the employment of special operations-type forces.” Counterterrorism measures will increasingly “involve urban operations as a result of greater urbanization,” and governments “may increasingly erect barricades and fences around their territories to inhibit access. Gated communities will continue to spring up within many societies as elites seek to insulate themselves from domestic threats.”[1] Essentially, expect a continued move towards and internationalization of domestic police state measures to control populations.

The nature of totalitarianism is such that it is, “by nature (or rather by definition), a global project that cannot be fully accomplished in just one community or one country. Being fuelled by the need to suppress any alternative orders and ideas, it has no natural limits and is bound to aim at totally dominating everything and everyone.” David Lyon explained in Theorizing Surveillance, that, “The ultimate feature of the totalitarian domination is the absence of exit, which can be achieved temporarily by closing borders, but permanently only by a truly global reach that would render the very notion of exit meaningless. This in itself justifies questions about the totalitarian potential of globalization.” The author raises the important question, “Is abolition of borders intrinsically (morally) good, because they symbolize barriers that needlessly separate and exclude people, or are they potential lines of resistance, refuge and difference that may save us from the totalitarian abyss?” Further, “if globalization undermines the tested, state-based models of democracy, the world may be vulnerable to a global totalitarian etatization.”[2]

Full story

Bret Burquest - July 13, 2009

Isn’t it interesting how all our problems seem to be global these days. A global war on terrorism, a global economic crisis, the need for a global currency, global trade, global health concerns, global warming, etc.
It’s almost as if someone is pushing for a one-world government, with a one-world monetary system, a one-world police force, a one-world set of rules and a population of obedient worker bees to keep the whole economic engine going at full throttle.

Except for the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, Pindar, powerful international bankers, Skull and Bones, global elitist power brokers, the Military-Industrial Complex, the CIA, the KGB, the Federal Reserve, the international Communist conspiracy, the Knights of Malta, the Club of Rome, the 13 ruling families of the Illuminati (Rothschild, Bruce, Cavendish, De Medici, Hanover, Hapsburg, Krupp, Plantagenet, Rockefeller, Romanov, Sinclair, Warburg, Windsor) and the ghost of Adam Weishaupt, I can’t imagine who would have a motive to create a one-world government and slither their way to the top of the pyramid of power to rule the world.

Global problems, such as global warming, require global solutions.

Full story

Olga Chetverikova - April 23, 2009

As the world financial and economic crisis comes into its own, the Western political leaders and elites are seeking to impress on mankind the idea that this upheaval will end up ‘turning the world into something different’.

Even though the picture of the ‘new world order’ remains vague and fuzzy, the main idea is quite clear: A single global government, goes the argument, has to be established if we don’t want general chaos to prevail.

Every now and again, Western politicians mention the need for a ‘new world order’, a ‘new world financial architecture’, or some kind of ‘supranational control’, calling it a ‘New Deal’ for the world. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first to say so, while addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2007 (that is, before the crisis).

Full story

Andrew G. Marshall - April 6, 2009

Introduction

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global “quantitative easing”. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”[1]

The article continued in stating that, “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People’s Bank of China.” Further, “The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.

It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

Full story

Constance Cumbey - February 15, 2009

In April, 1981, in one evening, I was to write these words which later were to become much maligned in certain Christian circles — ones I was to eventually learn had deeply compromised with New Age/Apostate interests such as Paul N. Temple and his Institute of Noetic Sciences as well as Rev. Moon and his Unification Church. They were to become part of a chapter in my 1983 released book, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW. They were part of a chapter entitled “THE AGE OF AQUARIUS? OR THE AGE OF THE ANTICHRIST.” If you have my book which has been out of print since Huntington House went out of business in 2003, you will find this chapter from pages 36 to 43. These words were brought to mind by learning that today Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Russian Prime Minister and open devotee (per Wayne Peterson) of “Maitreya the Christ”, introduced a resolution into the European Parliament for a World Water Authority.

Full story

From Dennis Cuddy’s latest:

The final element of the Rockefeller Plan is the political/New World Order component, which will be covered in this Part of the series and in Part 5. I’ve written many times before about the famous author H.G. Wells and how he knew in advance when World War II would begin, about Churchill’s “secret circle,” and that the final “World-State” would arise from a conference in Basra, Iraq, among other things. In 1939, Wells authored The New World Order regarding the coming world government. Relevant to the Rockefellers, I have two letters from Wells to President Franklin Roosevelt. In the April 14, 1934 letter, Wells tells FDR “any letters sent to me at the Chase National Bank, Park Avenue, New York will reach me.” And in the February 27, 1935 letter, Wells tells FDR that he’s coming to New York, and he says “my address will be c/o the Chase National Bank, Park Avenue, N.Y.C.” Chase National Bank was the Rockefeller’s bank, and one may therefore assume Wells was close to them.

Related: Basra: Bethlehem of the New World Order

Gotcha! Left: Rachman at the 2003 Bilderberg Meeting in France; right: Rachman's mug at his blog

“Rapporteur” Gideon Rachman wrote a piece for the Financial Times on Dec. 8th, 2008: “And now for a world government.” Let’s take a look.

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

Perhaps you have never believed it, but the elite conclave to which you have been privy certainly have. You neglected to mention your previous attendance of the 2003 and 2004 Bilderberg meetings at Versailles, France, and Stresa, Italy, respectively. You see, commoners - dubbed “useless eaters” - have been keeping tabs on the elite confab for 20+ years (call it grass-roots journalism). In 2003 and 2004, you were listed thus: GB - Rachman, Gideon - Brussels Correspondent, The Economist. Traditionally, “Rapporteurs” have been allowed to attend meetings such as these on condition of subservience and silence. To the commoners who expect “rapporteurs” to do their job and “report”; it’s called “breach of trust” and collusion. To the “global governance” internationalists; it’s called “Chatham House Rules.”

(more…)

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, December 9, 2008

The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.

Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.

A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.

Full story

—

Gideon Rachman attended Bilderberg as well - 2003 and 2004.

It was hard to miss the message that Barack Obama was sending with the powerful tableau lined up behind him onstage in Chicago. “I assembled this team because I’m a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions,” the President-elect said of his national-security picks. The top three members of that team certainly fit the description. In Hillary Clinton, Obama is getting a Secretary of State who battled him to the bitter end of a Democratic primary season focused largely on the question of who was better equipped to be Commander in Chief. In bringing in retired Marine general James Jones as his National Security Adviser and retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama is turning to two men who might have seemed more obvious choices had John McCain won the White House. And all three were on the opposite side from Obama on the defining foreign policy decision of the past decade: whether to invade Iraq.

Full story

—

Meanwhile… check out this kid’s textbook (chapter 33, no less!)

New World Order Being Taught In Schools!

—

See here, for the real meaning (and history) of the phrase.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
December 1, 2008

President elect Barack Obama made choices today for “a broad and diverse team” in Chicago, reports the Associated Press. Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, former Gen. James Jones, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and Susan Rice “round” out this “change” team which is, of course, not change but a seamless transition between the Bush neocons and Obama’s decidedly neoliberal choices.

Consider the following uncomfortable facts that the corporate media will never tell you in a month of Sundays…

Full story

John W. Wallace - New York Campaign for Liberty (24/11/08)

When I was growing up in the Inwood section of upper Manhattan, I remember when I was about 12 or 13 years old I had my first contact with discovering what a “front” was for another business.  It was called Tack’s Tackle Shop.  When it first opened, it looked like just another business. The guy in the store, Tack, was selling fishing rods, live bait and an array of fishing equipment. It didn’t take long before the kids in the neighborhood figured out that perhaps there was something else going on.  The live bait in the window wasn’t alive anymore and local hoods and gangster type people seemed to be going in and out, particularly in the evenings and none of them looked like fishermen. It wasn’t long before the place was raided by the NYCPD and my friends and I all watched from across the street on Sherman Avenue as “Tack” came out in handcuffs along with a bunch of other men.  We were later told that Tack’s Tackle Shop had actually been a front for an illegal gambling operation.

A “front group” can be any entity that is set up to appear to be a legitimate independent organization, like Tack’s Tackle Shop, when it is actually controlled from behind the scenes by another organization or group of individuals. These front groups are often legitimate businesses, social or political organizations, professional groups, advocacy groups, research organizations, etc. Organized crime has used legitimate front organizations for many decades to launder their income from various illegal activities. Pharmaceutical companies have used front organizations to advocate for the drugs they manufacture. International terrorist organizations have their front groups here in the United States and as the evidence clearly shows, so do the international bankers.

After researching the formation and activities of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) it appears that it may be a very sophisticated version of “Tack’s Tackle Shop.” The CFR was specifically set up to carry out the goals and objectives of  international bankers so that the public positions taken by the CFR would appear to be independent positions that could not be directly connected to the international bankers who personally control and fund the CFR.

(more…)

MOSCOW, November 7 (RIA Novosti) - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has said that the Obama administration in the United States needs far-reaching ‘perestroika’ reforms to overcome the financial crisis and restore balance in the world.

The term perestroika, meaning restructuring, was used by Gorbachev in the late 1980s to describe a series of reforms that abolished state planning in the Soviet Union.

In an interview with Italy’s La Stampa published on Friday, Gorbachev said President-elect Barack Obama needs to fundamentally change the misguided course followed by President George W. Bush over the past eight years.

Gorbachev said that after transforming his country in the late 1980s, he had told the Americans that it was their turn to act, but that Washington, celebrating its Cold War victory, was not interested in “a new model of a society, where politics, economics and morals went hand in hand.”

Full story