AMNESTY IS TREASON!

A battle has been raging for some time now over millions of aliens who have entered this country illegally. Significantly, most are from south of the Mexican border. Regardless of where they come from, they are criminals who scoff at the laws of the United States. Probably most feel no loyalty to this country. They represent a clear threat to our national security, still, the enemies of America in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House call for amnesty and a path to citizenship for this outlaw class that has recently had the audacity to take to the streets to demand that amnesty.

From what I’ve seen, anti-Amnesty forces base their opposition to amnesty on jobs lost to Americans, driving the earnings of many Americans down by making available cheap labor for corporations, and the swelling of the welfare roles by these illegals. All opponents miss the most important factor of all, probably because they aren’t even aware of it.

Amnesty is Treason!!! A map and plan copyrighted and published in Philadelphia in 1942 showed the world as planned by the global elite. It was received by the Library of Congress in February of ’42 and entered its map collection in March. The detail and intricacies suggest that it was compiled or at least well underway before the Pearl Harbor attack.

The map and plan can be found here:
https://lostliberty1.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/new-world-order-death-of-america/
Double-click to enlarge.

What should be of particular interest to Americans, in fact, to all the peoples of the world, are the S.S.R.’s shown on the map. We were told Eastern Europe was ceded to the Soviets at Yalta by a “sick” Roosevelt. As shown here, it was already planned well in advance, not in Moscow, but in Philadelphia. Not all of the SSR’s were accomplished, but too many were and were held in bondage until needed to make the European Union a viable regional superstate.

Of even more significance to Americans is the “United States of America” as shown on the map. It encompasses all of North and Central America.  NAFTA and CAFTA were probably the first visible moves in that direction just as the Common Market was the first step toward the European Union. The next step was the meeting of the heads of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico (Bush, Martin, and Fox) to form a North American Union. Heavy exposure and opposition generated on the Internet forced them underground, but you can bet the plan is still in progress beneath the surface. You’ll find an excellent expose’ on the NAU from a Canadian political party copied and pasted here.

http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2010/07/north-american-union.html

This is where treason enters the picture. The hoards of illegals from south of the border will create a fifth column that will ease the merger of the U.S. with Mexico and, eventually, Central America.

The issue is not the loss of jobs, nor cheap labor for corporations, nor the draining of welfare funds to support the illegals. The issue is the loss of our national sovereignty and what is left of the tattered remains of our Constitution. Those bringing this about would, in saner times, be considered traitors. They should be now.  AMNESTY IS TREASON!!!

 

 

 

Advertisements

ALPHA & OMEGA and the Left vs. Right Myth

In the mid-sixties, a man I played ball with told me, “If you’re a conservative, you’ll love Bill Buckley.” He suggested I watch him on the Firing Line on Sunday. I did.

For forty-five minutes Buckley tore a “liberal” professor to shreds. Young people in the audience who’d obviously come to see the opposite results sank deeper and deeper into their seats as their golden idol was reduced to stone, then clay, and finally crumbled into dust.

Then, inexplicably, Buckley began to act like an obnoxious ass. By the time he was done, it was obvious to the young people that everything they’d heard about “conservatives” being elitists was true. The idol was back on his pedestal.

I thought, “Damn, Bill, you had ’em then lost them. Well, you’ll get them next week.

The next week was a repeat of the first. Again my thought was, “Geez, you did it again, but you’ll get them next time for sure.”

Not to be. This time I thought, “Damn you, Buckley, you rotten bastard! You’re no conservative. You’re there to destroy the conservative argument. Now whenever someone tries to persuade one of these kids with a conservative argument he’ll hear, “Oh, you sound just like Bill Buckley.”

That introduction to what I later learned was one side of applied Hegelian Dialectic was the beginning of my education in the mock left vs. right battle.

Advanced studies came with the John Birch Society. A draftsman I worked with gave me a copy of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. He was very apologetic that I might find some of it “way out.” I didn’t. It was the first thing I’d read that made sense of what I saw going on. I told him that when I gave the book back, but he was so conditioned to being attacked for conspiracy theory, that he was still apologizing. I joined the society.

It didn’t take long for the next phase of my education to be completed. While the Birch Society provided excellent information, it seemed to do everything it could to keep its members from disseminating that information too widely. Birchers, when asked to join other groups, tended to emphasize work they had to do for the “Society.” I began to view the Birch Society as Orwell’s Resistance. It was ferreting out those susceptible to the truth and keeping them chasing their own tails.

In the meantime, I’d gotten active with the Constitutional Party of Pennsylvania and somehow found myself on the County Executive Committee. It was nominally conservative, but included one or more each of former Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. There was also one fellow I would have classed as a “liberal” who was not happy with the growth of government.

Two things happened while on that committee that furthered my education about the liberal vs. conservative dog and pony show. At one meeting, Bill Buckley’s new membership in the CFR was brought up. Everyone got a laugh out of his comment that he’d joined to “spy on the enemy.” Anyone who knows the CFR knows membership is by invitation only and they don’t invite spies. [Buckley later joined the even more elite Trilateral Commission. I didn’t know this at the time, but he’d been a member of Skull & Bones since his college days.]

The other thing that happened was the election of Ronald Reagan. His “budget cuts” received much media publicity to cement his “conservative” image. This, too, got a laugh at our meeting because a couple of members of our committee had kept their ties to friends in the Republican Party. They told us that those “budget cuts” were just cuts in proposed increases and, in the end, Reagan gave us the highest budget to that time.

Then came my post graduate studies. Back to at least the early 70’s, there were two organizations in Philadelphia that were major parts of the left/right scheme. One was called the Alpha Group and the other the Omega Group. One of our people, by virtue of his chairing of what might have been considered a “conservative” organization, was invited to a meeting of the Omega Group. As a result of his efforts, we learned that both groups existed in every major city in the U.S. Chairmen had assigned cities that they would travel to for the meetings.

The groups were identical in structure and operation. All of the paid activists and coordinators of “left-wing” groups reported their group’s activities monthly to the Alpha chairman. Their “right-wing” counterparts reported their activities to the Omega. I later questioned a friend, a Birch coordinator, about the Omega. He was very evasive and acted surprised that I even knew of it. I made a mental note to choose my friends more carefully in the future.

The point is this. The words Alpha and Omega have biblical connotations, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” the beginning and the end. We didn’t believe, and I still don’t, that the choice of names was accidental. It was the “top center” boasting to its initiates that it controlled both the “left-wing” and the “right-wing” and probably almost everything in between.

I don’t know if those organizations still exist, but I suspect they do. I do know that publicly the left-right scam is maintained through a new crop of media trolls who keep good people of the left and right busy flaming each other.  This prevents serious discussions that might lead to the realization by both “sides” that they’ve been had.

Before posting this, I was looking through some of my files for an article on how “conservative” and “liberal” congressmen flip-flop as needed to get legislation harmful to our nation and people passed, I stumbled across this excerpt from Antony Sutton’s “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones” from Prison Planet: http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_sutton.html. When I came across this in my files, I was concerned that the date shown was after Sutton’s death. Then I realized it was the date it was published by PrisonPlanet. I thought it was appropriate to repost it here. Sutton certainly makes the farce of left vs. right clearer than I ever could.

Antony Sutton on “Left” versus “Right” and the Hegelian dialectic in American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither “left” nor “right.” “Left” and “right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of “left” and “right” presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State…

So who or what is the State? Obviously it’s a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means, a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group [Millner / Rhodes Round Table] and The Order, is rooted in Hegel.

…Most of us believe the State exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members – they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential.

The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is the notion that conflict creates history.

From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. for example: When the Trilateral Commission discusses “managed conflict”, as it does extensively in its literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends – not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.

The dialectic takes this Trilateral “managed conflict” process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again. Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.

For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as “the march of God on earth.” Indeed, a state religion.

We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions — Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on — all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of “right” and “left.” They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the “reductionist” division in science, the opposite of historical “wholeness.” By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge.

This manipulation of “left” and “right” on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where “left” and “right” political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps. For example, after World War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.

Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler’s Germany or the soviet Union or Communist China. No western foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western academics can “survive” by researching such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such arguments.

[My comment: It should be noted that, no matter which direction the antithesis is skewed, to the left or to the right, the main direction vector of the new theses will always point to the precipice from which we will fall into the One World Cesspool.]

MERRY CHRISTMAS

No!  It isn’t Christmas, but this is another blog post with a picture so I want to get it out of Blogspot so people who click won’t alert a spy site.

First posted on blogspot on Friday 23 December, 2011.

 Merry Christmas

Yesterday I finished my Christmas shopping. It was almost impossible to find much with made in America labels. For that matter, it was almost impossible to find anything made in any of the countries euphemistically called the “free world.” Almost everything had a made in China label. The closest I could come to finding something not made with slave labor was a couple of items that said “Assembled in the USA from parts made in China.”
Years ago, when Chinese goods started flooding our markets, I conducted a one man boycott, but too few joined me. Once, when I’d accidently bought something made in China, I was extremely upset. [See: http://americasenemies.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/i-had-a-dream/ ]
I realize now that there is no longer much choice. It’s no longer a case of sacrificing principles to save a buck. The federal policy that nobody and nothing should work in America is pretty much in place.
Still, there is one thing I just can’t understand. How can people who call themselves “Christians” buy Nativity Scenes and other religious symbols made in a country whose regime has traditionally suppressed all religions.  They don’t belong in our Christmas celebrations.
We should all think of the sacrifice of Jesus to bring us this Holy Day. We should think of the sacrifices of the Chinese people laboring in sweat shops for very low wages to bring us our Christmas presents and decorations. We should think of the unemployed Americans scrimping to save enough money for a package of Turkey Dogs for Christmas dinner. Then we should just forget it all and have a

Merry Christmas


NEW VOICE

First posted on Blogspot 12/10/08

NEW VOICE

On December 8, 2008, the voices of those warning of the creation of a dictatorial world government were joined by the voice of the widely read and highly respected Financial Times, British counterpart of the Wall Street Journal.

But the Times does not warn. It greets the prospect with joyful anticipation. Little wonder! Martin H. Wolf – Associate Editor and Economics Commentator for the Times is a Trilateral Commission member and an attendee from Great Britain at the 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles, Paris, France.

In his times article, “And now for a world government,” Gideon Rachman says he never before believed there was a “plot to take over the US,” but he now believes world government is possible.

This according to Rachman, “would involve much more than co-operation between nations.” He says that the European Union, “a continental government for 27 countries” with a supreme court, a common currency, reams of law, a large bureaucracy, and military power, could be a model.

The author cites three reasons why he thinks the EU model could be used for a world government.

The first reason is the “international” nature of problems facing national governments. These include: global warming, global financial crisis, and the “war on terror.”

The second, says Gideon, is the transportation and communications advancements that “have shrunk the world.” Apparently it is no longer over 25,000 miles in circumference at the Equator. Regardless, I don’t see how that pertains specifically to the European Union “model.” Never-the-less, that’s what he says.

The third Rachman says, most important to those who expect “change” for the better with Obama, is “a change in the political atmosphere” that could speed the coming of “global governance.”

Rachman rehashes global warming and the financial crisis, but then adds that president elect Obama “does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties.” I’ll admit I’m a little confused about the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements. If it has such disdain, why has Bush been involved in negotiations for a North American Union? Anyway, Mr. Rachman quotes Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” Like the European Union, it doesn’t seem to matter if the government must surrender part or all of national sovereignty over, under, or around the people if they can’t do it through them.

Further proof of the importance of the UN to Obama, according to the author, is his appointment of Susan Rice [Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations member] as ambassador to the UN at cabinet level.

In addition, Obama and his team are apparently being influenced by a Managing Global Insecurity project report. Project advisors include John Podesta the co-chair of Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and member of the Trilateral Commission.

Rachman says, “The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.” I’ll have to take his word for it because every attempt I made to download a PDF copy hung my computer.

Rachman continues, “These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland.” Let’s be thankful they still have those rifles and hope they have a good place to hide them when the FedStapo comes to collect them. I suppose if the peoples of Europe don’t have rifles, they will reach for their balls and chains, pick them up, and move in the direction their EU Masters tell them.

I like the way Rachman refers to the “soothing language” used by the MGI report, such as “responsible sovereignty.” Responsible sovereignty to MGI means a nation’s leaders must consider the welfare of the people of other nations as well as their own. I interpret that as put others first if need be. If I’m right in my assessment, then “responsible sovereignty” is certainly more “soothing language” than treason.

A telling part of the article is a quote of Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, he believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”. I’ve said this for a long time. International finance and the multi-national megacorporations want power to lie at the level of their economic interests so all can be manipulated to protect and further those interests. The interests of the peoples of the world be damned.

Despite apparent “progress” toward world government, Rachman laments that achievement of “global governance” “will be a painful, slow process.” He cites as a bad reason for this the national and political leaders’ “lack of will and determination.” They are, he opines, “more focused on their next election.”

Incomprehensibly to me, he says this “hints at a more welcome reason” for slow “progress” toward “global governance.” This sounds as if he wants slow “progress.” Regardless, while he calls the EU the “heartland of law-based international government” he admits the idea is unpopular. When the EU has attempted to implement its plans through referendum, he says the voters have handed it a “series of humiliating defeats.”

But progress has been fastest, according to Rachman, when “far-reaching deals” have been “pushed through” without reference to the citizens (subjects?). He notes a tendency of “international governance” to be effective only when anti-democratic. Could it be that conditioning the people to obey the dictates of the EU power elite in this way is why it is welcome in Rachman’s eyes? It seems clear to me that the author’s idea of “law-based” government is dictatorship. Heaven forbid that “leaders” be more concerned about the will of the people than about the will of international finance.

Rachman concludes that “the world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.”

I don’t know if Rachman is aware that it’s too late to hide the plan from the people. It was already published along with a map showing the plans that were current when compiled and published in 1941-42.

Cracking the problem of the people “stubbornly” identifying themselves with their country, their heritage, and their customs and beliefs; cracking the problem of the peoples’ unwillingness to surrender what liberty and individuality they have left to be worker bugs in the great world corporate anthill, may not be as difficult as Rachman thinks. After all, the New World Order will have its 50,000 man “peacekeeping” force.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

WORLD ORDER THROUGH OVER A CENTURY

World Order Through Over A Century

There may be some who think George H. W. Bush was the first to talk of a New World Order. It’s understandable why. The media stumbled all over itself to diffuse what appeared to be a bomb. But those media people must have been the most uninformed ever to carry a press card because the word had been out for a long time. Here are quotes related to a “world order” or a “new world order,” capitalized and not capitalized, from as far back as the late 19th Century.

“It [a League] will mean, however, a certain limitation upon their [large and powerful states] freedom of action; they must renounce any claim to overcome the weaker by their superior strength, and they must forego the right in any dispute to resort straightway to force; they must be prepared to use their power in behalf of the established law though their own rights be not immediately endangered. Secret treaties and alliances must be forbidden, and disarmament be brought about.” –from Woodrow Wilson’s, “The State”, 1898, Special Edition revised by Edward Elliott, D. C. Heath & Co., 1918.

“The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day’s sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow.” — Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

“The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world.” — M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

“If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands.” — Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book “International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World” (1931)

“This World Youth movement claims to represent and affect the politico-social activities of a grand total of forty million adherents – under the age of thirty…It may play an important and increasing role in the consolidation of a new world order.” — H.G. Wells The Fate of Man 1939

“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” — from “The New World Order”, H. G. Wells, (1939)

The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a ‘League of Nations’ or a ‘Federated Union’ to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the ‘New International Order,’ ‘The New World Order,’ ‘World Union Now,’ ‘World Commonwealth of Nations,’ ‘World Community,’ etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual.” — excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

“In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of ‘justice and peace.'” — excerpt from article entitled “New World Order Pledged to Jews,” in the New York Times (October 1940)

“If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order.” — The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

“…until The Union shall gradually become the government of all mankind and armament be reduced to a world police force.” — from “Union Now with Britain, Rhodes Scholar Clarence Streit, Harper and Brothers, 1941

“Twenty years ago the majority of us began to wreck the new world order for which all of us had fought.” — from Streit.

And we were told the WW’s were fought “to make the world safe for democracy”.

“The very nature of my Trade Union work has compelled the study of international affairs and has caused me to examine the obstacles which were preventing humanity from coming together and establishing a world order.” — from “The Balance Sheet of the Future”, The “Rt. Hon.” [quotes mine] Ernest Bevens, Minister of Labor and National Service, Member of the British War Cabinet, Robert M. McBride & Co., 1941.

“At the end of the last war we struggled to establish a World Order…” — from Bevens.

“…one of the striking things in the “Atlantic Charter deals with raw materials, and I think that what applies to raw materials will apply largely to certain primary foods like wheat. There must be an acceptance that raw materials must no longer be the prerogative of scramble and speculation. There must be organization and control.” — from Bevens

Did you get that? If the Anglo-American led New World Order wins, they will control not only raw materials but the primary food supply as well. Kiss liberty goodbye!!!

“It is on that that our liberties really depend at the last resort, and by which the future Government of the world will be determined.” — from Bevens.

“On that day, after triumph over the forces of aggression, free men and women can set to work to build a new world order, whose foundation shall be social security and liberty.” — from Bevens”

…the next stage in human development must be directed toward world order. Anything [or anybody?] which stands in the way of achieving the consummation of that desirable end to which humanity is striving must be subordinated to the greater purpose.” — from Bevens”

That we use the whole of our democratic strength to contribute to progress and the establishment of a world order.” — from Bevens.

“New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor” — title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

“Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis.” — from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)

“The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God.” — American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in the New York Times (December 1942)

“To win this peace three things seem to me necessary–first, we must plan now for peace on a world basis; second, the world must be free, politically and economically, for nations and for men, that peace may exist in it; third, America must play an active, constructive part in freeing it and keeping its peace.”– from “One World”, Wendell L. Willkie, Simon & Schuster, 1943.

“There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper.” — Norman Thomas, in his book “What Is Our Destiny” (1944)

“He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order.” — excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in the Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.”– Adolph Hitler during World War II

“World law should be enforceable directly upon individuals.” — a part of the 1948 platform of the World Federalists contained in Appendix A of The World Must Be Governed, Vernon Nash, Harper, 1949. Cited in “Power and International Relations”, Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

“We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is, whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” James P. Warburg before the U.S. Senate (Feb. 17, 1950) quoted in “Conquest or Consent” by Wickliffe B. Vennard, Sr., Forum Publications, 1965.

“If there is a violation [in world order or disarmament], the control organ must have power to move to meet it: and must be empowered to move against individuals, not to wage war against states.” from “The Price of Peace: A Plan for Disarmament”, Charles Bolte’, Beacon, 1956. Cited in Claude.

“All law in a disarmed society must be applicable to, and enforced upon, individuals.” from “The League of Nations: Another Rope of Sand”, Vernon Nash, Current History, August 1960. Cited in Claude.

We didn’t attack Afghanistan, we attacked Osama Bin Laden. We haven’t been waging war against Iraq! We’ve been waging war against Saddam and other “individuals” to “liberate” the Iraqi people.

“To destroy arms, however, is not enough. We must create even as we destroy – creating world-wide law and law enforcement as we outlaw world-wide war and weapons.” John F. Kennedy Future of the United Nations Organizations 1961

Grenville Clark and Louis B. Clark: “…an effective system of enforceable world law in the limited field of war prevention.” — from “World Peace Through World Law”, 2nd ed., Harvard U. Press, 1960. Cited in Chapter 6: “World Government: Monopoly of Power” of “Power and International Relations”, Inis L. Claude, Jr., Random House, 1962

“A major theme in the theory of world government is the subjection of the individual to the disciplinary authority and power of a central regime, in so far as this may be essential to the preservation of world order……the distinctiveness of the world government solution is assumed to lie in its prescription for abandoning the effort to impose order upon states in favor of the effort to regulate individual behavior.” from “Power and International Relations”, Claude, 1962.

Norman Cousins: “…the answer must lie in the establishment of an authority which takes away from nations, summarily and completely, not only the machinery of battle that can wage war, but the machinery of decision that can start a war.” from “In Place of Folly”, Harper, 1961. Cited in Claude, 1962.

“‘The United Nations’, he told an audience at Harvard University, ‘has not been able–nor can it be able–to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand. … The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems’, he said, ‘urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'” — Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled “Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order” — New York Times (February 1962).

Two things to note here. One is that the UN is to be superseded by a US led organization and the second is the Orwellian double-think idea of making the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty meaningful by eliminating national sovereignty.

“The prediction for Latin America, then, is that it will forge ahead to prosperity and copartnership with Europe and Anglo-America under an effective superstate, or will, in its various parts, remain economically and politically dependent on outside countries–North American, West European, or Russian, with the Chinese possibly taking a hand. The most probable outcome is that it will, following the lead of Europe, gradually form a superstate and become an advanced member of the Atlantic Community.” — from “The Coming World Transformation”, Ferdinand Lundberg, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963.

“Instead of world rule by the Comintern, what is much more likely prospect is eventual rule of most of the world by a federation of the continental superstates outlined–United Europe, the United States (eventually including Canada), United Latin America, United Central Africa, United North Africa, and a United Far East.”– Lundberg.

The United States as outlined on the New World Moral Order map included Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central America. NAFTA is the first step as the Common Market was the first toward the “United States of Europe” [The EU] shown on the map.

“For the central purpose of the international community to flourish with vitality and appeal equal to that of basic national purposes, peoples must be convinced that their individual and collective interests, presently cared for by the state, can better be served by the larger world community, and they must be capable of sublimating their loyalty to the global dominium.” — from “International Integration: Purpose, Progress, and Prospects,” by Elmer Plischke in “Systems of Integrating the International Community,” Ed. by Elmer Plischke, D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964.

“Only within the past half century have governments been willing to take the major step of establishing a global, general international confederation possessing broad powers of peacekeeping and empowered to deal with political as well as social, economic, humanitarian, and juridical matters.” — from Plischke

“In recent years, as noted, many new global and regional confederations, multipartite diplomatic forums, supranational communities, and intergovernmental councils, commissions, and agencies have been created–each intended to afford some aspect of interstate institutionalization.” — from Plischke

“…The United Nations Disarmament Committee, which had been dormant for several years, suddenly came to life when the Soviet Union evinced an unexpected interest in a proposal for a treaty to prohibit the “dissemination” of nuclear weapons by any nuclear power to any non-nuclear power….Many Americans and Britons saw the anti-dissemination treaty as an important new step toward world peace and joined the opposition to an Atlantic nuclear force, on the ground that it was the only remaining obstacle to agreement with the Soviet Union.” — from “The Atlantic Idea and Its European Rivals, Harold van B. Cleveland, published for the Council on Foreign Relations by McGraw-Hill, 1966.

“The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order.” — Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

“He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building ‘a new world order.'” — excerpt from an article in the New York Times (February 1972)

“If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis … In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” — Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

Wow!!! An “end run around national sovereignty!!!” Might that be anything like a “coalition?” Perhaps international treaties resulting from engineered scares such as “man made” global warming?

“The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.” — Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled “Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions,” in the book “On the Creation of a Just World Order” (1975)

“My country’s history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order.” — Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October (1975)

“At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt’s time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order.” — part of article in the New York Times (November 1975)

“Our nation is uniquely endowed to play a creative and decisive role in the new order which is taking form around us.” Henry Kissinger Seattle Post Intelligence (1975)

“Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.” The Declaration of Interdependence (1976)

“A New World Order” — title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

“We must establish a new world order based on justice, on equity, and on peace.” Fidel Castro United Nations (1979)

“For American programmes to make sense at home, they must also make sense in global terms. Opinion polls cannot convey the unarticulated growth in awareness and maturation of the American people, who are all too often alienated from the cruder methods of bribery and flattery employed by the brokers of opinion, engineers of social change and vociferous contestants for political power.” — from “Novus Ordo Seclorum:America and the Global Community Towards the Year 2000”, Indian Rhodes Scholar Raghavan Iyer, Concord Grove Press, (1983).

“The globalization of America needs to be begun.” from Iyer.

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” Mikhail Gorbachev (1987)

“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.” President George Bush Texas A&M University (1989)

“We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt’s and Winston Churchill’s vision for peace for the post-war period.” — Richard Gephardt, in the Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” President George Bush (1991)

“For two centuries we’ve done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea – a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future.” President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.” President George Bush State of the Union Address (1991)

“If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we’ve all worked toward for so long.” — President George Bush (January 1991). Reference to Saddam’s refusal to obey the New World Order.

“But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush’s mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council.” — excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in the New York Times (January 1991)

“I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: … At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a ‘new world order’ based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court.” — George McGovern, in the New York Times (February 1991)

“… it’s Bush’s baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler ‘new order’ root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier.” — William Safire, in the New York Times (February 1991)

“Our efforts to create a sustainable world society and economy demands that we diminish the profligate lifestyles in the industrialized countries through a slow down in consumption–which may, in any case be forced on us by environmental contraints.” — from “The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome”, Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, Pantheon Books, (1991).

“We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms.” — Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in the Washington Post (May 1991)

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany (1991)

“The task of saving the earth’s environment must and will become the central organizing principle of the post-Cold War world.” Senator Al Gore Putting People First (1992) Is that the motivation for Gore’s film? Erode national sovereignty piecemeal to “organize” the world?

“How I Learned to Love the New World Order” — article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in the Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

“How to Achieve The New World Order” — title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth – in Morocco – to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.” — part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in the New York Times (April 1994)

“New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State” — title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in the Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

The “new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all.” — Nelson Mandela, in the Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important “for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order.” — President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in the New York Times (April 1995)

“Alchemy for a New World Order” — article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

“We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money.” — Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

At the White House, Mr. Bush said the United States will help other nations deal with terrorists. “If governments need training or resources to meet this commitment, America will help.”He also said September 11 is creating a new world order in which former foes become U.S. allies.–The Washington Times (March 12, 2002)

“Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships,” Pope Benedict, Vatican City (Dec 25, 2005)

Life giving power of whose light? God’s? Jesus’? Lucifer’s?

These quotations, and many others like them, demonstrate clearly that the concept of a world order and the words “new world order” have been in use for decades and did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The “old world order” is one based on independent nation-states. The “new world order” involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Many of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a World Court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the “new world order” differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.