[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Kissinger in 2008: There will be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President In Jason Bermas’ film “Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined”, the concept of one world government has been definitively elaborated upon, its long-term objectives explained in detail. One of the chief proponents of the destruction of national sovereignty appearing in the documentary, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been heard on countless occasions quite openly calling for the emergence of the New World Order. Of course a child knows that in order to bring about a new structure, one has to first tear down the old one. At the 2008 Montreal Conference of the Americas, sponsored by UNESCO and other transnational leviathans, Kissinger not only reaffirmed the mantra held sacred by the global elite, namely that national sovereignty is a thing of the past and all efforts should now be concentrated on ceding it on the altar of globalism. Moreover, he admitted to the fact that there is a like-minded cabal pushing the destruction of nation-states worldwide. It is unnecessary to mention, that the same objective was cherished by every tyrant over the last thousand year or longer. Kissinger’s speech (speech accessible through link provided) “The Americas and the World” sums up quite clearly the prime goal that all transnational bodies of power are working towards. “We were taught about international affairs in terms of national states. That was the international system that emerged in Europe at the end of the 30-years war when it was decided that a concept of sovereignty should be the dominating element of international politics.” “Sovereignty”, Kissinger went on to explain, “meant that each state was free to do within its borders substantially what it decide to do… and that international affairs was the relation of states with each other along clearly defined national borders.” He proceeded to exclaim that this system has come to an end- not in the last place by the interventions, I must add, of Kissinger himself. “That system is now changing fundamentally. In Europe the national state which brought about the greatness of the various European countries, is in the process of being abandoned. And European countries freely are ceding their… much of their sovereignty, and will do more, to the European Union. Now this is one of the creative acts of the current period..” Here he arrives at the current struggle between the globalists and the ones valuing national sovereignty. “The European Union has not yet been able to generate the commitment in the political world and psychological world that the European state could create. So in a way policy-making in Europe is caught between a path which is being rejected and a future which is not yet reached.” “I will tell you”, he concluded in his speech, “that however our elections ends (…), a number of us in both parties have concluded that when it’s over, we are going to make an effort to bring about a bipartisan outcome, or direction of foreign policy. We may disagree on practical things, but we want to get the debate back to a consensus about our purposes and the debate about tactics- which is the way democracies function. (…). When the smoke clears, the issues that I described will still be there. (…) I think those who have seen this now for a few decades will make an effort to come together to give it a direction which unifies our people and hopefully as many of the rest of the world as we can convince to come with us.” No mistake here. The “issues” Kissinger talks about, are those concerning national sovereignty as an outdated system, replacing it with an international system without borders. A one world government. Let me repeat his last comment: “… however our elections ends (…), a number of us in both parties have concluded that when it’s over, we are going to make an effort to bring about a bipartisan outcome, or direction of foreign policy.” So, Kissinger admits that, regardless of the outcome of the presidential elections of ‘08, “those” who in both parties have “seen” that the destruction of sovereignty is both inevitable and desirable, will make an effort to come together to move further in the direction of a brave new world without borders. Ron Paul therefore was absolutely spot on when he stated at the November 2008 debate in Florida: “It’s not so much a secretive conspiracy. It’s a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our constitution- or are we going to further move in the direction of international government, more UN. You know, this country goes to war under UN resolutions. I don’t like big government in Washington, so I don’t like this trend toward international government.(….) It’s not so much as a sinister conspiracy, it’s just: knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you’ll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||