Mr. Obama always was and remains merely the pen with which at this moment others are charting the serpentine course for "the destruction of the U.S. Constitutional Republic" just as Bush, Clinton, and other real Presidents were only temporary figureheads on a ship of state they did not actually captain, sailing to a destination to which perhaps they were not even privy.
The American people, especially the patriotic ones, simply do not want to hear or believe any bad news about their country.
As to who is in control
The New World Order is a cumulative expression for a vague and very narrow international party (an International) comprised of the most rich and powerful of this world, propagandeized by Richard Cobden and established by Cecil Rhodes in the Great Britain (1800s). Unlike the highest classes in the past, concerned mostly about acquiring even more wealth and power under the then existing social order, this International also contemplates various ideas of changing the world (though not exactly in accordance with Marx). Their world goals spanned from the very "natural" things for their class such as increasing their profits (by exploiting semi-slave labor, unification, and leveling all nations to the lowest standards), to various "progressive" and bizarre causes which undermine the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Western nations, to nurturing regimes antithetical to the Judeo-Christian values. Organizations such as the Round Table Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Conceal of Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Club are their departments, and the UN and EU - their dear creatures. Through them they extend their cadre and influence into governments, education, and near all social institutions.
Robert Bartley (the Wall Street
Journal), a free-trade zealot who championed a five-word amendment to
the Constitution: There shall be
He also said: I think the nation-state is finished.
Speaks Gary Allen:
Everyone knows that
existed. The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the
are universally recognized. Hitler came from a poor family which had
no social position. He was a high school drop-out and nobody ever
of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his
career he sat in a cold garret and poured onto paper his ambitions to
world. We know that.
Similarly, we know that a man named Vladimir Ilich Lenin also existed. Like Hitler, Lenin did not spring from a family of social lions. The son of a petty bureaucrat, Lenin, who spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Like Hitler, Lenin sat up nights in a dank garret scheming how he could conquer the world. We know that too.
Is it not theoretically possible that a billionaire could be sitting, not in a garret, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dream the same dream as Lenin and Hitler? You will have to admit it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man might form an alliance or association with other like-minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would be superbly educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes. These are advantages that Hitler and Lenin did not have.
Only the brightest and clairvoyant individuals could envisage the effects of bizarre "soul searching" of such dreamers born with a silver spoon. For example, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in 1915 testified about the dangers that could arise from individuals and powerful philanthropic organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation with their controlling special-interest influence masked as benevolence:
There develops within the State a state so powerful that the existing ordinary social and industrial forces are insufficient to cope with it. … Their power is inconsistent with our democratic aspirations.
Alas, nobody so far came with ideas what to do about that danger.
main quotes of Professor Carroll Quigley
the author of "Tragedy and Hope", 1966
powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing
to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to
the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central
the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in
private meetings and conferences. (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and
Hope, p. 324.
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known. (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, p. 950. 1964.)
“The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time, p. 95
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. (Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966, pp. 1247-1248 )
former CFR member speaks out (also here)
Johnny Eugine Stewart: F.R.E.E. Founder (by Eric Samuelson)
"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly." (1962)
More very telling quotes (from SFTOBEY)
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, Bilderberger Conference, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1992
US must not stop Syrian resettlement. It would be a threat to ‘global governance’.
former British Foreign Secretary
who came to New York in 2013 to take the reins of the International Rescue Committee
This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan, which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government. National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.
Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter
I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.
Woodrow Wilson, Princeton University, 1914
The purpose of a college education is to question your father's values.
James O. Freedman, Dartmouth College, 2002
Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future.
Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Psychiatrist,
address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973
To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas…
G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health
We ... ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others ... . And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.
States have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them"; "sovereignty is an illusion ... sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.
Peter Sutherland, UN migration chief & chairman at
Goldman Sachs bank,
who wants to use (Muslim) immigration to destroy European countries’ culture
If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States which at present partition the habitable surface of the earth and divide the political allegiance of mankind. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. … I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands…
Address to the 1931 Copenhagen conference;
"International Affairs" , Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (November 1931)
ago back in the 1970s of the former USSR (however long after the Stalin
nightmare) people did not fear their own shadows any more, and some
the grotesque Soviet political system could be already discussed (in
Soviet propaganda machine typically bragged as though the Soviet political system were the most democratic in the world (!) – that is while having only one (Communist) party allowed, and always having only one no contest candidate for each and every elected position at all levels!
Yet authors singing Hosanna about the Soviet freedom and elections did not even realize the idiocy of their claims about such a grotesquely idiotic electoral system!
In that time it came to my mind: Why do not the Soviet leaders agree to maintain several (equally "loyal") candidates for every position, and why do not they permit and maintain also a second party (a kind of a communist too) – in order to offer a fake alternative and an illusion of a choice in an illusion of election?! Then their bragging about democratic elections would be formally valid, yet they would not lose even one iota of their totalitarian control...
Little did I know then, that exactly such a system of fake parties and their cadre of nomenclatura already existed in America, established incrementally in small steps, near unnoticed by anybody, without any preceding decades of Stalin terror and GULAGs... Shame to America! (But the American people, especially the patriotic ones, simply do not want to hear or believe any bad news about their country – Eric Samuelson).
The reality of
the new age
with its enormous production potential is that some individuals are
generate and own a wealth in a matter of tens of billions dollars.
they can also establish international clubs, international parties, and
organizations controlling near the entire wealth of the world. Being in
position, not only can they pursue the usual goal of the rich
accumulate even more wealth, but they can also have and pursue any
kinds of unusual
bizarre agendas in accordance with their bizarre world views.
The most sad and
part of it is that with such enormous financial means they project
onto every nation of their choice implementing the desired changes and
bizarre world views unobstructed, without any resistance.
there are also a few despotic or totalitarian nations capable
redirect huge amounts of their national budgets into any kind of
"projects" undermining other nations. So did the former
Alas, not much
can be done in
free and open nations of the West against such an enormous financial,
corrupting, and lobbing pressure from outside coupled with the
of values and progressive sabotage from inside. A normal method
resistance against such a destructive force in a parliamentary republic
supposed to be opposition parties fighting against this
force, and at least a few congressmen representing and speaking out for
parties in the parliament. To keep speaking out and to keep the goals
fight on the table is the very minimum required for winning the fight
as of now, except the Judeo-Christian America party, we have not one
oppositional party, nor any congressmen speaking out for such a party.
Regretfully, the US Congress functions not much differently than the
Soviet one party "Congress". This dysfunctional mode of operation was
various methods of ignoring or suppression of freedom of speech
items 2-8 of FAQ. Thus, even that limited
resistance against NWO which in theory is available in our Republic, is
disabled by this very NWO and the ill traditions of our political
Therefore, the first thing to do is to abandon the idiotic deficiency of the American political mindset (see FAQ), to establish parties which do speak out, to elect at least one or two congressmen that do speak out for such parties, and to resuscitate the real free speech and real parliementarism. In a real parliementarism no issue can be tabooed or removed from public discussions: on the contrary, all such issues are always on the table and discussed as long as it takes. At the very least! Most of the tabooed topics cannot withstand any honest discussion – and this is exactly the reason why they got tabooed...
The Naked Communist Agenda (1958)
Pope's Bilderberger Guru
Compendium by Fedoseev (Анатолий Павлович Федосеев, 1910-2001),
compiled in 1982 (in Russian) based on the 5 books below:
Gary Allen, "None dare call it conspiracy" (full text)
Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope"
Gary Allen, "The Rockefeller's File"
Gary Allen, "Kissinger"
Robert Eringer, "The Global Manipulators"
Socialism's infiltration into America really began with the Frankfurt School, according to Sasser.
This collection of Marxist intellectuals fled Nazi Germany and settled in New York’s Columbia University in 1935.
This long march through the institutions has been going on a long time; it’s virtually complete.
So here I am being pessimistic, but I think it may be too late. And I'm supposed to be optimistic, but I can't be. I’m a historian, so I look at this and say, "It's too late".