Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?  One obvious focus is ‘globalism’, but maybe the ‘good guys’ are fighting back?

Scan down to read the latest articles.  Links to more articles are at the end of this post.

Putin: New World Order Worships Satan 

Putin, New World Order Worships Satan  By Jonas E. Alexis, 14 November 2019

“It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God…. Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites…”

During the Cold War, it was meticulously and rightly argued by scholars of various stripes that the Soviet Union created what was known as “godless communists.”[1] These “godless communists” built their ideology on Marxism/Leninism, an essentially diabolical system which sought to eradicate religion during that era.[2]

These “godless communists” failed miserably largely because you cannot fight Logos and win. Moreover, the fact that Russia has thrived over the years is a clear indication that Alexander Solzhenitsyn was right all along. Back in 2013, Vladimir Putin changed the political calculus by saying that much of the West was committing political suicide. How?

Ideologues, said Putin, were surreptitiously declaring that “faith in God is equal to faith in Satan.” For many, that was an interesting move by Putin. As Patrick Buchanan put it then, “In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.”[3] Putin said:

“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”[4]

The Washington Times reported then:

“In his state of the nation address, Mr. Putin also portrayed Russia as a staunch defender of ‘traditional values’ against what he depicted as the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB officer insisted, is the only way to prevent the world from slipping into ‘chaotic darkness.’

“As part of this defense of ‘Christian values,’ Russia has adopted a law banning “homosexual propaganda” and another that makes it a criminal offense to ‘insult’ the religious sensibilities of believers…

“Although Mr. Putin has never made a secret of what he says is his deep Christian faith, his first decade in power was largely free of overtly religious rhetoric. Little or no attempt was made to impose a set of values on Russians or lecture to the West on morals.”[5]

Certainly Putin put the moral equation back on the table. Kevin Barrett declared that Putin was trying to “put the fear of God in the New World Order.” Barrett moved on to make the forceful argument that much of the Zionist establishment in the West is afraid of Putin because the establishment leaves in fear. “Russian President Putin is resisting,” said Barrett. “That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him names.” Barrett continued to argue cogently:

“It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God…. Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists.

“Anyone who doubts this should run the name ‘Lt. Col. Michael Aquino’ through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military…

“The shock troops of the NWO’s war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains:

“‘Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.’

“Putin is stopping New World Order ‘creative destruction’ in Syria and Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just religious traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America.”

Kudos for Barrett here. The regime proved Putin right by applauding the Pussy Riot,[6] a Trotskyite group that ended up having sex (literal pornography) at the Moscow National Museum. (We have discussed this issue in the past.) The interesting thing about all this was that Neocons like Seth Mandel of Commentary were on the front line defending the Pussy Riot.[7]

But the crucial point here is that Putin, like Emmanuel Kant and even John Adams and others, understands that a nation cannot exist without objective morality, and objective morality cannot exist without Logos,[8] the essence and sustainer of the moral universe.

In that sense, and whether he notices it or not, Putin was implicitly or indirectly attacking the Neo-Darwinian ideology, which states that objective morality is an illusion and has no metaphysical basis. It is here that we find again that Neo-Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually useless and worthless because it denies the very essence of a moral universe.

As we have noted in the past, serious Darwinists agree that objective morality is an illusion. The noted biology philosopher Michael Ruse once again said that “there are no grounds whatsoever for being good…. Morality is flimflam.”[9] Yet like his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin, Ruse ends up contradicting himself in the very next sentence by saying,

“Does this mean that you can just go out and rape and pillage, behave like an ancient Roman grabbing Sabine women? Not at all. I said that there are no grounds for being good. It doesn’t follow that you should be bad.”[10]

Well, duh! If there are no grounds for objective morality, then good and bad are also illusion. And if good and bad are just illusion, then Nietzsche’s transvaluation of all values is the next logical step. What is good for you may not be good for me, and there is no way of adjudicating competing explanations. In that kind of world, might makes right. Ruse does not really have a problem with this argument here. In fact, he moves on to say that morality

“is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this. If all future food were Pablum, we would probably be better off without teeth.

“Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down.

“Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: ‘Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.’ The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer

“So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective.”[11]

Ruse, like some genetic theorists, really believes that “morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator…”[12]

This, by the way, is logically congruent with Darwin’s survival of the fittest. (I am currently writing a critique of Kevin MacDonald’s recent book for Culture Wars magazine, and these issues will be thoroughly and methodically examined.) And survival of the fittest is logically congruent with Zionism. If evolutionary theory “explains how warfare contributed to fitness in the course of the evolution of Homo sapiens,” as scholar Bradley A. Thayer maintains,[13] then how can a serious Darwinist say that Social Darwinism or even Zionism is really bad on a consistent and logical basis?

Thayer, of course, struggles mightily to rationally defend the thesis that “Warfare contributes to fitness”[14] and that “people wage war to gain and defend resources”[15] while maintaining that social Darwinists were wrong in taking social Darwinism to its logical conclusion. He says that “social Darwinists perverted Charles Darwin’s argument” and

“distorted evolutionary explanations because they misunderstood Darwin’s ideas and were ignorant of or consciously chose to ignore the naturalistic fallacy. Those who use evolutionary theory to explain aspects of human behavior must recall the social Darwinists’ errors. Doing so makes it possible not only to avoid repeating errors but also to advance scientific understanding.”[16]

But Thayer moves on to make this argument:

“The ultimate causation for warfare is anchored in Darwinian natural selection and inclusive fitness….warfare can increase both the absolute and relative fitness of humans…From the classical Darwinian perspective, warfare contributes to fitness because individuals who wage war successfully are better able to survive and reproduce.”[17]

Thayer repeats this thesis over and over in the course of the book:

“An ultimate causal explanation for warfare based in evolutionary theory begins with the recognition that warfare contributes to fitness in certain circumstances because successful warfare lets the winner acquire resources.

“For evolutionary biology, a resource is any material substance that has the potential to increase the individual’s ability to survive or reproduce. As such it may be food, shelter, or territory, especially high-quality soil or wild foods; abundant firewood; or territory free of dangerous animals, such as lions, or insect infestations, or disease; and also status coalition allies, and members of the opposite sex.”[18]

And then this: “Warfare might be necessary then for offensive purposes, to plunder resources from others. In these circumstances, an individual becomes fitter if he can successfully attack to take the resources of others.”[19]

Thayer cites evolutionary theorist William Durham saying that

“War is one means by which individuals ‘may improve the material conditions of their lives and thereby increase their ability to survive and reproduce…Thus successful warfare would help the tribe gain resources, and for a widen agricultural economy land is critically important.”[20]

So, is Thayer really against social Darwinism? Ideologically, yes. Consistently and logically? No. I honestly don’t blame him, for his intellectual grandfather could not solve that problem either and had to live in contradiction until his dying day. Darwin declared at the end of his Origin of Species:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”[21]

Correct me if I am wrong here: isn’t Darwin saying that war and famine and death are things that will get the higher animals ahead? It is agreed among scholars that this is Darwin at his best. Yet when social Darwinists took Darwin’s thesis and spread it across the political spectrum, Darwin disagreed![22]

If “Jewish intellectual and political movements” are in the struggle for survival, then the Goyim must swiftly be eliminated. That is certainly consistent with Darwin’s grand scheme. If people cannot see this and try to avoid this vital contradiction, then you can be sure that they are not to be taken seriously or they do not want to follow their own ideological project to its bitter end.

So, when people are trying to maintain an objective morality by either appealing to the so-called “evolutionary theory” or even DNA, then you can be sure that those people either are out of touch with the scholarly literature, are not well equipped to understand or articulate their own position, or are just deliberately lying.

Furthermore, to appeal to reciprocal altruism to prove objective morality, a central protocol in Darwin’s grand scheme,[23] is also a dead end because the life of Mother Theresa and countless other examples prove that this idea will not work. I was hoping that modern Darwinists would make some good improvement on this warfare theory, but so far virtually everyone has failed.

I am certainly not asking people to drop their cherished belief. In fact, there are many people who believe in the tooth fairy. But so long that this Neo-Darwinian ideology remains intellectually incoherent and morally indefensible, they can leave me out of it.

Going back to Putin, he said in 2013:

“People in many European countries are ashamed, and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday.”[24]

The Zionist regime, of course, made the false accusation that Putin was persecuting homosexuals. But Putin moved on to diffuse the regime’s silly argument this way: “We need to respect the rights of minorities to be different, but the rights of the majority should not be in question.”[25]

So, yes, Patrick Buchanan. Putin is one of us! Any serious politician who stands against the diabolical establishment is one of us. As Friedrich Hansen of Asia Times put it,

“Make no mistake, Putin is not targeting homosexuals, as he made clear with his welcoming them to the Sotchi Olympics. It also seems only fair to remind Western readers that ever since the 1980s, Sotchi has been the center of Russia with a vibrant homosexual subculture. Rather, Putin is addressing the whole gamut of post-modern incarnations of the ‘sex and drugs’ revolution: binge drinking of both genders until the doctors move in, elite illicit drug use, unmanageable crime rates, surging divorce numbers, Hook-Up sex on campus, out of wedlock births, fathers and mothers in puberty, abortion on demand, public nudism and human copulation in parks, gay promiscuity with a good conscience, swinger clubs and darkrooms, ruthless Internet dating and pornography and what have you.”[26]

How does the regime respond? Well, you know the drill. Owen Matthews, a useful idiot, declared in the Spectator that Putin has a “new plan for world domination”![27] In order to slander Putin, Matthews indirectly linked him with Willi Munzenberg, a revolutionary Jew who wanted to take the Western world to perdition at any cost. Munzenberg was so passionate about his revolutionary goal that he wrote:

“We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western Civilization stink! Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

When Putin said that Russia will “defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years,” Matthews declared that Putin “is on to something.” What is it? Matthews told us:

“Putin’s new mission goes deeper than political opportunism. Like the old Communist International, or Comintern, in its day, Moscow is again building an international ideological alliance.”[28]

He again emphasized this point so that readers could get it: “And again, like the Comintern, Putin appears convinced that he is embarking on a world-historical mission.”[29] He moved on to talking about “Putin’s conservative Comintern.”

At the other end of the political spectrum, David Cameron likened Putin to Hitler.[30] John McCain, Lindsey Graham, among other usual suspects, all placed Putin and Hitler on equal footing.[31]

Historian Paul Johnson (sad to say) even went so far as to say that Putin and Hitler are basically two sides of the same coin. Johnson said that Putin

“believes in a strong Stalinist state. His goal is to reverse the events of 1989–the end of the Soviet state and dissolution of its enormous empire. He seeks to do this by using what remains of Russia’s Stalinist heritage: the military, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and immense resources of natural gas and other forms of energy.”[32]

Johnson was sad because “there is no Churchillian voice to sound the alarm and call the democratic world to action.”[33]

Johnson has got to be kidding. What he ended up saying was that someone like Churchill needed to step up and started lying to the West about Putin. It was so sad to read silly comments such as this by a generally good historian like Johnson. But since Johnson himself was intellectual crippled by the Zionist establishment, he could not think clearly.

But the real question is this: why did puppets of the current regime hate Putin so much? Well, Putin suggested back in 2013 the Soviet government was guided by a dark force whose “ideological goggles and faulty ideological perceptions collapsed.”[34]

“The first Soviet government,” Putin added, “was 80-85 percent Jewish.”[35] Sounds like Putin has read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. If so, then it seems clear that much of the entire media had good reasons to fear him. Perhaps Putin has been encouraged by Solzhenitsyn’s bravery. It was Solzhenitsyn who said:

“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”[36]

Putin was saying enough is enough. And this maybe one reason why nearly all the major news outlets were relentlessly slandering him. Kevin Barrett ended up his excellent article saying, “God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.” Let us hope that he will never be weary in well doing, for in due season he shall reap, if he faints not.

This slightly altered article was first published in the summer of 2015.

  • [1]See for example William Husband, “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002); Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
  • [2]See for example Sabrina Petra Ramet, Religious Policy in the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 4; for similar studies, see also John Anderson, Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
  • [3]Patrick J. Buchanan, “Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?,” American Conservative, April 4, 2014.
  • [4]Marc Bennetts, “Who’s ‘godless’ now? Russia says it’s U.S.,” Washington Times, January 28, 2014.
  • [5]
  • [6]Peter Pomerantsev, “For God and Putin,” Newsweek, September 10, 2012.
  • [7]Seth Mandel, Contentions: Putin Vs. the Punk Rockers,” Commentary, August 17, 2012.
  • [8] Michael Jones has made this very point in his article “Ethnos Needs Logos: or Why I spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.
  • [9]Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]Bradley A. Thayer, Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004), 96.
  • [14], 99, 100, 107, 114.
  • [15], 99.
  • [16], 102.
  • [17], 103, 104.
  • [18], 108.
  • [19], 109.
  • [20] 110, 111.
  • [21]Darwin, Origin of Species, 459.
  • [22]For a decent historical study on this, see for example Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962). Darwin was not as open-minded as people thought he was. “Former Darwin enthusiast St. George Mivart published anonymous articles critiquing Darwin’s theory. A gifted zoologist, Mivart would eventually publish a volume titled The Genesis of Species, an influential book that raised serious questions about the limits of natural selection, especially in its application to man. Far from rejecting Darwin wholesale, Mivart continued to embrace evolution and believe that the physical capacities of human beings had developed from the lower animals. But he continued to insist—like [Alfred] Wallace—that man was radically unique from the rest of creation and had a soul. Egged on by Thomas Huxley, Darwin became increasingly bitter over his former disciple’s criticisms, despite Mivart’s attempts to be personable in private correspondence and his public praise of the ‘invaluable labours and active brains of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.” John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007).
  • [23]See Denis L. Krebs, The Origins of Morality (New York: Oxford University, 2011), 41-42.
  • [24]Neil Buckley, “Putin urges Russians to return to values of religion,” Financial Times, September 19, 2013.
  • [25]
  • [26]Friedrich Hansen, “Putin Stands Up to Western Decadence,” Asia Times, February 28, 2014.
  • [27]Owen Matthews, “Vladimir Putin’s new plan for world domination,” Spectator, February 22, 2014.
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30]Owen Jones, “David Cameron and the cynicism of comparing Putin to Hitler,” Guardian, September 3, 2014.
  • [31]Michael Kelley, “11 Prominent People Who Compared Putin To Hitler,” Business Insider, May 23, 2014.
  • [32]Paul Johnson, “Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?,” Forbes, April 16, 2014.
  • [33]
  • [34]“Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2013.
  • [35]
  • [36]Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007), 558.

===================

PUTIN ON THE POPE

By Joseph P Farrell, www.gizadeathstar.com 13 November 2019

We’re a long way from Anthony Quinn’s performance of Pope Kiril the first in the 1960s film Shoes of the Fisherman. Back in the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, certain things were a given: American youth were – for the most part, hippies and Woodstock and Marcuse notwithstanding – still convinced that socialism of any form was a bad idea (and so were unwinnable undeclared wars in Vietnam), “they” – the Soviets and the Communist Chinese – were still the “bad guys” and we were the “good guys,” and the churches, and in particular, the Roman Catholic Church, were still recognizably Christian and, in Rome’s case, Catholic, though the veneer was beginning to rub mighty thin after the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical “reforms,” which ended up being far beyond those of Martin Luther or Archbishop Cranmer. I’ll take a 15th century Lutheran missa brevis to the modern Vatican Two “quickie” any day. But turn the clock ahead a few decades from the 1960s and what do we have?

A pope lecturing us on the need to obey the UN, that unrestricted immigration is good, and holding synods in the Amazon that look suspiciously more amazonian than Roman Catholic, is a new thing. Indeed, as Francis I continues to lecture everyone about this or that political agenda, many people including many Roman Catholics both hierarchical, clerical, and lay are wondering if the current Pope is even Catholic at all.

Well, now you can add Russian President Vladimir Putin to that list, according to this article shared by V.T.:

‘Pope Francis is Not A Man Of God’ | Putin

If this article is to be believed, apparently Mr. Putin minced no words:

“Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position,” Putin said.

He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression.

“As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity.”

“If you look at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God. Not the God of the Bible,” Putin said at the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt.

“He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression.

“As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity.”

The article also mentions a few more of the Pope’s recent pronunciamenti:

The pope has become increasingly brazen this year in pushing the globalist agenda and far-left talking points upon the masses. Earlier this year he called for a global central bank and financial authority, and more recently he said “Americans need to be ruled by a world government as soon as possible for their own good.”

(Gee, you mean by an institution with universal globalist governing claims like the papacy?)

Pope Francis’s idea that Americans would be better off under a world government doesn’t stop there. The radical leftist pontiff also went on record stating that Europe should become one country under one government.

(Gee, do you mean by an institution already claiming to be, and having the infrastructure of, a global government, like the papacy?)

He is also on record calling for a China-style one child policy for Western nations, as well as telling a congregation in Rome that having a personal relationship with Jesus is “dangerous and harmful.”

My how the worm has turned. When I was a boy, the heroism of Joszef Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary for standing up to the Soviets was something drummed into my head by my Roman Catholic paternal grandparents. He was unabashedly and unapologetically Christian and Roman Catholic. The Soviet leadership was unapologetically and unabashedly brutalitarian and atheistic. And now, the roles have reversed, for it’s increasingly dubious to many in the West whether Francis I is Christian at all, much less Catholic, and the leader of Russia, a former member of the KGB, and practicing Orthodox Catholic Christian, is wondering the same thing, and going on record to boot.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that Mr. Putin’s remarks were utterly devoid of any political context. For one thing, as I’ve pointed out many times, the Russian government of the post-Yeltsin era seems to be doing everything it can to speak for, and to, the disenfranchised “deplorables” of the West. I’ve argued that the Russian government, embarked on its own quest to become the first post-post-modern state has led the charge against the dogmas of globalism and tried to position itself as a spokesman for the traditions and virtues of European culture either being eclipsed, or deliberately “murdered” by its ruling class. Nor has this been a “general critique,” for if one listens to the speeches of Mr. Putin and other Russian leaders, these are often directed, point by point, at specific dogmas of globalism.

But there’s a more specific political-ecclesiastical context for Mr. Putin’s remarks, and that is the recently emerging schism between the patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople. Constantinople, at the “urging” both of the Vatican and the US State Department, recently granted “autocephaly” to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “Autocephaly” is a term of Orthodox canonical practice that means (literally) “Self-Headedness”, i.e., the right of a national church’s hierarchy to govern itself freely apart from the jurisdiction of a foreign patriarchate. To draw an analogy that might be more familiar to Westerners, the Orthodox Church is like the Anglican Communion in this respect: all Anglican Churches around the world, from Australia, Canada, the United States, and so on, are independently governing entities, but remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England, and have more or less a common liturgical practice and ethos. This has changed in recent years, for as the Anglican Communion has become increasingly torn away from its traditional doctrines and liturgical moorings, inclusive of the ordination of women, homosexuals, the advocacy of “gender inclusive” language and abandonment of the liturgical English of the Book of Common Prayer, some Anglican groups have recognized these things as a betrayal of fundamental Anglican principles of doctrine and worship, and have broken communion with any bodies claiming the name Anglican, but engaged in these practices. In other words, it’s the content and actual practice and not merely the name that makes one an Anglican, and this is a mentality very similar to that of Orthodoxy. In effect, both conceptually and in terms of practice and doctrine, these groups are the genuine (though few) traditional Anglicans today for they recognize the mainstream institutions have been co-opted and hollowed out and are Anglican in name only.

The situation is similar, now, in Orthodoxy with the recent “grant” of autocephaly by Constantinople to the Ukrainian Church. In the past century, Constantinople has articulated a series of claims and privileges that – to the traditional Orthodox mind – can only be viewed as neo-Papal in nature, and hence, not Orthodox in any sense. This is not surprising, given the Vatican’s quiet financial support of the patriarchate, and its current occupant’s having studied in Rome itself. The traditional view that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was “first among equals” has turned into its own self-promoted neo-papal view of itself as “king of non-equals,” and this has been predictably resisted by most of the rest of the Church, including the Patriarchate of Moscow, which has by far and away the most Orthodox Catholic Christians under its jurisdiction.

In short, you’re looking at another brewing schism, and much of it is being concocted in the West, by the West, and for the West, and I would argue, is yet another manifestation of the West’s almost subliminal and visceral hatred of Orthodoxy. Why the hatred? That would be a long and involved tome beyond the scope of the present blog, but it can perhaps best be summarized by pointing out that it is an unreconstructed Catholicism with no need for infallible popes nor for high minded reformers. Like all ecclesiastical institutions, it has had its share of black moments and blackguards to be sure, but nothing like on the scale as obtained under the Papal tyranny of the Middle Ages, and that led ultimately to the Protestant revolt. And in spite of the best efforts of organized atheism to kill it, literally to “murder and martyr it by individual murder and martyr to the thousands if not millions,” it survived the Western import of Bolshevism to Russia, and with it, Russia survived.

Thus, hidden behind Mr. Putin’s remarks regarding the papacy is really an implied question: what’s your interest in The Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Church? And is it really to make the Ukrainian church self-governing, or is that self-governing status to serve an ultimately more secular and anti-Orthodox agenda?

This one, folks, is thus a story that is not going to go away any time soon.

And as for Pope Francis, Mr. Putin isn’t the only one raising questions about the Pope’s actual faith (if any). Some in his own close entourage are doing the same:

Scalfari: Pope Denied Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

When confronted with a swamp in the form of co-opted institutions, there are but two courses of action, try to drain it and reclaim the institution, or make a clean break with it. It remains to be seen what will happen here in the case of Rome, and Constantinople.

==============

The Planned New World Order

The Planned New World Order  From beforeitsnews.com (writer unknown), 27 October 27 2019

This article is about the coming crisis of Martial Law and the New World Order agenda for America and the entire planet.

It also offers hope and a Christian solution for the Cabal’s New World Order’s “final solution”.

This post is really for the skeptic, the newbie and just those who have a vague idea but would like something a bit more solid to think about.

The “elite” have been speaking of their precious “New World Order” in one form or another for literally centuries. Scripture declares that there is in fact coming a time, albeit a short time, when the entire world will be under the control of a system of government that makes Orwell’s 1948 seem like a walk in the park.

Are we on the cusp of that time? That is for you to think about and decide for yourself. As for many of us already, the answer is “no”. We are not on the cusp of it, we are living in its infancy. While the structure of the NWO is still being built, global agendas and global laws are being plotted and executed around the world every day, much of which happens in plain view – but the media are not interested, or not allowed to report on what happens outside of the matrix the people are presented with.

Quotes on the New World Order:

“New World Order” is the Global Totalitarianism dream that a banker called Mayer Amschel Rothschild helped revive in 1760s, to protect his private bank from global government regulation. His grand blue print is best described by his paid social engineer called Dr. Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt, Professor of Canon Law in the University of Ingolstadt. Weishaupt adopted the term “Illuminati”.

George Washington, 1798, acknowledged that Illuminati activity had come to the USA: “It is not my intentionto doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am.”

Thomas Jefferson, 1816: “the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1828: “Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.”

Dr. Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt: “Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible.”

President Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837: “You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”

President Woodrow Wilson, 1916: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated.

The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Winston Churchill , 1920:“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

President Franklin Roosevelt, Nov. 21, 1933: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, Nov. 2, 1987 addressed the Soviet Politburo: “In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road!” He further reassures his Communist colleagues: “Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

David Rockefeller, Sept. 23, 1994: “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long — we are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisisand the nations will accept the New World Order.” Sounds like an admission of guilt to September 11, 2001 and the other events after 1994!

Karl Wojtyla, aka Pope John Paul II: “By the end of this decade we will live under the first One World Government that has ever existed in the society of nations… a government with absolute authority to decide the basic issues of survival. One world government is inevitable.”

George Herbert Walker Bush, September 11, 1990: “Out of these troubled times, our objective — a new world order — can emerge. Today, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known.”

George Herbert Walker Bush: “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea — a new world order… to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind… based on shared principles and the rule of law… The illumination of a thousand points of light… The winds of change are with us now.”

Jonathan Winston Howard, March 13, 2003 in a National Address to the Australians: “The decade of the ’90s was meant to have been one in which a New [World] International Order, free of the bi-polar rivalry of earlier days, was to have been established .”

Sounds like another admission of guilt! Mr. Howard’s bosses, the Sovereign Australian people, were never asked if they would like to open their country up to the International bankers Order!

More New World Order Quotes:

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844.

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England… (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.” — Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book Tragedy and Hope.

“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we 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, from his own book Memoirs.

“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” — U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)

“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.” — Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, April 19, 1994.

“David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day’s work… In the world of David Rockefeller it’s hard to tell where business ends and politics begin”. — Bill Moyers, White House Press Secretary from 1965 to 1967.

“We know in the not too distant future, a half of dozen corporations (namely six) are going to control the media. We took this step (merger) to ensure we were one of them” — Time Warner spokesperson.

“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.” — statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg of the United World Federalists, son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the German government (see the Sisson Report).

“All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we have contributed to building a New World Order.” — Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney-General, 1967.

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the scenes.” — Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.

“I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” — General Douglas MacArthur.

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy making arm of the government.” — U.S. President Harry Truman

“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” — Mayor (1918-1925) John F. Hylan of New York.

“Fundamental Bible -believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.” — Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoagland, speaking on radio in 1983.

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of freedom to Americans and so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom, when personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.

That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the Housing Projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make the people feel safer in their communities.” — President Bill Clinton on March 22, 1994, on MTV’s Enough is Enough show.

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” — Bill Clinton in USA Today, November 3, 1993.

“Gun registration is not enough.” — Attorney General Janet Reno, October 12, 1993, Associated Press.

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — Janet Reno.

“If a nation values anything more than freedom, then it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort and security that it values, it will lose that too. Unknown Americans must decide: Are we to be governed by Americans or by an International Organization? I, for one, owe no allegiance to the United Nations nor will I give it any. I obey only the U.S. Constitution . You had better think about this issue, for if the U.N. can violate the Sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other countries, it can violate ours… The United States may not be the top dog 15 years from now. U.N. Security Council resolutions, backed by, say, Chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us.” — Charley Reese-Orlando Sentinel, journalist.

“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 the 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 subject to the bright 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 in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991.

“The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power–Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical.” — U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book No Apologies.

“I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election…It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!” — George W. Malone, U.S. Senator (Nevada) speaking before Congress in 1957.

“The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, and Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government…” — American Mercury Magazine, December 1957.

“The Air Force is suffering from pilots who have lost faith in their generals, jet engines that still don’t work after repairs and maintenance depots with ‘little quality or quantity of work being produced’, according to an internal Defense Department memorandum. The draft memo paints a troubling picture of the state of American air power.

‘The sad state of air-force readiness can be blamed on the Clinton Administration, which treats the military as a toy to be deployed for meals-on-wheels-type missions without due consideration for its impact on readiness”, said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army Lieutenant-Colonel and an analyst at the conservative Family Research Council.

“The International government of the United Nations, stripped of its legal trimming, then, is really the International Government of the United States and the Soviet Union acting in unison.” — American Jewish Committee’s official magazine Commentary of November 1958.

“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years… The Bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clinched fist.” — Dimitry Z. Manuilsky in a speech made in 1931 before the Lenin School of Political Warfare. (He became an officer of the U.N. Security Council in 1949).

“We must realize that we cannot co-exist eternally. One of us must go to his grave. We do not want to go to the grave. They do not want to go to the grave, either. So what can be done? We must push them to their grave.” — Khrushchev to a group of Warsaw Communists, on April, 1955, according to Sewren Bailer, a Polish communist leader who defected to the west.

“We operate here under directives which emulate from the White House… The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that we can comfortably be merged with the Soviet Union.” — Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation, 1954.

“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, November 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).

“… 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.” — H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (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.

“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 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.” — in an article from 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 an article in the New York Times (December 1942).

“There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 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).

“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, in New York Times (February 1962).

The New World Order will include changes in:

– the family: homosexual marriages will be legalized; parents will not be allowed to raise their children (the state will;) all women will be employed by the state and not allowed to be ‘homemakers’; divorce will become exceedingly easy and monogynous marriage will be slowly phased out;

– the workplace: the government will become the owner of all of the factors of production; the private ownership of property will be outlawed;

– religion: religion will be outlawed and believers will be either eliminated or imprisoned;

– there will be a new religion: the worship of man and his mind; all will believe in the new religion; The United States will play a major role in bringing it to the world.

World wars have been fought to further its aims.

The majority of the people will not readily accept ‘the new world order’, but will be deceived into accepting it by two strategies:

  • Those in favour of the changes will have become seated in the very thrones of power, generally without the public realizing that fact;
  • The ‘old’ world order will be destroyed piece by piece, by a series of planned ‘nibbles’ at the established format.” — Ralph Epperson in his book The New World Order, 1990.

“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).

“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).

“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).

“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).

“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 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).

“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).

“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; Franklin D. Roosevelt used the phrase earlier.” — William Safire, in the New York Times (February 1991).

“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).

What Is The New World Order?

The New World Order is a diabolical plan created by the financial elite in order to destroy the national sovereignty of the governments of the world through economic blackmail, and world conflict with the goal of enslaving humankind in a One World Fascist Dictatorship/Government..

The agents of the New World Order have successfully taken control of the world’s financial system. Our politicians have made it “legal” for the private banking corporations to control our money supply, stock market and ultimately our destiny. A famous quote “Money is the root of all evil” is fitting, but a better understanding comes when you ask the question “What is the root of all money?” The private banking corporations control the printing press and print money for the cost of paper (usury) and use it to enslave the nations and people of the world in debt. Our governments have become totally insolvent or bankrupt through the creation of this debt slavery. Our governments are now maxing out the NWO credit line to keep the game going. We, the people of the world, are the only resources keeping the system alive as we are deceitfully sold into slavery at birth to the financial market as property of the state. Our productive capacity or labor via the Income Tax is used as collateral for this debt slavery. Matrix-esque, don’t you think?

Since the agents of the NWO control the economy, our governments are slaves to the economic system. The NWO uses this power to control the destiny of the nations. The power of this money to shape society is limitless. They use it to control who is elected as politicians, what stories our news outlets air and any other interests (unlimited) that can be bought in a capitalist and immoral society. Not only do they subvert our democracy and keep us misinformed, but they ultimately control the future of our nations through inflation, deflation, the availability of money and interest rates. The stock market crash has become a scientifically created event designed to steal the wealth of the people, further the indebtedness of the nations, and create the conditions necessary for worldwide conflict.

The agents of the NWO throughout the ages have created and manipulated conflicts between nations to further their agenda. They have funded both sides in every major war. They know better than anyone that there is no business more profitable than war since they have been using conflict to enslave the nations through massive debt. The current estimated cost of the Iraq war paid by U.S. stands at 2.7 trillion dollars (2,700,000,000,000) and counting at a time when the American people are witnessing the worst economic crisis of this age. It is time to ask yourself: who is the real enemy of the American people?

The “War on Terror” has been manufactured by the New World Order to finally realize their goal of total world domination. The agents of the New World Order have created a globalized economy in order to create financial dependencies between the nations. The crash of the American Dollar will be used as the Trojan Horse to destroy the globalized market and create the chaos and conditions required to usher in the New World Order. The crash of the world economies coupled with food shortages (famine) and World War III in the Middle East will be used to create the perfect crises out of which the New World Order will arise as the solution. The NWO modus operandi uses a simple Problem-Reaction-Solution process to gain control.

The agents of the NWO use their money, power and control to manufacture the crises. In reaction, the people cry out for help from the ravages of war, famine and despair. The agents of the NWO seize this opportunity to deceive and enslave the masses into their One World Fascist Dictatorship/Government. There is no clash of civilizations, East vs. West, Christians or Jews vs. Muslims, but instead propaganda and manufactured conflict to keep us in fear so we continue to play the game. We are all pawns in this game and until we realize this truth we will continue to be exploited by the agents of the New World Order for their own personal gain.

It is said that those who are ignorant to the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Will we allow the NWO to repeat history once again with another Great Depression and World War? Will we be fooled again by the propaganda and bread & circus shows meant to keep us distracted and divided? Will we continue in ignorance to believe the problems of this world amount to petty party politics, a left vs. right paradigm or a republican vs. democrat issue?

We must not let these evil sycophants succeed in their quest for world domination. The future of humanity and the entire world is at stake. We must set aside the things that divide us (politics, religion, race, nationality, pride, hubris) and stand united for truth, justice and freedom. Are you ready to do your part? Are you 100% committed to ending this reign of tyranny and despotism that is the New World Order?

It is time for all of us to stand up as one, undivided, and let our voices be heard. It is time for us to take action to create physical changes on the ground. We must act now to restore the power (control of our money supply and our governments) to the people where it belongs in order to guarantee justice and freedom today and for all future generations. The people are waking up to the truth and the Resistance is growing into a massive movement for change. Please do your part to help educate your friends and family to this evil plot and make the promise to always stand for truth, justice and freedom.

The New World Order Resistance is 100% committed and dedicated to dismantling the NWO in all its forms and removing it’s stranglehold on the nations and people of the world. As long as there remains a single person in this world who stands for liberty, rest assured, the resistance will continue to bring the battle to the enemy until we taste true freedom.

==================

Previous articles 

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management and do nothing about it, you don't have the right to complain! The really tricky part is, what can you do about it that is likely to be effective? If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com .
This entry was posted in "New World Order". Bookmark the permalink.