Click to expand

All the way from Xinhuan:

“This is the first time in our history that we are appointing the European Commission in our capacity as a real co-legislator,” EP’s President Jerzy Buzek said during the debate held on Tuesday morning. “This is the dawn of a new decade, with a new way of working for the European institutions,” he said.

How would you interpret “a real co-legislator”?

“We need strong European institutions to tackle these challenges and it was up to the commission and parliament acting together to ensure that the EU is more than the sum of its parts,” he added.

“More than the sum of its parts?”  How can that be interpreted?  That it is not just a collection of member states for the greater economic benefit of all but a sovereign body in its own right, with embassies all over the world and its own army?

Svali who blew the lid on the real leadership of the nations said:

The Rothschild family in England, and in France, have ruling seats. A descendant of the Hapsburg dynasty has a generational seat. A descendant of the ruling families of England and France have a generational seat. The Rockefeller family in the US holds a seat.  A lot of the current U.S. leadership will be in Europe when the change occurs, and many have homes there. They will be “changing nationalities” overnight, as it were.

The leadership was to have been announced openly by 2020 but she wasn’t sure whether that date had altered.  Russia was considered important and China was going to rise in the next few years and take its place.  Remember that she said this in a Year 2000 interview in Canada.  She goes on:

The leaders will reveal themselves, and people will be asked to make a pledge of loyalty during a time of chaos and financial devastation. Doesn’t sound pleasant, does it? I don’t know the exact time frame for all of this, and wouldn’t want to even guess. The good news is that if a person is debt-free, owes nothing to the government or credit debt, and can live self sufficiently, they may do better than others. I would invest in gold, not stocks, if I had the income. Gold will once again be the world standard, and dollars will be pretty useless.

Remember, that was said in the Year 2000.  Carol Quigley, Clinton’s mentor, wrote, in 1966:

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 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.

I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many 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.”

In 1961, the U.S. State Department issued Document 7277, entitled “Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” It detailed a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.”

In 1973, the Club of Rome issued a report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System.” This report divided the entire world into ten kingdoms.

Don’t take my word for it – check it for yourself.

Now I suggest, rather than detractors trotting out the conspiracy theory and nutter tags, why don’t they check if there actually is a Document 7277 or if the Club of Rome actually did produce such a report or if in 1975, in Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives did sign “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which stated that:

“we must join with others to bring forth a new world order…Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.”

Check if Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refused to sign the Declaration saying:

“It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations. It declares that our economy should be regulated by international authorities. It proposes that we enter a ‘new world order’ that would redistribute the wealth created by the American people.”

There is a congressional record – it should be easy to check whether that happened or if I am just sprouting “conspiracy theory” and am, in fact, a right wingnut.  After you’ve said that, answer the question please: “How does the congressional record or a State Department document constitute “conspiracy theory”?

Back to Svali [an American], on the European leadership:

There were two definitions of “royalty” used. Open royalty that is currently seen now, and “hidden royalty” of royal lineage and extreme [ancient] power. Sometimes the two were concurrent, such as with the Prince of Wales.

You are aware, of course, that Prince Charles has traced his lineage back to David?

In “The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House Of Britain” (First Published in 1902 by The Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., London, England), the authors easily trace Prince Charles’ lineage back to David and beyond.

The College of Heralds (London) has also traced Prince Charles to be the 145th direct descendant of King David. This claim was also made, in May of 2000, in a documentary on Israeli television.  Charles also claims descent from Islam’s prophet Mohammed.  He has also stated that he will become the Defender of the Faiths, not the Faith, upon his accession.

Now again, please don’t confuse the messenger with the message.  If I report on things which are very easily checked – that Illustrious Lineage should be quite easy to follow up – then that doesn’t make me a believer in this guff, just reporting that they believe in it.

Now, that claim from Mohammed – what’s its source?  A bit of checking reveals that it was in Burke’s Peerage.  Not only that but you might be interested in this:

‘United Press International
October 10, 1986
MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE

Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth’s blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke’s Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke’s, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family.

”The royal family’s direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,” he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ”It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.”

Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England’s 15th century King Edward IV. ‘

So the motif of all that is going on, especially in Europe and America and across undeveloped countries, e.g. in Africa at the moment, is:

1.  Economic and then, by definition, social dislocation with lawlessness in the vacuuming in of capital, e.g. the BIS, GS and JPM;

2. Greater centralization of power into narrower sovereign bodies, e.g. the EU, with authority over greater areas, e.g. the NAAC of the SPPNA;

3.  Restrictive practices in the developed nations and fermenting [or at a minimum, facilitation of] trouble in undeveloped nations, e.g. Darfur, resulting in the huge reduction of population Prince Philip is committed to;

4.  The ultimate goal a changed political map of the world.

And always accompanied by change and social engineering. Please show me one of these areas where we, in 2010, are not seeing this happening?  It’s been thought about for a long time too.

Ernest Bevens, Minister of Labor and National Service, Member of the British War Cabinet, in “The Balance Sheet of the Future”, Robert M. McBride & Co., 1941, stated:

“The very nature of my Trade Union work has compelled the study of international affairs and has caused me to examine the obstacles which were preventing humanity from coming together and establishing a world order.”

… and:

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

… and:

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

Now, put that together with what is happening in the area of defence in the EU in the last few days and you come up with something like this:

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – Article 2.4:  The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the framing of a common defence policy.

How many people know of the existence of the Military Committee of the European Union (EUMC) which was set up under Council Decision 2001/79/CSFP and amongst whose functions is included: the overall concept of crisis management in its military aspects; military aspects relating to political control and to the strategic direction of operations; the risk assessment of potential crises; the military dimension and implications of a crisis situation; the elaboration, assessment and review of objectives and the financial estimation for operations and exercises.

This is the old theory of collective defence , written about by many, including Inis L. Claude Jr., (2006). Collective Security as an Approach to Peace in: Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations ed. Donald M. Goldstein, Phil Williams, & Jay M. Shafritz. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth who also wrote in “Power and International Relations”, 1962:

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

So – they can’t control the states completely but they can work on the individuals within those states, regulating their behaviour, options etc.

You get my drift?

Don’t shoot the messenger – he’s just delivering the message.

Filed under: Politics & economics