CNN #FakeNews Amanpour Challenged to Interview Aleppo Boy’s Father – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: CorbettReport | MediaMonarchy
June 16, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week — the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. In this week’s episode:

Story #1: Amanpour Challenged To Interview “Aleppo Boy” She Exploited For War Propaganda http://bit.ly/2t4pqQN

MintPress Meets The Father Of Iconic Aleppo Boy, Who Says Media Lied About His Son http://bit.ly/2skcKaz

Wikipedia: Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2ryniio

Complete 9/11 Timeline: Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2ru8eqL

Wikipedia: James P. Rubin http://bit.ly/2toWqCJ

Hillary Clinton Email Archive: Secretary Clinton’s Interview With Christiane Amanpour http://bit.ly/2suRY94

Story #2: Young People Hit Tokyo’s Streets To Protest “Anti-Conspiracy Bill” http://bit.ly/2sdl9us

Update: Japan Enacts Broad Anti-Conspiracy Law http://s.nikkei.com/2ryJrwJ

Expert Disputes Japan Government Claim That Conspiracy Bill Needed To Ratify U.N. Treaty Related To 2020 Olympics http://bit.ly/2rtXPeA

Conspiracy Theory Becomes Frightening Reality For Japan http://bit.ly/2ru2cGH

Story #3: “We’re Not Monsters” – Ontario Township Defends Shuttering Girl’s Lemonade Stand 🍋💰 http://bit.ly/2ryk6Ds

6 Illicit Lemonade Stands Towns Had to Shut Down http://bit.ly/2rj6U60

NWNW Update: Chimpanzees Aren’t People, Don’t Have Right For Habeas Corpus http://bit.ly/2s3MYqH

NWNW Update: Germany’s Merkel Says Digital World Needs Global Rules http://bit.ly/2ryeg4W

Advertisements

Vatican, Bilderberg and a ‘Migration’ Crisis

Vatican, Bilderberg and a ‘Migration’ Crisis
Source:WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
December 17, 2016

The annual meeting of the secretive Bilderberg Group took place this year in Dresden, Germany from June 9-12. Notable is their terminology in an official press release announcing topics for discussion. Point three (not necessarily in terms of importance) is curiously titled “Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity.” Curious is the choice of the word “migration” for the EU refugee crisis that began in Spring 2015 as Turkey opened the detention centers and refugee camps from Syrian war refugees and pointed them to the EU. More about that later on. Here I want to concentrate on the little-known historical ties or links between the Bilderberg Meetings, founded in 1954, and the Vatican, and the role of both in heating up the current EU refugee instability.

In May, 1954 in Oosterbeek, near to the German border, a highly secret meeting was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg. The meeting was hosted by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, husband of Queen Juliana. It was called simply, “Bilderberg Conference,” from the name of the hotel where the first talks were held. Out of three days of private discussion, a new Trans-Atlantic think-tank was created. It was to become one of the most effective organizations for influencing world events after 1954 up to the present, and one of the most damaging and secretive.

German-born Prince Bernhard was a controversial figure, a notorious philanderer, who had been a member of the German NSDAP and Reiter SS. In 1976 Bernhard was accused of accepting a $1 million bribe from the US fighter aircraft maker, Lockheed, to influence jet purchases by the Dutch Air Force. When Bernhard was forced to resign because of the scandals, he was succeeded as Bilderberg Chairman by then German Bundespräsident, Walter Scheel, and then afterwards by Britain’s Lord Carrington, a confidante and later business partner of Henry Kissinger. From the beginning it was clear Bilderberg was not the Little League of world politics.

In 2014 the Bilderberg Group’s official website, with sparse information, stated its purpose as simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” It adds that it meets once a year with around 120 select attendees from finance, politics, industry, media and academia. Its rules mandate that two-thirds come from Europe and the remainder from the USA and Canada, with one third of the total always from the world of politics. Bilderberg participants from the US are always members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Shadowy origins

The Bilderberg Group, in the words of the first Bilderberg Secretary General, a shadowy and enormously influential Polish exile, Joseph Retinger, came from an initiative Retinger made in 1952 to counter, “growing distrust of America which was making itself manifest in Western Europe and which was paralleled by a similar distrust of Western Europe in America.” In brief, its aim was to make certain that the strategic policy orientation of Western Europe and of the United States was in harmony. The decisive question to be asked was harmony in pursuit of which and whose geopolitical goals?

Joseph Retinger

Joseph Retinger was one of the most influential political figures shaping the pro-Atlanticist architecture of post-World War II Western Europe. He founded the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, to lobby for the Washington-backed plan for creation of a United States of Europe, today called the European Union. He created the CIA-funded European Movement, as well as the CIA-funded European Youth Campaign. By far his most influential project was bringing the Bilderberg Group into being, and serving as its key European director and Secretary General, all far away from the public eye, as he preferred.

At the time his Bilderberg project took form the Korean War was ending and US Marshall Plan aid to Europe as well. Józef Hieronim Retinger had spent the war years in London as adviser to the exile government of Prime Minister General Wladyslaw Sikorski. While Retinger’s name was virtually unknown to the world at large, he was one of the most influential string-pullers of the postwar period in Europe and the United States. He was able to get private audiences with the Pope as well as the American President at will. It was he who selected Prince Bernhard to act as figurehead host and who selected which Americans and which Europeans would be invited to Bilderberg.

The American Steering Committee for the first Bilderberg Meeting in 1954 consisted of USA chairman Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Rockefeller-tied Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Others included George Ball, who during the Second World War was in London serving as director of the Strategic Bombing Survey, to analyze the impact of British and American bombing of German cities and civilian populations.

The American Bilderberg Steering Committee also included H. J. Heinz II, of the food group and father-in-law of John Kerry’s current wife; George Nebolsine, a State Department consultant on the Marshall Plan; and Dean Rusk, then President of the Rockefeller Foundation, later Secretary of State.

The real guiding hand behind the American side of the Bilderberg Group, however, was the first head of the newly-established Central Intelligence Agency, General Walter Bedell Smith. In 1950 Smith became Director of the CIA. The CIA helped organize, and sponsored the formation, and operation of the Bilderberg Conferences.

In late 1952, Retinger went to America to test his Bilderberg idea on his American contacts, where he met with Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, and Bedell Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explained his proposal, Smith reportedly said, “Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?” The CIA chief then told Retinger to go to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become President Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Psychological Warfare, and Eisenhower’s liaison between the Pentagon and CIA. viii.

The attendees at the 1954 initial Bilderberg Meeting included David Rockefeller, who today is the only Bilderberg “Advisory Group” Member. It included State Department official, Paul Nitze. As well, Gardner Cowles, US media baron and founder of Look magazine, who had been the US Government deputy director of the Office of War Information, the US propaganda ministry that created the Voice of America (VOA). It included J.P. Morgan Bank director Nelson D. Jay, a close Rockefeller associate.

The first Bilderberg attendees also included C.D. Jackson, by then Eisenhower’s architect of the Cold War; Alcide de Gasperi, Italian Prime Minister; and Antoine Pinay, a former French Prime Minister. Pinay was to become, the decisive personality shaping the long-term agenda of Bilderberg.

In Retinger’s words he founded Bilderberg Group simply to, “foster dialogue between Europe and North America.” That was for public consumption. In reality he built a very dark agenda that drew in the most reactionary circles in postwar Europe and tied them to the most powerful of postwar American oligarch families, that of Rockefeller, Harriman and their emerging “American Century.” The Bilderberg Group was to insure that that Century would be heavily influenced by postwar Vatican geopolitics. Its first meeting in 1954 was funded by Walter Bedell Smith’s CIA, with subsequent meetings financed by the CIA’s close ally during the Cold War, the Ford Foundation.

Le Cercle—The Vatican-Rockefeller Alliance

The key to the extraordinary power and influence of the annual Bilderberg Meetings from 1954 laid in the unpublished role of the secretive pan-Europeanist organization then known as Le Cercle, sometimes referred to as Cercle Pinay, a reference to the pivotal role in shaping Bilderberg played by the network of French Prime Minister Antoine Pinay, an intimate friend of Bilderberg founder Retinger.

Pinay’s Le Cercle (The Group) was the link that covertly tied most European intelligence services including the German BND and BfV, MI-6 in Britain, France’s SDECE, Holland’s BVD, Belgium’s Surete de l’Etat and Swiss and later even Saudi intelligence and apartheid South Africa’s secret service, BOSS. Prominent politicians associated with Pinay and Le Cercle included Franz Josef Strauss, Otto von Habsburg, Konrad Adenauer, Julio Andreotti of Italy, General Antonio de Spinola of Portugal, a conservative who went on later to become President; Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Antoine Pinay’s group, Le Cercle, in turn was tied as well to the powerful and very right-wing Roman Catholic lay organization, Opus Dei, which had just been given final Catholic Church official approval in 1950, two years before plans for Bilderberg began, by Pope Pius XII. The organization was made well known, to its discomfort, as a subject of the 2003 Dan Brown historical novel, Da Vinci Code.

Among the later achievements of Le Cercle was the manipulation of the 1979 British elections that successfully brought in anti-labor right-wing Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. It was done with Le Cercle leading members, Sir Brian Crozier, MI-6 head Sir Arthur Franks, and MI-6 division head, Nicholas Elliott.

The late Bavarian political czar, Franz Josef Strauss, “The Lion of Bavaria,” noted in his memoirs that he had held a friendship with Le Cercle’s Antoine Pinay since the two first met in 1953. Le Cercle networks in Germany promoted Strauss’s candidacy, unsuccessfully, to become German Chancellor. In 1955 Strauss also became a regular member of the Bilderberg Meetings.

Bilderberg founder, Josef Retinger, a Polish-born Roman Catholic, organized his European network of the Bilderberg through the mediation of an Italian CIA asset, Prof. Luigi Gedda, head of Azione Cattolica. Gedda was also medical adviser to Pope Pius XII, a very strong right-wing anti-communist pontiff, who before the Second World War, as Cardinal Eugenio Giovanni Pacelli, had been architect of the 1933 Reichskonkordat with Hitler’s Nazi Party. Already in 1932 Pacelli as Vatican Secretary of State had played a key role in convincing Roman Catholic German Chancellor Franz von Papen to steer his Catholic Center Party into an anti-left alliance and join with the NSDAP of Hitler.

Clerical fascism and Pius XII

As Pope, Pius XII had a clear political bias and it was towards support of clerical or nominally Roman Catholic fascist or extremely repressive right-wing regimes, a form of what some termed clerical fascism, the fusion of the Church with fascist or dictatorial political regimes, such as in Franco’s Spain or Spinola’s Portugal.

During the Second World War Pius XII refused to condemn the clerical fascist pro-Hitler regime of Roman Catholic Ante Pavelić, the leader of the newly proclaimed Croatian state. Informed by Catholic clergy of the genocidal murders of Orthodox Serbs who had refused to embrace the Catholic faith, Pius XII, even though he possessed a list of Croatian clergy members who had “joined in the slaughter,” did not condemn the Pavelić regime or take action against the clergy involved. Instead he elevated Aloysius Stepinac—a Croatian archbishop convicted of collaborating with the Ustaše—to Cardinal.

In effect, Retinger’s European Bilderberg networks linked the extreme right-wing European anti-communist networks—including the Vatican of Pius XII, of Opus Dei, of the Franco government in Spain, of Portugal’s General Spinola and numerous other right-wing European anti-communist networks—to the triumphant American elites around the powerful Rockefeller group, through the networks and person of David Rockefeller. It was a power marriage that was to have a profound effect on the development of postwar European society and politics.

Francis and the ‘Migrants’-Words are all I have…

Now against this background of Bilderberg true history, the question to be asked is whether the first Jesuit Pope in history, Francis, is following in the heavy footsteps of Pius XII? Is he deliberately trying to stir things up in Europe through his support of the huge influx of war refugees from Syria and North Africa in the past year?

Words are an essential form of human communication, quite complex in the energy they convey to others. Depending on the word and its context, it can convey negative energy, hate energy; it can convey neutral energy, neither here nor there; it can also convey love, harmony, peace energy. If there is any organized group on the face of this Earth that is master of such word use precision it is the Society of Jesus, Pope Francis’ mother organization. This is relevant in reading his numerous missives on the population disruptions of the Middle East and Africa and the EU in the past three years.

There are three words being loosely thrown about today in regard to the EU crisis, and crisis it is. There is the word, “refugee,” legally defined as “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” Then there is the related term, “asylum-seeker” defined as “a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another.” Third there is the entirely different concept behind the word used both by Pope Francis and by the 2016 Bilderberg Meeting in Dresden, namely the word “migrant.” Migrant is precisely defined as “a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.” Here there is no mention of war, political persecution or life-endangering calamity.

By calling it what it clearly is not, a migration into the EU from the south, the word completely blunts the causes behind that migration, namely a US-UK-France-instigated series of wars, wars for control of oil and now gas, wars in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, initially called by Hillary Clinton the Arab Spring. The million-plus human beings streaming into the EU from Turkey over the past fifteen months are no migrants. They are refugees from wars.

In calling them migrants it implicitly makes either racist or bigot anyone questioning the legal procedures employed by the Merkel government and the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). According to reliable investigative reports conveyed to this author, the German Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) since November 2014 has abandoned the rules and legal directives for refugees (not asylum seekers) for no public reason and without any notice to the public. Interesting.

“Structural Reality?”

In a Papal Message of January 17, 2016, the Pope declared, “In our time, migration is growing worldwide…Migration movements are now a structural reality, and our primary issue must be to deal with the present emergency phase by providing programmes which address the causes of migration and the changes it entails, including its effect on the makeup of societies and peoples.” He goes on, “Biblical revelation urges us to welcome the stranger; it tells us that in so doing, we open our doors to God, and that in the faces of others we see the face of Christ himself.” What if that stranger wants to kill you and to rape your daughters?

Nice words these are indeed. It ignores entirely the actual disruptive reality of the flood of war refugees into Germany and the rest of the EU. Rather than to focus his immense influence on bringing about peace and reconciliation of all domestic parties in Syria and condemning the terrorism of ISIS, Al Qaeda/Al-Nusra Front and the others destroying one of the oldest cultures in the world, a poly-religious one, Francis chooses to tell Europeans to open their hearts and even homes to the “migrants.” In this context, as I noted at the start, it is highly significant that this year’s Dresden Bilderberg Meeting referred in their discussion to “Migration” not Refugee Crisis. It appears both the Pope and Bilderberg planners are singing from the same sheet of music on this at least.

On January 6, in his message on the feast of Epiphany, the same Pope released a Papal video in which he called for creating a one world religion in effect: “Many think differently, feel differently, seeking God or meeting God in different ways. In this crowd, in this range of religions, there is only one certainty that we have for all: we are all children of God.”

Some days later, January 11, 2016 in an address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, Francis insisted that Europe has the means to absorb migrants without sacrificing its security or culture. He criticized the distinction made by the international community between refugees fleeing persecution and those fleeing poverty, referring to “the grave crisis of migration which we are facing.” He condemned various EU national attempts to find their own national solutions to this crisis of migration: “…there is no place for autonomous solutions pursued by individual states, since the consequences of the decisions made by each inevitably have repercussions on the entire international community. Indeed, migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the future of our world.”

Unlike Francis, I firmly believe that borders DO matter, that national autonomy, like individual autonomy, does matter, is in fact, an essential component of our existence, our individual sovereignty our national sovereignty. We human beings are unique individuals every one. We are not some amorphous blob with no individuality. These differences are sacred in my view. Not according to the words of the Jesuit Pope. Our world with all its wars and deep disturbances is not at the state of nirvana which Pope Francis would like us to believe where peace and Christian charity overcome every obstacle. It well may be in the future but to pretend it already is belies in my view a hidden agenda.

David Rockefeller is an open partisan of a one world order where he and his ilk would sit atop all mankind, a disgusting idea. For such a one economic world, we must dissolve national borders. This, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is designed to do in large part, if, that is, EU leaders are suicidal enough to agree. Then to control an entire world, it needs a synthetic new religion. The forced refugee crisis is designed to blur national borders and historical ethnic or national culture. There is far more behind all the nice speeches of the Pope and the talks of Bilderberg than we are being told. It’s not without reason that the word “Jesuitical” in ordinary usage means “one using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.”

_______________________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Read More At: WillaimEngdahl.com

Trump: What Dangers Does He Face From Globalists?

Trilateral Commission, CFR, WEF/Davos, Bilderberg

Global
Source:NomoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 3, 2016

As I keep emphasizing, Trump achieved two great things in his campaign for the presidency: he stopped Hillary Clinton from occupying the Oval Office, and he ran against big media, helping to further destroy its reputation.

From here on, we shall see.

How many compromises will the new president permit? How many will he seek?

To put it another way, how many covert victories will arch-Globalist David Rockefeller and his associates pile up? They are, of course, aware that Trump has promised to kick the can of Globalism down the road, stop the excesses of “free trade,” and bring stolen jobs back to America. What actions will they take against Trump?

Here’s a lesson from the past, about a president who put a brief dent in David Rockefeller’s master-plan. Let’s look at Richard Nixon and a different version of Watergate, the scandal that toppled him.

On the mega-corporate front, the plan for world control remains the Rockefeller template. “Free trade.” This plan was advanced, ceaselessly, for 40 years until, on January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization was fully formed and took charge of criminal rules of global commerce: the crowning moment for global corporate predators. No more tariffs.

However, back in the early 1970s, the whole operation had almost been derailed. One man, a crook, a president, a liar, an insecure parody of a head of state, Richard Nixon, went off script. He REALLY went off script.

In an effort to bolster US companies and protect them from foreign competition, Nixon began erecting tariffs on a range of goods imported into the US.

If this Nixon economic plan spread to other countries, the entire global program to install “free trade” and mega-corporate emperors on their thrones for a thousand years could crash and burn.

Nixon was a Rockefeller man. He was owned by them. He’d been rescued from financial ruin by The Family, and now he was in the White House undermining their greatest dream. You can’t overstate the degree of the betrayal, from the Rockefeller point of view. You simply can’t.

Something had to be done. The president had to go. This was the real motivation behind Watergate. This was the real op. Yes, there were sub-motives and smaller contexts, but the prime move was: get Free Trade back on track; get suitable revenge on the puppet in the White House who went off the script.

Whether the Watergate break-in was planned to serve the higher goal or was pounced upon after the fact, as a grand opportunity, is beside the point. It was there, and it was used. It became the starting point for the Washington Post, its publisher, veteran editor, and two cub reporters to break Richard Nixon into pieces.

And if the Rockefeller people needed an inside man to report on the deteriorating mental state of the president as he heated up in the pressure cooker, they had Henry Kissinger, who was another Rockefeller operative.

The Washington Post was owned by Katharine Graham, who was a very close friend of the Rockefeller family. Years later, she would be awarded a medal of honor by the University of Chicago, an institution founded by John D. Rockefeller. On her death, a paid heartfelt obituary was inserted in the NY Times by the trustees, faculty, and staff of Rockefeller University, where she had served on the University Council.

And she and Nixon already hated each other by the early 1970s.

The managing editor of the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, was an old hand at writing promotional material, having worked in Europe crafting releases for a CIA front group. A former Naval intelligence man, he liked one of his cub reporters, Bob Woodward, who had also worked for the Navy in intelligence.

When Woodward came to Bradlee with a story about a man in a parking garage who was passing secrets from the White House/FBI about Watergate, we are supposed to believe that Bradlee naturally responded by giving the green light to a major investigation. Woodward and Carl Bernstein, another cub, would undertake it—with nothing more than Bradlee’s reputation and the future survival of the Post and Katharine Graham’s empire on the line if the cubs got it wrong.

We are supposed to believe Bradlee gave the green light, without knowing who the man in the garage was, without knowing whether Woodward could be trusted, without even getting permission from Graham to move ahead.

Bradlee, a grizzled veteran of Washington, understanding exactly what Washington could do to people who told secrets out of school, just said to Woodward and Bernstein, “You’d better be damned sure you’re right, because otherwise we’re all in trouble.”

Two untested cub reporters set loose in a cage with tigers.

The odds of that happening were nil.

Bradlee had to know a great deal from the beginning, and he had to have Katharine Graham’s signal to move. The series of breaking stories would be spoon-fed to the unsuspecting young reporters, instead of veteran reporters who would become suspicious that they were being used. The cubs would be consumed by their ambition to advance their careers.

Bradlee was confident in the whole op because he had the essentials of the Watergate scandal in hand—all the way up to Nixon, the target—well in advance of his two young reporters.

To have proceeded otherwise—Bradlee was simply not that kind of fool. Whatever Deep Throat, the man in the garage, was dishing out to Woodward didn’t really matter. Bradlee already had it in his pocket. Deep Throat was merely a contrivance to allow the story to expand and grow by steps, and to permit Woodward and Bernstein to believe they were peeling layers from an onion.

The man behind the curtain was David Rockefeller.

After the whole scandal had been exposed and Nixon had flown away, in disgrace, from the White House for the last time, Rockefeller addressed a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the European Community (October 1975). He was there to allay their fears about Nixon’s betrayal of the new economic world order. There was really very little he needed to say. David had already created (1973) the elite free-trade Trilateral Commission; a new puppet, Gerald Ford, was in the White House; and Ford had appointed David’s brother, Nelson Rockefeller, as his vice president.

David told the European attendees, “Fortunately, there are no signs that these anti-[free] trade measures [of Nixon] are supported by the [Ford] Administration.”

And that was that. The global mega-corporate colossus was back on track.

The temporary rip in the Matrix had been repaired.

On a far lower level of power politics, everyone and his brother was consumed with the contrails of the scandal that had driven away Nixon and his colleagues. People were congratulating each other on expunging a corrupt conspiracy from public life.

The real players, of course, were still in place, more powerful than ever. David Rockefeller and his aides were preparing for an even greater coup. They had chosen an obscure man with zero name recognition to be the next president of the United States. Jimmy Carter. Carter would function to forward the goals of the Trilateral Commission in bold view of anyone who knew the score.

And every president since Carter, regardless of party affiliation, has supported and extended those Globalist-corporate goals. No questions asked. Obama, who fatuously remarked during his 2008 election campaign that NAFTA “needs to be revisited,” has taken his cues like any other puppet.

When, from this perspective, you examine…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Foreign Affairs Confronts Trump’s ‘Populism’


Source: TheDailyBell.com
October 26, 2016

The Globalization of Rage  Why Today’s Extremism Looks Familiar … Militant secessions from a civilization premised on gradual progress under liberal democratic trustees—the kind of civilization that D’Annunzio and his peers denounced as feeble and corrupt—are once again brewing within the West and far beyond it: and as before, they are fueled by a broad, deep, and volatile desire for destruction.    –Foreign Affairs                             

This is the single most important article we’ve read in Foreign Affairs in years. It grows out of the “populism versus globalism” meme we’ve been tracking regularly.

We believed from the beginning that this meme would prove extremely important. The idea was that populism would be contrasted unfavorably to globalism and that this would be developed via directed history.

We tend to think Brexit is an example of this. It still doesn’t make sense that Brexit passed when British electoral facilities are controlled by globalist elites. In other words, Brexit’s passage may have been purposeful.

The idea, for instance, would be to ensure that Brexit has a broad array of negative consequences for the British. Paint Brexit as “populist” and  then paint its negative consequences as occurring because the wise precepts of globalism were not adhered to.

This is how elite propaganda works. Create a dialogue and then enforce it with the economic, legislative and military consequences – all of which are controlled by the dialogue-makers.

Global warming doesn’t exist, or not in fashion represented in the popular media. But global warming has been acted upon economically and legislatively throughout the world.

Likewise, “populism versus globalism” is a meme – a rhetorical construct – not a reality.

But there can be little doubt now that those behind the meme intend to make real. We can see the rhetoric heightening.

The consequences of a “populist” Brexit are going to be determinedly negative. If the “populist” Trump is elected in the US, the consequences will likely be similarly disastrous – and blamed on his populism.

Foreign Affairs is the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the elite sister of the elite-controlled British Roundtable. Foreign Affairs magazine enunciates elite banking policies.

In this case, we would do well to pay heed to an emergent meme that will define the next decades.

It is not enough to suggest globalist remedies. An entire argument must be constructed around globalism if it is to be fully implemented.

And since the preferred device is Hegelian – thesis and antithesis giving way to synthesis – one needs to establish two sides. Globalism is the thesis here. Populism the antithesis. The synthesis will be a more fully emergent globalism.

In the highly charged rhetoric of this Foreign Affairs article, we can see just how vehemently this emergent meme is being pursued.

In reality, today’s malignancies are rooted in distinctly modern reactions to the profound social and economic shifts of recent decades, which have been obscured by the optimistic visions of globalization that took hold in the aftermath of the Cold War.

Notice the language. Globalism is optimistic. Its alternative (populism) is “malignant.

Then there is this:

Behind all these developments lies the fact that globalization—characterized by the mobility of people, capital, and ideas and accelerated by the rapid development of communications and information technology—has weakened traditional forms of authority everywhere, from Europe’s social democracies to the despotic states of the Arab world.

It has also produced an array of unpredictable new international actors that have seized on the sense of alienation and dashed expectations that defines the political mood in many places.

The extremists of ISIS have exploited these changes with devious skill, partly by turning the Internet into a devastatingly effective propaganda tool for global jihad.

You see? It is not enough to characterize populism as malignant. It must be conflated directly with ISIS. Trump, for instance, is not merely misguided. He is part of a larger terrorism.

And populism is to be conflated with “conspiracy theory” as well … actually a CIA-developed meme. In fact, populism – so the article informs us – is responsible for “lynch mobs and mass shooters.”

Populist and extremist attacks on reasoned debate and evidence-based analysis have made it easier for conspiracy theories and downright lies to spread and gain broad credence. Lynch mobs and mass shooters thrive in a climate where many people think of others only in terms of friends and foes and where sectarian loyalty or nativist hatred override civic bonds.

The article goes on to blame some of today’s disturbing violence and aimlessness on major media.

Of course, the article doesn’t tell us that most major media is controlled by a handful of individuals who run them to benefit the goals of the globalist elite.

Here’s the duplicitous characterization:

The world seems beset by pervasive panic, which doesn’t quite resemble the centralized fear that emanates from despotic power. Rather, people everywhere find themselves in thrall to the sentiment—generated by the news media and amplified by social media—that anything can happen, anywhere, to anybody, at any time.

The pervasive panic the article discerns is further complicated by the continued failure of globalism, which is disordering people “spiritually.”

In places where globalized capitalism has not fulfilled its promise of opportunity and prosperity, culturally and spiritually disorientated people have become increasingly susceptible to demagoguery and extremism.

The consequences of globalism, should it continue to fail, will include the disenfranchising of the world’s youth.

The inheritance of modern youth will include “racist nationalism” that will remove or reduce “freedom and prosperity.”

The sudden and rapid success of racist nationalists and cultural supremacists ought to make liberals wonder whether the millions of young people awakening around the world to their inheritance—which for even the richest among them includes global warming—will be able to realize the modern promise of freedom and prosperity, or if they are doomed to hurtle, like many Europeans in the past, between a sense of inadequacy and fantasies of revenge.

Generally speaking, populism is to be feared as the worst of all results, should it grip the world more pervasively in its icy clutches.

Militant secessions from a civilization premised on gradual progress under liberal democratic trustees … are once again brewing within the West and far beyond it: and as before, they are fueled by a broad, deep, and volatile desire for destruction.

This is a broad and ringing affirmation of globalism, which as we recently pointed out, is at root a religion.

It is an evil religion however, proposing the gathering together of the world’s population under a single ruler (or group or rulers) who will have near-absolute control over the world’s billions.

All the negatives attributed to populism in this article are actually properties of globalism. But the rhetoric justifies the ascension of globalism and the removal of populism.

Conclusion: Populism is painted as malignant, exploitative, racist and violent. These are not opinions either. This article is proposing a broad gamut of properties that the wise solons of globalism will have to act against and eventually remove. You may wish to consult the Georgia Guidestones for the human costs involved.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

If A Sane Person Took Over Trump’s Body

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
March 1, 2016

Body snatchers. Body switchers.

For the moment, for the purposes of argument, let’s say Donald Trump is a crazy son of a bitch. He doesn’t mean what he says. He doesn’t remember many things he says. He won’t really try to enact his promises if he’s the next President. Or (if you hate what he stands for), he will try to make those promises stick.

Now, let’s imagine a sane person could take over Trump’s body. Boom. A person who actually means what he says, who’s prepared to give his all, who cares about people, etc. Would that person keep any of Trump’s current rhetoric? Would he retain any part of Trump’s message?

In other words, if we could separate Trump the man from what he’s been saying, does any of it make sense? Does any of it, in fact, challenge the men who’ve really been running this country for a long time? Does any of it make them turn red, choke, spit, and fall down in the street?

Well, here are a few quotes from a recent Weekly Standard editorial, “Selling America Short,” by Max Boot and Benn Steil. Both authors are senior fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Steil is the CFR’s director of international economics, as well.

The CFR is the US home of Globalism, Inc.

No, the Weekly Standard authors aren’t choking and spitting (in public), they’re keeping their cool, but they aren’t happy:

“Start with trade policy, the area that, along with immigration, seems to exercise him [Trump] the most. One of America’s greatest accomplishments in the early postwar era was the creation of a rules-based international trade regime.”

“Governments stuck by this trade regime even through the recent financial crisis and recession. Trump, however, says he is prepared to abrogate America’s commitments, citing nothing more than the pretense that our importing more than we export is evidence of ‘cheating’ by foreign governments…As for the recently concluded 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, not yet ratified by Congress, Trump has condemned it.”

Yes, indeed. These trade treaties (GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc.) are the cornerstones of the Globalist cathedral. NAFTA, for example, allowed the massive export of cheap US corn to Mexico, put 1.5 million Mexican corn farmers into bankruptcy, and led some of those farmers to come across the border in the immigration wave.

The mainstream press doesn’t pound on that story.

The trade treaties have allowed US manufacturers to: shut down their factories here, throwing huge numbers of Americans out of work (including workers in inner cities); and set up those factories in countries where the going wage is three cents a day.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Trump – Why Bilderberg, WEF/Davos & CFR Have Shingles

Geopolitics

Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 23, 2016

The Donald shoots from the hip and changes his tune every few minutes. True. He thinks about one thing, and that reminds him of something else, and then he goes off on that. However, as he keeps talking and talking and talking, he’s deciding that some of what he’s saying makes sense. He’s firming up his belief in his own sales-pitch. He’s doubling down and getting serious.

And one of the things he’s serious about is trade deals. Bad Globalist deals. Deals that steal more American jobs. He and Bernie Sanders wouldn’t admit it, but they both agree on this general point.

In fact, a new study out of Tufts University torpedoes glowing estimates of the latest such deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The study authors predict the consequences: another 450,000 jobs will be lost in the US by 2025. Oops. Another Globalist trade treaty sucks life out of the American economy. Which is precisely why Obama is obsessed with passing it.

(The study is titled “Trading Down: Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” A quick breakdown of the study is on techdirt.com, here; free access to the full paper is on tufts.edu, here)

Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Globalists are counting on the TPP. It’s one of their precious babies. They want to undermine the US economy. It’s part of their sink-America program, to pave the way for One United Planet under one management system. Not an American empire. A globalist empire.

And they don’t want some out-of-control US Presidential candidate, whose crowds and poll numbers keep swelling like a massive infection, to swipe and swipe and swipe at these trade treaties and dream up ways to bring more jobs back home. They definitely don’t want that—especially after their current marionette in the White House has done such fine work drowning the economic life of the US. The issuance of new credit cards and part-time work at fast-food joints pouring chocolate on French fries don’t equal renewed prosperity, in case you were fooled by official economic-indicator reports.

These elite Globalist don’t believe for a minute that Trump alone can turn back the clock on their ongoing destruction. But they do realize he can keep talking about it. And in doing so, he can force more people to wake up to the fact that they’re being screwed—and how they’re being screwed.

Globalism is all about allowing mega-corporations to take their factories and jobs out of the country overseas. It’s a cornerstone of every trade deal. Mega-corps can manufacture their products more cheaply in a hell hole with slave workers, and then export those products back here (and to other industrialized countries)—and pay no tariffs. How sweet (and destructive) it is.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com