“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. ” – David Rockefeller
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.”– Henry Kissinger
As Kissinger suggests, the new order will not come in like a third-world coup, with the blatant imposition of military force. Rather, the conditions are to be created so that the NWO will appear to be a welcome salvation for humanity. It would be surprising if any other approach had been adopted. It has always been the practice of the US establishment to bring public opinion enthusiastically onside to their global-scale projects.
In both world wars, for example, the dominant economic elites orchestrated the buildup to the wars, great care was taken so that the designated enemies would be seen as the aggressors. As a result, populations put their hearts and souls into the war effort. Not only were they ‘defending’ themselves, they were ‘fighting a war to end all wars’, or they were ‘defeating fascism’. Mind control is the most efficient means of population mobilization.
As regards economic affairs, these same capitalist elites have been promoting a fake environmentalism in general, and global-warming hysteria in particular, so that a micromanaged global technocracy can be sold to an enthusiastic population as a Green victory. As regards transition strategy, the orchestrated collapse of 2008 put an end to the old economic order – the era of market forces. We are now already in a command-economy scenario, with an increasing number of national budgets being dictated by central-banker fiat.
In September of 2001, these same economic elites redefined civil liberties and international law. In September of 2008, they redefined the nature of economics. It is now September of 2013, and it appears they are about to redefine the nature of geopolitics.
In Syria and the NWO Project I was extrapolating what we might expect to happen, under our familiar geopolitics. I pointed out that we are in the same entangled-alliances scenario that preceded World War 1, and that a US attack on Syria would surely escalate into a nuclear Guns of August. With a coalition-of-the-willing assembled, US warships on station, Iran and Israel with fidgety hands on triggers, and Obama committed to his red line.
Much to my surprise, the bombshell that fell next did not explode in Syria: it exploded in London. For the first time in 400 years a Prime Minister was blocked from foreign adventurism by Parliament. And then an even bigger bombshell exploded in Washington. Obama caved in on his red line, in a humiliating backdown speech. Not only was the President left looking weak and indecisive, but the White House was apparently turning in its post-9/11 license to intervene at will.
After they made such strong arguments for the necessity of acting, and expressed the unwavering determination to proceed, these backdowns were both dramatic and unexpected. Not only that, the backdown also represent a major shift in the whole tone of post-9/11 politics and geopolitics.
Ever since 9/11, beginning under Bush and Blair, the the US and UK have been operating more or less in ‘national emergency’ mode. Normal constitutional processes have been systematically ignored, due to the presumed threat of domestic terrorist acts, and normal international law has been has been largely ignored, in dealing with alleged terrorist groups and terrorist states. And this has been an ongoing trend, toward more executive power, and more international belligerence.
I suggest that these backdowns, these executives bowing to their legislatures, is intended to be seen a symbolic return to the rule of law. A return to deliberation and thoughtfulness, in contrast to cowboy recklessness. Indeed, in appearance, these leaders are ‘listening to the people’. This all amounts to a very major shift, a sea change, in the behaviors of the two most geopolitically active nations, which means it’s a sea change in geopolitics generally.
In the Syria article I suggested the following:
If you can get your head around the idea that we are in the midst of an intense endgame, with the energies of the US establishment and their minions focused on completing the NWO Project, then it becomes much easier to analyze and understand the meaning of current events.
A sea change on the world stage, initiated by the chief agent-nations responding to powerful interests and lobby groups, means that we are entering a new phase of the NWO Project. The goal of the project is to create a world government, and this sea change indicates that nuclear confrontation is not to be the chosen path after all. We were at the brink, about to start something that would have escalated from Syria to Iran to Israel and to Russia. And now we’re not. Quite a relief.
In fact, that’s the point: it’s quite a relief. In order to understand this new phase of the project, we need to step back and review again the overall scenario. Every crisis, from 9/11 itself, and including all the interventions and regime changes, has been manufactured. What we’re seeing is a classic case of ‘create crisis’, ‘offer solution’. Or, in the language of the Shock Doctrine, given a crisis, accomplish what you couldn’t accomplish otherwise.
In appearance, we see Great Power leaders restoring the rule of law and the primacy of legislative bodies. The natural next step in this sea-change scenario would be for the same thing to be orchestrated on a global scale, for the Great Powers to recognize the primacy of the UN, giving us the ‘rule of law’ globally. An apparent close-escape with Great Power confrontation has created a PR climate conducive to bringing in the long-planned NWO global government.
It is not clear how the rest of this scenario will unfold, but we can be sure more surprises will be forthcoming. As regards the actions the US, UK, and EU, we can assume a script has been written, as these players are responding to powerful economic interests. Russia and China remain as independent players, but clearly their self-interest would lead them to support initiatives that move in the direction of peaceful cooperation among the Great Powers. I expect ‘big news’ to come out of any forthcoming summit meetings.
There is one very convenient crisis-solution opportunity sitting there, ripe, waiting to be plucked. The crises in Syria and Egypt were manufactured and they can be resolved. Arms can be cut off to the mercenary terrorists in Syria, and the US-linked Egyptian Army can be reined in. These events can be brought about under the flag of some kind of UN mission, and the UN would get the credit for being the hero of the day.
The details are speculative, but this is the kind of thing we can expect to be seeing in the near future. Another crisis-solution opportunity is all that sovereign debt. Forgiving that could be bundled with a new UN-issued currency. When you’re the one who creates all the problems, it’s not that difficult to uncreate them, in a way that serves your interests.
Basically, the world is being offered a birthday present, peace in our time, the rule of law, an era of international cooperation, an opportunity to deal with the big problems facing humanity. As this unfolds over the next weeks and months, one can only imagine the wave of optimism that can be generated by the global media in a crisis-weary population. The people are to be grateful for the NWO, and my goal here has been to suggest some of the means that are available for creating that result.
Where there’s a carrot, there is usually also a stick. A wonderful-seeming NWO is the carrot, and the stick is manifesting as a demonization of the old order. Consider for example this video of a speech by Wesley Clark, which is currently making the rounds on the Internet. Here’s a link and a summary:
Wesley Clark – America’s Foreign Policy “Coup”
Oct 3, 2007
Commonwealth Club, San Francisco (video)
https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/TY2DKzastu8%26hl=en_US%26fs=1%26
A policy coup after 9/11:
“Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy, and they didn’t bother to inform the rest of us.” Six weeks after 9/11, Clark was told by an officer from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that a memo had just come down from the Department of Defense. The officer said, “We are going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, and then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran”.
