TRUTH TALK NEWS
Is The New World Order In Crisis? Herr Kissinger Thinks So. Or is this just a Hegelian ploy?
As the elite do their best to quell the rising tide of political awareness of their nefarious totalitarian world socialist government intentions, the rise of Islam has thrown a monkey wrench into the works.
Certainly the Anglo-American Establishment has worked diligently and successfully
via control of the U.S. State Department through Chatham House and the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) to forge the foundations and much of the infrastructure
of the New World Order.
Wars, CIA coups, puppet regimes and other conflict driven strategies have indeed moved America to the center of this oblique objective.
Of course it was and is, America's blood and fortune that finances most of this transformation (as Freemason Obama calls it) since generous old J.D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land to build the United Nations building after World War II.
The conflict creation strategies implemented afterwards, from the rigging the 1948 Italian elections to when the CIA and CFR globalist minion Zbignew Brzezinski created a Mujahadin named Al-Qaeda in 1979 as an opposition force to the Soviets headed by a CIA asset
known as Tim Osman, who was of course, Osama Bin Ladin led us to where we are today.
Evidence of this is overwhelming and of course, overlooked. The truth is, the US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan throughout the Soviet war. The CIA funded Al-Qaeda with $3 billion and nurtured Bin Ladin as an asset code name: Tim Osman.
Evidence of this can be found by clicking on the following links below:
BBC news article:
"...Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight
against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The
Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars
and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan. He received security
training from the CIA itself."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
Forbes business information service article:
"...[Osama bin Laden] received military and
financial assistance from the intelligence services
of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States."
http://www.forbes.com/charitable/2001/09/14/0914whoisobl.html
ABC News article:
"In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable
Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate in the
Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading
forces of the Soviet Union - a cause that,
ironically, the United States funded, pouring
$3 billion into the Afghan resistance via the CIA."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html
In his new book, "World Order" to be published on September 9, 2014 by Penguin Press, Herr Kissinger's insights into the past also directs the future.
 |
| NWO GLOBALISTS HENRY KISSENGER AND DAVID ROCKEFELLER |
The following is a FAIR USE excerpt from Henry Kissinger's upcoming book, World Order:
"Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.
The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension.
A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace.
The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen.
The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.
This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.
The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power.
 |
THE ANGLO-AMERICAN NEO-FUEDAL ESTABLISHMENT |
But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea.
The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.
First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures.
Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order.
And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders.
At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.
The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.
The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state.
Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.
This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010.
(HN NOTE: NO SHIT, SHERLOCK. THIS IS THE PLAN)
The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system. (HN NOTE: CONTROLLED OPPOSITION)
The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.
A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues.
This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy.
This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.
The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate.
A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.
The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling:
The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.
A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.
To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself:
What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone?
What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?
For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security.
Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy." - Henry Kissenger, World Order
It is clear---at least to me, that the rise of Islam is yet another Hegelian Ploy of the New World Order. As I wrote previously in , THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH" there is a close relationship between the secret societies of the Masonic Order and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Since the forces behind the New World Order want to destroy all religion but the Luciferian doctrine, one must ponder and can only wonder if Islam is not only part of the plan, but the actual one world religion itself.
PLEASE SHARE THIS BLOG!!!!!
Watch the 24/7 TRUTH TALK NEWS
ALSO: Watch the TRUTH TALK NEWS CHANNEL on TRUTH BROADCAST NETWORK
If you seek truth and want to restore Constitutional Gov't please subscribe and share the valuable information contained on this blog.Thank you for your continued support. Together we can restore Our republic. Together we can be the change we wish to see in the world by exposing the forces that wish to enslave us.
 |
youtube.com/TruthTalkNewsLIVE |
Subscribe, follow and share the truth http://www.TruthTalkNews.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com//FreedomFirstFilms
http://www.youtube.com/TruthTalkNewsLIVE
http://www.twitter.com/TruthTalkNews
http://www.pinterest.com/howardnema/
No comments:
Post a Comment