Canceled European Missile Defense Signals New Disarmament Race To War

Canceled European Missile Defense
Signals New Disarmament Race To War
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
9-25-9

Begin Excerpt

CANCELLED EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENSE SIGNALS NEW DISARMAMENT RACE TO WAR

This week Obama scrapped the Bush era proposal to build an anti-ballistic-missile system in Poland along with its corresponding search and tracking radar in the Czech Republic, which was supposedly designed to protect against a rogue missile attack from Iran. Getting Obama to dump the ABM system was a top priority for Russia, which knew that the Iran threat was an excuse to justify placing a system close to Russia capable of intercepting Russian missiles in their upward boost phase. This is where US interceptors would be most effective, having no warhead–instead of trying to knock down incoming Russian warheads, traveling at hyper speeds, over the target area. That’s a recipe for failure, especially if Russian claims about maneuvering warheads are true. This sudden backing down from directly confronting Russia appears to be part of a new and massive disarmament campaign as heralded by Obama in his speech to the UN–something the West always reverts to prior to sinking into a new world war. This week I’ll analyze why all such disarmament measures, without actual and verifiable Russian and Chinese reductions, will make the US more susceptible to a nuclear first strike.

The UK Guardian reported that, “Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country’s arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.” This is exactly the same thing President Bill Clinton ordered in 1996 that led to the secret issuance of PDD-60 completely changing the Reagan era nuclear doctrine designed to win a nuclear war with Russia. PDD-60 is still secret, but a few public statements issued in late 1997 by Clinton disarmament advisor Robert Bell and Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (who was part of the drafting and review process) [ http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd ] indicated that the Presidential Decision Directive instructed US missile commanders “not to depend on launch-on-warning” (a tactic of launching all fixed silo missiles at the enemy before opponents first strike missiles landed and destroyed ours), –in essence, this PDD directed our country to absorb a first strike and retaliate later.

A frustrated Marine General is said to have exclaimed, “Retaliate with WHAT?” He knew, as did other commanders of our Trident nuclear submarines that Clinton had unilaterally agreed to keep half of all our SLBM submarines in port at any one time “to assure our Russian friends that we are not a threat.” When you telegraph a subtle message to the Russians that we are going to absorb a first strike, you induce them to make sure they hit us with everything necessary to make sure we cannot respond after a first strike.

PDD-60 also removes all alternate submarine launch codes so that our subs cannot fire without direct communications with the President. Those vital communications links will assuredly not survive a massive first strike. Even if they did, it is probable given what we know that the President would simply not issue the orders to launch until a first strike had landed. This is not deterrence. This is suicide, or a very carefully planned agenda to make the US vulnerable. Why would US leaders do this? It is designed to drive Americans into a New World Order that has military power over member nations–something no amount of public manipulation in past decades has been able to do. When our leaders come out of their bunkers they will declare the “Russians and Chinese deceived us” and now (that our military forces are mostly destroyed) we have no choice but to enter into a military alliance with the UN to save us.

This is all too similar to the Clinton era of nuclear doctrine change. The impetus to change U.S. strategic doctrine came on the heels of President Clinton’s demand to the joint chiefs in early 1996 that they prepare to unilaterally reduce America’s nuclear warhead deployment to 2,000-2,500 in eager anticipation of the ratification of START II disarmament treaty (which has yet to be ratified by the Russian Duma). General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded that he couldn’t comply since the U.S. military was still operating on a former Presidential Directive of 1981 to prepare to ‘win a protracted nuclear war.’ A winning strategy couldn’t be implemented without the full contingent of current nuclear strategic warheads.

According to Craig Cerniello of Arms Control Today (Nov/Dec 1997 issue), “the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality, given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Certainly, the apparent collapse of the Soviet Union is the linchpin in every argument pointing towards the relaxation of western vigilance and accelerated disarmament–and still is. Indeed, it is the driving argument that is trumpeted constantly before Congress, U.S. military leaders and the American people. Almost everyone bought into it, even most conservatives who should have been more suspicious. The most savvy of the non-establishment Soviet watchers can point to a host of evidence indicating that the so-called collapse was engineered to disarm the West and garner billions in direct aid to Russia while inducing the West to take over the economic burden of the former satellite states that Russia could no longer support.

For one, there was the phony Gorbachev ‘coup’ that failed and was so patently contrived and parroted by the western media that they had to be covering for this keystone cop affair. Then, the heads of the KGB, GRU, and Defense Ministries supposedly had to flee into hiding. If they were the real heads of these feared organs of state power, who were they fleeing from? Then there is the statement of Eric Honeker, former head of the German DDR who stated before his death that he was instructed by Moscow to step down and allow the student protests in Leipzig to go forward without Stazi interference. Romania’s dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu said he got the same orders to step down, but refused. He had to be forcibly removed by another phony coup, made to look like an uprising of anti-communists (which it was not).

But the most ominous evidence is found in defectors from Russia who tell the same story: The whole fall of Communism was planned years in advance to gain Western financial and military assistance, all the while snookering the West into treating Russia as a new ally. The whole charade of Russian oligarches in pretended opposition to the super-patriot Vladimir Putin is part of this sophisticated game. Virtually all significant opposition political parties are controlled by forces loyal to Putin. While Russia feigns weakness in the private economic sector its underground military industrial complex is humming along at full speed, deploying top of the line new biological, chemical and nuclear weapons systems in secret, all aimed at taking down the U.S. military in one huge decapitating nuclear strike. This is what makes the new disarmament moves by the Obama administration so worrisome.

In line with this general process, Obama returns to another wholesale change in America’s nuclear doctrine. “Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the ‘nuclear posture review’ as being too timid [in disarmament], and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. Those options include:

Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Obama’s UN speech this week pushed disarmament strongly, but much of his emphasis was tied to justifying a future strike on Iran. The announcement today of the “discovery” of a second underground nuclear site in Iran was specifically timed to coincide with Obama’s UN speech attacking Iran. In fact, US intelligence admits it has long known about the site, but had not mentioned it now.

Thus the official thinking linked it all to non-proliferation: “It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.” Actually, it’s a devil’s bargain. Obama’s overtures on deep disarmament were created to help focus even more attention on Iran and North Korean nuclear programs as “out of step with the rest of the disarming world.” It may serve that purpose in the short run, but in the long run all disarmament is one sided on the part of the US and western allies. The Russians will continue to build in secret. In fact, they never stopped even during the phony “fall”. There is virtually a total blackout of media information on the history of Russian cheating on each and every disarmament agreement.

Here is a brief review of recent disarmament history: Under the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiative, the US decided to

eliminate our entire inventory of ground-launched nonstrategic nuclear weapons (nuclear artillery and Lance surface-to-surface missiles);

Remove all nonstrategic nuclear weapons on a day-to-day basis from surface ships, attack submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases;

Remove our strategic bombers from alert;

Stand down the Minuteman II ICBMs scheduled for deactivation under Start I

Terminate the mobile Peacekeeper and mobile small ICBM programs and

Terminate the SCRAM-II nuclear short-range attack missile

In January 1992, the second Presidential Nuclear Initiative took further steps which included:

Limiting B-2 production to 20 bombers

Canceling the entire small ICBM program

Ceasing production of W-88 Trident SLBM (Sub launched missiles) warheads–our most powerful

Halting purchases of advanced cruise missiles

Stop new production of Peacekeeper MX missiles (our biggest MIRV warhead ICBM)

As a result of these significant changes, the U.S. nuclear stockpile has decreased by more than 50 percent. All of this has been done without any meaningful disarmament by the Russians. The Clinton Administration would counter this charge by citing the ‘successful’ dismantling of the 3,300 strategic nuclear warheads by Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, and the destruction of their 252 ICBM’s and related silos–all paid for with US taxpayer funds to the tune of 300 million per year (the Nunn-Lugar legislation).

But the real story is otherwise. Yes, Americans paid for the dismantling of these system–the oldest and most out of date in the Soviet inventory. They were scheduled for replacement anyway, so the US taxpayer ended up saving the Russians over a billion dollars, allowing them to use this and other Western aid to develop and build new systems, coming on line right now. But that isn’t all. What the administration doesn’t say is that they allowed the Russians to reclaim all the nuclear warheads, and paid them to recycle the usable material into new, updated warheads. We even built them a state of the art Nuclear Warhead refurbishing and storage facility. Once complete, our inspectors were banned from entry. We didn’t diminish the threat at all. We only helped them to transform it into something more dangerous.

As J. R. Nyquist wrote in an article for WND.com, “‘In 1982′ wrote William R. Graham, ‘President Reagan asked me to serve as the Chairman of his General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament. This was the committee tasked to review Russian compliance with various arms control treaties. ‘It took the General Advisory Committee about a year to review the entire record,.. Neither the institutions of the State Department nor the Intelligence Community were cooperative,’ noted Graham. Nevertheless, with help from ‘a few knowledgeable individuals,’ a highly classified report of 300 pages was issued [it is still classified to keep the public from knowing about it]. In Graham’s words, the report uncovered ‘a systematic pattern of Soviet violations of their arms control commitments in the post-WW II era.’

“Predictably, the report was attacked by intelligence intellectuals across the board. The house that Kissinger built — the house of denying Russian violations — was a strong house. The pattern of Russian cheating did not change during the following decade [the so-called "collapse of Communism"]. According to an April 9, 1992, report entitled ‘Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements’ submitted to Congress by the White House, ‘documented Soviet violations of major arms control treaties and agreements … included the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, SALT I and II, the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, the Helsinki Final Treaty (LTBT), and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.’”

The Conventional Forces Treaty (CNF) allowed Russia to not disarm its huge stockpile of tanks and mobile artillery as long as it stockpiled them east of the Ural mountains–typical of US loopholes offered the Soviets, while we strictly destroyed our older tanks. In 2007 NATO announced that it was going to establish military bases in former Soviet states (now part of NATO), Russia complained that this amounted to a NATO violation of the CNF treaty. Russia’s Foreign Minister responded that Russia would consider itself no longer limited in its deployment of heavy weapons (tanks and artillery) to its western border with NATO countries.

While this implies that Russia was formerly in compliance, it is not true. During the 1990s, Russia had used the expansion of NATO as an excuse to demand amendments to the treaty that ratified Russia’s huge armor deployments from the Ural depots to the South of Russia during the Chechen war. In fact, Russia had moved those weapons out of storage in clear violation of the treaty and then demanded the treaty be amended to ratify the violation. Russian, never one to give an inch when it can demand a mile, offered to withdraw troops from Georgia and Moldova in exchange for the changes. The deal was made, but Russian troops are still in Georgia.

The cheating on the INF treaty transcended the “fall of Communism” and proved “the fall” to be a sham on many fronts. It was discovered that the Russians never did remove their Intermediate range missiles from Czechoslovakian and Romanian caves in which they were hidden. Worldnetdaily.com had Ken Timmerman detail the violations during the Clinton administration:

“As President Clinton met with Russian President Putin in Moscow to discuss nuclear arms control over the weekend, an old story from the Cold War has resurfaced that sheds doubt on Russia’s reliability as a negotiating partner: nuclear-tipped SS-23 missiles that the Soviet Union never declared to the United States, in direct violation of a 1987 arms-control agreement.

“During the Cold War, the SS-23 missiles were equipped with a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead and were fired from wheeled launchers, making them virtually impossible to destroy once they were deployed from their underground storage sites. The Soviets secretly deployed the SS-23s in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria in 1986. In the event of war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, they would have given the Soviets a clear military advantage by allowing them to launch a surprise nuclear strike at the heart of NATO forces in Germany.

“Under the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Agreement signed in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 8, 1987, President Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to destroy all existing theater nuclear missiles in Europe, including all SS-23s… While the Soviets allowed U.S. inspectors to witness the destruction of the longer-range SS-20 missiles [the US allowed the Russians to keep the warheads], which constituted the bulk of their force, they secretly rushed several batteries of the shorter-range SS-23s to East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria just prior to signing the Treaty, and never declared them or destroyed them.”

It was also little wonder that all of this points to the “fall of the Soviet Union” as a grand defection. Defectors from the Czechoslovakia secret police fingered Vaclav Havel, the supposed pro-western, anti-Russian leader of the revolution as a Soviet agent masquerading as pro-West. Lech Walesa the famed anti-Soviet leader of Solidarity has similarly been outed as a Soviet agent in Poland.

Russian cheating continued through the 1990s — on nuclear, biological, chemical and ABM treaties. According to Bill Lee, a veteran CIA and DIA analyst, there is a large Russian nuclear stockpile unaccounted for by the arms control inspectors. Lee also asserts that Russia has a nationwide ABM defense today, clearly in violation of the ABM Treaty. But the Russians are allowed to cheat, and our government covers for them. They are allowed to retain hidden reserves of strategic striking power while the US disarms. Even our vaunted ABM system is a sham. It has no warhead and must make a perfect hit in order to work. Even if it did work, the number of interceptors are less than a dozen, hardly useful against thousands of Russian and Chinese warheads.

The problem of “looking the other way” while the continuing Soviets cheat on all disarmament pacts isn’t just a Clinton thing. The Bush administration continued to fulfill its share of the two disarmament reduction pacts signed with Russia recently even though Russia has backed out of their commitments. The Russians announced they were not going to destroy their remaining SS-18 Satan missiles as stipulated in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, but the US continued to dismantle our 50 Peacekeeper missiles, with 10 warheads each.

Thus, the Russians still maintain a more than 3 to 1 advantage over the US in both throw weight and nuclear delivery vehicles. That disparity widened dramatically with the Clinton and Bush Administration’s unilateral disarmament while, at the same time, encouraged the Russians to proceed not only with the deployment of new Topol-M missiles (which are mobile launched and therefore difficult to target), but to put 3 MIRVed warheads on each missile instead of the treaty limit of 1 warhead–for a total deployment of 1500 warheads. Not counting the presumed minimum 4,000 to 6,000 warheads in the current Russian inventory, these 1500 new warheads would overwhelm our measly handful of ABM interceptors in Alaska.

To pacify our increasingly worried military leaders, there is a shift going on in procurement dollars to deploy a more flexible sea-based missile deterrent, which does have merit–if it comes in time. As Roxana Tiron reports, this “sea-based missile deterrents–is a boon for the Raytheon Co. and Lockheed Martin, which have significant missile defense operations in Arizona, Arkansas and New Jersey. It is however bad news for the Boeing Co. and its congressional supporters in Alabama, where the company builds and manages its ground based missile interceptors… Most Republicans strongly support the ground-based interceptors that became a centerpiece of the Reagan administration while Democrats have generally been critical, saying they don’t work well [true, but that doesn't mean the disarmament minded Democrats want something that really works].

At the present time the US and Britain are both pushing for major disarmament without any iron-clad enforcement and verification authority. Britain is offering to decommission one of its four Trident SLBM subs as its first disarmament gesture. This indicates that a betrayal of national interests in coming, masked by the typical rhetoric of “peace.” “According to a final draft of the resolution due to be passed on Thursday, however, the UN security council will not wholeheartedly embrace the US and Britain’s call for eventual abolition of nuclear weapons. Largely on French insistence, the council will endorse the vaguer aim of seeking ‘to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.’” These statements are typical of the fact that there is always a divergence between political rhetoric and what actually gets done within the bowels of government. The public, of course, is never allowed to know what our government is really doing, which should worry us all.

End Excerpt

World Affairs Brief – Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com

World Affairs Brief, 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058, USA

http://www.rense.com/general87/cancel.htm

TIMELINE
1931 — Students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow are taught:

“One day we shall start to spread the most theatrical peace movement the world has ever seen. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent…will fall into the trap offered by the possibility of making new friends. Our day will come in 30 years or so… The bourgeoisie must be lulled into a false sense of security.

1932 — New books are published urging New World Order:

Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S.

The New World Order by F.S. Marvin, describing the League of Nations as the first attempt at a New World Order. Marvin says, “nationality must rank below the claims of mankind as a whole.”

Dare the School Build a New Social Order? is published. Educator author George Counts asserts that:
“…the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest” in order to “influence the social attitudes, ideals and behavior of the coming generation…The growth of science and technology has carried us into a new age where ignorance must be replaced by knowledge, competition by cooperation, trust in Providence by careful planning and private capitalism by some form of social economy.”

Plan for Peace by American Birth Control League founder Margaret Sanger (1921) is published. She calls for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks” including Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Catholics.

1933 — The first Humanist Manifesto is published. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.”

Co-signer C.F. Potter said in 1930: “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?

1933 — The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945 there would be an increasing lack of public safety in “criminally infected” areas. The plan for the “Modern World-State” would succeed on its third attempt (about 1980), and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq.

The book also states, “Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition prepared anywhere.”

1934 — The Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey is published. Bailey is an occultist, whose works are channeled from a spirit guide, the Tibetan Master [demon spirit] Djwahl Kuhl. Bailey uses the phrase “points of light” in connection with a “New Group of World Servers” and claims that 1934 marks the beginning of “the organizing of the men and women…group work of a new order…[with] progress defined by service…the world of the Brotherhood…the Forces of Light…[and] out of the spoliation of all existing culture and civilization, the new world order must be built.”

The book is published by the Lucis Trust, incorporated originally in New York as the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust is a United Nations NGO and has been a major player at the recent U.N. summits. Later Assistant Secretary General of the U.N. Robert Mueller would credit the creation of his World Core Curriculum for education to the underlying teachings of Djwahl Kuhl via Alice Bailey’s writings on the subject.

October 28, 1939 — In an address by John Foster Dulles, later U.S. Secretary of State, he proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

1939 — New World Order by H. G. Wells proposes a collectivist one-world state”‘ or “new world order” comprised of “socialist democracies.” He advocates “universal conscription for service” and declares that “nationalist individualism…is the world’s disease.” He continues:

“The manifest necessity for some collective world control to eliminate warfare and the less generally admitted necessity for a collective control of the economic and biological life of mankind, are aspects of one and the same process.” He proposes that this be accomplished through “universal law” and propaganda (or education).”

http://www.threeworldwars.com/nwo-timeline1.htm

PLANNED DISARMING BRITAIN AND USA….

INTERNATIONAL BUREAU

Chairman: Anthony Wedgwood Benn. Secretary: Tom Ponsonby

Five pamphlets have been published during the year, including Aden,
The Protectorates and the Yemen (July, 1961), by Reginald Sorensen, which
was a joint publication with the Commonwealth Bureau. The other four
pamphlets were:

Disarmament: Finnegan’s Choice (September, 1961), by Wayland and
Elizabeth Young, argued the case for general and comprehensive disarma-
ment. The Youngs believed that with such a system the Soviet Union
could be brought to accept inspection, and the United States could be
brought to accept stage by stage reductions in arms expenditure.

http://www.archive.org/stream/fabiantract1961a62fabiuoft/fabiantract1961a62fabiuoft_djvu.txt

Since the Council on Foreign Relations has been able to infiltrate our government, it is no wonder that our country has been traveling on the course that it has. The moral, educational and financial decline of this nation has been no accident. It has been due to a carefully contrived plot on behalf of these conspirators, who will be satisfied with nothing less than a one-world government. And it is coming to that. As each year goes by, the momentum is picking up, and it is becoming increasingly clear, what road our government is taking. The proponents of one-world government are becoming less secretive, as evidenced by George Bush’s talk of a “New World Order.” The reason for that is that they feel it is too late for their plans to be stopped. They have become so entrenched in our government, our financial structure, and our commerce, that they probably do control this country, if not the world. In light of this, it seems that it will be only a matter of time before their plans are fully implemented.

Basically, their work centered around how to prepare the U.S. economy for a smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime environment without the occurrence of a major depression or recession. A 1944 CED Report, International Trade and Domestic Employment, by Duke University Professor Calvin B. Hoover, helped push the United States into the International Monetary Fund, which was laid out at the Bretton Woods Conference in June, 1944, by chief negotiators Harry Dexter White (of the CFR) and John Maynard Keynes (of the Fabian Society); and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), which both became part of the United Nations. It also helped motivate Establishment backing for what later emerged as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. About three years later, their report on An American Program of European Economic Cooperation was eventually developed into the strategy for European recovery that became part of the Marshall Plan. In fact, Hoffman, who became the first CED Chairman, later headed the Federal agency that administered the Marshall Plan.

After the War, while Hoover was on leave from Duke University, he worked with Hoffman to develop what eventually became known as the Marshall Plan. The group’s later work laid the groundwork for regional government in the United States.

VERY INTERESTING NAMES HERE.. http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn05-3

ALWAYS AT WAR.

The nation’s immediate problem is that while the common man fights America’s wars, the intellectual elite sets its agenda. Today, whether the West lives or dies is in the hands of its new power elite: those who set the terms of public debate, who manipulate the symbols, who decide whether nations or leaders will be depicted on 100 million television sets as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ This power elite sets the limits of the possible for Presidents and Congress. It molds the impressions that move the nation, or that mire it.
–from The Real War (1980) by President Richard Nixon

At the national level, this conditioning of the public might be brought about via certain crises, such as a terrorist attack…. For the sake of peace and security, people may be willing to give up certain of their freedoms to some extent.
–from The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed (published July 2001, two months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001) by Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

Popular national radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly refers to anyone who believes in a one-world government conspiracy involving the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a “kook.” However, on his February 7, 1995 program, he remarked: “You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school – Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government – you’ve shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you’re plucked so to speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers can put you.”

While there are conspiracies going on in the world today, the pursuit of world government now is no longer conspiratorial in the sense of being hidden or secret. Rather, it’s what socialist author H.G. Wells called “The Open Conspiracy,” as prominent people such as Bill Clinton have openly written in support of world government. It will probably be a World Socialist Government, synthesizing western capitalism and eastern communism. In fact, Joseph Stalin in a speech at Sverdlov University in April 1924 pronounced that “the amalgamation and collaboration of nations within a single world system of economy… constitutes the material basis for the victory of socialism.” And regarding what world government will ultimately mean, it will be authoritarian and repressive, for as Lord Acton wrote: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In 1891, gold and diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes formed a secret society, the Society of the Elect, to “absorb the wealth of the world” and “to take the government of the whole world,” according to Rhodes. According to Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, in The Anglo-American Establishment, Rhodes’ conspiratorial secret society lasted almost 60 years. By that time, enough members of the society and Rhodes scholars had penetrated the areas of politics, economics, journalism and education, so that the society was simply replaced by a network of power elite, who would openly pursue world government.

According to Quigley, “The [Rhodes] scholarships were merely a façade to conceal the secret society, or, more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which members of the secret society could carry out Rhodes’ purpose.” And in case anyone doubts the credibility of Prof. Quigley regarding this matter, The Washington Post article (March 23, 1975) about him and his information obtained from the power elite’s “secret records” was titled, “The Professor Who Knew Too Much.”

Cecil Rhodes’ secret society was comprised of a small “Circle of Initiates” and a larger semi-secret “Association of Helpers” which formed Round Table Groups.

Rhodes scholars today will tell you that Rhodes abandoned his conspiratorial plans, instead opting simply to establish Rhodes scholarships. However, Association of Helpers member Arnold Toynbee, a world famous British historian, revealed in a June 1931 speech to the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen: “We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly ostracized or discredited.” (See “The Trend of International Affairs Since The War” in the November 1931 edition of the Royal Institute of International Affairs’ journal International Affairs.) This was decades after Rhodes established his scholarships.

Members of the Round Table Groups along with members of the Fabian (Socialist) Society as well as “the Inquiry” (a group formed by President Woodrow Wilson’s chief advisor, Col. Edward M. House) formed the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Great Britain, and its American branch, the CFR. Both Prof. Quigley in Tragedy and Hope and CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in A Thousand Days have referred to the CFR as a “front” for the power elite. And in Men and Powers, former West Germany chancellor Helmut Schmidt referred to the CFR as “the foreign policy elite,” which prepared people for “top-level missions” in government and “other centers of international policy” and “had very silent but effective ways of seeing to its own succession.”

Members of Rhodes’ secret society networked with Fabian Socialists, who established the London School of Economics in 1895. One early Fabian, H.G. Wells, in New Worlds for Old explained what he called “a plot,” whereby heads of state would come and go, but bureaucrats trained at the London School of Economics, for example, would remain in government making rules and regulations furthering the goals of the Fabian Socialists. Wells broke with the Fabians, not in terms of goals, but only in believing they should be open about them, as he explained the coming synthesis of western capitalism and eastern communism into a world socialist government. In this regard, he authored The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) and The New World Order (1939), in which he said sovereign states (nations) would end and “countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it.”

The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote: “A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government…. World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development.” More recently, at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995, Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor) announced that we “cannot leap into world government through one quick step, but rather via progressive regionalization.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis2.htm

LAST PARAGRAPH

During his presidency, Bill Clinton would also develop a close relationship with British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a vice-president of Socialist International), whose “The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century” calling for “ethical socialism” was published in September 1998 by the Fabian (Socialist) Society. And in The Washington Post (April 7, 1999), Rhodes scholar E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote “A World Safe for Socialism,” describing how the Democratic Leadership Council “found itself playing host… to four Western European leaders whose parties have socialist and social democratic roots…. All subscribe to versions of the ‘Third Way’ approach to politics that Blair and Clinton have been marketing.”

When Bill Clinton was first campaigning for the presidency, he took a “tough” stand concerning policy toward Communist China. However, over the years of his presidency, his policies toward that nation took a dramatically more friendly shift. On ABC’s “This Week” (March 15, 1997), Rhodes scholar and former Clinton administration communications director George Stephanopoulos (CFR member) revealed: “There were a lot of reasons the president changed his policy on China…. It had little to do with [Chinese] contributions.” And when Cokie Roberts on the same program, said, “It had more to do with American money,” Stephanopoulos replied: “Council on Foreign Relations, Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, absolutely.” Quite a few Rhodes scholars have occupied high-level positions with Goldman-Sachs over the years.

At this point, someone might say that they understand that Cecil Rhodes had a secret society to take over the world, and that Rhodes scholars like Robert Reich, Ira Magaziner, James Woolsey and others played important roles in the Clinton Administration. But, they might say, “That’s all over, isn’t it, now that Clinton has left office?”

It’s important to remember, though, in this regard what Prof. Quigley said in Tragedy and Hope. He noted that William C. Whitney and others of wealth in the late 19th century developed a plan whereby they would control both major political parties through financial contributions, and then have those parties alternate power so that the public would think it had a choice.

HOBSONS CHOICE WILL BE ON OFFER IN BRITAIN- JUST AS WAS IN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN!!

CONTINUATION SEAMLESSLY- SO TRANSPARENT WHEN YOU OPEN YOUR EYES!

How might this diminution occur? At the top of page 303 of my book, The Globalists: The Power Elite Exposed, published in July 2001, I state: “At the national level, this conditioning of the public might be brought about via certain crises, such as a terrorist attack…. For the sake of peace and security, people may be willing to give up certain of their freedoms to some extent.” Then on September 11, terrorists attacked the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the World Trade Center in New York City, and a few hours later ABC News/Washington Post released poll results showing two-thirds “say they would sacrifice some personal liberties in support of anti-terrorism efforts.” Does this mean the power elite plotted the attacks on September 11? After all, didn’t the public affairs website indiareacts.com report on June 26 that the U.S. and Russia plan “‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime”? And didn’t the PBS program “Jihad in America” in 1994 show radical Muslims speaking in the U.S. over a decade ago and saying they would attack our airplanes and go after our high buildings? And in the same year of 1994, didn’t Islamic terrorists hijack a plane in Algiers, intending to fly the passenger aircraft full of fuel into a tall prominent structure, the Eiffel Tower, exploding the plane over Paris?

Closer to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, didn’t AirlineBiz.com on June 23, 2001 carry a report by a Muslim who had just interviewed Osama bin Laden and concluded that it was a race to see whether the U.S. would attack bin Laden first or he would attack the U.S. first? Shortly after this report, didn’t the Northwest Airlines flight attendants’ website carry a “Backgrounder” by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz referring to Project Bojinka with hijacked airliners flying into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and other buildings? Then on September 10, 2001, didn’t some top Pentagon officials suddenly cancel their travel plans for the next morning apparently because of security concerns, according to two reports by Newsweek? And on the evening of September 10, 2001, eight hours before the terrorist attacks of September 11, didn’t San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown’s security people at the airport there call him before his flight to New York City the morning of September 11 and advise him that he and all Americans should be cautious about their air travel (see The San Francisco Chronicle, September 12, page A17)? How could our leaders following the September 11 terrorist attacks here say that no one could have imagined such a thing would occur? I filed a Freedom of Information request regarding any warnings, alerts, or emergency rulings by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) or other government agencies pertaining to transportation between May 2001 and September 15 of that year. The Department of Homeland Security replied they had found 12 relevant Information Circulars, but they would not let me see them.

Wasn’t Marcus Mabry’s Newsweek Web Exclusive of September 15, 2001, about the terrorist attacks and their aftermath titled, “Welcome to the New World Order”? And didn’t Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien say on September 29, 2001, that “there will probably be a new order in the world that will probably be better than we have now”?

No, the power elite actually didn’t plot the attacks of September 11. They didn’t have to. Remember that Rhodes’ conspiracy ended as such around 1960 because enough like-minded globalists were in key positions in politics, economics, education and journalism, and his conspiracy was no longer necessary (being replaced by a global network of power elite pursuing world government). When a student several years ago went on a shooting rampage, the press rarely reported that he was stopped by a teacher with a gun, because the press is overwhelmingly for gun control. The power elite did not have to call editors of the nation’s newspapers and tell them what to say.

Similarly, the power elite didn’t call up terrorists and tell them to fly into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. However, if I could forecast terrorist attacks, so can the power elite.

Rather, there is a dialectic at work here. You may recall that under at State Department contract, CFR member Lincoln Bloomfield in 1962 wrote: “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by… some ability to employ physical force…. [But] if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government.” Interestingly, Bloomfield also wrote that the world government could come about by means of “a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose…. The order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”

Relevant to today, it is the reaction (public willingness to give up some Constitutional freedoms) to the action (terrorist attack wherever and whenever and however it occurs) that is important to the power elite. Thus, they don’t have to cause the action, but only anticipate that it will occur sometime, and emphasize the public reaction to it to further their goals. And in case anyone doesn’t believe the power elite wants a diminution of our Constitutional freedoms and our national sovereignty, just look at Our Global Neighborhood: The Basic Vision, a document produced several years ago by The Commission on Global Governance, whose work was supported by then U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Members of the Commission included Maurice Strong (Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author of the current Earth Charter, and right-hand man of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan) and Barber Conable (former president of the World Bank). Among the Commission’s proposals are that “a new world order must be organized…. In certain fields, sovereignty has to be exercised collectively…. The principle of sovereignty must be adapted in such a way as to balance… the interests of nations with the interests of the global neighborhood…. We strongly endorse community initiatives to… encourage the disarming of civilians…. We would like to see a permanent international criminal court instituted as a matter of the highest priority…. We are… in need of a mobilizing principle… a new world order that secures the ascendancy of global neighborhood values over divisive nationalism.”

Of course, the public will have to be prepared to accept world government, and what better way to do that than via education. The primary arm of the U.N. dealing with education is UNESCO, and in its first Director-General Sir Julian Huxley’s UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (1948), he wrote: “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required.” On October 3, 2003, on the occasion of the U.S. rejoining UNESCO (after President Reagan had withdrawn the U.S.), U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige declared: “The United States is pleased to return to UNESCO…. Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of the world…. UNESCO is a powerful forum for sharing our views, developing a common strategy, and implementing joint action.” The problem with the concept of “world citizens” is that just as “citizens” of a state have to obey the laws of that state, “citizens of the world” will be expected to obey world laws. And the clear majority of the world’s nations are socialist, so that world laws will reflect a socialist perspective.

The conditioning of the public in the past has been gradual, but as famous author H.G. Wells noted, the process will speed up in the end as the synthesis toward a World Socialist Government gains greater momentum. Hopefully, Americans will wake up before it’s too late and resist this global effort on the part of the power elite.

© 2004 Dennis Cuddy, ph.D.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis2.htm

FABIAN SOC: KENNEDY AND THE WOLFS IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.. *PIC*

Posted By: FarSight3
Date: Friday, 6-May-2005 10:17:44

In Response To: UK TORY LEADER DID HIS JOB ( WITH SOME HELP ) (Useless_Eater) Charles Kennedy, leader of Britain’s 3rd-ranking Liberal Democrats, celebrated the party’s best-ever results in a general election. His chosen treasury spokesman, Vincent Cable MP, former Chief Economist of Shell Oil, is a supporter of globalisation…

“We have to be careful not to offend our American Allies,” he stated some time ago – though having jumped on the Anti-War-movement before. We know that: Three “different” parties – all of one kind.

AND!! Every member of the present government is a Fabian – a society independent of the Labour party, but affiliated to it. And they have every reason not to highlight this Fabian Society, founded 1884 by Darwinist-socialists from Britain’s landed establishment and who always held powerful positions in the Conservative and Liberal parties.

Amongst the founders were people like Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner, supported by money from South Africa – people who owned the mining Empire DeBeers (“Diamonds ar not only Girlz’ best friends”…) – together with a multitude of other “noble” eugenicists connected with the “old” Anglo-Dutch East India Company opium cartel.

The name comes from the Roman general Quintus Fabius, known as Cunctator from his strategy of delaying battle until the right moment. The society’s early members included George Bernard Shaw (later described by Lenin as “a good man fallen among Fabians”), Emmeline Pankhurst and H.G.Wells.

They don’t want to establish a society based on “equalities”, but rather aime to dig bigger trenches in society – so making “inequality an impenetrable barrier” – by “breeding” and training better generations of “working-bees”.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=70874

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=70891

THE DIGGING IS NOW IN FULL SWING- PART TIME WORK REPLACING FULL TIME- WAGE FREEZES PRICE RISES- CAN’T WAIT FOR THE SOON TO COME CUTS IN ALL SERVICES- WHETHER IT’S RED TORIES OR FABIANS IN CONTROL- IT’D BE FUNNY WERE IT NOT SO SAD FOR THE ORDINARY FOLK THAT WILL SUFFER MOST……………SMALL BUSINESS CAN’T BORROW FROM BANKS- THAT WILL CLOSE THEM DOWN—-THE ONES WITH SAVINGS- CAN’T- WITH LOW INTEREST RATES HOLD ONTO THEIR MONEY….JOBS SHIPPED OVERSEAS- SOD ALL TO REPLACE THEM– EXCEPT PROMISES- ONE IMMIGRANT A MINUTE COMING IN- NEEDED FOR THE ECONOMY- IT BEING ON LIFE SUPPORT… WATCHING THE DECLINE IN SLOW MOTION- SPEEDING UP AFTER THE HOBSONS CHOICE FIASCO……………. COMMUNIST NWO- NO SMALL BUSINESSES- NO MIDDLE CLASS- CHRISTIANITY DESTROYED…PRIVATE PROPERTY–NOT WHEN THEY’VE FINISHED PUSHING UP TAXES AND CHARGES….LOL—EVEN BROWNKIS NEW DEATH TAX IS TRANSPARENT…….TAXED WHEN IT’S EARNED- TAXED WHEN IT’S SPENT- TAXED WHEN YOU’RE DEAD………………CHEEKY BASTARDS- THESE FABIANS’

WHEN FOLK BLAME IT ALL ON THATCHER- JUST GOES TO SHOW THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHATS’ GOING ON- WHEN THEY SAY- NEW LABOUR ISN’T THE SAME AS OLD LABOUR–THERE NEVER WAS A LABOUR PARTY- THAT WAS THE ILLUSION- IT’S ALWAYS BEEN THE FABIAN PARTY- PATIENTLY WORKING TOWARDS TODAY!!!

COMRADE BROWNSKI HAS AN ABACAS DAVID, HE COUNTS THEM!!!