Sun 4 Nov 2007
This is the first of a series of articles to deal with the globalistic forces behind the EU and the Euromediterranean/Eurabia. Strange events are currently explained as "globalization" , which is understood to be unavoidable . As pretext for eliminating our national states and Christianity the globalists have stated the only way leading to peace and prosperity is a global and multicultural society, where different - and incompatible - cultures are living side by side. This article shows the globalistic imaginations not leading to peace - rather to war over markets and natural ressources - oil e.g. To this can be added an ongoing Muslim campaign against us infidels, Muslim parallel societies paid by our tax money serving as hotbeds . Strong globalistic forces seem to use Islam as a ram against the obstacles to the world state: the nation state and Christianiy.
The aim is the one-world state with standardized people without religious, cultural, moral, ethnic or political differences. Therefore, the slate has been carefully wiped clean: By removal of essential parts of history and religious education in schools memories of their own identities have been eliminated from the weakest cultures , which are left as prey to the strongest culture.
<– Pieter Brueghel´s Tower of Babel as EU poster symbolizes the construction of the world state: Many tongues - one voice. Or: "Fuehrer befiehl - wir folgen"
Many believe globalization to be unavoidable in human history because of technical development - like Darwin´s theory of evolution. This is not the case . Planning and powerful persons are behind - in power of the media and the money of the world - as the following shows. Just look what the possibly most powerful globalist of the world , David Rockefeller , writes in his Memoires, p. 405: "Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Around Rockefeller there are strong global governance groups, which I shall comment on in a later article. When the EU had decided to postpone accession negotiations with Turkey, President Bush jr. demanded them to start at once, all the same. And the EU gave in. On Jan. 30, 2006, Bill Clinton demanded a Danish apology to the infuriated Muslims for the Muhammad Cartoons. A couple of hours later and after the first dissociation of a deeply shaken Danish Prime Minister from the cartoons on TV the newspaper, which had brought the cartoons, apologized to the Muslims - although on the morning of that very same day in its leader the newspaper had sworn never to do that! In 2005 Michael Gorbachev declared the Euromediterranean to be the the road to world governance (pp.10-15, 96-98) - and that his World Political Forum was working at the architecture of world governance. Elsewhere I have treated the secretive, meticulously planned Euromediterranean agreements with 9 Muslim Countries and Israel to secure them a union-like status with the EU - and free Muslim immigration to Europe.
Peter Gorm Larsen, Bachelor of Science, University of Aalborg, Denmark, has analyzed the concept of globalization . And he disposes of the positive view of it - as well as of the imagination of the necessity of globalization in many respects. He sees globalization as a concept with poorly defined contents. The word has been increasingly used since the mid 1980´es - with differing meanings. All applications of the word gave rise to great enthusiasm from the start - but the enthusiasm has cooled much down since then.
Liberalists identify themselves with free competition - as described in Adam Smith´s "Wealth of Nations" - want production where labour is cheap, low wages , "everybody is the architect of his own fortune", etc. As exemplified by the course of The Liberal Party of Denmark - which was at a time more social democratic than that of the Social Democrats with the single purpose of having their leader elected Prime Minister - neoliberalism has had no deep effect on the electorate.
Liberalist financial speculators just think of money. At a point of time, e.g., they immorally punished a positive US policy which had led to a high employment rate:" Inflation risk!" - wherefore the speculators sold their shares! In order to decorate the greed it has been asserted that trade partners would not think of waging war against each other, thereby destroying the markets. However, this did not prevent WWI and WWII. Besides, the reconstruction of a crushed market like the German market after WWII has been very profitable for every one involved. Rather risk of war seems to arise about markets and natural resources. Liberalism has shown a nasty predilection to "steal" the few experts of underdeveloped countries, thereby letting the latter sink still deeper into poverty and generate disastrous streams of refugees threatening our culture - just to satisfy the insatiable demands of Western industrialists for labour to produce superfluous gadgets.
Technicians maintain that the fact people are now "proficient" in English and are able to use the internet, to make video conferences and travel around the globe means that a "global village" will develop, where national states will disappear and the inhabitants will adopt the same culture and ideology. However, the larger part of the population of the Earth do not have these opportunities, by far. That´s why the "global village" is just an empty phrase. For there will still exist provincialism", nationalism and fundamentalism. Nay, at a certain point people become seriously conscious about their own roots under the impression of mass immigration of foreign, incompatible religion and culture. In the 1960es some believed in CULTURAL CONVERGENCE. However, the point seems to be that a global people with the same culture and mutual solidarity cannot be formed by just moving natural resources, goods, services and persons from one continent to another - nor because you can see the same films and communicate via telephone and internet. Unintegrated mass immigration has always led to strife: Just think of the white man´s colonization of America, Tamil immigration to Sri Lanka, and the unintegrated German mass-immigration into Danish Slesvigland and the ensuing 2 bloody wars of Slesvig in the 19. century, e.g..
Communist opinion is derived from Lenin: Imperialism is the highest potentiality of capitalism. The big concerns want natural resources and markets for selling their goods. This will lead to war between the big industrial states , which according to Lenin serve the interests of the capital. In glaring contrast with the liberalistic theory global transactions with capital, natural resources and goods would not bring about peace and prosperity - but war.This made the young ´68-leftists pacifists. They demanded solidarity with the underdeveloped countries and asserted - not mistakenly -that the eonomies and natural resources of the latter were exploited by multinational societies. They even saw globalism as constructed for the multinational giants. They became conscious about global environment (Anti nuclear power marches). During the 1980es and `90es the ´68 leftists crossed nearly entirely over to environment and ecology - extensively giving up solidarity with sufferers of the third world. Some say Margaret Thatcher instigated the freak of climate changes being man-made , because she wanted nuclear power in stead of coal. She rewarded research showing noxious effects of CO2 on world climate economically. Something which has never been proven - no matter what paid "climate researchers" assert. But today this argument is used by globalists like Al Gore and Gorbachev for strengthening the role of the UN. Although all indications are that the climate changes are not man-made, it has become equally despicable to be of this opinion, as it is to defend holocaust denial or being a "conspiration-believer". The globalists have a solid smoke screen.
Now comes the military: It sees the globe as one big battlefield or one big game of chess, where the opponent should be beaten and as many pieces as possible should be gained. What one gains is lost by the other. Both cannot win. This is contradictory to the liberal view that the advantages of international trade will serve the interests of all states. So, there is a disproportion between the economic theory of liberalistic USA and its military practice. This military-strategic global consciousness is still found in the various foreign - and defense ministeries and at the Universities. The strategists are speculating in a big Russia or a new and dangerous Germany. It fears the Chinese, Islam, refugees, international criminality, terrorism or the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a new threat to Western civilization.
Within international policy the term economic interdependence is used by people like Tony Blair and Michael Gorbachev. It means that we are mutually dependent on each other. But we were before WW I and WWII, as well. Globalization has not prevented wars in Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, the Iraqi wars nor the war on terror.
<– In an interview to The Sun on Dec. 9, 2006, with this Muslim journalist Tony Blair said that he expected a Muslim to be Prime Minister in the UK. And that he would like to see his children married to Muslims!
However, this does not stop true globalists from continuing down the dead-end track. In 2006 the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, published an essay: ”A Global Alliance for Global Values” according to which he would cure globalization problems with "global values", i.e. freedom, democracy, human rights, justice etc. "which everybody wants". There is just a slight problem: The greatest threat to Western civilization today, Islam, does not want these "global values", because they are contradictory to the contents of the Quran!:Allah is thought to be perfect - and so are his laws, he has already given the laws necessary. Democratic legislation is consequently blasphemy. Blair called the Quran a reforming book far ahead of its time as for its view on women, marriage and governance. In "A Global Alliane for Global Values" (pp. 12-13) he also looked with admiration at Islam´s "breathtaking" empire building and conquests at the cost of Christanity - and he described the Muslim terror regime of the Middle Ages as more tolerant than Christanity. According to Bat Ye´or (Eurabia 2005) the society model of the Euromediterranean Society/Eurabia for a globalized world in the 21. century are the horror regimes of Andalusia from 711-1492, regimes which during their first 400 years had exterminated Christianity in Andalusia - by means of crucifixions, enforced conversions to Islam, and deportations. The globalists want us to live together in harmony - we being protected as dhimmies by the noble Muslims -like in "Golden Andalusia"!! The whole European-Arab Dialogue since 1973 was one long European submission (meaning islam in Arabic) to Islam and recognition of Islam´s cultural superiority. Especially repulsive was the September session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1991, when in their self-hatred and self-contempt the Europeans fawned on Islam, deteriorated European culture and praised the superior Islamic culture (Bat Ye´or, Eurabia, 2005). Parrot-like Danish P.M. Anders Fog Rasmussen repeated Blair´s "value vocabulary" at the opening of the Danish Parliamentary session in 2006 - though omitting Blair´s hot air concerning the Quran and Andalusia. Both seem to have their global vocabulary from Gorbachev´s and Steven Rockefeller´s communist ”Earth Charter” - an ideological environmental manifesto - the Bible of the Climate Cult - named the "10 Commandments of our time" by Gorbachev. <– The Ark of Hope with the "Earth Charter", the "10 Commandments of leninism, is being carried around in the streets of New York by cult servants - when it is not touring the globe. It is central to a reborn globalistic Gaia-cult.
Peter Gorm Larsen writes about "The New World Order": The liberal perception of globalization is also seen in the speeches on "The New World Order" (NWO) launched by then American President Bush 5 times in connection with the Gulf War 1990-1991. The NWO would be more "moral" and to a larger extent build on international law and respect for human rights. Especially the UN, but also international organizations in general were to have more influence. In 1992 UN-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali wrote the essay "Agenda for Peace", the aim of which was the UN to take care not only of peacekeeping operations, but also of preventive diplomacy, peace-creating and peace-constructing operations. As has actually happened. I.e. the UN is to take over all military power of the world.
<– All power to the world state
But the enthusiasm about the "moral NWO" has ceased to exist a long time ago.
Peter Gorm Larsen and most others apparently use the names "globalization" and "NWO" at random. But this is only partly correct, the NWO being much older than globalization. But the NWO has highjacked the technologically and commercially determined globalization as its tool to construct a dictatorial one-world state ruled by bankers.
No Responses to “ Globalization: The World State Is Being Constructed ”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.