¿Podría el imperialismo norteamericano formar parte del plan secreto del Club Bilderberg? ¿Podrían considerarse los banqueros norteamericanos, diplomáticos y miembros del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores de ser traidores, de haber convertido a Estados Unidos en un mero instrumento para llevar a cabo los objetivos maníacos de Bilderberg? ¿Sigue existiendo Estados Unidos como una nación soberana o ya ha dejado de existir?
Is American imperialism a Bilderberger plot? Are the American bankers, diplomats, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations all traitors, having turned America into merely an instrument to carry out their Bilderberger maniacal aims? Does America as a sovereign nation even exist anymore?
Daniel Estulin
Treacherous Treaties: American Imperialism, World Government and the Bilderbergers
by Prof. John Kozy
“steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” George Washington, 1796
Is American imperialism a Bilderberger plot? Are the American bankers, diplomats, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations all traitors, having turned America into merely an instrument to carry out their Bilderberger maniacal aims? Does America as a sovereign nation even exist anymore?
Consider the possibility that the Bilderbergers have already bought off the governments of Western Europe, North America, and the remnants of the British Empire that still cling to the Queen’s skirts. If that be true, the only remaining obstacles to a Bilderberger success are the BRICS and the Moslem world. The WTO and promises of free trade and pie in the sky prosperity can be used to subvert the BRICS which leaves the Moslem countries as the last bulwark in defense of free, independent, and sovereign nations. When one realizes just how ironic that is, the realization of just how far the Bilderbergers have already come in advancing their agenda really strikes home.
Sometime during the First World War, the well-meaning but naïve American president, Woodrow Wilson, came up with the idea that every ethnic minority in Eastern Europe was entitled to its own nation, a nation for every ethnicity, and he persuaded the victorious powers to create such nations while writing the peace treaties that ended the war. It was a bad idea.
Before the war, central and Eastern Europe was dominated by Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was comprised of more than a dozen ethnic groups. There were Germans (i.e., Austrians), Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Serbs, Croats, Slavs, Romanians, and more.
When the war ended, several treaties were imposed on the defeated nations, all of which had to give up territory to the victorious powers and a number of newly created nations (Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czechoslovakia). Several nations were enlarged (Denmark, Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Italy). The Ottoman Empire was dismembered. Turkey lost most of its land in Europe and Arabia was made into a mandate ruled by the British and French, Syria and Lebanon went to France and Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine went to Britain. In the end, all of this up-carving was naught but a gigantic failure, the consequences of which we are still living with today.
The bug in the broth was obvious. People migrate. In the fifty-one years of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, peoples moved within it. All Poles did not stay in the area that became Poland; Serbs did not stay in Serbia; Croats did not stay in Croatia. When the empire was dismembered, peoples of all nationalities were everywhere. Putting them together again in homogenous groups was impossible. Additionally, some of those of German nationality ended up in France, Denmark, Poland, Czechoslovakia and who knows where else.
Realpolitik in Europe in the early twentieth century was characterized by a plethora of treaties. Bismarckian balance of power relationships ruled the day. Nations lined up with each other to oppose other groups of nations to balance another group’s power. The idea was that if the groups were equally strong peace was assured. How wrong they were.
Even after the war these balance of power relationships continued. (In fact, they continue to this day.) So when Germany began to balk at the onerous conditions placed upon it by the Treaty of Paris, it wanted to retake the territory it had lost and reunite the German peoples scattered throughout Eastern Europe. The peace lasted a mere twenty-nine years! Germany easily took back the territory that had been ceded to France. The Austrians, being a Germanic people, willingly allowed Austria to be annexed. Then the Germans went for the Germans in the territory that had been ceded to Czechoslovakia. War was on the horizon because England and France objected to all of this German expansion, but they ultimately acquiesced, drawing a line on any German expansion into Poland by committing their countries to go to war with Germany if Poland were invaded. In essence, they wrote a treaty, believing that this treaty would work to balance their power with Germany’s and thus prevent war. But it was a sham.
Germany, knowing that neither England nor France were prepared to go to war, invaded Poland on September 1, 1939 after signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with Russia (the USSR) to keep it from joining England and France. As a result, the English and French made some minor forays into Germany that were easily repulsed, and Germany easily overran Poland. After that, the English were driven from the continent and the French surrendered.
Almost everyone knows this story, so why am I retelling it. Well the story is old news and not important, but no one has analyzed the role of the treaties involved in it.
What effect did the English and French treaty to come to the aid of Poland have? It didn’t prevent the war. Nor did it help Poland which was overrun at least twice and utterly destroyed. The English and French never liberated Poland. The treaty didn’t extinguish Germany’s desire to expand its territory, for shortly after France surrendered, Germans invaded Russia. What did this treaty do? It merely expanded the war.
For the purposes of this paper, it doesn’t matter that that expansion may have been a good thing in the long run. What is most important is the recognition that when the treaty was invoked, it diminished the sovereignties of both England and France.
A nation is sovereign when it alone is responsible for its behavior. A sovereign nation can go to war or not. A sovereign nation makes its own decisions. But neither the British nor the French made the decision to go to war. The decision was made in Berlin. The German decision to invade Poland was also a decision to bring England and France into the war. After agreeing to come to Poland’s aid, the British and French no longer had any say in the matter. It was all up to Germany.
Germany and Italy were in a similar position. They had a mutual assistance treaty with Japan. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the attack brought Germany and Italy into a war with the United States, a war which neither Germany nor Italy wanted at the time. So the treaty with Japan reduced Italian and German sovereignties. The decision to bring them into war with the United States was not made in Berlin or Rome; it was made in Tokyo. That decision was completely up to the Japanese. The Germans and Italians had nothing to do with it.
So the interesting question is, do all treaties reduce the sovereignties of the nations that enter into them? I am certain the answer is yes. Treaties which are entered into in hopes of preventing wars ultimately expand them and nations find themselves fighting wars they never conceived of because an insignificant member of a treaty can somehow start a war that then extends to all of the treaty’s signatories.
In fact, World War I started in exactly that way. The war which killed more than 15 million and wounded more than 20 million was started by the assassination on June 28, 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, by a Yugoslav nationalist. Because of it, Austria went to war with Serbia. Alliances formed over previous decades, brought the major powers into the war within weeks. How many of these nations would have gone to war over that assassination had the treaties not existed? No one will ever know!
None of the nations except Austria had a hand in deciding to go to war. The decision for every nation involved, except perhaps the United States, was made in Vienna. By signing these treaties, each of these nations gave up their sovereignties. They were no longer masters of their own fates.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has insanely fostered treaty making. There are NATO, SEATO, and only Washington knows what else. Any puny nation that is part of any of these treaties can draw not only the United States but all of the other signatories in to a colossal conflagration. Americans like to pretend that they control these treaty-groups. America refers to itself as a “first among equals.” But that expression is an oxymoron. If there is a first, the rest are not equals, and if all are equal, there is no first! How would Americans react if something happened in Bangladesh that drew the United States into a worldwide war? Realpolitik is a receipe for disaster. Why have we not paid attention to the advice of George Washington?
Two European immigrants to America, both Bilderbergers, who speak with heavy European accents and harbor Bismarckian complexes bear much responsibility for this situation, (Bismarck’s balance of power policies brought peace to Germany for a mere 43 years) but they are not alone.
However balance of power treaties are not the only culprits. Trade agreements are just as bad. Look at what the Maastricht Treaty which established the European Union has done to Greece and threatens to do to other European countries. Today’s Quisling Greek government is now little more than a tool of Europe’s more prosperous states. When Greece’s former socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou proposed a popular referendum on the Greek sovereign debt bailout, the European Union scotched it. Now Greece no longer has the power to call an election that the Union objects to. Greece has even lost its democracy.
But the effect of trade agreements is far more extensive than the EU.
“. . . big financial players have another potential weapon in their battle against safety and soundness. This one is more hidden from view and comes from, of all places, the World Trade Organization in Geneva.
Back in the 1990s, when many in Washington — and virtually everyone on Wall Street — embraced the deregulation that helped lead to the recent crisis, a vast majority of W.T.O. nations made varying commitments to what’s called the financial services agreement, which loosens rules governing banks and other such institutions.
Many countries, for instance, said they would not restrict the number of financial services companies in their territories. Many also pledged not to cap the total value of assets or transactions conducted by such companies. These pledges also appear to raise trouble for any country that tries to ban risky financial instruments.
According to the W.T.O., 125 of its 153 member countries have made varying degrees of commitments to the financial services agreement. Now, these pledges could easily be used to undermine new rules intended to make financial systems safer.”
So now, nations may not even have the power to regulate their financial institutions which, in fact, extends to their economies as a whole. The World Trade Organization rules all.
So how did that happen? Well, people have been trying to create a world government for a long time. To do that, nation states must be rendered effete. Consider what David Rockefeller said at a Bilderberg meeting in 1991:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
Well given what the “intellectual elite and world bankers” did to the global economy in 2008, do you really want them to rule all? World government, in order to work, requires that ethnic and religious distinctions be expunged. But ethnic characteristics are often physical and the French and the Russians, after their revolutions, tried and failed to extinguish their peoples’ religious beliefs. So how do you believe a new one world government would react to ethnic and religious uprisings world-wide? Would the entire world begin to look like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and countless parts of Africa? Is such a world surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries”? More importantly, is American imperialism a Bilderberger plot? Are the American bankers, diplomats, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations all traitors, having turned America into merely an instrument to carry out their maniacal aims? Does America as a sovereign nation even exist anymore? Remember what Jefferson says about banks: “banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.”
Consider the possibility that the Bilderbergers have already bought off the governments of Western Europe, North America, and the remnants of the British Empire that still cling to the Queen’s skirts and are now using all of these nations as tools to bring about their goal of imposing a single bankers’ government on its New World Order. If that be true, the only remaining obstacles to a Bilderberger success are the BRICS and the Moslem world. The WTO and promises of free trade and pie in the sky prosperity can be used to subvert the BRICS which leaves the Moslem countries as the last bulwark in defense of free, independent, and sovereign nations. When one realizes just how ironic that is, the realization of just how far the Bilderbergers have already come in advancing their agenda really strikes home.
Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonssøn Quisling is long dead, but his soul has multiplied and now inhabits the bodies of greedy merchants and maniacal diplomats and politicians the world over. For the most part, these people hold respected places in society. Shouldn’t they be vilified instead? What has any Rockefeller or Bilderberger done for you or anyone you know?
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.
John Kozy is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by John Kozy
Hola Daniel, es interesante lo que compartis sobre este tema, algo oculto se esta gestando pero es claro que se viene un gobierno en el mundo. Gracias por tu informacion y te invito a que puedas visitar mi blog: ronalaranda.blogspot.com
Proximamente estare compartiendo cosas muy interesantes sobre este tema…
Lo de siempre, bloqueros que hacen propaganda. Crees que Estulin va a leer tu blog?. Existen millones de blogs y si te has creado uno al menos deberias ser original en algo y no ser una fotocopiadora de todos lados.
Pues yo creo que Daniel ya ha leído su blog y yo ya lo he recomendado a todos mis contactos.
“The WTO and promises of free trade and pie in the sky prosperity can be used to subvert the BRICS”
I seriously doubt that RUSSIA – at least, while Putin and his United Russia party remain in power – will ever submit to the NWO.
Putin is doing a good job on warning people in his country about this danger. The consequences of which the Russians already had a good taste of in the 90′s. People know that Putin and his crew, with all their defects, are true leaders. And have responded overwhelmingly, once again, by supporting him and his group.
But one doubt I seriously have, and am most interested to know more about, is the situation in Brazil…
I don’t believe Rousseff is part of this conspiracy. Yet, I know that she has repeatedly caught corrupt people within her government, that she had given high-ranking positions to, that don’t seem to be too fan of her progressive ideals. She doesn’t seem to have many competent and honest people she can count on to control what happens in her country. And I know, for example, of several electronic control measures and such, that are included in the NWO’s plans being implemented in Brazil. (Am I right to think that there seems to be some NWO infiltration within the Brazilian government?)
But the main worry I have is that I have repeatedly heard that Brazil is under the control of the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is owned/controlled by the Queen.
How much of this rumours of British control over Brazil are real?
Is there real hope for this country, full of potential?
anarchist
its strange you use that “name” as anarchism is another branch like marxism of the brutish oligarquical system, a tool for the future, but yes, Brazil is under the control of the “brutish”, if you take a look in the economic of brazil today, you can see the same shit as in spain 5 or 8 years ago, housing bubble, state debt bubble (more than before lula and thats alone is amazing), but even in the kind of “federal state policies” (central goverment) you can see the looong big hand of the same “illuminati” masters. with regards of abortion, and feminism, etc..
you can find some articles in henry makow website about the situation in brazil like this one
http://www.henrymakow.com/lula_censorship.html
there are several of them covering different aspects of the situation in brazil, and you can see there the same kind of shit like in europe and USA.
Like the social engineering with the “war on sexes” and homo issue
http://www.henrymakow.com/brazil_forced_to_embrace_homos.html
Most ppl dont understand this is a global struggle for power, every country must be controled by the PTB, of course the “world goverment” dont seem to be a bad idea itself but the problem with bilderberg and the committee of the 300 (and others above them) is the KIND OF world goverment. In the end WE as humans must be united but you cant do that in the present situation, and with the present model presented by the PTB, a global world fascist/socialist state is not the answer.
I understand you have problems too see the model, but you must understand, the PTB use many companies, in brazil´s case, Banco Santander is a key for..not an english itself one.
good luck
Buba, I forget that Brazil fortunately is not Spain. Brazil is one of (or the one) most rich country in the world: it has every resourses you may think about. What happen in Spain, won’t never happen in Brazil.
Yes, “Banco Santander”… That’s the one!
That’s the one that supposedly controls Brazil and that is all over Latin America. And that bank, in turn, is owned/controlled by the Royal Bank of Scotland. That’s what I think I heard.
Estulin has already talked about Banco Santander in here.
http://www.danielestulin.com/2010/07/06/reportaje-sobre-banco-santander-parte-i/
http://www.danielestulin.com/2010/07/07/reportaje-sobre-banco-santander-parte-ii/
Now I know were to look, for an explanation.
(This conspiracy is so wide, that a person even starts to forget some of the details… Now I remember reading something about it, but didn’t retain much, at the time…)
Thank you very much for your tip.
Makow is not one of my favorite authors. Since he swallows quite some stuff that are obvious desinformation (like supposed “Illuminati defectors”, that don’t offer any proof of what they say they are, and such). But he has also produced some good analysis.
Thank you for your information. I’ll take a look into it.
About my nickname. I know that Marxism is an Illuminati creation and that, therefore, is an invention of the same families that make up the Bilderberg Group and the likes. But to put Anarchism in the same bag as Marxism, I consider to be quite an overvaluation. The socialist branch of Anarchism – the first thinker to call himself an anarchist can’t even be called a “socialist”, by the way – emerged out of a libertarian tendency within the socialist worker’s movement that was pretty much created and controlled by marxists, from what I know. But it soon split from the rest of the socialist movement and evolved into a political philosophy of its own. And the Illuminati did not invent “Socialism”. The practice of common ownership of the means of production and such is as old as Humanity itself. What the Illuminati did was to invent a specific type of Socialism, that was not even intended to be fully implemented. (I’m already aware of the ultimate goals of this conspiracy and know what their model is.)
Take care and Good Luck.
P. Anarchist’s words should really be taken seriously. Putin, in the final analysis, is the “last hope of humanity”. Hi Daniel, I’m not trying to annoy you with another one of those eccentric pieces of information which eventually go nowhere which you must be receiving in the hundreds each day. I really think this piece of information will interest you greatly someday when you, by chance, are able to confirm it or hear it from somewhere, then. There was once a secret lawsuit between United States and Russia in the International Court of Justice lasting from September 2008 to February 2010, and the results of this lawsuit were so spectacular that, when Russia has won, Putin must have acquired the ability to considerably influence, or change, the Bilderberg One-World Government plan. The lawsuit is super top-secret so one one outside the circles of governments of the world knows about it: and no one knows what Putin has done with the Bilderbergers. The wise advice of Mario to Ronal above I do keep in mind, I shall nevertheless leave behind the URL to my webpage talking about this lawsuit (under my name). You might find the information useful someday.
El articulo es muy valioso, un síntesis magistral de la historia reciente y de los tratados internacionales.
Solo un par de puntualizaciones o dudas sobre el tema:
1) Si el artículo se refiere a un poder global, el Bilderberg, del cual el imperialismo americano es una parcela, debo entender por el texto que el Imperio británico es inferior al poder americano, lo cual contradice la posición de Larouche, un posible ideólogo del señor Estulin.
2) El mundo musulmán jamás ha sido baluarte o ejemplo de nación libre, o bien ha sido colonia de algún imperio o bien se ha caracterizado modernamente por ser un sistema cerrado de dictaduras hereditarias y gobiernos teocráticos (con rarísimas excepciones que nos sobran dedos de una mano), los pueblos árabes conocen muy poco lo que es la verdadera libertad de expresión o la denominada democracia, esto incluso por su fe religiosa, se aferran al liderazgo tradicional de los clérigos musulmanes que influyen en las decisiones políticas de sus estados a pesar de que se consideren algunos países islámicos como estados laicos.
3) En cuanto a comparar a los gobiernos europeos con Quisling (colaboracionista noruego con los nazis) es muy alejado a la realidad, si bien es cierto que los estados han cedido parte de sus soberanías a la Unión Europea, la comparación se presta muy grosera, un “Quisling” tiene otra connotación, un “quisling” es un traidor, un vende patrias, alguien que entrega su país a una potencia enemiga en tiempo de guerra. Aunque se los puede calificar exageradamente de esa forma, es un concepto que no calza para esta cuestión política económica que es la Unión Europea. Al final, que yo sepa ninguno de los actuales presidentes europeos firmaron el Tratado que constituyó la Unión Europea, tratarlos de “Quisilings” modernos es mas bien un adorno literario.
En el resto del artículo como dicen los abogados, me allano al texto de la demanda.
Tito quiero aclararte algo, el hecho de que el “poder americano” sea superior al imperio britanico no significa que sea ajeno a este, despues de todo te recuerdo que el poder americano esta concentrado en un circuito cerrado de personas que estan muy ligadas al imperio britanico(como los rockefeller). Simplificandolo: Imperio Britanico= Cerebro(intereses,estrategias,etc), Poder Americano= Musculos(arsenal nuclear, medios,etc).
De tal palo, tal astilla…
Los Estados Unidos no son más que una segunda reedición del imperio británico. El primer imperio, por decirlo de alguna manera, tuvo su metrópolis en Londres. El segundo, trasladó la capital a Nueva York. Hoy está llegando también al final esta segunda edición. Y por el momento parece que no hay más relevos ni repuestos para la nefasta y criminal cultura anglosajona. Se les acaba el fuelle. Se acabó lo que se daba.
Lo celebro.
tito andino
Y para que hablar de la manipulación “bajo cuerda”, con grupos como la hermandad musulmana, etc…en cuanto a los “quisling”, en la UE hay muchos, nigel farage tiene conferencias muy interesantes al respecto como esta que hizo en croacia hace ya 6 meses o así (lo siento está solo en inglés y sin subtitular), en ella comenta la corrupción en la UE y como la expansión de la misma se hizo sobre esa corrupción.
Son varias partes creo que 3 pongo solo el primer enlace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue5qY8nyN9s
La verdad es que este hombre me encanta tiene una capacidad asombrosa, pongo uno pequeño subtitulado como ejemplo (a cuenta de grecia).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpVS–H7ftA
XDDD
bilderberg no es ningun poder ni nada de eso. Es el organo de cabildeo de la OTAN, es esta organizacion la que pretende convertirse en la policia del mundo. su funcion no es crear politicas (eso es ridiculo) sino seleccionar y promover a los voceros y representantes del imperio EEUU-GB. aquellos que creen que bilderberg tiene algun poder se equivocan y los que creen que USA en realidad esta “controlada” por poderes exernos tambien juran y rejuran que su pais es una democracia, que los padres fundadores eran unos iluminados, que su constitucion es oro puro y que en su pais impera el libre mercado.
Ok. tomo nota de sus comentarios y enlaces, gracias por compartir criterios.
de acuerdo en todo menos en lo referente a los arabes. a mi si me parecen un pueblo LIBRE.ellos no estan sometidos a todas las manipulaciones que sufrimos en occidente.la religion musulmana es buena
por eso tantas intervenciones en egipto libia siria irak afganistan….. ESTAN ACABANDO CON LOS ULTIMOS RAMILLETES DE LIBERTAD QUE QUEDAN EN EL MUNDO
y desgraciadamente lo haran muy pronto ya que la masa sucia no solo no hace nada para imedirlo sino que apoya a los poderes facticos ( su verdaderos opresores) en sus invasiones ( con el pretexto de llevar la libertad a estos paises cuando en realidad lo que se lleva es una esclavitud ciega y cruel…la peor de todas las esclavitudes y la mejor para los poderes facticos ya que en ella todos su esclavos se creen libre porque la mayoria no percive tan siquiera las cadenas que les atan) YA QUE CREEMOS TODAS LAS MENTIRAS TERGIVERSADAS QUE NOS CUANTAN EN LOS MEDIOS QUE AL FIN Y AL CABO SON PARA LOS PODERES FACTICOS ESO ….SON UN MEDIO UN MEDIO PARA ELLOS PARA DOMINARNOS A TODOS Y ALCANZAR ASI SU ANHELADO IMPERIO MUNDIAL
en todos los imperios sucedia lo mismo ….en el imperio romano a los que no fromaban parte del mismo y eran libre se le ponia la etiqueta de barbaros…..igual que en el imperio español con los mayas o los incas …..lo mismo que en el imperio britanico……
aora sucede a una escala mayor Y SEGUIMOS SIN APRENDER cuando la historia nos enseña por analogia y no por identidad como bien nos dice daniel estulin
que te parezca es una cosa, que lo sean es algo muy distinto
cada uno que crea lo que le de la gana…..pero ¿no te parece extraño que en los medios pinten a los arabes como barbaros sedientos de sangre que continuamente se estan matando entre ellos? ¿y a los eeuu y a la otan como valientes y valerosos soldaos que llevaran a estos paises la paz y la libertad? ¿ que nos han enesñado daniel? que los medios mienten descaradamente que los medios tergiversan las cosas.que los medios invierten terminos y acontecimientos haciendonos creer que lo blanco es negro o viceversa
OBAMA BIN LADEN
REITERO: SI CON MUSICA NOS QUIEREN IDIOTIZAR, CON MUSICA DEBEMOS PELEAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oICdmCFyc9o
Creo que debemos recordar algo importante.
Eso lo dijo Estulin en una entrevista si mas recuerdo, “”"el mismo afirma que los verdaderos amos del mundo no se les conoce”"” y si mas recuerdo nombra al Varon Krub cuya fortuna es superior a la de Carlos Slim, al que Daniel acusa de lavado de dinero.
¿Que tienen en comun los grupos de poder? es sencillo “la busqueda del poder, y el ejercicio de este, (sea politico, economico o social)”.
Ahora bien que aqui en Mexico el FMI y Comisiòn Trilateral tienen un gran poder.
Este link ya lo habia puesto, pero viene al caso directamente sobre “el estado profundo escribio Peter Dale Scott” http://www.voltairenet.org/El-Proyecto-Juicio-Final-y-los
********
En mi humilde opiniòn no hace falta comprar naciones o sociedades enteras para gobernar, simplemente se necesitan “”"comprar, sobornar, adoctrinar o amenazar de muerte”"” a los lideres, empresarios, candidatos, religiosos, presidentes, etc…
Si dominas los sectores estrategicos de un pais como economia, alimentaciòn, fuerza armadas, fuerzas politicas, etc… es simple gobernar.
Saludos y Mis Respetos.
“Consider the possibility that the Bilderbergers have already bought off the governments of Western Europe, North America, and the remnants of the British Empire that still cling to the Queen’s skirts and are now using all of these nations as tools to bring about their goal of imposing a single bankers’ government on its New World Order”
Pues esta “posibilidad” es opuesta a lo que predica Larouche. Él siempre habla de la Reina como máximo exponente de la Élite y cómo la responsable, en parte, de esta escalada hacia la III guerra mundial. ¿Quién tiene razón?
Por otro lado el ingreso de Rusia en la World Trade Organization parece preocupante por parte de Putin.
Cuánta contradicción (aparente).
¡Cómo se le ve el plumero al Imperio!
Este es un artículo de la página de Larouche en el que se habla de que la Liga Norte Italiana. Ahí se dice esto:
25 de febrero de 2012 — El senador italiano Oskar Peterline fue entrevistado de nuevo el pasado martes 21 por el conductor de Radio Padania, Roberto Ortelli, para hacer lo que se ha convertido en el repaso semanal sobre la iniciativa Glass-Steagall que introdujo en el Senado italiano, e informar sobre su avance. Otros senadores han sucrito esa iniciativa, incluyendo a Massimo Garavaglia, otro de los miembros destacados de la Liga Norte. La lista de firmantes se “está engrosando”, dijo Petarlini y agregó: “Fíjese en que lo que proponemos es una revolución”. Impulsar la Glass Steagal significa “atacar a enormes gigantes financieros, que tienen un gran poder”. No podemos permitirnos ser atemorizados, dijo. “Lo importante es iniciar la lucha, decirle a la gente: Esta es una lucha común para dividir a esos gigantes”, para impedirles “que nos arrojen a todos al lodazal”.
(Artículo completo: http://spanish.larouchepac.com/node/15978)
Y esta es una noticia de El Mundo de hoy:
“La Liga Norte, investigada por sus posibles conexiones con la mafia calabresa”
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/04/03/internacional/1333487873.html
Madre mía qué descarado. Amenazas con sacarle los privilegios a los banqueros con Glass Steagall y enseguida te montan una investigación anti-mafia o anti-loquesea.
Hace tiempo vi los logos de campaña y las particulares visiones de los candidatos a presidente del Partido Republicano, y el trato que le daban los mass media. Tenía clarísimo que ganaría Mitt Romney.
Con el permiso de Daniel, dejo aquí este link: http://algoqueveraqui.blogspot.com.es/
¿Sigue existiendo Estados Unidos como una nación soberana o ya ha dejado de existir?
En cualquier caso, lo que hay que empezar ya a decir es que Estados hUndidos ya no es la primera potencia del globo.
La creencia de que Estados Unidos es la primera potencia todavía es solo una creencia que se intenta prolongar entre la opinión mundial. Pero ya de facto, hoy por hoy, ha perdidio la hegemonía.
Un bloque Rusia-China es más poderoso tanto económica como militarmente que toda la OTAN. El nuevo banco de los BRICS es el doble de solvente que el FMI. Y, en algo tan simbólico como los viajes espaciales, la NASA y sus astronautas dependen completamente del programa ruso. Se ven así obliados a usar las naves Soyuz al menos por 5 años. EE.UU se ha quedado en la práctica sin programa espacial por el momento. Tecnológicamente ha sido también superado. Los mismos Iraníes consiguieron teledirigir uno de sus drones, hecho que ha sido ocultado por los medios de los regímenes occidentales, o tergiversado, haciendo creer a la opinión pública el el avión no tripulado había sufrido solo un accidente. El caso es que el hecho de que los hackers iraníes consiguieran hacerse con el control del aparato ha conmocionado a los militares noerteamericanos y los ha desmoralizado más aún de lo que ya estaban.
Dicen por ahí que el presidente Obama ha aprobado una Ley para casos de catastrofes, y que este hecho tan preocupante no ha trascendido a los medios… No sé, tal vez solo sea un rumor.
indomable yo personalmente creo que eeuu sigue siendo la principal potencia y lo sera mientras los poderes facticos lo deseen asi. ya que es la principal potencia en cuanto a poder sionista/iluminati se refiere. es la principal arma del poder en la sombra….la tierra en donde por fin pudieron moverse con total libertad por eso la llaman la tierra de la libertades ( para ellos) su nuevo mundo…ya que en el pudieron empezar desde cero pues no existia ningun poder anterior contrario a sus intereses que no fuera facil de derrotar
por ello siempre sera su primera potencia ( aunque lo sea de manera simbolica) porque ellos eligen
ningun ejercito puede ser superior al conjunto de todos los ejercitos de los paises de naciones unidas como es la otan ( la otan es el ejercito del nuevo orden mundial……uno o dos paises por muy buenos que sean no podran derrotar al ejercito formado por fuerzas armadas de todos los paises que ratificaron el tratado SOBRE TODO SI LOS EJERCITOS DE LOS PAISES QUE HAS DICHO TAMBIEN FORMAN PARTE DE LA OTAN) es todo un juego..una farsa bien urdida…creo que rusia y china estan tan manipulados como eeuu…la salvacion no nos llegara a nivel colectivo sino a individual.
los unicos paises libres estan a punto de caer ( los arabes y los africanos que tambien lo son en cierta medida.. se mueren de hambre ajenos a lo que sucede en el mundo…pocos paises mas aparte de estos creo que aun sean libres)
los africanos se mueren de hambre……..los arabes estan siendo invadidos y su libertad erradicada de un plumazo
Soy Oliver de Mexico City, espero que estén muy bien.
Puedo saber tu opinión sobre algunas cuestiones? Espero puedan respondérmelas y no me refiero a su capacidad, sino a tu tiempo. [:)]
¿Por qué si la Unión Europea esta al borde de la ruina sino es que ya lo está con paises como Grecia, Italia, España… siguen haciéndola de suspenso? A finales del año pasado la ONU dijo que se avecinaba una crisis económica mundial. Entoces si sabemos que todo es un teatro, que es parte del show. ¿Qué están esperando?
Lo mismo con el show de Siria y de Iraq, obviamente tiene un objetivo que a veces no es muy claro. Yo no creo que se inicie una 3ra Guerra Mundial. Pero por otro lado, PARECE tener su lado lógico en el sentido de que sería más rápido exterminar a más de la población mundial con un bombita nuclear special. ¿Qué podrías comentar al respecto?
¿Qué evento esperan para establecer de forma más DIRECTA el NOM?
También se habla de que habrá un atentado bastante grave en los Olimpicos de Londres, al parecer ya está todo coordinado, y me parece interesante que el logo de 2012 se reinterprete como ZION y la construcción de estadio con sus Triángulos y la simulación de ojo que todo lo ve, etc. ¿Cómo ves ésta parte y que tan confiable es la información?
Mientras te dejo estas preguntitas.
Muchas Gracias y feliz fin de semana.
Oliver:
PD: ¿Cómo ves lo de que dice Lyndon LaRouche en sus conferencias? Él dice que Obama es el LOCO pero varios sabemos es solo un títere, también habla de la guerra termonuclear y su idea de vivir a Marte dentro de 30 años, la cual se me hace poco realista.
yo creo que la ue seguira en pie y que progresivamente se iran creando nuevas uniones.
con la crisis quieren someter todos los paises al fmi o al banco mundial entidades que conceden prestamos a los paises para pagar las deudas que ellos mismos han provocado a posta para generar esta situacion ( exageradas y que nuncan se podran pagar en su totalidad pues no hay tanto dinero…al menos fisica y legalemente existente) los intereses exorbitados son la perdicion de los paises pues al quedar atados a unas deudas imposibles de pagar ni en un millon de años quedaran atados a lo que digan sus acreedores que son el fmi y el banco mundial conviertiendose en aultenticos esclavos de estos y consecuentemente quedaran atados a las personas que dominan el mundo,que son los dueños de dichas instituciones….el mecanismo es sencillo PAISES ENTEROS SOMETIDOS A LA VOLUNTAD DE UNAS POCAS PERSONAS ) que ellos mismos han provocado creando esta crisis artificial.tambien quieren desestabilizar mentalmente a la poblacion mundial entre otras cosas de manera que sea mas manejable y sumisa porque tiene miedo y esta confusa
si tu debes una deuda que jamas podras pagar estas obligado a cumplir con las ordenes que te dicten tus acreedores.si los intereses son tan grandes que no existe dinero real que los pueda cubrir estas atado a tus acreedores de por vida y todo lo que tengas les pertenece
por eso todos los paises son ya pertenencia del banco mundial y fmi y consecuentemente de los dueños de estas instituciones parasitarias que son los acreedores prestamistas a los que se les deben los intereses imposibles de pagar.asi se aseguran que todos los presidente de los paises cumplan con sus ordenes pues estan atados a ellos de pies y manos y debn hacerlo sino quieren que les suceda alguna desgracia a ellos a su pais.el acreedor tiene poder para hacer lo que le plazca con su deudor
el proyecto rayo azul es una opcion.podria ser el punto culmen que ponga final a la creacion de su nuevo orden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30YzD4vovwI
aqui hay algo que me llamo la atencion.
los que entendais por favor observad bien la simbologia ¿que nos tratan de decir?
¿veis el rayo azul? olvidaos de todo lo demas son cosas adidionales que intentan tapar el verdadero mensaje.dajadlas de lado y fijaros solo en la simbologia y luego en el rayo azul que en algun momento aparece….
me da igual que muchos me sigais llamando frikis despues de esto mientras a otros le sirva..
When someone writes an piece of writing he/she retains the thought of
a user in his/her mind that how a user can understand it.
Therefore that’s why this article is outstdanding. Thanks!