THE NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM
8.1 The Future of Democracy
8.2 Banning Opposition to World Government
8.3 Creating Regional Governments
8.4 World Government or World War Three
8.1 THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY
The socio-economic structure of the New World Order is a world of
'have mores' and 'have nothings', with virtually no middle class
beyond the few useful but expendable hatchet men. The descent into
neo-feudalism also necessitates political disenfranchisement and
legal alienation, i.e. the rewinding of a thousand years of
historical progress towards freedom and democracy.
Is there really a plan for world government of this nature or is
this just conspiracy theory? Vladimir Bukovsky's classified
Politburo documents reveal that, in the years leading up to the
collapse of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was meeting with European
socialist leaders and the international financial elite, discussing
the convergence of Soviet states with the new European state.
Speaking in private with Argentine President
Carlos Menem on 25th
October 1990, Gorbachev said:
One of my aides has written sometime ago that we need to create a
world government. People were laughing at him at that time. But now?
Some 40 years ago, Peron was speaking of continentalism
which would enable us to go for a world government.
M. Gorbachev. I believe we should think about enhancing the UN role.
It could not realize its potential for 40 years and only now did it
get such an opportunity. Here is a proto-type of the world
government for you.
Mr Bukovsky's experience of socialism leads him to believe that
there is no limit to the expansionist plans of the E.U.. Romano Prodi has already drawn up a map of the sphere of E.U. interests
which includes the whole of the Middle East, North Africa and
Turkey. The dreams of the financial elite and the Socialist
International are one and the same, because, as Bukovsky reflects,
'no utopia has ever worked in a limited space, be it a village, a
town, a continent or a planet'.
Of course none of this could be done openly, which is why the
Russians quickly sealed the Politburo archives again. It is being
accomplished using the socialist tactic of incrementalism. The U.N.,
with its gentle light blue emblem, is presented to the public as an
institution of peace and social justice, serving as the sheep's
clothing for the pack of wolves who sponsor it. Whilst the U.N. is
still largely a fig leaf for one-world government, real political
power blocs are being constructed on the basis of this cosy 'big
idea'. Americans would be well advised to look at the E.U. to
appreciate just how cosy this big idea isn't.
The differences between
the Anglo-American political tradition and the principles
underpinning the European Union were recently summarized by Ashley
Mote, Member of the European Parliament and author of Vigilance: A
Defense of British Liberty.
Traditionally, in the U.K. and the
U.S., the state draws its power from, and is answerable to the
people. In the E.U., the state exists
in its own right and the people answer to it. A significant example
of this shift of philosophy can be seem in the announcement of a new
mission statement for Britain's gigantic tax collection and welfare
agency, the Inland Revenue, proudly displayed on the homepage at
'so that everyone contributes to the UK's needs'? Are they
suggesting that British citizens exist to serve the state? What
happens if one chooses not to 'contribute' to the U.K.'s needs and
who defines how one should 'contribute'?
In the U.K. and U.S., our rights and freedoms are our birth right.
In the E.U., there are no rights or freedoms , only privileges that
can be withdrawn.
In the U.K. and U.S., no man is above the law. In the E.U., the
bureaucrats have given themselves immunity from prosecution.
In the U.K. and U.S., the Government can be replaced by the people
every few years. In the E.U., the governing Commission is not
elected by the people or the European Parliament, it is appointed by
the heads of member states.
In the U.K. and U.S., everything is allowed unless specifically
forbidden. In the E.U. everything is implicitly forbidden unless the
E.U. decides to allow it.
These principles are firmly embedded in the political organization
of the European Union. Although there is notionally a separation of
powers between the Executive and Legislature, in reality power is
firmly in the hands of the Executive. The 25 Commissioners who
constitute the government of the E.U. are not Members of the
European Parliament (MEPs) but are appointed every five years by a
qualified majority of the heads of each member state in the European
Although the Parliament has to approve the appointment of
the Commission, and it can by two-thirds majority vote to sack it,
it cannot approve or reject the appointment of individual
Commissioners or sack them individually. A 'motion of censure' has
never achieved the necessary majority, and if it ever did, the
Parliament would not have the power to appoint a new Commission. In
1999, Neil Kinnock was a member of the Santer Commission which was
forced to resign because of serious financial corruption. Mr Kinnock
was appointed to the replacement Commission as Commissioner in
charge of tackling E.U. fraud!
Jeffrey Titford, MEP for the Eastern Region and member of the U.K.
Independence Party (UKIP), was one of many MEPs dismayed by certain
appointments to the new Commission in January 2005:
When my colleague Nigel Farage MEP recently rose to his feet in the
Parliament and denounced the new European Commission, he was
vilified and threatened with legal action. Mr Farage had asked
fellow MEPs whether they would ‘buy a used car from this man’, when
he revealed that M. Jacques Barrot, had received an 8 month
suspended sentence and was barred from elected office in France for
2 years, after being convicted in 2000 of embezzling FFR 25m (US$
3.8m) from government funds by diverting it into the coffers of his
Britain has an equally impressive representative in the person of
Peter Mandelson, selected by Tony Blair and duly appointed in
January 2005 as Commissioner for Trade. He was forced to resign not
once, but twice from Blair's Government due to allegations of
corruption. In December 1998, it was revealed that Mandelson had
bought a home in Notting Hill in 1996 with the assistance of an
interest-free indefinite loan of £373,000 from Geoffrey Robinson, a
millionaire Labour MP who was also in the Government but was subject
to an inquiry into his business dealings by the Department of Trade
and Industry which Mandelson headed.
Out of office for only ten
months, he was re-appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
in October1999. On 21 January 2001, Mr Mandelson resigned again
after it was discovered that, whilst he was managing the Millenium
Dome Project, he had phoned the Home Office on behalf of Srichanda
Hinduja, an Indian businessman who was seeking British citizenship.
Mr Hinduja had offered £1 million to the failing Dome project. With
a track record like this, Mandelson was destined for a top job in
Under the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the E.U. Commission has the exclusive
right to draft legislation meaning that the Parliament cannot
initiate legislation or repeal it. The Commission also has the right
to 'its own power of decision' as the 'guardian of the Treaties'
allowing it to issue its own Regulations as, for example, to enforce
the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. Unlike Directives,
Regulations immediately become law as soon as they have gone through
the European Parliament and do not have to be ratified by the
national parliaments of member states.
However, under the consultation procedure there are major areas of
E.U. legislation over which the European Parliament has no power at
all. The only legal requirement is that Parliament states its
opinion on proposed legislation. The E.U.'s fact sheet entitled
'Decision Making in the European Union' describes this in more
There are three main procedures for enacting new EU laws:
The main difference between them is the way Parliament interacts
with the Council [of Ministers]. Under the consultation procedure,
Parliament merely gives its opinion [emphasis added]; under the
codecision procedure, Parliament genuinely shares power with the
Council. The European Commission, when proposing a new law, must
choose which procedure to follow. The choice will, in principle,
depend on the "legal basis" of the proposal....
.... The areas covered by the consultation procedure are:
Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
Revision of the Treaties
Discrimination on grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or
political conviction, disability, age or sexual orientation
Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies associated with the
free movement of persons
Transport (where it is likely to have a significant impact on
"Enhanced co-operation" - i.e. the arrangement allowing a group of
member states to work together in a particular field even if the
others do not wish to join in yet.
Even where the Commission sends legislation to both the Council of
Ministers and the Parliament under 'codecision' procedure, the
volume of Directives and Regulations coming down from the Commission
is so large that MEPs do not even have time to read much of the
legislation. Because they often haven't got a clue what they are
voting on, MEPs rely on civil servants to tell them how to vote.
Current British MEP Nigel Farage stated that on one occasion, MEPs
were required to vote on Directives 450 times in one 80-minute
He freely admitted that it was a farce and he voted as he
was told.1 Again, in a BBC interview he said:
For example, I'm told that on 21 July - the second day of this
particular session - that I'm going to be asked to vote on up to 500
motions in a morning with my electronic voting pad. It seems to me
that that's just impossible.2
The Lord's prayer contains 70 words, the Ten Commandments 297, the
American Declaration of Independence 300 and the Common Market
Directive on the export of duck eggs 26,911. Over 23,000 EU legal
acts are in force and around one third of British law now originates
in Brussels .3
Finally, the European Parliament cannot even be called a talking
shop. MEPs in the smaller political groups are very lucky if they
are given two 90 second slots a week to speak in a debate. Informed,
in-depth discussion, therefore, does not exist within the European
Parliament.4In Britain, detailed transcripts are recorded of
Parliamentary matters and published for all to see (Hansard). In the
E.U., few of the proceedings are generally recorded or even made
available for public scrutiny.
A search for the word 'minutes' on
the useful E.U. dictionary www.EUABC.com, revealed that, unlike
other central banks,The European Central Bank refuses to publish the
minutes of its meetings. The dictionary also introduces a new world
'comitology' to describe the work and study of the many committees
and working groups in the E.U. A Swedish scientist has found
approximately 1350 active working groups in the Commission most of
which operate without the full oversight of MEPs who cannot even get
the lists of names of the participants.
The corruption in the Brussels bureaucracy is discussed in more
depth in chapter 11, 'the legal apparatus of totalitarianism'.
Recent events in the U.S. demonstrate why electronic voting is the
modus operandi of the European Parliament and the future of
democracy under global feudalism: its designed for fraud. Electronic
touch screen voting is being rolled out across the U.S. using
software that does not permit any physical auditing or vote
counting, permits casting of multiple votes and can be remotely
accessed in order to change the election result.
How could the
public be persuaded to accept this? Remember the 2000 election:
After the debacle in Florida (and actually in plenty of other
locations around the U.S.), with its hanging chads and pregnant
chads and other punch-card problems, Congress passed the Help
America Vote Act in 2002. One of the functions of the new law was to
provide $4 billion for states to use in updating their often
antiquated voting equipment.
With federal money available, and the
cautionary story of Florida as a warning, states began turning in
droves to electronic voting machines. This is the classical
'problem-reaction-solution' tactics of the wolf in sheep's
The company at the centre of the controversy is Diebold Election
Systems Inc. of Ohio who have sold 33,000 touch screen voting
machines in the United States. Diebold donated at least $195,000 to
the Republican Party between 2000 and 2002, and its CEO Walden
O'Dell once pledged to "deliver" Ohio's electoral votes for
In Georgia during the 2002 elections, some voters using Diebold
machines tried to vote for one candidate, but the machine would
instead register a vote for the opponent. There were six electoral
upsets in that election, including one in which the incumbent
senator, who was far ahead in the polls, lost by 11 points. Diebold
had changed the software used by the voting machines seven or eight
times, without anyone examining it, and then after the election the
company immediately overwrote the flash memory of all the cards used
by those machines, so it is now impossible to know what the vote
counts really were.7
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University and Rice University said
they had uncovered bugs in a Diebold Inc. voting system that could
allow voters and poll workers to cast multiple ballots, switch
others' votes, or shut down an election early. Encryption of
sensitive data is absent: Diebold doesn't encrypt vote totals before
they are transferred to the Board of Elections over the Internet
allowing outsiders to reach into the system and change election
tallies. A lack of oversight in the development process could allow
programmers to create secret "back doors" for tampering as well.
Diebold's source code is kept secret. Voters do not get a paper
receipt of their vote.8,9,10
This information only came to public attention because in March
2003, someone hacked into a web-server used by Diebold and copied
thousands of messages posted to an online discussion board used
internally by Diebold employees to discuss its voting machines, as
well as actual code used in the voting machines. In August 2003, the
documents were sent to journalists and the story became
Diebold responded by threatening legal action for
copyright infringement demanding that the offending material be
removed from internet sites. Computer programmers, ISPs and students
at 20 universities, including the University of California at
Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, received
cease and decist letters.
Unfortunately for Diebold, the files are now on servers all over the
world. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Democratic Presidential
candidate has taken up the campaign against Diebold, posting the
documents on his website.12
In response to these revelations, in August, the Governor of
Maryland ordered a third-party audit of the software of Diebold's
touch-screen voting machines. Maryland was the first state to adopt
a unified electronic voting system statewide. Just days before the
university report came out, Maryland awarded Diebold a $55.6 million
contract to provide and service 11,000 additional Diebold machines
to be used throughout the state for the 2004 presidential
primary.13The State of California is investigating claims that
Diebold illegally inserted software in to the machines in the San
Francisco Bay area after they had been publicly certified.14
In the wake of concerns raised about security flaws in electronic
voting systems, a lobbying group is mounting a public relations and
lobbying campaign to help voting companies "repair short-term damage
done by negative reports and media coverage" instead of addressing
the problem, further indicating that the problem is by design not by
The British Government is planning to introduce electronic voting in
the UK. The initiative has come from the Office of The Deputy Prime
Minister, the same department responsible for breaking up the
country up into regions, as discussed below. 16
8.2 BANNING OPPOSITION TO WORLD GOVERNMENT
Don't be surprised when in 2005 you read on the front page of the
newspaper, 'It's Official: Britain is Illegal '. Human Rights
legislation is designed to outlaw opposition to world government.
Any statement or action which opposes world government and supports
the nation state will be a crime of "racism" or " xenophobia".
the E.U. Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia
becomes law or even more disastrously the U.N.'s Model National
Legislation for the Guidance of Governments in the Enactment of
Further Legislation Against Racial Discrimination, we will not
legally be able to oppose the dismantling of nation states and
creation of world government.
The 1986 Public Order Act, made it a criminal offence to actively
stir up racial hatred. The definition of race includes national
E.U. laws against the nation state began with article 14 of the 1950
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. The latest amendment to the convention,
Protocol No 12, 4th November 2000 reads:
Article 1 - General prohibition of discrimination:
· 1 The enjoyment
of any right set forth by law shall be secured without
discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority, property, birth or other
· 2 No one shall be discriminated against by any public
authority on any ground
such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.17 [emphasis added]
The law is now administered by the European Commission against
Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) set up by a Council of Europe summit
held in Vienna in October 1993. It was strengthened by a second
summit held in Strasbourg in October 1997. ECRI's task is to combat
racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance.18 In 1997, the
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) was
established to serve as the watchdog and think-tank for the ECRI.19
Religious hatred, xenophobia and racism are not yet crimes under
British law.20 However, the E.U. Additional Protocol to the
Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalization of acts of
a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems,
ratified by 11 countries in November 2002, requires nation states to
criminalize dissemination of racist and xenophobic on the internet.
As discussed in chapter 11, the new European Arrest Warrant makes
Xenophobia and Racism two of 32 offences for which British citizens
can be extradited to E.U. countries in which they are crimes. This
prevents UK citizens expressing anti-globalist views on the internet
because they can be read in a country which outlaws "hate
Worse still, the pending Framework decision on combating racism and
xenophobia aims to make xenophobia and racism criminal offences in
Britain and all other European countries. The crimes include:
public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia; directing
of a racist or xenophobic group (by "group" is meant a structured
organization consisting of at least two persons established for a
specific period).... 5. Instigating, aiding, abetting or attempting
to commit the above offences will also be punishable.....10. Member
States will take the necessary measures to implement this framework
decision by 30 June 2004.24
THE AMERICAN UNION
The Organization of American States was founded in 1948, and now
includes all 35 independent countries of the Americas. Its purpose
is the same as the E.U., a federal super-state, though politicians
will never admit to that. 25 Like the E.U. it is not a popular idea,
at least in the Northern hemisphere which has most to lose,
therefore opposition to it is being made illegal under the guise of
protecting human rights.
Article 1 of The American Convention on Human Rights 1969, reads:
The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the
rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons
subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those
rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of
race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other
social condition.26[emphasis added]
The 1988 San Salvador Protocol reads:
The State Parties to this Protocol undertake to guarantee the
exercise of the rights set forth herein without discrimination of
any kind for reasons related to race, color, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinions, national or social
origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition.
The rights guaranteed under the Protocol include the right to work,
healthcare, social security and education.27
The policy documents of the U.N.'s Office of The High Commissioner
for Human Rights, Committee for the Elimination of Racism,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, make it absolutely clear that
criticism of world government public and private, will be illegal.
The Model National Legislation for the Guidance of Governments in
the Enactment of Further Legislation Against Racial Discrimination
actually changes the meaning of the word racism to include
xenophobia in true Orwellian Newspeak. Xenophobia, patriotism or
nationalism are the same as racism according to the U.N. 28
2. In this Act, racial discrimination shall mean any distinction,
exclusion, restriction, preference or omission based on race,
colour, descent, nationality or ethnic origin which has the purpose
or effect of nullifying or impairing, directly or indirectly, the
recognition, equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and
fundamental freedoms recognized in international law.
CRITICISM OF WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ILLEGAL
Under this Act and in accordance with international law, the
freedom of opinion and expression and the freedom of peaceful
assembly and association shall be subject to the following
restrictions: 23. It shall be an offence to threaten, insult,
ridicule or otherwise abuse a person or group of persons by words or
behavior which cause or may reasonably be interpreted as an attempt
to cause racial discrimination or racial hatred, or to incite a
person or group of persons to do so.
PUTTING A LINK ON YOUR WEBSITE TO ANOTHER WEBSITE CRITICAL OF WORLD
GOVERNMENT WILL BE ILLEGAL
26. It is an offence to disseminate or cause to be disseminated, in
a publication, broadcast, exhibition or by any other means of social
communication, any material that expresses or implies ideas or
theories with the objective of incitement to racial discrimination.
TELLING YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT WORLD GOVERNMENT IS A BAD IDEA
WILL BE ILLEGAL
The actions referred to in paragraphs 23 to 25 of this Section are
deemed to constitute an offence irrespective of whether they were
committed in public or in private.
An action which occurs inside a private dwelling and is witnessed
only by one or more persons present in that dwelling shall not
constitute an offence.
NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES AND GOVERNMENTS WILL BE ILLEGAL
30. Any organization which undertakes to promote, incite, propagate
organize racial discrimination against an individual or group of
individuals shall be declared illegal and prohibited. Under section
8 (c), punishment of offenders includes suspension of the right to
be elected to a public office.
It's worth interjecting at this point that the E.U.'s constitutional
affairs committee have been chewing over a draft "Statute of
European Political Parties". The establishment of state-funded
pan-European parties is something that federalists desperately want.
If a majority of MEPs were to decide that a party was not abiding by
their definition of human rights and democratic values, it would be
debarred. This was precisely the ruse used across the Warsaw Pact.
Parties were initially proscribed on grounds of being fascist, and,
before long, this definition came to apply to everyone except the
communists and their Peasant Party allies.29
NATIONAL BORDERS WILL BE ABOLISHED
36. It is an offence for any official or other servant of the State,
or of a public establishment, national enterprise or a legal entity
receiving financial assistance from the public authorities, to deny
an individual or group of individuals access to a right, privilege
or benefit on racial grounds.
37. It is an offence, on racial
grounds: (a) To refuse to employ or refrain from employing an
individual or group of individuals for a vacant post for which the
persons concerned are qualified.
According to The Daily Telegraph, the first judicial ruling equating
xenophobia with opposition to world government has already been
Is Euro-skeptic dissent xenophobic? I ask the question only half in
jest, because the EU institutions have a habit of outdoing parody.
The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice issued an
opinion on October 19 - Case C-274/99 P - arguing that political
criticism of the E.U. can be akin to blasphemy, and can therefore be
restricted. He denies it. Read the case for yourself -in Spanish or
French; English is not provided. He misuses a blasphemy case,
Wingrove v United Kingdom, as a building block in arguing for
repressive powers to limit free speech.30
The thought police are already active in Britain. In January 2003,
Robin Page, former presenter of TV's One Man and his Dog and Daily
Telegraph columnist, was questioned by police after saying country
dwellers should enjoy the same rights as blacks, Muslims and
Mr Page, was arrested on suspicion of stirring up
racial hatred after making a speech at a pro-hunting rally in
November which began:
"If there is a black, vegetarian, Muslim,
asylum-seeking, one-legged, lesbian lorry driver present…I want the
same rights as you."31
8.3 CREATING REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS
The political structure of the U.N global government will be built
through regionalism, also known as federalism. Nation states will be
broken down into smaller regions and subsumed by larger
international power blocs, just as the world was divided into
Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia in Orwell's 1984, and into ten regions
in Huxley's Brave New World. The E.U. super-state is almost complete
and it is the model for the Organization of American States. The
purpose of regionalism is to circumvent national government and to
centralize power under the U.N.
Within the E.U. there are, at present, 111 separate regions. In many
of the continental countries a form of regional government has been
common for decades, especially in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy.
Article 198 a of The Maastricht Treaty 1992 (32) set up The Committee
Of The Regions and since then, the U.K. government has followed this
agenda to break down the political structure of the U.K. so the
smaller pieces can be made accountable to Brussels rather than
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales now have their own
regional assemblies and soon England will be broken up into nine
regions, making twelve U.K. regions in total. Already, in all twelve
regions, Government Offices, Regional Development Agencies and
Regional Assemblies have been set up with non-elected members,
appointed to sit. (33), (34) Referendums to set up elected assemblies in
England will be held in Autumn 2004.(35)
It is clear that British
sovereignty is to be completely surrendered to the E.U.
8.4 WORLD GOVERNMENT OR WORLD WAR THREE
The following predictions are based on current trends as they unfold
and on an understanding of the policy objectives of the elite. These
predictions are widely shared by students of the New World Order.
National borders are ultimately defined by military competence. All
of the U.N. edicts and conventions mean nothing unless they can be
enforced militarily upon recalcitrant nations. The E.U. super-state
will acquire its necessary army through incrementalism, sometimes
referred to as the "ratchet" system since their is no mechanism for
repealing E.U. laws.
However the massive geo-political restructuring
needed to get all nations under a world army will require something
quite spectacular. Think-tanks, university grants and bribes are not
enough to bring about global government. The league of Nations and
the United Nations were forged from the heat of the first and second
world wars. Global government will be the fall-out from World War
There is a three pronged strategy being played out,
masquerading as the Global
War on Terror.
super-power status will be destroyed.
This will partly be achieved
in carrying out the second tactic which is to bring uncooperative
nations, especially those in the Middle East, under U.N. control.
America's military might will be exhausted by invading Third World
nations and setting up U.N. protectorates.
Thirdly, threatened or
actual conflict between nuclear powers will persuade all nations to
surrender their military power to the U.N. thereby permanently
relinquishing their sovereignty. This is why the West has given
nuclear technology to North Korea and China.
At this point, before
hundreds of cities are annihilated, there will be an emergency U.N.
conference. The agreement reached will be to surrender control all
weapons of mass destruction to a U.N. agency. The submission of all
conventional armed forces to U.N command will follow. Eventually all
military forces will be U.N. 'Peace Keeping' forces, whose purpose
is to enforce the U.N. hegemony over rogue states.
If this sounds a little fantastic, consider this: NATO exercises for
U.N. embargoes on breakaway states have already begun. The first
exercise of NATO'S Response Force took place between 11th and 26th
September 2003 in Galloway, Scotland. This was a 'crisis response'
operation called 'Exercise Northern Lights' in which the mission was
enforcing a U.N. arms embargo on a recently formed country. 36
A second exercise took place in Turkey on 20th November 2003.
According to the NATO website,
"the forces rescued and evacuated the
U.N. staff and civilians, established an embargo, engaged in
counter-terrorist operations and a show of force".37
Like American and European politicians, the Russians and Chinese
oligarchs are happy to play their part in this farce because they
also dream of international governance. Former party bosses are
happy to assume the new role of 'World Controllers' in the eastern
regions of the Brave New World. The neo-conservative government in
the Whitehouse, like almost all previous administrations, is 100%
committed to the globalist plan to destroy the independence of the
U.S.. Once completed, the Donald Rumsfeld-initiated NATO Response
Force will put the boot behind the imperial decrees the Death Star
wishes to impose on rebel colonies.
The policy of weakening the U.S. military really began in earnest
under Bush Sr. during the first Gulf War. 300,000 of the 700,000
troops deployed in Gulf War are now seriously ill with Gulf War
Illness.38 They are being denied cheap and effective medical care
for no apparent reason. Former Consultant to the Defense Department,
Dr Garth Nicolson, estimates that at least 25,000 have died since
the war ended. The others face permanent disability and destitution.
Major Doug Rokke was the U.S. Army's depleted uranium project
director in 1994-95 who has since campaigned tirelessly to expose
the devastating health effects of DU munitions. The report he has
obtained from the U.S. Veterans Administration states that, by
August 2004, it had awarded permanent disability compensation to
almost 280,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf region between
August 1990 and May 2004. 39 Meanwhile, the Veterans Administration
refuses to acknowledge that there is a Gulf War Illness, preferring
to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder.40
The cause of Gulf War
Illness is multi-faceted, invariably linked to
munitions, experimental vaccinations and exposure to chemical and
biological weapons. All of these factors lead back to the Western
military-industrial complex controlled by the elite, whose ultimate
goal is to destroy America militarily and economically. The troops
who served in the first Gulf War have almost all been cycled out of
the military, so the poor new recruits currently serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan know little or nothing of their appalling fate.
policy seems to be to give troops a limited operational lifespan,
after which they are killed or incapacitated to make way for the
next round of cannon fodder. Meanwhile hundreds of billions of
dollars are being bled from U.S. taxpayers to finance this
George Orwell concluded in 1984,
War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the
stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which
might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable...
In the next chapter, we'll find out who really benefits from the
War on Terror, and conjecture who the terrorists really are.
Chapter 8 End Notes
Sam Burcher, European Directive Against Vitamins & Minerals,
Institute of Science in Society. See
Matthew Grant, What next for the UKIP?, BBC, London, 13 July 1999.
Dr Keith Strelling, E.M.U and the Growth of Economic and Political
Power in the E.U. See
Understanding the E.U., transcript of a video by The Silent Majority
Scott Granneman, Electronic Voting Debacle, The Register,18
Paul Festa, California voting machine called into question, CNET
News.com, 4 Nov.2003. See
Scott Granneman op cit.
Kim Zetter, E-Vote Machines Face Audit, Wired News, 12 Aug. 2003.
Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, Johns Hopkins Information
Security InstituteTechnical Report, ref. TR-2003-19, 23 July 2003.
Also see these websites for indepth investigations into electronic
Scott Grannemann, op cit.
Dennis J. Kucinich, Congressman for the 10th District of Ohio,
Voting Rights. See
Kim Zetter, op cit.
Paul Festa, op cit.
Kim Zetter, E-Vote Firms Seek Voter Approval, Wired News, 20 Oct.
Implementing electronic voting in the UK, Office Of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 2003. See
Treaties, Council of Europe website. See
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance website. See
About Us, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
House of Lords session 2002-03 32nd report, Select Committee on the
EuropeanUnion,The proposed Framework Decision on Racism and
Xenophobia-an update, 1 July 2003.
The Council of Europe Against Racism website
Philip Johnston, Britons face extradition for 'thought crime' on
net, The Daily Telegraph, London, 18 Feb. 2003, See
House of Lords, op cit.
Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, European
Council website. See
http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm (summary of the
http://www.europapoort.nl/9294000/modules/vgbwr4k8ocw2/f=/vgdmi7kxegzg.pdf (the actual legislation)
Organisation of American States website
Article 1 of The American Convention on Human Rights 1969,
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American
States website. See
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in
the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("Protocol of San
Salvador"), November 1988, Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, Organization of American States website. See
Model National Legislation for the Guidance of Governments in the
Enactment of Further Legislation Against Racial Discrimination,
Office of The High Commissioner for Human Rights website. See
Daniel Hannan, Back in the USSR for the EU's latest members, The
Daily Telegraph,London, 1 June 2003.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Opinion: If this isn't a superstate in the
making, then what is? The Daily Telegraph, London, 15th November
Sally Pook, Race claim against Telegraph man dropped, The Daily
Telegraph, London, 21 January 2003. See
The Consolidated Treaty Establishing The European Community, Title
II, The Treaty Establishing The European Community, Part Five, Title
I, Provisions Governing The Institutions, Chapter 4, The Committee
Of The Regions: Article 263 (ex Article 198 a). See
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/treaty.html Also see:
Major Steps Towards a Europe of The Regions and Cities in an
Integrated Continent, a flowchart published by The EU Committee of
The Regions at
Government Offices for the English Regions, Office of The Deputy
Prime Minister website. See
What are Regional Chambers ? Office of The Deputy Prime Minister
Ukrainian marines stop drivers. BBC, London, 23 September 2003. See
and Scottish coast to host war games, BBC, London, 11 September
Response Force demonstrates capability in first exercise, NATO
Ellen Tomson, Gulf War Illnesses Affect 300,000 Vets, PioneerPlanet
/ St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press, 19 September 2000. See
Major Doug Rokke, interviewed on Radio Liberty, 12 January 2005.
Garth Nicolson Phd, Chief Scientific Officer, What's New? The
Institute of Molecular Medicine, 4 November 2001. See
Back to Contents