Chapter 8
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?
C. Menem.

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 www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk:

     

    • The Inland Revenue is here to ensure that everyone understands and receives what they are entitled to and understands and pays what they owe, so that everyone contributes to the UK's needs...

     

    '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 Council.

 

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 European 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 party.

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 Brussels.

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 depth. (See http://europa.eu.int/institutions/decision-making/index_en.htm)

There are three main procedures for enacting new EU laws:

  • codecision

  • consultation

  • assent

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

  • EU citizenship

  • Agriculture

  • Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies associated with the free movement of persons

  • Transport (where it is likely to have a significant impact on certain regions)

  • Competition rules

  • Tax arrangements

  • Economic policy

  • "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 session.

 

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'.
 

ELECTRONIC VOTING

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 clothing.5

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 President Bush.6

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 mainstream.11

 

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 accident.15

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".

 

If 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.

UK

The 1986 Public Order Act, made it a criminal offence to actively stir up racial hatred. The definition of race includes national origins.
 


EU

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 status.

· 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 speech."21,22,23

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
 

UN

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

27. 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.


28. 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 or 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 made:

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 homosexuals.

 

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 Westminster.

 

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 III.

 

There is a three pronged strategy being played out, masquerading as the Global War on Terror.

  1. Firstly, America's super-power status will be destroyed.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 enforcing 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 depleted uranium 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.

 

The 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 destruction.

 

As 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 The War on Terror, and conjecture who the terrorists really are.
 

 


 Chapter 8 End Notes

  1. Sam Burcher, European Directive Against Vitamins & Minerals, Institute of Science in Society. See http://www.i-sis.org/vitamins2.php

  2. Matthew Grant, What next for the UKIP?, BBC, London, 13 July 1999. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/392150.stm

  3. Dr Keith Strelling, E.M.U and the Growth of Economic and Political Power in the E.U. See http://www.gtorrington.freeserve.co.uk/documents/strellng.htm

  4. Understanding the E.U., transcript of a video by The Silent Majority group. See http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/eurorealist/reports/

  5. Scott Granneman, Electronic Voting Debacle, The Register,18 Nov.2003. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/34051.html

  6. Paul Festa, California voting machine called into question, CNET News.com, 4 Nov.2003. See http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5102254.html?tag=nl

  7. Scott Granneman op cit.

  8. Ibid.

  9. Kim Zetter, E-Vote Machines Face Audit, Wired News, 12 Aug. 2003. See http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,59976,00.html

  10. Analysis of an Electronic Voting System, Johns Hopkins Information Security InstituteTechnical Report, ref. TR-2003-19, 23 July 2003. See http://avirubin.com/vote/ Also see these websites for indepth investigations into electronic voting fraud. http://www.eff.org/ http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

  11. Scott Grannemann, op cit.

  12. Dennis J. Kucinich, Congressman for the 10th District of Ohio, Voting Rights. See http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/voting.htm

  13. Kim Zetter, op cit.

  14. Paul Festa, op cit.

  15. Kim Zetter, E-Vote Firms Seek Voter Approval, Wired News, 20 Oct. 2003. See http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60864,00.html

  16. Implementing electronic voting in the UK, Office Of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003. See http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm_locgov_605189-01.hcsp#P50_3102

  17. Treaties, Council of Europe website. See http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/177.htm

  18. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance website. See http://www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1-ECRI/

  19. About Us, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) website.Seehttp://www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=2

  20. 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. See http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/136/136.pdf

  21. The Council of Europe Against Racism website http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Themes/racism/default.asp

  22. Philip Johnston, Britons face extradition for 'thought crime' on net, The Daily Telegraph, London, 18 Feb. 2003, See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml= /news/2003/02/18/nxeno18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/18/ixnewstop.html

  23. House of Lords, op cit.

  24. Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, European Council website. See http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33178.htm (summary of the resolution) http://www.europapoort.nl/9294000/modules/vgbwr4k8ocw2/f=/vgdmi7kxegzg.pdf (the actual legislation)

  25. Organisation of American States website http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/oasinbrief.asp

  26. Article 1 of The American Convention on Human Rights 1969, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States website. See http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/basic3.htm

  27. 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 http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/basic5.htm

  28. 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 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/pub962.htm

  29. Daniel Hannan, Back in the USSR for the EU's latest members, The Daily Telegraph,London, 1 June 2003. Seehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F06%2F01%2Fweu101.xml

  30. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Opinion: If this isn't a superstate in the making, then what is? The Daily Telegraph, London, 15th November 2000. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2000%2F11%2F15%2Fdo01.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=102136 

  31. Sally Pook, Race claim against Telegraph man dropped, The Daily Telegraph, London, 21 January 2003. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F01%2F21%2Fnpage21.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=88226

  32. 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 http://www.cor.eu.int/en/docu/etud/europe_cdr.pdf

  33. Government Offices for the English Regions, Office of The Deputy Prime Minister website. See http://www.rcu.gov.uk/GO/default.asp

  34. What are Regional Chambers ? Office of The Deputy Prime Minister website. See http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_regions/documents/page/odpm_regions_607885.hcsp

  35. Regional Governance,Ibid., http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/ odpm_regions/documents/page/odpm_regions_023393.hcsp

  36. Ukrainian marines stop drivers. BBC, London, 23 September 2003. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3131058.stm and Scottish coast to host war games, BBC, London, 11 September 2003. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3100730.stm

  37. Response Force demonstrates capability in first exercise, NATO website. See http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2003/11/i031121a.htm

  38. Ellen Tomson, Gulf War Illnesses Affect 300,000 Vets, PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press, 19 September 2000. See http://www.gulfwarvets.com/pioneer.htm

  39. Major Doug Rokke, interviewed on Radio Liberty, 12 January 2005.

  40. Garth Nicolson Phd, Chief Scientific Officer, What's New? The Institute of Molecular Medicine, 4 November 2001. See http://www.immed.org/whatsnew/WhatsNewAddition01-11-4.htm

Back to Contents