Thursday, October 28, 2010
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Europe in a mess because "Javier retired" or did Javier retire because Europe was in a mess?
UPDATE: QUOTE OF THE WEEK:
"Secondly, the ECLJ wants to recall that the concept of “defamation of religions” is incompatible with Human Rights. More than that, that concept is a threat to Human Rights, in particular to the rights of religious minorities.
"To accept the use of the concept of “defamation of religions” would give an international legality to repressive laws working against religious minorities, such as the laws against proselytism and blasphemy. We should not forget that in many countries, the simple public expression of the content of a minority religion, most of the times Christianity, can be considered as an offense, a “defamation” of the State’s official religion. Thus, to accept the concept of “defamation of religions” would in fact, reinforce, straighten, the arsenal of repressive laws directed against religious minorities.
As a conclusion, it should be greater respect for religious freedom, as provided by the existing international law. Only respect of religious freedom can effectively help to combat the growing “bipolarization” of the world." From Presentation to UN Human Rights Council by European Centre for Law and Justice,
The above quote and the current post below may seem unrelated, but with all the push by the Alliance of Civilizations, The European Union, the World Economic Forum and others for a type of "New World Religion" where everybody in effect bows down to everybody else's god, it was refreshing to see that others recognize the dangers inherent in this type of forced syncretism and are boldly and eloquently pointing them out.
Nothing seems to have gone that well for the European Union since Javier Solana "retired" or maybe "laid low" in December 2009. Things haven't been going all that great on this side of the Atlantic either and the global governance crowd is making real hay over both. This is what a hard hitting editorial in THE GUARDIAN (United Kingdom) said today:
The summit faces trouble from three directions. The first is the enfeebled condition of many European governments. To pick the news almost at random, this week the Romanian government narrowly survived a confidence vote; talks on the Portuguese budget collapsed and President Sarkozy was battling (successfully) to pass his pension reforms. Ireland is preparing for another round of spending cuts; Belgium hardly exists at all. These are not promising times for effective deal-making between strong leaders.
Second, the European Union is in the middle of an indulgent institutional upheaval. The Lisbon treaty was necessary, but some of its consequences were not. Lady Ashton, Europe's new foreign minister, announced the other day that she will spend £10.5m a year on new offices; the European parliament has voted for a 6% increase in EU spending next year, including a 4.5% rise in administration costs. At a time when most EU governments are cutting their domestic budgets, such things are provocative – and British Tories have been duly provoked. Yesterday Lord Tebbit warned Mr Cameron that he risked a "Vichy-style surrender" if he agreed to a budget rise. Last week 37 Tory backbenchers voted against one. The coalition provides some ballast: Mr Cameron is playing a more co-operative role at the summit than he ever could have done as a purely Tory prime minister. But his freedom is limited: even conceding a 2.9% increase in the EU budget will bring him trouble in his party at home.
Third, and most serious, is the European Union's response to economic crisis. Germany, with a growing economy and unemployment now below 3 million for the first time in 18 years, fears being dragged down by its EU partners. Germans bailed out Greece and stabilised the eurozone. Now the German government wants to overhaul the rules to prevent future budgetary implosion. But the existing rules were not the reason Greece went bust and Ireland overspent. Changing them – which could require a controversial reopening of European treaties – is a distraction.
Britain is still hoping to secure a freeze in the EU budget – which would be a success for Mr Cameron. He could tolerate the more probable 2% rise. But these things are trifles compared to Europe's search for economic growth. That is the challenge the EU is facing – and failing.
Tune in and stay tuned!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
TRIBUTE TO JOAN VEON
Devvy wrote a beautiful tribute to Joan in her NewswithViews article. You may read it by clicking here. Joan was a successful financial planner. Trust me, you don't want Yours Truly (me) for financial advice! Joan gave the best of her talents to informing the rest of us. We didn't always agree but I always trusted Joan's integrity and respected her brilliance.
Joan admonished me on one of our last conversations that I had to take time to "stop and smell the roses." She said she had done too little of that in her own life. Joan's immense efforts were capably summarized by Devvy's memorial column:
Joan attended more than 100 conferences put on by the elites who rule the world and want to destroy ours. She traveled to many foreign countries to get the truth first hand. A huge sacrifice demanding a great deal of time away from her family. But, she did it because, like millions of us, we know the grand scheme underway to bring down our country and force us to be ruled by a one world government. Joan said no way and dedicated herself to fending off the attacks on our sovereignty with her columns, speeches and radio appearances.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
There has long been anger between India and Pakistan. Both nations are, I understand, members of "The Nuclear Club." Javier Solana (and his confederates at the Brookings Institution) have placed great emphasis on the expansion of the G-8 into the G-10, G-20 and beyond with repeated emphasis on India and China being made part of the circle.
India's economy has been growing. Over the years I have had clients from that nation who told me that the Indian economy has been thriving while the USA's has been the past few years, in effect, shriveling.
It appears that India's love affair with the Barack Obama administration is rapidly diminishing. I keep having the awful memories that when the Krishnamurti intended ascent to become Maitreya failed, there was a depression and then the world was plunged into World War II. Alice Bailey wrote freely in her old books that the New World Order would have to be built on the remains of a world badly traumatized by war.
This is one more ominous sign that ugly history may be repeating itself in a more ominous form. The New Agers were confident they would make their ascent in 1929. They were disappointed then. Mary Lutyens wrote in one of her articles appearing in THE STAR about Krishnamurti that people did not realize how radical a change the New World Order would be, but it had to be implemented even if they had to "bloody their fingernails" in the process. "Bloody their fingernails," they certainly did: in Costa Rica (1919), Mexico (1926-1935), Europe.
Somewhere out there is their current aspirant to "Maitreya"/Betraya. We've had their open and often disappointed prognostications about a "Day of Declaration." When that ascent to bloodless world power didn't materialize as they hoped, we now have occultist Maurice Strong and his ugly company including but not limited to Lord Malloch-Brown talk about the "current global economic crisis" and their elaborate plans for "Global Redesign Initiative." We heard just such talk from the forebears of this crowd in 1939 when H. G. Wells, Salvador de Madariaga, J. Middleton Murry, and C.E.M. Joad got together before a London audience of 3600 kindred souls to discuss the shape that the post-war "New World Order" was to take. They were openly planning to make radical changes on the back of a world badly traumatized by war -- a total global redesign.
The same patterns and the same talk are prevailing now. Marilyn Ferguson optimistically prognosticated in her 1980 THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY that they would prevail this time because "modern communications had encircled the globe beyond any possibility of retreat." They had their 1982 disappointments and their aspirant, whoever he might ultimately prove to be, is undoubtedly disappointedly biding his time in a lesser strategic position where he hoped to be at an earlier age in time.
The pattern is ominous: Occult hopes, less than hoped for reception of occult hopes, economic depression, planned 'global redesign,' and war. The stages look frighteningly familiar. Economic collapse, 'global redesign.' Now it appears that not so subtle war drums may be sounding.
May the Lord help us all!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
EARTH CHARTER, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, AND RICK WARREN'S ROLE IN NEW WORLD ORDER
Tune in and stay tuned!
PILLARS OF THE "ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATION"
THE EARTH CHARTER
By Constance Cumbey - January 16, 2007
“The whole question of an Earth Charter was in fact on the UN Agenda at Rio. We didn't quite make it. We did make some progress. At the Stockholm Conference, which was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, governments agreed to a historic declaration, which moved the world community towards what we now call an Earth Charter. Then, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, as the Secretary General of that conference, I challenged governments to produce an Earth Charter.
"The World Commission on Environment and Development (aka 'the Brundtland Commission') called for 'a universal declaration' and 'new charter' to set 'new norms' to guide the transition to sustainable development. (Our Common Future, 1987)
"A draft UN Earth Charter was developed for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but the time for such a declaration was not right. The Rio Declaration became the statement of the achievable consensus at that time.
"In 1994, Maurice Strong (Chairman of the Rio Summit) and Mikhail Gorbachev, working through organizations they each founded (Earth Council and Green Cross International respectively), restarted the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative, with the help of the Government of the Netherlands. The initial drafting and consultation process drew on hundreds of international documents.
"Messrs. Strong and Gorbachev convened an independent Earth Charter Commission in 1997 to oversee the final development of the text and to come to agreement on a global consensus document.
"World tragedies necessitate the reaction of a united global society dedicated to responsible action and committed to peace. Identifying a common motivation and mode of communication to which all individuals can relate is a prerequisite component to avoiding destruction and moving towards progress. Humanity's dependence upon the planet earth serves as the natural primary connection between all people. By joining this undeniable truth with the notions underpinning the Earth Charter, a blue print for building a new foundation to address our current reality can be identified."
"Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance and even from the outset where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade it must fight . . .in the face of unscrupulous opposition creative ideas must become aggressive, must define their enemies, and attack them. . . . The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for "nationality . . ."
Saturday, October 09, 2010
After many of the powers Solana coveted over Europe were included in the once defeated and then resurrected post Irish pressured second vote, he made a surprise announcement just before that second Irish referendum that he was going to "retire." Since nearly every discussion of the World Economic Forum referenced back to redoing or a new "Bretton Woods," I thought I would check in the one place most apt to reflect Dr. Solana's personal thinking on the shape of the "global governance" he has long been at the forefront of -- the statement by Pierre DeFraigne, director of the Madariaga Foundation/College of Europe. The Statement was entitled "Bretton Woods III needs a new G/3." Most of it had to do with Europe needing to speak with one voice -- too many European voices were now being heard, but there was "less Europe" as a result. If Europe spoke with ONE VOICE, it would have far greater impact on the global scene and could assume the powerful role the USA had held in the earlier Bretton Woods arrangements! Equally surprising to me was the powerful criticism of three countries as interfering with the needed changes: Great Britain, Germany, and France."
"This paper compares the international position of the EU and China with reference to the global post-crisis reform agenda. The global financial and economic crisis unveiled the existence of a credibility gap between these two international actors, with Europe finding itself in the uncomfortable position as the weaker party. Nevertheless, the EU is called upon to give a substantial contribution to the setting of new global governance structures for trade, international financial institutions and financial regulation. The challenge now is whether the EU chooses to act as a subsystem of an emerging G2 or build upon its experience of decades of international integration to develop a new model of global governance based on solidarity and sustainability . . .
"The EU-China relationship is a complex one with promising long term prospects, but doomed to be disappointing in the short term. This is less because of genuine conflicts of interests than of misperceptions in the respective public opinions and regular misrepresentations by the media. But the unanimity rule in the EU Council plays also an essential part in the difficulty since it sometimes makes European foreign policy unpredictable. This jeopardizes the EU’s reliability as a partner for China. A huge centralized power like China dislikes being confronted with the uncertainty of a block whose commitments are subject to the veto of one or a few Member-states sometimes vulnerable themselves to the influence of other large powers. Nor can it cope with EU paralysis due to the rivalry among the Big Three –the UK, France and Germany- either still clinging to memories of their lost imperial power or competing for their national commercial interests, but unable to deliver on a reliable and robust EU partnership with China1. . . . The EU will be treated as a strategic power by China only when it achieves its unity and punches its full weight in world affairs. This will take time, but it is likely to happen in the foreseeable future as the crisis evolves and the need for in-depth reforms – a Bretton-Woods III – become more and more pressing.
"From a half-to a fully fledged economic power
"The EU stands on the sideline in monetary and financial affairs contrary to the trade sector where the EU operates as a fully-fledged actor. As long as it has not fully completed its financial market unity and as long as will not have balanced its centralized monetary authority with an effective fiscal coordination, the EU will not enjoy a real monetary, financial and tax sovereignty. Therefore, the EU won’t project itself externally with a common position and speak with one voice and negotiate as a block. Its effective influence will remain far below its economic weight. Moreover if the EU , as a large economic block generating the largest flow of savings worldwide, does not dare to put its financial regulation above the unwritten neoliberal law of letting capital move unrestricted across its borders, it will have to line up its own norms and standards on the G20 minimum consensus. Eventually we are confronted here with a paradox: the EU pleads for multilateralism, but so far it is in no hurry to play as a major actor in all multilateral fora. The bleak picture made here which goes against the official complacency with regard to the EU‘s capacity to be an effective player on the international governance scene, should not lead us to write off Europe altogether.
Three factors will force the EU to resume its march towards further integration and eventually to achieve full unity and subsequent sovereignty. First, the Lisbon Treaty has a limited, but some potential to strengthen the EU’s institutional capacity through built-in mechanisms either by extending majority voting or by dodging the need for achieving a full consensus among the 27.
Second, the emergence of China as a global actor is confronting Europe with a dilemma: either it chooses to act as just an economic subsystem of a US-led OCDE and a regional security system within US-led NATO, and then it paves the way towards a G2; or it means to assert its own unique development model with a higher level of solidarity and environmental sustainability as well as more strategic autonomy so as to project its own vision of a multilateral world order in a G3-plus rules-based multipolar world.
Last but not least, the crisis will be a maker or breaker of the EU’s unity. So far common responses to successive crises have eventually proved beneficial for European integration.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The World Economic Forum of Klaus Schwab, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown and George Soros (Lord Malloch-Brown's principal financial benefactor) has been actively working on "swinging the masses into step" via manipulation of their religious leaders.
This is my topic for MY PERSPECTIVE internet radio starting in the next hour and 37 minutes as of this writing. I am working on A LARGE article on this. If at all possible, I would like for JD to call in on the radio (as well as the rest of you) to 888-747-1968. See you on THEMICROEFFECT.COM at 7 pm Eastern, 4 pm Pacific time.
Tune in and stay tuned!
Sunday, October 03, 2010
One of our blogspot forum (comments section) participants directed me to an Atlantic Council post on Global Security 2025. I have already posted on that subject which deeply concerns me. However, while I was at the site, an ominous side headline caught my eye:
"Pakistan Blocks NATO Supply Lines, Testing FragileRelationship"
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]