The Real New World Order

Published on 19-08-2008 Email To Friend Print Version

Source: STRATFOR
On Sept. 11, 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush addressed Congress. He spoke in the wake
of the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, the weakening of the Soviet Union, and the
invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. He argued that a New World Order was emerging: “A
hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged
across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world
quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the
jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A
world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.”
After every major, systemic war, there is the hope that this will be the war to end all wars. The
idea driving it is simple. Wars are usually won by grand coalitions. The idea is that the coalition
that won the war by working together will continue to work together to make the peace. Indeed,
the idea is that the defeated will join the coalition and work with them to ensure the peace. This
was the dream behind the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the United Nations and,
after the Cold War, NATO. The idea was that there would be no major issues that couldn't be
handled by the victors, now joined with the defeated. That was the idea that drove George H. W.
Bush as the Cold War was coming to its end.
Those with the dream are always disappointed. The victorious coalition breaks apart. The
defeated refuse to play the role assigned to them. New powers emerge that were not part of the
coalition. Anyone may have ideals and visions. The reality of the world order is that there are
profound divergences of interest in a world where distrust is a natural and reasonable response to
reality. In the end, ideals and visions vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.
The post-Cold War world, the New World Order, ended with authority on Aug. 8, 2008, when
Russia and Georgia went to war . Certainly, this war was not in itself of major significance, and a
very good case can be made that the New World Order actually started coming apart on Sept. 11,
2001. But it was on Aug. 8 that a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out
of fear of the intentions of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking
about the Real World Order.
The global system is suffering from two imbalances . First, one nation-state, the United States,
remains overwhelmingly powerful, and no combination of powers are in a position to control its
behavior. We are aware of all the economic problems besetting the United States, but the reality
is that the American economy is larger than the next three economies combined (Japan, Germany
and China). The U.S. military controls all the world's oceans and effectively dominates space .
Because of these factors, the United States remains politically powerful — not liked and perhaps
not admired, but enormously powerful.
The second imbalance is within the United States itself. Its ground forces and the bulk of its
logistical capability are committed to the Middle East, particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The
United States also is threatening on occasion to go to war with Iran, which would tie down most
of its air power, and it is facing a destabilizing Pakistan . Therefore, there is this paradox: The
United States is so powerful that, in the long run, it has created an imbalance in the global
system. In the short run, however, it is so off balance that it has few, if any, military resources to
deal with challenges elsewhere. That means that the United States remains the dominant power
in the long run but it cannot exercise that power in the short run. This creates a window of
opportunity for other countries to act.
The outcome of the Iraq war can be seen emerging . The United States has succeeded in creating
the foundations for a political settlement among the main Iraqi factions that will create a
relatively stable government. In that sense, U.S. policy has succeeded. But the problem the
United States has is the length of time it took to achieve this success. Had it occurred in 2003,
the United States would not suffer its current imbalance. But this is 2008, more than five years
after the invasion. The United States never expected a war of this duration, nor did it plan for it.
In order to fight the war, it had to inject a major portion of its ground fighting capability into it.
The length of the war was the problem. U.S. ground forces are either in Iraq, recovering from a
tour or preparing for a deployment. What strategic reserves are available are tasked into
Afghanistan. Little is left over .
As Iraq pulled in the bulk of available forces, the United States did not shift its foreign policy
elsewhere. For example, it remained committed to the expansion of democracy in the former
Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO , to include Ukraine and Georgia. From the fall of the
former Soviet Union, the United States saw itself as having a dominant role in reshaping post-
Soviet social and political orders, including influencing the emergence of democratic institutions
and free markets. The United States saw this almost in the same light as it saw the
democratization of Germany and Japan after World War II. Having defeated the Soviet Union, it
now fell to the United States to reshape the societies of the successor states.
Through the 1990s, the successor states, particularly Russia , were inert. Undergoing painful
internal upheaval — which foreigners saw as reform but which many Russians viewed as a
foreign-inspired national catastrophe — Russia could not resist American and European
involvement in regional and internal affairs. From the American point of view, the reshaping of
the region — from the Kosovo war to the expansion of NATO to the deployment of U.S. Air
Force bases to Central Asia — was simply a logical expansion of the collapse of the Soviet
Union. It was a benign attempt to stabilize the region, enhance its prosperity and security and
integrate it into the global system.
As Russia regained its balance from the chaos of the 1990s, it began to see the American and
European presence in a less benign light. It was not clear to the Russians that the United States
was trying to stabilize the region. Rather, it appeared to the Russians that the United States was
trying to take advantage of Russian weakness to impose a new politico-military reality in which
Russia was to be surrounded with nations controlled by the United States and its military system,
NATO. In spite of the promise made by Bill Clinton that NATO would not expand into the
former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states were admitted. The promise was not addressed.
NATO was expanded because it could and Russia could do nothing about it.
From the Russian point of view, the strategic break point was Ukraine. When the Orange
Revolution came to Ukraine, the American and European impression was that this was a
spontaneous democratic rising. The Russian perception was that it was a well-financed CIA
operation to foment an anti-Russian and pro-American uprising in Ukraine. When the United
States quickly began discussing the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, the Russians came to the
conclusion that the United States intended to surround and crush the Russian Federation. In their
view, if NATO expanded into Ukraine , the Western military alliance would place Russia in a
strategically untenable position. Russia would be indefensible. The American response was that
it had no intention of threatening Russia. The Russian question was returned: Then why are you
trying to take control of Ukraine? What other purpose would you have? The United States
dismissed these Russian concerns as absurd. The Russians, not regarding them as absurd at all,
began planning on the assumption of a hostile United States.
If the United States had intended to break the Russian Federation once and for all, the time for
that was in the 1990s, before Yeltsin was replaced by Putin and before 9/11. There was,
however, no clear policy on this, because the United States felt it had all the time in the world.
Superficially this was true, but only superficially. First, the United States did not understand that
the Yeltsin years were a temporary aberration and that a new government intending to stabilize
Russia was inevitable. If not Putin, it would have been someone else . Second, the United States
did not appreciate that it did not control the international agenda. Sept. 11, 2001, took away
American options in the former Soviet Union. No only did it need Russian help in Afghanistan,
but it was going to spend the next decade tied up in the Middle East. The United States had lost
its room for maneuver and therefore had run out of time.
And now we come to the key point. In spite of diminishing military options outside of the
Middle East, the United States did not modify its policy in the former Soviet Union. It continued
to aggressively attempt to influence countries in the region, and it became particularly committed
to integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, in spite of the fact that both were of
overwhelming strategic interest to the Russians. Ukraine dominated Russia's southwestern flank ,
without any natural boundaries protecting them. Georgia was seen as a constant irritant in
Chechnya as well as a barrier to Russian interests in the Caucasus.
Moving rapidly to consolidate U.S. control over these and other countries in the former Soviet
Union made strategic sense. Russia was weak, divided and poorly governed. It could make no
response. Continuing this policy in the 2000s, when the Russians were getting stronger, more
united and better governed and while U.S. forces were no longer available, made much less
sense. The United States continued to irritate the Russians without having, in the short run, the
forces needed to act decisively.
The American calculation was that the Russian government would not confront American
interests in the region. The Russian calculation was that it could not wait to confront these
interests because the United States was concluding the Iraq war and would return to its pre-
eminent position in a few short years. Therefore, it made no sense for Russia to wait and it made
every sense for Russia to act as quickly as possible.
The Russians were partly influenced in their timing by the success of the American surge in Iraq.
If the United States continued its policy and had force to back it up, the Russians would lose
their window of opportunity . Moreover, the Russians had an additional lever for use on the
Americans: Iran.
The United States had been playing a complex game with Iran for years, threatening to attack
while trying to negotiate. The Americans needed the Russians. Sanctions against Iran would
have no meaning if the Russians did not participate, and the United States did not want Russia
selling advance air defense systems to Iran. (Such systems, which American analysts had warned
were quite capable, were not present in Syria on Sept. 6, 2007, when the Israelis struck a nuclear
facility there.) As the United States re-evaluates the Russian military, it does not want to be
surprised by Russian technology. Therefore, the more aggressive the United States becomes
toward Russia, the greater the difficulties it will have in Iran. This further encouraged the
Russians to act sooner rather than later .
The Russians have now proven two things. First, contrary to the reality of the 1990s, they can
execute a competent military operation. Second, contrary to regional perception, the United
States cannot intervene . The Russian message was directed against Ukraine most of all, but the
Baltics, Central Asia and Belarus are all listening . The Russians will not act precipitously. They
expect all of these countries to adjust their foreign policies away from the United States and
toward Russia. They are looking to see if the lesson is absorbed. At first, there will be mighty
speeches and resistance. But the reality on the ground is the reality on the ground.
We would expect the Russians to get traction. But if they don't, the Russians are aware that they
are, in the long run, much weaker than the Americans, and that they will retain their regional
position of strength only while the United States is off balance in Iraq. If the lesson isn't
absorbed, the Russians are capable of more direct action, and they will not let this chance slip
away. This is their chance to redefine their sphere of influence. They will not get another.
The other country that is watching and thinking is Iran . Iran had accepted the idea that it had lost
the chance to dominate Iraq. It had also accepted the idea that it would have to bargain away its
nuclear capability or lose it. The Iranians are now wondering if this is still true and are
undoubtedly pinging the Russians about the situation. Meanwhile, the Russians are waiting for
the Americans to calm down and get serious. If the Americans plan to take meaningful action
against them, they will respond in Iran. But the Americans have no meaningful actions they can
take ; they need to get out of Iraq and they need help against Iran. The quid pro quo here is
obvious. The United States acquiesces to Russian actions (which it can't do anything about),
while the Russians cooperate with the United States against Iran getting nuclear weapons
(something Russia does not want to see).
One of the interesting concepts of the New World Order was that all serious countries would
want to participate in it and that the only threat would come from rogue states and nonstate
actors such as North Korea and al Qaeda. Serious analysts argued that conflict between nation-
states would not be important in the 21st century. There will certainly be rogue states and
nonstate actors, but the 21st century will be no different than any other century. On Aug. 8, the
Russians invited us all to the Real World Order.
By George Friedman

Joe Biden’s New World Order Speech

Published on 25-08-2008 Email To Friend Print Version

Source: Infowars - Stephen Steenkamer

In his speech, “On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the United
Nations,” Biden called for meddling in the former Soviet Union and China, imposing a “free
economy” on these countries — i.e., allowing the international bankers to freely loot and
pillage — and expanding NATO and allowing it to operate outside of its territory.

Posted on the
University of
Delware
website,
UpDate -
Vol. 12, No.
9, Page 1 "NATO should abandon its anachronistic posture —
October 29, the defense of allied territory against direct attack —
1992. to make a great leap forward and adopt peace-
Sen. Biden keeping outside NATO territory as a formal alliance
returns to mission," Biden said.
campus
during United
Nations week
U.S. Sen.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since
1972, said last Thursday he did not understand the importance of collective security for the
nations of the world until he graduated from the University of Delaware in 1965.
In a speech celebrating United Nations Week, Biden said professor emeritus Leroy Bennett and
other political science professors who taught him were wise to espouse the value of the United
Nations as a valuable peacekeeping tool. Meeting with world leaders, Biden said he has “on
more than one occasion, been brought back in my mind to classes I took with Dr. Bennett,” a
man Biden called “well ahead of his time.”
In his speech in Clayton Hall, “On the Threshold of the New World Order: A Rebirth for the
United Nations,” Biden said the world’s leaders must adopt a new understanding of security.
“Collective security today must encompass not only the security of nations,” he said, “but also
mankind’s security in a global environment that has proven vulnerable to debilitating changes
wrought by man’s own endeavours.
“Thus, in setting an American agenda for a new world order, we must begin with a
profound alteration in traditional thought,” he said.
Speaking to about 150 faculty and students, Biden said the United States should “buttress
stable democracy in the former Soviet empire” and “champion the cause of democracy in
China.”
Biden criticized President George Bush’s Soviet policies, saying the “administration, if not
absent, has been little more than an onlooker.”
The senator said the United States should deliver more “educational and professional”
assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union. The goal, he said, must be to “foster the
conditions and institutions necessary for a free economy and a free body politic to thrive.”
Very little money would be needed from the American government to make great strides
toward assisting in the privatization of the former Soviet Union, Biden said.
Together with other nations, the United States could help stabilize the currencies now used in
the independent Soviet countries, he said. Other efforts could be aimed at establishing legal
codes for business practice, taxation and property ownership, he said.
Biden said the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War also give the United States
an opportunity to slash the number of nuclear weapons now available. He said the START
treaty ratified by the Senate early in October limits Russia and the United States to possessing
no more than 9,000 nuclear warheads each, but said “more dramatic progress” could be made
to reduce the nuclear threat.
“We should seek a steady, mutual draw-down to a ceiling of no more than 500 warheads (per
side),” he said.
Representatives of the United Nations should be used to monitor the dismantling of the
weapons, he said. “We should cut the Gordian knot of difficult dismantlement by acting
immediately to sequester all warheads to be eliminated,” he suggested.
Biden also advocated a global ban on the production of weapons-grade missile material and a
comprehensive test ban treaty for all countries with nuclear capabilities. He said the United
States and other countries should commit military forces to exclusive use by the United
Nations’ Security Council, which would enforce nuclear agreements.
Since the United States is a permanent member of the council, with the power to veto
multinational military action, Biden said there is no risk of having Americans troops drawn
into conflicts the government does not wish to join.
Biden stressed that, if nuclear containment efforts fail, the United States “must be able to use
force to stop rogue nations like North Korea” from collecting additional weapons of mass
destruction. The “new world order” also should include a new role for NATO, he said.
“NATO should abandon its anachronistic posture-the defense of allied territory against direct
attack-to make a great leap forward and adopt peace-keeping outside NATO territory as a
formal alliance mission,” he said.
Biden also attacked Bush’s handling of human rights’ violations in China, as well as his
environmental record.
“The president has opposed every congressional effort to impose serious sanctions or even link
trade to more reasonable Chinese policies on human rights and the sale of dangerously
destabilizing arms,” he said.
“No one can expect that trade sanctions against Beijing would yield a sudden transformation of
that regime. But American foreign policy should leave no doubt-and the Bush administration
has left much doubt- that the United States stands squarely on the side of China’s brave and
aspiring democrats-to whom power will ultimately flow.”
Of President Bush’s refusal to sign treaties at the United Nations’ Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro, Biden said, “Our blunder was both tactical and strategic.”
“For the United States, it should become a paramount priority to promote American
environmental technologies and services around the world,” he said. “We do not, despite what
the president or anyone else may say, have to choose between jobs and the environment.”
In a question-and-answer period following the speech, one audience member drew applause for
suggesting that Biden would make a good secretary of state if Bill Clinton wins the presidential
election. Biden said he was flattered but did not think he would receive such an appointment.
America’s demonization next step in New World Order?
By: Daniel Taylor - 24 August, 2008
Commentary / Analysis, General News, Globalization

Old-Thinker News

After the recent Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, discussion has been rampant regarding
America’s influence and dominance on the world scene. Some are proclaiming that Russia has laid to
rest aspirations for a so called New World Order. From one angle this may appear to be the case,
but there is a bigger picture needs to be examined.

The United States is going to - and to a degree already is - be held up as an example of why “global
mechanisms” and a “world structure” need to be in place to prevent such actions as the invasion of
Iraq and U.S. support of Georgian forces in the invasion of South Ossetia. We’ve been presented with
a problem, now globalist think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations will
provide us with a solution. National sovereignty has no place in this era, so we’re told. We must “share
power”.

Former President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has stated that he sees the U.S. led Iraq war
as an example of the need for a “new world order” to manage the globe.

“Look at the US in Iraq, everybody was opposed, even their allies, but they did not listen and what
happened? They do not know how to get out of it now. Now we understand that… we are all linked to
the US and if it falls apart it would be a real collapse. We have to help them to get out of there. That
means that cooperation is needed, a new world order is necessary and global mechanisms to manage
it.”

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has made similar statements recently in response to the Georgia-
Russia conflict. As the AFP reports,

“Turkish President Abdullah Gul predicted “a new world order” of joint international action, in an
interview published in the U.K. on Saturday.

He added that the conflict in Georgia shows the U.S. can no longer shape global politics on its own,
and that it should start sharing power with other nations.”

The 2008 election gives us an idea of the current trends underway and provides a window into the
establishment’s long term game-plan. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have openly indicated
that globalist policy will be pursued if either of them are elected president.

John McCain discussed his proposed “League of Democracies” at the Hoover institution in May of 2007.
McCain stated in part,
“This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international
organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world’s
democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles
and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world’s
democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the
practical steps necessary to realize this vision.”

Barack Obama made his globalist stance known during his highly publicized speech in Berlin on July
24th. He said,

“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in
the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership
in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be
required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the
one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”

“In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them.
That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can
defeat such challenges alone.”

The more sophisticated branch of globalist elites who see the route to power through slower,
deliberate and incremental steps are now making their move. The aggressive Neocons have served
their purpose and are making the establishment nervous with further provocative actions. The
corruption and wars that have tarnished the American people’s name will now be used to further the
aims of the global elite. America’s demonization, and in turn its use as an example of the necessity of
global governance, may very well be the next stage of the establishment’s plan for world government.

What was discussed at a closed session of the U.S. House of Representatives?

Tuesday March 25, 2008 7:37pm EST

BRISBANE, Australia - The House has held a closed session for the first time in 25 years and apparently discussed a
hotly contested surveillance bill.

Republicans had requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping
measure.

Conspiracy theorists around the world have filled many pages of blogs and emails with theories as to why the public
was prevented to hear what their elected representatives said and heard.
That is the nature of secrets: those "kept in the dark" want to know and in the absence of knowledge, seek answers.

Writers suggested that the special closed session of the U.S. House of Representatives discussed a lot more than
the pending security surveillance provisions.

Last week's session was only the fourth time in 176 years that Congress has closed it's doors to the public.

Word has begun leaking from last weeks special, closed-door session of the United States House of Representatives.

Theorists wrote "Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the
closed door session, they also discussed: The imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008,
the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009, the possibility of Civil War inside the
USA as a result of the collapse and advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the
government.

Also theorised was the detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA and the
possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses and the location of "safe facilities" for
members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest

Other answers included "the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada" (for its natural
resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool), the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three
nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon.

Members of Congress were FORBIDDEN to reveal what was discussed and ABC News via WCPO web site at the
link below CONFIRMS congress members were FORBIDDEN to talk about it!

Several are so furious and concerned about the future of the country, they have begun leaking info. More details
coming later today and over the weekend.
http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1fde2498-d8c8-44f3-9c94-4a27f8407536

That is the problem with secrets and inadequate explanations for their necessity, imaginations run wild.

The Avian Flu Fright is Politically Timed

A Public Health Warning and Political Essay

by Dr. Leonard Horowitz

Global Research, October 12, 2005

Tetrahedron

Abstract
The Avian Flu Fright: Politically Timed for Global “Iatrogenocide”
If avian flu becomes more than a threatened pandemic, it will have done so by political
and economic design. This thesis is supported by current massive media
misrepresentations, profiteering on risky and valueless vaccines, gross neglect of data
evidencing earlier similar man-made plagues including SARS, West Nile Virus, AIDS
and more; continuance of genetic studies breeding more mutant flu viruses likely to
outbreak, inside trading scandals involving pandemic savvy White House and drug
industry officials, curious immunity of these pharmaceutical entities over the past
century to law enforcement and mainstream media scrutiny, and published official
depopulation objectives. With the revelations and assertions advanced herein, the
public is forewarned against this physician-assisted mass murder best termed
“iatrogenocide.”* This genocidal imposition is expected to serve mainly economic and
political depopulation objectives.

Background
In April, 2003, a social experiment called SARS, said to have arrived from Asia, heavily
struck Toronto. I was there throughout most of this Asian flu-foreshadowing fright. This
bizarre new pneumonia-like illness was named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It
was said to be the latest threat in an ongoing series of attacks on humanity by
mysteriously mutating "supergerms."
A careful study of the scientific and medical-sociological correlates and antecedents of
this “outbreak” revealed something amiss far more insidious than SARS. I critically
considered Toronto’s media reaction as any Harvard-trained public health expert in
media persuasion behavioral science might. The scourge had all the earmarks of a
novel social experiment conducted by white-collar bioterrorist.
It seemed clear to me that this unprecedented population manipulation effectively
indoctrinated the mass mind in support of a grossly ineffective, albeit legislated, public
health response in advance of the arrival of "the Big One." Throughout the “SARS
Scam,”(1) repeated references were made to biological agents that might facilitate
decimation of approximately a third to half of the world's population. Having
extensively reviewed political population control literature and contemporary objectives
of leading global industrialists, I noted these predictions were in close keeping with
current official population reduction objectives.(2)
Canada’s response to SARS in 2003 was, for the first time in history, directed by the
United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO). Having reviewed the intimate
financial and administrative ties between these organizations, the Rockefeller family,
Carnegie Foundation, and the world’s leading drug makers, “the fox,” in essence,
reigned over Canada’s “chickens.”
The truth about plagues includes the fact that “no grand pandemic ever evolved
divorced from major socio-political upheaval." SARS advanced a political agenda more
than a public health emergency. If public health officials earnestly intended to prevent
these new emerging diseases, or successfully treat them at their roots, I repeated, they
would study their obvious origins from the merged military-medical-biotechnology
arena. A basic course in medical sociology simply justifies this utilitarian counsel.
"Experts" had been predicting the arrival of a super-plague for decades. What was
HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS about the mysterious and terrifying arrival of SARS, however,
was its timing. It synchronously arrived with the global war on terrorism, and the
Anglo-American war with Iraq. It seemed a convenient distraction from the fact that
the earlier Bush administration had shipped Saddam Hussein most of his deadly
biological weapons arsenal including anthrax and West Nile Virus. SARS was
pathognomonic (i.e., symptomatic and characteristic) of what I had predicted and
explained in the book, Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare
(Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; http://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/), a
prophetically-titled text that predated the 9-11 attacks on America by several months,
and provided a contextual analysis of certain globalists’ links to recent “outbreaks.”
In essence, I provided insight into the broad application of a new form of
institutionalized "bioterrorism" consistent with state sponsored biological warfare.
Saddam Hussein was said to have exposed populations in his and adjacent lands with
biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. SARS and the current avian flu
fright is sanctioned by military-medical-pharmaceutical-petrochemical industrialists
likewise operating above the law in many documented instances. Having testified
before the U.S. Congress, I personally experienced how premiere pharmaceutical
industrialists direct our political-economic representatives in government. Emerging
diseases complement the political "War on Terrorism," and our bioterror-influenced
culture. This agenda serves two primary objectives: profitability and population-
reduction.
Political Reality Versus Mass-Mediated Myths
The ever increasing madness around us is eerily consistent with globalist think tank
recommendations for the current "conflicts short of war." Beginning in the late 1960s,
"economic substitutes for standard militarization" were sought and found by leading
global industrialists. New biological threats, the “war on terrorism,” and increasing
numbers of “natural disasters” including space-based threats and superstorms were
considered economically and politically expedient compared with the first and second
world wars. These “conflicts short of war” were decidedly more manageable and
economically viable. For this reason, especially their profitability, they were leading
options among Anglo-American policy makers.
Nelson Rockefeller’s protégé, Henry Kissinger, for instance, as National Security Advisor
(NSA) under Richard Nixon, oversaw foreign policy while considering Third World
population reduction "necessities" for the U.S., Britain, Germany, and other allies. This
Bush nominee to direct the 9-11 conspiracy investigation, a reputed war criminal, then
selected the option to have the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) develop biological
weapons, according to the U.S. Congressional Record of 1975. Among these new man-
made biological weapons were germs far deadlier than the avian flu.
For example, by 1968, when Kissinger requested and received updated intelligence on
useful “synthetic biological agents“ for germ warfare and population control, mutant
recombinant flu viruses had just been engineered by Special Virus Cancer Program
researchers O’Conner, Stewart, Kinard, Rauscher and others.(3) During this program,
influenza and parainfluenza viruses were recombined with quick acting leukemia viruses
(acute lymphocytic leukemia) to deliver weapons that potentially spread cancer, like
the flu, by sneezing. These researchers also amassed avian cancer (sarcoma) viruses
and inoculated them into humans and monkeys to determine their carcinogenicity. In
related efforts, Raucher et al. used radiation to enhance avian virus’s cancer-causing
potential. These incredible scientific realities have been officially censored and generally
neglected by the media’s mainstream.
Similarly, the Institute of Science in Society (IoSS) in London raised the genetic
engineering question in the origin of SARS. “Could genetic engineering have
contributed inadvertently to creating the SARS virus?” they asked. “This point was not
even considered by the expert coronavirologists called in to help handle the crisis, now
being feted and woed by pharmaceutical companies eager to develop vaccines.” Those
living in glass houses should not throw stones. The above emphasis is added to show
IoSS they had “not even considered” intentional SARS deployment in their scientific,
allegedly unbiased, purview.(4)
Conflicts short of war, like the "War on AIDS," "War on Drugs," "War on Terrorism,"
"War on Cancer," and now “War on the Avian Flu” require sophisticated propaganda
programs employing fear campaigns for social acceptance and popular support of
legislated policies. These psychological operations (officially termed PSYOPS) for
“command and control warfare” (technically called C2W), experts advise, best support
the emerging "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). The RMA‘s capabilities include "a
form of human slavery" in which the world’s captive populations would not know they
are enslaved.(2)
The RMA undoubtedly incorporates the use of debilitating biologicals and chemical
agents most generously on behalf of drug and vaccine makers. A classic example is the
toxic carcinogenic organophosphate pesticides deployed against human populations,
said to target “mosquitoes,” in the "War Against the West Nile Virus." Such "non-lethal
warfare" agents, as these are militarily termed, are indeed deadly, but mortality results
slowly from toxic exposures allowing more profits to be made by allied pharmaceutical
and medical industrialists. Victims of the "non-lethal" exposures die slowly from chronic
debilitating diseases. Expensive hospitals and long-term care facilities are virtual
concentration camps. The ailments generated for “iatrogenocide” include the plethora
of autoimmune diseases and newer cancers virtually non-existent 50 years ago. This
fact, alone, strongly suggests a genocidal socio-economic and political agenda.
Avian Flu for Profit
In response to SARS, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Michael
Fumento, published an economic thesis in Toronto related to the one I advance here.
The "Super-bug or Super Scare," he wrote was published in Canada’s National Post.
Canadians were warned to "quarantine themselves," wear masks, and in some cases
stay home. The Ontario Health Minister declared a "health emergency," as the media
dubbed the "mysterious killer" a "super-pneumonia.” Recoiling from the hype, Fumento
asked and answered a few “real questions . . . How lethal, how transmissible, and how
treatable is this strain?” The answers, he concluded, “leave no grounds for excitement,
much less panic.” The same may be said for this new curse of avian flu.(1)
Lethal?
At this writing, the avian flu is said to have killed “about 65 people” in Southeast Asia
during the past two years! Little to no data is available on these individuals who most
commonly had immune-compromising medical conditions. Further, all deaths were in
Asian countries with questionable health services.
Conversely, other forms of flu kill more than 40,000 North Americans annually,
generally the immune-compromised elderly.
Transmissibile?
According to USA Today (October 9, 2005), “European health officials are working to
contain the [avian flu] virus, which so far has not infected anyone in the region.”
Although, allegedly “more than 140 million birds have died or been destroyed, . . . and
financial losses to the poultry sector have topped $10 billion.” This propaganda actually
admits, “the current virus, known as H5N1, has not yet mutated to the point at which it
can easily spread from person to person.” In fact, it is likely to have never spread from
person to person other than during laboratory handling!(5)
Treatability?
“The U.S. Senate has already approved a $3.9 billion package to buy vaccines and
antiviral medications, and the Administration is also preparing a request for an
additional $6 billion to $10 billion,” according to a current BusinessWeek report.( 6)
“Beam me up Scottie, there is no intelligent life on this planet.” This largely explains
why the public puts up with this deadly deception. Even USA Today bemoans, “there is
no human vaccine yet.” So how come the U.S. Senate is rushing to spend all these
billions for an avian flu vaccine?
I suppose we should overlook the fact that the current frightening strain of H5N1 avian
flu virus has never readily jumped from human to human, and not commonly from
birds to humans either. Thus, an effective vaccine can only be prepared by mutating
this virus, thus creating what the world fears most. Let me explain. . . .
To make the human vaccine specific for the H5N1 mutant virus, you must start with the
human virus which does not yet exist, except in perhaps military-biomedical-
pharmaceutical laboratories. In fact, this is precisely what is being prepared based on
news reports. To produce the human pathogen, the avian virus must be cultured for
lengthy periods of time in human cell cultures, then injected into monkey and
ultimately humans to see if these experimental subjects get the same feared flu. Thus,
the flu virus the world currently fears most is either: 1) now being prepared in labs paid
by industrialists with massive wealth-building incentives to “accidentally” release the
virus; or 2) has already been prepared in such labs to take advantage of this current
fright and future sales following the virus’s release.
Remember, to be effective against a virus, a vaccine is said to require specificity. If
authorities were to now have the main H5N1 avian flu strain feared to spread at some
future date there’s no assurance by the time they developed the vaccine the strain
would remain sufficiently the same for the vaccine to be effective anyway due to
expected viral mutations. Viral mutations over time is a function of the agent’s
newness. New man-made viruses, laboratory creations, like the ones currently being
prepared for vaccine trials, are less stable not having evolved over the millennia. Thus,
the entire vaccine effort is largely, if not entirely, a sham with ulterior motives.
Remember too, that a vaccine’s reliability requires years, or at least months, of testing
in the targeted population. Vaccine injury data must, or should, be meticulously
collected over this period to assure the vaccine is not killing and maiming more persons
than it is helping or saving. Can you seriously believe this assurance will be provided by
government or pharmaceutical industry officials in this pandemic’s wake? FEMA’s failed
Katrina response pails by comparison to this public health liability and vaccine-injury
certainty.
I say “vaccine-injury certainty” because of the extensive list of newly developed
vaccinations, highly touted when brought to market, that caused horrific results. This
list includes the first swine flu vaccine, polio vaccines, smallpox vaccine, anthrax
vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and most recently Lyme disease vaccine that crippled
approximately 750,000 people within months of its release and prior to its recall by the
FDA.
Most people fail to realize all vaccines carry a list of ingredients that typically increase
human disease and death (i.e., morbidity and mortality). These include toxic elements
and chemicals such as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and formalin (used to
preserve corpses), MSG, foreign genetic material, and risky proteins from various
species of bacteria, viruses, and animals that have been scientifically associated with
triggering autoimmune disorders and certain cancers. A growing body of scientific
evidence strongly suggests vaccines are largely responsible for increasing cases of
autism and other learning disabilities, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, Lupus, MS, ALS,
rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, hay fever, allergies, chronic draining ear infections, type
1 autoimmune diabetes, and many, many more pandemics. These chronic ailments are
said to require long-term medical care for the patients’ management causing toxic side
effects resulting in America’s leading killer--iatrogenic disease. That is, vaccines and
other pharmaceutical industry inventions are literally killing or disabling millions with
little effort on the part of government officials and their drug industry cohorts to arrest
this scourge.
For all we know, governments are ordering an avian flu vaccine that will precisely
deliver this pandemic to the world to affect population control. Absurd thesis? Read on.
BusinessWeek expects avian flu vaccine stockpiling by government officials will help the
Sanofi-Pasteur company on behalf of Sanofi-Aventis and Chiron. “Tamiflu,” it reported
is an antiviral manufactured by Roche, . . . considered effective against avian flu. . . .
The U.S. owns enough for 4.3 million people, with more on order.” BusinessWeek failed
to report: 1) Tamiflu’s safety and effectiveness has not been determined in people with
other chronic medical conditions--a significant percentage of the U.S. population-- and
common side effects of this drug include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis,
stomach pain, dizziness, headaches, and much, much more; 2) Roche (Hoffman-
LaRoche) was found guilty of price fixing the world’s supply of vitamins in 1999 as part
of the global petrochemical/pharmaceutical cartel evolved from Nazi-Germany‘s I.G.
Farben organization;(2)(6) and 3) Sanofi-Aventis’s corporate colleagues include Merck,
a company that received a lion’s share of the Nazi war chest at the end of WWII, whose
earnings plunged after the withdrawal last year of its deadly Vioxx arthritis drug.
According to recent news reports, Merck is partnering with Sanofi-Aventis to produce
the world’s first sexually-transmitted-cancer vaccine to be given to prepubescent boys
and girls.(7) Merck is infamous for having developed the first hepatitis B vaccines that
triggered the international AIDS pandemic according to published scientific research
and stunning documents reprinted in this author’s national bestselling book.(3)(8)
In the weeks and months following the 9-11 attacks on America, I traced the widely
publicized anthrax mailings "mystery" to U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
commissioned biological weapons contractors with ties to Britain's MI6, Porton Down,
and this same Anglo-American pharmaceutical cartel.(9) The anthrax mailings fanned
fears of bioterrorism throughout America and economically served primarily vaccine
and drug makers with administrative and financial links to these avian flu profiteers.
(10)
People willingly relinquish their civil rights and personal freedoms in the wake of such
engineered frights. The passage of the infamous "Homeland Security Act" in America,
and its counterpart in Canada, are classic examples of this societal direction, forced
legislation, and egregious manipulation.
Why Asia?
How convenient that Asia is said to be the origin, as with SARS, of this latest plague
when Chinese-Anglo-American relations are strained to say the least.
In the days preceding the emergence of the first SARS cases, America raced to the
Pacific Rim to impact escalating aggressions on the Korean peninsula. Communist
China--a "most favored" trading partner with America--is politically allied with several
American enemies, including those said to possess weapons of mass destruction,
including Iraq. Coincidental? Not likely when viewing the larger political picture
involving the Ango-American oligarchy's RMA, its global enterprises, and instigated
planet-wide "conflicts short of war."
Consider also the fact the media's mainstream has been heavily influenced, if not
entirely controlled, by multi-national corporate sponsors protecting and advancing the
interests of a relatively small number of global entities. Also recall that the focus of
news providers, on any given day or hour, results from intelligence agency directives,
according to reputable authorities including myriad retired news officials and
intelligence officers. So ask and answer the following intelligent questions:
* Why have American military officials, beginning with Secretary of Defense William
Cohen during the Clinton years, publicized America's greatest vulnerability lies in the
realm of biological weapons wielded by terrorists? Is this not a form of treason against
the United States to relay such sensitive intelligence to potential enemies through the
mainstream press?
* Why does the mainstream media continue to foretell of the expected arrival of the
"Big One"-an influenza virus that will produce a super-flu that will kill billions of people,
like the "Spanish flu" did between 1918-19, while totally disregarding the individuals,
organizations, and laboratories that have labored to produce these weapons of mass
destruction? Even the devastating Spanish Flu virus has been, literally, unearthed for
further study and, do you suppose, deployment?
* Why was the "Spanish flu" influenza virus called the "Spanish flu" when it originated,
by historic accounts, in Tibet in 1917? It is said that Spanish newspapers were the only
ones reporting on the great plague due to their neutrality over World War I politics.
However, Spain was as dear to America then as Communist China is to the United
States today. The "Spanish flu" was named such following two decades of disputes
between America and Spain over colonization of the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii and the
Philippines beginning with the Spanish American war that ended in the Philippines in
1902. In fact, the grand Spanish flu began in military camps. Does this history appear
to be repeating?
*Doesn't it make sense that America is being manipulated, if not targeted, for the
purpose of advancing globalistic agendas, central among them is population reduction?
The "Big One"
As mentioned above, during the 1960s and early 1970s, military biological weapons
contractors with intimate ties to leading drug industrialists prepared mutants of
influenza and para-influenza viruses recombined with acute lymphocytic leukemia
viruses. In other words, they stockpiled a quick spreading cancer virus which may also
be deployed.(3)
Alternatively, many infectious disease experts and government health officials oblivious
to this scientific reality say this avian flu might be the 'Big One." Several days ago, the
United Nations released a report that stated as many as 150 million people worldwide
might die from this avian flu.
Emma Ross of the Associated Press reported on SARS as the World Health Organization
(WHO) launched its "crisis plan to attack" the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.
WHO, as you may recall, is a U.N. sponsored organization that is rumored to have
helped spread AIDS to Africa by way of contaminated hepatitis B and/or polio
vaccinations. There is a reasonable amount of evidence to support this contention.(1)
More disconcerting, the U.N. is known to be heavily influenced by Rockefeller family
members and their petrochemical-pharmaceutical interests. History shows Rockefeller
fortunes built the U.N. building in New York City. During WWII, the Rockefeller family
and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies
according to court records. One federal judge ruled Rockefeller committed "treason"
against the United States. Following WWII, according to attorney John Loftus-an official
Nazi war crimes investigator-Nelson Rockefeller persuaded the U.N.'s South American
voting block to favor Israel's creation only to assure secrecy regarding his support for
the Nazis. Earlier that century, John D. Rockefeller joined Prescott Bush and the British
Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler's racial
hygiene programs. During the same period the Rockefeller family virtually monopolized
American medicine, American pharmaceutics, and the cancer and genetics industries.
(2, 3)
Today, the Rockefeller family, its foundation, U.N. and WHO remain at the forefront of
administering "population programs" designed to reduce world populations to more
manageable levels. As per an advertisement in Foreign Affairs--a prestigious political
periodical published by the David Rockefeller directed Council on Foreign Relations--the
U.S. population is being targeted for a 50% reduction.(2)
"We've never faced anything on this scale with such a global reach,” said Dr. David
Heymann, of the WHO, not regarding the avian flu, but SARS.
"This is the first time that a global network of [Rockefeller-directed infectious disease
‘surveillance’ outposts and] laboratories are sharing information, samples, blood,
pictures," added Dr. Klaus Stohr, a WHO virologist coordinating labs internationally.
"Basically overnight, there are no secrets, there is no jealousy, there is no competition
in the face of a global health emergency. This is a phenomenal network.”(1)\

* The term “iatrogenocide” is derived from the combination of words “iatrogenesis,”

meaning physician induced illness, and “genocide,” defined as the mass killing and/or
enslaving of people for economics, politics, and/or ideology.
About the Author Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H., is an internationally
known authority in the overlapping fields of public health, behavioral science, emerging
diseases, and bioterrorism. Dr. Horowitz is best known for his national bestselling book,
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola - Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press,
1998; 1-888-508-4787) which recently resulted in the United States General
Accounting Office investigating the man-made origin of AIDS theory. (See:
http://www.healingcelebrations.com/gao.htm ) Dr. Horowitz's work in the field of
vaccination risk awareness has prompted at least three Third World nations to change
their vaccination policies. His stunning testimony before the United States Congress'
Government Reform Committee, literally brought the hearing to a halt. (See:
healingcelebrations.com) Dr. Horowitz questioned government health officials regarding
a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) secreted report showing a
definitive link between the mercury ingredient (i.e., Thimerosal), common to most
vaccinations, and the skyrocketing rates of autism and behavioral disorders affecting
our children and the future of our nation.
Dr. Horowitz's most recent book is DNA: "Pirates of the Sacred Spiral", a reference text
on the electro-genetics of biology, disease therapy, and human spirituality. This work
also details links between the anthrax mailings and human genome project heist, and
leading intelligence agency, genetics industry, and pharmaceutical company officials.
For more information about Dr. Horowitz’s books, videos, CDs and DVDs link to
www.healthyworlddistributing.com and www.tetrahedron.org, or by calling 1-888-508-
4787. His official website is www.drlenhorowitz.com.
This article was provided courtesy of Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz and Tetrahedron
Publishing Group. It’s copyright is relinquished for widespread distribution.

References:
1) Horowitz LG. SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome): A Great Global Scam.
Available at: http://www.healingcelebrations.com/SARS.htm
2) Horowitz LG. Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare. Sandpoint,
ID: Tetrahedron Publishing Group, (Spring) 2001.
3) Horowitz LG. Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional?
Sandpoint, ID: Tetrahedron Publishing Group, (Spring) 2001.
4) The Institute of Science in Society. SARS and Genetic Engineering? London, England.
Article available at:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/health_risks/sars_engineering.html
5) Knox N. Europe braces for avian flu. USA TODAY, October 9, 2005; Manning
A.Government to stock up on avian flu shots. USA Today, Oct 8, 2005.
6) Wang P. Avian Flu: Inoculate Your Portfolio. BusinessWeek. Online edition. Available
at:
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/oct2005/pi2005110_4988_pi015.htm
7) CNNMoney. Merck shares jump on cancer drug vaccine. October 6, 2005. Available
at: http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/06/news/fortune500/merck.reut/
8) For more scientific background on the link between the hepatitis B vaccine and the
AIDS pandemic link to http://www.originofAIDS.com .
9) Horowitz LG. The CIA's Role in the Anthrax Mailings: Could Our Spies be Agents for
Military-Industrial Sabotage, Terrorism, and Even Population Control? A Special Report.
Article available at:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/anthrax/anthrax_espionage.html
10) Horowitz LG. DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral. Sandpoint, ID: Tetrahedron
Publishing Group, 2004.

Global Research Articles by Leonard Horowitz

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The
Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained
in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text
& title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research
articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to
advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Leonard Horowitz, Tetrahedron, 2005

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1071

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for
the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is
now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational
sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-
determination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany
We wondered how long it would take Pope Benedict XVI to actually and publicly advocate the
New World Order. It did not take long.
NEWS BRIEF: "Benedict XVI's Christmas Message: '"By Knocking at Our Door, God
Challenges Us and Our Freedom' ", ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome, Code:
ZE05122502, Date: 2005-12-25.
"The modern age is often seen as an awakening of reason from its slumbers, humanity's
enlightenment after an age of darkness. Yet without the light of Christ, the light of reason is not
sufficient to enlighten humanity and the world. For this reason, the words of the Christmas
Gospel: 'the true Light that enlightens every man was coming into this world' (John 1:9) resound
now more than ever as a proclamation of salvation. 'It is only in the mystery of the Word made
flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear' ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 22). The
Church does not tire of repeating this message of hope reaffirmed by the Second Vatican
Council, which concluded 40 years ago."
"Men and women of today, humanity come of age yet often still so frail in mind and will, let the
Child of Bethlehem take you by the hand! Do not fear; put your trust in him! The life-giving
power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and
economic relationships. May his love guide every people on earth and strengthen their common
consciousness of being a 'family' called to foster relationships of trust and mutual support. A
united humanity will be able to confront the many troubling problems of the present time: from
the menace of terrorism to the humiliating poverty in which millions of human beings live, from
the proliferation of weapons to the pandemics and the environmental destruction which threatens
the future of our planet."
This new Pope actually used the term, "New World Order" in his speech, thus aligning himself
and his global Catholic Church with other leaders of the Illuminati which are straining as much
politically and/or economically as the Vatican is straining religiously to unite the world globally
in these three spheres. Until this global unity is achieved, Antichrist cannot appear.
Please note the wording of the relevant prophecy, Revelation 17:17:
"For God has put it into their hearts to carry out His own purpose by acting in harmony in
surrendering their royal power and authority to the beast, until the prophetic words, intentions
and promises of God shall be fulfilled."

Pope calls for a new world order

Thursday, January 1, 2004 Posted: 1421 GMT (10:21 PM HKT)

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope John Paul II rang in the New

Year on Thursday with a renewed call for peace in the
Middle East and Africa and the creation of a new world
order based on respect for the dignity of man and
equality among nations. Pope John Paul II presides over a
John Paul presided over a morning Mass inside St. Peter's Basilica to morning Mass in St. Peter's Basilica
mark the World Day of Peace, which the Roman Catholic Church Thursday, to mark the World Day of
celebrates every January 1. He appeared in good form, delivering his Peace.
entire homily in a strong and clear voice despite a relatively tiring
holiday schedule.
This year, John Paul directed his thoughts to continuing conflicts
around the globe. But he stressed that to bring about peace, there needs to be a new respect for international law
and the creation of a "new international order" based on the goals of the United
Nations.
He called for "an order that is able to give adequate solutions to today's problems based on the dignity of the human
being, on an integral development of society, on solidarity among nations rich and poor, on the sharing of resources
and the extraordinary results of scientific and technical progress."
The pope lamented continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians, and also offered his prayers for his
ambassador to Burundi, Archbishop Michael Courtney, who was gunned down by assailants this week as he returned
from a funeral.
John Paul said Courtney was killed "while he carried out his mission in favour of dialogue and reconciliation" in the
central African country, which has been wracked by violence for a decade.
"Let us pray for him, hoping that his example and sacrifice will bring about the fruits of peace in Burundi and the
world," he said.
Earlier this month, John Paul issued a formal document marking the World Day of Peace in which he called for a
reform of the United Nations and international law to deal with the evolving threat of terrorism.
He said a new respect for international law was the only way to achieve peace and guarantee against the arbitrary
use of force. He did not mention the United States by name, but his message appeared aimed at the U.S. anti-
terrorism campaign—and in particular at Washington's pre-emptive war in Iraq, which was launched without the
specific authorization of the United Nations.
John Paul was a vocal critic of the Iraq war, dispatching envoys to Washington and Baghdad to try to prevent
hostilities from breaking out and exhorting world leaders that war was not inevitable and was "always a defeat for
humanity."
"Because peace is possible ... it is necessary," he said during his homily Thursday.
The New Year's Mass was the last major celebration of the Christmas season for John Paul, who is 83 and suffers
from Parkinson's disease, which makes it difficult for him to speak, as well as knee and hip ailments that make it
almost impossible for him to walk or stand.
He cut back some of his holiday activities and scrapped two traditional papal events—the ordination of bishops
January 6 and baptisms on January 11.
But throughout the Christmas season, he has appeared far stronger than during the series of celebrations in October
marking his 25th anniversary as pope. Then, he was unable to deliver many of his homilies and had to have others to
read them on his behalf.

Collapse of WTO talks ushers in ‘New World Order’

Published on 30-07-2008 Email To Friend Print Version

Source: AFP
The breakdown of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations signals a “new world
order” in which the West can no longer unilaterally impose its will on the rest of the world,
Norway’s foreign minister said Wednesday.

“I may have been present as the world order crumbled. But at the same time, I have witnessed
the emergence of a new world order where all of the world’s countries are present and defend
their rights,” Jonas Gahr Stoere wrote in an opinion piece in the Norwegian paper of reference
Aftenposten.
“Just a few years ago, the United States and the EU resolved all disputes. When they agreed on
a solution that was often the way it turned out. Those days are numbered,” he wrote, pointing
to the mounting influence of countries like China, India and Brazil.
The Geneva talks collapsed Tuesday after nine gruelling days of negotiations aimed at
reaching a consensus on subsidy levels and import tariffs for a new deal under the WTO’s
seven-year-old Doha Round.
“The failure in Geneva should encourage us to develop a world order that is in line with a new
era,” Stoere said, insisting that the aborted talks should not be the final word on the matter.
Norway, which is not a member of the European Union, has traditionally imposed high duties
on imported agricultural goods to protect its heavily subsidised farmers.
Gorbachev laments New World Order behind schedule
Published on 2008-05-07 00:00:00

Source: Telegraph

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy
against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.
With Dmitry Medvedev due to be inaugurated today as Russian president, the Soviet Union's
last leader said that the White House's claims of peaceful intentions towards its former
superpower rival could no longer be trusted.
Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily
Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.
From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a
bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately
quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.
"We had 10 years after the Cold War to build a new world order and yet we squandered
them," he said.
"The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently.
"Every US president has to have a war."
The 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner's denunciation of the US mirrors the most belligerently
anti-Western speeches of Vladimir Putin who is said to consult Mr Gorbachev on foreign
policy matters.
Mr Putin may be switching jobs to become prime minister, but many expect him to remain
the most powerful figure in Russian politics.
Mr Gorbachev hinted that the former KGB spy could still direct Russia's foreign policy,
leaving President Medvedev seen by some as more liberal than his mentor to concentrate on
internal matters.
Yet if Washington blames Mr Putin's self-aggrandising rhetoric for the worst crisis in East-
West relations since the Cold War, for Mr Gorbachev the blame lies entirely with the
administration of President George W Bush.
"The problem is not with Russia," he said, speaking at a friend's chateau outside Paris.
"Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United
States or any other country for that matter.
"Yet we see the United States approving a military budget and the defence secretary
pledging to strengthen conventional forces because of the possibility of a war with China or
Russia.
"I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire
world."
Last year, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, told a congressional committee that
America needed to boost military spending to counter myriad threats including the
"uncertain paths of China and Russia".
Those comments caused uproar in Russia, with pro-Kremlin newspapers claiming they
heralded the start of a new Cold War.
Tensions have already been heightened by a US proposal to build a missile defence shield in
Poland and the Czech Republic to counter a nuclear strike by Iran.
Mr Gorbachev, however, claimed the plans were an aggressive act against Russia.
"Erecting elements of missile defence is taking the arms race to the next level," he said. "It
is a very dangerous step."
Relations have further deteriorated after NATO promised eventual membership to Georgia
and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's
sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.
"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after
the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to
their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."
For a man hailed as one of the heroes of the 20th century, Mr Gorbachev, now 77, often
sounded like the ageing hardliners he struggled against in the Kremlin during the 1980s.
He railed against a "military-industrial complex" that he insisted was the "real government"
of the US and, quoting a Russian documentary on state television, suggested that Margaret
Thatcher had supplied weapons to Chechen terrorists.
Still, while Mr Gorbachev may be delighted by the rebirth of what many see as Russian
imperialism, many wonder whether he approves of the way in which Mr Putin has eroded
freedom of expression to such an extent that some claim glasnost is dead.
"I do not think that glasnost is dead in Russia," he said.
"There is a phenomenon in the West to criticise Putin's domestic record. But in Russia he
has mass support. His popularity ratings are 70 to 80 percent.
"Is this not democracy?"
Sarkozy Calls For UN Lead New World Order
Published on 2007-09-26 00:00:00

Source: Earth Times

New York - The United Nations should avail itself as an instrument for a "new
world order of the 21st century," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said
Tuesday in his first address to the General Assembly. Sarkozy, who won the
presidency this year on a strong reform platform to modernize France, urged the
world body to embark on programmes ranging from equal wealth distribution to
fighting corruption in his speech full of references to France's past revolutionary
ideals.
"In the name of France, I call upon all states to join ranks in order to found the
new world order of the 21st century on the notion that the common goods that
belong to all of humankind must be the common responsibility for us all," he told
the General Assembly.
The UN should ensure access for all human beings to vital resources, such as
water, energy, food, medication and knowledge, he said. He called for "more
morality" in "financial capitalism" and a fairer distribution of profits, earnings in
commodities, raw materials and new technologies.
"There must be a change of mindset and behaviour," Sarkozy said in a long list of
demands to the international community.
Known for his admiration of the United States and its culture, Sarkozy said France
will remain loyal to its friends and the values it shares with them.
But he warned that loyalty should not be equated with submission, a reference to
Paris' disagreement with the US-led war in Iraq.
"What I want to say to the world is that France, faithful to its friends, stands ready
to talk to all people, on every continent," he said.
Kissinger: Iraq troop surge is needed to build a New World Order
Published on 2007-01-20 00:00:00

Source: Raw Story - By Mike Sheehan

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an iconic

conservative who continues to command the
attention of the White House, praises President Bush's
moves in Iraq and says that leaving the war-torn nation
is not possible under present conditions.
Kissinger has penned an editorial in which he states
that Bush's "bold decision to order a 'surge' of some
20,000 American troops for Iraq has brought the debate
over the war to a defining stage. There will not be
opportunity for another reassessment."
The elder statesman remarks that the early strategy of
replacing U.S. forces with Iraqis was "in retrospect,
premature," and says that the "most flagrant
shortcoming of Iraqi forces" is that they are unclear on what they're fighting for
and for whom.
Kissinger asserts that the Iraq war is part of a larger conflict, namely "the assault
on the international order conducted by radical groups in both Islamic sects,"
particularly against the United States. He insists that despite public
disenchantment with the war in Iraq, "under present conditions, withdrawal is not
an option."

He calls America "the indispensable component of any attempt to

build a new world order."
Perhaps most telling, Kissinger declares that the U.S. is in Iraq as "an expression
of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of
imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the
energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend."
Excerpts from Kissinger's op-ed, which is available in full at this link, follow...
An abrupt American departure will greatly complicate efforts to help stem the
terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Gulf will
be tempted into pre-emptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict
within Iraq to genocidal dimensions.
Graduated withdrawal would not ease these dangers until a different strategy is in
place and shows some progress. For now, it would be treated both within Iraq and
in the region as the forerunner of a total withdrawal. President Bush's decision
should therefore be seen as the first step toward a new grand strategy relating
power to diplomacy for the entire region, ideally on a nonpartisan basis.
The purpose of the new strategy should be to demonstrate that America is
determined to remain relevant to the outcome in the region; to adjust U.S. military
deployments and numbers to emerging realities; and to provide the maneuvering
room for a major diplomatic effort to stabilize the region.
Of the current security threats in Iraq the intervention of outside countries, the
presence of Qaeda fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element, the
sectarian conflict the United States has a national interest in defeating the first
two; it must not involve itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period,
much less let itself be used by one side for its own sectarian goals.

UN transformation proposed to create 'new world

order'
Published on 2008-01-20 00:00:00

Source: The Independent

Related: BBC News: PM urges world institution reform

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks

with other world leaders on far-
reaching reform of the United Nations
Security Council as part of a drive to
create a "new world order" and
"global society".
The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent
members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could
be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto
but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan,
Brazil and one or two African nations.
Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the
world's new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and
India. Last night, British sources revealed "intense discussions" on UN reform
were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.
The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed
to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq.
George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.
UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for
fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus
for change first.
His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One
option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech
in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: "I support India's bid for a permanent
place with others on an expanded UN Security Council." However, he is not
backing Pakistan's demand for a seat if India wins one.
Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend �100m a year on setting up a
"rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace
deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and
lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. "There is limited value in
military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he will say. "So
we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are
over and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with
stabilisation, recovery and development."
He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as
poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund
should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.
Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a "partnership of equals"
between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation
against terrorism. He announced 825m of aid over the next three years 500m of
which will be spent on health and education.
Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers
from Commonwealth countries. He said: "Cricket is one of the great things that
bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the
Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some
of the great players in the modern era honoured."
Read Andrew Grice atindependent.co.uk/todayinpolitics
Security Council membership
The UN Security Council's membership has remained virtually unchanged since it
first met in 1946.
Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were
designated permanent members of the UN's most powerful body.
Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council in
1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.
The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe,
was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.
Decisions made by the council require nine "yes" votes out of 15. Each permanent
member has a veto over resolutions.
The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that
permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany,
Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds,
to support it in the assembly.

EU/US Merger: New Global Order By Stealth

Published on 2007-05-05 00:00:00

Source: Infowars.net - Steve Watson

In a sweeping move that has

garnered surprisingly little
attention this week the United
States and the European Union
have signed up to a new
transatlantic economic
partnership that will see
regulatory standards
"harmonized" and will lay the
basis for a merging of the US and
EU into one single market, a huge
step on the path to a new
globalized world order.
The BBC reported from the
Summit in Washington on Monday:
The two sides agreed to set up an "economic council" to push ahead with
regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property,
financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.
Skipping over what the fall out from a single Western market will be, the BBC
simply announced "The aim is to increase trade and lower costs." before moving
swiftly on to analyse what this means in terms of global warming.
While the masses are being whipped up into a never ending frenzy over climate
change at every given opportunity, hardcore political actions that will affect the
lives of everyone on the planet in the here and now are being skated over with
little or no attention being paid to them.

The proponents and architects of a one world order have worked

long and hard behind the scenes for a long time pushing a
gradual erosion of national sovereignty via a harmonization of all
areas of life, economic, social, cultural and environmental.
Such harmonization and elimination of diversity is the only way to
maximize the profit of the few at the expense of the many, while
maintaining tight controls over society as a whole in order for a
long continuation of that status quo.
The global corporate elite are the only ones who will benefit from essentially
wiping out the free market and eliminating economic competition across nations.
The EU has long been used as a tool for such harmonizing globalization and has
now reached the point at which it has become a supranational federal government
for Europe. Over the years, what was originally sold as a simple free trade treaty
has slowly been built from the bottom up into an all encompassing monolithic
authority over the entire region.
The areas it now seeks to dominate also include public health, social policy,
transport, justice, agriculture, fisheries, energy, economic and social cohesion, the
environment, internal and external trade, and consumer protection.
It has recently been highlighted that European globalists such as Britain's Tony
Blair and Germany's Angela Merkel are seeking to implement by stealth areas of
the EU constitution regardless of its blanket rejection by voters. Senior British
Cabinet sources have warned that they are also pushing hard for Brussels to be
given a full-time unelected president, who would serve a five year term and speak
as the voice of Europe on the world stage.
It is commonly accepted that reforms to strengthen the European Parliament,
scheduled to be implemented before 2009, could undermine the ability of member
states to opt out of EU laws, as Britain does at present, effectively ending national
sovereignty.
In their important history of the EU, The Great Deception, British authors
Christopher Booker and Richard North, concluded that the 27 member nations now
entangled in the union have ceded their sovereignty in a carefully planned stealth
operation. They grudgingly credit European globalists with accomplishing "a slow-
motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history."
The authors of The Great Deception summarized the effect of the Treaty of Rome:
"Thus did the central deception of the whole story become established. From now
on, the real agenda, political integration, was to be deliberately concealed under
the guise of economic integration. Building Europe was to be presented as a
matter of trade and jobs."
In addition dissidents and outcasts such as Vladimir Bukovksy have warned that
an elite plan has long existed whereby the EU would be hijacked and transformed
into a Soviet style Socialist superstate that would eliminate the individual nation
state's power and create a governing body with no accountability or direct
representation.
In 2003 the BBC uncovered incredible archived documents which confirmed that
both the EU and its single currency, the Euro, were the brainchild of the secretive
Bilderberg Group. Some 50 years BEFORE the implementation of the European
single currency, Bilderberg, now infamous as the secret elite hand behind world
events, had drawn up the plans.
In addition to the EU, an agenda for a North American Union is now beyond doubt
and is well on course according to the internal policy documents of its unelected
legislators, the Council on Foreign Relations.
The CFR's North American Union mirrors Bilderberg's European Union. In the CFR's
document, Building a North American Community, mention is given to the
Bilderberg group in a recommendation that private bodies be formed to direct
policy between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The document states:
"To ensure a regular injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to
North American integration, the three governments should appoint an
independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of eminent persons
from outside government, appointed to staggered multiyear terms to ensure their
independence. Their mandate would be to engage in creative exploration of new
ideas from a North American perspective and to provide a public voice for North
America. A complementary approach would be to establish private bodies that
would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along
the lines of the Bilderberg..."
Very much like the EU, provisions for a NAU such as NAFTA and GATT were sold at
their inception as free trade agreements. As time has progressed we have
witnessed the birth of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership", a treaty, which
seems to be a little more than a simple economic agreement, between leaders of
the US, Mexico and Canada that has been agreed without Congressional oversight.
A Canadian report has described the SPP as "an international framework for
trilateral and bilateral cooperation in North America" that is "not a formal
international treaty" or "an overarching binding legal agreement." But what is an
"international framework" that commits U.S. officials from various federal
agencies to working with officials of two other countries? Why is such a process
not subjected to congressional scrutiny and approval?
Last September we reported that Journalist Jerome Corsi had received the first
documents pertaining to a FOIA request asking for full disclosure of the SPP office
in its activities towards creating a Pan American Union.
The documents show that a wide range of US administrative law is being re-
written in stealth under this program to "integrate" and "harmonize" with
administrative law in Mexico and Canada, just as has become commonplace within
the EU.
The documents contain references to upwards of 13 working groups within an
entire organized infrastructure that has drawn from officials within most areas of
administrative government including U.S. departments of State, Homeland
Security, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation, Energy, Health and
Human Services, and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Corsi also reported that at a recent high-level confab in Banff, an assistant U.S.
secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon , chaired a panel that featured a
presentation by Prof. Robert Pastor, author of a book promoting the development
of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the
amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.
Just a conspiracy theory? Not according to Steve Previs of Jefferies International
who stated on CNBC, "I think one thing for people who are dollar based need to
focus on is the Amero, that's the one thing that nobody is talking about that I
think is going to have a big impact... on everybody's life in Canada, the U.S. and
Mexico..."
A global crash, predicted by former World Bank chief economist and nobel prize
winner Joseph Stiglitz, and a totally devalued dollar that can barely rival the peso
are greasing the skids for a single North American currency. This spells disaster
for all Americans who wish to maintain their standard of living and not find
themselves barefoot on the street in a bread queue.
The decline of the economy in the US is being caused by the very predatory
globalist policies of the IMF and World Bank that are still presented to us as the
solution for economic turmoil. These two globalist vampires have drained the third
world dry, and are now focusing their attention on enslaving the developed world.
The single currency and a 'new economic order' is a major step on the road to
global governance. Europe already has its own strong single currency, while the
dollar's days seem to be numbered. When money is being printed by a private
corporation is it any surprise to see a push for a merger with other countries'
currencies?
Talk has long been of a global currency by 2018 if plans go accordingly. A 1988
famous cover of The Economist emphasized this, depicting a phoenix standing
atop burning paper money symbolizing its rise out of their destruction, with the
words "Get ready for a world currency" next to it.
The article carried in The Economist, titled
"Get Ready for the Phoenix," stated that,
"THIRTY years from now, Americans,
Japanese, Europeans, and people in many
other rich countries, and some relatively poor
ones will probably be paying for their
shopping with the same currency."
The article went on to state that sovereignty
will be lost with the advent of the new
currency, but that trends towards
globalization are already doing away with it
anyway.
"The phoenix zone would impose tight
constraints on national governments. There
would be no such thing, for instance, as a
national monetary policy. The world phoenix
supply would be fixed by a new central bank,
descended perhaps from the IMF. The world
inflation rate - and hence, within narrow
margins, each national inflation rate- would
be in its charge. Each country could use taxes
and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to
borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to
the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their
borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big
loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing
are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less
floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy
independence checked by an unfriendly outside world."
"Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes," the article
concludes.
In 2004 Robert Mundell, the Nobel-prize winning economist often credited with
paving the way to the European single currency, called for a global currency.
In an interview with French paper Liberation, Mundell said: "With the emergence
of the euro and its instability against the dollar, Europe, the United States and the
Asian powers should come together and create a new international monetary
system."
In 2006 the scandal-ridden and highly secretive Bank For International
Settlements, considered to be the world's top central banking policy, released a
policy paper that called for the end of national currencies in favour of a global
model of currency formats.
The BIS is a branch of the of the Bretton-Woods International Financial
architecture and closely allied with the Bilderberg Group. It is controlled by an
inner elite that represents all the world's major central banking institutions. John
Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most influential economist of all time, wanted it
closed down as it was used to launder money for the Nazis in World War II.
It appears we are now seeing the slow realization of a gloabal economic system
with a single currency.
The end game of such regionalizing harmonization is of course a global
government.
It has long been recognized that an instant world government would be roundly
rejected by the masses and that a stepping stone agenda, a stealth
implementation of a new global order is the key to its success.
Writing in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Richard N. Gardner , who has held a number of
State Department posts, argued against what he called "instant world
government." Instead, he wrote, "the 'house of world order' will have to be built
from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great
'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality,
but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will
accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
In a similar sentiment, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
pointed to "regionalization" as the key for "globalization" in his address to
Gorbechev's State of the World Forum in October 1995: "The precondition for
eventual globalization genuine globalization is progressive regionalization,
because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units."
This week we have witnessed the first steps towards the biggest "cooperative
unit" there has ever been with the groundwork being set for a EU-US single
market. However, as the CFR would say, amidst the "booming, buzzing confusion"
few have noticed.
Daniel Taylor of Old-thinker news contributed research to this report.
Canadian Military Police Kidnap, Detain, Torture Bilderberg
Investigators
Interrogators threatened to "cut off arms" during 6 hour marathon of hell
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 29 2006
Three Canadian citizens who visited the Brookestreet Hotel in Ottawa to observe members of the
Bilderberg Group earlier this month were kidnapped, detained without charge and suffered the ordeal
of a marathon interrogation session and psychological torture - including threats to "cut off the arms"
of one of the victims.
The nightmare began on June 9th, the second day of the Bilderberg conference. After being warned to
leave the previous day, Joe Burd's party of three left the site of the Brookestreet Hotel at 2pm where
he and Crystal Slack headed for a local bar, while Burd's friend electrician Don McCormick rested in
their rented vehicle which was parked on a downtown street.
What happened next should chill the core of anyone who thinks that westerners still live in a free
society.
Joe Burd picks up the story.
"A military-grade task force involving local police, RCMP and members of the “Integrated National
Security Enforcement Team” descended around the rental vehicle with weapons pointed at Mr.
McCormick. He was abruptly and forcibly taken into custody from his vehicle, thrown to the ground
and kicked in head."
After approaching the vehicle, Burd and his friend Crystal Slack were also grabbed and kidnapped,
taken to a RCMP holding facility, detained without charges, harassed and interrogated for hours about
their connections to the "insurgent" and "threat to national security" Alex Jones, who himself had been
detained and interrogated for 15 hours at the hands of Canadian immigration the previous day.
They were the lucky ones.
McCormick was taken to a secret high security facility where he was brutally interrogated without
charge and mentally tortured for six hours. He was accused of wanting to blow up the Brookestreet
Hotel, as the interrogators threatened to "cut off his arms" warning him that they also "had his
friends" in custody. This is the very definition of psychological torture, the threat of physical harm and
dismemberment.
One of the dictionary definitions of torture is, "dismemberment, taking apart - the removal of
limbs; being cut to pieces." The threat of extreme physical pain is a method used on suspected
terrorists and was also inflicted upon innocent prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
McCormick's anguish at the hands of the Canadian Gestapo didn't end there.
Interrogators told McCormick that he “would never be alone again” and to “watch his back” - as he
began to fear he would become the latest victim of the worldwide rendition policy, and be taken to an
Eastern European gulag for further torture.
McCormick was so stricken by the horror of his nightmare that many of the details of what happened
remained bottled up, partly from threatened fear of reprisals if he told anyone what had occurred.
Finally being released and returning home the next day, McCormick became delirious and had to be
rushed to hospital after he collapsed. He was diagnosed with severe dehydration and mental fatigue
due to his experiences in Ottawa. McCormick had to be sedated to help him sleep as he babbled about
having his arms cut off and interrogators threatening to harm his friends.
From the experiences of Alex Jones during his 15 hour ordeal with Canadian immigration officials, it
was learned that the order to impede Jones' party came directly from the Bilderberg Group itself. With
this knowledge in hand, it is by no means a stretch to assume that the hellish treatment of Burd,
McCormick and Slack was also a mandate of the Bilderberg elitists.
These are the pleasures of the global elite and their security thug enforcers - repression of free
speech, intimidation, kidnapping, grabbing people off the streets and treating them as terrorists, and
psychological torture - all carried out under the wilful arrogance that they are protecting the nation
from harm.
The real terrorists are the perverted bullies that kidnapped three peaceful citizens and subjected them
to a marathon of hell - and they represent a threat to the freedom and way of life of all Canadians.
Click here to listen to an interview with Joe Burd.
Click here to listen to an interview with Don McCormick
An interview with Shelley Ann Clark extracted from the book NEW WORLD ORDER
CORRUPTION IN CANADA, by Professor Robert O'Driscoll now out-of-print. Shelley
Ann played a key role in the 1987/88 Free Trade Negotiations in which Canada's future
was secretly bartered away...
Shelley Ann Clark: I was hand-picked for the position as Germain Denis' Assistant. I was told
from the beginning that the interview was just a formality. How true that turned out to be! After
Germain Denis had interviewed me only for about 3 ninutes, he asked me when I could start
work. Wanting this challenge, I agreed to become his executive assistant.

I was hired in July and by September we had a computer system called GEAC. This system had
been brought in by one Peter Hines, today a millionaire, and I discovered quickly that he and
Germain Denis were very tight. I wondered why? It certainly wasn't the technical expertise that
bonded them: Germain Denis was a person who refused to have a computer in his office. "No,"
he was heard to say, "this is far too complex for my mind. Shelley Ann will have the one
computer installed in my area." Mr. Denis was not telling the truth, as we shall discover later.

Germain Denis was, as is indicated above, in charge of critical apects of the Free Trade
negotiations. At the time I had two secretaries working for me who were inputting top secret
material into this computer. We had no hours: when you entered the building, you never knew
when you would leave.

Late one Friday, actually at 6.30 p.m., a rather demanding lady, Sylvia Ostry, telephoned,
demanding a copy of a particular document that was on the computer: in two hours, she told us
she was boarding a flight to the United States, and she needed this particular document.
Unfortunately, I was the only one left in the office. The secretaries had gone home. Each person
with access to the computer had a password: nobody knew the other person's password and this, I
was told, was for security purposes. What I imediately did was to check with the person who had
installed the GEAC system - Peter Hines - and fortunately found him still on the job. My first
question was to ask him whether anything could be done to accomodate the urgency of Sylvia
Ostry's request. I said there must be a way to break the programme codes of the computers and if
anyone would know it would him. "Don't tell a soul, Shelley Ann," he said, "but the only way
that we can get into the computer system at Trade Negotiation Office is to contact the president
of GEAC. He has the "God" password." "The "God" password? What in heaven's name is that?"
"Well," he answered, "that is what the president has termed it and he is the only one that has it."
"Are you telling me that the president of GEAC has access to all of our information within our
computer system?" "That's right. He can access Simon Riesman's computer. He can access
everyone's computer on the seventeenth floor at 50 O'Connor." I felt like saying: "Who the hell is
the president of GEAC ?" But for the moment I registered the thought internally, saying: "Can
you contact this guy, Peter, I really need the document." Suddenly - bingo - I had the document
in my hands.

"And he's in Toronto, Peter - the president of GEAC?"

"That's right"
"And we're here in Ottawa?"
"That's right!"
"But he can do the commands from Toronto?"
"That's right."
The implications, I thought, are enormous. Here we are negotiating this top secret trade deal
between Canada and the United States - so secret that secretaries in the same office don't know
each other's password to the computer - while the President of the Computer Company
registering the information - has access to that information. What kind of security is that? Or are
the results of the negotiations a foregone condusion? More likely the latter, I thought. Not to
speak of Big Brother, invisible but watching all the time. Tuning in, no doubt, from time to time
to see if everything is on track - especially the Canadians.

The very next morning - I've been a Foreign Affairs Diplomat all of my life; I was hand-picked
by them right out of business college when I was sixteen years old; so my entire life has been
with Foreign Affairs and top-secret clearance with everything involved when you have access to
that kind of knowledge, what to watch out for, etc. - the first thing I did (I was a good Foreign
Services Officer and playing it according to the book] was that I immediately went to the head of
security of the Free Trade Division. While Germain Denis was at this point still Head of
Multilateral Trade, Memoranda to Cabinet, usually labelled "Secret" or "Top Secret" and
outlining the negotiating tactics to be used with the Americans, would be viewed prior to
reaching the Negotiating Table.

So I went to the head of security, Guy Marcoux, and demanded that he investigate. Who really
owned this GEAC firm. Was it a Canadian company or was it American-owned with a Canadian
subsidiary as a front? The head of the security suggested that I was making a mountain out of a
molehull, that I was seeing a problem where it didn't exist, that he would not invesigate.

I immediately went to the second-in-command, Gordon Ritchie, the Deputy Chief Negotiator and
reported that the head of security did not want to proceed with the investigation. Ritchie ordered
that the investigation take place: the end result was that "Yes, GEAC was an American
Company," and while the investigation was being conducted, three representatives of GEAC
requested via the Deputy Chief Negotiator - Gordon Ritchie - that they see me in order to
convince me that nothing was wrong with the system. When Gordon Ritchie came to me I said,
"Why me?". "You were the one who discovered it - I will even lend you the famous round table"
- where he held all his important meetings - "in my office to meet these GEAC representatives."
And sure enough the GEAC representatives came and talked to me for two solid hours using all
the high-tech language at their command - language though that I didn't understand: I did not
operate a computer at the time - I had two secretaries who did that.

So I sat and I listened and when they had finished I looked at each one of them in turn and said:
"After everything you have said, I want one of you to guarantee me that no one can be across the
street, in another city, or anywhere else and have access to any of the documents contained
within this computer. Guarantee me this in writing and I will be satisfied." I knew they couldn't
because a few days before their president had provided me with a top-secret document from the
computer. They had to admit it - "No", they said, they couldn't guarantee that. And that was the
end of that.

I went back to Gordon Ritchie with that information and forty-eight hours after the complaint
had been made, the entire 12 million dollar system that had been installed into the Canada/US
Free Trade Office was removed.

My impression was that Simon Riesman and Gordon Ritchie were applauding my efforts. What I
couldn't understand at that time - and which is no longer a question mark in my mind - was the
reaction of Germain Denis: it was one of complete and total anger: he lost his temper, went out
of control, was absolutely enraged. What I am telling you here is in my report to the Public
Service Alliance of Canada dated 22 July 1988, because it wasn't untiI that notable day that the
reason for the man's rage became apparent to me, that I had indeed made a discovery, and that I
had done something about it.

Germain Denis shouted at me: "Who do you think you are - someone at your level certainly
doesn't handle such issues as this one - I won't have it." After this outburst he did not speak to me
again for the next two weeks. Thank goodness for the co-operation of my colleagues that kept
me briefed during that period or I would have had an extremely difficult time in completing the
various tasks that had been assigned to me.

I had, though, the absolute evidence: without the president of GEAC, Sylvia Ostry would have
had to leave the country without her document.

Mr. Kealey: Of course, removing the computer and replacing it with another does not mean that
the problem was resolved. All it means is that Shelley Anne Clark couldn't prove any more that
somebody else had access to the computer.

Shelley Ann Clark: Exactly! A new computer came in - IBM compatible, I was told. After my
first discovery, they were very attentive to my reactions, explaining that the main disc was right
there on the seventeenth floor. They even showed me where it was and that everything that we
inputted into the computer would be held on this main disc which would - at the end of the
negotiations - be transferred to the archives. So, fine - I took their word for it.

Then came a leak in the press about having no Francophone on board the Free Trade
negotiations, so Simon Riesman appointed Germain Denis as the third-in-command, giving him
the five major areas of interest to this country: Subsidies, Agriculture, tariffs, Intellectual
property (the main umbrella for social programs, copyrights, pharmaceuticals, etc.), and
Government Procurement.

Obviously Germain Denis couId not do all of it himself. So he appointed heads for each sector:
Michael Gifford was placed in charge of agriculture; Germain Denis held the area of subsidies
back for himself; and the person that he put in charge of intellecual property and pharmaceutical
was a person who had a lot of control but whom we all thought was a wimp at the time.

All of this started in October 1986. In January 1987, the main negotiators went ahead to
Washington for the first negotiating session. Each "chief" put together his working group - a
working group on agriculture, a working group on tariffs, a working group on subsidies, etc.
Throughout the negotiations, these groups travelled to Washington and met with their US
counterparts. The first time Monsieur Denis came back from the US, it was explained to me that
we would have to start briefing the Provinces. At the time I thought - rather stupidly - that the
briefing would be done by Alan Nimark who was in charge of Federal/Provincial Relations.
"No," Monsieur Denis said, "No, Federal/Provincial Relations are exactly that: PR work, smoke-
screens, smoke-jobs, call it what you will." "Smoke-screens," I asked? And he said -"Yes - PR.
I'm the one who's going to be looking after the Premiers and when they come they'll be needing
private dining rooms. There'll be some official briefings right here in the TNO board room, but a
lot of the time I'll be meeting the reps on a one-on-one basis." It was the Alberta, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan representatives especially that he met on the one-on-one basis.

After the first main negotiating session was planned, I was reeling with the explanations as to
how he would be handling the particular briefings, and at ten o'clock went home, thinking it was
the end of the day. I arrived home at ten-thirty: one hour later Germain Denis called, telling me
to meet him at TNO, not to go by the Front desk, that he would be waiting for me in the garage
with a key to the elevator. Security, therefore, was being avoided; anyone going in the front door
would normally have to pass through security, sign in the time, and you would be watched on the
television cameras until you reached your destination. The way Monsieur Denis arranged it
meant that we were observed by nobody. It is relevant that the building is owned by
Metropolitan Life - i.e. under Rockefeller control.

The other thing I was told was that I must not "tonight or at any time in the future ever tell your
family where you are going f you do, there will be a heavy price to pay." Again - because of my
background in Foreign Affairs and security matters - he didn't have to repeat himself. I
understood perfectly well that I was in a tight spot. I didn't know how tight until the negotiations
moved into full swing in January '87 and he began altering figures and deleting paragraphs in a
sigmificant way.

I would be called in at night - remember I was not allowed to tell anyone where I had gone, and I
would often be there until four in the morning. The first thing I had to do was to learn how to
operate the computer but was not allowed to tell anybody because I had a secretary to do
precisely that. I learned to create a duplicate file from the main disc in the room on the
seventeenth floor which contained everything. I was shown how to delete from the main disc
once I had finished. This proves Denis was no computer illiterate.

I would arrive and call up the document that they had negotiated in Washington. If it was
"Subsidies" that they had worked on, I would call up the "Subsidies" document, duplicate it, and
rename it "Provincial". Then my superior would go through it step by step; if they had negotiated
30% or 40%, the figure would be brought down - to the lowest possible figure which was around
10%. This was because he wanted the manoeuvrability to move them upwards: the negotiating
provinces would have got rather suspicious if the figures remained the same: an impression of
negotiation had to be given where, as it now seems, everything had been decided on beforehand.

Energy? The paragraphs on energy would be methodically deleted. The book, "Faith and Fear",
by Professors Doern and Tomlin, confirms what I have already disclosed to the media. They say
that the energy chapter was not thrown into the agreement until the last famous weekend of 3
October 1987. I know why the chapter wasn't included until the very end. It was there all the
time: in the American version, in the Canadian Federal version but not in the Provincial version -
we kept deleting the energy chapter from the Provincial version.

Mr. Kealey: Yes, the Premiers of all of the provinces, except two, did not realize that the
country was being given away. Remember what Shelley Ann stated at the beginning: that there
were private meetings between some Premiers and Germain Denis. Those were specifically the
Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, whom Mulroney had designated "moles" in the group: to
surreptitiously find out what the other Premiers were thinking, what their bottom lines in the
negotiation would be, and other sensitive data which could be manipulated to the Federal
Government's advantage over the provinces.

This information they would then pass on to Germain Denis so that he would be able to put
figures in the document that matched what the Premiers were prepared to give away. So there
never was a problem of presenting figures that were too far above what the Premiers were
prepared to accept. If there was, the solution was quite simple: change the figures in the
document. Mulroney and his cohorts knew ahead of time because of the two moles, the Premier
of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan.

Shelley Ann Clark: That's right. I was able to prove to CJOH beyond a shadow of a doubt that
these meetings took place. I had locked away my appointment book for'86 and '87, and when it
was produced every meeting that took place was marked, the rooms that were used, the times,
etc. I brought a witness with me - John Bowlby, an executive member of Citizens Against Bad
Law. We photocopied the documentation in front of a lawyer. It was submitted to Charlie
Greenwell of CJOH TV, so that he and his lawyers knew that when they aired the programme
there was sufficient evidence - between the July 1988 Public Service Alliance document and this
appointment book - to indicate that I was telling the truth.

May I return to the second "doctored" document produced for the provincess, following Germain
Denis's directives I would produce a hard copy, make the specified deletions from my hard drive
in addition to making those on the hard disc in the main room at 50 O'Connor. This done, I
would then create ten copies for ten briefing books. The ten briefing books were numbered
because I had to be sure in whose hands each book went just in case one would go astray. So
they were numbered one to ten; Alberta would have #1, Manitoba #2, Saskatchewan #3, etc. No
matter what pressure was put on me by the Prime Minister's Office, by the Privy Council Office,
by Federal Provincial Relations - and I was warned that there would be excessive pressure and
complaints by the Premiers for not getting their books several hours ahead of the briefings - I
was ordered to give out the books literally minutes before the briefings took place. At the end of
the session, Germain Denis would bring back the books himself or, if he didn't, I would be called
in and the minute they left the room I would go and collect them, bring them back, and lock them
in Monsieur Denis's vault.

Then at midnight I would undo nine of the briefing books and shred them in the shredder. It had
to be done at midnight: you couldn't afford to be caught by security and we had been ordered
under a special memorandum emanating from the Minister's Office that no documents used in
the Canada/US negotiation were to be destroyed without the authorization of Riesman or Ritchie.
It took that level of authorization to shred anything: we were allowed to shred Telex Packs that
came in from Foreign Affairs but any negotiating document could not be touched. The only time
I could shred these was between the hours of midnight and 3 am. I would shred nine books,
holding one complete set back which I would put in the vault so the next time they negotiated on
that particular subject with the Americans we would pull out that one set and Monsieur Denis
would know how far he had proceeded. If he had negotiated 10%, the next time it would show up
as 12% and so on and so on.

The next development was that Maude Barlow and John Turner started making accusations
against Mulroney: that he was selling out the country, that our social security programs were in
jeopardy etc. etc. Working directly on the Social Security programs and some of the other issues
- as I was - I knew these individuals were telling the truth. The more I realized the illegality of
what I was doing the more frightened I became: what this meant for the country and how it
would be held over my head as a sort of blackmail control - completely, forever and ever and
ever.

My first thought, therefore, was to escape the office, to give up doing what I was doing. I started
by asking the Foreign Ministry to transfer me: they wouldn't. Not only that: they wouldn't touch
me with a ten-foot pole: "You have to stay there", they said. "Why?", I said."This is Foreign
Affairs, after all: to rotate is a normal part of existence here. I've rotated all my life. Why can't
you rotate me now?" "No we can't touch you."

Another position opened up with the Trade Negotiations Office as the head of Protocol and
Hospitality, an interesting position which I was more than qualified to deal with. Richard Levy,
Head of Operations at the TNO, agreed: "Shelley Ann," he said, "you would be great for the
position. Go ahead, speak to the Director General of Operations. If he'll give it to you - you've
got it." I met with the Director General of Operations and he, being an honest guy, looked at me:
"Shelley Ann, are you out of your mind? Germain Denis will never let you go. It would only be
over his dead body that it would be possible for me to remove you from your present position."

ROD: But why?

Shelley Ann Clark: The secrets involved. Remember that Germain Denis, the Prime Minister
and I were about the only ones who knew the intricacies and the implications of the free trade
deal for Canada at that point. I was vulnerable. The more midnight meetings that were forced the
more my marriage was completely falling apart. I was becoming vulnerable, a single parent,
needing the job, scared to death and as mad as all hell.

So I created a fuss. The honest guy who told me he wouldn't be able to remove me from my
position except over Germain Denis's dead body was immediately posted to Rome. It told certain
people he had said too much. Remember that Germain Denis knew I was seeking to remove
myself. Everyone had been told not to facilitate this move. Whenever I would go to my
Personnel Officer who gave out assignments, I would arrive in that office; within five minutes
the phone would ring, Germain Denis would be at the other end of the line. My Personnel
Officer would say,"It's Germain. You have to talk to him." And he would beg me and order me
to return to TNO immediately. The Personel Officer had never seen anyone of his level beg
anyone or order someone back.

ROD: Do you have any piece of evidence we can print?

Mr. Kealey: What you have to consider here is: had she taken any document that was part of
their documentation she would be in prison. That would have been a federal crime - removing
secret documents - and so she would have been no further ahead if she actually took documents.
What she did however was to file a formal complaint with her union. She has the complaint and
their covering letter that tells her to destroy the complaint. She is the eye witness - the smoking
gun is the Real Free Trade Deal the one buried in canisters outside Ottawa that Canadians have
never seen. What we have to do as a people is to apply pressure upon our so-called independent
politicians to see what those canisters contain.

ROD: But can this evidence ever come out ? If, for example, we put it in this book we are
preparing, with other evidence pointing to the same proposition, will it ever get more than a very
limited circulation ?

Mr. Kealey: We have an example right here. Shelley Ann gave her story to one weekly paper.
They've written the story in much detail and already people are coming to them saying, "I also
worked in that area. I have seen the documentation being transferred from one place to another. I
can vouch for what she's saying." The more that is published, the more hands it gets into, the
more chance you will have of it circulating. By publishing, by circulating the material you
remove fear - you take away that fear and more people will come forward.

Shelley Ann Clark: On 6 January [1994] I was on a talk show that crossed all of Alberta. I
stated quite bluntly that what we are dealing with here is treason. The reaction has been
extraordinary. I sincerely believe that the book you are preparing on NEW WORLD ORDER:
CORRUPTION IN CANADA should be published as soon as possible: that is the way we can
reach more Canadians.

Mr. Kealey: They may have their implementation schedule and have set dates by which certain
phases of the deal had to be completed, but it is a fraudulent contract and a fraudulent contract
does not have legal validity once it has been proven it's a fraud. Whatever dates, therefore, that
have been arbitrarily set, are not ultimately important.

Shelley Ann Clark: I have been wanting to cross Canada, to tell Canadians what I know, and try
to get them to do something about this. A hundred or two hundred letters are not enough. What is
needed are massive demonstrations, hundreds of thousands of letters. Once they realize on
Parliament Hill that the entire country knows then they will have to do something.

I thought in the last election that I could do something with the backing of the National Party,
that a person like Mel Hurtig would make maximum use of someone like myself. I have the
information first-hand: I did the fraudulent act under orders. What did Mel Hurtig and the
National Party do? Nothing! I was provided with $1,000 for my fee, but nothing for advertising
or all the other considerable expenses that are necessary in order to get your points across to the
voters. I went into my riding to be asked: "Why, with what you have to tell, can you not get any
backing? Why aren't you on those billboards all over the place?"

Mr. Kealey: We already know why, because after the election we received some documentation
and I've been in touch with a number of National Party candidates. I found out. I got the
evidence that the National Party manipulated certain ridings to keep their candidates from
winning. If they didn't have much of a chance they were given four or five thousand dollars. If
they had a chance of winning they were limited to one thousand dollars.

The documentation we now have is that in 1972 Mel Hurtig was a candidate for the Liberals. He
had also been in association with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs [NOTE:
Canada's "twin" to the CFR in the States]. He was on a programme following recommendations
of the Bilderberger meetings that had been held both in the Laurentians and in Vermont. When
you link Mel Hurtig directly with the New World Order Gang, you arrive very quickly at the
reason why he was where he was during the recent election. He was delivering the Canadian
West to the same group that Mulroney and his Gang had given away the rest of the country to.
Then you have Bill Loewen. We have evidence that Bill Loewen, who owned a company called
Comcheq, sold his company to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce For $16O million just
a year before the election. I would be prepared to bet that Bill Loewen sold his company for
$150 million and got $10 million from the Bankers to set up a political party with one purpose -
to remove the free trade dissent from the NDP party in the West so that the Liberals would be
able to squeak through.

This is exactly what happened all across the West and why today the Liberals have a majority.
It's because of the amount in votes taken away from the NDP by the National Party which
allowed the Liberals to squeeze by.

I know Bill Loewen personally because he paid my rent for six months. He stopped paying when
he asked me to join his political party. He acted just like a banker: when you do the things he
wants you to do he will support you; otherwise he won't.

I have, as I said, spoken to a number of National Party candidates and there is general consensus
out there that they were manipulated in a way as to prevent them from being successful.

What are we left with? With Brian Mulroney equipped with the cash he stole from Canadians
during his years in office, he was able to buy the entire 1993 election. Here in my view is how he
went about doing it:

1.He introduced Lucien Bouchard to Quebecers and made him into a separatist hero by faking a
public fight with him over Quebec's role in Canada. Bouchard eventually became the most loved
politician in Quebec and led his Bloc Quebequois, with Mulroney's financial support, to victory
in Quebec. The Bloc even became the Official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament following
the 1993 elections.

2.He used his considerable influence and money to convince all the Tory "big guns" to drop out
of the 1993 election. This guaranteed the Liberals (TEAM 2) under Mitchell Sharp (the banker's
man in Ottawa) and Jean Chretien (a Charlie McCarthy dummy like Ronald Reagan) a really
good shot at majority government.

3.He collaborated with Conrad Black's plan to finance the Reform Party in Ontario (while
limiting its chances and influence there) by allowing Preston Manning (a leader with links to the
CIA in 1967-68) to address the Canadian Club and others on the condition they warn Quebecers
to act just like the other provinces or "go away". This message was a total reversal of Alberta's
position during the 1981 referendum on separation in Quebec when Quebecers were told they
were loved and wanted).

4.He collaborated with bankers (CIBC) in order to finance Bill Loewen's creation of the new
National Party. This new political party, with Mel Hurtig its leader (a 1968-72 former member of
the elite Canadian Institute for International Affairs), would mislead 200,000 anti-free trade
Canadians away from the NDP thereby allowing the Liberals and Refonmers to win many key
NDP ridings.

5.He destroyed Kim Campbell, the new Tory leader, by using the controlled Media to, at first,
build her to heights of popularity she could not be expected to maintain, and then, along with his
sleazy team of Montreal Tories, he produced the famous anti-Chretien TV spots to destroy
whatever credibility she had left. The end result was that only two Tories were elected, and the
most hated politician in French Canada led the only political party with members from coast-to-
coast to majority government in Canada.

6.Once Quebec separates from Canada he will be in position to fund the construction of Simon
Riesman's Grand Canal project ($10O-200 billion dollars) and other northern water diversion
projects. He will own, control and move fresh water for a price, down into the USA and Mexico.

So what we have here is a plan for the break-up of Canada put together by Mulroney and the
Bankers: The first step is to get Quebec to separate; the second to integrate the rest of Canada
into the US; the third to get the natives of Northern Quebec to revolt; the fourth to send in the
Military from Fort Drum with blue berets; and the fifth to build the Grand Canal.

Shelley Ann Clark: Some of this I have seen confirmed in documents. In March'88 a Memo was
circulated around the Free Trade office ordering that all documents used in the negotiating
sessions be given to this particular person who was going to catalogue them for the archives.
Within an hour of receiving that memorandum, Germain Denise brought me into his office, told
me to shut the door, to sit down and pay very close attention to what he was going to say: if I
deviated in any way he declared he would destroy me within the Government service within
Ottawa - everywhere!

MC: Do you not feel you are in a rather tenuous position?

Shelley Ann Clark: My life is apparently in danger at all times. If I were in the United States
now, everyone believes I would be dead [It so happened that Marcel Masse and Stephen Lewis
tried to get her transferred to New York]. But you have to understand that we're not part of the
United States yet, that we still live in the blessed country of Canada. Apart from Mulroney,
Germain Denis, and Gerald Shannon (at the time the Deputy Minister in International Trade), I
do not know who else knew, but I do know now that behind the scenes things are happening, that
people do want me disclose what I know. That might actually include the RCMP, or maybe even
CSIS - I am not sure. Messages have been sent to me that I do not understand: that the safest
thing that I could do was to disclose.

MC: Maybe you are being set up to be some sort of sacrificial lamb.

Shelley Ann: Maybe. By August or September of last year I gave up fear. I had lived in fear for
six years, more than fear - absolute horror: I feared for my children, I feared for myself. It
reached a point where I preferred to be dead rather than livinq. Mere existence reaches a point
where you can't see how you can go on. I mean, if you are going to be killed, you are inclined at
a certain point to say, "Do it now. I am not going to worry about it." It took me six years to reach
that point. And then I began to think to myself that we have a duty to the people who brought us
into the world, to the people we will leave behind, and to the land that has remained constant. I
made a decision not to be frightened any nore, and suddenly I had no fear. I decided to let the
world around me know what I know.

George Kralik: You passed the fear barrier?

Shelley Ann: I went through the fear barrier. Now I am back with the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, in a very high profile position, where if anything happens to me with the way I am
known across this country now, can I be so bold as to say that revolutions would break out - I
mean there is a limit.

Mr. Kealey: By putting Shelley Ann back in position, the liberals are now saying, "We had
nothing to do with it."

Shelley Ann: Within a month of being elected, the Liberals were attempting to rectify my
situation. I met a Reform Party MP on the Hill and realized that I had to do this because I had
promised Canadians that I would do this.

The full story may never be told. When we got the Memo to send all material relating to the
negotiations to the archives Germain Denis ordered me to remove all the negotiating documents
from his vault to the trunk of his car. He handed me his car keys. I was told to remove them at
two-hour intervals and if I found the speed too slow to increase it up to one-hour intervals, but
not to get caught or to say anything. "When they come around to you, Shelley Ann, and ask you
to give up the documents for the Archivist..." "Yes, what happens when I have nothing to give
her?" "You say, Sorry, we started to shut down before the memo came around. Monsieur Denis
ordered me to shred everything."

These were my orders and sure enough it took me from about 10:30 in the morning till about
6:30 at night. I removed a total of seven big xerox boxes to that official's trunk. On the first trip I
ran into Simon Riesman's chauffeur who happens to be a gentleman. He asked what I was doing
- whether I had found another job, or was moving out of the office. In any case, he asked to carry
my box. I refused. He insisted, and when he took the box, he said "What the hell do you have in
here?" I replied. "Seven major proof readers have been assigned to read the final text as it was
going to legal text. I am one of the seven, and that I am bringing home the full selection of
Random House dictionaries with me." I had to make up that story, but, of course, I was going to
Germain Denis' car. What do you do when you have Ambassador Reisman's chauffeur carrying
the boxes to the wrong car? We reached my car: I just slapped myself on the forehead and said:
"Oh God, Phil, stupid me, I'm so exhausted and run down that I have come all the way down
here and I've forgotten my car keys. I can't put the box in my car." What else could I have said?

I then realized that I would have to make up a line in order to get rid of Phil. That is when I told
him that Simon Reisman was probably looking for him at that very moment since I had
overhearsd Simon's Executive Assistant say that Ambassador Reisman had an appointment with
the Prime Minister that very morning. Phil, being the gentleman that he still is, insisted that he
remain at my car with the box while I went to get my car keys - this is when I told Phil to put the
box under the front of the car that was up against the back wall - there it would not be seen and
would be safe from theft. Finally, he left. I proceeded with the illicit deed.

What else do I say now? That truth has an indirect but steady course; sooner or later, like a
mountain spring, it shakes itself free from its underground imprisonment and runs down the
hillside. A few minutes ago someone was talking to me about conspiracy theories. Theory? This
is fact. I was there.

Dismantling The Georgia Guidestones

Canada Free Press | March 22, 2005
by Judi McLeod

The Georgia Guidestones have been part of the landscape in

Elberton, Georgia for a quarter of a century. Tourists flood to
Elberton each year to see the 19-foot-tall granite monument,
often posing for pictures standing beside it.
After 25 years, a Christian organization named The
Resistance is calling for the monument’s immediate removal.
"The satanic Georgia Guidestones must be destroyed," insists
John Conner of The Resistance. "The Guidestones should be
smashed into a million pieces, and then the rubble used for a
construction purpose."

The notion of hacking the monument into smithereens for construction scrap has a certain appeal,
given the hype of how it came to dominate the lonely landscape in the first place.
The Georgia Guidestones were ordered, constructed and paid for in total anonymity.
The monument, which has stood since 1980, consists of four large stones with 10 commandments
engraved into the sides in eight different languages.
Some folk call them the 10 commandments, others a set of New Age Golden Rules.

The first commandment or rule calls on
everyone to "Maintain humanity under 500,000
in perpetual balance with nature."
A little difficult to achieve when considering that
the current world population tops 6 billion.
Other commandments or rules speak of a world
court and a new universal language.
The origination of the Georgia Guidestones is
steeped in bizarre mysticism. They were said to
be paid for by an anonymous man with the
unlikely name of R.C. Christian back in 1979.
Indeed, the name of the donor has remained a
secret ever since. As folk legend would have it,
a certain Mr. Christian came to town out of
nowhere and just as quickly returned to
nowhere.
The Message of the Georgia Guidestones
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in
perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness
and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language .
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things
with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and
just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external
disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony
with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for
nature - Leave room for nature.

Elberton, Georgia is self-touted as the granite capitol of the world, leading many to believe the
creation of the monument was a publicity stunt for the town.
Then there is the camp that dismisses the stones as the creation of an eccentric environmentalist.
Many Christians have seen the Georgia Guidestones as the New World Order’s 10 Commandments, of
the type already written up by United Nations Poster Boy Maurice Strong and former Soviet Union
President Mikhail Gorbachev, the duo who authored the Earth Charter.
Others see the stones as an out-of-the-way monument of the occult.
Whatever the reasons for their existence, Conner
and Company have organized a national movement
for the destruction of the stones.
Conner is the author of The Resistance Manifesto , a
publication that exposes Satanic influences in
America, including the meaning behind the
pseudonym "R.C. Christian", the name of the man
who paid to have the monument erected.

The Resistance is a worldwide subculture of Christians "fighting the invasion of privacy from the
growing New World Order."
In addition to organizing national movements for the destruction of the Georgia Guidestones,
members of The Resistance organize to hit the airwaves. They often flood the airwaves of call-in radio
and television shows on topics of interests where they can throw the direction of the show and its host
in their favour.
"Power to The Resistance" is both their motivation and their catchphrase.
According to Conner, the flood of calls has been made to numerous national programs, including Larry
King, Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity. Allan Colmes and Michael Savage.
"People need to remember that the airwaves belong to the public, and that these orporations have the
privilege of using them," says Conner. "We simply exercise our rights to free speech over the
airwaves, which we own."
If you’ve never had a gander at the Guidestones, you can see them by logging on to
www.TheResistanceManifesto.com . But you better log on soon, as group members insist they’re
coming down.
Meanwhile, stray dogs, cats and coyotes in Elberton, Georgia, will be looking for a new place to leave
their collective calling cards.

Georgia Guidestones: Message to mankind or giant peeing post?

Canadian Free Press | May 31, 2004
by Judi McLeod
Every summer thousands of visitors flock to Elbert County to see the Georgia Guidestones. The story
behind the Georgia Guidestones is pure Hollywood. Catching ny truth as far as the stones are
concerned would be akin to chasing after dust devils on the windy streets of an abandoned ghost
town.
The Georgia Guidestones, touted, as "America’s Stonehenge" is a huge blue granite monument that
seemed to come from out of nowhere to become a permanent fixture on the haunting landscape. But
even the most ethereal of beings must respond to the call of nature, and it was more a human than
heavenly hand that led to the monument’s erection. Giving new meaning to the expression "etched in
stone", the monument’s engraved messages come in eight different languages on four giant stones
that support the common capstone, which features 10 Guides, or commandments.
UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who have decreed that
their Earth Charter has already all but replaced the Ten Commandments of Moses, must have
overlooked the Guidestones.
In any case, Georgia Guidestone Commandment Numero Uno is "Maintain humanity nder
500,000,000, in perpetual balance with nature." (There’s no explanation how the other nine-tenths of
the world’s population would be disposed of). But Strong and Gorbachev, both ardent advocates of
population control would agree with the Guidestone’s first commandment.
Somewhat romantically, the monument was built on one of the highest hilltops in Elbert County,
Georgia.
Constructed in the 1980s, how the Georgia Guidestones came to be is steeped in ystery and secrecy
of the rigorously imposed kind.
An Internet write-up by Radio Liberty does explain the bits of its history that are known. "No one
knows the true identity of the man or men, who commissioned construction. All that is known for
certain is that in June 1979, a well-dressed, articulate stranger visited the office of the Elberton
Granite Finishing Company and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to
mankind." (Environmental activists often seem to have more money than brains.) To continue with the
Radio Liberty story, "He identified himself as R.C. Christian (imaginative chap), "but it soon became
apparent that was not his real name."
No kidding, how many people do you know who answer to the name "Roman Catholic Christian"?
The stranger confided that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity,
but to date, two decades later, no one knows who R.C. Christian really was, or even the names of
those he represented.
The less than cryptic messages of the Georgia Guidestones need no decoding. They deal with four
major fields: Governance and the establishment of a world government; Population and reproduction
control; The environment and man’s relationship to nature and Spirituality.
A book, written by the man who called himself R.C. Christian, was said to be found in the Elberton
public library. Its pages explain that the monument he commissioned had been erected in recognition
of Thomas Paine and the occult philosophy he advocated. Should you decide to visit Elberton, Georgia
anytime soon, you will undoubtedly recognize the site by the number of occult ceremonies and mystic
celebrations that continue there to the present day.
As Radio Liberty points out, "Though relatively unknown to most people, it (the monument) is an
important link to the occult hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live."
Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, knows about the guidestones, but then again oko is not most
people.
"I want people to know about the stones…We’re headed toward a world where we might blow
ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist…it’s a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the
beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that," she said.
When she was readying herself for a recent comeback as a standup comedienne, Roseanne Barr said
pretty much the same thing. Some plain folk, however are not buying into the guidestones and file
them under "U" for urban legends gone wild.
"Why are they allowed to stand?" asks an Internet reactor.
Oh, come now. They do, afterall make a convenient peeing post for the meandering cats, dogs and
lost souls of bucolic Elbert County.
And it was R.C. Christian himself, afterall who ordered the unwashed masses in Guidestone
Commandment Number 10: "Be not a cancer on the earth; Leave roomfor nature."
Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 25 years
experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig
Standard and the former Brampton Daily Times.