Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

Yeni Dünya Düzeni Politikaları, Trilateral Yönetimi

Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi İngiltere'dir. İngiliz devletini yöneten unsur kraliyet hanedanlığıdır. Bilindiği gibi İngilizler, Almanlar, Hollandalılar ve Fransızlar gibi Cermen milletinin bir mensubudurlar.
Birinci Dünya Savaşından sonra Dünyayı yöneten unsurun Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi ve baş aktörü olan ülkenin olduğunu anlamamız gerekir.
İşte bu İngiltere devleti, kendisinin bir uzantısı olan Amerikan devleti ve Almanya devletindeki bazı aile şirketlerini, şeytani tarikatları ve hükümet nezdindeki önemli kişileri kullanarak(ve ayrıca onları büyütüp, ünlü yapıp, sahneye çıkartıp ve sonrasındada besleyip), Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sistemini İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve sırasında kurmaya çalışmak istemiştir ve başarılı olmuştur.
Nasıl başarılı olmuştur ve bu Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sisteminin içinde kimler var?
Devlet: İngiltere-Amerika.
Devleti Yöneten Hanedan(İngiliz/Cermen Milletine Hizmet Ediyor): Windsor(İngiliz Cermen Kökenli) ve Rothschild(Hazar Türk Kökenli) sülalelerinin karışımı
Mafya: Rockefeller-Rothschild-JP Morgan gibi sülale şirketleri
Tarikat: İlluminati, Mason, Bilderberg gibi şeytani tarikatlar
Gladyo: İngilizlerin kontrolünde olan Faşist İktidarlar: İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Hitler ve Kukla Nazi Devleti/Hükümeti, ve İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Stalin ve Lenin'in Sovyetler Birliği'nin Yıkımını Amaçlayan Yeni Sovyet Devleti/Hükümeti.
Bu konu hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri bu forumdaki başlıklarda bulabilirsiniz.

Yeni Dünya Düzeni Politikaları, Trilateral Yönetimi

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 05 May 2011, 22:11

POLITICS OF NEW WORLD ORDER
FORMATION OF TRILATERAL ADMINISTRATIONS


Examinations of appointments to both the Carter and Clinton Administrations show that Trilaterals do the choosing and essentially run administrations.
Remarkably both Carter and Clinton ran on a platform emphasizing anti-Establishment policies while immediately and without hesitation appointing establishment representatives and then conducting long time establishment policies.

The duplicitous procedures of both administrations is remarkable for its parallels rather than differences: both Carter and Clinton lied during the election process and told the electorate only what the electorate wanted to hear. When gaining office both Presidents proceeded to do the opposite in many cases to the policy promised during the election.
Reagan and to a lesser extent Bush were more consistent in that policy tended to follow promises. However, both these Presidents also lied before and after taking office.

If politicians in the United States complain they are held in low regard they have only themselves to blame. What we find extraordinary is that common sense suggests voters would turn to third parties. So far the electorate has been convinced that a third party could not win, without even considering the probability that a strong third party vote would at least bring some honesty to the morally bankrupt Democrats and Republicans.

A very large proportion of the electorate is now sitting on its hands, not voting. If this silent and considerable segment ever acts in unity, there will be a political revolution in the United States, and New World Order will take a massive tumble.

The creation of a Carter administration image of anti-Establishmentarianism while simultaneously creating a Trilateral administration is typically the deceptive operational approach taken by this self-appointed elite. Take the first half dozen appointments and look at their associations and allegiances. The administration was at some pains to show a competition for posts and promoted the idea that anti-Establishment and non-Establishment persons would be appointed. See, for example, the Wall Street Journal on 2 December 1976 concerning the meeting of 16 candidates in Plains, Georgia.

The initial sequence of appointments went like this:

Appointment Number 1 -

Bertram Lance:


president of National Bank of Georgia (Atlanta) to be director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This is a vital, central post for plans to centralize the U.S. economy.

Appointment Number 2 -

Cyrus Vance.


Secretary of State, Trilateralist. At the time of taking office, Vance was a partner in Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; a director of IBM, Pan American World Airways and Aetna Life Insurance; a member of the Democratic party, Foreign Policy Task Force, Council on Foreign Relations (vice-chairman of the board), and the Trilateral Commission; and also a former deputy director of defense.

Appointment Number 3 -

W. Michael Blumenthal:


Secretary of Treasury. Also a Trilateralist. Who is Blumenthal? Like Henry Kissinger, he was born in Germany and came to the U.S. at the age of 21. At the time of taking office, he was chairman of Bendix Corporation and formerly in the Kennedy administration as deputy for the secretary for economic affairs, member of the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Initiative Committee for National Economic Planning (with Irwin Miller and Robert McNamara.)

After this third appointment, there was definite feedback in newspapers and radio that the "liberals" felt they had been betrayed because appointments and rumors of appointments did not include them. The result?

Jane Cahill Pfeiffer, vice president of IBM, strongly pushed for commerce secretary as Appointment Number 4, dropped out, and the next two appointments went to big government liberals:

Appointment Number 4 -

Brock Adams:


transportation secretary. Also a Trilateralist.

Appointment Number 5 -

Congressman Andrew Young as Ambassador to the United Nations.

Trilateral Appointment Number 6 -

Zbigniew Brzezinski:


executive director of Trilateral Commission, was appointed national security adviser. Who is Brzezinski? By explicit statement, Trilateralists reject the Constitution and the democratic political process; in Between Two Ages, Brzezinski (Carter's sixth appointment) wrote as follows:

The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 — the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution — could serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements. . . Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly. . . in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institutions.

According to Huntington of Foreign Policy magazine, an "election coalition" may be abandoned after political office has been achieved; a politician does not have to keep his word to the electorate. Jimmy Carter is a supreme example of Trilateralism in practice. When Brzezinski refers to "develop(ing) incrementally and less overtly" he is specifically recommending a deceptive "salami-type" approach to abandonment of the Constitution. Perhaps some readers may consider this to be the essence of subversion. If so, they had better do some thing about it, because no one in Congress has yet plucked up enough courage to even call for an investigation of Trilateralism.

Clinton Abandons "Election Coalition"

Trilateral Huntington's dictum that a politician may abandon the "election coalition" after election to office, i.e., a politician may break his promises, has bypassed our journalist investigators.
Jimmy Carter broke promises right and left without much of a squeak from anyone. There appears to be a joint Democrat-Republican compact to ignore the "election coalition" and keep out third parties, which is about as close as you can get to dictatorship without abandoning the Constitution.

In January 1993, the same month Clinton took office, our newsletter, The Phoenix Letter, (a Report on the Abuse of Power) carried the following front page article:

Clinton Reeks of Conflict of Interest

The American public has been suckered. . . again!
Among the lavish Clinton promises to fix everything from health care to the deficit was above all a commitment to run the thieves and crooks out of Washington.

Well, we have news for Clinton voters. Clinton was backed by the thieves and crooks and has appointed the self-same lobbyists he swore to run out of town to run the transition team. The political con game has become so blatant that Presidents don't even wait until the ink is dry on the ballot to break their promises.
Before the election, we identified the background of Clinton's key financial backer, none other than Jackson Stephens, a founder of the Bank for Crooks and Criminals (BCCI), and the man who actually introduced Democratic elder statesman, Clark Clifford, to the BCCI crowd.
We figure that one way or another, Stephens contributed $2 million to the Clinton campaign. And we are supposed to believe that the BCCI whitewash won't continue!

Then we looked at Clinton's transition team and found it headed and staffed by Washington lawyers and lobbyists, the very people that Clinton said he would remove, those whose client lists and board directorships covered just about every major corporation and many foreign countries.
Who is represented in Washington? You and I? Not likely.

Many of the transition team clients have matters pending before regulatory bodies and the Congress itself. Then to emphasize the hypocrisy, the transition team introduced new ethics "rules" to supposedly limit "the influence of lobbyists" and to be rigidly enforced. All well and good, except that at time of writing, it has been impossible to obtain a set of these rules. (Released December 10, see below.)
During the election, Clinton repeatedly called for limits on lobbyists. "We've got to clean it up. We're all going to have to change," said candidate Clinton.
"Business as usual," says elected Clinton.

A Huge Scaly Serpent Crawling Through the Corridors of Congress

Politicians, lobbyists, college professors of political science and their textbooks all tell us that lobbying is essential, a necessary function of society to make democracy work.
The conventional view is that lobbying is harmless and useful in that it makes all viewpoints heard.
Hogwash! Individual voting citizens are those represented in Congress by their elected representatives. Congressmen and women are not elected by corporations or foreign interests, they are elected by individual American voters. It is American citizens that are elected, not the dairy interests or the water interests or the welfare interests of some way off foreign country. Certainly Joe Dairy Farmer has representation as an individual, but the collected interests have no collective vote and should have no representation in Congress.
In practice, lobbying has become the conduit for pressure groups. And every so-called reform has left gigantic loopholes

to continue the process of lobbying. Lobbyists now place money on both sides (Democrat and Republican) and fight smaller parties because they would then have to lay out money on more parties to guarantee representation.
The political process has become an outright fraud. The individual American has become disenfranchised. The power groups and foreign interests have become power holders working through a compliant Congress.

And from what we can see, the "new" Congress will be little different from the old.
Reportedly, Clinton was shocked at the public reaction to the appointed transition team, and instructed staff to draft lobbying rules. These rules were drafted and succeeded only in rejecting one transition aide from one meeting for conflict of interest. Even then the Clinton White House refused to release copy of the new "rules" until December 10.

The transition director, Trilateralist Warren M. Christopher, is senior partner in O'Melveny and Myers, with a heavy Far East client list including Mitsui, Sumitomo Trust, Japan Airlines and Hyundai. Christopher has more interest in representing Japanese interests than the American down home. In fact, just to illustrate the hypocrisy, during the campaign, Clinton pointedly criticized American law firms who work for foreign interests.
Once elected, Clinton picked on this foremost representative of foreign interests to act as director of the transition.

Warren Christopher is on the board of Lockheed Aircraft but is not (under the Clinton rules) in conflict of interest on military matters in the Clinton Administration. The Clinton rules do not bar Christopher from discussing Asian matters on behalf of his clients.
What is the Clinton defense to such charges? Simply that there is no conflict of interest because the connection between these officials' advice and their ability to profit is "too diffuse" and that Mr. Clinton, not his transition advisors, will make the final decisions.

Lobbyists themselves are under no illusion that the "rules" have not changed The firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow publishes a newsletter in which it openly boasts of its contacts within the Democratic Party and Washington power circles, and indeed has two partners close to the Democratic Party: Democratic Party Chief Ron Brown and Thomas Boggs.

Then we find Lefitia Chambers, who is transition overseer on budget issues, who in real life is lobbyist for AFL-CIO, home builders and senior citizens.

The results of this system can be seen in billion dollar wasteful expenditures:

• The State of Virginia, as reported in November Phoenix Letter, has a disproportionate share of Federal funds guided to Virginia by the "King of Pork."
• Extraordinary waste of money in technical expenditures: for example, the billion dollar "Hot fusion" program.
• Neglect of programs that have no powerful voice in Congress. Most of the "future technology" reported in FTIR (Future Technology Intelligence Report, P.O. Box 423652, San Francisco, CA 94142-3652) is ignored by financiers.

The rules announced on December 10 and hailed by observers as pathbreaking are no more than a further whitewash. Officials may be personally banned from lobbying for five years, but what about their partners? These are exempt The lifetime ban on foreign company lobbying has no meaning in practice. The only sure fire solution is complete and final ban on all lobbying, except that of individual private citizens or their own elected representative. Corporations and law firms do not vote. Individuals do. When Mr. Clinton adopts this standard, we shall see the scaly serpent crawl back out of Washington, D.C.

NAFTA — Step to New World Order

Multinationals well represented on the Trilateral Commission aim to dominate world production and trade.
The enormous pressure behind the NAFTA agreement, to bring the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a tariff-free community, was motivated by New World Order. Little question that the U.S. citizen will be adversely impacted, but gains will be made by international firms and banks that drive NWO.

Initial reaction was from Chiapas, Mexico, the revolt of Indians against Mexican authority. The Indians, already hard-pressed, unable to sell their coffee on the world market, now find that the Mexican Government support structure was dismantled, and their domestic corn crop could not compete against imported U.S. corn. NAFTA was the last straw.

Another result still to emerge will be Mexican meat exports. U.S. giant meat firms will go to Mexico to take advantage of low wages, poor safety standards and lax sanitation regulation. We will see a flood of imported Mexican beef, with the identity of U.S. firms hidden behind a Mexican import label. NAFTA exempts Mexico from the U.S. Import Act to benefit GIANT U.S. firms. NAFTA was an end-run by U.S. multinationals around U.S. regulation. Clinton promised to appoint more meat inspectors as a cover to disguise the reality. The end result will be to hurt smaller U.S. ranchers and to expose U.S. citizens to uninspected beef.

Mexico is now highly advantageous for Trilateral firms like General Electric (Vice Chairman Paolo Fresco is a Trilateral), Motorola (Chairman George M. C. Fisher is a Trilateral), Levi Strauss (Robert D. Haas is a Trilateral and close to David Rockefeller), Mobil Corporation (Allen Murray, Chairman, is Trilateral), and several major pharmaceutical companies (Johnson and Johnson, Smith Kline Beecham).

NAFTA will spur U.S. firms into Mexico to take advantage of lower regulatory standards and low wage rates.
NAFTA is an essential part of the Trilateral plan to reduce U.S. living standards and transfer benefits overseas to less developed countries. Trilateral Clinton was able to do this because the media have their Trilateral members who act as guides for smaller circulation newspapers and stations (CNN Chairman W. Thomas Johnson is a Trilateral, so is Katharine Graham, Chairman of the Washington Post, among others).
The U.S. citizen doesn't stand a chance, faced with this array of like-minded conspirators. The only way out is to vote for a third party candidate, read books published by small publishers along with newsletters, and above all, be critical and question statements out of Washington and your State capitol.
If you feel up to tackling your Congressman, there are some do's and don'ts.

• Don't write long complaining letters; keep to a single issue, short and definite. Don't insult or threaten. State the problem, how it affects you, and what you see as the solution. Briefly.
• Often a Congressional aide is a more effective target. Especially if you can get a personal visit. Be persistent and definite. You have a vote, the lobbyist has money. Your representative needs both.
• Probably an effective route is to get a group of like-minded citizens to invite a representative to discuss a problem — if 20 aircraft mechanics are threatened by overseas low cost maintenance contracts and can get together with a Congressman, this will get some action. But remember, you're fighting the Trilateral Commission — and if your representative is a member (see Appendix), you might want to question the company he/she keeps.
• Above all, talk to your friends, buy extra copies of this book (see copyright page) and similar books, pass them around. It's slow, but over the long haul, it works. This author remembers when there was no discussion at all of Trilaterals and establishment elitism, when to talk about a political con-spiracy was to be dismissed as a kook. No longer. The bulk of citizens these days are onto the con game. Awareness now needs to be translated into action.

Kaynakça
Kitap: Trilaterals over America (1995)
Yazar: Antony C Sutton
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Dön İngiltere ve Amerika Birliği Faaliyetleri: 2. Dünya Savaşı ve Türk Soyumuzun Baş Düşmanı olan Cermen Menfaat Merkezi'nin Kuruluşu

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 1 misafir

cron