The Move to Depopulate the Planet

InfoWars
by Stephanie R. Pasco

It is my intention to give you clips from documents, many from the United Nations that prove there is a plan to depopulate this planet. I will also provide quotes from various people and organizations that further show this agenda is afoot. I pray the guidance of the Lord God Almighty will be with me in this pursuit to warn others of this dark plot against humanity.

Everything written in this paper is easily verifiable. It may take some time and effort, but I took great pains to make this paper as accurate as I possibly could.

The depopulation agenda is based on nature worship, or Gaia worship. In Genesis, God clearly told Adam and Eve, and then Noah and his family to go forth and multiply to fill the earth. Nowhere in the Bible does God rescind that clearly spoken commandment. Therefore man is attempting to supercede the command of the Lord God in heaven: The Creator! I ask you, who knows more about the state of the earth, the created, or the Creator?

The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:

The Hegelian Dialectic:

Problem – Reaction-Solution

Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution

You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.

I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.

huxley
Aldous Huxley

William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)

“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.” (Emphasis mine throughout)


Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”


Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”


Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:

“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”


Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:

“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”


Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:

“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”

costeau
Jacques Cousteau

Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:

“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”


Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:

“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”

“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…”


Henry Kissinger, 1978:

“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”


David Rockefeller, 2000:

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”


David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”


David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

rockefeller
David Rockefeller

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): “There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)


Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”


Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950′s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.

President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding

Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”

roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt:

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity…” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”


By Carl Teichrib:

“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”


Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:

Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.

Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):

“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”

kissinger
Henry Kissinger

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.

Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.

Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.

I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:

“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”

“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U.S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”

“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” -Michael Coffman


UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:

“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”

That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. -Michael Coffman


UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:

“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”

“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. -Michael Coffman

un


UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”

“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman

“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman


UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:

The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”

This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.


Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document

soylent green
“Soylent green is… humans.”

Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources…” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)

This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.

“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:

“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i.e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”

Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.

World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):

The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.N. Environmental Program, etc. .

IUCN 1992

Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”

“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens.” -Michael Coffman

Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.

This document has never been renounced, only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U.S. Government.

The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:

Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank

The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:

http://www.usmutes.com/NSSM200.htm

hitler
Adolph Hitler

Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.

Now we will cover the Earth Charter.

The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics.” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”

The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in population!

According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy -put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War).

The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values …a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. ”

In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.

According to the Charter, we must:

* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)

* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)

* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)

* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)

* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)

* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)

* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)

* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. (See;

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+new+world+religion%3a+presented+to+the+world+as+a+mystical… a091968392 for the full article)

soylent green
Earth Charter

The Earth Charter has not been ratified. Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!

The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.

In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. -Wikipedia

America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.

Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow

CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009. In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Why? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.

From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:

“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U.N.

According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths; 1 billion due through starvation. The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition.”

“The U.N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U.N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””

In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.

As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!

Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.

Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)

Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a.k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.

Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.

Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures. This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.

“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros

Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros

Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?

Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution!

The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i.e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.

In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.

I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.

If you find this to be worthy, please, spread it everywhere you can. Email it, blog it, post it on forums; mail it. Do what you must. People are asleep. They must be woken up. Forced immunizations are right around the corner. These things will come to pass. It is our job to warn people. Please, I ask you, warn them.

InfoWars

Will Predictive Policing Make Militarized Police More Dangerous?

Defense One
by Patrick Tucker

policestate

As images of Ferguson, Missouri’s AR-15 totting police force made their way across the Internet, an ever-concerned public began to wonder who decided to give cops in an American city the sort of guns and gear that we provide to soldiers in the most dangerous places in the word?  We quickly discovered that the United States government did, under the so-called 1033 program, a program that allows the Defense Department to transfer military equipment to law enforcement (much to the delight, surely, of the companies that make that equipment.)

Of course, to call the Ferguson police force “militarized” is a misnomer. As Adam Weinstein points out at Gawker, gear alone does not a military member make—to wit: “Despite their expensive costuming, the police in Ferguson are putting on an unsophisticated, unscripted performance, a copy without an original. If these cops were to take a page out of the Army’s book on crowd control, it would be an improvement. But they seem to be making up tactics to go with the gear they’ve acquired.”

In terms of large nations that have, in fact, militarized their police forces, the model that we are now following looks Chinese in origin, a country that has been blurring the line between military and police for a long time. NATO and the Defense Department continuously point out that Chinese military funding and “public safety” funding overlap to large extent. A quick glance at Chinese spending on “internal” security versus formal “defense” reveals a country that views its citizens as a larger threat than any external foe.

In 2011, not long after the “Jasmine Revolution” swept Tunisia, Beijing—feeling the winds change in popular uprising—upped spending for police, jails, and other pieces of internal security by more than 13 percent to 624.4 billion yuan ($95 billion). Money for the Chinese Liberation Army, conversely, rose 12.7 percent that year to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.5 billion).

This would be the first time that the openly announced domestic security budget has surpassed military spending,” Tongji University political scientist Xie Yue told  Reuters. Yue said that the figure provides a good sense of China’s “stability protection” spend.

The trend slightly slowed but still continued through 2013. Chinese spending on its own police and internal security rose to 769.1 billion yuan last year compared to 740.6 billion yuan for the People’s Liberation Army.

This year, China withheld figures for what it would be spending on “stability maintenance,” but by the end of 2014, China will become the world’s number one market for surveillance equipment and technology, surpassing the U.S., according to a report from the Homeland Security Research Corporation.

The U.S. forbids the sale of military equipment to China with its Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246). But U.S. contractors from IBM China to GE Security Asia to Honeywell sell into the Chinese security market.

If China is a country that is at war with its own citizens, what does that mean for the future weapons that she might deploy?

Here’s where China may borrow from us. One of the most important new weapons that police forces around the country are experimenting with is so called predictive policing—the use of data and statistics to determine the location, and possibly even the perpetrators of crime. It’s a trend that’s sweeping police departments across America. Reporters at San Francisco Weekly have shown that a lot of today’s predictive policing marketers are peddling products that don’t meet the expectations that those marketers are advertising. But the thinking behind the concept is still sound, and there are some key cases where predictive policing has proven to be a force multiplier.

One such example is New York.

Read More

Globalist Henry Kissinger Outlines “New World Order”

Kissinger

The New American
by Alex Newman

As awareness grows of the international establishment’s globalist plotting against liberty and national sovereignty, problems on the road toward a “New World Order” are becoming increasingly obvious, and opposition is surging in tandem. It seems that insider bigwigs are getting nervous. Changes in strategy may be forthcoming as a result. Still, as a recent “analysis” by establishment spokesman Henry Kissinger (shown) makes clear, the powerful forces of globalism and totalitarianism have no intention of backing down from their plot to impose their “New World Order” on humanity.   

Former Secretary of State and national security adviser Kissinger — a key front man for a powerful movement aiming to impose what he and other globalists refer to as a “New World Order” — recently outlined some of the establishment’s concerns. In a piece published on August 29 in the Wall Street Journal, headlined “Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order,” the prominent foreign policy Machiavellian also proposed the acceleration of efforts to impose global governance on humanity.  

Adapted from a soon-to-be-released book on the subject of “World Order,” Kissinger’s analysis purports to identify various speed bumps on the road toward the globalist vision of planetary government. It then offers some policy prescriptions to overcome them, buried between the lines of unexciting and opaque writing. And it warns about what may befall the world if humanity refuses to submit to the global order pushed by Kissinger and company.

“The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis,” argued the globalist apparatchik. As evidence, he cited the planned collapse of Libya after being “liberated” by the United Nations and Obama; the Islamic State’s efforts to impose a “caliphate” in the Middle East (without mentioning the crucial role played by the U.S. government and its allies in creating the threat to begin with); and alleged tensions between Russia and the West. Again without mentioning the U.S. government or his own role in the trends, Kissinger also points to “a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination.

One of the key problems, Kissinger’s analysis falsely suggests, is that many of the world’s ruling governments and dictatorships never fully embraced the globalist “New World Order” scheming pushed by the Western establishment. “Vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order,” he wrote. In reality, as The New American and countless scholars have documented, even the regimes he implies are hostile to the Western establishment’s vision of “world order” are largely the product of that same establishment — including the brutal regime ruling mainland China.

They all seem to be largely on the same page, too. Just this summer, for example, the Communist Chinese dictatorship and more than 130 Third World regimes in the G77 signed a declaration calling for what they termed a “New World Order to Live Well.” While taking shots at Western governments for not re-distributing enough taxpayer wealth to their regimes, the massive screed outlines essentially the same vision of a “New World Order” pushed openly by Western globalists such as Kissinger. Even UN boss Ban Ki-moon joined the festivities in Bolivia and celebrated the declaration and the renewed Third World push for the world order, complete with global governance and regional regimes under the UN itself.      

“The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point,” Kissinger continued, citing, firstly, challenges to the “nature of the state.” His first example is the globalist-orchestrated attack on national sovereignty that has essentially imposed a transnational, unelected, unaccountable regime on the formerly independent peoples of Europe — without even a semblance of public consent. Kissinger, though, frames the top-down attack in a different light. “Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power,” he claims, giving the false impression that “Europe,” rather than the establishment ruling over it, was behind the radical scheme.

Now, however, Kissinger implies without saying it directly, that the controversial European Union must usurp even more power, wealth, and liberty from the peoples and formerly sovereign nations its unelected bureaucrats rule from Brussels. “It is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order,” the establishment operative declared. “And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders.” In other words, turn the EU into a true “state” — despite the fact that Europeans have repeatedly rejected such machinations — or face various crises and horrors.

“The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state,” Kissinger complained. “The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.” In other words, globalists are worried that the public backlash — or “political reaction,” as Kissinger put it — to the “international order” created partly by Kissinger and his radical comrades is growing and must be dealt with.

Kissinger acknowledges the almost absurd amount of “multilateral forums” proliferating all over the world today, many of which have been explored in depth in these pages and almost all of which depend on the continued usurpation of national sovereignty and wealth for their existence. However, in his analysis, the former secretary of state argues that the time has come to take the emerging world order to the next level. “A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction,” he wrote.

Then, Kissinger hints at what may be in store for humanity if it continues to resist the imposition of a “structure of international rules and norms” — a phrase that sounds suspiciously like world government. “The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance,” he said. “At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.”

Using opaque language, Kissinger also essentially spelled out the globalist road map going forward: Rather than creating a global government all at once, dividing up the world’s peoples and nations into various “regions” ruled by regional regimes must come first. “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” he explains.

As readers of this magazine know well, the trends are already obvious. In Europe, the EU now totally dominates policymaking. In North America, globalists are openly boasting that, using NAFTA as the foundation, a new regional regime is being empowered that will end U.S. sovereignty and independence. In Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and worldwide, the same phenomenon is taking place in full public view. Consider the African Union and the Union of South American States, for example. Only the end-game remains concealed from full public view — and just barely.

“You really have to read between the lines to understand what Dr. Kissinger is saying,” explained analyst Anthony Wile at the market-oriented Daily Bell, which specializes in reading between the lines and exposing globalist memes. “Dr. Kissinger and his backers want more comprehensive global government. Some of the chaos in the world today is certainly due to THEIR actions and their determination to create or sustain warfare in troubled regions of the world. Kissinger is being disingenuous by not admitting to that. He is also being disingenuous by not being clear about the seeming remedy: Reducing or eliminating parts of the [U.S.] Constitution (formally or not), that don’t ‘fit’ with the political systems of other regions.”

The end game, Wile suggests, is summarized in Kissinger’s call for “international rules,” which, of course, would necessarily require international rulers. The other key point is Kissinger’s urging the “United States” to reflect upon its “celebration of universal principles” while paring those “with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security.” Wile believes that is a call to further shred what remains of Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights to make an eventual global merger with the rest of the world more seamless.

Kissinger’s analysis also illustrates concerns about “how globalist aspirations are being damaged,” Wile argued. However, the piece also likely serves as a “policy statement” rather than a mere editorial, the liberty-minded analyst noted in his breakdown of Kissinger’s latest piece. Going forward, as the globalist-fueled trends highlighted by Kissinger accelerate — chaos, bloodshed, financial turmoil, and more — the “recommendations” are likely to morph into more concrete demands, he said. “Finally, if history shows us anything it is that the kinds of reconfigurations and centralization being suggested here are rarely bloodless or painless, despite the sanitary nature of the language,” Wile concluded.

Indeed, as the globalists continue to centralize, the public backlash is becoming increasingly fierce. In Europe, for example, recent elections to the European pseudo-Parliament delivered massive victories to anti-EU parties in France, the United Kingdom, and other key nations despite relentless globalist propaganda and fear-mongering. Meanwhile, around the world, secession fever — as contrasted with globalist efforts to further centralize power — is raging with increasing ferocity. Kissinger’s latest writings offer important insight into the plans of the establishment to deal with it all. Regionalization seems to be the chosen mechanism, for now. 

Americans who support individual liberty, biblical Christianity, national independence, free markets, the Constitution, and other traditional U.S. values ought to study Kissinger’s words carefully. The “New World Order” and the “regions” he and his fellow globalists are pushing are not a new idea — and for the overwhelming majority of humanity, its fruits have been and will be disaster.

The New American

Police State: US Military Plans to Crush Dissident Political Groups, Target Leaders with Sniper Fire

miltarization.police.

Global Research
By Thomas Gaist

policestate

Links tweeted by WikiLeaks this week called attention to the development of crowd control doctrines by the US military, the most recent of which are codified in a US Army Techniques document dated April 2014, titled “Civil Disturbances.” Main concepts elaborated in the document include crowd dynamics, behavior theories, crowd types, and a “Graduated Response Matrix.”

The document points to various dissident political groups as main targets of the Army’s crowd control planning. “Examples of well-organized groups are anarchists, antiglobalization groups, and anti free enterprise groups,” the US Army document states.

The paper further cites demonstrations coordinated by labor groups, specifically citing the 2011 protests at the Wisconsin capitol. “Labor unions played a large role in the 2011 Wisconsin protests that included passing on information and transporting participants,” the document states.

Special attention is given to “organized protests,” which are said to have more growth potential than spontaneous protests as result of their “centralized planning” and use of “modern technologies that allow for rapid information dissemination.”

Techniques outlined in the document include the use non-lethal weapons, “pain compliance” measures, lethal overwatch teams (snipers), and deployment of aircraft overhead (said to have a “psychological effect”).

The use of military working dog (MWD) teams is highlighted as an especially effective “intimidation measure.” “The presence of the MWD may produce a profound psychological effect on the crowd,” the document states.

The document calls for deployment of “overwatch” sniper teams to intimidate crowds and pick off suspected leaders and organizers. Such use of snipers to terrorize demonstrators, recently on display in Ferguson, Missouri, where protests against the killing of Michael Brown were subject to a massive crackdown by militarized police forces, is part of the Army’s integrated Graduated Response Matrix (GRM). The GRM provides for numerous levels of escalating psychological and physical pressure against a targeted crowd, including:

* Exploit the psychological effect of shows of force.

* Escalate the Military Information Support Operations (MISO) message via loudspeakers and handbills—MISO is a more recently adopted military term for psychological operations (PSYOPS).

* Demonstrate sniper precision strike capability.

* Use riot control ammunition: tear gas, pepper spray, smoke bombs, stun grenades, rubber munitions, acoustic weapons, electro-muscular disruption weapons.

* Move through the crowd using riot control formations and movement techniques.

* Target leaders and “troublemakers” with sniper fire.

* Escalate from single shot small caliber fire to automatic large caliber.

* Close air support and indirect fire (artillery, mortars).

While stating that “coercion dispersal” of crowds may become necessary, the document notes that “negotiated management of crowds … is the preferred method especially if the demonstration or protest leaders are available and willing to participate,” and advises commanders to adhere to the “goldilocks principle,” saying crowd control activities should be “neither too hard nor too soft.”

The document also calls for the use of “high powered cameras mounted on towers and aerial vehicles” to create video recordings of both the crowd and the soldiers engaged in crowd control operations.

Ominously, the document outlines conditions under which the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the use of the US military for police actions on American soil, will not apply. Under a range of loosely defined “exceptional” conditions, the military can conduct unrestrained operations within the United States, the document notes.

In “emergency extraordinary circumstances,” including vaguely defined contingencies such as “unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the authority of the United States,” US military commanders are empowered to carry out, without requiring any form of civilian authorization, “activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances,” the document states.

Such sophisticated crowd control doctrines are an expression of the far advanced preparations by the US ruling elite, dating back decades, to establish martial law and transition to a police state dictatorship.

Congressional hearings in May of 1987 on the Iran-Contra scandal exposed plans, codenamed Operation Rex ’84, to suspend the US Constitution, transfer power to a shadow dictatorship consisting of agents of the military and intelligence apparatus, and conduct mass roundups of hundreds of thousands of political opponents of the American state.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented “continuity of government” (COG) procedures virtually identical to those laid out by Operation Rex, establishing a secret network of anonymous officials working from “undisclosed secure locations.” Without any consultation with or involvement of the legislative and judicial branches, between 75 and 150 members of the executive branch were ensconced in military bunkers and legal documents were drawn up to empower these officials with authoritarian powers.

Global Research

Will the Ferguson Shooting Mark a Historic Shift in the Police State?

Activist Post
by Bernie Suarez

ferguson_lessons

Only time will tell, but is it too soon to guess whether the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown will mark a turning point in our march toward tyranny in America? There are signs that this could be the case. Yes this could be an overly optimistic assumption about the current direction of the police state in America, but there is a slight chance that the consciousness that came with the Ferguson shooting may have been a badly needed cure to the metastasizing police state problem.

Before anyone makes assumptions of how naive I’m being or overly optimistic, let’s clarify. We are in a battle of competing paradigms and competing consciousness. One important thing to note about the police state is that authority, control, intimidation and police state madness is itself a real-time live form of consciousness. In this police state consciousness we can confirm the typical officer becomes consumed in their role. This disconnected behavior had been confirmed in previous psychology experiments, and we know how governments carefully train police to do as they are told. Add to that, the influence of the culture of police and what we see is a group of people acting within their own (twisted) consciousness to oppress others without consequences. We saw this in Nazi Germany and many other examples throughout history.

This powerful competing consciousness, the police consciousness, took a step back after the Ferguson shooting. How do we know?

Some indicators are alternative and social media’s coverage of the images and sounds of the Ferguson police state brutality on American protesters. This mass media coverage of the police state forced mainstream media to pay attention to the police state brutality. Together, this brought an even greater mass awareness of police brutality in America that the control system wasn’t prepared for. The result?

a.  In San Antonio police launched a new program called ‘I Pledge to do the Right Thing‘ campaign.

b. In Ferguson a cop was actually suspended for illegally pointing a rifle at innocent protesters and threatening to kill one.

c. In Davis, California the city council just ordered police to get rid of their militaryMRAP vehicle given to them for free by the federal government.

d. St. Louis police officer (and Glendale police officer) suspended for violent hate talk.

e. The (same) cop who threatened to kill a reporter in Ferguson officially resigns.

f. Some police are speaking out. It is now revealed that the Pentagon forced military gear on local police departments

Does this mean that the police state problem is finally being addressed? Some optimists may see it this way, but it is far too soon to celebrate any long-term victories. At least this shows that the media is willing to give attention to this issue, and that officers and police departments nationwide have been served with a dose of consciousness. This consciousness of deliberately spewing hate needs to be exposed; and this idea that police have the right to do whatever they want has to be contained – perhaps the Ferguson shooting has contributed to this.

On the optimistic side of things it is possible that this attention brought to the violent out-of-control police state could be a starting point to limiting the equipment the local police receive from federal government. Yes, the Obama administration has stated concerns about this issue but this is inconsistent with what we know about federal government’s role in all of this. Perhaps this incident, however, will eventually force local communities to end their participation in the controversial 1033 program enacted in 1994 which made it possible for the Pentagon to dump military equipment on local police nationwide.

Perhaps we are finally reaching the initial point of critical reasoning that will allow us to debunk the argument that police need military gear to be “safe”. On the pessimistic side of things, however, perhaps these events will be used to engineer a new justification for brutal police force and militarization down the road. That is, perhaps we are being set up for a new series of false flags which will be designed to once again justify why police need military equipment. Perhaps they will stage a massacre involving police deaths (note to police!) and then make the argument that if they had access to military equipment none of this would have happened. Unfortunately, all victories must be taken with a grain of salt.

For now, we can’t live in a world overly-anticipating the new world order’s next move. We have to take our lessons from the real-time events and find ways of improving our experience. Those of us alive today have the power to use the Michael Brown murder in a positive way and take note of the things that went wrong.

Let’s remember Jake Tapper and CNN staging scaremongering political signs behind the crowd to twist Ferguson into ISIS scaring and warmongering. Let’s remember the mainstream media desperately trying to spin the shooting into a race issue. Let’s remember the psycho cop who threatened reporters with death if they didn’t listen to him. Let’s note the staged violence and the militarized presence of police treating peaceful American protesters as terrorists. Let us remember the images and sounds of a gun firing eleven times in a matter of seconds on an unarmed teenager. Let us remember the dead body thrown into an SUV as if it were a dead dog or road kill.

Everyone has their own memory of this incredible event as this event does carry the potential to be a game changer in the police state madness that has gripped the United States since the Occupy revolution of 2011. We all saw how the U.C. Davis officer who sprayed innocent peaceful student activists with pepper spray was demonized then later financially rewarded. Let us not allow these corrupt cops to be rewarded again.

We all know that the shooter, officer Darren Wilson, has been unusually quiet, out of sight and given protection by his police constituents from the general public and media. We know that he has been preparing his defense using mystery voices and sporadic spot supporters all spinning the narrative into one that paints Wilson as the victim instead of the aggressor. Let us not allow this narrative to open the door to injustice. Wilson supporters would sell you a narrative and philosophy that states that if Wilson felt in any danger or felt attacked, then he has the right to empty out his gun on an unarmed teenager. That is not what policing is all about. That is not what living in America is all about. Officers are equipped with radios, cameras, batons, tasers and mace to record, disable and potentially capture someone they want to question. Shooting someone to death execution style with eleven shots, six of which actually landed on the body is an execution any way you look at it, not a defensive action.

Hopefully the police defense argument, which holds the power to potentially divide America further, will be allowed to prove its case soundly. Hopefully, this story will culminate with reasonable justice based on the facts. Either way, we can expect the control system and its eager mainstream media mouthpiece to use the final verdict to create division amongst Americans. This should remind us that the end game is to destroy America, kill freedom, strengthen the police state and bring tyranny to America.

Let us use the circumstances we have now to turn this police state agenda in a different direction. This story has proven that we-the-people and the alternative media have the power to do just this. We have the power to share information and expose the new world order and its corrupt police state. Let us keep doing what we are doing and hope for the best. With events happening so fast, let us appreciate and focus on the bigger picture. As these events happen, practice thinking on your own.

We saw a lot of independent thinking in Ferguson and that was one of the great things. We saw and heard from people who are sick and tired of the police state brutality and the mainstream media coverage of it. Let’s keep this theme moving forward, for in this type of thinking is how we will find the answers and the solutions that we are looking for. Like the Bundy Ranch confrontation involving patriots willing to die for freedom and the Constitution, the Ferguson shooting (“hands up don’t shoot”) confrontation showed the power that peaceful demonstrations can have on the psyche of the police state. 

In the end, hopefully the Ferguson shooting will be talked about years from now as a key point in the awareness of the police state; and hopefully the path that it leads to will be one that many of us will be proud to look back on.

Bernie Suarez is an activist, critical thinker, radio host, musician, M.D, Veteran, lover of freedom and the Constitution, and creator of the Truth and Art TV project. He also has a background in psychology and highly recommends that everyone watch a documentary titled The Century of the Self. Bernie has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists. 

Activist Post

FBI Terror Report: Militia, Sovereign Citizens Greater Threat Than Islamic Terrorists

InfoWars
by KIT DANIELS

police state
Image Credits: FBI / U.S. Air Force

The FBI’s latest national threat assessment lists so-called sovereign citizens and the militia as threats to “U.S. internal security” while completely omitting Islamic terrorists.

The Aug. 14 National Threat Assessment for Domestic Extremism, which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, claims that militia members and sovereign citizens are among those “aspired” to carry out violent attacks, yet it only indirectly mentions Islamic terrorism in a footnote describing “other” types of “domestic extremism” not included in the report.

“Of a sample of 50 credible violent threat intelligence reports analyzed for this assessment, nearly 60 percent expressed lethal violence as an ultimate goal,” the report asserts.

The report reads like a spiritual successor to previous publications by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which routinely demonized Constitutionalists and other libertarians by grouping them with white supremacists and other racist organizations.

And, unfortunately, it should be no surprise the FBI considers freedom-loving Americans a larger threat than violent Islamic extremists when previous actions by the federal government to suppress political dissidents are taken into consideration.

Earlier this month, a university consortium funded by the Department of Homeland Security designated sovereign citizens as the “number one domestic terrorist threat in America,” ranking them above Islamic extremism in agreement with the FBI’s terror assessment.

The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) said sovereign citizens were the “top concern of law enforcement.”

It recommended that state and federal law enforcement share intelligence on sovereign citizens and other targeted groups, develop “tactical responses” to threats and “act on that information to prevent or mitigate threats.”

Similarly, in 2011, the FBI said it “considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement.”

But, as journalist Kurt Nimmo pointed out, sovereign citizens do not actually constitute a cohesive movement despite the government’s attempts to characterize them as such.

“The START report also neglects to mention that virtually all high-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States after 9/11 were directed by the FBI and the U.S. government, a fact reported by The New York Times,” he wrote.

Additionally, in 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) distributed a law enforcement bulletin entitled The Modern Militia Movement which instructed police to be on the lookout for Americans displaying “political paraphernalia” such as Gadsden flags and Ron Paul bumper stickers.

MIAC, a federal law enforcement information sharing hub more commonly known as a fusion center, described itself as a “mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities” in order to “identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.”

Similarly, and perhaps even more eerily, during the 2008 presidential election Obama’s campaign team asked Missouri law enforcement to “target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad,” as Russell Kinsaul with News 4 reported:

 
InfoWars

Henry Kissinger On the Assembly of a New World Order

Wall Street Journal
By HENRY KISSINGER

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis


A pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. European Pressphoto Agency

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.


In the Middle East, religious militias violate borders at will. Getty Images

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe’s: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union’s southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as “social media” event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America’s exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

— Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book “World Order,” to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

Wall Street Journal