How can anyone doubt the NWO is the end goal when..

I've read a good bit of the back and forth, between you two. While I will admit that you both bring up some compelling debatable issues concerning the "NWO", "Agenda 21" and other issues currently filling our media, what I wanted to ask you both was this: providing it is your honest assessment, what do each of you think, concerning a military strike on Syria? What would be it's true purpose, in your opinion? If I missed a conversation in this thread on this, I apologize and only ask that either of you point out it was discussed and I will go and search for it.
Secondly, I can not for the life of me, understand how even a simple man with average common sense, not see the absolute perfect timing of Hurricane Sandy and the tragedy of Sandy Hook! Each provided ideal distractions, one to take eyes off events leading to the election, the other, while seemingly to push Gun Control, which it did, also flooded media and took eyes off Obama's first months of his 2nd term. Do either of you know what his administration accomplished during that timeframe?

 

I don't see any point.

http://childrenofsyria.info/

Doesn't America have a 'Hurricane season' every year? And isn't there billions of dollars worth of damage done nearly every year by a handful (or less) hurricanes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_climatology
How did 'Sandy Hook' change anything?

Do tell.

P.S, don't you think: 'Secondly, I can not for the life of me, understand how even a simple man with average common sense, not see ...' is a little condescending?

 

The purpose is one to advance world government, in different aspects. It supports what we call the Military-Industrial Complex (the defense industry, oil industry, Bankers and, other businesses who make money and get special benefits.) They also just found 13 oil fields in Syria. Israel is also a long time oppressor to Syria. Occupying their lands etc. So perhaps it ties in with a view different countries crosshairs. (Frace, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America being the top.) My guess is, the chemical weapons attack was a false flag, and the goal is to get to Syria and Iran; I believe we will see boots on the ground. Politicians seem to make a point of saying they wont do, what they're planning to do.

I think he's trying to pass several executive orders. The government play it's game off fear and manipulation. They learned fear makes people vunerable and willing to accept government forces "looking after" them. Was this Sandy Hook a so-called false flag? I personally don't know; there are people who believe that, and I don't blame them, because the media has not been very forthcoming on their many contradictions, including saying he had an assault rifle on him, when clearly the police found it in the trunk of the black car.

But it was this tragedy that allowed Obama to start his Charade against the 2nd Amendment. It is absurd to think we should trust the government with their guns, if they can't trust us with ours!:2thumbsup:

 

you need to read the right books, this tells the whole story.



Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives
Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book

Many Americans and others seem to be confused about the Iraq War and about the Global War on Terrror. Why?

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and *maintain security dependence among the vassals,* to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason." - Between Two Ages : America's Role in the Technetronic Era - 1970

http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf


maintain security dependence among the vassals

thats Sovereign and Monarch talk that translated means "keep your damn slaves under control"

and of course when security is not needed and the slaves feel safe then feed the fear, its so easy to create and so easily plausibly deniable. Think you do not need their "insurance"? All they need is a match. You will think again.

Its a worldwide demonstration of democracy's finest moments.

people just watch the wrong shows and read the wrong books

 

I was talking about 'entangling alliances'.

JP Morgan is an 'English bank'? Are you sure about that?

I don't really care what 'Libertarians' would like to see (do or not do).

I said 'bases' not 'embassies' - there is a vast difference between having an 'embassy' in a country and having a military base in a country.

I also said 'a NWO' not 'the NWO'.
'The NWO' - one that you see as 'not out in the open' - is probably the one that never really gets explained that well, and seems to be thoroughly incoherent (in general).
It seems to be the one where the U.S once upon a time is apparently given 'freedom'/'sovereignty', and therefore doesn't have to abide or acknowledge anything else EVER (that doesn't originate in the U.S).
Anything the US does outside of 'the original constitution' is therefore 'part of the NWO'.

Well, I hear a lot of interventions are due to 'protecting the national interest' - or words to that effect.
Then it's about about the humanitarian paradigm.
So, I am under no illusion it is 100% for unselfish reasons.
What is the 'real reason'?

What has that got to do with this?: 'I would suggest the UN is an attempt for there to be order in the world - a general consensus.
I have not seen any evidence each country around the world is exactly the same and has no autonomy to do precisely what they wish.'?

What's not true?
You are basically advocating: ''Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.' - anything else is 'the NWO'.
He's telling YOU what to think.
It is clear that is the case by the tone of many of your posts.

And when you said 4 people did you mean 5 countries?
If not: 'You think five people are capable of making all the decisions in all the countries around the world? Mmmm, Ok, if you say so!'

So, the UN is running the world apart from the US (most of the time), albeit the US is the one who controls the UN, and you don't think any country (especially the US) should abide by anything out of the UN apart from sometimes?
The UN is under US control but also corporate control?
American corporate control?
How can the 'UN' support something it apposes (I take it what you mean is UN signatories do not all support what the US does - but is somewhat powerless to do anything about it) - because the US 'runs' the UN?
Isn't that what you want? The US to make 'sovereign decisions' away from any International influence, and do precisely what it wants?
Mmm,...incoherent.

Erm, because it makes no sense.
You are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole.
Not to 'fit me', btw - just be on the same page as the majority of the known world, that's all.

You were, because you chopped and changed - and now just say: 'well, it means the same thing' - well it doesn't.
You've posted the same quote I did, but then just said the same thing you said to my post - furthering your point by about, well, nowhere.

Which parts?

I didn't address your points about 'population control' because it wasn't an opinion, it wasn't speculation, it was just out and out scraps from various unconnected ideas - gathered together in the form of propaganda.
The worst form.
It didn't really warrant a response. It was shameful.
To gather such BS together and try to make it seem like a legitimate point just makes fools of us all.

 

We should all believe the above is true?

 

Jp Morgan was American, but owns Jp Morgan today?
Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

Firstly, good cause Libertarians don't give a rats ass about your rhetorical opinions, either.

Secondly, bases and embassies are the same thing; a waste of tax money. We spend all this money building Embassies in countries which hate us, only to have them destroyed. This is a selfish waste of our money when there are citizens homeless and jobless, but more money is going overseas!

The Constitution is our Founding Principles. The Citizens Rights are made to protect us from a Dictator! How dare you suggest that me supporting the Founding document of my country is wrong? If the government told you they could kill you with no trial- what would you say to that?

There is over 13 new oil fields in Syria. Plus, regional control for Israel. Saudi Arabia and France have some stake in the matter, my guess is it was either them, the US, or both, who ensured this chemical attack happened.

But I have; Worldwide people are kept down by the criminal racket of government, that uses brute force to every "obsticle" in it's ever-growing quest to control people, like livestock!

Again, you're lying. It would be true perhaps, if the Constitution wasn't made to restrict the government. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts my freedom, but government laws in the following year are to the contrary.Therefore, as a citizen, my freedom is more important than contradicting government laws

What are you talking about? I do believe their should be some type of world forum, but not one that can wage war at the drop of the hat. Finally, the UN said no about Syria- but what about Libya. That was okay, because it had more interests behind it. The way the president thinks he can wage war without congress is unconstitutional, along with so many laws, I don't take this government seriously!

You're the fool, to think everything the government tells you is unquestionable fact, and they know best. I can't possibly explain THAT to a conformist like you though. Would it bother you to have a police in your living room and camera in your house? Probably not, because the government just wants to protect you, and wanting freedom or privacy is "radical" and suggests that governments can commit genocide. England and America has been brainwashed to be Apathetic sheep, following their leaders to imminent death. Your problem is, everything in the media tells you what to believe, so much so, you've forgotten how to think for yourself. There's never going to be an add that says "we're poisoning your meds and water," you just need to look at the Agenda of the people in Charge.

Obama has people who advocate for eugenics (population control) in his commission, that's not blurry at all.

So keep trusting the government- better you than me!

 

Do you mean: 'who owns JP Morgan, today?' Erm, Americans?
Do you mean, who owned JP Morgan then? Erm, Americans?
When has JP Morgan been a 'British Bank'?

?

Have you ever watched 'What's Wrong With...' ?
It's webisodes on Youtube.
They basically pull apart plot points in major motion pictures.
'linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.' - nice plot point, but it does not make any sense at all.

You might consider embassies a waste of tax payer money, but they are not the same thing at all. The point was about building military bases in other countries, I might add. Something not many countries do - I wonder why.
Plenty to be upset about, rather than getting the whole premise completely wrong.

You tend to ignore amendments as and when it suites you.

What stake does France have, other than deciding to agree with the US?
They would not matter if they did not agree with the US.
They have suddenly a major factor here since they 'agree' with the US?
Convenient.
The US will obviously gain control of any Syrian oil fields the same way they gained control of Iraqi oil fields.
Oh, whoops, they didn't.

I'm talking about one person defining your opinion.

I'm talking about the fact your US UN NWO does not make any logical sense.
The 'UN' did not say 'no'.

What is upsetting is that you have purposely strung together an argument that isn't factual or accurate.
I don't mean that you have come to some conclusion based on honest research...
I mean you have purposely misconstrued information...
You are not stupid...but stringing eugenics/Obama/a 'debate' amongst many ideas in a book etc...is just calculated manipulation.
Hello, the worlds population is increasing, not decreasing.
Suggesting Obama agrees that killing babies when they are born, is just pathetic.

 

interesting.



The Federal Reserve Cartel (Part I): The Eight Families

by Dean Henderson
June 1, 2011

(Part one of a four-part series)

The Four Horsemen of Banking (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo) own the Four Horsemen of Oil (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP Amoco and Chevron Texaco); in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP, Barclays and other European old money behemoths. But their monopoly over the global economy does not end at the edge of the oil patch.

According to company 10K filings to the SEC, the Four Horsemen of Banking are among the top ten stock holders of virtually every Fortune 500 corporation.[1]

So who then are the stockholders in these money center banks?

This information is guarded much more closely. My queries to bank regulatory agencies regarding stock ownership in the top 25 US bank holding companies were given Freedom of Information Act status, before being denied on “national security” grounds. This is rather ironic, since many of the bank’s stockholders reside in Europe.

One important repository for the wealth of the global oligarchy that owns these bank holding companies is US Trust Corporation – founded in 1853 and now owned by Bank of America. A recent US Trust Corporate Director and Honorary Trustee was Walter Rothschild. Other directors included Daniel Davison of JP Morgan Chase, Richard Tucker of Exxon Mobil, Daniel Roberts of Citigroup and Marshall Schwartz of Morgan Stanley. [2]

J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.

CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches. He names N.M. Rothschild of London, Rothschild Bank of Berlin, WarburgLehman BrothersLazard Brothers of Paris, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Israel Moses Seif Bank of Italy, Goldman Sachs of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank of New York. Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed. [3] The Schiffs are insiders at Kuhn Loeb. The Stillmans are Citigroup insiders, who married into the Rockefeller clan at the turn of the century. Bank of Hamburg, Warburg Bank of Amsterdam, of New York,

Eustace Mullins came to the same conclusions in his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, in which he displays charts connecting the Fed and its member banks to the families of Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller and the others. [4]

The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing this private central banking cartel as “conspiracy theory”. Yet the facts remain.

The House of Morgan

The Federal Reserve Bank was born in 1913, the same year US banking scion J. Pierpont Morgan died and the Rockefeller Foundation was formed. The House of Morgan presided over American finance from the corner of Wall Street and Broad, acting as quasi-US central bank since 1838, when George Peabody founded it in London.

Peabody was a business associate of the Rothschilds. In 1952 Fed researcher Eustace Mullins put forth the supposition that the Morgans were nothing more than Rothschild agents. Mullins wrote that the Rothschilds, “…preferred to operate anonymously in the US behind the facade of J.P. Morgan & Company”. [5]

Author Gabriel Kolko stated, “Morgan’s activities in 1895-1896 in selling US gold bonds in Europe were based on an alliance with the House of Rothschild.” [6]

The Morgan financial octopus wrapped its tentacles quickly around the globe. Morgan Grenfell operated in London. Morgan et Ce ruled Paris. The Rothschild’s Lambert cousins set up Drexel & Company in Philadelphia.

The House of Morgan catered to the Astors, DuPonts, Guggenheims, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. It financed the launch of AT&T, General Motors, General Electric and DuPont. Like the London-based Rothschild and Barings banks, Morgan became part of the power structure in many countries.

By 1890 the House of Morgan was lending to Egypt’s central bank, financing Russian railroads, floating Brazilian provincial government bonds and funding Argentine public works projects. A recession in 1893 enhanced Morgan’s power. That year Morgan saved the US government from a bank panic, forming a syndicate to prop up government reserves with a shipment of $62 million worth of Rothschild gold. [7]

Morgan was the driving force behind Western expansion in the US, financing and controlling West-bound railroads through voting trusts. In 1879 Cornelius Vanderbilt’s Morgan-financed New York Central Railroad gave preferential shipping rates to John D. Rockefeller’s budding Standard Oil monopoly, cementing the Rockefeller/Morgan relationship.

The House of Morgan now fell under Rothschild and Rockefeller family control. A New York Herald headline read, “Railroad Kings Form Gigantic Trust”. J. Pierpont Morgan, who once stated, “Competition is a sin”, now opined gleefully, “Think of it. All competing railroad traffic west of St. Louis placed in the control of about thirty men.”[8]

Morgan and Edward Harriman’s banker Kuhn Loeb held a monopoly over the railroads, while banking dynasties Lehma





now I dont have the official citations at my fingertips this moment, however morgan through marriage was granted a patroonship from rothschild family, same with hamilton. this is really old stuff that I assumed was common knowledge


that and who owns jp morgan is not as important as who controls jp morgan that is whats important. lol

people dont understand that concept, but its simple because all they need do is go speeding down a highway and see who controls them. LOL

 

the fed res is an organized association of these old money bankers in the then british puerto rico.

fitting since they in concert with government is a RICO operation.

Depends on whos definition of freedom we use

People from britain will never rebel, its in their best interest to keep the u.s. slaves under control.

If we use the definition we were taught in grade and high school it means freedom from, however the common law of england is alive and wel in america and their definition of "freedom" is very different and using their definition hegemoney, imperialism and conquest in the name of freedom fits quite well.








yep conquer them forcing then into an unsaid unenforced official legal status of slaves (under yoke) then force them into the "freedom" franchise (slaves under bond) under their government then us slave money to build a fucking road post office and courts.... with the slaves money....... and then charge the slaves taxes because they receive a benefit from the government that used the slaves money to give government employees a job. makes perfect sense to me! perfectly fair LMAO




They take you from one form of slavery and force you into another. (taxes)

Thats what I'm talkn bout! hua!

 

The part you quoted was about abortion not finance, you do realise that, right?

 

Top Institutional Holders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=xom+Major+Holders

Am I right in suggesting they 'own' less than 5%?

Fell at the first hurdle?

 

Care to spend a little bit of time finding some?

Who does?

 

nope things like that I post when I run across them again, if you need it that bad you will havbe to hire a secretary, I am only letting you know of its existence.

 

nope, you are not right even in a small way until you research all the investors and trusts and corporations and trace them back.

 

Who controls JP Morgan (bank)?

Maybe because some of the data is more than 20 years old...

If you 'run across' information, don't you make sure you know that it is accurate or not? dated or not? Or do you just copy and paste any old crap?

Notes

[1] 10K Filings of Fortune 500 Corporations to SEC. 3-91

[2] 10K Filing of US Trust Corporation to SEC. 6-28-95

[3] “The Federal Reserve ‘Fed Up’. Thomas Schauf. www.davidicke.com 1-02

[4] The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Eustace Mullins. Bankers Research Institute. Staunton, VA. 1983. p.179

[5] Ibid. p.53

[6] The Triumph of Conservatism. Gabriel Kolko. MacMillan and Company New York. 1963. p.142

[7] Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History that Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons and the Great Pyramids. Jim Marrs. HarperCollins Publishers. New York. 2000. p.57

[8] The House of Morgan. Ron Chernow. Atlantic Monthly Press NewYork 1990

[9] Marrs. p.57

[10] Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.178

[11] Chernow

[12] The Great Crash of 1929. John Kenneth Galbraith. Houghton, Mifflin Company. Boston. 1979. p.148

[13] Chernow

[14] Children of the Matrix. David Icke. Bridge of Love. Scottsdale, AZ. 2000

[15] The Confidence Game: How Un-Elected Central Bankers are Governing the Changed World Economy. Steven Solomon. Simon & Schuster. New York. 1995. p.112

[16] Marrs. p.180

[17] Ibid. p.45

[18] The Money Lenders: The People and Politics of the World Banking Crisis. Anthony Sampson. Penguin Books. New York. 1981

[19] The Rockefeller File. Gary Allen. ’76 Press. Seal Beach, CA. 1977

[20] Ibid

[21] Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992

[22] Marrs.

[23] The Rockefeller Syndrome. Ferdinand Lundberg. Lyle Stuart Inc. Secaucus, NJ. 1975. p.296

[24] Marrs. p.53

 

You didn't.

 

no need, mine was in the initial stages, its 100 years later, do you think they simply just "gave all their wealth away" since then or avoided taxes and negative exposure they have been receiving for the last 75 years and formed corporations and trusts?

 

What are you talking about? I'm talking about who 'owns' exxonmobil.

 

so am I