All over the world the new world order has the same message no matter where you go, they have fianlly managed to get it out in one coheisive voice. Word for word and PC definition for PC definition, continent by continent, the worldwide brainwashing is underway. The messege is, everything you do, touch and say effects the whole world. Yep, its the choas theory. A butterfly flutters it wings down at the river and 12,000 miles away a wind blows in someones face from it. The globalism freaks, CFR, the Council on Foriegn Relations a wholey owned subsidiary of the Rothchilds making, you know the people that own the Federal Reserve are all in this horror movie. This is one bad dream! I added the blue text part to give some perspective on the CFR. The green text is a couple of comments as I like to get a word in as you ll well know. LOL

1921: Under the orders of Jacob Schiff the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is founded by Ashkenazi Jews, Bernard Baruch and Colonel Edward Mandell House. Schiff gave his orders prior to his death in 1920, as he knew an organisation in America needed to be set up to select politicians to carry on the Rothschild conspiracy,and the formation of the CFR was actually agreed in a meeting on May 30, 1919 at the Hotel Majestic in Paris, France.
The CFR membership at the start was approximately 1000 people in the United States. This membership included the heads of virtually every industrial empire in America, all the American based international bankers, and the heads of all their tax free foundations. In essence all those people who would provide the capital required for anyone who wished to run for Congress, the Senate or the Presidency.

The first job of the CFR was to gain control of the press. This task was given to John D. Rockefeller who set up a number of national news magazines such as Life, and Time. He financed Samuel Newhouse to buy up and establish a chain of newspapers all across the country, and Eugene Meyer also who would go on to buy up many publications such as the Washington Post, Newsweek, ant The Weekly Magazine.

The CFR also needed to gate control of radio, television and the motion picture industry. This task was split amongst the international bankers from, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, the Warburgs, and the Lehmanns.

1980: The global phenomenon of privatisation starts. The Rothschilds are behind this from the very beginning in order to seize control of all publicly owned assets worldwide.



Read the very last paragraph in the story below its pretty stunning! That tells you the globalist don't care about countries, history, heritage or soveriegnty, pretty much, anything for the elites to get their money and power and control the citizens while we give up our freedoms! Look and see how they want to elect the first president of the European Union. This is what is going to be happening here if we don't stop it!

As you will see in this story, more CFR brainwashing in the EU.

Time for a more coherent voice

04.04.2008 - 08:54 CET | By Peter Sain ley Berry
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - What a difference a year makes. Twelve months ago the talk was of the European Union ‘fading away,' as China and India began to assume more importance on the world stage. Even Joschka Fischer, Foreign Minister in Gerhard Schroeder's former coalition government, was asking ominously ‘where is Europe?'

If such expressions coincided with the EU's 50th anniversary, the 51st, a week or two back, found us in better shape. Thanks to a strong currency and vibrant economy, Europe is on its feet again, weathering the global financial storms. Unemployment across the Union is down by almost three-quarters of a per cent, compared to a year ago. The great task of institutional reform is practically complete; ratification of the Lisbon treaty being all but assured. We look forward, later this year, to the arrival of the first European President and Foreign Minister.

No one is asking now ‘where is Europe?' We are no longer the ghost at the table, a vacant place setting. No one doubts today that we are here, in economic substance, even if we are still not fully pulling our weight in terms of influence. Our partners know that there are still many areas in which we still have to struggle to live up to our own ideals as well as equipping us to compete against the upcoming super-giants of Asia.

One is democracy. We may be about to announce the arrival of a European President and Foreign Minister but the idea that there should be some democratic input, whether directly or through the European Parliament, to determine who holds these positions is still anathema to member states. Moreover, the European Parliament still cannot manage to control where it sits.

Nor can Europeans debate European issues with one another. Despite the attention of the European Commission, attempts to create a genuine European wide political debate are still in their infancy. Events of European dimension are still viewed and reported in a national context

A second lacuna is the continuing absence of any long term perspective (or even debate) about the future shape of the European Union. This embraces not just the future boundaries of the Union, but its machinery of government as well. We continue to address the future on an ad hoc basis. The Lisbon Treaty is not yet ratified, but we know that current enlargement policies will require further constitutional change.

Despite recent turbulence in the Western Balkans no-one seriously doubts today that the entire region has a European future. Sooner rather than later, unless one or more countries deliberately turns its back, another seven countries will therefore be joining the Union in the medium term. This was not entirely evident a year ago.

Question marks remain over Turkey (despite its official candidate status), the Caucasus and the Ukraine. As so often within the EU, opinions are divided. But it seems more likely than not that all these countries will eventually join, which, with the probable accession also of Belarus, Moldova and perhaps Switzerland too, will bring the size of the Union to 42 states.

I say it seems likely that these countries will eventually join because, in the absence of any settled consensus to the contrary, events will make it progressively harder to resist their inclusion - if indeed that were what we wanted to do. Unless someone pulls the communication cord the train will continue to the buffers.

Just such an event is NATO membership. As I write NATO is meeting in Bucharest to determine, among other things, whether the Ukraine and Georgia should be allowed to take their first steps towards NATO membership. As the USA is in favour my guess is that sooner or later they will be admitted, despite objections from a number (as might be expected there is no single view) of European states. If the Ukraine and Georgia are part of the NATO family, and the EU continues to replace NATO forces in local peacekeeping operations, it seems NATO membership will come to represent a foot in the door to EU accession.

Here of course we see in miniature the third area on which the EU has shown little sign of moving forward during the past year. Were the Europe Union to be united on whether the Ukraine and Georgia should or shouldn't become members of NATO, that would constitute a powerful voice. But the EU is not united.

In fact it is far from united on a great range of foreign policy issues as a result of which its voice on the world stage is weak and inhibited. Because the EU's common foreign policy has to be settled unanimously, it is common only to the extent that it is the policy to which no one has found a reason to object. In consequence the policy is feeble.

Instead of speaking with a single strong voice, the EU speaks with many weak ones. The result is that nobody's interest is served. Most recently we have seen this split over whether we should recognise Kosovo, but on practically every dimension of foreign policy the Union is divided. Sometimes, as over Tibet, the need for unanimity produces pusillanimity; at other times it produces no policy at all, so we leave situations - such as divided Cyprus - to fester.

Had Europe been prepared to speak with a single voice over Iraq - the fifth anniversary of whose invasion we have just commemorated - who doubts that events on the ground might have been very different, regardless of whether that voice had been for or against an invasion.

Will the advent of an EU Foreign Minister - or even an EU President - correct this situation, produce more agreement? It may produce a small change, but nothing significant is likely to happen without the realisation by member states that their interests are better served by a single strong foreign and security policy operating in the common interest, than by each operating as though they alone had legitimate foreign policy concerns.

Of course this will involve significant sacrifices in the common interest, but they will be sacrifices worth making. Not so much a question of giving away one's sovereign right to make foreign policy as the recognition that making policy is useless without the means to see it through. Pooling sovereignty, tackling such issues on a majority basis, provides the only way of regaining influence already lost. Europe has been in a shambles for too long.

http://euobserver.com/7/25924