Religion New World Order Pdf


Saturday, June 8, 2019

In book: The Gulf War and the New World Order, Edition: softback, Chapter: The New World Order, Publisher: Zed Books, Editors: Haim Bresheeth and Nira Yuval-Davis, pp Am completing manuscript on history of Zionism as a Colonial Settler state. The media war - USA vs. EU. THE. NEW WORLD. ORDER. Whether it is attainable, how it can be attained, and what sort world peace; already we have had far too much abolition of war. The key to understanding the meaning behind all of these symbols is found in the translation

New World Order Pdf

Language:English, Spanish, Dutch
Genre:Politics & Laws
Published (Last):06.11.2015
ePub File Size:15.76 MB
PDF File Size:19.82 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Uploaded by: MITTIE

NEW. WORLD. ORDER by. A. Ralph Epperson. (This material has been reconstructed () from various sources on the internet; and grateful thanks is given. FINAL WARNING: A History of the New World Order. In , a group of international bankers secretly met on a small island off the coast of Georgia. Their plan. A. Ralph Epperson The New World Order Pdf. Topics The new world order. Collectionopensource. LanguageEnglish. A must reading book.

He claims that American money helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia because the aims of the world's bankers for Communism are parallel to their aims for America and the West. Robertson is right about the world's bankers manipulating the world's economy for political ends. The point is that he is a religious leader who is saying some of the same things the world's politicians and economists are saying: An economic collapse is coming that will push the human race toward a one-world government.

Even more interesting is the vision of the future held by many Roman Catholics. It will be an event on public view in the skies, in the oceans, and on the continental landmasses of this planet.

It will particularly involve our human sun, which every day lights up and shines upon the valleys, the mountains and the plains of this earth for our eyes Fissioning it will be as an event, in John Paul's conviction of faith, for it will immediately nullify all the grand designs the nations are now forming and will introduce the Grand Design of man's Maker.

According to Malachi Martin, John Paul accepts the validity of that claim, and he believes that the children's vision will be fulfilled in his lifetime. Furthermore, Mr. Martin believes that a one-world government is just around the corner and that Pope John Paul will rule that new world order: Willing or not, ready or not, we are all involved in an all-out, no-holds-barred, three-way global competition The competition is about who will establish the first one-world system of government that has ever existed in the society of nations Those of us who are under seventy will see at least the basic structures of the new world government installed.

Those of us under forty will surely live under its legislative, executive, and judiciary authority and control It is not too much to say, in fact, that the chosen purpose of John Paul's victor in that competition, now well under way. Many New Age devotees believe in an imminent catastrophe that will involve our entire planet: Nostradamus, the sixteenth-century prophet whose enigmatic riddles describing future events have long challenged translators and interpreters, wrote of a massive earth catastrophe to be followed by a great peace among the peoples of earth while the devil is confined to the bottom of the abyss.

Clues as to the timing of this event have led many to calculate that it may occur in July, September, or October of Says Garland: Ruth Montgomery's Guides have begun warning of a shift of the earth "shortly before the year ," ever since dictating material for A World Beyond in This global catastrophe, the Guides claim, will cleanse the earth of pollution and evil people and will usher in the long-awaited New Age of a thousand years of peace.

But what does the Bible say? Amazingly, far more than most people realize. Many people overlook the real significance of a statement by Jesus that was quoted by Luke: There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars.

On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken Luke , Notice that according to Jesus, signs in the sun, moon, and stars will cause panic - anguish and perplexity - among the nations, particularly at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

Luke goes on to say that the entire human race will be terrified by this shaking of the heavenly bodies. We cannot say exactly what Jesus meant, though again it comes close to the signs in the heavens that Malachi Martin and Pope John Paul predict. I pointed out earlier that in recent years scientists have begun warning of the devastating effect a major asteroid impact would have on our planet.

Whether this is what Jesus meant remains to be seen, though it would certainly fit His words. Numerous references can be found in Revelation of massive physical damage to our planet, along with terrible ecological devastation.

If Revelation is correct, the shifting of the earth on its axis as predicted by the New Age, with a resulting breakup of the earth's crust, could well happen: The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found Revelation , 18, Ravi Batra and Pat Robertson anticipate a terrible economic collapse in the near future.

Most people are not aware that Revelation is entirely in agreement: "'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come! All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered. They will weep and mourn Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin! And notice the following description in Revelation 8 about terrible ecological devastation: The seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to sound them.

The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water - the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter Revelation But does the Bible speak of a one-world government? Notice the following passages from Revelation: I saw a beast coming out of the sea The whole world was astonished and followed the beast And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation Revelation , 3, 7.

The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast Revelation , That sounds amazingly like the United Nations, in which the various nations retain their independence yet give some of their authority over to the world body for the common good. With scientists warning about the potential for massive catastrophes in the near future, and with various religious groups predicting the same, will it happen in our day?

I can't prove it to you, but I believe that the answer to both of these questions may very well be Yes. But the really big question is this: If these things are true, what will they mean when they happen, and what should they mean to us even now, before they happen?

Jesus said, "When you see these things [the signs in the sun, moon, and stars that He predicted] happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near" Luke In the context of the entire chapter in which He spoke these words, Jesus meant that these signs would mean that the second coming of Christ is near.

Many Christians today are convinced that Christ will return in the very near future.

If this is true, then the Bible's prediction of the reign of the antichrist over a new world order is also about to happen. I believe the terrible depression and the devastating natural catastrophes that I described earlier in this book will propel the world into the coming one-world government far more rapidly than today's most ardent proponent of a new world order would dare to dream about.

Fortunately, there is hope. For out of the chaos of these calamities, and out of the ruins of the antichrist's new world order, God Himself will establish the ultimate "new world order" that will last forever. However, all of this is getting ahead of our story. It will take the rest of this book to develop these thoughts.

And, as we shall see in the next chapter, the story began many millenniums ago in a part of the universe that is hundreds, perhaps millions, of light years away from planet Earth.

As it plunged toward the earth, an asteroid a mile in diameter would create a fireball hundreds of miles in diameter. The Idaho Statesman, 1 July , 3A. Sooner or later, our planet will be struck by one of them" Newsweek, 23 Nov. Yeoman's opinion is shared by nearly all scientists who have studied asteroids. It's not a question of whether, they say, but only of when, another major asteroid will strike planet Earth. Chapter 2 Who Is the Antichrist?

In the film, Ben Kenobi and Luke Sky walker are among the last survivors of a race of good warriors called the Jedi. An Evil Empire has destroyed their planet, killed off the rest of the Jedi, and is seeking to destroy Ben and Luke. In due time the pair find themselves trapped with their friends inside the Evil Empire's monster spaceship.

In a hand-to-hand fight with Darth Vader, the sinister leader of the Evil Empire, Ben Kenobi sacrifices his life, making it possible for Luke Sky walker and the other survivors of the Jedi to escape. Luke Sky walker and his companions are still not safe, though, because the Evil Empire takes after them in hot pursuit. From their base on a distant planet, Luke Skywalker attacks the Evil Empire's spaceship at its one vulnerable point and destroys it, ending the drama.

The most striking aspect of Star Wars is the close similarity between the film and the conflict between good and evil that has been going on in the universe for thousands of years. You and I see this conflict alive in our neighborhoods and even in our own lives.

And, as in Star Wars, evil seems to have the upper hand. The more prisons we build, the more criminals there are to fill them. For every plug the government jams in the dike to stop the torrent of cocaine and marijuana gushing into the country, the drug lords blast two more.

Human passions seem impossible to control - a fact that is evident not only in the riots that occasionally erupt in our cities, but in the everyday events in the lives of millions of addicted, depressed, angry people.

Retic.-.The.Einstein.Hoax.-. 651 8:53:10

It thumbs its nose at laws and legislation. It is unaffected by the size or destructive capabilities of even the mightiest militaries. But perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this particular New World Order, at least in the United States, is that many of those most affected by it refuse to acknowledge its existence.

People say that Native Americans sometimes used prairie fires as an environmental tool. And this time, the dispossessed Midwesterners are unlikely to be able to relocate to California, as they did when dust storms hit in the s, because the West Coast will have major problems supporting even its existing agriculture. If all the death and destruction connected to this New World Order were simply the result of periodic shifts in the life cycle of the planet — as some climate-change deniers maintain — then humans could just prepare for the inevitable, dinosaur-style extinction to come.

Climate change is the direct result of human action — and some humans are so much more responsible than others. Blame the Globalists From through , before he served briefly as secretary of state, Rex Tillerson was the head of ExxonMobil.

Worse, he attempted to profit off climate change by, among other things, expanding operations into a rapidly warming Arctic. Even though he publicly acknowledged global warming — with plenty of caveats and misstatements — he also helped funnel millions of dollars to climate denial groups and suitably climate-denying politicians.

He failed to prevent the president from withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. He dutifully implemented new rules to facilitate the international funding of coal-fired power plants. And he presided over a gutting of the State Department meant to hamper its ability to address global issues like climate change. Through it all, however, Rex Tillerson remained just the kind of globalist that Donald Trump had railed against as a presidential candidate.

While head of Exxon, he had, for instance, been a regular participant at the World Economic Forum at Davos as well as in the Clinton Global Initiative. Despite their very public falling out, the president has always admired establishment types in the Tillerson mold, those who belong to the international network of fossil fuel execs oil, gas, and coal chiefly responsible for building the New World Order of climate change.

Rockefeller, Hunt, Getty, Mellon, Drake, Buffet, Koch, and Icahn: these are the globalists who set in motion the transformation of our world in which a growing dependency on fossil fuels morphed into an economic system geared to ever-expanding exploitation of such resources, and finally to an ecosystem on the verge of catastrophe.

Keep in mind that this is exactly what Donald Trump grew up with in fossil-fueled New York City in the s and s. The U.

The new world order - Noam Chomsky

George Soros? Peanuts compared to the real globalists, the ones who have controlled the supply and pricing of energy for more than a century and now have a representative sitting in the Oval Office. I should perhaps mention, that there too, the war took place on exactly the grounds that are explained in the Policy Review: no negotiations, a much weaker enemy, pulverize them. The Cubans, these fierce Cubans, that fought back when the U.

They had announced to the United States a couple of days earlier when the crisis began to develop, that Cuba would have no objection to the United States landing forces at the famous airport to bring out the medical students who, in fact, were under no attack, but no claim had been made that they were under threat.

That offer was made on October It received no response from the United States. In fact, there was no response to that offer for five days until after U. Cuba did announce that if its forces, its paramilitary construction workers were fired upon, they would fire back.

After U. When a few mavericks in the press asked what the problem was and how come they didn't recognize the offer before, to land the airplanes at the airport to take the medical students out, what's the problem, the answer was, well, we didn't have good communication. Communication lines were down.

You know, the country was backward. A country with poor technology like ours had trouble getting back to the Cubans for five days. I guess there was a shortage of carrier pigeons in the embassy. The right lessons are taught by a show of force, in particular the show of force against a much weaker enemy.

The same story was played against Libya and international terrorism and again, the domestic population was properly terrified. Remember back in when this hysteria reached its peak, the tourism industry in Europe was destroyed because Americans were too afraid to travel in Europe.

The New World Order Is Here

They were too afraid to travel in Europe where they would be about one hundred times as safe as they would be in any American city.

They were terrorized, frightened that there would be crazed Arabs springing at them from every place, and tourism collapsed. In the case of Panama, after all just a year ago, remember General Noriega, a minor thug, was converted into a figure larger than life, trying to undermine our whole society and way of life by narcoterrorism and therefore we were saved just in time.

Frightened, we breathed a sigh of relief that he was out of the way. In the case of Iraq, there was a huge disinformation effort. It's now practically conceded that all those fanciful tales about tremendous fortifications, hundreds of thousands of troops dug in a half a mile underground, artillery that can shoot all the way to who knows where, chemical weapons, was all a farce. They knew it was a farce. Again, the domestic population was properly terrorized. Once again people were afraid to travel.

This caused quite a bit of ridicule in Europe. Even in England, where the right-wing press was thought of as rather comical, the Spectator, a right-wing journal, pointed out in one of its columns that some group of American gun collectors, guys that walk around with assault rifles and that thing, cancelled a conference in Scotland [laughter] worrying about their airplane.

The picture that was presented, and it's worth paying attention to, it's serious, there's a reason behind this, the picture was presented to the American public, drilled into their heads, week after week, that this huge colossus was about to conquer the world, taking control of the world's oil, ready to march onward destroying us, suffering people groaning at his feet, pleading with somebody to save them.

Nobody else had the courage to do it. We moved in finally because we had the guts. We saved the world. We saved ourselves.

New World Order (Robotech Sourcebook #7)

We saved them, just in time. If this picture of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is true, and if we were to meet the threat posed by Iraq acting our part as defender of the world, then the conclusion that we should have moved in by force, and fast, and not waited, that's not a unreasonable conclusion.

Think that through and you'll see that critics of the war and supporters of the war shared pretty much the same moral ground. I think that's an important thing. They differed in their picture of the world. Their picture differed in whether they were looking at reality or the abuse of reality, but it's hard to On almost any issue you can think of an edifice of lies has been constructed so extensive that, before you can have a rational discussion, you have to sort of clear away the rubble.

And that better be done or we will see more and more of this. Well, all of these things that I've been talking about are important features of the real world, the actual one. The domestic population and the world have to be intimidated. The domestic population has to be taught to "respect the martial virtues", as the Washington Post put it. We have to shed the dread Vietnam syndrome. We have to overcome what Reagan intellectual Norman Podhoretz called "our sickly inhibition against the use of military force.

At home the population has to be in fear, has to be cowering in terror, in fear of terrible enemies about to destroy us. The world has to be put on notice that the surly master will do what it wants. The intellectuals have the responsibility to conceal all of this in beguiling rhetoric.

If this picture looks familiar, it's because it is familiar. And that's worth thinking about, too. Events in the Gulf followed the script in the National Security Review quite closely.

Let's review them quickly. Now actually, in , Iraq was a close Russian ally. But Ronald Reagan and George Bush recognized quickly that Saddam Hussein is our kind of guy and they moved quickly to change that and by the Iraqi regime was very much Western oriented.

Of course, Saddam Hussein was recognized to be a murderous gangster who had imposed one of the worst tyrannies in the world, but that was not a big problem, it looked like he was our gangster, so that was quite all right. The Reagan-Bush Administration fought very hard to prevent any condemnation of his atrocious human rights record in Congress, and in particular, in any interference in the growing trade in aid that they were lavishing upon their friend.

The United States became the leading market for Iraqi exports, oil. Iraq became the first or second largest recipient of credits for U. As Iraq began turning toward Western corporations and governments for its military support, Western German corporations took the lead in providing the lead in supplying that military equipment. The Iraqi democratic opposition, not a radical movement, incidentally, bankers, engineers and people like that for the most part, they were continually rebuffed in Washington.

Last February, according to Iraqi and government sources, they came to the White House with a plea for support for a simple statement calling for parliamentary democracy in Iraq. They were rebuffed. You will notice, incidentally, that from August through March, through the end of the war, there was nothing in the press, nothing in the media about the Iraqi democratic opposition, none of their statements, none of their spokespeople cited. It's kind of interesting if you think about it.

These are the forces that for years have fought against Saddam Hussein and called for democracy in Iraq, parliamentary democracy. And there are lots of them. Of course, they don't function inside Iraq. They can't. Under the kind of regime we like to support they'd be killed if they did that. What they did was this, they exist in Europe, in England.

You can read their statements in the German press, in the British press and so on, not in the American press. I haven't found a word referring to them. They continue to be rebuffed by the media and by the Government just as they had during the period when Saddam Hussein was George Bush's great friend and the reason is obvious when you look at their statements.

Yes, they were opposed to Saddam Hussein, but they were opposed to the war. They didn't want to see their country destroyed.

They wanted a peaceful settlement and knew that it was possible. In fact, their position was indistinguishable from that of the American peace movement.

I managed to sneak one of their spokesmen into an MIT teach-in and you couldn't tell the difference between his position and any other opponents to the war. Well, that fact had to be obscured in the press and it's done, another great propaganda achievement. Well, that's pre-July. In July Saddam Hussein again made it pretty clear that he was turning his forces toward Kuwait and was making moves that were, clearly, very intimidating towards Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

That was quite OK. True, he was a murderous thug, but remember, he was our thug. That was July. Well, we can speculate about what happened next. Conservative speculation, one that I think is plausible myself, is that Saddam Hussein misinterpreted the signals, took it to be a green light to take over Kuwait, which he did on August 2nd, and that is unacceptable.

That shifted him from being a murderous thug, which is quite OK by our standards, to an independent thug, which is not OK at all. In fact, if he was an independent boy scout, it's the same. So then we turn to the familiar script, the one announced in the Policy Review, and consistently used in the case of independent nationalists, those who do not understand that their role is to follow orders.

Kill, gas, torture, terrorize, do anything you like, but don't step on our toes. That's the lesson that people in the Third World have to understand and he demonstrated that he needed understanding.

Well, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was certainly not the only case. It's within the range of many recent examples of aggression, some worse than others. World opinion responds the way it always does. The general response of the world community to aggression through the United Nations is sanctions, which means sanctions and diplomacy. Diplomacy was to achieve reversal of the aggression through diplomatic means. And in this case the sanctions approach had unusual prospects for success.

The reasons were two. For one thing, the sanctions were of absolutely unprecedented severity. Never before had there been, even in cases of much worse acts of aggression and atrocities than this, there have not been sanctions on food and medicine.

But the second and more important reason why sanctions would be highly likely to work was that for once they were going to hold. Usually sanctions do not hold. Usually, in fact, they're vetoed. Efforts to imposed sanctions are usually, simply vetoed by the great powers, the United States far in the lead. Just taking the twenty years since George Bush enters the scene, the United States is first by a long shot in vetoing Security Council resolutions on aggression or any relevant issue.

In second place, with about half the number of vetoes of the United States is Britain, our lieutenant. The United States and Britain are responsible for about 80 percent of those. In third place, far behind, is France, and fourth place is the Soviet Union.

It's less than a third the number of vetoes of Great Britain and about one seventh the number of vetoes of the United States. That, incidentally, tells you how likely we are to be entering a New World Order in which the United Nations will undertake a peace-keeping role with the Russian veto no longer blocking it.

These trivial facts, and they are trivial, you'll have to search very far to find any reference to them in the journals of opinion, intellectual journals, media, and so on.

In fact, you'll find no reference to them anywhere near the main stream, but they are important facts. And that's why sanctions usually don't work because they get blocked, usually by the United States, second England. On the rare occasions where sanctions are allowed to go through, for instance, in Southern Africa, first of all they're much weaker, and secondly, they're not enforced because they've been broken consistently, regularly, by the United States, Britain, France and their allies.

As a result the sanctions were very weak in their impact. In this particular case these sanctions would hold. First of all they weren't vetoed. Secondly they would hold. The usual sanctions busters weren't going to violate them. And there was every likelihood from the first day that sanctions would be highly effective, but remember, the policy principle is no diplomacy, no negotiations. In the case of a much weaker enemy, you have to destroy them, then pulverize them and do it fast, so no sanctions.

The United States and Britain therefore took the second course distinct from that of the general world community. They moved at once to block negotiations, in fact, to undercut sanctions and to narrow the options for the use of force.

George Bush made it very clear in August that there would be no negotiations, no diplomacy, that the options would be either capitulation to force, or the use of force, and you'll notice that is in precisely in accord with the prescription of the Policy Review. Now by late August this was becoming a serious problem. He had a column in which he said that is necessary to block the diplomatic track because pursuit of the diplomatic track "might defuse the crisis at the cost of a few token gains for Iraq.

And these were well within the range of negotiations. But you got to block the diplomatic track because it might succeed. In fact, at that point it was becoming pretty dangerous because there was every reason to think it would succeed.

In fact, there was every reason to think that the sanctions had already worked. This is late August. Right at that time a former high U. That would mean some kind of lease over two uninhabited islands that had been assigned to Kuwait by Britain in the Imperial settlement precisely for the purpose of keeping Iraq landlocked. Well, that was dangerous. Looked like there really was a settlement, but we can't be certain that the Iraqi offer was serious.

Of course you can determine whether an offer is serious by pursuing it. But the U. It was rejected flat out of hand and basically eliminated from public discussion. So that matter continued. There's no time to go through the record here, but let's take the last known case on January 2nd.

Well, that was rejected flat. George Bush's response to that was there will be no negotiations. Interesting fact is that, at that time, according to the polls, about two-thirds of the U. That's without knowing that such an offer was on the table and without even seeing any discussion that it might be a good idea. Remember the order from Washington was no linkage, and therefore every respectable intellectual had to parrot on command, no linkage, and they all did.

No linkage means no diplomacy.

It's interesting that even without knowing that the offer was on the table from Iraq, and without knowing that U. You can simply imagine what the whole results would have been if people knew the facts. And that's why it's so important for the media and the educated classes to fulfill their function and to prevent any knowledge of the abuse of reality, the real facts. So matters went. On February 15th there was another Iraqi offer to withdraw, immediately rejected. Mistranslated, incidentally, crucially, to make it look much harsher than it was.

On February 22nd there was the Soviet-Iraqi offer. To terminate the press without any further instructions George Bush quickly rejected it, instantaneously, imposing conditions so absurd that it must have taken some self-discipline for the media to not raise an eyebrow.

I mean, that is a proposal so insane that it obviously couldn't be considered for a moment except by a well disciplined, intellectual class who accepted it completely, and if you look back in the press during that period [applause] So the result of all of this without being perfidious, it's an interesting conclusion about the New World Order, the conclusion's straightforward, is that no reason was ever given for going to war, that is, no reason which could not be instantaneously refuted by a literate teenager [laughter] and that's an important fact.

That's another typical hallmark of a totalitarian society and it's worth recognizing that's what happened. Now, of course, there was an official reason given. The official reason was that aggressors cannot be rewarded and that aggression must be quickly punished. It's interesting that instead of collapsing in ridicule when George Bush presented this claim, the media praised him in awe for his high principle.

I won't insult your intelligence by running through the directory of how the United States and George Bush in particular has stood behind these principles. But again, that's the hallmark of totalitarian society, totalitarian culture, you begin to see how close we manage to approximate it without any state controls of any significant kind whatsoever. Now, occasionally more serious intellectuals try to deal with the question of sanctions, they're all worth looking at, so the New York Review of Books, that thinker's guide, featured an article by Timothy Garton Ash, a British intellectual, and he, at last, does deal with this hard question, how come we could agree to sanctions in other cases -- he doesn't mention the fact that we usually reject sanctions because we support aggression but that's going too far -- so how come we could set sanctions in other cases but not in this case?

He asks how come we could accept sanctions in the case of Southern Africa and the Communists in Eastern Europe, but not in the case of Saddam Hussein? And his answer is, well, in the case of Southern African racists and East European Communists sanctions would work, but in the case of Saddam Hussein they wouldn't. That's the end of his argument. Putting aside a number of questions, like the fact that we didn't really support the sanctions against Southern Africa, what's the difference?

Why are the South Africans racists and the East Europeans Communists nice guys, like us, while Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy like us? No answer is given, but if you look at the color of their faces I think you can see an answer. The same is true when the New York Times tells us that "the world is united against Saddam Hussein," or that "Saddam Hussein is the most hated man in the world.

And, in fact, all the way through the discussion of this data you notice something pretty striking, either no reason at all is given for going to war, or reasons are given which, in fact, reduce to good old fashioned racism.

And I think there's a reason for that. For the last seventy years it's been possible to pretend that the regular and constant attacks against the Third World, which go back five hundred years to the European conquest of the world, it's been possible to pretend that these so-called North-South conflicts, the contemporary euphemism, we could pretend that these were somehow conflicts with the Russians, defense against the Russians.

That pretext is gone. Even the most imaginative propagandist can't conjure up a Russian threat anymore so we now have to face the reality -- it's a war against the Third World, as it's always been. The more difficult task of getting them to respect our intentions will follow" along behind. They, in other words, have to respect reality, putting aside their naive interest in what actually happened, remember, and that, indeed, is where we are now.

In fact, that current war is a striking case. Well, what about the prospects of the Middle East? In , the Intifada was reaching its peak, and it was becoming more obvious, it was becoming impossible to deny what had been clear for years that the PLO had long ago joined the rest of the world back in the mid-seventies, in calling for a political settlement.

That was becoming impossible to deny. The United States was backed into a diplomatic corner. It made the wise move of pretending that the PLO had finally accepted our terms. We are now going to have a conversation with them in the outer chambers of the negotiations -- that was the decision made in late The first meeting of the PLO and the low level American ambassador from Tunis, transcripts of the first meeting leaked in both Israel and Egypt, but of course, blanked out in the United States, and it was very clear at this point exactly what was going on.

The United States made two demands at the first meeting. First, it said, there will be no international conference, so forget any political settlement. Second, we demand that you call off the Intifada, the uprising, which we regard as terrorism against Israel. So we have only two simple demands. First, forget any political settlement. Second, stop doing anything.

Go back to the prior status quo. Stop doing anything. When you get back to the prior status quo where you can just sit quietly under Israeli oppression, humiliation and exploitation, then everything will be OK.

2nd Edition, Fully Revised and Updated

Those are our two demands. When you accept them we can go on and talk. A couple of weeks after that the Israeli Defense Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, had a meeting with several Peace Now leaders, reported in the Hebrew press, in which he told them that he was very much in favor of negotiations between the United States and the PLO He said they are low-level negotiations of no significance.

They will divert attention elsewhere while we are granted a year or more to crush the Intifada by force.On the basis of principle, where do we stand when it comes to rewarding aggression? There are two different ways of looking at the world and percepting its likely course.

When the truth is finally out, everyone will be broke. Amazingly, far more than most people realize. The Void Engineers and Iteration X have reacted emotionally, insisting Horizon and Autochthonia had to be recovered sooner, rather than later.

It has been a period of salvaging personnel and hypertechnology — and of explosive infighting.

CORINE from New York
I do like reading novels vivaciously . Feel free to read my other posts. I enjoy hooverball.