Oh Dear, She's Coming!...

[tatou]

This is where I can suggest an article, isn't it?
Well, I think this might inspire you: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/12/opinion/edkissinger.php

 

[foofighter]

Aaahh.. the psychopath speaketh. This is like the speech from the villain in the middle of the movie where he thinks he's got everything under control and just cannot help but explain his plan for the viewers, as it is so magnificently brilliant in its buildup and conclusion. An example of "stark accuracy, when convenient". Very interesting indeed! I'll make an attempt at translation of some parts of it.

Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Here he suggests that all countries should evaluate their part of the blame, but then later he also says that most countries had to play by the rules set up by the US. So the root of the problem is known, but he's trying to get some "we're all to blame" thing going. But here we also have the root of why this financial crisis has come about: to FORCE countries into "mastering" the problem by "common action". And by common action he doesn't seem to be suggesting making decisions together as separate states, but rather the introduction of new supra-national organisations, as he later also refers to the Europeans as being limited by their national thinking.

The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

If I'm reading this correctly I think this means that freedom of speech on the Internet is going bye-bye in order to avoid "international chaos" because of how transformative information exchange can be. Sleep. Don't listen, don't talk, don't think. STS at its finest.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world.
The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market.
The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order.

So, it was then important for the markets to become globalized, for the financial institutions to act internationally, so that when this system was deliberately broken the above argument could be made, that the political scene was lagging, and instead of again nationalizing economy, which would seem like a more logical conclusion, the argument is instead made to globalize the political structures as well. Nations are obsolete and arbitrary, from a psychopath point of view, and "order" (=sleep) can only be accomplished on an international level.

Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point. So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place - so far without more than stemming incipient panic.

The packages are then also an important piece of the puzzle, as they served to undermine the national constructs, and point to how weak and powerless nations are to handle this constructed crisis. Panic is not the result of this, it was the goal to begin with.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.

Here he indeed points out the two alternatives: a new world order, or a "regression" to a more regional thinking. A thinking which is more likely to be environmentally friendly, support local economies, and give more power to the people, who are by definition local. The choice is easy!

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This is puzzling, because this would seem to indicate that it is important for Obama to be president, since his conduct is definitely more modest in appearance, compared to Bush. If Bush continues to be president, for some reason, it seems like getting to a new world order would be more difficult. In a week we will know, but if the C's are right, then Bush will still be president, and this will then maybe abort the new world order, and instead expand the American empire, which in the end will lead to its destruction. Obama=new world order, Bush=empire. Is that it? It is made even more clear in the next segment:

Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.
The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy.

In this sense, it has been absolutely crucial for the new world order that Bush has screwed up so royally, acted so intensely unilaterally, and being such a jerk in general, because it has built up such a great disgust that if Obama comes in as a seeming opposite, then there will be a "ooh yes, we will do whatever you want" kind of reaction to it. "Sanity at least! New world order? No more chaos? Global stability? Sure!!!". Also important to note that he refers to imagination specifically. It's a mirage, and he knows it, but as long as people believe in it, that's the only thing that matters.

The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The fake terrorism threat, the fake climate change threat, the fake peak oil threat, all of these will be used as a common goal, the common fear, which will unite countries. To go against these fearbased beliefs, these lies, will probably not be acceptable, as they will endanger the order in this brave new world.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the recent past.

Things need to happen, and they need to happen fast. This is probably what Powell and Biden and others have been referring to. Something big, early on, to drive the change towards a new world order. That is, unless Bush stays on of course.

The charge of American unilateralism has some basis in fact; it also has become an alibi for a key European difference with America: that the United States still conducts itself as a national state capable of asking its people for sacrifices for the sake of the future, while Europe, suspended between abandoning its national framework and a yet-to-be-reached political substitute, finds it much harder to defer present benefits.

One wonders what kind of "sacrifice" he means. Being the target of a fake nuke attack perhaps?

The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system.
China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

So it seems like he wants to look west (from a US standpoint) rather than east for partners. That China is a dictatorship is a non-issue, if global interests and financial policies is all that is concerned. It must be convenient to be a person who only looks at big pictures, since that avoids the dreadfulness of what goes on in the little picture, where individuals are tortured and brutalized. It is interesting to note the difference here between Kissinger and Brzezinski, Obamas mentor. Kissinger is definitely wanting to hug China, whereas (if I have understood things correctly) Brzezinski wants to undermine both China and Russia in various ways. So if Obama becomes president, with Brzezinski as mentor, will the new world order include China? Maybe a weakened China? Will be interesting to see what happens.

Both sides overestimated the durability of this arrangement. But while it lasted, it sustained unprecedented global growth. It mitigated as well the concerns over China's role once China emerged in full force as a fellow superpower. A consensus had developed according to which adversarial relations between these pillars of the international system would destroy much that had been achieved and benefit no one. That conviction needs to be preserved and reinforced.

Both sides have agreed to "tolerate" each other, for the mutual benefit of both. What happens with this deal when the US cannot fulfil its part, due to its consumers not being able to purchase goods from China? We will see.

It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 percent that Chinese experts have always defined as the line that challenges political stability. America needs Chinese cooperation to address its current account imbalance and to prevent its exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation.

From the recent newsitems on this it seems like China is becoming less interested in the deal between the two. If that is the case, then a devastating inflation might well be the end result of it. How this will impact the US both financially, politically and socially I think others are more able to assess, but I can't be good.

Such a vision must embrace as well such countries as Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, whether as part of trans-Pacific structures or, in regional arrangements, dealing with special subjects as energy, proliferation and the environment.

This is very interesting, because this "vision" seems to exclude Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and so on. Will they join and create a counterpart to the New World Order that Kissinger describes? 1984 anyone? And it is again interesting that he comes back to the big three lies of energy, proliferation and environment. Or rather, they are all true, but the devil is in the details.

An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

This would again seem to indicate that there will be a massive generated crisis this year, to thrust everyone into wanting a New World Order. And when he says "securing it" that would also most likely include generating energy problems when necessary, generating terror attacks when necessary, and generating environmental catastrophies when necessary, in order to bolster that part of human nature which he has declared shall be the uniting force of this New World Order: fear.

 

[tatou]

Well, that is quite a thorough analysis, Foofighter.
I like your "villain in the middle of the film speech" take on it.
I can actually picture him stroking a furry white cat while uttering the words!

Oddly enough, the full title of the article is "APRÈS LE DÉLUGE-The chance for a new world order".
"Après le Déluge" translates into: "After the Flood"... Old Hank is getting a bit apocalyptic here, isn't he? Well him or whoever wrote the article for him.

I took the time to copy and paste (see the list below) what seemed to me to be the keywords and key expressions of that manifesto.
It reminds me a bit of NLPD techniques where you place some words and/or expressions and repeat them ad nauseam in order to suggest something without the recipient being aware of it.
Basically, you go through the nets of the critical mind and plant your seed in the subconscious which will make your audience believe that it is their own opinion.
More or less like a good salesman pitch...
So NWO will be on sale -special offer!- right at the peak of the current artificial recession. When people say "Please, please! We're on the verge of disaster! Help!", the time will be right.
Until then, we'll be reading more editorials (written by "independent thinkers"?) peddling the needs and values of a "new world order".
Then, of course, it will be the opinion of your neighbour, your colleagues and even your own dog! (unless he reads SOTT)

Another interesting thing: how long will it take before the "new world order" expression claims back its capital letters?
And you'd think: with an article like this, signed by that fellow, printed in that paper, and THAT TITLE, you could go and run around like a maniac screaming "Wake up people! It's coming! I told you so and long ago!".
I bet most of the reactions would be "C'mon man, get real! We have a real problem here, you know, the crisis and... stuff. We need to find solutions! Don't need to hear a ranting conspiracy nut!".
Rolling their eyes, etcetera...
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, here are the new "buzzwords" for 2009, happy new year everyone:

-new world order
-international crises
-international system
-world financial order
-common action
-international order
-emerge
-system of compatible priorities
-international financial system
-crises around the globe
-new international order
-order is chaos
-organization of the world
-economic world
-globalized
-global reach
-global market
-global institutions
-world order
-common action
-International order
-emerge
-general rules
-international political regulatory system
-economic world
-global agreement
-global growth
-international system
-world order
-common concern
-world stage
-world crisis
-new world order
-common fear
-jihadist terrorism
-common strategy
-proliferation, energy and climate change
-grand strategy
-common policies
-new world order
-strategic design
-common adversary
-international system
-global growth
-international system
-global financial collapse
-global economic order
-global order
-common purpose
-weapons of mass destruction
-energy and the environment
-common destiny
-trans-Pacific structures
-energy, proliferation and the environment
-emerging world
-international order

What do you think?

 

[foofighter]

Well, that is quite a thorough analysis, Foofighter.
I like your "villain in the middle of the film speech" take on it.
I can actually picture him stroking a furry white cat while uttering the words!

Yeah, that was the scene I had in mind. And as we all know, the reason for that scene to occur is wishful thinking on behalf of Mr Evil, and it would appear the same is the case on our side of the silver screen.

Oddly enough, the full title of the article is "APRÈS LE DÉLUGE-The chance for a new world order".
"Après le Déluge" translates into: "After the Flood"... Old Hank is getting a bit apocalyptic here, isn't he? Well him or whoever wrote the article for him.

Very interesting/scary/weird... I know what *I* would refer to with the word "flood". The question is: what does HE refer to?

Another interesting thing: how long will it take before the "new world order" expression claims back its capital letters?
And you'd think: with an article like this, signed by that fellow, printed in that paper, and THAT TITLE, you could go and run around like a maniac screaming "Wake up people! It's coming! I told you so and long ago!".
I bet most of the reactions would be "C'mon man, get real! We have a real problem here, you know, the crisis and... stuff. We need to find solutions! Don't need to hear a ranting conspiracy nut!".
Rolling their eyes, etcetera...
I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Sure do, and what you describe will certainly happen, because there's no other way for mechanical people to react. Like pushing a ball: it has to go forward.

-order is chaos

This is one that really stood out for me. That when he referred to the word "chaos" he really meant "when people use information to transform politics", as if that was a bad thing. And with "order" it really meant when everyone did what they were supposed to be doing, within this framework of insanity based on the five lies of economic crisis, terrorism, proliferation, peak oil and climate change. Those five lies, which separately have been quite disturbing, are now coming together to form the "common fears" for the NWO.

 

[tatou]

-order is chaos

This is one that really stood out for me. That when he referred to the word "chaos" he really meant "when people use information to transform politics", as if that was a bad thing. And with "order" it really meant when everyone did what they were supposed to be doing, within this framework of insanity based on the five lies of economic crisis, terrorism, proliferation, peak oil and climate change. Those five lies, which separately have been quite disturbing, are now coming together to form the "common fears" for the NWO.

Yes, the phrasing -although it is I think purposely cryptic- does imply that free flow of information adds to the problem. Well, in fairness, it does add to HIS problem, that is correct.
But the reason why I quoted those three words -and seemingly out of context (the full sentence is: "The alternative to a new international order is chaos.")- is because it reminded me of two things: the first thing, obviously, is the old motto "Order Out of Chaos" and, well, the situation he talks about is a perfect example of said doctrine.
The second thing it reminded me of was... Orwell's "1984".
Do you remember? War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery...
George Orwell would probably say: "Order is Chaos? Love it baby! Very catchy!"

So although I have taken these three words out of context and it seems to make no sense, Neuro-Linguistic Programming works -allegedly- in such way that it goes beyond the structural grammar of the sentence.
The structural grammar of the sentence communicates with your critical mind, but you can strongly suggest ideas to your readers or audience covertly placing or associating words in your speech.

If someone knows better about this than I do, please confirm or not.

Ah well, this is just an open interpretation from my part.

Anyway I'm still going through your quote-and-comment and spotted this:

This is puzzling, because this would seem to indicate that it is important for Obama to be president, since his conduct is definitely more modest in appearance, compared to Bush. If Bush continues to be president, for some reason, it seems like getting to a new world order would be more difficult. In a week we will know, but if the C's are right, then Bush will still be president, and this will then maybe abort the new world order, and instead expand the American empire, which in the end will lead to its destruction. Obama=new world order, Bush=empire. Is that it?

The emphasis of Obama as the new kid on the block is clear, the man who stands for change will make the difference and open up to the world to eventually contribute to a one world government.
Although, there may to be some hints that Bush was getting cosy in his seat and wouldn't let go of it so easily.

So I'm writing a New World Script, with a twist at the end, Hollywood'll love it...

Engineered event provokes martial law in the USA, Bush remains in power, civil war breaks out, Obama becomes President-in-exile, and after years of struggle and with the help of a New Spiritual Leader, he eventually returns triumphantly to the Homeland, in a New Unified World.

THE END.

The twist as you might have guessed is that we're all screwed at the end.

Well, forgive me, I'll try to be a bit more serious... But who knows?
There probably are back-up scripts anyway and we don't even know the first one.

Maybe we focus too much on the States too...

I'll stop my ranting now.

 

[Jacques]

Hi Fred André,

it is quite difficult to see where your quotes begin and end.

Here's the link that explains how to do it:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?action=help;page=post#quote

With that info, could you modify your post and then it will be easier to read for all forum members. ;)

 

[tatou]

Hi Namaste,

Thanks for your help, I'm not sure I got it right though: I'm a bit puzzled that the whole text gets highlighted and I then have to get rid of the parts I don't want.
I obviously need some practice.

 

[theos]

Hi everyone,

I'm a tad late but I just read this article today. Funny, as I was reading I was trying to interpret what this psychopath was really trying to say as Foofighter did.

If I remember correctly, the C's said the Bush would be president "until he dies". This could mean that Bush could die before Obama is sworn in or Obama could die before he is sworn in. The scenario like Frederick Andre could occur as well as any other combination of events I can't even think of. Or, horror of all horrors :/, the C's could be wrong. Can't wait to see what happens.

Kissinger says:

The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy.

and

We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance.

The free dictionary defines nuance thusly:
1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.

[French, from Old French, from nuer, to shade, cloud, from nue, cloud, from Vulgar Latin *nba, from Latin nbs.]

Kissinger sees Obama as a softer, more delicate tool in shaping this New World Order that he so desperately wants to come to fruition. Obama is eloquent and Kennedy-esque (completely untrue, but what they want us to believe) as opposed to Bush's bumbling idiocy, heavy handedness and blatant psychopathy. Obama is more capable of affecting this "nuance" that Kissinger finds so critical in pursing the ultimate end of NWO. Will he be adept in using our collective fears of an economic collapse, jihadist terrorism, proliferation, energy and climate change to urge us into making "sacrifices" (i.e. completely relinquishing our civil rights and embracing globalism) for the good of our country and the world at large? Kissinger certainly hopes so.

We can only wait and see....

Just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

Cha