Kissinger:New World Order Can Be Created

[Christina]

Kissinger on Obama: "The Reception of Him is So Extraordinary Around The World ... a New World Order Can Be Created" By John-Henry Westen WASHINGTON, DC, January 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a interview with CNBC Monday, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that President-Elect Barack Obama's most important, or defining task would be the creation of "a new world order." "The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously," said Kissinger. "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis." Some commentators have suggested that the highly escalated conflicts in the Middle East and the world financial crisis have made the time ripe for a long-anticipated and foreshadowed “New World Order" to come to fruition. Celebrated Canadian author Michael O'Brien, who has written extensively on the 'new world order,' spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about Kissinger's statement. "Only in one sense is Kissinger's analysis correct," said O'Brien. "The current world situation is presently one of a multitude of crises and at the same time a moment of opportunity. However, positing a leap towards what he calls a 'new world order' is fraught with difficulties. “What does the term mean? In all likelihood it can only mean an imposed top-down global social-political revolution. In other words, solutions would then come from a reigning authority over all nations putting aside individual conscience and principles of national self-determination." O'Brien added: "A true and healthy order in the human community can only arise from an internal revolution of the moral order. It cannot be imposed without imposing greater ills. In all likelihood, Kissinger and like-minded globalists, see the present world configuration as a creative disintegration which would usher in a new form of world government. In such a situation, management by crisis overrides authentic exercise of human freedom and responsibility." For pro-life advocates, the proposal of a 'new world order' has been linked to the anti-life principles promoted at the United Nations. Pope Benedict, while still a Cardinal, expounded on this matter in the introduction to a book published in 1997. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the preface to a book by Michel Schooyans, entitled “The Gospel: Confronting World Disorder.” (To read the preface see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09010703.html) In the preface Ratzinger first denounces the "new world order" describing it as more or less a culmination of Marxism. He goes on to say that a Christian is "obliged to protest" against it. "The typical character of this new anthropology, which is at the basis of the New World Order, is revealed above all in the image of woman, in the ideology of 'Women's empowerment,' proposed at Beijing," wrote the Cardinal. "The goal is the self-realization of women for whom the principle obstacles are the family and maternity. Thus woman must be liberated above all from what characterizes her and very simply makes for her specificity: this must disappear before 'Gender, fairness and equality,' before an indistinct and uniform human being, in whose life sexuality had no other meaning than as a voluptuous drug that can be used in any manner conceivable." See the CNBC video on youtube here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD3BqK-9ZiU&e

 

[Christina]

New World OrderBy Justin FoxIn recent weeks, the world has been politely standing by and watching how things play out with the fiscal stimulus and latest bank-bailout plans in Washington. Yes, there's been some grumbling overseas about "buy American" provisions in the stimulus bill, but for the most part, officials elsewhere don't want to step on the toes of a new President to whom they are favorably disposed. They also don't want to endanger legislation that they hope will help jump-start the global economy.Just wait a couple of months, though. Politicians from Beijing to Berlin to Brasília see the current crisis as the product of a messed-up global financial infrastructure dominated by the U.S., and they will soon be pushing for big changes--whether Americans like them or not.All this will begin to gel on April 2, when the newish international organization known as the G-20--the leaders of 19 of the world's biggest national economies, plus the European Union--meets in London. An unofficial meeting has already taken place, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where G-20 officials (with the conspicuous exception of those from the U.S.) made speeches, conversed in the halls and gave a sense of the direction in which the world outside the U.S. wants to head. (Read TIME's special report on Davos 2009.)The global discussion of the financial crisis is strikingly different from the one in the U.S. Here there's still something of a debate over whether the mess is the result of too much government interference in the housing market or too little government regulation of financial markets. In the rest of the world, that's no debate: inadequate and inconsistent financial regulation is uniformly blamed. What's more, a consensus seems to have emerged among the world's finance ministers and central-bank bosses that the chief underlying cause of the crisis was an unbalanced and out-of-control system of global capital flows in which some big-spender countries (namely the U.S.) ran up huge debts while big savers (China and India, for example) hoarded surpluses.On the regulatory front, the path to a new global approach is pretty clear. Last spring the leaders of the G-7, a club of wealthy nations, agreed to create a "college of supervisors" to more closely coordinate regulation of multinational banks. The Group of Thirty, an influential organization of current and former central bankers and financial regulators, recommended in January that "systematically significant" financial institutions (those that are too big to fail) be identified in advance and subjected to higher capital requirements and tougher regulation. (See who's to blame for the financial crisis.)Yet regulators around the world were already jointly setting bank-capital standards before the current crisis hit. A lot of good that did us. So there is also much talk about the need for a new architecture--"a new Bretton Woods" was a phrase that echoed around Davos--to rein in global financial flows.Bretton Woods is the mountain resort in New Hampshire where in 1944 the Allied nations met--with the U.S. calling almost all the shots--to plan a postwar financial system. The Bretton Woods creations included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and a quarter-century of fixed exchange rates built around a U.S. dollar that was linked to gold. The fixed exchange rates and gold standard unraveled in the 1970s, and ever since we've had a system in which the IMF occasionally steps in to help countries in currency crises (usually imposing harsh terms in the process) but exercises no real control over the global financial system.After the emerging-market currency collapses of the late 1990s, in which IMF aid wasn't much help, the lesson that emerging economies such as China and India took was that they needed to build up gigantic reserves of U.S. dollars to protect their currencies. To build those reserves, they ran big trade surpluses, which were in turn enabled mainly by record trade deficits in the U.S., which were in turn enabled by massive borrowing from around the world. It was an extremely unbalanced financial ballet, and it has now come crashing to the ground.In the view of many outside the U.S. (and some within), the only way to limit such excesses is through a bigger, more powerful IMF that can act as a central bank to the world--and knock heads when needed. While everybody agrees that this new IMF needs to be less dominated by the U.S. and Western Europe, things get controversial as soon as you go past voting rights. Should capital flows be restricted? Should there be limits on trade deficits and surpluses? Should the IMF be able to order around even the U.S.? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, global capitalism will have entered a new and dramatically less freewheeling era. time.com/curiouscapitalist

 

[Dunamite]

It is interesting to note the Kissinger is also a member of the Trilateral Commission and that recent stories have emerged that Obama was recruited by Zbigniew Brzezinski to be a trilateralist. Susan Rice is an executive member of the Trilateral Commission and Tim Geithner supposed to be a member. Paul Volcker in charge of economic recovery is a trilateralist. Of course, Hillary Clinton is married to a trilateralist. Former VP, Cheney is a trilateralist and former Federal Reserve Chariman Alan Greenspan is one. I am not sure if Bernanke is one. If not, maybe that is why he is doing such a poor job of running the Federal Reserve.The Trilateral Commission is a who's who of important bankers, corporate and political leaders, past and present, that are into and used to controlling things. The head of the World Bank is a trilateralist. Reading the list of who is on the commission should make you feel uncomfortable. These are the people used to pulling the strings of the economy and government.Obama and his wife are members of the Council of Foreign Relations which is closely linked with the Trilateral Commission. In fact, Obama is a director of the CFR, as is Geithner.If you don't think that the Trilateral Commission is harmless the read Brzezinski's books, the Grand Chessboard and The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. It is all about who gets to control everything.Who needs a world government or new world order when you control everything now?