THREE TROJAN HORSES AT THE GATE
by Joel Skousen
April 12 2002
Global planners for a New World Order know that most citizens of Western
countries, even dumbed-down as they are by public education and dependence
on establishment media sources, would be highly resistant to a frontal
assault against national sovereignty, such as handing over direct
legislative powers to the United Nations General Assembly.
So, that's not the way planners are proceeding. Vesting real legislative
powers in the UN, binding upon all nations, will be the last step in the
globalization process. Globalists are currently paving the way for that step
by first building up regional governments such as the EU and the Free Trade
Area of the Americas (FTAA)--so that citizens become accustomed to
relinquishing national control over currency, trade, and environmental
issues to a supranational organization. But even as these move ahead, eager
globalist planners are busy implementing three non-elected structures of
global governance that will effectively destroy national sovereignty, even
while Congressmen and members of Parliaments wallow in the illusion that
they still control their own destiny.
I call these new structures Trojan Horses, because each appears small in
scope, hollow of authority, and benign in intentions. But, the mandate of
each has built-in language allowing for infinite expansion of powers in
response to the litany of man-made crises that will be foisted upon the
world in due course.
Who are the global leaders orchestrating this movement? All are members of
one or more of several overlapping secret organizations, such as the
Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Aspen Institute, the Club of
Rome, the Atlantic Alliance, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, and the Committee of 300, among others.
One of the reasons there are multiple, overlapping groups is to make it
difficult to identify the top leaders, or trace the lines of informal
authority.
Meetings and activities for all of these groups have been picking up in pace
since the provocative terrorist events of Sept. 11. Despite the secrecy in
which all these groups meet, these are NOT, I emphasize, where the high
level decisions are made. These are all leadership meetings where old line
globalist conspirators recruit and influence other up and coming leaders.
Globalist plans are announced and strategy discussed. Disagreement is
tolerated on issues of implementation but not on the overall course planned.
People who aren't team players aren't invited back.
The Trilateral Commission held a major conference this past week in
Washington, DC. There were about 150 international leaders in attendance
including Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Federal Reserve Board
Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and
former head of the US Federal Reserve Board Paul Volcker (who has been
recently called back to public service to head a committee to work out a
bailout for corrupt auditing firm Arthur Andersen and Co.). According to the
Washington Times, "The running line at this meeting is definitely going,
'What do we do now, and where do we go from here?'" quoting Francois Sauzey,
the Commission's press officer.
Major presentations on global taxation and increased management of world
trade are scheduled. The more sensitive topics are never announced to the
public. The Bilderbergers are also meeting soon (May 30- June 2) at the
Westfields Marriott, near Washington's Dulles Airport. As usual, they will
occupy the entire hotel and security will be massive. If these meetings are
innocuous discussions of foreign policy, why the extreme paranoia and highly
effective attempts to control leaks?
Here are the three major objectives, which I believe are being discussed and
implemented as Trojan Horses. Note that for each of the three, the initial
mandate will not affect or disturb the affairs of the majority in any
nation--a crucial tactic the insiders have long since learned to employ to
ensure public complacency.
1) GLOBAL TAXATION: This horse has not yet arrived, but it is coming. This
topic was the underlying objective of the Monterrey, Mexico conference on
global debt which just ended. The increasing crisis of poverty and debt in
Latin American nations is being used as the excuse to foment a call for
global taxation. However, this objective failed in Monterrey as it has in
past conferences. Look for the Trilaterals, Bilderbergers, and others to
continue to make sure the World Bank plays hardball with indebted nations in
order to precipitate further crises.
Once implemented, the global tax levels will start out small and will be
designed to only impact a few of the wealthy (e.g.: a tax on international
currency trades). Later, the tax rate will increase and will spread to other
items of trade. Organizations such as the WTO, ostensibly designed to
control "free trade" worldwide, are strategically placed to act as
"transaction" tax collectors in this scheme.
2) UN MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES: No global government has any power until
it has police powers of enforcement. Globalists are even now working towards
using NATO as the eventual UN world police/military force. Like all aspects
of the globalist control scheme, the transition of NATO from a voluntary
"peacekeeping" organization to a global interventionist military machine is
happening gradually.
Americans currently resist the notion of US troops serving under direct UN
command as "peacekeepers," but there is virtually no resistance toward
having US troops serve in similar roles under NATO. Currently, NATO is
controlled by the US which contributes most of the military forces. But,
Americans will be surprised to learn that NATO has always considered itself
as an extension of the United Nations (though it acts independently whenever
the US demands--as in the Kosovo intervention). I predict that the US will
continue to help build NATO, under its leadership, while the Europeans will
tinker around with a small "EU rapid reaction force" (just to assuage
European pride and sensibilities).
Then, in the next big war, when the US military will be decimated by a
pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia and China, I foresee NATO immediately
transitioning into a full fledged UN army and absorbing the EU's rapid
reaction forces--which are already fairly indistinguishable from NATO
troops. Plans are also proceeding in the Americas to build a regional
unified military command under NAFTA, mimicking the EU forces.
3) INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC): This Trojan Horse arrives at the
gates of every country in July of this year. The final four ratifications
out of the sixty necessary for the ICC to begin operations were received on
April 11. The ICC now claims jurisdiction over even those nations which
failed to ratify--such as the US. What I fear is that non-ratifying nations
(whose leaders secretly favor the ICC anyway) will slowly allow themselves
to be "absorbed" into the ICC mechanism by "voluntary" participation,
supporting the prosecution of selected enemies already before the court.
Expect the special "war crimes" tribunal at the Hague to suddenly merge with
the ICC. There is no grass roots control over the selection of judges for
the ICC. Thus, we can be sure that no judges will be appointed to the World
Court who are not dedicated socialists (or worse) or who can not be relied
upon to condemn any person deemed to be an enemy of the NWO.
Gary T. Dempsey, foreign policy analyst at the CATO institute, framed the
controversial issues of the ICC succinctly: "Specifically, the court
threatens to diminish America's sovereignty, produce arbitrary and highly
politicized 'justice,' and grow into a jurisdictional leviathan. Already
some supporters of the proposed court want to give it the authority to
prosecute drug trafficking as well as such vague offenses as 'serious
threats to the environment' and 'committing outrages on personal dignity.'
Even if such expansive authority is not given to the ICC initially, the
potential for jurisdictional creep is considerable and worrisome. Moreover,
it appears that many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under
the US Constitution would be suspended if they were brought before the
court. Endangered constitutional protections include the prohibition against
double jeopardy, the right to trial by an impartial jury, and the right of
the accused to confront the witnesses against him."
Dempsey continues, "The court theoretically would take action only when
national courts fail to fulfill their legal responsibilities. In fact, the
preamble to the ICC draft statute states that the court 'is intended to be
complementary to national criminal justice systems in cases where such trial
procedures may not be available or may be ineffective.'" Read his entire
report at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html. Presumably, however, any
failure to prosecute someone the ICC is eyeing would be viewed as
"ineffective," opening up an entrance for the ICC to exercise its claim to
automatic extradition of any suspect it demands. Anyone who thinks this
movement is benign and not a serious blow to national sovereignty should
wake up and reevaluate.
There is another crucial element necessary for fair ajudication of any
case--the power of the defendents to compel the testimony of witnesses for
both the prosecution and the defense. This constitutes the essential
difference between the new World Court and the Nurenburg Trials. At
Nurenburg the allied forces had control of all of conquered Europe and could
secure the witnesses they needed. For the ICC to effectively operate in
fairness, it must have the power to enter any nation and compel testimony
not only for the prosecution but for the defense. It does not have that
power now, and it may be convenient (for their purposes) to keep it that
way. That is why Slobodan Milosevic's goose is cooked.
The Hague Tribunal will not compel the testimony of Clinton, Kissinger, or
the KLA commanders who have personal knowledge of the conspiracy to falsify
evidence in Kosovo of Serbian atrocities. Even earlier, Clinton and his
cronies had extensive dealings with Milosevic and encouraged him to procede
with using force to hold Yugoslavia together--and now are allowing the Hague
to prosecute him for use of force. It is a rigged game. The ICC prosecution
team will always be able to get the cooperation of globalist leaders in
every country to bring in witnesses against the accused, but will claim "no
authority" whenever defendants demand that witnesses from other countries be
subpoened in their behalf.
Americans are being feted with an anemic legislative red herring to make its
citizens feel safe from this new authoritarian threat. Republicans, still
beating the drums of support for the phony "war on terrorism," are focusing
all opposition to the ICC on the potential that some of our patriotic
soldiers might be summoned before the World Court on "war crimes" charges.
Senator Jesse Helms (who has lost much of his old sharpness after a major
stroke) has teamed up with Senator Zell Miller to push for legislation in
Congress protecting our military from the jurisdiction of the Court. This is
a very weak tactic. In the first place, our soldiers might indeed
unknowingly engage in war crimes since they are taking orders from US or UN
globalist leaders intent on intervening improperly against other governments
around the world. Those leaders who send our soldiers to do illegal acts
should be held responsible.
The US desperately needs to return to the constitutional restrictions on war
making powers. Furthermore, soldiers are not the only ones who need to worry
about improper attacks from the ICC. What about all the rest of us? Why not
a blanket repudiation of the ICC for all Americans? By limiting our legal
reservations to our military personnel or leaders, there is a tacit
acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction elsewhere in America--that means over
you and me.
Even Rep. Ron Paul's improved legislation HR 4169 panders to the "protect
our soldiers" ploy in order to get support from Congress. It does contain a
softly worded sentence that exempts American citizens in general from the
ICC--but it appears as an afterthought. Soldiers are treated as if they are
sacrosanct, which is improper. Soldiers should always be held responsible
for violating others' rights--even when just "following orders"--so they
will be motivated to think, judge and demand evidence of the justice of what
they are being told to do. They do kill people and that should never be done
except in defense of fundamental rights. I realize that complicates military
command efficiency, but that is the only way to keep holocausts and
massacres from happening.
The best way to make sure people don't take life except under truly
justified circumstances to make everyone in the chain of command (especially
the highest leaders, who have access to the overall picture) liable for
their actions. None should have immunity simply for "following orders." The
ICC isn't the proper venue for prosecuting these crimes, not only because of
the flaws mentioned, but because its promoters don't have a clue about
fairly defining fundamental rights. Theirs is an agenda intent upon ruthless
prosecution of all those who fight against the NWO' s version of democratic
tyranny, whether they be further to the Left (Communists like Milosevic) or
on the right (Christian conservatives and libertarians).
WHAT ABOUT RED MERCURY FUSION BOMBS?
Before addressing the question of terrorist access to red mercury fusion
technology, let's review some of the basic differences between fusion and
fission. Fusion is the bringing together of two or more nuclei, to form one
larger nucleus. No private attempts to harness fusion in a powerful way have
been successful, despite millions in funding. On the other hand, fission,
the splitting of atom, is a well established technology that works. All
existing nuclear weapons use fission technology. Fission gives off much more
radiation than fusion.
Red mercury, theoretically, allows for a fusion device to be built that
rivals the punch of a small conventional nuclear fission bomb--but in a
softball-sized package, making it ideal for terrorists. According to Sam
Cohen, one of the designers of the neutron bomb, who was interviewed by J. R.
Nyquist (www.jrnyquist.com), red mercury is "a compound of tremendous energy
density" probably manufactured under ultra high pressure technology by
which, Cohen theorizes, "You knock all these electrons out so it's not the
same atom. It pulls a lot more energy per gram than any other explosive that
I've ever heard of." However, there are no confirmed admissions or leaks by
any government official, or by scientists working in any of the government
labs, of a working red mercury fusion project, let alone a weapon.
That doesn't mean there isn't some "black" secret project going on to those
ends, but I have no confirmation from any reliable source. Because of the
inherent difficulties with fusion, I am very skeptical of claims by Cohen
and a few others that red mercury fusion weapons exist, though I respect
Cohen's former scientific work. Nyquist asked Cohen about Vreeland's
statement that a two-megaton device could be made using red mercury
technology. Cohen said, "The answer is it's possible, but not advisable...If
you wanted to do damage, a dirty [fission] bomb is better." Cohen is right.
If terrorists want to make a big splash, they will build a "dirty" fission
bomb, put it aboard a ship, and sail it into one of America's major harbors.
Cohen believes that Russia has red mercury technology, and maybe Iraq too.
He claims that US weapons inspectors have found evidence of red mercury
transactions between Iraq and Russia. I doubt Cohen's claims for a couple of
reasons. First of all, this sort of intelligence information about such a
critical military research endeavor in Russia would be impossible to obtain
without reliable defectors. I know of no Russian defectors who have ever
confirmed that Russia has red mercury technology--though rumors abound about
many "pie in the sky" technologies; I have no doubt the Russians may be
working on it. We have precious few intelligence agents working inside
Russia, thanks to the gutting of our intelligence services under Stansfield
Turner and other globalists who followed him as heads of the CIA. Russia
knows we now rely almost exclusively on electronic and space surveillance;
and, therefore, keeps all of its best military projects underground, away
from the prying eyes of US satellites and sensors.
Secondly, even if the Russians have succeeded in producing red mercury, they
would not be giving this dangerous technology away to the Iraqis (who can't
hold a secret for long) unless the Russians themselves were maintaining
direct control over its use. One of the most prolific items of
disinformation is that terrorists groups are running around with weapons of
mass destruction, compliments of the major powers. Not so--at least not
independently. The US, Russia and China keep tight control of the "big" and
powerful stuff--especially when they allow client states to act as their
surrogates.
I doubt that Cohen has any reliable evidence or first-hand knowledge in this
regard. Cohen has been on the outside of the establishment nuclear community
since becoming a vociferous critic of the US government, so I don't think he
is getting any crucial information from anyone still on the inside. He felt
betrayed when the US said they decided not to deploy his neutron bomb (which
puts out copious amounts of radiation while doing little physical
damage--thus, killing troops but not destroying or polluting the land,
long-term). I think the US has actually lied about this issue, though. Every
other nuclear power has deployed neutron bombs. I'm sure the US built them
as well, but has simply hid them away rather that declare them to the
disarmament community.
Warning: I strongly suspect that the Bush administration will be looking for
another trigger event (a major terrorist act this year) to justify the
planned offensive against Saddam Hussein. As I have detailed in prior
issues, there is evidence of US foreknowledge and collusion in the events of
9/11 and thus, it is not unlikely that another provocative terror event
should follow suit. As I have continued to point out, there is a strange
anomaly present in America's so-called "war on terrorism"--there have been
no bona-fide Al Qaeda acts of terror in the US since 9/11, which does not
match the pattern of any known terrorist group in the world--especially a
group supposedly as large and well financed as Al Qaeda.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of everything the US claims about Al Qaeda. All the
facts surrounding Al Qaeda, including its existence, size, make-up and
financing, come only from US intelligence sources, who created this monster
in the first place. How much of this information is real versus manufactured
to justify the current war, we may never know. One thing I am sure of:
terrorism in the US is a controlled phenomenon. Who's pulling the strings
and why cannot yet be proven, though the clear benefactors of the 9/11
attacks have been those in the US government eager to trample over
Americans' constitution rights, as demonstrated in the radical passage of
the egregiously misnamed US Patriot Act.
Red mercury may be a disinformation tool used to prepare the public for some
explosive event coming in the future. Vreeland may have been used as a
vehicle for spreading this kind of disinformation. If I'm correct about the
controlled nature of US terrorism, the next attack will come as another high
profile target, so most of my readers living in towns or small to
medium-sized cities don't have to worry about being victims of the attack
itself. Those in major metros on the coast with open harbors, like New York,
Boston, San Francisco or Los Angeles, etc should make contingency plans to
get out of harm's way. Of course, all Americans should be highly concerned
about the predictable loss of liberty and increased war expenditures that
will be generated in the wake of another attack.
http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/2002/0412.html
|