Bilderberg has had front-men call anew for creating a global currency and establishing major European Union-style regions for the administrative convenience of a planned world government. Both steps were taken in September, one by the new Bilderberg-crowned prime minister of Japan and one separately by the UN.
The Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for a global currency in a report made public on September 7. UN countries should agree on a global reserve bank to issue the currency and to monitor the national exchange rates of its members, UNCTAD said. The dollar’s role in international trade should be reduced to protect emerging markets from the “confidence game” of financial speculation, it said.
Heiner Flassbeck, a former German deputy finance minister, is co-author of the report calling for a global currency. He worked with then U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers in 1997-98 to contain the Asian financial crisis. Summers is a longtime Bilderberg luminary and has been photographed by AFP at annual secret Bilderberg confabs.
Eliminating national currencies has long been a goal of Bilderberg as a crucial step in its plan to establish a world government. A nation’s currency is a symbol of sovereignty, so Bilderberg wants to divide the world into three giant regions, each with its regional currency, for the administrative convenience of its world government bureaucrats.
Bilderberg’s goal is an “Asian-Pacific Union” and an “American Union,” both modeled after the EU. The EU has its common currency, the euro, and a European Parliament that can impose laws on the once sovereign nations of Europe and a European Court superior to the highest courts of member states. The EU is effectively a single super-state.
The “American Union” is to evolve from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, as it extends throughout the Western Hemisphere. The common currency is to be the “AMERO”. Fortunately, Bilderberg’s efforts in the Western Hemisphere have been stalled but the campaign continues using “free trade” propaganda.
Ultimately, the UN is to function as a world government with the General Assembly serving as a world parliament. Bilderberg, a secret organization of international financiers and political leaders, will serve as a world shadow government that dictates to the UN. Source
where few professional journalists would dare launch a serious investigation into the exalted Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
Simple; …according to the tenets of political correctness, the racial makeup of the communities being “organized” automatically confers the presumption of moral superiority upon ACORN. So all those nasty rumors about ACORN must be no more than lies spread by “racist” propagandists.
To understand the mindset of the politically correct, there are a few rules of racial relations that you need to know. These rules establish the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism:
If a person is a member of a group who are “guilty” of past racial oppression, that person has no moral standing in relation to anyone in any group that’s ever been a victim of that oppression.
A member of an oppressor group is always assumed to be guilty in relation to a member of a victim group.
An oppressor can only avoid presumed guilt by making a display of his or her sympathy for the oppressed.
Members of victim groups can lose their moral standing by expressing a preference for individual rights as opposed to group rights.
Advocating on behalf of a victim makes one almost as unassailable as being that victim.
Coming to the defense of an oppressor is even more repugnant than being that oppressor.
That’s because people at a lower rung of the Multicultural Hierarchy are never allowed to challenge those above them. The purpose of this is to quell criticism and enforce thought conformity. Why break the rules and risk being thought of as a bigot?
Media coverage of Kanye West’s outburst at the MTV Video Music Awards illustrates this. Imagine the racial roles reversed, for example:
It’s the Country Music Awards. A black female performer is accepting her first-ever award. She’s happy and a bit surprised; her style of music doesn’t usually win Country Music Awards. Halfway through her emotional acceptance speech, a white male country music singer runs up on stage, grabs the microphone from her, and announces that another woman should have won, a white woman–a “real” country singer–instead of the underdog black woman.
By the rules of the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism, when a member of a victim group is the actual victim in a real-world encounter, it’s an example of oppression. But when an oppressor becomes a victim in real life, that’s just karma, man. Any possible racial angle becomes irrelevant.
So forgive me if I don’t believe that the abundantly Caucasian and overwhelmingly liberal journalist class is capable of taking on a target like ACORN, no matter how apparent the criminality might be.
Even after these events, a vast majority of the media ignored the story. And yet the public kept getting the truth, which only made the media appear to be in the business of hiding news rather than reporting it.
Realizing that this is not a winning business model for an ailing industry, a few of the more independent-minded reporters started covering the story, and now the White House Press Secretary is busy deflecting questions about the president’s former colleagues and fellow community organizers at ACORN. Full article HERE.
I’ve been in Stockholm (SWEDEN) ten days now, and in that time I’ve made it my business to talk with as many Muslims as I can. I’ve struck up conversations with Iranians, Eritreans, Iraqis, Egyptians and Azerbaijanis – no Somalis! The result has been broadly similar.
They are emphatic that they have no wish to impose their beliefs on Swedish society at large. They seem sincere, and I believe they are up to a point. However, the trouble comes when I pose the difficult questions.
What should happen to a Muslim in Sweden if he should become a Christian? Does his family have the right to kill him, or to punish him at all?
Should there be legalised punishment for women who commit adultery?
The previous unequivocal commitments to democracy, and the rule of law, quickly become enveloped in a fog of ambivalence and discomfort. They try to shift the ground by saying ‘these things should be handled by the Muslim community itself’, or that such punishments should be applied only if there were a Muslim majority (which there will be within a generation or two).
[Muslims’] attitudes [towards] native Swedes are heavily negative. After talking for a while they admit to detesting their ‘arrogance’ most of all. I find it hard to see where this arrogance comes in. I don’t see it in Swedes. But then I’m not an immigrant from an incompatible (3rd-world) culture. They tell me that they ‘just know’ that Swedes look down on them, and most of them seem eaten up with anger.
Muslims Will Take Our Free Money … Then Behead Us!
They also tell me that, like Paris … Stockholm is ‘surrounded’ by vast housing estates where the inhabitants have been ‘abandoned ’. Once the numbers become big enough they’ll ‘invade the city’ with horrendous results.
The same scenario was painted to me in different ways by several interlocutors. Most of these are not in themselves bad people. They are products of generations of benighted indoctrination, from dysfunctional societies where you have to fight and cheat to survive, and they find themselves in one of the world’s most ‘progressive’ societies trying to make their way.
The ones I really blame are the country’s smug, preening, sanctimonious leaders, who, to bolster their own sense of self-worth, have created this situation. It truly is a nightmare scenario my friends, especially when you consider the demographics (30% of children under the age of ten … are 3rd-world immigrant stock).
[ NORWAY (Population:4,800,000) is also under siege by 3rd world NON-white immigrants who multiply rapidly, and to the detriment of the indigenous White Norwegians. Pay close attention to the steep rise of the orange colour in the above “Norway” link.]
12 yr. old Swedish Girl GANG-RAPED by Foreign Refugees
“If you were to ask a random selection of people in Britain, especially the young or those in the White community who do not live in heavily mixed race areas, which racial groups were the most likely to be the victims of racially motivated crime, in all likelihood the majority would suggest that most victims came from the black or perhaps Asian communities. Very few would guess that most victims came from amongst the indigenous white community.
Indeed, why would they? The media, and any number of pressure groups regale us with images and editorials featuring large numbers of ethnic minority victims cowering before gangs of violent, racist, white thugs.
Back in 1999, the Home office published official statistics on race crime and stated categorically that “The highest risk was for Pakistani and Bangladeshi people at 4.2 per cent, followed by 3.6 per cent for Indian people and 2.2 per cent for Black people. This compared with 0.3 per cent for White people.”
Well that is what HM Government tells us, so it seems open and shut then …. or does it?
Those percentages are clearly not based on the total number of race crime victims, because, if that was the case, and they only amount to 10.3%, what groups make up the other 89.7%, ….Mexicans, Eskimos, the poor battered Fijians?
Oh no, these are not percentages based on the total numbers of race crime victims, they are percentages based on the number of each ethnic group who are the victims of hate crimes.
Clearly this is totally misleading, because…….” read entire article HERE.
The recent controversy over Canada imposing visa requirements on travelers arriving from the Czech Republic and Mexico, has revealed flaws in our dysfunctional refugee system. It also has disclosed a deeper and disturbing trend in the way the democratic process has been working in our country: For the last 25 years, Canada’s refugee policy has been driven and monopolized by special interest groups.
All of our political parties know the current policy is working against Canada’s national interest. All of the parties know the refugee system is dysfunctional. All of them know reform is essential. But none of them have been willing to do anything about the problem.
Our flawed refugee policy has caused our southern border to become effectively militarized. It has damaged bilateral relations with friendly nations, and has hurt our international trade and tourist industry. It has thrown our ability to secure our borders and function as a sovereign nation into question.
As a nation, we no longer are able to decide who should be allowed entry into our country, nor are we able to remove those we deem undesirable — including convicted terrorists.
We are one of the few countries in the world that allows anyone from any country to enter simply because they claim to be “persecuted”. For example, in 2002, citizens of 152 different countries applied for refugee status in Canada — including people from the United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other democratic countries. Why has this nonsense been permitted to continue?
The reason is because all of our political parties know that Canadians know very little about refugee policy. The policy is complicated, and usually doesn’t figure as a major election issue. So this leaves the field open to a powerful refugee lobby composed of full-time refugee-industry advocates — such as the Canadian Council For Refugees, immigration lawyers and consultants — who make thousands of dollars defending asylum seekers. They are supported by a multitude of NGOs (non-government organizations), which receive millions of dollars in government funding to care for and help asylum seekers. They have a stake in making sure the system remains bloated and dysfunctional.
The average Canadian doesn’t know the difference between a bogus asylum seeker and a real refugee. Even the mediafalsely refer to people arriving in Canada and applying for refugee status as “refugees” — even though most don’t suffer any form of persecution in their country of origin.
The determination of whether a claimant is a real refugee is decided by an impartial Refugee Board. During the adjudication process (which can take years), however, those who arrive receive generous welfarepayments, housing, free medical care and free legal representation.
The numbers of those arriving are significant — well over 700,000 since 1985 — and NONE of these so-called “refugees” has been pre-screened for criminality, security or health.
Many are smuggled aboard aircraft, and arrive without legitimate documents. Few are detained. Most are released and politely asked to appear for their refugee hearing. Currently, there are over 60,000 [FOREIGN] asylum claimants waiting for such a hearing.
The costs are high. The Immigration Department estimates that ONE (1) asylum seeker costs the Canadian taxpayer roughly $30,000 dollars per year; and by far, the majority of asylum seekers remain in Canada for several years.
Should their claim be refused, there is little likelihood they will be sent home. They can seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court; and if refused, there are a number of further reviews and delays that can be exercised. The result is that the number of rejected asylum seekers end up (illegally) settling in Canada.
This farce has continued for almost a quarter of a century.
Yet any attempt to reform the system, such as the Conservative government’s current, tentative initiative, is met with a storm of protest from the above-listed usual suspects. Typically, the refugee industry is backed up by opposition parties, whose opportunistic spokesmen cynically accuse reform advocates of “racism”.
The outcry over the Mexican and Czech visa imposition has been overwrought, but it has at least brought the issue of refugee reform to the forefront of Canadian politics. The Prime Minister has been forced to acknowledge the system needs fixing.
The first step toward reform should be to announce a list of countries that are considered “safe” for ostensible refugees, and to declare that [foreigners] coming from those countries are ineligible from submitting asylum claims. Such a step has been taken in most European countries, and it has stopped the flow of human smuggling and so-called “asylum shopping.” It is time Canada followed suit. SOURCE -National Post-
James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador. He led Canada’s Immigration Service from 1985 to 1990.