NWO Tools

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
The tools of the new world order are,
1. an international army;
2. an international police force;
3. a world bank for the economy;
4. a world government under the United Nations;
5. a world conservatory bank for wilderness preservation around the world. That means all ‘green’ movements will be melded into the new international bank or disappear altogether;
6. a world religion where all church doctrines will be destroyed at the roots to be replaced by the new world religion of the age of Aquarius;
7. the world seven-races classification for all human slaves who will fulfill predetermined work tasks whether they agree with it or not;
8. the world concentration headquarters at the United Nations for those who will not accept the new system;
9. the world agriculture and food supply control which will control food and vitamin supplies around the world.


http://100777.com/node/1207
 
AssHatZombie said:
The tools of the new world order are,
1. an international army;
2. an international police force;
3. a world bank for the economy;
4. a world government under the United Nations;
5. a world conservatory bank for wilderness preservation around the world. That means all ‘green’ movements will be melded into the new international bank or disappear altogether;
6. a world religion where all church doctrines will be destroyed at the roots to be replaced by the new world religion of the age of Aquarius;
7. the world seven-races classification for all human slaves who will fulfill predetermined work tasks whether they agree with it or not;
8. the world concentration headquarters at the United Nations for those who will not accept the new system;
9. the world agriculture and food supply control which will control food and vitamin supplies around the world.


http://100777.com/node/1207
Click to expand...

You forgot a world propaganda--er I mean media and "educational" system.
 
uscitizen said:
6
Click to expand...
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age[/ame]

New Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see New Age (disambiguation).
Spirituality Portal
New Age is a term used to describe a broad movement within the context of contemporary Western culture, characterized by an eclectic and individual approach to spiritual exploration as part of a general evolution in human consciousness. Other terms used to describe the movement include Self-spirituality, New spirituality, and Mind-body-spirit. [1] [2] [3] The movement started in the second half of the 20th century and originally referenced the supposed coming astrological Age of Aquarius. Beliefs in New Age ideas are found among diverse individuals, including some who graft additional beliefs onto a traditional religious affiliation. [3] Some individuals who hold any of its beliefs may not identify with the term "New Age", and that term may be applied as a label by outsiders to anyone they consider inclined towards its world view.

The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions from both East and West, many of which have been melded with ideas from modern science, particularly psychology and ecology. New Age ideas could be described as drawing inspiration from all the major world religions with influences from Spiritualism, Buddhism, Hermeticism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Mayanism, Ceremonial magic, Sufism, Taoism, New Thought, Wicca and Neo-Paganism being especially strong.

From this collection of influences have come a wide-ranging literature on spirituality, new forms of music known as "new age music", crafts—most visible in speciality shops and New Age fairs and festivals, and increased interest in the methods of alternative medicine.[4][5]
 
AssHatZombie said:
Oh and usc, which of the items listed above is not being created as we speak?
Click to expand...
"one world religion", "one world army", "one world police force", all of these are not being created at this moment.

The UN has no army, Interpol has liaisons from regular police forces, not permanent law enforcement officers of its own, and as for religion... Pffft! All you have to do is look at the US and the ME to know that this isn't happening in any of our lifetimes...
 
Damocles said:
"one world religion", "one world army", "one world police force", all of these are not being created at this moment.

The UN has no army, Interpol has liaisons from regular police forces, not permanent law enforcement officers of its own, and as for religion... Pffft! All you have to do is look at the US and the ME to know that this isn't happening in any of our lifetimes...
Click to expand...

They're all happening. The UN is given authority at times over troops from member nations.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They're all happening. The UN is given authority at times over troops from member nations.
Click to expand...
They have no army of their own, and one of the groups gains control. (three nations send troops, one of them will have operational control). The UN has no generals of their own, because they have no army at all.
 
Damocles said:
They have no army of their own, and one of the groups gains control. (three nations send troops, one of them will have operational control). The UN has no generals of their own, because they have no army at all.
Click to expand...


Their army is the army of the member states who are ordered to serve under UN control.

http://www.apfn.org/thewinds/1997/10/un_army.html
Specialist Michael New was an American soldier, not a UN mercenary. When he asked his superiors for written explanation regarding the UN uniform order, the response was, "the President says so, therefore it is." It may as well be stated, whatever the President says is justified. When relating to the question, why UN insignia must be worn, the answer was "because they look fabulous." He volunteered to serve anywhere the Army wanted to send him provided he could wear the United States Army uniform. That offer was refused. The Army broke its covenant by arbitrarily changing the agreement with Mr. New once he had signed his enlistment papers.

New reasoned that if the Army could force him to wear the UN blue beret in Europe, they could force him to wear it in America. It is a question of authority; "if they can force me to do it anywhere, they can force me to do it everywhere. I don't like the idea of UN soldiers being deployed in the U.S. I don't want to serve in the UN against my country, but theoretically it's possible."

Subsequently, Michael New was court-martialed for refusal to obey the order to wear the UN uniform. Legal counsel assured him that his position "carried the weight of law and that the Army's position seemed to rest not on the law, but was driven by raw political power, constitutional manipulation and sheer intimidation." (Col. Ron Ray). The Army's insistence on pursuing a bad conduct discharge against Specialist New, in spite of his offer to quietly withdraw to another unit, seemed to indicate a desire to make an example of this case.
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
Their army is the army of the member states who are ordered to serve under UN control.
Click to expand...
Again, the UN has no "control" of its own as Member Army's serve as operational commanders because there is no UN Army.

What part of that is difficult for you? The part where you are wrong, or the part where I am right?

That the Army forces him to follow their orders doesn't mean that it is suddenly a UN Standing Army.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the UN has no "control" of its own as Member Army's serve as operational commanders because there is no UN Army.

What part of that is difficult for you? The part where you are wrong, or the part where I am right?
Click to expand...


The commanders are also from member armies. They too don UN uniforms and work on military projects based on intiatives from the UN. Do you deny the existence of UN peacekeepers?
 
AssHatZombie said:
The commanders are also from member armies. They too don UN uniforms and work on military projects based on intiatives from the UN. Do you deny the existence of UN peacekeepers?
Click to expand...
Again, that doesn't change that they are not UN soldiers, they are simply member armies working together. One of the member armies gets operational control.

They are not UN soldiers, they are blue helmeted US, UK, etc. soldiers.

This is like saying the ICE guys are DEA guys because sometimes they work with them in joint operations.
 
Damocles said:
Again, that doesn't change that they are not UN soldiers, they are simply member armies working together. One of the member armies gets operational control.

They are not UN soldiers, they are blue helmeted US, UK, etc. soldiers.

This is like saying the ICE guys are DEA guys because sometimes they work with them in joint operations.
Click to expand...

They ACT as UN soldiers when they are called too. Actions are what matters. Effectively the UN does have an army composed of soldiers from member states. Your word games are pathetic.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/
Over the years, UN peacekeeping has evolved to meet the demands of different conflicts and a changing political landscape. Born at the time when the Cold War rivalries frequently paralyzed the Security Council, UN peacekeeping goals were primarily limited to maintaining ceasefires and stabilizing situations on the ground, so that efforts could be made at the political level to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. Those missions consisted of military observers and lightly armed troops with monitoring, reporting and confidence-building roles in support of ceasefires and limited peace agreements.

With the end of the Cold War, the strategic context for UN peacekeeping dramatically changed, prompting the Organization to shift and expand its field operations from “traditional” missions involving strictly military tasks, to complex “multidimensional” enterprises designed to ensure the implementation of comprehensive peace agreements and assist in laying the foundations for sustainable peace. Today’s peacekeepers undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, to human rights monitoring, to security sector reform, to the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants.
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
They ACT as UN soldiers when they are called too. Actions are what matters. Effectively the UN does have an army composed of soldiers from member states. Your word games are pathetic.
Click to expand...
Word games are played by those who pretend a US soldier is really not a US soldier, not the other way around.

If you must play games like that to attempt to make your point then your point is worthless.

The UN has no army of its own, it has donated forces from member states that can be withdrawn at any time. That the US expects their soldiers to follow orders doesn't change this.

You can cry about US troops wearing blue hats, but it doesn't change that they are US troops.
 
Damocles said:
Word games are played by those who pretend a US soldier is really not a US soldier, not the other way around.

If you must play games like that to attempt to make your point then your point is worthless.

The UN has no army of its own, it has donated forces from member states that can be withdrawn at any time.
Click to expand...

SO it's army is donated. SO what. It's still it's army. Your wrongness is embedded in your own statements.
 
AssHatZombie said:
SO it's army is donated. SO what. It's still it's army. Your wrongness is embedded in your own statements.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Wrong choice of words on my part. "Donated" shows an ownership that doesn't exist.

"Lent" would have been a better word.

They are not UN soldiers, they are US soldiers. It is not a UN army it is a group of members' armies in joint operation. The troops can be withdrawn at any point, and often members reject sending their troops.

When the charter was created any UN army was specifically taken out of the equation because the US is paranoid.
 
Damocles said:
Hmmm... Wrong choice of words on my part. "Donated" shows an ownership that doesn't exist.

"Lent" would have been a better word.

They are not UN soldiers, they are US soldiers.
Click to expand...

Acting on behalf of UN directives, in violation of their enlistment agreements.

Bottom Line: THe UN can use military force to achieve it's directives. The fact that soldiers are ON LEASE is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top