Although there is abundant information contained within the prophetic scriptures regarding the antichrist and his future reign, there is a nice, concise summary in Revelation 13 which is worth reading again:
"The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."
(Revelation 13:5-7)
This passage represents the most extreme form of "globalism", and it can't just happen overnight. This represents the cumulation of years of careful planning and the laying of the necessary groundwork that the antichrist will be able to seize and control. This effort has been ongoing for years. Unfortunately, those who pointed this out over the years were labeled as "conspiracy" theorists (a convenient way to shut down the whole "freedom of speech" thing and a convenient way to hide the truth), and quickly dismissed. However, the quick and easy dismissal of this information has come to an abrupt halt recently as the globalist effort is too obvious to ignore. This article from the Daily Bell underscores these points:
[This article is worth reading in full. Below are some of the most germane comments]
An article in Salon was recently brought to our attention...it is basically an admission of the entire globalist enterprise over the past half-century or so. It clearly admits what we all know – that top Western elites have been in an open conspiracy to merge the world, at least the Western world, under one legislative, economic and military regime.
And what is Salon? Salon is a leftist 'Net publication funded by William Hambrecht, one of the founders of financial firm Hambrecht and Quist that was purchased by Chase Manhattan in 1999. Hambrecht resides within the fault lines of financial elite and Salon is an important mouthpiece for the internationalist set.
Major articles appearing at Salon surely represent a kind of positioning that internationalists want to adopt, and this is an article that rehearses the evolution of globalism. Here's perhaps the most important excerpt:
The irony of this is that, as liberals gently chuckle at right-wing paranoia about what they perceive as an imagined plot to create a world government, it is the conservatives who have a more accurate read on history. There was a serious plan to get rid of American sovereignty in favor of a globalist movement, and the various institutions the right wing hates — the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. — were seen as stepping stones to it.
Here's more from the Salon article:
Why do we hold the conception that we live in separate nation-states? Well, it turns out that this question was actually asked after World War II, and the answer American leaders came up with was ... we shouldn't. In fact, Western elites in America and Western Europe after World War II made a serious effort to get rid of nations altogether, and combine all "freedom-loving peoples" into one giant "Atlantic Union," a federal state built on top of the NATO military alliance. As odd as it sounds, the documentary evidence is clear. This movement did manage to create a "European Union," which came from the same ideological wellspring as the "Atlantic Union."
Even more damningly:
Mainstream State Department liberal internationalists, the JFKs and LBJs, who built entangling institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N. and so forth ... The institutional framework of a world government composed of Western European and American states remains far more potent than we like to imagine, even beyond the security apparatus revealed by Snowden's documents. For example, in every major free trade agreement since NAFTA, U.S. courts have been subordinated to international tribunals, which operate according to rules laid out either by the World Trade Organization, a division of the World Bank, or by a division of the United Nations known as UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law).
Where have you read this before, dear reader? Why, in the alternative press, of course – the "conspiratorial" press. Never in themainstream press, or in publications such as Salon that span the divide between mainstream and alternative journalism. And yet ... perhaps it is a good place to begin the process of re-education, a web publisher that promotes globalist dominant social themes even as it positions itself as an alternative journalist force.
My diagnosis: I think we're observing the rise of a new meme. It is one that is going to be a good deal more honest about the world's reality, which is increasingly one of internationalism.
We've written numerous times that both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are very possibly (at least partially) playing assigned roles in a larger promotional scheme. They are duly appointed to provide a portion of the dialectic. We believe this simply because they garner enormous publicity. No one shows up on the cover of Time magazine, in our view, unless the top elites want him to. Nor do people's life stories get made into lavish Hollywood movies unless they are part of a larger plan, as Julian Assange is, or at least was.
Edward Snowden's allotted role in all this – whether he knows it or not – is likely to enlighten people about the length and breadth of US control of information around the world. It is intended to make people immensely nervous about their actions, business life and plans, especially if they disapprove of what the Anglosphere has built.
It is also obviously to start a discussion and eventually to provide a "solution" that will end up both limiting and then legitimizing the modern surveillance state. (Eventually the limitations will be discarded, as they always are.) In fact, the Salon article justifies its "admissions" by explaining that Snowden's revelations must inevitably cause a reexamination of what has taken place in the world in the past century or so.
As the spying scandal, a truly global scandal, continues, activists, citizens and journalists are recognizing the powerful remnants of this Cold War-era global deep state. The players in the scandal hop from country to country, some safe zones and some not. The Guardian is a British newspaper, and is now partnering with the New York Times, to keep the global intelligence services at bay. Cyberspace is a new and strange transnational front combining elements of war, trade, journalism, finance, activism, surveillance and applied government power.
Streit never achieved his goal of having a formal "Atlantic Union." But with an international "intelligence community," globalized supply chains, increasingly global free trade agreements that subordinate national court systems, and globalized private and central banks, all couched under the rubric of promoting "freedom," he has as much claim to being the true animating force behind what we're facing today as anyone else.
You see? These "revelations" about the surveillance state are now to be used to reappraise modern history. Turns out that globalists were after "one world" after all. A new narrative is being built in front of our disbelieving eyes. Of course, like everything else in this post-technological era, it is being built too quickly. They flee the hot breath of the Internet Reformation but in their haste they begin to undo what they've built so arduously in the past.
Does this have investment ramifications? Of course it does. Globalism is an organizing force of investing. Money Power will use this new openness to move even more quickly to create global stock exchanges and even international carbon marts if they can manage it.
The ultimate plan is to support every trading function on a single platform – stocks, bonds, futures, options, even derivatives, all moderated by one central bank and regulated by a single facility as well. That is still a long ways away but as this article shows, the top elites are becoming less reticent about explaining what's really going on.
You read it here. Again.
[This article goes far beyond the title, and delves deeply into potential scenarios that exist for Israel and the attacks that we know they will face. Additionally, one main point is abundantly clear: Only God can (and will) protect Israel from this massive attack which will occur.]
In a piercing, informative and opinionated article based on data, Dr. Nathan Faber criticized the Israeli missile-defense concept (the "tiered defense") this week. The conclusion ofDr. Faber's article, published in the Magen Laoref ("Homefront Shield") foundation's website, is that if Israel finds itself in an all-out war on several fronts facing enemies that are showering it with hundreds of missiles a day (perhaps over a thousand), this concept could crumble due financial, operational and technological reasons.
The tiered-defense concept is based on different types of defense missiles to intercept the different variations of enemy projectiles in a number of ranges and altitudes ("interception tiers"). According to Dr. Faber's article, the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic-missile system (that is still under development) is designed to intercept Iranian Shihab missiles (that have a range of 1,300 km.), at an altitude of 250-300 km., hundreds of kilometers away from Israel's borders (over Jordan). In the future, Arrow 3 missiles will also have to intercept Sejil missiles, that have a range of over 2,000 km.
In his article, based on unclassified sources, Faber calculated that in its next war, Israel could be threatened by some 800 ballistic missiles in Iran's possession, some 400 Syrian Scud missiles that are left in President Bashar Assad's possession (some of these missiles were used in the Syrian civil war), some 500-1,000 tactical missiles (Fateh and Fajr) that Hamas and Hezbollah possess, and more than 100 thousand artillery rockets that Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah possess.
In Dr. Faber's assessment, about a third of the missiles and rockets launched towards Israel will be intercepted by the Air Force, a third will not launch due to malfunction, and a third will be on its way to hit its target. According to Dr. Faber, this data is established among IDF experts and in the intelligence community.
Regarding Shihab and Scud missiles, Faber says "we are talking about an arsenal of 1,000-1,300 ballistic missiles of all types. Not all of them will be launched and not all of them will hit their target. A reasonable assessment is that Israel's security forces will have to take care of at least a third of them, meaning about 400 missiles."
On tactical missiles Faber writes: "Since these are very precise missiles, the great majority of them will hit their target, meaning the tiered-defense system will have to intercept the great majority of these missiles."
Regarding artillery rockets, the assessment is that just Hezbollah has 50-70 thousand rockets. When you add that to the Syrian rocket arsenal and Hamas's rockets, the number doubles. From that it appears the Iron Dome will have to deal with about 30 thousand rockets.
"How many interceptor rockets are needed to handle this massive threat?" Feber wonders. "To handle the ballistic threat, two interceptors are required to shoot down every ballistic missile. In addition to that, during a full military confrontation, Israel's security forces would undoubtedly make many mistakes, which means wasting interceptors. Therefore, for 400 ballistic missiles, Israel will need 800-1,000 interceptors.
Against artillery rockets Israel will need 60 thousand Iron Dome missiles, each costing $100,000, which means a total of $6 billion. This cost does not include deploying additional batteries (a few additional hundreds of thousands of dollars)."
In the operational category, Faber claims that "today, Israel is not protected from ballistic missiles and this protection's efficiency in the future is also in doubt."
Regarding Iron Dome, his assessment is that it has a 66% success rate, and perhaps even less, and not 85% as its developers Refael and Israel's security forces claim.
"The classic claim of the Iron Dome's supporters is: 'so what? 66% is better than zero. Any successful interception is pure gain because it saves human lives.' Really? Well, here's another point to think about: the Iron Dome does not save lives. What saves lives are the shelters and safe rooms that citizens escape to whenever there's a rocket attack."
[So what else is new? This whole ridiculous notion of "global warming" which defies all logic, all data and all facts is part of the globalist scheme to control business and impose draconian taxes. It has nothing to do with "global warming" - obviously]
There’s an old saying that when presenting a legal case, if the facts are on your side, “pound the facts,” but if the facts are against you, “pound the table.” The report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on September 27th is an obvious example of pounding the table.
The facts, which the IPCC’s report admits to, albeit with obvious reluctance and a good deal of obfuscation, show that humanity’s impact on global climate is too small to justify concern and is certainly no reason for the costly programs governments are imposing. Yet the IPCC persists in asserting the opposite. They state that they are more convinced than ever that global warming is caused mainly by our greenhouse gas emissions and that the world face catastrophe if we don’t radically change our ways. Even though the IPCC’s past forecasts have been spectacularly wrong
They haven’t. The IPCC’s theatrics are clearly an attempt to misdirect public, media, and government attention away from the scientific fact that climate change is overwhelmingly due to natural forces. People are emitting more carbon dioxide (CO2) than ever, from power plants, automobiles, and industrial activity, but the earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years.
None of the computer models the IPCC references predicted this. The world was warmer in the 13th century than now, yet CO2 levels then were far lower than today. Global ice cover—a big concern of alarmists predicting rapid sea level rise—hasn’t changed significantly since satellitemeasurements began in 1979, and Antarctic ice, which is eight times greater than Arctic ice, is not receding. Sea level rise has remained at roughly the same gradual rate for the past few centuries, and is now only 1/10th that of 8,000 years ago when large quantities of ice were melting. Extreme weather across the world has generally declined. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the U.S. is on pace for the fewest number of tornadoes in recorded history, while tropical cyclone activity (hurricanes in the North Atlantic) is near a thirty-year low.
Regardless, nobody, including the IPCC, knows what an ideal climate would be, or even whether there is such a thing. Attempting to stop climate change makes about as much sense as trying to halt the earth’s rotation: we can’t do it, and there’s no good reason to try.
Given the IPCC’s history of repeated and frequent mistakes, it’s perfectly clear that they are a political organization, not a scientific one. Its primary purpose is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for a UN-led transfer of resources from people in wealthy countries to those in poor nations, while keeping poor nations from ever becoming rich. The IPCC should be disbanded and non-governmental scientists encouraged to publicize their conclusions without censor or intimidation from the UN, academia and other alarmists.
That’s not likely to happen soon, however. Too many people are profiting from global warming alarmism, as governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year attempting to overcome nature. Compliant scientists gain access to vast amounts of research funding if they characterize Western nations as the cause of every bad weather event. Instead of admitting that they made one of the biggest mistakes in history, governments continue to prop up the IPCC and pretend it’s findings are meaningful.
Global cooling or public apathy will eventually dry up IPCC funding and the organization will finally disband. For that to happen any time soon, however, will require that taxpayers in the nations that actually pay for the UN demand the end of the IPCC. And while they’re at it, voters would do well to call for an end to all the other costly, unnecessary government boondoggles adopted in the name of global warming, such as expensive and environmentally harmful renewable power mandates.
Toward that end, the public and the press clearly need a reliable source of climate science information, one not controlled by the UN or any government. Fortunately, there is one—the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Several days before the IPCC report was released, the NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists. The scientists firmly conclude nature, not man, controls the climate. It’s available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/.
With the release of the CCR-II report, we can only hope that the pounding you’ll soon be hearing are the nails going into the IPCC’s coffin.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar