I think PNAC is a bit of a smokescreen...

by **thumper** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:45 pm

By that, I don't mean it's full of lies, but I think the fact that it was published by the Globalists out in the open, just like Mein Kampf, has an underlying purpose that's not immediately obvious. I think that while understanding 9/11 was an inside job is essential as a primer to understanding this conspiracy, we have yet to peel back another layer of the onion. PNAC claims that their goal is for an American Empire, in light of dwindling resources (oil). It's demands are so arrogant and outrageous as to stir the ire of everyone else, especially those who believe we are facing an American World Order, but of course this is not the case. I'm reminded of the Austro-Hungarian empire pushing an ultimatum on Serbia which was designed to be harsh, and to be rejected, thus giving a pretext for war. And so it is with PNAC. It's designers are masters at creating reality, and in this repeat of history, they have designated the Anglo-American alliance as the new Nazis, with the benevolent rival 'Allies' yet to be determined. We have to remember that with the Hegelian Dialectic, it's about offering two false choices or camps that mutually destroy eachother, and then offering a third alternative, "New World Order." The ironic thing is that the very phrase was even uttered by Hitler, but now it is being used liberally by the Neo-Cons, and even fundamentalist Muslims. In this way, they are being used to show us how 'dangerous' nationalism and religion is to peace and stability. And so it's only through crushing national, religious, ethnic, and familial identity can they establish their global governance. If we can be convinced that individualism/sovereignty is what causes war, then we are that much closer to accepting their rule. The NWO needs the leverage of moral righteousness, just like Communism tried to do, in order for the people to acquiesce to it. And so while it's a bit hard to comprehend for the uninitiated, I think we have to stop demonizing the US so much and giving people the false perception that it's the US that's running the global agenda, but rather attack the root which funds both sides.

by * » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:50 pm

I can't deny that I've had similar thoughts myself, particularly when one considers NATO's crushing of Yugoslavia after she rejected the New-Market-Order. Iraq has too many similarities for comfort (divide and conquer doncha know?) and the PNAC thingy allows for simultaneous demonization of the US and Israel. I am in no way saying the US and Israel are not playing their respective roles to the hilt, it's just when you factor-in the US-French-Canada alliance to oust Aristide and the unwillingness of any other country to actually confront/condemn the US in any meaningful way....

by * » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:14 pm

why, what a creepy coincidence.........   NATO members help U.S. in its Iraq effort By Warren Hoge The New York Times WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 UNITED NATIONS, New York European countries have overcome their past differences with the United States over Iraq and all 26 NATO members are now providing training and equipment to Baghdad, according to the alliance's secretary general. The official, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a former Dutch foreign minister who backed the Bush administration's war while many Europeans opposed it, said Tuesday that he was about to raise the NATO flag over a huge complex in Baghdad that had prepared 1,000 Iraqi officers inside the country and 500 more outside. He said that NATO had also arranged for Iraqi troops to be trained in Germany, Italy and Norway. In addition, he said that shipments of equipment were being flown from East European countries that use Russian-built weapons that were compatible with the Iraqis' Soviet-era matériel. As an example, he said that Hungary had just donated 70 large T-72 Soviet tanks. He complained that most European countries still invested too little in defense and said that he was devoting himself to "pubic diplomacy" to try to persuade allies of the importance to European security of actions taken by NATO far afield from Europe. "If I had to defend defense spending - be it in a national government or as NATO secretary general - people must realize that they are living in a different world where the challenges we are facing are ones we have to go far away to confront them at the source," he said. "An operation which costs a lot of money in Afghanistan plays its role in the fight against terrorism," he added, "because if that country were to slide back into the black hole again that it was under the Taliban, the problems arising from not engaging it would end up on our doorstep." NATO has 12,400 troops in Afghanistan, and it is about to take over an American command in the south next spring to be operated by British, Canadians and Dutch forces. The United States has urged NATO to consider taking on counterinsurgency missions in Afghanistan in addition to its peacekeeping and reconstruction duties, but Britain, France, Germany and others objected to the idea at a meeting of defense ministers in Berlin last week. De Hoop Scheffer said that he had devised a command structure since the meeting that would permit European special forces already in Afghanistan to participate in counterterrorism missions without mixing them in with peacekeeping ones. "We can guarantee that where it is necessary the Taliban can be hunted, combat operations will continue and NATO can at the same time play its part," he said. He said that in his meetings at the United Nations he was stressing the need to stay alert to the continuing needs of Afghanistan. "The international community should not conclude that now that we have a president elected last year, we have a government, we have a Parliament, that the thing is done," he said. He said that such things as addressing the narcotics problem, building a judicial system and shaping the police could not be left to NATO and should be addressed by the United Nations, the Group of 8 industrialized nations, the European Union, nongovernmental organizations and major donor countries. "NATO is there to organize and project stability and security," he said, "but if NATO had to do that in a void because other international organizations turned their faces to other areas, we would not be in an ideal situation." <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/nato.php">link</a> PNAC was born the same year Zbigniew Brzezinski published The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. What better way to distract us from those with REAL power than to float the PNAC boat? Enquiring minds want to know!

by **proldic** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:18 pm

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! m-f'ers

by * » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:28 pm

"HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! m-f'ers" what does that mean?

by **thumper** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:35 pm

PNAC and Grand Chessboard are not hidden from view, so I think there's an element of misdirection in it. Bilberberg seems to be the most accurate forecaster so far.

by * » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:43 pm

But it is PNAC which take the eye OFF The Grand Chessboard and therefore off Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Commission, CFR et al.... where the REAL power dwells.

by **thumper** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:46 pm

So according to Grand Chessboard, why are we in the middle east exactly?

by **DrDebugDU** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:50 pm

PNAC is just a group of people working for the "Pax Americana" The most important group is probably the Bilderberg, because that's where all the forces intertwine. Then you have the Trilateral which is the Tri Continent task force for more regular meetings and the think tank for coordination. From there it splits into the CFR for USA and the RIAA for the UK and other local groups for even more regular coordination at their specific place. And Zbigniew Brzezinski who wrote The Grand Chessboard is just one of the members on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral. The thing which is missing is what is above the Bilderberg / Trilateral group. Because there is probably a subgroup connected to people lurking in the shadow above that 'open' group.

by **thumper** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:53 pm

Any group that tries to promulgate an 'American World Order' is controlled by the globalists, and designed to start war and to fail. I think my point may have gotten lost, but to reiterate, we have to remember that we're dealing with the Hegelian Dialectic here.

by * » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:54 pm

That would be control of resources and strategic military bases, eh?

by **thumper** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:57 pm

but Peak Oil is a hoax, remember?

by **DrDebugDU** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:59 pm

I think the American World Order is Plan A since it had the best chance of succeeding, however the American World Order isn't exclusively American, it is the globalists (bankers, corporations, royalty, BFEE etc.) who are pushing it. And it is not relevant whether the Pax Americana succeeds or fails. If it succeeds (which is becoming increasingly unlikely) then it's great. If it fails, then the UN will take over and people will call for a one world government to prevent another Pax Americana (problem-reaction-solution) and the NWO in Plan B will be established. So we are screwed either way <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **DrDebugDU** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:01 pm

Peak Oil is a hoax, but it will be very real. Remember the oil crises. It'll be pushed like a real event, because it's good for business.

by **anonymous** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:01 pm

"But it is PNAC which take the eye OFF The Grand Chessboard and therefore off Bilderberg, Tri-Lateral Commission, CFR et al.... where the REAL power dwells." --1 tal "So according to Grand Chessboard, why are we in the middle east exactly?" -- thumper If the groups above are white-racist-oriented and I can't remember which site I studied which mentioned that, perhaps we are in the middle east not so much to have oil for the West as to keep it out of the hands of the Chinese and Indians, whose industrial revolutions are just beginning.

I think PNAC is a bit of a smokescreen...

I think PNAC is a bit of a smokescreen...

Re: I think PNAC is a bit of a smokescreen...

here they go again

Um,

Re: Um,

.

Re: .

.

Actually they all interconnect

.

Re: .

.

Re: .

Re: .

.

Who is online