Putin and the New World Order

Vladimir Putin, as President of the Russian Federation, has received a great deal of international press since he was elected in 2000.

“Born in Saint Petersburg, Putin studied German at Saint Petersburg High School 281, and speaks the language fluently. He then studied law at the Saint Petersburg State University, graduating in 1975. Putin was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before retiring in 1991 to enter politics in Saint Petersburg. He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin’s administration, rising quickly through the ranks and becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999, when Yeltsin resigned. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election by a 53% to 30% margin, thus avoiding a runoff with his Communist Party opponent, Gennady Zyuganov. He was reelected President in 2004 with 72% of the vote.

Putin won the March 2012 presidential election with 64% of the vote, a result which aligned with pre-election polling.

Putin has enjoyed very high domestic approval ratings during his career, and received extensive international attention as one of the world’s most powerful leaders. In 2007, he was the Time Person of the Year. In 2015, he was #1 on the Time’s Most Influential People List. Forbes ranked him the world’s most powerful individual four times in a row from 2013 to 2016.

KGB career

In 1975, Putin joined the KGB, and trained at the 401st KGB school in Okhta, Leningrad. After training, he worked in the Second Chief Directorate (counter-intelligence), before he was transferred to the First Chief Directorate, where he monitored foreigners and consular officials in Leningrad. From 1985 to 1990, he served in Dresden, East Germany, using a cover identity as a translator. According to Putin’s official biography, during the fall of the Berlin Wall that began on 9 November 1989, he burned KGB files to prevent demonstrators from obtaining them.

After the collapse of the Communist East German government, Putin returned to Saint Petersburg, where in June 1991, he worked with the International Affairs section of Saint Petersburg State University, reporting to Vice-Rector Yuriy Molchanov. There, he looked for new KGB recruits, watched the student body, and renewed his friendship with his former professor, Anatoly Sobchak, the Mayor of Saint Petersburg. Putin resigned with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel on 20 August 1991, on the second day of 1991 Soviet coup d’état attempt against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

In 1999, Putin described communism as “a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization”.

The Jesuit Order and Communism

“The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) was formally and forever, disbanded by Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of Suppression and Extinction issued in 1773. It cost the Pope his life but saved the Devil’s Vatican Empire from a war with the enraged Roman Catholic monarchs of Europe. The Bull was effective in countries where the Roman Catholic Church and the Civil State were united. In countries where another religious institution was united with the State, the Bull would not be enforced. Such was the case with Prussia and Russia.

“Mother Russia” was governed by an absolute monarchy, headed by the Romanovs. The Romanov dynasty was the legal protector of the Russian Eastern Orthodox Church, which included the Orthodox “Pope” called the “Patriarch.” Church and State were united, as they
were all throughout Europe, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike. (The only exception to this rule in history would be the creation of these United Protestant States of America tempered with the anti-Jesuit, Baptist-Calvinist First Amendment.)

Catherine II “the Great” Romanov, Empress of Russia, 1762 – 1796

Since Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of Suppression would not be enforced in Russia, the Jesuits sought and received admittance and protection there. In spite of the fact that Peter the Great had expelled the Jesuits during his reign in 1723, Catherine the Great (who in 1762, with her paramour, Grigory Grigoryevich Orlov, had murdered her husband, Tzar Peter III) freely re-admitted them in 1773. This selfish move would prove to be the end of the Romanov Dynasty within one hundred and forty-five years.

Catherine believed the Order would protect her throne since she had murdered her husband to acquire it. She was German and a Lutheran, as well as a “whore” according to her son, Tzar Paul I; but as the Empress of Russia she was the protector of the Orthodox Church. Little did she know the secret designs of the Order as it deeply penetrated the Orthodox priesthood and acquired such political power that Tzar Alexander I would expel it after the Congress of Vienna, in 1820.

We must remember that the Pope, in command of the Western Roman Catholic Church Empire headed in Rome, was the rival of the Patriarch in command of the Eastern Orthodox Church Empire headed in Constantinople (the Second Rome) and Orthodox Moscow (the Third Rome). The policy of the Popes of the Dark Ages, since the religious division between East and West led by Michael Cerularius in 1054, was to conquer these two key cities of Orthodox religious power and restore the Pope’s Temporal tyranny, centralizing all Spiritual and Temporal power in the Pope of Rome.

By the mid-Nineteenth Century, the Jesuits, via Grand Orient, Islamic-Shriner Freemasonry, would be in complete control of Islam. Turkey, later aided by Jesuit-controlled monarchs, Protestant Queen Victoria and Roman Catholic Napoleon III, ignited the Order’s war against Alexander II’s anti-Jesuit Orthodox Russia, known as the Crimean War of 1853-56. It was obvious: “the Third Rome” was now under Papal attack.

In 1904 the Jesuit Order used its Japanese Emperor Meiji to launch the Russo-Japanese War via a sneak attack, partially destroying the Tzar’s navy built by the American John Paul Jones. (Could that have been the Judgment of God for the Russian blockade of Southern American ports during the War Between the States, cutting off essential medicines, contrary to the law of war, thereby intending to make every wound mortal?)

Orthodox Moscow fell in 1917 and the Church’s anti-Papal leadership was purged by the Order’s bloody Jacobin/Bolsheviks. Hence Moscow, like Constantinople, through the Pope’s religions of Communism and Islam, was now completely in the hands of the Sons of Loyola. Yet the fall of “the Third Rome” may well have been delayed had not the wicked Catherine II “the Great” re-admitted the Society into Russia, thereby providing the impetus of the Jesuit conspiracy within the Orthodox Church to secretly aid the Order’s conspiracy of the October Revolution.

The Jesuits are the true authors of socialist-communism. The economic system of the Dark Ages was feudalism consisting of the few rich landowners and the many poor peasants. It
was “a sin” to make a profit by anyone other than the feudal lords. Thus, if the world is to be returned to the Dark Ages, the White Protestant Middle Class must be destroyed.

Socialist-Communism accomplishes this, which system includes the progressive income tax (wickedly taxing the common-law right to labor exercised by all wage- earners), having yielded its bitter fruit in both Great Britain and the United States.

Vladimir Lenin, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Soviet Union 1922 – 1924

The great deception is that the Jews are the authors of communism. (After all, is not Labor Zionism, as opposed to Revisionist Zionism, Jewish communism?) The facts are that the Jesuits used their Masonic Jews to introduce it in 1848 with the Second French Revolution (Marx), and again in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution (Lenin). Several years later, in 1933, the Order, in the person of Georgetown University Jesuit Edmund A. Walsh, then moved their 33rd Degree and Shriner Freemason, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), to recognize Russia’s bloody government. The Society then financed Russian communism with its Knights of Malta on Wall Street. This enabled Jesuit-trained and advised Josef Stalin, “the Grand Inquisitor,” to carry out the Great Terrorist Purges of the Thirties.

Having deceived the world into believing communism was of Jewish origin, the Jesuits then used Hitler to implement “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question” pursuant to the evil Council of Trent. The result was the mass-murder of European and Russian Jewry at the hands of the Order’s Teutonic Knights, the Nazi “Schutzstaffel” (SS).

Rothschild Red Shield

Masonic Jews always play “a subordinate though conspicuous role” when used by the Jesuit General. Such was the case of the birth of the Illuminati with Rothschild (1776), the financing of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars with Rothschild (1789-1815), the creation of modern Communism with Marx (1848), the first head of the Federal Reserve Bank with Paul M. Warburg (1913) and later, Alan Greenspan (2006), the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) via the Bolshevik Revolution with Trotsky and Lenin (1917), the financing and building of the USSR with Jacob H. Schiff and Armand Hammer (1920-1980), AIG’s Maurice Greenberg (2006), the Jewish Holocaust of Europe with Rudolf Kastner (1939-1945), the birth of Labor Zionist Israel with Theodor Herzl (1948), the cover-up of the Masonic Kennedy Assassination with the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter and his “single bullet theory” (1964) and the continual high treason against the people of the American Empire by Henry A. Kissinger, now an advisor to Pope Benedict XVI and whom the Greek Cypriots, as a result of the CIA-induced invasion, murder, rape and plunder of Orthodox Cyprus by Moslem Turkey, have surnamed “Henry Killinger,” (1972 to the Present (2007)).

These are high-level Masonic Jews who adhere to the evil Babylonian Talmud of Judaism—the twin sister of the evil Council of Trent of Jesuitism—and have betrayed their own Jewish Race contributing to the atrocities committed by the Jesuit Order including the Jewish Holocaust. These same Masonic (racially) Jewish Labor Zionists with their secret brethren, the Masonic (religiously) Jewish Talmudic Rabbinical leaders, will one day betray “the holy people” by making Jerusalem an international city and by entering into a treaty with the Papal Caesar.

For if the pre-Talmudic Jewish leaders had “no king but Caesar” when part of the Roman Empire, why should we be surprised to see these same men serving the Papal Caesar of our day?”(8)

Putin’s Political career

Saint Petersburg administration (1990–1996)

In May 1990, Putin was appointed as an advisor on international affairs to Mayor Sobchak. On 28 June 1991, he became head of the Committee for External Relations of the Saint Petersburg Mayor’s Office, with responsibility for promoting international relations and foreign investments and registering business ventures.

From 1994 to 1996, he held several other political and governmental positions in Saint Petersburg. In March 1994, Putin was appointed as First Deputy Chairman of the Government of Saint Petersburg. In May 1995, he organized the Saint Petersburg branch of the pro-government Our Home Is Russia political party, the liberal party of power founded by Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.

Early Moscow career (1996–1999)

In 1996, Sobchak lost his bid for reelection in Saint Petersburg. Putin was called to Moscow and in June 1996 became a Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Department (other languages) headed by Pavel Borodin.

On 27 June 1997, at the Saint Petersburg Mining Institute, guided by rector Vladimir Litvinenko, Putin defended his Candidate of Science dissertation in economics, titled “The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations”. This exemplified the custom in Russia for a rising young official to write a scholarly work in mid-career.

On 25 May 1998, Putin was appointed First Deputy Chief of Presidential Staff for regions, replacing Viktoriya Mitina; and, on 15 July, was appointed Head of the Commission for the preparation of agreements on the delimitation of power of regions and the federal center attached to the President, replacing Sergey Shakhray.

Putin as FSB director, 1 January 1998

On 25 July 1998, Yeltsin appointed Putin as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence and security organization of the Russian Federation and successor of the KGB. He held that position until 9 August 1999.

First premiership (1999)

On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin. Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor. Still later on that same day, Putin agreed to run for the presidency.

Putin’s law-and-order image and his unrelenting approach to the Second Chechen War, soon combined to raise Putin’s popularity and allowed him to overtake all rivals.

Acting presidency (1999–2000)

On 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation.

While his opponents had been preparing for an election in June 2000, Yeltsin’s resignation resulted in the Presidential elections being held within three months, on 26 March 2000; Putin won in the first round with 53% of the vote.

First presidential term (2000–2004)

Putin taking presidential oath beside Boris Yeltsin, May 2000

The inauguration of President Putin occurred on 7 May 2000. Putin appointed the Minister of Finance, Mikhail Kasyanov, as the Prime Minister.

Between 2000 and 2004, Putin set about reconstruction of the impoverished condition of the country, apparently winning a power-struggle with the Russian oligarchs, reaching a ‘grand-bargain’ with them. This bargain allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of their powers, in exchange for their explicit support for—and alignment with—Putin’s government.

In 2003, a referendum was held in Chechnya, adopting a new constitution which declares that the Republic of Chechnya is a part of Russia; on the other hand, the region did acquire autonomy. Chechnya has been gradually stabilized with the establishment of the Parliamentary elections and a Regional Government. Throughout the Second Chechen War, Russia severely disabled the Chechen rebel movement; however, sporadic attacks by rebels continued to occur throughout the northern Caucasus.

Second presidential term (2004–2008)

On 14 March 2004, Putin was elected to the presidency for a second term, receiving 71% of the vote.

The Beslan school hostage crisis took place in September 2004, in which hundreds died. Many in the Russian press and in the international media warned that the death of 130 hostages in the special forces’ rescue operation during the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis would severely damage President Putin’s popularity. However, shortly after the siege had ended, the Russian president enjoyed record public approval ratings – 83% of Russians declared themselves satisfied with Putin and his handling of the siege.

The near 10 year period prior to the rise of Putin after the dissolution of Soviet rule was a time of upheaval in Russia. In a 2005 Kremlin speech, Putin characterized the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the Twentieth Century.” Putin elaborated “Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.”  The country’s cradle-to-grave social safety net was gone and life expectancy declined in the period preceding Putin’s rule. In 2005, the National Priority Projects were launched to improve Russia’s health care, education, housing and agriculture.

Second premiership (2008–2012)

Putin with Dmitry Medvedev, March 2008

Putin was barred from a third term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. In a power-switching operation on 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance.

Putin has said that overcoming the consequences of the world economic crisis was one of the two main achievements of his second Premiership. The other was the stabilizing the size of Russia’s population between 2008–2011 following a long period of demographic collapse that began in the 1990s.

Third presidential term (2012–present)

Anti-Putin protesters march in Moscow, 4 February 2012

On 4 March 2012, Putin won the 2012 Russian presidential elections in the first round, with 63.6% of the vote, despite widespread accusations of vote-rigging. Anti-Putin protests took place during and directly after the presidential campaign. A counter-protest of Putin supporters occurred which culminated into a gathering of an estimated 130,000 supporters at the Luzhniki Stadium, Russia’s largest stadium.”(1)

The Syrian Conflict

Assad greeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, 21 October 2015

During his current administration, Putin has been consistently covered by international news organizations since he actively engaged the Russian military in the Syrian conflict. At Syrian president Bashar Assad’s request, the Russian air force has supported the Syrian military and it’s allies in countering the attempted overthrow of the Syrian government.

The Ukrainian Coup

“According to the United Nations, by early September (2014) , more than 3,000 people had been killed in the ongoing Ukranian conflict. The real numbers are probably even higher as the coup generated civil war — fueled by the Russian government on one side and Western powers on the other — continues to claim more victims. The shoot-down of MH17 served to further inflame those geopolitical tensions.

Putin greets local residents during a visit to the Crimean city of Sevastopol on 9 May 2014, after the Russian annexation

In Moscow, Vladimir Putin blames the West for the carnage, while many in the West blame Putin, seeing him as a communist thug. Other Westerners, horrified by the actions of their own out-of-control political leadership, have started to view Putin and his regime as an obstacle to the machinations of the U.S. and European Union governments — perhaps not a force for good, but at least no worse than establishment insiders in the West. Even in the American “Liberty Movement,” Putin has been winning friends among those who view him as a roadblock to globalism.

In Brussels and Washington, D.C., meanwhile, President Obama and various European leaders point to the Kremlin as the real culprit behind the bloodshed in Ukraine. Indeed, many neoconservatives and establishment Democrats imagine that Putin threatens freedom in the West. The saber rattling over Ukraine, coming not long after similar barb trading between Putin and Obama surrounding the war in Syria, has only added fuel to the fire.

But what if everything is not quite as it seems? What if — despite the “East vs. West” and “New Cold War” hysteria whipped up by politicians and the mainstream media — both sides are actually working toward the same goals using largely the same means? Sounds impossible, right? The evidence, however, suggests it is not only possible — it is exactly what is happening.”(2)

“Regional” Approach to World Order

“Despite the saber rattling, globalists on both sides of the East-West divide refer to their goal as the creation of a “New World Order.” This “order” they speak of, as we shall show, represents, essentially, a global system of political and economic control over humanity. And Putin, a former KGB boss, is following precisely the strategies toward world order outlined openly by the same Western establishment he purportedly stands as a bulwark against. He often refers to his vision as the imposition of a new, “multi-polar” world order. But a growing amount of evidence shows that it is exactly the same order sought by globalist Western powerbrokers.

One of the keys to understanding Putin’s crucial role in imposing the “New World Order” on humanity is a grasp of how its proponents plan to build it. Rather than aiming to foist a full-blown totalitarian global government on the world all at once, top globalists around the world have outlined a different strategy. In essence, the plot aims to divide the planet’s people and nations into massive “regions” ruled by supranational institutions — such as the European Union, which is now responsible for the bulk of European laws — virtually free of public control or oversight. The outline of that plan is now in full public view.

Indeed, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — one of the most visible and outspoken globalist “New World Order” schemers — has explained the strategy openly on numerous occasions. Most recently, writing in the Wall Street Journal on August 29, Kissinger, using opaque and rather unexciting writing, explained how the process should work. “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another,” he explained in the op-ed, headlined “Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor, Carter Administration

But the strategy is nothing new. In 1995, fellow globalist and ex-National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of David Rockefeller’s infamous Trilateral Commission, outlined essentially the same plan. “We do not have a New World Order…. We cannot leap into world government in one quick step,” he said in 1995 at the “State of the World Forum,” convened by former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev and backed by the Rockefellers and other establishment forces in the West. “In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, 1st President of the Soviet Union, 15 March 1990 – 25 December 1991

Among the most obvious examples highlighting the trend is the European Union, which is further along than any other regional regime in crushing national sovereignty and ruling over diverse nations by bureaucratic decree. Former Soviet dictator Gorbachev, an outspoken proponent of the “New World Order,” approvingly referred to the Brussels-based super-state as “the new European Soviet” — under communism, of course, a “Soviet” was a governmental council used to control the people and prevent counterrevolution. Gorbachev was correct in more ways than one.

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus

While the Sovietesque EU serves as a model for other areas of the world, it is hardly alone. Closer to home in North America, top globalists such as former general and CIA chief David Petraeus, a member of the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations and the shadowy Bilderberg group, openly acknowledged what comes next earlier this year. “After America comes North America,” Petraeus said confidently in answering the question about what comes after the United States, the theme of a panel discussion he participated in. “Are we on the threshold of the North American decade, question mark? I threw that away — threw away the question mark — and boldly proclaimed the coming North American decade, says the title now.” As in Europe, the foundation of it all was a misnamed “free trade” agreement.

Regional New World Order

“Published in Philadelphia in early 1942, below is the ‘Outline of (the) Post-War New World Map’, created by Maurice Gomberg, which shows a proposal to re-arrange the world after an Allied victory against the Axis forces. Its title refers to a ‘New World Order’, a vague concept, its many definitions often contradicting each other. At the core of the NWO, however, is always the notion that a small group of powerful individuals, institutions, industries and/or nations must lead the world in the right direction (i.e. towards ‘unification’). This may be against the world’s own will (and therefore done covertly, at least in some versions of the NWO-story), but ultimately it is for its own good.”(4)

“The map below, is another copy of the map above which was discovered by Helen Somers in a window in Philadelphia during World War II. It was completed in October 1941, before Pearl Harbor, was printed in bright colors by a cartographer named Maurice Gomberg in Philadelphia in 1942, and was displayed in his store window. Helen Somers immediately recognized the significance of the map and purchased several. At least a few original copies are still in existence, including one in the Library of Congress in Washington, DC.”(5)

“As of May 2014, the 193 UN member states are divided into five regional groups:

Below is a map of the groupings:

 

Putin’s Eurasian Union

The signing ceremony of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 29 May 2014)

Putin’s saber rattling over Ukraine is providing a rationale for continued Western integration — via the EU, NATO, and the “transatlantic partnership” — to counter the Russian bear. But in addition, Putin is also pursuing a “New World Order” via the regionalization approach. Chief among the schemes, for now at least, is the “Eurasian Union,” which brings together the regimes ruling Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Eventually, Putin and his counterparts hope to expand the union to include other former Soviet regimes in the region, particularly members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In late May, the three strongmen signed what Putin described as a “historic” treaty ushering in the “Eurasian Economic Union.”

Many analysts see the developments as the ongoing re-emergence of the Soviet Union. In a 2011 piece by Putin about the scheming published by Izvestia, headlined “A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in the making,” the former KGB boss denied that his emerging regional union represented a rebirth of the USSR. However, his words revealed an almost total adherence to the publicly announced Western globalist strategy for building the New World Order — using progressive regionalization of power on the road to true global government while manufacturing and exploiting crises along the way.

“It took Europe 40 years to move from the European Coal and Steel Community to the full European Union,” Putin observed in the Izvestia op-ed, now published on the website of the Kremlin’s diplomatic mission to the EU. “The establishment of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space is proceeding at a much faster pace because we could draw on the experience of the EU and other regional associations.” Indeed, even the harmonized Eurasian regulatory regime being imposed via the regional scheme is “in most cases consistent with European standards,” he added. Soon, it may be compatible with regulations in “North America,” too, as the EU-North America “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” moves along.

As for Putin and company’s broader vision, again, it may as well have been spelled out by Kissinger in one of his “New World Order” op-eds. Putin wrote: “We suggest a powerful supranational association capable of becoming one of the poles in the modern world and serving as an efficient bridge between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. Alongside other key players and regional structures, such as the European Union, the United States, China and APEC, the Eurasian Union will help ensure global sustainable development.” Sustainable development, of course, represents the pinnacle of the Western globalist vision for its new order — centralized, global control over every facet of human life.

Emblem of the Eurasian Economic Union

Putin also explained that his regional regime would be “based on WTO principles,” referring to the globalist World Trade Organization. Like the other regional building “blocs” of the New World Order, it will pursue the same goals. “The Eurasian Union will be based on universal integration principles as an essential part of Greater Europe united by shared values of freedom, democracy, and market laws,” he explained.

Eventually, as part of the globalist strategy, the quest for world order will have to “relate these regional orders to one another,” as Kissinger recently put it. Again, Putin follows the line. “Russia and the EU agreed to form a common economic space and coordinate economic regulations without the establishment of supranational structures back in 2003,” he wrote. “In line with this idea, we proposed setting up a harmonized community of economies stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, a free trade zone and even employing more sophisticated integration patterns. We also proposed pursuing coordinated policies in industry, technology, the energy sector, education, science, and also to eventually scrap visas. These proposals have not been left hanging in midair; our European colleagues are discussing them in detail.”

Integration with the EU is on the agenda, too, though it may have to wait for Ukraine to settle down. “Soon the Customs Union, and later the Eurasian Union, will join the dialogue with the EU,” Putin said. “As a result, apart from bringing direct economic benefits, accession to the Eurasian Union will also help countries integrate into Europe sooner and from a stronger position…. In addition, a partnership between the Eurasian Union and EU that is economically consistent and balanced will prompt changes in the geo-political and geo-economic setup of the continent as a whole with a guaranteed global effect.”

Ultimately, as Putin makes clear, the whole world will be involved. “We believe that a solution might be found in devising common approaches from the bottom up, first within the existing regional institutions, such as the EU, NAFTA, APEC, ASEAN inter alia, before reaching an agreement in a dialogue between them,” he wrote. “These are the integration bricks that can be used to build a more sustainable global economy.”

Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, 2009 – 2014

Of course, Putin is hardly the only glob­alist pursuing that vision. Senior members of the Western establishment have been openly promoting the exact same strategy. In late 2012, for example, top EU and Russian leaders, including Putin, met in Brussels for the 30th EU-Russia Summit. “By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G8 and G20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues,” explained European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, who met with Kissinger and other top globalists at the Bilderberg summit shortly before being appointed to his post as “president” of Europe. “I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G20.”

Putin Visits Latin American Countries to Push New World Order

Putin has been pursuing the “regionalization” approach to the new world order not only in Eurasia but on the other side of the Atlantic, where he is rekindling old Soviet-era alliances with the most virulent anti-American regimes in America’s so-called backyard.

Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2012

In July, for example, both Putin and Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, an extremely close ally of the Kremlin, visited Latin America to push what they described as a new “international order.” In addition to boosting relations between their regimes and the region’s totalitarian-minded rulers, Putin and Xi signed huge deals with their counterparts in the Western Hemisphere on everything from trade and economic cooperation to military issues and espionage. More than a few analysts pointed out that the official Sino-Russo trips illustrated the fast-shifting geopolitical scene, with the world being shepherded in controlled fashion toward the new, “multi-polar” world order — featuring a neutered United States, strong regional groupings, and more unaccountable regional and global “governance.”

From the start, Putin emphasized that  regionalization was among the major purposes of his trip. “We are interested in [a] strong, economically stable and politically independent, united Latin America that is becoming an important part of the emerging polycentric world order,” he said. The ex-KGB boss also touted multiple integration schemes as partners in his efforts — especially the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which includes all governments in the Americas except the United States and Canada.

Official 2016 CELAC Summit portrait in Quito, Ecuador

“It is vital that all these associations, as they develop their external relations, should work towards the unity of Latin American countries … both politically and ideologically,” Putin said. “We hope that consolidation of multilateral cooperation will be an additional factor in the successful development of our bilateral relations with Latin American partners.” Similar trends are taking place around the world, the Russian ruler observed, saying, “Integration processes in Latin America reflect to a large extent the worldwide regional integration tendencies and indicate the pursuit of political consolidation in the region and reinforcement of its influence on global affairs.”

Chinese Communist ruler Xi, whose regime now regularly calls for a “New World Order,” and Putin unveiled a new-world “development bank” run by the socialist- and communist-minded BRICS regimes — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — when the two autocratic rulers met in Brazil in mid-July. Discussions on the international banking outfit, supposedly designed to serve as a “counterweight” to Western-dominated institutions, have been ongoing for years. At this year’s annual BRICS meeting, the five regimes finally signed the deal to put it all together.

The BRICS leaders in 2016. Left to right: Temer, Modi, Xi, Putin and Zuma

More than a few analysts have wildly misdiagnosed what the latest developments mean, claiming that the new BRICS bank somehow represents a “challenge” to the Western establishment’s vision for what it calls a “New World Order.” In reality, though, most of the BRICS regimes and their allies have strong backing from the U.S. and European political class. And they are all pushing virtually the same nightmarish plot for a “New World Order” — at least if their own public declarations and statements are to be believed.

In June, Beijing and over 130 other national governments at the G77 signed a declaration calling for a “New World Order to Live Well.” It is, of course, the same order pushed by Obama, Kissinger, Brzezinski, and others. Billionaire glob­alist and Rothschild dynasty protégé George Soros, another key player in the emerging global order, has previously called for Beijing, one of Putin’s closest allies, to “own” the “New World Order.”

Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, 2007 – 2016

UN boss Ban Ki-moon was even at the Bolivia summit to celebrate the “New World Order” being pushed by the Third World regimes. He praised the ruthless governments assembled there, calling on them to keep agitating for autocratic “sustainable development” and “solutions” to “climate change,” a key pillar of the “global governance” schemes aimed at shackling humanity. “All countries need to act on these priorities — individually and collectively,” Ban told attendees, claiming the “fate of billions” depended on the success of their efforts. “That is how I understand the theme of this summit — a New World Order for Living Well.” As the largest bloc of governments in the UN, he added, they have a “key role” to play in advancing the global outfit’s goals.

Putin and the “Globalization” Strategy on World Order

The other key element of globalist strategy, also outlined in the recent Wall Street Journal piece written by Kissinger in late August, involves the imposition of what he described as a “structure of international rules and norms” that “must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.” In other words, alongside the “regionalization” approach to global governance, truly global structures must be built in tandem to eventually run the emerging “New World Order” as the regional blocs become integrated.

G20 members (blue) and invited states (pink) as of 2016

A crucial component of the globalist New World Order is the eventual creation of truly global monetary and financial governance. On both fronts, Putin has helped lead the charge. In 2009, the Kremlin even published a statement outlining its priorities ahead of the G20 summit, demanding the creation of a “supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system.” The IMF, the Kremlin statement said, should consider using its proto-global currency known as “Special Drawing Rights,” or SDRs, as a “super-reserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community.” The basket of national currencies undergirding the SDR would be expanded, too.

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France, 2007 – 2012

Then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said at the same forum that world powers “should think together about a new international currency system” at the upcoming G20 summit. He also said the world’s financial system was “outdated” and should be replaced. “We all need to think about the foundations for a new international financial system,” Sarkozy urged. “We’ve been based on the Bretton Woods institutions of 1945, when our American friends were the only superpower. My question is: Are we still in 1945? The answer here is, ‘no.’”

What about American globalists? They are fully on board, too. Former Fed boss and then-chairman of Obama’s “Economic Recovery Advisory Board” Paul Volcker, for example, has long been a strong proponent of a global fiat currency and a global central bank. He is widely reported to have said, “A global economy needs a global currency.” And he has repeatedly called for such a system, hoping to see it emerge during his lifetime.

Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People’s Bank of China, 2002

In China, George Soros’ proposed leader of the world order, the “people’s” central-bank boss Zhou Xiaochuan has also frequently called for a new reserve currency — in addition to frequent calls by the communist regime in Beijing for a “de-Americanized” New World Order. In a 2009 report published on the central bank’s website entitled “Reform the International Monetary System,” Xiaochuan explained that “the desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.”

When asked about the Communist Chinese regime’s idea at a Council on Foreign Relations event, Obama’s tax-dodging U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy “TurboTax” Geithner, a regular proponent of global regulation and an important glob­alist, after acknowledging that he had not read it yet, said, “We’re actually quite open to that.”

What would a global currency mean for Americans? For starters, it would necessarily require the loss of the U.S. dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. That means a dramatic devaluation of Americans’ currency, with all that implies — surging prices for imports on which America is now totally dependent, for example. Right now, America’s central bank, the privately owned Federal Reserve, helps the U.S. government finance its wars, armies of bureaucrats, loyalty-purchasing welfare, and other schemes by printing debt-based currency.

If a global central bank were able to do something similar, which is exactly what globalists such as Putin and his Western counterparts are pushing, the emerging global government would likewise be able to finance its own armies, police, courts, bureaucrats, and more. All it would require is simply printing “liquidity,” secretly confiscating humanity’s wealth via inflation of the currency supply. Besides funding government bureaucracy, the new financial leaders would literally be able to determine which businesses and countries would flourish and which would fail — as did the Federal Reserve in the United States when it bailed out some too-big-to-fail entities while ensuring others went bankrupt in 2008.

Putin is also helping to globalize the financial regulatory regime. In early 2013, when Putin assumed the presidency of the G20, he had nothing but praise for the suspiciously named “Financial Stability Board” (FSB) — not to be confused with the other FSB, the successor to the Soviet KGB that Putin came from originally. The new FSB, supposedly hatched by G20 governments and dictatorships, is meant to serve as the global financial police. It will be housed, of course, at the shadowy Bank for International Settlements (BIS), another key globalist institution.

Outlining the globalist machinations in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, the late Georgetown University professor and Bill Clinton mentor Carroll Quigley, a devoted globalist, wrote: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”

Putin Loves Global “Governance,” Too

More broadly, on the UN, which is set to serve as the nucleus of “global governance,” Putin, again, is fully on board with the globalist agenda. Consider, as just one example among many, the former KGB chief’s posturing amid the recent brouhaha over Syria. “The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus,” Putin wrote in the New York Times as Obama and the United States were being made to look like rogue warmongers and imbeciles, as contrasted with the “responsible” Russian statesman (who never mentioned the massive Soviet role in creating the UN to begin with). “The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.”

“We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law,” Putin continued. “The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter.”

UN General Assembly

Before singing the UN’s praises in the Times op-ed, Putin and his fellow BRICS rulers signed a declaration openly calling for global governance under the UN, a world currency, and more. “The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance,” the 2013 BRICS declaration stated. “We underscore our commitment to work together in the UN to continue our cooperation and strengthen multilateral approaches in international relations based on the rule of law and anchored in the Charter of the United Nations.” Everything from terror and “global warming” to “human rights” enforcement ought to be dealt with by the UN, they said.

Putin’s unabashed support for the entire architecture of global governance should hardly be surprising. Indeed, long before Putin came on the scene, the Soviet regime he served played a key role in creating the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and more after World War II. Even many of the most important supposed American architects of the global system — Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, for instance — were later exposed as agents of the Kremlin.

Admittedly, despite all of the evidence, it may still seem preposterous to some that the supposedly adversarial and competing political and economic blocs on both sides of the East-West divide could someday be merged into one to form a genuine world government. But what may not be realistically achievable today could become very realistic in the not-too-distant future, should the current frigid relationship between Russia and the West thaw. Western relations with Russia have changed in the past, when Russia has been alternatively viewed as an enemy (during the Cold War) and as a friend (during détente and glasnost, after the apparent collapse of Russian communism, and even during the post-9/11 “war on terror”).

Of course, the fact that Putin is a key player on the road to world order does not mean there are no genuine disagreements between the Kremlin and the Western establishment. It also does not mean that Putin is indispensable — countless globalist minions have been eliminated by the establishment after outliving their usefulness.

Finally, Putin’s globalist and establishment credentials hardly preclude the orchestration of a real war between “East” and “West” at some point, particularly if America cannot be induced to surrender its sovereignty to a global regime. Indeed, more than a few analysts have suggested that another World War between the two sides may be in the cards as a way of accelerating the move toward global government.

In 1962, globalist Lincoln P. Bloomfield with the Institute for Defense Analyses prepared a report for the U.S. State Department entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” In it, he explained how competition or even wars between regional super-regimes could dramatically accelerate the quest for global government.

“A ‘normal’ historical process, in which ever-larger units evolve through customs unions, confederation, regionalism, etc., until ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella, could take up to two hundred years, on past performance figures, and even this may be optimistic,” wrote Bloomfield. “I have suggested that an alternative road may bypass the main path of history, short-circuiting the organic stages of consensus, value formation, and the experiences of common enterprise generally believed to underlie political community.”

The plan, he said, “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose.” Using such plotting, the “order” could “be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks,” Bloomfield explained. “Thus a hypothetical model can be constructed, fulfilling the characteristics of ‘a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.’ … We concluded that in theory it could come about in the short, medium, or long run by a brink of war — or a war — combined with the development of evolutionary trends that might favor it as the time span stretches out.”

Unless the American people, and people of other nations, become educated and organized, the New World Order will march on, leaving even more misery and death in its wake.”(2)

Putin and Trump

The present tensions between the US and Russia may be distracting us from a potential convergence between the two mighty powers – and not the good kind, either.

“Imagine a world in which the old left-right divide and the east-west conflict of the cold war era were practically irrelevant. The conflict of consequence would be between traditionalists and pluralists, between internationalists and nativists, between autocracy and liberalism.

In it, Trump and Putin, for all their differences, would be on the same side.

Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin, Moscow State University (2008–2014)

Meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa’s evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin’s Rasputin. His books and posts – often, it must be said impenetrable or plain madcap – are required reading for those who seek to understand the new landscape of Brexit, Donald Trump’s victory and the global surge of the far right.

Dugin is a ferocious champion of Russian imperialism, or what he calls Eurasianism. He supports tradition against liberalism, autocracy against democratic institutions, stern uniformity against Enlightenment pluralism. In The Fourth Political Theory (2009), he claims all this adds up to a new and coherent ideology, supplanting liberal democracy, Marxism and fascism – though he still seems pretty fond of fascism.

The extent of Dugin’s personal access to the Kremlin remains opaque: it has certainly waxed and waned over the decades. What is beyond dispute, however, is the influence his geopolitical vision has enjoyed in the general staff academy and the Russian ministry of defence. Putin’s intervention in Georgia in 2008, his invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and his tightening grip on Syria are all entirely consistent with Dugin’s strategy for Mother Russia.

All of which is alarming enough. But what makes Dugin so suddenly significant is his growing influence in the west. It has long been alleged that he acts as a covert intermediary between Moscow and far-right groups in Europe, many of which are believed to receive funding from the Kremlin.

The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilise the Atlantic order generally, and America specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: “We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ.”

Stand by for world war three, then? Not just yet, it seems. Dugin was one of the first public figures in Russia to spot that Trump was a potential ally, and that his prospective presidency might unite the previously hostile nations in a joint crusade to eradicate “perversion” and to carve up the planet between them.”(3)

So, how else do Trump and Putin fit into the plans for a  New World Order?

“Once the globalists trigger the New Lehman Event and take down the West, the Western populations will be furious at their leaders. The globalists know this. This is why they’ve been preparing to scapegoat the existing political figures and replace them with pre-marketed “outsiders” who will “set things right again.

So in the United States, who are the “existing political figures” – which figures represent the “Establishment” in people’s minds? The Clintons (on the Democrat side) and the Bushes (on the Republican side).

In the United States, who is the “outsider who will set things right again”? Donald Trump, who is publicly shunned by the Bushes (the Republican Establishment) and publicly opposed by the Clintons (the Democratic Establishment).

So in the recent US Presidential election, who was the “Establishment candidate” and who is the “Anti-Establishment candidate”? Hillary Clinton represented the entrenched Establishment insider and Donald Trump represented the Anti-Establishment “outsider” who will “set things right again.”

On the global stage, which national leader is most widely perceived to be an Anti-Establishment figure like Trump? Vladimir Putin, who is widely portrayed as a threat to the established world order.

What alternative to the established world order does Vladimir Putin offer? A New World Order…

And Putin’s New World Order is based on a “transformed” United Nations…”(6)

Putin addresses the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly:

 “He makes reference to the globalist catchword “American exceptionalism.”

When he says “…the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus,” he is referring to the globalist plan to rejuvenate the UN brand so people will more readily accept its new leading role.

When Putin talks about “truly independent states,” he is referring to the phony return to “national sovereignty” that is part of the NWO narrative. The globalist vision for the NWO is to have a world of smaller, seemingly independent nations that must cooperate in order to maintain their security and a modern standard of living. And that international cooperation is to take place through multilateral institutions that the globalists control, with the globalist-created, UN being the centerpiece of it all.

So with all this set before us, what roles do Trump and Putin play in the globalists’ NWO plan?

Putin will possibly be the de facto or de jure leader of the New Order. And Trump will cooperate with the New Order due to the fact that it will appear to be a return to national sovereignty. And since newly elected Western leaders must be seen as “Anti-Establishment” and amenable to cooperation with Putin, Hillary was scripted to lose this election. The globalists will not allow the presence of the sullied old Western leaders to stain the reputation of Putin and his NWO.”(6)

“As we head into the public debut of the multilateral / multipolar New World Order, it’s important to note that many of the globalist brands (such as the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements) have also garnered negative associations, so don’t be surprised if they move their offices and change their nameplates when the system resets.

The replacement of tainted existing brands by fresh new brands extends beyond globalist organizations of course; it includes political figures as well. Many of the leaders people associate with the current crises (the scapegoats) will be swept aside by “heroic” controlled opposition figures who “saw it all coming” and could have prevented it “if only we’d had the power.”

They are not taking down the corrupt; they are merely disposing of those who have outlived their usefulness or who “know where the bodies are buried.”

The globalists seem to be positioning the “right wing dissenters” to take the political stage after the transition. This is symbolically appropriate given the whole Left Hand/Right Hand approach of the “elite.” They use the Left Hand to cause chaos and destruction and the Right Hand to bring about order and construction. It is for this reason that they’ve carefully built-up a public image of foresighted/conscientious dissent for “right wing” figures like Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. They have also done this for “left-winger” Elizabeth Warren, so she must have some role to play in bringing the “political left” into the fold after the transition.”(7)

And Donald Trump was a wild card thrown into the ring, who caught much of the left completely off guard.

Cites:

(1) Vladimir Putin- Wikipedia

(2) Putin: Key Player in the “New World Order”

(3) Putin and Trump could be on the same side in this troubling new world order

(4) UN Divides the World into 10 Regional Groupings

(5) The New World Order Map

(6) How Hillary, Trump and Putin figure into the launch of the New World Order

(7) Globalist Agenda Watch 2015: Update 12 – Don’t be fooled by globalist rebranding

(8) Vatican Assassins

 

Comments are closed.