Kissinger: Obama Will Create A New World Order

Run_to_da_hills

He will no doubt create this through "Problem - Reaction - Solution".

The problems are created by his false flag agents, people react and of course Obama is the great guy to come up with the solutions and he gets credit for it. It won't be too long before you see similar fascist powers like NDAA, internet censorship, surveylance drones, TSA military police, internment without trial and other measures he thrives upon spread to Europe and other parts of the world.

Henry Kissinger has stated that the main task of Barack Obama will be to create a New World Order, suggesting that the chaos unfolding around the world is an opportunity rather than a crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0cYshoMyY

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/09/25/kissinger-obama-will-create-a-new-world-order/

hooradiation

New world order is a legitimate phrase with an actual meaning, one which is not sinister at all.


In fact, nothing about that clip is sinister at all, unless you have a very specific predisposition to very suspect leaps in reasoning.

Run_to_da_hills

hooradiation wrote: »

New world order is a legitimate phrase with an actual meaning, one which is not sinister at all.


In fact, nothing about that clip is sinister at all, unless you have a very specific predisposition to very suspect leaps in reasoning.

I think we can also safely say that the term "New world order" has become synonymous with the globalist agenda.

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think we can also safely say that the term "New world order" has become synonymous with the globalist agenda.

No.
We can not.

charlemont

Just want to say Henry Kissinger is a terrorist.

markesmith

How'd you ever get so paranoid, run_to_da_hills?

Serious question.

Run_to_da_hills

charlemont wrote: »

Just want to say Henry Kissinger is a terrorist.

"Kiss-of-Death-inger – CEO of the New World Order"

--Kaiser--

charlemont wrote: »

Just want to say Henry Kissinger is a terrorist.

Care to elaborate?

charlemont

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

Google is there for you to use, Sir. May I suggest School of the America's.

--Kaiser--

charlemont wrote: »

Google is there for you to use, Sir. May I suggest School of the America's.

What's with you CTers? You are the one who made the statement, it's up to you to prove it or at least provide some evidence or information on the subject

hooradiation

charlemont wrote: »

Just want to say Henry Kissinger is a terrorist.

I think you've mixed him up with the delightful Dr Henry Killinger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNqZ7qsWpJc

JustinDee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Henry Kissinger has stated that the main task of Barack Obama will be to create a New World Order, suggesting that the chaos unfolding around the world is an opportunity rather than a crisis

You'll find that any circumstances actually yield opportunities.
Doesn't need to be some flimsy convenient fiction to suit a story but anything.

super_furry

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think we can also safely say that the term "New world order" has become synonymous with the globalist agenda.

Among the extremist conspiracy crew maybe. For me it's still Kevin Nash and Scott Hall.

gnfnrhead

super_furry wrote: »

Among the extremist conspiracy crew maybe. For me it's still Kevin Nash and Scott Hall.

You forgot Hulk Hogan! :pac:

Sonics2k

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Kiss-of-Death-inger – CEO of the New World Order"

Wait, so Obama is going to create a New World Order (again) and then make Kissinger the CEO?

Well now that's just silly.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think we can also safely say that the term "New world order" has become synonymous with the globalist agenda.

Only with the people who believe in the silly conspiracy, not with the people who actually use the term in it's proper political context.

BillyMitchel

Is this before or after he kills the American population with all these special bullets he bought?

RTDH serious question. I enjoy reading your threads and posts even if sometimes its just for entertainment value (no offence). Give me a percentage, how many of your CT have been proven?

Seaneh

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

What's with you CTers? You are the one who made the statement, it's up to you to prove it or at least provide some evidence or information on the subject

Henry Kissenger is a war criminal who is wanted for sentencing by several war crimes tribunals.

This is a well known fact.

He is directly complicate in the murder and assassination of dosens of people from south east asia to south america and massively responsible for stuff as wide ranging as the vietnam war and a general pinochet's coup and subsequent dictatorship in Chile. Which makes him massively responsible for murder, ethnic cleansing, displacement and general crimes against humanity.


Just because you can't be bothered to google something doesn't make it untrue.


These aren't conspiracy theories either, these are documented fact.

Run_to_da_hills

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Is this before or after he kills the American population with all these special bullets he bought?

RTDH serious question. I enjoy reading your threads and posts even if sometimes its just for entertainment value (no offence). Give me a percentage, how many of your CT have been proven?

I could now safely say the one about the comparison of the rise of Obama to rise of Adolf Hitler is coming to fruit, the Antichrist bit will just be an extension

The Bishop!

Kissinger is most certainly a war criminal of the highest order for the bombing of Laos alone, not to mention the rest.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_kissinger_food.html

LeinsterDub

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I could now safely say the one about the comparison of the rise of Obama to rise of Adolf Hitler is coming to fruit, the Antichrist bit will just be an extension

As in not yet happened. So the answer to BillyMitchel's question is 0%

Run_to_da_hills

LeinsterDub wrote: »

As in not yet happened. So the answer to BillyMitchel's question is 0%

No, there is a lot of similarities as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Both were born outside of their host countries, Both wrote books Mein Kamf vs The Audacity of Hope, Both had their their logos,, their fascist powers to indefinitely detain people AKA NDAA, Concentration camps, Hitler youth VS Obama youth, TSA VS Gestapo, Hitler's T4 VS Obamacare, the list is endless.

The two even look somewhat similar bar the moustache.

LeinsterDub

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No, there is a lot of similarities as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Both were born outside of their host countries, Both wrote books Mein Kamf vs The Audacity of Hope, Both had their their logos,, their fascist powers to indefinitely detain people AKA NDAA, Concentration camps, Hitler youth VS Obama youth, TSA VS Gestapo, Hitler's T4 VS Obamacare, the list is endless.

The two even look somewhat similar bar the moustache.

So 0% so. Your claim Obama will become a fascist dictator has yet to happen.

As for the rest I can compare you to Hitler and if I was to make stuff up about you (e.g outside of their host countries) I'd be even more successful.

Hitler lived outside the country he was born as do you.
Hitler had a distrust of Jews (to put it mildly) as do you.
You both distrust the left
You both have on obsession with logo's
Your both from Mars (or so the CT's tells us. e.g the bit I made up)
You look some what similar to Hilter (both male and European)

I'm sure I could go on . I could compare myself to Hitler or anyone for that matter.

Run_to_da_hills

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So 0% so. Your claim Obama will become a fascist dictator has yet to happen.

As for the rest I can compare you to Hitler and if I was to make stuff up about you (e.g outside of their host countries) I'd be even more successful.

Hitler lived outside the country he was born as do you.
Hitler had a distrust of Jews (to put it mildly) as do you.
You both distrust the left
You both have on obsession with logo's
Your both from Mars (or so the CT's tells us. e.g the bit I made up)
You look some what similar to Hilter (both male and European)

I'm sure I could go on . I could compare myself to Hitler or anyone for that matter.

But I don't have any interest in political power take over and the mindless murdering and poisoning of the masses like those other two candidates.

Anyway back on topic to this other sick Globalist war criminal.

When it comes to being sick (and a mega-mass murderer and multiple war criminal) Kissinger is in a class of very few. To think of the suffering the world has allowed to be instigated by this disgraceful and pathetic old boll*ix .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d2bCirm6NA

--Kaiser--

Seaneh wrote: »

Henry Kissenger is a war criminal who is wanted for sentencing by several war crimes tribunals.

This is a well known fact.

He is directly complicate in the murder and assassination of dosens of people from south east asia to south america and massively responsible for stuff as wide ranging as the vietnam war and a general pinochet's coup and subsequent dictatorship in Chile. Which makes him massively responsible for murder, ethnic cleansing, displacement and general crimes against humanity.


Just because you can't be bothered to google something doesn't make it untrue.


These aren't conspiracy theories either, these are documented fact.

Did I ever say it was untrue? I asked for sources, which have still not been presented. And if I Google 'Henry Kissinger terrorist' all I get is dubious CT and Stormfront type websites

The Bishop!

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Did I ever say it was untrue? I asked for sources, which have still not been presented. And if I Google 'Henry Kissinger terrorist' all I get is dubious CT and Stormfront type websites

Maybe you should crack open a history book and stop demanding sources like you're some sort of investigating officer. Or at least say please.

'Skeptics' on here sometimes. They think they can click their fingers, throw out loads of questions and expect to be entertained.:rolleyes:

hooradiation

The Bishop! wrote: »

'Skeptics' on here sometimes. They think they can click their fingers, throw out loads of questions and expect to be entertained.:rolleyes:

Well, It would be nice for that to happen every now and again.
As much as I enjoy the tedium of having to repeat questions many times only to have them eventually ignored, a change of pace is most refreshing.

--Kaiser--

The Bishop! wrote: »

Maybe you should crack open a history book and stop demanding sources like you're some sort of investigating officer. Or at least say please.

'Skeptics' on here sometimes. They think they can click their fingers, throw out loads of questions and expect to be entertained.:rolleyes:

LOL. Make wild claims and then people expect you to back them up. The absolute nerve!

The Bishop!

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

LOL. Make wild claims and then people expect you to back them up. The absolute nerve!

Kissingers history that you queried is not exactly a wild claim in fairness. It's very easy to research. Just a matter of googling him and Laos or Chile and away you go.

I appreciate your request for sources, but that one seemed a little absurd tbh. Common knowledge really.

Just to add, am just commenting on Kissinger. Am not interested in discussing the OP Obama thing or saying i think that's credible or anything.

--Kaiser--

The Bishop! wrote: »

Kissingers history that you queried is not exactly a wild claim in fairness. It's very easy to research. Just a matter of googling him and Laos or Chile and away you go.

I appreciate your request for sources, but that one seemed a little absurd tbh. Common knowledge really.

Just to add, am just commenting on Kissinger. Am not interested in discussing the OP Obama thing or saying i think that's credible or anything.

OK, fair enough. So he's a war criminal the same way that Geroge W. Bush could be called a war criminal? Him being called a terrorist threw me a bit but I see what you mean

The Bishop!

Sweet. We got off on the wrong foot altogether. Apologies.

--Kaiser--

The Bishop! wrote: »

Sweet. We got off on the wrong foot altogether. Apologies.

Likewise. Actually I see that Christopher Hitchens wrote a book excoriating the man (one of my heroes so definitely someone I'd listen to)

Jenners!

Tiny island which was invaded by Indonesia. Kissinger and Ford were on a good relations visit, and asked Indonesia not to invade the island until after they left, so as not to appear hypocritical. It became know as 'The Big Wink'.

East Timor had been granted the right to self govern. The UN and EU condemned the invasion by Indonesia. It was favourable for the US however for Eat Timor to be absolved into indonesia, due to the vast oil reserves that were, then, recently discovered. It lead to the genocide (200,000 people) of the indigenous, undefended East Timorese. Now one of the poorest nations in the world. It never recovered.

Just another example of Kissinger. Wherever his name appears (irrelevant of the, then or now, current U.S. president [ Nixon, Ford etc]) it is usually followed by undemocratic and ruthless policies, unfairly against a less defended nation.

hooradiation

Jenners! wrote: »

Just another example of Kissinger. Wherever his name appears (irrelevant of the, then or now, current U.S. president [ Nixon, Ford etc]) it is usually followed by undemocratic and ruthless policies, unfairly against a less defended nation.

This, along with the other thread calling inanimate objects "cowardly" is one of those weird instances where the person is trying so damn hard to make people feel as outraged as they do, they're reduced to throwing nonsensical adjectives into thing in hope of making an appeal to emotion.
The unfortunate conclusion being they either don't fully understand why they're angry about things, so they need to misuse words to attempt to manufacture those feelings in others, or they acknowledge their argument is weak but goddamn it, that's not important.

I mean, what the hell does "undemocratic" even bloody mean in this context?
That... there wasn't a plebiscite on matters of foreign policy? Is that what we're getting at here?

Words have meanings, goddamn it.

Jenners!

hooradiation wrote: »

This, along with the other thread calling inanimate objects "cowardly" is one of those weird instances where the person is trying so damn hard to make people feel as outraged as they do, they're reduced to throwing nonsensical adjectives into thing in hope of making an appeal to emotion.
The unfortunate conclusion being they either don't fully understand why they're angry about things, so they need to misuse words to attempt to manufacture those feelings in others, or they acknowledge their argument is weak but goddamn it, that's not important.

I mean, what the hell does "undemocratic" even bloody mean in this context?
That... there wasn't a plebiscite on matters of foreign policy? Is that what we're getting at here?

Words have meanings, goddamn it.

What does democratic mean? Then the 'un' prefix obviously means the opposite of the word democratic.

The point of linguistics, any language, is to speak/type with the least amount of necessary words to create context.

I didn't realise you would be needing foot notes for each statement in my point. Is that what your referring to??

I think you and suffering from self projection.
Re read my first comment in this thread. There is no emotional words used, or the word "cowardly" (despite your quotation marks..). When did I state I was outraged? Perhaps that is you..?


I wrote a 1000 word article on the topic, so instead of going into precise detail I used summary points. It was just another comment relation to earlier posts on Kissinger, as East Timor is less known I thought it worth mentioning, it's good to be informed.


What's your problem anyhow? Im sorry you don't have your own thought-provoking opinion on Kissingner, but making irrelevant comments to dissect my view doesn't change your situation.
Read for yourself perhaps. Do you need me to expand again? As in books, newspaper articles etc. Even message board comments.

Run_to_da_hills

Ralph Nader calls Obama a 'war criminal'

Henry Kissinger is another well known "War Criminal"

So in effect this "New World Order" will be run by war criminals, am I correct?

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I could now safely say the one about the comparison of the rise of Obama to rise of Adolf Hitler is coming to fruit, the Antichrist bit will just be an extension

Um...Obama has already risen. How much further can he rise?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...Obama has already risen. How much further can he rise?

Still a few more hurdles to go, the big one being the US election, something interesting should happen soon.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Still a few more hurdles to go, the big one being the US election, something interesting should happen soon.

Why did he wait four years and risk another election campaign?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why did he wait four years and risk another election campaign?

He had no choice in the matter under the current US presidential system.

He will have to do some serious convincing to gain the same support as he did four years ago, this is why I suspect that he will pull a fast one.

It took Hitler 7 years in office before he turned into a total nasty.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He had no choice in the matter under the current US presidential system.

He will have to do some serious convincing to gain the same support as he did four years ago, this is why I suspect that he will pull a fast one.

It took Hitler 7 years in office before he turned into a total nasty.

Why did he have 'no choice'? He won the ultimate political power nearly 4 years ago. He stubbornly resists becoming the Neo-Nazi Anti-Christ for all this time, then goes into another election, risking his position.

Why? Why did he have 'no choice'?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why did he have 'no choice'? He won the ultimate political power nearly 4 years ago. He stubbornly resists becoming the Neo-Nazi Anti-Christ for all this time, then goes into another election, risking his position.

Why? Why did he have 'no choice'?

Four years is a very short time in politics to build up goodwill with such a large population.

JustinDee

Jenners! wrote: »

Tiny island which was invaded by Indonesia. Kissinger and Ford were on a good relations visit, and asked Indonesia not to invade the island until after they left, so as not to appear hypocritical. It became know as 'The Big Wink'.

East Timor had been granted the right to self govern. The UN and EU condemned the invasion by Indonesia. It was favourable for the US however for Eat Timor to be absolved into indonesia, due to the vast oil reserves that were, then, recently discovered. It lead to the genocide (200,000 people) of the indigenous, undefended East Timorese. Now one of the poorest nations in the world. It never recovered.

Just another example of Kissinger. Wherever his name appears (irrelevant of the, then or now, current U.S. president [ Nixon, Ford etc]) it is usually followed by undemocratic and ruthless policies, unfairly against a less defended nation.

Kissinger's duplicity aside, the above is an all-too-simplistic 'summary' of East Timor's history since the 1970s.
Firstly East Timor was still in the eyes of the UN as being under Portuguese remittance.
The UN and the seven or eight countries of the EEC (there was no such thing as the EU back then) objected to Indonesia's invasion. That was it. Nothing else.
Not until 1999, was East Timor's governance taken over by anyone but the Portuguese or Indonesians (I was there with ABC Radio at the time). Soeharto was propped up during his reign for being vehemently anti-communist hence his cedence in actions over Indonesia's direct neighbour. It is only since the demise of the Soviet Union and communism, that Soeharto's regime was fair game for critique and reaction. The Indonesian oil resource is state-owned and is used more by the country itself than sold abroad ie. they are what is known as 'net importers' ie again. that they buy more than they flog. You'll find that East Timor's oil resources have always been in the eye of Australia as you'd find in the decades of ocean-boundaries debate between the two.
East Timor's tribalism within its own borders is as much as problem as any inherent post-independence fallout you attribute to its current situation.

Your figure of 200,000 dead is also double the actual accepted figures following of which approx 20,000 were actual killings. This doesn't justify anything. I just prefer to see a better grasp of the story than one side of it.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Four years is a very short time in politics to build up goodwill with such a large population.

So you think he is building up goodwill? Or has he been losing it for the last 4 years?

This theory isn't making sense.

Father Damo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No, there is a lot of similarities as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, Both were born outside of their host countries

Obama was born in the US. Hitler in Austria. There is as much evidence to suggest that Obama was born in Kenya as there is to suggest he was born in Tallaght.

The two even look somewhat similar bar the moustache.

You have put some nonsense here in your time, but Hitler and Obama being lookalikes is the best yet :pac:

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you think he is building up goodwill? Or has he been losing it for the last 4 years?

This theory isn't making sense.

you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

Father Damo wrote: »

Obama was born in the US. Hitler in Austria. There is as much evidence to suggest that Obama was born in Kenya as there is to suggest he was born in Tallaght.

Even the Jews have doubts about Barack Obama's birth authenticity.

--Kaiser--

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Even the Jews have doubts about Barack Obama's birth authenticity

What do you mean 'Even the Jews'? By this do you mean that all Jewish people doubt the authenticity of his birth cert? Because the site you linked was some Israeli website. It doesn't represent all Israelis and, furthermore, being Israeli doesn't mean being Jewish, and vice versa.

So less of your anti-Semitic bullcrap

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

Yes, and the darkest hour is just before the dawn....?

But what has that got to do with the point I am making? Why did Obama not become the new Hitler Anti-Christ when he was riding a wave of popular support 4 years ago? Why did he risk going into a second election when he has been losing support for years?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Even the Jews have doubts about Barack Obama's birth authenticity.

Irrelevant.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, and the darkest hour is just before the dawn....?

But what has that got to do with the point I am making? Why did Obama not become the new Hitler Anti-Christ when he was riding a wave of popular support 4 years ago? Why did he risk going into a second election when he has been losing support for years?

If he did flake out in his early years of office he would have blown any goodwill he built up leading to those short years particularly on the international front.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If he did flake out in his early years of office he would have blown any goodwill he built up leading to those short years particularly on the international front.

What does that have to do with anything? He hardly expects to keep 'international goodwill' as he becomes the Neo-Nazi Anti-Christ, does he? Does the Neo-Nazi Anti-Christ sound like someone who values 'goodwill'?? You have to admit, your argument is looking sillier and sillier.

So: for what logical reason did he not morph into the Neo-Nazi Anti-Christ when he took supreme office on the back of mass public adulation nearly 4 years ago?

JustinDee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Even the Jews have doubts about Barack Obama's birth authenticity.

Just pathetic. Seriously ignorant, ill-educated and pro-agendaic insulting sh**.
Reported.