Monday, September 7, 2009

"...it is easier to kill a million people than control a million people." Obama's foreign policy advisor says

Update September 2011 ~ Apparently the Chatham House in London took the speech off their website.  I listened to the entire speech when it was first posted a few years ago and although I downloaded it in it's entirety most people are more concerned with the 'kill-a-million-people' quote so someone else was kind enough to edit out most of the speech...here it is here and if you want to cut to the chase fast forward to approximately seven minutes into the recording...

Brzesinski's speech can be heard here: Download mp3 (Note: You can learn a lot by listening to the speech which was made at the Chatham House in Great Britain...notorious for it's connection to un-balanced foreign policy advisors such as Brzesinski. Also note his reference to the politic elite (just over 20 minutes into the recording) where he lauds VP Biden for being recognized by the elite in which Brzezinski is a member. Further on (about 43 minutes and 15 seconds) Brzezinski states, "Americans are woefully undereducated in foreign policy" ...that is woefully out of order! Americans do not agree with your foreign policy Mr. Brzezinski! You are woefully on the wrong side! ~ Norman E. Hooben

New World Order architect, Zbigniew Brzezinski, says it is
easier to kill a million people than to control a million people
. Many are alarmed at that statement but for the wrong reason.


Analysis by G. Edward Griffin, 2009 August 29
On November 17th, 2008, Zbignew Brzezinski, a New World Order architect and a founder of the Rockefeller-controlled Trilateral Commission, addressed Chatham House, (the British counterpart of the American Council on Foreign Relations) and said: "I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows: ... namely, in early times, it was easier to to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...."

When this statement arrived on the Internet a few months later, it was widely circulated with shock and alarm. It certainly was an attention getter, and it was assumed by many to be proof that Brzezinski and his fellow New World Order elitists were calling for the killing of millions of people. Fortunately, some of the news sources carried a link to the audio recording of his speech, so it was possible to listen to his entire presentation to see if he really did say what was attributed to him. Unfortunately, not many of the Internet dispatchers took the time to listen. If they had, they would have realized that Brzezinski was merely making an honest and accurate assessment of historical fact. Like it or not, in modern times it is easier to kill than to control a million people. So, why the hoopla?

That, however, is not the end of the story. When we carefully listen to the rest of this speech, we realize Brzezinski is saying that control of the masses is the real objective of the New World Order, and he is lamenting the fact that it is so difficult now that almost every nation and culture has become politically aware. He recalls those days-gone-by when this was not so, when the masses neither knew nor cared about politics and could be controlled simply by force of arms and economic coercion. Under those conditions, controlling people was easier, he says. Now, however, when almost everyone believes they should participate in their own political destiny via the vote, the process has become much more difficult.

He is, of course, entirely correct in that assessment. Although he did not elaborate, he could have continued by reminding this elite audience of facts they know so well: that now it also is necessary to control the media, the educational system, the leadership of all major political parties, and even the systems by which ballots are counted in order to keep the masses content with the illusion of determining their own political destiny.

He devoted the balance of his speech primarily to the concept that the United States should and will continue to be the leader among nations in the solving of all international problems, including economic problems, but always within the context of strengthening global governance and building a global monetary system. It was the CFR/Chatham House mantra that is the norm for such gatherings.

Even though Brezinsky is not here calling for the killing of a million people, when he does discuss that option, there is a remarkable coldness about his words. Like all collectivists, he is academically dispassionate when it comes to the sacrifice of human life and freedom so long as it can be theorized to be for the greater good of society - or, in this case, the New World Order.

His speech can be heard here. (Cached)
Related story (see video below)

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Interesting Study: Who hates whom the mostest? Are you in any danger? ...check the charts!

The interesting synopsis of an Islamist threat against the western world or as the article says, "the greatest danger to civilization" led me to this "Whom hates whom the mostest" article where the numbers depicted on the charts (see below) should disturb even the least of the feint of heart. Although on a personal observation I would place the numbers reflecting the growth of Atheists directly proportional to that of Humanists who are not mentioned. At this point in time we could use the two terms interchangeably. They call themselves Humanists to avoid any identification or reference to God or gods. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Muslim Threat Index [also interesting charts ~ Norm]
Posted on September 2, 2009 10:42 PM
Muslim ThreatFor the average infidel in the western world it is extremely difficult to determine which of the 48 Muslim Majority countries in the world represents the greatest danger to civilization. Afghanistan has the Taliban, Lebanon has Hezbollah, Egypt has Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Algeria has the 'the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb,' Iran is looking to get nuclear weapons, Pakistan already has the bomb, which countries should we be worried about?

Read the rest of this entry »


________________
Who hates whom the mostest? (aka: better be an atheist...)
Over at Planck’s Constant Blog, fellow grey-beard Bernie has come up with a “Muslim Threat Index”. Good one, Bernie!
No surprises in Pakistan being at the top of the danger league, though perhaps surprising that it’s by such a large margin a greater potential threat than the next on the list Nigeria. I was also surprised – though perhaps fellow Aussies may not be – by Indonesia’s being so high on the threat list.
I can hear all the criticisms of this “Threat Index”, from “you can’t be serious” to “it’s not nuanced enough” and so forth. My view: it’s been done with enough care and with enough factors to make it a useful reference. No doubt it can be improved (“nuanced”) but meantime it’s useful and I commend it, even unto the “government security agencies”…. I know about them from times past and their threat assessments were often nuanced to pabulum…
I’ve just done my own Index: the “Discrimination Index”, aka the “Victimhood Index”. It came about because of the claims we hear from Muslim spokespersons whenever there’s some outrage committed by their co-religionists, that they fear a “backlash” against Muslims. Some of the more egregious examples are: after the Mumbai bombing and the murder of the Jewish leader and his pregnant wife, what we heard from Muslim commentators was concern for the safety of Muslims. And most recently, the Rifqa Bary case, about which I wrote here. There is less concern for Ms Bary’s safety than for the alleged backlash against Muslims that the publicity of the case might entail.
So, is it true that Muslims are discriminated against disproportionately to their numbers in society? To calculate that I got the numbers of Hate Crimes in the US against each religion, and the percentage of those religions in the total population (refs below). Divide hate crime per religion by that religion’s percentage in the population: if the answer is 1 (one), then that religion is experiencing hate crime in proportion to its share of the population. A figure higher than 1 (one) means they’re being disproportionately targeted by hate crimes.
These are the results:
Crimes against:
% of crimes
% of population
Discrimination Index
Jews
69.2%
1.2%
57.67
Muslims
8.7%
0.6%
14.50
Catholics
4.3%
25.0%
0.17
Protestants
4.1%
51.0%
0.08
Atheists
0.5%
15.0%
0.03
Other
9.1%
8.0%
1.14
So: yes, Muslims are disproportionately targeted while we Atheists get off almost scot-free. But way more discriminated against are the Jews, by a factor of 57 versus the base of 1 (one) and four times more than Muslims are. I know there are
anti-anti-Semitism lobby groups; but we do not hear from them nearly so often as we do from the Muslim ones. Why is that? Given that they are way more disproportionately targeted?
What is surprising perhaps, given their co-religionists insistence on attempting to kill infidels, is that the number of hate crimes against Muslims is actually so low: just 141 in 2007. (and btw, Daniel Pipes has shown elsewhere that many of the crimes against Muslims were “manufactured” by the Muslim bodies such as CAIR; but we’ll leave that for the moment).
Another interesting point: the fastest growing belief 1990 to 2008 was Atheism. Islam was fifth fastest growing, after Atheism, Buddhism, Born-again Christians, and non-denominational Christians. Interesting, when we hear so often from Islamic sources, that Islam is the fastest growing religion.
And what about the total number? According to the stats, the number of Muslims in the US is 1.8 million. That’s way less than Muslim lobby groups quote: most often they say 5 to 7 million Muslims in the US. Hmm….. the less the size of the group, the less is your clout. I wonder why they exaggerate by nearly 300%...
US population
305,000,000
2008/1990 Growth
Jews
3,660,000
14.6%
Muslims
1,830,000
156.0%
Catholics
76,250,000
24.3%
Protestants
155,550,000
10.4%
Atheists
45,750,000
204.0%
Other religions
24,400,000
0 to 300%
References:
1. FBI Hate Crime Statistics, 2007, from the Uniform Crime Reporting Progam, FBI, 2008.
2. Demographics: Statistics of Religion in the US from the American Religious Identification Survey, 2008, and on the Population, from the US Census Department, Feb 2009.
___________________
See also(from Obama's foreign policy advisor) It's easier to kill a million people than control a million people.__

According to this poll, I'd say there's "Hope" for a "Change" in both Congress and the White House!

Are Government Bailouts Good For America?
...and just a few other questions.

Here are the results!

The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 607,445

1 Who is most to blame for America’s current economic crisis?
66% voted: Clinton Administration and the Democrats in Congress
12% voted: The Bush Administration
3% voted: Wall Street
15% voted: Banks and sub-prime lenders
2% voted: Real estate and mortgage professionals
0% voted: Investors
1% voted: Home buyers
2Do you agree government bailouts are the answer to America’s financial crisis?
7% voted: Yes
89% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided
3Do you believe the American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for our financial systems mistakes?
7% voted: Yes, we have to or we’ll end up in a prolonged recession or worse a depression.
22% voted: No, America is too far in debt already.
69% voted: Absolutely not, the American people should never be responsible for bailing out the private sector.
2% voted: Undecided
4Do you believe the government bailouts will ultimately rescue our country's financial system?
8% voted: Yes
86% voted: No
6% voted: Undecided
5Do you believe Barack Obama was the best choice to handle the country's future economic policy?
12% voted: Yes
85% voted: No
2% voted: Undecided

Home

Message To Congress...shape up or ship out!

In or Out 2010: The 5 Pledges

To Congress, The 5 Pledges

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during a difficult economic times, therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of US dependence on foreign oil is a travesty, therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why. I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity power over US citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

Van Jones Out! ...Will this lead to the fall of the ObamaNation? "Hope" so!

Comment from antichristbho Maryland [Sep 6, 2009 5:15:36 AM]

"Thank you Glenn Beck!!! Also thank WorldNetDaily.com for exposing this anti-white racist fraud. Now, all we have to do is keep the pressure on until Obama and his whole cabinet of radicals resign, then we can get this country back on the right track."


Van Jones Resigns, Glenn Beck Wins Fight

Posted Sep 6, 2009 by Johnny Simpson

From mywaynews via Drudge comes the shocker that President Obama's embattled 'green jobs' czar, Van Jones, has resigned his White House post amid swirling and growing controversies over Mr. Jones' past statements and associations. Videos of Mr. Jones' calling Republicans "a**holes" and associating with or espousing radical far left and Communist causes have gone viral. Read more here
The way other headlines read: