Why are so many senior Bilderbergers in favour of Eurobonds while small time Bilderbergers are not?
Before WW1 the European mainland was dominated by the Hapsburgs and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That Empire was destroyed in WW1, and was replaced in Europe by The League of Nations, the first attempt at world government. The LoN HQ was in Europe, in Geneva, Switzerland, and was financed by the Rockefellers. The LoN failed because the USA voted out of it, despite Woodrow Wilson touring the USA and nearly killing himself in the process, through illness and exhaustion, in a vain effort to persuade the USA to join the LoN.
But the USA only joined WW1 with just a year or so to go, so despite suffering serious casualties did not suffer the same level of casualties as France or Great Britain, or Russia who suffered a Bolshevik Revolution financed by the Rothschilds and Schiffs and run by the Warburgs.
It is of significance that the League of Nations HQ was in Geneva, i.e. Central Europe. It was basically a jack boot that was to stomp on the European face forever.
So with the most powerful nation the USA voting out of the LoN a second world war was engineered, designed to persuade the USA that it had to join a world government. A vicious type of fascism called Nazism was financed by Wall Street in a destroyed Germany, and a vicious type of Communism called Stalinism was financed by Wall street in Russia. A war between these two ideologies was inevitable, given their geographic proximity. Only Poland stood between them, and Hitler and Stalin decided to bring their ideologies closer together geographically with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which divided Poland between them. When Hitler invaded poland, having been allowed by Great Britain to develop the Wehrmacht way beyond what was allowed in the Treaty of Versailles, Great Britain declared war on Germany, but did very little to defend the Poland it claimed to be defending.
So why did Great Britain do very little in 'The Phony War'? Because it needed the USA, for finance, for arms, for material, and for men. FDR wanted to assist the anti-Hitler movement so much that he connived with Churchill, his alleged enemy. This was exposed by Tyler kent. The Japanese were allowed to attack Pearl Harbour, which gave FDR the reason he had wanted for a long time to convince a sceptical American public that the USA should join the war in Europe. But FDR could ony declare war on Japan. But Hitler did FDR a favour by declaring war on the USA, and the Lend-Lease program was vastly expanded.
After several years of barbarity and slaughter, this time all over the world, the Axis was defeated and the United Nations was created with HQs in...the USA and Vienna, again financed by the Rockefellers.
Within months of WW2 ending there was a well organised and financed movement to create a single Europe as a bulwark against Soviet Russia. But very few knew that Soviet Russia had been assisted from its creation by Wall Street and to a lesser extent the City of London. And the USA had indeed given the USSR 'the bomb'.
In other words, it was all a con.
The EU and the Euro have gradually developed from the initial meetings of international finance, intelligence and politics at such organisations as ACUE and Bilderberg.
But now the whole European Project is in trouble.
Is this by design? Has the dream of a United Europe been a cruel hoax on those who have worked towards creating their dream? Or is it being milked for as much profit as possible, and/or being controlled at the same time, before being allowed to grow from the ugly duckling into the swan that the likes of Barroso and van Rompuy believe it can be?
What we have to ask is, why are so many and major European Bilderbergers in favour of Eurobonds; Soros, Barroso, van Rompuy, Monti, Cameron, Osborne, Lagarde, etc? While at the same time other Bilderbergers, namely Merkel and Schauble, against Eurobonds? However, Mario Draghi is also opposed to Eurobonds.
But to be more accurate, Merkel, Schauble and Draghi and their ilk are not totally against Eurobonds, but would support them if there was more European integration.
Questions to be answered are
Q: are the NWO prepared to destroy what they have created to create something bigger?
A: YES. Nazi Germany and the USSR were both created by the NWO, and what happened to to them? Nazi Germany was destroyed in WW2, out of which grew the UN, and the USSR was betrayed by NWO agent Gorbachev.
Q: Why was the Berlin Wall created?
A: The idea of empowering Communism, through Lend-Lease and giving it 'the bomb', but then keeping it in check is in total agreement with the three-world-war plan attributed to Albert Pike, as is the creation of Israel and the current warmongering in the Middle East. The Berlin Wall, NATO and wars in South East Asia all helped to keep Communism in check, and also helped to scare Western Europe into sowing the seeds of the EU through The Treaty of Rome etc.
Q: Was the Berlin Wall brought down to create a United Europe?
A: It would appear so. But it also allowed Russia to be economically raped. "the most important and successful...social experiment" of China, David Rockefeller called it, has transformed Asia from Communism to Commucapitalism. The bogeyman became the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist, which has led to the wars in the Middle East.
I want to know if Germany knew about the deal between Goldman Sachs and Greece, as revealed in this short BBC video report, "How Goldman Sachs helped mask Greece's debt" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17108367 . Or perhaps more importantly, when did Schauble and Merkel know about it? And have they kept quiet about it? And if so, why?
So, in answer to the question, are the NWO prepared to destroy what they create in order to create something bigger? The answer is a clear yes.
In which case, are the Eurocrats who are pressing Merkel to implement Eurobonds being used and betrayed, with the EU and Euro doomed from the start?
Or is Merkel endangering the European Project, and will be dealt with accordingly?
No comments:
Post a Comment