There's no proof of this. Nor is there even much evidence of it. There is proof that there is a CFR and Trilateral Commission, so that is worth talking about. But these guys are definitely not a uniform, homogenous bunch. The cabinet members for the liberal presidents come out of the same group that the cabinet members for the conservatives come out of. However, they are exclusive - I'll grant you that - but they are certainly not uniform.
A man with a vice is certainly not free. but the joke is Dr. steph, freedom is not a physical state but a mental one. I am sure you know this. Someone who subscribes to propaganda and "common sense" is one the most chained beings alive. People try to enslave one another all of the time. Try "you will never make it, you are not good enough" "you will never be anybody, statistics show this". Relationships are a whole other matter on their own much too lengthy for this thread. Statistics are balogney and lie all of the time. You know, I read this book once called "political psychos" by Hatonn. In this book was contained a manual for a communist political change agent. I went to public school here and I have to tell you, it sounds like the public school system is dousted with this manual. Whos idea was state run public schools anyway? was this not an idea of Karl Marx? I am sure the first immigrants that came here got by without social security and welfare. Were these not made to establish a caste system and make a permanent proleteriat? What is even more funny is how these programs are promoted by the poor for the poor but invented by the few who want to run their lives. Well they do exist. Look up Adam Weishaupt, the Hellfire club, the friars of st francis of Wycombe, the goats, Mendes, the notorious templars, Godfroi de Buillon (ancestor of Bush), Edward Longshanks, Thule society, and The Vril(this one is very special) and of course Hitlers relationship to to the two previous societies, and their relationship with stalin and lenin. Find out how Charles Beard an oxford grad rewrote the American History in 1913. I also read about how Marx was a homosexual pedophile who was molested by his favorite school teacher. (starting to see a pattern here) I also used to have a list of something like 30 politicians that had sexual relations with children. One of them was Larry King of Omaha, Neb. (not larry king live) who had a child sex ring and sexually abused and tortured young children from ages 6-17. Here is a link http://tomflocco.com/fs/PhotographerTied.htm Here is a little excerpt from the manual I found very interesting. "The first thing to be degraded in any nation is the state of man himself. Nations which have a high ethical tone are difficult to conquer(sound familiar?islam perhaps). Their loyalties are hard to shake, their allegiance to their leaders is fanatical and what they usually call their spiritual integrity cannot be violated by duress. It is not efficient to attack a nation in such a frame of mind. It is the purpose of psychopolitics to reduce that state of mind to a point where it can be ordered and enslaved. Thus, the first target is man himself. He must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction pattern. He must think of himself as an animal(existentialism), capable only of animalistic reaction. He must no longer think of himself or his fellows, as capable of spiritual endurance, or nobility."
You are quite correct sir. The majority of this group are good noble men who look to do good for society. It is the upper top echelon which have certain allegiances to the darkest forces known to man. If everyone was in on it they would never get away with as much as they have. But the top of the top usually stick together. The top is usually deemed exclusive of the herd.
None of this shows a Machiavellian plot by world leadership in past centuries to enslave mankind in a one world government. Really the only decent examples that I have seen of this are certain statements by CFR members and certain UN documents in the last 50 years. I think you can make a good case some of the elite in the 50's, 60's and 70's within America had that as a general goal, but it was more in a One World Republic sense. But, again, that's not all the members of the CFR. There was considerable backlash among the elite against dealing with the non-democratic nations of the world. But, again, there is nothing prior to, say, 1950 of any solidity to show powerful secret societies. If you want to believe it, you can of course. But I'm just saying there's no real evidence for it.
It's not their time. Nationalism is as strong as ever and democratic world leaders have a little common sense, i.e. they're chasing after nuclear arms' builders, fighting terrorism, trying to keep Israel afloat, the UN is under attack, etc. You can rest easy for awhile. Remember: right now they just want open economic borders. I do believe in what you are alluding to. But now isn't that time...
Btw, a little friendly advice. There's some truth to what you are saying. But noone is going to believe you if you make outlandish statements without proof. Stick to what you can show some evidence for and you will be convincing and influence people as you are obviously passionate about what you believe in. But, regardless of what you think of the Rothschilds or Adam W, why bring them up? Regardless of whether they covered their tracks or were part of centuries old "urban legend", you'll just sound like another Conspiracy Theorist. Isn't your goal to get people to listen to you? What good is all this study if noone holds onto your words?
I have to run right now but I will be back later with documented evidence. its in books. not my ideas or theories. someone elses.
Did you even read what I wrote? Or are you that afraid to shatter your ideal, which is heavily biased due to financial motivations of your family & friends? Modern Free Trade Agreements are mostly corporate protectionisms, rather than free trade. You can look them up. Free Trade as a concept is about removing tariffs to allow a truly competitive marketplace. That is it. Why do current free trade agreements REQUIRE the nations signing them to concede their laws & regulations which have nothing to do with trade, but with human rights, social programs, agriculture (hint: beating down substinence farming to create cheap slave labor), health programs, tax revenue, life & seed patents, etc. Here is another question. Do you even understand what Free Trade is? Cause I named quite a few things that have little to do with trade yet are key stipulations to modern free trade agreements.
What taxes, social programs or health programs have changed in Mexico or the US due to NAFTA? Nothing that I know of.