2010: Year of Bridezilla?

Barbara Marx Hubbard’s words that the resonating core groups are blending and merging to do the 'one work' have no better evidence than the upcoming 2010 International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures. In 2010 we are to witness many of the interlocking initiatives we’ve discussed here converge and become the legal basis for global governance. Among these core initiatives include the

• Dialogue [Parnership] among Civilizations;
• Promotion of Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace;
• Combating Defamation of Religions;
• Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;
• etc, etc.

With names indicative of peace how could anyone oppose these initiatives?

When I was young I worked for a family who farmed—Harold and Elaine Wells. Harold was a World War II veteran. One year he decided to take Elaine to Europe and travel the places he had been during the War. This meant that the couple would spend some time in East Germany which, then, was part of the communist bloc and divided by the Berlin Wall.

When the couple returned Elaine described to me how she disliked East Germany. They were permitted to see only what their guide allowed. While in a downtown district their guide stopped the group in front of a shop where Elaine saw the most beautiful dress. She said she had to buy it and before the guide could stop her, she had opened the shop door. What she saw was not a store, but a room filled with machinery.

These initiatives are exactly what Elaine saw—nice window dressing and machinery. The machinery, of course, is designed to combat monotheistic religion. As these initiatives blend and converge, we are certain to find the Alliance of Civilizations to be the core resonating group. The Alliance’s initial planning documents say that UN reform IS the successful implementation of the AoC initiative. The timeframe is to move from preparatory phase into activation mode in September 2009. Speaking before the 64th UN General Assembly Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero said:

• "Now we must move a step further. The Alliance of Civilisations, which structures and implements those principles and values in the United Nations, should form part, structurally, of its main organs and at all levels. The moment has come for this General Assembly to approve a Resolution to provide the Alliance of Civilisations with that structural dimension. Spain and Turkey and the Friends of the Alliance will work together so that this Resolution may be endorsed before the end of autumn this year. I am sure that it will contribute highly positively to the task that is being developed by organs such as the Human Rights Council, the Economic and Social Council and, even, the Security Council. The dialogue of civilizations must become the mother tongue of the United Nations."

Make no mistake: this is just a formalizing of what has already taken place. All relevant UN organizations have already made entry points into the Alliance of Civilizations.

This resolution will essentially crown the Alliance queen. I expect in 2010 we will see the gathering together the “collective whole”. This is what the Gnostics refer to as the “world soul” which will become “one” with the earth (the goddess, the divine Sophia) and take her seat as the true bride of Christ. I tend to see her more as Bridezilla, the bride of the antichrist.

“Through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” – Daniel 8:25

Masters of Deception

The Alliance of Civilizations has never received such high level support from the United States as it is presently enjoying from the Obama administration. Even though the Bush administration’s Secretary of State Condolezza Rice expressed enthusiasm for the Alliance, the level of support appeared somewhat measured.

It is not yet clear to me whether Rice recognized the many problem areas contained within the Alliance of Civilizations’ final report, but the Alliance had complained that it was difficult to advance with such low level representation from the U.S. government. Even so, I have archived materials showing the Bush administration privately endorsed the initiative. But the tide has turned. The Obama administration, being fully aware of the Alliance’s problematic areas such as freedom of speech and religion, welcomes the initiative.

While speaking at the Roosevelt Institute, Hillary Clinton delivered tough words to the Alliance regarding restrictions on free speech and religion. Clinton said:

• “Now, some claim that the United Nations can best protect the freedom of religion by adopting what is called an “anti-defamation” policy that would restrict the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I, obviously, strongly disagree. An individual’s ability to practice their religion should have no bearing on others individuals’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. And these differences should be met with tolerance, not suppression of discourse. And the United States will stand against the idea of defamation of religion in the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.”
  
  “President Obama and I are committed to defending the Freedom of Expression on the new terrain of the 21st century…Similarly, we wish to stand firmly on the side of the freedom of religion.”

Normally Clinton’s words are ones I would have applauded, but I cannot in light of President Obama’s subsequent co-authorship of a resolution before the Human Rights Council. This resolution contains similar language as that used in the anti-defamation resolutions which are intended to curtail free speech. The strategy all along has been to convince people that they are operating within the framework of Human Rights. As such, a person’s words that might offend or insult another might be construed as a violation of another’s Human Rights. The Responsibility to Protect initiative indicates clear guidelines are to be posed in public places so civil society understands the expectations placed upon them.

Clinton’s speech appears disingenuous. Being aware of the Alliance’s major problem areas, why welcome the initiative at all? It’s like inviting a group of thugs to a formal dinner and as they are being seated they are given one caveat: their salad forks have been removed. Even though they have one less instrument there is no complaint as they proceed and reach for their dinner fork.

Hillary Clinton surely must be aware that Britain is an Alliance of Civilizations implementation partner. In the interest of protecting free speech she has received a high profile appeal from radio talk show host Dr. Michael Savage who has requested her assistance to get his name removed from the “Banned from Britain” list for voicing dissenting, “extremist” political views. To my knowledge Clinton has done nothing to intercede on behalf of Michael Savage and, by extension, free speech.

When the Michael Savage story broke Constance Cumbey and I warned today Michael Savage—tomorrow any one of us. Tomorrow has arrived. Today we see that Christian televangelist Benny Hinn has been banned from Britain for having “extremist” views. Britain appears to be implementing the Alliance of Civilizations “shared security” doctrine and is starting by isolating foreign “extremists”. The next step is to look internally. Some British government officials are already calling for population reduction to one-half of its present level. The British people had to combat Nazi ideology during the second world war--today those adopting this same ideology are setting Britain’s policy.

The Alliance of Civilizations has been a master of double speech. They support national sovereignty—redefined; freedom of speech—with restrictions; freedom of religion—with guidelines. It appears that British and U.S. heads of state have mastered the same. Clinton’s tough words appear to be an attempt to publicly placate the Alliance’s critics.