Archived Rothschild: Donald Trump is threatening to destroy the New World Order (jewsnews.co.il)
submitted ago by JesusRules
Posted by: JesusRules
Posting time: 3.1 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 1/13/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 1287
SCP: 58
65 upvotes, 7 downvotes (90% upvoted it)
Archived Rothschild: Donald Trump is threatening to destroy the New World Order (jewsnews.co.il)
submitted ago by JesusRules
Sort: Top
[–] goatboy 0 points 19 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago
Then the New World Order shouldn't have worked so hard to destroy the American Middle Class. The Middle Class is seriously the engine of their own power and they have spent the last 50 years trying to dismantle it for idiotic fear of competition. It they would ever see American Middle Class as the source of their strength, then they might actually be successful.
[–] PolybiusPizza 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
It is the nature of evil to underestimate its opposition... Sucks to be evil.
[–] voatmilk 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That explains all those monologues.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Indeed - they brought down their own order through mismanagement - Trump is just a symbol, a symptom of a greater recognition by other powers that the NWO plan is simply not working. Much like Communism, the idea sounded great on paper - but whoever runs a government actually has to govern effectively - there is real work to be done. The roads have to be paved and the pensions have to be paid. NWO failed to deliver - much as the EU is doing now - their days are also numbered.
[–] Pepper-theDoctor ago
It's a cycle that has repeated for human history. Create greatness with some form of semi libertarian government until a thriving middle class is created. Use some form of socialism or Marxism to drain the wealth from that middle class until society collapses. Pull your money out of the system before the collapse so you're a larger power in the next semi libertarian society than you were in the last.
[–] goatboy ago
The difference this time is Mutually Assured Destruction and extinction weapons have been open sourced to the common mans garage. The elite will not survive this round to reinvest into the next round of civilization.
[–] ZX4jBXu 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
Oh my god people, if you believe what a Rothschild says in PUBLIC then you're fuckin' retarded. This is nothing but POLITICAL THEATER you goofy twats. The fact that these kike spawn used the phrase "New World Order" outside of the 1990's proves that this was meant to feed the "nutjobs". Our President has dismissed the great men that surrounded him months ago and chooses now to be surrounded by globalist kikes. Say what you want, but President Trump has nothing but Jewish lips whispering in his ear and it seems like he has no problem with it. God forgive him.
[–] Pepper-theDoctor 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Neither of us are in his inner circle but it's a fact that he operates on misdirection and no one really knows what his plan is until the dust settles and he gets what he said he wanted in the first place.
My best guess is that he's appeasing the Jew while he undermines them secretly. If he just went to war with them, they'd jfk him.
[–] Greenzero86 2 points 13 points 15 points (+15|-2) ago (edited ago)
The Rothschilds are only saying this so that the debt slaves won't suspect that he's just another puppet, but instead venerate him as a savior. Or if they're in the other camp, give them a false enemy to focus on instead of them.
[–] PolybiusPizza 3 points 3 points 6 points (+6|-3) ago
Yiu really think most Trump supporters are debt slaves? I have my doubts. Liberals strike me as a group with way more debt which is why they require so much government money. Trump aint no puppet... More like a tool of God. You seem like a lib, hopefully just misinformed anti-globalist though.
[–] Greenzero86 1 point 6 points 7 points (+7|-1) ago (edited ago)
Trump supporters still pay taxes, no? Taxpayers are debt slaves. Liberals couldn't care less about the globalist agenda because they are the most subservient, since they require all their basic needs to be provided to them by a big government.
[–] White-Supremacist 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
What is basically monopoly money is created out of nothing and loaned to banks and the government at interest, this is called the 'national debt'. This debt is a total falsehood. https://kek.gg/i/3YLdVC.png But they use it to enslave you with 'federal income tax', well over a trillion a year. The owners of the federal reserve are jews, rothschild and goldman-sachs.
In order to run for office, they must have dirt on you, basically own you. Trump isn't just owned, but a jew himself. The entire government, media https://kek.gg/i/3DvNw5.jpg, 3 letter agencies, military and so on are owned and controlled by the unseen oligarchy, the owners of the federal reserve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oENNXfenNH0 This will get you up to speed and closer to really understanding many things.
The solution is 'everyone versus the world bankers'.
[–] 10788771? 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
This is the original article this piece is referring to:
https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21729415-it-was-underpinned-movement-make-waging-aggressive-war-illegal-and
http://archive.is/Web0f
The liberal order of the past 70 years is under threat
It was underpinned by a movement to make the waging of aggressive war illegal, and for very good reason
The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. By Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro. Simon & Schuster; 608 pages; $30. Allen Lane; £30.
THE rules-based international order that emerged from the wreckage of the second world war was a huge improvement on any preceding era. It stimulated trade on an unprecedented scale and allowed even relatively small and weak countries to develop their potential without fear of predatory interference. At the heart of that order was an underlying principle that perpetrators of aggressive war should not be rewarded. In particular, any territorial gains which derived from their aggression would not be recognised by the international community as being legitimate. Instead, aggressors should be subjected to punishment—usually economic sanctions. Occasionally, concerted military action approved by the United Nations (UN) forced them to relinquish what they had illegally seized.
Yet liberal internationalism is now under attack from many sides. Donald Trump’s America First doctrine explicitly repudiates it. Even two of the so-called “adults in the room”, who supposedly temper Mr Trump’s nativist excesses, seem happy to join him. In a Wall Street Journal article in May H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, respectively the president’s national security adviser and economic adviser, wrote: “The world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, non-governmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.” Apart from the bit about cultural and moral strength, neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping, who both challenge the liberal international order by seeking to create spheres of influence through intimidation and military bullying, would find anything to disagree with in that statement. Mr Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 (the first time that the borders of post-war Europe had been changed by force) and launched a covert invasion of eastern Ukraine in support of a separatist insurrection. Mr Xi is attempting to make the South China Sea, through which over half the world’s commercial shipping passes, into a Chinese lake by creating artificial islands in defiance of international law.
“The Internationalists” by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, both law professors at Yale, is an impassioned history of how the liberal international order came into being and why it must be defended as never before. They believe that the basis of what they call the New World Order (to distinguish it from the Old World Order, codified by a 17th-century Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, in which might was nearly always right) was an extraordinary diplomatic event in Paris in 1928. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, or the Kellogg-Briand pact (named after the foreign ministers of the United States and France who had sponsored it, pictured seated right and left), was signed by more than 50 countries, including all the great powers.
The pact was a direct consequence of the “Great War” of 1914-18—a truly Grotian conflict that had left 11m combatants dead. Its purpose was to outlaw aggressive war and territorial conquest. But there was a problem of enforcement. Japan’s seizure of Manchuria in 1931 was never legitimised, as it would have been under the Old World Order, but a new system had not yet come into effect which could make Japan surrender its prize. Neither the signatories of the pact nor the League of Nations was willing or able to stem the rise of militarism during the decade that followed and its apotheosis in the second world war.
The ideas underpinning the pact did, however, have a profound influence on the way in which the allies saw both their fight against the Axis powers and the organisation of the peace that followed. When the war ended, with the partial exception of the Soviet Union, the victors handed back the land they had conquered. The Nuremberg trials re-established the principle that waging aggressive war was a criminal act and punished at least some of Hitler’s henchmen accordingly. The founding of the UN and the establishment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, although far from perfect, have had very positive effects. Gunboat diplomacy imposed by major powers on weaker countries became an anachronism. So too did interstate war between them.
Of course there are still plenty of wars. In some ways the New World Order, which has helped make international wars so much less imaginable, has inadvertently made possible more “intranational” wars. Fragile and fractious countries that would previously have feared being conquered by more powerful neighbours can now fall prey to civil wars or brutal insurgencies without bad actors fearing loss of the national territory they seek to control. Non-state groups, such as Islamic State (a misnomer), can take and hold, at least for a while, territory from dysfunctional governments. Well-meaning but ill-conceived wars to change odious regimes have sometimes gone badly wrong. Foreign-policy realists will also, with justification, point out that the main reason why great powers no longer fight each other is because the destructive force of nuclear weapons has removed any incentive to do so.
Yet the authors argue persuasively that the liberal order of the past 70 years has been better than any of the alternatives and is well worth striving to preserve. The authors pay proper tribute to those who defined and fought for the principles that brought it into being. They include Salmon Levinson, a Chicago lawyer whose ideas led directly to the Kellogg-Briand pact; Sumner Welles, an American diplomat who envisaged the creation of a world organisation with the military clout to bring future warmongers to book; Hersch Lauterpacht, a great Polish-British jurist who helped create a body of international law based on universal values and human decency; and James Shotwell, a Canadian academic who worked with Aristide Briand to bring the pact into being and later contributed to the design of the UN.
Ms Hathaway and Mr Shapiro are right to sound the alarm that the post-second-world-war consensus on the illegality of war is under siege. Among those threats are militant jihadism; an angry Russia and an ambitious China determined to challenge an international system they believe fails to reflect their interests; Iranian support for terrorist groups; and North Korea’s contemptuous dismissal of diplomatic attempts to rein in its nuclear programme. But perhaps the greatest danger at present is the incumbency of an American president who despises international norms, who disparages free trade and who continually flirts with abandoning America’s essential role in maintaining the global legal order. The “internationalists”—the heroes of this important book—must be spinning in their graves.
...
"the economist" is 50% rothschild owned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
The NWO isn't liberal or consevative. It's class based.
[–] Pubiclouse 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Evil mother fuckers
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] Xax 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
What we do know, is that the message in no way can be taken at face value.
[–] ADaniels 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I don't be believe this shit for one second. These are MASTER CRAFTSMAN. Trump has (((Steve Mnuchin))) on his shoulder almost everywhere he goes. Clearly, (((They))) are playing this from both sides, look how (((they))) used Vice President Pence to have us all cheer the destruction of America's most watched sport, even if you don't like sportsball, WELL OVER HALF the country tunes in to watch the super bowl every year, it is as American as Apple pie.
All I'm saying is, don't think for a damn second the (((new world order))) isn't getting everything it wants, (((they))) indoctrinate our youth in the USA as well as Russia and China, faster than anyone can convince anyone otherwise. USA was intended to be the New World Order from it's inception, (((Thomas Paine))) and (John Locke))) were instrumental in the propaganda that fed the movement towards revolution, you really think we revolted against a mere 6 percent tax on tea that would have helped pay to expand/protect the frontier? Puhleez... USA is pwned.
The reason they want to rip up the "free trade" agreements and "internationalism" is because those schemes are 25-55+ years old and (((their))) competition has finally figured out how to exploit the current arrangements as well.
So time to swing the pendulum back in the USA's direction all-the-while coninuning to fester the perfect technocratic-communist takeover of the very country that was unfortunately meant for this finish from the start :(