Peter Hanseler: Europe is Teetering on the Brink

  

Europe is Teetering on the Brink

 

The NATO summit sent a message that no one wants to hear. Europe is openly declaring war on Russia—and it’s doing so with President Trump’s full support.

Peter Hanseler

Mon 13 Jul 2026 11 min read 15

Two Fires That Could Escalate Into a Storm

 

REPORT OF PRIME MINISTER VIKTOR ORBÁN TO CHARLES MICHEL, PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

• 18/07/2024
• SOURCE: CABINET OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Dear President,

Please find below a summary evaluation of my recent discussions with leaders of Ukraine, Russia, China, Türkiye and President Donald J. Trump, as well as a few suggestions for your consideration.

PT -- Paul Craig Roberts -- Mikhail Gorbachev Descanse em Paz

  

 

Mikhail Gorbachev R.I.P.

30 de Agosto de 2022 | Categorias: Artigos & Colunas | Etiquetas:

 

Mikhail Gorbachev R.I.P. (Rest in Peace = Descanse em Paz)

Por Paul Craig Roberts

 

 

Mikhail Gorbachev foi o primeiro Presidente da União Soviética e o último governante soviético. Foi o melhor da geração mais jovem de membros do Partido Comunista que compreendeu, tal como o Presidente dos EUA, Ronald Reagan, a futilidade da Guerra Fria e a ameaça desnecessária do Armagedão/massacre nuclear. Gorbachev também percebeu que as repressões e as dificuldades dos anos soviéticos eram desnecessárias e ele, juntamente com os seus conselheiros, alguns dos quais conheci e com quem participei em conferências, tentou reformar o sistema soviético. Foi obviamente um grande homem e um dirigente sincero dos povos soviéticos.

 

O Presidente Reagan apercebeu-se da grandeza de Gorbachev. Reagan percebeu também que Gorbachev estava limitado na sua capacidade de pôr fim à Guerra Fria devido a elementos desconfiados do Politburo. O plano do Presidente Reagan, no qual participei, era salvar a economia dos EUA da *"estagflação"[É um cenário de inflação, estagnação do desenvolvimento económico e aumento do desemprego.] e depois exercer pressão sobre a União Soviética através de uma ameaça de corrida às armas - Guerra das Estrelas - a fim de reforçar a posição de Gorbachev a favor do fim da Guerra Fria, do que sujeitar a economia soviética a lutar contra uma corrida às armas, confrontada perante uma economia americana revitalizada.

 

Reagan, apesar da oposição da CIA e do complexo militar e de segurança dos EUA, levou a cabo o seu plano não para ganhar a Guerra Fria, mas como Reagan salientou repetidamente a todos os envolvidos, para pôr fim à Guerra Fria. Nenhum de nós, incluindo Reagan, tinha qualquer ideia do colapso soviético. O nosso objectivo era impedir um conflito injustificado que ameaçava a Humanidade com o Armagedão, isto é, com o massacre nuclear.

 

O que não percebemos foi que elementos da linha dura do Partido Comunista Soviético pensavam que Gorbachev estava a fazer demasiadas concessões ao Ocidente demasiado cedo, sem concessões e garantias recíprocas suficientes. Ao que tudo indica, o próprio Gorbachev não se apercebeu disso.

 

Reagan procedeu com prudência. Convidou Gorbachev para a Casa Branca. Reagan convenceu o distinto pianista americano, Van Cliburn, à data já aposentado, a actuar para Gorbachev na Casa Branca. Van Cliburn tinha ganho, com a aprovação de Khrushchev, o concurso internacional inaugural Tchaikovsky em Moscovo, em 1958. Além das composições clássicas de compositores russos, Van Cliburn presenteou Gorbachev com obras do folclore russo. O Presidente Reagan proibiu absolutamente qualquer referência depreciativa à União Soviética. Nada, nem mesmo a CIA, impediu o fim da Guerra Fria.

 

Após o fim do segundo mandato de Reagan, eu tinha menos ligação com o seu sucessor, o anterior Vice Presidente, George H. W. Bush, mas sei por um facto incontestável, que o Secretário de Estado, James Baker, garantiu a Gorbachev que se ele, Gorbachev, permitisse a unificação da Alemanha, a NATO não se deslocaria um centímetro para Leste. Não há dúvida sobre este acontecimento, apesar dos desmentidos dos neoconservadores americanos e dos funcionários do regime de Clinton.

 

A União Soviética ruiu, não graças a Reagan, mas porque os comunistas da linha dura, como é compreensível, perturbados pela confiança de Gorbachev na palavra de Washington, tentaram um golpe e colocaram Gorbachev sob prisão domiciliária. Foi este erro de cálculo que provocou o colapso do governo soviético e a ascensão de Ieltsin, que, intencionalmente ou não, estava essencialmente sob o controlo de Washington.

 

Gorbachev, acreditando, tal como Reagan, na futilidade da Guerra Fria, acreditou que o conflito tinha terminado. O erro de Gorbachev foi o de não compreender Washington. Um Presidente americano pode fazer um acordo que pode ser rescindido por um sucessor. Esta situação é válida mesmo que existam documentos assinados, mas na ausência de documentos assinados, o regime corrupto de Clinton pôde alegar a inexistência de um acordo, segundo o qual a NATO não se deslocaria para as fronteiras da Rússia.

 

Tendo em conta que o regime democrata Clinton derrubou o fim da Guerra Fria de Reagan-Gorbachev, através de uma Nova Guerra Fria, agora grandemente expandida sob o regime do democrata Biden, a tolerância do Kremlin em relação às intenções agressivas declaradas do Ocidente contra a Rússia é perturbadora. Como pode alguém no Kremlin tornar a acreditar numa palavra do que Washington diz?

 

Na Rússia, Gorbachev não é visto como o notável dirigente que ele foi. Na América, os patriotas ignorantes que agitam bandeiras, baseiam erradamente o seu orgulho no facto de Reagan ter ganho a Guerra Fria.

 

Tanto quanto eu posso dizer, é que, na qualidade de participante, nenhum dos lados compreende o que aconteceu.

 

https://ria.ru/20220831/nato-1813306958.html

https://sputniknews.com/20220831/gorbachev-was-promised-non-expansion-of-nato-his-mistake-was-to-believe-it-ex-us-official-says-1100199807.html

ROB SLANE -- When Fanatical Ideology Bumps up Against Stone Cold Reality

 When Fanatical Ideology Bumps up Against Stone Cold Reality 

 

 March 13, 2022  Rob Slane 

 

 

I have avoided writing anything on recent events in Ukraine thus far, partly because I wanted to see how events were panning out, partly because I still don’t quite understand how this all fits in with the two year Globalist PsyOp that ended abruptly on 24^th February – the same day as the Russian military operation started, as coincidence would have it – but mainly because the experience of trying to write rational analysis in the midst of propaganda that would have made the editors of Pravda blush is no easy task.

As a brief defence against those who will inevitably smear my attempts to analyse the context behind all this as somehow pro-Russian, let me ask them not to bother. I really don’t even understand the frame of reference, since I don’t view the world in the absurd black hat/white hat terms that lead to such jibes. And in any case, I am pro-God and pro-Truth, as well as being a patriotic Englishman who writes on such topics because he believes this once green and pleasant land is now run by terminally foolish clowns and Globalist ideologues who do not govern for the people but in the interests of others. I would also point out that I was writing about atrocities committed against Ukrainians years before it became fashionable to do so. However, unfortunately it seems I was supporting the wrong Ukrainians — the ones nobody cares about — in the Donbass, who have been killed, terrorised and forced to leave the country by their own brutal Government for eight years, with some even deliberately burned alive by the neo-Nazis formations that apparently don’t exist. Those caveats aside, let’s press on.

For most Westerners, it appears that the current conflict suddenly dropped from the sky one morning in February 2022. They woke up to hear about a Russian invasion, and without any prior knowledge or context, having been denied this for years by their so-called free press, simply accepted the narrative thrown at them that this invasion was utterly unprovoked — the brainchild of a madman who wishes to recreate Hammer and Sickle Land again.

None of this is remotely true. Whatever the actual reasons for invading at this particular time — and I don’t believe for one moment that we have the full picture yet — this conflict most certainly did not drop out of the sky or from the ravings of a lunatic on 24^th February 2022. No, it is part of a sequence of events that was set off years ago, particularly in 2014, which were clearly destined to reshape the world. As I wrote back in September 2014:

“I believe this crisis to be the defining crisis of the 21st Century so far. … It is also something that may well define the shape of the planet for the rest of the century — whether we are left with a unipolar world … or whether we see a new multipolar world emerging … It is in a very real sense the key battle between globalisation and national sovereignty.”

ERIC ZUESSE -- Why It’s Especially Necessary to End NATO Now

 

  

 

 

 

Why It’s Especially Necessary to End NATO Now

 

Eric Zuesse,  March 13, 2021

 

 

In a previous article I argued “Why It’s Necessary to End NATO”. However, recent events are making clear that the urgency of this need is increasing, instead of decreasing.

 

In 2011, the U.S. Government started planning a take-over of Ukraine, which, at that time, was a neutral country that has a 1,625-mile border with Russia. At its nearest point to Moscow, that border is only 5 minutes flight-time away from Moscow, via the fastest missiles. Obviously, that’s far too little time for Russia’s Government to be able to evacuate themselves from Moscow and to launch a retaliation against a U.S. blitz-attack. The U.S. goal is to get Ukraine into NATO, so that America can position its missiles there and really achieve “Nuclear Primacy” (which I discussed in that earlier article as being America’s meta-strategy since at least 2006 — safely to destroy Russia, even though that won’t actually be possible).

 

On February 1st of 2021, Ukraine’s President, Volodmyr Zelenskyy, made undeniably clear his intention to fulfill on Obama’s plan, for Ukraine to become a NATO member. Whether Joe Biden is going to push for that will be the most important decision of his Presidency, because it would be a commitment to World War III. It would, in effect, be a U.S. declaration of war against Russia. Whether the blitz-invasion would come from the U.S. (presumably assisted by missiles placed in Ukraine), or instead from Russia (in order to wipe out those and all other U.S. missiles), would be the only remaining question. Who will try the blitz-attack first? Either way, the world — at least the biosphere that sustains human life — would end.

 

Zelenskyy said: 

---

 

We are grateful for everything, but Ukraine is not just saying in words that it wants to be an equal member of the Alliance, an equal member of NATO, because this is one of the most important security points - the same security that President Biden is speaking about. How should we further state the desire to accede [join], if it is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine - the movement towards the European Union, European integration, as well as accession to NATO? Therefore, I have a very simple question - why is Ukraine still not in NATO? Putting away these phrases that we will all contemplate and communicate, the first simple question from me would be: "Mr. President, why are we not in NATO yet"?

 

If Ukraine becomes a NATO-member, then Ukraine will have the right to demand that America join its war to grab back the former Donbass region and also the former region of Crimea. The U.S. Government would then be put into the position of having to either fulfill its NATO commitment to the new NATO member (presuming that restoration of both Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine would be accepted as being a part of that commitment to what then would be a fellow-NATO-member) or else become very embarrassed by not doing so. If such a NATO commitment would be fulfilled, the world as it has always been known would end very fast — less than an hour.

 

The way that WW III would then start is that Ukraine would become more heavily armed by the U.S. and then would invade both Donbass and Crimea, Russia would then attack Ukraine for doing that, and the U.S. would then launch a blitz-attack against Moscow from Ukraine, and, simultaneously launch against all other command-and-control targets in Russia, so that before those have become hit, Russia would already have been decapitated.

 

The United States Government is fortunately not obliged to allow Ukraine into NATO and has many ways to prevent it from joining NATO. Some of these ways wouldn’t at all embarrass the U.S. Government, and the reason for this is that if any one NATO-member nation refuses to okay Ukraine as becoming a member, then Ukraine won’t become a member, and the scenario that has been described won’t then happen. The U.S. Government has enormous clout with each existing NATO member-nation, because NATO was created by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the “Washington Treaty”) in Washington, DC, on 4 April 1949, at a conference that was chaired by U.S. diplomat Theodore Achiles, who subsequently retired to become a Director of the Atlantic Council, which also is in Washington, and which is the PR arm of NATO. The U.S. Government could easily get at least one NATO-member country to say no to Ukraine’s joining. However, if U.S. President Biden announces that the U.S. endorses NATO-membership for Ukraine, then that’s, in itself, virtually a U.S. declaration of war against Russia, and Russia might not wait for it to be made official before responding to it — blitz-invading the U.S. and its allies.

 

According to Achilles’s account of the creation of NATO:

 

The NATO spirit was born in that Working Group. Derick Hoyer-Millar, the British Minister, started it. One day he made a proposal which was obviously nonsense. Several of us told him so in no uncertain terms, and a much better formulation emerged from the discussion. Derick said, and I quote, "Those are my instructions. All right, I'll tell the foreign office I made my pitch, was shot down and try to get them changed." He did. From then on we all followed the same system. If our instructions were sound, and agreement could be reached, fine. If not, we worked out something we all, or most of us, considered sound, and whoever had the instructions undertook to get them changed. It always worked, although sometimes it took time. That spirit has continued to this day, I believe, although the size to which NATO has grown makes it far less easy. Two years later we began in London to put the "O" on the NAT by creating the organization. Some of the members of the delegations had been members of the Working Group, some had not. 

 

Was that the beginning of the end of the world? Perhaps Biden will decide whether it is, or not.

 

However, if he does decide to do it, then I doubt he’d do the attack prior to getting Ukraine into NATO — if he can do that. On March 10th, The Saker headlined “Is the Ukraine on the brink of war (again)?” and speculated whether Biden will provide now the backing that the Obama-installed stooge-regime there wants. Though the stooge-regime might re-invade Donbass (and maybe even attack Crimea), I doubt that Biden will provide the type of assistance that the U.S.-stooge regime in Kiev would need in order to retake that land (and certainly not Crimea). I would expect that Biden is therefore informing Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy not to try. So, I would expect that, instead, the crucial decision will be whether or not the regime in Washington will decide that it really does want Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

 

On March 10th, Sweden’s Defense Research Agency issued in two different parts, a 300-page report, “Western Military Capability in Northern Europe 2020,” which concluded that Russia would likely win WW III in Europe, and which analyzed only conventional war and virtually totally ignored even the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in WW III — the presumption was instead that the meta-strategy “MAD” still would prevent that, and they ignored the U.S. regime’s actual abandonment of “MAD” and switch to “Nuclear Primacy”. They also simply presumed that the U.S. is their ally and non-aggressive and that Russia is their enemy and is aggressive. In other words: it is fantasyland, at least in the Swedish Government. Furthermore: the core strategic question, of whether the loser in a conventional WW III would accept defeat instead of blitz-nuclear-attack the opponent so as to ‘win’ the war, was simply ignored, as if there would be a 100% likelihood that the conventional-war loser would just surrender and not escalate to a blitz nuclear attack against the opposite side in order to ‘win’ and would leave its enormous nuclear stockpile unused. They ignored the fact that NATO, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is the trip-wire to an all-out nuclear war — the exact opposite of an asset to its participants’ national security. NATO-participation makes all of them inevitably a part of the battlefield, and forces Russia to target them. Sweden’s Defense Research Agency produced there an insanely stupid study, and one which shows that Europeans, at least in Sweden, are being ‘defended’ by a government that is either in the pocket of the U.S., or else is simply idiotic. That study is shockingly stupid; it makes some of the craziest assumptions imaginable — assumptions that are tragically at variance with established facts (facts such as that America is, by far, the world’s most aggressive nation, and perpetrates far more coups, sanctions, and invasions, than does any other nation). At least regarding foreign relations, Sweden’s Government is monstrously disserving its public, and yet Swedes aren’t enraged against it. Are their news-media really that bad, so as for Swedes to tolerate a military alliance with the world’s most aggressive nation?

 

The only sane path forward for the nations that currently are NATO members (or “Partners” as Sweden is) is to withdraw and to urge other members (and Partners) likewise to withdraw, so that NATO will end — as it should have ended when the Soviet Union’s NATO-mirror organization the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. End the Cold War, finally. NATO — the American military alliance against Russia — is simply the trip-wire to WW III. End it. Now. Even 30 years after 1991 isn’t, yet, too late to do it. But, maybe, 31 years would  be. That’s why it must be done now, delayed no further. Either NATO will end, or it will end all of us.

 

—————

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

PT -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- O Exército Privado dos Banqueiros -- November 08, 2020

 

O Exército Privado dos Banqueiros

 

Por LARRY ROMANOFF, November 08, 2020

 

ENGLISH  ESPAÑOL  PORTUGUÊS

Durante a História recente, poucas guerras foram geradas devido a ambições políticas ou territoriais. Na História Moderna, quase todas as guerras lançadas pelo Ocidente, incluindo a Guerra Civil dos Estados Unidos e as duas Grandes Guerras Mundiais, foram guerras de banqueiros, incitadas, instigadas e financiadas pelos poderes financeiros da Europa. Anatole France, o romancista francês vencedor do Prémio Nobel, escreveu certa vez: "Você acredita que está a morrer pela pátria -  morre por alguns industriais." Podemos recordar, neste ponto, o General Smedley Butler e as suas afirmações de que as guerras eram só sobre dinheiro, sobre abrir as portas à força para que os capitalistas e os banqueiros saciassem a sua ambição desmedida.

 

 “Passei 33 anos na Marinha, a maior parte do tempo, sendo um guarda-costas de alto gabirito do ‘Big Business’  (dos Grandes Negócios), da Wall Street e dos banqueiros. Em suma, eu era um criminoso, um assassino às ordens do capitalismo. Esta factura apresenta uma contabilidade horrível. Lápides recém-colocadas, corpos mutilados. Mentes despedaçadas. Corações e lares destroçados. Instabilidade económica. Impostos pesados durante gerações e gerações. "A guerra era, em grande parte, uma questão de dinheiro. Os banqueiros emprestam dinheiro aos países estrangeiros e, quando eles não conseguem pagar, o Presidente envia os fuzileiros navais para fazerem a cobrança. Eu sei - estive em onze dessas expedições. "

 

Não faltam exemplos de empresas multinacionais ocidentais a cometer atrocidades económicas - e humanas - somente para obter mais lucro. Será que perdoamos essas atrocidades porque os atacantes eram brancos, democratas e acreditavam num mercado livre? Ouçam algumas algumas vozes além da minha, sobre o tema do governo dos Estados Unidos e da criminalidade empresarial. Thomas Friedman, escreveu no New York Times: "A mão oculta do mercado nunca funcionará sem um punho oculto - o McDonald's não pode evoluir sem McDonnell Douglas ..." Philip Agee, um antigo agente da CIA, publicou um livro intitulado ‘Diário da CIA’, no qual escreveu: "O capitalismo americano baseado na exploração dos pobres, com a sua motivação fundamentada na ganância pessoal, não pode sobreviver,  simplesmente, sem a utilização da força." John Maynard Keynes, talvez o economista mais influente da História, disse: "O capitalismo é a crença extraordinária de que os homens mais perversos, motivados pelos motivos mais desumanos, trabalharão, de alguma forma, para o benefício de todos."

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- A MUST READ --The Bankers' Private Army -- November 08, 2020

 The Bankers' Private Army

By Larry Romanoff, November 08, 2020

 Few wars of recent history have been generated by politics or territorial ambitions. Almost all wars launched by the West in the earth's modern history, including the US Civil War and both World Wars, have been bankers' wars, incited, instigated and financed by the financial powers of Europe. Anatole France, the Nobel Prize-winning French novelist, once wrote, "You believe you are dying for the fatherland - you die for some industrialists." We can be reminded here of General Smedley Butler, and his claims that wars were all about money, about forcibly opening the doors for capitalists and bankers to satiate their greed.

 

"I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. The general public shoulders the bill. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones, Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations. "War was largely a matter of money. Bankers lend money to foreign countries and when they cannot repay the President sends Marines to get it. I know - I've been in eleven of these expeditions."

 

EN -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- Humanity at the Crossroads -- June 17, 2020

Humanity at the Crossroads

Connecting the Dots to Our Brave New World 

By  Larry Romanoff

June 17, 2020

ENGLISH  ESPAÑOL  PORTUGUÊS

Humankind is at a cusp, a point of transition between two different states of governance and existence. The world today is like a sack being slowly filled while the string around the opening is pulled increasingly tighter to prevent the contents from escaping confinement. The shadows of this future are everywhere to be seen but even the keenest of observers tend to view the portents not as the warnings they are, but instead regard all these pieces of one despairing puzzle as disconnected and unrelated events. In this essay, we will take a look at where our world is going, how it is going there, and why it is going there.

For, dark and despairing, my sight I may seal, but man cannot hide what God would reveal. 

‘Tis the sunset of life gives me mystical lore,and coming events cast their shadow before. (1)

One needn’t be credentialed as either prophet or oracle to make the connections and expose the plan. It is another matter entirely to convince average readers of the truth of it. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. We are midway between the first and second stages, where proponents of exposure are still widely ridiculed but, if they gain a popular audience, they will be violently attacked.

Where we are going – One World Government

Lest we succumb to the temptation of dismissing this as yet another batty conspiracy theory, it would be wise to consider these quotes:

David Rockefeller in an address to the Trilateral Commission, referring to the Bilderberg Group, whose existence was hotly denied and derided for decades as just another conspiracy theory:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of public scrutiny during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and fully prepared to march towards our one world-government. The supranational sovereignty of our intellectual elites and world bankers is surely preferable to the globe as a whole.” (2)

PT -- LARRY ROMANOFF -- A Humanidade numa Encruzilhada -- June 17, 2020

A Humanidade numa Encruzilhada 

Relacionando os acontecimentos com o nosso Admirável Mundo Novo

Por  Larry Romanoff

17 de Junho de 2020

ENGLISH  ESPAÑOL  PORTUGUÊS

A Humanidade está no topo, num ponto de transição entre dois estados diferentes de governação e de existência. O mundo de hoje é como um saco que está a ser enchido lentamente enquanto a corda ao redor da abertura está cada vez mais apertada para impedir que o conteúdo escape do confinamento. As sombras deste futuro estão em toda parte para serem vistas, mas até o mais perspicaz dos observadores tende a ver os presságios  não como os avisos que são, mas considera todas estas peças de um quebra-cabeças desesperante como sendo acontecimentos separados e não relacionados. Neste ensaio, veremos para onde o nosso mundo se está a encaminhar.

Por mais sombria e angustiante que possa ser a minha visão, o homem não pode esconder o que Deus irá revelar.

Este pôr-do-sol da vida dá-me uma história mística,

e os acontecimentos futuros projectam a sua sombra antecipadamente.(1)

Não é preciso ser profeta ou oráculo para fazer as ligações e expor o plano. Outra questão é convencer os leitores comuns da verdade dos factos. O filósofo alemão Arthur Schopenhauer escreveu que toda a verdade passa por três fases. Na primeira, é ridicularizada. Na segunda, é violentamente contrariada. Na terceira, é aceite como evidente por si mesma. Estamos a meio caminho entre a primeira e a segunda fase, onde os defensores da exposição ainda são amplamente ridicularizados, mas, se conquistarem um auditório progressista, serão violentamente atacados.

Para onde vamos – Governo Mundial Único

Para não sucumbirmos à tentação de considerar este assunto como mais uma teoria da conspiração extravagante, será sensato considerar estas citações:

David Rockefeller, num discurso perante a Comissão Trilateral, referindo-se ao Grupo Bilderberg, cuja existência foi negada com veemência e ridicularizada durante décadas como sendo, apenas, mais uma teoria da conspiração:

“Estamos gratos ao Washington Post, ao New York Times, à revista Time e a outras grandes publicações cujos directores compareceram às nossas reuniões e respeitaram as promessas de discrição durante quase quarenta anos. Seria impossível desenvolvermos o nosso plano para o mundo se estivéssemos sujeitos,  durante todos estes anos, às luzes brilhantes da investigação minuciosa do público. Mas agora o mundo está mais sofisticado e totalmente preparado para marchar em direcção ao nosso governo mundial único. A soberania supranacional das nossas elites e dos banqueiros do mundo é, indubitavelmente, preferível para o globo como um todo.”(2)