It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NWO broadcasts views on Charlie Rose.

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:05 PM
I was watching Charlie Rose, and he had a very interesting panel discussing the war in Iraq. This panel included Jessica Matthews of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb, George Packer from the New Yorker,Kanan Makiya, and Iraqi “expatriate”, and Francis Fukayama from Johns Hopkins University. Does anyone see where I’m going with this?

First, Jessica Matthews held a very strong anti-war stand. She recommended that the US leave Iraq as soon as possible and allow for the Iraqi people to continue on their own. She held that as long as we stay there we would do more damage than good. She said it was a dishonorable act by the US and that we would be weaker because of it.

Now lets look at who Jessica was representing. The Carnegie Foundation was founded in 1905 by Andrew Carnegie. It’s motto is to do and perform all things necessary to encourage, uphold, and dignify the profession of the teacher and the cause of higher education . Carnegie was also one of the names behind a radical smear campaign in 1934 to defame President Roosevelt. Later that same year there was an attempted coup for control of the country by several of Carnegie’s business buddies, which I’m sure you’ve heard of. Does the Carnegie legacy continue in his foundation?

Leslie Gelb was a riot. He was bald with an eye patch, and everyone kept calling him “Les”. I could barely hold it together to listen to what he was saying. His position was a hard republican stance. He was proud that the US overthrew a dangerous regime and the people should thank us. He stood strong saying that they needed us to stay in the country and help rebuild it. He was very anti Bush administration though, and was convinced that the bumbling idiots did it all wrong and irreparably weakened the country.

I’m sure everyone is acquainted with the Council on Foreign Relations, if not here’s a pretty good description on their founding. Leslie Gelb was it’s president, and no doubt that requires something.

George Packer was the token anti-war guy from the New Yorker. He was young, hip (kinda) and very anti administration. He complained about government lies and disappointments. He thinks the troops should stay in as long as necessary to fix the damage that we have caused. He mentioned that now, after seeing how we handled Iraq, no one will fear us. He said the war weakened the military’s reputation.

Now it’s time to give a very brief history of the New Yorker. It was founded in 1925 by Harold Ross and Jane Grant. It was, and still is, somewhat of a high class, and low humored version of Maxim, without the chicks. I haven’t figured out what the New Yorker has to do with the NWO, but I bet it’s good.

Kanan Makiya is an Iraqi expatriate, and it seems that he gained genuinely wants to see the best happen in Iraq. He was in favor of the overthrow of Saddam, and is in favor of the US remaining in Iraq as long as it takes. He was giving numbers like 5-10 years. Makiya really caught my attention because of his repeated mentions of a “new order” in the Middle East. The Kicker was when he started saying that soon there would be a change in the world for the better. Normally I wouldn’t think twice, but it was interesting in context.

Now we come to Francis Fukayama. This man was very adamant that the US stay in Iraq because there is no chance that the state can recover in a timely fashion. It looks like we’re starting to have a common thread here. He said that from a humanitarian standpoint we must remain in Iraq.

Mr. Francis Fukayama has done nothing on his own as far as I can find. The interesting thing lies in the school he’s representing, and the benefits that could be bestowed upon him if he says the right things. A gentleman named Daniel Coit Gilman founded Johns Hopkins University in 1876. Gilman was a member of Skull & Bones in 1852. I propose that the university is still being run by the same powers as it was in the late 1800’s.

With all of these people representing the many faces of the Illuminati, is there anything that we can do that they don’t want us to do? I know some of these connections may seam a little weak on their own, but when you put the “Rose” on top it makes a nice little package. Charlie Rose is a confirmed member of the Bilderberg group.

Any thoughts?

[edit on 21-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:16 AM
I ran into a few articles about Francis Fukayama while researching "Neocon dictatorship" (a lil subject I have become fond of lately).

He is an original signatory of the infamous PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" statement and I think he also signed the letter to President Clinton in 1998 urging regime change in Iraq and the letter to Bush demanding more of the same in September 2001. (my, my these folk are pushy) The interesting thing worth noting is that he has now retracted his support for the neocon agenda.

He wrote a rather long article for the New York Times called After Neoconservatism which is what most likely landed him on that panel on Charlie Rose...I don't have the patience for that show, and even less patience for this Fukayama fellow, but here is some of what he has to say as a former insider.

In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war.


Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.

I say too little too late buddy you supported these policies when it was convenient for you. You sat around praying for the "Marxist" outcome of you dreams, but since that didn't happen now you are pushing the opposite of the poison you help to serve up to the American people.

Interesting read, though. Hope I'm not totally off topic, I just saw the name and was like whoa I know that guy he sucks.

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:13 AM
That's not off topic at all. I couldn't find anything myself, so thanks for that addition. To me it looks like the panel was set up with one thing in mind, to convince everyone, whether pro or anti war, that staying in Iraq would be the best idea. It looks like a very organized group of people who want specific reactions from people at specific times.

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 02:18 AM
I'm with you on seems these different factions have different solutions but they all come to the same conclusion. While, I didn't see the show you are referring to I've been around these debate long enough to know the type of double speak you are describing.

During the election farce of 04 even the so called antiwar candidate was for staying in Iraq. Somehow they twist the words just enough to sound like they oppose one another when actually they are pushing toward the same end--in the same direction. They are all truly on the same team. We can no longer see political opponets in the media. It doesn't matter your stance on the war--for, against, undecided--they've got a solution for your flavor. They're all socialist in drag...I call them the "thinkers".

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 07:08 AM
I've also noticed a trend in media coverage of Iraqi dealings. It seams like every other hostage that gets major television coverage gets freed. The rest disappear or are publicly executed. It's almost like somebody wants to have both sides of public oppinion justified so people can say, "those damn Iraqi's are brutal killers" and "those guys let some go, so they can't be all bad". That method, in conjunction with the one above, could sway public oppinion right into the hands of "them".

new topics

top topics

log in