May 11, 2011

Pro-democracy Death Squads – Can’t Stop Hillary’s History, it’s a Fool’s Errand

From American Everyman

by Scott Creighton

“Pro-democracy Death Squads”. Just chew on that one for a second.

It appears that the “pro-democracy” rebels in Benghazi are running around killing people who don’t particularly like their new form of government… “democracy”. This news breaks in the MSM at a time when our man in Benghazi is visiting Washington looking for more money to help his pro-democracy cause.

Death squads are required for this kind of “democratization” to take place. It happened in Chile when we neoliberalized that country in ’73. Argentina, Indonesia, Russia, El Salvador, Bosnia, Haiti, you name it. Everywhere this process goes, people wind up with their hand tied behind their backs and bullet wounds in their heads. Libya will be no exception. What we are seeing taking place now in the east will be a nation wide epidemic before it’s all over.

“… The killings, still unsolved, appeared to be rooted in revenge, the families said, and have raised the specter of a death squad stalking former Qaddafi officials in Benghazi, the opposition stronghold.
The killings have unsettled an already paranoid city, where rebel authorities have spent weeks trying to round up people suspected of being Qaddafi loyalists — members of a fifth column who they say are trying to overthrow the rebels. If the violence continues, it will pose a stern challenge to a movement trying to present a vision of a new country committed to the rule of law, while potentially undermining hopes for a peaceful transition if Colonel Qaddafi surrenders power.”MSNBC

No one should be surprised. When this thing broke out, the “rebels” were running around looting everything and killing each other with reckless abandon.

“As gun battles rage across their dusty compound, all the stranded British oil workers can do is hide, wait and pray.
Rival gangs and drug-crazed looters have moved in on the depot in Al Brega, about 550 miles east of Tripoli.

… One estimated that the looters had taken away £6million worth of equipment.
He said: ‘They overran the gate guards and came in shooting.
‘The really scary point was when two sets of looters were shooting each other, and me and two other Brits were trapped in an office.
‘The back door was locked, so we had to kick it down and then we hid behind a water tank.
‘The two gangs were chasing each other, and at one point they saw us, and stopped to steal our phones from us at gunpoint.’”
… ‘Sunday night we had the first armed looters, Monday they came back, then another lot of looters came and chased away the first lot.
‘Three of them were killed by gunfire. Monday night the second lot came back again.
‘They took cranes, excavators, bulldozers, money, everything they could lay their hands on.’ Daily Mail

These are the people that Hillary Clinton wants to hand over billions of dollars to in Libya so that they can “protect” the people.

If this is the kind of “pro-democracy” wave that Hillary Clinton was talking about taking hold in China, I don’t blame the Chinese for locking them up. Sadly when she says it’s a “fools errand” to try to halt this kind of “progress” she is probably correct. There is way too much money behind her and her agenda to “democratize” the entire world and there is WAY WAY too much national treasure in China just waiting to be privatized.

The article quotes Mrs Clinton as saying last month that China’s leaders were “worried” that the wave of pro-democracy protests overtaking the Middle East would spread east to China.
“They’re trying to stop history, which is a fool’s errand,” she said. “They cannot do it, but they’re going to hold it off as long as possible.” BBC

__________

Predator Drones Strike with “Incredible Accuracy” – over 957 Pakistanis killed in 2010

Why the West Is Attacking Gaddafi: Gaddafi proposed a radical form of social democracy in which oil revenues would be nationalized and distributed directly to Libyans. This threat is why the west, ruled by the fossil fuel kings, have decided to take him out. Money

What Else Will The Government’s “Special Chip” In Your Cellphone Do?

The Obama administration is engaged in a totalitarian takeover of all communications

Paul Joseph Watson - Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 11, 2011

The announcement that Americans are set to be bombarded with mandatory government propaganda via their cellphones represents a shocking lurch forward in the Obama administration’s bid to launch a total takeover of all communications as part of a wider move towards controlling the Internet, developing an omnipresent wiretap system, and creating a constant environment of suspicion and distrust by enlisting citizens to spy on each other.

Short of implanting a microchip in people’s heads, the US government has opted for the next best thing, a chip in your cellphone. But what else will these “special chips” be used for?

“Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software,” under the new program which was launched today in New York and is set to be rolled out across all major cities by the end of next year,reports CBS New York.

Cellphone users would not be able to opt out of “presidential messages,” with Verizon and AT&T, the nation’s largest cell phone carriers, already on board.

“For now, the alerts are capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts,” adds the report.

The messages will supersede all other phone traffic and have a unique signal and vibration, meaning that your private conversation could be cut off to make way for government propaganda in a program that resembles Minority Report-style invasiveness on steroids.

What else these “special chips” that will be mandatory in all cellphones will do is not explained,but given the recent scandal where it emerged that cell phone companies were building location databases of where their users had traveled, the sky’s the limit.

Cell phone providers already have the capability to send out text messages to all their subscribers instantly, so why the government needs a “special chip” to be installed will only heighten suspicions that this is a trojan horse for an omnipresent wiretap that will feed every scintilla of information from your phone directly to big brother.

As one respondent to the story put it, “Surely you only need a database of all phone numbers to send out text messages. Am I only person wondering why all handsets need to be fitted with “special chips” in order to receive text messages? The “special chips” can only be being introduced to serve other purposes.”

“This seems very suspicious. Why can people not opt out of the president’s messages?” asked another. “They pay for their phones – they should dictate what it does, not Obama.”

Would the “special chips” also empower Obama to shut down all cell phone traffic on a whim in a time of declared “national emergency”?

Obama already has the power to override all radio and television networks under the recently expanded Emergency Alert System, which allows FEMA to break in on live broadcasts to send out alerts.

His administration is also pushing cybersecurity legislation that would hand Obama a figurative kill switch for the Internet. The term “kill switch” is an oversimplification, what the agenda actually revolves around is the ability to impose Chinese-style censorship over the world wide web and develop an ID system that would force users to have their access controlled by a state-run licensing procedure.

The government-mandated chips would also help achieve the Department of Transportation’s aim of blocking all cellphone use in cars. The chip would allow authorities to prevent use of the phone by measuring the speed you are traveling via GPS technology and shutting down the handset.

This trifecta of broadcast media, Internet, and cellphone traffic represents a total takeover of the entire spectrum of communications in the United States by the Obama administration.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)

Aside from the terror fearmongering, the system is also wide open for abuse in more prosaic terms, with some fearing that the messages could include PR talking points and political electioneering. Indeed, the image that accompanies a USA Today piece about the story is of a cellphone displaying an infomercial about Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The plan to harass cell phone users with specious terror alerts is part of a larger agenda of fear-based social conditioning by the government. As we noted last month, the Department of Homeland Security announced a new system to replace the old color-coded one. Now so-called terror threats that inevitably turn out to be either false alarms or politically motivated scamswill be posted on Facebook and Twitter pages in addition to broadcast over television, radio and cell phones.

As we have exhaustively documented, the move has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping Americans safe from terrorism. More Americans are killed every year by bumble bees or peanut allergies than they are by terrorists.

“Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts,” writes Ohio University’s John Mueller in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity.

The real agenda behind the program manifests itself in numerous ways. On the one hand, this is a further intensification of the Big Sis “see something say something” campaign, it’s designed to condition Americans that terrorists are lurking around every corner and that they must spy on their community to prevent attacks, when in reality every major terror plot that has been uncovered in the United States was either staged or provocateured by the federal government itself.

This is also about capitalizing on the dubious Bin Laden raid to return Americans to a state of post-9/11 intellectual castration, corralling subservience to a system that utilizes fear to control the population and eviscerate constitutional rights.

With the compliant and castrated media increasingly distrusted, Americans are either moving to alternative news sources or tuning out altogether. This has necessitated the government to launch a wide spectrum takeover of all communications in its bid to keep the population under the firm control of state-issued propaganda.

We are now just a few steps away from having literal telescreens installed in our homes that beam directly into our brains the latest government fables about who we’re bombing now, what level chocolate rations are this month, as well as Michelle Obama’s mandatory exercise program.

Winston Smith’s world of 1984 has come home to roost.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

_________

What you don’t know about the Bilderberg-Group

From Voltairenet, 9 May 2011

by Thierry Meyssan*

The idea that the Bilderberg Group is behind the creation of a mysterious future World Government has been spreading for years. Having had access to the archives of this very secret club, Thierry Meyssan shows that this belief leads in a false direction, serving to mask the true identity and function of the Group. In reality, the Bilderberg Group is a creation of NATO. It aims to influence key leaders on a global scale and, through them, to manipulate public opinion to get it to embrace the ideas and actions of the Northern Atlantic Alliance.


First meeting of the Group, at the Bilderberg hotel (1954)

Every year since 1954, over one hundred of the most prominent personalities of Western Europe and North America meet - behind closed doors and under maximum security - within the Bilderberg Group. This exclusive seminar lasts for three days and almost nothing of the debates filters to the outside world.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, numerous journalists have taken an interest in this secretive, elitist organization. Certain authors have seen it as the beginning of a World Government, responsible for the major political, cultural, economic and military decisions of the second half of the twentieth century. This interpretation has also been voiced by Fidel Castro, but it has never been confirmed nor invalidated by any solid facts.
In order to find out what the Bilderberg Group is or isn’t, I searched for documents and first hand witnesses. I obtained access to all of its records for the period 1954-1966 and numerous later documents, and I was able to talk with a former participant that I’ve known for years. No other journalist to date, including the authors who have popularized today’s stereotypes, has had access to this wealth of internal documents of the Bilderberg Group.
Here’s what I discovered…

The first meeting

70 personalities from 12 different countries attended the first meeting of the Group. It was a three-day seminar, from May 29 to 31, 1954, near Arnhem (Netherlands). The guests were housed in two nearby hotels, but the debates were held in the Bilderberg Hotel, which gave the Group its name.
The invitations with a letterhead from the Soestdijk Palace are intriguing: "I earnestly request your presence at the informal International Conference, to be held in the Netherlands in late May. This conference wishes to explore a number of issues of great importance for Western civilization and is intended to stimulate mutual understanding and goodwill through a free exchange of views." The invitations were signed by the Prince Consort of the Netherlands, Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, and accompanied by several pages of administrative information concerning transportation and accommodation. At most, we learn that the delegates originated from the United States and 11 from Western Europe, and that 6 sessions of 3 hours each were scheduled.
Given the Nazi past of Prince Bernhard (who had served in the SS cavalry until his marriage in 1937 to Princess Juliana) and in the context of McCarthyism in the U.S., it’s clear that the "issues of great importance for Western civilization" revolved around the struggle against communism.
Once there, the anticipation of the guests was mitigated by the two chairmen: U.S. entrepreneur John S. Coleman and outgoing Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Paul van Zeeland. The first was an active partisan of free trade and the second a supporter of the European Defense Community (EDC) [1]. Last but not least, at the far end of the table (see photo) sat Joseph Retinger, the intellectual influence behind the British. All this suggests that the Dutch and British monarchies sponsored this meeting to support the European Defense Community and the economic model of free-market capitalism against the anti-Americanism that the Communists and the Gaullists were promoting.
However, appearances are deceiving. The goal was not to campaign for the EDC, but to mobilize the elite for the Cold War.
His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard, was chosen to convene this conference because his status as a prince consort would give it a Stately character without being formal. In fact, he was used to hide the real sponsor: an inter-governmental organization which intends to manipulate the governments of some of its Member States.
John S. Coleman was not yet the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, but he had already created the “Citizen’s Committee for a National Trade Policy” - CCNTP. According to him, absolute free trade, that is to say, the renunciation of all customs duties, would allow countries allied with the United States to increase their wealth and finance the European Defense Community (in other words, rearm Germany and integrate its potential military power within NATO).
However, the documents in our possession show that the CCNTP was a “Citizen’s” committee in name only. This is actually an initiative of Charles D. Jackson, the White House psychological warfare adviser. The operation was controlled in reality by William J. Donovan, the former commander of the OSS (the U.S. intelligence service during the war), now in charge of building the American branch of the new secret service of NATO, Gladio [2].
Paul van Zeeland was not only the promoter of the European Defense Community, but also a politician of great experience. At the Liberation, he chaired the Independent League for European Cooperation (ILAE) whose objective was to create a customs and monetary union. This organization was established by Joseph Retinger, mentioned earlier.


Joseph Retinger

Specifically Retinger, who was acting as secretary for the Bilderberg conference, served during the war in the English secret services (OES) of General Colin Gubbins. A Polish adventurer, Retinger found himself advisor to the Sikorski government in exile in the United Kingdom. In London, he livened up the small world of governments in exile and compiled one of the best address books in newly liberated Europe.
His friend, Sir Gubbins, officially left the service and the SOE was disbanded. Retinger ran a small textile business, which served as a "cover". In fact, alongside his counterpart Donovan, he was responsible for creating the English branch of Gladio. He participated in all of the preparatory meetings of the Bilderberg conference and was present among the guests, seated next to Charles D. Jackson.
Unknown to the participants, the secret services of NATO were, in fact, the organizing power behind the scenes. Bernhard, Coleman and Van Zeeland were used as fronts.
Contrary to the idea developed by the creative journalists who imagined the Bilderberg Group forging a secret World Government, this club of influential leaders is in reality a lobbying tool to promote NATO’s interests. It is in fact much more serious and dangerous, because it is NATO which aims to be the secret World Government - guaranteeing the international status quo and maintaining U.S. influence.
Moreover, the security of each subsequent meeting was not provided by the police of the host country, but by the soldiers of the NATO Alliance.
Among the ten speakers, there were two former Prime Ministers (Guy Mollet, France, Alcide de Gasperi, Italy), three officials of the Marshall Plan, the Cold War hawk (Paul H. Nitze) and, above all, an extremely powerful banker (David Rockefeller).
According to the preparatory documents, approximately 20 people were in the inner circle. They knew more or less in detail those who were pulling the strings and preparing in advance their work. The smallest details were prepared before hand and nothing was left to chance. On the other hand, the fifty other participants knew nothing of what was happening behind the scenes. They were chosen to influence their respective governments and public opinion in their countries. The seminar was organized to convince these leaders and incite them to diffuse the point of view of the NATO Alliance in their respective countries.
The debates didn’t address the major international problems, but rather analyzed the supposed ideological strategy of the Soviets and set out how it should be countered by the "free world".
The first statements assessed the communist threat. The "conscious communists" are individuals who intended to put their homeland at the service of the Soviet Union in order to impose a collectivist world. They must be fought. But it was a difficult challenge because these "conscious communists" in Europe were embedded with a mass of Communist voters who knew nothing about their evil plans and followed them in hopes of improved social conditions.
Gradually, the rhetoric became more radical. The "free world" must oppose the "world communist conspiracy", not only in a general way, but also by responding to specific questions concerning U.S. investments in Europe or on decolonization.
Finally, the speakers addressed the main problem which the Soviets, according to them, were exploiting to their advantage. For cultural and historical reasons, the political leaders of the "free world" used different arguments in the U.S. and in Europe, arguments that sometimes contradicted one another. The most emblematic cases are the purges organized by Senator McCarthy in the United States. They were essential to save democracy, but the method was perceived in Europe as a form of totalitarianism.
The final message was that no diplomatic negotiation, no compromise was possible with the "Reds". The role of the Communists in Western Europe had be prevented at any cost, but it would take cunning: as they cannot just be arrested and shot. They should be neutralized discreetly, without their voters realizing what’s happening. In short, the ideology developed was that of NATO and Gladio. No one said that elections should be rigged or that moderates should be assassinated, but all participants agreed that to save the "free world", that freedom should be put “in brackets”.
Although the proposed European Defense Community (EDC) was defeated three months later in the French Parliament under the attacks of the Communist deputies and the "nationalist extremists" (in other words, the partisans of de Gaulle), the Congress was none the less considered a success. Despite appearances, there was no intention to support the creation of the EDC or any other specific policy. The real goal was to spread the ideology of the ruling elite by influencing the opinion makers, who in turn would influence the rest of society. Objectively, the Western Europeans were less aware of the freedoms that they were being denied and increasingly aware of the freedoms that were not available to the people of Eastern Europe.

The Bilderberg Group becomes an organization

A second conference was held in Barbizon, France, from March 18th to 20th 1955.
The idea that the conferences would be held annually and that they required a permanent secretariat became increasingly evident. Prince Bernhard became less visible after he was caught influence peddling (Lockheed Martin scandal). He was replaced by the former British Prime Minister Alec Douglas Home (1977-80). The following Presidencies were held by former German Chancellor and President Walter Scheel (1981-85), former Governor of the Bank of England Eric Roll (1986-89), former NATO Secretary General Peter Carrington (1990-98), and finally the former vice-president of the European Commission Etienne Davignon (since 1999).
For many years the Chairman of the Bilderberg Group was assisted by two Secretary Generals, one for Europe and Canada (the vassal states) and one for the U.S. (the ruler), however, there has been only one Secretary General since 1999.
From one year to the next, the debates have been highly redundant. This is why the guests change regularly. But there is always a core group who prepares the conference in advance and the newcomers who are taught the atlanticist rhetoric in vogue.
Currently, the annual seminars bring together over 120 participants, including one third of the permanent core group members. They were selected by the Alliance based on their social network and their capacity to influence the rest of society, irrespective of their particular functions in society. Thus, they remain members of the core group even after changing their job.
Here is the exact list of the core group, including members of the Board of Directors, which serve as fronts for the guests, and the less visible members, in order to not scare away the newcomers.


Etienne Davignon, Secretary General of the Bilderberg Group

Board of directors

Josef Ackermann	Swiss Banker, head of Deutsche Bank, Vice-Chairman of the Forum in Davos.
Roger C. Altman	U.S. Banker, a former campaign adviser to John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, Chairman of investment Bank Evercore Partners Inc.
Francisco Pinto Balsemão	Former Socialist Prime Minister of Portugal (1981-83), president and founder of the largest group of Portuguese television SIC. (T)
Fran Bernabè	Italian banker, current director of Telecom Italia. (T)
Henri de Castries	CEO of the French insurance-company AXA.
Juan Luis Cebrián	Director of the Spanish media and broadcasting group Prisa.
W. Edmund Clark	Canadian banker, CEO of Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group.
Kenneth Clarke	Former vice president of British American Tobacco (1998-2007), British minister of Justice, vice president of the European Movement UK.
George A. David	CEO of Coca-Cola.
Étienne Davignon	Belgian businessman, former vice president of the European Commission (1981-85), current vice president of Suez Tractebel.
Anders Eldrup	CEO of the Danish gass and oil corporation DONG Energy.
Thomas Enders	Director of Airbus.
Victor Halberstadt	Economy professor at the Dutch university of Leiden, business-consultant for various corporations such as Goldman Sachs and Daimler-Chrysler.
James A. Johnson	U.S. financier, he was a major contributor to the Democratic Party and an architect of the nomination of Barack Obama. He is vice-chairman of the investment bank Perseus.
John Kerr of Kinlochard	Former UK Ambassador to Washington, Vice President of oil group Royal Dutch Shell. (T)
Klaus Kleinfeld	German CEO of the U.S. aluminium giant, Alcoa.
Mustafa V. Koç	CEO of Koç Holding, the largest Turkish company.
Marie-Josée Drouin-Kravis	Economic columnist in print and broadcast media in Canada. Researcher at the very militaristic Hudson Institute. She is the third wife of Henry Kravis.
Jessica T. Mathews	Former Director of Global Affairs at the National Security Council of the United States. Current director of the Carnegie Foundation.
Thierry de Montbrial	Economist, founding director of the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) and the World Policy Conference.
Mario Monti	Italian economist, former European commissioner for the protection of free-trade (1999-2005), co-founder of the Spinelli Group for European federalism.
Egil Myklebust	Former president of Norwegian employers, director of Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS).
Matthias Nass	Assistant director of the German Newspaper Die Zeit.
Jorma Ollila	Finnish businessman, former CEO of Nokia, current president of Royal Dutch Shell.
Richard N. Perle	Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee at the Pentagon, He is a key leader of the Straussians (disciples of Leo Strauss) and as such, a major figure of neo-conservatism.
Heather Reisman	Canadian businesswoman, CEO of the Publishing Group Indigo-Chapters.
Rudolf Scholten	Former Austrian Finance Minister, Governor of the Central Bank.
Peter D. Sutherland	Former Irish EU Commissioner for competition, then director general of the World Trade Organization. Former director of British Petroleum, current chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former President of the European section of the Trilateral Commission, and Vice-President of the European Round Table of Industrialists, now honorary president of the European Movement - Ireland.
J. Martin Taylor	Former MP, CEO of the chemical and agribusiness giant Syngenta.
Peter A. Thiel	U.S. Businessman, CEO of PayPal, president of Clarium Capital Management and Facebook shareholder.
Daniel L. Vasella	CEO of the Swiss pharmaceutical group Novartis.
Jacob Wallenberg	Swedish banker, he is the director of many transnational companies.


Henry Kissinger is the main person responsible for invitations to the Bilderberg Group.

Members of the hidden core group

Carl Bildt	Former Liberal Prime Minister of Sweden (1991-94), former special envoy of the European Union and the UN in the Balkans (1995-97, 1999-2001), the current Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. (T)
Oscar Bronner	CEO of the Austrian daily Der Standard.
Timothy C. Collins	American investor, director of the investment fund Ripplewood. (T)
John Elkann	CEO of the Italian group Fiat Auto (his grandfather Gianni Agnelli was for forty years one of the leaders of the Bilderberg Group. He inherited the family fortune after the natural death of his grandfather Giovanni and the premature death of his uncle Edoardo. However, police sources were convinced that Edoardo was murdered after he converted to Shia Islam, so that the family fortune would remain within the Jewish branch of the family).
Martin S. Feldstein	Former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan (1982-84), and current economic adviser to Barack Obama. He was on George W. Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He teaches at Harvard. (T)
Henry A. Kissinger	Former national security adviser and U.S. Secretary of State, central figure of the U.S. military-industrial complex, current president of the consulting firm Kissinger Associates.
Henry R. Kravis	U.S. financier, investment fund manager KKR. He’s a major fundraiser for the Republican Party.
Neelie Kroes	Former liberal Dutch minister of Transport, European commissioner for competition, and current Commissioner of the digital society.
Bernardino Léon Gross	Spanish diplomat, Secretary General of the Presidency of the Socialist Government of Jose Luis Zapatero.
Frank McKenna	Former member of the Supervisory Commission Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada’s ambassador in Washington (2005-06), Vice-President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands	She is the daughter of Prince Bernhard.
George Osborne	British Minister of Finance. This neo-conservative is seen as a eurosceptic, meaning that he is opposed to the participation of the United Kingdom in the European Union, but he is a supporter of the organization on the continent within the Union.
Robert S. Prichard	Canadian economist, director of print and audiovisual Torstar.
David Rockefeller	The patriarch of a long line of Bankers. He’s the oldest member of the core group of Bilderbergers. He is also chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a similar organization incorporating Asian participants.
James D. Wolfensohn	Australian Banker who acquired U.S. citizenship to become President of the World Bank (1995-2005), now director of the consulting firm Wolfensohn & Co.
Robert B. Zoellick	American diplomat, U.S. diplomat, former U.S. Trade Representative (2001-05), current president of the World Bank.


David Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Group consultant

The Bilderbergers don’t necessarily represent the companies or institutions in which they work. However, it is interesting to observe the diversity of their political and economic influence.

The Lobby of the most powerful military organization in the world

In recent years, the number of topics discussed at the annual conferences has increased to keep up with world events. But the subjects of discussion are not really important, because the discussions have no precise objectives in and of themselves. The conferences are merely a pretext to convey other messages. Unfortunately, we do not have access to the most recent preparatory documents and we can only speculate about the directives that NATO will try to disseminate through these leaders of opinion.
The reputation of the Bilderberg Group has led some authors to imagine that the Group nominates people to important positions. This is ridiculous and it obscures those who truly pull the strings behind the scenes within the Atlantic Alliance.
For example, during the last U.S. presidential elections, it was reported that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disappeared on June 6, 2008, in order to negotiate an end to their rivalry. In reality, they participated in the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group in Chantilly, Virginia (USA). The following day, Mrs. Clinton announced that she was retiring from the race. Some authors concluded that the decision was taken during the Bilderberg meeting. The logic is faulty, since the decision was already a foregone conclusion three days before, given the number of votes for Senator Obama at the Democratic Party’s nominating committee.
According to our sources, something else happened. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton concluded a financial and political agreement. Senator Obama bailed out his rival financially and offered her a position in his administration (Clinton refused the vice-presidency and instead chose the State Department) in exchange for her active support during the campaign against McCain. Then, the two leaders were presented by James A. Johnson to the Bilderberg Conference, where they assured the participants that they would work together. Barack Obama had already been NATO’s candidate for a long time. Mr. Obama and his family have always worked for the CIA and the Pentagon. [3] Moreover, the initial funds for his campaign were provided by the Crown of England, via a businessman named Nadhmi Auchi. In presenting the Black Senator to the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Alliance was, in fact, organizing public relations at the international level for the future president of the United States.
Similarly, it was reported that the Bilderberg Group held an impromptu dinner outside of the Conference on November 14th, 2009 at the Chateau de Val Duchesse, owned by the King of Belgium. The former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman van Rompuy, delivered a speech. Five days later he was elected president of the European Council. Once again, some authors wrongly concluded that the Bilderberg Group had been the "kingmaker".
In reality, the President of the European Union could not be chosen outside of the NATO circles, and it should be remembered that the European Union itself was the result of several secret clauses in the Marshall Plan. In addition, this choice must be endorsed by the Member States. This type of decision requires lengthy negotiations and is obviously not taken during an informal dinner with friends.
Also according to our source, the Bilderberg Group President, Etienne Davignon, convened this special dinner to introduce Van Rompuy to his influential relays. These contacts were all the more necessary since the first person to occupy the new post of President of the European Council was totally unknown outside of his own country. During the meal, Mr. Van Rompuy outlined his program for creating a European tax to directly fund the institutions of the Union without going through the Member States. The role of the Bilderbergers was to proclaim far and wide, that they know Herman von Rompuy and testify to his qualities to chair the Union.
The reality of the Bilderberg Group is less romantic than some authors have imagined. The incredible deployment of military force to ensure security during the meetings is not so much intended to protect, but rather to impress those who participate. It does not display their power, but instead shows that the only real power in the West is NATO. Everyone has the "choice" to either support NATO and be supported by it… or fight it and be relentlessly crushed.
In addition, although the Bilderberg Group developed an anti-communist rhetoric when it was created, it was not oriented against the USSR and is not today oriented against Russia. It follows the strategy of the Alliance which is not a pact against Moscow, but rather the defence - and possibly the extension - of Washington’s zone of influence. At its inception, NATO had hoped to integrate the Soviet Union, which would have implied a commitment from Moscow not to challenge the division of the world stemming from the Conferences of Potsdam and Yalta. Recently the Alliance met with President Dmitry Medvedev at the Lisbon Summit and proposed that Russia join the group. It was not intended to be a form of subservience, but recognition of the existing New World Order, in which all of Central and Eastern Europe now falls under the U.S. orbit. Russian membership would be a sort of peace treaty: Moscow would concede defeat in the Cold War and recognize the new division of the world.
In this case, the Bilderberg Group would invite Russian personalities to its annual meetings. Bilderberg would not ask these personalities to influence public opinion in Russia in order to Americanise them, but to convince them to renounce their dreams of past greatness and glory.

Fascism: check

Letter to the Superior Telegram (Wis.), May 4, 2011:

Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, studied the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet. He found the regimes had 14 things in common, and he calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The article, titled ‘Fascism Anyone?’ appears in Free Inquiry’s spring 2003 issue.

Now get your pencil and place a checkmark next to each number that applies to America today.

Number 10 especially applies to Wisconsin today.

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and other propaganda. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for recognition of human rights: Fear of enemies and need for security allows people in fascist regimes to be persuaded human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to ‘look the other way’ or even approve torture, executions, assassinations, lengthy incarcerations and more.

3. Identification of enemies, scapegoats as a unifying cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe — racial, ethnic or religious minorities, liberals; communists, socialists, terrorists.

4. Supremacy of the military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled mass media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common.

7. Obsession with national security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and government are intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate power is protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business and government relationships and power elite.

10. Labor power is suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education and academia. It is common for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption; Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against — or even the assassination of — opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I, for one, welcome our burgeoning fascist police state, where the accused are always guilty and always middle to lower class; where our pre-emptive wars are dreamed up by the rich and fought by the poor; where our lives can be monitored at all points. We are proud citizens because our government sponsors indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition and pre-emptive war in our name. Let’s continue to beat our chests about how great we are — how much freedom we have, how our courts are above all reproach, how we do everything better than the rest of the world. We’ve really got it all, don’t we?

Go USA! Rah rah rah.

Dan Horst,
_____________-

Related: