Sunday, May 03, 2009
12 And the ten horns (NATIONS) which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse:(PEACE) and he that sat on him had a bow;(EU DICTATOR) and a crown was given unto him:(PRESIDENT OF THE EU) and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.(MILITARY GENIUS)
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.(THE EU AND ITS DICTATOR IS GODLESS)
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.(DICTATOR COMES FROM NEW AGE OR OCCULT)
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death;(MURDERERD) and his deadly wound was healed:(COMES BACK TO LIFE) and all the world wondered after the beast.(THE WORLD THINKS ITS GOD IN THE FLESH, MESSIAH TO ISRAEL)
4 And they worshipped the dragon (SATAN) which gave power unto the beast:(JEWISH EU DICTATOR) and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?(FALSE RESURRECTION,SATAN BRINGS HIM TO LIFE)
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.(GIVEN WORLD CONTROL FOR 3 1/2YRS)
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God,(HES A GOD HATER) to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.(HES A LIBERAL OR DEMOCRAT,WILL PUT ANYTHING ABOUT GOD DOWN)
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints,(BEHEAD THEM) and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.(WORLD DOMINATION)
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.(WORLD DICTATOR)
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.(SAVED CHRISTIANS AND JEWS DIE FOR THEIR FAITH AT THIS TIME,NOW WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE BUT DURING THE 7 YEARS OF HELL ON EARTH, PEOPLE WILL BE PUT TO DEATH (BEHEADINGS) FOR THEIR BELIEF IN GOD (JESUS) OR THE BIBLE.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come (ROMANS IN AD 70) shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(ROMANS DESTROYED THE 2ND TEMPLE) and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 And he( EU ROMAN, JEWISH DICTATOR) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:( 7 YEARS) and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,( 3 1/2 YRS) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.James Paul Warburg appearing before the Senate on 7th February 1950
Like a famous WWII Belgian General,Paul Henry Spock said in 1957:We need no commission, we have already too many. What we need is a man who is great enough to be able to keep all the people in subjection to himself and to lift us out of the economic bog into which we threaten to sink. Send us such a man. Be he a god or a devil, we will accept him.And today, sadly, the world is indeed ready for such a man.
EU CALLS FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT
The EU: Fathered by Bilderberg-Capitalism - Mothered by Soviet-Communism - Married to Islam - Children: Dictatorship and Corruption Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
On 19 Sept., 2001, an article appeared in the British newspaper, The Daily Telegraph showing declassified US government papers with information that already in 1950 the leader of the CIA forerunner, the OSS (Office for Strategic Services), William Donovan,tried to create an operable Europan Parliament.Alongside with the European Coudenhove Kalergi, who foresaw the end of the European race in a coming racial mixing, and with financial support from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, both inextricably associated to the US Council on Foreign Relations – the real rulers of the world - he had previously founded The American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), and the CIA, OSS´s successor, whose leaders, Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles (brother of the famous Secretary of State John) took over the ACUE and financed the European Movement, which received in 1958 53,8% of its funding from Washington.
Left: Spy Chief, Maj. Gen. William Donovan - OSS . Right: Richard Coudenhove Kalergi
The European Coal and Steel Union was dubbed the Monnet-plan by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) . And from 1955-1975 Monnet was the leader of ACUSE (Action Committee for the United States of Europe!!!). On June 11, 1965, a memorandum from ACUE´s European Department called on EEC Vice President, Robert Marjolie, to secretly making endeavors for a European currency union. He was recommended to suppress debate on the topic until such proposals would inevitably be passed!
Left: Joseph Retinger Right: EEC´s founding father,Jean Monnet 1946
The initiator of the EU was also the initiator of the Bilderberg Group: Joseph Retinger In 2004, William Jasper wrote: Joseph Retinger, one of the major architects of the Common Market/EU:In November 1946, I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner in J.P. Morgan's (Rothschild-agent), Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan, Chairman of the Dodge Motor Company … George Franklin, and especially my old friend, Adolf Berle Jr., were all in favor. John Foster Dulles …. helped us most.All of the individuals mentioned above were leading CFR Insiders.They and their CFR colleagues and European counterparts were the real movers behind the movement, much of its money illegally funneled through CIA fronts.Right: CIA Spy Chief, CFR-member Allen W. Dulles financed the unification of Europe and is said to have been a bilderberger.As for the Bilderberg Club the cbc.ca. news, june 13, 2006, ascribes the Bilderberg Club´s coming into existence entirely to Joseph Retinger´s energy, a fact confirmed by Andreas von Rétyi (Kopp Verlag, Rottenburg, 2006) - and the Bilderberg group as a focus of war-planning and ousting of leaders unfriendly to them - as well as the men behind the dramatic oil price increase!
Co-founding members were in 1954 (Andreas von Rétyi 2006) CIA-chief Bedell Smith, David Rockefeller (who has been present at every Bilderberg meeting since then), former SS-officer, Prince Bernhard of Holland, whose daughter, Queen Beatrix, is also a bilderberger, Unilever chief Rykens. Henry Kissinger has participated every year for manyyears Practically every European politician and journalist and industrialist and banker of significance has participated in these annual secretive meetingswith the so-called high-priests of globalism- the latest being held in Virginia in June 2008. An official list of participants is issued every year - excluding some inofficial participants - like e.g. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.As David Rockefeller expressed it in 1991 (Bilderberg meeting - also quoted in a comment in the Washington Post on Jan 24, 2008): 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 their promises of discretion for almost 40 years…It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.In his book former French intelligence officer, Pierre de Villemarest, writes that The EU, the Bilderberg and Monnet´s ACUSE have a common origin rooted in Fabian Socialism: It is standard practice in Fabian Socialism not really to fall out with anyone, to make it known to the opponent that one is only wanting to be on good terms with him, so that negotiation takes precedence over confrontation. One does not want to know that across the table there exists possibly a dictatorship, the Soviet Gulag or the Chinese Gulag. The most important thing is to come to an agreement. Even if this is on the back of whole populations.So what does the twin of the EU, i.e. the Bilderberg Club, stand for?
There are myths about these secretive meetings, although it does seem certain that these most influential people of the globe do not waste their precious time on small talk.In 2005, in Rottach Egern, Germany, journalist Daniel Estulin succeeded in sneaking in. He writes (excerpt):The club is meeting under its usual secrecy that makes freemasonry look like a playgroup. From porters to senior managers, the employees are warned (under the threat of never working in the country again) about the consequences of revealing any details of the guests to the press.International and national media are said to be welcome only when an oath of silence has been taken, news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists inadvertently report on what takes place.The consensus they reach, will influence the course of Western civilization and the future of the entire planet. Bilderbergers have reaffirmed and remain united in their long-term goal to strengthen the role the UN plays in regulating global conflicts and relations.A much-discussed subject in 2005 at Rottach-Egern was the concept of imposing a direct UN tax on people worldwide through a direct tax on oil at the wellhead. This, in fact, sets a precedent. If enacted, it will be the first time, when a non-governmental agency, read the United Nations, directly benefits from a tax on citizens of free and enslaved nations.
Bilderberger proposal calls for a tiny UN levy at the outset which the consumer would hardly notice.It is another giant step toward world government.The Bilderbergers have been vigorously debating to have, for the first time, unelected, self-appointed, environmental activists be given a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency which controls the use of atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and, for all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for (unelected) civil society to participate in global governance is described as expanding democracy.The United Nations Environment Programme, along with all the environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are themselves appointed by the President of the United States, who is controlled by the Rockefeller-CFR-Bilderberg interlocking leadership.Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands.
This statement by Estulin is nearly prophetic: The tax-solution turned out to be the CO2-tax called the ETS-ECX system - bringing enormous sums into the pockets of national states, the EU - and Rothschild, Rockefeller and Al Gore money institutions!
The communist New World Order´s role in the development of the EU Vladimir Bukovsky USSR dissident Vladimir Bukovsky was exiled to England. In 1992 Boris Yeltsin recalled him as a witness in Yeltsin´s trial against the Soviet Union. Bukovsky had access to classified Soviet papers, which show: In 1985, Gorbachev had to lend an ear to Italian and German socialist complaints that the EU had overtaken Marxism. Whereupon Gorbie decided to hijack the EU project and have it changed into a socialist federation - as the impetus for a world government. Then Europe´s socialist parties ceased being opposed to the EU! In 1989 a Trilateral Commission-deputation came to visit Gorbachev. It consisted of David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, former French President, Valery Giscard d `Estaing, and former Japanese Prime Minister Nakazone. They called on Gorbachev and Russia to join The G7, IMF, World Bank, GATT. Besides, they asked for a pan-European state - and d'Estaing asked Gorbachev find out which Soviet states were to join in.For there will be a single European state in about 15 years,said d'Estaing, who later wrote the treaty, which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005. What do you think of a single European state from the Atlantic to the Urals? Said Kissinger.Later EU Commission President Jacques Delors also pressurized for a European state with Russia.
Do I have to mention that Jacques Delors is both an honoray member of the Club of Rome and a member of Gorbachev´s leninist World Political Forum? Do I have to say that people have a habit of seeking partners from their familiar environment? That a dictatorial father and mother predispose the child, in this case the EU, to seek an undemocratic partner - in this case Islam for an unholy marriage: the Union for the Mediterranean? Now, who can be amazed at the children of the biggests collection of scoundrels in the world, the EU: Dictatorship , here and Corruption?
LINKS TO STORY
TOWARDS A 1 WORLD EMPIRE
TASK FORCE OF GLOBALISM
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels Last Updated: 2:10PM BST 19 Jun 2001
DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.You are never on the scrap heap when it comes to finding love"The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds.
The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.The leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable.
WHAT JEAN MONNET WROUGHT-PUBLISHED BY COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Of all the public figures of twentieth-century Europe, Jean Monnet is one of the most sympathetic and inspiriting. He can justly be called a great man who, in a life guided by a pragmatic idealism, has done his best to heal the deep wounds which Europe has inflicted on itself and to place international relations on a basis of reason and the recognition of a common interest among nations. He has been called the founding father of the European Community, and, if not everything has turned out as he foresaw, that is the normal fate of political innovators.The publication of M. Monnet's Mémoires is, therefore, something of an event - all the more so in that there is no very easily accessible record of his utterances and opinions. Despite his influence M. Monnet has remained a somewhat shadowy figure, and this book, with its forthcoming translation into English, should do much to make readers in other countries than France - particularly the younger ones - more aware of what he has achieved and how he has achieved it.Jean Monnet's career has been a long and varied one, taking him from the family brandy business in Cognac - the one French town with a street called after the British nineteenth-century freetrader Cobden - to dealing with the supply of food for the Allies in London during the First World War and the purchase of arms for the British government from the United States in the Second. Between the wars he worked for the League of Nations and as an international banker. After 1945, he became the first Commissioner for the Plan for Modernization and Equipment of France, and founded an organization which he himself had suggested and which was to become an example of what can be done to modernize and strengthen a country's economy. Then came what is rightly called the Monnet Plan for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). After its acceptance by Adenauer and Schuman, M. Monnet became the first President of the High Authority in Luxembourg. Then in early 1955, after the failure of the European Defense Community (EDC), he resigned in order to found the Action Committee for the United States of Europe, whose leader he remained until it was dissolved in 1975.
Thus, in 88 years, M. Monnet has lived much history and met many of the actors in it. But it is an odd feature of these recollections that this side of things hardly seems to interest their author. Famous men are mentioned, but the description of them is perfunctory, and there is little in the way of the striking vignettes usually associated with great memoir-writers. What M. Monnet remembers of those with whom he has dealt is their alignment rather than their characters. Also he has not much to add in the way of facts to what is already known by the historian of contemporary politics. It is curious to find him refusing to join de Gaulle in London on the grounds that the latter should not have formed his Free French committee before General Nogues had made up his mind about the Vichy government. It is interesting to hear his account of exchanges with the British at the time of the Coal and Steel plan. But these are historical crumbs.On the question of whether or not the shipwreck of the EDC treaty could have been prevented, he writes:To try to discover what would have happened had things fallen out otherwise is an exercise of which I am incapable. To rewrite history on the bases of hypotheses which have not materialized is not only a fruitless task, but, in my eyes, meaningless.But precisely for most historians the causes of the failure of EDC - and, therefore, the alternate ways in which things might have developed - are of great interest, an integral part of the formation of a historical judgment on these events. For M. Monnet, on the contrary, such discussion appears to inhibit (or, at any rate, fail to further) future action. His attitude, like that of many convinced reformers, is resolutely anti-historical. This is legitimate enough in itself, but inevitably detracts from the interest of those long sections of the book which are, in effect, history. These memoirs have a curiously public air about them. An autobiography must concern its author in the first place, but it is a pity that the other figures on the stage should be quite so ghostly and that, in the narration of events, so little should be given away.Of course, M. Monnet himself - his beliefs and aims, his strategy and tactics - is the subject of this book. Throughout it are scattered fascinating and revealing hints about its author's methods of work and ways of exercising influence:I have never acted in any other way: first have an idea, then look for the man with the power to apply it.How many times have I succeeded at the last moment in substituting the text which I had patiently prepared for that which an irresolute or indifferent politician had failed to perfect.
. . . in this matter of drafting my only rule is to work as much as is necessary, to return to the drawing board a hundred times if a hundred times are needed for the result to satisfy me.One could multiply these quotations. M. Monnet's preference for simple language, for working with small teams of handpicked assistants, his efforts to identify in advance the right politician or official before whom a paper should be laid - all this meticulous preparation of documents and reflection as to their probable reception - help us to understand just how formidable a deployer of influence within an official hierarchy he was. Clarity in the expression of ideas and exact timing in their launching were his weapons - tactical arms which are not invariably employed by those who possess a vision of the future and wish to convey it to others. Perhaps it is of some significance that M. Monnet was over 60 when he produced his plan for the Coal and Steel Community. A lifetime's experience of affairs conducted in very diverse milieux showed him what had to be done to get it accepted. A younger man might not have been capable of acting so effectively.Such passages help to identify the type of influence exercised by M. Monnet. In an interesting page he gives his reasons for not entering French political life after 1945 and, in so doing, provides a key to his own conception of how he might most usefully intervene in public life:Faced by this dilemma, I understood that I had better things to do than to try to exercise power myself: had not my role for a long time been that of influencing those who possessed it and of taking care that they should use it at the right moment? The politician's inevitable egotism and the heterogeneous character of the tasks with which a minister is faced were equally alien to M. Monnet. For him it was essential to concentrate on one thing at a time, and his preference was for working in the background, if by self-effacement he could be more effective. The modesty was tactical, for it is clear from these memoirs that once he had made up his mind, it was almost impossible to change it.Such a mode of action was one suited to the habit of mind of a high civil servant, and, though M. Monnet did not spend most of his career in official bureaucracies, it was in such an environment that his major victories were won. Comparisons have often been made between his life and that of de Gaulle - no doubt by would-be Plutarchs in search of a striking contrast. But there is perhaps a more interesting parallel to be drawn between his career and that of John Maynard Keynes who was also concerned to spread ideas, first within the official world of his own country, and then throughout the whole network of those concerned with the management of international finance and trade. Just as European institutions bear witness to M. Monnet's work, so the postwar economic order was a monument to Keynes - albeit, from his point of view, an imperfect one. Of course, the comparison must not be stretched too far. Keynes, with a crushing intellectual superiority over his adversaries, was, perhaps for that very reason, less successful than M. Monnet in placing his ideas where they could bear fruit. He lacked the visible crisis brought about by the Second World War to reinforce his arguments and gain a receptive audience. Both, however, were men who chose to work through the machinery, and within the bounds, of a given political and bureaucratic system.M. Monnet's style - the manner in which he advanced his cause - emerges clearly from his memoirs. The objectives which he tried to achieve also permeate the book, though they do not receive the systematic treatment they deserve. Since, however, they must be regarded as its main theme, it is worth trying to summarize them here, oversimplified as such a summary must be.
M. Monnet's ultimate objective (and in this he does not differ much from other Europeans who have lived through two wars) is peace and understanding among men:The best contribution that can be made to civilization is to cause men to flower in freely constructed communities.The same thought recurs in a different form in the first draft of the Coal and Steel Community plan:this proposal will create the first solid foundations of a European federation which is indispensable for the preservation of peace.The problem is to bring this about in a Europe torn by conflicting nationalisms and the hatreds inherited from murderous wars. M. Monnet's answer - and it is here his originality resides rather than in the aspiration itself - is to unite men and nations by proposing to them some common task in which they see their own interest and forget their differences. Thus traditional rivalries will gradually be transcended and a community of interest created by the experience of work in common which can be extended to other sectors of activity as time goes on. It was in this spirit that M. Monnet and his associates felt that the establishment of a European Atomic Authority should follow the success of the Coal and Steel Community.
Such common tasks must be embodied in institutions both because rules are the only way of avoiding perpetual conflicts of interest and because institutional arrangements are necessary to give permanence to any human undertaking:The life of institutions is longer than that of men, and thus institutions, if they are soundly built, can accumulate and pass on the wisdom of succeeding generations.
Once nation-states and their leaders find themselves bound by rules, infringement of which will destroy common policies that are to their own advantage, these institutional bonds will serve not only to inhibit the occurrence of conflict, but also to mediate it if it does occur. Little by little this method of conducting policy in common will spread to all sectors of interstate relations until the members of the Community no longer deal with each other on a bilateral basis. At this point they will have become a federation just as the provinces of France were assembled in a national state at a moment favorable to this change in their status.
In a note of August 22, 1966, M. Monnet wrote:The power of adaptation which compelled the French provinces to construct France continues.Only, in the twentieth century, it is not so much the different geographical portions of a future federation that are joined as it is the different functions of states that are gradually abandoned to common decision-making. The nature of that decision-making will itself have changed from dealing with purely functional matters, under license from the member-states of the Community, to having a political content when decisions are taken on a federal basis (e.g., by majority vote). Then a federal government will be in existence for all practical purposes and, as such, will require to be controlled by appropriate democratic institutions.This is the way in which M. Monnet envisages the advent of that wider and deeper Community to which the preamble of the Coal and Steel Community treaty refers. The reference to the slow creation of France is far from irrelevant, since the process described is analogous to that by which the citizens of a nation are subjected to common laws and institutions. Moreover, the idea of the development of a common interest around which a community can coalesce is that which has often in the past been seen as presiding at the birth of civil society. In Hume's Essay on the Independency of Parliament the business of the legislator was already defined as so to arrange the laws that men, guided by their interests, would cooperate to the public good.The idea of finding a common framework for individual interests so that they may band together to sustain a general interest is a familiar one in the history of European states and European jurisprudence. It was M. Monnet's originality to apply it to relations between states and to do so in such a way as would build solid functional links between them. The difference is that, in the course of the construction of nation-states, there was never any assumption of equality between the central core and the outlying portions of national territory added to it. In the case of the European Community a legal equality is assumed between the component parts which also possess a right of veto on how far the process of fusion shall go.The question which faces the reader of these memoirs is to what extent Monnet's serene confidence that European integration will forge ahead as he has imagined is justified. At the time of the signature of the Rome treaty in 1957 enthusiastic Europeans, if they reflected on the evolution of the institutions of the European Economic Community (EEC), saw the Council of Ministers losing power and the European Commission (supported by the European Parliament) gaining it. The moment at which political power tilted decisively toward the supranational institutions played something of the same role in their thinking as the withering away of the state does in that of Marxists. But this has not happened, and, with regular meetings of a European Council composed of heads of state and government, the shadow of the member-states looms larger over the Commission than it did in the early 1960s. M. Monnet may be right in pointing to the crucial importance of institutions, but it is the hardest thing in the world to overcome the force of inertia they generate. One institutional choice must exclude another, and, once a wrong turning has been taken, it is impossible to go back. Institutions like human beings suffer from sclerosis and degeneration, and no very sure recipe has been discovered for their restoration to vigor. It is not easy to imagine any known modern bureaucracy, in M. Monnet's words, accumulating the wisdom of succeeding generations. In general, such organizations content themselves with surviving and dealing more or less capably with the crisis of the day. Thus M. Monnet, who is rightly conscious of the fallibility of the individual human being, may have underestimated that of organizations.
In any case, the engrenage through which the machinery of European institutions was itself supposed to produce an ever-widening circle of integrated policies has not worked well of recent years - partly because, as Roy Jenkins has pointed out, a disparity of economic power has divided a community of equals into those who give and those who take. Can it, therefore, be expected that the great leap forward from the functional to the political will take place simply as the result of a process already under way? No doubt, some more direct expression of political will is required from the peoples concerned, and this will hardly become manifest without some strong and visible impulsion. Historically speaking, the concept of a European Community was the product of the fears left behind by the Second World War, of a determination that this at least should not happen again. In the mid-1950s, Suez and Budapest seem to have provided a powerful stimulus for the negotiations preceding the Treaty of Rome. In the early 1970s, however, the threat of the energy crisis excited no such reaction, though doubtless there are still plenty of salutary shocks ahead to try European reflexes.The view of politics taken in these memoirs is rational and melioristic. In the dependence which it suggests of the political on the economic factors in society there is also something of Marxism. But it is questionable whether, in fact, political activity can be analyzed in purely rational terms. The power of common fears, the lure of common myths, the strength of common hatreds - all these tumultuous elements play a part in human affairs that is certainly not predictable in advance nor easily controllable when it manifests itself. M. Monnet's account of society neglects some of the most powerful integrative forces that go to bind together historical communities. He recognizes the existence of the dark instinctive side of political life, but he may underestimate its strength and also its advantages. Nationalism, for instance, can reasonably be regarded as a negative force; but what has yet replaced it as a motivation for the behavior of the citizen within society? What social catalyst has been discovered as drastic in its effect as war or a new religion?
To ask such questions is probably unfair. M. Monnet has been concerned to act and not to disinter the roots of political behavior. As far as he has been able, he has endeavored to improve the political climate of his time, and his reflections on politics are in fact a technique of action. A native idealism and a practicality which owed something to his experience as an international businessman dictated an approach to world affairs very similar to that of the high American officials he had known so well in Washington. They, too, saw a better world stemming from practical cooperation for economic reconstruction that would bring in its wake reconciliation as well as peace. No wonder that M. Monnet always found such understanding in the United States. No wonder, too, that American Administrations sometimes overestimated his influence in his own country, thereby adding one more to a long series of misunderstandings.In the closing passage of his memoirs M. Monnet draws a distinction between those who wish to do something and those who wish to be something. He would put himself into the first category, and certainly he has done great things. But his has also been an exemplary role in Europe. It would be absurd to use the word guru of so rational a being, but he has been an effective teacher and has had disciples who remember working for him as the formative experience of their lives. His view of Europe and its problems has deeply affected a whole generation of statesmen and altered history for the better. Now it will be the business of those who have listened to him to reflect on what he has said and build on what he has done. For a time has come when the process of European integration requires rethinking if it is to continue. Unless Jean Monnet's achievement - its extent and its limitations - receives genuinely critical attention and the lessons of failure as well as those of success are learned, his work will hardly go forward. To omit such a critical examination is to fail to take him seriously or to understand the last 25 years of European history.
INDEPTH: THE BILDERBERG GROUP Informal forum or global conspiracy?
CBC News Online | June 13, 2006
The seed was planted by one man - Joseph Retinger, who left Poland for Britain in 1911and spent the next three decades working as a political adviser. After the Second World War, he became a leading advocate of the unification of Europe - at least the western part of the continent. Retinger was alarmed by the growing influence of Soviet-style communism and a rising tide of anti-Americanism in Western Europe. In 1952, he persuaded Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland to help him organize an international conference. Prominent business people and politicians from several European countries and the United States would be invited. The goal: To provide a forum where influential people could meet and talk about ways that help promote understanding on both sides of the Atlantic - and prevent future wars. They met at the Hotel de Bilderberg near Arnhem in the Netherlands for two days in May. The conference was deemed such a success that the group pledged to make it an annual event. They adopted the location of their first meeting place as the name of their new group. The idea was to create an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially. They could focus on what their countries had in common and bounce ideas off each other that could make life better for everyone. The group decided that it would invite 100 of the most powerful people in Europe and North America every year to meet behind closed doors at a different five-star resort. The group stresses secrecy: What's said at a Bilderberg conference stays at a Bilderberg conference. The organization says that encourages members to talk frankly, without the worry that what they say will wind up in the news.
An Ottawa police officer directs the driver of a limousine outside a hotel where members of the Bilderberg Group will be meeting, June 8, 2006. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press) Several high-profile journalists have been invited over the years - again, on the understanding that they must not report on the proceedings. Break the rule and you're not invited back.Skeptics argue that the secrecy means Bilderberg members can spend their private time hatching plans to control the world politically and economically, ensuring that the rich and powerful maintain their grip on the levers of power while the rest of the population is enslaved to keep the economic machinery running. Bilderbergers, some have argued, have withheld cancer cures so as not to anger the global pharmaceutical industry. They've also kept technology out of the public domain that would allow cars to travel 75 kilometres on a litre of gas. Big Oil, apparently, would not approve. The group has assembled at least three times in Canada, most recently June 8 to 11 this year at the Brookstreet Hotel in the Ottawa suburb of Kanata. According to a Bilderberg news release, prominent Canadians invited to the 2006 conference included former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna, Paul Desmarais, CEO of Power Corporation, Gordon Nixon, president and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, and Heather Reisman, chair and CEO of Indigo Books. They got to mingle with the likes of Iraqi politician Ahmed Chalabi, former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Richard Holbrooke, key American negotiator for 1995 Bosnian peace accords, Richard Perle, senior foreign policy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, retired banker David Rockefeller, and Johann Koss, Norwegian Olympian and president of the Right to Play organization. The news release also said some of the topics on the agenda of the Kanata meeting would be energy, Iran, terrorism and European-American relations. There were no news conferences or communiqués as the meeting wound up.James Tucker - an American libertarian and journalist - has been a critic of the Bilderberg group for decades.
When meeting last year in Rottach-Egern, Germany, Bilderberg called for dramatic increases in the price of oil. Oil prices started climbing immediately from $40 a barrel to $70,Tucker wrote in the days before the 2006 meeting. Tucker says the group has used its meetings to organize wars and the overthrow of unfriendly leaders. It has also been accused of identifying politicians who are friendly to big business and backing their runs for power. Former U.S. president Bill Clinton spoke at a Bilderberg conference a year before his election victory, as did British Prime Minister Tony Blair.The current chairman, Belgian politician and businessman Etienne Davignon, says the steering committee that organizes the annual get-togethers is excellent at spotting talent.Former prime ministers Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau also made Bilderberg appearances.Prime Minister Stephen Harper took in the group's 2003 meeting in Versailles, France, while he was Opposition leader. But Tucker says the Bilderbergers are not pleased with Harper. It's because of Kyoto. The Bilderberg group, Tucker says, is behind the Kyoto Protocol. They're the ones who pushed it. Like they pushed NAFTA and the World Trade Organization - and turned NATO into the UN's standing army. It's a step,Tucker writes, on the road to creating world government.
The Systems Method Bilderberg and Club of Rome
David Rockefeller Henry Kissinger Peter Carrington James Wolfensohn
This is a brief chapter (and now an old one — assembled mostly in the late 1990s) on the Bilderberg group, and (no direct association) the Club of Rome. These are two of the perennial bugaboos of the frothing conspiracy theorist set. Let me not be the last to say that Bilderberg et al. are neither what the frothing set would have us believe, nor what the Bilderbergers et al. would have us believe. The truth probably isn't even strictly somewhere between their respective pretensions to reality.The Bilderberg group is a self-governed association, a handful of whose associates are people somewhat like myself — academically minded economically oriented realists who recognize the superiority of open market systems to other systems and promote them on that basis. But most of them are the sort of people criticized and reviled by people like myself — hidebound bourgeois socialists blind to the perils of institutional rot, institutions of central control, and dilution of the prerogatives of private enterprises and of their principals and voluntary associates.What Bilderberg associates all have in common is a desire to perpetuate some portion of the establishment status quo, and a belief that by guiding and coordinating the policies of transnational corporations and organizations, and the attitudes and policies that governments direct toward each other and toward private enterprise, this goal of perpetuation can be satisfied. The legal systems and political establishments of sovereign states emplace onerous obstacles to oligarchical globalism, but coordination of corporate policy — effectively erecting a global trust spanning all economic sectors — can be an end run around these restrictions. In this, the Bilderbergers are essentially correct, and so represent a genuine threat to civil society. If the legal entitlement to conduct endures, but the conduct is rendered economically impractical, the result is the same as if the conduct had been proscribed by law.
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 their promises of discretion for almost forty years.He went on to explain:It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.-attributed to David Rockefeller at the June 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle).Bilderberg is driven by the systems methodology. This is the methodology satirized in The Report from Iron Mountain and Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. This latter in particular is a direct and deliberate indictment of Bilderberg. Of the former, Henry Kissinger wrote Whoever wrote it is an idiot.The system paradigm, in a nutshell, is the precept that one can effectively control the future by a two step process: (1) analyzing the present into primitive components and their interrelations, and (2) architecting a strategy of selective manipulation, reconstruction, introduction, and abolition, of components and interrelations. Strictly speaking, this methodology is the most effective of any - though if applied unwisely or maliciously, it is also the most destructive and pernicious.Problems - grave problems - arise in three principal areas: (1) accurate, precise, thorough ascertainment of what the components and the interrelations are, (2) the choice of goal, and (3) the development of an implementation strategy. Total accuracy, precision, and thoroughness of analysis are impossible with any system of more than modest complexity. Societies of humans are, of course, of far more than modest complexity. Systematicians tend to underestimate the complexity of natural systems, and overestimate their capacity to accommodate complexity, both in analysis and in architecture. In particular, based on an undefendable presumption of rigor of analysis, and due to mistaken ascertainment of human nature, they develop architectures that include components and relations of rigor and regimentation, where chaos-tolerant components and relations of suggestion and flexibility are requisite.
Social and economic systematicians, being institutional academics as a rule, often choose and accept goals that are noxious, particularly when the system includes people. And, often through no deliberate intent, the architectures they develop cause disastrous collateral damage, wreaking havoc on human autonomy and conflicting wildly with the prerequisites of individual human fulfillment.An old cliché is an apt caution for all systematicians and those subject to their machinations: A little knowledge is far more dangerous than none at all.Bilderberg is where the top conspirators broadly effect implementation of their architecture. It is ground zero for practical conspirator coordination. The conspirator systematicians exhibit all the ills detailed above. In particular, the goal they accept is perpetuation of the existing power structure. This goal is inimical to humanity, and particularly noxious to its brightest and most inventive members. In one of those examples of happenstance that smack of fate, the chief conspirator architect - Henry Kissinger - has the initials HAK.Using data assembled by Tony Gosling, I have done a simple analysis of attendance at Bilderberg 99 (Hotel Caesar Park Penha Longa, Sintra, Portugal), 98 (Turnberry, Ayrshire, Scotland),97 (Pine Isle resort, Lake Lanier, near Atlanta, Georgia, USA),96 (CIBC Leadership Centre, Toronto, Canada), and 95 (Zurich, Switzerland). The nucleus of power obviously is the set of people who attended all of them - these are the people Bilderberg is built around. I separately list people who attended four of the five meetings, and end with a list of curious attendees who aren't regulars. David Rockefeller is notable in his habitual attendance not only of Bilderberg, but of CFR and TLC gatherings, making it obvious that he is indeed the Chairman of the Board of the World. Hidden behind the scenes is the House of Rothschild, which nonetheless does make personal Bilderberg appearances.My guess is that Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (Chairman, N M Rothschild & Sons - nmrothschild.co.uk) and perhaps some other Rothschilds set the covert agenda for each Bilderberg meeting, and have final say on who will attend in a given year, and David Rockefeller mediates their agenda, though Henry Kissinger may also act as a direct mediator. Carrington likely has much direct involvement in auditing prospective invitees. The Chairman - Peter Carrington, until 2000 when Etienne Davignon assumed the chairmanship - is the one who actually sends the invitations. The Advisory Group, Steering Committee, and Honorary Secretaries-General, nominally recommend attendees, but in practice this is not quite how things work.
Conrad Black brags (or confesses, depending on one's point of view) that After 1986, I became the co-leader of the Canadian group and effectively chose most of the Canadian participants.Presumably, Agnelli effectively chooses the Italian participants, Balsemao the Portuguese, Barnevik the Swedish, Davignon the Belgian, Hoegh the Norwegian, Halberstadt the Dutch, Olechowski the Polish, de Pury the Swiss, Schrempp the German, Seidenfaden the Danish, Sutherland the Irish, Vranitzky the Austrian, Collomb the French, David the Greek, Carvajal Urquijo the Spanish, and Wolfensohn, all those not otherwise included. Selection of US and UK participants is clearly more complicated.One might assume that those officially designated as representatives (REP in the below list) would be the ones that choose participants from their respective nations, but this is clearly not the case, considering that Black is not a representative. Status as a representative is likely indicative of a person tending to organizational and reporting responsibilities specific to his nation. The Steering Committee (STEERING) consists of four people responsible for more general administrative and organizational responsibilities. The role of the Advisory Committee (ADVISORY) is unclear to me, but appears to be an ultra-select aristocratic old boy's club.
Infiltrating Bilderberg 2005
By DANIEL ESTULIN
The annual secret meeting of the Bilderberg group determines many of the headlines and news developments you will read about in the coming months. But the Establishment media completely black it out. With the exception of half-a-dozen high ranking members of the press who are sworn to secrecy, few have ever heard of the exclusive and secretive group called The Bilderbergers. Mainstream news organizations boastful about their no-holds barred investigative exploits, have been strangely reluctant to lift the blackout curtain hiding a major event: the Bilderberg group's secret annual meeting for the world's most powerful financiers, industrialists, and political figures. 2005 was a bad year for Bilderberg and its future looks gloomy. Herculean efforts to keep their meetings secret in Rottach-Egern failed miserably. Bilderberg's grief is free world´s glory-and hope for further restraining the power grabbers in the dawn of a new millennium. One certainty is that although Bilderberg Group has lost some of its past luster, it is meeting under its usual secrecy that makes freemasonry look like a playgroup. Staff at the hotel are photographed and put through special clearance. From porters to senior managers, the employees are warned (under the threat of never working in the country again) about the consequences of revealing any details of the guests to the press. International and national media are said to be welcome only when an oath of silence has been taken, news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists inadvertently report on what takes place.
While Bush, Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi and Company attended the G8 summits of the world's foremost democratically elected leaders, they were accompanied by the massed ranks of the world media. In stark contrast, the comings and goings at Bilderberg take place under cover of a virtual publicity black-out. The discussions they will engage in this year from deciding how the world should deal with European-American relations, the Middle East powder keg, the Iraq war, the global economy and how to stave off war in Iran, and the consensus they reach, will influence the course of Western civilization and the future of the entire planet. This meeting takes place behind closed doors in total secrecy, protected by a phalanx of armed guards.
What was on Bilderberg´s 2005 agenda?
After three straight years of open hostilities and tension amongst the European, British and American Bilderbergers caused by the war in Iraq, the aura of complete congeniality amongst them has returned. Bilderbergers have reaffirmed and remain united in their long-term goal to strengthen the role the UN plays in regulating global conflicts and relations.However, it is important to understand that Americans are no more the Hawks than the European Bilderbergers the Doves. Europeans joined in supporting the 1991 invasion of Iraq by President Bush father, celebrating, in the words of one notable Bilderberg hunter the end of America's Vietnam syndrome. Europeans also supported former President Bill Clinton's invasion of Yugoslavia, bringing NATO into the operation. A much-discussed subject in 2005 at Rottach-Egern was the concept of imposing a direct UN tax on people worldwide through a direct tax on oil at the wellhead. This, in fact, sets a precedent. If enacted, it will be the first time, when a non-governmental agency, read the United Nations, directly benefits from a tax on citizens of free and enslaved nations.Bilderberger proposal calls for a tiny UN levy at the outset which the consumer would hardly notice. Jim Tucker of the court-killed Spotlight magazine years ago wrote establishing the principle that the UN can directly tax citizens of the world is important to Bilderberg. It is another giant step toward world government. Bilderbergers know that publicly promoting a UN tax on all people on Earth would meet with outrage. But they are patient; it first proposed a direct world tax years ago and celebrates the fact that it is now in the public dialogue with little public attention or concern.
Bilderberg wants tax harmonization so high-tax countries could compete with more tax-friendly nations-including the United States-for foreign investment. They would harmonize taxes by forcing the rate in the United States and other countries to rise so that socialist Sweden's 58-percent level would be competitive.
The rise of the NGOs, a development former President Clinton suddenly [one day after it was discussed at Rottach-Egern] calls one of the most remarkable things that have happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall.Ironically, Clinton´s statement was picked up by The Wall Street Journal, a paper always represented at the Bilderberg meetings by Robert L. Bartley, its Vice President and Paul Gigot, editorial page editor.The Bilderbergers have been vigorously debating to have, for the first time, unelected, self-appointed, environmental activists be given a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency which controls the use of atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and, for all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for civil society to participate in global governance is described as expanding democracy.According to sources within Bilderberg, the status of NGOs would be elevated even further in the future. The NGO activity would include agitation at the local level, lobbying at the national level, producing studies to justify global taxation through UN organizations such as Global Plan, one of Bilderberg´s pet projects for over a decade. The strategy to advance the global governance agenda specifically includes programs to discredit individuals and organizations that generate internal political pressure or populist action that fails to support the new global ethic. The ultimate objective, according to the source, being to suppress democracy.The United Nations Environment Programme, along with all the environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are themselves appointed by the President of the United States, who is controlled by the Rockefeller-CFR-Bilderberg interlocking leadership
This new mechanism would provide a direct route from the local, on-the-ground NGO affiliates of national and international NGOs to the highest levels of global governance. For example: The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of affiliated NGOs, recently petitioned the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO asking for intervention in the plans of a private company to mine gold on private land near Yellowstone Park. The UNESCO Committee did intervene, and immediately listed Yellowstone as a World Heritage Site in Danger.Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, the United States is required to protect the park, even beyond the borders of the park, and onto private lands if necessary.The ideas being discussed, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a global neighbourhood managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals, and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a belief system, which to many people - is unbelievable and unacceptable.
Elections in Britain
Bilderbergers are celebrating the result it wanted. The return of a much humbled Tony Blair to 10 Downing Street with a much reduced parliamentary majority. European Bilderbergers are still angry at him for supporting America´s war in Iraq. While teaching Blair a useful lesson in international politics, Bilderbergers feel he is a far safer candidate to continue on the path of European integration than his conservative rival Michael Howard.
In full force was that faction known as the so-called neo-conservatives--those who have determined that Israel's security should come at the expense of the safety to the United States and be central to all U.S. foreign policy decisions. Most notable among this group is the Israeli spy Richard Perle, who was investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Israel. Perle played the critical role in pushing the United States into the war against Iraq. He was forced to resign from the Pentagon´s Defense Policy Board, on March 27, 2003 after it was learned that he had been advising Goldman Sachs International, a habitual Bilderberg attendee, on how it might profit from the war in Iraq.Another neo-conservative figure on hand was Michael A. Ledeen, an intellectual´s intellectual.Ledeen serves for the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank founded in 1943, with which Richard Perle has long been associated. AEI and the Brookings Institution operate a Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (JCRS) with the purpose of holding lawmakers and regulators accountable for their decisions by providing thoughtful, objective analyses of existing regulatory programs and new regulatory proposals.The JCRS pushes for cost-benefit analysis of regulations, which fits with AEI's (and Bilderberger) ultimate goal of deregulation.
These neo-conservatives were also joined this year at Bilderberg by a handful of other top former Washington policy makers and publicists known for their sympathies for Israel, including former State Department official Richard N. Haas, president of the CFR, former Assistant Secretary of State and father of the Dayton accord, Richard Holbrooke, and Dennis Ross of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, effectively an offshoot of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and JINSA as well as the newly elected World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz.
Dennis Ross, Richard N. Perle, and company are itching to transfer translation: to ethnically cleanse as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible. Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories,former Prime Minister Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University in 1989. The residents of the European Community may be clueless about the intentions of Zionists toward the Palestinians, but in Israel, to my astonishment, ethnic cleansing is a popular subject of discussion. Fifty percent or more of Israelis think ethnic cleansing is a good idea. This from a nation that supposedly remembers the Holocaust. Fiction, is indeed stranger than the truth.
An American Bilderberger expressed concern over the sky-rocketing price of oil. One oil industry insider at the meeting remarked that growth is not possible without energy and that according to all indicators, world's energy supply is coming to an end much faster than the world leaders have anticipated. According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world's oil supply to be at a maximum of 35 years under current economic development and population. However, one of the representatives of an oil cartel remarked that we must factor into the equation, both the population explosion and economic growth and demand for oil in China and India. Under the revised conditions, there is apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the end of the world's financial system. So much has already been acknowledged by The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two periodicals who are regularly present at the annual Bilderberg conference.
Conclusion: Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.During the afternoon cocktail, European Bilderberger noted that there is no plausible alternative to hydrocarbon energy. One American insider stated that currently the world uses between four and six barrels of oil for every new barrel it finds and that the prospects for a short term break through are slim, at best.Someone asked for an estimate to the world´s accessible conventional oil supply. The amount was quoted at approximately one trillion barrels. As a side note of interest, the planet consumes a billion barrels of oil every 11.5 days.Another Bilderberger asked about hydrogen alternative to the oil supply. The US government official agreed gloomily that hydrogen salvation to the world´s eminent energy crisis is a fantasy.This confirms public statement made in 2003 by HIS, the world´s most respected consulting firm cataloguing oil reserved and discoveries that for the first time since the 1920s there was not a single discovery of an oil field in excess of 500 million barrels. The oil industry at the 2005 Bilderberg conference was represented by John Browne, BP´s Chief Executive Officer, John Kerr, Director Royal Dutch Shell, Peter D. Sutherland, BP Chairman and Jeroen van der Veer, Chairman Committee of Managing Directors Royal Dutch Shell.
It should be remembered that in late 2003, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, announced that it had overstated its reserved by as much as 20 percent. Queen Beatrix of Holland, Royal Dutch Shell´s principal shareholder is a full fledged member of the Bilderbergers. Her father, prince Bernhard was one of the founders of the group back in 1954. The Los Angeles Times reported that For petroleum firms, reserves amount to nothing less that the value of the company. In fact, Shell cut its reserve estimates not once, but three times, prompting the resignation of its co-chairman. At Rottach-Egern, in May 2005, industry's top executives tried to figure out how to keep the truth about diminishing oil reserves from reaching the public. Public knowledge of the diminishing reserved directly translates into lower share prices, which could destroy financial markets, leading to a collapse of the world economy.
EU referendum in France
The first day of secret meetings at Bilderberg 2005 was dominated by talk of EU referendum in France and whether Chirac can persuade France to vote Yes on May 29. A Yes vote, according to sources within Bilderberg would put a lot of pressure on Tony Blair to finally deliver Britain into the waiting arms of the New World Order through their own referendum on the treaty scheduled for 2006. Matthias Nass wondered out load that a No vote in France could undoubtedly cause political turmoil in Europe and overshadow Britain's six-month EU presidency starting on July 1. Bilderbergers, hope that Blair and Chirac, whose at times open animosity has spilled into a public arena on more than one occasion, can work together for mutual benefit and political survival. Another European Bilderberger added that both leaders must put behind them as quickly as possible all past disputes on such topics as Iraq, the liberalization of Europe´s economy and the future of budget rebate Britain receives from the EU and work towards complete European integration, which could desintigrate if France´s often hard-headed and obstinate people, in the words of a British Bilderberger, do not do the right thing, meaning give up voluntarily their independence for the greater good of a Federal European super state! A German Bilderberger insider said that France´s Yes vote is in trouble because of the outsourcing of jobs. Jobs in Germany and France are going to Asia and Ukraine,[to take advantage of cheap labour.] Ukraine is one of the former Soviet republics that have been admitted to the European Union bringing the total membership to 25 nations. A German politician wondered out loud how Tony Blair shall go about convincing Britons to embrace the European Constitution when due to the outsourcing of jobs, both Germany and France are suffering a 10% unemployment while Britain is doing well economically.
A USA law called Logan Act, states explicitly that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens to develop public policies. Although Bilderberg 2005 was missing one of its luminaries, US State Department official John Bolton who was testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the American government was well represented in Rottach-Egern by Alan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council; William Luti, deputy under secretary of defence; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq war and incoming president of the World Bank. By attending Bilderberg 2005 meeting, these people are breaking Federal laws of the United States.
At a Saturday night cocktail [May 7] at the luxurious Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Bavaria, Munich, several Bilderbergers sharing the standing bar with Queen Beatrix of Holland and Donald Graham, Washington Post´s CEO were discussing the up-coming sale of Spanish telecommunications and cable giant Auna. Auna operates fixed line telephone services, a mobile-phone network, cable television system and is also an Internet provider. One of the Bilderbergers familiar with the matter [believed to be Henry Kravis, based on the physical description of the source at the meeting] stated that Auna´s mobile operations could bring in some 10 billion euros including debt, while another Bilderberger, a tall man with a receding hairline added that its fixed-line assets could fetch some 2.6 billion euros. Sources close to the Bilderbergers have stated off-the-record that Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, a private-equity firm is interested in buying all of Auna. An abundance of cheap credit and low interest rates have made Auna an appetising target for private-equity buyers.Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co is represented at Bilderberg meetings by its luminary billionaire Henry Kravis and his small town Quebec-born wife Marie Joseé Kravis, a Senior Fellow at the neoconservative organization Hudson Institute.
Conclusions: Expect favourable coverage and support for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co from Grupo Prisa whose Consejero Delegado Juan Luis Cebrian always attends super secret Bilderberg meetings. In case Kravis fails to put together a competitive bid, then expect the same favourable coverage for Goldman Sachs Group, whose Martin Taylor is Bilderbergers Honorary Secretary General and whose other Bilderberger, Peter Sutherland is Goldman Sachs Chairman as well as Trilateral Commission´s European Chairman. In the past, exposing Bilderberg meetings has provided advance warning-months ahead of the mainstream media-of U.S. Iraqi invasion, tax increases, and the downfall of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister of Britain.
A political and military confrontation between these two nations in the petroleum-rich Sulawesi Sea [both claim the oil-rich area of Ambalat as their territorial rights] was the topic of a much animated discussion amongst several American and European Bilderbergers during an afternoon cocktail. An American Bilderberger waving his cigar suggested using the UN to further a peace policy in the region. In fact, Bilderbergers at the lounge table all agreed that such a conflict might well give them an excuse to garrison the disputed area with UN Peacekeepers and thus ensure their ultimate control over the exploitation of this treasure, meaning untapped oil reserves.
European and American Bilderbergers realising the most urgent of needs to expand into developing markets in order to help sustain the illusion of endless growth have agreed to name Pascal Lamy, a French Socialist and a fanatical supporter of a European super state as the next WTO President.It will be remembered that Washington gave a conditional support to Lamy´s nomination in exchange to European support of Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. According to insider sources within the Bilderberger group, Lamy was chosen to help steer the global trading system through a time of rising protectionist sentiment in rich countries such as France and Germany, both reeling from high unemployment and reticent to increasingly muscular demands for market assess from emerging economies. Third World states, for example, are insisting on cuts to EU and US farm subsidies. The WTO liberalization drive collapsed in acrimony in Seattle in 1999 and again in Cancun in 2003. The Bilderbergers have secretly agreed on the need to force the poor countries into a globalized market for cheap goods while simultaneously forcing the poor into becoming customers. The current rift with China is a good example, as the Chinese have flooded the Western countries with cheap goods, amongst them textiles, driving down prices. As a trade off, the Bilderbergers have entered into an emerging market ripe and vulnerable to superior western know-how. Similar develop-ing countries are slowly acquiring more purchasing power and the industrialized world is gaining a foothold in their domestic economies by targeting them for cheap exports.
* * *
One can't help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Queen Beatrix and the rest have completed their project of enclosing all global goods and services into their own hands. What then? Francisco Goya´s Plate 79 of Disasters shows the fair maid of Liberty flat on her back, bosom exposed. Ghostly figures play about the corpse while monks dig her grave. Truth has died. Murió la verdad. How is that for an alternative? Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we can't ask the proper questions.Daniel Estulin is a political commentator living in Madrid, author of four books on communication skills. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Civil Society firmly in the Grip of the EU Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
On Nov. 7, 2007 the “EU Referendum” posted an interesing survey: It deals with NGOs - so-called Non Governmental Organisations.Today, these organisations should perhaps rather be called PGOs , i.e. Para (beside) Governmental Organisations. On Oct. 17, 2007 I brought a an account at balder.org of a speech delivered on Oct. 3, 2007 by the supreme in charge of EU communication, Margot Wallström, wherein she states among other things: NGO´s, i.e. undemocratic, self-appointed and zealous organizations, are to set the agenda of the debate according to EU a-Commission-orders – so that the EU obtains meaningfull referenda results.Informed debate and dialogue enable people to understand policy options.Understanding enables people to vote meaningfully. Democracy comes alive! Clearly, civil society can do a lot to make this happen.NGOs are already well placed to organize polls, launch petitions and enable citizens to make their voices heard. Some NGOs have already created excellent trans-national forums for debate on the web. We should like to see more of those. Those NGOs who responded to our White Paper were very keen on being be involved in shaping European policy. They are invited to join us in a major effort to communicate Europe in partnership.I [Anders Bruun Laursen] have tried to leave a comment and questions on such an NGO-Forum about EU´s Plan D and the Euromediterranean/Eurabia: No response!
Lately, it has become obvious, what is meant by this civil society. The French organisation Reporters sans Frontière (RSF) is such an NGO/PGO. It has measured the freedom of expression in 169 countries. The 14 highest ranking countries were European. The USA was at position 48! The RSF- PGO behaves as an independent champion of the freedom of expression and reports, that the world outside Europe is hit by violence and censorship. Thus implying that Europe isn´t! What a glee for the EU! The RSF met 15% of their budget from the French government in 2006. This was not mentioned in the English account! 2001 the RSF met more than 50% of its budget with money from the EU - and a grant of 300.000 euros as well!!. The EU Commission stated that the RSF had been their partner for long to safeguard the freedom of expression - so to speak working for the EU. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) promoted the favourite project of the EU for years: The International Criminal Court (ICC). 2003 this NGO/PGO and champion of human rights received 1.1 million euros from the EU. Besides, the FIDH was to found more NGOs to fight death penalty in EU countries. 2006 they received about 1 million euros from the EU to advertise against torture in the war against terror. The EU persuaded the FIDH to lodge a complaint against Ronald Rumsfeld, as he paid a short visit to Paris in the autumn of 2007.
In July, 2007 The NGO Friends of Europe received 635.000 euros from the EU to fight global warming - the great EU-political project without scientific fundation. And still more tax-payer Money from Germany, Austria and the Netherlands flowed into this PGO, more than half its budget, because the EU sees such NGOs/PGOs as the civil society, i.e. the people have been heard!! As for the sceptics of the theory that climate changes are caused by man, practically nothing was granted. And such heretics were even deprived of granted support. NGO/PGOs are the tools of the EU to enforce its polices in a manner so as to pretend to be democratic.This method is well rehearsed in other dictatorial states, Nazi-Germany, for instance.
EU Making Huge Gains on Climate Hoax Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
I think the evidence of this decade is clear that if we organize properly, addressing the problem of climate change will provide for wealthy countries the biggest economic boom since we mobilized for World War II;This is a very, very big deal. And the payouts are measurable(Bill Clinton (speech linked on this page), former US President addressing a meeting in Rockefeller´s Carbon Disclosure Project, arranged by Rothschild partner Merrill Lynch .EU supports UN Secretary General´s and IPCC´s final warning on man-made Climate disaster and his appeal for a giant effort to combat it.The report's findings amount to a stark warning that the world must act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions if we are to prevent climate change from reaching devastating levels,said EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas. But Brussels suggests the EU's own policy package could help prevent the catastrophe if its example is followed by other states.The good news is that it [the UN panel report] also shows that deep emission cuts are both technologically feasible and economically affordable,Mr Dimas added.It fully supports the EU policy that global warming must be limited to no more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial temperature. The global community must respond to this scientific call for action, he noted.
Note the text on the poster behind him!
What is going on?
As shown the CO2 hysteria lacks scientific documentation. In fact, it seems that CO2-increase in the air is a consequence - not the cause of climate changes. And that man-made global warming does not take place. Something else must be in play. And there is: Money and ideology.This post will describe EU’s money-making on the climate hoax.
Correa and Correa seem to have struck the key note :The direct political reasons for the promotion of the global warming fad are to be found in the convergence of diverse social forces:
-the evolution of left (social-democratic) political forces towards a new electoral marketing - militant form of environmentalism, and technocratic managerialism; the transformation of ecological organizations into profitable non-profit, macro-capitalist funds;
-the design of national State bureaucracies to control the entirety of social life with new regulatory mechanisms;
-the emergence of a new International State technobureaucracy in search of supranational powers and jurisdictions.
-an excess of PhD's in physics and mathematics with little left to aim for other than the pursuit of a career within the official institutions of organized dissent, where they endlessly generate models and fads pliable to political interests, in particular those fads that are dear to the global techno-socialist management of capitalism; and
-the subsidies, grants and investment provided to green groups by some of the worst polluter industries (eg oil, nuclear companies, utilities, etc) as a way to redeem their status or blanch their image, and as a sort of protection fee.
Of all these social forces and trends, it is apparent that the main role is played by the emerging global technobureaucracy.Taken separately, the other forces were unlikely to amass sufficient momentum for a deep social penetration. That's what they found in the UN, in its latest role as a regulator of sustainable development and global growth, and in its highly corrupt NGO structure. From the sham Rio de Janeiro Conference, in 1992, to Kyoto, these neo-left-wing militants formed the frontlines of the New Global Order. Pliable to the new international capitalism of global looting, the global warming movement disguised its objectives as scientific, and dictated them as being in the objective interest of mankind. The myth of global warming was their precious tool: Global warming' is likely to be the most expensive pseudo-scientific hoax ever implemented.As of August 22, 2005 - and since the Kyoto protocol came into effect on February 16, 2005 - the Kyoto Agreement has cost 80 billion dollars for, supposedly, a prevention of warming by 0.0008 deg C… To prevent a 1 deg C increase it will cost some 100 trillion dollars.So much money for nothing! To combat climate changes, which are not due to CO2 - but to Solar spot activity.
How the EU makes big Money
Look, what the EU does at the European Climate Exchange (ECX) market: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the new kid on the block in commodity trading. The gas that makes up part of the atmosphere is being commoditised and bought and sold as if it were a barrel of oil or a tonne of coal. The underlying commodity being traded at ECX are EU allowances (EUAs) as issued under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. One EUA equals one tonne of CO2 (right-to-emit).Approximately 2.2 billion EUAs in total have been granted yearly to the 12,000 installations falling under the EU ETS. The settlement (Sett) price is calculated as a volume-weighted average of trades during the daily settlement period 16:00- 16:15 hours UK local time and will be published at approximately 16:30 UK local time . ECX products include the ECX CFI futures contract and the ECX CFI options contract.In whose pockets does all this money disappear? Is it spent on general welfare - or does it disappear into the pockets of eurocrates or europoliticians? Anyhow, you can be absolutely certain of this: You and I will have to pay for it through rising prices. Who are members of the ECX?: More than 65 leading businesses, including global companies such as ABN AMRO (a Rothschild partner,has even had a Rothschild on the board. Barclays ( a Rothschild branch,BP (child of af Rockefeller´s standard Oil ),Calyon, a Rothschild branch,E.ON UK (financially in the grip of Rothschild,Fortis - a Rothschild partner, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley - often Rothschild partners, e.g in the Rio Tinto affair)i , Shell (Rothschild affiliated ) have signed up for membership to trade ECX products. In addition, several hundred clients can access the market daily via banks and brokers. Since carbon trading took off in Europe, trading volumes and underlying asset value have grown beyond expectations.Global carbon markets were worth €22.5 billion in 2006.The market saw transactions for 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2e where the EU ETS accounted for 62 per cent of the volume and over 80 per cent of the value (Source: Point Carbon). By any measure, carbon trading has grown impressively to establish itself as a new commodity to count on Since launch in April 2005, the EUA futures contract has seen close to 1.3 billion tonnes CO2 traded with an underlying market value €24 bn.
ECX is a member of the Climate Exchange Plc group of companies. Other member companies include the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) - both financed by Rothschild: CCX selected Rothschild Inc., an affiliate of the prestigious London-based bank N. M. Rothschild & Sons Limited, to provide investment banking services.Climate Exchange Plc (CLE) is listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange.Nobel prize winner and savour of the Globe, Al Gore, is affiliated to the CCX CO2-through his firm, Generation, the chairman of which he is. So, Gore has a financial interest in his propaganda against CO2. Al Gores house in Tennessee consumes 20 times as much energy as an ordinary US house. According to his seretary he buys CO2-indulgence through his firm Generation
,which is a branch of the CCX
Besides, the CCX has an interesting board.
The Honorable Carole L. Brookins has had a lot of jobs for President Bush. She is a member of the American Council on Foreign Relations - called the invisible government of The USA. Sir Laurie Magnus is affiliated to the J.P Morgan Trust - a Rothschild partner. And the Chairman, Richard Sandor, is affiliated to the Chicago Board of Trade, which had John D. Rockefeller as co-founder and is said to have been controlled by Rothschild for the last 150 years. Through the World Economic Forum (a very globalistic club) the CCX is associated with among others Rockefeller´s Carbon Disclosure Project, which forms a secretariate forCO2-trading and has assets of 41 trillion dollar As you see: Although the scientific foundation of the climate scam campaign is lacking - the globalists of the New World Order (announced 5 times by Pres. Bush sen 1990-91) are making fat gains. And not only the EU. The top globalists make even much more money.
Links to this post: