What is the end game of this merger? It is possible to reverse-engineer the Google-Berg plan by sifting through open source information. In this article we will be connecting the dots to paint a picture of what is very likely the big picture plan of the Google-Bilderberg partnership.
This partnership entails the networking of powerful individuals who operate vast networks of influence. Among these include Banks, technology developers, CEO‚Äôs of corporations and Prime Ministers.
In his 2011 book¬†How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance,¬†Parag Khanna ‚Äď Director of the Global Governance Initiative¬†at the New America Foundation¬†-outlines a vision for the future in which mega corporations, NGO‚Äôs and governments team up to govern the globe.
As the Asia Times reports‚ÄúApart from the usual government/institutional suspects, Khanna includes an array of extra players in the new rulers of the world, mostly powerful NGOs such as the Gates Foundation. These players are particularly fond of the global conference circuit ‚Äď from the annual bash at in Davos of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the seductively mysterious Bilderberg Group.‚ÄĚ
An example of these individuals ‚Äúfondness of the global conference circuit‚ÄĚ is a¬†2009 meeting in New York at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Rockefeller Foundation. As to the secrecy of the meeting, a guest said, ‚ÄúThey wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as¬†an alternative world government.‚ÄĚ
This is the backdrop to the Google-Berg merger. Governments are going broke. Globalist influences have broken down national borders. Tax exempt foundations and mega corporations are filling the gap.
These groups are essentially hijacking national government‚Äôs policies and advancing a top down, authoritarian system of control.¬†In an interview¬†with the Seattle Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, ‚ÄúSome say the emergence of super rich philanthropies like the Gates Foundation has undermined the effectiveness of the U.N. and its member organizations, like the WHO.‚ÄĚ Moon responded,
‚ÄúOn the contrary¬†that is what we really want¬†‚ÄĒ contributions from the business community as well as philanthropies. We need to have political support, but it doesn‚Äôt give us all that we need. NGOs and philanthropies and many foundations such as Bill Gates Foundation ‚ÄĒ they‚Äôre taking a very important role‚Ä¶‚ÄĚ
The Gates Foundation has successfully¬†hijacked America‚Äôs national education policy. To demonstrate the intimate relationship that the Gates Foundation has with the Obama administration,¬†this 2009 article¬†points out that within the first four months of his Presidency, Obama appointed four high ranking officials from the Gates Foundation.
The Bilderberg conglomerate is tapping into this immense power to advance its objectives.
What will the future look like under the direction of mega corporations and philanthropic organizations?
Parag Khanna and Ayesha Khanna¬†write in Foreign Policy¬†magazine, ‚ÄúAs we move into the Hybrid Age, whoever has the capacity to mange the intersection of technology, capital, and identity can become a pole of power.‚ÄĚ
As we have seen, tax exempt foundations and corporations like Google have taken on a powerful role in global affairs. Governments are increasingly taking a back seat to the influence of these groups. Some have charged that they are¬†‚Äúmonopolizing development.‚ÄĚ
In joining with Bilderberg,¬†Google is preparing to enter¬†this ‚ÄúHybrid Age‚ÄĚ of advancing technology and rapidly changing geopolitical landscapes with its hands gripped tightly on the reigns of power. With this merger, the world is set to be shaped into a highly surveilled and planned system at the direction of unelected elitists.
In 2010 the Forum for the Future presented a vision of the future in which mega-cities are run by supercomputers and citizens lives are tightly controlled.
The Forum for the Future¬†is backed by Bank of America, Sony, the City of London Corporation, PepsiCo UK, Time Warner, and Royal Dutch Shell. Each of these entities have representatives at the Bilderberg Group.
Their vision for the future was called ‚ÄúPlanned-Opolis‚ÄĚ:
These mega-cities will likely be¬†based on an ongoing project¬†in a¬†South Korean city called New Songdo. The ‚ÄúU-City‚ÄĚ will deploy so called¬†‚Äúubiquitous computing‚ÄĚ technology¬†that enables the monitoring of citizens 24/7 via pressure sensitive floors that track your walk to computer chips that are embedded everywhere in the environment.¬†U-cities are described as¬†places where ‚Äú‚Ä¶all major information systems (residential, medical, business, governmental and the like) share data, and computers (e.g., RFID, smart cards and sensor-based devices) are built into the houses, streets, bridges and office buildings.‚ÄĚ
Bill Gates‚Äô Microsoft Corporation is¬†playing a key role¬†in developing technology for New Songdo. While a large portion of the technology is being developed in the U.S., it is being¬†tested in South Korea¬†where there are historically less traditional, ethical and social blockades to prevent its acceptance and use.
Are we headed to a¬†Rollerball like future¬†in which corporations have replaced countries? According to Parag and Ayesha Khanna¬†we are indeed headed in that direction.¬†In the Hybrid Age, mega coporations will provide advanced technology to their constituents and thus gain loyalty.¬†As we stray away from broken governments to provide security and prosperity, these entities will fill the gap.
‚ÄúEmployees of Facebook or Google can spend their days on campuses that are effectively full-service communes; the same is happening in companies in Russia, India, and China. One day a corporate passport might afford them greater freedom of mobility than their national citizenship.‚ÄĚ
In 2008 the Washington Post published an article titled ‚ÄúWashington‚Äôs Future, a History.‚ÄĚ The Post gathered trends analysts, university heads and government officials to look into the future and develop potential scenarios.
The Post depicts a future in which small scale terror attacks and angry rioters plague the streets while implantable ID chips allow government workers to pass through checkpoints unmolested. Economic decline and cyber terrorism fracture the country. Bobbie Kilberg, president of the Northern Virginia Technology Council, told the Washington Post, ‚ÄúBasic functions of government will be outsourced.‚ÄĚ
In the Post‚Äôs vision of the future, ‚ÄúGoogle LifeServices‚ÄĚ provide the wealthy with employment at ‚Äúwork pods,‚ÄĚ goods, and other services in one complex. Those who subscribe have access to,
‚Äú‚Ä¶entertainment and socializing‚Ä¶ gathering goods, eating and working. The new subscription retailing was catching on in cavernous buildings, old big box stores that had been reconstituted as workspaces.
Here, people could spend a good chunk of their day, moving seamlessly from their work pod to take in a movie with a friend, choose the dinner items that would be delivered before they got home, and take care of the day‚Äôs errands, all while staying in constant touch with colleagues, and all for one monthly Google LifeServices subscription fee.‚ÄĚ
The global elite are pushing the globe toward a dystopic future in which all aspects of life are in some way managed by their interests.
Humanity cannot afford to blindly accept this future, no matter how attractive the propaganda might seem. On June 6 the Bilderberg conference will commence. The future of humanity will be discussed by a handful of elites with agendas that will have a far reaching impact on all of our lives.
Remember SOPA? Remember how when we the people finally defeated SOPA everyone got so stoked that confetti poured out of their eyeballs and its opponents downloaded films and albums and pirated video games in celebration? Well, shortly after SOPA there was CISPA‚ÄĒthe Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act‚ÄĒa bill that is¬†both scarier than Zombies and much less well known than SOPA¬†.
On April 18, three days after the Boston Marathon bombing, CISPA passed in the House of Representatives. Obama‚Äôs White House has expressed ‚Äúfundamental concerns‚ÄĚ about CISPA. They are justifiably a bit turned off by how CISPA doesn‚Äôt specify precisely how it intends to spy on the internet‚ÄĒand when it is ok to spy on internet users‚ÄĒand that is a terrifying prospect.
As a Canadian, these American ‚Äúfuck up the internet‚ÄĚ bills have always been disconcerting. While Canadian sovereignty would ideally save anyone who lives in this country and errs on the wrong side of a SOPA or a CISPA‚ÄĒwith so much internet traffic filtering through American-owned web servers‚ÄĒit is not out of the question that American jurisdiction could be called against an international cyber-offender. The state of Virginia, for example,¬†claimed jurisdiction against the Hong Kong-owned Megaupload¬†who was hosting their website in that state.
But now it appears that it‚Äôs going to be even easier for international copyright offenders to be tried in court by the interests‚Äďand lobbying power‚Äďof Hollywood. Starting today, 11 countries‚ÄĒCanada, America, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand‚ÄĒare¬†having a secret (no members of the public and no press) meeting in Lima, Peru¬†to figure out what can be done about copyright offenders who transmit Hollywood‚Äôs precious content over the interweb‚Äôs tubes without paying for it.
The meeting is held under the banner of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. They‚Äôre looking to sign an international treaty that will create world government-esque laws to handle anyone who downloads an early leak of¬†Iron Man 3¬†illegally.
But in North America, the ACTA movement is still very much alive. Prime Minister Stephen Harper‚Äôs government¬†passed a bill in March¬†that makes Canada more ACTA-friendly by allowing customs officers to destroy counterfeit goods and ratcheting up the criminal penalties against copyright offenders. And the United States has seized¬†hip-hop blog domains without warning or trial, because they were alleged to host pirated material.
A leaked chapter¬†outlining some preliminary discussion to re-examine intellectual property has revealed that TPP wants to add further checks and balances to restrict fair use. Those behind TPP want to make sure that if a teacher is trying to show some copyrighted material in their class for the purpose of education, or if a humorist using copyrighted material in an article for the purpose of satire, they‚Äôre doing so under what TPP calls a ‚Äúgood faith activity.‚ÄĚ
It may take a while before the results of this TPP meeting in Peru filter out to the press, but it‚Äôs crystal clear that even though SOPA died, the Hollywood lobby is more than willing to generate new legislation and international partnerships to protect its interests. SOPA, for a combination of reasons, incited the ire of the public. We saw SOPA blackouts where websites like Reddit and Wikipedia went offline for a day, celebrities spoke out against it on Twitter; there was a bona fide cultural movement.
But now, the language behind international efforts like ACTA or TPP is getting more and more obscure, the reporting on such efforts less and less frequent, and the meetings being held to define these treaties are being held behind closed doors. The wheels of government are moving quickly to restrict international copyright online as much as possible‚ÄĒwith the lobby of Hollywood thrusting it forward‚ÄĒin order to preserve the profits of content gatekeepers like the RIAA and MPAA.
…asking us to consider how underutilized insects are as potential food for livestock, or the ways insect consumption could benefit the environment. The original report notes that insects‚Äô feed conversion rate is fairly high (we‚Äôd get more for less, in other words), they could be raised on ‚Äúorganic side-streams‚ÄĚ like human/animal waste, they emit fewer greenhouse gases and ammonia than¬†animals¬†like cattle and pigs, and they need much less water than the latter.”
If you needed more evidence that the “elite” and those in charge at the UN think of the rest of us as somewhat lesser beings, this is it. Do you think that Bill and Melinda Gates will be sending their housekeeper to the market to pick up a basket of fresh caterpillars for dinner? Will baked beetles be on the menu at the Rothschild estate? Will the Obama children have bug salad sandwiches in their lunch boxes when they go to school?
The UN’s ¬†Food and Agriculture Organization touts another environmental benefit of “farming” insects – they eat poop.
Aside from their nutritional value, farming insects could considerably benefit the environment. According to the FAO, insects emit fewer greenhouse gases and need less land or water than cattle when farmed.
As cold-blooded creatures they are ‚Äúvery efficient‚ÄĚ in converting feed to protein, needing 12 times less feed than cattle in order to produce the same amount. They also feed on human and animal waste, and can transform this into protein. (source)
This suggestion that everyday people be reduced to consuming insects that are fed excrement¬†is part of the¬†hijacked green movement, cloaked under the guise of “sustainable development”. World leaders and fake environmental groups are¬†doctoring science¬†and conveying propaganda through tools like the media and the school systems. The development that is going to be sustained with their plan is not the development of everyday people like you and me. It is not the development of struggling families who don’t even have clean water to drink. It is the development of the “elite” and their heirs.
The thing that is so insidious about the UN is that they cloak their motives in an air of benevolence. They garner the whole-hearted support of the unaware by their word choices, their propaganda, and their warm politically correct facade. The people of the world are being willingly, happily led off a cliff, while being lulled by the UN¬†Scheherazade. (learn more about¬†the UN)
Through Agenda 21 and the United Nations, the ¬†”elite” are attempting to brainwash the entire world to believe¬†that allowing them to control¬†the resources of the earth¬†will be¬†in our best interest. I would be willing to bet that grass-fed beef and free range chickens will still make their way to the groaning banquet tables of the wealthy.
Clearly, indigenous people around the world have consumed insects as part of their diet. However, do you believe they farm those insects and purposely feed them feces? There is an enormous difference between the UN’s proposition and the foraging methods that are employed by hunter-gatherers across the globe.
If the United Nations was truly concerned about the well-being and health of the hungry people of the world, wouldn’t they be teaching sustainable farming methods? Wouldn’t they be promoting urban gardening, micro-livestock, and handing out heirloom seed packets? Wouldn’t they be cracking down on companies like Monsanto and Dow, who are poisoning much of the farmland of the world with their toxic seeds and pesticides? This is¬†pure Agenda 21¬†”resource management” and the purpose is to remove more resources from the hands of the poor and reallocate them to the wealthy.
If you are truly worried about world hunger, the answer is teaching food self-sufficiency. It is diverting gray water to the garden. It is learning to save seeds from one season to the next. It is using farming methods that feed your soil. It is the avoidance of toxic chemicals. It is urban farming techniques. It is learning how to work with one’s specific environment. It is the means to harvest ¬†and store water from multiple sources. It is true education, not brainwashing behind a disguise of benevolence, land grabs, and the presentation of dehumanizing options in a trendy new light.
Just the mention of the word causes an immediate wave of fear through young and old, rich and poor, men and women. The disease is no respecter of persons.
How far would you go to lower your risk of cancer?
If you are one of a growing number of women, you might go as far as to have a preventative double¬†mastectomy.
Today the media is applauding the¬†“medical choice”¬†of Angelina Jolie, who has joined celebrities Sharon Osbourne and Miss America contestant Allyn Rose in having both of her healthy breasts removed. Much is being discussed about her “bravery” in undergoing this procedure “proactively”.
I’m personally appalled by this action, and I know my opinion won’t be a popular one. Particularly in the case of Angelina Jolie, I am disturbed, because of the influence she has. She is a beautiful woman, a very popular celebrity, and a UN ambassador. Her influence is broad – many people respect her activism, and for that reason, I am fearful that many other women will consider this to be a wise course of action.
Mutilating your healthy body by undergoing a series of traumatic, invasive surgeries does not sound like good preventative care to me. It sounds like a very expensive, self-mutilating reaction to tests that say you “might” have a health issue in the future. No matter what the percentages are that you could develop cancer in the future, the fact remains that you are removing parts of your body that are currently healthy.
Making a decision like this is a matter of personal choice and I am not writing this to deny that Angelina Jolie has the right to opt for this surgery on her own body. I’m writing this because I believe that there are other options that should be explored first. I’m writing this because cancer has become a vehicle of profit.
Breast cancer has become a multi-billion dollar industry, with all of the “Think Pink” products available in stores, the Run for the Cure races, and the celebrity pleas for donations. An estimated $6 billion per year has been collected from the well-meaning purchasers of all that pink gear and only a small portion of it¬†has¬†actually made its way to the researchers.
Now we can add voluntary surgery to the profit side. The scare tactics from the “Think Pink” crowd have hysteria over this terrible disease at a fever pitch. Throw in a few beautiful people having their bodies mutilated “preventively” and easily influenced, frightened women will hop¬†on board.
All of this has to do with normalizing something that should be anything¬†but normal. Cancerous tumors growing inside your body should not be a common thing, but these days, it is.
The¬†President‚Äôs Cancer Panel, a three-person panel that reports to the U.S. president on the National Cancer Program calculated that 41% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetimes. If you‚Äôre male, the chances are 1 in 2 that you will be diagnosed with some type of cancer, and women have¬†a¬†1 in 3 chance of hearing the diagnosis.
A¬†Global Cancer Statistics¬†for 2011 study names cancer as the #1 killer in the western world and #2 in developing countries.
‚ÄúA century ago, one in 33 people had cancer; today, according to the American Cancer Society (ACS), it is more than one in three,¬†and growing. When I was born in 1926, cancer was the tenth leading cause of death among children ‚Äď now I am 73¬†and it is second. No other health topic today has the urgency of¬†cancer¬†because no other health condition is escalating as fast.‚ÄĚ
The outlook is not improving, either. Despite the billions spent on cancer research, the¬†World Health Organization¬†predicts that deaths from cancer will DOUBLE by the year 2030.
Big Pharma, Big Agri and Big Business are getting rich off of poisoning Americans.
Instead of having a “preventative surgery” what if we tried to prevent cancer by reducing the exposure to toxins that cause cancer? Whether or not you have the genetic markers for a disease, there are still many things that you can do to keep that disease from developing that do not include voluntary¬†amputations.
There are steps you can take to limit your exposure to the toxins in our environment that ¬†are proven to cause cancer. When you do, be prepared for many people to consider your actions extreme. Interestingly enough, some of those very same people are the ones applauding the drastic measures of voluntary double mastectomies. I can’t tell you how many times I have watched people roll their eyes or scoff when I refuse to partake in things that are hazardous. Somehow, drinking water from my own BPA-free water bottle is considered to be more extreme than someone’s “brave choice” of ¬†having body parts removed. Somehow, not taking my children to McDonald’s or feeding them hot-dogs and Doritos is “mean”. Making our body care products and cleaning products from wholesome, non-toxic ingredients is “silly”.
People can laugh all they want. They can consider me dramatic and hysterical. I am making my own “brave choice” to take care of my family by reducing our exposure to everyday carcinogens.
Be truly proactive. Commit yourself to your health and the health of your family by identifying the dangers and then go against the current of popular opinion to avoid these perils.¬†Don’t think pink, think green.
Purchase organic foods¬†as often as possible. GMOs and pesticides are proven carcinogens.
Load your plate with colorful antioxidants. Opt for organic versions of foods like berries, colorful veggies, dark chocolate, and coffee, to name a few, are loaded with powerful, cancer-fighting antioxidants.
Avoid processed foods.¬†Many of the additives and preservatives featured abundantly in North America are banned in other countries precisely because of the health risks they represent.
Avoid artificial sweeteners. Aspartame, for example, is a known carcinogen that¬†breaks down into formaldehyde in the human body.
Refuse vaccines. Many vaccines contain mercury, another known carcinogen. By the age of two, if a child has received all of the¬†recommended¬†vaccines, he or she has received¬†2,370 times the ‚Äúallowable safe limit‚ÄĚ for mercury (if there is such a thing as a safe level of¬†poison).
Maintain a healthy body weight.¬†Obesity has been linked to increased risks of cancers of the esophagus, breast, endometrium,¬†uterus, colon and rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, gallbladder, and possibly other types.
Consume alcohol only in moderation.
Limit the use of plastic in your home.¬†BPA or Bisphenol-A are petrochemical plastics that are a major component of many water bottles, lines the inside of canned goods, and makes up the hard material of many reusable food containers, including some brands of baby bottles.
Select personal care products that do not contain petrochemicals. Many cosmetics and other health and beauty aids contain petrochemicals. The danger of this is their byproduct, 1,4-dioxane, a proven carcinogen. The¬†U.S. Environmental Protection Agency¬†classifies dioxane as a probable human¬†carcinogen. California state law has classified dioxane to cause cancer.¬†Animal studies in rats suggest that the greatest health risk is associated with inhalation of vapors.
Opt for natural, biodegradable food grade cleaning products.¬†According to the website¬†Natural Pure Organics, the average household contains up to 25 gallons of toxic materials, most of which are in cleaning products. When you use these cleaners, they linger in the air and on the surfaces, increasing your exposure to carcinogens as you inhale the toxins into your lungs or absorb them through your skin.
Instead of having a life-altering surgery, take steps to rid your environment of as many cancer-causing toxins as possible. We are breathing them in, eating them, and rubbing them on our skin.¬†While changing your lifestyle is not a guarantee against cancer, neither is surgery.
Be radical. Make the “brave choice” of living a clean life and avoiding toxins.
As today‚Äôs groundbreaking revelations by Infowars will possibly reveal, Bilderberg is moving itself into a new hybrid leviathan, with Google as the new vehicle for policy implementation. A new generation has emerged, aligning itself with the good old boys at Bilderberg. Not that this newer generation has appeared out of thin air to rock the world of the old-timers. Far from it. The key players now taking the digital helm in this probable ‚ÄúGoogleberg‚ÄĚ construct are literally the offspring of the older players who are keenly aware that if the ancient agenda is to endure, a merger with the new guard needs to be established.
One such key player who has presumably been offered the steering wheel in both policy setting- and operational activities, is the son of the former queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau. As¬†EU commissioner Neelie Kroes‚Äô first man¬†in her ‚Äúdigital agenda‚ÄĚ cabinet, Constantijn is well placed to play a key role in securing the reigns in the hands of international bankers who make the final decisions. Constantijn was described as ‚Äúprogramme associate‚ÄĚ of the Bilderberg group on the official royal website back in 2009. Although the website scrubbed the mention shortly after¬†I published this information on Infowars.com, the original cached page was salvaged thanks to vigilant observers in the alternative media.
Constantijn‚Äôs benefactor in the world of global governance, Neelie Kroes, attended all Bilderberg meetings from 2006 onward- and since 2011 is the European commissioner for the digital agenda.¬†Kroes, who is right up there with Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, is now handing over some of the responsibilities to a new generation of technocrats. Not very surprising then that Van Orange- the grandson of Bilderberg founder Bernhard- has recently been appointed by Kroes to head up her commission cabinet.
Kroes‚Äô agenda as commissioner and dedicated Bilderberg member has been from the very onset to create and expand a mandatory electronic ID system for all citizens within the EU. In 2012¬†Kroes announced¬†that a common ‚Äúelectronic signature‚ÄĚ- a single authenticating ID- should safeguard access to the Internet, online data and commerce-¬†described by Aaron Dykes¬†on May 23 2012 as ‚Äúnothing short of an attempt to phase in a Mark of the Beast system, and a prominent Bilderberg attendee is behind the scheme.‚ÄĚ
Dykes also pointed out that such a common digital signature, used by all people within the EU, is destined for worldwide expansion:
‚ÄúAccording to EurActiv.com, Neelie Kroes would later ‚Äúwiden the scope of the current Directive by including also ancillary authentication services that complement e-signatures, like electronic seals, time/date stamps, etc,‚ÄĚ as the supra-national body attempts to corral more nations into participation.‚ÄĚ
In 2009 Constantijn wrote a RAND technical paper, stating that the EU and a few elite nations should take the lead role in deciding a global governance structure for internet regulation and developing technologies. In the paper titled¬†Trends in connectivity technologies and their socioeconomic impacts, the prince envisions a global coordination role for the EU:
‚Äú (‚Ä¶) both policy issues and effective responses must be defined at a global level; to influence the solution a global coordination and ‚Äėenlightened leadership‚Äô is required.‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúpolicy issues, not always solutions, will be defined at a global level. Those few countries or regional blocks like the EU where these technologies are already at an advanced stage may take a more or less enlightened lead role.‚ÄĚ
Constantijn‚Äôs speciality in his days with the RAND Corporation ranged from several technical reports on web 2.0 to RFID technology and other matters concerning ‚Äúglobal governance‚ÄĚ and electronics. In 2008 Constantijn was promoted to head the Brussels RAND office, expanding his influence even more.¬†In 2009 Constantijn published his ‚Äúdiscussion paper on critical issues‚ÄĚ under the RAND-umbrella titled¬†The Future of the Internet Economy. In it, he is quite uninhibited in his call for the emergence of an overall system of control to steer the course of events globally.
‚Äú(‚Ä¶) the Internet as a global infrastructure needs a global governance structure‚ÄĚ, Van Oranje writes. ‚ÄúInternational governance is necessary to deal with global issues and ensuring effective functioning of the Internet, following principles of good governance.‚ÄĚ
The intentionally vague addition of ‚Äúgood governance‚ÄĚ is a smart way to circumvent explaining that only a tyrannical transnational system can guarantee ‚Äúeffective functioning of the Internet.‚ÄĚ Furthermore,¬†the prince advocated¬†the ideal tool for future slavery: one common, global electronic denominator hooked into a hive-like supercomputer:
‚ÄúThough a sectoral, geographic and multi-layered patchwork is likely, a scenario with a more unified system is not impossible either. There are significant benefits for citizens, governments and commercial operators to have a more standardised system that would support a large range of eGovernment services and functions. One system would eliminate the need for multiple cards, would increase the possibility for interconnecting systems‚ÄĚ, and the list goes on.
The warnings of Aaron Russo immediately spring to mind, don‚Äôt they? As one of the determinants of such a common system through which all of human traffic should be channelled, the report mentions:
‚ÄúThe level of Pan-European ambition towards the use of a single eIdentity throughout Europe by 2015: Will policy makers of Commission (European Commission) and Member States agree on a system that is to support only simple identity; will Pan-European services be build/transformed in a way that they benefit directly from eID; or will there be a natural evolution towards one single European IDM, adequate for most national and Pan-European Government Services?‚ÄĚ
As the royal family‚Äôs own website reports, from 2001 to 2003 prince Constantijn worked as a strategic policy consultant with Booz, Allen & Hamilton operating out of London, England. Booz Allen is a globally operating, self-proclaimed ‚Äúprivate consulting firm‚ÄĚ right out of a John Grisham novel with all the dark intrigue that goes along with it. Since its creation in the early 1900s, Booz, Allen & Hamilton has been intimately tied to the military-industrial complex including ‚Äúlong-standing relationships with federal intelligence agencies‚ÄĚ- as a superficial glance on Wikipedia reveals. A¬†March 8 2008 article¬†in CorpWatch reported that the firm ‚Äúis a key advisor and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies (‚Ä¶). Among the many services Booz Allen provides to intelligence agencies, according to its website, are war-gaming- simulated drills in which military and intelligence officials test their response to potential threats like terrorist attacks.‚ÄĚ
A most interesting speciality of the firm is the development of electronic surveillance equipment and other spy-tools. After Van Oranje‚Äôs promising career at this key corporation within the intelligence community, his obvious next step was the RAND Corporation where the young prince could work on his policy-making skills while at the same time maintaining his close relationship with the big foundations. In Daniel Estulin‚Äôs 2005 bestseller ‚ÄúThe Bilderberg Group‚ÄĚ the author clarifies the ties between the RAND Corporation and these global entities:
‚ÄúThe interlocking leadership between the trustees at RAND, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations is a classic case of Bilderberg modus operandi. The Ford foundation gave one million dollars to RAND in 1952, at a time when the president of the Ford Foundation was simultaneously the chairman of RAND.‚ÄĚ
RAND plays a key role in developing technologies that may be used by intelligence agencies who in turn want to get rid of certain non-compliant regimes. In a RAND document from 2012 titled¬†Using Social Media to Gauge Iranian Public Opinion and Mood After the 2009 Election¬†the authors describe collecting thousands of tweets from the Iranian people in the months following the Iranian elections of 2009. The think tank complained about the shortcomings of just scanning through Iranian blogs and such. In order to assess the Iranian zeitgeist, RAND turned to an extraordinary computer-program called LIWC:
‚ÄúGiven the shortcomings of the manual approach, using a computerized method to study the content of social media can serve as a useful complement, compensating for some of these limitations. Such a tool exists: an automated content analysis program called ‚ÄúLinguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2007‚ÄĚ (LIWC, pronounced ‚ÄúLuke‚ÄĚ).‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúFocusing on Twitter, we used LIWC as a means of tapping into Iranian public opinion and mood during the tumultuous months following the highly controversial 2009 presidential election‚ÄĚ, the report states.
Admitting that the probing and analyzing of Iranian tweets serves the national security interests of the United States, the RAND researchers in the same breath admit:
‚ÄúGiven that LIWC is largely untried in non-Western political contexts, we used Iran during this period as a test case. On the one hand, we sought to shed light on how public opinion and mood evolved after the 2009 election. But at the same time, we intended to examine the validity of a new methodology‚ÄĒone incorporating the LIWC tool‚ÄĒfor analyzing foreign public sentiment on political topics, as expressed through the social media platform, Twitter.‚ÄĚ
The results, according to the authors, are so full of promise that they seek to expand the program even further. Under the header ‚ÄúExpanding the Scope of the Current Work‚ÄĚ they state:
‚ÄúTo extend this current work, applying the methodology to other forms of social media is an obvious next step. For instance, we have conducted initial analyses of Iranian, Persian-language blogs, and of political leaders‚Äô Facebook postings, which are not reported here.‚ÄĚ
The authors are aware of the implications of their research when it comes to national security ‚Äúinterests‚ÄĚ:
‚ÄúWe could also extend the current research by looking across more than one country at a time to gauge the sentiments that social media users in each country express on topics of interest to them all‚ÄĚ, the report continues.
‚ÄúFor example, using the current methodology, it is possible to compare sentiments expressed across Iran, Pakistan, and other countries on topics including the United States, nuclear weapons, and domestic political issues. Other extensions of the current research could focus on Asian countries that are high on the national security agenda, such as China and Taiwan, or on Middle Eastern countries where political protests in early 2011 were reportedly influenced by social media use, such as Egypt and Tunisia.‚ÄĚ
Because the methods used by RAND were retrospective in nature, the authors envision using this and other software for monitoring of international conflicts ‚Äúas they unfold‚ÄĚ:
‚ÄúA final way to extend the current methodology is to build a real-time tracking tool for social media texts. Such a tool could automatically download texts as they are posted, run them through a parsing algorithm, and place them into a database for processing through LIWC (or other software). Using such a tool, it would be possible to view and analyse patterns in written texts almost as quickly as they unfold. Given the policy relevance of our findings, these recommendations for validation and extensions of the methodology illustrate the potential of analysing social media to understand public mood and opinion in various populations of interest.‚ÄĚ
Studies such as these should not give on the impression that these monitoring and surveillance technologies are being used without the consent of corporations like Twitter, Google and Facebook- nor have they been hijacked at some point. On the contrary, as has become clear from countless ‚Äúincidents‚ÄĚ where these corporations have been caught censoring information, they are an active player within the technocratic architecture, set up from their very beginnings by globalist money. As¬†Google Ideas¬†illustrates, already hybrid connections between Google and the US government are being strengthened. According to several Stratford e-mails¬†released by Wikileaks¬†in March of 2012, Google Ideas‚Äô current director Jared Cohen was presumably working for the White House as he attempted to fire up the spark of regime change. As Alahkbar reported, the Brookings Insititute¬†valued Google Ideas¬†as ‚Äúthe best new think tank established in the last 18 months.‚ÄĚ Such accolade arguably suggests that Google Ideas is expected to be a major player in the near future.‚ÄĚ
Brookings, an extremely influential think tank advising policymakers within the US government, also use their academically preconditioned brains to think about using Google, Twitter and Facebook as tools to achieve regime change in dissenting nations. As their document¬†Which Path To Persia¬†demonstrates, the plans for such operations are already being contemplated. In chapter 7 of the manuscript titled ‚ÄúInspiring an Insurgency‚ÄĚ, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists loot their nation, stating ‚ÄúU.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.‚ÄĚ
The merging of Bilderberg‚Äôs post WW2-style corporate complex with technocratic giants will now accelerate an agenda that has been long in the making. By Benito Mussolini‚Äôs definition of fascism, that‚Äôs what it is. ‚ÄúFascism‚ÄĚ, Mussolini wrote, ‚Äúshould more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.‚ÄĚ Already in the works for decades this construct, or governance structure- merging big government with big corporations- is now taking a decisive digital leap with Bilderberg 2.0 which, by Mussolini‚Äôs definition, equals a new and enhanced version of the same old fascism.
The mayor of Watford, Dorothy Thornhill,¬†told the local newspaper¬†today she fears violent protests at the upcoming Bilderberg conference. The mayor would be wise to consider signing up for a crash-course on how not to escalate an event before it even takes place.
‚ÄúI have my concerns about it because it does attract people who can and do cause violence and disturbance.‚ÄĚ, Thornhill told the Watford Observer. Although she added she is ‚Äúconfident the police will be able to minimise that‚ÄĚ, she appears to suck up to the global elite by stating ‚Äúit is very good the Grove has been deemed a prestigious enough venue.‚ÄĚ
The Watford observer¬†ran another article¬†today, noting that close to a thousand protesters may be present around the cordoned-off area of the Grove Hotel and its immediate surroundings.
‚ÄúMost of The Grove‚Äôs grounds will be closed to the public while the conference takes place and Hertfordshire Constabulary will be given the job of keeping the crowds out.‚ÄĚ, the report reads.
The local newspaper insists on describing the expected demonstrators as ‚Äúcrowds‚ÄĚ of conspiracy theorists, ready to run over the gates and storm the Grove Hotel. It doesn‚Äôt mention that the annual confab usually attracts peaceful but critical protesters. Talking about last year‚Äôs conference in the US, the reporter for the Watford observer implicitly expresses doubt that the protesters will abide by the law:
‚ÄúIn the main the crowds (at Bilderberg 2012) were kept confined to the lawns outside the hotel, and although the barriers were strictly enforced, there were no reported arrests. Whether Watford can expect the same crowds is yet to be seen.‚ÄĚ
These passive-aggressive words by an uninformed local reporter, and the foolish statements made by mayor Thornhill, seem to echo some feeling of discomfort on the part of the local establishment at the prospect of their area filling up with critical people trying to make sure the media blackout on Bilderberg does not endure. This feeling of discomfort is understandable. But, like any vague disturbance of the mind, it would be wise for them to reach for the roots of their discomfort. It is not the protesters that should be their main concern. It is the fact that the world‚Äôs political, financial and military elite meet in absolute secrecy, including their own elected officials.
Froman, whose career was given a boost by his former classmate and associate on the Harvard Law Review Barack Obama, will likely be further advanced by a possible participation at the coming Bilderberg conference. I would submit that the likelihood of Froman attending the coming conference is just about 90 percent. We find Froman‚Äôs predecessors attending Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission on a regular basis. For example, Obama‚Äôs last appointee, Ron Kirk, has moved in- and out of Bilderberg-related entities on a regular basis. Former US trade Representative Susan Schwab is a¬†member¬†of the Trilateral Commission. The other former Trade Rep (under George W. Bush) enjoying key globalist conferences, Mr. Robert Zoellick, is a Bilderberg regular, visiting the confab so many times he must have lost count by now.
The other reason I‚Äôm speculating Froman will be present at Bilderberg 2013 is the ongoing effort to merge the two major world blocks, such as the United States and the European Union, into one overarching power-monolith. Quite recently both Froman and Kirk (his direct predecessor)¬†admitted to the factBarack Obama is negotiating with the EU ‚Äútoward a transatlantic trade and investment partnership‚ÄĚ. During a conference call, Kirk stated that that the US and the EU should ‚Äúseize the opportunity to develop new disciplines in emerging areas that have confronted trade, such as the involvement of state-owned enterprises and increasing use of localization measures as barriers to trade.‚ÄĚ
Froman, who also made remarks at this particular conference call, pointed out that ‚Äúthis is potentially a very big deal. Between the U.S. and the EU, we account for almost half of global GDP.‚ÄĚ
‚Äú(‚Ä¶) what Ambassador Kirk and his team have done over the last year, working with the European Commission‚ÄĚ, Froman continued, ‚Äúis to identify what those issues were and how we might be able to bridge the gap. And we think that the stars could well be aligned given developments on both sides of the Atlantic for us to be able to resolve issues that have been difficult to resolve before. And that is what we‚Äôll be turning ourselves to next.‚ÄĚ
Furthermore, Froman said Obama is dedicated to advance not merely a US trade agenda, but a global trade agenda:
‚Äúour goal is to achieve high standard, 21st-century style trade agreements, trade investments that advance the global trade agenda, and to introduce into the bloodstream of the multilateral trading system new disciplines and new standards for conducting international trade. And we think that this exercise with the European Union presents a very good opportunity to do just that.‚ÄĚ
As commentator Stephen Lendman recently¬†pointed out, Froman‚Äôs experience at negotiating trade deals are quite extensive:
‚ÄúHe (Froman) was White House liaison to the G7, G8, G20, and APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) summits. He heads the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. He co-chairs Washington‚Äôs Transatlantic Economic Council. He‚Äôs CEO of the US-India and US-Brazil Forums. He helped negotiate South Korea, Colombia and Panama trade deals. Like NAFTA and other bilateral deals, they cost America tens of thousands of jobs. Expect more of the same ahead.‚ÄĚ
Again: the current emphasis on synchronizing transatlantic trade agenda‚Äôs makes Froman the ideal candidate to pull up a chair next to the banking heads of Europe and the US at the Grove Hotel in the beginning of June.
At a conference on global governance and local accountability earlier this year, described by the chairman as the ‚Äúbig-tent church of globalization‚ÄĚ, Obama‚Äôs old buddy lauded the European Union‚Äôs ‚Äústrong degree of accountability‚ÄĚ.
As a preface to the subject at hand (globalization and local accountability), Froman told the people present that contrary to popular belief, the EU is exemplary in its process of accountability towards its member-states (from 56 minutes, 15 seconds):
‚ÄúMuch has been written about the democracy-deficit in Europe‚ÄĚ, Froman said. ‚ÄúMy understanding is that in any week in Brussels there are 200 meetings between representatives of the member-states and members of the commission, reviewing every commission-proposed action at every stage in its gravity. When you add that to the ministerial meetings of each semester and to the now quite frequent head of state council meetings, increasingly frequent, head of state council meetings, it‚Äôs hard to say that the process of coming up with decisions in the European Union- not to mention the role of the European Parliament- doesn‚Äôt reflect a strong degree of accountability.‚ÄĚ
A remarkable position to be taken by the then White House top adviser on economic security matters. Especially given the fact that the ‚Äúeuro-zone crisis‚ÄĚ has revealed that the EU is everything but transparent or accountable to the people in Europe. Furthermore, these comments beg the question that if Obama‚Äôs top adviser on these matters lauds the EU‚Äôs transparency, which course will the US government fare in regards to its democratic processes. Froman:
‚ÄúAnd I‚Äôll just say from personal perspective, from personal experience, when President Obama convened the leaders of the euro-zone, and leaders of the European Union (‚Ä¶), to talk about the euro-zone-crisis, certainly there was a great appreciation in the room of the domestic, local, political constraints and drivers of policies, even in that pinnacle of global governance.‚ÄĚ
If the former White House economic security guy really considers the unelected European Union ‚Äúto be a ‚Äúpinnacle of global governance‚ÄĚ, where does that leave the United States in this global construct? In any case, by stating that the EU is a ‚Äúpinnacle of global governance‚ÄĚ Froman (without knowing it) concurs with two term former President of the European Commission Jacques Delors, who gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled¬†The European Community and the New World Order, saying:
‚ÄúOur trading partners are gradually being won over to the idea that regional integration has a dynamic impact on all, and the European model is an inspiration for others- witness the recent agreements concluded by the United States, Canada and Mexico.‚ÄĚ
In that same speech Delors also stated that ‚Äú(‚Ä¶) giving birth to institutions to which sovereignty is to be transferred and which are to be given power manage cooperation and settle disputes is a slow and arduous process.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúThe contribution that the Community as such can make to the new world order can, to use an image of the plant world, be considered something of a hybrid, what is produced by crossing a world power with an international organization.‚ÄĚ
In conclusion Delor stated in 1992:
‚ÄúI would add- and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government. This is why, although the need for a new world order is self-evident, our era is one of trial and error or, as the harsher critics among us would have it, of impotence, inability to take on world challenges.‚ÄĚ
It seems that Michael Froman, for one, is impressed with the way the EU does business. For the sake of sovereignty, one hopes he does not, like the EU kingpins of old, plan to merge the US with an international organization into that transnational hybrid called world government. If we fear big government, we should decry world government, especially considering the heads of business and government of the most powerful states in the world convene in secret.
A new law proposed by the European Commission would make it illegal to “grow, reproduce or trade” any vegetable seeds that have not been “tested, approved and accepted” by a new EU bureaucracy named the “EU Plant Variety Agency.”
It’s called the¬†Plant Reproductive Material Law, and it attempts to put the government in charge of virtually all plants and seeds. Home gardeners who grow their own plants from non-regulated seeds would be considered criminals under this law.
The draft text of the law, which has already been amended several times due to a huge backlash from gardeners, is¬†viewable here.
“This law will immediately stop the professional development of vegetable varieties for home gardeners, organic growers, and small-scale market farmers,” said Ben Gabel, vegetable breeder and director of¬†The Real Seed Catalogue. “Home gardeners have really different needs – for example they grow by hand, not machine, and can’t or don’t want to use such powerful chemical sprays. There’s no way to register the varieties suitable for home use as they don’t meet the strict criteria of the Plant Variety Agency, which is only concerned about approving the sort of seed used by industrial farmers.”
Virtually all plants, vegetable seeds and gardeners to eventually be registered by government
All governments are, of course, infatuated with the idea of registering everybody and everything. Under Title IV of the proposed EU law:
Title IV Registration of varieties in national and Union registers the varieties, in order to be made available on the market throughout the Union, shall be included in a national register or in the Union register via direct application procedure to the CVPO.
Gardeners must also pay fees to the EU bureaucracy for the registration of their¬†seeds. From the proposed law text:
The competent authorities and the CPVO should charge fees for the processing of¬†applications, the formal and technical examinations including audits, variety denomination, and the maintenance of the varieties for each year for the duration of¬†the¬†registration.
While this law may initially only be targeted at¬†commercial¬†gardeners, it sets a precedent to sooner or later go after¬†home gardeners¬†and require them to abide by the same insane regulations.
Government bureaucracy gone insane
“This is an instance of bureaucracy out of control,” says Ben Gabel. “All this new law does is create a whole new raft of EU civil servants being paid to move mountains of papers round all day, while killing off the seed supply to home gardeners and interfering with the right of farmers to grow what they want. It also very worrying that they have given themselves the power to regulate and licence any plant species of any sort at all in the future – not just agricultural¬†plants, but grasses, mosses, flowers, anything at all – without having to bring it back to the Council for a vote.”
As a hint of the level of¬†insane bureaucracy¬†that gardeners and vegetable growers will be subject to under this EU law, check out this language from the¬†proposed EU law:
Specific provisions are set out on the registration in the Union variety register and with regard to the possibility for the applicant to launch an appeal against a CPVO decision. Such provisions are not laid down for the registration in the national variety¬†registers, because they are subject to national administrative procedures. A new obligation for each national variety examination centre to be audited by the CPVO will be introduced with the aim to ensure the quality and harmonisation of the variety registration process in the Union. The examination centre of the professional operators will be audited and approved by the national competent authorities. In case of direct application to the CPVO it will audit and approve the examination centres it uses for variety examination.
Such language is, of course,¬†Orwellian bureaucraticspeak¬†that means only one thing: All gardeners should prepare to be subjected to total¬†government¬†insanity over seeds, vegetables and home gardens.
RealSeeds.co.uk warns about any attempt to actually try to understand the law by reading it:
You cannot just read the first 5 pages or so that are an ‘executive summary’, and think you know what this law is about. The executive summary is NOT what will become the law. It is the actual Articles themselves that become law, the Summary has no legal standing and is just tacked on as an aid to the public and legislators, it is supposed to give background information and set the proposed legislation in context so people know what is going on and why.
The problem with this law has always been that the Summary says lots of nice fluffy things about preserving biodiversity, simplifying legislation, making things easier etc – things we all would love – but the Articles of the law actually do completely the opposite. And the Summary is not what becomes the law.
For example, the Summary of drafts 1, 2 & 3 talked about making things easier for ‘Amateur’ varieties. But the entire class of Amateur vegetables – which we have spent 5 years working with DEFRA to register – was actually abolished entirely in the Articles right from the start. Yet the Summary , and press releases based on it, still talked about how it will help preserve Amateur varieties! The Summary is completely bogus. Do not base your views of the law on it!
So, be warned. By all means, read it yourself. But you have the ignore the Summary as that is not the Law, and does not reflect what is in the Law.¬†As you might suspect, this move is the “final solution” of Monsanto, DuPont and other seed-domination corporations who have long admitted their goal is the complete domination of all seeds and crops grown on the planet. By criminalizing the private growing of vegetables — thereby turning gardeners into criminals — EU bureaucrats can finally hand over full control of the food supply to powerful corporations like Monsanto.
Most heirloom seeds to be criminalized
Nearly all varieties of heirloom vegetable seeds will be criminalized under this proposed EU law. This means the act of saving seeds from one generation to the next — a cornerstone of sustainable living — will become¬†a criminal act.
In addition, as Gabel explains, this law “…effectively kills off development of home-garden seeds in the EU.”
This is the ultimate wish of all governments, of course: To criminalize any act of self-reliance and make the population completely dependent on monopolistic corporations for their very survival. This is true both in the USA and the EU.¬†This is what governments do: They seize control, one sector at a time, year after year, until you are living as nothing more than a total slave under a globalist dictatorial regime.
An¬†online petition¬†has already been started on this issue and has garnered nearly 25,000 signatures so far.
In my book, a woman uses a specially-crafted breast prosthesis to smuggle seeds to “underground gardeners” in full defiance of laws crafted by Monsanto. A vast underground network of grassroots gardeners and scientists manage to put together a “seed weapon” to destroy GMOs and take back the food supply from evil corporations.
Mark my words:¬†Seeds are about to become contraband. Anyone who grows their own food is about to be targeted as a criminal. The governments of the world, conspiring with corporations like Monsanto, do not want any individual to be able to grow their own food.
This is about¬†total domination of the food supply¬†and the criminalizing of gardeners. And this is what big government always does after centralizing sufficient power. All governments inherently seek total control over the lives of everyone, and if you don’t set boundaries and limits for government (i.e. the Bill of Rights), it eventually runs roughshod over all freedoms and liberties, including the freedom to grow your own food.
The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books. The NaturalNews Network is not for sale, and does not accept money to cover any story (or to spike it). NaturalNews Network is what the news industry used to be, before it sold out to big business.
Radio host and activist Adam Kokesh plans to lead an armed march from the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia all the way to the White House and back.
According to a¬†Facebook event¬†posted by Kokesh, titled ‚ÄúOpen Carry March on Washington,‚ÄĚ he plans to lead a peaceful march July 4th ‚Äúacross the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge.‚ÄĚ
On Monday, Kokesh joined Alex on his nationally syndicated radio show to discuss what the march aims to peacefully accomplish:
Kokesh states that ‚Äúthis is an act of civil disobedience,‚ÄĚ but stresses ‚ÄúThis will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúThere‚Äôs a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting.‚ÄĚ
An update states that Kokesh is already coordinating with authorities in the DC area and is encouraging them to honor their oaths and help escort the march along their route.
Libertarian and political commentator Lew Rockwell, on the Monday edition of the Alex Jones Show, warned that the march is equivalent to entering the gates of Mordor, and agreed with Alex that the event could easily be provocateured to demonize the growing liberty movement.
On the morning of July 4, 2013, Independence Day, we will muster at the National Cemetery & at noon we will step off to march across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court, & the White House, then peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge. This is an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event. We will march with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington, & returning with the resolve that the politicians, bureaucrats, & enforcers of the federal government will not be welcome in the land of the free.
There‚Äôs a remote chance that there will be violence as there has been from government before, and I think it should be clear that if anyone involved in this event is approached respectfully by agents of the state, they will submit to arrest without resisting. We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
You are welcome to attend unarmed as a supporter, or armed with a recording device.
We especially invite law enforcement officers to stand with us armed however they feel is appropriate.
If this page gets to 10,000 attendees by June 1st, & we have the critical mass necessary to pull this off, (1,000 actual attendees) we will march. Please spread the word, share this event, & invite all your friends.
UPDATE 130506 Now that it‚Äôs undeniable that this is going to happen, allow me to make clear how. There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event. I will recommend that they do the best they can to honor their oaths and escort us on our route. Failing to provide that commitment to safety, we will either be informed that we will only be allowed up to a certain point where we would be arrested. If this is the case, we will approach that point as a group and if necessary, I will procede to volunteer myself to determine what their actual course of action with someone crossing the line will be at which point fellow marchers will have the choice of joining me one at a time in a peaceful, orderly manner, or turning back to the National Cemetery.
Thanks to everyone for the vibrant conversation, but we have decided to make the wall of this event page specifically just for announcements and important info for the event. Please feel free to comment, and continue the conversation as you like at:¬†http://forums.adamvstheman.com/viewforum.php?f=13
Press-secretary of newly appointed head of the Swedish social-democratic party¬†admitted¬†to a UK-based Bilderberg in early June, announcing that the newly elected leader of the Swedish social-democratic party, Stefan L√∂fven, will be the guest of Jacob Wallenberg- a prominent member of the Bilderberg steering committee.
Not only has the press secretary in question revealed the first official Bilderberg participant of 2013, he also reaffirmed for us that the meeting will take place in early June- confirming that which we in the alternative media have already uncovered, most notably thanks to the late, great Jim Tucker.
Apparently a source of the newspaper first stated that the newly elected leader of the Swedish social-democratic party will be present at Bilderberg at the invite of Swedish philanthropist Jacob Wallenberg. The article in Swedish national journal SvD Naringsliv states:
‚ÄúStefan L√∂fven is invited and plans to attend this year‚Äôs Bilderberg meeting in June. This has been gathered from informed sources, indicated to SvD Business and has now been confirmed.‚ÄĚ
The confirmation of the paper‚Äôs inside information came from one of L√∂fven‚Äôs press-secretaries, Erik Nises, who told SvD:
‚ÄúYes, that‚Äôs right. Stefan is invited to the Bilderberg meeting. He will be there, invited as a guest of Jacob Wallenberg.‚ÄĚ
Wallenberg, who is one of 35 members of¬†Bilderberg‚Äôs steering committee, has invited politicians (from all walks of conviction) and businessmen from his home country before, so the SvD reports. Let‚Äôs throw a brief glance at the agenda‚Äôs some of the other members of the committee. The common denominator of their respective agenda‚Äôs is a striking gap between June 6 and June 10 2013, in which timeframe not a singel commitee member seems to have other engagements.
Steering committee member Balsem√£o Francisco Pinto (President of the European Publishers Council) will prelude his visit to Bilderberg by¬†attending a digital ‚Äúfestival‚ÄĚ¬†from may 29 to June 2. That other member of Bilderberg‚Äôs steering commitee, Mr. Marcus Agius (former head of Barclays), will presumably be in the area, perhaps combining his responsibilities for the steering group with his activities as trustee for London‚Äôs royal botanic gardens. It is a shame, by the way, that his dedication to openness and honesty, described as some of his most distinctive characteristic in his capacity of tree- and plant-lover, doesn‚Äôt quite reflect his behavior when it comes to co-steering the world‚Äôs most secretive of meetings. On June 11 2013 Agius is set to interview a new appointment in London, which makes it certain that this prominent member of Bilderberg‚Äôs steering committee will be in the area in the days before.
As former head of Deutsche Bank and loyal member of Bilderberg‚Äôs steering committee, Jozef Ackermann‚Äôs duty‚Äôs will¬†take him to London¬†on May 20, speaking at the 2013 Global Leadership Summit at the London Business School. This will also allow Mr. Ackerman to¬†tend to his responsibilities¬†as non-executive director of Dutch Royal Shell on Thursday May 23, 2013 in London, joining his fellow-Bilderberg buddies Peter Voser and Gerard Kleisterlee at Shell‚Äôs annual general meeting. Shell‚Äôs number one guy, Mr. Jorma Ollila- quite a prominent member of the steering committee- will fly himself to Sweden after Bilderberg, where he will deliver¬†the opening keynote speech¬†at Stockholm‚Äôs Digital Horizon‚Äôs venue on June 12. Former head of the European Central Bank Trichet will follow up his Bilderberg activities in London¬†speaking¬†at the International Economic Forum Of the Americas on June 12 in Montreal, where he is one of the featured speakers. Another steering committee member, the Greek Loukas Tsoukalis, will be¬†attending a seminar¬†organized by the Friends of Europe in Athens on June 13, perhaps to enjoy euro-friendly afterglow to his Bilderberg experience a couple of days before.
Now it just so happens that shortly after the last limo has fled the Grove premises, the 39th G8 summit will be held in Northern Ireland. Here ‚Äúour global leaders‚ÄĚ will cozily align themselves with the conclusions arrived at in the latest Bilderberg meeting.
Why are Jay-Z, Beyonce and many of the other artists that they work with (such as¬†Rihanna) so obsessed with the Illuminati?¬† Why does Illumunati symbolism constantly show up in their music videos, their live performances and even in Jay-Z‚Äôs Rocawear clothing line?¬† Is it just a coincidence that they flash hand signs representing the all-seeing eye of Horus and¬†the Mark of the Beast¬†during nationally televised events?¬† If it was a one time thing, perhaps you could dismiss their behavior as a coincidence or as a publicity stunt.¬† Sadly, the truth is that there is no way that all of this occult symbolism could get into their music videos and live performances by accident.¬† There is an agenda at work here.¬† Jay-Z, Beyonce and a whole bunch of other prominent artists are seducing our kids into the occult and they are making the New World Order appear to be hip, trendy and cool.¬† When our young people use the same symbols or flash the same hand signs as their favorite artists, most of them are not even aware of what they are doing.¬† But they are slowly being conditioned to accept the values and the belief systems behind those symbols and hand signs.
When you know what to look for, you start seeing these things just about everywhere around Jay-Z and Beyonce.¬† For example, posted below is a photo of Jay-Z wearing a sweatshirt that has the famous Aleister Crowley motto ‚ÄúDo What Thou Wilt‚ÄĚ emblazoned across it‚Ä¶
The following is what an¬†NPR article¬†had to say about the video from which this picture was taken‚Ä¶
‚ÄúYes, that has very deep roots in modern occult culture,‚ÄĚ Horowitz says. ‚ÄúThe full expression is ‚ÄėDo what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.‚Äô That was one of the key maxims of the British occultist Aleister Crowley. So when Jay-Z appears in a hoodie with that phrase on it in public, that‚Äôs exactly what he‚Äôs referencing.‚ÄĚ
Jay-Z‚Äôs Rocawear clothing line also often draws upon Masonic symbols: pentagrams, obelisks, pyramids, the all-seeing eye.
Sadly, this reference to Aleister Crowley was not just a one time thing for Jay-Z.¬† In fact, as¬†the Daily Mail¬†recently explained, Jay-Z has been linked to a Luciferian organization that Crowley founded known as Ordo Templi Orientis‚Ä¶
Other celebrities linked to OTO include the rapper Jay-Z, who has repeatedly purloined imagery and quotations from Crowley‚Äôs work.
Whether wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with ‚ÄėDo what thou wilt‚Äô or hiring Rihanna to hold aloft a flaming torch in his music videos (a reference to the Illuminati, an outlawed secret society whose name supposedly derives from Lucifer, or ‚Äėlight bringer‚Äô), he has given the sect priceless publicity.
His clothing line, Rocawear, is shot through with OTO imagery such as the ‚Äėall seeing eye‚Äô in a triangle, the ‚Äėeye of Horus‚Äô (an ancient Egyptian symbol frequently referenced in occult texts) and the head of Baphomet (the horned, androgynous idol of‚ÄČWestern occultism).
Perhaps Jay-Z‚Äôs favorite occult symbol is the all-seeing eye of Horus.¬† Beyonce and Jay-Z are constantly flashing this symbol wherever they go, and it is even on the cover of his greatest hits album‚Ä¶
For much more on the Jay-Z/Illuminati connection, please check out¬†this video‚Ä¶
Unfortunately, Beyonce has also fully embraced Illuminati symbolism and the occult agenda that Jay-Z is pushing.
But of course Jay-Z and Beyonce are far from alone.¬† All over America, prominent celebrities are gladly embracing the Illuminati and the New World Order.¬† By doing so, they are sending a message to future generations of Americans that being a part of these things is trendy and cool.
For example, just check out some of the celebrity members of the Council on Foreign Relations‚Ä¶
It‚Äôs funny ‚Äď just about the only thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree upon is that joining the Council on Foreign Relations is a good thing to do.¬† The mainstream media would have us believe that they are mortal enemies, but the reality is that they are really all working for the same side.
Another example of how the Illuminati is becoming trendy is the resurgence of Freemasonry that we are witnessing in the United States right now.¬† According to¬†the Los Angeles Times, Freemasonry is in the midst of a ‚Äúmembership boom‚ÄĚ‚Ä¶
That‚Äôs because the Freemasons, whose tenets forbid soliciting or recruiting members, have enthusiastically embraced the Internet as a way to leverage curiosity about an organization with its roots in Europe‚Äôs medieval stonemasons guilds. Freemasonry today sees itself as a thinking man‚Äôs salon, a learned society with a philanthropic bent.
‚ÄúWe had a record number of new members last year,‚ÄĚ said Allan Casalou, grand secretary of the Grand Lodge of California. ‚ÄúWe added 2,000 men, which is the most since 1998 and our seventh straight year of membership increases.‚ÄĚ
And, to paraphrase that Oldsmobile campaign, these definitely aren‚Äôt your father‚Äôs Freemasons. They are bar owners, male models and olive-oil brokers. They are men like Zulu, an L.A. tattoo artist with a swirling Maori-inspired design inked across his face and a panoply of metal piercing his ears, nose and face. They are men like Jonathan Kanarek, who runs a men‚Äôs vintage clothing store on Hollywood Boulevard and whose retro chic wardrobe of polka-dot ascots, glen-plaid jackets and smartly pressed pocket squares earned him a spot on Esquire magazine‚Äôs 2007 list of best-dressed real men in America. And they are men like Daemon Hillin, whose surfer-dude looks and blinding white smile can be found on Japanese TV, where he plays sidekick and comic foil to the Japanese version of the Hilton sisters.
Meanwhile, those that the Illuminati hate (Christians) are being increasingly demonized in this country.
For example, last week¬†Fox News reported¬†that the U.S. military has been blocking the website of the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in America) because it contained ‚Äúhostile content‚ÄĚ‚Ä¶
The U.S. Military has blocked access to the Southern Baptist Convention‚Äôs website on an unknown number of military bases because it contains ‚Äúhostile content‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ just weeks after an Army briefing labeled Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics as examples of religious extremism, Fox News has learned.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the nation‚Äôs largest Protestant denomination known for its support of the pro-life movement and its strong belief in traditional marriage.
Southern Baptist chaplains reported that SBC.net had been blocked at military installations around the nation. An Air Force officer told Fox News that when he tried to log on to the website he received a message that his Internet usage was being logged and monitored for trying to access a blocked site.
Nazi literature was full of propaganda about how the Nazis were going to do away with Christianity.¬† In a¬†previous article, I posted some of the incredibly shocking information that has been uncovered by¬†author Bruce Walker‚Ä¶.
The Nazi tract Gott und Volk was distributed in 1941, and it describes the life cycle of German youth in the future, who would:¬† ‚ÄúWith parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments‚Ä¶ The education of the youth is to be confined primarily by the teacher, the officer, and the leaders of the party.¬† The priests will die out.¬† They have estranged the youth from the Volk.¬† Into their places will step the leaders.¬† Not deputies of God.¬† But anyway the best Germans.¬† And how shall we train our children?¬† Thus, as though they had never heard of Christianity!‚ÄĚ
In case you still haven‚Äôt gotten the point, the following direct quotes¬†out of Hitler Youth training manuals¬†should leave little doubt about how the Nazis felt about the Christian faith‚Ä¶
‚ÄúChristianity is a religion of slaves and fools.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúHow did Christ die?¬† Whining at the Cross!‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúThe Ten Commandments represent the lowest instincts of man.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúChristianity is merely a cloak for Judaism.‚ÄĚ
But instead of learning from history, we seem doomed to repeat it.
In America today, the Illuminati and the occult are being glorified, and Christianity is being demonized.
So what will the end¬† result of all of this be?¬† Please feel free to post a comment with your opinion below‚Ä¶
According to another Bilderberg¬†vigilant posting¬†on the Planet X website, an employee of the Grove Hotel has let slip that its golf course is booked out by an ‚ÄúAmerican Group‚ÄĚ from June 6-9. The commenter, pretending to be interested to reserve the golf court, was told this was impossible:
‚ÄúNo that is not possible during those dates because the private American Group Organizers have requested that they have full exclusive use themselves‚ÄĚ.
As I¬†recently reported, a call handler at the Hertfordshire constabulary confirmed that the Grove Hotel- both the surroundings and the Hotel itself- will be cordoned off by the local Hertfordshire constabulary in a ‚Äúsecurity exercise‚ÄĚ. The exercise, by the way, is planned exactly at the time that the Hotel, according to its employees, will accommodate a ‚Äúhigh profile‚ÄĚ international group- booking all 220 rooms
An earlier comment posted on Planet X forum, mentions that the facilities at the Grove will be subject to high-level security on June 7 and 8. On those dates no one may enter the Hotel or its immediate surroundings. In the comment the Grove employee is quoted as saying:
‚ÄúUnfortunately on the 7th and 8th June 2013, the whole hotel and facilities are booked out to a group holding an international event. There is no way that you can come and visit that weekend.‚ÄĚ
The ‚ÄúAmerican group‚ÄĚ- comment posted yesterday is interesting in more than one respect. Not only does this latest slip-up by a Grove employee confirm the grounds (Hotel, all its facilities and the surrounding lands) are off-limit to the general public (meaning anyone not holding key power positions), it also suggests that the organizers are predominantly American. When we take a look at Bilderberg‚Äôs¬†current steering committee¬†we find no less than 11 Americans among the 34 members (including David Rockefeller). Because the event itself is ‚Äúinternational‚ÄĚ in nature, concerning ‚Äúhigh profile‚ÄĚ individuals ‚Äď we now have further indications Bilderberg will descend on Hertfordshire in the United Kingdon from June 6-9.
If the Grove Hotel will be the host of this year‚Äôs conference, there should be camera‚Äôs, lots of camera‚Äôs- and people of course, welcoming the guests with the fire of passion. There are two possible locations where the shaded limo‚Äôs may enter the Grove terrain: there is the eastside Hampstead road, where the participants are set drive in from. In normal circumstances, the prominent front gate bids a friendly welcome to guests when they arrive, beyond which the road rolls gently on through to even more welcoming English hill country towards the Grove Hotel- strictly prohibited for Bilderberg critics, of course, and for that reason obviously inviting to any inquisitive members of the alternative media. Although the entrance has limited accessibility for us stray reporters, the presumed cordoned-off area is just large enough for any small group to annoy the incoming transnationalists when they turn to follow the eastern road into the Grove premises.
Unfortunately, to venture onto the street or set up camera there will be a challenge in its own right, as adventurous cameramen may be mercilessly t-boned by traffic on both sides of the road. Chances are the local constabulary will be there to make sure not a soul breaches the security perimeter, allowing the movers and shakers of the world‚Äôs political and economic playing field to slip by in relative peace and quiet. The narrow perches here and there are grassy islands in the midst of an asphalt ocean, allowing perhaps for mini-wigwams but hardly accommodate professional cameramen and their entourage of equipment. It may come to all of us jumping ape-like from tree top to tree top in the hopes of capturing Kissinger smiling grimly behind his darkened car window.
Of course, there is a possibility the expected media nuisance may prompt the guests to sneak into the premises via the western entrance, where the narrow road does not allow for average-sized inquisitive journalists, let alone elaborate camera-nests- as both sides are beset by remorseless shrubbery. It would therefore be an idea for one or two teams to set up camp on the western side of the Grove where the road splits up to casually drift onward into the Grove area, just in case they decide to shun the front gate. Any location, for that matter, in a 360 degree radius around the Grove should be taken into consideration to make sure no weaving spider slips past unseen.
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years ‚ÄĒ or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects na√Įvely played their parts until they were arrested.
When an Oregon college student,¬†Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of ‚Äúinert material,‚ÄĚ harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.
This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves ‚ÄĒ too sure, perhaps.
Carefully orchestrated sting operations usually hold up in court. Defendants invariably claim entrapment and almost always lose, because the law requires that they show no predisposition to commit the crime, even when induced by government agents. To underscore their predisposition, many suspects are ‚Äúwarned about the seriousness of their plots and given opportunities to back out,‚ÄĚ said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. But not always, recorded conversations show. Sometimes they are coaxed to continue.
Undercover operations, long practiced by the F.B.I., have become a mainstay of counterterrorism, and they have changed in response to the post-9/11 focus on prevention. ‚ÄúPrior to 9/11 it would be very unusual for the F.B.I. to present a crime opportunity that wasn‚Äôt in the scope of the activities that a person was already involved in,‚ÄĚ said Mike German of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lawyer and former F.B.I. agent who infiltrated white supremacist groups. An alleged drug dealer would be set up to sell drugs to an undercover agent, an arms trafficker to sell weapons. That still happens routinely, but less so in counterterrorism, and for good reason.
‚ÄúThere isn‚Äôt a business of terrorism in the United States, thank God,‚ÄĚ a former federal prosecutor, David Raskin, explained.
‚ÄúYou‚Äôre not going to be able to go to a street corner and find somebody who‚Äôs already blown something up,‚ÄĚ he said. Therefore, the usual goal is not ‚Äúto find somebody who‚Äôs already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town.‚ÄĚ
And that‚Äôs the gray area. Who is susceptible? Anyone who plays along with the agents, apparently. Once the snare is set, law enforcement sees no choice. ‚ÄúIgnoring such threats is not an option,‚ÄĚ Mr. Boyd argued, ‚Äúgiven the possibility that the suspect could act alone at any time or find someone else willing to help him.‚ÄĚ
The implication is clear: there is official truth and then there is everything else. How many times has¬†thatassertion put America in the dumper?
As I write this, one suspect in the Marathon bombings is dead, and the other suspect is apparently surrounded in a house in Watertown, Massachsetts. (6:55AM, Pacific) The city of Boston is locked down.
Once events reach this point, an overwhelming number of people believe the authorities. They accept what is happening. The FBI must have it right. Reject all other possibilities.
That‚Äôs always a dangerous assumption.
Yesterday, at a heralded press conference, seen by millions around the world, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI‚Äôs Boston division, produced photos and video of two suspects in the Marathon bombing.
He stated: ‚Äú‚Ä¶these images should be the only ones, I emphasize, the only ones that the public should view to assist us.¬†Other photos should not be deemed credible, and they unnecessarily divert the public‚Äôs attention in the wrong direction, and create undo work for vital law-enforcement resources.‚ÄĚ
Translation: Ignore all the images uncovered by independent researchers, citizen reporters, bloggers. Forget, for example, about photos of those men who appear to work for Craft International, a private security contractor, who were standing at the finish line of the Marathon. We, the FBI, are running this show. We‚Äôre the pros, we deal, you behave.
NBC‚Äôs Brian Williams, the Unctuous One, in his lead-in to the press conference, said: ‚ÄúIt‚Äôs been twenty-four hours of fits and starts, and false reports on people who have been pursued in this investigation, including folks who have been identified through photography, but this will be the word from the FBI.‚ÄĚ
Translation: The guessing is over. Drum roll. The F B I has the real goods. Those other photos aren‚Äôt officially certified by law-enforcement, or by us, the fawning water carriers for the Bureau and DHS. And that unfortunate and cruel detention of the Saudi lad, who was misidentified as a suspect, but later released, his travel visa now revoked, his deportation back to Saudi Arabia underway, after an unscheduled meeting between Obama and the Saudi foreign minister? Means nothing. We were informed by reliable sources that it means nothing. We decide what‚Äôs relevant, we give it to you and you take it.
Richard DesLauriers, who starred in the FBI press conference, made his bones at the Bureau by engineering the exchange of 10 Russian sleeper agents in the US for four CIA agents who were in prison in Russia. That was his big career move.
The Russian sleeper agents had been operating under the nose of the FBI in the US, who, in typical fashion, weren‚Äôt making any arrests. They were just tracking these Russian spies and watching them, for more than 10 years, as the spies passed across intelligence to their Russian controls.
This was a very delicate exchange, mainly because FBI field agents a) didn‚Äôt want to let the Russians go back home and escape prosecution and b) because the FBI and the CIA hate each other, and the FBI people weren‚Äôt all that enthused about the value of the deal. Bring home four CIA people in return for releasing 10 Russian sleeper agents? Nothing to celebrate there.
So now Richard DesLauriers is telling the American people: look at the photos of the two men on the FBI‚Äôs radar and nobody else. Ignore all other photos and all other information.
Harken back, if you will, to another bombing incident. Oklahoma City, in 1995. The Murrah Federal Building. Remember? Tim McVeigh? The FBI was cooking the books on that one all the way.
Just one example: A secret Department of Justice report on the bombing was presented to a very select audience. This DOJ report wasn‚Äôt undertaken voluntarily. No. FBI whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst had forced it to happen, because he‚Äôd gone public and said the FBI lab had fabricated evidence in the McVeigh case.
Serious evidence. It turned out there was no reason to believe ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) had been the main explosive used to blow apart the Federal Building on the morning of April 19, 1995. A FBI lab supervisor named David Williams had decided ammonium nitrate was the substance because defendant Terry Nichols possessed a receipt for its purchase.
So Williams made the lab evidence look like it confirmed ammonium nitrate. But it didn‚Äôt.
The DOJ report detailing all this was so damning, the judge in the McVeigh trial ran away from it like a wild horse. He refused to allow the report into evidence. He forbade it from being discussed at all.
Why was this so crucial? Because independent bomb experts had gone on the record with a quite different scenario. I interviewed three of them. They agreed that an ammonium nitrate bomb, in the Ryder truck at the curb, parked in front of the Federal Building, could not have caused the profile of damage sustained by the building. Impossible.
Therefore, McVeigh, whatever he was guilty or not guilty of, had accomplices. Professionals, who had wired charges into the columns of the structure. These charges had wrought the real destruction.
But the FBI did everything in its power to focus on McVeigh and and the amateur Nichols only. They ruled out every other lead, and there were plenty of them.
The FBI essentially said, ‚ÄúThese are the two suspects. Don‚Äôt look for anybody else. Pay no attention to anyone who says there are other perpetrators. They‚Äôre crazies. We know the truth.‚ÄĚ
Just like now.
In 1995, Americans completely bought into the false FBI evidence and story.
Once the FBI rolls and the news media back up the FBI, it‚Äôs a fait accompli. The public automatically follows suit. How could things be any different? How could so many resources be devoted to anything but the truth?
‚ÄúThe FBI killed one terrorist. Now they have his brother, the other bomber, surrounded. This is it. This is the only story. Everything else is nonsense.‚ÄĚ
Yes, no, and maybe are reduced to yes.
‚ÄúThe FBI would never have come this far with the case if they didn‚Äôt have things right.‚ÄĚ
Yes, that was exactly the mindset in Oklahoma City in 1995. Until it wasn‚Äôt. Until independent researchers uncovered miles of undiscovered information about other suspects and FBI lies.
The author of an explosive collection,¬†THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th¬†District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
‚ÄúThe system of terror was essential to Stalinism. ‚Ä¶ Terror was the creation to mold politically the control that they wanted.‚ÄĚ
‚Äď Condoleezza Rice, ‚ÄúJoseph Stalin: Red Terror‚ÄĚ
As we look back at the atrocities that have devastated¬†America over the past 12 years since 9/11, one has to reflect upon history and see how it is that past dictators have profited from the use of ‚Äúterror.‚ÄĚFor example: Hitler was responsible for attacking his own Reichstag to start a world war. He perpetuated a war against the ‚Äúenemies‚ÄĚ he himself created. His propagandists had the Germans believing they were under attack, and all the while Hitler was the one doing the attacking.
Hitler was also responsible for sending his brownshirts to incite the people, so he could¬†play the role of problem-solver.¬†Eighty million Germans refused to believe Hitler was guilty of these crimes until 12 million of their fellow citizens were slaughtered.
Then it was too late.
This is, in fact, what history teaches us.
And now to the present.
It seems rather strange that when America is attacked, one does not question why it is that the government is right there asking the people to relinquish or forfeit their rights ‚Äď rights hundreds and thousands of men and women have fought, bled and died to give us.
Listen to what Gen. Douglas MacArthur said of the United States government back in 1957:
‚ÄúOur government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear ‚Äď kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor ‚Äď with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. ‚Ä¶‚ÄĚ
Yes, he said this in 1957.
You would think that this is what our government said on Sept. 11, 2001.
‚ÄúEvery nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.‚ÄĚ
‚Äď George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001
After this statement, the un-Patriot Act was signed into law, and now Americans‚Äô Fourth Amendment rights are violated as they are searched at almost every airport in America through the TSA‚Äôs pretended authority, and the government, step-by-step, aggrandizes power to itself while consuming individual liberty.
After 9/11, America was told that we were under an extremist Islamic threat. And now this administration (which celebrates Ramadan in the White House, gives F-16s and tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood, continuously sympathizes with radical Islam, opens the borders for illegal immigration and runs guns to Mexican gun cartels to blame the American people) has now extended the definition of a terrorist to mean anyone who happens to be a patriot, a Christian, a gun owner, a pro-lifer, etc. ‚Äď in essence, an American. (Isaiah 5:20)
Just this last week, the Equal Opportunity branch of the military put out a training manual labeling ‚Äúevangelical Christians‚ÄĚ as the No. 1 threat to America. Within a week the USA Today front page stated ‚ÄúTerror Returns‚ÄĚ after the Boston marathon bombing, and officials are stating that the suspects are possibly ‚Äúhomegrown terrorists.‚ÄĚ
This isn‚Äôt the first time our government has labeled Americans as terrorists. Let‚Äôs go to Waco, Oklahoma City and Ruby Ridge to see who was responsible for the terror enacted:
The US House of Representatives has passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act (CISPA).
Lawmakers in the House voted 288-to-127 Thursday afternoon to pass the¬†bill. Next it will move to the Senate and could then end up on the desk of US President Barack Obama for him to potentially sign the¬†bill¬†into law. Earlier this week, though, senior White House advisers said they would recommend the president veto the¬†bill.
Should CISPA earn the president‚Äôs autograph, private businesses will be encouraged to voluntarily share cyberthreat information with the US government. The authors of the¬†bill¬†say this is an effort to better combat the reportedly increasing attempts to harm America‚Äôs critical computer networks and pilfer the systems of privatecompanies¬†for intellectual property and other sensitive trade secrets.
One of the bill‚Äôs creators, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), said during a round of debate on Wednesday that $400 billion worth of American trade secrets are being stolen by US¬†companies¬†every year. Passing CISPA, he said, would be a common sense¬†solution¬†to a threat that‚Äôs growing at an alarming rate.
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan)
‚ÄúIf your house is being robbed, you call 911 and the police department comes. That‚Äôs the same scenario we are looking at here,‚ÄĚ¬†he said.
Also testifying Wednesday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) said CISPA could be used to combat the 25 million cybercrime victims she claims are targeted every day.
That same day, CISPA co-author Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) stressed that his¬†bill¬†doesn‚Äôt extend any extra surveillance powers to the federal government, despite condemnation from critics that say exactly that.¬†‚ÄúIt does something very simple: it allows the government¬†to share¬†zeroes and ones with the private sector,‚ÄĚ¬†he said. Rather, he called it ‚Äúa critical bipartisan first step for enabling American‚Äôs private sector to defend itself‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúimproves cybersecurity without compromising our civil liberties.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúWe have yet to find a single United States company that opposes this¬†bill,‚ÄĚ¬†said Rep. Rogers.
But¬†companies¬†do in fact oppose CISPA, including a number of entities that carry a good deal of clout around both Silicon Valley and inside the beltway. Just last month Facebook rescinded their support of the act, according to Cnet‚Äôs Declan McCullagh, because a spokesperson for the social media site says they prefer a legislative‚Äúbalance‚ÄĚ¬†that ensures¬†‚Äúthe privacy of our users.‚ÄĚ
After CISPA was unsuccessfully introduced to Congress last year ‚ÄĒ only to stall in the Senate ‚ÄĒ Microsoft endorsed the act only to eventually do an about-face.
‚ÄúMicrosoft believes that any proposed legislation should facilitate the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information in a manner that allows us to honor the privacy and¬†security¬†promises we make to our customers,‚ÄĚ¬†the company‚Äôs Scott Charney told McCullagh at the time.
But just last week, TechNet President Rey Ramsey sent a letter to Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger saying his group thinks CISPA¬†‚Äúrecognizes the need for effective cybersecurity legislation that encourages voluntary, bi-directional, real time sharing of actionable cyberthreat information to protect networks,‚ÄĚ but that further work may be needed. TechNet‚Äôs Executive Council includes Yahoo‚Äôs Marissa Mayer, Google‚Äôs Eric Schmidt and Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith.
Web browser makers Mozilla oppose the¬†bill, as does the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union, and last year‚Äôs attempt to pass CISPA after it was unveiled for a first time prompted the White House to issue a veto warning then. In the months since the¬†bill¬†stalled in the Senate, though, the president has on his own part urged Congress to adopt a new cybersecurity¬†bill.
CISPA 101: Originally introduced in late-2011, CISPA passed the House but never advanced to a full Senate vote after massive public campaigns waged against the¬†bill. It‚Äôs authors say CISPA will ‚Äúprovide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities‚ÄĚ by encouraging private¬†companies¬†such as Google, Facebook and others to hand over to the government any data that could be used to combat cyberattacks. Critics of the¬†bill¬†say its language is too broad, though, and allows federal agencies to access too much personal information.
In February, Pres. Obama signed an executive order that urges his administration to begin working towards improving cybersecurity protections until Congress can craft a¬†bill. Hours later, he said during his annual State of the Union address how imperative legislation action is.
‚ÄúEarlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national¬†security, our jobs and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks,‚ÄĚ¬†the president said.
But in the veto threat extended by his office earlier this week, the White House writes,¬†‚Äúthe Administration still seeks additional improvements and if the¬†bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the¬†bill.‚ÄĚ
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) corroborated on that statement during Thursday‚Äôs pre-vote discussion, vowing to cast her ballot against CISPA because it did not, in her opinion, protect the privacy of Americans to the degree it should.
‚ÄúI‚Äôm disappointed,‚ÄĚ¬†said the congresswoman,¬†‚Äúthat we did not address some of the concerns mentioned by the White House about personal information. Unfortunately, it offers no policies and did not allow any amendments or real¬†solution¬†that upholds Americans‚Äô right to privacy.‚ÄĚ
CISPA, added Pelosi, provides¬†‚Äúoverly broad liability protections and immunity to the businesses that violate our liberties,‚ÄĚ¬†and fails to strike a¬†‚Äúcrucial balance between¬†security¬†and liberty.‚ÄĚ
But elsewhere during Thursday‚Äôs debate, another elected lawmaker cited national¬†security¬†concerns as paramount to these privacy woes. Speaking before his congressional colleagues, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said this week‚Äôs deadly terrorist attack in Boston are reason enough to pass a cybersecurity¬†bill, despite lacing evidence that the pair of bombs detonated Monday at the Boston Marathon were acts of cyberterror.
‚ÄúRecent¬†events in Boston¬†demonstrate that we have to come together as Republicans and Democrats‚ÄĚ¬†in order to pass a¬†bill¬†that will strengthen national¬†security, McCaul (R-Texas) said Thursday morning.
‚ÄúIn the case of Boston,‚ÄĚ¬†said McCaul, ‚Äúthere were real bombs.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúIn this case, they are digital bombs ‚ÄĒ and these digital bombs are on their way.‚ÄĚ
Another lawmaker, Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York), said CISPA was necessary to protect the US against¬†‚Äúindependent groups like WikiLeaks,‚ÄĚ¬†adding unfounded claims that the whistleblower website is¬†‚Äútaking very aggressive measures to hack into‚ÄĚ¬†US computer networks.
Other noteworthy statements that came out of this week‚Äôs CISPA debate include one quip from Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan), who said Wednesday that the¬†bill ‚Äúhelps us fulfill every one of the responsibilities mandated on us by the US Constitution.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúI believe strongly that you should have constitutional concerns about not passing this bill,‚ÄĚ¬†said Rep. Miller.
‚ÄúBy supporting CISPA, we move to fulfill our oath‚ÄĚ¬†to protect the American people, added Rep. William Enyart (D-Illinois).
As news broke Thursday afternoon that CISPA cleared the House, opponents took to social media to sound out. The EFF responded by saying the House¬†‚Äúshamefully‚ÄĚ¬†passed,¬†‚Äúundermining the privacy of millions of Internet users.‚ÄĚ
When Rep. Ruppersberger reintroduced CISPA at the start of this congressional season, he evoked the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to suggest that Congress can and will do whatever is necessary in the wake of another tragedy.
‚ÄúWe don‚Äôt do anything well after a significant emotional event,‚ÄĚ¬†said Ruppersberger. Should there be a cyberattack on America on par with 9/11, Congress¬†‚Äúwill get all the bills passed we want,‚ÄĚ¬†he said.
Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie¬†and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find¬†HERE.¬† If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at¬†admin@EndtheLie.com
The US government wants more privacy protections in the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).
After failing to pass through the Senate last year, the bill has already had several amendments.
Intended to protect corporate networks from cyber-attacks, it allows private companies to share cybersecurity information with government agencies.
Opponents say that this is creating a backdoor for governments to snoop on individuals’ data, a point taken on board by the government.
A White House statement said: “The administration remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities.”
Despite this, the bill has found many friends including large technology firms such as AT&T, Comcast, Intel and Oracle.
This week IBM has sent 200 executives to Washington to lobby for the bill.
In a statement the firm said: “IBM believes we can build stronger, more efficient defences against cyber-threats by enabling better information sharing and providing clear authority for the private sector to defend its own networks, as proposed in the Cybersecurity Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa).”
But opponents remain concerned the bill allows a wide range of data to be shared with government. Last month a petition with 100,000 signatures was submitted to the White House.
Opposition has been particularly vocal from privacy groups, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) describing the latest iteration of the bill as “fatally flawed”.
The bill’s sponsor, Republican Mike Rogers, caused anger on Twitter when he suggested in a speech that the typical opponent of the bill was “a 14-year-old tweeter in the basement”.