Google+ Followers

Sunday, 24 August 2014

The myth of political sameness - » The Australian Independent Media Network

The myth of political sameness - » The Australian Independent Media Network





The myth of political sameness














We are pleased to offer this piece by Ad astra – the well known and popular writer from the long running blog The Political Sword. In this article Ad astra
closely examines a way of understanding differences between the
thinking of progressives and conservatives, as expressed through the
work of cognitive linguist, George Lakoff.



The myth of political sameness: Why progressives and conservatives think differently.


Cock your ear at your local watering hole, listen to the boys as they
clasp a frosted schooner of VB, and you’re bound to hear: ‘They’re all
the same these pollies. Ya just can’t trust em’. Of course they are
right to some extent. The deception and deviousness we see day after day
from our politicians has earned them that condemnation. On the other
side of the coin, by and large politicians enter public life to make a
difference, to do good things, to make life better for their
electorates, indeed the whole nation. Only the Eddie Obeids of this
world have self-interest as their driving force.



Similarly, political parties have good intentions and many comparable
policies. It’s not surprising then that many voters perceive
politicians and parties as ‘all the same’.



This notion of sameness needs debunking, lest too many entitled to
cast a vote swallow the myth that the ‘sameness’ of the parties absolves
them from making a critical decision about who is best equipped to lead
the nation, who has the best policy agenda, who has the most acceptable
ideology, who has the most suitable approach to policy development, who
can take us to a better future.



Politicians and parties are not ‘all the same’.


In his book: Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2002), George Lakoff, linguist and cognitive scientist, tells us how very
different are conservatives from progressives, and how the major
differences in their mindset affects their approach to politics. Because
he studied US politics, he uses the term ‘liberal’ to describe
‘progressives’ (in the US, Democrats; in this country Labor and perhaps
the Greens), and ‘conservative’ to describe conservatives (in the US,
Republicans or their extreme variant, The Tea Party; in this country the
Liberal National Party, the Coalition). Most of the quotes in this
piece are from this book. I quote him extensively; my words could not do
a better job than his.



His underlying thesis rests on a central metaphor: ‘Nation as Family’. He elaborates on this as follows:


  • The Nation is a Family.
  • The Government is a Parent.
  • The Citizens are the Children.

We know that the metaphor is not wholly applicable, but many people
find it a comfortable one with which they can identify readily. They can
accept that family dynamics and economics might be seen as applicable
to the nation’s dynamics and economics, even though there are many
fundamental differences. Our politicians often use this metaphor, making
reference to the family budget to argue that the nation, like a family,
must ‘live within its means’.



Building on the Nation as Family metaphor, Lakoff identifies two
types of family based upon two distinct styles of parenting, which he
assigns to conservatives and progressives respectively. When applied to
the Nation as Family metaphor, they result in vastly different
behaviours.



The two parenting styles are:


  • The Strict Father model, and
  • The Nurturant Parent model.

At the center of the conservative worldview is a Strict Father model;
the liberal (progressive) worldview centres on a very different ideal
for family life, the Nurturant Parent model, which encompasses both
parents.



Lakoff asserts that the Strict Father model is a metaphorical version of an economic idea. He explains:


It is based on a folk version of Adam Smith’s economics:
If each person seeks to maximize his own wealth, then, by an invisible
hand, the wealth of all will be maximized. Applying the common metaphor
that Well-Being Is Wealth to this folk version of free-market economics,
we get: If each person tries to maximize his own well-being (or
self-interest), the well-being of all will be maximized. Thus, seeking
one’s own self-interest is actually a positive, moral act, one that
contributes to the well-being of all.




Lakoff goes on to cite some words and phrases used over and over in
conservative discourse, words that reflect the Strict Father model:



Character, virtue, discipline, tough it out, get tough,
tough love, strong, self-reliance, individual responsibility, backbone,
standards, authority, heritage, competition, earn, hard work,
enterprise, property rights, reward, freedom, intrusion, interference,
meddling, punishment, human nature, traditional, common sense,
dependency, self-indulgent, elite, quotas, breakdown, corrupt, decay,
rot, degenerate, deviant, lifestyle.




How many times have you heard Coalition members use these words,
particularly those who have responsibility for the economy: Tony Abbott,
Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann? Countless times!



Lakoff continues:


Liberals [progressives], in their speeches and writings,
choose different topics, different words, and different modes of
inference than conservatives. Liberals talk about: social forces, social
responsibility, free expression, human rights, equal rights, concern,
care, help, health, safety, nutrition, basic human dignity, oppression,
diversity, deprivation, alienation, big corporations, corporate welfare,
ecology, ecosystem, biodiversity, pollution, and so on. Conservatives
tend not to dwell on these topics, or to use these words as part of
their normal political discourse.




How often have you heard Labor members and Greens using these words? Over and again!


Lakoff summarises:


The conservative/liberal [progressive] division is
ultimately a division between strictness and nurturance as ideals at all
levels—from the family to morality to religion and, ultimately, to
politics. It is a division at the center of our democracy and our public
lives, and yet there is no overt discussion of it in public discourse.




He continues:


Yet it is vitally important that we do so if Americans
are to understand, and come to grips with, the deepest fundamental
division in our country, one that transcends and lies behind all the
individual issues: the role of government, social programs, taxation,
education, the environment, energy, gun control, abortion, the death
penalty, and so on. These are ultimately not different issues, but
manifestations of a single issue: strictness versus nurturance.




In Australia, an identical and just as fundamental division exists
between the Coalition, the conservatives, and Labor and the Greens, the
progressives. This division results in the striking differences in
attitude, behaviour, rhetoric, policy, and indeed morality, which day
after day define our own conservatives and our own progressives. It
explains so much of the contrast we see.



Lakoff summarises the relationship between morality and politics as follows:


The Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models of the family induce…two moral systems…


The link between family-based morality and politics comes from one of
the most common ways we have of conceptualizing what a nation is,
namely, as a family. It is the common, unconscious, and automatic
metaphor of the Nation as Family that produces contemporary conservatism
from Strict Father morality and contemporary liberalism from Nurturant
Parent morality.




According to Lakoff, conservatives cannot understand the thinking of
progressives, nor can progressives understand conservatives.
Conventional logic does not help; it is only when the two methods of
parenting are used as explanatory models that understanding comes into
view with a startling flash of insight.



To assist understanding, Lakoff compares conservative and liberal (progressive) moral systems:


Conservative categories of moral action:


1. Promoting Strict Father morality in general.

2. Promoting self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance.

3. Upholding the Morality of Reward and Punishment.



a. Preventing interference with the pursuit of self-interest by self-disciplined, self-reliant people.

b. Promoting punishment as a means of upholding authority.

c. Ensuring punishment for lack of self-discipline.



4. Protecting moral people from external evils.

5. Upholding the Moral Order.



Liberal categories of moral action:


1. Empathetic behaviour, and promoting fairness.

2. Helping those who cannot help themselves.

3. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

4. Promoting fulfillment in life.

5. Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to do the above.




He clarifies these concepts as follows:


In the conservative moral worldview, the model citizens
are those who best fit all the conservative categories for moral action.
They are those (1) who have conservative values and act to support
them; (2) who are self-disciplined and self-reliant; (3) who uphold the
morality of reward and punishment; (4) who work to protect moral
citizens; and (5) who act in support of the moral order. Those who best
fit all these categories are successful, wealthy, law-abiding
conservative businessmen who support a strong military and a strict
criminal justice system, who are against government regulation, and who
are against affirmative action. They are the model citizens. They are
the people whom all Americans should emulate and from whom we have
nothing to fear. They deserve to be rewarded and respected.



These model citizens fit an elaborate mythology. They have succeeded
through hard work, have earned whatever they have through their own
self-discipline, and deserve to keep what they have earned. Through
their success and wealth they create jobs, which they “give” to other
citizens. Simply by investing their money to maximize their earnings,
they become philanthropists who “give” jobs to others and thereby
“create wealth” for others [trickle down economics]. Part of the myth is
that these model citizens have been given nothing by the government and
have made it on their own. The American Dream is that any honest,
self-disciplined, hard-working person can do the same. These model
citizens are seen by conservatives as the Ideal Americans in the
American Dream.



We can now see clearly why liberal [progressive] arguments for social
programs can make no sense at all to conservatives, whether they are
arguments on the basis of compassion, fairness, wise investment,
financial responsibility, or outright self-interest. The issue for
conservatives is a moral issue touching the very heart of conservative
morality, a morality where a liberal’s compassion and fairness are
neither compassionate nor fair. Even financial arguments won’t carry the
day. The issue isn’t about money; it’s about morality.



What we have here are major differences in moral worldview. They are
not just differences of opinion about effective public administration.
The differences are not about efficiency, or practicality, or economics,
and they cannot be settled by rational argument about effective
administration. They are ethical opinions about what makes good people
and a good nation.




Lakoff illustrates his thesis with an example from America that has application in this country:


Take a simple example: college loans. The federal
government has had a program to provide low-interest loans to college
students. The students don’t have to start paying off the loans while
they are still in college and the loans are interest-free during the
college years [similar to our HECS - HELP loan program].



The liberal rationale for the program is this: College is expensive
and a great many poor-to-middle-class students cannot afford it. This
loan program allows a great many students to go to college who otherwise
wouldn’t. Going to college allows one to get a better job at a higher
salary afterward and to be paid more during one’s entire life. This
benefits not only the student but also the government, since the student
will be paying more taxes over his lifetime because of his better job.
From the liberal [progressive] moral perspective, this is a highly moral
program. It helps those who cannot help themselves. It promotes
fulfillment in life in two ways, since education is fulfilling in itself
and it permits people to get more fulfilling jobs. It strengthens the
nation, since it produces a better-educated citizenry and ultimately
brings in more tax money; and it is empathetic behavior making access to
college more fairly distributed.



But through conservative spectacles, this is an immoral program.
Since students depend on the loans, the program supports dependence on
the government rather than self-reliance. Since not everyone has access
to such loans, the program introduces competitive unfairness, thus
interfering with the free market in loans and hence with the fair
pursuit of self-interest. Since the program takes money earned by one
group and, through taxation, gives it to another group, it is unfair and
penalizes the pursuit of self-interest by taking money from someone who
has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn’t.




Lakoff explains:


I started with college loans because it is not as heated
an issue as abortion or welfare or the death penalty or gun control. Yet
it is a nitty-gritty issue, because it affects a lot of people very
directly. To a liberal, it is obviously the right thing to do. And to a
conservative, it is obviously the wrong thing to do.




I trust that these extensive quotes from Lakoff’s book paint clearly
the differences that he postulates exist between the mindset and
thinking of conservatives and progressives.



Although Lakoff’s description of the extremes of conservative and
progressive thinking might lead one to conclude that there is a spectrum
along which this thinking is distributed, somewhat after the fashion of
a bell-shaped curve, which could throw up ‘moderate’ or ‘middle of the
road’ conservatives and progressives, Lakoff maintains that there are no
such politicians. He acknowledges that sometimes conservatives may have
a progressive view on some issues, and progressives may have a
conservative view on other issues, but insists that there are no
moderates. A conservative is a conservative, and a progressive is a
progressive.



Lakoff spells out in detail just how conservatives and progressives see the world:


It should now be clear why, from the conservative
world-view, the rich should be seen as “the best people”. They are the
model citizens, those who, through self-discipline and hard work, have
achieved the American Dream. They have earned what they have and deserve
to keep it. Because they are the best people – people whose investments
create jobs and wealth for others – they should be rewarded. Taking
money away is conceptualized as harm, financial harm; that is the
metaphorical basis of seeing taxation as punishment. When the rich are
taxed more than others for making a lot more money, they are, according
to conservatives, being punished for being model citizens, for doing
what, according to the American Dream, they are supposed to do. Taxation
of the rich is, to conservatives, punishment for doing what is right
and succeeding at it. It is a violation of the Morality of Reward and
Punishment. In the conservative worldview, the rich have earned their
money and, according to the Morality of Reward and Punishment, deserve
to keep it. Taxation – the forcible taking of their money from them
against their will – is seen as unfair and immoral, a kind of theft.
That makes the federal government a thief. Hence, a common conservative
attitude toward the government: You can’t trust it, since, like a thief,
it’s always trying to find ways to take your money.



Liberals, of course, see taxation through very different lenses. In
Nurturant Parent morality, the wellbeing of all children matters
equally. Those children who need less care, the mature and healthy
children, simply have a duty to help care for those who need more, say,
younger or infirm children. The duty is a matter of moral accounting.
They have received nurturance from their parents and owe it to the other
children if it is needed. In the Nation as Family metaphor, citizens
who have more have a duty to help out those who have much less.
Progressive taxation is a form of meeting this duty. Rich conservatives
who are trying to get out of paying taxes are seen as selfish and
mean-spirited. The nation has helped provide for them and it is their
turn to help provide for others. They owe it to the nation.




He could scarcely make it any clearer. How relevant is this
exposition to the contemporary dispute about the Gonski model for school
funding here!



Lakoff goes on to assert a worrying trend:


The conservative family values agenda is, at present,
being set primarily by fundamentalist Christians. This is not a
situation that many people are aware of.



These groups have been most explicit in developing a Strict Father
approach to childrearing and have been extremely active in promoting
their approach. On the whole, they are defining the conservative
position for the current debate about childrearing, as well as for
legislation incorporating their approach. Since the ideas in
conservative Christian childrearing manuals are fully consistent with
the Strict Father model of the family that lies behind conservative
politics, it is not at all strange that such fundamentalist groups
should be setting the national conservative agenda on family values.



In short, conservative family values, which are the basis for
conservative morality and political thought, are not supported by either
research in child development or the mainstream childrearing experts in
the country. That is another reason why the conservative family agenda
has been left to fundamentalist Christians. Since there is no
significant body of mainstream experts who support the Strict Father
model, conservatives can rely only on fundamentalist Christians, who
have the only well thought out approach to childrearing that supports
the Strict Family model.



The claims to legitimacy for the conservative family values
enterprise rest with the fundamentalist Christian community, a community
whose conclusions are not based on empirical research but on a
fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. And that…is based on Strict
Father morality itself. Thus, there is no independent or non-ideological
basis whatever for conservative claims about family values.



Is this group of fundamentalist Christians representative of
conservative attitudes about childrearing? I don’t know, but they are in
charge. They are the people setting the conservative family values
agenda.




We have become aware of the influence of fundamentalist Christians in
The Tea Party on the recent debt ceiling debate in the US, which
resulted in the closure of some government departments, and threatened
the government with the prospect of defaulting on repayment of its
borrowings. They pressured their less radical Republican colleagues and
almost succeeded in overwhelming them.



Lakoff comments on the funding of policy think tanks:


Because of the way conservative think tanks are funded –
through large general block grants and virtually guaranteed long-term
funding – conservative intellectuals can work on long-term, high-level
strategies that cover the whole spectrum of issues.



Liberal [progressive] think tanks and other organizations are not
only out-funded four-to-one, they are also organized in a self-defeating
manner. There are three general types: advocacy, policy, and monitoring
the other side. The advocacy and policy organizations generally work
issue-by-issue. Few are engaged in long-term, high-level thinking,
partly because of the issue-by-issue orientation, partly because they
are kept busy responding to the current week’s conservative assaults,
and partly because they constantly have to pursue funding. The funding
priorities of liberal foundations and other funders are also
self-defeating. They tend to be program-oriented (issue-by-issue) and
relatively short-term with no guarantee of refunding. Moreover, they
tend not to give money for career development or infrastructure. And
liberal organizations tend not to support their intellectuals! In short,
they are doing just the opposite of what they should be doing if they
are to counter the conservatives’ successes.




I’m sure these words will resonate in Labor hearts in this country,
where we have seen several well-funded conservative think tanks (the IPA
is a classic example) outperform the few progressive ones, set the
policy agenda for the Coalition, and fashion the most effective framing
of these policies. Labor has not been able to match this, has been
manipulated to use the frames set by the Coalition, and thereby has
repeatedly failed to get across its message.



It is heartening to see that the Centre for Policy Development, a local progressive think tank, has this year written a book: Pushing Our Luck: ideas for Australian progress,
about which reviewer Ken Wolff tells us that it ‘presents a wide
ranging picture of the changes needed in our economic and social
structures if we are to maintain our “luck” into the future’.



Finally, in another Lakoff book: The Political Mind – A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics
(Penguin Books, London, 2009), he asserts that the different thinking
of conservatives and progressives has a neural basis. He argues:



To change minds, you must change brains. You must make
unconscious politics conscious. Because most of what our brains do is
unconscious, you can’t find out how people’s brains work by just asking
them. That is why neuroscience and cognitive sciences are necessary.




There is not space here to elaborate; that will have to wait for another piece.


book2To
me, Lakoff’s thesis was a revelation. As one who applies logic to
resolve puzzling matters, Lakoff showed how pointless this process is in
attempting to understand how conservatives and progressives think, and
why they think so differently. He also showed the pointlessness of
expecting conservatives and progressives to explain why they are so
different; they don’t know themselves!



Lakoff provides a plausible explanatory model. I for one believe he
has tapped into a rich vein of understanding that for me explains the
extraordinary differences between our own conservatives and
progressives, which until I read his thesis, defied explanation. What he
says makes sense. Hereafter, it will enable a depth of comprehension
for me that was not previously possible.



Try keeping Lakoff’s thesis in mind as you now listen to
political dialogue, no matter what the forum. You might be surprised how
much more sense you are able to make of it!



What do you think?


This article was first published on The Political Sword and has been reproduced with permission.





Thursday, 17 July 2014

Breaking the Silence - Bilderberg Exposed

Breaking the Silence - Bilderberg Exposed







by


Daniel Estulin



May–June 2005

Nexus Magazine

Volume 12, Number 5

(August - September 2005)

from

NexusMagazine
Website

recovered through

WayBackMachine
Website

 


When presidents, prime ministers, bankers and generals rub shoulders
with European royalty at the annual secret Bilderberg meeting, they
discuss the business of running markets and wars without being
accountable to the public.


 




Bilderberg’s Plans for the World



The Bilderberg group’s secret annual meeting determines many of the
headlines and news developments that you will read about in the
coming months.


 

But the Establishment media completely black out any
news of it and remain strangely reluctant to lift the curtain hiding
this major event. A number of high-ranking members of the press who
attend the annual meeting are sworn to secrecy, and news editors are
held responsible if any of their journalists "inadvertently" report
on what takes place. Yet few have ever heard of this exclusive and
secretive group of the world’s most powerful financiers,
industrialists and political figures.



Although the Bilderberg group has lost some of its past lustre, on 5
to 8 May 2005 it met at Rottach-Egern (in Munich, Germany) under its
usual secrecy that makes a freemasonry lodge look like a playgroup.
Staff at the hotel were photographed and put through special
clearance. From porters to senior managers, the employees were
warned (under the threat of never working in their country again)
about the consequences of revealing any details of the guests to the
press.

 

The discussions that the Bilderbergers engaged in this year and the
consensus they reached—deciding how the world should deal with
European–American relations, the Middle East powder keg, the Iraq
war, the global economy and how to stave off war in Iran—will
influence the course of Western civilization and the future of the
entire planet. Ironically, they met behind closed doors, protected
by a phalanx of armed guards.



After three straight years of open hostility and tension amongst the
European, British and American Bilderbergers, caused by the
war in
Iraq, the aura of complete congeniality amongst them has
returned. Bilderbergers have reaffirmed and remain united in their
long-term
goal to strengthen the role

the United Nations
plays in regulating
global conflicts and relations.



However, it is important to understand that the Americans are no
more the "Hawks" than the European Bilderbergers are the "Doves".
Europeans joined in supporting the 1991 invasion of Iraq by US
President George Bush Senior, celebrating (in the words of notable Bilderberg hunter
Jim Tucker) the end of "America’s Vietnam
syndrome".


 

Europeans also supported former US President Bill
Clinton’s invasion of Yugoslavia, bringing NATO into the operation.


 


 




UN Global Oil Tax and Peacebuilding Proposals



A much discussed subject in 2005 at Rottach-Egern was the concept of
imposing a UN tax on people worldwide through a direct tax on oil at
the well-head. This, in fact, sets a precedent.


 

If enacted, it would
be the first time that a non-governmental agency (read the United
Nations) directly benefited from a tax on citizens of free and
enslaved nations. The Bilderberg proposal calls for a tiny UN levy
at the outset, which the consumer would hardly notice.



Jim Tucker, formerly of the court-killed Spotlight magazine, wrote
in the American Free Press (14–21 June 2004) that:

"...establishing
the principle that the UN can directly tax citizens of the world is
important to Bilderberg. It is another giant step toward world
government. Bilderbergers know that publicly promoting a UN tax on
all people on Earth would meet with outrage. But they are patient;
it [Bilderberg] first proposed a direct world tax years ago and
celebrates the fact that it is now in the public dialogue with
little public attention or concern."

Bilderberg wants "tax
harmonization" so that high-tax countries can
compete with more tax-friendly nations—including the United
States—for foreign investment. They would "harmonize" taxes by
forcing the rate in the US and other countries to rise so that
socialist Sweden’s 58-per-cent level would be "competitive".



According to sources, an unidentified guest at the conference asked
how global taxation can be sold to the American public. One European
Union commissioner suggested using as the battering ram the rhetoric
of helping countries build peaceful, stable societies once conflict
subsides. Someone asked for the timing of the appeal.


 

A former
commissioner mentioned that the best time to ask for cash is once
the conflict subsides and the world is subjected to brutal images of
destruction. A Norwegian Bilderberger disagreed. What looked to be
Björn T. Grydeland, Norway’s ambassador to the European Union, said
that, on the contrary, it’s much easier to get world attention and
money for a region when a conflict rages.



This was confirmed a posteriori when Denmark’s foreign minister Per Stig Moller, during a debate in the United Nations on 26 May, stated
on the record that

"[i]f the international community is not able to
act swiftly, the fragile peace is at risk, with loss of more lives
as a consequence".

Denmark holds the EU presidency until 1 July
2005, when it will be replaced by the UK. [The changeover took place
just before we went to press. Ed.]



Bilderbergers are planning to use what they nominated as a UN Peacebuilding Commission, apparently to help win the peace in
post-conflict countries, as one of the tools in secretly imposing
the UN tax on an unsuspecting world population.



Jim Tucker said as much in his Bilderberg report in the American
Free Press
(23 May) when he wrote:

"There was some informal
discussion of timing for a vote in the United Nations on
establishing a direct global tax by imposing a 10-cents-a-barrel
levy on oil at the well-head. This is important to the Bilderberg
goal of establishing the UN as a formal world government.

 
Such a
direct tax on individuals is symbolically important. Bilderberg’s
global tax proposal has been pending before the UN for three years
but the issue has been blacked out by the Bilderberg-controlled US
media."

Mark R. Warner, governor of Virginia and a first-time Bilderberg
invitee, expressed concern about how much additional financial
responsibility the United States would take on as a result. At this
point, José M. Durão Barroso, president of the European Commission,
expressed a view held by many within Bilderberg that the United
States does not provide a fair share of economic aid to poor
countries.


 

My sources confirm Jim Tucker’s report that "Kissinger
and David Rockefeller, among other Americans, beamed and nodded
approval".



Although the US pays more into the foreign-aid piggy bank than any
country in the world, the Bilderbergers and the United Nations are
poised to demand much more funding from it to meet the Peacebuilding
proposal.

 


 




NGOs and the Global Neighbourhood



The rise of the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) is a
development that former US President Clinton suddenly (one day after
it was discussed at Rottach-Egern) suggested to be among,

"the most
remarkable things that have happened since the fall of the Berlin
Wall".

Ironically, Clinton’s statement was picked up by the Wall
Street Journal, a paper represented at the Bilderberg meetings by
its vice-president, Robert L. Bartley, until his death in December
2003, and its editorial page editor, Paul Gigot.



The Bilderbergers have been vigorously debating, for the first time,
whether to have unelected, self-appointed environmental activists
given positions of governmental authority on the governing board of
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)—the agency which
controls the use of the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and, for
all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for "civil
society" to participate in global governance is described as
"expanding democracy".



According to sources within Bilderberg, the status of NGOs would be
elevated even further in the future. NGO activity would include
agitating at the local level, lobbying at the national level and
producing studies to justify global taxation through UN
organizations such as Global Plan, one of Bilderberg’s pet projects
for over a decade.



The strategy to advance the global governance agenda specifically
includes programs to discredit individuals and organizations that
generate "internal political pressure" or "populist action" that
fails to support the new global ethic. The ultimate objective,
according to sources, is to suppress democracy.



If the plan proceeds, UNEP, along with all the environmental
treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a
special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited
NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are
themselves appointed by the President of the United States, who
himself is controlled by

the Rockefeller
Council on Foreign
Relations
(CFR
)–Bilderberg interlocking leadership.



This new mechanism would provide a direct route from the local,
"on-the-ground", NGO affiliates of national and international NGOs
to the highest levels of global governance.


 

For example, the Greater
Yellowstone Coalition, a group of affiliated NGOs, recently
petitioned the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO asking for
intervention in the plans of a private company to mine gold on
private land near Yellowstone Park. The UNESCO committee did
intervene, and immediately listed Yellowstone as a "World Heritage
Site in Danger". Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention,
the United States is required to protect the park, even beyond the
borders of the park and onto private lands if necessary.



The ideas being discussed, if implemented, would bring all the
people of the world into a global neighbourhood, managed by a
worldwide bureaucracy under the direct authority of a minute handful
of appointed individuals and policed by thousands of individuals,
paid by accredited NGOs, and all certified to support a belief
system that to many people is unbelievable and unacceptable.

 


 




A Lesson for Tony Blair



Bilderbergers are celebrating the result they wanted: the return of
a much humbled Tony Blair to 10 Downing Street, with a much reduced
parliamentary majority.



European Bilderbergers are still angry at him for supporting
America’s war in Iraq. While teaching Blair a useful lesson in
international politics, Bilderbergers feel he is a far safer
candidate to continue on the path of European integration than his
conservative rival, Michael Howard.

 


 




The EU Referendum in France



The first day of secret meetings at Bilderberg 2005 was dominated by
talk of the European Union referendum in France and whether
President Chirac could persuade France to vote "Yes" on 29 May.


 

A
"Yes" vote, according to sources within Bilderberg, would put a lot
of pressure on Tony Blair to finally deliver Britain into the
waiting arms of
the New World Order
through its own referendum on
the treaty, scheduled for 2006. Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor of
Die Zeit, wondered out loud that a "No" vote in France could undoubtedly
cause political turmoil in Europe and overshadow Britain’s six-month
EU presidency starting on 1 July.



Bilderbergers hope that Blair and Chirac, whose at times open
animosity has spilled into the public arena on more than one
occasion, can work together for mutual benefit and political
survival.


 

Another European Bilderberger added that both leaders must
put behind them as quickly as possible all past disputes on such
topics as Iraq, the liberalization of Europe’s economy and the
future of the budget rebate that Britain receives from the EU, and
work towards complete European integration—which could disintegrate
if France’s often "hard-headed and obstinate people", in the words
of a British Bilderberger, do not do the right thing, meaning give
up voluntarily their independence for the "greater good" of a
European federal super-state!



A German Bilderberger insider said that France’s "Yes" vote is in
trouble because of the "outsourcing of jobs".

"Jobs in Germany and
France are going to Asia and Latvia [to take advantage of cheap labour]."

Latvia is one of the former Soviet republics that have
been admitted to the European Union, bringing the total membership
to 25 nations.


 

A German politician wondered out loud how Tony Blair
will go about convincing Britons to embrace the European
Constitution when, due to the outsourcing of jobs, both Germany and
France are suffering 10 per cent unemployment while Britain is doing
well economically.

 


 




The Neo-conservative Lobby



In full force was that faction: the so-called "neo-conservatives",
who have determined that Israel’s security should come at the
expense of the safety of the United States and be central to all US
foreign policy decisions.



Most notable among them is Richard N. Perle, who was investigated by
the FBI for conducting espionage on behalf of Israel. Perle played a
critical role in pushing the United States into the war against
Iraq. On 27 March 2003, he was forced to resign from the Pentagon’s
Defense Policy Board after it was learned he’d been advising Goldman
Sachs International, an habitual Bilderberg attendee, on how it
might profit from the war in Iraq.



Another neo-conservative figure on hand was Michael A. Ledeen, an
"intellectual’s intellectual". Ledeen serves for the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think-tank founded in 1943 and with
which Richard Perle has long been associated.


 

AEI and the Brookings
Institution operate a Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (JCRS),
the purpose being to hold lawmakers and regulators,

"accountable for
their decisions by providing thoughtful, objective analyses of
existing regulatory programs and new regulatory proposals".

The JCRS
pushes for cost-benefit analysis of regulations, which fits with
AEI’s (and the Bilderbergers’) ultimate goal of deregulation.



These neo-conservatives were also joined this year at Bilderberg by
a handful of other former top Washington policymakers and publicists
known for their sympathies for Israel, including:


  • Richard N. Haass,
    former State Department official and president of the Council on
    Foreign Relations (CFR)

  • Richard Holbrooke, former assistant
    secretary of state and "father" of the Dayton Accord

  • Dennis Ross,
    of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
    effectively an offshoot of the American Israel Public Affairs
    Committee (AIPAC) and the Jewish Institute for National Security
    Affairs (JINSA)

  • Paul Wolfowitz, the newly elected World Bank
    president


 




American Criminals
- Public Policy in Private



In the United States, the Logan Act states explicitly that it is
against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with
private citizens to develop public policies.



Although Bilderberg 2005 was missing one of its luminaries—US State
Department official John Bolton, who was testifying before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—the US Government was well
represented in Rottach-Egern by:


  • Allan E. Hubbard, Assistant to the
    President for Economic Policy and director of the National Economic
    Council

  • William Luti, Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense

  • James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank

  • Paul Wolfowitz,
    Deputy Secretary of State, an ideologue of the Iraq war and incoming
    president of the World Bank

By attending the Bilderberg 2005
meeting, these people broke United States federal law.

 


 




Journalistic Whores



Bilderberg, at one time or another, has had representatives of all
major US and European newspapers and network news outlets attend.


 

High-ranking members of the inadequately named "international free
press
" attend on their solemn promise to report nothing. This is
how Bilderberg keeps its news blackout virtually complete in the United
States and Europe.



This year’s invitees included:


  • Nicolas Beytout, editor-in-chief of
    Le Figaro

  • Oscar Bronner, publisher and editor of Der Standard

  • Donald Graham, chairman of the Washington Post

  • Matthias Nass,
    deputy editor of Die Zeit

  • Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of
    Time

  • J. Robert S. Prichard, president and CEO of Torstar Media
    Group (Toronto Star)

  • Cüneyt Ulsevere, columnist for Hürriyet

  • John Vinocur, senior correspondent for the International Herald Tribune

  • Martin Wolf, associate editor of the Financial Times

  • Fareed Zakaria,
    editor of Newsweek International

  • Klaus Zumwinkel, chairman of
    Deutsche Post

  • John Micklethwait, US editor of The Economist

  • Adrian Wooldridge, Washington correspondent for The Economist

Micklethwait and Wooldridge acted as the meeting’s rapporteurs.

 


 




Declining Energy Reserves and Economic Downturn



Of course, discussion at Bilderberg 2005 turned to oil.


 

An American Bilderberger expressed concern over the sky-rocketing oil price. One
oil industry insider at the meeting remarked that growth is not
possible without energy, and that according to all indicators the
world’s energy supply is coming to an end much faster than the world
leaders have anticipated.



According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world’s
oil supply will last a maximum of 35 years under current economic
development and population. However, one of the representatives of
an oil cartel remarked that they must factor into the equation the
population explosion and economic growth as well as demand for oil
in China and India.


 

Under the revised conditions, there is
apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the
end of the world’s financial system—which has already been
acknowledged by the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two
newspapers that are regularly represented at the annual Bilderberg
conference.


 

The conclusion: expect a severe downturn in the world’s
economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard
the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people’s hands. In a
recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced
to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a
longer supply of oil to the world’s rich as they try to figure out
what to do.



During cocktails one afternoon, a European Bilderberger noted that
there is no plausible alternative to hydrocarbon energy. One
American insider stated that currently the world uses between four
and six barrels of oil for every new barrel it finds, and that the
prospects for a short-term breakthrough are slim at best. This
confirms a public statement made in 2003 by IHS Energy, the world’s
most respected consulting firm cataloguing oil reserves and
discoveries, that for the first time since the 1920s there was not a
single discovery of an oil field in excess of 500 million barrels.




One invitee asked for an estimate of the world’s accessible
conventional oil supply. The amount was quoted at approximately one
trillion barrels. As a side note of interest, the planet consumes a
billion (1,000,000,000) barrels of oil every 11.5 days. Another
Bilderberger asked about the hydrogen alternative to oil. The US
Government official agreed gloomily that hydrogen’s salvation of the
world’s imminent energy crisis is a fantasy.



At the 2005 Bilderberg conference, the oil industry was represented
by:


  • John Browne, chief executive officer of
    BP

  • Sir John Kerr,
    director of Royal Dutch/Shell

  • Peter D. Sutherland, chairman of
    BP

  • Jeroen van der Veer, chairman of the committee of managing
    directors at Royal Dutch/Shell

(Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands,
Royal Dutch/Shell’s principal shareholder, is a fully fledged member
of the Bilderbergers. Her father,

Prince Bernhard
, was one of the
founders of the group back in 1954.)



It should be noted that in late 2003, oil and gas giant Royal
Dutch/Shell announced it had overstated its reserves by as much as
20 per cent; in early 2004 it reduced its estimated oil and gas
reserves by about 4.5 billion barrels, but in October had to apply
an additional cut of 1.15 billion barrels in reserve estimates. In
fact, Shell’s three cuts in reserve estimates prompted the
resignation of its co-chairman.


 

The Los Angeles Times (18 January
2005) reported:

"For petroleum firms, reserves amount to nothing
less than ’the value of the company’."

At Rottach-Egern in May 2005, the industry’s top executives tried to
figure out how to keep the truth about diminishing oil reserves from
reaching the public. Public knowledge of the diminishing reserves
directly translates into lower share prices which could destroy
financial markets, leading to a collapse of the world economy.



An American Bilderberger wondered what it would take for the oil
price to go back to US$25 a barrel. Another American Bilderberger,
believed to be Allan Hubbard, laconically stated that the general
public does not realize that the price for cheap oil can be the
bursting of the debt bubble. Cheap oil slows economic growth because
it depresses commodity prices and reduces world liquidity.



There is a strong indication, based on the information reported from
the Bilderberg 2005 meeting in Rottach-Egern, that the US

Federal
Reserve
is extremely concerned about the debt bubble. One American Bilderberger reported that if the price of oil were to go down to
its previous low of $25 a barrel, the debt-driven asset bubble would
explode. Martin S. Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of
Economic Research, added that $50 a barrel involves greater cash
flow.



According to publicly available information, the United States
consumes daily approximately 20 million barrels of oil out of a
total world consumption of 84 million barrels. At $50 a barrel, the
aggregate oil bill for the US comes to $1 billion a day, $365
billion a year, about 3 per cent of 2004 US gross domestic product
(GDP). About 60 per cent of US consumption is imported at a cost of
$600 million a day, or $219 billion a year.



A short, stout man asked if the surging oil price would influence
economic growth. Someone sitting in the front row noted that higher
energy prices do not take money out of the economy; they merely
shift profit allocation from one business sector to another. After
further discussion, a US General commented that war spending helps
jump-start the economy, noting that the trick to keeping the
opposition at bay is to limit collateral damage to foreign soil.



A British Bilderberger noted that oil at $120 a barrel would greatly
benefit Britain and the United States, but Russia and
China would be
the biggest winners. An expert in international relations and policy
studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza.


 

The
Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption but, instead, to
fuel its growing cheap exports—a cost that would be duly passed on
to foreign buyers. A European banker pointed out that Russia could
effectively devalue the dollar by re-denominating its energy trade
with Europe from dollars into euros, forcing Europe’s central banks
to rebalance their foreign exchange reserves in favor of the Euro.


 

Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor of the European Central Bank, was
present during the debate.

 


 




Globalised Trading and the Rift with China



European and American Bilderbergers, realizing the most urgent of
needs to expand into developing markets in order to help sustain the
illusion of endless growth, have agreed to name Pascal Lamy, a
French socialist and fanatical supporter of a European super-state,
as the next World Trade Organization (WTO) president.


 

It should be
remembered that Washington gave conditional support to Lamy’s
nomination in exchange for European support of Paul Wolfowitz as
head of the World Bank.



According to insider sources within the Bilderbergers, Lamy was
chosen to help steer the global trading system through a time of
rising protectionist sentiment in rich countries such as France and
Germany, both reeling from high unemployment and reticent to accept
increasingly muscular demands for market access from emerging
economies. Third World States, for example, are insisting on cuts to
EU and US farm subsidies. The WTO liberalization drive collapsed in
acrimony in Seattle in 1999 and again in Cancún in 2003.



The Bilderbergers have secretly agreed on the need to force the poor
countries into a globalized market for cheap goods while
simultaneously forcing the poor into becoming customers. The current
rift with China is a good example, as the Chinese have flooded
Western countries with cheap goods, amongst them textiles, driving
down prices.


 

As a trade-off, the Bilderbergers have entered into an
emerging market ripe and vulnerable to superior Western know-how.
Similar developing countries are slowly acquiring more purchasing
power, and the industrialized world is gaining a foothold in their
domestic economies by targeting them for cheap exports.



Further discussion on China was led off with a series of rhetorical
questions from the speaker. Is China really abusing its competitive
advantage, or is it being victimized by the US and the EU? Is a
trade war imminent? Should China revalue the yuan (its currency),
and, if so, how should it do this?



An American Bilderberger noted that China in 2005 is one of the
leading world economic powers whose actions influence the world
economy. Another American, believed to be but not positively
identified as Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute,
said that if China doesn’t revalue the yuan it would cause the
entire world trade system to go out of whack. Someone mentioned that
the current situation could be dangerous for the Chinese economy due
to the creation of excess liquidity.



Elena Nemirovskaya, founder of the Moscow School of Political
Studies
, asked what would happen if the yuan were allowed to float
freely. An economist responded that this could bring about serious
consequences to the world’s financial markets. China’s foreign
exchange reserves are to a large extent made up of US Treasury
bills.


 

An appreciation of the yuan would cause its dollar reserves
to depreciate.



A German Bilderberger pointed out that this could force the Federal
Reserve to have to raise interest rates, thus causing the current
housing boom in the US to come to a screeching halt.


 

An oversized
Dutchman pointed out that the International Monetary Fund needs to
play an active role in helping the yuan.

"Is there a real danger, then," asked an Italian Bilderberger, "of
this dispute deteriorating into an all-out trade war?"


"Not likely,"
according to an unidentified blond man from Scandinavia, believed to
be a Swede, "because China has totally integrated itself into the
market economy."

An American Bilderberger and a member of the US Government noted
that all the posturing is part of the act to keep the voters back
home happy.



China’s moves into the Mekong region did not go unnoticed at the
conference. William J. Luti, US Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense
for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, explained that China’s
rapid expansion into the Mekong region, comprising Cambodia, Laos,
Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, could threaten US interests in the
area. Such moves by China would give it an enhanced role in
South-East Asia.



Over the last several years, China has invested heavily in transport
infrastructure development linking China’s southwestern Yunan
province and the Mekong region.



A European Bilderberger pointed out that China is heavily dependent
on oil imports. Someone asked for a figure. A tall, lanky man with
glasses, believed to be Jeroen van der Veer, Chairman of Royal Dutch
Shell, responded that some 40 per cent of China’s supply is
imported. In fact, China’s move into the Mekong region is the result
of acute awareness that the country’s energy supplies are vulnerable
to interference.


 

Overall, 32 per cent of energy supplies, China’s
lifeblood, passes through the narrow and easily blocked Strait of
Malacca.

 


 




Indonesia–Malaysia Stand-off



A political and military confrontation between Indonesia and
Malaysia in the oil-rich Sulawesi Sea (both claim territorial right
to the area of Ambalat) was the topic of much animated discussion
among several American and European Bilderbergers during Friday
afternoon cocktails.


 

An American Bilderberger waving his cigar
suggested using
the United Nations
to "further a peace policy in the
region".



In fact, Bilderbergers at the lounge table all agreed that such a
conflict might well give them an excuse to garrison the disputed
area with UN "Peacekeepers" and thus ensure their ultimate control
over the exploitation of this treasure, meaning untapped oil
reserves.

 


 




Nobel Peace Prize Pressure



The appearance at Bilderberg 2005 of Nobel Peace Prize Committee
Secretary Geir Lundestad was considered likely to mean, according to
sources familiar with the discussion, a full court press by the
American, British and Israeli delegation to the Nobel committee to
prevent the Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu from winning
the coveted award.



Vanunu spent 18 years in an Israeli prison—eleven and a half of them
in solitary confinement—for providing evidence of Israel’s nuclear
arsenal to the London Sunday Times newspaper in October 1986. Should Vanunu win the Nobel for peace, it would bring uncomfortable
attention to the Israeli nuclear arsenal, especially in the face of
growing evidence that Israel and the United States are about to
punish Iran for trying to develop its own nuclear weapons.



Strong pressure was applied on Lundestad not to choose Hans Blix,
the UN weapons inspector in Iraq, nor Mohamed El Baradei,
director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whom
President Bush had tried to remove for not being tough enough on
Iran.



Some of this year’s other nominees are:


  • US President George W. Bush
    and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair for supposedly protecting world
    peace

  • the European Union

  • French President Jacques Chirac, the main
    culprit for the "No" vote on the European Constitution

  • former Czech
    President Václav Havel

  • the now-deceased Pope John Paul II

  • Cuban
    dissident Oswaldo Payá

  • US Senator Richard Lugar and former
    senator Sam Nunn for their Cooperative Threat Reduction
    Program
    , which is intended to dismantle nuclear weapons left
    over from the Soviet Union


 




The Iran–Russia–China Alliance



According to reports, a French Bilderberger pointedly asked Henry
Kissinger if the US Government’s sabre-rattling against Iran means
the beginning of new hostilities.


 

Richard Haass, CFR President,
after asking for his turn to speak, dismissed the notion of an Iran
invasion as unrealistic due to the sheer physical size of the
country and its population size, not to mention the billions of
dollars involved in getting the operation off the ground. Up to the
eyeballs in the Iraq quagmire, the United States military is wary of
any new adventures in hostile terrain against a much healthier
enemy, both better prepared and organized.



A Swiss Bilderberger asked if a hypothetical attack on Iran would
involve a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear sites. Richard Haass replied that such an attack would prove to be
counterproductive because Tehran’s counterattack options could range
from,

"unleashing terrorism and promoting instability in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to triggering oil price increases that
could trigger a global economic crisis".

During dinner, according to
several sources, Richard Perle criticized Haass’s position and
explained his opposition to his view.



A woman believed to be Heather Munroe-Blum, Vice-Chancellor of
McGill University, Quebec, Canada, asked a rhetorical question about
what would happen if Iran were to continue building its nuclear
arsenal. Haass replied that in this scenario, the United States
would have no choice but to grant Iran the same status as it does to
Pakistan and India.



A US General commented that the China–Iran–Russia alliance is
changing the geopolitical situation in the area. Rapprochement
between Russia and China is viewed by the Bilderbergers as a
significant event not to be taken lightly, even though it has
received little media attention in the West.



A secret US Government report was cited wherein, according to
sources, the Chinese have spent upwards of several billion dollars
in acquiring Russia’s latest and most sophisticated weapons
technology. Someone pointed out that the Sino–Russian alliance is
not limited to military trade and that the non-military exchange of
goods has grown 100 per cent since the beginning of the Bush
presidency.



A delegate at the conference, believed but not positively identified
by Secret Service sources to be Anatoly Sharansky, a former Israeli
Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs, stated categorically
during Friday night cocktails that the counterweight to the
Moscow–Beijing–Tehran axis is the US–Israel–Turkey alliance.


 

A
financial expert from a European nation intervened by stating that
Russia is much better off financially today than four years ago
because tax revenue generated by fuel and arms production and
exports as a result of heavy emphasis on military production has
financed strong growth of wages and pension incomes, boosting
private consumption.



A German Bilderberger pointedly asked Richard Perle if the "war on
terrorism" will intensify over the second term of the Bush
presidency. Perle reportedly gave no reply but screwed up his face
and looked away.



The feeling of "enough is enough" wasn’t limited to the European
Bilderbergers, wary of Bush’s delirious, Hitler-like proclamations
of regime changes worldwide. Bilderberg luminary Richard Haass
pointedly told Richard Perle during Saturday night cocktails that
the Bush Administration has overestimated its ability to change the
world.


 

Haass, according to several sources at the conference, is
reported to have stated that regime change can be attractive because
it is,

"less distasteful than diplomacy and less dangerous than
living with new nuclear states".

However, he noted:

"There is only
one problem: it is highly unlikely to have the desired effect soon
enough."


 




A Possible Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities



The presence of US General James L. Jones, Supreme Allied Commander
Europe, and Retired US Army General John M. Keane at the Bilderberg
meeting in Germany suggested to us that the next stage of the
conquest is about to begin.



An American neo-con at an afternoon drink-fest said he was convinced
that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the mullahs. Nicolas Beytout of Le Figaro exclaimed: "You don’t really believe
that!" A tall, bald, well-dressed Swiss gentleman, believed to be
Pascal Couchepin, head of the powerful Department of Home Affairs,
replied reflexively that it will only succeed in having the Iranians
rally behind their government. He ended by saying: "You don’t know
Iranians."



Tempers boiled over momentarily when a French Bilderberger, raising
his voice, told Kissinger that "an attack on Iran will escalate out
of control". According to sources working for the CIA and the
special unit of the US Army charged with protecting the US
delegation at Rottach-Egern, both the CIA and the FBI are in open
revolt against the Bush White House.

 

A member of the Greek Parliament asked
Eival Gilady, strategic
adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: "What would happen
if Iran were to retaliate?" Someone pointed out that even if the
United States or Israel were to show restraint in their use of
tactical nuclear weapons, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities
would surely not only engulf neighbor states, raising the
likelihood of a broader war, but also succeed in creating a nuclear
disaster through nuclear radiation spilling over a wide area.



As a follow-up question, someone asked:

"How much of this war has to
do with America doing its utmost to prevent Iran from becoming a
regional power?"

A French Bilderberger wished to know if the impending attack on Iran would involve the United States and Israel
working in tandem, or if it would be a NATO operation. The question
was directed at NATO Secretary-General Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer.
Another European Bilderberger wanted to know how the US was planning
to cope with three wars simultaneously, referring to Iraq,
Afghanistan and now Iran.



The reader should be reminded that there are now 150,000 US troops
deployed in Iraq who are unable to move to another theatre of
operations because of effective resistance tactics. The Israeli
delegation was pressed to answer if Israel is prepared to use
nuclear weapons against Iran. The answer was incoherent.



What is so terrifying about Iran as a theatre of operations is that,
according to our deep sources (both of whom belong to the Bilderberg
group), there are two alternative dates set for the invasion. The
earliest possible date would be in the "deadest of summer", some
time in August, and the other alternative is a late autumn campaign.


 

This substantially confirms the information provided by Scott
Ritter, the ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector, who stated
that,

"George W. Bush has signed off on plans to bomb Iran in June
2005", (Aljazeera, 30 March 2005), although he did go on to clarify
that the June date suggests that the US and Israel are "in a state
of readiness".


 




Russian vs American Foreign Policy



Policy discussion began with a European expert on international
relations pointing out that over the next several years Russia is
poised to assert itself and increasingly challenge Bush Government
foreign policy goals.



Someone openly asked the committee if the world is safer today than
in 2001 and if it will be safer in four years’ time. A Dutchman
responded by saying there is little doubt that the hand of
international terrorism has been substantially strengthened by the
US Government’s heavy-handed policy in the Middle East.


 

A Danish Bilderberger wondered about what had happened to the US promise to
take a lower-key approach in Iraq—referring to the heavy-handed
tactics employed by American troops in the siege of Fallujah, which
played an important role in alienating a large cross-section of
moderate Arab states. Additionally, the Dutchman pointed out,
terrorism hasn’t been confined to the Iraq theatre of operations but
has escalated across Asia, Africa and most of the Middle East.



A blonde woman, believed to be Thérèse Delpech, Director of
Strategic Affairs for the Atomic Energy Commission, said that
unilateralist policy actions by the US will only succeed in
alienating friendly nations and emboldening enemy combatants.

"US is
not all-powerful. It must coordinate its policy with other great
powers to achieve its ends."

An oil expert believed to be from Britain, possibly
Sir John Kerr of
Royal Dutch Shell, focused on the oil pipeline from Siberia to
northern China. The Bilderbergers openly wondered at the medium-term
repercussions of this deal. An American investment banker asked just
how much oil is expected to flow through this pipeline.


 

Another
member of the oil cartel offered 65–80 million tonnes per year as a
ballpark figure.

 


 




India’s Missile Tests



During Saturday night cocktails at the bar, neo-con Richard Perle
was seen and heard talking to a group of Bilderbergers, amongst them Philippe Camus, President of the
European Aeronautic Defense and
Space Company
(EADS), Donald Graham of the Washington Post and General James L. Jones about the near-future test-firing of India’s
Agni 3 intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying
nuclear warheads.


 

General Jones added that such a weapon would
greatly increase India’s capabilities because, according to the
four-star general, India’s strategic deterrents will be able to
strike targets deep inside neighbouring China.


 

In fact, Dr M. Natarajan, head of the prestigious
Defense Research and Development
Organization
(DRDO), said as much two weeks later on 17 May in New
Delhi.

 


 




The 2005 German Elections



The Bilderbergers also discussed how to dust off the "boring" image
of Angela Merkel, Germany’s "future leader", ahead of the German
elections on 18 September 2005.



A short, oversized male Bilderberger offered an opinion that in
order for the widest cross-section of the German public to accept
Merkel (leader of the Christian Democratic Union opposition) as
Chancellor, it would be important to give a new definition to the
term "family values".


 

German Bilderbergers well versed in the
conservative Bavarian collective psyche believe that Merkel, a
divorcee with a doctorate in physics, doesn’t have a "reliable"
enough image to attract sufficient votes in this staunchly
conservative area of the country. According to people within earshot
of the discussion, the idea "in the up-coming campaign would be to
stress the importance of families rather than marriage as an
institution".



Bilderbergers pushing Gerhard Schroeder aside in favor of a new
candidate could very well signify that, after three years of strife
between American and European Bilderbergers over the war in Iraq,
the secret society is ready to move forward with a much-revised and
more cohesive policy. It must be remembered that Schroeder, along
with French President Chirac, was one of the most vociferous
European critics of the US-led Iraq intervention.



Both Schroeder, representing the left, and Merkel, representing the
right, are owned by the Bilderbergers. It has been the group’s
policy since its inception in 1954 to own both horses in the race.




For the record, every US President belongs to the Bilderberg group
or its interlocked sister organization, the

Council on Foreign
Relations
.


 


Although Bush Junior didn’t personally attend the meeting
in Rottach-Egern, the US Government was well represented by William Luti, Richard Perle, Dennis Ross and Allan Hubbard.

 


 




Towards a One World Government



History teaches by analogy, not identity.


 

The historical experience
is not one of staying in the present and looking back; rather, it is
one of going back into the past and returning to the present with a
wider and more intense consciousness of the restrictions of our
former outlook.



If democracy is the rule of the people, then secret government
agendas and sinister, influence-peddling cliques which stand for
cunning selfishness are incompatible with it. The whole idea of
clandestine spheres of influence waging secret campaigns is
therefore foreign to the notion of democracy and must be fought with
zealous determination.



Through lies and obfuscations, Bilderbergers are desperately trying
to foist onto the unwilling world population a totalitarian

One
World Government
, a single global currency and a
syncretic universal
religion.




Those of us who care deeply about the future of politics—domestic
and international—cannot afford to ignore the fact that the grimly
political One World Government is no longer merely a
shadow subculture
. It has, in fact, emerged as the
dominant
force in world affairs.