The Year Bilderberg was Exposed Worldwide

Detractors of the secretive roundtable group saw one of their biggest wishes come true in St. Moritz, Switzerland

by Alex Newman
The New American
June 13, 2011

The amount of publicity garnered by the secretive Bilderberg conference this year in St. Moritz, Switzerland, far surpassed the coverage afforded to past gatherings of the elite cabal, with major media outlets and international news wires finally reporting on the yearly event after refusing to do so for over five decades. Protests, the alternative media, and anti-Bilderberg politicians played an important role in spreading the news.

Bilderberg, named after the Dutch hotel where members first met in 1954, brings together some of the most influential figures on Earth. More than 120 top-level officials in government, banking, media, finance, business, think-tanks, armed forces, and even European royalty attend the confab every year.

Among the confirmed 2011 European and Canadian attendees were the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (“in his official capacity,” according to the Treasury), the President of the European Central Bank, the head of Canada’s central bank, the queens of the Netherlands and Spain, the Crown Prince of Norway, a representative of the unimaginably vast Rothschild banking empire, finance ministers, heads of state, and many more.

A reporter on the scene for the U.K. Guardian said there were also individuals in attendance who were not on the official list — a regular occurrence discovered almost every year. Among them were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, and Socialist Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of Spain. Microsoft founder and multi-billionaire Bill Gates was reportedly spotted as well.

A handful of non-Westerners also attended, including Turkish business moguls and members of the political class in Turkey. A senior representative of the brutal Communist dictatorship ruling mainland China was there as well. So was a Russian oligarch.

More than two dozen prominent members of the American elite attended, too. An especially interesting cadre at the 2011 event included some of the masters of the internet world: The co-founder of Facebook; the executive chairman of Google; the co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn; the founder and CEO of Amazon.com; the commander of the American military’s “cyber command” (or USCYBERCOM); Microsoft’s Chief Research and Strategy Officer; and others.

Representatives of the non-digital American elite were out in force as well. Among them were former Ghaddafi adviser and Bush-era neo-con extraordinaire Richard Perle; billionaire David Rockefeller, who openly boasted in his autobiography of conspiring to erect a global political and economic system; Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary and current co-chairman of the immensely powerful, world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations; the vice-chairman of Citigroup; TV personality Charlie Rose; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who frequently and publicly calls for what he refers to as a “New World Order”; the president of the World Bank; and others.

Top officials in the Obama administration were also there including — quite ironically — the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) Keith Alexander were also on the official list, as were former Federal Reserve and military chiefs. Not on the public list but spotted at the conference, according to unconfirmed reports from correspondents in St. Moritz, was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

By any objective standard, a meeting of over 120 of the world’s most powerful individuals would seem to be extraordinarily newsworthy. But until recently, the confab rarely attracted even a passing mention in the establishment press. The eerie silence fueled deep suspicion and innumerable theories about what the group may be plotting in secret. This year, however, was different,  at least in terms of media coverage.

In a story picked up by numerous large-circulation U.S. newspapers including the Washington Post, for example, the Associated Press wire service described the June 9-12 event as a “secretive gathering of senior government officials and business executives … that some liken to a shadow world government.” CNBC, Forbes, Fox News, the Baltimore Sun, Time magazine and others also ran stories about Bilderberg.

In China, the media were buzzing with news of the conference, too. One Chinese-language report by the French wire service AFP referred to the group as the “mysterious world shadow government” in a headline, according to Google Translate. Chinese media behemoth United Daily News ran a similar headline for another Bilderberg article.

European and Russian news outlets offered unprecedented levels of coverage as well, with the Guardian newspaper and the TV network Russia Today both sending correspondents to the scene. Several alternative-media outlets including the American Free Press and InfoWars sent reporters, too. And the Swiss press in particular has been overflowing with reports on Bilderberg for over a week.

Analysts speculated that the so-called “mainstream media” establishment — which is rapidly losing its market share as news consumers increasingly turn to alternative sources — was essentially forced to cover the conference in an attempt to salvage what remains of its credibility. But despite the increased attention, in one segment of the establishment press, news of the event was conspicuously missing.

Among the confirmed 2011 Bilderberg attendees were representatives of more than a few major media firms: the editor-in-chief and two correspondents of the Economist magazine; the chief international correspondent of Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper; the editor-in-chief of Helsingin Sanomat, Scandinavia’s largest daily subscription publication; a political columnist for the Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad; the CEO of Portuguese media giant Impresa; and more. None of those “news” outlets had covered the Bilderberg conference by press time on June 12.

There was, however, at least one notable exception. The CEO and publisher of Standard Medien AG, an Austrian media conglomerate, was also among those present at the Bilderberg summit. And one of his firm’s online portals, derstandard.at, reported the fact that Austria’s head of government, Federal Chancellor Werner Faymann, was in attendance.

A rival political party was apparently upset about the nation‘s Chancellor attending the meeting, even demanding an “intelligence” report about the conference from Faymann upon his return. So, not covering the growing scandal might have been raised serious questions about the integrity of Standard Medien among Austrian news consumers.

But even with the burgeoning Bilderberg coverage, critics still complained that the amount of media surrounding the conference was insufficient — especially considering the magnitude of the news. Other analysts noted that much of the “mainstream” coverage focused on downplaying the significance of the event or attempting to demonize critics.

But progress is certainly being made. While it would be impossible to calculate exactly how many people around the globe learned of Bilderberg’s existence over the past week, it’s safe to assume the number is in the millions — possibly tens or even hundreds of millions.

In recent years, authors, researchers, and the so-called “alternative media” have increasingly been spreading information and news about the cabal through the Internet. And not even including the new-found press coverage, the online exposure appears to have dramatically increased awareness about the confab.

Hundreds of protesters and critics from all across the political spectrum descended on St. Moritz to lambaste the elite attendees. They held up anti-Bilderberg signs and blasted their opposition through bull horns around the perimeter of the luxury Suvretta House hotel throughout the whole four-day gathering.

On the first day of the conference, along with a bogus “bomb” scare, a giant wall of curtains was erected around the edge of the Bilderberg compound. Presumably it was designed to keep protesters from looking in and conference attendees from being forced to see the growing crowd outside.

But at one point, angry protesters did get a chance to shout at some heavily guarded members of the elite in a face-to-face confrontation. During a “nature walk” outside the hotel, one activist even had a brief exchange with Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus. “We are just making our agendas,” Enders responded to a question about what was being discussed behind closed doors with politicians. “I don’t have to tell you, and you don’t need to know,” he arrogantly explained with a smile on his face.

Several lower-ranking members of the political class made a fuss about the event as well. Italian member of the European Parliament Mario Borghezio, for example, attempted to force his way into the conference on the first day. He was reportedly detained and roughed up by police, prompting the Italian embassy in Switzerland to demand answers.

Prominent Swiss politicians were furious about the gathering, too. Center-right Parliamentarian Dominique Baettig of the nation’s largest political party, for example, asked prosecutors to consider arresting attendees such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for war crimes, suggesting that Swiss officials at the event should be charged with treason. Baettig, too, tried unsuccessfully to barge in on the conference in what the Guardian‘s Charlie Skelton called a “historic moment.”

Some Bilderberg opponents have also suggested arresting U.S. attendees, citing the Logan Act. That law prohibits Americans from negotiating policy with foreign officials.

Regular Bilderberg attendee and former International Monetary Fund (IMF) boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn, another socialist, was recently arrested in New York on unrelated sex charges. But calls to prosecute various Bilderbergers for a wide range of criminal offenses are only growing louder.

Critics of the confab are, of course, routinely derided as conspiracy “theorists” or worse by establishment apologists. The government-funded BBC recently ran a vicious smear piece against people suspicious of Bilderberg, trying to link opposition to secret meetings of global policy makers with anti-Semitism and other unsavory associations.

But leaks and public statements by attendees over the years — reported on by the BBC, ironically — reveal that the cabal was instrumental in more than a few world-changing occurrences. The continental super-state known as the European Union and the failing regional “euro” currency, for example, are just a few of the developments in recent decades attributed to Bilderberg.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests the group plays an important part in the seemingly unexplainable rise to power of national leaders. Bill Clinton, for example, attended the conference in 1991 as a virtually unknown state governor. The following year he became President. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was reportedly there in 2008. British Prime Minster David Cameron and former PM Tony Blair both went to Bilderberg before rising to the top as well. So did a multitude of global power brokers too long to list.

Due to the tight secrecy, speculation about what may have been on the 2011 agenda is, as always, running rampant. But a press release posted on the relatively new “official” Bilderberg website cited by the AP and others offered some generalities about the topics of discussion: the euro, challenges for the EU, social networking, “security issues,” the Middle East, “demographic challenges,” China, and more. In 2007, “The New World Order” was the top item on the agenda.

“What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion,” the group’s public statement notes, claiming that the “privacy of the meetings … has no purpose other than to allow  participants to speak their minds openly and freely.” Critics of the shadowy cabal, however, still aren’t buying it.

La Censura no Silencia la Verdad

Muchas veces, jactarse de ser un comunicador de la verdad es un riesgo porque ante el menor error, la credibilidad es cuestionada. Sin embargo, cuando el comunicador de la verdad es un movimiento popular compuesto por ciudadanos conscientes e individuos -no un individuo o grupo-, no solo es más fácil ser parte de este movimiento, sino también comprobar si lo que se dice es verdad o no.

La Máscara ha caído. El Engaño fue revelado.

La censura reciente del documental The Obama Deception (El Engaño Obama) despertó el gigante dormido que es el movimiento patriota. Google ha adquirido un compromiso muy grande por el restablecimiento de El Engaño Obama, después que el documental fue sacada misteriosamente censurado junto con otras películas y documentales. No sólo es la primera vez que la mega-corporación ha restaurado un vídeo político de tal naturaleza en Youtube, sino que la restauración se produjo después de que ciudadanos de todo el mundo mostraron su fuerza al convertir la censura del documental en el asunto mas investigado en Google.

Con búsquedas como “Obama Deception Censurado” alcanzando el número 1, quedó claro que el pueblo no estaba contento con la censura. Inicialmente, Obama Deception era el término más buscado en Google Trends, pero fue colocado en posiciones inferiores a pesar de un alto volumen de búsquedas.

Fue tan inmensa la respuesta de los usuarios que dio lugar al debido restablecimiento del documental. El hecho que El Engaño Obama volvió a ser el centro de atención una vez más, permitió a cientos de miles de personas alrededor del mundo inyectar una dosis alta de verdad a la Internet. La censura sólo permitió que el vídeo se convirtiera en un tema aún más viral. La censura, simplemente no funciona, y sólo crea una reacción completamente contraria a lo que las corporaciones o instituciones gubernamentales que emite la censura quieren. El rugido del movimiento por la verdad no puede ser silenciada, y sólo se hace más fuerte con cada batalla intelectual contra la tiranía.

Este no es el primer incidente de la censura en Internet

La censura en Internet ha sido muy frecuente en los últimos años. Sitios como Infowars.com y Prison Planet.com fueron bloqueados por filtros de todo el mundo. Más allá de la censura de sitios Web individuales que promueven las manifestaciones pacíficas y la resistencia a la tiranía, el Proyecto de Ley de Seguridad Cibernética da a Obama -en Estados Unidos-, David Cameron -en Inglaterra- y otros gobernantes en diversos países el control total del Internet hasta el punto de tener la habilidad de desactivar el servicio a nivel local, regional, nacional e internacional. Esta ley de seguridad cibertnética fue aprobada con el pretexto de mantener el Internet seguro para todos los usuarios, pero en realidad es un movimiento ilegal para concentrar el poder que el Complejo Militar Industrial tiene sobre los medios de comunicación alternativos.

El Internet ha sido un vasallo de la verdad y la información por años, y los políticos corruptos están comenzando a expresar su oposición a su uso libre. Jay Rockefeller, de la familia Rockefeller, declaró que el Internet nunca debería haber existido. La familia Rockefeller tiene profundos vínculos con la ideología eugenésica, y ayudó a fundar IBM con su propia fortuna.

Jay Rockefeller se ha enfrentado a We Are Change, -un grupo que trata de descubrir la verdad sobre los ataques terroristas del 11 de Septiembre y otros temas-, acerca de su posición sobre la censura en Internet y sus vínculos con la eugenesia. En lugar de proporcionar una respuesta, Jay Rockefeller comienza a correr cada vez que se le cuestiona. Un miembro le preguntó sobre el famoso grupo Bilderberg, y Rockefeller dijo que no es parte de la discusión. Este es el hombre que se atreve a decir si podemos o no tener un Internet sin censura.

Técnicas de Censura despierta a más gente

El Internet es el medio de elección para la mayoría de las personas para mostrar su trabajo, leer las noticias, o mantenerse en contacto con los amigos. Cuando se enteran de que el Internet está siendo asaltado por políticas de censura, esto los hace despertar. Si el vídeo de una persona es objeto de censura, el siguiente video censurado puede ser el suyo. La posibilidad misma de la libertad de expresión es lo que necesita ser protegido. La libertad de expresión sólo puede ser protegida como una nación, mediante la protección de la libertad de expresión de cada hombre y mujer. En el otro lado de las cosas, fue comprobado que en Gran Bretaña las empresas de telecomunicaciones archivan cada llamada telefónica, correo electrónico y búsqueda en la web y esta información es después dada a empresas ligadas al Complejo Militar Industrial.

Muchas personas están plenamente conscientes de lo que está pasando

La censura del documental The Obama Deception es un testimonio de la capacidad de la gente. Millones de personas están al tanto de lo que está pasando, y ellos tienen el poder intelectual para crear un cambio por medios pacíficos. Completamente dominando las tendencias mundiales en Google Trends es más que una manera en que el pueblo ha mostrado su músculo. El Engaño Obama ha sido visto millones de veces, con el video censurado después de recibir más de 6,6 millones de visitas, y seguirá siendo visto por millones de personas (siempre que el Internet continúe existiendo como ahora). Seguir promoviendo El Engaño Obama (The Obama Deception) y otros documentales como este, ayudará a continuar flexionando el músculo del movimiento por la verdad.

David Cameron: No More Power to Brussels

Times Online

David Cameron gave a blunt warning to Angela Merkel today that he would veto any attempt to reopen the Lisbon treaty to give the EU more power over national budgets.

Standing alongside the German Chancellor, Mr Cameron insisted that he wanted to see a strong single European currency but pledged to block moves to prop it up that involved a transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels.

The Prime Minister held robust and cordial talks with Mrs Merkel in Berlin where they also disagreed over hedge-fund regulation and Mr Cameron refused to reconsider his decision to pull the Conservatives out of the main centre-Right group in Europe.

The two leaders put on a relaxed show for the cameras, with Mrs Merkel’s mood buoyed by securing a “yes” vote in the German Parliament for the eurozone’s 750 billion euro bailout fund, to which Berlin will contribute up to €147 billion in loan guarantees.

But the convivial atmosphere could not mask their differences, with Germany leading calls at a finance ministers’ meeting in Brussels today for EU treaty changes to help restore confidence in the euro by introducing new sanctions and powers of co-ordination.

“There is no question of agreeing to a treaty that transfers power from Westminster to Brussels. That is set out 100 per cent clearly in the coalition agreement,” Mr Cameron said.

“Britain obviously is not in the euro and Britain is not going to be in the euro, and so Britain would not be agreeing to any agreement or treaty that drew us further into supporting the euro area.”

The Prime Minister added: “It goes without saying that any treaty, even one that just applied to the euro area, needs unanimous agreement of all 27 EU states including the UK, which of course has a veto. I think these are very important points to understand.”

His remarks left open the possibility that the 16 eurozone countries could introduce greater control from Brussels that applied just to them.

Mrs Merkel suggested that she had not given up on her desire to re-open the Lisbon treaty but played down its significance today. “There are certain ideas that Germany has tabled where treaty change plays a role. But this is the beginning. It is very early days as yet,” she said.

She added: “I have made it clear that we need to stabilise the euro but at a later stage we will be able to say what we can do and how should we do it.

“And then we will see what the majority will want and the interests of the eurozone.”

Mr Cameron showed that he had not given up trying to persuade Mrs Merkel to relax tough new proposed EU rules for hedge funds driven by Berlin and Paris.

“We do have our concerns because we do not think actually hedge funds were the cause of the problems in our financial markets and in our economies,” Mr Cameron said.

“We accept the need for regulation but it does need to be fair and proportionate.

“We have a particular issue about hedge funds that are based in other countries but have operations within one EU country and whether they would be able to access the so-called passporting system. So we have concerns; it is still being discussed.”

He refused to be drawn into open criticism of Mrs Merkel’s surprise decision this week to ban certain types of risky trading in shares and bonds, which began a slide of confidence in European shares that continued today.

Mr Cameron said: “Obviously we should respect each other’s decisions on these issues.”

“All I would say is this, and I’m sure there would be agreement on this: what matters is are we dealing with the real causes rather than just the symptoms?

“It seems to me that the cause of many of our problems in the European economies is excessive debt, excessive deficits, financial systems that haven’t worked, banking systems that have ground our economies down.

“Those are the problems. We’ve got to tackle the problems and get to the source of the problems and then actually we’ll find the symptoms will be less of a problem.”

Relations between Mr Cameron and Mrs Merkel were soured by the Conservative pull-out from the centre-Right European group over its support for closer political union in Europe.

Mrs Merkel is understood to have told him that she was saddened by the move which saw the Tories ally themselves with right-wing parties from Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia.

Peter Ramsauer, the German Transport Minister and old Etonian, who forged links with Mr Cameron through their alma mater, said: “I have tried my very utmost best to try to keep things together. I said ‘David, can you imagine the great British Tories can be a partner of people like Topolánek from the Czech Republic? Never, ever.’ Maybe we can bring them together again. There are lingering hopes very far on the horizon.”

Where’s Jimmy? Just Google His Bar Code

Fox News

Scientists currently tag animals to study their behavior and protect the endangered, but some futurists wonder whether all humans

tracking chip

VeriChip Tracking Chip

should be tagged too.

Scientists tag animals to monitor their behavior and keep track of endangered species. Now some futurists are asking whether all of mankind should be tagged too. Looking for a loved one? Just Google his microchip.

The chips, called radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, emit a simple radio signal akin to a bar code, anywhere, anytime. Futurists say they can be easily implanted under the skin on a person’s arm.

Already, the government of Mexico has surgically implanted the chips, the size of a grain of rice, in the upper arms of staff at the attorney general’s office in Mexico City. The chips contain codes that, when read by scanners, allow access to a secure building, and prevent trespassing by drug lords.

In research published in the International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Taiwanese researchers postulate that the tags could help save lives in the aftermath of a major earthquake. “Office workers would have their identity badges embedded in their RFID tags, while visitors would be given temporary RFID tags when they enter the lobby,” they suggest. Similarly, identity tags for hospital staff and patients could embed RFID technology.

“Our world is becoming instrumented,” IBM’s chairman and CEO, Samuel J. Palmisano said at an industry conference last week. “Today, there are nearly a billion transistors per human, each one costing one ten-millionth of a cent. There are 30 billion radio RFID tags produced globally.”

Having one in every person could relieve anxiety for parents and help save lives, or work on a more mundane level by unlocking doors with the wave of a hand or starting a parked car — that’s how tech enthusiast Amal Graafstra (his hands are pictured above) uses his. But this secure, “instrumented” future is frightening for many civil liberties advocates. Even adding an RFID chip to a driver’s license or state ID card raises objections from concerned voices.

Tracking boxes and containers on a ship en route from Hong Kong is OK, civil libertarians say. So is monitoring cats and dogs with a chip surgically inserted under their skin. But they say tracking people is over-the-top — even though the FDA has approved the devices as safe in humans and animals.

“We are concerned about the implantation of identity chips,” said Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the speech, privacy and technology program at the American Civil Liberties Union. He puts the problem plainly: “Many people find the idea creepy.”

“RFID tags make the perfect tracking device,” Stanley said. “The prospect of RFID chips carried by all in identity papers means that any individual’s presence at a given location can be detected or recorded simply through the installation of an invisible RFID reader.”

There are a number of entrepreneurial companies marketing radio tracking technologies, including Positive ID, Datakey and MicroChips. Companies started marketing the idea behind these innovative technologies a few years ago, as excellent devices for tracking everyone, all the time.

Following its first use in an emergency room in 2006, VeriChip touted the success of the subdermal chip. “We are very proud of how the VeriMed Patient Identification performed during this emergency situation. This event illustrates the important role that the VeriChip can play in medical care,” Kevin McLaughlin, President and CEO of VeriChip, said at the time.

“Because of their increasing sophistication and low cost, these sensors and devices give us, for the first time ever, real-time instrumentation of a wide range of the world’s systems — natural and man-made,” said IBM’s Palmisano.

But are human’s “systems” to be measured?

Grassroots groups are fretting loudly over civil liberties implications of the devices, threatening to thwart their  development for mass-market, human tracking applications.

“If such readers proliferate, and there would be many incentives to install them, we would find ourselves in a surveillance society of 24/7 mass tracking,” said the ACLU’s Stanley.

The controversy extends overseas, too. David Cameron, Britain’s new prime minister, has promised to scrap a proposed national ID card system and biometrics for passports and the socialized health service, options that were touted by the Labour Party.

“We share a common commitment to civil liberties, and to getting rid — immediately — of Labour’s ID card scheme,” said Cameron according to ZDNet UK.

These controversies are impacting developers. One firm, Positive ID, has dropped the idea of tracking regular folks with its chip technology. On Wednesday, the company announced that it had filed a patent for a new medical device to monitor blood glucose levels in diabetics. The technology it initially developed to track the masses is now just a “legacy” system for the Del Ray Beach, Fla., firm.

“We are developing an in-vivo, glucose sensing microchip,” Allison Tomek, senior vice president of investor relations and corporate communications, told FoxNews.com. “In theory it will be able to detect glucose levels. We are testing the glucose sensor portion of the product. It will contain a sensor with an implantable RFID chip. Today’s patent filing was really about our technology to create a transformational electronic interface to measure chemical change in blood.”

Gone are the company’s previous ambitions. “Our board of directors wants a new direction,” says Tomek. “Rather than focus on identification only, we think there is much more value in taking this to a diagnostic platform. That’s the future of the technology — not the simple ID.”

The company even sold off some of its individual-style tracking technology to Stanley Black and Decker for $48 million, she said.

These medical applications are not quite as controversial as the tracking technologies. The FDA in 2004 approved another chip developed by Positive ID’s predecessor company, VeriChip, which stores a code — similar to the identifying UPC code on products sold in retail stores — that releases patient-specific information when a scanner passes over the chip. Those codes, placed on chips and scanned at the physician’s office or the hospital, would disclose a patient’s medical history.

But like smart cards, these medical chips can still be read from a distance by predators. A receiving device can “speak” to the chip remotely, without any need for physical contact, and get whatever information is on it. And that’s causing concern too.

The bottom line is simple, according to the ACLU: “Security questions have not been addressed,” said Stanley. And until those questions are resolved, this technology may remain in the labs.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links