Tuesday, February 05, 2008

The Invisible Civil War Within: Part V

Bilderbergs, Trilaterals, and Communitarians, Oh My!

If there are groups who hold too much power over our lives, then they ought to be exposed and hopefully forced to dismantle or, at least, be marginalized. But who are these groups? Well, I believe there are three possibilities:

1. Secret groups who remain secret and do not wish to be public.
2. Public groups who have a certain public face, but act in secret behind the scenes.
3. Public groups who say what they believe, what they are going to do, and they do it.

An example of number 1 is the Bilderberg Group. Groups that fall into group #2 are both major American political parties as is evidenced by splinter groups such as the Democratic Leadership Committee and factions within the Republican National Committee. Another member of Group #2 is a newer group called Communitarians. Group #3 includes the Trilateral Commission, People for a New American Century, and others.

Wikipedia describes the Bilderberg Group:

The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg conference is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of business, media and politics.

The elite group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe — and once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands.


The Bilderberg Group's purpose was again described in 1991, by then-Chairman David Rockefeller, in this manner:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity."


Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.

Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss engineering company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and former World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician.

Now, people of any stripe have a right to privately or publicly congregate and discuss strategies and so forth as they wish. Although I believe Rumsfeld is a war criminal and Paul Wolfowitz is a traitor for helping out a CIA agent, the fact remains that even rich and powerful people are allowed to talk about promoting their own interests just like you and I can.

Alex Jones, WorldNet, and others take Rockefeller's statement above as proof of a USA (and presumably Bill of Rights) destroying One World Order or New World Order in which national sovereignty is sublimated to this Order presumably controlled by one or more of these elite groups. If the goal was to enslave us (as Jones presumes) and destroy our rights, I would buy it...but I don't in that sense.

Firstly, all of these rich folks got that way thanks to the consent of those of us who bought into these industrial visions and shared it through our labors and, in return, purchased the easy station in life which bought us internet access, television, highways, and so on.

Secondly, Rockefeller is full of crap (and he knows it) because there isn't enough resources out there for the whole world to live as we do and things are only going to get worse (yep, Peak Oil and Global Warming) for those of us who ARE fortunate. Whatever is going to happen, it won't be a One World Government of peace and prosperity for all as much as I would like it to be.

As we found out in Argentina, Venezuela, and Bolivia, poor people don't stand long for leaders who want to enslave them at pitiful wages and no personal power. These countries were the poster children of globalization and when the victims were tired of having their natural resources sold for pennies on the dollar, they revolted. The same would happen in a one world government and I think the Rockefellers of the world know it. Their strength is built on a healthy middle class and the protection of that class regardless of what it does to anyone else is their ultimate insurance for keeping their wealth and power.

Progressives and Social Conservatives be Damned

If it is one thing ALL of us have learned over the last eight years of the Bush Presidency; it is that we are all subject to being patronized by Representatives, Senators, Governors, and Presidents (and candidates) to hear one thing but then experience another. The Republican supermajority ballooned the size of government and did nothing for anti-abortion, anti-gay, or any of their other stated issues. Pissing off liberals and fighting a war are scant substitute for true progress on the Republican platform. Democrats, on other hand, must suffer through a current majority that sides with the President on many civil rights issues, fiscal issues regarding funding for social programs, and they largely turned their backs on their own countrymen while studiously avoiding blame after the 2005 hurricanes; all against the Democratic party platform. Both parties were complicit in the whitewash and coverup of the 9/11 Commission when several parties in the know said there was unstated evidence contrary and/or extremely pertinent omissions to the Commission findings. Both parties failed the American platform of accountability to the governed on that score.

Finally, we have group number 3 which contains prominent members of group #2 and, in fact, defines their subterfuge to some degree by their openness as members of group #3. Although the Trilateral Commission is often cited as a secretive organization, they have a website and their membership and purpose is out in the open for the most part. President Bush Sr., VP Dick Cheney, and former President Carter have all been members. The invitee group is tight with somewhere over 300 members at the present time. From their site:

The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.

It sounds like a recipe for keeping the reigns on power to me, but it is completely out in the open. They want to control the affairs in the world and they explicitly say so and their membership includes many in the US government who, incidently, must quit once they are in public office...as if their core goals/values from Trilateral membership would change so abruptly. They want to control our international destiny and they say so, but they don't trumpet a unified government favoring instead a sort of herding of the cattle (nations) into a more predictable and sustainable (for them) future.

Another group is the People for a New American Century (PNAC). The names are a "Who's Who" of the architects of President Bush's post-9/11 strategy team: Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Their names are right on the Statement of Principles for the PNAC from June 3, 1997. From that statement:

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Wow, pumping up the military, preemptive strikes, declaring enemies before they were enemies, and all the givens of today were published in 1997. Remember 9/11 and how it "changed everything?" Well, they already thought of that beforehand. Check out this excerpt from their policy paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" from 2000:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

For those of us who remember that day vividly, the whole event seemed inconceivable, but those who took full advantage of it were already aware of such a possibility a year before it happened and they were in place in the Bush administration when it did. (I will cover the 9/11 issue later on so don't jump to any conclusions and please be patient.)

Nobody is hiding this stuff; this group is operating out in the open with their goals stated plainly on a web site. A conspiracy? Yes, and apparently proud of it. Moreover, Dick Cheney is a member of both a group that advocates this over-the-top intervention style and formerly the Trilateral Commission which James (Jimmy) Carter shares with him, yet Carter publicly denounces Cheney's policy in no uncertain terms. Is this a change of heart over the years between the two men or are they playing parts in another distractive dialectic?

Where Does the Put Us?

There is a great deal of crosstalk and opportunity for chaos, disagreement, cooperation, and manipulation between these groups. I think Swinebread put it best in the comments when he said that they were like referees who are unfairly for one team to win, but unexpected things happen in that attempt. I don't think any one group has the world's future or control firmly in grasp, but I do think alliances form to do the best they can for themselves. I also think these groups use existing cultural norms and vehicles to convince people to act in a way that suits these group interests oftentimes to the detriment of the actors (us). (For example, think of all those cool smartass Fox programs like The Simpsons and Family Guy that thumb their nose at conservatives all while filling conservative Rupert Murdoch's coffers.)

Does this rise to the level of a grand conspiracy? Yes and No. Yes when really important points of view (not just right/left) are relegated to back alleys of the Internet instead of being distributed across media in any where near their proportional percentage in favor of a narrow controlled narrative with well-defined possibly "red herring" controversy. Yes when reality is purposefully hidden from those it affects. No when shown in terms that these groups are acting in total secrecy because in principal they aren't; there is a public arm which is fairly obvious and the secret arm that supports it. No when it is said that these elites want to turn Earth into a giant slave colony; it doesn't parse because it wouldn't keep them powerful and rich in the long run.

So it is a mixture of both. There are a small group of powerful people who DO organize for their own interests and try to manipulate our perceptions to achieve their ends. They don't have total control, but they have more control than they should and more than we would like them to.

In the next section, I will try to tie these elites and their power back to the philosophical bases we covered earlier. In addition, I will lay the groundwork for how all of this plays into my Civil War Within I keep yammering on about.


Dean Wormer said...

So much good stuff their don.

With regards to the last few paragraphs- FDR is often credited with saving free-market capitalism in this country with the New Deal. I think there are just as many wealthy individuals who recognize this as don't. There is a breaking point when the squeeze on the lower classes will force them to take action. I wouldn't be surprised if that's been calculated, stuck on a graph and presented via Powerpoint to many of the rulers in the world.

Dave said...

I will now make the case for the process of Eugenics.

What is Eugenics?

The control of the human population.

In theory, eugenics states that the Earth can not support a population of nine billion people. This may or may not be true. If the world was operating harmoniously, then we could support a population of twenty billion.

However, the world does not operate harmoniously at all. There are rich and poor, smart and dumb, knowledgeable and ignorant, trustworthy and dishonest. Caregivers of life and murdering thugs.

The theory of eugenics was first concieved by Francis Galton.

Later it was exploited in war, specifically World War II with the extermination of millions of Jews.

The next phase of eugenics began with abortions and the formation of what became Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.

Disguised as a blue print for a perfect society through filtering out unwanted children by abortion to genetic engineering eugeninics truly is a horror to all beings human.

The overall plan of the presnet day is to reduce the world population with abortion, engineered diseases, warfare, economic exploitation and such to reduce the population from 6 billion to around 500 million.

Not only should this seem frightening, one only needs to look at today's headlines to read stories about cloning and gentic engineering to see the eugenics is not merely a conspiracy, but a reality.

Don Snabulus said...


Me either.

I understand what eugenics is, but I think the trend is in the opposite direction. The population keeps growing and getting harder to feed and nobody has a plan for the geometric increase in death and suffering that results from it. For the reasons you just stated, maybe there is no workable plan.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Excuse me, did someone let a bull in here a little bit ago? *phew* Someone get a shovel...

I have to say that, when I watched those Alex Jones videos, my impression was that he uncovered some very significant points but took them to some very irrational conclusions. When you consider that the Bilderberg group has always been chiefly made up of people involved with banking and/or big business, you'd have to seriously question any purported objective that seems more unprofitable than profitable.

For example, Jones maintains that the whole greenhouse effect thing is a hoax concocted to bring forth a "carbon tax" that will help fund the NWO. The thing is that, since so many of the Bilderbergers are involved with oil and/or industry that produces greenhouse gases, it's basically money out of their own pockets...or incentive for people to stop buying their products. Hardly a sound business investment.

The population reduction argument is nothing new. Greenpeace is said to advocate lowering the number of human beings in the world by as much as a third. However, at a time when industrialized nations are facing graying populations and chronic shortages in the labor force, you're once again left with a very illogical equation. Even in isolationist Japan there are arguments coming out in favor of making immigration laws more liberal so that foreigners can help make up for predicted worker shortages. People of little conscience may claim that wiping out third world populations would put less strain on global resources, but doing so would also eliminate a possible future resource. Again, it's hardly sound business thinking.

Oh, and BTW, the Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with population control. It had everything to do with madmen trying to purify what they believed to be a racially superior ethnic group. It's the eugenics of trying to engineer a "super-human", not population control.

On that note, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of abortions are motivated by personal lifestyle issues, not some grand master scheme. Planned Parenthood is very much organized along the same lines. Again, claiming that these things are part of a conspiracy to reduce the world population is ridiculous since declining birthrates in industrialized nations already has economic and industrial leaders tearing their hair.

If simply ridding the world of humanity is their goal, you'd think they'd start with less potentially useful segments of the population. We haven't seen any soylent green factories pop up anywhere, so the argument doesn't really wash.

Swinebread said...

It’s interesting that the Middle East and Asia didn’t play along with Bush and the trilateral commissions goals. It’s part of that whole unexpected things happening idea. The natural world and death tolls can only be explained away for so long.

Dean Wormer said...


Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany.

The Holocaust had absolutely nothing, zero, zip to do with HOW MANY were allowed to live. It had to do with just WHO was allowed to live.

That, and most of those who are against the concept of legalalized abortion also seem to be the same individuals who support wars for stupid reasons that kill thousands and support economic policies based on the hording on resources that arguably kill hundreds of thousands each year. From these individuals words ring hollow.

Dave said...

Have you been to China lately?

They have a one child policy rigidly enforced.

If the second fetus survives abortion, it is often drowned in front of the mother as punishment.

Eugenics is not a myth. It is very real.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Have you been to China lately?

They have a one child policy rigidly enforced.

Have you ever been to China? When the one-child policy was introduced, the country already had a serious problem with overpopulation and distribution of resources. Remember that there are large areas of the country that still have neither electricity or running water and are peopled by non-Chinese ethnic groups, many of which traditionally regarded reproduction as power. The one-child policy was a (possibly misguided) attempt to avert disaster.

If the second fetus survives abortion, it is often drowned in front of the mother as punishment.

*sniff sniff* I think someone let that bull in here again. I'm really curious to know your source for this, and PLEASE don't tell me it's WND. This is NOT official policy in China, and I seriously doubt it happens nearly as "often" as you believe.

The Moody Minstrel said...

As an aside note, I don't really think I have to mention that China's one-child policy has had one unintended effect. Since having a male child is of critical importance in Chinese tradition, a lot of mothers choose to abort if they find out their fetus is female. The Chinese government has officially banned such practices, but it still happens a lot. The result is that China already has a terribly skewed ratio of males to females, meaning many men have to either remain single or seek foreign brides. The problem is predicted to get a lot worse, too, which means the Chinese population could wind up becoming anything but ethnically pure.

Hardly sound population engineering, I'd say.

just saying... said...

in favor of a narrow controlled narrative with well-defined possibly "red herring" controversy


ladybug said...

I have kind of an different view on things...I once read a Vanity Fair (or as I like to call it, Banality's Lair) about Mortimer Zuckerman, one of the richest men in the world ...

In it (along with alot of probable drivel & gossip), was a quote in which he said something like this:

"People want to make the world what they think it should be, instead of how it is"

In the context of the article, I understood him to speaking about politicians, would be do-gooders (like Gloria Steinem, whom he dated for several years), & "Xian"/Jewish business leaders vis-a-vis their support of Israel....

What this tells me is that all three types of groups as Don describes them exist, and that mechanisms for "change" must include the Elites of a society;
and that it won't be easy, or even realistic.

Dave said...

All those extra males who can't find brides are cannon fodder.

Sorry to be cynical Moody, but I didn't hear about that from Alex Jones, it was 60 Minutes, many years ago.

The Moody Minstrel said...

Well, Dave, here in Japan China tends to be in the news a lot, particularly in recent years, for the very good reason that they just happen to be more or less next door, not to mention a serious power player in local economics and geopolitics. Not only that, but ever since China liberalized its economic and immigration laws, there has been a flood of migrant workers coming here to Japan. There are quite a lot of them living and working in my area, and I have met and spoken with a number of them.

One thing we've really come to learn in a big way recently is that China is nowhere near as centralized as we've always believed. Beijing may set official policy, but it's local bureaucrats who decide how (and if) those policies are implemented. For a long time those bureaucrats operated with almost no accountability, i.e. they could do practically anything they wanted with impunity. That has changed in recent years. Now that China has become more of a world power (not to mention host of the next Olympics), Beijing is extremely concerned about cleaning house. The problem is that now business entrepreneurs have become extremely powerful, and local officials tend to be cozy with them.

A number of formerly rural and semi-autonomous regions have turned into corporate boomtowns controlled by business kingpins who have the local populations more or less enslaved and have local government officials dancing on their strings. The overwhelming majority of tainted products that have found their way into U.S. and Japanese (and Chinese, believe it or not) markets have come from such places. Beijing is trying to come down hard on these feudal corporate enclaves, but the kingpins are too strong and the local bureaucrats too uncooperative.

I might add that China is also seeing more and more local uprisings against bureaucrats that try to abuse their authority...something totally unthinkable 15 years ago. I think the Chinese government is well aware that its younger populations are not as easy to control as they used to be.

The bottom line is that China is not the engineered slave society you'd like to think it is.