Yes, it is true.
You may read this September 2010 report, courtesy of our Freedom of Information Act, at cia.gov.
Since the bulk of what this report discusses apparently has to do with international cooperation, why then, did they not choose that apparently appropriate phrase, instead of “Global Governance?”
“Global Governance” – in case you need to recheck your eyes and mind.
Here is an interesting and self-conflicted disclaimer, from its “Introduction,” page 1:
The term “global governance” as used in this paper includes all the institutions, regimes, processes, partnerships, and networks that contribute to collective action and problem solving at the international level. This definition subsumes formal and informal arrangements as well as the role of nonstate actors in transnational settings. Regional cooperation may also be regarded as an element of global governance insofar as it contributes to broader efforts. Governance differs from government, which implies sovereign prerogatives and hierarchical authority. Global governance does not equate to world government, which would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future, if ever.
Are you saying, under your breath, “‘Governance differs from government…. Global governance does not equate to world government….’ Who are they trying to kid?”
How can any set of people practice governance when there is no effort of government in effect? Clearly, they wish to establish dependable, and enforceable arrangements, coordinated and administered between nations, hence their admission to the word “governance,” even though they create the distinction without a difference, between that word and “government.”
It is a natural and logical fact that if “global governance” is coordinated effectively, it must be done through an coordinating entity of some kind. But, we must not call that body any kind of “government” — is what they are saying.
And what is any difference again between the nouns-turned-adjectives, used in these terms? How exactly does “globe” differ from “world,” o United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS)? What color is the sky in your world, er, globe?
So, reader, is there a beacon flashing in your mind, “Orwellian. Orwellian. Orwellian…?” The term “global governance” may also be though of as an Hegelian (and Marxist) compromise, between thesis: international cooperation and antithesis: world government. For those that would like a summary of Hegelian philosophy and it’s implications for Karl Marx, it is a way of establishing revolution, plus a way of observing reality, then arguing impossibility, and then influencing people to believe they can “progress,” step by step, toward the unreal and impossible.
A bias for “world government” is apparent in this conflicted pseudo disclaimer, or they would not have admitted (as if forlornly kicking the dust with one shoe, hands in pockets) that “world government… would be virtually impossible for the foreseeable future, if ever.”
Your Sovereign expenditure of tax dollars at work, Sovereign Americans.
Exactly what entities orchestrated this? Only the present US administration and that of the EU (which, by the way, are called “governments”)? The major CFR, Bilder, Trilateralist, mega-financier, Marxist, fascist, and globalist movers and shakers down? All, likely, of the above? (Much of that list is redundant.) Any others?
And, if this is what is published, what associated intentions, plans, and implications are they holding back, as objectives for their (our) 2025 benchmark/deadline?
More to be published about this — including more excerpts — added to this Gulag Bound article, after further research.
by Arlen Williams & Tallulah Starr
h/t @PatriotWatchdog
Gulag Bound ^ | September 23, 2010 | Arlen Williams & Tallulah Starr
- New Food Rules: A guide to your government regulated diet – STORY
Bilderberg 2010: Out of the darkness, into the light
In his final dispatch from Bilderberg 2010, Charlie Skelton concludes that the gathering has finally broken out into the awareness of the press and public
Read all Charlie Skelton's dispatches from Bilderberg 2010
Dr Henry Kissinger at Bilderberg 2010. Photograph: Quierosaber
I found out this week, as I always deep-down suspected, since the age of about four, that I'm actually a spy working for Her Majesty's Secret Service. I'm annoyed that I didn't know sooner, as I would have used my immunity from prosecution and begun bumping people off much sooner. I can't wait to get back to the UK. I've got a serious backlog.
The revelation emerged during an impromptu news conference on a hot roundabout, with one of the more famous Bilderberg documentarians, Daniel Estulin. Someone had mentioned one of my articles, and he said: "Forget about that guy, he's an MI6 agent." If you think it was a surprise for me, you can hardly imagine how my handlers in Whitehall took it.
There's no greater shame for an agent than a blown cover. It's worse than throwing the wrong person off a multistorey car park. If I'm not careful, I'm going to find myself spending the next 18 months decrypting Russian interceptions on a north sea trawler.
I think Daniel Estulin is annoyed with me because I'm not Daniel Estulin. I rather suspect that he sees the dawning new world order as a giant metaphysical battle between lone crusader Daniel Estulin and the ranged powers of evil.
Which doesn't mean to say that he's wrongheaded about what goes on in Bilderberg. His sources are good. It's just that he loves playing to the crowd, and is prone to making statements which are as bold and flashy as his silk trousers.
Turns out I'm in good company: Estulin also branded Jon Ronson as MI6, which is an even more fantastical assertion. Ronson, as everyone knows, is MI5.
So yes, I'm a government agent. It really is a gun in my pocket, and I'm not pleased to see you. I half thought a bit of disinfo-mud might be slung my way, but I wasn't expecting it from this side of the police tape. (Not helpful, Mr Estulin. Really not helpful....)
The word "Bilderberg" attracts mud like lazy thought processes attract idiots. For decades now, one mention of "Bilderberg" has been enough to brand you a nut. An ultra-left/right/whoknowswhat-wing paranoid nut with some kind of existential dysmorphia and a coathanger wrapped round your head so you can pick up drivetime radio on Neptune.
These days, it's changed. These days, if you don't know what Bilderberg is, you look out of touch. If you chuckle it off, and say it's just an over-70s golf weekend, you sound ill-informed. If you think it's a "conspiracy" you need to flick back a few pages in the dictionary. The word you're looking for is "conference".
A four-day conference held in secret, with a €10m security budget, run by David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and the Queen of the Netherlands. Nothing weird about that. Nothing to see here. Move along. What undoubtedly was weird about Bilderberg 2010 is that Kissinger chose to hold it in Spain. He's not exactly on Spain's Christmas card list.
"If he was here now, if Henry Kissinger was here, I was arrest him, and it would be" – and here the police officer noosed his fingers around his throat, and delivered the universal sound of a wrung neck – "it would be kkkkkrrrchkk".
The policeman didn't seem to see the absurdity of the situation. He was a Spanish policeman who'd just spent four days standing outside a Spanish hotel, protecting a man wanted for questioning in Spain about war crimes. People were getting arrested for trying to take photographs of someone who should have been getting arrested. Some comfort: at least we got the photos. (Well done Quierosaber, it was worth the dehydration cramps).
It's an odd thing. George Osborne goes four times in a row to Kissinger's long and lavish conference, no one raises an eyebrow. But if he so much as popped his head into Broadmoor for Peter Sutcliffe's birthday party, there'd be an outcry. I don't get it.
Another thing I don't get: the consensus that Bilderberg is supposed to form and its relationship to all our welfares. But that discussion is for another time – perhaps sooner rather than later. For now, it's just incredible that we can talk about Bilderberg at all: we can start addressing its agenda (as published on its website). We can examine its role in the formation of public policy.
These are questions for serious people: the spectrum of political debate must expand to fit the facts. Morons will still twirp out their "tin hat" halfwitticisms, but they sound oddly dated.
I don't want to sound too much like Carlos Castaneda, but there's been a shift in consciousness. The word "Bilderberg" has broken out into the awareness of the press and public, exactly like Robbie Williams never did in America. For the first time, the press took note, camera crews made the journey, and last shreds of secrecy and shame were torn away by our photos of the delegates.
I've never quite understood the shame of attending Bilderberg. The jacket sleeves in front of the face, the blackened limos. Back before it started, we overheard some conference organisers saying that there were fewer delegates this year, because "many of them were worried about the publicity". Heaven forbid someone should see you at Bilderberg! The very thought!
That sort of thing feels very "old politics", very pre-coalition, jarring with the openness of Cameron, the transparency of Clegg. David Cameron attended Bilderberg in 2008. I'm sure he'd be glad to talk about it, and not stoop to what Tony Blair did (Bilderberg 1993) and lie to parliament about going.
The lies of Bilderberg are melting away as it steps out into the Spanish sunshine.
The question of how Bilderberg has remained so long in the shadows is a big one, and not to be dismissed with a lame little: "no one's interested in the natterings of a retirees' lunch party".
REUTERS
Kissinger in 2008: There will be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever Is Elected President
No comments:
Post a Comment