In a speech in May 2010, US Vice President Joe Biden has, in a speech to the EU Parliament, quoted in connection with the European loans to Greece drawn a quotation from the poem „Easter, 1916“ of the occult Irish poet William Butler Yates.
He quoted: „The world has changed. Changed utterly. A terrible beauty has been born.“
I stand here in Rue Wiertz, a few meters to the EU Parliament at Brussels. Behind me, you see the statue of the „terrible beauty“, which symbolically uses the euro to turn people into material.
Only a few days respectively weeks after his speech, the banker's enrichment mechanisms EFSM and EFSF have been launched.
It looks as if Joe Biden was much more informed in this puzzle than Peace Nobel Prize winner Barack Obama, but still much less informed than certain think tanks.
At the 26.01.2012, a new draft EU regulation in the name of privacy has been initiated on the EU level.This report shows its militarist background and its dangers for the world peace. We want to express with perfect clarity, that this is no intrige of any states at all, but of globally acting unscrupu-lous think tanks and of a part of the persons and of the media, which are embedded with these think tanks. We want to express our respect to any nations and any countries, our respect to China equally as to the USA, to Israel equally as to Iran. We wish all politicians on this planet the power and the wisdom to return to their consciousness and to leave the logic of these think tanks, which have turned themselves against the world coummity and against all nations of the world.
What think tanks are,
Think tanks produce thoughts. They organize media coverage for thoughts, which they have produced, and for persons, who are willing to implement their thoughts. The media consumer often does not know, which thoughts of seemingly independent politicians, scientists, or media are in reality prepared in such think tanks. Think tanks follow the principles: Thinking is creative, and our reason proves to itself, what it is thinking. People, who are not conscious of their thoughts and emotions, and whose awareness is concentrated to the world outside themselves, are manipulatable by think tanks. If you are not conscious enough, they can even make you adapt yourself to surreal delusionary or deceptive pictures of the world – instead of comparing such pictures to reality. Another concept is to spread certain opinions over mass media, and then to look, which prominent or influencial people have picked up these opinions, in order to contact them.
and where their power comes from
The political power of think tanks comes from three sources. One is money and deserves a closer look, because some of the financiers of CFR and ECFR might stop their financing, if they knew about CFR's current deliberately risking a nuclear war. The second one are naive prominent people, who give their names for these think tanks, thus giving them a false aura of reputation, which is decisive for the manipulation of unconscious media consumers and politicians. The third one is their possibility to pay politicians with attention via their embedded media. If politicians do what CFR or ECFR, and other tanks, want them to do, they get coverage by some of the embedded media and win some elections. Quite tricky, because this way you won't find money from these think tanks on the banking accounts of such politicians. We just do not know, if and how the media are rewarded by such think tanks for their risky service. A closer look regarding the shareholders of such media could deliver the answer to this question.
Now, let us have a closer look at the draft regulation.
The EU has only the powers, which have explicitely be conferred to it in its primary law (principle of conferral, art. 5 par. 2 TEU). The EU may produce privacy directives or privacy regulations only to protect the inhabitants of its member states against the EU, and against the member states as far as these are implementing EU law (art. 16 TFEU, art. 8 EU Basic Rights Charter, art. 51 par. 1 EU Basic Rights Charter). In any case, there have to be independent authorities for the protection of privacy.
For any other areas, the EU has no legal competence to produce secondary law on privacy. Art. 4 par. 2 TEU obliges the EU to respect the fundamental structures and the national identities of its member states. The draft EU privacy regulation does neither respect the national constitutions nor respect the limits of art. 16 TFEU.
A censorship regulation in the name of privacy
All EU institutions are exempted from the new draft regulation (art. 2 par. 5 lit. b) – the opposite of what art. 16 TFEU and art. 8 EU Basic Rights Charter prescribe. This obvious breach of the EU primary law shows, that the purpose of this draft regulation must be something else than privacy.
Another surreal piece of deception by the EU Commission. How stupid must they think the citizens are !
Single persons are exempted, as far as they spread personal data without any commercial purpose and outside the internet (art. 2 par. 5 lit. d). As a result, all commercial publications including personal data are affected by the draft regulation, and also all non-commercial publications in the internet.
Art. 3 with the definitions already shows the false game. „Data subject“ (art. 3 par. 1) is any human being. „Personal data“ are any pieces of information on human beings (art. 3 par. 2). „Controller“ is anyone, who is processing information on human beings (art. 3 par. 5), „processor“ (art. 3 par. 6) anyone, who does the technical work for the controller.
Consideration no. 103 and art. 80 contain possible exemptions for the press from parts of the regulation – certainly, as we know the EU Commission, not from the most drastical parts. This means, in turn, that the press basically is affected by the draft regulation. Words like „controller“ are obviously chosen misleadingly.
Art. 5 contains exemptions from the draft regulation, e. g. if the person information on whom you spread agrees to it (art. 5 par. 1 lit. a), if you process the information in a „public interest“ (art. 5 part. 1 lit. e) or within legitimate own interests. If the EU Commission would regard the freedom of the press in general as a public interest or as legitimate interests, then it would mention the press in art. 5. Art. 85 of the draft regulation allows the member states to derogate from specific parts of art. 9 to art. 18 for purposes of „public interest“, but art. 9 to 18 are not the most drastical articles of the draft regulation.
Art. 7 contains a reversal of the burden of proof in the form of a legal guilt presumption. That means, if you publish something on someone else then yourself either commercially or in the internet, then you legally are presumed to have violated the EU privacy regulation, so that you would have to prove your innocence.
This collides with the freedoms of speech and of the press (art. 11 EU Basic Rights Charter), with entrepreneurial freedom (art. 16 EU Basic Rights Charter), and with property (art. 17 EU Basic Rights Charter), and with the rule of the law (a value of the EU, art. 2 TEU).
As far as the draft regulation also demands criminal penalties (art. 78), this legal presumption of guilt also collides with art. 11 Universal Declation of Human Rights (UDHR), art. 14 par. 2 UN Civil Pact, , art. 6 par. 2 EHCR, and art. 48 par. 1 EU Basic Rights Charter.
Art. 12 obliges you to inform the person, you want to report on, and to inform the person about the possibility to take you to court for your report. Art. 28 and art. 3 par. 9 oblige you, any time you violate the draft regulation, to inform the person you report on within 24 hours after the violation. One can imagine what this means to investigative journalism in Europe.
Art. 25 obliges the „controller“ to protocol, what he is telling on whom to which audience, and after which period of time he uses to delete the information. In addition to that, the „controller“ would be required to explain his own legitimate interests.
Art. 30 par. 1 obliges the „controller“ (or reporter) to make an analysis of the possible effects of the data processing (or reporting) on the „data subject“, and art. 30 demands the „controller“ (or reporter) to do no processing (or reporting) without prior consent of the affected persons (whose data you process or who you report on). Just imagine a reporter, who finds out about a fraud scandal regarding a draft EU regulation, or who finds out about an environmental scandal – he would have to ask all persons he wants to report on, if he is allowed to publish his findings in the internet or commercially.
Even worse, before any data processing (or reporting), you would have to ask a national supervisory authority for its permittance (art. 31 par. 1). This authority would be responsible to no national government at all, but to the EU Commission (art. 46 part. 1, art. 58). That's how the EU Commmission redefines „independence“ for its own power grabbing purposes – again surreal.
If this national supervisory authority with dependence to the EU Commission came to the conclusion, that your application collides with this regulation, it would impose a drastical fine on you. This could already happen, if your calculations and considerations regarding the possible effects of your reporting on other people are considered to be insufficent. What a wide open door to arbitrariness.
Among the powers of the „national“ supervisory authority are the prohibition of the respective data processing / reporting (art. 52 par. 1 lit. g), the correction or deletion of the data / publication (art. 52 par. 1 lit f), informing the „data subjects“ (the persons whose data you process respectively whom you report on) (art. 52 par. 1 lit. c, art. 28).
Art. 77 contains the liability of the „controller“ and the „processor“, art. 79 the drastical fines. Even insufficent considerations regarding the possible effects of the data processing / reporting in the internet would cost a private person or a non profit organization between 100.000,- € and 1.000.000,- € each time the supervisory authority does not accept your application (art. 79 Abs. 4 lit. g).
The liability of art. 77 would hit every „controller“ taking part in a respective data processing or reporting. This would very fast ruin all non-profit internet news agencies.
Art. 78 of the draft regulation demands the member states to put in place penalties against violations of the regulation.
Penalties, drastical fines, and liability – and all of them with a legal presumption of guilt (art. 7) !
The total insanity.
ruinous also for political parties and NGOs
According to consideration 38 of the draft regulation, also the data processing (or publications) of political parties in the course of their electoral activities would explicitely be included by the scope
of the regulation. In order to prevent the drastical fines, politicians would ex-ante request the Commission regarding their planned electoral campaign choreography. And which politician is able to give a detailed analysis, how much seats his arguments might cost the competing parties ?
With this censorship regulation, political parties could only afford to make their electoral campaign outside the internet and outside the press – except for the EU Commission likes their campaign.
Or just imagine Amnesty International standing up in the internet only for those political prisoners, the EU Commission wants to be shown.
The draft EU censorship regulation obivously cannot be the work of any political party, even though some members of the organizations behind that draft might, at the same time, be members of political parties.
The long series of attacks with militarist background against the internet and against the free journalist reporting
The draft censorship (not privacy ) regulation is a climax to a series of attacks against the freedoms of speech and of press in the internet – with the one big distinction, that this time also all NGOs, political parties, and commercial media, as far as they are not on the political line of the EU Commission and of the think tanks behind the Commission, are targeted.
The former attacks on the internet press have clearly shown a focus to militarist backgrounds. Stefanie zu Guttenberg, the wife of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, has been lobbying in a TV show on one of Bertelsmann's RTL channels for restrictions on the internet – in the name of protecting children. As if not every country would be willing to immediately switch off web sites which endanger children. Her husband respresented Germany as its Minister of Defence in the negotiations for the new NATO 2010 strategical concept. In the end of 2010, there was a campaign of the media corporations Springer (via Bild newspaper) and Bertelsmann (via Der Spiegel) to make to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg the next Chancellor. Bertelsmann and Springer both belong to the media, which are embedded with the ECFR (publicly visible on www.ecfr.eu).
The discussion paper for the new strategical concept of the NATO had been drafted by a working group led by Madeleine Albright, a former US Minister of Exterior, and today a lobbyist of the Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org). The CFR is the example, after which the ECFR has been modelled at Europe. The strong man inside the ECFR is Joschka Fischer, former German Minister of the Exterior and a friend of Madeleine Albright. The discussion paper for the 2010 NATO concept included two issues, which have been streaked out after protests from several NATO member countries. The one was military actions even against civilian people, who are just regarded to have insulted NATO. How surreal, this means using the army or drones for to the targeted murdering against journalists, like in the famous Wikileaks video showing the murder of innocent Reuters journalists in Iraq. As far as we remember, the governments of Denmark and of Luxem-burg protested against this idea. The other concept, which has been streaked out, was the total political isolation of Iran; that has been prevented by Turkey, because is was too obvious, that such an isolation was intended to be a pre-stage for an aggressive war against Iran. The CFR has not been able to deceive the NATO, but the CFR currently tries it again another way (see below).
Another attempt, also in the end of the year 2010, was in Germany a draft treaty between the German provinces in order to burden the internet bloggers with large costs for checking their web sites, from which age on they are adequate.That treaty has been stopped by the regional parliament of the province North-Rine-Westphalia.
The actual attacks against the freedom of the internet press in the USA take place in the name of intellectual property via the draft laws SOPA and PIPA. And here in Europe, with the draft EU censorship regulation and with ACTA.
The connection of the the draft EU censorship regulation to the ECFR
The cooperation of Neelie Kroes, the EU Commissioner formally responsible for internet issues, and who has attended the Bilderberg conference 2011, with Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg regarding the draft censorship regulation shows its connection to the ECFR.
The European Council on Foreign Relations (www.ecfr.eu) is one of the most dangerous militarist think tanks in Europe. It has been fouded in October 2007.
Just have a look at the council of that organization. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is one of their bigger lobbyists. Another one is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who gives them the power to influence the Green members of the EU Parliament. His lobbying, probably not as a Green member of the EU Parliament, but as a lobbyist of the ECFR, in favour of armament is shown, e. g., in the article „Fregate, sottomarini e caccia Quelle pressioni di Merkel e Sarkò per ottenere commesse militari“ of the Corriere della Serra of the 13.02.2012. The Corriere della Serra has exposed, that the financial support for Greece has been conditionalized by the French and by the German government on the Greek government buying arms from French and German firms, and that Mr. Cohn-Bendit has supported this. Another piece Mr. Cohn-Bendit's ECFR lobbying is shown in an interview of the public German television ZDF with him. In that interview, he has been advertising for a „flight prohibition zone“ against Libya. The ZDF news „heute journal“ has presented him as a neutral chairman of the Green group of the EU Parliament. Even though the ZDF should have known better, because Ruprecht Polenz, the chairman of its supervision board „ZDF Fernsehrat“ is a prominent lobbyist of the ECFR as well as Cem Özdemir. The latter is also ECFR lobbyist, also member of the ZDF Fernsehrat and one of the two chairpeople of the Green party Bündnis90 / Die Grünen in Germany.
An urgent case for the large majority of the 77 members of the ZDF supervision board are the proofs exposed on the Communist medium KI-TV and the independent (slightly conservative) medium Alles Schall und Rauch, that the ZDF by what reasons soever has presented parts of a video, that had already been shown on the Egyptian television Al Arabia in 2007. The video shows Iraqi policemen maltreating suspected-to-be drug dealers, but the ZDF has presented it in 2011 as a video from a Syrian torture jail. The German public deserves a clarification, who has arranged this, and if or if not there is any connection between the incorrect presentation of that video and the ECFR.
We at least do not know any other actual comparable militarist connection of the ZDF. The last visit of ZDF representatives to the more informal militarist network Bilderberg seems to be many years ago – according to the available Bilderberg guest lists.
The political magazine Hintergrund (www.hintergrund.de) shows more about the connection of the ECFR with the CFR and with the EU. According to its article „Think tanks – die heimlichen Regierungen“, Joschka Fischer has a contract as an advisor to Madeleine Albright, thus personally connecting the ECFR to the CFR. And Hintergrund reports, that Robert Cooper, another person listed in the council of the ECFR, has largely contributed to the theory of „liberal imperialism“ - meaning upholding the rule of the law inside Europe, but to use all available means against countries outside Europe in order to put through interests. The same Robert Cooper is an advisor to the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, and he has been an advisor to Xavier Solana.
The article of „Hintergrund“ also exposes, that the most important financier of the ECFR is the billionaire George Soros. Mr. Soros is also officially involved with ECFR , CFR, and Bilderberg.
Another connection between ECFR and Bilderberg is shown in the article „Ab in die Ecke“ of the newspaper „Die Zeit“, where the newspaper presents the opinion of the ECFR against military neutrality of Germany in the Libya conflict. The newspaper „Die Zeit“ is represented in the steering committee of Bilderberg, but does not belong to the ECFR. The article „Ab in die Ecke“ shows clearly the cooperation between ECFR and Bilderberg.
The military aggressiveness of the ECFR even shows in the article „Gefangen in Kafkas Schloss“, which the ECFR somehow has managed to get into the „Europathemen“, the monthly EU magazine of the big German officers trade union. In that article, Ulrike Guerot (ECFR) calls the Lisbon jugdement of the German Constitutional Court „constitutional nationalist“. What an extreme cynism. The Lisbon judgement has protected the prohibition of aggressive war especially against art. 21, 22, 42, and 43 TEU in connection with the EU Safety Strategy. The German Constitutional Court has ruled, that the whole CFSP (Common Foreign and Safety Policy) of the EU must not be suprantionalized (no. 255+342 of the judgement), and that the prohibition of aggressive war must not be circumvented in any way – even not by means of the EU law.
With Giuliano Amato, Jean-Luc Dehaene, and John Bruton, three of ten members of the presidium of the EU Convent, which has been responsible for publicly discussing the draft EU Constitution, are today lobbyists of the ECFR. The Lisbon Treaty has only three big differences to the draft EU Constitution. It is only a bit less military aggressive, but contains much more privatization, and it has left TEU, TFEU, and EU Basic Rights Charter as three separate treaties instead of mixing them together into one constitution. Art. 42 TEU in connection with the EU Safety Strategy (where since 2003 strategic interests of the EU have been defined, which have got a legal meaning just with art. 21 and art. 42 TEU) would have allowed the EU to intervene into undefined „failed states“. Art. 42 TEU in connection with art. 2 TEU would have allowed the EU to intervene into any country, where at least slight violations of the values of the EU (democracy, human rights, and rule of the law) are taking place – in other words, into every country of the world. Art. 43 TEU would allow the EU the military intervention into undefined „crises“.
Just have a look into the article „Höchste Zeit für eine Stärkung der gemeinsamen Außenpolitik“ of Joschka Fischer in the newspaper „Die Welt“ (Springer Corporation), which shows the clear intention of the ECFR to get the possibility to circumvene the prohibition of aggressive war by means of art. 42 TEU. Just remember - The Springer Corporation is embedded with the ECFR.
The article „Die Kosten des Nichthandelns“ of Dr. Klaus Brummer (Bertelsmann foundation) shows further dangers of art. 42 and art. 43 TEU. Bertelsmann is also embedded with the ECFR.
So much work in order to be able to legally circumvene the prohibition of aggressive war. And then one wise judgement saves the world peace by especially keeping the rank of the UN Charter with its prohibition of aggressive war (see art. 2 par. 4 and art. 103 UN Charter) above the prescriptions of the TEU on the Common Foreign and Safety Policy and saves billions of human lives. Poor ECFR.
The disrespectlessness of the language of the ECFR regarding the Syrian government has some similarities with the language choleric adolescent people. The ECFR seemingly tries to heaten the Syrian conflict by means of such kind of language with the article „Assad's continued defiance in the face of growing isolation“ of the 13.01.2012.
The ECFR article „Dealing with a post-BRIC Russia“ of the 30.11.2011 shows the intention of the ECFR to weaken the emerging closer cooperation between Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The same very unfriendly attitude of the ECFR against the BRIC countries has already been shown in the article „Gefangen in Kafkas Schloss“.
the lobbying of the CFR for war an aggressive war of the USA against Iran
The coincidence of the draft EU censorship regulation, ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA with the CFR lobbying to make the US government attack Iran is no random at all.
There are at least two sources proving that the currently world-wide biggest threat of an aggressive war against Iran resulting in a devastating nuclear war comes from the CFR:
-CFR's Matthew Kroenig has demanded aggressive war against Iran in his article „Time to attack Iran“ in the January / February edition of CFR Magazine „Foreign Affairs“. He has, according to the CFR, been a special adviser to the US Ministry of Defense from July 2010 to July 2011.
-CFR's historian Niall Ferguson has demanded aggressive war against Iran in his article „Ein Präventivkrieg gegen Iran ist das kleinere Übel“ in the newspaper „Die Welt“ (Springer corporation) from the 11.02.2012. Mr. Ferguson uses in his article the artificial word „PUSA“ as an abbreviation for the President of the USA.This shows a significant lack of respect of the CFR regarding the President of the USA, just as the ECFR has already shown a lack of respect regarding the President of Syria.
Just remember, the Springer corporation is embedded in the ECFR, the European sibling of the CFR.
According to the CFR website, its founding corporate members are:
Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Chevron Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Hess Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co, McKinsey & Company, Inc., The Nasdaq OMX Group.
Do really all of these corporations want an aggressive war of the USA against Iran leading to a nuclear war with China ?
Interestingly, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co (the latter via David Rockeweller) are also involved in the Bilderberg network.
To the „President's Circle“ of the CFR belong Alcoa, Inc., American Express, Barclays Capital,
Bennett Jones LLP, BP p.l.c., CA Technologies, Citi, Credit Suisse, Dell Inc., Eni, Fortress Investment Group LLC, GoldenTree Asset Management, Guardsmark LLC, HP, Kingdon Capital Management, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Korn/Ferry International, Lazard, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Mars, Inc., McGraw-Hill Companies, The, MetLife, Moody's Investors Service,
Morgan Stanley, New Media Investments, Omnicom Group Inc., Parsons Corporation, Reliance Industries Limited, Shell Oil Company, Soros Fund Management, Standard Chartered Bank, The AES Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., UBS AG, Veritas Capital LLC, Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisors, LLC
Do really all of these corporations want the nuclear war? Unimaginable.
Some globally acting German firms are among the rest of the CFR corporate members, such as BASF Corporation and Deutsche Bank AG. Josef Ackermann, former CEO of the Deutsche Bank AG, is involved in the preparation committee of the Bilderberg conferences, and another representative of the Deutsche Bank AG in the ECFR.
Mass media among the official premium members of the CFR are:
Bloomberg, Economist Intelligence Unit, General Electric (owns NBC), Google, Microsoft (shareholder of MSNBC), News Corporation (owns Fox News), Thomson Reuters, and Time Warner (owns CNN).
For the links of CFR and Bilderberg to banks and mass media especially in the USA, see Daniel Estulin's article „Bilderberg und die Massenmedien“
the role of the Bilderberg network
The power of the more informal Bilderberg network also comes, to a large part, via the power of their embedded media. Bilderberg just is more complex, focused not only on militarism, but even more on banker's elitist interests. Regarding the connections between Bilderberg, CFR, and mass media in the USA, see the Daniels Estulin's article „Bilderberg und die Massenmedien“.
Regarding the connection of the ECFR to Bilderberg, we find again the billionaire George Soros in both organizations. And Etienne Davignon, a former EU Commissioner and former chairman of Bilderberg, belongs to the ECFR lobbyists. Joschka Fischer has visited Bilderberg in 2008.
If you look at the Bilderberg guest list 2011, you will find many of the main actors of Europe's bankers enrichment mechanisms as EFSM, EFSF, and ESM, such as Herman van Rompuy, Jean-Claude Juncker, Christine Lagarde (her first visit to Bilderberg as the coming CEO of the IMF), Mario Monti (Bilderberg steering committee and Goldman Sachs advisor), the financial ministers of Italy and Greece of that time, the current treasurer of Great Britain, George Osborne – even the former German financial minister Peer Steinbrück, who got strong additionial media coverage starting with his Bilderberg visit. Also the EU's real-existing censorship commissioner Neelie Kroes has been there. Regarding the connection between the EU Commission and ECFR, see above.
It is horrifying, how much the lobbies for a world war and for banker's enrichment are overlapping each other. This explains, why the CFR, is lobbying for a nuclear war - in order to stabilize the power of a part of its members within the financial system.
Against any common sensce, and against the interests of most of its members.
The Polish psychiatrist Dr. Andrzej Jabloczewski explains, that psychopaths are people, whose self-awareness is shifted in a way, that they cannot feel their own compassion. The delusion also comes from the insane shift of their awareness. This also explains their surreal behaviour, surreal commands, and surreal legislative intiatives like the deceptive draft EU censorship regulation in the name of privacy.
The 2012 Bilderberg meeting is going to take place at Haifa (Israel) in June 2012. In the country, where a Bilderberg meeting takes place, often a strong geostrategical event happening quite soon afterwards, e. g., at financial crisis at Greece after the Bilderberg conference 2009 at Greece.
Goldman Sachs in a central position for the planned aggressive war ?
Goldman Sachs is involved in Bilderberg and belongs to the founding corporate members of the CFR. In addition to that, Goldman Sachs has rapidly taken unpredented power over Europe. Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mario Monti is Prime Minister of Italy, Goldman Sachs lobbyist Papedemos is Prime Minister of Greece. Goldman Sachs already commands the armies of Italy and of Greece and decides, how these two countries vote in the European Council und in the Council of the EU. Mario Monti is not only still an advisor on the pay roll of Goldman Sachs, he is also in the leading circle of Bilderberg. In addition to that, Golman Sachs lobbyist Mario Draghi governs the European Central Bank ECB. And Goldman Sachs lobbyist Jörg Asmussen has been in the German Federal Ministry of Finance and has, at the 01.01.2012, changed into the the directorium of the ECB. How much of the German legal contributions to EFSM, EFSF, and ESM have been influenced by Goldman Sachs? A look at the article „Die Angst der Amerikaner“ of the 03.11.2011 of the Financial Times Deutschland gives the impression, that the main motivation of Goldman Sachs to send its lobbyists into governments, ministries, and the ECB is, to ensure, that Greece and Italy do not go on financial default. For if some specific countries went on default, so the Financial Times Deutschland article, Goldman Sachs would have to pay its giant Credit Default Swaps. The newspaper, unfortunately, does not expose, how large Goldman Sachs is involved in CDS regarding which country. But the control of Goldman Sachs over the governments of Italy and Greece, the control of Goldman Sachs over the amount of money produced in the eurozone, and a significant share of power in Bilderberg are speaking another language.
All the debts Greece has made in recent years to buy arms – just to donate the most powerful and modernest army of all EU member states to Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs already holds control over the EU's possibility to war financing by means of money creation.
And, not to forget , Goldman Sachs now controls, which political conditions the ECB contributes to countries, which get money over the bank enrichment mechanisms like EFSM, EFSF, and soon ESM. And the ESM would have the power to increase its own funds at the cost of the states of the eurozone – in order to dry out the national budgets, not in order to save any country at all. That would force more and more states of the eurozone to either become dependent on ESM loans with IMF like strict political conditions to which the ECB (led by Goldman Sachs) would contribute, or on informal political conditions of the ECB connected to money creation.
Goldman Sachs belongs, at a first glance, to the founding corporate members of the CFR, which have a motif for a world war, with the delusionary aim to stabilize the their power within the financial system. And Goldman Sachs alone has enough power to the the nuclear CFR – if Goldman Sachs wants to preserve the world peace.
the so-called „Anglo-Saxon Mission“ - a plot against the peaceful interests of USA, China, Israel, and Iran
In 2010, a former British soldier reported to the internet medium Avalon Project, that he has been in a clandestine session at London, where people have spoken openly on a so-called „Anglo-Saxon mission“. He reported, that this is focused using a conflict in the Middle East in order to provoke a nuclear war against China, and to use this war for the creation of a kind of world dictatorship.
He refused to tell the medium about his identity or the identities of the other persons at that session, and referred to his oath as a former British soldier. But he said, that he knows some of these people from the „City of London“.
He also said, that much of the current finance crisis is manipulated, and that it is intended to be a part of that mission. This is a strong hint, that the reported clandestine session has taken place within the so-called „City of London“, possibly in a round table or freemazon circles, undermined by certain banks.
Most freemazon circles are peaceful and strategically meaningless, just used by businesspeople to get more influence for one's business career. But some of them are instrumentalized by elitist interests.
The only network we know, which is connected and powerful enough to enable a joint choreography of the financial crisis, of mass manipulation by means of corporate media, and with enough influence to abuse institutions of EU and of NATO, is Bilderberg.
The informer said in the interview, that the time of the crime called „Anglo-Saxon Mission“ would be chosen close to a „geophysical event“. But he did not know, when this event would be.
What needs to be done:
-Stop the draft EU censorship regulation. Show its militarist background.
-Prohibit CFR and ECFR.
-Send thousands of reporters from everywhere on the world to ensure full coverage on the Bilderberg conference at Haifa and on all Bilderberg conferences to follow.
-Demand peace between USA, China, Israel, and Iran, and promote the understanding and confidence building between these countries at all available levels.
-If you are as a prominent person or as a corporation in CFR, ECFR, or Bilderberg, state to the world public, that you do NOT allow these organizations to drag you into that nuclear war affair, and consider leaving these think tanks.
-Democratize the EU.
Our strongest tool to preserve peace AND democracy, are transparency and exposing their lies.
Stopping the EU censorship regulation is crucial for that. Ensuring a majority against that regulation
is the currently biggest contribution the EU Parliament can do for the preservation of peace.
The disconnection between mass media and militarist think tanks should be among the next steps.
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Alles Schall und Rauch – Artikel „Wieso diese Warnungen vor einem Irankrieg ?
Artikel „Iran: Hague halluziniert“ von Hinter der Fichte
Vice President Joe Biden on the connection between Greece support and terrible beauty
the draft EU censorship regulation (pretending to be draft privacy regulation)
considerations of the EU Commission President in June 2010 regarding dictatorship at Greece, Spain, and Portugal, just in case, these countries would reject the EFSF
on the former draft censorship treaty of the German provinces
the discussion paper on the NATO strategy 2010
the NATO strategy 2010 (significantly milder regarding the freedom of the press and regarding Iran)
the ECFR „council“ with the prominent people and lobbyists of the ECFR
the presidium of the EU Convent
magazine Hintergrund with an article on the ECFR
article of Joschka Fischer (ECFR) in the Springer newspaper „Die Welt“
article of Dr. Klaus Brummer (Bertelsmann-Stiftung) „Die Kosten des Nichthandelns“
article of Unser Politikblog on the connection of the zu Guttenbergs, the internet censorship, and the ECFR
article of the Corriere della Serra on Cohn-Bendit and armament exports of German firms to Greece
ZDF interview with Mr. Cohn-Bendit on Libya, uploaded at YouTube at the 09.03.2011 with the title „Daniel Cohn-Bendit rast im ZDF heute-journal aus“.
Green MEP Jan Albrecht's probably uninformed statement in favour of the regulation
the ZDF Fernsehrat (supervision board of the ZDF)
the Iraqi video from 2007 which has been presented in the ZDF as a Syrian one from 2011
KI-TV on the ZDF broadcast http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei_2bk0JQdo&feature=related
the original on Al Arabia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKZbMx79fA
an article of Alles Schall und Rauch showing both links
Zeit arcticle „Ab in die Ecke“
ECFR article „Assad's continued defiance in the face of growing isolation“
ECFR article „Dealing with a post-BRIC Russia“
CFR demands in its own magazine aggressive war against Iran
CFR demands in the newspaper „Die Welt“ aggressive against Iran
CFR corporate members
Daniel Estulin exposes connections between Bilderberg, CFR, and some mass media
Joschka Fischer's (ECFR) position to art. 42 and 43 TEU
Unser Politikblog-Artikel zum EU-Datenschutzverordnungsentwurf
ECFR article „gefangen in Kafkas Schloss ?“ with polemic against the German Constitutional Court
offical statement from Russia (already in sorrow regarding a NATO missile shield)
news from China on the Chinese will to protect Iran
interview of Project Avalon (2010) exposing plans of some non-state actors for a nuclear war against China
official Bilderberg website
Wallstreet Online arcticle on the coming up Bilderberg meeting 2012