Our
thankfulness goes to the constitutional judge Prof. Dr. Johannes
Masing, who had, in an article for the newspaper Sueddeutsche
Zeitung, called for a closer look for an thorough political and
public discussion on the draft EU privacy regulation - and to the
internet newspaper Linkszeitung, which has drawn our attention to his
article. We give grateful to the 16 US secret services including the
Central Intelligenge Agency, which have confirmed in 2011 their
assessment from 2007, that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons
program.We send our respect to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the religious
leader of Iran, for his confirmation, that any striving for nuclear
weapons would be a sin. We are grateful to US secret services
director James R.
Clapper Jr., to CIA director David H. Petraeus, and to US Minister of
Defence Leon E. Panetta, for their public statements, that there is
NO proof at all, that Iran would have any intention to build a
nuclear bomb Our
respect goes to His Excellency, Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, the President
of Iran, who has stated in 2011 towards the United Nations, that
nuclear bombs are the worst weapons against mankind, and that they
have to be completely abolished. Support confidence building and
peace between USA, Iran, Israel, and China. Stop the draft
pretending-to-be EU privacy regulation..Start legal investigations
against CFR and ECFR, to clarify, if these organizations endander the
world peace.
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.
Best regards,
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia
Hassel-Reusing
Links:
Alles Schall und
Rauch – Artikel „Wieso diese Warnungen vor einem Irankrieg ?
http://allesschallundrauch.
blogspot.com/2012/02/wieso-diese-warnungen-vor-einem.html#ixzz1nUYXAnuW
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
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286480/EU-chief-warns-democracy-disappear-Greece-Spain-Portugal.html
on the former
draft censorship treaty of the German provinces
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag
SOPA
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_RogueWebsites.html
the discussion
paper on the NATO strategy 2010
www.nato.int/strategic-concept.expertsreport.pdf
the NATO
strategy 2010 (significantly milder regarding the freedom of the
press and regarding Iran)
www.nato.int/lisbon2010/strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdf
the ECFR
„council“ with the prominent people and lobbyists of the ECFR
http://www.ecfr.eu/content/council/
the presidium of
the EU Convent
http://european-convention.eu.int/praesidium.asp?lang=EN
magazine
Hintergrund with an article on the ECFR
article of
Joschka Fischer (ECFR) in the Springer newspaper „Die Welt“
http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article6070199/EU-Hoechste-Zeit-fuer-eine-Staerkung-der-gemeinsamen-Aussenpolitik.html
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
http://unser-politikblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/das-marchen-um-die-zu-guttenbergs-macht.html
article of the
Corriere della Serra on Cohn-Bendit and armament exports of German
firms to Greece
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2012/febbraio/13/Fregate_sottomarini_caccia_Quelle_pressioni_co_8:120213025.shtmlhttp://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2012/febbraio/13/Fregate_sottomarini_caccia_Quelle_pressioni_co_8:120213025.shtml
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“
http://www.zeit.de/2011/22/Deutschland-Isolation
ECFR article
„Assad's continued defiance in the face of growing isolation“
http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_assads_continued_defiance_in_the_face_of_growing_isolation
ECFR article
„Dealing with a post-BRIC Russia“
http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/dealing_with_a_post_bric_russia
CFR demands in
its own magazine aggressive war against Iran
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran
CFR demands in
the newspaper „Die Welt“ aggressive against Iran
CFR corporate
members
http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html
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
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Hinweis: Nur ein Mitglied dieses Blogs kann Kommentare posten.