If you don't know who or what the Bilderbergers are and how they relate to our Presidential election, Mitt Romney, the National Review (Rich Lowry & Co.) and world politics, here's a brief primer. Before I start, I will say this is a snapshot view. I haven't studied them in depth. I've heard about them for years but have never dug into the group until today. There is plenty of solid information out there - non-conspiracy theorist sources - on the 'net if you choose to delve more deeply.
In a nutshell, the Bilderberg group was most recently established in 1954. One journalist (Daniel Estulin) claims that it goes back centuries, to the 'Black Monks of Venice'. I haven't delved that deeply but there's a book by him that's available from Amazon and a fairly brief RT News interview with him available on YouTube.
It is a group that has been, for the most part, highly secretive. They hold annual meetings in places that can be locked down and heavily guarded without too much trouble.
Members include bankers, industry leaders, including computer and internet industry leaders, and politicians from around the world. The list is impressive and represents almost every single country with a dime on the planet. These are the richest of the rich, the most powerful of the powerful and I have little doubt that they like the drug of power and wouldn't mind more.
In any case, back to current day and current events.
According to the Guardian newspaper, Romney attended the 2012 Bilderberg meeting when he was running for president.
Obama attended Bilderberg meetings. So did the Bush father (who is a member) and son and, if Bush III had gotten the RNC nod this summer, he would have gone to worship at the feet of these people.
This is a group of people who, based on every opinion I have found across the web - conspiracy theorists to journalists - for all intents and purposes want to control the world. Not necessary rule the world, but at least control it.
This list from Wikipedia is, I suspect, incomplete, but it makes for interesting reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants
They pick our political leaders - Romney was run by the Bilderbergers in 2012. In 2008 it was Hilliary Clinton. Too bad for the Bilderbergers, but her run was subverted by the damned sheeple who decided to go for the 'good-looking articulate black guy' (Joe Biden's words, not mine, thank you). So Hilliary is back now and it's looking like she's a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination no matter what the sheeple want in Bernie.
Aside: Bernie doesn't look or sound all that interested, anyway. Otherwise, why isn't he hitting Hilliary loud and hard on her e-mail mess? Could it be that the non-lovefest meeting between Obie-One and Berns a few weeks ago was a hard and fast warning from a Bilderberg attendee to a wannabe? I suspect that might have been part of it.
This year, the Bilderbergers have got their panties in an historic twist over Trump's insurgency over Bush III. They kicked Bush III to the curb when he couldn't gain traction, and he dropped out of the race. Now they're backing Marco Rubio - the milquetoast little boy with whom they met in 2012.
So what is the interest of these people, this cabal, in US politics? After all, looking at that list, most are from Europe and Asia, right?
Well - as America goes, so goes the world. A while back, we gave the Bilderbergers a glimmer of an idea when they looked at our Constitutional republic.
We have a collection of states which, according to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, have some autonomy - much like the European states. There's an inter-dependency and an independence side-by-side in both places.
What if they could unify the world countries into a single entity? Heck - it was working in America, what if they tried to unify another region in similar fashion? Could it work there?
The EU was the litmus test. Individual laws and constitutions, currencies, politics, and everything else suddenly went by the wayside. They became a union with a new constitution, new laws and legal processes and a new currency. It was a litmus test - could it be done and could it work on a larger scale?
Signs have been more positive than negative that it could work. Except for Greece. That was a wart they missed. But, they pulled out the stops and funded Greece and it's back up on tottery feet. A strong economic wind and it will collapse again but for now, it's standing.
Now the US Treasury - sitting deep in the pockets of the Bilderbergers - is floating the idea of eliminating the $100 bill. They say it's to limit counterfeiting - which is utter nonsense. Nonsense to the point of stinking to high Heaven since anyone who knows even the first thing about counterfeiting knows that the $20 is both the most highly circulated bill and the one most likely to be counterfeited.
The dark side to that proposal is to phase out physical currency. No more bucks or fivers or ten-spots or Benjamins (the $100) that can be folded inside a wallet. Instead, it would all be credit - digits on a computer.
I suspect that Bitcoin was the first attempt at this, but it never caught on. I don't know what other people thought of it, but I hated the idea of giving up my control for supposed convenience. I also wondered about hacking and suspected that it would be far too easy for those who held my money to abscond with it - so I never even looked into it.
Now they're pushing the idea of getting rid of physical money - the cash transactions many of us participate in every day.
Debit cards are one step. Credit cards are another. If they can wrest the physical money from our hands, guess what? They suddenly have absolute control over us.
First, if we want to buy anything, we have to have a piece of plastic to access the money that's in the banks controlled by the Bilderberg group (take a look at the list - all of the world's major banks are represented). What if they don't like us? What if they don't like the way we think or write or talk or vote? What if they don't like us enough that they decline to provide us with that piece of plastic? What would you do if you had money in the bank but no way to get to it?
Second, if they have control of all the money, they can decide what limits to impose on our access to it.
US banks already impose limits on how much you can withdraw at any single time without them filing a report to the Treasury Department. Allegedly, it's to prevent money laundering and drug trafficking, but what if you have a big cash transaction to make - maybe you want to buy a car with cash, or you have something that costs a lot but comes with a deep discount for cash payment. Do you really want the private details of your withdrawal sent to the government? Well, too bad, so sad, that's how it is.
Third, if they have all of the money in digits on a computer someplace, how hard would it be for them to impose negative interest rates? To charge us a percentage rate - that can be changed anytime at their whim - for keeping our money in their bank? It's already being talked about. It's already a law on the books - quietly passed at the G20 meeting a couple of years back when Cypress implemented bail-ins - the confiscation of depositor's money to stabilize the Cyprian economy.
Fourth, how about those bail-ins? Let's say you have worked and saved and penny-pinched your entire life. You're looking forward to retirement and think you have enough put away to do so in reasonable comfort. Suddenly you learn through a notification or sudden shock of showing up to make a withdrawal that the balance you thought you had no longer exists. The bank 'needed' it more than they deemed you do. They bailed it in to pay off debt or cover losses or something else.
Who cares that it was your money? Who cares that you scrimped and saved and lived on pork and beans for forty-plus years so you could retire with peace of mind, travel and do what you want to do. Who cares? The bank doesn't. It's not going to say, 'whoops, sorry. We'll put that back right now... there you go!' That money will be gone. Gone for good just as it was in Cypress when they implemented bail-ins.
So that's the dark side of the Bilderberg group - and Romney with his nasty little-man speech the other day, and the Washington Establishment in the forms of the National Review and the Weekly Standard want to perpetuate the Bilderberger's power. After all, one of the items on the agenda for their 2015 meeting was, surprise surprise, US Elections.
And, here's a tie-in for you: The National Review came out with their despicable hit-pieces against Donald Trump's candidacy. Well, guess what. The founder of the National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr. was a member of the Bilderberg group as reported in the Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada) in June, 1996. Here we are, twenty years later, and the Bilderbergers are back with Romney, Rich Lowry & Co. and other Elitists all coming out against Donald Trump.
It all ties and it's all scary because they're out in the open now, and while they're backing candidates and political rags (National Review, et al.) protesting through front men and women that it's for 'our' good, I think most of us know that 'our' good comes a far distant last place to their good. Bear that in mind when you hit the polls this year - Bernie or Donald who are truly independent. Not Hilliary or Rubio who are in the pockets of these Elitist Elites.
Think about it, do some reading, and have a wonderful day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment