You must admit that there was a mainstream-news blackout concerning the Bilderberg Meeting in Chantilly, Virginia 5 – 8 June 2008.
They kept it hushed up for a number of reasons. They will say that it is to keep the meeting from attracting too many onlookers. Why though does the mass media respect this when that same mass-media doesn't respect anything else? They don't respect people's privacy in general. They are very pushy in general.
The answer is that the orders come from the top: The very top. The richest capitalists in the world run the show. No one but those at the very top even knows who those people are. Their privacy is protected. They don't seek fame. They have what they want: Huge wealth in mammon and therefore huge power and control to go with it. They can make or break whole countries even large and powerful countries. They can turn the money on or off or charge more to rent the money to anyone they choose. They hold the keys to the banks and the financial printing presses. They control the corporations. They control mainstream news, because it is corporately controlled.
Every time you read the bland propaganda of the Bilderberg Group (designed to put you to sleep), just remember David Rockefeller's statement as follows that he made to the owners of the mainstream-media (news) corporations:
We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers [emphasis added] is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.—David Rockefeller (Trilateral Commission founder), at The Bilderberg Group meeting, June 6-9, 1991, Baden-Baden, Germany
However, here's the false propaganda spewed out by the Bilderberg Group about the meeting in Virginia:
Thursday June 5, 8:10 pm ET
Bilderberg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on common problems of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period. The Cold War has now ended. But in practically all respects, there are more, not fewer, common problems - from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment, from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. It is hard to think of any major issue in either Europe or North America whose unilateral solution would not have repercussions for the other. Thus the concept of a European-American forum has not been overtaken by time. The dialogue between these two regions is still - even increasingly - critical.
What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum, is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. In short, Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.
Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-five conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.
There will be no press conference. A list of participants is available by phone request at 703-818-3647 between 9am-5pm EDT June 6-7, 2008.
It doesn't sound at all like a group out for global domination and to do away with the common people's right to decide the form of government and who will lead does it? That's because that press release is a highly polished piece of psyops. It's just more of the hypnotic suggestions you are fed so that you will just nod your head in agreement and look upon anyone who points you to Rockefeller's own words as a conspiracy nut or kook. Isn't it nutty though to ignore Rockefeller's own words? It is weak-minded. Shake it off. Wake up.
You can see how people are conditioned to respond to even the truth. Here's an example I was tipped off about where several youths crucify this website primarily not on content but on design: uselectionatlas. You will also notice that the person who started the thread admitted that I've written things which he finds appealing but then he decides that there is too much "nuttiness" without offering any specifics. Of course, you will also note that their identities are all shielded. It's very easy for people to throw rocks when they hide who they really are. I don't want to throw rocks at them mind you, but what are they up to that they need to hide who they are?
Back to the Bilderberg Group press release, they don't record things for the same reasons that Tony Blair's government regularly didn't keep minutes. Where there's no record, there's less evidence in the mundane sense.
The Bilderberg Group was formed for exactly the reasons David Rockefeller is quoted as having said. "...world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers [emphasis added]." He and his kind do not want the common people out from under the plutocrats who lord it over them and make them serve those plutocrats.
Well, I say to Hell with that. What do you say?
U.S. Corporate Media Blackout On Bilderberg Meeting
Paul Joseph Watson
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Ben Bernanke, Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton amongst a host of other global power brokers have all convened in Chantilly Virginia to secretly discuss the future of the world - yet not one mainstream U.S. corporate media outlet has uttered a single word about the 2008 Bilderberg conference.
Bilderbergers seem to enjoy visiting the U.S. because they can be assured that in the "land of the free," the American "free press" are certain to follow orders and not print even a puff piece about a confab of over 125 of the globe's most influential movers and shakers.
A Google News search on "Bilderberg," which is now in its third day, returns 47 results, all of which consist of reprints from this website and a smattering of other alternative media reports, in addition to a few snippets out of the Netherlands and Turkey.
Compare that to a Google News search about "G8" and you'll get over 4,000 results a month before Bilderberg's sister conference has even begun.
Even if you accept the ludicrous claim of the debunkers - that Bilderberg is a mere "talking shop" that contributes nothing towards actual policy - do you still not think it odd that not one mainstream U.S. press outlet has even mentioned it in passing?
A mere book signing by an ex-politician would generate at least a few headlines, yet we have dozens of CEO's, European and Federal Reserve banking and finance kingpins, Prime Ministers, European royalty, NSA officials, professors from top Universities, NATO and UN officials, oil company chairmen, and foreign policy luminaries meeting behind closed doors and yet not one single U.S. media report! Not one!
Take a look at the list and think how many headlines each of these individuals generates in just one day - some of them can barely pick their nose without it being reported on - yet we have over 125 of them meeting together during the same 3 day period and the silence is deafening!
As oil prices continue to skyrocket wildly out of control towards Bilderberg's stated goal of $200, hitting a whopping $139 a barrel yesterday, the contention that Bilderberg is somehow unworthy of coverage is completely asinine.
On every front, from the timing of the Iraq war to the selection of presidential candidates' running mates in 2004 and 2008, to the economy - Bilderberg sets the agenda and the future pans out exactly as they had planned.
The outright complicity of the corporate media in blackballing Bilderberg coverage reminds us why the elite encounter little hindrance in conspiring in such a secretive and undemocratic manner every single year without facing any substantial public scrutiny.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)