Can we get past the limited views about the Bilderberg – it’s just a piece of theatre for those who need a bete noir – the real power does its business before board room meetings and via the usual communication channels, at parties etc.
The significance of someone attending a Bilderberg meeting is that he’s under scrutiny by the PTB, that’s all. It means he’s been “talent” spotted, as Davignon said.
And somehow, by some conjunction of circumstances, he ends up as C of the E or Shadow C of the E? Plus others you could predict, e.g. Cameron. No need to have Millipede there as he’s already a raving Marxist. The bottom line is that such low quality people are running things.
With no discernible talent for the jobs, that they’re protected in these roles is a major statement on the nature of power and how it gets into the wrong hands. And we, powerless, can only write blogposts and look on in dismay.
The motif extends into Common Purpose occupied key roles across the nation, suppressing recovery and misdirecting funds, bringing antagonism to dealings with the public [e.g. wheelie-bin crime]. And still so many continue to support these people and this left-hegemony.
What do you make of this, via Ken Craggs?
As an international collaboration that includes the European Union, USA, China, Japan, India, Russia and other countries (see slide 12) the ‘Internet of Things’ is potentially the greatest threat to the freedom of humanity that our world has ever known. The Internet of Things (IoT) is being developed to locate, track and monitor not only objects, but also every-human, anyplace, anytime. The organisations coordinating IoT development include Auto-ID Labs; the ‘Internet Engineering Task Force’ (IETF); the ‘United Nations International Telecommunications Union’ (ITU); and the ‘World Wide Web Consortium’ (W3C). Wuxi-Sensing in China is leading the IoT international standardization.
The concept of the IoT is that virtually every physical thing in this world can be connected to the Internet. ‘Things’ can feature tiny computers/sensors and when they do so, they are often called smart things. Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) is a technology that allows automatic identification of objects, animals and people by incorporating a small electronic chip on or into the ‘host’. Data is stored on the RFID-chip and can then be “read” by wireless devices called RFID readers.
Everything from individuals, groups, communities, food, products, objects and data can be connected by the IoT. By time we get to 2020, the Wireless World Research Forum (p.6) has predicted that there will be approximately 7 trillion wireless devices. A smart ubiquitous network of communicating sensors that can capture, share, utilize and store data, including personal data and often without consent.
“In 2003, the US Government began the most ambitious Artificial Intelligence program in its history called the ‘Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes’ or CALO”. The CALO project was primarily funded through DARPA and research was mainly conducted at Stanford University (Stanford), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and SRI International (SRI).
The issue is not that this is happening but that so many out there, not into the political blogging and reading, are completely unaware of the extent of it and that there is resistance to or an inuring against any new data on the matter, a blunting of perception if you like. Not to mention slurs on those bringing such things to public attention by the blinkered.
Orwell’s sleepwalking comes to mind, as does his distinction between patriotism and nationalism:
At times like these, it’s worthwhile recalling George Orwell’s distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Orwell wrote the essay “Notes on Nationalism” in 1945, just as the most cataclysmic war in human history was ending in Europe.
“By patriotism,” he wrote, “I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world, but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.”
Nationalism, as Orwell defined it, “is inseparable from the desire for power…. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige…. His thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.” To Orwell, it was “power hunger tempered by self-deception,” a kind of moral insanity.
Presaging his masterpiece “1984,” Orwell was most alarmed by the fervid nationalist’s indifference to reality: “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage—torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians—which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”
The standard attack against those not wishing to see their land disintegrate is that only fascist warmongers support their nation. Orwell puts in perspective just what it is many of us are actually supporting.
What can we do, personally? We write blogposts at our own places, some of us write at organs like OoL, many readers nod in agreement, what have we actually achieved? If we criticize our own people, we’re sent to Coventry, as I’ve been. Among ourselves we’re at odds. Many have just lost interest in the whole thing and escape into other activities.