War On Journalism: Establishment Media Accuses Greenwald of Treason for Reporting On Snowden

Kurt Nimmo


June 24, 2013

On Sunday, NBC Meet the Press anchor David Gregory said investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald “aided and abetted” former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden and asked why he shouldn’t be charged with a crime.

“To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” Gregory asked.

“If you want to embrace that theory, it means that every investigative journalist in the United States who works with their sources, who receives classified information is a criminal, and it’s precisely those theories and precisely that climate that has become so menacing in the United States,” said Greenwald, a former constitutional attorney.

He sent out a tweet after the interview. “Who needs the government to try to criminalize journalism when you have David Gregory to do it?” He then underscored Gregory’s service to the state by writing: “Has David Gregory ever publicly wondered if powerful DC officials should be prosecuted for things like illegal spying & lying to Congress?”

Gregory’s assertion is the latest effort by the establishment to demonize investigative journalism. Prior to his suspicious death, Rolling Stone and Buzzfeed journalist Michael Hastings accused the Obama administration of engaging in a war against the press.

“The Obama administration has clearly declared war on the press,” he told Current TV. “It has declared war on investigative journalism, our sources… I think our only resource to this kind of behavior by the government is to say back to the government we declare war on you and from this point forward we should no longer as the media cooperate in any manner with the government in terms of national security stories. We should withdraw all our cooperation and we should publish everything we know because it is a free press and not a ‘free when the government tells me to do it’ press. We have been way too easy going with these guys, let them get away with this for years. We’ve let them tell us what to print and not print. I say be done with it and we should get together and fire back because no one else is going to defend the press.”

Gregory’s accusation further draws the line between a corporate press acting as an official propaganda tool for the ruling elite and alternative investigative press reporting on aspects of the national security state until recently closely guarded.

Obama’s war on the First Amendment has claimed its first victim with Michael Hastings. Gregory has signaled that the government may soon move against other journalists — both judicially and extrajudicially — as it acts to keep its massive and unconstitutional surveillance grid hidden from the victims and punish journalists who dare report on it.



NSA scandal: Is the CIA involved with Ed Snowden?

by Jon Rappoport


Everyone wants to see a hero.

When that hero emerges from the shadows and says all the right things, and when he exposes a monolithic monster, he’s irresistible.

However, that doesn’t automatically make him who he says he is.

That doesn’t automatically exempt him from doubts.

Because he’s doing the right thing, people quickly make him into a spokesman for their own hopes. If he’s finally blasting a hole in the dark enemy’s fortress, he has to be accepted at face value. He has to be elevated.

When dealing with the intelligence community and their spooks and methods, this can be a mistake. Deception is the currency of that community. Layers of motives and covert ops are business as usual.

In previous articles, I’ve raised a number of specific doubts about Ed Snowden.

Here I want to replay four statements Snowden made and examine them.

When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this [NSA]…over time that awareness of wrongdoing sorts of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem…”

This statement describes Snowden, an analyst working at NSA, chatting regularly to colleagues about his growing doubts over the morality of NSA spying. This is quite hard to believe.

As Steve Kinney, writing at the Centre for Research on Globalisation points out, Snowden would have raised all sorts of red flags about himself.

If he hadn’t been fired outright, he certainly would have come under serious scrutiny, which, at the very least, would have reduced his ability to hack documents out of NSA’s most secret recesses.

And yet, Snowden, an analyst, claims he had access to “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.”


That stretches doubt far beyond the point of credulity.

Both The Guardian and the Washington Post supposedly vetted Snowden carefully. I’d really like to see the results of that vetting.

Rosters of everyone working at the NSA [and] the entire intelligence community…” That’s untold thousands of people. That’s referring to many separate agencies.

Snowden doesn’t stop there. He maintains the security of NSA is not just a sieve, it’s also thousands of separate hunting parties, undertaken at the whim of any analyst:

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere… I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

Sure. NSA just opens the door to their own analysts, who can, on their own hook, launch spying episodes on anyone in the US. Boom. No operational plans, no coordination. A free-for-all.

Hey, dig this. Nancy Pelosi was just talking to her hairdresser. I’m going to follow up on her. Think I’ll spy on Nancy and her husband, see what they’re up to. I’ll file reports as I go along…”

A guy at Los Alamos just wrote to his boss about a new weapons system. Want to see what they’re planning?”

Finally, Snowden claimed he could “shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention.”

Not just spy on everybody in the US. Snowden asserts he could do that. But he could also make the entire spying apparatus of NSA (and even all other intelligence agencies?) go dark with a few hours of work—and he’d evade notice of his NSA bosses as he performed this herculean task.

No. Ridiculous. The very first thing an agency like NSA does is set up a labyrinth to prevent itself from being taken down.

Consider these four Snowden statements together, back up and think. These are propositions that cast the man into a deep pit of doubt.

Who is he?

What is his mission? Is that mission his own, or is he working for someone who wants to punch a hole in the NSA?

In another article, I’ve developed the hypothesis that Snowden is still actually operating for his former bosses at the CIA; people at the CIA, long engaged in a turf war with the NSA, are running him in this op.

Snowden didn’t steal anything from NSA. He couldn’t. People at the CIA could and did steal, and they handed him documents to use in his assigned op.

There are other possible explanations. None of them exonerates the NSA or what it is doing. Let’s be clear about that.

But how far would the CIA go in exposing the guts of the NSA? It’s clear that these intelligence agencies overlap in their efforts (crimes). Therefore, the CIA would be satisfied to smear the NSA without exposing too much.

If so, Snowden’s cache of documents won’t “go all the way.”

His documents won’t yield the longed-for holy grail, though Snowden implies he could unwrap it. I’m talking about the entire interlocking system of US and global surveillance and how it isbuilt.

More than piecemeal exposures about PRISM, US hacks of China, and the G20 meeting in England, an account of the technical “architecture,” as John Young of Cryptome rightly calls it, would torpedo the underlying global Surveillance State.

If Snowden can do that, he hasn’t shown it so far. Right now, he’s put his work in the hands of several journalists, who will dole it out on their own inexplicable timetables.

Why make that move? Why hasn’t Snowden put up a dozen sites and laid everything he has on the line? Before those sites could be taken down, the material would have been copied and sent around the world thousands of times.

Snowden has already said he won’t endanger specific spies or operations that could actually prevent terrorists’ missions.

All right. Then give us everything else. Give us the whole shooting match. Let’s see how the watchers have built their edifice.

But so far, Snowden has shown himself to be a different kind of person, someone who makes claims that far exceed his reach.

Read his four statements again. The sub-text is:

I could complain, raise doubts, and criticize NSA openly at work. No one cared. It was a typical office you’d find in any company. It certainly wasn’t a super-controlled environment. Things were so loose, I could access the complete map of the entire NSA network. Names, places, operations. On a whim, any analyst could spy on anyone in the US. If I wanted to, I could shut down all of US intelligence in a few hours. Forget the popular image of NSA as a fortress with dozens of layers of protection. Forget the notion that I’d have to be granted elite privilege to all sorts of secret keys to get into the inner sanctum, or that, while navigating my way in, I’d be setting off alarm bells all over the place. It was a piece of cake.


NSA is an open book. A book written by idiots. It cost a trillion dollars, but anyone could waltz in there and read the whole thing. Use a thumb drive, and you can also walk out with the whole thing.”

If you set aside Snowden’s remarks about his motives, his morality, and his high mission, his explanation falls apart. It makes no sense.

His CIA handlers would now be telling him that. “Hey Ed, tone down the ‘child’s-play’ angle, okay? You’re making it sound too easy. Remember? You’re the ‘whiz kid genius.’ Yeah, we want to smear NSA, but it’s got to be credible. People have to think it took at least some ingenuity to access the most heavily protected data in the world. Get it?”

A common man of the people, serving the greater good, exposing ongoing crimes that threaten the very lifeblood of the Republic? Is Ed Snowden that hero?

Or is he an operator, an agent?

So far, he’s made himself seem like the agent.

Executives at the NSA are well aware of this. Sitting down with their counterparts at the CIA, they’d be getting an earful. CIA people would be saying:

Of course Snowden is our boy. He worked for us in Geneva, and he’s working for us now. We told you, after 9/11, we didn’t like you clowns at NSA throwing all the blame on CIA for the Trade Center attacks. We didn’t like that at all. And in the intervening years, we haven’t liked you cutting us out of the spying game. We warned you. So now we’ve given you a taste of what we can do. We can do more. Either we play ball together, or we’ll put NSA in the dumper. Get it?”

Playing ball together. Harmonization.

A sharp reader has just pointed out to me that this is the op behind the op. The fallout from Snowden will be used as the reason for more and better global sharing of spying and surveillance data.

Separate Surveillance States, which already share mountains of data, will come together to coordinate their efforts in an even tighter Surveillance Planet.

The US NSA won’t be tolerated as the pompous king of the hill any longer. It will have to play well with others.

After all, Globalism means the whole globe.

And “we’re all in this together.”

We” meaning the elites who want to track every move made by every person on Earth, 24/7, in order to predict and control in the new paradise, where the sun rises every day on …compliance.

That’s the takeaway from the Snowden affair. That’s why the secret surveillance/spying at the G20 meeting in England was exposed.

Gentlemen, we’re all rational here at the table. This is ridiculous. We’re all spying on each other. This can’t go on. It’s counterproductive. We want to work together. So let’s do it. We all want the same thing. A planet under control. The way to achieve that goal is to cooperate. We’ll spy on those who need to be spied on: the population of the planet. We’ll do it together. The primary violator of cooperation is that cowboy outfit in America, the NSA. They have to be brought into line. They have to learn they’re only part of the Whole. Agreed?”


Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com


NSA spying includes contents of U.S. phone calls without warrants

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.


June 15, 2013 4:39 PM PDT

NSA Director Keith Alexander says his agency's analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting "civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."

NSA Director Keith Alexander says his agency’s analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting “civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day.”

(Credit: Getty Images)

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

If the NSA wants “to listen to the phone,” an analyst’s decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. “I was rather startled,” said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA’s formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it also suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: “I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.” Owens said he couldn’t comment on what assurances from the Obama administration Nadler was referring to, and said Nadler was unavailable for an interview. (CNET had contacted Nadler for comment on Friday.)

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, being able to listen to phone calls would mean the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

Nadler’s initial statement appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii “wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president.”

There are serious “constitutional problems” with this approach, said Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. “It epitomizes the problem of secret laws.”

The NSA declined to comment to CNET. (This is unrelated to the disclosure that the NSA is currently collecting records of the metadata of all domestic Verizon calls, but not the actual contents of the conversations.)

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a statement on Sunday saying: “The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress.” Clapper’s statement did not elaborate, however, on what “proper” authorization would be. Some reports have suggested that permission from a “shift supervisor” would also be required.

The Washington Post disclosed Saturday that the existence of a top-secret NSA program called NUCLEON, which “intercepts telephone calls and routes the spoken words” to a database. Top intelligence officials in the Obama administration, the Post said, “have resolutely refused to offer an estimate of the number of Americans whose calls or e-mails have thus made their way into content databases such as ­NUCLEON.”

A portion of the NSA's mammoth data center in Bluffdale, Utah, scheduled to open this fall.

A portion of the NSA’s mammoth data center in Bluffdale, Utah, scheduled to open this fall.

(Credit: Getty Images)

Earlier reports have indicated that the NSA has the ability to record nearly all domestic and international phone calls — in case an analyst needed to access the recordings in the future. A Wired magazine article last year disclosed that the NSA has established “listening posts” that allow the agency to collect and sift through billions of phone calls through a massive new data center in Utah, “whether they originate within the country or overseas.” That includes not just metadata, but also the contents of the communications.

William Binney, a former NSA technical director who helped to modernize the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network, told the Daily Caller this week that the NSA records the phone calls of 500,000 to 1 million people who are on its so-called target list, and perhaps even more. “They look through these phone numbers and they target those and that’s what they record,” Binney said.

Brewster Kahle, a computer engineer who founded the Internet Archive, has vast experience storing large amounts of data. He created a spreadsheet this week estimating that the cost to store all domestic phone calls a year in cloud storage for data-mining purposes would be about $27 million per year, not counting the cost of extra security for a top-secret program and security clearances for the people involved.

NSA’s annual budget is classified but is estimated to be around $10 billion.

Documents that came to light in an EFF lawsuit provide some insight into how the spy agency vacuums up data from telecommunications companies. Mark Klein, who worked as an AT&T technician for over 22 years, disclosed in 2006 (PDF) that he witnessed domestic voice and Internet traffic being surreptitiously “diverted” through a “splitter cabinet” to secure room 641A in one of the company’s San Francisco facilities. The room was accessible only to NSA-cleared technicians.

AT&T and other telecommunications companies that allow the NSA to tap into their fiber links receive absolute immunity from civil liability or criminal prosecution, thanks to a law that Congress enacted in 2008 and renewed in 2012. It’s a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act.

That law says surveillance may be authorized by the attorney general and director of national intelligence without prior approval by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as long as minimization requirements and general procedures blessed by the court are followed.

A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA “may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.” A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically — on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to “target” a specific American citizen.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, an attorney and member of the House Judiciary committee, who said he was "startled" to learn that NSA analysts could eavesdrop on domestic calls without court authorization.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, an attorney and member of the House Judiciary committee, who said he was “startled” to learn that NSA analysts could eavesdrop on domestic calls without court authorization.

(Credit: Getty Images)

Rep. Nadler’s statement that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on June 13 that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek “a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.”

Is information about that procedure “classified in any way?” Nadler asked.

“I don’t think so,” Mueller replied.

“Then I can say the following,” Nadler said. “We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that…In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there’s a conflict.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, separately acknowledged that the agency’s analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), the head of the House Intelligence committee, told CNN on Sunday that the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls” or monitoring their e-mails, and any statements to the contrary are “misinformation.” It would be “illegal” for the NSA to do that, Rogers said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence committee, acknowledged this week that NSA analysts have the ability to access the "content of a call."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence committee, acknowledged this week that NSA analysts have the ability to access the “content of a call.”

(Credit: Getty Images)

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell indicated during a House Intelligence hearing in 2007 that the NSA’s surveillance process involves “billions” of bulk communications being intercepted, analyzed, and incorporated into a database.

They can be accessed by an analyst who’s part of the NSA’s “workforce of thousands of people” who are “trained” annually in minimization procedures, he said. (McConnell, who had previously worked as the director of the NSA, is now vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden’s former employer.)

If it were “a U.S. person inside the United States, now that would stimulate the system to get a warrant,” McConnell told the committee. “And that is how the process would work. Now, if you have foreign intelligence data, you publish it [inside the federal government]. Because it has foreign intelligence value.”

McConnell said during a separate congressional appearance around the same time that he believed the president had the constitutional authority, no matter what the law actually says, to order domestic spying without warrants.

Former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente told CNN last month that, in national security investigations, the bureau can access records of a previously made telephone call. “All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not,” he said. Clemente added in an appearance the next day that, thanks to the “intelligence community” — an apparent reference to the NSA — “there’s a way to look at digital communications in the past.”

NSA Director Keith Alexander said on June 12 that his agency’s analysts abide by the law: “They do this lawfully. They take compliance oversight, protecting civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day.”

But that’s not always the case. A New York Times article in 2009 revealed the NSA engaged in significant and systemic “overcollection” of Americans’ domestic communications that alarmed intelligence officials. The Justice Department said in a statement at the time that it “took comprehensive steps to correct the situation and bring the program into compliance” with the law.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, says he was surprised to see the 2008 FISA Amendments Act be used to vacuum up information on American citizens. “Everyone who voted for the statute thought it was about international communications,” he said.

Updated 6/16 at 11:15 a.m. PT The original headline when the story was published on Saturday was “NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants,” which was changed to “NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls,” to better match the story. The first paragraph was changed to add attribution to Rep. Nadler. Also added was an additional statement that the congressman’s aide sent this morning, an excerpt from a Washington Post story on NSA phone call content surveillance that appeared Saturday, and remarks that Rep. Rogers made on CNN this morning. Updated 6/16 at 10:45 p.m. PT We added one paragraph with a statement provided by DNI James Clapper.]



Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying

The Secret War of Gen. Keith Alexander, NSA Director

NC Republicans Ignore Tillis and McCrory, Say No to Tolls

Joe Marusak



Posted: Monday, Jun. 10, 2013

Opponents of planned Interstate 77 toll lanes are celebrating after the N.C. Republican Party added language opposing state highway tolls to its 2013-14 party platform.

The party’s executive committee voted overwhelmingly against tolls Sunday on the final day of the state Republican convention at the Charlotte Convention Center. The vote represented a defeat for Speaker of the House Thom Tillis, R-Cornelius, who spoke in favor of tolls, according to several party delegates .

Tillis blocked a separate vote by the executive committee later Sunday on an anti-toll-lanes resolution. He left the meeting room with several other committee members, so the committee lacked a quorum to conduct the vote, delegates told the Observer.

But the lack of a vote didn’t affect the anti-toll lane amendment the committee adopted earlier, executive committee member Adam Love of Charlotte said. The resolution was intended merely to add emphasis to the committee’s earlier vote in favor of the anti-toll-lane amendment to the party’s platform, he said.

Tillis and his spokesman, Jordan Shaw, couldn’t be reached on Monday.

Love introduced the resolution on behalf of Vallee Bubak of Davidson and Sharon Hudson of Huntersville, who were convention delegates but not members of the executive committee. Bubak volunteers with the statewide citizens group Toll Free NC. The group grew out of Widen I 77, the Lake Norman-area citizens group that opposes tolling I-77.

“The party is very divided on this,” Love said of toll lanes. “There’s a lot of grassroots opposition to it.”

“My primary opposition is I don’t believe double taxation is a Republican value, (or) a conservative value,” Love said, adding that residents already pay a gasoline tax for roads.

“And no one’s talking about repealing the fuel tax,” he said.

Bubak said Toll Free NC believes tax money should be spent more efficiently and I-77 should rank higher on the list of road expansions.

“North Carolina does not need to buy into the toll lane agenda that is being pushed by private tolling consultants and developers seeking their own gain at the public’s expense,” she said. The state Department of Transportation intends to hire a contractor in August to finance, design, build and operate I-77 toll lanes from Brookshire Freeway in Charlotte to Exit 36 in Mooresville. Construction is scheduled to begin in summer 2014, with some segments opening in 2016. The contract would be good for 50 years so the contractor could recoup the investment.

The project calls for adding two toll lanes on northbound and southbound I-77 between Brookshire Freeway and Exit 28 in Cornelius. One toll lane would continue in each direction from Exit 28 to Exit 36 (N.C. 150).

State officials have said toll rates would vary depending on congestion and that no toll rate has been established.

On May 22, the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization voted unanimously to amend the agency’s current and long-range transportation plans to include the $550 million project. The agency prioritizes Charlotte-area road needs for the state.

The vote meant the state will now move forward with the project. The only way the project could be stopped is if the General Assembly steps in and votes to reverse its 2012 approval.

Now that the state Republican Party has opposed tolls, Bubak said, she hopes the Republican-led state Senate will reject House Bill 267, which authorizes HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes on I-77 and other N.C. highways.

“Costly and lengthy 50-plus year contracts with private toll companies defy common sense, good government and sound fiscal policy,” she said.


Tillis Walks Out on Party Faithful Over Tolls

Posted on June 9, 2013 by Kurt Naas


At this weekend’s North Carolina GOP convention, some Widen I-77 supporters introduced an amendment to the party platform and a resolution opposing toll lanes. What happened over the course of the last couple of days was nothing short of high political theater.  First some background.

The current GOP platform states:

We oppose government-sanctioned tracking of drivers to enforce occupancy rates on our highways.

This is squarely in opposition to the proposed HOT lane scheme, which requires vehicles with fewer than three occupants to pay a toll.  Even so, we wanted the GOP to be more emphatic on their stance regarding toll lanes.  We proposed an additional plank in the platform:

We oppose any plans for or legislation in favor of HOT Lanes.

The entire platform was not adopted during the business session on Friday, and they did not get to that part of the business Saturday.  So it was left to the Executive Committee meeting on Sunday to get the plank approved.

I am pleased to report, due to the efforts of some of our incredible volunteers, and despite powerful opposition, the plank was approved.  This is a tremendous development as we take our fight to Raleigh because, as one party official put it, “the amendment to the platform is much stronger than the resolution. The platform is a much higher order document which should guide how the party acts. So you [the toll opponents] actually achieved a huge victory.”

To put an exclamation point on this we introduced a Resolution Concerning HOT Lanes in North Carolina.

We passed out the required 1000 copies on Friday and Saturday, but were unable to present it from the floor Friday because the meeting was closed due to lack of a quorum.  On Saturday the meeting ended before resolutions were considered.

That left Sunday when the Executive Committee met. After a long and complicated process we were able to pass out copies of the resolution and it was proposed by a committee member.

A “quorum call” was immediately made.  This procedure is sometimes used when someone does not want to debate/discuss the topic ahead.  If there is no quorum, the subject cannot be addressed.  With the doors locked and the quorum count complete, a quorum was indeed established… by a single person over the required number.

Thom Tillis led off the debate against our resolution, saying HOT Lanes are not planned to go across our state.

This is not true.  North Carolina statute G.S. 136‑89.183(a)(2)a authorizes the North Carolina Turnpike Authority to build eight turnpike (toll) projects across the state. Tillis have known this because this past Tuesday he signed an amendment, HB 10, to that very law. (HB 10 allows further expansion of the Triangle Expressway, currently NC’s only toll road.) In the narrowest legal sense, a “toll road” is not the same as a “toll lane,” but surely the Party Faithful assumed the Speaker was not resorting to a lawyerly parsing of words when addressing his own folks.

Tillis also mentioned we should work through our local towns and governing boards to stop toll lanes. But time and again our local leaders have said either it’s an NCDOT problem or a state issue.  Indeed, the impact of Tillis’ words can be found in Cornelius Mayor Lynette Rinker’s support for toll lanes.  After a meeting with Tillis she echoed his words saying HOT lanes are “our one shot to get this done. This is it. That was underscored with bold type and exclamation points.”  Rinker, you may recall, cast the deciding vote for Cornelius in favor of HOT lanes.

Suffice it to say our friends were not swayed by Tillis’ rhetoric.

Party Chairman Robin Hayes then spoke against our resolution, saying we should not comment regarding items currently under consideration by the legislature. We think the opposite is true. The party should make absolutely clear where it stands on pending legislation.

Again our friends were not swayed.  In fact, after Tillis and Hayes spoke eight people had lined up at the mic to speak in favor of our resolution.  None had stood up to oppose.

What happened next can only be described as shocking.  When it became obvious the resolution could very well pass, Tillis got up and spoke with several people along his aisle.

And then he walked out of the meeting.

A few people followed in tow.  Without a quorum no further party business could be conducted, and the meeting abruptly ended.

Remember, this was not a group of hecklers or even disinterested middle schoolers he walked out on. This was the Executive Committee of the NC Republican Party, the Most Faithful of the Faithful.  The Establishment witnessed the bizarre spectacle of the Establishment Candidate walking out on the Establishment.

Tillis’ behavior is especially puzzling in light his recent calls for party unity, both on Saturday and at his own district’s convention.

What we witnessed today was what Widen I-77 has long suspected: Tillis not only favors I-77 toll lanes, but is willing to go to the mat to make sure we’re stuck with them.  He wants to drop a 50 year, half-billion dollar burden on his constituency.

Why this is we can only speculate, but for now Tillis faces a ticklish question: what does an establishment candidate do when the establishment disagrees with him?

Thus far the answer appears to be: avoid the question.

The Separation of Education and State

by Jacob G. Hornberger

January 1, 2006

Americans, like most people around the world, have become so accustomed to the role that government plays in educating children that the idea of separating education from the state usually comes as a complete shock to them. While everyone is aware of the ever-growing problems associated with public schooling, the answer for most people is the standard one: “The system needs reform.” Yet decade after decade, as reforms are implemented, new bond issues passed, new schools built, and new schoolteachers hired, the problems remain, only to be addressed with the same answer: “The system needs reform.” And since most people attended public schools, the thought of bringing an end to the very system to which they attribute their own success is, well, shocking.But why not reject all the reforms and instead raise our vision to a higher level? Why not end all government involvement in education, just as our American ancestors ended all government involvement in religion? Aren’t the arguments for separating church and state the same, in principle, for separating education and state?What I am suggesting is amendments to the 50 state constitutions that would read, “No law shall be passed respecting the establishment of education or abridging the free exercise there-of.” (The same type of amendment could be added to the federal constitution, but this discussion will be limited to ending state government involvement in education.)What would be the practical consequences of such an amendment? The same consequences that accompanied freedom of religion. Just as we don’t have federal subsidies of religion, or public (i.e., government) churching, or state-licensed private churches, or state-approved home-religious education, there would be no more public schooling, no more state-licensed private schools, and no more state-approved home education. Education, like religion, would be left entirely to the free market, where families would have the same sovereignty and independence with respect to the education of their children as they have with respect to religion.
Socialism and its consequences
Why has public schooling been riddled with so many problems? The answer is that public schooling is an absolutely perfect model of socialism and central planning. The entire system is based on the same top-down, command-and-control system on which the military is based, with political and bureaucratic committees planning the educational decisions of multitudes of children under their jurisdiction. Participation is mandated, with criminal penalties imposed on recalcitrant parents. Funding is also based on coercion, with taxes taking from everyone — even those who don’t have children — to fund the schooling of those who are sent into the system.Nearly everyone knows that socialism produces shoddy products and services. So why should anyone be surprised that public schooling does so as well?

Is the situation any different in private schools or home-schooling? It has to be, if for no other reason than that the child is not under the direct supervision and control of a government employee who is filling his mind with government-approved doctrines. But the situation is still far from ideal, given that the state, through licensing of schools and certification of home-schooling curricula and results, still wields ultimate control over the education of everyone’s children.

What is amazing is that after so many years of government involvement in education, with all its dismal results, so few people ask basic and fundamental questions about the education of their children, such as: Why shouldn’t families have the same sovereign and independent control over the education of their children as they have over religious matters? Given that the free market produces the best of everything and socialism produces the worst of everything, why are people willing to submit their children to a second-rate product in an area as important as education? Why should providing education to people be considered a legitimate function of government?

What is also fascinating is that most parents hardly pay any mind to the potential damage that educational socialism wreaks on the mind and life of a child, especially after 12 continuous years of mandatory participation in such a system. All that seems to matter is that parents have a “safe” state-run place to park their children every day for 12 years, a place in which they will supposedly be taught the basics of a good education. Some parents have even embraced the state’s suggestion that resistance to such a system by their children reflects dysfunctional conduct that can be remedied only by state-administered drugs (e.g., Ritalin), ignoring the distinct possibility that such resistance is instead a very healthy and normal reaction to a dysfunctional socialist educational system.

Why are people so unwilling to look at such potential damage to the mental well-being of their children? Because they operate under the assumption that, despite its many problems, public schooling can be relied on to educate their children. After all, the argument goes, if it was good enough for parents, it’s good enough for their children, ignoring the quite obvious point that the state’s position is that generation after generation of public-school graduates cannot be trusted with making educational decisions for their family because they lack the competence to do so.
The methodology of education

The teaching methodology that characterizes public schools (as well as many licensed private schools) is one that is based on cramming and memorizing. Education is viewed as a process by which information is fed into the minds of the students, who are then expected to memorize and regurgitate the information on tests that are given to judge whether the student has become “educated.” Students are then judged by a grading system that informs them whether they are “A”-, “B”-, “C”-, or “D”-level students.

Permit me to share with you a bit of my personal life to show how different education and education methodology are in a free market. Like most adults, I have had occasion to take educational courses simply “for the fun of it.” For example, I have taken ballroom dance classes as well as foreign-language classes here in the D.C. area. The difference between those classes and public schooling is night and day.

My dance and language classes have been composed of people of all ages, including high-school students. In a beginner class, everyone pretty much starts out as a complete novice. Over an 8-week course, however, everything starts to change. Some people study harder than others. Some practice what they’re learning while others just show up to class every week. Some people excel much more quickly than the others. Sometimes people skip class, returning the following week. No one is given mandatory homework but everyone seems to know that practice is key to getting better. Everyone has a very enjoyable time even though the sessions can be tiring. Whenever a teacher asks whether people mind if he goes over the allotted time, no one objects and most stay to take advantage of the “free” teaching.

At the end of the course, everyone is at a different skill level, but such a determination is entirely subjective because no test or final exam is given. The decision to move to the next level is entirely up to the student. Many decide to repeat the beginner level and others immediately move up to the next level of difficulty. No student is ever criticized or demeaned for having an insufficient skill level but usually figures out for himself that he might be in “over his head” at a higher level and voluntarily decides to stay at a lower level. No one is “graded.”

The teachers treat everyone — even the worst dancers and linguists — courteously and considerately. In all the private classes I have taken, I have never heard an instructor insult or abuse a student for having poor dance skills or not speaking the foreign language well.

In this type of educational system, one of the big differences is that the customer is paying the school directly for his education, unlike the public-school system which relies on taxes from everyone, including people who don’t even have children. Thus, like any business that strives to survive and prosper, the private education company must be nice to its customers, especially because satisfied customers can bring in other customers.

I should also mention, however, that not all the dance and language courses are provided by for-profit companies. Some are provided by nonprofit educational foundations. In fact, one nonprofit dance studio offers students free lessons in return for helping with dance classes.

One of the crucial differences concerns the mindsets and attitudes among the students. In the private classes, students are engaged in a seeking process rather than being subjected to a cramming process. That is, they are there because they want to be, because they are interested in the subject, and because they want to learn that subject. They (or their parents) are paying for it directly. Therefore, they listen intently, soaking up every word the instructor speaks.

Most important, the course is fun for everyone, even those who clearly lack the skills of other students. Everyone enjoys himself primarily because he has chosen to be there to learn something that he wants to learn.

Did I mention that no one cares that everyone is of a different age in such classes, even though the ages range from the teens to the 70s?

That’s how a free-market educational system works. The sovereignty is with the consumer, and businesses pop up in response to their wants and interests, serving them and, in the process, bettering their own economic lot in life.

While it is impossible to predict the marvels of a free-market educational system that would arise from the separation of education and state, these types of adult-education classes give us a hint of how a free market in education would work for children. No longer would children lose their natural sense of awe and wonder that the regimentation of state schooling slowly but inevitably grinds out of them. Instead, that sense of awe and wonder and love of learning that they have to age 6, when they enter the public-school system, would continue to be nurtured and cultivated as parents and children worked together to figure out which educational vehicles would be best suited for them at their different stages of growth. My hunch is that in a free-market educational system, children would continue to badger their parents with “Why? Why? Why?” throughout their entire pre-teen and teenage years.

Finally, let’s examine the funding mechanism for public schooling — the taxation imposed on everyone to fund the schooling of those who have children. Where is the morality of such a system? That is, under what moral authority does the state take one person’s money and give it to another person, even to fund the education of his children? We wouldn’t do that to help a person attend a church, would we? To put it another way, why shouldn’t people be free to keep their own income and decide what to do with it?

“But people wouldn’t educate their children if they weren’t forced to.” Balderdash! But if that’s true then what better argument to rid ourselves immediately of public schools, given that that’s the type of parent that public schooling has produced? The fact is that the parent who doesn’t care about the education of his children is a rarity. The problem is that everyone has become so accustomed to the “one size fits all” public-schooling system, they have a difficult time accepting the idea that families should be free to fashion their own particular educational plans for each of their children. In other words, we need to develop the same degree of tolerance in education that we have developed in how people raise their families generally, including in religious matters.

One of the finest gifts that the American people could bequeath to their children and to the world would be a free-market educational system. Just as our ancestors benefited themselves and future generations by separating church and state, Americans today should follow that path of liberty by separating education and state.

This article originally appeared in the January 2006 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.



Public Education Is Going Down

De-worshipping Public Education


The 10 Planks of Marx’ Communist Manifesto

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

Exposing The Annual Bilderberg Meeting

Jurriaan Maessen


May 27, 2013

As the stuffed dolls of mainstream media will expectedly persist in their silent obedience in all things Bilderberg, the hearts of activists and bloggers alike are again beating the drums of desperation- signaling with bells, horns, trumpets, or whatever instrument is needed to incinerate the dreaded silence that has hung heavy on journalism for many-a-decade. O there’s plenty of chatter swelling up into the airwaves about a range of non-issues and trifles to clot up the ear, usually put out by a particular type of male or female automaton screeching through the TV-screen on a balanced dose of Prozac and amphetamines.

In leading mankind further into a Faraday’s cage of disinformation the establishment media has accomplished a few things. The most important one of which is the discrediting of their own reporting- or non-reporting-, as they continue to collectively gloss over the event, subsequently digging a deep and terrible hole for themselves from which, in the end, there is no climbing out. It’s a case of professional self-mutilation really- a lucid, self- imposed state of comatose slumber that serves to transfix the populace on the disinformation-units coming straight out of the Bilderberg machine. The machine is still spitting out the packages, but now the assembly line is starting to fail at distributing them.

The annual tradition prescribes that the Anglo-American establishment will gather around its favorite deity from June 6 to June 9 in England’s green and pleasant land. Right there, in the seclusion of deep woodland shade, the participants will be busy working out in more detail how to further bankrupt the West in order to “equalize” world power under Agenda 21- and all of these deliberations occur in a most relaxing atmosphere it must seem, as if among friends. Investigators, activists and bloggers are of course now jumping into the gap left vacant by migrating “journalists” over the course of more than half a century. Is say “migrating”, but one cannot really migrate from somwhere one has never been. Regardless, in order to somehow break the spell of silence placed on Prince Bernhard’s baby by successive generations of globalist-controlled media outlets, it seems the “alternative” media are now starting to crack this solid shell of secrecy surrounding Bilderberg. The beginning of a beginning. Unfortunately the Chatham House Rulebook is a nut not easily cracked. It requires on our part creative mad inventiveness and bold adventurism to break these Rules by which Bilderberg participants are required to hold their tongue.

What is Bilderberg? An unelected, mostly unregistred “steering committee” summon a great many folk to them every single year for three days. The summoners consist of top-level bankers and aristocratic misfits. The summoned consist of a vareity of elected officials, swarms of them, drifting in secret to a luxurious location somewhere in the North-West. Imagine this: these officials are all rotating to what Bilderberg itself desribes as a “private meeting”, but they do so in their capacity of influence- and they’re sworn to shut up at that! In addition, the entire mainstream media apparatus vowing a solemn vow of silence. Not only is something rotten in the state of Denmark, something is stinking to high heaven in the state of Denmark. But, as with all things mechanical, an apparatus may be put to a halt by a single bolt.

For any interested and adventurous scoundrel there may still be vacancies at the upcoming Bilderberg conference. So, if you live somewhere- anywhere in the vicinity of the Grove Hotel and you are in need of a quick buck, perhaps you may still attempt to temporarily join the present hotel staff- who will no doubt welcome an extra hand in what is sure to be New World Order busy season at the hotel venue. The Grove website says: “We are committed to exceeding our guests’ expectations and, to do that, we need exceptional people.” Indeed. Exceptional people are in rich supply within the alternative media. If you are of a somewhat believable age and in the possession of some inconspicuous recording equipment, it’s definitely the job for you. Besides, the Grove appears to be a generous employer, promising future staff members “discounted accommodation for yourself, friends and family; sabbaticals and career breaks for long service employees; staff accommodation near The Grove; complimentary staff canteen as well as access to our hotel gym”.

If you are of believable age and in the possession of some inconspicuous recording equipment, it’s definitely the job for you. Although no mention is made on the starting wage for fresh staff members (in any case you’ll be paid in devalued fiat money), take into account that you’ll be recording some interesting stuff for posterity, making you the prime candidate for a star on the alternative media’s walk of fame. What are you waiting for? Perhaps there are still jobs available at the most bizarre of elite gatherings and- again- don’t forget to bring a camera or other recording device (preferably small sized and well-camouflaged) with plenty of back-up equipment as well as a secure line with the outside world in case your cover is blown by Bilderberg security.

If you’re selected on such short notice to assist the staff, you will enter the premises on what David Gergen calls “an understanding”. It will be a great example of a grassroots intelligence operation, for once not in the service of the new world order’s one percent, but as a representative of the uninvited 99 percent kept well outside the deliberations taking place. As a member of the staff you may be assigned to do such things as valet parking, baggage handling, waiting on transnationalists in the main dining area. It allows for a lover of truth to infiltrate the elite confab with a relatively simple audiovisual device. And besides, it’s not without historical precedent. It’s not the first time an employee blew the whistle on the strange dealings of the power elite. Five years after Alex Jones’ successful infiltration of the Bohemian Grove in the year 2000, a former Bohemian Grove employee named “Kyle” shot over five hours of video with a pen camera. He, like Alex Jones, was able to smuggle it out of the encampment for all the world to see. But his infiltration was not easily accomplished. While “Kyle” was working in the area, he was approached many times by older Grove participants who wanted to know if he “slept around”. It has been widely reported that Bohemian Grove members regularly fly in male and female prostitutes to prey upon in between seminars. Let this be a warning to anyone considering a last minute position at the Grove Hotel for infiltration purposes. You may put yourself in a position where you’ll be fighting off elderly globalists begging for certain “favors”.

Anyone not willing to put themselves in harm’s way (to hell with posterity!) will want to consider outsourcing any spying activities to technological gadgets such as drones the size of mosquitoes swarming the Hotel with the specific aim of irritating the hell out of Henry Kissinger. How’s that? One might deploy mechanical pigeons perhaps, to dump excrement on Shell’s entire board of directors. What the hell: we could enlist some grim-looking smurfs to spy out the proceedings at this year’s confab. They could enter the Hotel through the sewer at the risk of exiting the toilet inside at the exact moment David Rockefeller is taking a dump.

But seriously. Either an infiltrator is sent, or the judicial system in all concerned nations begin an investigation into the participation of elected officials in an unaccountable and nontransparent summit. You call it.

Every year the same question is posed, What is Bilderberg really?

Alexander Benesch



“21st century: Biotech, nanotech, fusion and fission and m-theory. And that was just the first decade. We can create cybernetic individuals who – in just a few short years – will be completely indistinguishable from us. Which leads to an obvious conclusion:  We are the gods now. Those of you who know me, you will be aware by now that my ambition is unlimited. you know that I will settle for nothing short of greatness or I will die trying.”

Fictional super-rich mogul Peter Weyland in a TED Talk promo for the film Prometheus

Every year the same question is posed or answered in different ways: What is Bilderberg really? What is it at its core? Here is the key answer and definition: People incapable of empathy acquiring the literal powers of gods through science.  [Editor’s note – There is only one true God of the Bible – all others “gods” from the ancient Greco Roman world through today are false, they don’t exist.]
The purpose of Google and the NSA is to make the superclass all-knowing, all-seeing and to enable them to predict the future. The drone program is about becoming all-seeing and to become like the god Zeus, sending bolts of lightning at mortals you want to take out of existence.Weather modification, chemtrailing and ionospheric manipulation through systems like Haarp is not just another weapon in the military’s toolkit.

It is about making the weather like a god would do, sending floods and droughts and storms to kill mortals. Genetic engineering and the wider field of synthetic biology is not primarily about making money to buy more vintage sports cars from the 1960s, it is about becoming the creator of life.

Implantable neuro-microchips are about speaking directly into peoples minds, not increasing paper wealth. Transhumanism and gene therapy are about immortality. Research into computer simulations of the human brain are supposed to create controlled matrix-like environments to live out fantasies. Do you desire to squash entire cities like Godzilla from the movies? You can. Want to be Satan and fry people like in old artists renditions? You can. And in case the gene therapy does not yield the desired results you can live forever in the computer simulation.

Money is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Even the biggest fortunes cannot truly satisfy an educated psychpath on a cult mission. He is seeking godhood, not just castles  and limousines. The globalist power clans have classic narcissist personalities. There is the true self, and then there is the fantasy self image of the narcissist. Between these two there is a gap, the so-called grandiosity gap. This gap has to be constantly managed. It must not become too big, otherwise the fantasy can collapse and the person becomes unstable, even suicidal. Obviously they cannot fully perceive themselves as full gods just yet. They get older and weaker, they make mistakes, they have to put in tremendous effort and break a sweat.

The real “god delusion”

The superclass of people comes up with all sorts of bemusing and pathetic explanations about how they are substitute gods: They claim to be avatars, luciferian spirits in a mortal hull. Fallen divine bloodlines, contaminated over the ages with common human DNA, seeking to become full gods again in later generations through selective breeding, magic rituals and technology.

There are many elegant ways for the mentally ill to claim godhood  without actually having godlike powers. Adolf Hitler was a clear example of this. Many dramatic quotes people might have seen attributed to him in books and articles, eyewitnesses describing movielike posessions, channelings of entities and annoucing the coming of the aryan Übermensch, the superhuman, are made up. There are not many reliable sources about his private life. Nevertheless he had the same mental illness and was drawn to belief systems which promised magic powers and godhood. His father used to senselessly beat the entire family plus the family dog, sometimes to the point of unconsciousness. After his father’s demise he became a drifter, wasting his time and inheritance trying to become a bigshot. Occultism, gnosticism and germanic mythology influenced him greatly, he believed to be part of the god race.

Psychopaths don’t advertise in the paper that they are looking for fellow psychopaths, they advertise by offering to “improve” you and by seeking out “special people”. The deeper you get in the bigger the promises get. From solving your profane problems over to becoming a magician with special powers to becoming a god.

When World War I was lost and Adolf Hitler was lying in hospital, temporarily blinded by enemy chemical weapons, he completely snapped. He believed more and more that the operas of Wagner were really about him, that he would become the germanic prophet to annouce the aryan messiah. Later in Hitlers career, when he was more successful and powerful, he adapted his fantasy image of himself accordingly. Now he thought of himself as the germanic messiah, not just the prophet.

In past centuries and millenia technology and science was limited. Of course, many sci-fi novellists have claimed otherwise and sold their works of historical fiction as a factual retelling. Yet another example of gnosticism and promising the audience access to magical powers.

Ancient rulers had to develop simple yet effective cult techniques. Today rulers combine this low tech approach with modern high tech. We have been raised in a way that makes us vulnerable to cult mechanisms. People might see through one or more destuctive cults but many of us are still just looking to join a new cult.

The New World Order is too big for a narrow frame

This becomes evident in the discussion of Bilderberg. We see attemps to frame and limit the discussion of it, eliminating all elements that don’t fit into this frame.

There is for example the ideological frame of the hardcore socialists. For them Bilderberg is only the center of capitalism and western dominance. If we only adopted totalitarian socialism and allied ourselves with todays incarnation of the Soviet empire, everything would turn out well and make our dreams come true. The hardcore left will not admit that Bilderberg made socialism and the Soviets and Red China possible. They literally worship Stalin and Mao and Lenin like gods.

The establishment can elegantly counter the leftist condemnations of Bilderberg by releasing books such as David Rothkopf’s “Superclass” or Dr. Ian Richardsons “Bilderberg People: Elite Power and Consensus in World Affairs” to a middle class audience that values productivity and order.

Putin is a virtual clone of the two Bush-Presidents in the US and there also has been massive divergence between the elites of the east and west. The true communists have declared their ideology to be god. The ideology is faultless, impeccable, not even tens of millions murdered under socialism can change that view for them. Ideological enemies are viewed as a disease. They are incapable of logically assessing the faults of their belief system.

Another crippling frame for the discussion of Bilderberg is the mythical one. Some people only value the unknown and the mysterious, because their hopes of becoming magicians and gods are at stake. The true unveiling of a classic, down to earth conspiracy is actually a disappointment to them because it does not leave anything to the mystical imagination. It is like spoiling a movie or a book. They use the discussion of Bilderberg facts as a mere door opener for all kinds of unproven and fantastical claims. At the core is gnosticism again. The argument is this: The elite is so powerful because of magical powers, that is why the decent people need to get into magic and gnosticism too in order to be able to fight them with “white” magic.

The deeper you go down that rabbit hole of mysteries and halucenogenic drugs and lust for magic powers, the more likely you are to become a cult member and change your moral values. No longer is it considered virtuous to fight evil on all fronts, you will actually be convinced that confronting evil, just thinking about the bad things in the world, will magically attract the evil things into existence. Your new moral impetus will be to banish all “negative” thought and strive to conduct magic rituals to send love to the bad guys. Needless to say the hyper aggressive bad guys are laughing their butts off when their opposition has no testosterone anymore, no sense of cause and effect and no natural reactions to the world. The passiveness, hailed as the way towards the light, makes it easier for the psychopaths to to their work. Or it creates new psychopaths who clad themselves in a nice “we are all one”-ideology but who think that evil is supposed to exist in a yin-yang-circle and who think that killing people is a moral act of liberating the souls from their pesky material prisons.

It is easy to discredit the whole Bilderberg topic just by pointing at those who mix facts with their gnostic belief system.

Then we have the racists who frame the Bilderberg discussion by saying it is either a council of jewish power or a distraction from the topic of jewish world dominance. Some people who explain history and current events and the nature of evil through the race googles are simply limited in their view. Others have become cult members. They have adopted an old and thoroughly debunked pseudoscience and they have adopted German gnosticism from the last century. You read certain blogs and websites and you will find literal worship of Hitler, the Nazi-Mysteries that promise the follower to aquire magic powers and ultimately become gods. Of course, the jews have to be killed as part of that crazy ideology. Here is an interesting but little known historical fact: Hitler wanted to kill off Christians as well who would not change their religion into the state envisioned nazified caricature version complete with an aryan Jesus. He just didn’t do that before or during the war because he didn’t have the capacity at the time for yet another huge societal cleansing project. He simply put that off for later.

To anybody who has delved into conspiracy literature and is convinced or unsure of whether or not the jews, and only the jews are the embodiment of evil: Can you or can you not pinpoint exactly where on the DNA of jewish human beings the evil is located, as opposed to non-jewish DNA? If you or the people you follow cannot pinpoint this in a scientific manner, your ideology is useless, dangerous and misleading.

Do not accept made-up substitute pseudo-proof á la “that’s just the way it is because der Führer said so and if you doubt it, you are aiding the enemy and might even be a jewish intellectual.”

Many try to use a flawed empirical line of reasoning: They will rattle off name after name of powerful criminal individuals who are – supposedly – jewish to make their point. The problem with this is that it is a) complex to define what makes a jew and b) all those crimes attributed to jews have existed in all civilizations, all skin colors and religions, even thousands of years back when there were no jews at all. In Israel bureaucrats decide who can legally be defined as jewish. Many religious immigrants to the homeland were shocked to find that they were not eligible for the legal status of a jew because their mothers were not jewish. Historians and doctors clash with each other over what the defining genetic traits are. In every culture we have a documented history of ethnic cleansing, tyranny and central banking schemes. Racial theories are a useless and misleading way to understand the nature of evil and improve the world.

Racists are mainly cult members who want to become like Bilderberg. When the US eugenicists visited the national socialists in Germany in the 1930s, they reported back how shocked they were over these “lower middle class” people that came to power and who claimed to be the master race.

The Bilderbergers are not in the position they’re in because they played fairly on the capitalist field, or because they get help from planet zonk. The russian and chinese oligarchies are not one bit more moral and they will not help you to achieve liberty. If you want to truly improve your life and the world, don’t join the next cult masquerading as an alternative. Combine the fields of psychology, sociology and history among others and learn how to defeat evil for good.