Skip navigation

Tag Archives: bilderberg

Comment: According to the list of Bilderberg attendees, Microsoft’s Craig Mundie and Google’s Eric Schmidt were in attendance. I noticed this comment on the article hosted at Prison Planet:

Next time I need another computer, I’m going with Apple instead. Screw microsoft, their products suck anyway.

I wonder what they’ll say when an Apple bigwig such as Steve Jobs is invited to a future Bilderberg meeting.

But then again, Mundie and Schmidt may be planning out their strategy of Google co-opting the Linux movement to where hardcore Linux users become disenfranchised with Linux and either give up or submit to Microsoft or Apple. Or maybe they are going to do as I predicted a few years ago: stage a cyber false-flag and claim that Linux users were behind the cyberattacks and use that as a pretext to ban Linux wordwide as a terrorist tool.


Nato warns of assassinations, torture, bombings, and rape against patsies in false flag cyber attacks
Michael Smith and Peter Warren June 6, 2010

NATO is considering the use of military force against enemies who launch cyber attacks on its member states.

The move follows a series of Russian-linked hacking against Nato members and warnings from intelligence services of the growing threat from China.

A team of Nato experts led by Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state, has warned that the next attack on a Nato country “may well come down a fibre-optic cable”.

A report by Albright’s group said that a cyber attack on the critical infrastructure of a Nato country could equate to an armed attack, justifying retaliation.

“A large-scale attack on Nato’s command and control systems or energy grids could possibly lead to collective defence measures under article 5,” the experts said.

Article 5 is the cornerstone of the 1949 Nato charter, laying down that “an armed attack” against one or more Nato countries “shall be considered an attack against them all”.

It was the clause in the charter that was invoked following the September 11 attacks to justify the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Nato is now considering how severe the attack would have to be to justify retaliation, what military force could be used and what targets would be attacked.

The organisation’s lawyers say that because the effect of a cyber attack can be similar to an armed assault, there is no need to redraft existing treaties.

Eneken Tikk, a lawyer at Nato’s cyber defence centre in Estonia, said it would be enough to invoke the mutual defence clause “if, for example, a cyber attack on a country’s power networks or critical infrastructure resulted in casualties and destruction comparable to a military attack”.

Nato heads of government are expected to discuss the potential use of military force in response to cyber attacks at a summit in Lisbon in November that will debate the alliance’s future. General Keith Alexander, head of the newly created US cyber command, said last week there was a need for “clear rules of engagement that say what we can stop”.

The concerns follow warnings from intelligence services across Europe that computer-launched attacks from Russia and China are a mounting threat. Russian hackers have been blamed for an attack against Estonia in April and May of 2007 which crippled government, media and banking communications and internet sites.

They also attacked Georgian computer systems during the August 2008 invasion of the country, bringing down air defence networks and telecommunications systems belonging to the president, the government and banks.

Alexander disclosed last week that a 2008 attack on the Pentagon’s systems, believed to have been mounted by the Chinese, successfully broke through into classified areas.

Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee cautioned last year that Chinese-made parts in the BT phone network could be used to bring down systems running the country’s power and food supplies.

Some experts have warned that it is often hard to establish government involvement. Many Russian attacks, for example, have been blamed on the Russian mafia. The Kremlin has consistently refused to sign an international treaty banning internet crime.

On one hand, if the government were to ban high-fructose corn syrup, production of the mercury-containing toxic GMO sweetener would just be moved out of the country. The government would most likely ship the HFCS in for CIA-run food producers who would produce HFCS-containing food to be sold by black-market underground dealers who would then participate with the CIA and the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in “HFCS raids” where people are SWAT-teamed, tasered, and shipped off to glorified concentration camps.

On the other hand, if the government were to tax high-fructose corn syrup, the tax would only benefit the criminal banksters – namely the Rockefellers – who created the obesity epidemic in the first place with all the aspartame and MSG and GMO foods (including HFCS). The tax would be collected by the IRS – the Federal Reserve’s private enforcement arm – who would then assist the Fed in funnelling the stolen money to private offshore banking cartels who own the Fed and the IRS.

Ban HFCS or tax HFCS: Pick your poison.

I know some of the sheeple will call me a shill for the food industry. Just let it be known that the criminal offshore banking cartels co-opted the mainstream food industry long ago. (Indiri Nooyi, chairman/CEO of PepsiCo, is a Bilderberger. George A. David, CEO of Coca-Cola, is a Bilderberger.) Why do you think the CEOs of PepsiCo and Coca-Cola are members of the Bilderberg Group? The banksters own, fund, and control the food industry. Likewise, the same banksters also own, fund, and control the “food police” who helped get trans fat in the food supply before calling for it to be banned (shades of John Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the war spending bill…before I voted against it“) and calls for salt and sugar to be taxed in order to assist their bankster overlords in the planned implosion of the U.S. economy.

If you’re gonna call me a shill for the food industry, then at least call me a shill for the alternative food industry, for which I am. I shill for organic foods. I shill for natural foods. I shill for nutritional foods. I shill for vitamins and minerals. I shill for stevia (and not that toxic Cargill/Merisant fake-stevia crap known respectively as Truvia and PureVia). If you’re gonna call me a shill, then at least get your shill accusations correct.

Ban HFCS to tax HFCS: Pick your poison. So sheeple, what would you rather have: More police-state powers and the continuation of the failed “War on Drugs”, or the planned implosion of the U.S. economy?

Comment: If Beck attacks Sunstein for his animal rights agenda, then the fake-liberal Soros front groups (Media Matters, Think Progress, etc.) will probably use that to put out the usual spin (“Beck is a shill for the meat, fur, and dairy industry”, “Beck wants to murder animals”, “Beck is a shill for the animal slaughterhouses”, etc.) and then use those baseless arguments – together with Beck’s phony conspiracy theorist character – in order to link Alex Jones with the meat, fur and dairy industries”, and then they’ll probably dig up every sound bite where Jones attacks the soybean industry, “taxes on meat”, and “taxes on fast food” and use them out of context to back up their baseless claims. And then they’ll probably dig up Jones’ interview with Center for Consumer Freedom’s David Martosko and use that to say Jones is a food/dairy/fur industry shill “because he allowed a food industry shill to come on his show and attack PETA and HSUS”. (It should be noted that the only reason Jones attacked such taxes is because it’s part of not only the phony climate change agenda but also part of the cashless society control grid where you would be forced to thumbscan every time you buy food. In addition, Jones has made it clear that GMO soy and the overconsumption of soy is the problem, not soy in general.) And of course Beck will most likely attack Browner for her membership in the Bilderberg Group, and the Soros attack dogs will use that against the liberty/freedom movement. And then you’ll hear the dumb sheeple start saying “oh PETA is so great, HSUS is so great, PETA doesn’t kill animals, that’s a conspiracy theory made by right-wing extremists, it’s good to compare chickens to Jews, it’s good to compare fat women to whales, it’s good to stage a mock crucifixion with Jesus wearing a pig mask”.

Just watch it…once Beck the agent provocateur attacks Sunstein, the Soros attack dogs will accuse the freedom/liberty movement of being shills for the meat, fur, and dairy industries. (I’ve already been attacked as such by the fake-liberal sheeple for criticizing the “food police” at CSPI for being Rockefeller scum and accusing them of helping create the manufactured obesity epidemic.)


Glenn Beck’s Next Target: Cass Sunstein

By David Weigel 9/4/09 3:36 PM

As he makes a real impact in pushing conservative fringe attacks on Obama administration officials into the mainstream, Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.” They are, respectively, the nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Browner was also administrator of the EPA for all eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Beck’s ostensible purpose here is to expose the “czars” who’ve been appointed by the president. Sunstein stands out like a sore thumb, as he’s been tied up by holds and filibusters for months, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) only filed for cloture on his nomination at the start of August.

How has Sunstein become so controversial? Basically, conservative Websites have read his iconoclastic, theoretical writing and pumped up the bits that sound really strange. A current example comes from

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation. … This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.