I greatly fear that Dearieme has disappeared off the scene with the advent of the new site but one can only hope not.
Here is a pdf with the names and the official organizations of people, until 2009, who are or were members of either the CFR, Trilateral Commission or Bilderberg Society.
Here is a Scrb read, tracing the dominance of members of these groups in the corridors of power, from congress through to education. for example:
There is no logical reason why this would not be so. Groups of likeminded people across the world have a world view which is globalist in concept – one world currency, central bank control of the money market, rich enough to bail banks out and thence to own those they bailed out, powerful enough to “advise” governments, e.g. the SPPNA and committed to continual unrest and military conflict to keep the machine running and to create crises in order to profit from them.
The ones who lose out in this are those with homes and mortgages, jobs and who are young enough to go off to war in pursuit of a nationalism that those who caused these wars patently do not believe in themselves. This is cross-party, cross-social class, cross-religious divide – these people will lie down with anyone.
I have given the url of the pdf of the CFR in a few posts and some of that group have commented at my site that a few nuts in a thinktank present a report – so what? It’s a thinktank, for goodness sake.
This thinktank was powerful enough to cause Martin, Fox and Bush to meet and discuss the matter on March 23rd, 2005. Their website claimed there were no agreements signed. That’s like Clinton claiming he might have had a joint in his hand but he didn’t inhale.
Ditto with FEMA. Kenney stated in the Rather interview:
“We’re currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site.”
That was stated on the audio and a Real Audio recording of it was available here but if you click on the link, it’s been taken down. On top of that, everyone including WND thought he must have been confused until Giuliani came out during the May 18-19, 2004 hearings and said:
… the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there …
Right, so FEMA claimed they weren’t there on the 10th. If you discount Kenney [and on what basis would you do that?] and accept that FEMA, on Giuliani’s say so, were in place already but accepting their statement that they had no one there on the 10th, then they must have had on the 11th. Yet FEMA never mention that and if you go to the 911 Commission transcripts, guess which is the only one missing?
Right – Giuliani’s.
If FEMA were running an exercise, then this was not known by anyone on the 10th or prior to it, no officers were on standby or deployed, no equipment had even been moved into proximity, ready to be taken into the city. No one in America knew the least thing about any exercise.
Suddenly, on the 11th, everyone knew about it in FEMA and resources were deployed on an “exercise” from all over the States.
Moving on – FEMA’s actions re Katrina were amazingly inept for a supposed save-people’s-lives-and-property organization. Omission, delays, breakdowns in communication [which search and rescue services don’t seem to suffer from] and politicking got in the way.
If I were to suggest that saving people was not FEMA’s prime directive in the least, I’d be shot down in flames.
Then we come to the Pittsburgh and Washington black-armoured troops advancing on and beating students. It wasn’t quelling the protests which was the real issue – it was the manner of it.
So we’re caught in a continuing series of events where things are as plain as day, the internet reports on it, including perfectly rational blogs with large followings, the thing is denied and the internet mocked, as if it was one homogenous unit and it all dies down, only to be brought up again at the next step in the process.
Salami tactics do work and meanwhile, the people sleep, except for the tea-parties.
The nature of the comments so far has put me under the hammer, as to what’s approved and what’s not. There was a woman came in with a “nice pics’ comment. I checked her site and she’s a seller. Thought about it and rejected it.
Another woman came in with a hostile barb about an old issue. As I know who it was and what the innuendo was about, I rejected it. Then she came in with an innocuous comment which can’t be rejected on its own but taken with the previous one, is better not let through.
At the moment it’s still pending and if I let it through, I can always “unapprove” but it has to be done on a case by case basis until I get the bit of code which blacklists people. As if we have the time for all this rubbish.
Now a comment has come through which is testing out my policy page statement: “What you say about people in the public sphere is another thing.” A man has to be ultra-careful what he has as his policy. This comment is by an Anonymous and it’s basically just swearing at Cameron.
Now, as I’m not necessarily against swearing in context, that’s a curly one.
Which brings me to Anonymous comments. It worked well on the previous site and Anons were able to have their say without too much trouble, provided they stuck to the issue. Having Anons this time round I’ll have to think about, so that comment’s pending too.
Will Ireland stymie the European Superstate or will it come down to the last ditch attempt by 27 Czech Senators:
The senator who lodged the new complaint, Jiri Oberfalzer, told the BBC it centred on persisting concerns that Lisbon infringed upon Czech sovereignty. He and his colleagues want the court to decide whether the treaty forms the legal foundations for the creation of a European superstate. If it does, they say, then it clearly violates the Czech constitution.
Good stuff and may they spin it out as long as poss but in the end, sadly, they will sucucmb, given that the Czech parliament has already ratified. However, as long ago as 2005, the CIA, predictably, warned that the EU will implode of its own volition:
“The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role.”
Will the current global financial crisis lead to the collapse of the European Union? If it does, does that mean the return of Europe’s “dark days of the 1930s?”
It’s a sign of the global nature of finance today that what began with the most local of transactions _ home loans _ now has the Euro currency teetering, and European experts fretting about return of the intense nationalism that led to Fascism, and eventually, Nazi Germany.
The malevolent forces which gave rise to the world wars and the holocausts are still there in the main centres of Europe plus Bavaria. The Bruderbund still controls Europe through its legitimate organizations. Merkel arose from them and she’s still there. She won’t be the last.
One thing Merkel did do was apologize to Israel for the holocaust and as The Trumpet says:
It was courageous for Angela Merkel to even make such a statement—even more so when it disagrees with most of her own people! The apology could greatly damage her political career.
The author quotes a German journalist, Manfred Gerstenfeld, in the Jerusalem Post:
Gerstenfeld continued in his Jerusalem Post column, “In contemporary Germany there are significant expressions of anti-Semitism and racism. … At the same time, there are efforts in Germany to rewrite the past. Books by historian Jörg Friedrich, who compares the Allied actions to his nation’s atrocities during the war, are bestsellers.”
That message—that the Allies were just as guilty as Germany was—is popular among Germans! Gerstenfeld continued, “They promote Holocaust equivalence by using Nazi semantics to describe the Allied bombings of Germany during World War II.”
The bottom line is that there are forces in Germany which have shaped opinion and the people largely have that opinion. The troubles have not gone away, they’ve just gone underground for now.
There is little doubt that Merkel is one of the globalists and while it is in their interests for Europe to disintegrate into warring states again, the last thing they want is for the rise of nationalism, especially Teutonic nationalism, especially as The Great Work of Ages is so close to achievement now. Thus she apologized, thus she tried to keep the minds focussed, not on nationalist stances but on the Greater Europe and thence the world.
However, the stirrers in the 20s had done their work well and that national mindset has reasserted itself in so many ways across Europe, not least over the immigration issue, the rise of the BNP and so on.
October 2nd is the first look at the New Europe, the Czech protest is second and then hang on to your seats, folks – the ride will be bumpy.
Women are not a special sacrosanct group in society, for goodness sake – they are one half of society and among them are the intelligent, stupid, long, short, fat and thin, strong and weak, just as with men.
There are differences in temperament which are gender based – men tend to have a certain mindset or reaction to situations and women another and so be it. What’s the problem? There doesn’t need to be a Feminazi movement just to tell us that.
One thing many women and girls are susceptible to, to a greater extent than with men, is the blind loyalty to the partner or the gang. It is different. The besotted man will pen love poems and stand outside her window for hours, in the hope of catching a glimpse but he’s sure as hell not going to store weapons for her to use with her gang.
Claudia Webb from the Trident Independent Advisory Group says vulnerable young women are sometimes pressured into storing or transporting weapons by the men they know. “We are deeply concerned however, that this involvement seems to be increasing and those who are involved seem to be younger and younger,” she added.
The number of women charged with firearms offences in London has increased six-fold in the past year – 12 women have been charged since January.
At the school where I was one of the heads, we had a woman join the clothes washing and cleaning staff. She did our rooms as well and all was well until one day when she disappeared, along with my quadraphonic sound system, giga-tele and the school’s computers.
Quite right – it turned out she was the gang’s moll and her hero was the leader of the pack, like something out of Westside Story. Outside of video clips and film, where have you ever seen a woman walking about with a dozen men in tow? Men are too lone wolf for that.
Even in the blogosphere, there are people who have a few “vulnerable young women” around them they persuade to do things – the original smooth-talking bad-boys, in full caricature. It’s a phenomenon but that’s not what this post is about.
I wonder if this problem of the accolyte women is any better or worse today than before, whether the problem is any more aggravated by the loss of respect in the past three decades and especially in the last twelve years.
One unfortunate character trait that inflicts itself on me is expecting that everyone, women included, be responsible for what they say and for how they act and that there are consequences, good and bad, which flow from illogical constructs. The tendency of law enforcement and courts to go easier on the woman has also been observed, for example, with Meredith kercher’s alleged killer who made eyes with the judge.
Personally, the foibles of men and the foibles of women are something to come to terms with, not any great problem but when they try to make out they’re not what they are – then that would be risible, were it not attended by dire consequences.