Whistleblowers Spill Globalist Secrets

Whistleblowers Spill Globalist Secrets

by James Corbett corbettreport.com May 24, 2014 An interesting thing happened late last month at the Trilateral Commission's annual meeting in the District of Criminals.

Josh Rogin, a reporter for the Daily Beast, waltzed into the meeting uninvited, sat down, and began secretly recording the speaker, Secretary of State John Kerry. The result: a Daily Beast exclusive: "Kerry Warns Israel Could Become An Apartheid State." (You don't say.)

Such was the shock and horror amongst the globalists over this breach of "privacy" that Joseph S. Nye, North American Chairman of the Commission wrote a personal apology letter to Kerry: "I write to express my deep apology and dismay that a reporter for the Daily Beast, Josh Rogin, somehow sneaked into the meeting room in which you were speaking to the Commission this past Friday. He was not invited. Although how Mr. Rogin slipped past both Commission staff and Diplomatic Security is unclear to me, we have confirmed that he indeed was present and apparently recorded the session."

We can learn a few things from this incident. Firstly we learn that the Secretary of State discusses sensitive foreign policy issues in closed door meetings with the Trilateral Commission seemingly as a matter of course, although this should not be a surprise to those who know that every White House administration since the formation of the Trilateral Commission has consisted of disproportionate numbers of Trilateral members. Secondly we learn that politicians only feel safe in saying obvious truths when cloaked in the anonymity of closed-door secret meetings, but we could have guessed that from the discrepancy between most political candidates' milquetoast public speeches and the occasional leaked candid recording. The incident also teaches us that the illusion of "security" that surrounds these secretive meetings and seemingly unapproachable politicians is just that; an illusion. Perhaps if we've been paying attention we should have known this point, too.

Indeed, there have been many examples of whistleblowers leaking secrets from inside these seemingly impenetrable organizations, and sometimes, as in Rogin's case, all it takes is the gumption to walk into

a meeting that you weren't invited to. Just ask Matthew Mills, the 9/11 truth advocate who managed to get into (and ultimately disrupt) a Super Bowl press conference with nothing but an out-of-date press pass and a convincingly-told lie that he was "running late" to any security that questioned him on the way to the media event.

One previous example of this phenomenon occurred at the innocuously named Fourth World Wilderness Congress held in Denver, Colorado in 1987. Although by all appearances the World Wilderness Congress appears to be just another environmental forum, the 1987 meeting was attended by the likes of David Rockefeller, Edmund de Rothschild, Maurice Strong and James Baker. George Hunt was a local living in the area who had been interested in attending the publicly advertised conference, but couldn't afford the hefty $650 admission price. Instead, he learned that one of the meeting's hosts had fallen ill, and, phoning him up and offering to take his place, was suddenly afforded the opportunity not just to attend the conference but actually to rub elbows with these mega elites as a forum host.

What Hunt discovered in that meeting was as shocking as it is informative. The global environmental movement was even at that time being thought of as a vehicle for an agenda of world financial and political domination. The meeting (recordings of which exist online thanks to Hunt) includes Edmund de Rothschild's call for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a "second Marshall Plan" that would be used for third world debt relief and stable world development.

That sentiment, wrapped in the feelgood platitudes of "debt relief" and "stable development" that have become the norm in political rhetoric in recent decades, is given the lie by another of the conference attendees, David Lang, also recorded by Hunt discussing this plan for an international conservation bank: "I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process - that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds - to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth.

We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition."

In other words, the useless eaters can't be relied on to support this noble project, so they must be sidestepped altogether. This is exemplary of the disdain that permeates the globalist "superclass" and infuses the thinking about "stable development" that morphed inevitably into "sustainable development" and the current manifestations of Agenda 21. In fact, this link is explicit. The World Conservation Bank that Rothschild proposed at the 1987 Conference was in fact established in October 1991 as a $1 billion pilot project of the World Bank. Named the "Global Environment Facility," this body was spun off as a separate entity in 1994 (although still administered by the World Bank) and acts as the funding mechanism for the UNFCCC that produces the IPCC report and is seeking to implement the global carbon tax in the name of the fake global warming scare.

All of this information is documentable, and we have George Hunt's gumption to thank for it. All it took was a phone call to a sick conference organizer for an average, concerned citizen to find himself in the position of whistleblower.

Sometimes the average concerned citizen doesn't even have to become a whistleblower himself. He can wait for the whistleblowers to come to him.

This is the case in the event of a very different (but maybe not so different) organization, the Bohemian Club of San Francisco. The Bohemian Club is best known for its annual festivities at the Bohemian Grove, a 2,700 acre campsite in the California redwoods where high-ranking government officials, prominent business leaders, senior media executives and other members of the globalist jet-set go to (amongst other things) enjoy a mock human sacrifice in the shadows of a forty foot tall stone owl statue.

That description would sound too far-fetched to believe if the ritual (the "Cremation of Care" ritual which opens each year's two-week encampment) hadn't been caught on tape by Alex Jones, who snuck into the camp in 2000 with a hidden camera. Photos of prominent individuals in the Grove, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Earl Warren, George Bush (both of them), Colin Powell and others have leaked out over the years, as have other hidden camera footage, Grove documents, and other details of the (apparently x-rated) activities that take place during the all-male wilderness retreat.

In 2007, Infowars was sent a Bohemian Grove member roster by an anonymous tipster. Reading the list online, I found that one of the members, Barry Cooper, was a professor at my old alma mater, the University of Calgary. And so it was that I found myself interviewing Professor Cooper for The Corbett Report in May of 2008 and springing some questions about the Grove that he was apparently not expecting: Corbett Report confronts Bohemian Grove member VIDEO BELOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Z0IgYCU4s Corbett Report confronts Bohemian Grove member Me: Do you ever mention the grove when you're talking to your students about the power structures that govern global geopolitics?

Cooper: I doubt it.

Me: Don't you think it would be a good idea to talk about two week outings with presidents and advisors and academics and other luminaries in front of 40 foot stone owls?

Cooper: I don't know. I mean, generally what I do in my classes is I take texts and I discuss what the texts mean.

Me: I think it [the grove] is one of those things that perhaps doesn't come up in political science classes, but which might have some bearing on the political situation we find ourselves in these days.

Cooper: [silence] Perhaps not the most revealing of conversations, I must admit, but all the more telling for what cannot / would not be said by this usually blustering and verbose professor. The Bohemian Grove, of course, works on the same principle of strict secrecy and confidence as many of these globalist organizations. It is only many years after the fact, if at all, that we learn that the Manhattan Project was actually launched at the grove or that transcripts of some of the illustrious "lakeside speeches" delivered at the camp by prominent attendees like Henry Kissinger and Casper Weinberger are eventually leaked online.

Similarly with organizations like the Bilderberg Group. As most are probably aware by now (thanks to the Herculean efforts of the alternative media to bring the group to the public's attention in recent years), the Bilderberg Group is a highly secretive meeting of high-ranking government officials, captains of industry, media executives and royalty that rub shoulders at a five-star resort with golfing facilities within driving distance of a major international airport in North America or Europe every year around May or June. Like the Trilateral Commission, the World Wilderness Conference, the Bohemian Grove and other such meetings, the Bilderberg Group is attended by a who's who of the globalist jet set and features endless discussions on how best the group can more fully consolidate its hold on society.

That the group is (at the very least) a talking shop where policies are discussed and later implemented by attendees is no longer controversial. In 2003, the BBC aired a radio documentary that pieced together some of the evidence demonstrating that the group had been from its very inception in 1954 dedicated to bringing about a European Union. Meeting documents from the 1955 edition of the conference, which leaked online several years ago, detail how the group agreed on the need "To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of [European] integration, beginning with a common European market." In 2009, former EU Commission Chair Etienne Davignon casually admitted to the EU Observer that Bilderberg was a vital forum in debates surrounding the creation of the common Euro currency. And in 2010 former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted in a radio interview that Bilderberg deliberations are used as the basis for global policy.

So beyond the creation of the European Union and the furtherance of European integration, what is the main aim of this group? Some clue as to that agenda might be found in leaked notes from the 1966 edition of the conference, in which Senator Fred Harris noted: "Nationalism is dangerous." But perhaps a more detailed window into this elite globalist mindset was provided by George Ball, Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Johnson and a a Senior Managing Director of Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc. He delivered a presentation at the 1968 edition of the Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, entitled "Internationalization of Business" in which, according to Daniel Estulin, "Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on

the concept of a world company, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was the archaic political structure of the nation state." The meeting transcript records Ball's chilling question: "Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?"

This was not intended as a rhetorical question. Time and again, the leaked recordings and transcripts from inside these globalist meetings reveal the same authoritarian urge, the same disdain for the masses of the people, and the same quest for a global system of financial and political governance. It is not difficult to understand why this is the case; these people genuinely believe themselves to be a class above the "cannon fodder" as David Lang so artlessly termed us average working men and women. They believe the world to be their toy, and we are mere objects in their way or tax cattle to be farmed on the human plantation as they see fit. This is the system that we are opposed by, but it is a system that functions so well because it is hidden behind the twin cloak of closed-door meetings and the public's general incredulity that such meetings even take place.

This is why we need to support those independent reporters and truthseekers who will be attending next week's Bilderberg confab in Copenhagen, and indeed all those who are attempting to shine light on similar meetings throughout the world. Sometimes it requires the anonymous help of an inside source to discover what is taking place behind closed doors. Sometimes it requires the painstaking work of investigative journalism to put the puzzle pieces together. And sometimes, just sometimes, all it takes is the willingness to walk into a meeting as if you were meant to be there and to turn on the tape recorder.

Dark Secrets : Inside Bohemian Grove Full Length VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtEvplXMLs EndGame BluePrint For Global Enslavement VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&ob=av3e

The Great Decoupling: How The West Is Engineering Its Own Downfall

by Corbett Apr 14 2014

Reports out of Moscow indicate that Russia is on the verge of signing the “holy grail” of gas deals with China. The deal between Russian state-owned gas firm Gazprom and Beijing would see as much as 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year flowing through the first proposed Russia-China pipeline by 2018. The agreement has apparently been in the works for years, but recent events on Moscow’s western flank (read: the Ukrainian situation) has moved the timetable on the plan up dramatically, with the last sticking point being the price. If the deal is signed next month during Putin’s state visit to China, as many analysts are speculating will happen, it will be a significant event not only economically, but geopolitically.

Given the fact that Russia, the world’s largest gas producer, and China, the world’s largest gas consumer, are neighbors it would be logical to assume that a gas pipeline between the two countries already exists. But logic and geopolitics seldom mix, and tensions between the two formerly communist countries (however one characterizes China’s current political and economic system) have remained ever since border disputes brought Moscow and Beijing to the brink of war in the 1960s.

Establishing a gas link would thus be a very powerful signal of the growing understanding between the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon that their future lies more with each other than it does with a NATO-backed alliance that is increasingly encircling and isolating them.

Speaking of logic, this latest deal, if it is signed after all, would only be the logical extension of all of the moves toward cooperation between Russia, China and their ex-Soviet satellites that we’ve been seeing in recent years.

There’s the rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The “SCO” encompasses China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan waiting in the wings as observer nations, and Belarus, Sri Lanka and Turkey as “dialogue partners.” Originally the “Shanghai Five” of signatories to the 1996 Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions, the group has gone on to deepen their military, intelligence and security ties, staging joint military exercises since 2003 and China-Russia war games since 2005. They are also coordinating on security matters, including a 2004 agreement on a Regional Antiterrorism Structure and the 2006

cooperation agreement with CSTO, the NATO counterbalance in the region.

There’s the rise of the BRICS. From a theoretical construct in an economic paper in 2001 to a very real political association with annual summits and ministers meetings today, the rise of the BRICS grouping in the past decade has been undeniable.

Although the days of double digit growth and “taking over the world” reports are now a thing of the past, the association remains important for its ability to fuse developing economies as diverse as those of Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa into an economic and political counterbalance to the so-called “Washington consensus” of the World Bank / IMF regime. While China is undeniably in the BRICS driver’s seat, the access that the five-nation grouping gives each other’s member nations to far-flung parts of the globe, and the ways that the members’ economies can find surprisingly symbiotic notes (like that of the relation between Brazil and China) have made it into more than the sum of its parts, and it is now looking to expand its regional influence with the creation of the BRICS development bank.

There’s the rise of the Eurasian Union. Set to come into existence on New Year’s Day 2015, the proposed economic union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia has been modeled on the European Union, complete with a “Eurasian Economic Commission” based on the European Commission. The Commission will coordinate integration on customs issues, macroeconomics, energy and financial policy, labour migration and other key issues, with the end goal being a European Union-style supranational organization very much like the EU. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are already waiting in the wings to get on board with the union, with Kyrgyzstan shutting down the U.S. Manas air base (allegedly used to ship drugs out of Afghanistan) and expanding the Russian air base that it currently hosts as a goodwill gesture.

Once again, the idea that Russia would seek closer economic, political and military cooperation with its regional neighbours is a perfectly logical and predictable outcome of the pressure that is building on Russia’s western flank from the US and NATO, not just the recent sanctions, but the years-long build-up of “ballistic missile defense” in Eastern Europe and NATO’s steady progress in swallowing up Eastern European nations. For those who are still locked in the mindset that moves on the geopolitical chessboard are essentially

random, with countries scattering this way and that like billiard balls at the break, this poses a puzzling question: why would the NATO allies be backing Russia into a corner to the point that it starts engaging in these alliances? After all, the more Russia turns to its regional allies the more it weans itself and its economy off of the very system that could provide diplomatic and political pressure points for NATO to press upon when needed. In other words, why is NATO helping to push their geopolitical rivals into a closer union? Are they trying to build up their own enemy?

For those who like their answers up front, that answer is “yes.”

For those who need to see the argument before they arrive at the conclusion, there are no shortage of stories demonstrating how Russia, China, and their “resistance bloc” allies have been built up by the west in recent years.

The sanctions that have been levied against Iran in recent years have steadily driven that country into bilateral trade agreements that not only circumvent the sanctions, but help ease the country and its trading partners off their dependency on the dollar. There was the ‘gas-for-gold‘ swap between Iran and Turkey that skirted the sanctions. There was the ‘junk-for-oil‘ trade between Iran and India/China.

There was the rouble-denominated bilateral agreement signed between Russia and Iran in 2012. In the long run, the west succeeded in doing damage to the Iranian economy, but they also succeeded in building up trading alliances that skirt the dollar (and weaken future sanctions regimes) altogether.

The growing naval and aerial threat of the Chinese military has US technology to thank, not only by direct military transfer (as a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory whistleblower demonstrated the Clinton administration did in the 1990s) but by indirect (and illegal) transfers via Israel. And just last month, a congressional investigation uncovered evidence that the US government was planning to give Russia high level military technology for use in training their troops as part of the FY2015 budget, even as they were talking about tough sanctions and dire consequences for Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

The Chinese industrial juggernaut did not just spring up overnight; the infrastructure for China’s economic marvel of the last decade was laid in the decade before. In the seven years from 1994 to 2001 alone, direct investment of US-based multinational corporations in China quadraupled from $2.6 billion to $10.5 billion.

Source Data: Excel file

In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on

the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

And the BRICS association that economists were wringing their hands over in previous years as a major threat to American-led western economic neoliberalism? It was actually created by Goldman Sachs, an outgrowth of a research paper that was convincing enough that it actually caused the four nations (of the then-”BRIC” grouping) to start a political process that made the paper into reality.

It seems that as we enter the world of the “new cold war” there is western backing behind every aspect of this new rivalry. And sure enough, the much-ballyhooed Cold War 2.0 is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. China’s decision to abstain from the UN Security Council vote on Crimea’s annexation last month was a significant turning point in and of itself. Given China’s unease over its own territorial issues (Tibet, Xinjiang), the fact that they didn’t vote for the resolution condemning a nation’s right to unilaterally secede from a country speaks volumes about China and Russia’s increasing cooperation in geopolitical matters.

The inescapable conclusion is that the NATO powers have helped to create their own enemy. They have helped to arm and fund that enemy, and then poked and prodded him into reaction. We would do well to remember the true genesis of this conflict the next time we are told about the “New Cold War.”

INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND