May 13, 2013
New generation of elites taking the transnational reins?
As today’s groundbreaking revelations by Infowars will possibly reveal, Bilderberg is moving itself into a new hybrid leviathan, with Google as the new vehicle for policy implementation. A new generation has emerged, alligning itself with the good old boys at Bilderberg. Not that this newer generation has appeared out of thin air to rock the world of the old-timers. Far from it. The key players now taking the digital helm in this probable “Googleberg” construct are literally the offspring of the older players who are keenly aware that if the ancient agenda is to endure, a merger with the new guard needs to be established.
One such key player who has presumably been offered the steering wheel in both policy setting- and operational activities, is the son of the former queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Constantijn van Oranje-Nassau. As EU commissioner Neelie Kroes’ first man in her “digital agenda” cabinet, Constantijn is well placed to play a key role in securing the reigns in the hands of international bankers who make the final decisions. Constantijn was described as “programme associate” of the Bilderberg group on the official royal website back in 2009. Although the website scrubbed the mention shortly after I published this information on Infowars.com, the original cached page was salvaged thanks to vigilant observers in the alternative media.
Constantijn’s benefactor in the world of global governance, Neelie Kroes, attended all Bilderberg meetings from 2006 onward- and since 2011 is the European commissioner for the digital agenda. Kroes, who is right up there with Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, is now handing over some of the responsibilities to a new generation of technocrats. Not very surprising then that Van Orange- the grandson of Bilderberg founder Bernhard- has recently been appointed by Kroes to head up her commission cabinet.
Kroes’ agenda as commissioner and dedicated Bilderberg member has been from the very onset to create and expand a mandatory electronic ID system for all citizens within the EU. In 2012 Kroes announced that a common “electronic signature”- a single authenticating ID- should safeguard access to the Internet, online data and commerce- described by Aaron Dykes on May 23 2012 as “nothing short of an attempt to phase in a Mark of the Beast system, and a prominent Bilderberg attendee is behind the scheme.”
Dykes also pointed out that such a common digital signature, used by all people within the EU, is destined for worldwide expansion:
“According to EurActiv.com, Neelie Kroes would later “widen the scope of the current Directive by including also ancillary authentication services that complement e-signatures, like electronic seals, time/date stamps, etc,” as the supra-national body attempts to corral more nations into participation.”
In 2009 Constantijn wrote a RAND technical paper, stating that the EU and a few elite nations should take the lead role in deciding a global governance structure for internet regulation and developing technologies. In the paper titled Trends in connectivity technologies and their socioeconomic impacts, the prince envisions a global coordination role for the EU:
“ (…) both policy issues and effective responses must be defined at a global level; to influence the solution a global coordination and ‘enlightened leadership’ is required.” and “policy issues, not always solutions, will be defined at a global level. Those few countries or regional blocks like the EU where these technologies are already at an advanced stage may take a more or less enlightened lead role.”
Constantijn’s speciality in his days with the RAND Corporation ranged from several technical reports on web 2.0 to RFID technology and other matters concerning “global governance” and electronics. In 2008 Constantijn was promoted to head the Brussels RAND office, expanding his influence even more. In 2009 Constantijn published his “discussion paper on critical issues” under the RAND-umbrella titled The Future of the Internet Economy. In it, he is quite uninhibited in his call for the emergence of an overall system of control to steer the course of events globally.
“(…) the Internet as a global infrastructure needs a global governance structure”, Van Oranje writes. “International governance is necessary to deal with global issues and ensuring effective functioning of the Internet, following principles of good governance.”
The intentionally vague addition of “good governance” is a smart way to circumvent explaining that only a tyrannical transnational system can guarantee “effective functioning of the Internet.” Furthermore, the prince advocated the ideal tool for future slavery: one common, global electronic denominator hooked into a hive-like supercomputer:
“Though a sectoral, geographic and multi-layered patchwork is likely, a scenario with a more unified system is not impossible either. There are significant benefits for citizens, governments and commercial operators to have a more standardised system that would support a large range of eGovernment services and functions. One system would eliminate the need for multiple cards, would increase the possibility for interconnecting systems”, and the list goes on.
The warnings of Aaron Russo immediately spring to mind, don’t they? As one of the determinants of such a common system through which all of human traffic should be channelled, the report mentions:
“The level of Pan-European ambition towards the use of a single eIdentity throughout Europe by 2015: Will policy makers of Commission (European Commission) and Member States agree on a system that is to support only simple identity; will Pan-European services be build/transformed in a way that they benefit directly from eID; or will there be a natural evolution towards one single European IDM, adequate for most national and Pan-European Government Services?”
As the royal family’s own website reports, from 2001 to 2003 prince Constantijn worked as a strategic policy consultant with Booz, Allen & Hamilton operating out of London, England. Booz Allen is a globally operating, self-proclaimed “private consulting firm” right out of a John Grisham novel with all the dark intrigue that goes along with it. Since its creation in the early 1900s, Booz, Allen & Hamilton has been intimately tied to the military-industrial complex including “long-standing relationships with federal intelligence agencies”- as a superficial glance on Wikipedia reveals. A March 8 2008 article in CorpWatch reported that the firm “is a key advisor and prime contractor to all of the major U.S. intelligence agencies (…). Among the many services Booz Allen provides to intelligence agencies, according to its website, are war-gaming- simulated drills in which military and intelligence officials test their response to potential threats like terrorist attacks.”
A most interesting speciality of the firm is the development of electronic surveillance equipment and other spy-tools. After Van Oranje’s promising career at this key corporation within the intelligence community, his obvious next step was the RAND Corporation where the young prince could work on his policy-making skills while at the same time maintaining his close relationship with the big foundations. In Daniel Estulin’s 2005 bestseller “The Bilderberg Group” the author clarifies the ties between the RAND Corporation and these global entities:
“The interlocking leadership between the trustees at RAND, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations is a classic case of Bilderberg modus operandi. The Ford foundation gave one million dollars to RAND in 1952, at a time when the president of the Ford Foundation was simultaneously the chairman of RAND.”
RAND plays a key role in developing technologies that may be used by intelligence agencies who in turn want to get rid of certain non-compliant regimes. In a RAND document from 2012 titled Using Social Media to Gauge Iranian Public Opinion and Mood After the 2009 Election the authors describe collecting thousands of tweets from the Iranian people in the months following the Iranian elections of 2009. The think tank complained about the shortcomings of just scanning through Iranian blogs and such. In order to assess the Iranian zeitgeist, RAND turned to an extraordinary computer-program called LIWC:
“Given the shortcomings of the manual approach, using a computerized method to study the content of social media can serve as a useful complement, compensating for some of these limitations. Such a tool exists: an automated content analysis program called “Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2007” (LIWC, pronounced “Luke”).”
“Focusing on Twitter, we used LIWC as a means of tapping into Iranian public opinion and mood during the tumultuous months following the highly controversial 2009 presidential election”, the report states.
Admitting that the probing and analyzing of Iranian tweets serves the national security interests of the United States, the RAND researchers in the same breath admit:
“Given that LIWC is largely untried in non-Western political contexts, we used Iran during this period as a test case. On the one hand, we sought to shed light on how public opinion and mood evolved after the 2009 election. But at the same time, we intended to examine the validity of a new methodology—one incorporating the LIWC tool—for analyzing foreign public sentiment on political topics, as expressed through the social media platform, Twitter.”
The results, according to the authors, are so full of promise that they seek to expand the program even further. Under the header “Expanding the Scope of the Current Work” they state:
“To extend this current work, applying the methodology to other forms of social media is an obvious next step. For instance, we have conducted initial analyses of Iranian, Persian-language blogs, and of political leaders’ Facebook postings, which are not reported here.”
The authors are aware of the implications of their research when it comes to national security “interests”:
“We could also extend the current research by looking across more than one country at a time to gauge the sentiments that social media users in each country express on topics of interest to them all”, the report continues.
“For example, using the current methodology, it is possible to compare sentiments expressed across Iran, Pakistan, and other countries on topics including the United States, nuclear weapons, and domestic political issues. Other extensions of the current research could focus on Asian countries that are high on the national security agenda, such as China and Taiwan, or on Middle Eastern countries where political protests in early 2011 were reportedly influenced by social media use, such as Egypt and Tunisia.”
Because the methods used by RAND were retrospective in nature, the authors envision using this and other software for monitoring of international conflicts “as they unfold”:
“A final way to extend the current methodology is to build a real-time tracking tool for social media texts. Such a tool could automatically download texts as they are posted, run them through a parsing algorithm, and place them into a database for processing through LIWC (or other software). Using such a tool, it would be possible to view and analyse patterns in written texts almost as quickly as they unfold. Given the policy relevance of our findings, these recommendations for validation and extensions of the methodology illustrate the potential of analysing social media to understand public mood and opinion in various populations of interest.”
Studies such as these should not give on the impression that these monitoring and surveillance technologies are being used without the consent of corporations like Twitter, Google and Facebook- nor have they been hijacked at some point. On the contrary, as has become clear from countless “incidents” where these corporations have been caught censoring information, they are an active player within the technocratic architecture, set up from their very beginnings by globalist money. As Google Ideas illustrates, already hybrid connections between Google and the US government are being strengthened. According to several Stratford e-mails released by Wikileaks in March of 2012, Google Ideas’ current director Jared Cohen was presumably working for the White House as he attempted to fire up the spark of regime change. As Alahkbar reported, the Brookings Insititute valued Google Ideas as “the best new think tank established in the last 18 months.” Such accolade arguably suggests that Google Ideas is expected to be a major player in the near future.”
Brookings, an extremely influential think tank advising policymakers within the US government, also use their academically preconditioned brains to think about using Google, Twitter and Facebook as tools to achieve regime change in dissenting nations. As their document Which Path To Persia demonstrates, the plans for such operations are already being contemplated. In chapter 7 of the manuscript titled “Inspiring an Insurgency”, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists loot their nation, stating “U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.”
The merging of Bilderberg’s post WW2-style corporate complex with technocratic giants will now accelerate an agenda that has been long in the making. By Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism, that’s what it is. “Fascism”, Mussolini wrote, “should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” Already in the works for decades this construct, or governance structure- merging big government with big corporations- is now taking a decisive digital leap with Bilderberg 2.0 which, by Mussolini’s definition, equals a new and enhanced version of the same old fascism.