BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Ja, waarom ga ik anders in een commissie zitten om samen met andere kameraden te proberen hem vrij te krijgen en geld op te halen voor een eerlijk proces. Helaas is hij vermoord door Carla del Puta en Nederlandse bewakers in het HvB te Scheveningen.quote:Op zondag 16 januari 2011 21:35 schreef Zwansen het volgende:
[..]
WTF? Denk je echt dat die man compleet onschuldig is?
Bij het proces tegen Milosevic heb ik ook wel het gevoel dat er zaken niet in de haak zijn. De man verzorgde zijn eigen verdediging en dat deed ie volgens mij niet eens zo slecht. Ik vind het niet gek dat hij er niet voor gekozen heeft om de verdediging te laten verzorgen door een door het strafhof toegewezen advocaat.
check deze docu ( de andere delen zijn bij dezelfde uploader te vinden)
ze hadden geen bewijs, hij was aan de winnende kant. Op het cruciale moment werd hij dood gevonden in zijn cel.
Wat ook belangrijk is, is de betrokkenheid van Duitsland, Frankrijk, NL en de NAVO bij de oorlogen in 1991 te Bosnië & Herz. en 1999 te Kosovo. Een voorbeeld hiervan is de financiering van de UÇK, een albanese guerilla beweging.
ze hadden geen bewijs, hij was aan de winnende kant. Op het cruciale moment werd hij dood gevonden in zijn cel.
Wat ook belangrijk is, is de betrokkenheid van Duitsland, Frankrijk, NL en de NAVO bij de oorlogen in 1991 te Bosnië & Herz. en 1999 te Kosovo. Een voorbeeld hiervan is de financiering van de UÇK, een albanese guerilla beweging.
Weet je toevallig hoe het is met de tribunaal van Rwanda? Is hier hetzelfde gaande als de joegoslavische tribunaal? Ik zal me daar mischien later in verdiepen.quote:Op maandag 17 januari 2011 02:29 schreef Linkse_Boomknuffelaar het volgende:
[..]
Ja, waarom ga ik anders in een commissie zitten om samen met andere kameraden te proberen hem vrij te krijgen en geld op te halen voor een eerlijk proces. Helaas is hij vermoord door Carla del Puta en Nederlandse bewakers in het HvB te Scheveningen.
En deze conspiracie mag hier ook wel vermeld worden:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/b(...)_geheime_deal__.html
http://www.stelling.nl/followup/shipahoy.html
Coos thanks
http://www.telegraaf.nl/b(...)_geheime_deal__.html
http://www.stelling.nl/followup/shipahoy.html
Coos thanks
hihihi...dit heb ik vanmorgen ook zitten lezen.quote:
http://www.stelling.nl/morgenster/wolff.htm
Tot in de hoogste kringen...
Een 2e kut maakt je blut
http://i3.photobucket.com(...)intune/ILbarcode.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com(...)intune/ILbarcode.gif
Weet je wat me zo verbaast bij dit soort zaken? De stilte vanuit de hoek van de beschuldigden.quote:
[..]
hihihi...dit heb ik vanmorgen ook zitten lezen.
alles wat die lui zullen zeggen, zal hoe dan ook toch in het verkeerde keelgat schieten.quote:
[..]
Weet je wat me zo verbaast bij dit soort zaken? De stilte vanuit de hoek van de beschuldigden.
Michielos topics zijn als het eten van oesters.
Dat wel, of het ze proberen het dood te zwijgen. In de hoop dat degenen die aan de bel trekken het uiteindelijk wel opgeven omdat ze nooit reactie krijgen.quote:
[..]
alles wat die lui zullen zeggen, zal hoe dan ook toch in het verkeerde keelgat schieten.
Ach, wat is slecht he?quote:
Een slechte website noem ik niet echt "aan de bel trekken" om eerlijk te zijn
De content is wel goed maar ik weet ook niet of er nu ergens een underground website over mij op het internet loopt of niet. Ik weet dit niet omdat er niet aan "de bel" getrokken wordt als je snapt wat ik bedoel
Ja hoor, ik snap wat je bedoelt. Ben niet op mijn achterhoofd gevallen.quote:
De content is wel goed maar ik weet ook niet of er nu ergens een underground website over mij op het internet loopt of niet. Ik weet dit niet omdat er niet aan "de bel" getrokken wordt als je snapt wat ik bedoel
Maar waarom zou er over jou een undeground website lopen? Ben jij in complotten verwikkeld dan? Want daar hebben we het hier over, conspiracies.
Dat is het punt niet. Het punt is dat er niet te reageren valt op stellingen op een website waar je het bestaan niet vanaf weet.quote:
[..]
Ja hoor, ik snap wat je bedoelt. Ben niet op mijn achterhoofd gevallen.
Maar waarom zou er over jou een undeground website lopen? Ben jij in complotten verwikkeld dan? Want daar hebben we het hier over, conspiracies.
Maar van het bestaan van deze website weten we wel, en van de klokkenluiderssite ook. Dus wat wil je nu zeggen?quote:
[..]
Dat is het punt niet. Het punt is dat er niet te reageren valt op stellingen op een website waar je het bestaan niet vanaf weet.
Dat jij het bestaan van deze website kent wil niet zeggen dat iedereen deze website kent natuurlijk. Of de mensen die het aangaat bijv. En je kunt niet reageren op een website waarvan jij persoonlijk niet weet dat deze er is.
Dat is waar. Nou, kunnen we het nu weer over de content van deze volgens jou slechte websites hebben?quote:
Dat jij het bestaan van deze website kent wil niet zeggen dat iedereen deze website kent natuurlijk. Of de mensen die het aangaat bijv. En je kunt niet reageren op een website waarvan jij persoonlijk niet weet dat deze er is.
Want het gaat tenslotte om de boodschap, en niet om de boodschapper. Dat is iets wat mensen soms niet snappen.
http://www.economist.com/node/17928993
A special report on global leaders
The world's water-coolers
Where the influential people meet and talk
Jan 20th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION
“YOU can do nothing against a conspiracy theory,” sighs Etienne Davignon. He sits in a lofty office with a stupendous view over Brussels, puffing his pipe. He is an aristocrat, a former vice-president of the European Commission and a man who has sat on several corporate boards, but that is not why some people consider him too powerful. He presides over the Bilderberg group, an evil conspiracy bent on world domination. At least, that is what numerous websites allege; also that it has ties to al-Qaeda, is hiding the cure for cancer and wishes to merge the United States with Mexico.
In reality, Bilderberg is an annual conference for a few dozen of the world’s most influential people. Last year Bill Gates and Larry Summers hobnobbed with the chairman of Deutsche Bank, the boss of Shell, the head of the World Food Programme and the prime minister of Spain. One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. (Full disclosure: the editor of The Economist sometimes attends.)
Because the meetings are off the record, they are catnip to conspiracy theorists. But the attraction for participants is obvious. They can speak candidly, says Mr Davignon, without worrying how their words might play in tomorrow’s headlines. So they find out what other influential people really think. Big ideas are debated frankly. Mr Davignon credits the meetings for helping to lay the groundwork for creating the euro. He recalls strong disagreement over Iraq: some participants favoured the invasion in 2003, some opposed it and some wanted it done differently. Last year the debate was about Europe’s fiscal problems, and whether the euro would survive.
The world is a complicated place, with oceans of new information sloshing around. To run a multinational organisation, it helps if you have a rough idea of what is going on. It also helps to be on first-name terms with other globocrats. So the cosmopolitan elite—international financiers, bureaucrats, charity bosses and thinkers—constantly meet and talk. They flock to elite gatherings such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, the Trilateral Commission and the Boao meeting in China. They form clubs. Ethnic Indian entrepreneurs around the world join TiE (The Indus Enterprise). Movers and shakers in New York and Washington join the Council on Foreign Relations, where they can listen to the president of Turkey one week and the chief executive of Intel the next. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms tycoon, hosts an annual gathering of Latin American billionaires who cultivate each other while ostensibly discussing regional poverty.
Davos is perhaps the glitziest of these globocratic gatherings. Hundreds of big wheels descend on the Swiss ski resort each year. The lectures are interesting, but the big draw is the chance to talk to other powerful people in the corridors. Such chats sometimes yield results. In 1988 the prime ministers of Turkey and Greece met at Davos and signed a declaration that may have averted a war. In 1994 Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, and Yasser Arafat struck a deal over Gaza and Jericho. In 2003 Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, had an informal meeting in his hotel suite with the president of Iran, a country with which Britain had no diplomatic ties. But Davos is hardly a secretive institution: it is crawling with journalists. The other globocratic shindigs are opening up, too. Even Bilderberg has recently started publishing lists of participants on its website.
Some American organisations, such as foreign-policy think-tanks, are also well placed to exert global influence. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, has established itself as one of the most globally trusted talking-shops, with offices in Beijing, Beirut, Brussels and Moscow, as well as Washington—though it has yet to fulfil the vision of its founder, Andrew Carnegie, who wanted it to abolish war. The key to wielding influence, says Jessica Mathews, Carnegie’s president, is “very simple. You hire the best people.”
In countries where think-tanks are subservient to the state, such as China and Russia, foreign outfits such as Carnegie enjoy a reputation for independence. If they can back this up with useful knowledge, they can sway policy. For example, Carnegie scholars advised the authors of Russia’s post-Soviet constitution. And when relations between American and Russia grew frosty under President George W. Bush, Carnegie’s Moscow office helped keep a line of communication open between the two governments.
Such meetings are “an important part of the story of the superclass”, says Mr Rothkopf, the author of the eponymous book. What they offer is access to “some of the world’s most sequestered and elusive leaders”. As such, they are one of “the informal mechanisms of [global] power”.
Some globocrats think the importance of forums like Davos is overstated. Howard Stringer, the boss of Sony, is the kind of person you would expect to relish such gatherings. Welsh by birth, American by citizenship, he took over Japan’s most admired company in 2005, when it was in serious trouble, and turned it around in the face of immense cultural obstacles. He says he has enjoyed trips to Davos in the past but will not attend this year. He can learn more, he says, by listening to his 167,000 employees.
On the face of it there seems much to be said for the world’s shakers and movers meeting and talking frequently. Yet for all their tireless information-swapping, globocrats were caught napping by the financial crisis. Their networks of contacts did throw up a few warnings, but not enough to prompt timely action.
The limits of jaw-jaw
Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund manager who made his first fortune betting that Enron was overvalued, warned the G8 finance ministers in April 2007 that banks and insurance firms were heading for trouble. He made another fortune when bank shares crashed, but is still furious that his warnings were politely ignored. He thinks it an outrage that several senior regulators from that period are still in positions of power. And he accuses some bankers of “a wholesale looting of the system” by paying themselves bonuses based on what they must have known were phantom profits. He thinks they should be prosecuted.
Globocrats failed to avert the crisis, but they rallied once it struck. Rich-country governments acted in concert to prop up banks with taxpayers’ money. In America the response was led by a well-connected trio: Hank Paulson, George Bush junior’s treasury secretary and a former boss of Goldman Sachs; Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and a former boss of the New York Federal Reserve, as well as a veteran of the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations and Kissinger Associates; and Ben Bernanke, of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and the Bush White House, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve. The bail-outs were unpopular everywhere, but may have prevented the world’s banking system from imploding.
Governments are now trying to craft rules to prevent a recurrence. Lots of people have offered advice. Among the weightier contributions was a report from the Group of Thirty (G30), an informal collection of past and present central-bank governors. The Volcker Report, advocating a central clearing mechanism for derivatives trading and curbs on proprietary trading by banks, helped shape America’s Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill. The G30 is influential because it consists of people with experience of putting policies into practice, says Stuart Mackintosh, its director. So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action, he adds.
A special report on global leaders
The world's water-coolers
Where the influential people meet and talk
Jan 20th 2011 | from PRINT EDITION
“YOU can do nothing against a conspiracy theory,” sighs Etienne Davignon. He sits in a lofty office with a stupendous view over Brussels, puffing his pipe. He is an aristocrat, a former vice-president of the European Commission and a man who has sat on several corporate boards, but that is not why some people consider him too powerful. He presides over the Bilderberg group, an evil conspiracy bent on world domination. At least, that is what numerous websites allege; also that it has ties to al-Qaeda, is hiding the cure for cancer and wishes to merge the United States with Mexico.
In reality, Bilderberg is an annual conference for a few dozen of the world’s most influential people. Last year Bill Gates and Larry Summers hobnobbed with the chairman of Deutsche Bank, the boss of Shell, the head of the World Food Programme and the prime minister of Spain. One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. (Full disclosure: the editor of The Economist sometimes attends.)
Because the meetings are off the record, they are catnip to conspiracy theorists. But the attraction for participants is obvious. They can speak candidly, says Mr Davignon, without worrying how their words might play in tomorrow’s headlines. So they find out what other influential people really think. Big ideas are debated frankly. Mr Davignon credits the meetings for helping to lay the groundwork for creating the euro. He recalls strong disagreement over Iraq: some participants favoured the invasion in 2003, some opposed it and some wanted it done differently. Last year the debate was about Europe’s fiscal problems, and whether the euro would survive.
The world is a complicated place, with oceans of new information sloshing around. To run a multinational organisation, it helps if you have a rough idea of what is going on. It also helps to be on first-name terms with other globocrats. So the cosmopolitan elite—international financiers, bureaucrats, charity bosses and thinkers—constantly meet and talk. They flock to elite gatherings such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, the Trilateral Commission and the Boao meeting in China. They form clubs. Ethnic Indian entrepreneurs around the world join TiE (The Indus Enterprise). Movers and shakers in New York and Washington join the Council on Foreign Relations, where they can listen to the president of Turkey one week and the chief executive of Intel the next. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms tycoon, hosts an annual gathering of Latin American billionaires who cultivate each other while ostensibly discussing regional poverty.
Davos is perhaps the glitziest of these globocratic gatherings. Hundreds of big wheels descend on the Swiss ski resort each year. The lectures are interesting, but the big draw is the chance to talk to other powerful people in the corridors. Such chats sometimes yield results. In 1988 the prime ministers of Turkey and Greece met at Davos and signed a declaration that may have averted a war. In 1994 Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, and Yasser Arafat struck a deal over Gaza and Jericho. In 2003 Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, had an informal meeting in his hotel suite with the president of Iran, a country with which Britain had no diplomatic ties. But Davos is hardly a secretive institution: it is crawling with journalists. The other globocratic shindigs are opening up, too. Even Bilderberg has recently started publishing lists of participants on its website.
Some American organisations, such as foreign-policy think-tanks, are also well placed to exert global influence. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, has established itself as one of the most globally trusted talking-shops, with offices in Beijing, Beirut, Brussels and Moscow, as well as Washington—though it has yet to fulfil the vision of its founder, Andrew Carnegie, who wanted it to abolish war. The key to wielding influence, says Jessica Mathews, Carnegie’s president, is “very simple. You hire the best people.”
In countries where think-tanks are subservient to the state, such as China and Russia, foreign outfits such as Carnegie enjoy a reputation for independence. If they can back this up with useful knowledge, they can sway policy. For example, Carnegie scholars advised the authors of Russia’s post-Soviet constitution. And when relations between American and Russia grew frosty under President George W. Bush, Carnegie’s Moscow office helped keep a line of communication open between the two governments.
Such meetings are “an important part of the story of the superclass”, says Mr Rothkopf, the author of the eponymous book. What they offer is access to “some of the world’s most sequestered and elusive leaders”. As such, they are one of “the informal mechanisms of [global] power”.
Some globocrats think the importance of forums like Davos is overstated. Howard Stringer, the boss of Sony, is the kind of person you would expect to relish such gatherings. Welsh by birth, American by citizenship, he took over Japan’s most admired company in 2005, when it was in serious trouble, and turned it around in the face of immense cultural obstacles. He says he has enjoyed trips to Davos in the past but will not attend this year. He can learn more, he says, by listening to his 167,000 employees.
On the face of it there seems much to be said for the world’s shakers and movers meeting and talking frequently. Yet for all their tireless information-swapping, globocrats were caught napping by the financial crisis. Their networks of contacts did throw up a few warnings, but not enough to prompt timely action.
The limits of jaw-jaw
Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund manager who made his first fortune betting that Enron was overvalued, warned the G8 finance ministers in April 2007 that banks and insurance firms were heading for trouble. He made another fortune when bank shares crashed, but is still furious that his warnings were politely ignored. He thinks it an outrage that several senior regulators from that period are still in positions of power. And he accuses some bankers of “a wholesale looting of the system” by paying themselves bonuses based on what they must have known were phantom profits. He thinks they should be prosecuted.
Globocrats failed to avert the crisis, but they rallied once it struck. Rich-country governments acted in concert to prop up banks with taxpayers’ money. In America the response was led by a well-connected trio: Hank Paulson, George Bush junior’s treasury secretary and a former boss of Goldman Sachs; Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and a former boss of the New York Federal Reserve, as well as a veteran of the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations and Kissinger Associates; and Ben Bernanke, of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and the Bush White House, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve. The bail-outs were unpopular everywhere, but may have prevented the world’s banking system from imploding.
Governments are now trying to craft rules to prevent a recurrence. Lots of people have offered advice. Among the weightier contributions was a report from the Group of Thirty (G30), an informal collection of past and present central-bank governors. The Volcker Report, advocating a central clearing mechanism for derivatives trading and curbs on proprietary trading by banks, helped shape America’s Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill. The G30 is influential because it consists of people with experience of putting policies into practice, says Stuart Mackintosh, its director. So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action, he adds.
Onze grootste nationale conspiracy, wellicht ?quote:
Het was erg toevallig dat er direct een politie-arrestatieteam met kogelvrije vesten klaar stond om Volkert van der G. op te wachten en te overmeesteren.
http://nos.nl/archief/200(...)otos_arrestatie.html
Jomanda had Fortuyn ontmoet, en hem kort voor zijn dood nog gewaarschuwd voor een aanstaand moordcomplot op hem..
Dat is wel waar, die waren enorm snel op de proppen.quote:
[..]
Onze grootste nationale conspiracy, wellicht ?
Het was erg toevallig dat er direct een politie-arrestatieteam met kogelvrije vesten klaar stond om Volkert van der G. op te wachten en te overmeesteren.
http://nos.nl/archief/200(...)otos_arrestatie.html
Jomanda had Fortuyn ontmoet, en hem kort voor zijn dood nog gewaarschuwd voor een aanstaand moordcomplot op hem..
Doe maar in de eeuwigheid op de barbeque beneden.quote:
Milosevic (moge hij in vrede rusten)
Metalman. Maar ook ESF fan. Solo vakantiefietser met tentje. Dichter.
26-10 Attila/Eskimo Callboy (Amsterdam), 21-11 The Algorithm (Haarlem)
26-10 Attila/Eskimo Callboy (Amsterdam), 21-11 The Algorithm (Haarlem)
|
|
