Bilderberg Batters Bush;
But Unity remains on NWO
The United States took its worst beating ever at the secret Bilderberg meeting but there remains complete unity on the goal of establishing a world government.
Exclusive to American Free Press
By James P. Tucker Jr.
CHANTILLY. Va.—Bilderberg luminaries battered their American counterparts over U.S Middle East policy, which they blamed for causing the need for a “war on terrorism” which could lead to bloody military misadventures.
However, most Bilderberg boys from both sides of the Atlantic were, for some reason, confident there would be no war between Pakistan and India. At that moment, both nations were on the brink of a nuclear holocaust.
It could have had something to do with the appearance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was hastily summoned to appear on Saturday, June 1. Rumsfeld had attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1975 at Cemse, Turkey, as an assistant to President Jerry Ford. Ford had attended Bilderberg as minority leader of the House.
Rumsfeld is known to have been summoned to reassure the Europeans there would be “no immediate” U.S. invasion of Iraq as had been planned by the White House (American Free Press, June 10). He was pressed, but refused to say, that the United States had no plans for future wars.
Whether Rumsfeld also helped reassure Bilderberg there would be no war between Pakistan and India could not be determined.
But, even as Rumsfeld was assuring Bilderberg of at least a momentary delay in launching a new war, President Bush was rattling sabers in a commencement ad dress at West Point.
“Pre-emptive strikes” will be used against nations or groups that threaten the United States, Bush told the newly minted Army officers. He vowed to “take the battle to the enemy, disrupt its plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.”
Besides Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Kenneth Dam was scheduled to attend—and did.
But unity was expressed with kind words, smiles, hand shakes and embraces on Bilderberg’s long-term agenda:
• Empowering the United Nations until it becomes a demure, as well as de facto, world government.
• Advancing this goal by creating a direct UN tax on “world citizens,” expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere as a prelude to creating an “American Union” similar to the European Union and empowering international bodies to further erode the sovereignty of nations. Further establishing NATO as the UN’s world army was also discussed.
There was much hand-wringing over “rising nationalism” in Europe, as demonstrated by the electoral successes of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and by a populist “resurgence” in The Netherlands and Denmark. Americans agreed to pursue a “world without borders.”
But on the issues of war and America’s Middle East policy, Americans faced three days of chastisement, both in formal sessions and during glass-tinkling between sessions. A grim-faced Henry Kissinger and others had to take it as Europeans denounced U.S. policy.
It reached the point that Europeans were praising their detested press, which has showered them with unwanted publicity in recent years. This is a close paraphrase of the angry words Americans heard:
In Europe, you would be unable to conduct such a one-sided policy in the Middle East. Europeans know, because of heavy press coverage, of Israel’s wars of expansion and brutal occupation of Palestinian lands. They are aware of the cruelty inflicted on civilians, including women and children, for no military objective at all.
Europeans know that Israel’s military machine is financed by the United States. They know that the planes, tanks and weapons attacking innocent citizens are provided by the United States. While there is no justification for the attacks in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, Europeans know that Palestinians will resist in any way they can.
Because of the unfair Middle East policy of the United States, we Europeans now must be your allies in your war on terrorism.
Americans responded to this with grim faces and shrugs.
The administration had anticipated this barrage and tried to soften it with a peace plan that included an independent Palestinian state. This goes beyond previous U.S. positions, Americans reassured the Europeans, which merely called for Palestinian statehood. The plan was still being drafted as Bilderberg met but they were assured it would be publicly unveiled in July.
Bilderberg celebrated the fact that a global UN tax is “part of the public dialogue” without a public outcry by “nationalists.” Alan Keyes, as President Ronald Reagan’s UN ambassador, denounced the proposed tax and it has been widely discussed since.
Bilderberg has offered several variations of the world tax. First, it suggested a 10-cent tax on oil at the barrel head, meaning citizens would pay a direct tax to the UN when gassing up their cars or using oil in any way. A surcharge on international travel by air or sea and a tax on international financial transfers were also proposed.
Like the federal income tax, a UN levy would be so small at the outset the consumer would hardly notice. But establishing the principle that the UN can directly tax citizens of the world is important to Bilderberg. It is another giant step toward world government. It is openly discussed with little public notice or objection “except for the Ron Pauls in Congress” and “nationalist” publications, Bilderberg boys assured themselves. The references were to populist Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and the newspaper you are reading.
There were also demands for “tax equity”—meaning that the United States must revise her tax laws to more evenly reflect the high-tax, socialistic societies of Europe. It was called “unfair trade” for the United States to be so—by comparison—“tax friendly” to individuals and businesses.
Europeans continued to complain about the new farm subsidy legislation and the imposition of tariffs on steel imports to protect the domestic industry against dumping and were distraught that the Senate version of Fast Track would allow Congress to block any trade deals that negate laws protecting domestic industries.
There was continued sniping at the United States be cause Bush “unsigned” the Kyoto global warming treaty which, economists warned, would generate sky-high inflation while requiring nothing of most nations. Spite fully, the 15-nation European Union ratified the treaty on June 1 as Bilderberg was meeting. This prompted a graying Bilderberg luminary to moan that George Bush is “the worst president since [Richard] Nixon.” Never has Bush received a higher tribute.
NATO has been functioning as the standing army of the United Nations since celebrating its 50th anniversary in Washington during the invasion of Yugoslavia. NATO’s first shot fired in anger was not in defense, as its charter required, but in an offensive war. At that time, leaders announced that NATO was no longer confined to Europe but would undertake military ventures anywhere in the world—at the direction of the UN Security Council.
Bilderberg is reinforcing this world army doctrine while doing early work on the third great region of the world: the emerging “Asian-Pacific Union.”
It is already being bound together as APEC—the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Even as Bilderberg met, one of its own, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was attending a meeting of Asian-Pacific defense ministers. Ultimately, there are to be three great regions for the administrative convenience of the world government: the European Union, American Union and Asian-Pacific Union.
Bilderberg ended a day earlier than normal, abandoning Westfields early on Sunday afternoon, June 2. Normally, they would have said their farewells on Mon day. This must have been a sudden decision, be cause staffers of Bilderberg participants in nearby Washington had been told they would be out of their offices until Tuesday.