ETERNAL VIGILANCE

BILDERBERG SCARED

EUROPEAN NATIONALISM THROWING WRENCH IN PLANS

By James P. Tucker Jr.
May 6, 2005
American Free Press

ROTTACH-EGERN, Germany — Britons were voting even as Bilderberg was gathering here Thursday, May 5, and the British luminaries gave grudging support to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor Party because of his backing of the pending European Constitution (EC). But they remain angry that Blair joined the United States in the invasion of Iraq.

A French referendum on the proposed EC May 29 has Bilderberg deeply concerned. The outcome is in doubt and defeat would be a severe blow to Bilderberg’s long-term effort to establish a globalist government.

Polls in March showed that, after strongly backing the EC for months, French support dropped below 50 percent. The latest poll had supporters ahead by a slight margin. But Bilderberg is still concerned because one-fourth of the supporters could change their minds.

A German Bilderberg insider said the EC is in trouble for the same reason, he hopes, that the Free Trade Area of the Americas may fail: “outsourcing” of jobs.

“American jobs are going to South America, China and India,” he said.

“Jobs in Germany and France are going to Asia and Ukraine.” Ukraine is among the former East Bloc countries that have been admitted to the European Union, bringing membership to 25.

International financiers, along with heads of state and high officials of government in the United States and Europe, are the main muscle of Bilderberg. As the European Union expanded, jobs were shipped to the new memberstates to take advantage of cheap labor — just as NAFTA affected the United States.

This accounts for the shift in sentiment in France and Germany toward the pending EC and, by extension, to the European Union. France and Germany are suffering economically as a result, while Europe-shunning Britain is relatively healthy.

Unemployment in France and Germany is high — 10 percent — because of “outsourcing” and moving plants to poor countries. Britain prospers, making it politically difficult for Blair to keep his years-old promise to Bilderberg to persuade Britons to embrace the EC.

“Protectionism is the flavor of the month,” said an unhappy Elga Bartsch, an economist at Morgan Stanley in London, which is always represented at Bilderberg.

The Financial Times carried a “pre-leak” Bilderberg story May 5, using a tongue-in-cheek style to reassure readers about “conspiracy theories.”

Writer Daniel Dombey failed to mention that his newspaper is regularly represented at Bilderberg.

He inadvertently confirmed past AFP reports with these words: “In 2003, tensions over the Iraq war boiled over.”

---

Editor's comment: The intrepid Bilderberg hound, Jim Tucker, continues to report on the machinations of the globalists in this update.

It seems those dreaded Nationalists have once again caused much consternation among the global elite. More is the pity. If it were not for their fascist tendencies, which is roughly equivalent to the transnational capitalism they practice, it is likely that the nations of the world would be experiencing moderate and sustainable prosperity.

The problem is rooted in the combination of technosocialist devotion to capitalist theory and the nanny-state which revolves around the fiat money system of the international banksters. Ever increasing debt is the symptom of this fatal economic illness typified by the Keynesian economic theorists.

Quite simply, there is no way to spend yourself into prosperity. Production of raw materials and a fair price paid to the producer, plus the addition of human labor as those materials are made into usable products is the key to all wealth. All wealth, therefore, comes from the soil and the earth.

We have been saying for some time now that modern commercialism is rooted in fascism, American-style. Hitler and Mussolini may have been defeated 60 years ago, but fascism was not. The best description we have come across is on the Mutualist Blog, as follows:

Discussing faux private interests that are actually part of the State, Brad Spangler puts a new spin on Rothbard's likening of the state to a holdup man. In the case of state capitalism, he writes, the state is just an accomplice to "private" interests:

...one robber (the literal apparatus of government) keeps you covered with a pistol while the second (representing State-allied corporations) just holds the bag that you have to drop your wristwatch, wallet and car keys in. To say that your interaction with the bagman was a “voluntary transaction” is an absurdity. Such nonsense should be condemned by all libertarians. Both gunman and bagman together are the true State.

Brilliant. I've seen too many "libertarian" defenses of big business that attempt to absolve it of any guilt for its role in this partnership. Big business is just the passive victim, so they say, forced to accept corporate welfare and obtain special privileges in self-defense against the forces of the regulatory state. According to this argument, the recipients of differential tax advantages are the good guys, managing to keep a bit more of their own money.* Complete and utter horseshit.

The rotation of personnel between senior corporate management and political appointees in government agencies is such that corporate and government leadership are, for all intents and purposes, a single power elite. Large corporations are not passive victims of the state; they act through the state. It makes about as much sense to separate them from the state, as it would have made to separate the landholding class from the state in Medieval times. The state, by definition, is the instrument of a ruling class. Sometimes the state and the ruling class are one and the same, as under Soviet-style bureaucratic collectivism. But sometimes the state is the instrument of a nominally "private" ruling class, or of a mixed ruling class of state and corporate interests (e.g. Scandinavian "social democracy").

Most of the recipes for "free market reform" I see coming from neoliberal politicians leave the gunman in place, but increase the ratio of nominally-private bagmen to gunmen. The more of the work of robbery can be "privatized" to the bagmen, supposedly, the larger the portion of all activity is nominally private. So isn't that a freer market? Isn't that "a step in the right direction"? To see some of the contemporary agitprop in favor of increased "global trade," it must be.

*Note--To those who say differential tax advantages aren't "corporate welfare," by the way: please remember that the practical effect of such exemptions is exactly the same as if we started with a corporate tax rate of zero, and then imposed a tax penalty on those not engaged in favored forms of enterprise. The effect of rapid depreciation, say, is the same as a punitive tax on those not engaged in capital-intensive forms of production. The fiscal and competitive effects are identical.

Also, do not miss the comment at the end of that piece.

A favored tool of modern fascism is free trade. This is typified by NAFTA and now CAFTA as an expansion of the former agreement, soon to cover the entire Western Hemisphere in the FTAA. The FTAA is being opposed in South America by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and an expanding coalition of South American nations.

Congressman Peter DeFazio had this Guest Viewpoint in The Register-Guard of Eugene, Oregon, about the dangers of CAFTA.

Proponents of so-called "free" trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, which I opposed, have long promised endless riches for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and economy. They've been wrong on all counts.
Failed U.S. trade policies have led to the export of millions of high-paying American jobs, a decline in U.S. living standards, soaring trade deficits and a significant erosion of U.S. sovereignty to international trade bureaucrats.

Despite this unbroken record of failure, Congress will soon consider an agreement the Bush administration negotiated to expand NAFTA to Central America via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It will take significant grass-roots opposition to convince enough of my colleagues to block the free trade hucksters. Here's why CAFTA must be defeated.

• CAFTA will increase the already record-high U.S. trade deficit.

The U.S. trade deficit this year is running at an annual rate of $717.2 billion, a full $100 billion above the record deficit set last year. We must borrow nearly $2 billion every day from foreigners to finance this deficit.

Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico. In the wake of NAFTA, the surplus turned into a deficit that has risen steadily. The U.S. already has a trade deficit with the Central American countries of $1.6 billion, which will only grow under CAFTA. Deficits are dangerous because they cost jobs and put our economic and national security in the hands of foreigners who finance them.

• CAFTA will lead to the export of U.S. jobs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S. They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994. CAFTA will be more of the same.

• CAFTA is not about exporting U.S. goods to Central America.

More than 40 percent of workers in Central America make less than $2 a day. The combined economic might of the five Central American countries is only $151 billion, about what the U.S. economy produces in five days. Even if every penny of these countries' economies was devoted to buying U.S. goods, which isn't going to happen, the impact would be insignificant to the $11 trillion U.S. economy.

The bottom line is that CAFTA is not about creating U.S. jobs and exporting U.S. goods. It is about creating a favorable climate for multinational corporations to export U.S. jobs and use Central America to export goods back into the U.S.

• CAFTA will erode U.S. sovereignty.

CAFTA allows foreign corporations to sue our government for approving laws and regulations that may impede their ability to maximize profits. If the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress approves laws to protect the public health, the environment, or consumer and worker safety that a foreign company doesn't like, they can sue to get the law overturned or to require taxpayers to pay large fines in return for keeping the law on the books.

DeFazio further points out that CAFTA will prevent governments from enacting procurement rules which would give preference to local contractors or companies such as Governor John Baldacci of Maine has done with his Governors' Solar Challenge proposal for energy efficiency. This would benefit a local company, Blue Link Solar Network and create more jobs for the state economy.

This combined with true free markets rather than the free trade ideal and conventional understanding of markets which is corrupted by fascist state capitalism is one of the key components in attaining a renewed and revived national economy.