domingo, 9 de junio de 2013
Siria y el Grupo Bildelberg; la prensa occidental, más arrastrada que nunca; Francia y Gran Bretaña, más cucarachas que nunca; Petraeus y las implicaciones de un golpe de estado en USA. En fin, de todo se habla en este artículo. Sí, es largo, pero ya hemos señalado que este blog no es para twitteros. Lo firma Webster G. Tarpley y salió esta mañana en PressTV (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/08/307786/uk-france-goading-us-into-striking-syria). Se puede estar de acuerdo, se puede no estar de acuerdo. No es el propósito de este blog adoctrinar a sus lectores. Astroboy entiende que esta es una lectura posible de los acontecimientos en curso.
Título: Britain, France prodding Obama into attacking Syria
Texto: “Last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia was clearly dominated by anti-Obama and pro-Romney forces. At that time, it was revealed by Charlie Skelton of Guardian – one of the very few serious and reliable Bilderberg observers -- that Romney had made an unannounced visit to the Bilderberg confab. Obama, on the other hand, had not attended, although both he and Hillary Clinton had reportedly been on hand in 2008.
On the eve of this year’s Bilderberg meeting, the Anglo-French intelligence bosses have clearly shown their hand with two high-profile attacks on Obama. Wednesday, June 5 marked the liberation of Qusayr, the great Stalingrad of the Syrian terrorist death squads deployed by NATO against Assad. With the rout of these terrorists, the main units of the self-styled Free Syrian Army, along with the Nusra branch of al Qaeda, are likely to face annihilation in the short to medium term.
On the same day that Qusayr fell, the British and French governments hysterically demanded that Obama undertake a total bombing campaign against Syria, whatever the consequences in regard to Russia and other powers. To his credit, Obama is continuing to say no to this lunatic Anglo-French neocolonial adventure. On that same June 5, the London-based daily The Guardian, in an article by the expatriate American Glenn Greenwald, hyped a court order from the secret FISA panel of federal judges showing that the US National Security Agency was routinely monitoring the telephone records (including time, locations, call duration, and unique identifiers, but not the contents of the conversations) of possibly unlimited millions of Verizon phone subscribers. Back in the US, reactionary talk show hosts began screaming “Obama taps your phones!”
On June 6, again in advance of every other newspaper in the world, The Guardian published another article by Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill revealing that the National Security Agency, under a program called Prism, had obtained direct access to the servers of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, Youtube, Skype, AOL, and Microsoft, and was busily monitoring the content of e-mails, file transfers, and live conversations. Back in the US, reactionary talk show hosts began screaming, “Obama reads your e-mail!”
Under George Bush, warrantless wiretaps and similar illegal programs were revealed by various media organs. These revelations had minimal impact on Bush, whose base was indifferent to civil liberties. Obama’s base, by contrast, cares very much, and has been visibly upset by these new reports. While strongly condemning these totalitarian programs, we must also not lose sight of who is putting these reports into circulation, and why. Phone taps are bad, but a general war in the Middle East leading to a possible Third World War is far worse.
The British and French defense and intelligence establishment (they have virtually merged) want Obama and the American people to take the lead and shoulder the risk in a perilous attack on Syria, in time to preserve the death squads so they can fight another day in another country. London and Paris, of course, see themselves as the principal beneficiaries of the breakup of Syria. Since Obama is currently blocking their plans, they are bringing up their big guns of scandal, with the center-left Guardian evidently chosen to take the point, doubtless to obtain more attention among Obama’s leftist supporters. (During the initial Clinton scandals of Whitewatergate and Troopergate, the flagship of scandal was the reactionary London-based Daily Telegraph, especially through its columnists Peregrine Worthshorne and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.)
Coming as they do on the eve of the yearly Bilderberg conference, these scandals stamped Made in England suggest that the majority of this elitist cabal have maintained their anti-Obama line already evident in last year’s meeting, and are using the current gathering to further their plans.
From Lady Astor’s Cliveden Set to the Bilderbergs
This year’s Bilderberg conference is beginning today at the Grove Hotel in the town of Watford, England, not far from Heathrow Airport. Up to 150 announced and unannounced members of the transatlantic financier oligarchy and their retainers are expected to attend. Watford is only 15 miles away from Cliveden, infamous as the country home of Lady Nancy Astor, where some 75 years ago a clique of fascist “cagoulords” including Lord Waldorf Astor, Lord Vincent Astor, Lord Brand, Lord Lothian, Lord Halifax, Geoffrey Dawson of the London Times, and Sir Neville Chamberlain schemed with the likes of Joachim von Ribbentrop to build up Hitler and then play him against Stalin in an apocalyptic world war that somehow went awry. Today’s financier elite is ideologically very much the descendent of that “Cliveden Set” which often dictated policy to the British Foreign Office. Will any of today’s Bilderbergers make the 20-minute drive to Cliveden?
The big news at this year’s Bilderberg meeting is the arrival of General David Petraeus, who was forced out last November as head of the US Central Intelligence Agency under circumstances which strongly suggested that he had taken part in a Seven Days in May scenario, joining with a shadowy cabal of generals, admirals, politicians, pollsters and defense contractors to oust Obama from the White House regardless of the actual vote count last November, and to install a permanent dictatorship of war and austerity under the figurehead of the Wall Street financier Willard Mitt Romney. The best-known public manifestation of that effort has so far been the Benghazi incident of September 11, 2012, an orchestrated pre-election provocation (or “October surprise”) intended to put the Obama campaign on the defensive. The Benghazi incident occurred in the area of command responsibility of General Petraeus as CIA Director, and of General Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command. Both of these officers, along with Afghanistan commander General Allen, NATO commander Admiral Stavridis, and a dozen or more others of flag rank were ousted for various official reasons in a post election purge. But there is good reason to conclude that the United States had narrowly escaped what might be called a veiled military coup d’état.
Last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia was clearly dominated by anti-Obama and pro-Romney forces. At that time, it was revealed by Charlie Skelton of Guardian - one of the very few serious and reliable Bilderberg observers -- that Romney had made an unannounced visit to the Bilderberg confab. Obama, on the other hand, had not attended, although both he and Hillary Clinton had reportedly been on hand in 2008. The Bilderbergers had also provided valuable assistance to the Romney campaign. One leading example, which I discuss in detail in my book "Just Too Weird: Bishop Romney and the Mormon Takeover of America - Polygamy, Theocracy, and Subversion" is the activities of the PayPal and Facebook financier Peter Thiel, who contributed a reported $3.9 million to a super pack active on behalf of presidential candidate Ron Paul, who assisted Romney by draining votes away from serious candidates challenging Romney from his right, such as Senator Rick Santorum. Without a well-funded Ron Paul, the Ohio and Michigan primaries might have gone to Santorum, quite possibly giving him the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, representing the racist Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, was seeking to obtain the vice presidential nomination for Senator Rand Paul, his son. As it turned out, Romney did not need Paul’s convention votes, and turned elsewhere for his running mate.
At that time, it was widely recognized in Washington that Bilderberg was backing Romney. For example, an article in the superficial gossip blog Wonkette by Kirsten Boyd Johnson dated June 6, 2012 was headlined: “Did Bilderberg Monsters Just Crown Mitt Romney Your Next Leader?” We can therefore assume that be 2012 Bilderberg meeting also involved planning for the provocations and media strategies that would attempt to catapult Romney into the White House by fair means or foul.
In the event, the sneering plutocrat Romney turned out to be so inept and odious as a candidate that not even the massive resources of the Bilderberg network sufficed to make him president. This outcome teaches an important lesson: however preponderant their power, the Bilderberg elite does not possess magical powers to shape world events. If they want to take the presidency while preserving the formalities of an election, then they too must mobilize their forces for the long slog, and in this the Obama forces proved more adroit. But, by the same token, the Bilderbergers have not given up on their project of a permanent austerity and aggression dictatorship for the United States. Quite the contrary.
Petraeus and the problem of Bonapartist dictatorship
For years, General David Petraeus has been the principal focus of Bonapartist and authoritarian tendencies in US politics. We can think of him as a kind of American equivalent of France’s Marshall Philippe Pétain, especially as the latter emerges from the groundbreaking historical studies of historian Annie LaCroix-Riz. After World War I, Pétain - a defeatist and pessimist who had never really won a battle, and who collapsed psychologically during the final German assault of 1918 - became the convergence of French fascist forces associated with the secret networks known as the Cagoule and the Synarchie. General Petraeus, for his part, has long been the darling of the neocon faction, which wanted him to run for president in 2012. Petraeus has attended the Bilderberg meeting several times before, and has long been a member of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. Petraeus has signaled that the disagreement with Obama’s policy of ending the Iraq war, and now of winding down Afghanistan. We can assume that Petraeus shares the violent contempt for Obama which was imprudently expressed by his close associate, General Stanley McChrystal, who got fired when his comments were revealed by a journalist.
It may be argued that Petraeus has never really won a campaign. One could just as easily argue that the US military has not won against an opponent capable of serious warfare since General Douglas MacArthur’s masterful Inchon landing of September 1950. Although Petraeus has bitter enemies, he is widely regarded as the leading general of the current age. His return to Bilderberg this year shows that last year’s Paula Broadwell adultery scandal has not removed him from contention. Pétain, after all, was also famous for his dalliances.
Petraeus’ patron, Henry R. Kravis of KKR
General Petraeus does not arrive in Watford alone. He comes as the central figure of his own delegation. He is accompanied by his current patron, the Wall Street financier Henry Kravis of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts. Kravis, with a personal fortune in excess of $4 billion, gives Petraeus a fantastically wealthy sponsor for his future activities. Kravis has just appointed Petraeus to head the KKR Global Institute, a new think tank supposedly devoted to studying problems of environment, economics, society, and governance.
In reality, the KKR Global Institute looks very much like the kind of private intelligence operation which would be needed to launch a rather unorthodox quest for the White House. One of Petraeus’ associates in his new job will be Ken Mehlman, a veteran political hack who once headed the Republican National Committee. Mehlman would not be much use for forecasting global trends, but would be tremendously valuable for someone attempting to assemble a political faction centered on Republican and reactionary circles. A certain Henry McVey of KKR will also be involved.
The Kravis family has something of a history of promoting presidential contenders. As I show in the chapter entitled “The Permian Basin Gang” of my 1992 George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography, the founder of the Kravis family fortune was Oklahoma oilman Ray Kravis, who became a close friend of GOP Senator Prescott Bush of the Wall Street firm Brown Brothers Harriman, for many decades the most politically connected private bank. When Prescott Bush wanted to send the young George H. W. Bush to learn the oil business, he asked Ray Kravis to give his son a job. Henry Kravis later served as a top financial angel for Bush 41. During those years, Henry Kravis wrote the largest single check in world history to complete his leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco.
Also part of Petraeus retinue is Henry’s third wife Marie Josée Kravis, the dominant figure of the reactionary/neocon Hudson Institute. With this, the Petraeus regroupment acquires the services of a significant think tank to generate policy positions, personnel and staffing choices, and the like. Also part of the Petraeus party is Michael Gfoeller, who has ties to former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and served for over a quarter century in the State Department. Gfoeller has been associated with Petraeus in the past, and is currently a political consultant with the lobbying division of Exxon Mobil.
The Bilderbergers supported Obama in 2008 because they wanted to use him as a tool to get the Anglo-American banking system safely through the world derivatives panic with US Treasury and US Federal Reserve bailouts, and a minimum of additional regulation. This was the function which Obama fulfilled. But now, the Bilderbergers are dissatisfied with Obama, and wish to reward him for his services by dumping him as soon as possible, as we saw in 2012.
On the one hand, the Bilderberg group remains deeply dissatisfied with what they regard as the slow and inadequate pace of primitive accumulation and austerity measures under the Obama regime. Obama promises the gradual demolition of Social Security and Medicare, but not fast enough to satisfy these austerity ghouls. Romney would have attempted a much more ambitious program of entitlement destruction, union busting, service cuts, and related measures.
Qusayr, the Stalingrad of the terrorist death squads
Another principle of Bilderberg complaint against Obama has emerged with greater urgency during the last several days. The civil war in Syria systematically fomented by NATO intelligence with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the other reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies has now reached a decisive turning point with the fall of the rebel stronghold of Qusayr on June 5. Tens of thousands of terrorists organized into anti-Assad death squads over several years with the help of the CIA and the State Department now face short-term defeat, rout, encirclement, and annihilation. In the meantime, the British and especially the French government are busy manufacturing dubious stories about the alleged use of poison gas by the Syrian government against the Anglo-French terrorist clients. This operation reeks of the worst neocolonialism: it is the Paris-London entente cordiale of 1904, the Sykes-Picot powers, and the infamous duo of Suez 1956, who are demanding the re-imposition of colonial rule in the Levant. Ironically, current Russian opposition and US skepticism in regard to this project are also a distant echo of that same Suez crisis.
The British, the French, the Israelis, and the neocons are doing everything possible to pressure Obama into attacking Syria and Hezbollah now, a move which would commit him to an attack on Iran a little later. Obama is guilty of numerous crimes and atrocities, including drone strikes, assassinations, cyber warfare, economic sanctions, the bombing of Libya, and many more, but the simple fact is that the Syrian crisis has gone on for more than two years and Obama is still refusing to launch the massive US bombing campaign demanded by the British Colonel Blimps and the French Vichy nostalgics. No one can tell how long Obama’s resolve will last, but this is the reality we have observed so far. Even Obama’s appointments of the warmongers and meddlers Susan Rice and Samantha Power to important regime posts can be variously interpreted. According to one view, these two charming ladies are being set up as prominent and visible targets for the raving attacks of the Congressional tea party fanatics, meaning that Obama personally will be spared a significant part of the flak. Whether Obama will ever follow their urgings towards aggression has yet to be seen. He turned down a demand from Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey and Petraeus to arm the Syrian death squads in the fall of 2012, and Rice and Power are both far weaker than that combination.
Assuming that Obama continues to resist an attack on Syria, and continues to move towards austerity at the current pace, the moment may soon come when the Bilderbergers will want to get him out of the White House. Last year, that operation could have been accomplished under the cover of an election, which is always the preferred way. This year, Obama’s ouster would have to involve impeachment and removal from office on the Watergate model. There is no doubt that House Tea Party fanatics would be happy to impeach Obama at any time. They have pushed aside all other public business to focus on their lunatic account of the Benghazi events, their grotesque interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service affair, and their endless tub-thumping about regime snooping on the Associated Press, Fox reporter James Rosen, etc.
At the present time, the impeachment of Obama might prove to be an exercise in futility, since his support in the Senate remains intact. But that can change. The chances of removing Obama have just improved today with the appointment of a new Republican Senator by New Jersey Governor Christie to replace the recently deceased Senator Lautenberg of that state until October.
Ray McGovern: Obama fears assassination by the CIA
And then, 50 years after the Kennedy assassination, there are more energetic methods, as Obama personally seems to realize. One source shedding light on this matter is ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern, the former intelligence briefer of President George H. W. Bush, and now a peace activist. On a recent Pacifica radio broadcast, McGovern has reported this interesting account of remarks made by Obama after hours with supporters:
“He’s afraid of what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. And I know from a good friend who was there when it happened, that at a small dinner with progressive supporters - after these progressive supporters were banging on Obama before the election, Why don’t you do the things we thought you stood for? Obama turned sharply and said, ‘Don’t you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr.?’ That’s a quote, and that’s a very revealing quote. McGovern spoke on WBAI's show Law and Disorder this morning He was talking about his recent article calling Obama ‘a wuss’ and speculated that Obama had also placed John Brennan as head of the CIA out of fear that the CIA might turn on him, as it had on John Kennedy. I’m pretty convinced that the president of the United States is afraid of the CIA.” (Philip Weiss, “Obama told friends he reneged on progressive promises out of fear of assassination - former CIA analyst,” Mondoweiss, June 3, 2013)
The notion that Obama’s life is in danger has been methodically cultivated by his devoted supporters from the start of his presidential campaign in 2007. Ray McGovern, however, cannot be counted as one of those acolytes, and would be more likely to lambaste Obama than to make excuses for him. This account therefore acquires a certain authority.
From his own point of view, Obama has had a rough time lately. It has long been known that his greatest psychological satisfaction comes through the adulation he receives when making public speeches. When he delivered his speech on national security at the National Defense University, he was subjected to prolonged heckling by the veteran provocateur, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink. This heckling went on for a long time. Ms. Benjamin is very suspect, because she demanded that Obama stop old drone attacks and close Guant?namo, but said nothing at all about the far greater danger of a short-term attack on Syria, a country she has vilified in the recent past. And now, in an act of complete lese majesté, the hitherto untouchable First Lady Michelle Obama has been accosted at a private fundraiser by a lesbian activist demanding that Obama sign an executive order providing benefits for same-sex couples. Are these coincidences, or part of a psychological warfare pattern designed to remind Obama that he can be reached at any time?
Hollywood accredits the meme of storming the White House
There is also another dimension. Serious students of the events of September 11, 2001 are aware of the process by which the memes or elements of that tragic day were carefully introduced, accredited, and developed in the public mind, especially through a series of Hollywood movies. An example is the final scene of the movie The Fight Club, which shows the collapse of a number of skyscrapers in a manner eerily prophetic of the fate of the New York Twin Towers. Hollywood is, after all, not far away from Santa Monica, the home of that leading scenario factory known as the Rand Corporation.
Precisely in this field we have this sudden emergence of a new genre of a Hollywood blockbuster - the movie extravaganza devoted to an armed assault on the White House. The first of these arrived in March of this year under the title of Olympus Has Fallen, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Gerard Butler, Ashley Judd, and Morgan Freeman. Here a large force of North Korean rogue terrorists strafe and storm the White House and take the president prisoner in the situation room, demanding that the US get out of Korea. The tone is paranoid/serious, with no element of satire or irony. The accent is on a certain kind of naturalism, including by having the real-life MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell report the events in a newscast. Many images portray the blowing up of the entire West Wing of the premises.
Due in theaters in late June is a second movie with virtually the identical theme, this time called White House Down, from Sony Pictures and Columbia. The director is the German Roland Emmerich, known for Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Patriot. The stars are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx. This time, the White House is attacked by a domestic paramilitary group led by Emil Stenz, according to the script by James Vanderbilt of the well-known oligarchical clan. The attackers also blow up the dome of the US Capitol as a diversion. So far as is known, Obama has not commented on either of these two motion pictures.
The Kokesh march on Washington: Rifle-toting reactionaries
Are there correlated developments in the real world? There certainly are: over a period of several weeks, the disgruntled Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh was recently calling for a July 4 anti-Obama march of 10,000 black-clad white reactionaries to violate federal and District of Columbia law by crossing the Potomac from Virginia into the District and thence around the National Mall, passing by most of the executive departments, the Congress, and the White House - all the while armed with loaded rifles. Until about a year ago, Kokesh was a leading supporter of the Republican austerity fanatic and antigovernment demagogue Ron Paul, but he then broke with Paul and set out on his own course of provocation and adventurism. In the unlikely event that Kokesh’s march had succeeded, he would have had the equivalent of one rifle division in position to intimidate the Congress and the White House in turn - a clear step towards anarchy. After being arrested at a pro-marijuana rally in Philadelphia and spending a few days in jail, Kokesh has changed his strategy, and is now calling for marches on July 4 in the 50 state capitals to demand immediate secession and breakup of the federal union. Loaded rifles would still be de rigeur. The question of secessionism was answered with thundering finality in the American Civil War of a century and a half ago, an episode which caused this nation more than 700,000 dead. Since the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April 1865, anyone attempting to be open this question must be regarded as a dangerous madman. For our purposes here, it is enough to recall that the Kokesh march is too close for comfort to the two scenario films we have just discussed.
Such then is the immediate background for the Bilderberg 2013 deliberations this weekend. It remains to say a word about the abysmal quality of most Bilderberg analysis. Last year at Chantilly, they obtained an incongruous situation in which the majority of the protesters assembled outside of the hotel gate were supporters of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Whether they know it or not, these poor dupes were thus also supporting Mitt Romney, for whom Paul was serving as the right wingman. There was a direct convergence between Paul backer Peter Thiel inside the meeting, and the Paul backers outside. This amounts to a classic control the opposition. Things like this have been happening since ancient Greece, when it was the general rule that the cult of Apollo at Delphi controlled the various cults of Dionysios which appeared to naïve observers as the opposition.
Cutting through disinformation and controlled opposition
Any group as sophisticated as Bilderberg knows that its arrogant and oligarchical machinations will inevitably call forth a resistance. One way to control such a resistance is by providing them with a steady flow of disinformation, disguised as leaks from the inside. A conduit for such leaks was precisely the late Jim Tucker, who wrote for the American Free Press, the descendent of the house organ of the Roosevelt-hating and fascist-loving American Liberty League of the 1930s. Tucker was an unreconstructed Confederate racist. At his last Bilderberger meeting, Tucker told a group of journalists that he regarded the American Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression.” He added that he wanted reparations, not for those who had been enslaved, but rather for the slave owners, whom he said had been illegally deprived of their property by the evil President Lincoln. Tucker claimed that the Bilderberg group was in favor of socialism, and ferociously opposed to free market laissez-faire capitalism. In reality, David Rockefeller, one of those who paid for Bilderberg activities over several decades, had hired the Austrian school libertarian economist Friedrich von Hayek as his personal tutor at the London School of Economics in the 1930s, and had later financed an American professorship for Ludwig von Mises, another Austro-libertarian luminary. This means that David Rockefeller must be regarded as a founder of both the Bilderberg group and the Austrian school of economics. But it did no good to call these plain facts to Tucker’s attention: he kept repeating that the Bilderberg group supported Obama for reelection.
Whether Tucker was fed these stories by a functionary from within Bilderberg, or whether he simply invented them out of whole cloth on his own, is a matter for further inquiry. To the extent that Tucker was seen as the public face of the opposition to Bilderberg, the elitists had nothing to worry about.
Similarly, at last year’s Bilderberg event it was breathlessly reported that the name of Ron Paul was being cursed inside the meeting. Since the Bilderberg faction around Thiel was contributing large sums to help Ron Paul’s campaign efforts, and since the overwhelming consensus of Bilderberg as a whole was pro-Romney, we might be driven to the conclusion that this report was just a face-saving trick by the Paulbearers to conceal the embarrassing elitist support for their man. But it is also possible that the name of Ron Paul was being cursed by the waiters, busboys, and cleaning ladies when they found out that Paul wanted to take away their union, their minimum wage, their food stamps, their unemployment benefits, their hope for Social Security and Medicare in their old age, the Head Start program and Pell Grants for their kids, and the WIC high-protein meals for their pregnant wives and babies.
The Paul supporters feel an enduring gratitude towards Thiel. This week, we read in an article by Paul Joseph Watson appearing on Infowars of June 3, 2013: “Another notable attendee is Peter Thiel, the man who provided the financial muscle for online ventures like Facebook and Paypal, as well as LinkedIn and Friendster.” More to the point is the fact that Thiel also “provided the financial muscle” for Ron Paul’s super pack to the tune of $3.9 million. The fear is evidently that this inconvenient fact might cause some pesky cognitive dissonance among Watson’s readers, many of whom were and are devoted supporters of the Paul dynasty’s inhuman super-austerity policies.
This line of argument currently also attempts to portray the anarcho-capitalist Thiel as a benign force for openness and transparency within the sinister Bilderberg context. This is so absurd that no comment is necessary. It will be wise to remain skeptical in regard to such accounts.
The inability of libertarians to discover and report the truth about Bilderberg comes down to this. Bilderberg is a creature of the Rockefellers, and so is the Austrian school to which the libertarians subscribe. They are thus pre-programmed, as if with an inner gyroscope, to converge on the policy goals of the financier elite. The Bilderberg group demands genocidal austerity across the board. The libertarians, calling this the fight against big government (even though the sacrifices are borne by innocent individuals), heartily agree. The Bilderberg group ardently desires to oust Obama from the White House. The libertarians, blinded by their fanatical hatred of Obama, and long since aligned with the far right demagogic line emanating from such scurrilous websites as Drudge and Breitbart, are totally on board.
Only when it comes to the attack on Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, about which Obama is dragging his feet, might the libertarians have some objections. But by that point, they themselves, through their very own efforts, would have largely destroyed the institutional basis for resistance to a future and wider war - such as through trade unions, which the Pauls wish to destroy. The irony of the libertarians is that they always claim technically not to be fascists in the full 1930s central European sense of the term- but, as the example of German Chancellor Brüning shows, libertarian economic and social policies can be counted on to degrade social and economic conditions to the point where fascist rule becomes virtually inevitable, as seen in 1932-1933.
And remember: Bilderberg is of Dutch origin, and so is Petraeus.”