«

»

Jun 07

Bilderberg meets in Chantilly, Virginia

Henri de Castries, Chairman of Bilderberg

Henri de Castries, Chairman of Bilderberg

American and European top politicians, industrialists and bankers met last weekend to decide how the world will be run.  The Bilderberg Group gathered at Chantilly, Virginia, USA from 2nd to 4th June 2017.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned about it.

Firstly, these wealthy individuals rather than politicians we elect are going to determine what should be done in the world.

Secondly, whatever they decide, be sure it will benefit these ‘kings of the earth’ first, and the rest of us a long way behind.

Lastly, the Bible teaches conspiracy not as theory but as fact:

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, …

Overlapping membership with world elite

Kenneth Clarke was on the Bilderberg steering group for years.

Kenneth Clarke was on the Bilderberg steering group for years.

Bilderberg is named after the Dutch hotel where the group first met in 1954.  It is highly secretive and had to be pushed and shamed a few years ago even into having a website.  Naturally, the website does the minimum, publishing a list of those attending and an agenda.  Up until ten or so years ago journalists had to find out the annual guest list from staff at the latest venue.

Leading members have included Dennis Healey, Kenneth Clarke, Peter Lord Carrington, the Irishman Peter Sutherland and Henry Kissinger.  Bilderberg has strong links by personnel to other groups of the world’s elite.  Both the US and the European Council on Foreign Relations are part of the same network.  The Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller, includes in addition the elite of the Far East.  The TC membership linked off their website here overlaps with Bilderberg.  The World Bank and IMF, Davos, the globalist Club of Rome and numerous think-tanks such as the Aspen Institute are also in the loop.

In the past we have reported on last year’s meeting in Dresden, their meeting in Watford, England in 2013 and the previous get-together at Chantilly in 2012.  We also exposed links between Bilderberg and those agitating for a pro-EU stance from Ukraine.

The Bilderberg agenda

Here is this year’s agenda, straight off the website:

The Trump Administration: A progress report
Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios
The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks
The direction of the EU
Can globalisation be slowed down?
Jobs, income and unrealised expectations
The war on information
Why is populism growing?
Russia in the international order
The Near East
Nuclear proliferation
China
Current events

Bilderberg clearly don’t like populism.  It might upset their apple cart.  They also talked about China and Russia.  How many Russians do you think were there?  Precisely none.  And how many Chinese?  Just the one, that nation’s ambassador to the US.  There was no-one from Asia and no-one from South America.  Naturally, no-one was invited from Africa or from Eastern Europe.  Sorry, there was one Polish guy there, but only because he is a professor at Harvard.  Furthermore, there was no delegate from Israel.  However, five industrialists and economists came from Turkey.  Apart from that, there was no-one from the Middle East.  That’s because Bilderberg was ‘designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America’.

Charlie Skelton has been lampooning Bilderberg for years in the Guardian.  Accordingly, here is his take on the inclusion of the agenda item on globalisation: ‘You think that the assembled heads of Google, AT&T, Bayer, Airbus, Deutsche Bank, Ryanair, Fiat Chrysler, and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange want to see a brake on globalisation? It’s the air that they breathe.’

Prospects and high-flyers

Bilderberg liked Tony Blair four years before he became Prime Minister

Bilderberg liked Tony Blair four years before he became Prime Minister

But make no mistake, Bilderberg is the primary concentrated gathering of those who see themselves as the world’s elite.  The official 2017 guest list reveals the meeting was chaired by Henri de Castries, boss of AXA insurance. The king of the Netherlands rubbed shoulders with Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary.

Ultra-hawkish US Senators Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham were there.  In the past, Bilderberg has been good at identifying future Prime Minsters and Presidents.  It is where Tony Blair was anointed in 1993 before he won the 1997 election.

Another website says: ‘Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president.” On January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect.’

Of course, existing high-flyers are also in evidence.  Sometimes they will be insiders, thinking along the same liines.  At other times they will be those whom the inner circle wish to influence.  Accordingly, this year, Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster, attended alongside David Petraeus, former CIA Director.  Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, pitched up.  William J. Burns, President of the Carnegie Endowment was there.  So was Christopher Liddell, Who is an Assistant to Donald Trump, and Director of Strategic Initiatives in the White House.

UK Guest list

The UK Guest list was a little light this year, maybe because of the General Election.  Nevertheless, these eight made it:

Andrew Adonis, Chair, National Infrastructure Commission
Marcus Agius, Chairman, PA Consulting Group
General Sir John Nicholas Reynolds, Former Chief of the Defence Staff
George Osborne, Editor, London Evening Standard
Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times
John Sawers, Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Sharon White, Chief Executive, Ofcom
Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

The annual meetings take place under what is known as the ‘Chatham House rule’ which was invented by London’s Royal Institute of International Affairs.  Consequently, ‘Participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.’

So don’t expect any report to come out.  Of course, all the journalists present are sworn to secrecy.  The website says of its meetings: ‘There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written.  Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.’

Scripture

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

As you pray into this, for the Lord to bring their plans to naught, be sure he will have the final word:

READ: Psalm 2:1-4, 48:7, 64, 76:12, 149; Isaiah 24::21; Luke 8:17; John 15:18; 2Cor 10:3-5; Rev 19:19-20.

 

Share

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. [email protected]

    Thanks for posting about this meeting. It is the New World Order at work and we must pray against the work of the elites and their ever greater attempts at controlling the world… and not for the benefit of most of us. In fact, it is said that only the worlds richest people, the top 1%, will benefit from the plans of the global elite.

  2. Rox

    It’s certainly appropriate that the cream of politicians, industrialists and bankers should meet in Chantilly. I don’t suppose it was the kind of top people’s secret meeting where there was any whipping, though.

    Supposing Jeremy Corbyn wins on what is (as I write) tomorrow.
    There is the thought of government in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump. You give us a whiff of government being in the hands of people more like Dennis Healey and Kenneth Clarke. That’s not so bad.

  3. colinford

    Dear Stephen,
    Thank you for your e-mail regarding Bilderberg and our ‘planet’, so-called.
    This motivated me to log on to your site.

    Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Psalm 119.18.

    We don’t live on a planet, the Bible knows nothing of planets-only the sun, moon and stars.
    I am NOT a ‘conspiracy theorist’ just a believer in God’s Word. Left to God’s word alone, we could only know that the earth is FLAT (or rather not a spinning globe).

    I have written a small e-book on kindle “Antarctica Does It End? Hast thou comprehended the breadth of the earth? Declare if thou knowest it all.” Colin Ford. It is my humble prayer that it may open your eyes.
    God bless you.

    1. Rox

      The Bible knows nothing of computers either.

      Or television, or buses, or Antarctica.

      Or ice-cream .

    2. Stephen

      God’s word does NOT say ‘The earth is flat’.

      1. Rox

        He isn’t saying it does. He is only saying that if you ONLY read the BIble you would assume it was flat, and you would not know that it is a planet.

        That is true.

        But if he only read the Bible, he would probably not have gone out and bought a computer, probably not have been able to use it if he had done (and would he be allowed to read anything on the computer except the Bible ?) and he would not know about Antarctica .

        He would know about conspiracy theories either. Even you must admit that anyone who ONLY reads the Bible isn’t very well-equipped for modern life. Anyone who allows himself to know about modern discoveries like Antarctica will also know that the Earth is a spherical planet.

        The planets were well known to the Babylonians. Is there really no hint that the Jews didn’t pick up anything about this while in exile ? They might be referred to as “stars” (as also was what might well have been a comet) .Even nowadays, Venus is referred to as the Morning Star or Evening Star.

        1. Stephen

          No, the Bible does not the earth is either flat or spherical. Not sure the Hebrews have a word for a ‘sphere’ as opposed to a ‘circle’. But any sailor would get a clue from the horizon. Ancient people were not stupid, as your point about the Babylonians makes clear.

          1. Rox

            I can thoroughly recommend Colin Ford’s fascinating book. It only costs £1.99 on Amazon, and it doesn’t take long to read, being only a dozen or two pages long (depending on how you set your Kindle reader, which can of course be just a free programme on your computer).

            The theory is very unusual, and has the great advantage of doing away with fears about global warming, or over-population, because Mr Ford’s flat earth is infinite. It is not a limited spherical planet at all, but recalls the Jewish idea of the earth and the heavens as drawn in some bibles, but with his own peculiar modification.

            This isn’t completely spelt out, but as I understand it, the flat earth has the North Pole at the centre, and the familiar map of the earth spread out around it in a circle, so that Antarctica forms the circumference of the circular earth, in the form, at first, of a “massive ice wall”, but with much more beyond the wall than most people currently realise (hence the title of the book). This fits with the author’s observation that “the further south we go, lines of latitude ever widen, ad infinitum.” Writing as he does from the Isle of Lewis, this doesn’t affect him personally.

            The benefit of it to mankind (or to Christians anyway) is that global warming, or other more esoteric acts of God, can melt the ice wall, and we can occupy the infinite territory of the flat earth beyond.

            Mr Ford understandably directs his attacks on those who disagree with him principally at the disinformation from NASA and the Soviet Union.
            “Can you imagine the top brass at NASA saying ‘Sorry you guys, the Bible was right all along, the World is flat and we never sent anyone to the moon ….’ ?”
            No, I certainly can’t. Most of us would agree with Ford on this point.
            But I don’t think it’s terribly important, because his main reason for not landing on the moon (it generates its own light and heat like the sun, Matthew 24.29, also Genesis) is another issue; and wherever it is in Ford’s scheme of things, there might be a way of getting there.

            Nor am I very convinced by his quotation of Genesis 19.23 “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar”. I don’t think this disproves that what had really happened was that the Earth had rotated so that Zoar had become illuminated by the sun when Zoar entered it. Newton and NASA remained happy with terms like “sunrise”, as we all do !

            Mr Ford does not see satellites as a hoax like the moon landings, but believes that satellites are just going round in circles above his flat circular earth. These circles never cross over his Antarctica (which of course would be impossible). He doesn’t explain what keeps the satellites going.

            As I see it, however, the obvious objections to this novel theory go back much further than any kind of space travel, and do need to be explained away, if possible. Perhaps Colin will oblige.

            Firstly there is Newton, but he doesn’t seem to understand Newton, and dismisses gravitation as “a myth”. In fact, he says that if the Earth was rotating, “the water would soon go flying off” and “there would be no water left”. [ But surely that is only if gravitation were a “myth” : admittedly I don’t fully understand this part of the book ]. Let’s move on.

            Most importantly, it seems to have escaped Ford’s notice that if “the further south we go, lines of latitude ever widen”, then lines of latitude south of the Equator will be longer than the Equator. If this was true, you would not have to be a genius to notice it. Already in the later 19th century, globes and atlases commonly marked shipping lanes such as Southampton to New York 3019 miles, and Cape Town to Montevideo 3005 miles. If Mr Ford were right, then Cape Town to Montevideo would be very much further than that ! Any ship which assumed the distance was the same as from Southampton to New York would run out of coal and food. This didn’t happen. He needs to introduce some kind of relativity into his theory, perhaps.

            Australians would find that their country was much bigger than they thought, and it would, even today, take much longer to reach Perth from Sydney than it does, on a railway which would have cost much more to build than estimated. You don’t need to bring in NASA. This just doesn’t seem to be on, not superficially, but there may be a subtle explanation,

            Anyway, I would be interested to read Colin Ford’s views on this apparent paradox before I review his intriguing book in the place provided by Amazon.

          2. Stephen

            In other words, he is ignoring the evidence.

          3. Rox

            Well, he sees worldly evidence differently from most people, or he wouldn’t have a different theory. But he doesn’t ignore the evidence he finds in the Bible, nor certain recent evidence about Antarctica, which you need to read the book to appreciate.

            “I believe it is entirely because of what God says in His word that confirms the heliocentric solar-system theory to be false. ……recent unguarded comments made by scientific / space research agencies from their research stations in Antarctica have helped me to establish this …..These have confirmed beyond all doubt that what God’s word says in the Bible about the fixedness and shape of our ‘planet’ is true, and He should know, for he created it”.

            Personally, I still can’t reconcile this with the latitude paradox.
            If Ford is right, then from the South Orkney Islands to Adélie Land would be VASTLY further than from the original Shetland Islands to Alaska (without crossing the pole). But it isn’t. This is not uncharted territory, and the distance is known to be much the same.

            As the Bible is written in terms which people would understand at the time it was written, discrepancies from our modern view are scarcely surprising. You wouldn’t expect Jesus to add a caveat “Although of course, I know that the moon only reflects the light of the sun and is not a source of energy itself”.

            There are also poetical passages (especially in Job) which Ford tends to take too literally.

  4. colinford

    Rox,
    I am glad that you have found my little e-book “fascinating”. I am under no misapprehension; it will definitely NOT be a best-seller! People seem to only want fiction-not the truth!

    I am very humbled that I believe what I believe, this is only by God’s grace alone.

    I am currently expanding upon this little work of mine, and pray that it would be a blessing to those that are ‘simple’ (like me), that is those who trust in God’s word ALONE, and not in “science falsely called” 1 Timothy 6.20?

    There is much else that I could have added to my little work, which I hope to do so very soon, God willing.
    I don’t claim to have all the answers, neither do the ‘scientists’! All I do know is that we are being drip fed a continual stream of lies and misinformation. Why is it that most of the NASA/ESA images are either photo-shopped or artist impressions?

    BTW, can we force a globe into Isaiah 40.22, when Isaiah uses a different Hebrew word for “ball” in chapter 22 v 18?

    The United Nations logo depicts so I believe, the truth-they KNOW! God does indeed “sitteth upon the circle of the earth”! The margin reads “above”.

    Our eschatology shapes what we believe, I am a historic pre-millennial believer (NOT a pre-trib rapture Dispensationalist).

    God bless .

    1. Stephen

      I trust in God’s word, but I also believe the news that the All Blacks beat the British Lions at rugby football today. That is not in conflict with the Bible, and neither is a spherical earth.
      From where Isaiah was standing, or where any of us are standing, there is a horizon all around us. So he could say that was a H2328 ‘CHUG’, circle, or circuit. Why did he not use DUR (ball or circle)? I don’t know. But I do know I’m not about to build a theology on my understanding of one disputable word in one verse, that’s for sure.
      Isaiah, you see, also knows the sun rises in the east and sets in the west:
      Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
      On a flat earth I should see the sun all the time. It would just get bigger and smaller. It would not disappear over the horizon.
      And on 1Tim 6:20, it could be argued, Colin, that you believe you have the ‘gnosis’, the ‘science’, and that you are promoting profane and vain babblings.
      Quantas fly Sydney to Santiago. It has a planned flight time of 13 hours 27 minutes and a planned distance 6347 nautical miles. It flies as close to Antarctica as 71 deg S. If Antarctica were stretched out all around the perimeter of a flat circular earth those figures would make no sense. See this website.
      Why am I even spending the Lord’s valuable time researching and arguing this?

Leave a Reply