9/11 nine years on

Washington Blog has a lengthy list of "old" news telling of important people (members of the official 9/11 commission, senior intelligence officers, congressmen and other government officials) strongly doubting the official version on the attacks and denouncing the cover-up around this key event of recent history, of ongoing history.

This should be enough almost anywhere to have a ongoing national debate on the authorship and real goals of the attack. It should be enough certainly to consider that the inside-job theory is pretty much mainstream.

But the media is being gagged in this as in many other key issues, ranging from Israel to the Louisiana oil spill catastrophe. One wonders what media that cannot be critical with the authorities is worth for... and the obvious answer is: mere propaganda and mass brainwashing.

And without the media echoing the alternative versions of what was in fact 9/11 and thoughtlessly repeating once and again the official and obviously false version of the events, a lot of people can still keep their blind faith in the system and the authorities.

Lincoln seems to have said that "you can't fool everybody forever" but the Cheney-Rumsfeld school of imperial ruling seems to think that it's enough if you can fool most for a few decades. And for that they have the unbelievably sheepishly or coerced consent of the media, every day concentrated in less and less hands, and hence every day less and less free.

But it's not just the usual media, I knew recently that the most relevant person (of a small camarilla) controlling that the Wikipedia article on the September 11 attacks, someone known as MONGO, works for the US Department of Homeland Security, issue that was "resolved" by declaring he has no "conflict of interest" whatsoever. This kind of manipulations and lack of justice and balance and even the difficulty to speak the truth if it happens to be "unpolite" was what brought me out of collaborating with Wikipedia anymore. Obviously there needs to be new wikipedias because the extant one cannot be neutral, just institutionalist.

This is nothing new, really, and it means that the attack on freedom of speech and truthful information has also arrived to the Internet and did in fact some time ago. But it brings me to what do I understand 9/11 was and is: a coup d'êtat.


The 9/11 coup

In this cases, when there is any doubt, it is always good asking qui bono?: whom does this benefit?

I had doubts right that fatal day. As I watched avidly the news, as did nearly everybody on Earth, I realized that there were very odd contradictions regarding the figure of Mohammed Atta, the supposed leader of the attacks, who allegedly died in one of the planes. On one side the German secret service, BND, famed for its seriousness and efficiency, claimed that they had watched Atta in Hamburg and were certain he was not any Taliban nor member of Al Qaeda but actually a member of the insurgent Northern Alliance. His father then claimed from Egypt that he had talked with him after the attacks and that he was alright. Additionally I was surprised that the popular leader of the Northern Alliance, Ahmad Shah Massoud, had been just murdered on September 9, just two days before the attacks.

I became strongly suspicious and time and information has only made those suspicions grow to a clear understanding that what happened in 9/11 was an inside job. An inside job like no other I could think of, not just because of its dimension, but specially for its implications for the USA and its "Empire", and by extension the whole World.

I started to think that it was nothing but a coup. A coup intended to further institutionalize the Empire and specially a coup against freedoms and rights in the Western World.

Besides Afghanistan which was clearly in the equation when the macabre performance went off, and besides Iraq, which was soon included in the package (it seems that this was Rumsfeld's idea)... besides the Greater Middle East becoming this way an easier target for US-NATO imperialism, there are clear implications for the US and its global extensions. The implications are loss of civil rights and even residual democracy altogether, whose most infamous expression is the Patriot Act but that actually include a large array of fascist laws and directives duly implemented by the George Bush Jr. government but also now by Obama's, who has all the time not just avoided to discuss these extremist abuses by his predecessor but is actually using and expanding them.

The situation is not much better in Europe. Ten years ago the fascistoid attitudes of Berlusconi and Aznar were rather exceptional in my continent. Today they are totally "normal" (Sarkozy for instance, Berlusconi is not anymore snubbed...) and the diffuse dream of a united democratic Europe that existed then has totally waned, as the constitution was imposed by the bureaucracies and EU has now become a mere secretariat for the corporations and NATO. You still do not see many of the involutionary extremes that happen in the USA but it's clear that the EU will follow the USA to hell if demanded as the lapdog it is. Any dream of reorganizing EU as an independent power in the wake of the Cold War has vanished.

But maybe most important is the growing role of the imperial military and corporative superstructure across borders and oceans. Probably the coup really means to create a real Empire, gradually maybe but steadily in any case. And for that civil liberties and freedom of speech must be curtailed and brought under control.

Whatever structures are to exist in an Empire they must be not really democratic. Some formal or consultative democracy and also local subordinated democracy can be tolerated but the structure is designed for the oligarchs, not the common people, so it does not matter too much what these think.

Besides there is no real need for the human rights, democratic and welfare decorations to exist anymore now that the Soviet threat has been annihilated. Earlier it was maybe necessary in order for people not jump the Berlin Wall in the "wrong direction" but now it is superfluous. Triumphant Capitalism can now show itself naked even if ugly and scary. This display of terrifying ugliness is, according to George Orwell, one of the characteristics of totalitarianism, of bullies: I am ugly but you don't dare to laugh at me.

So the oligarchs can now get rid of all those extras, those crumbs they used to throw to their subjects in order to keep them content. 9/11 served, by creating a mass panic to "terrorism" to introduce all kind of abuses and totalitarian laws, specially in the USA but not only.


The perfect foe: Islamic Fundamentalism

Also, the new sock-puppet enemy, Islamic Fundamentalism, a creation of the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia essentially anyhow, is the perfect foe. As the ghetto ideology and as the reactionary ideology it is, it poses no significant threat of expansion, unlike Communism, and can be used in a wide and strategic but limited area of the World to pit factions against factions in the usual policy of divide et impera. For these geopolitical engineers, who may have some evil genius after all, the whole Muslim World is a petri dish with very special conditions and Islamic Fundamentalism is a bacterial culture they are experimenting with. Experimenting with in order to cause panic and in order to get pretexts for imperialist interventions of all sorts.

And it is also intended to cause confusion in the ideological sphere, because, since 9/11 util very recently, the debate, which still was about Capitalism and Socialism, has been hijacked by a pseudo-debate on religion and culture on which little can be said other than I like or I don't like this or that. It has been hijacked in the Muslim World, where it has been used to promote reaction, and it has been hijacked in the West, where it has been used to promote reaction as well.

In depth, both sides of the Fundamentalist false debate agree: let's fight, and let's bring our peoples back to the Dark Ages, be them Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu... but Dark Ages in any case. There is absolutely nobody arguing for human progress and human freedom in this false debate, just for "join us" and "hate them". The goal is to kill illustration and democracy so the oligarchs can reign unopposed.

It is a coup with very deep and very evil intent.

I could continue but it is not my intention to write a book, so I'll stop here.


Further resources on why 9/11 was an inside job and its implications:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, specially the Evidence section. [Update: their evidence presentation today has attracted some media attention: Yahoo News, Forbes and other agencies and media echo it].

Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Voltaire Net: Themes: September 11th, 2001

Global Research: 9/11 and "War on Terrorism"

The evidence for a controlled demolition of both Twin Towers and building 7 (not hit by any airplane or anything but key for the plot) is overwhelming. Other counter-evidence is pretty strong as well. The official version is a huge lie.

Wikileaks' 90,000 secret documents on Afghanistan

One wonders who is going to read them all. And, hold on, there are still other 15,000 that Wikileaks and their unknown source agreed not to release just yet but when the situation in Afghanistan improves (will that ever happen?) These would seem to be the most substantial ones and I wonder who is going to leak them from Wikileaks itself and when.

En fin. The documents can be accessed at Wikileaks (if the link is not overloaded with requests) and you can also get a quicker taste of the main contents by looking at Wikileaks' media partners: Der Spiegel, The Guardian and NYT (this one is pay per view).

Of course, at the moment of writing this I have only had a quick look at the news outlets. The main revelations seem to be things that we knew already but maybe were not so strongly confirmed: Pakistani secret services help (helped?) the Taliban (DS, TG), US/NATO troops don't care about civilians (TG)and that the intelligence services are unable to process all the data they gather (DS).

Other reports deal with 'friendly fire' casualties, clashes between NATO and the Afghan security forces, Iranian secret operations across the border, unexpectedly good land-air war capability of the Taliban or the controversial 'drone' flying robots that sometimes get out of control and often are shot down and have to be rescued for fear of the technology falling in unwanted hands.

The Guardian also includes an interactive map listing a selection of more than 200 incidents. Many include police shooting demonstrators, a matter that is not addressed, as far as I can see, in any of the main articles.

I also miss key information areas, maybe withheld in the 15,000 unreleased reports or maybe too secret to have ever reached the informant. For example: what happened to Osama Bin Laden? Where is he? Is he alive or dead? Why a French snipper in the early days of the war was never confirmed to shoot down Bin Laden when he was on target? Or how reliable or corrupt is the current Afghan government? Why was actually Mc Chrystal fired? What's the diplomatic involvement/alignment of other key powers: Russia, China, India? Are there really plans to butcher Pakistan into smaller states? Who does really control the opium trade? Is it used to finance the Afghan government, the Taliban, NATO, covert operations elsewhere? Which is the reality behind Al Qaeda: does it really exist at all, who controls it?

Too many questions still unsolved. This leak, while very much welcome, seems kind of watered down: not really the information we would like to get our hands on. Truly sensitive information is being withheld or has never reached the Wikileaks headquarters at all.

Afghanistan's huge mineral riches

A. Montero at La Otra Economía reports, following a NY Times source, that Afghanistan has been found to have huge, largely undeveloped, mineral wealth, worth more than USD 900 billion.

For what I can see, about half of this value is iron, one of the most aboundant elements on Earth. However others may be less valuable in accountancy terms but more in geostrategical ones, specially now that the BRIC powers are undermining US hegemony.

One of them is niobium, used in steel alloys and high technology applications. Afghan niobium seems to be potentially worth 81 billion. More interestingly, there are only two producers of nionium nowadays: Canada and Brazil... but Brazil produces 90% of it, what makes even more important for the USA and its NATO allies (remember the recent comments of the German ex-President) to control Afghan production of such strategic mineral.

Even maybe more critical may be the various rare earth elements, whose lead producer today (by far) is China. These minerals would be worth 7.4 billion in Afghanistan. These elements are used in a variety of high technology applications.

Evolution of rare earth elements' production (from Wikipedia)

Other major Afghan mineral resources are:

• Copper (worth 274 billion): relatively common but widely used. It's lead producer is Chile, followed at a distance by Peru, the USA and Indonesia.
• Cobalt (worth 51 billion): used specially in superalloys suitable for aircraft engines. Currently the main producer is DR Congo, followed at a distance by Zambia, Brazil, Cuba, Canada and Russia.
• Gold (worth 25 billion): production is quite distributed but lead by South Africa.
• Molybdenum (worth 24 billion): also used in heat resistent alloys, among other applications. The main producer is the USA, followed by Chile, China and Peru.

Also asbestos, silver, potash, aluminum and lithium are mentioned in the article as highly valuable.

While Afghan authorities seem excited about the huge potential of these resources, the fact that many of them are in unstable guerrilla areas means that they are unlikely to be exploited easily.

However it is clear that these findings provide a further reason for the USA and NATO to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely. Initially it was mostly a campaign to create a strategical base in Central Asia that would threat other powers such as China, Russia, India and Iran, while also providing potential access to Central Asian oil and gas resources (the infamous "pipelinistan" project via Baluchistan), as well as succulent benefits derived from the highly corrupting opium trade which has boomed since the US-led invasion and that Russia has denounced in strong terms recently.

It looks now like the Imperial armies will remain in Afghanistan for long. That is... unless Afghans throw them out.

Malalai Joya denounces occupation of Afghanistan

There is a very interesting interview at Voltaire Net with this Afghan MP who was suspended for her progressive views and opposition to imperialist occupation and talibanization under it.

Some excerpts follow:

The aim of the war was never to create democracy and justice nor to uproot the terrorist groups. The war’s only purpose has been to perpetuate the occupation, install military bases and safeguard the takeover of a region that has substantial natural resources.

...

Look at the UN bombardments. In May 2009 in my own province more than 150 civilians were killed.

...

The base text [of the Afghan Constitution] might very well declare equality between men and women but the country is ruled by Sharia law. The so-called democracy of the official Constitution is systematically flouted. It’s only there as a token to attract international aid, which is then usually embezzled.

Today Afghanistan is a country where women – often girls as young as 14 or 15 years – fleeing their conjugal home to escape extreme violence, are considered criminal and are imprisoned. Yes, there’s an increase in the number of girls returning to school, but the records don’t take into account the girls who have to leave school again, due to threats to their safety and pressure from their families to get married.

Suicide has become the ultimate weapon of desperate young women, who are aware that there are alternatives but know that they will never have the right to them.

...

All of the troops must leave and the militia of the warlords must be dismantled. Democracy can’t be established by an occupying force that does nothing more than spread out and strengthen the Talibanization of my country.

...

Democratic parties and associations are more often than not fighting in secret. Let’s not forget that the Constitution bans the existence of all non-religious parties whose frame of reference does not include the Qur’an.

...

There are so many faceless heroes and heroines. Their battle is in their towns and villages. Why does no single western leader recognise the existence of a progressive movement that could emerge and play a role?

Geopolitics of today (or "BRICs are heavy")

I finally made a satisfactory map that reflects as well as possible the imperfect multipolarity of today's geopolitics:

Click to expand

Legend:

• Red shades: The Empire (dark red: USA and dependencies, bright red: other NATO members, other "central" US allies and their colonies, pink: other important US allies/EU members, stripes: under military occupation).
• Turquoise: Russia (stripes: under military occupation), Cyan: main allies
• Blue: China, lighter blue shades: under Chinese influence
• Orange: India, lighter orange shades: under Indian influence
• Green: Brazil, light green: other Mercosur countries, dark green: ALBA
• Dark Grey: other regional powers
• Regular Grey: other countries

Notice that I could not mark all US/NATO allies on risk of almost all the map becoming pink and that way maybe exaggerating the influence of The Empire even more. On the other hand I may have maxed the areas of influence of China (excepting Pakistan) and India. Many countries, of course, play multilateral diplomacy and try to keep a pretense of independence, what makes more difficult to decide what side are they in. The use of similar colors for Brazil/Mercosur and ALBA is somewhat justified but was mostly chosen to underline the differences between the USA/NATO bloc and the "Latin-Americanist" powers in the American continent. Anyhow, the latest developments in Honduras, Colombia and Haiti have clearly pushed Venezuela and Brazil closer in a joint bid to support the independence of Latin American and Caribbean nations, which obviously plays in their interest rather than in that of the USA, as imperialist power.


Overview:

There are two basic elements in the reality reflected in this map: The Empire and the BRIC.

The Empire is incredibly large (even if I tended to reflect only its strongest influence) and is clearly based on naval hegemony, which is supported by proportionally large navies, not just from the USA but also from France, UK, Italy, Spain, Australia and Japan in particular.

BRIC is an acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China. Even if it's an informal group, it has no other entity that reflect the four major powers that are still independent from The Empire. Each one of them has its own geostrategical interests and also different cultures and political systems. The only thing in common they may have is that they all are more or less confronted with The Empire... with one exception: India.


India:

It seems that India and China perceive each other as most direct rivals. Also India has a large maritime facade and hence clear naval interests in the Indian Ocean specially, which is also the ocean where The Empire has an arguably weaker presence. However India has with good reason distrusted The Empire in the past and instead kept stronger ties with the former USSR. The China-USA entente and the conflicts with Pakistan (an ally of both USA and China) on Kashmir, led the South Asian republic to act that way. However it has played both sides and has always kept major ties with Israel and other members of the Western bloc.

In the current circumstances, India still keeps good relations with Russia but the approach between Moscow and Beijing is pushing the old friend somewhat apart and throwing India in the arms of The Empire.


China and Russia:

But, of course, the most important power of all BRIC countries is nowadays China. And it is the growing conflict between China and the USA what really describes the scene. We can't still talk of a new Cold War, very specially because the Chinese take due care in no pushing the conflict to military but economic and diplomatic terms but, in any case, the conflict is clear and growing stronger, as knows anyone who reads the news.

China however is relatively weak in the military aspect, even if less so than in the past, and hence its growing alliance with the decadent but heavily armed Russia is of crucial importance. The "thirdworldized" Russia with loads of ICBM nukes, offers China an almost ideal ally: China does not dispute Russia its political and military clout on Central Asia but rips many of the economic benefits, not just of Central Asia but also of Siberia. It also offers China a military shield that prevents a direct conflict with The Empire.

On its side Russia also feels threatened by The Empire, which has been growing towards its borders and even threatens it with new missile deployments. The latest developments (defeat of Georgia, pro-Russian government in Ukraine, restive Turkey) may imply that Russia is scoring some goals but still it does feel threatened by NATO and siding with China is the best alternative it has (as together they control most of non-tropical Asia, while divided they would only play in the hands of their common rival).

China's worries are mostly a fear of being blockaded out of the oil supplies from the Middle East. Hence it's following two parallel strategies: on one side, cooperation with Russia to keep The Empire out of Central Asia (and as much as possible of The Middle East as well, for example protecting Iran) and, on the other side, securing as much as possible the shipping lines to West Asia (for which it has recently obtained bases in Bangladesh and Sri-Lanka).

In parallel, China is painfully working to weaken the imperial bloc in its immediate area of East Asia itself (seducing South Korea and even Japan and Taiwan as much as possible, supporting little Cambodia against Thailand, etc.), as well as gaining random friends in Polynesia and Africa and, specially, making business even where The Empire makes military alliances.


Brazil:

The other BRIC power is Brazil, whose confrontation with the USA has been growing hot in the last year. Brazil has been playing, even more than China, a soft diplomatic game, gradually strengthening its position both internally and internationally. While it has got its bad moments with the Bolivarian bloc led by Venezuela, the crisis of Honduras seems to have eventually opened its eyes. And if that did not, the growing US military presence in Colombia and the unbelievable massive invasion of Haiti have put things clear for Brazil: there's no room for two powers in America... unless they fight each other. Surely Brazil would like to grow in power more gradually and without conflicts but it seems that those days are now gone and The Empire is striking back. That situation obviously pushes the Bolivarian bloc (the ALBA) and the Brazilian-led bloc (Mercosur) into each other's arms.

The latest growing tensions around the Falklands/Malvinas disputed archipelago, as well as the repeated protests of Venezuela against the US-Colombia-Netherlands siege, show that the issue is serious.

However Brazil in comparison with the Asian BRIC countries has three disadvantages:

• Like India, it is a naval oriented country with a large maritime facade. Hence it's potentially more exposed to the Imperial naval hegemony. But, unlike India it's much closer to the USA and its area of immediate interests.
  
• It competes with the largest global power for Latin America, which the USA still considers its "backyard".
  
• It is the only BRIC power that has no nuclear weapons. It might develop them (as did India not long ago) but that would mean breaching international agreements (NPT) and giving hence a pretext to the USA to behave even more aggressively.
  

On the other hand it has some major advantages:

• Latin America in general is fed up with the USA and is clearly willing to try something new. Brazil has the potential of playing a leading role in this aspect and the recent formation of a distinct Latin American and Caribbean association without the USA nor Spain is a clear step in this direction.
  
• Not only Latin America but eventually even large parts of Africa, very specially South Africa (particularly sympathetic to Brazil and India, and leader of a large bloc, not represented in the map) and the former Portuguese colonies, could be interested in some sort of cooperation with Brazil and other Latin American nations with common goals of emancipation and development.
• The legitimacy of the people: unlike the other US rivals (China and Russia) and unlike most US allies (vassals) in the region, Brazil and its allies (excepting Cuba) are clear democracies, with more or less "progressive" leaning. Machiavelli himself would applaud that as a great asset.
• Oil: Venezuela seems to have become the largest oil reserve in the World, replacing Saudi Arabia in this position. Brazil itself has discovered large deposits offshore and there are others in Cuba, Haiti and the Falklands, fueling the confrontation with the USA and Britain. But also allowing for some decent bargaining as well.
  

The Empire:

The Imperial bloc lead by the USA has clear advantages: the largest share by far of the global GDP, a huge military, presence almost anywhere on Earth, lots of nukes, total naval hegemony... But it has also some disadvantages, namely: overextension, huge debt (largely caused by military overexpending), being dominated by a small oligarchy with very peculiar interests, often conflicting with those of the people and even The Empire itself (particularly Zionism), and now a brutal overproduction crisis that might well seal its fate once for all.

Overgrowth crisis are not alien to large empires. Rome itself faced one after consolidation and languished for centuries in it, while the British Empire decayed largely because it was too large to be defended against its own peoples. But the closest parallel is surely the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and Philip II, who similarly were forced to overexpend in military adventures, often ill fated, almost everywhere (Germany, the Mediterranean, Britain...). At the time there was no larger empire and the Habsburgs thought they had no rival... but soon they had to experience a harsh reality check and declare bankrupticy, as well as making huge concessions to their rivals.

This is in fact what The Empire is facing today: the crisis is, as we all know, far from over and it is affecting severely both major pillars of the bloc: the USA and EU. It is primarily an structural overproduction crisis but it's also a debt crisis (with China getting rid of less and less solid US bonds) and an overextension crisis as well.

Just count the unfinished major wars The Empire is involved in: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia-plus, Yemen, Somalia. Not to mention the never accoplished threat of attacking Iran, the extreme instability of most US vassals in Latin America (Colombia, Mexico, Honduras and poor occupied Haiti at least), which can any day turn against their master by popular acclamation, and those of other regions (Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and even some European countries like Greece).

And then count the cost: the nominal US public debt is of almost 8 trillion USD but, in fact, more than 5 trillion are excluded from these accounts. Only counting the nominal fraction, the US public debt has never been so high since the late 1950s (as percentage of GDP, c. 70%) and, when we count all the real debt, it's as high as at the height of WWII (again as percentage of GDP, c. 115%). This kind of heavy indebtment, paid with the booty of conquest maybe but not without serious economic implications, is again another striking parallel with the Habsburgian Empire of Charles V and successors, very specially as most of it is wasted in both cases in military expenses.

But, of course, The Empire remains as of today as a mighty power, the only real superpower on Earth. Meanwhile, the Frances, Englands and Ottoman Empires of our day (the BRIC and particularly China) bid their time as much as they can avoiding direct confrontation as much as possible.

And this is the scenario we have now. Though admittedly it may well be obsolete in a decade or less.


Addendum: naval might:

Aircraft carriers may well reflect with some approximation the real naval might of each of the powers at play. They are as follows:

NATO and allies:

• USA: 11 ships in use, 1 projected
• Britain: 2 ships in use, 2 projected
• Italy: 2 ships in use
• Spain: 2 ships in use
• France: 1 ship in use
• Australia: 2 ships projected
  
• Japan: 2 ships projected
• Thailand: 1 ship projected

Total Empire: 18 aircraft carriers in use, 9 projected

BRIC:

• India: 1 ship in use, 2 projected
• Russia: 1 ship in use
• Brazil: 1 ship in use
• China: 1 ship projected
  

Total BRIC: 3 aircraft carriers in use, 4 projected


Sources: most data freely adapted from diverse Wikipedia articles and maps. See also this post on the China-US competition, this one on the latest US invasion of Haiti and its geostrategical implications and maybe this one on how Venezuela is being surrounded by US military deployment.

Note: of course, the secondary title is a silly wordplay with the superb record of L7, Bricks Are Heavy.

Bilderberg Meeting 2009

I have already mentioned the secretive meeting of the Western elite at Athens this year. Now Andrew G. Marshall reviews what seem to have been the contents of this meeting, centered in the economy (available at Global Research Center and at Voltaire Network).

It seems that the core issues of this secretive aristocratic meeting have included as central issue the current gloomy economic situation, and whether this will be a sharp and short depression or a long looming structural crisis, as most forecast. It seems that the Bilderberg billionaires and proconsuls want to make this a sharp crisis leading to an increased global government, by pushing ahead the more centralized but terribly undemocratic version of the EU, reinforcing the WHO and the IMF and expanding the NAFTA (ALCA) elsewhere into Latin America.

Nevertheless there seem to be opposed fractions within the hyper-rich and hyper-powerful. Some actually fear that the crisis will cause the collapse of their own power and the unsustainability of the system overall and want by any means a rapid recovery. While others seem to prefer to use the economic downturn into their benefit and push ahead even more radical imperial plans within this context.

One of the most troubling rumors is maybe that a plan has been proposed to dramatically reduce global population to some 2 billion people, in what would be the largest ever genocide of history. The worst thing about this is that they actually seem to have reached a consensus in this matter, though the details are unclear.

Another apparent consensus have been reached into destroying the US dollar's hegemony and creating a global currency instead, based on the expansion of IMF's special drawing rights (SDRs).

As I mentioned before, it is surprising that with the huge US military representation at the conspirational meeting, no informations have been leaked at all regarding the Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan issues. This is odd to say the least and makes me suspect that the informations that are being leaked, even if accurate, are only part of the whole issue. The fact that next year's meeting will be held in Israel, suggests that Zionist global and regional projects, including this sensitive Euphrates-Indus region are high in the Bilderberg agenda in spite of not being unofficially even mentioned.

Also there is an interview with investigative journalist Daniel Estultin on the Athens meeting:



.

Bilderberg meeting in Athens 2009

The secretive Western Capitalist elite club, the Bilderberg Group, held its yearly meeting at Athens this year. The Bilderberg Group is often accused by many of being one of the pillars of the undemocratic Western Imperial government, together with the G8, Trilateral Comission and NATO. It would be some sort of influential and secretive "senate" of the hyper-rich and hyper-powerful. Unlike other imperial pillars but much like NATO, it does not seem to include members from Japan or the Pacific area but only Europe and North America. Researching and reporting on it is rather "discouraged" by the police.

An interesting English language link is within The Guardian, which tried to report on the meeting to the displeasure of Greek police. Another extensive link in Rumanian language is infoCON.ro.

Spanish language news site Rebelión reports that this year's schedule included the following topics: "the future of US economy and the dollar, unemployement in the USA: solutions and forecasts, depression or chronic stagnation? and the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon" [refurbished European Constitution].

The list of attendants this year was over the hundred, here listed by state of origin (states sorted by GDP(PPP)):

USA: Keith B. Alexander (Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director of the National Security Agency), Roger Altman (investment banker, former U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton), George David (Chairman and former CEO of United Technologies Corporation, board member of Citigroup), Niall Ferguson (Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School), Timothy Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury), Donald Graham (CEO and chairman of the board of The Washington Post Company), Richard Holbrooke (Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan), James Jones (National Security Advisor to the White House), Vernon Jordan (lawyer, close adviser to President Bill Clinton), Henry Kissinger (former US Secretary of State and most influential conservative politician), Marie Jose Kravis (Hudson Institute), Jessica Matthews (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Craig Mundie (chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft), Richard Perle (American Enterprise Institute), David Petraeus (Commander, U.S. Central Command), David Rockefeller (most influential banker), Dennis Ross (special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton), Barnett R. Rubin (Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation), Lawrence Summers (economist, Director of the White House's National Economic Council), Paul Volcker (former Federal Reserve director, Chair of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board), James Wolfensohn (former president of the World Bank), Paul Wolfowitz (former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank, currently AEI scholar), Fareed Zakaria (journalist, author, and CNN host), Robert Zoellick (former managing director of Goldman Sachs, President the World Bank)

Germany: Thomas Enders (CEO Airbus), Mathias Nass (Editor of the newspaper Die Zeit), Cem Özdemir (co-leader of the Green Party and Member of the European Parliament), Jürgen E. Schrempp (former CEO DaimlerChrysler)

UK: Kenneth Clarke (MP, Shadow Business Secretary), Richard Dearlove (former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service), John Kerr - aka Baron Kerr of Kinlochard - (Deputy Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell and an independent member of the House of Lords), John Micklethwait (Editor-in-chief of The Economist), Martin Taylor (former chief executive of Barclays Bank, currently Chairman of Syngenta AG), Martin Wolf (associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times)

France: Nicholas Bavarez (economist and historian), Xavier Bertrand (politician connected to Nicolas Sarkozy), Henri de Castries (President of AXA insurances), Thierry de Montbrial (founded the Department of Economics of the École Polytechnique and heads the Institut français des relations internationales), Denis Olivennes (director general of Nouvel Observateur), Frederic Oudea (CEO of Société Générale bank)

Italy: Franco Bernabè (Telecom Italia), Mario Draghi (economist, governor of the Bank of Italy), John Elkann, Italy (Italian industrialist, grandson of the late Gianni Agnelli, and heir to the automaker Fiat), Mario Monti (economist and politician, President of the Bocconi University of Milan), Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa (banker, economist and former Minister of Economy and Finance), Romano Prodi (former Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission)

Spain: Queen Sofia, Ana Patricia Botín (President of Banesto bank), Juan Luis Cebrián, Spain (journalist of Grupo PRISA, former director of El País), José Entrecanales (construction magnate, President of Acciona), Bernardino Leon Gross (Secretary General of the Presidency), Miguel Angel Moratinos (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón (conservative politician, former major of Madrid), Pedro Solbes Mira (economist, Second Vice President and Minister of Economy and Finance)

Canada: W. Edmund Clark (CEO TD Bank Financial Group), Frank McKenna (Deputy Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank), J. Robert S. Prichard (CEO of Torstar Corporation and president emeritus of the University of Toronto), Heather M. Reisman (co-founder of Indigo Books & Music Inc.), Indira Samarasekera (President of University of Alberta, Board of Directors Scotiabank)

Turkey: Ali Babaca (Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economy), Mustafa Vehbi Koç (President of industrial conglomerate Koç Holding). See also the "unclear" section, that includes many allegedly Turkish personalities.

Netherlands: Queen Beatrix, Prince Constantijn, Victor Chalmperstant (Leiden University), Ernst Hirsch Ballin (politician, minister of Justice in the fourth Balkenende cabinet, member of the Christian Democratic Appeal), Jaap De Hoop Scheffer (Dutch politician and current NATO Secretary General), Neelie Kroes (European Commissioner for Competition), Jeroen van der Veer (CEO of Royal Dutch Shell), Nout Wellink (Chairman of De Nederlandsche Bank, Board of Directors, the Bank of International Settlements), Hans Wijers (CEO of the multinational corporation AkzoNobel)

Belgium: Prince Philippe, Etienne Ntavinion or Étienne, Viscount Davignon, (former vice-president of the European Commission), Philippe Maystadt (President of the European Investment Bank), Guy Verhofstadt (former Prime Minister)

Sweden: Carl Bildt (former Prime Minister of Sweden, oil magnate with interests in Russia and Sudan), Jacob Wallenberg (chairman of Investor AB and former chairman of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken), Marcus Wallenberg (CEO of Investor AB, former chairman of Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken)

Greece: Georgios A. Arapoglou (Governor of National Bank of Greece), Odysseas Kyriakopoulos (Group S & B) (?), Dimitrios Th.Papalexopoulo (Managing Director of Titan Cement Company SA), Peter Thiel (Clarium Capital Management LCC, PayPal co-founder, Board of Directors: Facebook), Dora Bakoyannis (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Anna Diamantopoulou (Member of Parliament for the Panhellenic Socialist Movement), Yannis Papathanasiou (Minister of Finance), George Alogoskoufis (former Minister), George A. David (businessman, president of Coca-Cola)

Switzerland: Josef Ackermann (CEO of Deutsche Bank), Christoph Blocher (industrialist, Vice President of the Swiss People's Party), Daniel L. Vasella (Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer at Novartis AG)

Norway: Egil Myklebust (Chairman of the board of SAS Group, Scandinavian Airlines System), Eivint Reitan (economist, corporate officer and politician for the Centre Party)

Portugal: Francisco Pinto Balsemão (former Prime Minister), Manuela Ferreira Leite (Portuguese economist and politician), Manuel Pinho (Minister of Economy and Innovation)

Denmark: Eldrup Anders (CEO Dong Energy)

Finland: Jyrki Katainen (Minister of Finance, leader of the Finnish National Coalition Party), Matti Taneli Vanhanen (Prime Minister)

Ireland: Peter Sutherland (Chairman, BP and Chairman of Goldman Sachs International)

Unclear (misspelt, not found in searchs): January Bgiorklount (Swedish Education minister Jan Bjïorklund?), Alexander Bompar, France (Bompard?), Luc Cohen, Belgium (?), Isintro phenomena casket (speculated by Rebelión to be Isidro Fainé, President of La Caixa), Ntermot convergence, Ireland (AIV Group) (?), Robert Keigkan, United States (? - possibly Robert Kagan, neocon historian), Roland GT, Germany (?), Sami Cohen, Turkey (Journalist) (?), Michael Rintzier, Czech Republic (?), Susan Sampantzi Ntintzer, Turkey (?) Guler Sabanci, Turkey, President of Sabanci Holdings (?), Rountol Solten, Austria (?), Sampatzi Saraz, Turkey (banker) possibly Süreyya Serdengeçti (former Governor of the Central Bank of Turkey) (?) , Sanata Seketa, Canada (University of Canada) (?), Agan Ourgkout, Turkey (?)

List mostly from PeaceReporter.

I find particularly interesting the low profile of the German "delegation" (only 4 people in spite of being the second largest Atlantic economy) and also the relatively high number of "journalists", who are obviously there not to report but to take directives on how to sow disinformation and brainwash the public. Another noticeable item is the high presence of US military and Middle East "proconsuls", including Richard Holbrooke, suggesting that, beyond the official schedule, hot issues like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq have been surely also included.
.