比尔德伯格集团

The Bilderberg organisers are accepted by those 'in the know' as the prophets of Capitalism. Will Hutton, deputy Editor of The Observer newspaper in London and left-leaning Economist, described private clubs of the elite as masterminded by 'The High Priests of Globalisation'. The ecclesiastical allusion is not accidental. The Bilderberg high-priests are a force against good, out to wipe morality from the earth. For the organisers Bilderberg Conferences are an annual ideological assault by the world's most power-hungry people. Not content with owning unimaginable amounts of money and property they want to use that wealth to acquire even more power for themselves. Power is the most dangerous and addictive drugs known to man. Will the craving be satisfied when a handful of men own and control everything on earth?
And just like the Nazi party in the 1930's the global Capitalist Elite are rising in power by peaceful means. There are some very uncomfortanble and unexplained connections between Bilderberg and the Nazis through the Conference's founder Prince Bernhard.
These crown princes of capital use violence at the sharp end - the destruction of dissent - the repossession of homes men and women have worked a lifetime for - needless deaths from starvation and geopolitical machinations - this violence is notable by its absence from the annual meetings.
One can't help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger and the rest have completed their project of enclosing all global goods and services into their own hands, enclosing too the media to stop people freely discussing what they are up to. What then?? What happens when the men who would be gods turn out to be the global devils?


搜索GMO得文献若干，举下面一篇为例
http://www.earthnews.net/articles/geunsafe.htm
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD:
UNSAFE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE
By MARTHA R. HERBERT =
c.2001 Hearst Newspapers =
Bioengineering companies, the federal government, and even the
American Medical Association (AMA) are asking consumers to
take a leap of faith with respect to foods containing genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).
While defects in an experimental car would become quickly
apparent, it will take far more exhaustive genetic and
environmental testing before weknow whether or not a particular
genetically altered corn oil or potato is safe for human
consumption.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, however, recently
announced plans to approve new genetically altered foods:
All that is required is formanufacturers to notify the agency 120
ays before putting the product on the market and promise that it is
``substantially equivalent'' to a conventional counterpart. And
don't look for labeling on genetically altered foods and ingredients
_ the FDA has ruled that labeling is purely voluntary.
After years of evidence pointing to the risks of GMO
ingredients, the FDA appears to have no interest in testing to
protect consumers from known and potential risks.
``Substantial equivalence,'' an unsubstantiated hypothesis,
asserts that plants whose fundamental genetic structure has been
permanently altered are no different from naturally occurring
varieties. In making this claim, manufacturers only have to perform
cursory tests for safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture.
Although scientists are well aware that genetic engineering can
produce unexpected, often highly undesirable, effects, there is no
current testing or health monitoring to detect these health and
environmental curve-balls.
In 1989, for example, tryptophan, an essential amino acid sold
in the U.S. as a nutritional supplement, was manufactured in a new
way from a genetically altered bacteria. Over time, thousands of
people who tooktryptophan from this batch became ill, 1,500 were
permanently disabled, and 37 died.
Subsequently, very sensitive chemical testing showed that
although the tryptophan was 99.6 percent pure, and thus
``substantially equivalent,'' the genetically engineered bacteria
had unexpectedly introduced a tinyamount (0.01 percent) of an
extremely toxic Contaminant. If the FDA had insisted on more
thorough testing, using animal or human subjects, this product
would never have been allowed on the market.
The headlong race by the biotech industry to genetically modify
hundreds of commercially valuable plants is worrisome enough,
but the recent ``clean bill of health'' for these products by the AMA
is inexcusable. In sharp contrast, the British Medical Association
called for a moratorium on planting GMO crops in the U.K. several


years ago.
Even in this country, the National Environmental Health
Association passed a resolution calling for clear labeling of GMO
foods. Overseas, the 15-member European Union is about to impose
``the toughest legislation in the world'' on genetically engineered
organisms.
The recent declaration by the AMA's Council on Scientific
Affairs that foods with altered genes are completely safe runs
totally counter to the rising tide of world medical opinion. The
AMA's recommendation that ``there is no scientific justification
[now] for special labeling . . . of [such] foods'' was the product
of an uncritical examination of the few studies published during a
period when there has been no requirement and little fundial
corporate testing results that are unavailable for outside safety
verification. While scientists question how these in-house tests
are done, the AMA goes right along with the FDA, ignoring the
matter entirely. If the AMA were truly serious about upholding
``sound science'' to protect public health, it would acknowledge
that adequate scientific research has not been done, and that there
is no basis for assuring food safety.
Finally, the AMA has forgotten the physician's basic credo _
``first do no harm'' _ by timidly suggesting that the common use
of antibiotic resistancemarker genes to implant foreign genetic
material into cells should ``be avoided, if possible.''
The British Medical Association is very clear on this point:
These ``marker genes'' are capable of entering disease-causing
bacteria, making them, too, resistant to antibiotics and thus
harder to control. Still, the AMA reaches the astonishing
conclusion that there is ``no scientific justification for special
labeling'' of GMO foods.
It is unreasonable to ask the American public to risk so much _
with no choice in the matter _ when fundamental questions are still
unanswered. Until thorough and independent scientific research
provides genuine assurances about the long-range safety for health
and the environment of these unprecedented products, caution is
the only rational course.Martha Herbert is a pediatric neurologist
and researcher at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston,
and a board member of the Council for Responsible Genetics.


这是另一篇关于GMO的
http://www.earthnews.net/articles/atomatofishorafishtomato.htm
A Tomato Fish Or A Fish Tomato?
by Rosa Silver, Kauai
I remember when I was a child growing up in the seventies and my Mom took me to see Woody Allen's comedy about the future, Sleeper. Most memorable was a chase scene through a garden of human-size vegetables with Woody forever sliding on a giant banana peel.
Ironic as it may seem, the existence of giant vegetables is, today, a possibility. We are on the edge of a new age in science, food production, and life on earth; the age of biotechnology, and more specifically, genetic engineering. Hawaii has more test fields for genetically modified crops than any other state in the U.S., with our share of Biotech companies and their fields stationed here on Kauai. The University of Hawaii is about to open a Biotechnology Center in Hilo. What is this new frontier we are entering and are we prepared?
In the 1970's scientists discovered a way to artificially alter or transfer genes from one organism to another. Genes are made of DNA and contain the instructions by which cells produce proteins. These proteins dictate a cell's function in the specific organism. A flounder, for example survives in the cold. Scientists could now take genes from a fish and insert them into a tomato. Why? They wanted to create a tomato that would be more frost resistant.
In the 1980's Biotechnology companies began field-testing GMO (genetically modified organism) crops for large-scale agricultural use. By 1996, GMO grains were mixed with non-GMO grains and sent to food processing plants all over America. Corn, soy and their by-products (from corn syrup to soy's "protein-enriched" additive) are used in hundreds of products. But GMOs are not only found in grains. Various genetically altered products are found in over 60 percent of all processed foods on the U.S. market, and the market continues to expand with each new genetic alteration. Chances are, you have been eating GMOs for years.
But how would you know? GMO products are not labeled. And because they are not labeled, how could we track possible side effects? Environmental and food safety groups are busy fighting for mandatory labeling of all GMO­containing products. Biotech companies claim that these foods are safe and do not need to be labeled. Watchdog groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists believe this technology deserves special scrutiny. Jenny Rissler, former EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientist, explains, "The government and the industry have been too eager to assume that these plants, these crops, are substantially equivalent to existing ones. . . . But I don't think that they have done the kind of testing that a lot of us would want, to really establish the substantial equivalence. I can understand why industry and government have taken this route. For many years, they have been successful in reversing the burden of proof. The industry is not forced to prove relative safety. Rather, the burden of proof is on people like us to show that there's some risk."


Do we understand all of the possible effects of releasing these altered organisms into our delicate environment and eco-systems? Questions of contamination, genetic erosion, enhanced weed problems, and the reduction or extinction of wild plant and animal populations fill pages and pages of environmental and food advocate websites. Can we predict how GMOs and their offspring will evolve?
Genetic advocates argue that we have already been tampering with nature for a long time, such as in the instance of classical breeding. But traditional breeding crosses only related species, for example when a gardener grafts a red hibiscus onto a white hibiscus. When these two varieties are crossed, thousands of genes at a time are mixed. Genetic scientists move individual genes and do something traditional breeders have never accomplished. They can move genes between different life forms! (Remember the flounder into the tomato?)
What does the organic industry have to say about all of this? When the U.S. government decided to mandate the certification on organic standards, almost 100% of the received public comments demanded GMOs not be allowed in organic food. Furthermore, GMO crops put organic farmers at risk; risk of seed contamination, rendering their natural pesticides useless, introduction of superweeds, destruction of beneficial insects, loss of certificationS. For example, Monsanto (a major GE corporation) has released genetic corn seeds containing genes that produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), a natural bacterium used by many organic farmers including farmers here on Kauai. Bt is used by organic farmers to eradicate insect problems, but only a few times a year and for very short periods. The introduction of the Bt corn poses many problems. First, it is in the crop working every hour of every day. Therefore it is killing insects, including non-target species, all of the time. Many insects are beneficial to farmers, like say, the ladybug that eats aphids. And not only is the Bt in the plant, but studies show that Bt remains and accumulates in the soil.
"Another negative impact on organic farming is the expected resistance that insect pests will develop to Bt toxin," states The Hawaii Organic Farmers Association (HOFA), rendering useless a natural pesticide used by organic farmers for years. Also, the pollen from the Bt corn can and has cross-pollinated with organic corn, contaminating the organic corn and its seed, and risking organic certification.
David Vetter of Nebraska owns and operates a 280-acre organic farm. His fields were presumably safe, surrounded by double rows of pines and 60 feet of untilled sod to act as a buffer zone. Sadly, this buffer did not prevent transgenic pollution! Vetter Says, "It's now clear that we won't be able to have both genetically engineered and non-GE crops. As an organic grower, I can no longer guarantee that my crops are GE-free."
What about Kauai? PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) finds, "... as of January 2001, the ten states and territories that have hosted the most field test sites are: Hawaii (3,275), Illinois (2,832), Iowa (2,820), Puerto Rico (2,296), California (1,435), Idaho (1,060), Minnesota (1,055), Nebraska (971), Wisconsin (918), and Indiana (886)." Pioneer [Seed Co.] is here on the island, and there are at least a few known test fields on the west side, with rumors of expansion. Places like Kauai provide almost a perfect setting for genetic testing, given its remoteness. Is this not a lucrative alternative for all of the old sugarcane fields? Are there test fields closer to the organic growers? Given the unpredictable winds, is the mountain range enough of a buffer for our east and north side organic growers?


Patenting is yet another controversial GMO issue. Companies like Monsanto (who also produce Roundup and Rodeo) continue to file with the U.S. government and claim patents on their genetic organisms. This started in 1972 when General Electric genetically transplanted a bacterium and was granted the first patent on life by the United States. Patents also allow the 'ownership' of genes that occur in nature, leading to the current 'ownership' of the neem tree and Basmati rice by U.S. and Japanese companies. Biotech corporations claim they need the patent because the organism is new and unnatural. But when you read the same literature from these same corporations, they promote themselves as "natural".
Advocates for Biotech companies like Monsanto claim that GMOs can lower the use of pesticides and even alleviate world hunger. Just published, the work of Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center contradicts the first claim. He reports, "Slightly more pounds of herbicides are applied on the average acre of Roundup-Ready (RR) soybeans compared to the average acre planted to conventional soybean varieties. Herbicide use on RR soybean acres is gradually rising as a result of weed shifts, late-season weed escapes leading to a buildup in weed seed banks, and the loss of susceptibility to glyphosate (the main chemical in Roundup) in some weed species (Hartzlet, 1999; HRAC, 2001)." In regard to alleviating world hunger, this is a heated debate as well.
The British Medical Association has called for an indefinite moratorium on GE foods. Genetic foods are also banned in seven countries and 25 mandate labeling laws, restrictive agriculture, environmental, or import policies, or prohibitions. There is great pressure from the U.S. for worldwide acceptance of GMOs, especially because the U.S. is leading the biotech revolution and the market. But why isn't our government as concerned as others? The 2001 budget allocated $310 million for biotechnology in rural development and agricultural development. Organic farming received less than $5 million.
Biotechnology is expanding. Currently under test are GE salmon, trees, and even low maintenance lawn seed. Also in the works is a genetically modified banana implanted with a vaccine. According to Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, University of Missouri-Columbia, "It's a very broad technology with very broad applications. Agriculture and food is just one application of it. Pharmaceuticals, waste management, forestry, cosmetics, energy and so on; the potential is so large that it's difficult to walk away. Nobody's walking away."
Do we have an alternative? What can one do if they are opposed to the GMO invasion? The obvious is to stop buying their products. Businesses are governed by supply, but mostly, demand. Education is key. Open up dialogue and public debate. The U.S. public is ignorant on this issue. Most Americans do not even realize that GMOs are in most of their food. Developing countries need education, education about alternative agriculture (Permaculture, for example). Support organizations and agricultural research, policies, and educational programs that involve crop rotation and sustainable agriculture. Discuss why GMOs should be labeled. Study biodiversity and crop rotation. Practice self-sustainability and educate yourself about this important issue. There are numerous sites on the web filled with information, some listed below.
Biotechnology may be our future, but this new frontier demands a deeper understanding of its implications. When man begins to artificially create life, he must reflect on deeper issues. Movies about a possible future, like Sleeper, may provide humor, but more importantly, they should stimulate thought concerning our global future due to current values and systems. The Anglican Bishop of Wellington, Bishop Tom Brown declares, "the assumption by scientists that God must have somehow got it wrong and that they need to put it right, we should stop tampering. To date too little is known, too few assurances are given and too little public debate has occurred."


从该集团网页上可直接进入格林斯潘的个人网站
http://www.alan-greenspan.com/

比尔德伯格集团是米欧政界、工商界、银行界、学界精英组成的集团。终身会员是戴维。洛克菲勒（洛克菲勒第三代家族长，洛克菲勒基金会最高掌控者，而洛克菲勒基金会正是杜邦-孟山都财团的大股东）。他们开会的时间和地点往往在八国峰会前不久，地址也不远，商讨的全是国际大事，诸如什么国际油价问题、中东问题等等，比尔盖茨、克林顿、布莱尔等都是其会员，他们每次开会只能钦定120-130名世界最有头有脸的精英分子参加！
比尔德伯格集团关于GMO的意见是，在未另行通知前，所有会员要把其当作不安全食品对待！

从其主页上archive搜索关于population得若干文献，例如
http://www.earthnews.net/thetragedyofthecommons.htm
The Tragedy of the Commons
by Garrett Hardin
At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, J.B. Wiesner and H.F. York concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race are…confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation.'' [1]
I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem. An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.
In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome. Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered professional judgment...." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.
It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?" It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can falsify the records. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, of course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it. This is what most adults do.)
The class of "no technical solution problems" has members. My thesis is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem -- technologically. I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe.


紧接着就是这篇
What Shall We Maximize?
Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the per-capita share of the world's goods must decrease. Is ours a finite world?
A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. "Space" is no escape. [2]
A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. (The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed.) When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, can Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be realized?
No -- for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a theoretical one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) variables at the same time. This was clearly stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern, [3] but the principle is implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to D'Alembert (1717-1783).
The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, any organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day ("maintenance calories"). Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by "work calories" which he takes in. Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art…I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is impossible.
In reaching this conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it is the acquisition of energy that is the problem. The appearance of atomic energy has led some to question this assumption. However, given an infinite source of energy, population growth still produces an inescapable problem. The problem of the acquisition of energy is replaced by the problem of its dissipation, as J. H. Fremlin has so wittily shown. [4] The arithmetic signs in the analysis are, as it were, reversed; but Bentham's goal is unobtainable.
The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. The difficulty of defining the optimum is enormous; so far as I know, no one has seriously tackled this problem. Reaching an acceptable and stable solution will surely require more than one generation of hard analytical work -- and much persuasion.


Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in -- sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free enterprisers.
The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream -- whose property extends to the middle of the stream -- often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.
The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. "Flowing water purifies itself every ten miles," my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.


Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable
The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way. In a world governed solely by the principle of "dog eat dog" --if indeed there ever was such a world--how many children a family had would not be a matter of public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children. David Lack and others have found that such a negative feedback demonstrably controls the fecundity of birds. [11] But men are not birds, and have not acted like them for millenniums, at least.
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line -- then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some thirty nations agreed to the following: "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.'' [14]
It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the seventeenth century. At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is "our last and best hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; we shouldn't play into the hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert Louis Stevenson said: "The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy." If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the United Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis [15] in attempting to get Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in embracing the same tragic ideal.


可见，这些精英认为人们自由繁殖后代不能忍受，想制定规则，可是他们自己又有谁来看呢？戴维。洛克菲勒自己4个孩子呢吧！这些精英自己很多儿孙满堂吧。。。

戈尔的所谓环保演讲主张把地球人口削减到20亿以下，西方人要削减人口，首当其冲的要削减什么人？？？