______
From: Ana Margarida Esteves
Date: March 27, 2009 12:26:03 PM GMT
Cc: cyberjournal
Subject: Re: * Daniel Estulin: The True Story of the Bilderberger Group *
Dear all,
I already read the book and have some reservations about it:
1) If it is as secretive as it seems, how come Daniel Estulin got in
and gathered so much supposedly “classified” information?
2) Roberto Saviano wrote a book about the Naples Mafia an is under
death threat. Daniel Estulin wrote about a supposedly “global” mafia
and has never spoken about receiving similar threats? Isn’t this at
least a little bit strange?
3) I spoke to a person who was an insider in some esoteric/political
circles and then left who claims that all the attention given to the
“Bilderberg Group” isn’t but a way of distracting people from the
global circles where all the decisions are really mae behind their
backs.
4) I’m kind of a little bit suspicious about the reservations of Mr.
Estulin against the control of the use of weapons from the part of
non-military citizens, as well as an implicit socially conservative
agenda behind the idea of “corrosion of traditional values” (at least
that’s the message I got from the Portuguese translation).
What do you all think? Look forward to your feedback.
Hi Ana,
Thanks for your message and let’s hope others do respond to your comments. For now, I’ll give you my own response.
If it is as secretive as it seems, how come Daniel Estulin got in and gathered so much supposedly “classified” information?
In the book, Daniel talks quite a bit about how he manages to collect his information. And in the introduction I posted, I included these words of Daniel’s:
“My grandfather was a colonel in the KGB and the counter-intelligence in the 1950s, so I am privileged somewhat to get a lot of the information from secret services which are our best sources of information. Not only the KGB people but the MI6 people, the CIA…”
Daniel Estulin wrote about a supposedly “global” mafia and has never spoken about receiving similar threats? Isn’t this at least a little bit strange?
Again, Daniel does talk in the book about receiving threats, and he talks about measures he has taken to protect himself in vulnerable situations. He tells that story of how he enlisted two KBG agents, with sniper rifles, to watch his back during a rendezvous that had been arranged in Paris with an informant. Right out of James Bond, only for real. The sense of being ‘under threat’ is woven into the narrative of the book.
There’s another aspect to this as well. Most people dismiss people like Estulin as being “conspiracy theorists”, without bothering to examine the evidence for themselves. Because of this widespread head-in-the-sand syndrome, I don’t think the folks behind the curtain feel particularly threatened by Daniel’s books.
In the episode he does mention, where two nameless agents tried to find out who his inside sources were, their main concern seemed to be tracking down their internal moles, their ‘traitors’, and not so much trying to stop Daniel. And in the Paris rendezvous story, it was his would-be informant who disappeared, never to be seen again. Daniel was left to wait, and wait, unmolested in the plaza.
From a counter-espionage perspective, it would make sense to leave Daniel alone, while seeking to uncover the internal moles. They can, for example, reveal different information to different suspects, and see which bits end up in Daniel’s hands. In these matters Le Carré is useful: his plots are based on actual research into intelligence activities.
I spoke to a person who was an insider in some esoteric/political circles and then left who claims that all the attention given to the “Bilderberg Group” isn’t but a way of distracting people from the global circles where all the decisions are really made behind their backs.
It sounds like your friend is well informed. He understands that the agendas of the Bilderberger meetings, and the invite lists, are determined by an inner circle. The meetings are really agenda-propagation channels rather than decision-making forums. Daniel talks about this at length as well, and he gives us names of people in the inner circle, and shows how the leadership of all the different groups (Trilateral, CFR, etc.) include members of the same inner circle, eg, David Rockefeller.
It seems to me that your friend’s comment ends up being a recommendation for the book, as Daniel is identifying the “global circles where all the decisions are really made behind [people’s] backs”, and certainly isn’t trying to distract us from that.
I’m kind of a little bit suspicious about the reservations of Mr. Estulin against the control of the use of weapons from the part of non-military citizens, as well as an implicit socially conservative agenda behind the idea of “corrosion of traditional values”.
Evidently, Daniel is more socially conservative than you are. Why is this something to be suspicious about? And what does this have to do with the validity of his research? If you were evaluating papers for an academic journal, would you disqualify authors who don’t share your belief system? Perhaps I’m missing something here. Feel free to elaborate.
I appreciate your willingness, Ana, to share your reservations. I’m sure your sentiments are shared by others.
best wishes,
richard
___________________________
