Steinbruck: no chancellor yet, but already bilderberger

The spd chancellor candidate has long lasted the consecration of discrete power

Still is peer steinbruck, the freshly baked spd chancellor candidate, did not arrive at the center of official power. Before joining the federal chancellery, the elections are known in the coming year. The initiation into the ranks of the discrete world connectors, the soufflees and stripping pullers of the unofficial power has brought behind the birth of hamburgs. Peer steinbruck, former minister president of north rhine-westphalia, was a participant of the secretive round of the bilderberger, which in 2011 for three days away from the public in the contemplative st. Moritz came together.

If the power elite zirkel bilderberg in secrets hullt, steinbruck’s participation in the conference is no longer a secret. The openness of the internet discusses the tour of the social democrats high and down. In the coarse media, however, steinbruck is glowing like hardly a chancellor candidate before; steinbruck flirting with the global power elite remains under the radar of the reporting. Is the participation of steinbruck at the bilderberg conference a problem? Yes that’s her.

Who is peer steinbruck closer: the population in germany or an internationally active power elite? The question can be answered easily. At least for the time of 9. Until 12. June 2011, as in the swiss st. Moritz took its course the year-ended bilderberg conference, was the man who unanimously nominated the spd’s chancellor’s candidate in the beginning of this month to the chancellor’s council of the spd, to be the rich and powerful, when some enjoyed and his free.

Peer steinbruck, photo: dirk frontstrain, license: cc-by-2.0

As in every year since 1954, in 2011 also good 140 handpicked personnel from the economy, high finances, politics, the militar, the intelligence services, the media, the nobility and science together were together, for three days, championed from the openity, in one extra for the meeting rented hotel on the gross topics of this world to confer. Topics such as "national security in the digital age", "the challenge of the european union" or the "willingness of governments for reforms" stood on the agenda.

To the long-term pictures of david rockefeller, banker and billionar, or henry kissinger, former national security advisor and narrow minister of the united states, the former boss of deutsche bank, josef ackermann, eric schmidt, josef akermann, eric schmidt, head of the internet group google, the co-generation of social network facebook, chris r. Hughes, or the director of us intelligence national security agency (nsa), keith b. Alexander. And in the middle: peer "i put all the cards on the table" steinbruck, who poses an interesting question on his homepage:

With whom is the clock stitch about the events and about the world run? For anonymous, escaped markets or democratically legitimated institutions?

Steinbruck seems to be the meaning "democratically legitimate institutions" to know. Only: why is steinbruck the importance of democratically legitimate institutions, if it is also part of a deeply undemocratic offshore political formation process that uses the elite elite to discuss marching directions, ideas and structural changes before the public is informed?

Load liability lost?

Participation of steinbruck on the bilderberg conference betrayed a lot about the man who soon wanted to swing the scepter as a powerful man in the state. The close to the money elites, which was close to the influential and powerful, the steinbruck obviously also to be accepted, despite the fragile framework conditions, namely the exclusion of the openness, leave nothing good guild.

Steinbruck’s carefree entry into the circle of hidden power, which had to be in the eye for every true democrats a mandrel, steinbruck’s high fees, which he stresses for talking and journalistic activities, steinbruck ask for the million for a fraghous shaft tournament, signs of that are that another water preacher and wine drinking the (political) olympus tries to climb.

Has a politician who stimulates at least four-digit terms for a lecture, not already lost the soil liability? Can a politician who accepts more than 7000 euros for a lecture, still understand what it is called when parts of the population do not know how to create it with their divergent pay through the month?

What causes it in a human, in a politician, if he earned in, two hours by a lecture more than many working burgers throughout the year? Why, and this question is a lot of questions made and discussed by the media not aggressively enough, leading politicians are paid to fees in four, fun and six-digit high, as was the case with rudolf scharping the case?

Which companies, which circles, have what interests that a lecture is worth as much money? The pure content of the presented may not be, because such lecture usually involves nothing, which is not publicly accessible to everyone. So it has to be something else.

If a company, 10.000, 20.000 euro and more for a simple lecture pays, then it is always about a mutual fertilization of the elite with each other. A peer steinbruck is to recharge and enhance an event with symbolic capital. The symbolic capital, which has a top politician with its position, translates to such a lecture evening on the zuhorer, which can go home with the feeling, one "gross" "very close" to have been. It is also understood and above all on the organizer, which, pictorially spoken, the invited politician can hang like a precious fur around his neck, which is iggered and standing well to face.

But so much a businessman may be recoverable for status symbols. An entrepreneur is an entrepreneur is an entrepreneur. He would be a conceivable wasteful entrepreneur, if, until a six-digit high, it was paid only for some symbolic capital, which translates to him, his company.

It was allowed to be, and you have to be beaten with blindness, if you do not see that, in many cases to handle concealed financings of politicians, of which someday one once "please" expects. A court rod wants to be unloaded too.

And thus we are at the core problem, which is concerned with the picture mountain conference and the participation of top politicians. Which relationships of relationships arise with what effects, if the power of the world meet in such a mess without the critical eyes of the media and the openness? What language, however, to open these conferences for non-invited groups, such as ngos? What can a politician about a business boss "off the record" relaxed, as if he is in the light of the openness?

The answers to these questions are very easy. And yet they are heavy in the stomach and prepare ubeliness.

Shadow system at elite circles

You also have to ask: how much differentiation of the elite from the normal social system, how much secretness contracts a democracy? When is the mab full of informal discussions and backroom meeting? How much blind trust can be a politician from the burgers and electives expect?

Bilderberg, you can not be eight eight eight, is only a meeting place where the world links and economic qualities take away from the openness. The power structure research has impressively demonstrated that there is a shadow system to elite circles, which the opportunity to escape more, sometimes less; how much the influence of these groups is on politics, with which the burgers of this country and the world are ultimately confronted, it can only be mooded.

Extensive studies, such as the long-term examination of the researcher bernhard walpen to mont pelerin society and their work on the dissemination of neoliberal ideology or exploration of the meeting at the bohemian grove by the us political scientist g.William domhoff, are rare.

The social sciences unfortunately still know too little about networks of the elite. Yes, and there should be no doubt: a healthy distrust is appropriate if the official ruler from politics, which are anything but without action, are pulled too close to the gravitational centers of informal power due to their position.

A popular objection that at this point again and again of politicians and other sympathizers of the "off the record"-is caught meeting, that it also allows politicians to be allowed to meet and exchange themselves in breastfeeding with other leaders. Finally, a good dialogue under high functional bogies can also be good for the general public.

This is an objection that can certainly only agree. Of course, politicians should also be allowed without having to have the image newspaper in towing to talk to the board of a coarse company. Meeting, even more or less discreet meetings, among the elites from the social partial areas such as politics and business, are not fundamentally reprehensible. But to ask the question again: what to keep from a politician who tries to wipe the fear and mistrust of the wahler and the population with an arrogant remark from the table?

Private meeting at the expense of the state

But alone already the symbol effect of a power elite, which rents a private hotel for three days, with their private aircraft, helicopters and luxury limousines, let their own security personnel relate to the environment and then another army of state security faiths for her "small private meeting" activated, is devastating for any democracy that claims to be taken seriously. Protesters arrested by aggressively undergoing security personnel, photographers and journalists who are hindered locally at the exercise of their profession, raise the impression of an elite that seems to kick any democratic decency with the piles.

It weighs just as difficult that costs for a conference that from bilderberg itself "private" is clearly classified, sometimes in some cases be reversed on the taxpayer. Completely without shame, the cdu politician eckhard of klaeden reports that his costs were taken to participate in the conference of the german bundestag.

A paper to be found from the documents of the former federal prosece and ex-bilderberger, walter scheel (fdp) shows that the federal government was ready for the bilderberg conference in 1980 in aachen, 100.000 dm to provide. A request to the federal government and the foreign office about whether, in fact, money has flowed, has been unanswered for weeks after reputation. The researches are difficult and charged time, dear the press office of the federal government probed.

However, peer steinbruck does not seem to have dealt with the question of whether the taxpayer for a private conference of the power elite has been used. If you look into the portal deputieswatch, it becomes clear that steinbruck generally has a very idiosyncratic understanding of transparency and burgernahe:

Dear mr. Steinbruck,

Despite multiplicity questions is still your answer to your participation in the bilderberger meeting 2011. How can it be that a politician-chosen politician who makes common cause together with banks and economics, no information? The impression arises that the politicians participate in such meetings, reveal the interests of the people. What’s your opinion on this?

For example, ask a burger named jurgen simon. The answer is:

Dear mr. Simon,

Peer steinbruck thanks for your question about mepswatch.De. With this answer we would ask you to turn directly to the bundestagburo of mr. Steinbruck …

And with this standard response sent by steinbruck’s buro team, the politician obviously will answer all inquiries at mpswatch. To the sky, so it has the impression, blob little publicity.

East absurd mutates the youngest leaving stone bruck in relation to his lecture bodies: "transparency is only available in dictatorships", quoted image.De the man who was already in use as minister of finance in the cabinet of angela merkel from 2005.

But could it be that steinbruck was simply quoted wrong at this point? Or the social democrat has actually said what is currently being spread in the media? This question is to ask because steinbruck’s statement of transparency and dictatorship reveals a degree of reality loss, under the experience of only those suffering, which were exposed to the noise of high formal power for many years.

Anyone who as a politician is due to discussion of side invokers with the jerking to wall and attempted the reputation for transparency from the people and from the media just about these intenders by comparing a necessary and completely legitimate request for clarity with the ratios in a dictatorship, documented with the emphasis that the small duration of democracy was not understood.

Criticize side invokes close to banking lobbyists who participate in a balanced conference of the international power elite: whether with a potential chancellor peer steinbruck intransparency and a culture of the back room policy are further expanded?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *