Bilderberg Conference 2006, page 3

Just a thought to consider; How difficult might it be to create a database listing the "Bergers" and then cross-referencing those individuals to their known corporate "positions" both interlocking and stand alone and allegances to "other groups"? Stick with me for a minute here OK?

It might be something like this, perhaps not. A database that can only be added to by limited approved "data-wranglers" say 2 or 3 db whiz's (we don't want burn out as DB is boring and tedious and quite frankly for the gifted), volunteers willing to be "vetted" ATS style; that is you lie and we catch you... you know the rest about what happens to liars vis a vis ATS.

Anyway these "data-wranglers" would accept data for entry into a common query and analysis friendly software in several mirrored locations after submission and approval by a "board of authenticity and oversight" or some sort to verify the accuracy. The board might be elected or maybe even picked at random from membership standing for set length terms and staggered retirement to help continuity.

Now we need "data-collectors" (who might be just about anyone filling out a form of statement of knowledge and truth about an individual or corp being submitted for entry) to send "the goods" to the "board of authenticity" who would parse and kern the data verifying it's "truth" and "currency".

The board then sends "the official goods" off to the "data-herders" who'd be responsible for data entry and merges/purges of the goods and db maintenance and software "help" for users who'd be "us" (whoever "we" are).

What data to include? Start with about 80 fields and do a trial to see if that'd satisfy research and monitoring requests for data-points in the archive. If 80 fields aren't enough then do a little study to see "how much" is enough. Take an individual of interest in the NWO or whatever matrix and study them at the "data-collector" level and see how much is needed to be able to analyze that individual and there actions within that matrix. I am only talking about "public domain" knowledge of these folks - no laws must be broken to keep the data from "taint".

A for instance scenario of the use of such a db might be something like this. I wanna know about "Berger" McKenna from Canada (for whatever reason), being a member in good standing I forward the query to the board and then granted read only access to find out what that "Berger" is hooked up to in the way of BoDs, "clubs","societies", assets etc. and to know that the data is verified.

I suspect in 3 to 5 years such a DB would "round-out-nicely" the body of knowledge of many folks who play with our lives as if toys. Now databases are a wonderfully powerful tool in the right hands and minds and I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that such documentation may be of great use for the greater good all for three reasons.

The first is context, these powerful "people" and their actions and associations when viewed separately are of note but when viewed in context to "other stuff they are into" some synthesis of new understanding and potential threat assessment is more obvious. An example: "Berger" Mckenna, a former provincial premier is "Carlyle", he stepped down as Ambassador to the USA in response to our new "Conservative" government. What's wrong with this picture? Who else is "Carlyle"? The Afghan Pres' and other former Presidents too. Hmmm who else is "Berger" and Canuck? Herr Harper and at least one other notable "leftist Canuckistani". So maybe it's just a show they put on for the masses to give the illusion of different political "stripes"? Perhaps not, but some might see potential exposition of the interlocking I'm talking about. Maybe not the best example, but ATS'ers are great at connecting the dots and very, very curious about such stuff. Context.

The second is the "indy-factor", if "we" create it and "they" can't control it might that not be a good thing in a world where "they" catalog and index and monitor "us"? Give 'em back a little of their own bitter medecine - no charge and legal. Indy.

The third is "prediction". I can't be exactly sure, but let's say we had the 1000 top "dudes of concern" and their activities and associations programmed and monitored by "us". We might be able to "see things coming bbeyond the horizon" through data interpretation and extrapolation. Imagine graphic "data-constellations and organizational drill down charts - that sort of thing. Prediction.

I'm not a big fan of the "Bergers" if what we suspect is true... but there's so much more between meetings and it's global. We may require new means to plot the "plots". Is this a valid idea these days? Is it even doable?

Thanx,

Victor K.