Forum Index
the view from the top of the pyramid of power
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

ANALYSIS/ARTICLES selected for Bilderberg 2015/6 season
Goto page 1, 2  Next
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Bilderberg Conference 2016: 9-12 June, Hotel Taschenbergpalais, Dresden, Germany.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:36 pm    Post subject: ANALYSIS/ARTICLES selected for Bilderberg 2015/6 season Reply with quote

#Bilderberg securocrats & banksters: Forget the New World Order, Here’s Who Really Runs the World

The Anti-Media
Navigation Menu
Forget the New World Order, Here’s Who Really Runs the World

Jake Anderson September 24, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world’s heads of state and captains of industry.
The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it turns out the core idea — one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government with a globalist agenda — is operational in what a number of insiders call the “Deep State.”

In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security state — a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve vested interests. Calling it “the big story of our time,” Lofgren says the deep state represents the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with the globalist war on terror.
“It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street,” he explained.
Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the deep state.
How does the deep state operate?

A complex web of revolving doors between the military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of defense contractors, banksters, military campaigns, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.
According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.

While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight or accountability. According to Lofgren, 70% of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.

Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating more people than China — a totalitarian state with four times more people than us — the deep state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in stride.
After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren’s moment of truth regarding this matter came in 2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, “disenchanted” him from the groupthink, which he says keeps all of Washington’s minions in lockstep.
Groupthink — an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers — also works to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state. Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a FISA court order.
Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws — so that the government can imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices — behooves Wall Street. It’s no surprise that the government has upheld the draconian legislation for 15 years.
It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how former general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies.
Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire. Nepotism reigns supreme as the revolving door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:
“Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments,” said Giraldi.
How did the deep state come to be?

Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the military-industrial complex while others say it came into being with the Federal Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,
“We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America’s foreign policy is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization, and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great “Washington Consensus,” yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests of the oligarchy here at home.
Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In this world — where the deep state functions with impunity — it doesn’t matter who is president so long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.
“As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly,” according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.
Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state, which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.
Is there hope for the future?

Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations, and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley, Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.
Can these groups — can we, the people — overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.
This article (Forget the New World Order, Here’s Who Really Runs the World) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email
Secret Rulers

Last edited by TonyGosling on Fri May 20, 2016 10:09 pm; edited 8 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, not exactly blockbuster but excellent nevertheless
Translated from the Italian

Bilderberg and New World Order: Who's really in charge?
by Gianluca Ferrara | Oct. 23, 2015

More information: Capitalism , the Bilderberg Group , Neoliberalism , Powers Strong
Gianluca Ferrara

The Trilateral Commission is a study group and lobby founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller. It consists of 300 influential businessmen and aims globalization of neoliberal doctrine. The name comes from the three geographical areas where the capitalist system is entrenched and want even more flourish: North America, Europe and Japan (in recent years with Japan means throughout the Asia-Pacific). David Rockefeller in his biography states that he and his family are accused of wanting to build a socio-political structure whose purpose is to control the world. His response to that accusation was: "If that's the charge I declare my self-confessed and I am proud."

The Bilderberg group, annually gathers, in luxurious hotels in camera, the elite of the global plutocracy. It is composed of 130 members who are representatives of government, diplomats, managers of multinational companies, the military, bankers, newspaper editors, members of the IMF and World Bank. The club's name comes from the name of the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek in the Netherlands where the first meeting was held in 1954. Among Italians who have attended recently there have been Mario Monti, Mario Draghi, Romano Prodi, Carlo De Benedetti, Enrico Letta and Lilli Gruber .

Security and secrecy with which these meetings are held, has triggered countless theories more or less likely. It 'clear that there are those who call lumps of power that they were able to globalize its influence through a systematic destruction of the state apparatus and the privatization of key sectors of the economy. Must not groped to infiltrate one of the five star hotels where you keep your private meetings of the Bilderberg club: the engine of this system is not driven by a dark plot carried out by hooded new millennium, to reveal such a world order just go to the library and buy, for example, The Road to Serfdom by Hayek or Von Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman.

The real power is that it no longer needs to hide their purposes and their ideas. After 60 years since the birth of the Bilderberg Club you are no longer required secrecy and silence around this power dome. This is because it was possible, and it is typical of the most nefarious dictatorships, to constitute a people accomplice who supports and defends the ruling elite. The tragedy of our times is that while in the past the elites were able to exercise a power of limited geographical areas, today with the globalization and the lack of viable alternatives, today's order mercantilist has globalized its domination. We are witnessing the triumph of neo-liberalism but also of thought that supports it and that is that social Darwinism, that Calvinism that is nothing but the prevalence of the law of the strong over the weak.

As indicated by the recent study by the Center New Development Model , the multinationals have more power states. Of the top 100 economic entities, 67 are corporations and 33 governments. When such a concentration of economic power is in the hands of a few individuals, the very concept of democracy is not.

And 'the triumph of neo-liberalism and its vision that the state is a beast of starvation, as stated David Stockman, Reagan's in charge of the budget, the State forced to reduce spending because of decreased tax revenues from tax cuts of the privileged. The beast must not be allowed to provide education, health and social security to those who can not afford it and the waste that is according to the laws of evolution, the weakest, will be automatically deleted.

If hypothetically fall one or more asteroids sobre 5 stars where it meets the Bilderberg group or where they meet members of the Trilateral Commission or the headquarters of Goldman Sachs, making a clean sweep of the plutocracy of the world, then what would happen? After removing the debris, what would sprout from the soil? If you are planting another culture they would form little by little, just as happens with the weeds in the fields, the same power plant. To eradicate the roots of the culture of the power vertical is essential not only challenge it but build an idea of landscape company whose seed must first come from within themselves.
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Revealed: Bilderberg seeks to quietly sieze control of Portuguese government

La7, Gruber in ritardo. Paragone: “Il Bilderberg le regali un orologio”
Lilli Gruber sfora il suo orario e Paragone (La Gabbia) sbotta: "Magari la prossima volta che va al Bilderberg le facciamo regalare anche un orologio"
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is This the Bilderberg or the Circle K Behind My House?

Where does true power reside? Is it waving at you from a stage-lit, Presidentially-sealed podium? Or tucked away inside a billionaire’s wallet? Can you smell it in a mahogany-clad clubroom at Yale in the smoke of a Bonesman’s cigar, or catch a glimpse of its dark feathers perching on the advisory council of a transnational bank? One thing we know for sure: the nature and location of power is changing, and the agents of that change are the Californian technology companies that have the taken the 21st century by the throat.

A revolution in “connection technologies” means we are entering what executive chairman at Google, Eric Schmidt, calls “a new age of shared power.” New power dynamics will be played out within what he calls “the interconnected estate,” a realm in which, soon enough, humans will be sharing power, policies, and influence not just with each other, but with increasingly intelligent computers.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence is set to change everything: the dynamics of power and politics for starters, but beyond that, the nature of life itself. “We are just at the beginning of this infinite journey,” gushes PayPal founder and AI enthusiast Peter Thiel, as he announces his intention to live forever. Thiel sits on the board of Facebook, a company “on a mission to connect the world,” and one of the biggest investors in AI. Meanwhile, over at Google’s DeepMind project, British specialist Demis Hassabis, is working to unravel “the deepest mysteries of the mind.” Hassabis wants to create Artificial Intelligence in order to “solve intelligence and use it to solve everything else.”

Solve everything, connect everyone, live forever: the time for humble ambitions is past. The mood of the day is summed up in the triumphant howl that echoes from Google’s R&D department, when the former head of DARPA, Regina Dugan, swallows a microchip in a pill that turns her body into a digital authentication device, and cries: “My first superpower!”

Grandiose ambitions and the promise of fantastic new powers, but what about the old power structures? The old money? The beating heart of the old Anglo-American Empire is the City of London. Ever since the East India Company controlled half the world’s trade, London has been a nexus of global finance, and the Square Mile is still home to over 40% of the world’s foreign exchange market: a gob-smacking $2.67 trillion in daily trades.

To this day, the City remains on the cutting edge of digital trading, happily blowing up shiny new virtual bubbles, and devising newfangled financial instruments, yet its power lies in a hoary old formula: the extreme concentration of wealth by the extremely few. The suits may be sharper and the phones faster, but it’s no different in structure from ancient Egypt.

The traditional means of maintaining your position “inside” the circle of power is to protect your boundary at all costs. The same tactic is used by banking cartels, elite policy groups, Chinese politburos, and secret societies: guard the walls.

For example, Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club—a notorious private dining society, depicted on the big screen as The Riot Club, and through whose puke-splashed portals have crawled such eminent individuals as the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his loyal Chancellor, George Osborne.

Membership requires some very expensive tailoring, but before you’re allowed to don the splendid trousers and spatter them with champagne vomit, you have to be selected and initiated. The rituals of initiation include having to burn a £50 note in front of a beggar, which must be some comfort to the beggar, who can think, “I may be homeless but at least I’m not a giant arse.”

The whole thing has an old-school vibe: the trousers may be splendid, but they’re thoroughly retro. There’s a kind of Cecil Rhodes imperialist air to the proceedings: these are the chosen few, the mighty protectors of Empire, roaring like young lions, before wiping the cocaine stains off their chinless faces with a terrified waitress’s bra, and going out into the world to stake their claim on power.

And some make it. Cameron and Osborne graduated from Bullingdon Club into Westminster, and then scrabbled even higher up the ladder to the Bilderberg Group. If the City of London is the beating heart of Empire, Bilderberg is its brain. Founded in 1954, this private society is one of the most venerable, powerful and secretive policy forums in the world.

The Bilderberg Group’s annual three day conference is held in heavily armed privacy. Helicopters circle overhead, and snipers line the roof-tops. It’s attended by about 130 corporate CEOs, industrialists, prime ministers, presidents, princes, and senior figures from NATO, the IMF, the EU, and even the NSA. Six British Prime Ministers and two U.S. Presidents have made the list (usually before they’ve taken office). Spy chiefs, media moguls, billionaires, queens and bank bosses—and for the last several years, a significant influx of some of the biggest names in California tech.

Venture capitalist Peter Thiel, the philosopher-king of the technosphere, has taken a seat on the 35-member inner “steering committee” of Bilderberg, where alongside him sits his protégé Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, and Craig Mundie, the former head of research at Microsoft. Mundie was the first of the crowd to be allowed past the velvet rope, back in 2003.

Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, and Eric Schmidt of Google, have both become conference regulars. Schmidt brought along Google’s AI expert Hassabis and transhumanist apostle Dugan to attend this year’s conference in Austria, where “artificial intelligence” and “cybersecurity” were high on the agenda.

It pays to look closely at how Silicon Valley, Bilderberg, and AI fit together. On a practical level, AI offers enormous opportunities for everything from the commercial exploitation of data, the profiling of citizens/shoppers, and political control, so it obviously flutters the skirts of the Bilderberg bigwigs, whether they run HSBC, BP, the NSA, or Her Majesty’s Treasury. But the AI/Bilderberg symbiosis rests upon something deeper: the shared ideology of globalization—an ideology that resembles nothing less than a spiritual quest.

Since day one, Bilderberg’s “high priests of globalization” (as the writer and academic Will Hutton dubbed them) have been pushing for “the internationalization of business.” And working out the “practical steps towards better global governance.”

The ideology of globalization perceives otherness as an evil to be overcome. Constantly merging and acquiring, dominating and consolidating, to the point of singularity. As the industrialist John D. Rockefeller, one of globalization’s great motivating spirits, is supposed to have said: “Competition is a sin.” Peter Thiel updates this maxim for the 21st century, when he declares: “Competition is for losers.” He prefers instead “monopoly,” which he calls “the condition of every successful business.”

Digital technology has already proved to be a powerful tool for globalization. Facebook in particular. “One world” is the last of the ten “Facebook Principles,” which begins: “the Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries.” The Internet, like global capital, and global brands, is transnational. It is, says Eric Schmidt: “the ultimate globalizing force.”

Already the Internet is growing, as Schmidt puts it, into a “global mind.” A singular consciousness. Soon, says Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg, “we’ll be able to send full rich thoughts to each other directly using technology.” There’ll be no barriers to thought because there’re no barriers to information.

Many believe we’re headed towards a technological singularity, in which we become so interconnected, and our world so “smart” that we eventually merge with the technology that is connecting us. Before long “the Internet will disappear” predicts Schmidt. It will become one with the world around us: “there will be so many IP addresses…so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won’t even sense it. It will be part of your presence all the time.”

All of which sees us moving towards a singular, boundary-free, interconnected, transnational, suprahuman “one world.” A kind of globalization 2.0, in which not just trade, financial systems and political structures are globalized, but humans and the earth itself are merged.

As all our boundaries—commercial, national, cultural, physical—explode, we are left with just one final frontier to overcome: death. Peter Thiel has declared it a moral “absolute” to try and overcome mortality, which he describes as “the great enemy” of humanity. He’s pumping tens of millions into biomedical research and developing machine intelligence in order “to overcome the state of nature” and lengthen life.

Standing shoulder to shoulder with Thiel in the fight against death is the futurist Ray Kurzweil—the sultan of the singularity—who has been hired by Google to work on AI. Kurzweil foresees, in the not too distant future, “the merger of the vast knowledge embedded in our own brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our technology.”

The end point of this integration process is hard to predict, but Kurzweil thinks that, in time, “the matter and mechanisms of the universe will be transformed into exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence.” The singularity will spread to everything, and in a mystical flash of Hegelian self-awareness, a supremely intelligent (and singular) smart-universe will come into being: “the universe will become sublimely intelligent and wake up.”

All of which brings us to a bright and shining sticking point between the singular dreams of California tech and the globalist dreams of Bilderberg. Bilderberg’s globalism is based upon an ultimate duality: there’s no “global governance” without the globally governed. We’re talking about a very unsingular and traditional power structure here: an asymmetric duality between the owners and the owned; the controllers and the controlled. Likewise, monopoly implies duality; Google doesn’t exist without people outside Google using it.

Fundamental to Bilderberg, like any closed group or secret society, is the idea of disconnection, of boundaries: the strictly-policed barrier to entry, the secrecy, the hierarchy, the heavily-guarded differentiation between self and other, inside and outside; the splendid trousers of Bullingdon that only a select few can wear. But hierarchy simply doesn’t work if we’re all plugged into the same singularity, any more than personality does, or elitism. Barriers don’t work when it’s “Skynet,” singular. Like death or nirvana, a fully interconnected AI is the great leveller.

The elite may be hoping to hoard the AI super-empowerment for themselves, and maintain the firewall between “them and us” to soar away, into a God-like superhumanity on the wings of machine intelligence—but that’s making the gigantic assumption that their personalities can survive the merger. It might be a bit like a banana hoping to merge with a gorilla, or a mouse wanting to merge with a freight train. It might manage it, and find its limitations exploded, but the freight train won’t notice the bump.

It says something about the titanium egos of some of these people that they don’t feel their minds are under threat from the merger. Perhaps they hope to augment their way to immortality, and then stop the technology in its tracks? Bring down the barrier at the last minute? Exist forever on some kind of partitioned sub-cloud of consciousness, remaining distinctly human in the face of an ever more encompassing AI. Good luck with that.

What happens if we extend the timescale long enough, and AI—as seems inevitable—becomes more powerful than humans? We’re being warned about this danger by, amongst others, Elon Musk of Space X—perhaps Los Angeles’ most prominent tech icon, and Thiel’s former colleague at PayPal. When he’s not busy conquering space, transforming energy storage, or proposing we swap our aeroplanes for a hyperloop, he’s telling us that AI is “potentially more dangerous than nukes” and warns: “with artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon.”

And it’s not just Musk; Stephen Hawking—who knows a thing or two about human-machine integration—has warned that with our “slow biological evolution” humankind “would be superseded” by Artificial Intelligence. Even Demis Hassabis, heading up “the Apollo programme of AI”—Google’s DeepMind project—has joined the chorus of concern, co-signing a letter warning of the danger of an AI arms race.

Musk fears we might be: “just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable.” How likely is it that a human, however augmented, is going to get a seat at the table when—relatively—we’re about as intelligent as the chair leg. Suddenly there’s a new power dynamic in town, and the billionaires of Bilderberg might find themselves lumped in with “us” on the weedy end of “them and us”—sorry guys, join the club.

Under these circumstances, burning a 50 pound note in a tramp’s face seems about as meaningful as a snail farting on a worm. We’re all just wriggling in the same mud. That “swoosh” you just heard, passing by at a billion miles an hour? That was evolution. And not yours.

I’m sure these guys have read their Machiavelli: “One must be a fox to recognize traps.” Yet it’s entirely possible that by opening their arms to the evangelists of AI—with their phantasmagoric dreams of a global mind and transhumanist immortality—the transatlantic elite have invited a Silicon Horse into their inner sanctum. Bilderberg, you have been warned.

See Companion Piece: The Digital Horror. The Digital Hoarder?
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Conspiracy Archive
Secret Societies, Cryptocracy and Deep Politics
The Bilderberg Connection: Did The Bilderberg Group Send Nixon to China?
Power Elite 4 Oct, 2015
By Will Banyan 03 October 2015)

US President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing in 1972 is considered by some analysts to be the “master stroke in modern American diplomacy”, if not the most visible aspect of Nixon and Henry Kissinger’s effort to “reshape American foreign policy”, one that “transformed the Cold War.”[1] Yet, according to Daniel Estulin, it was the Bilderberg Group that “took the decision for the U.S. to establish formal relations with China before Nixon’s administration made it public policy.”[2] This is a contentious allegation, for which Estulin provides no evidence of in his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007). Estulin has attributed the claim to documents shown to him by the late Jim Tucker,[3] although Tucker made no such claims in his Bilderberg Diary. It also seems that the American Free Press, Tucker’s former employer, do not possess such documents,[4] with none of their reporting displaying knowledge of such material. A 2014 report by Tucker’s successor Mark Anderson, for example, claimed the Bilderbergers “apparently worked well in advance on what became normalized relations with China,” citing two Bilderberg conferences as evidence:

The 1969 [Bilderberg] meeting included just two admitted topics: “Elements of instability in Western society,” along with a look at “conflicting attitudes within the Western world toward relations with the U.S.S.R. and other Communist states of Eastern Europe.”

At the 1956 meeting, the Bilderbergers considered the causes of growth of anti-Western nations within the United Nations, along with “a common approach by the Western world toward China and the emergent nations of South and East Asia.”[5]

The source for Anderson’s information, however, appears to be no more than the topic lists for each meeting at the official Bilderberg Meetings website (see Figure 1).[6]

Figure 1: Agenda Topics for 1956 Bilderberg Meeting

11-13 May 1956, Fredensborg, Denmark
Review of developments since the last Conference
The causes of the growth of anti-Western blocs, in particular in the United Nations
The role played by anti-colonialism in relations between Asians and the West
A common approach by the Western world towards China and the emergent nations of South and East Asia
The communist campaign for political subversion or control of the newly emancipated countries of Asia
How the West can best meet Asian requirements in the technical and economic fields

A less ambiguous source was given, however, in a report from the mid-1990s in the American Free Press’s predecessor publication The Spotlight. The report, by Trisha Karson, quoted from an interview with Jack Sheinkman (1926-2004), Chairman of the Board of the Amalgamated Bank and President of Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, and a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee. Sheinkman had admitted how in “some cases the discussions [at Bilderberg] do have an impact and become policy.” He gave as an example how: “We had a discussion about the U.S. establishing formal relations with China before [former President Richard] Nixon actually did it.”[7]

Despite Estulin’s failure to document it, Sheinkman’s statement suggests his claim that Bilderberg was behind Nixon’s decision to recognise Communist China may be more plausible than it would otherwise seem. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evidence to see how close Estulin and Anderson’s respective claims are to the truth. Drawing on confidential Bilderberg meeting reports from the period in question, and other historical materials, this paper will attempt to shed more light on this controversial subject.

It is the contention of this paper that while there is no proof of a Bilderberg “decision”, as such, there is substantial evidence of America’s non-recognition policy being heavily criticised at four Bilderberg Group meetings. Furthermore, a number of senior US Bilderberg Group members and meeting participants went on to play critical roles in the effort, largely under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to bring about a change in US policy towards Communist China in the 1960s. That effort arguably influenced Nixon’s thinking on this issue, culminating in his historic visit. This indicates the Bilderberg Group did play a role in the shift in US policy towards the People’s Republic of China (PRC), consistent with its purpose of shaping and influencing trans-Atlantic elite opinion.
The Bilderberg View

The Bilderberg Group first challenged the US hard-line policy towards the Communist regime in Peking—of not recognising it as the legitimate government in China, enforcing a comprehensive trade embargo and opposing its membership of the United Nations—at its 1956 conference in Fredensborg. This was driven by the Bilderberg Steering Committee’s concern there was “less mutual understanding between Western Europe and the United States on this issue than any other.”[8] The introductory paper was delivered by Sir John Slessor (1897-1979), the former Chief of Britain’s Royal Air Force (1950-52), who criticised America’s “refusal to recognize the government of, or trade with, the biggest nation in the world”, suggesting that it made “no political or economic sense.” Slessor warned this approach was undermining the West’s standing in Asia and was driving China further into the Soviet camp. There needed to be a common approach that recognised the Communist regime as the legitimate government of China and gave it China’s seat on the UN Security Council, then held by the Nationalist government in Taiwan.[9]

According to Thomas Gijswijt from the University of Tübingen, whose 2007 thesis Uniting the West closely examined the Bilderbergers, the American participants acknowledged the shortcomings of their policy, but argued that the “political reality in the United States dictated that without an important change of attitude on the part of communist China any change of US policy was [im]possible.” They also pointed out that any compromise on the current US stance would be seen as a “sign of weakness.” In short, it was up to China to improve its behaviour before the US would consider changing its policy. Another obstacle, raised by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace President Joseph E. Johnson and Rockefeller Foundation President Dean Rusk, was America’s military obligation to protect Taiwan from Communist Chinese aggression. In response a British participant proposed that this responsibility be handed over the UN;[10] Slessor would later publicly recommend this policy in an address to the American Chamber of Commerce in London in 1958.[11]

It is worth noting that even just after the first Bilderberg meeting where “the problem of China” was discussed, that Bilderberg Chairman Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (1911-2004) seemed convinced the recent Bilderberg meetings had confirmed there was “no basic difference of outlook between the United States and Europe”, on that particular issue and five other areas of “potential disagreement.” The only “specific differences”, he told Chatham House (home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs) in July 1956, “concern methods rather than objectives, details or shadings rather than broad lines of policy.”[12] The response from US participants at Fredensborg indicated this was partially true: the shortcomings of the US policy were acknowledged, as were the significant domestic and international obstacles to changing direction. But Fredensborg was not the end of the matter, and the frozen US-PRC relationship was raised at subsequent Bilderberg meetings.

At the 1958 conference, held in Buxton in the UK, the US approach was again criticised with a European speaker suggesting US thinking on China was irrational, that it was “tinted with strong moral feeling.” America’s missionary efforts in China had produced a mindset that regarded the Chinese as America’s “spiritual children”; with the Communists as the “bad Chinese who had defeated the good ones.” An American speaker agreed that China had become an emotional “sticking point” for American popular opinion. This was reflected in the opposition of American participants to Chinese admission to the UN, supposedly on moral grounds, while the Europeans were more pragmatic. The Europeans suggested that China’s strategic relationship with Russia was a key problem and the aim should be to “break this alliance”, and that allowing China’s entry into the UN would help achieve this goal.[13]

Also of major concern at the Buxton meeting was the crisis over Quemoy and Matsu, two small islands close to the mainland and occupied by Chinese Nationalist forces, that were being shelled by the Communist Chinese. President Eisenhower had committed the US to defending Taiwan’s claim to the islands, a position opposed by most European participants.[14] At Buxton it was noted that the issue was “creating serious differences between Europe and America”, with most Europeans believing it was the “wrong case” for demonstrating US resolve to oppose the use of force.[15] European participants considered the dispute as little more than an episode in the Chinese Civil War, with public opinion in Europe and Canada “unwilling to support the defence of the islands…” This attitude was reflected in a poll taken of Bilderberg participants, with the Europeans showing an “unanimity of opinion…regardless of their politics” (Childs) in opposing going to war over the islands. Remarkably, this view was also shared by many of the US participants. For example, in his responses, former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson had criticised the Eisenhower Administration’s policy, stressing “the threat to the Atlantic alliance inherent in the American stand.”[16] Some American participants assured their European counterparts that, despite its “firm” stance on the islands, the US was “seeking to extricate itself from this unpleasant situation.”[17]

US-China relations were again raised at a special session during the 1959 Bilderberg meeting held at Yeşilköy in Turkey. “The problem of China” had been proposed as an agenda topic by Bilderberg co-founder and éminence grise, Joseph Retinger (1888-1960); with the apparent concurrence of Bilderberg’s US Secretary General.[18] At Yeşilköy two speakers discussed their recent visit to Communist China acknowledging that regime’s “inhuman ruthlessness”, but also its “undoubted achievements.” Noting China’s emerging place in the world, “one speaker felt that the United States should modify its attitude towards that country.” American non-recognition of Communist China could not be maintained indefinitely, its policy would: “either have to be scrapped or America would have to go to war in [its] defence.” Bilderberg participants who agreed with this, however, noted that due to the complexity of the problem they “favour[ed] a cautious and gradual approach and no one ventured to urge immediate recognition of China and its admission to the United Nations.”[19] Some US participants continued to push-back, though, with one claiming that “some Asians who have formerly advocated a change in American policies were now privately urging the contrary.”[20]

China received a further airing at the conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, in March 1964. This vexed matter had re-emerged in the discussion on the conference’s first topic: the “consequences for the Atlantic Alliance of apparent changes in the Communist World…and possible changes in the attitude of the USSR to the West.” It was during consideration of Soviet policy toward conflicts in the “Afro-Asian” countries, that “certain speakers took up the problem of recognition of Communist China” and its admission to the United Nations.[21]

The discussion was noteworthy for the continuing intransigence displayed by some US participants. A Danish speaker had argued that China’s continued isolation “might provoke dangerous difficulties” due to its “growing importance…on the international scene” and the need to “induce it” to follow the rules should it be admitted to the “family of nations.” A French participant also argued for recognition, noting that “ignoring that country’s existence” would neither impact on its development, nor overcome the fact its position was crucial to solving a number of problems in South-East Asia.[22] The response from US participants, however, was to vigorously defend the policy. For example, one American speaker,

warned the meeting of the grave dangers which might arise from recognition of Communist China and its admission to the United Nations, developments which would weaken the free world’s resistance and which many undecided nations would regard as a reward for China’s aggressive and subversive policy in many regions of the world…[23]

Driving this inflexibility was the massive escalation of the US war in Vietnam; the hard-line on Communist China was considered integral to this effort. One US participant had defended non-recognition as part of the US strategy to “save South-East Asia” from the “Communist grasp”, and to ensure that expatriate Chinese in the region would owe their allegiance to a “non-Communist Chinese regime.” Another American speaker said the US Government had “serious apprehensions” about France’s new policies towards Communist China and North Vietnam, and sought “some reassurance on this point”, given that the US had “committed all of its strength” to the region with “no thought of compromise.”[24]

Clearly the claim that Bilderberg had somehow already made the “decision” to resume relations with the PRC is not borne out by the meeting minutes. But, at the same time the Bilderberg Steering Committee had agreed to raise the issue, at least four times, with the intent of challenging US participants to rethink their country’s policies towards the PRC. Hence, there were no instructions issued; instead the US policy was criticised and some alternatives proposed and debated. This was consistent with the Bilderberg Group’s shaping and influencing role—as articulated by Bilderberg Secretary, Joseph Retinger—of targeting the “men of real international standing” or people of “considerable influence”, the “general opinion leaders” from each country.[25] It also conformed with the Group’s principal objective to “smooth over difficulties between Western Europe and the United States…”[26] The “problem of China” being one of the difficulties requiring some intervention, with the expectation that Bilderberg’s deliberations would seep into the public sphere.
Nixon’s Gambit

The American responses at the 1964 conference also give few clues as to the sea-change in US policy towards Communist China that was to occur just a few years later. Perhaps the most important indicator of what change was in store had come from former Vice-President Richard Nixon, who had built his political career on being a strident anti-Communist and, through his close connections to the so-called “China Lobby” (including allegedly receiving campaign funds),[27] as a supporter of the policies of non-recognition and the embargo against Communist China. Now aiming for the presidency again (after his failed bid against John F. Kennedy in 1960), Nixon had hinted at a new approach to China in an article in Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s prestigious journal, published in October 1967.

In his Foreign Affairs piece Nixon had cautioned against “rushing to grant recognition to Peking, to admit it to the United Nations and to ply it with offers of trade—all of which would serve to confirm its rulers in their present course.” But at the same time, to take the “long view”, Nixon argued that the US could not “afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.”[28] Nixon also held out the prospect of dialogue with Communist China, but only when the strategic environment in Asia was no longer in China’s favour:

Only as the nations of non-communist Asia become strong—economically, politically and militarily—that they no longer furnish tempting targets for Chinese aggression, will the leaders in Peking be persuaded to turn their energies inward rather than outward. And that will be the time when the dialogue with mainland China can begin.[29]

His overall prescription for dealing with Peking, coincidentally, echoed some of the words and concerns uttered by European critics at the 1964 Bilderberg conference:

For the short run, then, this means a policy of firm restraint, of no reward, of a creative counterpressure designed to persuade Peking that its interests can be served only by accepting the basic rules of international civility. For the long run, it means pulling China back into the world community—but as a great and progressing nation, not as the epicentre of world revolution.[30]

As a number of biographers have observed, Nixon’s Foreign Affairs article was not only a “bid for respect of America’s elite,”[31] but the “first public signal that he had changed his thinking on China.”[32] Reprinted in Reader’s Digest and the U.S. News & World Report, Nixon’s article “drew a great deal of attention because of its author and content” as it “marked a major turning point in Nixon’s rhetoric about the PRC.”[33] But were the Bilderbergers behind Nixon’s policy innovation? Despite his well-documented participation with the exclusive Bohemian Grove gathering,[34] and his brief dalliance with the CFR in the 1960s,[35] there is no evidence that Nixon ever attended a Bilderberg meeting.

Nixon wrote his article with assistance from his speechwriters Raymond Price, a former chief editorial writer from the New York Herald-Tribune, and William Safire,[36] neither of whom were Bilderbergers. In his memoirs Nixon suggests he came round to the idea of reaching out to China after a number of world leaders had urged him to do so when he visited Europe and Asia in 1963, 1964 and 1967. Key European influences were French President Charles de Gaulle and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. It was Adenauer who advised Nixon in 1967 that the US should “tilt” towards Communist China to counterbalance the Soviet Union. Various Asian leaders also advised Nixon that a “new and direct relationship” between the US and China was essential “to build a lasting peace in Asia.”[37] Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, also told Nixon that there was “much to be gained by engaging China.”[38] In his last autobiographical book, In The Arena (1990), Nixon credited de Gaulle, Adenauer, and Philippine Foreign Minister, Carlos Romulo with having “urged me to explore the possibility of developing a new relationship between the United States and China. Three years later, I reflected their view in an article in Foreign Affairs.”[39]
The Bilderberg Connection

Yet there are some intriguing Bilderberg connections to Nixon’s new policy. According to Kissinger biographer Robert D. Schulzinger, Nixon’s Foreign Affairs article was also influenced by the recently completed eight-volume CFR project “The United States and China in World Affairs.”[40] Concluded in 1966, the four-year project involved contributions by numerous China specialists. Although presenting their personal views, there was a “consensus” in the studies on “the need to introduce more flexibility into China policy and begin serious consideration on the recognition question.”[41] The fifth volume, The United States and China in World Affairs (1966), called for a more realistic policy towards Peking, arguing that Communist China “cannot be denied an important place in the world”; it could neither be “ignored nor eliminated.” Moreover, the US did not have the power to “determine what sort of government or what form of society China will have”, and would have to accept that in Asia, “it will be necessary to live with regimes of which we do not approve.”[42] The study went further recommending that the US,

take whatever steps it can to remove existing obstacles to a more normal relationship with Communist China, and it should be prepared to change policies that no longer serve a useful purpose or correspond to the requirements of the present situation. We should permit and even encourage trade with Communist China… We should make a more vigorous effort to open up channels of contact with mainland China…[43]

The CFR volume also argued the US should “no longer attempt to maintain the fiction that the Chinese Nationalist Government [in Taiwan] is the government of all of China…”[44] Consequently it recommended the US “should be prepared to accept the full participation of the Chinese Communists” in the UN and other international institutions.[45] With its radical prescriptions for changing US policy towards Communist China, The United States and China in World Affairs was lauded by China specialists for its “calm objectivity” and “constructive recommendations” for improving relations with China (Younger). It was a “tract for the times”, wrote John Lindbeck from Harvard University, that argued “carefully and persuasively for a change in United States policy towards China.”[46]

Although much of the focus on the restoration of relations between the US and mainland China is on Nixon and Kissinger, the CFR project is considered by a number of analysts to have played a critical role in reshaping elite opinion towards favouring recognition of the Communist regime. In their study of the CFR, Imperial Brain Trust (1977), Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter credit the Council’s China project with having “laid the basis for the change in policy” and thus demonstrating the CFR’s “catalytic role” in “changing a climate of opinion.”[47] More recent assessments, such as that of Associate Professor Priscilla Roberts from the University of Hong Kong, conclude that “the publication of CFR studies on China helped to change the climate of public opinion and prepare the ground for recognition.”[48] The CFR’s official history also cites the China project as an instance where the Council had demonstrated that it was “endowed to repair” the “political stalemate” that had prevented US policies towards China from progressing.[49] Given its obvious importance, it is worth noting the strong Bilderberg connections to the CFR China project.

Commenced in 1962 with generous grant of $450,000 from the Ford Foundation, the CFR’s China project was directed by a Steering Committee lead by former CIA Director Allen Dulles.[50] Of the nine members of the Steering Committee,[51] three were Bilderbergers who had participated at those meetings where the US-China relationship had been debated:
Joseph E. Johnson (1895-1990), President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was the Bilderberg Group’s Honorary US Secretary-General from 1954 until 1976. Johnson, who was present at all four meetings where China was discussed, had gradually shifted his position from opposing to supporting US recognition of Communist China. Visiting Pakistan in 1952, for example, Johnson had questioned whether Britain had “gained anything” from its recognition of Communist China. He had also reaffirmed that US public opinion would remain opposed to recognising the Peking regime “so long as the Communist Chinese are killing their boys in Korea.”[52] But, in 1954 he had co-chaired a roundtable discussion held by the American Assembly, a private convocation of “sixty experts in diplomacy education, industry, and labor”, that while rejecting giving Communist China its UN seat at present, had also “deplore[d]” the “rigid policy of permanent opposition” to the Peking regime being admitted to the UN.[53] And it was Johnson who had seemingly acquiesced to Retinger’s proposal that the “problem of China” be discussed at Yeşilköy meeting – a fact he passed on without comment to the other US members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee.[54]
Arthur H. Dean (1899-1987), a lawyer with Sullivan and Cromwell, occasional diplomat and Bilderberg Steering Committee member. Dean, who had attended the 1956, 1959 and 1964 Bilderberg conferences, had advocated a “two Chinas” policy as early as 1954.[55] That year, in his role as US Chief Negotiator in Korea, he had also sparked controversy for saying: “I don’t think we ought to recognise Red China at this time.”[56] Syndicated columnist Drew Pearson claimed that Dean favoured “an eventual deal with China” and believed that “sooner or later” the US would “have to do business with China.”[57]
Writing in Foreign Affairs in 1955, Dean had also argued that unless the US was prepared to “embark on all-out war or see our position deteriorate” it would have to “accommodate to a hard fact that seems unlikely to change in the near future”, namely the “possession and control” of the Chinese mainland by the Communists.[58]
John J. McCloy (1895-1989), described by some as the “Chairman of the Establishment”, due to his extensive resume in and out of Government, participated as President of the Ford Foundation. McCloy, who had attended the 1958 and 1964 Bilderberg conferences, also “thought the Eisenhower administration’s China policy was as wrong as the Europeans believed it to be.”[59]

Furthermore, the first director of the CFR’s China project, and the principal author of its crucial fifth volume, was Robert Blum (1911-1965), a former diplomat, former CIA official, and former President of the Asia Foundation. Although not included in the official list of participants at the 1956 Bilderberg Meeting in Fredensborg, Blum is mentioned as a speaker several times in notes taken at the meeting by Paul Nitze.[60] In addition, Blum’s papers archived at Yale University include memoranda and reports from the meeting.[61] As a participant he would have been aware of the various obstacles to recognition acknowledged by the US participants and of the arguments put forward by America’s European allies favouring the abandonment of this policy.[62] Indeed, on the latter point, Blum’s report noted that the “major countries of Europe”, including Britain and France, were among those who differed with the US on its approach to China.[63]
Spreading the Word

The dissemination into the public domain and the policy-making sphere of the ideas and concepts raised at each meeting is key objective of the Bilderberg Group. The meeting minutes for the third Bilderberg conference, held in Barbizon, France in 1955, for example, note that Bilderberg participants were encouraged to “put forward ideas and suggestions made at Bilderberg…” at the various other meetings and conferences they might attend, and that “particular use would be made of the press by all concerned for this purpose.”[64] A confidential internal paper prepared by Retinger in 1956 stressed that Bilderberg’s role was not to “contemplate taking any direct action”, but to “draw the attention of existing organizations to the points in question; what those organizations do remains their own responsibility.”[65] Since Bilderberg was “not a policy-making body”, Retinger continued somewhat disingenuously, any “new ideas and initiatives” emerging from its meetings would be “passed on to some persons or organization who could further develop them.”[66]

Such guidance was consistent with the essentially political role of the Bilderberg Group—and contrary to the soothing public explanations of its most senior spokesmen that it was a genteel discussion group aimed at building transatlantic understanding—of shaping and influencing elite opinion, and ultimately government policies. It also goes some way to explaining the potential influence of the four Bilderbergers in the CFR’s China project and their involvement, along with other Bilderberg alumni, in numerous others initiatives in the late 1950s and 1960s devoted to promoting Sino-US rapprochement. A review of this activity also provides an insight into how the Bilderberg Group is able to both influence policy making processes and at the same time effectively shield itself from public scrutiny by delegating the policy promotion and development to other groups.

One of the first of these initiatives occurred in 1957 when Bilderberg’s US Secretary General Joseph E. Johnson in his role as Chairman of the CFR’s Committee of Studies, had given his support to a one-year study on “the United States and Communist China in Asia.” “No group in the United States is better qualified”, he had stated, “to undertake a careful study of this subject than the Council.” The primary output of that study was the book Communist China and Asia: A Challenge to US Policy (1960), written by scholar A. Doak Barnett, which had portrayed the Communists as being in firm control of mainland China, and after review of policy options had proposed a “two Chinas” policy as a basis for future US relations.[67]

Also in 1957, Johnson, and fellow Bilderberger, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Dean Rusk had attempted to challenge the prevailing anti-PRC consensus in their contributions to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special Studies Project. Rusk was Director of Panel 1, which produced the first report, “The Mid-Century Challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy”; Johnson was also a member of that panel.[68] During the third meeting of the Panel in January 1957, Rusk had argued that the US could no longer oppose granting the UN seat to Peking, the US had to accept that it was “in a losing position on this matter”; while Johnson had challenged the view of another panellist that China was inherently dangerous and no change in US policy was necessary. Rusk later reported to the “Overall Panel” that his Panel on the whole believed Washington should make its policy more flexible, especially on the UN question; but the process of developing the final draft of the Panel’s report saw most of these proposals progressively removed in favour of less contentious advice.[69]

Indeed, when all the Rockefeller Panel reports were published as Prospect for America (1961), China was repeatedly accused of “aggressive tendencies” that, it was claimed, would persist “whether China was in the United Nations or not, whether officially recognised by the United States or not.”[70] The only concession to some sort of future relationship came later in in a wistful paragraph about the need for the US to bridge the East and West divide:

We can hope for bonds of friendship and ties of interest with the East; we must not let emotion or differences of ideology close the door to such possibilities of better relations with the Chinese people as may arise in the years to come.[71]

The 1958 Bilderberg meeting in Buxton had perhaps the most direct, though short-term, impact on US policy towards Communist China. According to a little noticed news report, one of the US participants, John J. McCloy had taken it on himself to personally inform US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles of the “unanimity of opinion” among Europeans at the Bilderberg meeting at Buxton that if US were to go to war to defend the islands of Quemoy and Matsu it would imperil the Atlantic alliance. In response Dulles later walked back America’s commitment to defend Taiwan’s offshore islands.[72]

In 1964, one of the Bilderberg’s founding US members, Bilderberg Steering Committee member, CFR Director and banker David Rockefeller publicly called for establishing “limited commercial contacts” with Communist China, telling the New York Times that it was “very difficult to continue to ignore a country as big and as important as China.”[73] Rockefeller had prior form on this issue, having reportedly called the non-recognition of Communist China “political foolishness”, as early as 1955.[74] He had also been a signatory to the American Assembly’s 1954 declaration which had questioned the US Government’s “rigid” opposition to Peking assuming China’s seat at the UN.[75]

Some of the most effective advocacy took place in 1966. Senator J. William Fulbright (1905-1995), a participant at Bilderberg’s 1964 meeting,[76] initiated a series of hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee throughout March 1966 into US relations with the People’s Republic of China. Dominating the testimony at the hearings were 12 scholars, of whom at least half – A. Doak Barnett, Alexander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Robert Scalapino, Morton Halperin and Benjamin Schwartz – were involved in the CFR’s China project or had done prior work on China for the CFR.[77] The hearings are now considered important because the speakers not only “repeatedly encouraged the [Johnson] administration to soften its approach to the PRC” (Chang), they also “spread a new image of the PRC across the nation”, one that ultimately lead to a “national opinion shift on China” (Klinefelter).[78] According to Gordon Chang’s account, the “parade” of scholarly witnesses,

urged the United States to adopt a “one China, one Taiwan” policy, permit Beijing to enter the United Nations, develop further communications and contact with the mainland and generally pursue a less antagonistic policy toward the PRC.[79]

Barnett, who was responsible for editing Blum’s posthumous CFR volume and was one of the first to testify, was a key driver of this. It was Barnett who recommended a policy towards China of “containment without isolation,” but who also urged the US government to acknowledge the “Chinese Communist regime as the de facto government of the China mainland and state our desire to extend de jure recognition.” Barnett’s approach was subsequently endorsed by many of the other academic speakers.[80] According to Katherine Klinefelter from the University of Phoenix, the China hearings even inspired some mid-level officials in the White House and State Department to prepare an “unprecedented memoranda advocating an expansion of Sino-American trade and communication, along with American acquiescence to the PRC’s possible U.N. membership.”[81]

The China hearings were soon followed by another project with Bilderberg involvement: in October 1966 a National Policy Panel (NPP), established by the United Nations Association of the USA, released a 64-page report advocating a “two China” policy, with both Communist China and Taiwan to become separate members of the UN. This was motivated by the belief that UN membership would moderate Communist Chinese behaviour:

Sustained exposure to the force of international opinion and of widened diplomatic contact may well, over the long run, effect some moderation of mainland China’s present belligerency and promote peace.[82]

The report also made the familiar observation the People’s Republic of China “with its vast land area and its 700 million people” was “an undeniable part of the international scene”, one that was “too formidable to attempt to ignore, and too important to remain in isolation.”[83] Although focused on Communist Chinese representation at the UN, the NPP also helpfully encouraged the US Government to “give further study to the possible terms under which it could enter into full diplomatic relations with Peking.”[84]

The 27-strong NPP was described in glowing terms as “distinguished” by the editorial board of the academic periodical International Organization,[85] and as comprising “prominent business executives, scholars and bankers” by the Associated Press.[86] Less well known was that nearly a fifth of its members were Bilderbergers. In addition to Joseph Johnson and Arthur Dean, the NPP also included the following Bilderbergers: NPP Chairman Robert Roosa, a partner with Brown Brothers Harriman & Company; Professor Marshall Shulman from Harvard University; and Franklin Lindsay, President of Itek Corporation.[87] Shulman and Lindsay both attended the 1964 Bilderberg meeting; Roosa was a participant at the 1965 meeting. Incidentally, the Vice-Chairman of the NPP, Frederick S. Beebe, Chairman of the Board of Newsweek, went on to attend the 1967 Bilderberg meeting.[88]

Bilderberg members and participants also played key roles in the formation of the National Committee on US-China Relations (NCUSCR), a pressure group established in June 1966 with the objective of promoting “a public discussion of our current China policy…”[89] The NCUSCR had emerged from the National Conference on China, a series of conferences that took place at Berkley and Washington DC in 1965 and 1966 , where numerous speakers had spoken in favour of recognising Communist China and supporting its admission to the UN. The NSUSCR was intended maintain this momentum for change, although its first statement of its aims suggested its purpose was a benign and balanced affair:

The Committee – representing a wide-range of Americans in public life from business, labor, religious, academic and nongovernmental organizations – exists to encourage and facilitate a nationwide educations program on United States China relations…

We do not intend to advocate any proposals, but are hopeful that out of a national dialogue on the subject there will emerge a consensus as to whether any modifications in our existing policies are desirable.[90]

By the time of Nixon’s presidency, however, the NCUSCR’s real objectives were plain, evident in its portrayal by some journalists as the “new ‘China Lobby’”, that comprised “scholars, politicians, former Kennedy and Johnson administration officials and some journalists”, and who believed “present U.S. policies towards Communist China are outdated, mistaken and in need of urgent change.” The NCUSCR, claimed one report, is seeking to “persuade President Nixon to adopt a policy of contact and accommodation with mainland China…”[91] Columnist John Chamberlain complained about the NCUSCR’s “be-nice-to-Red China convocations”, accusing of it being “a fraud, a sham, a fake” for holding events where “be-nice-to-Peking” speakers outnumbered opponents on a “10-to-1 basis.”[92]

The claims of the National Committee’s entrenched bias towards the US restoring relations with Communist China are less surprising when one considers the extent to which Bilderberg and CFR advocates of that policy were involved in its establishment. The NCUSCR was initially set up by Cecil Thomas, a Quaker, with assistance from China specialist Robert Scalapino, who was then part of the CFR’s China project. Scalapino, in turn, recruited A. Doak Barnett and the CFR China project’s new director, Lucien Pye (who had taken over after Blum’s death). Thomas also secured support from a number of Eastern Establishment notables, among them Bilderberg’s US Secretary General Joseph E. Johnson, as well as funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Membership, although initially exclusive and limited to just sixty, was gradually expanded, though people likely to disagree with its consensus position did not make the roster.[93]

Some of the Bilderberg alumni involved with the NCUSCR into the early in 1970s include: Scalapino (1972); Robert Roosa (1965); Senator Jacob Javits (1964); Professor Daniel Bell of Harvard University (1969); W. Michael Blumenthal, President Bendix Corporation (1972); Professor Harlan Cleveland President of the University of Hawaii (1967); John Diebold, CEO of the Diebold Group (1967); Joseph Slater, President of the Aspen Institute (1971); and Senator Adlai Stevenson III (1971).[94]

Another contributor to the public debate from the Bilderberg Steering Committee was former Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs and former US Ambassador to the UN, George W. Ball (1909-1994). In his book The Discipline of Power (1968), Ball had dismissed the US policy that treated the Nationalist government in Taiwan as the legitimate government of mainland China. It was a “myth no other nation believes”, he argued, if not an “outworn fiction”, a “fanciful proposition”, and a “fantasy” (echoing Blum’s earlier description of that policy as a “fiction”). Ball, though, rejected the “two Chinas” policy, doubting that “Red China” would accept it. He also criticised the trade embargo on mainland China for costing the US “hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign exchange” and for bringing the US into an “abrasive collision with friendly governments.”[95]

A number of Bilderberg participants also contributed to the debates. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (1912-1983), an early icon of the neoconservatives and enemy of Nixon’s détente, had attended the 1964 meeting. In 1966 Jackson had spoken about the importance of developing “a livable relationship with the Chinese Communists”, and apparently went on to play a “significant behind-the-scenes-role” in bringing about recognition of China.[96] Nixon’s future National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, who had been a participant at the 1964 Bilderberg meeting,[97] had also contributed to the emerging consensus, writing a speech for Nelson Rockefeller in 1968 that promised to “begin a dialogue with communist China.”[98]

Some were latecomers to the debate despite their early exposure, highlighting the simple fact that not all Bilderberg participants are easily taken in by the consensus position that the Steering Committee attempts to establish. Republican Senator Clifford P. Case (1904-1982), for instance, despite attending the 1958 Bilderberg meeting and being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the 1966 China Hearings did not publicly advocate lifting the trade embargo and admitting Peking to the UN until 1971.[99]

A slightly quicker conversion was evident in Senator Jacob Javits (1904-1986), who attended the 1964 Bilderberg meeting, but had a strong background in the non-recognition camp as a founding member of the “Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations.”[100] Nearly a year after being at Williamsburg, in his contribution to RKO General Broadcasting Company special on “The United States and Communist China: What Should Our Policy Be?” Javits had seemed steadfast, reaffirming his belief the US “cannot stand at the door of the United Nations and welcome [Communist China]. We cannot even recognise them.” And yet, somewhat uncharacteristically, he had also acknowledged the need to “open the doors” between the US and PRC, probably through exchanges of journalists and students, followed by “something in the economic field.”[101] But it would be as a Committee member during Senator Fulbright’s China Hearings that his views were transformed. Javits went on to consulted with its academic witnesses, endorsed Barnett’s “containment without isolation” approach, publicly withdrew from the “Committee of One Million”, and argued for a more realistic China policy.[102]
The Line of Transmission

The scope of this effort to bring about a change in US policy towards the People’s Republic of China was considerable, and was arguably highly successful in breaking the influence of the pro-Taiwan “China Lobby” and changing the elite’s consensus position. The collapse of the China Lobby was the most notable manifestation of the elite shift. In 1958 columnist Drew Pearson claimed the China Lobby now “dominated American foreign policy”, to the extent that President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles were committed to a policy of isolating Communist China and defending Taiwan, even though it “alienates our allies, risks war, and which they themselves, in their hearts do not seem to support…”[103] By 1970, however, the New York Times reported that the China Lobby had been eclipsed, it appeared “moribund, a victim of old age and a lack of interest.”[104]

It also suggests that the Bilderberg role in shaping US foreign policy on this issue, though largely unacknowledged and unexplored, was far more significant than is commonly assumed. But to what extent did this massive, and seemingly coordinated, effort, really shape Nixon’s decision to seek rapprochement with Peking on coming to office in 1969? Did he even take any notice of it? There is, as noted before, no direct evidence of the Bilderberg Group being able to shape Nixon’s thinking on this issue; he never attended a meeting and none of the foreign leaders he cited as influencing him on this policy were Bilderberg participants. To the extent that the Bilderberg Group did influence Nixon it was largely indirect, and through the various initiatives detailed above.

On one level—as has been implied in innumerable studies on the US-PRC relationship—it seems likely that Nixon was influenced by the Establishment’s public embrace of rapprochement. The mere fact so many Establishment figures were going on the public record, particularly in 1966, arguing that the US should resume trade and reach out to Communist rulers in Peking would have been enough to give Nixon the political green light to shift course and push for this policy. In his memoirs Nixon sought to justify his policy as a venture carefully calculated to exploit new geopolitical realities—specifically the Sino-Soviet split—to achieve Nixon’s own world order vision of an “even balance” between the five great powers. But this happened against the backdrop of the collapse of the “China Lobby” and the notable shift in elite and public opinion.

One another level, though, Bilderberg’s indirect influence on Nixon’s thinking can be seen in the circumstantial and direct evidence that he had indeed “paid close attention” to the CFR China project and some of the other initiatives.[105] The evidence for this is twofold:

First, although there is, at present, no direct evidence that Nixon possessed any volumes from the CFR’s China Project—incredibly, some 21 years after his death, Nixon’s personal book collection still has not been made available to researchers[106]— a simple comparison of the few pages of Nixon’s Foreign Affairs article that addresses China with the Blum/Barnett volume (see Figure 2) shows some remarkable similarities in both themes and recommendations that strongly suggest that he had read it.

Figure 2: Comparison of Nixon’ Foreign Affairs article with Blum/Barnett Volume

Of course, Nixon did not explicitly advocate all of the Blum/Barnett volume’s prescriptions for establishing relations with Communist China. Most notably Nixon made dialogue with Peking conditional on a change in Asia’s strategic balance and in China’s external policies, while Blum and Barnett attached no such caveats. Decades later former Foreign Affairs editor, Bilderberg US Secretary General and unrepentant Nixon-hater William P. Bundy would grumble that Nixon’s Foreign Affairs article was not in same “forward looking mode” as the Blum/Barnett volume, presenting only “revived and reframed 1950s thinking.”[107] But for Nixon, with his previous record of being largely in the pocket of the “China Lobby”, to even hold out the possibility of dialogue was a significant shift.

Indeed, as a presidential aspirant who had built his political reputation on at times belligerent anti-Communism, Nixon was still being cautious. But at the same time it is inconceivable that someone as ambitious as Nixon would prepare an article for the CFR’s flagship journal, without making himself aware of what consensus view the CFR itself was promoting. The above excerpts certainly suggest that Nixon had made himself aware of the CFR’s China project, and had then carefully repackaged some key themes from the Blum/Barnett book to prove that he was moving towards the new consensus on China. But definitive proof of this will only come when Nixon’s book collection is open to researchers and if his draft notes for the Foreign Affairs article become available.

Second, early in his first term, on April 24, 1969, Nixon and Kissinger had an hour long meeting with a group of “East Asian Consultants” that included three members of the CFR’s China project: A. Doak Barnett, Lucien Pye, and Edwin O. Reischauer (see Figure 3). Information on what transpired at this meeting is, however, scarce. Nixon makes no mention of such a meeting in his memoirs; nor does Kissinger, although he concedes that “many scholars urged a rapprochement with China.”[108] Furthermore, according to the Richard Nixon Memorial Library and Museum, no memorandum of conversation or any other official documentation about the meeting appears to exist.[109] The only information comes from a New York Times interview with Doak Barnett, a year before his death in 1999, where he reportedly “recalled debating the merits of improved relations with China in a private meeting with Nixon and scholars in 1969.” According to The Economist, Nixon had “responded enthusiastically” to Barnett’s policy proposal of “containment but not isolation.”[110]

Figure 3: Detail from President Nixon’s Daily Diary on meeting with “East Asian Consultants”

Source (click picture)

This meeting is significant because it shows that Nixon did engage directly with the members of the CFR’s China project who had been at the forefront of the public efforts—including Senator Fulbright’s China Hearings and the NCUSCR—to reshape the foreign policy consensus. Barnett and Pye had also been signatories to a letter to Nixon, prepared by China specialists soon after his election, urging him to “move more positively toward the relaxation of tensions between China and the eventual achievement of reconciliation.”[111] The fact this meeting (and so early into his first term) even occurred also suggests that Nixon had more than a passing familiarity with their work in those forums.
Conclusions: More Than Just Talk

The objective of this paper has been to test the claims that Nixon’s much-vaunted opening to China (a bright spot in a political biography now forever blighted by the Watergate scandal) was actually an initiative of the Bilderberg Group. Recent studies, focusing on Senator Fulbright’s 1966 China hearings, and the CFR’s “The United States and China in World Affairs” project, have correctly highlighted how “academics and other members of the foreign policy elite led this national opinion shift on China.”[112] Missing from those studies has been an acknowledgement of the Bilderberg Group’s important role in providing, not only a confidential forum to question and debate what was a highly sensitive issue in the US, but also some of the initial impetus for many of the initiatives that changed the policy. A review of the evidence highlights the extent of the Bilderberg Group’s role:
It was at the instigation of the Bilderberg Steering Committee that the “problem of China”, or more specifically, US policies towards Communist China, was discussed at four Bilderberg meetings: 1956, 1958, 1959 and 1964. In each case European participants criticised the US policy of non-recognition; in response US participants either agreed with the criticism, but cited the domestic obstacles to changing it, or they tried to defend it.
But the meetings did more than just discuss and debate the issue; they also identified existing supporters of change, influenced and changed the minds of some participants, and helped established networks of the like-minded. Moreover, at the 1958 meeting there appeared to be a consensus among some participants that only through a “cautious and gradual approach” could US rapprochement with the PRC be achieved. Much of the work that went into changing the policy occurred outside of the Bilderberg meetings, but in line with Bilderberg’s policies of encouraging participants to use Bilderberg deliberations in other forums and for its policy ideas to be developed by other groups.
At least 13 of the US participants present at the four meetings were involved in some capacity either publicly or privately promoting a change in policy, or they contributed to initiatives from various US think-tanks and pressure groups with the same objective. A number of Bilderbergers, such as Arthur Dean and John J. McCloy were involved in multiple projects. One of the most significant actors in this enterprise was Bilderberg’s US Secretary General, Joseph E. Johnson who was involved in advocating rapprochement with Communist China through at least five initiatives including: both of the Council on Foreign Relations’ China projects; the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Studies Project; the UNA-USA National Policy Panel study on admitting the PRC to the UN; and the National Committee on US-China Relations.
Three senior Bilderbergers – Johnson, Dean, McCloy – were part of the Steering Committee of the CFR’s “The United States and China in World Affairs” project, whose first Director was a Bilderberg alumni, Robert Blum. That project has been identified by many observers as critical to changing the climate of opinion in the US; less recognised is that many of that project’s specialists went on to play a leading role in Senator Fulbright’s China hearings and in the National Committee on US-China Relations.
There is evidence, both circumstantial and direct; that President Nixon’s thinking on rapprochement with China was influenced by the specialists most closely associated with the CFR’s China project. To be sure, Nixon had also personally consulted with key European and Asian allies, but he was clearly aware the climate of opinion in the US had changed enabling him to propose dialogue with China—albeit subject to some conditions (that he later disregarded once in office)—in his Foreign Affairs article in 1967. He also met with three of the CFR’s specialists a few months into his presidency.

While it would be inaccurate to claim that the Bilderberg Group had made the “decision” to change the policy – restoring relations with China was hardly a policy they had intellectual ownership of – the group was perhaps more pivotal than is realised in effecting a shift in elite opinion towards recognition. Nixon was not a Bilderberg stooge, but he was moving and making decisions in a political landscape where one of the biggest domestic political obstacles to change—the anti-Communist “China Lobby”—had finally been overwhelmed; an environment that the Bilderberg Group had a role in creating. This is not to discount the other factors at work that influenced Nixon’s thinking, in particular the significant shifts in the geopolitical landscape such as China’s acquisition of a nuclear capability, the Sino-Soviet split, and the America’s need to reorientate its strategic posture in Asia, the Bilderbergers were part of an effort that successfully changed US perceptions of the PRC.[113]

In a little noticed article that appeared in a Dutch journal in 1959, Bilderberg Chairman Prince Bernhard casually mocked those “odd people” who might find a “sinister conspiracy” in the activities of the Bilderberg Group. The “true facts would disappoint them”, he claimed, describing the Bilderberg Group’s annual meetings as little more than a gathering where people of “outstanding qualities”, could conduct “discussions” with “complete openheartedness.” Its primary aim was to “promote closer relations” between America and Europe by providing a confidential avenue for both sides to freely explain their respective points of view and thus “try to kindle an understanding of the things that move the citizen in the other country to think and act as he does.”[114] The Bilderberg Group’s role in shifting US foreign policy towards recognising Communist China, however, suggests that in some ways the “odd people”—in this case Jim Tucker, Daniel Estulin and Mark Anderson—were closer to the truth than either they realised or the Prince Bernhard willing to concede.

Bilderberg is more than just talk…

* * * * *
Reference Notes:
[1] Gordon C. Chang, “Nixon in China and Cold War I and Cold War II”, Diplomatic History, (June 2008), p.493.

[2] Daniel Estulin, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, Trine Day LLC, 2007, p.46.

[3] Personal communication with Daniel Estulin, May 04, 2014.

[4] In a subsequent communication, Estulin indicated he been unable to obtain any supporting documents from the American Free Press (Personal communication with Daniel Estulin, March 11, 2015).

[5] Mark Anderson, ‘Bilderberg Says it Will Meet in Denmark’, American Free Press, April 02, 2014.

[6] See 11-13 May 1956 Fredensborg, Denmark; and 9-11 May 1969, Marienlyst, Denmark.

[7] Trisha Karson, “Some U.S. Bilderbergers Break Silence”, The Spotlight, June 24, 1996. Karson’s report is also cited in Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids, HarperCollins, 2000, p.42.

[8] Thomas W. Gijswijt, Uniting the West: The Bilderberg Group, the Cold War and European Integration, 1952-1966, Dissertation zur Erlangung der Docktowürde, Ruprech-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, June 2007, p.149, quote from Bilderberg memorandum, cited in fn.40.

[9] ibid, pp.149-150.

[10] ibid, p.150.

[11] “‘Make Formosa U.N. Responsibility’: Sir John Slessor’s advice to U.S.”, The Times, September 5, 1958, p.8.

[12] H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, “American-European Relations”, International Affairs, (October 1956), p.412. In his address to Chatham House, which took place on July 17, 1956, just two months after the Fredensborg conference, Bernhard did not mention Bilderberg by name, but instead referred to having attended “four major private gatherings” in the previous two years.

[13] Bilderberg Meetings, Buxton Conference, 13-15 September 1958, not for publication either in whole or in part, pp.9-10.

[14] Gijswijt, Uniting the West, p.221.

[15] Bilderberg Meetings, Buxton Conference, p.10.

[16] ibid, p.11; Gijswijt, Uniting the West, pp.221-222; and Marquis Childs, “Washington Calling”, Ocala Star-Banner, October 9, 1958, p.3. The overlooked Childs article is a remarkable leak from a Bilderberg conference (even though it never refers to the Buxton meeting by that name), as it actually describes the positions taken by identified participants, such as former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and a number of European “bankers and industrialists.”

[17] Bilderberg Meetings, Buxton Conference, p.11.

[18] Memorandum from Joseph E. Johnson, “Subject: September Bilderberg Conference”, February 25, 1959, p.1. Box 36, CD Jackson Papers, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library.

[19] Bilderberg Meetings, Yesilkoy Conference, 18-20 September 1959, not for publication either in whole or in part, p.10 (emphasis added).

[20] ibid, p.11.

[21] Bilderberg Meetings, Williamsburg Conference, 20-22 March 1964, not for publication either in whole or in part, p.21.

[22] ibid, pp.46-47.

[23] ibid, p.47 (emphasis added).

[24] ibid, p.47.

[25] Retinger, The Bilderberg Group, pp.6-7.

[26] ibid, p.11.

[27] In 1950s and 1960s, syndicated columnist Drew Pearson made a number of allegations that Nixon had received significant funding from representatives of the so-called “China Lobby”, a cabal of Taiwanese “politicians and influence peddlers” whom he charged with manipulating US foreign policy to favour the Chinese Nationalist regime in Taiwan. Nixon, he alleged, had received a “large roll of cash” from the nephew of Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek to support his Senate bid in 1950, and further “generous” cash injections to support his vice-presidential campaigns in 1952 and 1956 (See Drew Pearson “Record on the China Lobby”, The Tuscaloosa News, March 17, 1966, p.4; Drew Pearson, “National China’s Support Puts Nixon Out On Limb”, The Gadsen Times, October 16, 1960, p.4; and Drew Pearson & Jack Anderson, “Nixon Grateful to China Lobby”, The Free-Lance Star, July 29, 1969, p.4).

[28] Richard M. Nixon, “Asia After Viet Nam”, Foreign Affairs, 1 October 1967, p.121.

[29] ibid, p.123 (emphasis added).

[30] ibid, p.123 (emphasis added).

[31] Stephen E. Ambrose, Nixon Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972, Simon & Schuster, 1987, p.115.

[32] Tom Switzer, “Lee’s Advice to Nixon, 1967: End China’s Isolation”, The American Interest, March 31, 2015.

[33] Denise Bostdorff, “The Evolution of a Diplomatic Surprise: Richard M. Nixon’s Rhetoric on China, 1952-July 15, 1971”, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, (Spring 2002), pp.40 & 42.

[34] In his memoirs Nixon makes a number of references to the Bohemian Club’s annual retreat at the Bohemian Grove, describing it as a “prestigious private men’s club”, where in 1948 he had witnessed a speech by future President Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon also makes much of how he gave an off-the-record speech at the Grove in 1967, which he regarded as “the first milestone” on his “road to the presidency”, as it gave him an “unparalleled opportunity to reach some of the most important and influential men…from across the country” (Richard Nixon, Memoirs, Arrow Books, 1978, pp.80-81 & 284).

[35] Nixon was a CFR member from 1961 to 1965. The circumstances surrounding the termination of his CFR membership are disputed, with journalist Godfrey Hodgson claiming that Nixon was “one of the few distinguished Americans who have ever resigned from the Council on Foreign Relations” (Hodgson, “The Establishment”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1973, p.25). The CFR’s official history, however, claims that Nixon had been “dropped from the rolls” for failing to pay his membership dues (Peter Grose, Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, Council on Foreign Relations, 1996, 2006, p.41).

[36] Ambrose, Nixon Volume Two, pp.106, 115; and William Safire, Before the Fall: An Inside View of the Pre-Watergate White House, Transaction Publishers, 2005, pp.367-368. Nixon also describes Price as his “principal idea man” (Nixon, Memoirs, p.279).

[37] Nixon, Memoirs, pp.280-281, 283.

[38] Switzer, “Lee’s Advice to Nixon”.

[39] Richard Nixon, In The Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat and Renewal, Pocket Books, 1990, p.165.

[40] Robert D. Schulzinger, Henry Kissinger: Doctor of Diplomacy, Columbia University Press, 1989, p.20.

[41] Gordon H. Chang, Friends and Enemies: The United States, China, and the Soviet Union, 1948-1972, Stanford University Press, 1990, p.274.

[42] Robert Blum, edited by A. Doak Barnett, The United States and China in World Affairs, CFR/McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966, pp.262-263, 266. Blum had died suddenly in 1965 before completing his manuscript. Barnett edited the final version of the manuscript for publication.

[43] ibid, p.266 (emphasis added).

[44] ibid, p.267.

[45] ibid, pp.267-268.

[46] Kenneth Younger, “Review of China and the United States in World Affairs By Robert Blum”, The China Quarterly, (April-June 1967), pp.189-190; and John M.H. Lindbeck, “Review of China and the United States in World Affairs By Robert Blum”, The Journal of Asian Studies, (August 1967), p.688.

[47] Laurence H. Shoup & William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy, Monthly Review Press, 1977, pp.210 & 212.

[48] Priscilla Roberts, “The Council on Foreign Relations and the Making of US China Policy, 1950-1980”, Paper delivered at Transatlantic Studies Association, 14th Annual Conference, 6th-8th July 2015, Roosevelt Study Center, Middleburg, The Netherlands, p.23.

[49] Grose, Continuing the Inquiry, p.43.

[50] Roberts, “The Council on Foreign Relations and the Making of US China Policy, 1950-1980”, pp.4-5.

[51] Allen W. Dulles, “Foreword”, in Blum & Barnett, China and United States in World Affairs, p.vii.

[52] Joseph E. Johnson, “United States Foreign Policy”, Pakistan Horizon, March 1953, p.24.

[53] Associated Press, “Experts Oppose UN Seat for Present Red China”, Schenectady Gazette, August 3, 1954.

[54] See Memorandum from Joseph E. Johnson, “Subject: September Bilderberg Conference”, February 25, 1959, p.1. Box 36, CD Jackson Papers, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library. Johnson’s Memorandum of Conversation notes that “Retinger and I did not discuss the first suggestion…”, which subsequently became a topic of a special evening session at Yeşilköy. Johnson had enclosed a copy of the memorandum about his meeting with Retinger, in a memorandum to members of the Bilderberg Steering Committee (see Memorandum from Johnson to Messrs: Dean, Heinz, Nebolsine, Rockefeller, Rusk, Jackson, Ball and Ferguson, “Subject: Bilderberg Group”, March 9, 1959, Box 36, CD Jackson Papers, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library.

[55] Shoup & Minter, Imperial Brain Trust, p. 209. On Dean’s Bilderberg participation see Gijswijt, Uniting The West, p.150; Bilderberg Meetings, Yesilkoy Conference, p.3; and Bilderberg Meetings, Williamsburg Conference, p.3.

[56] Associated Press, “Paper Says Dean Urges U.S. Review China Policy”, St Petersburg Times, January 3, 1954, p.11A (emphasis added). Dean was later forced to repudiate this stance by Alfred Kohlberg, a former businessman who
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Secret Societies, Cryptocracy and Deep Politics
Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 2)
New World Order / Power Elite
11 Jan, 2016

Part 2: Dissecting the Bilderberg Agenda

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 10 January 2016 [Part 2 of 3]

Among the many differences between the G7 and Bilderberg meetings, perhaps the most significant is the levels of transparency. At last year’s G7 meeting in Schloss Elmau, for example, the German Government not only provided the programme for the “Meeting of Heads of State and Government”, but also overviews of the two days of meetings, the summit declaration, which essentially summarised the outcomes of their discussions and a number of press releases and other documents. G7 participants also spoke to the media about the meeting. The White House, for example, provided transcripts of Obama’s speeches and press conferences, as well as a Fact Sheet and extended press briefing on the G7. This level of detail, and in particular the willingness of its participants to be cross-examined by the media, means that the achievements or otherwise of the G7 are easier to analyse.

It is telling that, in contrast, the Bilderberg Group’s much vaunted “efforts to be more transparent” (The Independent, May 29, 2014) have again been found wanting. As with previous meetings, the official Bilderberg website provided no more than a perfunctory press release and a list of participants. There was no pre-Bilderberg press conference. Questions posed to Bilderberg’s press spokesperson were met with the solemn recitation of information already on the Bilderberg website. Finally attempts to obtain information from Bilderberg participants as they were leaving Austria, elicited either bizarre denials about even being there (as in the case of former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn), or variations on “no comment.” And contrary to the claims made by Steering Committee member, Franco Bernabé – “there is no secret, everything is published on the site…There will be a statement released by Bilderberg” – nothing else was released by the Bilderberg Group.

The Invisible Visitors…

Even more remarkable was how many politicians and government officials failed to disclose attending the Bilderberg meeting in their published schedules. The detailed press release (see Figure 4) issued by the US State Department on the forthcoming travel plans of Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy General John Allen, for example, forgot to mention that his trip to Europe in June 2015 also included the Bilderberg meeting in Austria:

Figure 4: US State Department Press Release on GEN John Allen Travel for June 2015

Source: US State Department

This omission from General Allen’s schedule played out on his return to the US on June 16, when he was interviewed by Judy Woodruff from PBS who noted he had “just come back from a trip to Iraq and a number of other countries”, including “Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, [and] Montenegro…” But not Austria, for some reason.

Another curious oversight was to be found on the German Federal Ministry of Defence website, which made no mention (see Figure 5) of the Bilderberg participation of Germany’s Minister for Defence Ursula von der Leyen:

Figure 5: Search Results on ‘Bilderberg’ from the German Ministry of Defence Website – Jan 2016

Source: German Federal Ministry of Defence

Nor was the Bilderberg participation of NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg disclosed on the NATO website (see Figure 6):

Figure 6: Search Results on ‘Bilderberg’ from the NATO Website – Jan 2016

Source: NATO website

Perhaps it was just an unfortunate lapse by their public relations officers, who were presumably too overwhelmed with other minutiae to mention their superiors would be participating in a three-day conference in Austria, a major commitment of time for any senior politician or official. Fortunately some government participants did manage to account for their whereabouts. An official press release confirmed that Finland’s Minister of Finance, Alexander Stubb, would be attending the “Bilderberg Group conference in Austria.” While the Government Information Service of the Netherlands announced that Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Princess Beatrix would be attending (Telegraaf, Jun. 10, 2015). And there was official confirmation that Belgium’s Prime Minister, Charles Michel, and State Minister, Karel de Gucht were also invited. Michel’s director of communications explained that this invitation to Bilderberg was a “way to put Belgium on the world map of investors” therefore it was important to “honor the invitation” (RTBF, Jun. 09, 2015). But they were in the minority, for most officials and politicians there were only gaps in their schedules.
Looking for the Answers…

A couple of months after the meeting, The Guardian (Aug. 7, 2015) had asked Henri de Castries, Bilderberg’s Chairman and CEO of AXA one of world’s biggest insurance companies, if Britain’s future in the European Union had been discussed at Telfs-Buchen. De Castries’ response was as obscure as it was enigmatic: “Look at the Bilderberg agenda and you will have the answer.” The Guardian, though, noted that the “Bilderberg agenda is not available publicly.” This is not strictly true; the press release published on the Bilderberg Meetings website included a list of fifteen “key topics for discussion” (see Figure 7). But compared to topic information provided for previous meetings, which comprised a series of themes and questions, the 2015 agenda was an uncharacteristically bland laundry list that gave little away as to what the specific themes of each session might be.

Nevertheless, through a number of sources, including a few leaks by meeting participants and what appears to be a summary of the meeting’s key themes by Aftenposten’s strikingly naïve political editor Trine Eilertsen (Aftenposten, Jun. 18, 2015), it is possible to reconstruct some fragments of what was discussed and to find the answers that De Castries would not give:
Artificial Intelligence & Cybersecurity: The presence of Regina Dugan, Google’s Vice President for Engineering, Advanced Technology Projects and Demis Hassabis, Vice President of Engineering for Google DeepMind, attracted a great deal of attention, with some observers speculating on Bilderberg’s interest in Google’s projects. Dugan, formerly of US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), was of intense interest given her previous advocacy of an ingestible identification chip and her work on encryption. While Hassabis at DeepMind was on record advocating “AG [artificial general intelligence] as a solution” to world’s problems. Or as DeepMind’s co-founder Mustafa Suleyman (who was not at Telfs-Buchen) put it, “AGI is a tool to massively amplify our ability to control the world” (Guardian, Jun. 9, 2015). Almost nothing has leaked from these sessions, save for a curious comment made on Agence Info Libre, by former French Prime Minister and Mayor of Bordeaux, Alain Juppe, that “robots with emotions” [robots avec des émotions] were discussed at Telfs-Buchen. Since this meeting two Bilderberg participants, tech billionaires Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, have reportedly joined forces with their PayPal co-founder Elon Musk to finance a Silicon Valley research centre, Open AI, which will focus on artificial intelligence (Contra Costa Times, Dec. 15, 2015 ). And in Time magazine’s special “The Year Ahead” issue for 2016 (Jan. 4, 2016), Bilderberg Steering Committee member Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, and Jared Cohen, Director of Google Ideas, introduced three principles they believed AI makers should adhere to “based on the work of DeepMind.” These were that: (1) AI should “always aim for the common good”; (2) AI research and development should be “open responsible and socially engaged”; and (3) AI designers need to “establish best practices to avoid undesirable outcomes.” Schmidt and Cohen are optimists, believing firmly they are “building tools that humans control”, ones that could “help bring about solutions to the world’s most complex problems.”
European Strategy: According to a letter from the German Federal Ministry of Defence, published on the Alles Schall and Rauch website, German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen had, at the request of the Steering Committee, “held a lecture on European Security Strategy and participated in a panel discussion on the topic.” While exactly what the Minister said at Telfs-Buchen is unknown, it seems reasonable to assume she took the opportunity to discuss more candidly her support (previously given at the 10th Brussels German Marshall Fund, in March 2015) for European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s proposal for a “European Army” through the integration of all of Europe’s armed forces and the establishing of multinational units.
Greece: Naturally the Greek debt crisis was particularly topical; according to Eilertsen, the discussions about how to resolve the Greek crisis “were among the most intense.” In fact the “full range of solutions were represented” and Eilertsen wrote that she was “surprised by the temperature of the debate.” Spiegel Online ( 17, 2015), citing an anonymous conference participant, noted some Bilderberg participants believed that a Greek exit from the Euro would be “manageable”, while others feared the “unpredictable reactions of the financial markets.” There was a surprising consensus, though, that the Greek crisis was receiving “far too much attention”, given the other problems in the world. Perhaps influenced in some way by the debates at Telfs-Buchen, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary later expressed his view the Greeks had “elected a bunch of lunatics” and made the prediction that “ultimately [Greece’s government] will have to bend the knee – and they should” (Newstalk, Jul. 8, 2015). And they did.
Russia: In what seemed to be its only leak from the discussions, the American Free Press ( 22 & 29, 2015) Bilderberg special issue reported that the Bilderbergers had “pondered waging economic warfare against Russia.” The Bilderbergers had “debated how to wean Europe off Russian gas, arm the Western-backed government of Ukraine and generate fat energy contracts for Bilderberg-connected companies…” The AFP’s reporting fails to identify who the speakers were, but it seems likely that it was two first-time participants: Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anne Applebaum, Director of the Transitions Forum at the London-based Legatum Institute; and self-exiled Russian economist Sergei Guriev, Professor of Economics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po). Neither defended Putin’s Russia. Writing in the Financial Times (Jun. 26, 2015), shortly after Bilderberg, Applebaum accused Russia of “pursuing an ambitious grand strategy: divide the EU, undermine NATO, reverse the European transitions and the post-cold war settlement.” She also warned that if enough “obstreperous central European populists come to power” they could persuade Germany to side with Russia rather than Europe. Writing in Foreign Affairs (Sep/Oct 2015), house journal of the CFR, Applebaum again warned of US and NATO weakness in the face of growing “Russian aggression”, including a disinformation campaign and Russian support for “anti-NATO, anti-EU, far-right and far-left political parties in Europe.” While Guriev, in a paper released by the Carnegie Moscow Center in December 2015, had predicted that economic sanctions against Russia would, over the long-term, lead to economic stagnation, a drop in Russia’s living standards, and increased corruption.
Middle East: Clearly an important topic, Eilersten’s indiscreet snippet suggests an obvious theme: “is there any hope for progress in Iraq and Syria, which in terms of terrorism and migration casts a shadow over the rest of the world, or should we plan for decades of turmoil and war?” While we have no reliable insights into the substance of that debate, we do know what a few of the key participants on this issue actually think. We know, for example, that after Bilderberg, Peter Sutherland, then Chairman of Goldman Sachs, International and the UN Special Representative for Migration, argued publicly that Europe must accept more refugees from a number of places, prime among them being Syria. While former CIA Director General David Petraeus, in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2015, had argued for a larger US role in overthrowing Assad, including direct attacks on the Syrian Air Force. But it is the full range of public statements by key Bilderberg participants after the event on how to deal with Syria (detailed below), which suggest the true direction and intent of that particular session.
Terrorism: Eilertsen informs us there was a debate on “how we handle foreign fighters who return to their home country” between first-time participants Shiraz Maher, Senior Research Fellow at the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at Kings College in London and Professor Gilles Kepel, from the Paris Institute of Political Studies. Maher had long been an advocate of early intervention to stop radicalised Muslim youth from joining jihadi groups in Syria, and of deradicalisation programs, rather than imprisonment for returning foreign fighters. Kepel believes that ISIS is trying to provoke a religious war between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe and supports “efficient police operations and education” to reduce youth radicalisation in Muslim neighbourhoods. Also contributing to the debate was Patrick Calvar, Director-General of France’s internal security agency, the DGSI. We know this because just after the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria) attacks occurred in Paris, Eilertsen disclosed that she had previously “heard French Intelligence speak on the topic”; she did not say where she had heard this, but Calvar was present at Telfs-Buchen. According to Eilertsen, in regards to the Paris attack, French intelligence was “hardly surprised that it happened”, and she revealed that “French intelligence” – presumably Calvar at Bilderberg – had previously admitted that they “take for granted that [an] attack will happen” (Aftenposten, Nov. 14, 2015). And it did.
United Kingdom: Eilertsen’s account suggests that, not surprisingly, the referendum on Britain staying in the EU proposed by UK Prime Minister David Cameron was discussed: “should the UK get out of the EU, or is it madness to discuss the option?” Nothing of note has leaked from the discussions themselves, although The Economist newspaper, represented at Telfs-Buchen by its Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes has come out strongly against the so-called “Brexit” option. This could be taken as an indicator of the tenor of the discussion, at least according to Bilderberg People (2011) co-author Ian Richardson who claims that the “headlines of journals such as The Economist” can give a “sense of the discussions that have taken place” at Bilderberg (Huffington Post, Jul. 13, 2011).
US Elections: This key topic attracted a lot of attention from the alternative media, even though no presidential contenders attended this year’s event. Infowars ( 20, 2015) had speculated that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush might include a diversion to Bilderberg for his forthcoming trip to Europe; but Bush’s communications director, Tim Miller, flatly denied this (see Figure Cool. Speculation then turned to presence of Democrat fixer Joseph Johnson and Jim Messina, CEO of the Messina Group and head of Super Political Action Committee (PAC), Priorities USA, which has declared itself “all in for Hillary Clinton.” Infowars (Jun. 08, 2015) wondered if Messina—described by Bloomberg (Mar. 20, 2015) as “Silicon Valley’s go-to-government fixer” due to his advisory work for Uber, Airbnb, Beepi, Sherpa Ventures and as a board member for cybersecurity firm Vectra Ventures—was at Bilderberg to ensure “none of Hillary’s potential challengers get the big bucks from the innumerable transnational banks and corporations that will also be represented at Bilderberg.” Perhaps there was some truth to this. But Hillary Clinton’s campaign has confirmed support from only a couple of the rich Americans at Telfs-Buchen, specifically: Google’s Eric Schmidt and Evercore’s Roger Altman. Vin Weber, from Mercury LLC, and Kenneth Griffin CEO of Citadel Investment Group remain firmly in the Republican camp; while Reid Hoffman, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of LinkedIn, has reportedly baulked at donating to Priorities USA, despite confirming that he expects to eventually support Hillary Clinton. Finally Bilderberg Steering Committee member Peter Thiel, President of Thiel Capital and previously a generous supporter of Ron Paul, has yet to commit himself (or his money) to any presidential candidate.

Figure 8: Jeb Bush Won’t Be Going to Bilderberg

Source: BloombergPolitics

With fifteen topics for discussion over two and a half days, the 2015 Bilderberg was hardly a relaxing get-together. Belgium’s Prime Minister Charles Michel seemed to find it hard going, later telling the Belgian press that Bilderberg was “very intense, there were six sessions a day” [“très intense, il y avait six sessions par jour”] (Le Vif, Jul. 08, 2015). Other first-time participants did not seem to mind the pace. Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary thought Bilderberg was a “great experience”; while Eilertsen praised it as “very useful…because participants spoke so freely.” Even more remarkable is that despite having entered an age where pocket-sized devices that are able to record and transmit sound and vision are both cheap and ubiquitous, Bilderberg is still able to keep its secrets.
The Bilderberg Consensus: “Destroy ISIS” with Ground Troops

Following last November’s ISIS-led terrorist attacks in Paris (note that this “official” narrative of ISIS culpability has been challenged in many quarters), a consensus quickly emerged across Europe at both the popular and the political level that ISIS must be “destroyed.” Leading the charge was France’s President Francis Hollande, who announced days after the attacks, that France was “at war” with ISIS and was now determined to “destroy them.” Other countries quickly followed suit, including Germany and Britain, both of which pledged forces to join the effort to “destroy” ISIS. There have been some dissenting voices; most notably Britain’s Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn who dismissed Prime Minister Cameron’s apparent eagerness to commit to force as “bomb first, talk later”, but most European countries supported the effort. While the Paris attacks may have acted as a catalyst for an intensification of European and US attacks on ISIS, this actually seemed to follow an earlier shift in elite opinion, traceable to the Bilderberg meeting at Telfs-Buchen.

Bilderberg’s public approach is, of course, to deny that it takes a position on these issues and is merely a forum for the candid exchange of ideas between people of influence and standing in their own countries and beyond. But this only contradicts clear evidence that each conference is intricately planned to achieve political outcomes. The Bilderberg Steering Committee selects the topics, vets the speakers and the list of invitees with the express aim of promoting a particular point of view. As Bilderberg People (2011) co-author Ian Richardson recently observed, “exclusive policy networks” such as Bilderberg,

perform a considerable function in the development of narratives that provide legitimacy, as a basis for action, in world affairs. It’s in forums like this that policy consensuses are formed, shaped and disseminated – and although the process is often unconscious, the outcomes are in no way random or accidental (Huffington Post, Sep. 12, 2011; emphasis added).

Historically, Bilderberg’s efforts to reshape the transatlantic political consensus can be seen in the case of its handling of US relations with Communist China. Through four meetings – 1956, 1958, 1959, and 1964 – a succession of mostly European speakers criticised and challenged the US refusal to restore relations with Peking. Numerous US Bilderberg members, including the US Bilderberg Secretary-General, then played a role in various initiatives in the US devoted to overturning that policy. Similarly, the day long energy session at the 1973 Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, was also tightly organised with two highly-regarded presenters, promoting broadly similar solutions, presenting before an audience of participants selected for their expertise and authority in the energy sector. This helped lay the groundwork for the developed world’s response to the 1973 Oil Shock.

Arguably, a similar pattern can be seen at work for the “Middle East” session at Telfs-Buchen. Although we do not actually know who was selected to speak, there are important clues in the backgrounds of some of the first-time participants who attended. This included retired General John Allen, the US Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. Allen had been appointed Special Envoy in September 2014, reportedly on the strength of his public call for the US and its allies to “destroy I[slamic] S[tate]” as it represented in his words, a “clear and present danger” to the US. “IS must be destroyed” Allen had argued, “and we must move quickly to pressure its entire ‘nervous system,’ break it up, and destroy its pieces.” But in his role at the time (he has since resigned), General Allen would have been charged with explaining and defending the Obama Administration’s approach to ISIS. It would have probably followed the lines of his comments to the Aspen Security Forum on July 23, 2015, where he claimed that “ISIS is losing”: the “surface area” and population under its control had “shrunk significantly” and its military momentum had been “checked strategically, operationally and by and large tactically.”

He was joined by another Bilderberg first-time participant, retired US Marine General James Mattis, the Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution (at Stanford University). Mattis would have been noteworthy for his far more pessimistic appraisal of the ISIS threat and his criticisms of the Obama Administration’s response. For example, on September 18, 2014, Mattis had told the US House Intelligence Committee that ISIS was “gaining strength” and represented a “threat to governance across the Middle East.” ISIS, he averred, was on track to launch “transnational operations”, and had thus “grown into a strategic threat.” Mattis argued ground troops might be needed to challenge ISIS in Iraq, and he warned that “without firm action this poison will spread.” Appearing as an expert witness before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 27, 2015 Mattis had agreed “One-hundred per cent” with one Senator’s assessment that “America’s going to be attacked if we don’t deal with the threat in Iraq and Syria” (SASC Transcript, Jan. 27, 2015, pp.72-73). Mattis had also rejected the option of containing ISIS:

Senator, I think that, in a globalized world today, where there — we’re perhaps one airline seat away from somebody exporting this right into Paris or wherever else — we have to be very, very careful thinking that we can contain this without having ramifications on our economy, on our friends (SASC Transcript, Jan. 27, 2015, p.100; emphasis added).

And again in March last year Mattis described ISIS as a “malignant and growing threat” that could only be countered by a willingness to “deploy all our military capabilities.”

Also present with strong views on how to deal with ISIS were more regular Bilderberg participants such as the ever-present Henry Kissinger. In September 2014, in an interview with the Sunday Times to promote his new book, World Order (2014), Kissinger called for an “all-out attack” on ISIS, mainly as “punitive measure” of “limited duration” in response to the recent execution of a US hostage. Characterising ISIS as an “insult to our values and to our society” that demanded a “very significant retaliation”; Kissinger advocated hitting ISIS targets throughout Syria and Iraq. “In my view this should have happened already”, he said, “There can’t be any debate any more about fighting them.”

Another influential participant on this issue, in his third Bilderberg meeting, was former CIA Director and retired US Army General David Petraeus. According to a “White House source” quoted by Newsweek (Mar. 14, 2015), Petraeus had been providing “good advice” to the National Security Council on how to deal with ISIS. Only a week or so out from the Bilderberg meeting, however, Petraeus told Charlie Rose on CBS News (Jun. 3, 2015), the situation in Iraq and Syria was “worrisome” with ISIS clearly consolidating into a “threat to the United States, to our allies and partners around the world…” He called on the Obama Administration to re-evaluate its anti-ISIS strategy, advocating sending more military advisers, because there was a “risk of losing this fight.”

The audience for this debate was also the right one, comprising numerous senior European politicians and officials with a stake in the debate. This included the Prime Ministers of Belgium and the Netherlands, Germany’s Minister and Deputy Minister for Defence, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, various government ministers from Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium and Finland, and the heads of the French and Danish intelligence services. They were also joined by a number of journalists, academics and former officials who operated in the public sphere as national security experts. It was an audience both well-primed for a debate on the effectiveness or otherwise of the anti-ISIS campaign at that stage and also to effect a shift in the transatlantic consensus on what to do about Syria.

It is also worth noting that by the time of the Bilderberg meeting, the G7 had basically reaffirmed its policy of containing ISIS in the hope that ISIS would in time destroy itself,. This was reflected in the language of the G7 Leader’s Declaration that restated their collective commitment to merely “counter” and “defeat” ISIS:

we welcome the continued efforts of the Global Coalition to counter ISIL/Da’esh. We reaffirm our commitment to defeating this terrorist group and combatting the spread of its hateful ideology.

Britain had committed to expanding its training mission in Iraq, but there was no appetite to dramatically escalate the direct military effort beyond airstrikes. In fact some of the G7 leaders seemed confident the current strategy was sufficient. US President Obama, for example, on the second day of the G7, in a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Abadi, predicted ISIS would be “drive[n] out of Iraq, and ultimately it is going to be defeated.” In his press conference at the end of the G7 Obama claimed they had made “significant progress in pushing back” ISIS in parts of Iraq, but later also admitted that “we don’t yet have a complete strategy” for assisting Iraq. For some commentators this prevarication was too much. Obama’s admission coupled with the G7’s vague commitment to do something about ISIS, would only “reinforce the perception of irrelevance that has hung over [the G7] for years” (The National, Jun. 11, 2015).

That Bilderberg took a different angle on the issue is not only suggested by the presence of retired Generals Mattis, Allen, and Petraeus, but in the approaches advocated by some key Bilderberg participants in the months after the meeting. Instead of reiterating Obama’s vague goal of “defeating” ISIS without committing any “boots on the ground” (which Obama claimed actually meant no “Iraq-style invasion of Iraq or Syria” rather than no troops at all); these influential individuals proposed escalating military involvement, including ground troops, with the aim of ultimately destroying or liquidating ISIS. Moreover, much of this advocacy took place well before the Paris attacks suddenly made it urgent:
In August 2015 the Daily Beast reported that Petraeus had been “quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate members of al Qaeda’s Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria.” Then in September he was telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that progress against ISIS in Iraq had been “inadequate” and the US needed to increase its support to those forces opposing ISIS.
The military option also appealed to The Economist newspaper, represented at Bilderberg by its Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes. “[F]ighting the group may be the best option”, The Economist (Aug. 15, 2015) argued, suggesting that ISIS propaganda would be neutralised by a “sound military defeat.”
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and regular Bilderberg participant George Osborne used a G20 meeting in early September to allude to the need for stronger military action in Syria. Osborne told journalists that Europe’s migration crisis could be solved by dealing with the problem “at the source, which is this evil Assad regime and the ISIL (Islamic State) terrorists…” (Reuters, Sep. 5, 2015).
In September the Editorial Board of Bloomberg LP, represented at Telfs-Buchen by its Editor-in-Chief and long-time Bilderberg participant John Micklethwait, recommended the partitioning of Syria, both to bring the war to an end and to facilitate “a U.S. policy that seeks to destroy Islamic State…”
Also in mid-September, former German diplomat and two-time Bilderberg participant Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, called for German military engagement in Syria, arguing that its strategy “can only be credible if it is backed by credible military options for action.”
A month before the attacks, Kissinger had created considerable controversy by arguing in the Wall Street Journal (Oct. 16, 2015) that defeating ISIS, a self-declared “unrelenting foe of established world order”, and ensuring Syria did not become a “permanent terrorist haven” was “more urgent” than overthrowing Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He also criticised the “inconclusive” US-led military effort as a potential “recruitment vehicle for ISIS as having stood up to American might.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 5, 2015) about a week before the attacks, the well-connected former World Bank President, former Bush Jr Administration official, and Bilderberg Steering Committee member Robert Zoellick proposed a comprehensive strategy to stymie the “expansion of Islamic State.” Noting that the conflict in the region was for the “control of this crossroads of Asia, Europe and Africa”, Zoellick supported the establishment of “safe zones” for Sunni in Syria with US support that would in time undermine ISIS and its “barbaric army.”

Following the attacks in Paris in November 2015, there was renewed focus on what was seen as the failure of the US-led attempt to merely contain ISIS. President Obama’s comments, the day before the attacks, that due to US efforts ISIS had “not gained ground in Iraq”, and had been successfully “contained”, appeared to many to have been swiftly repudiated. Naturally, a number of Bilderberg participants joined the chorus calling for the destruction of ISIS:
Speaking at Westchester Community College a few days after the attacks, Kissinger had argued that the “first thing” to be done is to “destroy ISIS”. In December, speaking to Fox Business News, Kissinger was more adamant, linking the destruction of ISIS with building a viable world order:

“We have to find a means of destroying [ISIS]. It isn’t simply a matter of containing them — it’s an issue of destroying them… It cannot be dealt with purely as a police issue in the United States… There needs to be an outcome of the Syrian civil war… And then we can have an international order in which we identify the key elements of people that are supporting us and the elements that are opposing us” (Fox Business, Dec. 18, 2015; emphasis added).
Speaking at a Brooking Institution event in November 2015, Petraeus argued that if the objective was to “degrade and defeat” ISIS “you’re going to have to have a ground force.” Petraeus stopped short of advocating the bulk of the ground troops should be US forces, he would prefer “Sunni Arab forces”; but he also wanted to see more US Special Forces conducting operations against ISIS.
The Economist ( 21, 2015) again insisted that “the world needs to fight IS in its territory in Iraq and Syria.” “To destroy IS means taking Raqqa and Mosul”, The Economist argued, making a pitch for ground-troops, “That requires an army.”
Calling ISIS a “stateless band of terrorists”, the BloombergView Editorial Board advocated applying “financial pressure as well as military might” to defeat ISIS (BloombergView, Nov. 17, 2015).
Anne Applebaum called for Europe to adopt a “consistent strategy designed not to control ISIS, but to destroy it” (Slate, Nov. 14, 2015).
Third-time participant Thomas Donilon, former National Security Adviser to President Obama, speaking at Duke University in November 2015 called on the US to increase the scale of its response. This appeared to include ground troops. It was “important to have some victories on the ground”, he argued, so they could disrupt the ISIS “narrative of success” by “show[ing] them losing.”

Back in 2012, an illuminating article by The Guardian newspaper’s roving Bilderberg correspondent Charlie Skelton mused at length about the connections between the “most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business.” Although he delved only briefly into the Bilderberg angle, it was remarkable how many key Bilderberg members were also connected to the leading spokespeople in Europe and the US, calling for the military support of the west to overthrow the Baathist regime of Bashar Al Assad. Of particular interest was that Bassami Kodmani, who was in 2011-2012 the spokesperson for the Syrian National Council and Executive Director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI), had attended the 2008 and 2012 Bilderberg conferences. The ARI had been initiated by the Council on Foreign Relations’ US/Middle East Project, which was headed by a number of regular Bilderberg participants, including Peter Sutherland and Henry Kissinger. Providing “financial oversight” to the ARI was the Centre for European Reform; its Advisory Board is chaired by (now former) Bilderberg Steering Committee member and Vice-Chair of Scottish Power, Lord John Kerr.

Skelton’s analysis certainly implied that Bilderberg was involved in trying to shape transatlantic opinions on the Syrian conflict. The involvement of so many Bilderberg participants in the push to “destroy ISIS” after Telfs-Buchen, suggests that this subtle shaping and influencing role persists. By giving a platform to well-connected and highly experienced critics of the US-led approach to ISIS, Bilderberg clearly hoped to shift the consensus—that the current effort was sufficient—in another direction. To be sure, the actual catalyst for most of the government participants at Telfs-Buchen to offer similar rhetoric was the Paris attacks, but the tone had already been set by Kissinger, Zoellick, Petraeus, The Economist and Bloomberg, among others.

Bilderberg’s deliberate lack of transparency ensures that it is difficult to track and to document what it is actually up to. So, inevitably, this means this account should not be seen as a complete exposure, but rather as a glimpse. And this raises the question as to whether either the mainstream media or their alternative competitors are really up to taking on this seemingly insurmountable task of penetrating Bilderberg’s veil of secrecy.

[To be continued in Part 3]
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 3) Power Elite 4 Feb, 2016

Part 3 of 3: Bilderberg and the Media

By Will Banyan, 04 February 2016 [See Part 1 and 2]

The sparseness of mainstream media coverage of Bilderberg’s meetings has long been a topic of concern for those who are wary of the annual gathering. This suspicion has evolved into a mythology that the mainstream media has conspired with Bilderberg’s leadership to suppress mention of its very existence. One key proponent of this mythology was the late Jim Tucker, who chased the Bilderbergers for many years for Spotlight and later American Free Press. In his Bilderberg Diary (2005), Tucker claimed there was a “virtually complete” media “blackout” on Bilderberg in the United States (p.4), with the major newspapers and TV networks having “participated in vows of secrecy” (p.5). Tucker claimed the Washington Post had only mentioned Bilderberg “four times” and the New York Times had just mentioned it once when “one of the luminaries died at a meeting and the obituary writer, and his editors, innocently let the world slip through” (p.7). More recently, Mark Dice’s book The Bilderberg Group Facts and Fiction (2015) sought to reinforce this mythology by making the questionable assertion that “for over half a century there wasn’t more than a peep about the meeting in the American mainstream media” (p.1), which he attributed to some mysterious “arrangement” between Bilderberg and the press (p.5).

As I have detailed elsewhere, none of these claims withstand close scrutiny. Major media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic have used the word “Bilderberg” with seeming impunity for decades, mentioning the location of the meetings, some of the people connected to it, and even leaked some details from the meetings. [this is simply ot true - ed. (Tony)] Tucker’s claims, for example, are easily refuted: a search on the New York Times archive finds 59 articles mentioning Bilderberg rather than just one and a search on the Washington Post archive finds 37 articles about Bilderberg (pre-1995) instead of only four. [not sure about that but in the UK Press the Observer only mentioned it once in 1998, documeted censorship in the Financial Times is legendary] The issue is not the frequency of the reporting about Bilderberg, or even mentioning that it exists, but the quality. [No!] Despite all the reporting on the fact the meetings are happening, [all what reporting - there was virtually none] detailed reporting about what was actually said is and remains rare. [Only Tucker has reported genuine documented leaks by properly cultivating inside sources] The 2015 Telfs-Buchen meeting was no exception, with both the mainstream and the alternative media largely failing to penetrate Bilderberg’s veil.

Ignoring the Elephant in the Room: The Mainstream Media

As with previous years, the doyens of the alternative media initially accused their mainstream counterparts of largely ignoring the 2015 Bilderberg meeting. Infowars (Jun. 11, 2015), for example, charged that the “typical domestic media blackout” was in “full force”, and cited as evidence the failure of a slew of British, American and Canadian publications – the New York Times, Washington Post, National Post, Globe & Mail, The Economist, and the Financial Times – to report on the Telfs-Buchen meeting. Writing from Austria on the eve of the meeting, the American Free Press’ intrepid and permanently behatted reporter, Mark Anderson, focused on the “virtual European media failure” to cover it:

Still, what’s unsettling here is that while European media still report on Bilderberg more than the smug, careless and often-times handcuffed United States media, European coverage—developed through painstaking years of collaborative coverage by late Bilderberg hound James P. Tucker, Jr.—seems to be declining (AFP, 10 Jun. 2015).

The Guardian’s Charlie Skelton, who seemed to bridge both mainstream and alternative media, also had low expectations, making the sarcastic observation that the Telfs-Buchen conclave “is sure to be covered in depth by the world’s press. And by ‘sure to be’, I mean it probably won’t. For reasons that, as ever, escape me” (Guardian, 08 Jun. 2015).

But, as the alternative media representatives would later concede, this was not the whole picture as the mainstream media outlets did report on the Bilderberg meeting. Thus in his final wrap-up article, Anderson claimed due to the combined efforts of both the mainstream newspapers in Austria and alternative media outlets, “considerable pressure was applied against the Bilderbergers…” (AFP, 22 & 29 Jun. 2015, p.1). Even Skelton, interviewed after the meeting by Tony Gosling admitted that Bilderberg was being “taken seriously” by the mainstream media, citing as an example a BBC article that “did a good crunch of the numbers”, although he noted that the “British press didn’t bother to send anybody there.”

A review of some of the highlights shows that while the 2015 Bilderberg meeting was not entirely ignored by the mainstream media, that coverage still had its limitations:
Despite being represented by their respective editor-in-chiefs, the level of reporting by The Economist and Bloomberg on the 2015 Bilderberg meeting was negligible. The Economist had nothing to report. Bloomberg offered a short slide presentation ( 11, 2015) naming some of the participants (including Bloomberg’s Editor-in-Chief) and discussion topics. It described Bilderberg as “the world’s most secretive summit” and noted “the talks will stay a secret.” Earlier, in April on BloombergPolitics, David Weigel tested Alex Jones’ claims that Jeb Bush was a potential Bilderberg participant. Weigel was sceptical, dismissing Jones’ for his “ever-spurting founts of Bilderberger panic.” After securing a denial from Jeb Bush’s communications director, Weigel ended on a note of cautionary sarcasm: “The idea of presidential candidates being anointed by secretive elites remains completely derangedand fictional.” But he linked to two mainstream media articles on the power of rich donors over US presidential candidates.
Of particular interest was the reporting by Austrian newspaper, Der Standard, given that its publisher and editor Oscar Bronner had been a regular Bilderberg participant since 2009. In a 2013 interview in his own paper, Bronner had claimed there was “no conspiracy” at Bilderberg, it was merely a place for “[h]ighly interesting discussions on various topics from politics and business” (Der Standard, Oct. 18, 2013). Not surprisingly Der Standard opted to present Bilderberg in a positive light, while avoiding probing too deeply into what was discussed. Bilderberg’s benign purpose, claimed one report (Der Standard, Jun. 7, 2015), was to “strengthen the relations” between Europe and the US. In an attempt to refute activist claims the meeting was “undemocratic and untransparent”, another report insisted the meeting participants were of “the highest calibre” (Der Standard, Jun. 14, 2015). Bilderberg watchers, however, were subject to the usual ritual denunciation; a task performed with gusto by Der Standard opinion columnist Hans Rausche, who derided Bilderberg as the “mother of all conspiracy theories.” He added how Bilderberg’s supposed “perfidy” extended to having “public meetings in a hotel…publish[ing] a list of participants on the web” and allowing journalists to “reproduce content of the discussions, but without attribution to a particular person.” Bilderberg, Rauscher argued, might be a “halfway useful exchange of ideas”, but dismissed outright as “hard to believe” the claim that Bilderberg sought to “take over the world…” (Der Standard, Jun. 10, 2015).
A number of Portuguese newspapers – Público, Obersvador, and RTP Noticías – all reported on the impending retirement of former Portuguese Prime Minister and Chairman of the Portuguese media conglomerate Impresa SGPS Francisco Pinto Balsemão from the Bilderberg Steering Committee, and the hand over to his nominated successor, former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso. Público had the exclusive, with Balsemão confirming his departure; the report also provided details of the Bilderberg structure, including the roles of the Steering Committee and Advisory Group. More intriguing was the report in Visão, one of Impresa’s publications, that not only quoted the opinions of Daniel Estulin, but declared the “truth” was that “all those who have been, are, or have prospects of becoming someone important in Portugal have participated in a Bilderberg meeting” [“…que todos os que, em Portugal, foram, são ou têm perspetivas para virem a ser alguém relevante passaram por uma reunião do Clube Bilderberg”].
BBC Trust Chairman, Rona Fairchild was a participant at Telfs-Buchen, although she apparently did this in “a personal capacity” and was not representing the BBC Trust, according to the BBC response to a Freedom of Information request. BBC reporting on the 2015 event was sparse, amounting to one short article on participants (BBC, Jun. 12, 2015) and a 60-second video ( 11, 2015). More informative was a BBC News Magazine (Jun. 10, 2015) report that analysed the participant list, providing a breakdown of the nationality, gender and profession of those at Telfs-Buchen. The report sought to steer between conspiratorial and official interpretations, but acknowledged being invited to Bilderberg was “a sign that someone has arrived as a politician, business leader, administrator or influencer.”
Another British paper, The Independent, described Bilderberg as a “weird elite group” (The Independent, Jun. 11, 2015), and suggested the “bosses” of US and European companies would use the meeting to “lobby politicians on the direction they believe Europe should take” (The Independent, Jun. 09, 2015). It also ran a useful piece analysing who had been invited (Jun. 08, 2015) and another article that highlighted that while the public might know where the meetings were held, who was attending, the broad topics, and that they “take security very seriously”; what was actually said remained unknown ( 09, 2015). Columnist Matthew Norman, however, was truer to form, arguing that once Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary—crudely disparaged in a classic display of anti-Irish prejudice, as that “eejit from Ryanair” —accepted the invitation to Telfs-Buchen, the Bilderberg group “mutated from SPECTRE into Dr Evil’s hapless outfit of goons in Austin Powers” (The Independent, Jun. 09, 2015).
Perhaps the most interesting accounts came from Trine Eilertsen, political editor of Norway’s Aftenposten, who in addition to defending her participation at Telfs-Buchen, provided a range of albeit limited insights into the topics of deliberation and how she intended to use what she had learned. Bilderberg was “one of the best conferences I’ve ever been to”, Eilertsen told Journalisten (Jul. 29, 2015), the journal of Norwegian Union of Journalists, adding that she was “glad” she had participated.
Germany’s Deutsche-Welle presented two reports, both of which provided some detail on the agenda and how Bilderberg meetings were organised. It noted that participants “give explanations and argue with each other, in 90-minute intervals”, and that the food at Watford, back in 2013 was “nothing special: typical buffet catering”, with participants forced to pay for the own wine (the horror!). Perhaps of greater value was that instead of a lengthy survey of every odd conspiracy theory, the DW reports mentioned the views of a number of academics including: sociologists Rudolf Stumberger and Hans-Jürgen Krysmanski; political scientists Kees van der Pijl, Ian Richardson (Bilderberg People) and Bjorn Wendt (Die Bilderberg-Gruppe); and historian Bernd Greiner. A few days after the conference, in one of the few leaks, Spiegel Online ( 17, 2015) cited the observations of one anonymous participant about the debate on Greece’s debt problem.
Coverage by the US media was also quite meagre. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and some news networks ignored it, but there were a few notable exceptions. CNBC ( 11, 2015), for example, had a brief report on the “world’s most secretive meeting”, quoting the opinions of Professor of Organization Business, Andre Spicer, that Bilderberg was responsible for creating “an ‘ideological groundwork’” for major policy decisions “across the world.” CNN Money (Jun. 11, 2015) also reported on the event, described being invited to Bilderberg as the “ultimate confirmation of VIP status.” Pando (Jun. 12, 2015), a US-based blog which focuses on the IT industry, ran a piece noting how Silicon Valley had managed to establish its own “clique” within the Bilderberg Group. Noting Google’s strong representation at Bilderberg, Pando opined this was consistent not only with “Big Tech’s continued takeover of older established institutions of power”, but also with “Google’s new role as the biggest lobbyist spender in Washington.”
The Washington Times ran two reports, the first being two paragraphs in the gossipy “Inside The Beltway” column (Jun. 9, 2015) noting that David Petraeus would be there along with Kissinger, James Wolfensohn and Richard Perle; and that climate change was not on the agenda. The second article (Jun. 11, 2015) was more sceptical of Bilderberg’s importance quoting at length the soothing denials from Bilderberg’s official spokesperson and the supposedly expert opinion of Gary Schmitt a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Schmitt, who had never attended a Bilderberg meeting, dismissed the exclusive conclave as a “gabfest with nothing much done”, insisting that “nothing much comes out of it” and that Bilderberg has “had no impact for years and years, if its ever had much of any.” Bilderberg’s official spokesperson offered the official line and his comments on Bilderberg’s goals were generously reinterpreted by the Times as nothing more than “upscale schmoozing.”

So while claims of a total “media blackout” about Bilderberg are clearly untrue and inaccurate, in terms of both the volume and quality of the reporting, mainstream media coverage was sparse. This is particularly evident when the reporting on Bilderberg is compared to that devoted to other elite meetings, such as last month’s World Economic Forum (WEF). As shown in the charts below (see Figure 9) drawing on the Factiva data base and Google News, reporting on the closed-door Bilderberg meeting was meagre compared to the flood of reports devoted to the WEF annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Figure 9: Factiva & Google News Search Results for Bilderberg (2015) and World Economic Forum (2016)

Sources: Factiva & Google News

Another particularly unhelpful feature of the mainstream media’s coverage of Bilderberg was also very much in evidence: references to reptilian shapeshifters. This fits a now familiar pattern of mainstream journalists using David Icke’s reptilian shape-shifting theory not only to denigrate those who think the Bilderberg Group is more than just a conference, but as an excuse not to look further. James Tapfield, writing in the UK Mirror (Jun. 10, 2015), for example, found it necessary to refer to the “outlandish theories” that the Bilderberg Group was “run by a race of humanoid creatures descended from lizards.” By referring to the “humanoid lizardmen” in his summary of “all you need to know about Bilderberg”, Tapfield managed to taint the topic of his article.

In fact, it seems that no survey of the Bilderberg conspiracy theories was complete without mentioning Icke’s reptilians. Various wits had great sport noting that some Bilderberg conspiracists believed it was a venue for: “world domination by lizards” (Spectator); “interstellar reptilian humanoids” (; “lizard people” (AFP); “Lizardmen” (Spiegel); “shape-shifting reptilians” (Moscow Times); and “giant shape-shifting lizards” (The Week). This tactic did not pass entirely without comment. When, the website of an Irish radio station, made mention of “lizard overlords” in its report on Bilderberg, a number of readers took issue with this transparent smear. As Disquis commenter noted, the intent behind making such a reference was obvious:

This embodies the paradox at the heart of mainstream media coverage of Bilderberg. On the one hand, as we have seen there was some useful factual, even slightly critical reporting being done about the Bilderberg Group; but on the other hand, the mainstream media was clearly more focused on ridiculing those who think Bilderberg warrants closer scrutiny, vilifying them as mentally defective conspiracists with a reptilian fixation. It seems that Bilderberg-watchers are considered a better and more important story than the meeting itself, as well as a perfect alibi for failing to probe Bilderberg any further. This conscious trivialization of Bilderberg by the mainstream media provides an opportunity for the alternative media to fill the void, but the results are not reassuring.
Pointing, But Not Touching: The Alternative Media

Gathered outside the Interalpen Hotel, or to be more precise, languishing several miles down the road in Telfs, were the usual suspects, members of the “alternative media”: the Infowars’ team of Paul Joseph Watson, Paul Drew and Josh Owens; Press for Truth’s Dan Dicks; Luke Rudkowski of We Are; and the American Free Press’s intrepid Mark Anderson. This group was accompanied by a number of other alternative media representatives from the US and Europe including: reporters from We Are Change Rotterdam and We Are Change Switzerland; Jeff Berwick from The Dollar Vigilante; “Volksreporters” from the German website Alles Schall und Rauch (ASR); and self-styled German “citizen journalist” Tilman Knechtel. These additions made up for the absence of some alternative media who had kept watch outside the Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen last year, such as David K. Eggers, the “Mad Scandinavian Vlogger”, Age of Truth TV, and Whistleblower TV. Also missing were reporters from the John Birch Society’s flagship periodical The New American.

Charlie Skelton, as one the mainstream media’s few remaining correspondents in the area, viewed the performance of this band favourably; in fact, he contended, their very existence represented a strong challenge to Bilderberg’s media strategy:

It’s not the 1950s any more: you can’t just “have a quiet word” with half a dozen editors and keep a story out of the papers. You’ve got to deal with reporters like Dan Dicks and Luke Rudkowski, with their instant uploads and cameras hanging off every rucksack strap. You’ve got bloggers and citizen journalists, activists with Instagram accounts. News articles with comments sections and buttons to share them on social media. The news just doesn’t work the way it used to (Guardian, Jun. 15, 2015).

Skelton is right that the media environment has changed dramatically as the well-established print media in particular has been overtaken by the explosion in internet-based independent journalism. But Skelton also overestimates the ability of this new journalism to actually investigate Bilderberg effectively. The limitations of the alternative media had already been quite evident in their coverage of the Bilderberg meetings in Watford (2013) and Copenhagen (2014) where activism rather than investigation carried the day. Telfs-Buchen continued this trend. Granted, the alternative media worked hard to draw attention to the Bilderberg meeting they were locked out of, and to counter the shallow, uncritical and stenographic nature of most mainstream media coverage. But, when it came to actually delving into what occurred at the Interalpen Hotel, the alternative media performed as poorly as they had in 2014.

This was obvious well before the meeting even started, with the alternative media promoting a range of speculation on Bilderberg’s agenda that reflected their own concerns rather than any special insights. The claims of free-lance financial journalist Heiko Schrang provide a good example of this. A few weeks before Telfs-Buchen, and before Bilderberg issued its press release, Schrang claimed:

The abolition of the cash, in addition to the issues such as the Ukraine-conflict and the promotion of refugee flows to Europe, will be high on the agenda at this year’s Bilderberg meeting […] as one of its main objectives, the total control of every individual, comes frighteningly close. [Die Abschaffung des Bargelds wird neben den Themen Ukraine-Konflikt und die Förderung der Flüchtlingsströme nach Europa ganz oben auf der Agenda beim diesjährigen Bilderberger Treffen stehen. Sie würden so einem ihrer Hauptziele, der totalen Kontrolle jedes Einzelnen erschreckend nah kommen.]

Schrang’s claims, which did not seem to have a source and were caveated with his admission that this represented his “subjective point of view”, were picked up by Extrem News (May. 30, 2015) and by Alex Jones’ Prison Planet (Jun. 4, 2015). On June 5, Jones and one of his star reporters, Paul Joseph Watson, had an extended discussion that addressed Bilderberg’s supposed “agenda to ban cash.” Watson stayed with this theme, even after Bilderberg had released its key topics that did not mention a “cashless society” asserting in his expose of the “real agenda” that Bilderberg would be discussing “the abolition of cash.” His discourse also overlooked the fact neither of the leading proponents, of the “cashless society” model, Kenneth Rogoff from Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the Chief Economist at Citigroup (Infowars, May 27, 2015), were at Telfs-Buchen.

At Copenhagen the alternative media spent most of their time interviewing each other, while carrying out various stunts, as opposed to making any serious attempts at investigative journalism. Exactly the same behaviour—a focus on activism rather than journalism—was in evidence at Telfs-Buchen. The AFP’s Mark Anderson, for example, remained as committed as ever to talking to other activists, fronting up for numerous interviews including with: ASR Volksreporter; the Pete Santilli Show; We Are Change Rotterdam; Alexander Benesech from Recentr TV; Luke Rudkowski; and UK Column News. His dispatches from Telfs-Buchen were notable for providing updates on the activism and progress reports on mainstream media reporting rather than obtaining any insights from or access to the Bilderberg meeting itself.

In one of his dispatches, Anderson took a triumphant pose, declaring that the American Free Press “appeared to be the only established American national newspaper on hand to cover this ultra-exclusive, collusive, networking and planning session….” (AFP, Jun. 12, 2015). Yet when it came to revealing what was discussed, Anderson had little to offer. The AFP’s special Bilderberg issue produced just one unsourced claim that the Bilderbergers “debated” how to wage “economic warfare against Russia” (AFP, 22 & 29 Jun. 2015, p.1).

The quality of reporting from Infowars was little better. Despite over twenty articles about the meeting, and sending its three-person team of Watson, Drew and Owens to Telfs-Buchen, Infowars proved just as incapable as every other self-styled “investigative journalist” when it came to piercing Bilderberg’s veil. Ahead of the meeting they put out a number of pieces speculating on the Bilderberg agenda, including that Bilderberg were backing Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, capital controls on consumers, mass surveillance and ingestible ID chips. During the meeting, however, the output of the Infowars team in Austria, on Twitter and in their Infowars dispatches focused almost entirely on the excesses of the security forces. This included five reports dealing with police harassment of reporters, the “Chernobyl style” exclusion zone, police harassment of a local boy, police use of hi-tech jamming, and police efforts to exclude the press.

More telling, was that Infowars interest in Bilderberg barely lasted as long as the meeting itself. When the meeting “key topics” list was released, for example, Watson prepared an article and video (Infowars, Jun. 10, 2015) that purported to reveal the “real agenda” at Telfs-Buchen, including a summation (see Figure 10) of what he believed would actually be discussed. Watson had clearly established some guidelines for assessing the outcomes of the Bilderberg meeting. Yet, once the meeting was over, there was no follow up.

Figure 10: Bilderberg’s ‘Real Agenda’ – As Explained by Paul Joseph Watson

Source: Infowars (Jun. 10, 2015)

The closest the Infowars team came to actually interacting with Bilderberg participants was the tabloidish chasing of the departing Bilderbergers at Innsbruck Airport. They confronted Bilderberg Steering Committee member and Vice Chair of Rothschild Europe Franco Bernabè, and Der Standard publisher Oscar Bronner. But this approach actually yielded very little information about the meeting itself. The failure of their reporting was most obvious in one of their final products, a five minute compilation video of Interalpen Hotel and the Bilderberg security measures, with a series of voice-overs from Alex Jones and a number of other unnamed contributors (Infowars, Jun. 14, 2015). Despite the theatrics, the video provided absolutely no revelations about the meeting itself, as a couple of disgruntled viewers on Youtube noted (see Figure 11). This was, unfortunately, consistent with most of the alternative media’s reporting.

Figure 11: Some Discouraging Words: What was the Infowars Team doing in Austria?

Source: Youtube

Other mainstays of Bilderberg reporting were also conspicuous by their absence or limited appearances. Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007, 2009), fresh from being fired from Russia Today told Alex Jones that he had bunkered down some 40 km away in Innsbruck for the duration of the conference, but had sent a “cameraman incognito” to the police perimeter to obtain imagery for his forthcoming Bilderberg documentary. His post-meeting interviews with Jones and Sean Stone on Buzzsaw were strange rambling affairs, filled with obvious speculation and weird revelations; Estulin was also less emphatic about his Bilderberg “sources”. At one stage, Estulin told Stone he was “certain” Bilderberg’s alleged plans to deindustrialise the world and extract natural resources from the Moon would have been discussed; but he also admitted to having “no information” about whether the Iran nuclear deal was raised, even though Iran was listed as a topic.

Estulin also told Jones that the absence of IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde was surely a sign of forthcoming “changes in the IMF.” Except that, according to the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 22, 2016), Lagarde has now confirmed her intent to stand for a second term, telling French television that she had “receive[d] support from France, Germany, Great Britain, China, Korea, [and] Mexico.” Indeed, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, and frequent Bilderberg participant, George Osborne, declared he was “delighted” to support her nomination (BBC, Jan. 22, 2016), citing his belief Lagarde had the “vision, energy and acumen to help steer the global economy through the years ahead” (Guardian, Jun. 21, 2016).

In other interviews before and after the meeting, Estulin also seemed to walk back from his previous claims the Bilderberg Group “has the power and influence to impose its policies on any nation in the world” (ibid, p.43). On March 2, 2015, Estulin told Richie Allen that Bilderberg was but one of a number of elite “conveyor belts” for decisions actually made at a “much higher level.” Estulin suggested all secret meetings involving members of the elite were suspect, not just Bilderberg, mentioning the G7’s closed sessions and the confidential weekly meeting between the UK Prime Minister and the Queen Elizabeth II. Speaking to Sheila Zilinsky on WeekendVigilante (Jun. 17, 2015) Estulin suggested Bilderberg lacked its previous “gravitas” and was less powerful than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. He again mocked suggestions Bilderberg was a “one-eyed monster that controls world politics”, claimed that the “real decision making” occurred at “much higher levels.” He also dismissed long-time Bilderberger David Rockefeller as “ga-ga” (although the now 100-year old plutocrat, who has not attended a Bilderberg meeting since 2011, though clearly frail, seems lucid here – from 4:15) and claimed that the 92-year old Henry Kissinger was “not there, [his] brain doesn’t work well”, an assertion belied by Kissinger’s recent media appearances, including this “fireside chat” with fellow Bilderberger, Eric Schmidt.

This collective failure to actually discover the substance of the conversations inside the Interalpen Hotel highlighted the independent media’s real priority: political activism. This was also reflected in the priority afforded to sensational imagery as opposed to actual investigation. During his live chat with Paul Joseph Watson, for example, Alex Jones seemed more anxious to get Watson over to Austria “to get shots inside the hotel.” The sort of stunt that Jones had in mind was later achieved by Rudkowski, Dicks and Berwick, who managed to stay for one night at the Interalpen Hotel ahead of the arrival of the Bilderberg participants. Berwick presented a breathless account on TDV of how Dicks and Rudkowski,

went to take a look around the hotel and actually found the room where the conference was to be held. As far as we know it is the only time independent media has ever seen the actual room. Unfortunately just as they pulled out their cameras security guards started running towards them telling them they had to leave immediately.

This led to their expulsion from the Interalpen; but they were amply compensated with their stay unbilled and they were encouraged to raid their mini-bars. Viewing this tabloid excursion—which was well-covered by their admirers on the web—one is struck by the silence around the failure of this intrepid posse, especially self-styled “investigative journalists” Rudkowski and Dicks (see Figure 12), to develop any sources at the Interalpen Hotel, let alone amongst any of the participants.

Figure 12: Luke Rudkowski and Dan Dicks – ‘Investigative Journalists’

Sources: We Are Change website; and Press for Truth website

But this only highlights the dilemma and the problem behind this activism. Without more credible insights into what actually Bilderberg does, how it shapes and influences transatlantic policy-making, and why its activities are a morally questionable enterprise, the anti-Bilderberg activism will continue to be marginalised and denigrated. In short, protesting is not enough; a stronger case must be built for opposing Bilderberg and that can only be done through a real commitment to investigative reporting.
More Beanbags and Wurst Please

The absence of any incisive reporting on what actually transpired at the meeting would suggest that Bilderberg’s now decades old media-strategy—of using each annual gathering to feed ideas into to the public sphere anonymously while excluding reporters who will not abide by its secrecy requirements—remains intact. Over the years many journalists have taken issue with this approach, usually to no avail; and often without understanding the logic behind it. 2015 was no exception with The Guardian newspaper’s sole and persistently frustrated Bilderberg correspondent Charlie Skelton mounting an impassioned, if at times incoherent criticism of Bilderberg press relations.

At the heart of his critique was the superiority of the G7’s media strategy to that of Bilderberg. Skelton noted how at the G7 in Germany he had been “treated like a prince”, but now at Telfs-Buchen, the Bilderberg conference received “state security, but there’s no quid pro quo. No state-run press centre.” Arguing that Bilderberg was “an event worthy of attention” Skelton argued for a “press hut” and other courtesies, so he and his colleagues could be “treated like journalists” (Guardian, 10 Jun. 2015). In further dispatches Skelton complained about the police “treating a journalist like a criminal” (Guardian, 11 Jun. 2015); and the “cavernous lack of press co-operation” from Bilderberg. Skelton claimed it would be “wiser” and “more respectful” towards journalists if Bilderberg at least held a press conference like “what they used to do” (Guardian, 12 Jun. 2015).

In his final dispatch Skelton bemoaned the Austrian police’s heavy-handed tactics, including their unwillingness to fund a “much-needed press accreditation centre here.” Skelton claimed to “worry for the future of Bilderberg”, as he took issue with its “obstinate refusal to engage in proper press relations”, arguing the Bilderberg Group needed to “deal with reporters.” Coming across former Bilderberg Steering Committee member Francisco Pinto Balsemão at the Interalpen just after the meeting had finished, Skelton made his case for a better relationship with the media, asking if the Bilderberg could hold a press conference again. “Talvez”, Balsemão had replied. “Perhaps.” (Guardian, 15 Jun. 2015).

Yet it was hard to take Skelton’s arguments seriously – that the G7’s media strategy was somehow preferable to that of Bilderberg – given that Skelton had previously been critical of the G7’s lavish press centre with its beanbags, “steaming heaps of wurst”, and “lots of lovely footage and photos from the summit.” It was, he reflected, “unsettling”, the “conditions are too good”; the whole set-up was just “live theatre, orchestrated within an inch of its life”, making the G7 “just a giant press release.” Skelton then made this astute observation:

It’s all been made too easy for the journalists. I suspect that if a story is this easy to get, it’s not worth getting (Guardian, 08 Jun. 2015; emphasis added).

When it came to Bilderberg, however, it seemed the story was just too hard to get and Skelton begged Bilderberg to coddle him, to make his life easier by giving him a press centre and a press conference; and perhaps, secretly, he craved the comforts of the beanbags and wurst. Indeed Skelton was strangely repelled by the requirements of investigative journalism, evident in his description of his attempt to question Balsemão as “grubby”, as though bailing up a former Bilderberg Steering Committee member in a bar was somehow improper. Skelton was also clearly exhausted by Bilderberg’s wall of secrecy:

We’ll take anything. We’re tired of watching diplomatic passports being slid above tinted windows. Tired of politicians hiding their faces, and ministers refusing to talk about what they talked about. Tired of police officers who, when they aren’t hassling journalists, are lining up in ranks in front of limousines to obscure the view (Guardian, 12 Jun. 2015).

Demanding that the Bilderberg Group resume its press conferences is not without merit, it would at least provide some avenue for asking pointed questions about the meeting; but it should also be seen as giving up the chase. Skelton may feel nostalgic for the press conferences, and may even be as genuinely concerned for Bilderberg’s future as he claims, but in expressing such sentiments, he displays a misunderstanding about the logic behind Bilderberg’s media strategy. Essentially, the Bilderberg approach has been to use its deliberations to shape and influence public debate, but at the same time, it has consciously sought to tightly control, if not actively discourage, media coverage of the conference itself.

It is also important not to overstate the value of the press conferences that did happen, or to overlook the well-entrenched Bilderberg disdain for press reporting on what transpires at each meeting. Back in 1974, for example, according to an Associated Press report, Bilderberg Chairman Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, visited the press centre for that year’s meeting in Megève in France, where he,

announced who had been invited to the meeting and what the topics would be. He then declared there would be no more information on the three-day session and according to one French newsman aroused the wrath of assembled journalists by adding: “In fact, we just don’t want you around” (Amarillo Globe-Times, 21 Jun. 1974; emphasis added).

The 1975 meeting in Ceseme, Turkey, was also noteworthy for being preceded by a brief statement from Prince Bernhard covering some of the topics discussed, but at the conclusion of the conference the assembled journalists were snubbed, as a UPI report noted:

The bankers, politicians and businessmen taking part left by car and bus…immediately after the conference ended.

They gave nothing but a wave to newsmen who had waited to speak with them since Friday at the gate of the luxurious Altin Yunus Hotel on the shores of the Agean Sea.

Appointments promised to newsmen were not kept, and in accordance with the Bilderberg tradition, no statements were made to the press (San Bernardino County Sun, 28 Apr. 1975).

Possibly the only exception to this was when Bernhard’s successor, former British Prime Minister Lord Home, gave a press conference following the 1978 Bilderberg meeting in Princeton. As noted by an Associated Press report, Lord Home “spoke to reporters about the substance of the three days of meetings” (The Odessa American, Apr. 24, 1978). Though not noted at the time, this post-meeting press conference was a rare event; but it would mark a minor digression from Bilderberg’s standard press policy. In his Bilderberg Diary, Tucker implied that the post-meeting press conferences were discontinued, partially because the line of questioning from alternative media journalists such as himself made Bilderberg’s nominated spokesman uncomfortable (pp.21-25).

Bilderberg’s current line is that the pre-meeting press conferences were “held for several decades up until the nineties” but were “stopped due to a lack of interest.” For the 2015 conference, Bilderberg’s media spokesperson reaffirmed that Bilderberg had no intention of engaging with the media openly:

“While we understand and generally welcome the general interest in the conference, we simply cannot provide the levels of access or transparency that certain individuals or groups would like to see,” the spokesman said in an email. “To encourage the highest level of openness and dialogue among the participants, and to keep the private character of the meetings, all participants respect the Chatham House Rule” (Washington Times, Jun. 11, 2015; emphasis added).

In short, a press conference is unlikely to do much to increase the transparency of the Bilderberg Group because it has absolutely no interest in being transparent. Unfortunately for Skelton, obviously spoilt by the G7 press centre’s luxuries and German culinary delicacies, he must recognise the truth in his own words: that if a story is too easy to get it is “not worth getting.” If Skelton really believes that an interesting story lies behind Bilderberg’s closed doors, he must make the effort to get through them. That would require more imaginative approaches, including such tried and trusted methods such as cultivating contacts amongst hotel staff or even some of the first-time participants. Demanding a press hut from the sidelines is not going to work and could be taken as a sign after years of chasing Bilderberg that Skelton is perhaps thinking of throwing in the towel.

And that would be a shame.
Bilderberg and the Future

According to various unnamed officials, the 2015 G7 Leaders’ Summit was “a success” (Politico, Jun. 08, 2015); the German newspaper Die Welt also described it as a “complete and utter success.” At the post-meeting press conference German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly claimed the meeting had “showed once again that the G7 countries had more than just prosperity and economic power in common”, they also shared “common values” that made the G7 a “community of responsibility.” President Obama was also full of praise, hailing the G7 for demonstrating that “on the most pressing global challenges America and our allies stand united.” Not everyone was convinced the highly choreographed event had any value. A columnist in Die Zeit (Jun. 9, 2015) dismissed the G7 meeting as being “as political as a church convention” and argued that its “non-binding declarations of understanding” could have just as easily been agreed to in a telephone call.

The 2015 Bilderberg meeting, in contrast, with its leadership and participants all so conspicuously silent about what they discussed or achieved, could only be celebrated by its Austrian hosts as a successful police operation. Thus Tirol’s Police Director Helmet Tolmac told Der Standard (Jun. 15, 2015), reflecting on the G7-Biderberg operation, opined there had been a “happy balance” with: “No images of violence and escalation – there are positive images that we have sent out from Tyrol in the world.” Indeed, the Austrian authorities managed to conduct 7000 identity checks, made one arrest, applied coercive force five times, and charged one person with resisting the police. There was much to be proud of.

Perhaps the key lesson from the 2015 Bilderberg meeting is the resilience and effectiveness of the Group’s institutions and procedures. Despite Daniel Estulin’s repeated claims that Bilderberg Group is “losing its lustre” because of the passing of the older generation of transatlantic elitists, it is clear that it remains a credible and venerated fixture on the annual calendar of the so-called “Superclass.” Although Estulin is right that David Rockefeller no longer attends, and other long-term regulars, such as Henry Kissinger (he also mentions Zbigniew Brzezinski although he has not attended a Bilderberg meeting since 1985!) are quite elderly, generational change has not robbed Bilderberg of its relevance.

As we have already seen in Part 1, Bilderberg continues to attract the influential and powerful from both sides of the Atlantic. A close study of its participant lists reveals a host of individuals whose political and economic power is considerable and current, rather than merely of historical interest. Bilderberg survived the death of its founder Joseph Retinger in 1960. It also survived the resignation of its first Chairman, Prince Bernhard over the Lockheed bribery scandal in 1976 (though the 1976 Bilderberg meeting was cancelled). So it can certainly survive without the presence of David Rockefeller and, in due course, that of Henry Kissinger. New faces are already making their mark.

We can gain some insight into Bidlerberg’s resilience through reference to recent commentary on the persistence of the World Economic Forum. Despite finding some its speakers and themes “tired” and overfamiliar, David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of Foreign Policy magazine, acknowledged the WEF remains popular for corporate leaders because “it is still the place they can get the most done in the shortest period of time. And frankly, if they are not there, they are likely to miss their best chance at getting a concentrated glimpse of the world ahead they are going to get anywhere.” Russ Alan Prince, writing in Forbes (Jan. 25, 2016), noted executives and representatives of the very wealthy, arranged in so-called single family offices, found the benefits of the WEF to be threefold:
It was an “astounding opportunity to connect with key decision makers…”
It provided access to “meetings outside the presentations…where more actionable insights are provided.”
They also observed a “very identifiable hierarchy of influence” ranging from the “unmistakably powerful” down through their advisers, the merely “powerful” and then the “solely moneyed.”

All these observations also clearly apply to the Bilderberg Group, though with the added element of Bilderberg having a much smaller group of participants and being an entirely closed-door meeting with almost no overt public footprint. Prince also confirmed that Bilderberg remained an important part of this very exclusive networking milieu, noting that a “small but growing percentage” of the senior executives and family members of single-family offices were now focusing on those,

conferences and events geared for an international, diverse assembly of decision makers such as Bilderberg Meetings, the Milken Institute Global Conference, and Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting [emphasis added].

In commentary published just after the Telfs-Buchen meeting, Andrew Kakabadse, a Professor of Governance and Strategic Leadership at Henley Business School and a co-author of Bilderberg People (2011), argued that for all its flaws Bilderberg remains important:

Bilderberg is clearly influencing and establishing how wealth is thought about on a global basis. What we see and accept as normal and never question doesn’t occur by accident.

We call this smart power’ or ‘shaping.’ It is not about having a definite plan to make a specific investment or conspire against somebody or something. It’s more about arriving at a consensus around a position, which then infiltrates its way into society.

Consequentially, Bilderberg remains attractive for many in the Superclass because of its actual reputation as a key venue for elite networking and the mystique associated with the name and its secretive practices:

The lure of being invited, and seduction of being invited back again, shapes a mindset where attendees see themselves as being welcomed into the inner circle of the transnational elites.

Thus for now, Bilderberg’s future seems secure, so long as the transatlantic “Superclass” needs to meet confidentially to discuss issues of emerging importance, to try and reach a common understanding, to conduct informal diplomacy, and to shape and influence public debates. That it persists is also due to the ability of the Steering Committee to continue to: attract the powerful and influential; prepare a relevant and topical agenda; co-opt the mainstream media; marginalise its critics in the independent media, trivialising them and their concerns; and, above all, ensure that its walls of secrecy will not be breached. It is for these reasons that an end to Bilderberg seems a long way off and the 2015 meeting far from being the last…
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

El Club Bilderberg
Gustavo-Adolfo Vargas
Managua, Nicaragua

The Bilderberg Club is the World Government in the shadows: the decider with a total secrecy in its annual meetings, where they will carry out their plans.

What is said in the secret meetings, it is within the Bilderberg Club and its members, which consists of politicians, businessmen, bankers and powerful individuals, who formed the most powerful secret society in the world.

The Bilderbergers know that free human race is in danger of extinction; that war is not waged for the sake of justice, but its sole purpose is oil. Whoever wins the race will control the last vestiges of reserves of oil and natural gas on Earth; being derived in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Syria, and those that are fought in the Caspian Sea; those of Saudi Arabia, UAE and soon in Venezuela.

Any form part of a global conflict whose purpose is to control mankind, who controls the oil controls the Earth. The One World Government, New World Order takes advantage of all available technological resources to dominate the world.

The president of Cuba (Fidel Castro), said, "It's a sinister cliques, Bilderberg lobbyists manipulate the public to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but himself."

Gustavo-Adolfo Vargas. Diplomat, lawyer and political scientist
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC Bias, Brexit, the EU, Bilderberg and Global Government
Column: Politics - Region: Europe

One of the BBC’s flagship news programmes has shown a “strong” bias towards Britain staying in the European Union (EU), a media monitoring group claimed last week. From the 13th of January to the 11th of March 2016, News-watch analysed 40 editions of the popular current affairs programme Newsnight. News-watch noted that 25 of the guests who appeared on the programme were in favour of Britain staying in the EU, compared to only 14 who advocated the UK leaving the union. The monitoring group noted that: “The former President of the EU Commission,José Manuel Barroso, and the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, have had the clear opportunity in main interviews to explain why leaving the EU would not be in the UK’s interest. There has been no balancing opinion from similarly weighty figures” who support Britain leaving the EU.

The BBC has always been the propaganda mouthpiece of the British establishment, yet many Britons still cling to the deluded notion that the BBC is an impartial news organisation. It is clear that the British establishment is desperate to keep Britain in the union, and this is reflected in the BBC’s reporting of the issue. A Brexit may prove to be the catalyst which encourages other countries to leave, triggering the collapse of the EU entirely. Unless the Western elite manage to roll a collapsed EU into a more globally integrated system, this would be a disaster for the globalists. If European nations regain control over their own affairs and resort back to national sovereignty, the agenda of the shadow elite in the form of destroying nation-states and building a global empire will be severely impeded.

The debate on whether Britain should leave or stay in the EU has been gathering pace in the UK for years, and the Prime Minister has finally set June 23rd as the date for the referendum. David Cameron is merely trying to appease some factions in Britain who are pro-national sovereignty and feel that too much power is concentrated in the bureaucratic, technocratic and largely undemocratic hands of the EU. One the most pivotal speeches that Cameron has made on the EU in recent months, was not given at the House of Commons, but at the shadow British government: the Royal Institute of International Affairs (or Chatham House). The executive body of the EU – the European Commission – is a corporate partner of Chatham House. The majority of the major political figures in the West support Britain staying in the EU, including Barack Obama, Tony Blairand Peter Mandelson. This is because the EU is far more than just a union in Europe; it’s a stepping stone towards global government.

The EU and Global Government

The EU has always been a key part of the grander strategy by the global elite to destroy national sovereignty and bring in a world government, through eventually amalgamating the EU with other trading blocs. As Alan Sked, a Professor of International History at the London School of Economics and the original founder of UKIP (who has since criticised the party), notes, the EU was created by a Western elite who have been surreptitiously working to build a global government.Herman Van Rompuy, the former President of the European Council, even boldly proclaimed that 2009 was “the first year of global governance” (according to the translation). Van Rompuy added that “the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

The former President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, gave a speech in 2014 at the Yale School of Management, titled: ‘The European Union in the New World Order.’ Barroso said that the world is largely in a state of chaos, but “out of all this chaos some kind of order will eventually materialise.” He added that a gap is emerging “within the global sphere between an increasingly interdependent and interconnected world which lacks the global governance mechanisms to manage that interdependence and interconnectedness.” In essence, Barroso deceptively argued that the world is in such a state of chaos (the majority of which is created by the Western elite) that we are in desperate need of greater “global governance mechanisms” (i.e. order) – stronger global governance is practically synonymous with global government, but at bare minimum it’s the final stepping stone towards fully certified global government.

Peter Mandelson, a former European Commissioner for Trade and British politician, said during a meeting at Chatham House in 2007 that he “sees the EU as Europe’s most promising means of engaging with and shaping globalization.” George Soros, the investor, billionaire and regime change extraordinaire, called the EU an “experiment in international governance.” Soros did state that the EU had “failed,” and that the surge in populism was threatening the union. But if the EU does completely disintegrate, the major danger is that the elite will push for further global integration as the solution.

Bilderberg and the EU

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg group is illustrative of a shadowy network of super-elites who often make decisions in secret meetings that come to impact the lives of millions. The annual conference is attended by between 120 and 150 elites who meet to discuss global issues with a focus on North American and European challenges. It encompasses a range of individuals: from the heads of multi-national corporations to the leaders of nations; banking executives to media titans.

In 2009, WikiLeaks released a document which was reportedly the meeting report from the 1955 Bilderberg conference in West Germany. The document shows that the idea of creating the Euro was being discussed within circles of the Western elite as far back as 1955, concealed from the general public of Europe:

“A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.”

Interestingly, one general point of agreement in the conference was the shared notion that atomic energy could be the most pivotal issue that would increase cooperation:

“Throughout the discussion there was considerable emphasis on atomic energy as forming, perhaps, the most hopeful area in which integration could proceed.”

Three years later, the European Atomic Energy Community was established in 1958. Another conclusion of the meeting was that the European project was designed to eviscerate national sovereignty and achieve the “highest degree of integration” as quickly as possible:

“It was generally recognized that it is our common responsibility to arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”

In more modern times, Étienne Davignon, a former European Commissioner and an influential architect of European integration, revealed that the Bilderberg group helped create the Euro in the 1990’s.

The Global Shift

In 2008, a book was published that is of critical importance in understanding some of the real forces that are driving the political and economic transitions in our world today. Written by David Rothkopf, a protégé of Henry Kissinger and an individual who belongs to numerous pre-eminent think tanks in the US (including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)), it was titled, ‘Superclass: How the Rich Ruined Our World.’ Rothkopf argues that an infinitely small number of super-elites run the world, completely outside of any democratic process:

“A global elite has emerged over the past several decades that had vastly more power than any other group on the planet. Each of the members of this superclass has the ability to regularly influence the lives of millions of people in multiple countries worldwide… My researchers and I identified just over 6,000 people who qualify” (from the Preface).

Rothkopf continues, documenting the profound transition that has taken place in recent decades, from the nation-state towards a global state:

“But the center of gravity of elites has shifted. Today, the most powerful elites are global citizens tied more to international finance than national politics… If the richest and most powerful individuals in the world are now predominantly globally oriented, globally dependent, globally active, then an important shift has taken place in the world’s balance of power – away from national governments and away from national interests narrowly defined” (2009 edition: p.320).

This shift away from the nation-state and national governments towards a new global order is the defining one of our time. “We are living in a period of global change that is deeper, faster and broader than we have ever known,” was how Peter Mandelson articulated it in 2007. But this shift is not a coincidental one; it has been the objective of a cabal of international bankers who have been pushing for the creation of a “world system” for over a century. As the late Carroll Quigley – a historian and Professor at Georgetown University – wrote in his 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope:

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations” (1998 printing: p.324).

The push towards a new world order is going to continue to meet resistance however, as the Westphalian model of international relations – based on the principles of national sovereignty and the non-interference in the affairs of other states – has been the central model since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Furthermore, the fact that Russia is standing up for her national interests puts a significant spanner in the works of the Western elite.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2016 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Germany: Andreas von Bülow to the SPD crisis, and Bilderberg: "Infantile war gimmick, instead of social policy"
20.05.2016 • at 13:10

Andreas von Bülow (SPD) in the 1980s, for two years, the Federal Minister for research and technology and is awarded the Great Federal cross of merit. In an Interview with RT English editor Florian Hauschild lights von Bülow, the crisis of the social Democrats, puts this development in the context of German Foreign and economic policy, and explains how, in June, upcoming Bilderberg conference at the von Bülow himself took part once – to values in this light.
Mr von Bulow, and the once proud people's parties, the CDU and the SPD are in crisis. A particularly dramatic development in the case of elections and polls show the social Democrats. Everything is just a consequence of the fact that in times of a Large coalition, the government parties lose support or see long-term and structural reasons for this development?

The SPD of the CDU-led government will always lose votes on protest parties. But this time, a Fort threatens ongoing weakening of the social democracy. The government is hardly in the location, the people, the upcoming problem situations to explain neatly, let alone convincing answers.

This applies to the dangers of the European currency, the following applies for the Goings-on in the negative interest, the expropriation of the savers, the same applies for Bail-out of banks from their reckless, mostly of American hedge funds 'secured' loans to Greece and the leave Alone the values-generating of Greece, while powerlessness in the face of the abysmally corrupt structures. We are accessing allied with a super power, controlled by assets of the huge monetary and Industry, with all the Power – politically and militarily - on the raw materials of this earth. The Chaos in the middle East, in Africa but also in the Ukraine.

You speak as there is already geopolitical issues. What is the impact of the refugee crisis on the zugstimmung values of the social Democrats?

The refugee flows are the result of American open and concealed warfare, is not officially discussed. The refugees are the victims of the alleged Muslim terror and all-round poverty. The German population helps with great dedication in memory of their own war experiences. However, there are Concerns that resources are needed, the financing of which the little man, the social democratic voters. On the labour and housing markets, taxation, education, internal security. Especially if a first unlimited welcome culture urbi et orbi is announced.

The migration of peoples similar escape meets the request of the democratically nothing legitimate Multi-billionaire George Soros is holding his charity Hand on the Tug responders and the planning of the track of migration of peoples to the controls over to the Individual support helps. If, as Soros calls on Europe to absorb every year, a Million Muslim refugees and this is to be financed by borrowing, if this is asking the benefactors of the Germans at the same time to race against Russia, and this, too, on the Pump, then it can be delivered to the media manipulation extended to citizens fear and worry.

With the Eastern Europe and Russia policy of the Grand coalition, they address another bone of contention...

In Ukraine, the super shows us that the offering closer cooperation between Western Europe and Russia, the development of the Eurasian continent makes the towering world runs contrary to the interests of. Against the Commitments of the US foreign Minister Baker, the Western Alliance to expand an inch further in the direction of the East - if Russia is not putting the fate of Germany in the NATO - Fort to break the United States since President Clinton for Russia as existential commitment.

The United States destabilized with billion Ukraine coup d'état amounts a government to Power, the power of the Russian population in their own country to hate and enemy object. It is the there is nothing to justify economic sanctions against Russia. They harm the European farmers, as well as the industry. The European governments behave towards the only remaining world power such as the used to be so insulted by the satellite governments of the 'Eastern bloc'. There are clear European and German contributions to the discussion over lack of intrigue running Washington.

The situation is day-to-day dangerous, try the USA, with its power apparatus, which provides for only the 0.1 percent of American super-wealth verpflichtetet, the American world domination now for many more decades, if not centuries. This can quickly lead inevitably to military challenges to the very edge of a nuclear war. And Russia and China will be forced down the gauntlet, whether in Ukraine, Georgia, or Iran and Syria, wary but determined.

The German government takes on the sophisticated, and media-implemented Propaganda, power, and will not take responsibility, trying here and there, ten percent of the developing escalation of capturing, avoiding, however, as the devil fears Holy water, any clear, in the German and European interest opinion.

We see, as in the US, Bernie Sanders with a classic social-democratic program to the masses enthusiastic, in the UK, the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is also seeking his party from the neoliberal spirit of the times away and criticized relevant components of the existing system. Why is it difficult for the SPD, as the former labour party, so, in a similar way?

So different than the USA but also the UK, Germany is in many Parts of the social system, social democratized. There is still work to do in the area of pensions, unemployment and health insurance, but this can only succeed if the infantile war gadgets to be prevented in the event of rising Military budgets. The question of the sustainability of social security systems remains a topic of sober, populist politics.

The population is dramatically older, a younger Generation needs to be able to the increasing loads of the Old bear, the Explosion of health costs must be captured, it must remain an incentive to participate in work and contributions to the cost. I'm curious, how far below the German and European Standard-based social systemene in the United States, should be a Bernie Sanders for President. Also in England is very much done to make up for the safety nets to settle for the 'simple folk' in the height of Germany. Finally, it should be mentioned that West Germany has brought in the unified Germany, the bankrupt GDR a few years ago to Western standards.

In relation to the USA, it must also be said that the e- break parts of SPD in of the population on all dimensions of the unpopular planned TTIP free trade agreement support. The social democratic party of Germany, a transatlantic neo-liberal party?

No. The latter I don't think so. With TTIP, the Power will be areas in our lives, the important Control of the state and of the Hand and the extremely expensive and tricky shysters of the major industry shifts. This is the goal of the neoliberal school. 'The state is stupid, needs to shrink, even dumber, and weaker, because the economy on your own is things are much better in the situation.' These shawms sounds are followed by former Federal governments, the media pressure was overwhelming.

Grotesque, the shielding of the whole process is in front of the members of this side of the Atlantic. 6000 pages of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence may be viewed only for a maximum of two hours, no notes may be made. Without the Internet or the possibility of consultation with experts with expertise, this is a mockery of the parliaments.

We remain on the topic of secrecy: in 1978, you were once a participant of the fabled Bilderberg conference, which this year of 9. to 12. June takes place in Dresden. Recently , it became publicthat virtually the entire leadership staff of the SPD and CDU, there was invited. Would you bring for us a little bit of trade secrets and the question of the purpose of this conference is actually a little light into the Dark? What Agenda may be behind the invitations and the selection of the meeting place?

The Bilderberg conference invites hand-picked leaders from business, Finance, politics and military of the Western most NATO countries to the confidential, not to be logged, and not to be published interview. It contacts, informal influence, often at the hands of the super power of the opinion leaders in Europe. It is decided there's nothing there. But who is going to feel for the transatlantic Elite belonging, it feels estimiert.

Who is allowed to parley with Henry Kissinger or Zbig Brzezinski or other of all the Supreme, is the to feed at home casually into the conversation. It is like Davos or the Munich security conference a lot of vanity in the game. In the Foundation of Bilderberg, the orientation served Western opinion-makers on the confrontation with the Soviet Union, which had to be stylized by the former Alliance partner the night to the enemy. The fascist background of some of the Bilderbergers could be overlooked from now on. The re-armament of the Western part of war-weary Germany had to be driven forward, the expected Aggression of the Soviet troops to be internalized.

In Dresden, this year's Bilderberg conference will be the hidden objective, the present-day Western European leaders commit to the pursued by the United States, in the Ukraine outcropping fight against Russia. In contrast, in Europe, especially in Germany and France, is still significant resistance.

The from Russia are desired in Western Europe go together to the development of the Eurasian continent is considered to be striving for more than a century earlier, the British, and now an American point of view, as the greatest conceivable challenge to the world of their own making. To prevent this, the Commitments to Russia, the Western Alliance will be extended of an inch in the direction of the Russian borders, continuously broken.

The protesting voices of the former American foreign Minister, as well as the German Minister of foreign Affairs or of the American Ambassador in Moscow to be concealed in the dispute, as well as the protests of the former Chancellor Kohl, Schmidt and Schroeder. The world begins with the Crimean Intervention, Russia as a Urakt of new, aggressive world conquest. In reality, America is trying now and today is its sole world power, to secure a role and develop. It is important to combat every global and regional challengers.

In Dresden, the knee-bumping soft Europeans on the determined German diplomat in America and in England. Since it is set on vanity and Belly crummy paintings. Who as editor-in-chief or correspondent with the large kopfeten the world together at Breakfast Lunch and dinner table, it is allowed to whisper about it, but not seriously, reports the sat. Anyone who criticizes the brand of dangerous tendency, overlooked in future invitations simply.

Mr Walker, thank you for the Interview.
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

International Business Times UK
PoliticsEU Referendum Goldman Sachs

Bilderberg 2016: We can expect desperate lobbying against Brexit from Big Business
By Charlie Skelton
June 6, 2016 13:09 BST
Updated 48 min ago

As the EU referendum looms, a great counsel of war is gathering. Henri de Castries, the Chairman of the influential Bilderberg Group, has made his way to the highest hill above Dresden, placed a mighty conch shell to his aristocratic French lips and blown.

Responding to his call, 140 or so of the most powerful pro-European business leaders and politicians will be making their way to the five-star Hotel Taschenbergpalais to discuss the future of their beloved free trade zone.

The annual three-day Bilderberg conference kicks off on Thursday, and you can be sure the mood in Dresden will be a grim one. The heads of Google, Shell, BP and Deutsche Bank will be there, and Brexit will be top of the agenda. The Bilderberg Group has been nurturing the EU to life since the 1950s, and now they see their creation under dire threat.

"A disaster for everyone" is how Henri de Castries, the boss of AXA and a director of HSBC, describes Brexit. But in particular, it is a disaster for his banking and big business colleagues at Bilderberg. Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, who sits on Bilderberg's steering committee – the group's governing body – said, in a recent interview with CNBC, that his industry would be "lobbying" against Brexit.

Enders said: "Long-term it would not be positive certainly for the industry. This why the aerospace industry – I think amongst others – will lobby... for a [Remain] vote of the British electorate on the EU."

For Bilderberg, as for Goldman Sachs, the idea that there might be any kind of push-back against globalisation is a horrific one.

Goldman Sachs has two senior representatives on Bilderberg's steering committee: James A. Johnson, a board member of the bank, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of Goldman Sachs' board of international advisors. We know from Charity Commission accounts that Goldman Sachs, along with BP, is one of the key funders of the group, and we also know that they've been pumping "a substantial six-figure sum" into the Remain campaign. And Goldman Sachs doesn't spend money lightly. The Remain campaign is clearly close to whatever they have instead of a heart.

For Bilderberg, as for Goldman Sachs, the idea that there might be any kind of push-back against globalisation is a horrific one. I suspect we'll glimpse some frowning faces behind the tinted glass as the limousines start rolling up on Thursday.

An integrated EU, with the City at its centre, is a key building block in a globalised world, and its potential loss is a huge concern for "the high priests of globalisation", as Will Hutton called the members of Bilderberg. The prospect of Brexit "frightens me", admit Ken Jacobs, the head of Lazard, and another member of Bilderberg's inner circle. Not much frightens these people. Only two things: sunlight and Brexit.

Charlie Skelton will be tweeting from Dresden on @deyook.
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBC Receives £71,000 Of Secret EU Cash Each Month
By Miles Goslett | 3:50 am, May 18, 2016
The BBC receives an average of £71,000 per month in secret handouts from the EU.
Under an obscure initiative called the EU framework programme, the Corporation applied for and was given more than £2.1 million between April 2013 and September 2015.
A spokesman said the grants were used “mainly for research and development” projects.
With the EU referendum taking place next month, Heat Street asked how much EU cash the BBC has received over the last 9 months.
The spokesman refused to disclose these details.
Thanks to a Freedom of Information request made by Heat Street last October, it is known that between April and September 2015 the BBC applied for and was given £476,000.
This was on top of £878,000 in 2013/14 and £778,000 in 2014/15 – an average of £71,000 over 30 months.
As far as Heat Street can tell, the Brussels-backed windfall is not explicitly referred to in the BBC’s annual report, on its website, in any press releases, or on any other BBC information outlet, leaving TV licence fee payers in the dark about the grants.
Now MPs fear the BBC’s cosy relationship with the EU could lead to bias in its referendum coverage.
On June 21 the BBC will host an EU debate at Wembley Arena.
BBC insiders said bosses were “worried” about its receipt of EU funds becoming an issue before the referendum on June 23, which may explain its reluctance to reveal how much money it has accepted since last September.
Pro-Brexit Tory MP Philip Davies told Heat Street: “If the BBC applies for and receives millions of pounds from the EU but doesn’t admit this in its accounts, how can we be sure it will report on the EU referendum in an objective way?”
He added: “Why on earth is the BBC, with guaranteed annual income of almost £4 billion, applying for any money from the EU anyway? Whether it accepted £1 or £1 million, it cannot claim to be politically neutral. It should be forced to declare this interest to its viewers and listeners whenever it is reporting anything related to the EU referendum.”
The BBC claims none of the money found its way into its editorial budget.
A spokesman said: “The BBC protects its impartiality by not permitting any external funding for news programming, which includes European Union grants. Each year the BBC publishes details of any grants we receive, of which a very small proportion have come from the European Union, mainly to fund research and development.”
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 06 Jun 2016
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leading personalities come to Bilderberg conference in Dresden
The organizers act with utmost restraint. Now the first names of prominent persons are known, which are expected to Bilderberg conference. Also, the Free State of Saxony is sitting at the table. The regular secret meetings taking place this year from 9 to 12 June in Dresden.

The Taschenbergpalais in Dresden

Source: dpa central image
Published: Wednesday, 25/05/2016 21:00
Updated: Thursday, 26/05/2016 10:18

Dresden . The Bilderberg conference in Dresden can expect well-known personalities. After DNN information is expected, inter alia, José Manuel Barroso, who belongs to 2014 President of the European Commission and currently the conservative European People's Party (EPP) in the European Parliament. Barroso has since been replaced in the Commission by Jean-Claude Juncker, who was previously Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
As it is said in familiar with the matter circles, even NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is expected. The Norwegian was already in the past year there when the exclusive Round met in a posh hotel in the Tyrolean town of Telfs.
The Dutch King is expected
Among the more than 100 participants to be in this year of nierderländische King Willem-Alexander. This is almost in the nature of the axis, finally came the first and eponymous conference in 1954 at the invitation of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands for the first time in his "Hotel de Bilderberg" in Oosterbeek (Netherlands) together.
The Round calls not least because of Geheimsniskrämerei always critics to, especially in leftist circles. From an "absolute pre-democratic event" for example, speaks of the state chairman of the Left in Saxony, Rico Gebhardt. Democracy need transparency and legitimacy, both lacked the conference completely. Your subscriber list with representatives mainly from Europe and North America are the conference always until immediately before the meeting announced the results reportedly officially nothing. But apparently the fate of the world to be guided by such a meeting, has so far remained too open.
Organisers of private conference is a foundation Bilderberg meetings with a steering committee, headed straight to the head of the AXA Group, Henri de Castries, is and include German business leaders such as Paul Achleitner (German Bank) and Thomas Enders (Airbus) to members ,

Tillich sitting at the table
So there are certainly also proponents of the meeting. Dresden Mayor Dirk Hilbert (FDP) and Saxony's Prime Minister Stanislaw Tillich (CDU) rejoice in unison about the advertising impact of the event for Dresden and the Free State. The Prime Minister will also attend a dinner at the conference, State Chancellery Fritz Jaeckel informed now with the Diet. On March 23, he had received the invitation to. More invitations for state ministers or representatives of subordinate authorities there are not loud State Government. The State knows in December 2015 that the Bilderbergers want to come together in Dresden. According Jaeckel the state government has "knowledge of the circle of invitees". These include representatives of federal policy and of EU institutions.
According to the federal government on a request of the Left in the Bundestag, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chancellery Minister Peter Altmaier, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and Federal Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (all CDU) and Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (both SPD) an invitation receive. Who of them actually participate, initially remained open.
Federal Government speaks of "exchange"
According to the federal government, so wrote the Europe Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Michael Roth, to the Bundestag, the conference is an "informal exchange of views on current political, economic and social issues". Exchange and dialogue on international issues are the federal government fundamentally important be connected even without concrete results so.
Participation fees not incurred. However, mission expenses should arise and emergency responders from the federal government and funded by the country for the safety of the participating representatives of federal and state policies provide. So there will be a series of 'Conservation', which are hedge. The count of them could by the Saxon Ministry of the Interior has not yet be said.
Costs for police intervention carries the Free State of Saxony
To ensure the security and public order in Dresden, on the protection of participating Conservation of federal and state governments as well as foreign guests during the conference and to ensure an undisturbed course of the event are the police of Saxony, the Federal Criminal Police and the Municipality Dresden as part of their each jurisdiction involved, wrote Interior Minister Markus Ulbig (CDU) now to the Diet. Ensuring safety in the event area is for the organizer.
The application is headed by the Dresden police headquarters. The extent to which the police forces of other Länder requires, according Interior Minister is not yet known, a resilient force planning is currently not yet available. In Telfs to more than 2,000 policemen have been deployed, the protests of a few hundred protesters were largely friedlch. "The cost / for police operations to maintain public order and safety carrying of Saxony", Markus Ulbig informed the Landtag.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frm BBC Journalist Speaks Out Against Bilderberg Influence On BREXIT
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin
Site Admin

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bilderberg group meeting: What actually happens at the world’s most secretive gathering of global elites, and who is attending?
The list of the rich and powerful attending this year's Bilderberg Conference has been released - it includes bankers, prime ministers and former heads of the CIA and MI6

Adam Lusher 14 hours ago 93 comments

No minutes will be taken. No reporters will be allowed in. There will be no opening press conference, no closing statement, and participants will be asked not to quote each other.

Welcome to the 64th Bilderberg Conference.

Rich and powerful bankers, prime ministers and former heads of the CIA and MI6 are about to join other members of the global elite for arguably the world’s most high-powered but secretive annual meeting which this year is being held in Dresden.

What is the Bilderberg Group?
By their own admission, those organising the Bilderberg meetings have “never sought any public attention”, while always denying conspiracy theories that they are a global ruling class that can start wars and decide who becomes the next US President. They just refer to it as forum for informal discussions about the world's "megatrends" and a chance for participants to "reflect and gather insights".

The Bilderberg organisers have, though, just released a list those who will be present from June 9-12 for a three-day meeting chaired by a French count (and chairman of the global insurance giant AXA), who likes to spend his weekends at his castle in Anjou.

Among 126 participants discussing an agenda that – we are also told – will include China, Europe, migration, the Middle East, Russia and the “geo-politics of energy and commodity prices”, will be Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Jose Manuel Barroso, the former president of the European Commission.

Unlike last year, British Chancellor George Osborne will not be present. Although Michael O’Leary, the controversial CEO of Ryanair will.

It might also be worth paying attention to the future fortunes of attendees who seem obscure. Bill Clinton was a conference attendee in 1991, as a mere governor of Arkansas, a year before he was elected US President. Tony Blair was only a shadow minister when he got his invitation – (you can’t apply to attend, you must be invited) – in 1993. Conference organisers have previously insisted there is no conspiracy to crowbar their chosen people into top jobs, they just have excellent talent spotters.

But for now, the more eye-catching Bilderberg attendees due to be rubbing shoulders with senior representatives of Deutsche Bank, the European Central Bank and Lazard – as well as oil giants Shell and BP - will be:

Henri de Castries

When he is not at his home on the Boulevard Saint-Germain, on Paris’ left bank, Henri de Castries, who will be the chairman of the 2016 Bilderberg Conference, can, according to the left-leaning French newspaper Libération, often be found relaxing in his castle in rural Anjou.

Libération described the 61-year-old fifth Count of Castries as a “highbrow” member of a family whose ancestors fought in the Crusades in the 11th and 13th Century.

Continuing the military tradition, his father Comte François de La Croix de Castries reportedly served as a soldier in Korea – as well as the more controversial colonial theatres of French Indochina and Algeria.

The Bilderberg Conference chairman, however, chose a civilian career, attending the École Nationale d'Administration, (ENA) the ‘Grande École’ often regarded as a factory for producing future French prime ministers and presidents including Jacques Chirac, Francois Hollande and Alain Juppé – (who was listed as an attendee at last year’s Bilderberg Conference.)

After ENA, Mr de Castries audited on behalf of the Minister of Finances of France and became a member of the French Treasury in 1984, where he participated in the privatisations initiated by the Chirac government.

He joined AXA in 1989 and in May 2000 he became chairman and chief executive of the Paris-based global insurance group, which is thought to have assets of 552 billion euros (£430 billion.)

Sir John Sawers

Sir John is listed by the Bilderberg organisers as “Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners”, a consultancy that according to its website provides corporations and governments with “strategic insights to navigate the intersection of global markets, geopolitics and government policy.”

Sir John is also a former head of the Secret Intelligence Service MI6. Prior to heading MI6 between 2009 and 2014, Sir John was Foreign Policy Advisor to Tony Blair from 1999 to 2001 and Political Director of the Foreign Office (2003-7).

He also spent three months in Baghdad in 2003 as Britain’s Special Representative to Iraq, helping to establish the country’s transitional government after the invasion.

In May 2015 the oil and gas giant BP appointed Sir John to its board – on what was reported to have been a £90,000 salary.

It was thought he had been brought in to help BP deal with difficult political environments in some of the countries in which it operated.

BP’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, said Sir John “brings extensive experience of international affairs and geopolitics”.

BP will also be represented at the Bilderberg meeting by Robert Dudley, its group chief executive.

David Petraeus

Listed on the Bilderberg website as “Chairman, KKR Global Institute”, Mr Petraeus is also a former director of the CIA.

Appointed by Geroge W Bush as the general commanding the multinational force in Iraq in 2007, he orchestrated what became known as ‘the surge’, bringing in 30,000 more troops to the country in a move which appeared to quell the insurgency there.

An expert in counter-insurgency, he was made director of the CIA by Barack Obama in 2011. He resigned, however, in November 2012 after it was reported that he had had an affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.

James A Johnson

He’s listed by the Bilderberg organisers as “Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners.”

He also happens to be a long-serving Goldman Sachs board member who has been called “Washington DC’s Medici” – a reference to Italy’s Medici family, the so-called “Godfathers of the Renaissance” who produced three popes, prospered in banking and sponsored the arts.

In 2008 it was reported that Mr Johnson was vetting Barack Obama’s potential vice-presidential candidates, as he had chosen running mates for Walter Mondale in 1984, and John Kerry in 2004.

As well as setting up a commercial strategy consultancy with former US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, Mr Johnson, 72, served as chairman and chief executive to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) between 1991 and 1998.

His salary was reported to have been $21 million (£14.5 million) by the time he left Fannie Mae – ten years before, at the height of the global economic crisis of 2008, it had to be taken over by the US government.

Atlantic Magazine once described Mr Johnson as “famously reluctant to talk to the Press, which is one reason why he has become a trusted advisor to so many politicians.”

Cartsen Kengeter

As the CEO of the Deutsche Börse, Mr Kengeter will become a leading figure in one of the most important financial institutions in the world when the merger between the Börse and the London Stock Exchange is completed at the end of this year or in early 2017.

With the London Stock Exchange Group already owning the Milan-based Borsa Italia, the planned merger – announced in February - will create one of the world’s largest exchange companies with a combined value thought to be in the region of £21 billion.

Deutsche Börse shareholders will own 54.4 per cent of the new holding company UK TopCo. Reporting on the merger, The Financial Times described it as evidence of “an ambitious expansion strategy” devised by Mr Kengeter, a 49-year-old the newspaper described as “a starkly ambitious former Goldman Sachs banker who pursues extreme skiing in his spare time.”

If you’re worried about Bilderberg, just take a look at the guest list...
Big business set to lobby politicians on the future of the EU at Bilderberg Group meeting
4 things we know about the secretive Bilderberg Group and 1 thing we'll never know
Secret Rulers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> Bilderberg Conference 2016: 9-12 June, Hotel Taschenbergpalais, Dresden, Germany. All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group