The Bilderberg smell still lingers

It is very easy to write off the Bilderberg Group, which met in utter secrecy in Watford a week ago, as just a private get-together of high-powered colleagues from across the Western world which regularly meets to exchange views.   That was the view peddled by Ken Clarke amid much buffoonery and mockery in the Commons.   It is equally easy, as the BBC did the day before, to get a ranter of dubious credibility to go over the top in portraying Bilderberg as a secretive worldwide conspiracy.   Neither of these presentations stand up to any serious scrutiny, but establishing the realities is difficult partly because of the secrecy in which the whole operation is shrouded.   But there are some significant leads.

Bilderberg was founded in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.   He was a Nazi party member from 1933-37 who resigned one day after his controversial marriage to the future Queen of the Netherlands.   In 1934 he was the subject of a report by a US Congress committee which identified him as an SS officer attached to the Nazi government’s principal industrial ally, IG Farben.   The minutes of the first Bilderberg meeting declared their aim as “to evolve an international order which would look beyond the present day crisis.   When the time is ripe our present concepts of world affairs should be extended to the whole world”.   One close observer (Robert Aldrich, an ex-CIA operative) noted that “although Bilderberg and the European Movement shared the same founders, members and objectives, arguably Bilderberg constituted the more effective mechanism….It is clear that the Rome Treary was nurtured at Bilderberg in the proceeding year (1957)”, and he later commented on “the style of early covert actions, not least the reliance on private organisations – albeit coordinated by a close circle of friends”.

Reuters reported in 1996 on recently declassified US Intelligence documents which confirmed that an August 1944 meeting between the SS and representatives of 7 large German companies laid plans to build up wealth, power and industrial capacity abroad “so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat”.   Even Adenauer himself, the German founder of the European Community, could say after the war in 1950 that “a federated Europe will be a third force…Germany has again become a factor with which others will have to reckon”.   Others shared the imperial objective, but from a different angle.   Thus the banker Rockefeller, one of the earlier Bilderberger stalwarts, could assert: “The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and of world bankers is surely preferable to the self-determination which has been practised for centuries past”.

Secrecy was always the requirement, close coordination the technique.   Soon after attending the 1993 Bilderberg conference in Greece Blair, Clarke and Sir Patrick Sheehy (chairman of BAT) all wrote articles in major British newspapers advocating the abolition of the pound and the Bank of England (in the interests of a single currency and a European Central Bank).   It might pay to look out for the Bilderbergers’ latest plans agreed at Watford which by coincidence appear in the Western media over the next few months…..


4 thoughts on “The Bilderberg smell still lingers

  1. Denis Healey was a founder member of Bilderberg, but that fact has to be cast in the shadow of a world war. At the time it was felt that a stronger United Nations and loose European Union would put a stop to such things. We have to remember that the world was devastated after all the destruction and death making. So in that context one could understand someone like Healey trying to be part of something that could prevent such things happening again.

    The way I see it is this. Bilderberg is a talking shop that’s subverts the democratic process and lets policy be formed in closed rooms that advance the wishes of the heads of the corporations. This is against the best interests of the electorates. Bilderberg is one of many groups that pushes the interest of globalisation. Globalisation is a process that enables the populations collective wealth to be asset stripped via the process of privatisation.

    The forces of globalisation are the real enemy. I am not against global cooperation, but what we have is something different. Maybe globalisation was a continuation and expansion of the new empire created with the aid of the atom bomb. This empire like all before it grows by exploitation. The rules of empire building have remained static thought recorded history.

    What I would really like to see is the world grow up. We need to create governing structures that represent all. In fact we do need some form of global governance, but one that is accountable to the people on the planet and not just the rich. One that encourages diversity of thought but universality of well-being. One that has its roots in power sharing via a feeder system that is locally accountable and transparent. Now if that was what globalisation was really about, I would join up for sure, but the version we have is not, it is about greed and unfairness and based on animal lust rather than enlightened conciousness.

  2. Just read this almost a year on. Well done Michael for questioning this. It is noted that one of the topics discussed at the 2013 Bilderberg meeting was “Can the US and Europe grow faster and create jobs?” and the extremely controversial TTIP deal has emerged since, which despite attempts to play down is slowly gaining exposure.

    I note you signed Early Day Motion 793 proposed by Caroline Lucas over TTIP, may I just say thank you for standing up for British Sovereignty.

Leave a Reply

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