Search This Blog

Sunday 26 June 2011

The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group and the March of Tyranny

Foreword By Horwich Nationalists
This is an article that any of you Marxist or so called left wing Liberals who visit my blog must read for years your so called tolerate agenda and ideas, have not been designed for the good of mankind,as you have believed them to be. But they are wholly for the benefit of a few multi national foundations and those who head them, who's philosophy is based entirely on the occultist practices of a few ancient secret societies. These groups see you as no more than a useful idiot, in promoting their agenda. and the rest of Humankind as merely useless eaters of no real value!
In effect their aim is not only the surrender of national sovereignty, but also of the personal and religious Christian sovereignty of the individual also by the promotion of cultural systems such as political correctness which is designed to completely shut down criticism of their agenda, through individuals being unable to form judgments on any subject that this elite groups declares taboo . And also the mass introduction of isalm into the west a so called spiritual doctrine which completely surrenders the rights of spiritual sovereignty of the individual to differentiate between the individual choice between good and evil, with it's central doctrine of predestination and subjection of the individual to the islamic grouping. 
And also the promotion on the political front of socialism a doctrine of spawned of envy and that creates mass dependence on the state by the individuals within that state for not only finance and health care but in the long term the setting of the moral equivalency of the individuals within the state. For example the rights to take the lives of those are unborn, were next the right to take the lives of those who are no longer to contribute to the common whole. Do not say far fetched for who 30 years ago would have believed that two Homosexuals would have been allowed to marry one anther, and that if you say that is wrong, well see what i mean!
So please open your minds and seek the truth, the worst thing that could happen to you is that you find it, and then boy you will have to do something about it if you love freedom! in that case I will see you in person someday. 
To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.[1] 
- Denis Healey, 30-year member of the Steering  Committee of the Bilderberg Group
The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group



by Andrew Gavin Marshall at global research

The Bilderberg Group, formed in 1954, was founded in the Netherlands as a secretive meeting held once a year, drawing roughly 130 of the political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”[2] Regular participants include the CEOs or Chairman of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller, major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the world.[3] The Bilderberg Group acts as a “secretive global think-tank,” with an original intent to “to link governments and economies in Europe and North America amid the Cold War.”[4]

In the early 1950s, top European elites worked with selected American elites to form the Bilderberg Group in an effort to bring together the most influential people from both sides of the Atlantic to advance the cause of ‘Atlanticism’ and ‘globalism.’ The list of attendees were the usual suspects: top politicians, international businessmen, bankers, leaders of think tanks and foundations, top academics and university leaders, diplomats, media moguls, military officials, and Bilderberg also included several heads of state, monarchs, as well as senior intelligence officials, including top officials of the CIA, which was the main financier for the first meeting in 1954.[5]

The European founders of the Bilderberg Group included Joseph Retinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard had, incidentally, been a member of the Nazi Party until 1934, three years prior to his marrying the Dutch Queen Juliana, and had also worked for the German industrial giant, I.G. Farben, the maker of Zyklon B, the gas used in concentration camps.[6] On the American side, those who were most prominent in the formation of the Bilderberg Group were David Rockefeller, Dean Rusk (a top official with the Council on Foreign Relations who was then the head of the Rockefeller Foundation), Joseph Johnson (another Council leader who was head of the Carnegie Endowment), and John J. McCloy (a top Council leader who became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1953 and was also Chairman of the Board of the Ford Foundation).[7]

The fact that the major American foundations – Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford – were so pivotal in the origins of the Bilderberg Group is not a mere coincidence. The foundations have, since their founding at the beginning of the 20th century, been the central institutions in constructing consensus among elites, and creating consent to power. They are, in short, the engines of social engineering: both for elite circles specifically, and society as a whole, more generally. As Professor of Education Robert F. Arnove wrote in his book Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as “cooling-out” agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids – a system which... has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.[8]

These foundations had been central in promoting the ideology of ‘globalism’ that laid the groundwork for organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group to exist. The Rockefeller Foundation, in particular, supported several organizations that promoted a ‘liberal internationalist’ philosophy, the aim of which:

was to support a foreign policy within a new world order that was to feature the United States as the leading power – a programme defined by the Rockefeller Foundation as ‘disinterested’, ‘objective’ and even ‘non-political’... The construction of a new internationalist consensus required the conscious, targeted funding of individuals and organizations who questioned and undermined the supporters of the ‘old order’ while simultaneously promoting the ‘new’.[9]

The major foundations funded and created not only policy-oriented institutes such as think tanks, but they were also pivotal in the organization and construction of universities and education itself, in particular, the study of ‘international relations.’[10] The influence of foundations over education and universities and thus, ‘knowledge’ itself, is unparalleled. As noted in the book, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

The power of the foundation is not that of dictating what will be studied. Its power consists in defining professional and intellectual parameters, in determining who will receive support to study what subjects in what settings. And the foundation’s power resides in suggesting certain types of activities it favors and is willing to support. As [political theorist and economist Harold] Laski noted, “the foundations do not control, simply because, in the direct and simple sense of the word, there is no need for them to do so. They have only to indicate the immediate direction of their minds for the whole university world to discover that it always meant to gravitate to that angle of the intellectual compass.”[11]

The major philanthropic foundations created by America’s ‘robber baron’ industrialists and bankers were established not to benefit mankind, as was their stated purpose, but to benefit the bankers and industrialist elites in order to engage in social engineering. Through banks, these powerful families controlled the global economy; through think tanks, they manage the political and foreign policy establishments; and through foundations, they engineer society itself according to their own designs and interests. Through these foundations, elites have come to shape the processes, ideas and institutions of education, thus ensuring their continued hegemony over society through the production and control of knowledge. The educational institutions train future elites for government, economics, sciences, and other professional environments, as well as producing the academics that make up the principle component of think tanks, such as the Bilderberg Group.

Foundations effectively “blur boundaries” between the public and private sectors, while simultaneously effecting the separation of such areas in the study of social sciences. This boundary erosion between public and private spheres “adds feudal elements to our purported democracy, yet it has not been resisted, protested, or even noted much by political elites or social scientists.”[12] Zbigniew Brzezinski, foreign policy strategist, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg member and co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, wrote that the blurring of boundaries “serves United States world dominance”:

As the imitation of American ways gradually pervades the world, it creates a more congenial setting for the exercise of the indirect and seemingly consensual American hegemony. And as in the case of the domestic American system, that hegemony involves a complex structure of interlocking institutions and procedures, designed to generate consensus and obscure asymmetries in power and influence.[13]

In 1915, a Congressional investigation into the power of philanthropic foundations took place, named the Walsh Commission, which warned that, “the power of wealth could overwhelm democratic culture and politics.”[14] The Final Report of the Walsh Commission “suggested that foundations would be more likely to pursue their own ideology in society than social objectivity.”[15] In this context, we can come to understand the evolution of the Bilderberg Group as an international think tank aimed at constructing consensus and entrenching ideology among the elite.

At their first meeting, Bilderbergers covered the following broad areas, which remained focal points of discussion for successive meetings: Communism and the Soviet Union; Dependent areas and peoples overseas; Economic policies and problems; and European integration and the European Defense Community.[16]

Nearly every single American participant in the Bilderberg meetings was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Among the notable American members of the Bilderberg Group in its early years were David Rockefeller, Dean Rusk, John J. McCloy, George McGhee, George Ball, Walt Whitman Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, Arthur Dean, and Paul Nitze. As Political Scientist Stephen Gill wrote, “Prominent in the American section were the network of Rockefeller interests.”[17]

Certainly, while Rothschild interests have remained in the Bilderberg Group, as evidenced by Edmond de Rothschild having been a member of the Steering Committee, and Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman of Rothschild Europe being a current Steering Committee member,[18] the Rockefeller interests seem to be most dominant. Not only is David Rockefeller sitting as the single individual of the Member Advisory Group of the Steering Committee, but close Rockefeller confidantes have long served on the Steering Committee and been affiliated with the organization, such as: Sharon Percy Rockefeller; George Ball, a long-time leader in the Council on Foreign Relations, who was Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; Henry Kissinger, long-time Rockefeller aide and American imperial strategist; Zbigniew Brzezinski, who co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, former U.S. State Department official and President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; John J. McCloy, former Chairman the Council on Foreign Relations (superceded by David Rockefeller), former Assistant Secretary of War, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (where he was superceded by David Rockefeller), former Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, Chairman of the Ford Foundation, and President of the World Bank; and James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

One current Steering Committee member, who is representative of not only a continuation of Rockefeller interests, but also of the continuing influence and role of the major foundations is Jessica T. Matthews. She is President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who had served on the National Security Council under Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (at which David Rockefeller remains as Honorary Chairman), is a member of the Trilateral Commission, is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and has served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

Bilderberg and the European Union

Joseph Retinger, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, was also one of the original architects of the European Common Market and a leading intellectual champion of European integration. In 1946, he told the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British counterpart and sister organization of the Council on Foreign Relations), that Europe needed to create a federal union and for European countries to “relinquish part of their sovereignty.” Retinger was a founder of the European Movement (EM), a lobbying organization dedicated to creating a federal Europe. Retinger secured financial support for the European Movement from powerful US financial interests such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers.[19] Important to note is that following World War II, the CFR’s main finances came from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation and most especially, the Rockefeller Foundation.[20]

Apart from Retinger, the founder of the Bilderberg Group and the European Movement, another ideological founder of European integration was Jean Monnet, who founded the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUE), an organization dedicated to promoting European integration, and he was also the major promoter and first president of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Common Market.[21]

Declassified documents (released in 2001) showed that “the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”[22] The documents revealed that, “America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.” Further, “Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then,” and “the vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years.” Interestingly, “the leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.”[23]
           
The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951, and signed by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Newly released documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting show that a main topic of discussion was “European Unity,” and that “the discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference.” Further, “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, “a United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis upon ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”[24] Thus, at the 1955 Bilderberg Group meeting, they set as a primary agenda, the creation of a European common market.[25]
           
In 1957, two years later, the Treaty of Rome was signed, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the European Community. Over the decades, various other treaties were signed, and more countries joined the European Community. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro. The European Monetary Institute was created in 1994, the European Central Bank was founded in 1998, and the Euro was launched in 1999. Etienne Davignon, Chairman of the Bilderberg Group and former EU Commissioner, revealed in March of 2009 that the Euro was debated and planned at Bilderberg conferences.[26]

The European Constitution (renamed the Lisbon Treaty) was a move towards creating a European superstate, creating an EU foreign minister, and with it, coordinated foreign policy, with the EU taking over the seat of Britain on the UN Security Council, representing all EU member states, forcing the nations to “actively and unreservedly” follow an EU foreign policy; set out the framework to create an EU defence policy, as an appendage to or separate from NATO; the creation of a European Justice system, with the EU defining “minimum standards in defining offences and setting sentences,” and creates common asylum and immigration policy; and it would also hand over to the EU the power to “ensure co-ordination of economic and employment policies”; and EU law would supercede all law of the member states, thus making the member nations relative to mere provinces within a centralized federal government system.[27]

The Constitution was largely written up by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former President of the French Republic from 1974 to 1981. Giscard d’Estaing also happens to be a member of the Bidlerberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and is also a close friend of Henry Kissinger, having co-authored papers with him.

The Treaty, passed in 2009, created the position of President of the European Council, who represents the EU on the world stage and leads the Council, which determines the political direction of the EU. The first President of the European Council is Herman Van Rompuy, former Prime Minister of Belgium. On November 12, 2009, a small Bilderberg meeting took place, hosted by Viscount Etienne Davignon (Chairman of the Bilderberg Group), and including “international policymakers and industrialists,” among them, Henry Kissinger. Herman Von Rompuy “attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles.”[28] Following his selection as President, Van Rompuy gave a speech in which he stated, “We are going through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival; a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet, these problems can be overcome by a joint effort in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”[29]

As indicated from leaks of the recent 2011 Bilderberg meeting in Switzerland, the euro-zone is in a major crisis, and Bilderberg members are struggling to keep the house of glass from shattering to pieces. One major subject discussed at this year’s meeting, according to Bilderberg investigative journalist, Daniel Estulin (who reportedly has inside sources in the meetings who leak information, which has proved quite accurate in the past), the Bilderberg meeting discussed the situation of Greece, which is likely to only get worse, with another bailout on the horizon, continuing social unrest, and a possible abandonment of the euro. The problems of Greece, Ireland and the wider global economy as a whole were featured in this year’s discussions.[30] Representatives from Greece this year included George Papaconstantinou, the Greek Minister of Finance, among several bankers and businessmen.[31]
Among the EU power players attending this years meeting was the first President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, who was appointed as President following an invitation to a private Bilderberg meeting in November of 2009, at which he gave a speech advocating for EU-wide taxes, allowing the EU to not rely exclusively upon its member nations, but have its “own resources.”[32] Van Rompuy, who previously stated that, “2009 is also the first year of global governance,” is no surprise guest at Bilderberg. Other key EU officials who attended this year’s meeting were Joaquín Almunia, a Vice President of the European Commission; Frans van Daele, Chief of Staff to European Council President Van Rompuy; Neelie Kroes, a Vice President of the European Commission; and of course, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank.[33]

As with each meeting, there is the official list of participants, and then there are those participants who attend, but whose names are not listed in any official release. At this year’s meeting, some reports indicate that attendees whose names were not listed included NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, which is not surprising considering that the NATO Secretary-General has generally been present at every meeting; Jose Luis Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister; Angela Merkel, German Chancellor; Bill Gates, Co-Chairman of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former Microsoft CEO; and Robert Gates, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense.[34] The Guardian also reported that these “unofficial guests” were spotted at the conference or had their attendance ‘leaked’.[35] Angela Merkel has reportedly attended meetings in the past, which would make her current attendance less than surprising.[36]

At the recent meeting, EU officials were discussing the need for the EU to undertake a “massive power grab” in the face of the massive economic crisis facing Europe and indeed the world. Without such a power grab, the euro and indeed the Union itself would likely collapse; a scenario anathema to everything the Bilderberg group has tried to achieve in its 57-year history. The aim, put simply, would be to have the EU police itself and the nations of the Union, with the ability to punish nations for not following the rules, and as one Bilderberger reportedly stated at the meeting, “What we are heading towards a form of real economic government.”[37] Now while this statement cannot be independently verified, there is much documentation within the public record that several of the European attendees at the meeting could have easily made such a statement.

Prior to the meeting, European Central Bank President, Jean-Claude Trichet, “said governments should consider setting up a finance ministry for the 17-nation currency region as the bloc struggles to contain a region-wide sovereign debt crisis.” Trichet asked: “Would it be too bold, in the economic field, with a single market, a single currency and a single central bank, to envisage a ministry of finance of the union?” Further in line with this thought, and with the ideas laid out in the Bilderberg meeting in favour of a ‘power grab’, Trichet said he supports “giving the European Union powers to veto the budget measures of countries that go ‘harmfully astray,’ though that would require a change to EU Treaties.” Such a finance ministry would, according to Trichet, “exert direct responsibilities in at least three domains”:

They would include "first, the surveillance of both fiscal policies and competitiveness policies" and "direct responsibilities" for countries in fiscal distress, he said. It would also carry out "all the typical responsibilities of the executive branches as regards the union's integrated financial sector, so as to accompany the full integration of financial services, and third, the representation of the union confederation in international financial institutions."[38]

Last year, Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme endorsed such an idea of a ‘European Economic Government’ when he stated:

The idea of strengthened economic government has been put on the table and will make progress. In the end, the European Debt Agency or something like it will become a reality. I’m convinced of this. It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism. I myself am a federalist. But more integration and deeper integration are simply logical consequences of having a single currency.[39]

This is of course, not surprising, considering that Leterme’s predecessor is Herman van Rompuy, the current Bilderberg participant and EU President, a strong-headed advocate of an ‘economic government’ and ‘global governance.’ The plans for an ‘economic government’ require the strong commitment of both France and Germany, which may explain Merkel’s reported appearance at Bilderberg. In March of 2010, the German and French governments released a draft outline that would “strengthen financial policy coordination in the EU.” The plan, seen by German publication Der Spiegel, “calls for increased monitoring of individual member states' competitiveness so that action can be taken early on should problems emerge.” Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker stated in response to the plan, “We need a European economic government in the sense of strengthened coordination of economic policy within the euro zone.”[40] In December of 2010, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble stated that, “In 10 years we will have a structure that corresponds much stronger to what one describes as political union.”[41]

As reported by the German press in early 2011, Germany and France were split on several aspects of such an ‘economic government.’ However, as Merkel stated, “We have obviously been discussing the issue of an economic government for a long time,” and that, “What we are currently envisioning goes yet another step in this direction.” Yet, the differences between the two approaches are mainly as follows:

France would prefer to see the European Council, which comprises the heads of state and government of the EU's member states, turned into a kind of economic government. Since only euro-zone member countries would be involved initially, French Finance Minister [and past Bilderberg participant] Christine Lagarde has dubbed the project "16 plus."

The Germans are focused on completely different things. Their preference would be to see the current rescue fund replaced by the so-called European Stability Mechanism in 2013. According to this arrangement, in return for any help, cash-strapped countries would have to subject themselves to a strict cost-cutting regimen.[42]

Mario Draghi is the current President of the Bank of Italy, as well as a board member of the Bank for International Settlements – the BIS (the central bank to the world’s central banks). In an interview posted on the website of the BIS in March of 2010, Mario Draghi stated that in response to the Greek crisis, “In the euro area we need a stronger economic governance providing for more coordinated structural reforms and more discipline.”[43] Mario Draghi also attended the 2009 conference of the Bilderberg Group.[44] Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mario Draghi has been backed by the euro-area finance ministers to be the successor to Jean-Claude Trichet at the European Central Bank, who is due to step down in October of 2011.[45]

Certainly, the objective of a ‘European economic government’ will continue throughout the coming years, especially as the economic crisis continues. As Dominique Strauss-Kahn, outgoing Managing Director of the IMF and long-time Bilderberg participant stated, “crisis is an opportunity.”[46] Bilderberg, while not omnipotent by any means, will do all in its ability to prevent the collapse of the euro or the ending of the European Union. Bilderberg has, after all, from its very beginning, made ‘European integration’ one of its central objectives. In an official biography of Bilderberg-founder and long-time Chairman Prince Bernhard, the Bilderberg Group was credited as “the birthplace of the European Community.”[47]

Regime Change at the IMF?

Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister who has been pivotal in the process towards drafting and proposing a ‘European economic government’, is also considered the front-runner for the job of Managing Director of the IMF. The Managing Director of the IMF is always in attendance at Bilderberg meetings, except for this year, considering outgoing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is facing sexual assault charges in New York; yet, the top job is usually set aside for those who have been invited to at least one meeting of the Bilderberg Group. While the race has yet to finish, perhaps it is noteworthy that Christine Lagarde attended a Bilderberg meeting in 2009.[48] Could this make her the supreme choice, or is there a surprise in the near future?

A Place for China in the New World Order?

Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin’s report of inside sources in this year’s meeting indicated a rather extensive discussion on the role of China, which is hardly surprising, considering this has been a central topic of discussion in meetings for a number of years. China emerged in discussions on Pakistan, as China has become increasingly Pakistan’s closest economic and strategic ally, a trend that is continuing as America continues to spread the Afghan war into neighbouring Pakistan. China is also a major player in Africa, threatening the West’s stranglehold over the continent, in particular through the World Bank and IMF. Most importantly, however, and not unrelated to its role in Pakistan and Africa, China has become the greatest economic competitor for the United States in the world, and as the IMF even admitted recently, its economy is expected to surpass that of the United States by 2016. Bilderberg paid attention to this issue not simply as a financial-economic consideration, but as a massive geopolitical transition in the world: “the biggest story of our time.”[49]

What made the discussion on China at this year’s meeting unique was that it actually included two attendees from China for the first time ever. The two guests were Huang Yiping, a prominent economics professor at Peking University (China’s Harvard), and Fu Ying, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs.[50] This is especially unusual and telling of the importance of the discussion at hand, considering that Bilderberg is exclusively a European and North American (Atlantic) organization, and in the past, when Bilderberg memebers David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested Japan be allowed to join in 1972, the European rejected the proposition, and instead the Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 to integrate the elites of Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The Trilateral Commission eventually expanded the Japanese section of the group into a ‘Pacific Asian Group’ in 2000 to include not only Japan, but South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

In 2009 the G20 was endowed with the task of ‘managing’ the global economic crisis – to include the ‘emerging’ economic giants, notably China and India – and as Bilderberg member Jean-Claude Trichet stated, this marked “the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance.”[51] That same year the newly-appointed European Union President Herman van Rompuy declared to be “the first year of global governance.” No surprise then, that also in 2009, China and India were invited as official members of the Trilateral Commission.[52] This indicates a growing role for India and especially China in global affairs, and participation in Bilderberg meetings emphasizes the aim to not alienate China from the established institutions, ideologies and systems of global power, but to more fully integrate China within that system. The aim of the global elite, perhaps best represented by Bilderberg, is not to allow for the collapse of the American empire and the rise of a new one; rather, it is to manage the collapse of American hegemony into an entirely new system of global governance. This ‘big idea’ is not possible without the participation of China, and thus, as Bilderberg has long been saturated with the ideology of ‘global governance,’ it cannot be seen as too surprising to see China invited. Perhaps the surprise should be that it simply took this long.

Is Bilderberg Building a Global Government?

Jon Ronson wrote an article for the Guardian paper in which he managed to interview key members of the Bilderberg Group for an exposé on the organization, attempting to dismantle the “conspiracy theories” surrounding the secrecy of the meetings. However, through his interviews, important information regarding the social importance of the group continued to emerge. Ronson attempted to contact David Rockefeller, but only managed to reach his press secretary who told Ronson that the “conspiracy theories” about Rockefeller and “global think-tanks such as Bilderberg in general” left David Rockefeller “thoroughly fed up.” According to his press secretary, “Mr. Rockefeller's conclusion was that this was a battle between rational and irrational thought. Rational people favoured globalisation. Irrational people preferred nationalism.”[53]

While dismissing “conspiracy theories” that Bilderberg “runs the world,” Ronson did explain that the Bilderberg members he interviewed admitted, “that international affairs had, from time to time, been influenced by these sessions.” As Denis Healey, a 30-year member of the Steering Committee, himself pointedly explained:

To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing... Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.[54]

Will Hutton, the former Editor of the Observer, who had been invited to Bilderberg meetings in the past, once famously referred to the group as “the high priests of globalization.”[55] Hutton has said that “people take part in these networks in order to influence the way the world works,” and to create, as he put it, “the international common sense” of policy. The Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Viscount Etienne Davignon, stated that, “I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists. I simply think it's people who have influence interested to speak to other people who have influence.”[56]

G. William Domhoff is a professor of Psychology and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and has written about the Bilderberg Group. In an interview, he discounted the notion that the study of such groups is relegated to the realm of conspiracy theory, and instead explained that he studies “how elites strive to develop consensus, which is through such publicly observable organizations as corporate boards and the policy-planning network, which can be studied in detail, and which are reported on in the media in at least a halfway accurate manner.”[57]

Bilderbergers have long been advocates of global governance and ‘global government,’ and ‘crisis’ is always an excellent means through which to advance their agendas. Just as the Greek crisis has stepped up calls for the formation of a ‘European economic government,’ an idea which has been sought out for much longer than Greece has been in crisis, so too is the global economic crisis an excuse to advance the cause of ‘global economic governance.’ Outgoing Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, stated in May of 2010 that, “crisis is an opportunity,” and he called for “a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features,” and that the “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort.” However, he stated, “I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration.”[58] Unless, of course, the world continues to descend into economic and financial ruin, as any astute economic observer would likely warn is taking place.

Following the April 2009 G20 summit, “plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency.” Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body.”[59] The Washington Post reported that the IMF is poised to transform “into a veritable United Nations for the global economy”:

It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve... the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.[60]

While the IMF is pushed to the forefront of the global currency agenda, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) remains as the true authority in terms of ‘global governance’ overall. As the IMF’s magazine, Finance and Development, stated in 2009, “the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), established in 1930, is the central and the oldest focal point for coordination of global governance arrangements.”[61] Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank (ECB) and long-time Bilderberg participant, gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in April of 2010 in which he explained that, “the significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today is illustrated by three examples”:

First, the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or government. Second, the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the BIS as the prime group for the governance of central bank cooperation. And third, the extension of Financial Stability Board membership to include all the systemic emerging market economies.[62]

In concluding his speech, Trichet emphasized that, “global governance is of the essence to improve decisively the resilience of the global financial system.”[63] The following month, Trichet spoke at the Bank of Korea, where he said, “central bank cooperation is part of a more general trend that is reshaping global governance, and which has been spurred by the global financial crisis,” and that, “it is therefore not surprising that the crisis has led to even better recognition of their increased economic importance and need for full integration into global governance.” Once again, Trichet identified the BIS and its “various fora” – such as the Global Economy Meeting and the Financial Stability Board – as the “main channel” for central bank cooperation.[64]

For more on ‘Global Government’ and the global economic crisis, see: Andrew Gavin Marshall, “Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government, Global Research, 26 October 2010.  
Rockefeller’s Dream

David Rockefeller celebrated his 96th birthday during last weekend’s Bilderberg meeting, and is one of if not the only remaining original founders of the group in 1954. If the Bilderberg Group represents the “high priests of globalization,” then David Rockefeller is the ‘Pope’.

James Wolfensohn represents the importance of the Rockefellers to not only America, but to the whole process of globalization. James D. Wolfensohn, an Australian national, was President of the World Bank from 1995-2005, and has since founded and leads his private firm, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC. He has also been a long-time Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group, and has served as an Honorary Trustee of the Brookings Institution, a major American think tank, as well as a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Wolfensohn’s father, Hyman, was employed by James Armand de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking dynasty, after whom James was named. His father taught him how to “cultivate mentors, friends and contacts of influence.”[65] Wolfensohn rose quickly through the financial world, and as his father had lived in service to the Rothschild’s – the dominant family of the 19th century – James Wolfensohn lived in service to the Rockefellers, arguably the dominant family of the 20th century. On the event of David Rockefeller’s 90th birthday, James Wolfensohn, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, stated:

[T]he person who had perhaps the greatest influence on my life professionally in this country, and I’m very happy to say personally there afterwards, is David Rockefeller, who first met me at the Harvard Business School in 1957 or ‘58... [At the beginning of the 20th century] as we looked at the world, a family, the Rockefeller family, decided that the issues were not just national for the United States, were not just related to the rich countries. And where, extraordinarily and amazingly, David’s grandfather set up the Rockefeller Foundation, the purpose of which was to take a global view.

... So the Rockefeller family, in this last 100 years, has contributed in a way that is quite extraordinary to the development in that period and has given ample focus to the issues of development with which I have been associated. In fact, it’s fair to say that there has been no other single family influence greater than the Rockefeller’s in the whole issue of globalization and in the whole issue of addressing the questions which, in some ways, are still before us today. And for that David, we’re deeply grateful to you and for your own contribution in carrying these forward in the way that you did.[66]

David Rockefeller has been even less humble (but perhaps more honest) in his assertion of his family’s and his own personal role in shaping the world. In his 2002 book, Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.[67]

As if this admission was not quite enough, at a 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group, David Rockefeller was quoted as saying:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.[68]

So, happy 96th birthday, Mr. David Rockefeller! But I am sorry to say (or perhaps not so sorry) that while the mainstream media have “respected their promises of discretion,” the new media – the alternative media – have not. As you said yourself, “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years,” it seems that the “lights of publicity” are now descending upon your “plan for the world,” making it all the more difficult to come to pass. Indeed, “the world is more sophisticated,” but not because the world is ‘ready’ for your plan, but because the world is getting ready to reject it. While national sovereignty certainly has problems and is hardly something I would consider ‘ideal’, the “supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers” is about the worst scenario one could imagine. So as a birthday present to you, Mr. Rockefeller, I promise (and I am sure that I am speaking for a great many more than simply myself) that I will continue to expose your “plans for the world,” so that your dream – and our nightmare – will never become a reality. The light will shine, and in due time, the people will be ready to follow its path.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'.

Notes

[1]        Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 3), The Guardian, 10 March 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1
[2]        CBC, Informal forum or global conspiracy? CBC News Online: June 13, 2006: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/
[3]        Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-171
[4]        Glen McGregor, Secretive power brokers meeting coming to Ottawa? Ottawa Citizen: May 24, 2006: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ff614eb8-02cc-41a3-a42d-30642def1421&k=62840
[5]        Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), page 129.
[6]        Bruno Waterfield, Dutch Prince Bernhard 'was member of Nazi party', The Telegraph, 5 March 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7377402/Dutch-Prince-Bernhard-was-member-of-Nazi-party.html
[7]        Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), page 52.
[8]        Robert F. Arnove, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press: Boston, 1980), page 1.
[9]        Inderjeet Parmar, “‘To Relate Knowledge and Action’: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism 1939-1945,” Minerva (Vol. 40, 2002), page 246.
[10]      Ibid, page 247.
[11]      Robert F. Arnove, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press, 1980), page 319.
[12]      Joan Roelofs, “Foundations and Collaboration,” Critical Sociology, Vol. 33, 2007, page 480
[13]      Ibid, page 481.
[14]      Ibid, page 483.
[15]      Erkki Berndtson, “Review Essay: Power of Foundations and the American Ideology,” Critical Sociology, Vol. 33, 2007, page 580
[16]      Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), page 52.
[17]      Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), pages 131-132.
[18]      Bilderberg Meetings, Former Steering Committee Members, BilderbergMeetings.org: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html; Steering Committee: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html
[19]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-162
[20]      CFR, The First Transformation. CFR History: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
[21]      William F. Jasper, Rogues' gallery of EU founders. The New American: July 12, 2004: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_14_20/ai_n25093084/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
[22]      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs. The Telegraph: June 19, 2001: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
[23]      Ibid.
[24]      Bilderberg Group, GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN CONFERENCE. The Bilderberg Group: September 23-25, 1955, page 7:
[25]      Who are these Bilderbergers and what do they do? The Sunday Herald: May 30, 1999: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990530/ai_n13939252
[26]      Andrew Rettman, 'Jury's out' on future of Europe, EU doyen says. EUobserver: March 16, 2009: http://euobserver.com/9/27778
[27]      Daily Mail, EU Constitution - the main points. The Daily Mail: June 19, 2004: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-307249/EU-Constitution--main-points.html
[28]      Ian Traynor, Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs. The Guardian, 17 November 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/top-european-job-selection-process
[29]      Herman Van Rompuy, Speech Upon Accepting the EU Presidency, BBC News, 22 November 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzm_R3YBgPg
[30]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011: http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[31]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[32]      Bruno Waterfield, EU Presidency candidate Herman Van Rompuy calls for new taxes, The Telegraph, 16 November 2009:
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6582837/EU-Presidency-candidate-Herman-Van-Rompuy-calls-for-new-taxes.html
[33]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[34]      PrisonPlanet, Exclusive: Unnamed Bilderberg Attendees Revealed, Gates Violates Logan Act, Prison Planet, 11 June 2011:http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-unnamed-bilderberg-attendees-revealed.html
[35]      Charlie Skelton, Bilderberg 2011: The opposition steps up, The Guardian, 11 June 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jun/11/bilderberg-switzerland
[36]      SwissInfo, World’s Powerful Bilderberg Group Meets In St Moritz, EurasiaReview, 9 June 2011: http://www.eurasiareview.com/worlds-powerful-bilderberg-group-meets-in-st-moritz-09062011/
[37]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011: http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[38]      Bloomberg, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet calls for Euro Finance Ministry, The Economic Times, 3 June 2011: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-03/news/29617216_1_single-currency-jean-claude-trichet-budget
[39]      Daniel Hannan, European economic government is inevitable, Telegraph Blogs, 17 March 2010: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100030219/european-economic-government-is-inevitable/
[40]      Spiegel, Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam, Der Spiegel, 1 March 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,680955,00.html
[41]      ANDREW WILLIS, Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years, EU Observer, 13 December 2010: http://euobserver.com/9/31485
[42]      Peter Müller and Michael Sauga, France and Germany Split over Plans for European Economic Government, Der Spiegel, 3 January 2011: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,737423,00.html
[43]      Mario Draghi: “We need a European economic government” – interview in Handelsblatt, The Bank for International Settlements, March 2010: http://www.bis.org/review/r100325b.pdf
[44]      Bilderberg Meetings, Participants 2009, BilderbergMeetings.org, May 2009: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
[45]      Ecofin: Finance Ministers Back Mario Draghi To Lead ECB, The Wall Street Journal, 16 May 2011: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110516-715655.html
[46]      Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Concluding Remarks by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, at the High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System, Zurich, 11 May 2010:
[47]      Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), pages 131-132.
[48]      Bilderberg Meetings, Participants 2009, BilderbergMeetings.org, May 2009: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
[49]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011: http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[50]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011: http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[51]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010: http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf
[52]      The Trilateral Commission, About the Pacific Asian Group, May 2011: http://www.trilateral.org/go.cfm?do=Page.View&pid=13
[53]      Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 2), The Guardian, 10 March 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract
[54]      Ibid.
[55]      Mark Oliver, The Bilderberg group, The Guardian, 4 June 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jun/04/netnotes.markoliver
[56]      BBC, Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group, BBC News, 29 September 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4290944.stm
[57]      Chip Berlet, Interview: G. William Domhoff, New Internationalist, September 2004: http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_domhoff.html
[58]      Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Concluding Remarks by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, at the High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System, Zurich, 11 May 2010:
[59]      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency. The Telegraph: April 3, 2009:
[60]      Anthony Faiola, A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF, The Washington Post, 20 April 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902242.html?hpid=topnews
[61]      Amar Bhattacharya, A Tangled Web, Finance and Development, March 2009, Vol. 46, No. 1: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/bhattacharya.htm
[62]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010: http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf
[63]      Ibid.
[64]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Central bank cooperation after the global financial crisis, Video address by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Bank of Korea International Conference 2010, Seoul, 31 May 2010:
[65]      Michael Stutchbury, The man who inherited the Rothschild legend, The Australian, 30 October 2010: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-man-who-inherited-the-rothschild-legend/story-e6frg6z6-1225945329773
[66]      James D. Wolfensohn, Council on Foreign Relations Special Symposium in honor of David Rockefeller’s 90th Birthday, The Council on Foreign Relations, 23 May 2005: http://www.cfr.org/world/council-foreign-relations-special-symposium-honor-david-rockefellers-90th-birthday/p8133
[67]      David Rockefeller, Memoirs (Random House, New York: 2002), pages 404 - 405.
[68]      Gordon Laxer, “Radical Transformative Nationalisms Confront the US Empire,” Current Sociology (Vol. 51, Issue 2: March 2003), page 141.



recomended reading on this subject 

British national party Ideas: Devolution: Bringing Power to the People

Devolution: Bringing Power to the People

We support the democratic nationalist principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised competent authority.
The problem is that this hasty revision of the Constitution has developed a number of unacceptable anomalies. Thus, although English MPs are without authority over devolved decisions affecting the people of Scotland, Wales and Ulster, MPs from those places may vote on legislation affecting the English.
More remarkable, perhaps, is that they cannot vote on issues affecting their own constituents, as this is determined within their devolved chambers.
Another problem is that a number of powers wielded by local parliaments has emanated from authority that was previously overseen by our traditional counties.
In effect this placed power into the hands of pompous and overpaid professional politicians who, for the most part, have done not a stroke in their lives to create wealth but who have absorbed it in the course of their careers.
Such a typically New Labour shambles is a recipe for friction and for future division amongst the British family of nations.
The BNP’s solution to this interlocking group of difficulties is as follows:

- Devolve all powers properly capable of exercise to local level and revived county council government, returning to the ancient and traditional pre-1974 boundaries. These powers are to include control over planning.
- Create an English parliament in Westminster. This, and the Scottish, Welsh and Stormont parliaments would oversee such functions of the present devolved administrations as cannot sensibly be accommodated by the county councils.
- Create a pan-British parliament to oversee those policy areas currently determined by Westminster, plus those powers repatriated from the EU. This body would have its formal base in Westminster, though we envisage it would sit in rotation in each of the national parliaments.
- The BNP would create a standing invitation for Eire to join the pan-British parliament as an equal partner.
The House of Lords
The role of the Lords as a revising chamber, stripped of its political cronies, requires further assessment.
At this stage, however, we can state that we see an opportunity to introduce not a simply elected duplicate of the Lower House, but a body which might provide weight to specialised experience in certain fields, such as expertise in charities, community groups, industry, commerce, agriculture, the armed forces and such like.
There exists, therefore, the opportunity to bring to bear on government the objectivity of non-party political experts and individuals chosen on the grounds of talent and service.
Further work is needed so as to exploit this opportunity for better governance.
Citizens’ Initiative Referenda
The BNP proposes the introduction of citizens’ initiative referenda as an important check and balance on the political class.
Individual citizens need only collect the requisite number of electors’ signatures on any given petition initiative — the wording of which they themselves will determine — in order to compel the local or national government to hold the relevant referendum.
If passed by between 50 and 66 percent of the voting public, such a referendum would create a comprehensive council/parliamentary debate on the topic in hand. If passed by over two thirds of those voting, however, the result would automatically become binding.
A New Bill of Rights
The 1688 Declaration of Rights, which in essence updated the 1215 Magna Carta, was given its parliamentary seal of approval in terms of the 1689 Bill of Rights.
Later described as the most important document of all times by American constitutionalists, the 1689 Bill of Rights provided the Americans with the basis behind their constitution a century later.
The 1688 Declaration, however, was a compact between monarch and people. Its articles are therefore arguably inviolable.
To allay any doubts, we shall set out in a new Bill of Rights those parts of Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights which are still relevant to the modern age.
We do not necessarily believe that a written document will prevent future governments from seeking to undermine or distort the new guarantees we shall provide.
But by setting out, in readily accessible print, a document of universally-known importance, a tripwire will be available with which to alert any future generation that a ruling class has again arisen with concepts above its station.

The Right to Bear Arms

The right to bear arms is encapsulated in the 1688 Declaration of Rights. Firearms do not kill people; criminals kill people — especially when the innocent people do not possess firearms with which to defend themselves.
The BNP would restore to legitimate and law-abiding sportsmen the right to possess and use those weapons curtailed by the 1968 Firearms Act and subsequently restricted by later legislation.
Protecting the Democratic Process
The democratic process in Britain has been subverted by a number of electoral rule changes which have impacted upon the rights of citizens to organise in democratic parties and freely express their opinions.
As a result, the BNP will introduce legislation which will:
- Guarantee the right of all law-abiding organisations and individuals to organise and campaign free from interference from the state, trades unions, employers’ organisations or commercial entities.
- Protect all political parties and groups from the use of violence or intimidation for political purposes. The violation of this law will carry a minimum two year prison term.
- Disband all state-sponsored efforts to exploit the ethnic minority vote by means of programmes such as Operation Black Vote.
- Restrict postal voting — currently subject to grave abuse — to the sick and elderly or those who are absent overseas.
- Outlaw third party organisations who do not contest elections from issuing material designed to denigrate individual candidates or parties, thereby allowing political rivals to circumvent the proper spending limits on election expenses.
- Outlaw the conducting or publication of opinion polls in the last three weeks of an election campaign to prevent manipulation of the democratic process.
- Ensure that political parties organise and function only with such funds as they are able to raise from their own members and supporters to ensure that the political process is not bought by vested interests. State funding, corporate donations and political dues from trades unions will be outlawed.
- Electors will be enabled to fire or ‘recall’ their MP in circumstances of serious criminality.
- Reintroduce treason legislation to prosecute those who undermine the British constitution.

 Recomended reading from the Horwich Nationalists
 

Saturday 25 June 2011

British Referendum Out of the EU Now Campaign

Referendum Now Campaign.
Dear Friend and Fellow Patriot,

I hope that you like the Referendum NOW leaflet that we've thumb nailed in this email. You may download a leaflet or petition form from this link - www.ReferendumNow.co.uk .

As you'll see, though, it's not a British National Party one. It's actually one of half a million paid for by the European Parliament!

So why have I sent it to you? Because I wrote it and although the EU is paying for it, it's one of the best pieces of anti-EU, pro-British freedom publicity material ever! How's that for a rebate for the long-suffering patriotic taxpayer?

Better still, my EU Communications Allowance is also paying for 50,000 Referendum NOW petition sheets AND for 100 superb table top banners for the stalls that our activists will put them on as we take our message of hope to the streets and people of our Great but Endangered country.

Because this campaign is funded because of my EU seat, we have had to jump through various bureaucratic hoops to get everything approved. That's why the leaflet has the odd bit about me being 'Non-Attached.' It doesn't mean that Jackie's kicked me out in order to get back to a normal life, just that - fortunately - I'm not part of one of the old party blocks that dominate the EU Parliament.

You know, this really is the great issue of our times. Getting out of Europe is the very first thing we have to do, because until we do Britain has no control over our borders, economy or legal system.

The current state of affairs isn't what generations of our bravest and best fought and died in the blood-soaked mud of the Somme or amidst the hail of bullets at Pegasus Bridge and Arnhem.

Only when we break free from the latest manifestation of European totalitarianism will we regain control of our own destiny and keep faith with those who sleep in far corners of so many foreign fields.

With half a million free leaflets ready to go out, this is going to be the biggest ever co-ordinated campaign (outside of election times) in the history of our British National Party. I hope very much that you will get in touch with your local organiser and volunteer to get involved. You don't have to be a member of the British National Party to get involved in the campaign to get out of Europe, however by joining us you are sending a clear message to our European dictators abroad.

Join Now

If you are in an area still not covered by an active branch, you can get your own supply of leaflets and petition forms simply by phoning Clive Jefferson on 0844 809 451. Clive is a member of my Euro staff and will be delighted to help you join my campaign.
 
Yours Sincerely,
Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin, MEP
Leader, British National Party

PS Please forward the email addresses of 3 like-minded friends to admin@bnp.org.uk so that they too can receive our updates.


A Northern Agenda what the SNP really stand for

A Northern Agenda PDF Print E-mail
Written by Sarah Albion   
Alex_Salmond
I am not sure what the Latin is for “you get what you vote for” however, I suspect the Scottish electorate will soon be discovering the political meaning of caveat emptor (buyer beware). Having voted the Scottish National party a surprise commanding victory at the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May they may soon find out, to their cost, exactly what the SNP stand for.
The SNP are rather unique amongst parties who call themselves “Nationalist” in that they apparently couldn’t give a toss about their nation’s nationals. Indeed they tend to take the view that a Scottish person, if such a creature exists, can be anyone from any part of the planet who has happened to land at Glasgow airport, arrived on the East Coast line from Newcastle or swum ashore at Carnoustie.
It would appear that their stated desire to break away from the united Kingdom has less to do with the Sovereignty of the native Scots as it is about creating a left wing fantasy multi-cultural melting pot to the  north of Hadrian’s Wall.
In pursuit of this aim, and not content to play lip service to the Coalition government’s mythical immigration cap, the SNP Leader Alex Salmond insisted earlier this week that Scotland should be exempt from immigration controls and be allowed to open its boarders to thousands upon thousands on non-European immigrants, and that a wave of non-EU nationals should be allowed to settle north of the border.
Mr Salmond also put forward plans to allow thousands of jobless students from abroad to remain in the country.
Meanwhile the SNP External Affairs Minister, a plump, and seemingly very drunk woman called Hyslop argued that Scotland should be given an exception from the what she referred to as a 'damaging' and 'negative' migration cap ("damaging" to what one wonders, an agenda perhaps?).
Despite the evidence from across Western World where economies such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland Spain and Italy are struggling and collapsing under the weight of immigration, whilst closer to home where after decades of immigration at previously unseen levels the British economy is in the worst state it has ever been and immigrant swamped America is plummeting towards bankruptcy, Alex and his little band of socialists appear to be labouring under the belief that uncontrolled immigration will somehow “boost” the Scottish economy.
Can people quite so stupid have actually been voted into even limited regional power, and be seriously aspiring to run an independent nation?. How could this possibly have happened? How could voters have trusted such people to run the Scottish parliament? Recent news reports confirming that Scotland leads the world in cocaine use may offer some clues.
However, maybe I am being too generous to little Mr. Salmond and his band of pretend nationalists. Could it be that what I am characterising as stupidity is actually something more malevolent. They are arguing for uncontrolled immigration at a time when joblessness in Scotland is at its highest in and when the economy is suffering from the worst recession generations. They surely must know what damage their proposals would cause.
Furthermore, they are fully aware that whilst Scotland remains part of the Union, and even if they left the Union but remained within the EU, there is no legal or practical way by which immigrants arriving in Scotland can be prevented from moving to any other part of the country, thus spreading that damage as widely as possible.
There is no benign explanation for this latest political lunacy, yet are these people really lunatics? So what is the plan?
As politicians continue to put pursue ever more insane and damaging policies, there comes a time when one has to question their motives and what it is they are trying to achieve.
The SNP make no pretense over their ultimate goal of breaking up the United Kingdom, but do they really intend to do so in order to put a viable alternative in its place, or is the break up, the destruction of the nation, in itself, the ultimate aim?
Given the SNP appear committed to the creation of an independent Scotland which is no longer Scottish, such a conclusion is hard to resist.

Non UK-Born Workers Increase by 1.7 million in Ten Years

Non UK-Born Workers Increase by 1.7 million in Ten Years

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics have shown that the number of non UK-born workers has increased by 1.7 million over the last decade while the number of UK born workers fell by 223,000.
The employment rate of UK born workers has fallen by 2 percent since the first quarter of 2007 while that of non UK born has increased by 1 percent, the ONS said.
Net migration in the year to last September was the highest for 5 years at 242,000, up 96,000 on the previous year. This is close to the record level of 260,000 set in the year to June 2005.
This means that one in five workers in low-skilled occupations in the UK were not born in this country. The data showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of foreign-born workers in low skilled jobs in the last decade, as they account for 20.6 per cent of such roles compared to 9 per cent in 2002.
By far the biggest increase came from immigrants from the Eastern European ‘A8’ countries that joined the European Union in 2004.
The number of low-skilled workers from these countries, which include Poland and the Baltic states, went up from 4,000 in 2002 to 239,000 this year. However there was also a significant increase in low-skilled workers born outside the EU, a number which rose from 212,000 to 353,000.
The number of UK jobs classified as low skilled has hardly changed in the same period, with statisticians putting this number at 3.2 million.
An ONS statistician was quoted as saying ““Each quarter we publish estimates of the number of workers in the UK and the country in which they were born. For the first time we have looked at the skill level of the jobs of these workers and the analysis shows clear differences in the types of jobs depending on where the worker was born. It’s striking that 36 per cent of EU 14 workers are in high skill jobs, compared with only 8 per cent of those born in A8 countries.”
The figures were released on the same day as the overall migration figures, which showed that net migration continued to rise in the year to September 2010. Entry from Eastern Europe showed no sign of abating, with 50,000 more immigrants than last year.
British emigration was unchanged from last year at 43,000 but was still low compared to pre-recession levels.
Net EU migration increased by 40,000 but still represented only 25% of net foreign immigration. Net non EU migration rose by 54,000 to 215,000.
Immigration for formal study has trebled over the last decade. In the year to September 2010 about 241,000 gave their main reason as study, an increase of 30 percent from the previous year.
The number who gave their reason as work related was 190,000, 20% below the peak seen in 2008.

Friday 24 June 2011

Stop the Ethnic Cleansing of our British Nation?

Can the British National Party’s Immigration Policy Stop the Ethnic Cleansing of our Nation?

The news that 25 percent of all primary school pupils and 22 percent of all high school pupils in Britain today are from ethnic “minorities” means that indigenous white British people will be replaced as the majority population within two generations from now.
Can the British National Party’s current immigration policy stop this process?
Official figures released by the Department for Education show the ethnic “minority” school population has increased from 21.9 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2010: a three percent increase in just three years.
At this rate of exponential growth, white indigenous children are set to become the minority in schools within the next 15 years. After that, the adult population will reflect the school-age population after one generation.
Contrary to leftist propaganda, mass Third World immigration has not brought “prosperity” and a revived economy. The Department of Education figures show that, in parallel to the increasing ethnic population, the number of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) – a measure of poverty – is increasing as well.
According to the official figures, 15.9 percent of pupils in state secondary schools (nearly half a million individuals) are are eligible and claiming the dinners. This figure has risen for the third year in a row, meaning an extra 37,000 pupils are now on free meals than in 2008.
The numbers of FSM pupils in primary schools has also risen, with almost one in five (19.2 per cent), or 743,255 youngsters, now taking up the dinners. This is 106,000 more than three years ago.
In other words, mass Third World immigration is actually harming the economy. Those familiar with the effects of race and demographic displacement on First World society will immediately recognise the issues at stake here: namely that the replacement of the First World white British people with an imported Third World population is only going to turn Britain into a Third World nation—and nothing else.
The British National Party stands as the only party to recognise the inherent threat to our nation’s future existence which this immigration invasion poses.
The party’s current immigration policy is to deport all those illegally present, accept those who are here legally and encourage voluntary repatriation of the latter community. This is, of course, a fair policy.
But is it enough to prevent the British people from being overrun and exterminated through a steady process of ethnic cleansing by out-breeding? The answer is, whether the party likes it or not, no.
The numbers of already present ethnic “minorities” in Britain make it a matter of demographic certainty that, left undisturbed, they will outnumber the British people well before the year 2060.
In this light, some hard decisions face any future nationalist government. They can only be guided by the standards set for all other Second and Third World nations on earth, and act accordingly.
This means that a nationalist government will have to adopt the policies of numerous Second and Third World governments, all of whom have taken active steps to preserve the indigenous nature of their populations. It has simply been a matter of survival, and there is no reason why the indigenous people of Britain do not have the right to claim those self same rights to survival as any other people on earth.
The alternative is extinction. And this is not what the British National Party is all about.

TREVOR PHILLIPS HYPOCRITE AND ANTI CHRISTIAN FASCIST STATEMENT

Guyanan born head of the EHCR Trevor Phillips has stated that "an old time religion incompatible with modern society" is driving the revival in the Anglican and Catholic Churches and clashing with mainstream views, especially on homosexuality.

He accused Christians, and I assume that means all, and particularly evangelicals, of being more militant than Muslims in complaining about discrimination, arguing that many of the claims are motivated by a desire for greater political influence.
However the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission expressed concern that people of faith are "under siege" from atheists whom he accused of attempting to "drive religion underground".
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph ahead of a landmark report on religious discrimination in Britain, he said the Commission wants to protect Christians and Muslims from discrimination, admitting his body had not been seen to stand up for the people discriminated against because of their faith in the past.
In a wide-ranging intervention into the debate over the role of religion in modern Britain, Mr Phillips:
* warned it had become "fashionable" to attack and mock religion, singling out atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins for his idiotic atheist views;
* said faith groups should be free from interference in their own affairs, meaning churches should be allowed to block women and homosexuals from being priests and bishops;. the British national party is a faith group, we have faith in our cause, why persecute us then Phillips?
* attacked hardline Christian groups which he said were picking fights - particularly on the issue of homosexuality - for their own political ends; which are the attempt to stop the islamifaction of Britain
* told churches and religious institutions they had to comply with the fascist equality legislation when they delivered services to the public as a whole.
The report, published by the Commission tomorrow, says that some religious groups have been the victims of rising discrimination over the last decade.
It shows that in the course of the last decade, the number of employment tribunal cases on religion or belief brought each year has risen from 70 to 1000 - although only a fraction of cases were upheld.
Mr Phillips spoke after a series of high-profile cases which have featured Christians claiming they have been discriminated against because of their beliefs, with a doctor currently fighting a reprimand from the General Medical Council for harmlessly sharing his faith with a patient. and the case of the hoteliers persecuted for not allowing two sodomites to practice their perversion under their roof.
While the equalities boss promised to fight for the rights of Christians,which will most likely be only a form of lip service in our view of the matter. he expressed concern that many cases were driven by fundamentalist Christians who are holding increasing sway over the mainstream churches because of the influence of African and Caribbean immigrants with "intolerant" views, although we at Horwich Nationalists have no indication of what the views are,and are more likely to based on African superstitions and not Christian beliefs, and also it is a statement that is a sad indictment of how far the British sense of religious and political sense of fair play has been eroded by the mass immigration of alien cultures and peoples into our homeland!
In contrast, Muslims are less vociferous because they are trying to integrate into British "liberal democracy", he said. although the victims of the 7/7 bombings may disagree we say, he also stated
"I think there's an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society," Phillips said.
"Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy. OH Ye! pimping young white girls and abusing of British soldiers amongst other things come to mind.
"The most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian." that last statement just shows from which angle Phillips is coming from in our view at Horwich Nationalists.
Senior clergy, including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, have attacked equality laws for eroding Christianity and stifling free speech, but Phillips said many of the legal cases brought by Christians on issues surrounding homosexuality were motivated by an attempt to gain political influence. Phillips perhaps you are not realising that people are just fed up of the unnatural posing as normality
"I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on," he said.
"I think the whole argument isn't about the rights of Christians. It's about politics. It's about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence."
He added: "There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don't think really exists in this country." how sad and out of touch can you be Phillips.
However, Mr Phillips, who claims to be a  Salvationist from a strong Christian background, expressed concern over the rise in Britain of anti-religious voices, such as Richard Dawkins, who are intolerant of people of faith.
"I understand why a lot of people in faith groups feel a bit under siege," he said. a little like all the indigenous people and culture of these lands Phillips.
"There's no question that there is more anti-religion noise in Britain.
"There's a great deal of polemic which is anti-religious, which is quite fashionable."
Phillips said that the Commission is committed to protecting people of faith against discrimination and also defended the right of religious institutions to be free from Government interference.
The Church of England is under pressure to allow openly gay clergy to be made bishops, while the Catholic Church only permits men to be priests, but the head of the Government-funded equalities watchdog said they are entitled to rule on their own affairs.
"The law doesn't dictate their organisation internally, in the way they appoint their ministers and bishops for example," he said.
"It's perfectly fair that you can't be a Roman Catholic priest unless you're a man. It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.
"I'm not keen on the idea of a church run by the state.
"I don't think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs.".Well that is a double standard hypocritical approach to life Mr Phillips if people should be free to run their Church free from the Fascist equality laws then WHY NOT IN POLITICS ALSO! and life in general.  And why did your commission PURSUE THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY ?, WHEN IF IT IS OK FOR A CHURCH TO DISCRIMINATE ON MEMBERSHIP THEN WHY NOT IN POLITICS !!!!!! ?
The intervention by the Commission comes after criticism of its £70 million annual unaudited we believe  budget, which is to be cut drastically. Which leads me to conclude that the statement by Phillips has nothing to do with religion but purely politics, and in our belief the continuation of a nice little earner!
Mr Phillips, a former Labour chairman of the Greater London Assembly and television producer was criticised for his £110,000 a year salary and was accused of "pandering to the right" by Ken Livingstone, the former Labour London mayor, for saying that multiculturalism had failed.

Thursday 23 June 2011

UK gives £295m to India – India spends £200m on world’s tallest statue

Britain gives £295m to India – India spends £200m on world’s tallest statue

The folly of Britain’s moronic foreign aid policy has been underlined once again by India’s plan to blow the equivalent of two-thirds of Britain’s foreign aid contribution on a record-breaking ostentatious statue.
Officials in the state of Gujarat in Western India have announced plans to build a towering 'Statue of Unity' memorial to Sardar Patel, India's first home minister and deputy prime minister, who is regarded in the country as a hero of the independence movement.
Many statues to him already stand in India.
The statue will cost more than £200 million, money which critics say could be used to help the 3.6 million people in the state living below India’s poverty line.
The 'Statue of Unity' monument will be 597 feet high and will dwarf the world's current tallest statue, the 420-foot Spring Temple Buddha, which, ironically, stands in another of Britain’s foreign aid beneficiaries, China.
The statue will also feature a ‘high-tech museum, chronicling 90 years' history of India's freedom fighters’ and will be developed as a research centre for ‘preserving the unity and integrity of India’.
It will only be accessible by boat and will have lifts to take visitors to the top for a panoramic view from Patel's eye. It will be four times the height of the Statue of Liberty and six times that of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro.
Vijay Parmar, of the charity Janvikas (Working for the Poor), said the statue is a political stunt that will bring no benefit to the public:
‘This money could be spent on health, education, or housing. Large numbers of urban poor people are living on roads. Government-run primary schools are in a pathetic condition. The money could have at least helped improve the educational standards of poor children in Gujarat,’ he said.
Earlier this month an Indian government report revealed that at least £400 million of British foreign aid given to India to help its education system has had no effect and that standards across the country are falling.
India is currently the United Kingdom’s chief recipient of foreign aid, raking in £295 million a year from hapless British taxpayers, despite having its own space and nuclear programmes and even its own foreign aid initiative. India also receives $126.6 a year from the United States.
Last year it was estimated that India has been the world's biggest beneficiary of all foreign aid after World War II, receiving approximately $100 billion from various countries since 1951.
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.