Category: Power Elite

Book Review – Bilderberg Fictions

Featured-Dice-Bilderberg

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 26 June 2015)

Mark Dice, The Bilderberg Group: Facts and Fiction, The Resistance, 2015.

Let’s start with the positives. Mark Dice’s latest book, The Bilderberg Group: Facts and Fiction, conveniently published just before the 63rd Bilderberg meeting was held earlier this month in Austria, is short, sharp and concise. Just 128 pages long, Dice’s pocket sized tome seeks to answer a series of questions that you may well have asked yourself about the Bilderberg Group, such as:

Is the Bilderberg Group negotiating foreign policy? Is this where the ruling elite come to a consensus to guide the direction of the world in their favour? Or is it simply “just another conference?” Or, are the “conspiracy theorists” right? What is the evidence? How were they first discovered? What are they doing? And should the public be concerned? Do they choose who the next president of the United States will be? Do they covertly coordinate economic booms and busts? Do they manipulate foreign policy and decide which wars will be launched and when from behind these closed doors? (pp.6-7).

These are all excellent questions. Unfortunately Mr Dice fails to answer them adequately, if at all in some cases. To be sure, he presents information which he clearly thinks answers these questions, but Dice does a poor job of demonstrating the Bilderberg Group is behind the raft of misdeeds he catalogues. He cites some evidence that suggests some Bilderberg participants support policies he clearly dislikes, but more often than not, he assumes this makes them Bilderberg actions without bothering to make the extra effort to prove it.

(more…)

More

Bilderberg Myths: Did Bill Clinton Go to Sintra in 1999?

Featured-Bilderberg-1999

By Will Banyan Copyright © 11 June 2015

Myths and unverified claims are the mainstay of Bilderberg reporting. They appeal to our suspicion that a great deal is being concealed at the highly secretive Bilderberg conferences and to our lack of trust in politicians and corporate elites to tell us the truth about who went and what was said. Numerous myths and unverified claims about Bilderberg have been bandied about in this past week ahead of the 63rd Bilderberg conference, currently underway at the Interalpen Hotel, near the town of Telfs-Buchen in Austria. One that caught my eye was this little snippet in a report by Infowars reporter Paul Joseph Watson about how the Bilderbergers were backing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run for the White House:

Her husband Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton’s lie that he had not attended in 15 years) (Infowars, Jun. 08, 2015).

That Bill Clinton attended the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany is not in dispute. His participation was noted in a number of media reports at the time. Furthermore, Clinton devotes a couple of paragraphs to his participation at the conference in his autobiography My Life (2004), noting that he was “stimulated” by his conversations with the Europeans he met at the conclave (p.367).

(more…)

More

War in the Heavens

by Paul David Collins, May 31st, 2009

Appearing on the podcast Beyond the Grassy Knoll always provided this writer with a great opportunity to kick around the hypothetical peanut. The March 8, 2009 show was certainly no exception. During the course of the program, the topic of the specter of global war raised its ugly head. The possible, almost inevitable, endgame scenario is a gloomy subject to say the least. Still, the fact that the final competition between the world’s power elite may be manifested as a worldwide conflict is something that show host Vyzygoth felt needed to be addressed. Cutting directly to the chase, Vyz asked when we believed the first blows in the title fight should be expected. In response, this writer told Vyz and the Knoll audience that a world war would not be possible until nations could produce troop surges that would put a million boots on the ground. Demographic bleed and a considerable drop in replacement births, courtesy of the power elite’s depopulation efforts, limits present war-making capabilities and guarantees that such a conflict will be delayed for several years. Vyz accepted this assessment of the situation and moved on to the next part of the show.

There is, however, other war preparations that may have to be made that only came to this writer’s mind after the show was over. Those preparations would not take place on the earth, but above it. For enthusiasts of space travel and man’s attempts to conquer gravity, space is considered the final frontier. But for the military establishments of the world’s most powerful nations, space has become the final battleground.

The concept of space weapons may have found its beginning in the most unlikely of places: late 19th century science fiction stories. These early literary fantasies imagined a super weapon with destructive force that beggared description. The super weapon came in many shapes and sizes and quickly shed its terrestrial chains within the pages of science fiction novels.

In 1889, Frank Stockton introduced the concept of the super weapon in his novel The Great War Syndicate. In this science fiction novel, which first appeared as a serial in the popular Collier’s Weekly, a war between America and Britain prompts 23 extremely wealthy super-capitalists to form a syndicate committed to defeating the British foes and reaping tremendous profits in the process (Franklin 152). Once assembled, the Great War Syndicate builds the “Motor Bomb,” a weapon that almost mirrors the atomic bomb (152).

(more…)

More

The Savile Affair: Did David Icke Really Blow the Whistle on Jimmy Savile?

Featured-Savile-Icke

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 06 January 2013 – Updated 29 May 2015)

Author’s note: This article was originally published on the Martin Frost website in January 2013 at a time when David Icke  was making considerable mileage out of claims that he had exposed Jimmy Savile’s various misdeeds for “years”. This version includes an updated section reflecting on how Icke has sought to support his claims on being ahead of the mainstream media on this issue.

Since October 2012, David Icke has lead his coverage of the Sir Jimmy Savile scandal with the claim that since the 1990s, he had “told those who would listen” about Savile’s “paedophilia and necrophilia” (“Jimmy Savile…Doorman to the Cesspit”, David Icke Newsletter, 14 October 2012); and that he had “named” Savile as a paedophile “such a long time ago” (03 November 2012). In fact, Icke has headlined a number of pieces on his website highlighting his apparent prescience on Savile’s true nature:

Icke’s campaign has been effective with numerous websites now crediting him with: “saying for years that Savile was a predatory paedophile”; “telling the world that Jimmy Savile is a Paedophile for many years…”; being “absolutely right about Savile all those years ago”; and having “claimed a long time ago that Jimmy was a paedophile and necrophilliac and all the allegations now coming to light absolutely backs up what he claimed.” Icke’s claims have not only gone largely unchallenged by so-called “alternative” blogs and news sites, but have even been reported without criticism in the mainstream media. For example, Sonia Poulton in the Sunday Express (28 October 2012) wrote:

Savile’s BBC colleague David Icke, who went from respected broadcaster to laughing stock, was at the forefront of such claims in the Nineties when he named Savile and others as paedophiles.

(more…)

More

Invisible Government

[A] dual state exists when a part of the constitutional elite, in order to preserve the current system [of power], forms a hidden power, with a principle of legitimation of its own — outside and in contra-position to that of the formal constitution — in order to permanently condition the political system through illegal methods, without going so far as to subvert the formal one, which partly maintains its efficacy.

— Rosella Dossi, “Italy’s Invisible Government” (CERC Working Papers Series, 2001), p. 6, citing/translating Cucchiarelli, P. and Giannulli, A. (1997), Lo Stato parallelo. L’Italia “oscura” nei documenti e nelle relazioni della Commissione Stragi, p. 18

More

Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of the ‘Functional’ Approach to the New World Order

Featured-David-Mitrany-Richard-Gardiner

By Will Banyan (Copyright © March 2005)

Defining Functionalism

In the dense academic language employed in the International Relations departments of most universities, “functionalism” refers to that policy of shifting responsibility for resolving various problems from the nation-state to international bodies “indirectly, by stealth.”[1] According to one key academic International Relations textbook, under functionalism “the role of governments is to be progressively reduced by indirect methods, and integration is to be encouraged by a variety of functionally based, cross-national ties.”[2] As international mechanisms expand in scope and authority, “the role of the nation-state would diminish and the prospects for world government [would] become more real”[3] The functionalist approach, quite simply, seeks to undermine the nation-state and build world government, not through a frontal assault but by outflanking it.

Readers of populist accounts of the New World Order would be more familiar with Richard N. Gardner’s formulation of functionalism presented in his article “The Hard Road to World Order” published in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) journal, Foreign Affairs in 1974. In his contribution to the “quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides conditions for economic progress”,[4] Gardner had endorsed an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece…”[5] This “functional approach to world order”,[6] Gardner explained, would involve “inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis…”[7]

The impact of Gardner’s article on New World Order researchers is not to be underestimated; it is probably the most widely cited Foreign Affairs article in the genre, with many researchers crediting Gardner as the sole architect of that strategy. Dr. Steve Bonta, for example, the Executive Director of the Robert Welch University and a regular contributor to the John Birch Society’s periodical, The New American, declared in 2004 that Gardner was obviously “one of the most influential men alive” and the “intellectual godfather of the modern new world order.” That Gardner’s “program for world order” was still being followed three decades later, argued Bonta in a direct reference to Gardner’s 1974 article, was “testament to his cunning as a global strategist.”[8]

(more…)

More

A Lesson in Whitewashing: The Anti-Semitism of A.K. Chesterton’s The New Unhappy Lords

Featured-AK-Chesterton

By Will Banyan Copyright © 14 July 2012 (updated 18 February 2015)

Author’s note: First published in 2012 on the Martin Frost website, Mr Baron did write me a heated response, but that served mainly to defend his criticisms of Israel and Jewish power, rather than to acknowledge he had misrepresented A.K. Chesterton’s views in disputing Macklin’s charge that Chesterton’s book was “anti-Semitic”. Note also that as Mr Baron no longer writes for Digital Journal – his tale of woe can be found here – I have updated this essay to put his work for Digital Journal in the past tense. Mr Baron now has a blog.

Up until March 2014, Alexander Baron was a prolific contributor to Digital Journal, writing on all manner of topics, but with a particular focus on music, crime and conspiracies. His efforts on the last topic are obviously noteworthy as he seems to share Robin Ramsay’s impatience with those conspiracy theorists that play fast and loose with the facts, or indeed make the most outrageous claims with little or no evidence. In doing so Baron gives the impression of being eminently reasonable, even intractable in his devotion to evidence over the attractions of ideology, and gratifyingly intolerant of those buffoonish flimflammers David Icke and Alex Jones. Indeed, many of Baron’s missives on Icke have much to commend as he has lambasted the oracle of the Isle of Wight for his embrace of censorship, purveying “nonsense” on 9/11, and for promoting “implausible” stories about the House of Rothschild supposedly “bankrolling Hitler.”

But, to abuse a much-abused cliché, appearances can be deceiving. A visit to Alexander Baron’s other website gives a different and more complete sense of his rather complex and controversial views on political and historical events of some note than can be detected from his Digital Journal pieces alone. Discerning readers would notice something of a gulf between the reasonable Alexander Baron who writes for the Digital Journal and the more controversial Alexander Baron, the Holocaust-denying opponent of “organised Jewry”, whose works grace www.infotextmanuscripts.org. But in his lengthy op-ed piece in Digital Journal defending A.K. Chesterton (1896-1973) author of The New Unhappy Lords: An Exposure of Power Politics (1965), an early and uniquely British take on the New World Order conspiracy, Baron appears to bridge that gap between his two selves. The object of Baron’s ire is the article “Transatlantic Connections and Conspiracies: A.K. Chesterton and The New Unhappy Lords” by Graham Macklin, from the Journal of Contemporary History (April 2012).

(more…)

More

The Strange Case of the Rothschild ‘Straw Man’

Facts, Fallacies and Fantasies about Jewish Power

By Will Banyan Copyright © 30 August 2012

According to their strongest critics, conspiracy theorists (or conspiracists) are, at best “harmless lunatics and amusing eccentrics”, but at worst, they resemble “the totalitarian immersion of cult members into herd thinking.” The litany of conspiracist sins, as compiled by Professor Stephen Plaut from the University of Haifa, is long:

Conspiracism feeds on misrepresentation of facts, outright lying, and tendentious twisting of unrelated factoids into a grand theory. Conspiracists take the logical fallacy, the non sequitur, to incredible heights. They are notoriously prone to rearrangement of their perception of reality based upon the mere power of suggestion.

Chip Berlet, an American researcher long associated with the Southern Poverty Law Center, also charges conspiracists with utilising “common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent.” More colourfully, Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, in his book Among the Truthers (2011), asserts that all conspiracy theorists share the common trait of having “spun out of rationality’s ever-weakening gravitational pull, and into mutually impenetrable Manichean fantasy universes of their own construction.” Of course, neither Professor Plaut, nor Mr Berlet, nor even Mr Kay can be considered disinterested observers when it comes to the apparent dangers posed by conspiracism. But that does not invalidate their essential observation about the fallacies and fantasies that populate the conspiracist sphere.

One of the common fallacies often employed by conspiracists is the “straw man”, which is defined by Wikipedia as:

an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

(more…)

More

America, Inc.: Land of Corporate Reign

by Phillip D. Collins ©, July 11th, 2008

Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”

This model of economic fascism was adopted by Germany and Italy in the 1930s. And, I submit to you that such a marriage between the state and corporate power has taken place here in the United States.

Does this sound like a baseless contention? Allow me to substantiate it with history.

A form of Corporatism began to infect our constitutional republic in the 1930s. It propagated itself under the euphemistic appellation of “planned capitalism” and was hailed as a desirable inevitability. In 1936, Lawrence Dennis published The Coming American Fascism, a polemic contending that America’s adoption of stringent public regulation and the enshrinement of corporate power would invigorate “national spirit.” However, Dennis believed that economic fascism had a major obstacle to overcome.

Dennis wrote, “It cannot be repeated too often that what prevents adequate public regulation is liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights.”

Dennis proffered a chronocentric portrait of America’s traditional republican model of government, caricaturing it as an outmoded “18th-century Americanism” that would eventually be supplanted by “enterprises of public welfare and social control” (i.e., economic fascism).

(more…)

More

The Political Cartel Of Republicrats and Democrats

by Phillip D. Collins ©, June 18th, 2008

With the presidential elections steadily approaching, a question is being asked with increasing frequency: Who are you voting for? Personally, this questions aggravates me. Why? Because it is framed within a distinctly Hegelian framework. This framework consists of the confining dialectics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, and, of course, Democrat vs. Republican. The latter of these dialectics is, for me, the most frustrating. Why? Because there’s no real difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Whenever the religious adherent of partisan affiliations attempts to “convert” me to their creed, I direct him or her to a quote from an obscure book entitled Tragedy and Hope. In this book, Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley writes, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy…It should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

In truth, the purpose of a two party system is the maintenance of a political cartel. Within such a framework, viable alternatives are overlooked and the same logically bankrupt status quo remains enshrined. To qualify this contention, I will briefly examine one major issue that occupies the mind of the voter: the war. To be sure, this is not the only point of convergence for the Democrats and Republicans, but it is one of the most transparently fraudulent dichotomies on the political landscape. The dominant perception holds that Republicans are “hawks” while Democrats are “doves.” However, history does not bear out this dualistic portrait.

(more…)

More