Category: Power Elite

The Bilderberg Connection: Did The Bilderberg Group Send Nixon to China?


By Will Banyan (Copyright © 03 October 2015)

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

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

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

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

Figure 1: Agenda Topics for 1956 Bilderberg Meeting

11-13 May 1956, Fredensborg, Denmark

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



The Quiet Globalist: John C. Whitehead (1922-2015)


Part One: A Portrait of an Insider

By Will Banyan, Copyright © August 2008/2015 (revised and updated)

Author’s Note: This was part one of a planned two part study of John C. Whitehead (1922-2015), the former Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs and the holder of numerous other positions. This article which originally appeared on the Martin Frost website in 2008, has been revised and updated to take note of Whitehead’s death earlier this year, and to incorporate a range of other new information that has come to light. Part Two, which examines Whitehead’s role in the successful effort in 2005 to prevent the Senate confirmation of Ambassador John R. Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations, after a lengthy delay to locate and incorporate new data, will hopefully be completed in coming months.


On February 7, 2015, at the advanced age of 92, former banker and Reagan Administration official John C. Whitehead passed away. Whitehead’s death prompted a torrent of overwhelmingly positive eulogising from his various friends, acquaintances, former work colleagues, Wall Street, and from the numerous non-government organizations that he had given both his time and financial support. The CEO and President of Goldman Sachs issued a memorandum to all their employees to lament Whitehead’s passing and to praise his “enormous grace and integrity” and his legacy that would “endure in the institutions he lead.”[1] The President of Global Financial Integrity (GFI) International described him as a “true Statesman and an American Hero”; the Carnegie Corporation mourned the loss of a their former Trustee, “a great American and a patriot”; the Asia Society described its former Chairman of its Board of Trustees as “one of our greatest friends and champions”; the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) paid tribute to a “True UN Champion” and a “tower of strength” whose “generosity enabled many good things to happen”; and the Secretary-General of the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA), marked the passing of a “great leader and dear friend” who was also “truly a global citizen.”[2] “In a world of growing fragmentation”, observed Henry Kissinger in his eulogy, Whitehead had “exuded universal principles.”[3] US Senator John McCain expressed his sadness at the death of his “friend”, and paid tribute to Whitehead’s:

remarkable career spanning global finance and public service stands as a testament to a life devoted to causes greater than one’s own self-interest.[4]

Reading this sad litany, one cannot help but ask: who was John C. Whitehead? How could this seemingly obscure citizen attract so much high-level praise? And how could he be celebrated as a both an American “patriot” and a “global citizen”?



Bilderberg consultant: a “direct confrontation” is recommended


In the [redacted], is a 1964 memorandum from Curtis J. Hoxter to H. J. “Jack” Heinz II. Heinz helped found and fund the Bilderberg group, and was on the Steering Committee at the time. Hoxter ran a public relations marketing company. I can only assume that Heinz or the Bilderberg group themselves had hired him.

The memorandum concerns an October 28, 1963 editorial in the Richmond News Leader, titled “The Bilderbergers.” They weren’t happy about it at all, and Hoxter was tasked to get to the bottom of it. They were worried about the upcoming Bilderberg conference, in March, to be held in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The article and the subsequent memorandum are reproduced below (italic and bold emphasis added).

Hoxter’s report is quite revealing. Bilderberg were very sensitive about any press, let alone anything that cast them in a negative light. Hoxter produces something akin to an intelligence report—on the newspaper, its editors, and the political situation in Virginia—replete with a half-baked conspiracy theory about who may have been behind it.

There wasn’t a byline on the article, but Hoxter found out pretty quick that it was in fact James P. Lucier who wrote it. After first talking with his boss, he then engaged in an hour-long conversation with Lucier about the matter.

Both Hoxter and Heinz have since died, but James P. Lucier still works as a journalist.

I failed to find his email. It’d be interesting to get his take on these events, and if a “direct confrontation” from Bilderberg occurred as Hoxter, in conclusion, suggested they should do. I’m sure Lucier is oblivious to the fact that the memorandum even exists—it has never been published and sits in a dusty archive—let alone what it contains and what they say about him.

James P. Lucier, “The Bilderbergers,” Richmond, VA., News Leader, Oct. 28, 1963

In many a dark corner, there floats a whisper that the world is ruled by persons unseen. At some appointed time, silent limousines deliver a group of faceless men to a heavily guarded mansion where whole continents are carved up and put together around a table. These men, a kind of Mafia of international politics, are called the Bilderbergers.

We have always taken our Bilderbergers with mustard. Back in April of 1957, Westbrook Pegler reported that the Bilderbergers met in a heavily guarded session at St. Simon’s Island, off the coast of Georgia; but Peg was about the only newsman who saw them. In the summer of 1962, an early edition of the New York Times noted that a group of American diplomats were going to Stockholm to attend “a secret meeting of men of great wealth.” But the news mysteriously was crowded out of the final edition which is preserved on microfilm.



The Illusion of Elite Unity: Elite Factionalism, the ‘War on Terror’ and the New World Order (Part 1)


By Will Banyan Copyright © January 2008

Author’s note: This essay was originally published on the Martin Frost website back in 2008. After a lengthy delay, Part 2 will eventuate later this year covering both the rise of the neo-conservatives and the prospects for world government.

‘I believe…that a grand game of chess is being played on a level that we can barely imagine, and we are pawns.’
Milton William Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse, (1991)

‘The basic thing is the establishment. The establishment is dying…’
President Richard Nixon, 13 March 1973[1]

‘If you were a member of the Council [on Foreign Relations] 15 years ago…you knew damn well that the conversation either was policy or would-be policy. Today, it is just interesting talk.’
National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977[2]

1. The Elite Unity Hypothesis

One of the central assumptions of most studies about the New World Order is that a covert combination of the most economically and politically powerful people in the world, otherwise known as the ‘Establishment’, ‘Illuminati’, the ‘Insiders’, the ‘Brotherhood of the Snake’, the ‘Syndicate’ or even the ‘Committee of the 300’ – said to be secretly operating within and above the highest levels of government – are united in seeking to establish a ‘One World Government’ or ‘global fascist superstate.’ When describing this power-elite clique, most researchers into the New World Order typically refer to a wide-ranging network of policy-planning organisations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission; and secret societies, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove and the Templars. Membership of these organisations is said to be limited to selected politicians, government officials, academics, businessmen, bankers and journalists; in other words the leading private and public individuals in society. This exclusive group is charged with implementing, justifying, hiding and ultimately benefiting from the sole objective to which all these ‘Insiders’ are believed to be committed: world government.

To readers of the myriad works on the alleged New World Order conspiracy this might seem like a self-evident truth unworthy of further comment. However it is important to realise that for many researchers these powerful advocates of world government (or global governance) are not some isolated segment of the uppermost tiers of the political, economic and military hierarchies; they are the power-elite. They are not just the majority of a super-rich minority; they are its dominant players and world government is said to be their only objective. For the purposes of this study we shall refer to this belief or assumption that the power-elite is united around the goal of establishing world government as the ‘Elite Unity Hypothesis’ (EUH).

A cursory review of the literature reveals the EUH to be the dominant paradigm. Look at almost any book on the ‘New World Order’ conspiracy and one will find this sinister network of individuals, organisations and secret societies is not only presented as being already firmly in control of all national governments, but also unanimous in its support for world government. Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, for example, authors of the bestselling None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971) which perhaps did the most to popularise theories about the N.W.O, asserted that there was a ‘self-perpetuating conspiratorial clique’ of ‘power-seeking billionaires’ who ‘from the very highest levels manipulate government policy’ in their bid to establish ‘a government over all the world.’[3] John F. McManus claims in The Insiders (2004) that ‘for several decades, America has been run by a group of Establishment Insiders’, who are all members of the CFR, and whose collective goal is nothing less than to realise the ‘world government scheme of CFR founder Edward Mandell House.’[4]



Book Review – Bilderberg Fictions


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.



Bilderberg Myths: Did Bill Clinton Go to Sintra in 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).



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).



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


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.



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


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


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]