Tagged: Will Banyan

The Last Internationalist? 101 Years of David Rockefeller (1915-2017)

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 23 March 2017)

The death of plutocrat David Rockefeller, at the very advanced age of 101 from congestive heart failure on the morning of the 20th of March, has been greeted with a predictable display of grief and adulation from the usual suspects. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, issued a statement praising Rockefeller as a “kind, good man” as well as a “consummate businessman, a great humanitarian and serious scholar.” Another former President, George H.W. Bush, mourned the passing of a “wonderful friend”, and “one of the most generous philanthropists.” Former New York mayor and fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg considered himself “fortunate to call him a good friend…” Another New York billionaire, President Donald Trump, however, was strangely silent.

Recipients of Rockefeller’s largesse, both financial and reputational, have also publicly affirmed their grief. The president of Harvard University, Drew Faust, lamented the loss of “a visionary leader, an extraordinary philanthropist, and a devoted friend.”  “The world has lost a giant of a man,” claimed the Asia Society in its statement. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Rockefeller had been “a pillar of the institution for more than half of a century” and a “beloved and widely respected man for all those who knew him”, who would be “truly missed.” CFR President Richard N. Haass tweeted that it was a “Sad day” for the CFR “family” with the passing of a “wonderful man”:

Rockefeller University “deeply” mourned the loss of its “beloved friend and benefactor, Honorary Chairman, and Life Trustee” and praised Rockefeller’s “inspired leadership, extraordinary vision, and immense generosity.” The Synergos Institute (founded by his daughter Peggy Dulany) grieved at the loss of “a close friend and a source of great inspiration.” International House (co-founded by his father John D. Rockefeller Jr), noted the passing of its Honorary Trustee whose “legacy of leadership and support is deep and enduring…” “David Rockefeller led an extraordinary life – making an indelible, positive mark on our world as a leader in philanthropy, the arts, business and global affairs” said Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase (JP Morgan had merged with Rockefeller’s former bank, Chase Manhattan, in 2000 ). He was “one of the world’s most distinguished business statesmen as well as a leading philanthropist”, according to the Japan Society; and a “visionary philanthropist” in the brief statement from the Population Council about the loss of its “long-time supporter.”

(more…)

More

President Trump & the Establishment (Part 2)

From “Clinton’s Stooge” to Secret Insider

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 22 February 2017

“Trump is so obviously a Clinton plant and people just ignore the facts because right now he’s ‘telling it like it is’. More like he’s tell you what you want to hear at a time when people are desperate to hear any truth coming out of the American political-industrial complex.

Melissa Dykes, The Daily Sheeple, August 21, 2015

“Yes, Donald Trump is shrewd and really wants to sell himself as an outsider. He understands how to stir the many people who are unhappy. But when you get beyond the theatrics, he’s not really an outsider at all.”

Ron Paul, Ron Paul Liberty Report, March 21, 2016

Throughout much of last year’s campaign, the belief that Donald Trump truly represented not only a repudiation of the Establishment’s pro-globalization consensus, but was unsullied and unconnected to the elite’s overt and covert networks, had many adherents. Writing in the Siskiyou Daily News (Oct. 14, 2016), for example, columnist Nita Still accused President Obama and Hillary Clinton of being “mechanical creatures” of a network of “invisible major organizations” that included the Illuminati, the Committee of 300, Skull and Bones, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Bilderberg Group. Trump and Mike Pence, though, were not “part of this desperate, tangled web to deceive and conquer”, and therefore “should become our next president and vice president!” Texe Marrs claimed the Establishment was “frightened and in a panic” because Trump threatened to “overturn their New World Order applecart.” Infowars owner and Trump supporter Alex Jones, claimed in December 2015 to have heard from the “top people” that Trump was “for real”, that he was part of an internal war within the elite against the “globalists” who “want to have a world government”, and what he was doing was  “epic” and “George Washington level”.  Jones also issued numerous warnings that the “globalists” were plotting to assassinate Trump.

But even within what some mainstream media commentators assumed would be Trump’s natural constituency – the conspiratorially minded – this view was not unanimous. There was considerable suspicion about the fact he was a billionaire who was close to Wall Street and the Clintons and other members of the ruling classes he was running against; and then there were various alleged links to the American and Russian Mafias. There were two main theories expressing this scepticism: the first was that Trump was a “false-flag” candidate who was covertly working with the Clintons to put Hillary into the White House; while the second was that despite his bluster, Trump was actually a secret insider, possibly even a member of the Illuminati, who would promise everything, but actually change nothing.

(more…)

More

President Trump & the Establishment (Part 1)

Is The Donald Really An ‘Outsider’?

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 11 January 2017

“Hillary’s an insider fighting only for herself and her special interests. I’m an outsider. I’ve become an outsider fighting for you. I’m not a politician.”

Donald J. Trump, November 6, 2016, Speech at Sioux City, Iowa

Among the millions of Americans, not to mention other interested parties worldwide, who were completely stunned by the result of the 2016 US Presidential Election on November 8, was the victorious candidate himself, real estate mogul, former reality TV star, alleged serial groper of women, currently presidential-elect and shortly to be President, Donald J. Trump. According to his advisers, “Trump was shocked when he won the election” (New York Times, Nov. 11, 2016), his victory over Hillary Clinton “caught him by surprise” as he had believed private polling that he was “headed for defeat.” Instead of elation, Trump was reportedly “startled” by the news, and then “subdued” as he “turned to the enormous task of assembling government” (New York Times, Nov. 9, 2016). Trump’s grim mood was more apparent when he visited President Obama on Thursday (Nov. 10) at the White House prompting some observers to interpret his demeanour as “absolutely terrified”, “shocked and more somber”, and “almost chastened.”  A body language expert told the Daily Mail (Nov. 10, 2016), Trump looked “serious and showed indications he heard information that made him fearful.”

(more…)

More

The Bilderberg Papers: More or Less Than Meets The Eye?

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 30 June 2016)

Earlier this month, the Public Intelligence website presented its “Bilderberg Primary Source Academic Material Archive” (Figure 1), which contains the PDF files of some 38 Bilderberg conference reports between 1954 and 2002, plus a number of other primary documents, including official Bilderberg notices to participants, selected discussion papers, correspondence and meeting notes written by participants. It is quite a trove that is of enormous value to any serious researcher into the Bilderberg Group as it fills in large gaps in the record about the annual conference, making it easier to uncover how it has influenced transatlantic policy over the past 62 years.

Figure 1 Public Intelligence's 'Academic Archive' of Bilderberg Primary Source Materials

Figure 1 Public Intelligence’s ‘Academic Archive’ of Bilderberg Primary Source Materials

I was first alerted to the existence of this website by a writer from The New American who asked me if I was aware of this new source and whether they were authentic.  I was familiar with these documents having been provided with copies earlier through another source. Moreover, contrary to the excited claims of some web commentators in the past couple of weeks that this was a damaging new “leak”, almost all of these documents had already been posted online at Scribd a couple of years earlier by “bilderbergboys” (Figure 2).

(more…)

More

Bilderberg 2016: Another Obama No-Show

The 64th Bilderberg Meeting Deals with a Turbulent World

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 10 June 2016

After a remarkable delay, the Bilderberg Steering Committee finally issued its standard pre-meeting press release and list of participants, on 6 June, just days before the start of the 64th Bilderberg Meeting, now underway at the luxury Grand Hotel Taschenbergpalais in Dresden, Germany. The press release was also notable for its rather soothing language about the private nature of the conference enabling its participants to “take time to listen, reflect and gather insights.” In an attempt at media outreach, Bilderberg’s current chairman, Henri de Castries agreed to an interview with German Press Agency just about Bilderberg. His language was also reassuring as he took issue with the “myth of Bilderberg.” Though admitting many of its participants were powerful people with “great responsibility”, de Castries attributed to the Bilderberg Group the noble aim of trying “understand our world” by facilitating “conversations between these people.”  Bilderberg’s nameless official spokesperson also told The Independent (Jun. 08, 2016) Bilderberg functioned more as a “summer school of influentials”; it was “a place to gain insights and gather information.”

Not everyone has been placated by these charming obfuscations. To Charlie Skelton, for instance, the Guardian’s Bilderberg correspondent, the private conference is obviously a “corporate lobbying event”, where the “financial, industrial and high-tech establishment” retained enough power to have “ministers and European commissioners come running” (Guardian, Jun. 07, 2016). For corporate representatives it was all about “getting a competitive edge”, to lobby the politicians and officials they now had access to; while for the people being lobbied it was “a chance to line up future employment” (Guardian, Jun. 08, 2016). Paul Joseph Watson, a reporter for Alex Jones’ Infowars, described Bilderberg as a “powerful lobby group” and a meeting of the “most powerful people on the planet.” According to Alex Newman, from the John Birch Society, Bilderberg is “essentially a secret meeting of Big Business and Big Government” (The New American, Jun. 09, 2016).

(more…)

More

Book Review: Whitewashing Kissinger

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 15 May 2016

Perhaps the most obvious point to make about this bloated and lifeless tome, the first of two projected volumes, is that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger can feel confident he has chosen the right person to write his life story. Over nearly 930 pages (including footnotes), celebrity academic Niall Ferguson formerly a Professor of History at Harvard and now currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, proves yet again that when it comes to chronicling the lives of the rich and powerful, he is by far the perfect academic-for-hire. With very little direction, but with a great deal of enthusiasm and industry, Ferguson will strive to paint the best picture possible of his client, turning blemishes into rosy cheeks, sinister frowns into wise laugh-lines, and skeletons into necessary sacrifices. And so it is in this strangely anodyne account of Kissinger’s path to power; one that strips our protagonist of the sins of ambition and duplicity, and instead presents an unlikely tale of a selfless “idealist” who seems to have stumbled into the Nixon White House by happenstance rather than by design.

That Ferguson has performed this important task well is confirmed by the torrent of praise the book has received from Kissinger’s admirers, including his many friends. Convicted felon Conrad Black, for example, a friend of both Kissinger and Ferguson, praised it as a “brilliant book by an outstanding historian about a great and durably interesting statesman, who is also a distinguished historian and gifted strategic thinker.” It was a “compelling book about a towering figure”, claimed Walter Russell Mead in Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2015); a “deeply compelling read” according to the Washington Free Beacon (Oct. 17, 2015); an “epic account of an amazing life”, claimed neo-conservative polemicist Max Boot (National Review, Oct 19, 2015); and according to the Weekly Standard (Dec. 07, 2015) this “attentive, magnificently written and profoundly researched” biography was “stunningly good…”

Writing in the New York Times, historian Andrew Roberts described it as the “most comprehensive defense of Kissinger’s outlooks and actions” since Kissinger’s own three-volume autobiography. But it was “no hagiography”, insisted Roberts (who was Kissinger’s first choice to write his memoir, but who balked at dealing with some “30 tons of material” in Kissinger’s personal archive – Ferguson dismisses him for having “cold feet” p.xiv), but rather “an admiring portrait rather than a particularly affectionate one.”

(more…)

More

Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 3)

Part 3 of 3: Bilderberg and the Media

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

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

As I have detailed elsewhere, none of these claims withstand close scrutiny. Major media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic have used the word “Bilderberg” with seeming impunity for decades, mentioning the location of the meetings, some of the people connected to it, and even leaked some details from the meetings. Tucker’s claims, for example, are easily refuted: a search on the New York Times archive finds 59 articles mentioning Bilderberg rather than just one and a search on the Washington Post archive finds 37 articles about Bilderberg (pre-1995) instead of only four. The issue is not the frequency of the reporting about Bilderberg, or even mentioning that it exists, but the quality. Despite all the reporting on the fact the meetings are happening, detailed reporting about what was actually said is and remains rare. The 2015 Telfs-Buchen meeting was no exception, with both the mainstream and the alternative media largely failing to penetrate Bilderberg’s veil.

(more…)

More

Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 2)

Part 2 of 3: Dissecting the Bilderberg Agenda

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 10 January 2016 [See Part 1 and 3]

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

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

(more…)

More

Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 1)

Part 1 of 3: Is Bilderberg More Important Than The G7?

By Will Banyan, Copyright © 01 January 2016 [See Part 2 and 3]

According to some observers, last year’s Bilderberg Meeting, held over 11-14 June, 2015 at the Interalpen Hotel, near the town of Telfs-Buchen in Austria, was a more significant event than the Group of Seven meeting that had just preceded it across the border in Germany. Bilderberg is “every bit as important as the G7”, claimed The Guardian’s (Jun. 08, 2015) lone correspondent, Charlie Skelton; if not a “much more decisive meeting place [ein viel entscheidenderes Treffen statt]”, wrote Thorsten Schmitt from Extrem News (May 30, 2015). Yet some of the Bilderberg meeting participants – the few that deigned to even speak or write about it – insisted that the 2015 gathering was a very interesting but ultimately benign occasion. Michael O’Leary, CEO of Irish airline Ryanair and newly appointed Bilderberg Steering Committee member, for example, after mocking claims it was a “big conspiracy” told Irish radio that his first Bilderberg meeting had been a “terrific experience” and “very educational.” Another first time participant, Trine Eilertsen, Political Editor of the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten wrote that the “discussions and introductions” at Bilderberg were “very useful because participants spoke so freely.” But she also dismissed as “distant from reality”, a columnist writing in a rival publication, Aftenbladet (Jun. 13, 2015) who criticised her participation and considered it “naïve” of Eilertsen not to see anything sinister in a secret meeting of billionaires, politicians and journalists.

(more…)

More

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

By Will Banyan, Copyright ©, 03 October 2015 [Revised and updated 13 February 2016]

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

(more…)

More