Tagged: Will Banyan

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”?



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).



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.



Fabian, Fellow Traveller or Free Agent? The Strange Case of David Mitrany


By Will Banyan, Copyright © March 2005 (updated October 2007)

Author’s note: This essay was completed in early 2005 in response to repeated entreaties from “Winston”, webmaster of the Modern History Project to explore his contention that David Mitrany was in fact a Fabian, evident in his associations with a number of prominent Fabians (detailed below). In subsequent correspondence “Winston” conceded that my paper, addressing his particular concern was “actually rather good”, but he took exception to my “arrogant attitude”, apparently evident in the final paragraph. I would contend that my final paragraph was a plea not to let “guilt-by-association” guide our understanding of whether or not Mitrany was a Fabian, but to instead focus on the facts of what he believed as opposed to his social companions. Some of the internet addresses have been updated if they have been archived, but others appear to be unrecoverable.

A Question of Character

One of the more persistent flaws in much of research into the alleged conspiracy to establish a “One World Government” or “New World Order”, in the view of this author, is the tendency to assume the loyalties and beliefs of certain individuals solely on the basis of the organisations they belong to or are associated with, rather than their actual and proven beliefs. Unless these links are examined with care false assumptions about the philosophies of key figures can be constructed resulting in a distorted picture of the N.W.O. People are no longer seen as individuals, possessing free will, but become mere pawns of a larger seemingly omnipotent cabal. At the same time, however, it is still a fact of life that the people we associate with can sometimes be a measure of what we stand for. Determining whether that association stems from convenience or common purpose can be difficult, especially if it is assumed the purpose of those associations is to pursue a secret grand strategy, thus making all evidence to the contrary suspect.

The case of David Mitrany, the subject of the partner essay “Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of the ‘Functional’ Approach to the New World Order”, is certainly illustrative. Was Mitrany a free agent who consorted with British socialists out of expedience and convenience, or, alternately, a sympathiser, if not an “agent” of the Fabian Society and its program of achieving socialism through gradualism? Mitrany’s association with a number of leading Fabians and other British socialists, from 1912 through to the 1940s, is indisputable and perhaps of greater significance than originally acknowledged in “Outflanking the Nation-State.” More importantly, these associations raise pertinent questions about Mitrany’s own beliefs and motives. In particular it challenges us to explore the truth of Mitrany’s claim that as a “matter of principle” he had decided not to tie himself “to any political party or ideological group” and to instead “work with any and all of them for international peace”, accounts for his collaboration with these groups.[1]



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]



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


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).



The Invisible Man of the New World Order: Raymond B. Fosdick (1883-1972)


…Or Why the Rockefellers Aren’t Reptilians

By Will Banyan Copyright © September 2005 (Revised April 2008/February 2015)

Why does war command a solidarity of devotion and sacrifice that cannot be marshaled for peace?

Raymond B. Fosdick, Foreign Affairs, January 1932

We let cynicism and lies and partisan politics get the better of us, and we chucked the League out of the window to satisfy a miserable political quarrel…Our generation in America has betrayed its own children and the blood of the next war is on our hands.

Raymond B. Fosdick to Harry E. Fosdick, 29 March 1920


Since the late 1940s hundreds of books have been published purporting to reveal the existence of a conspiracy to establish a global totalitarian dictatorship or ‘New World Order’, complete with a world army, world currency, a global religion and world government. Some of the classic texts in this much-derided genre included The Blue Book of the John Birch Society (1959), Kent and Phoebe Courtney’s America’s Unelected Rulers (192), John Stormer’s None Dare Call It Treason (1964), Alan Stang’s The Actor (1968) and Gary Allen and Larry Abraham’s landmark work None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971). Many more important books about the N.W.O. appeared during the 1970s most of them written by Gary Allen including: Richard Nixon: The Man Behind The Mask, (1971), Kissinger: The Secret Side of the Secretary of State (1976) and The Rockefeller File (1976).  Key titles of the 1980s included Larry Abraham’s Call It Conspiracy (1985), William P. Hoar’s Architects of Conspiracy: An Intriguing History (1985), A. Ralph Epperson’s The Unseen Hand (1985), and James Perloff’s The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (1988).

The period since the 1990s, however, must count as a golden age for N.W.O. research with the market flooded with new authors and new theories incorporating UFOs, mind-control, ancient astronauts and genealogy. Among the most significant works in recent years are: William Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse (1991), Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy (1996), Fritz Springmeier’s The Bloodlines of the Illuminati (1995), and the plethora of books by British researcher David Icke – among them The Robots Rebellion (1995), The Biggest Secret (1999), Children of the Matrix (2001), Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster (2002) and Tales from the Time Loop (2004) – and his late American antagonist, Jim Keith, author of Casebook on Alternative 3 (1994), Black Helicopters Over America (1994) and Saucers of the Illuminati (1999). More recent contributions of note include British researcher Nicholas Hagger’s two volumes: The Syndicate (2004) and The Secret History of the West (2005); and Daniel Estulin’s The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2007).

All of these books go to great lengths to name the guilty parties, the organisations, families and individuals said to be behind the New World Order plot. Some of the groups named include secret societies such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, and Skull and Bones; and policy-planning organisations prime among them the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers and more recently the Project on the New American Century. The families and individuals identified include the usual suspects: the House of Rothschild, the Rockefellers (David Rockefeller in particular), Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘Colonel’ Edward House, George Bush Senior, and now George Bush Junior, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Reviewing the countless books, magazines, articles and websites critically examining the New World Order one cannot help but notice that in a remarkable oversight, the name of one seemingly obscure, yet actually very important figure is missing from this rollcall of the damned.

That individual, whose existence I first discussed in Part 1 of my series ‘Rockefeller Internationalism’ (which appeared in Nexus magazine in 2002/3), is Raymond Blaine Fosdick (1883-1972). In a career which included time as an aide to US General John Pershing (Commander of US forces in Europe during World War I) during the Paris Peace Conference; Under Secretary-General for the League of Nations in 1919-1920; and nearly three decades of close involvement in the network of foundations established by John D. Rockefeller Junior, including as a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the International Education Board, the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation, and later president of three of these philanthropies, including 12 years as President of the Rockefeller Foundation; Fosdick hardly warrants being written off as a peripheral figure. John D. Rockefeller Junior once described Fosdick as one of his ‘close and valued associates for nearly forty years’;[1] yet he remains largely unknown to most readers of this genre and is rarely mentioned, if at all, by New World Order researchers.[2]