Tagged: Will Banyan

Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 2)

Featured-Rockefeller-Khrushchev

Rediscovering the David Rockefeller-Nikita Khrushchev Meeting

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 15 December 2014)

Of all the seemingly incredible incidents that comprise the mythology about the political power of the now 99-year old plutocrat David Rockefeller Senior, perhaps the most enduring is that his private meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Moscow in July 1964 precipitated Khrushchev’s removal from power just a few months later. While no scholars have established any link between their meeting on 31 July 1964 and Khrushchev’s supposedly voluntary “retirement” on 14 October 1964, at the hands of his Kremlin rivals led by Leonid Brezhnev; many conspiracists remain convinced these events are directly connected. “David Rockefeller went to Moscow in 1964 and had Krushchev fired because he was in the way of business with China,” claims the Out With It! website. “David Rockefeller summarily fired Kruschev (sic)”, the late Eustace Mullins declared in his book The World Order (1984).  In his book Hiding in Plain Sight (2000), author Ken Bowers claims:

[David Rockefeller] went to see Kruschev (sic) in Russia in 1964 and told him it was time to abdicate his power and go into retirement. Twenty-four hours later, Kruschev resigned his position (p.131)

Most recently – as of October this year in fact – Servando Gonzalez, writing on the NewsWithViews website, offered this observation at the end of his revisionist and quite contrarian account of the Cuban Missile Crisis:

Unfortunately, Khrushchev did not get rid of Castro, but David Rockefeller got rid of Khrushchev less than two years after the crisis.

In 1964 David visited the Soviet Union and had a two and half hour conversation with the Soviet Premier. We don’t know what the […] subject of the conversation was, but we may safely surmise that David dressed down Khrushchev for his unauthorized attempt to get rid of David’s secret agent Fidel Castro. Barely two months later, David’s secret agents in the Soviet Politburo deposed Khrushchev.

(more…)

More

Bad Company: Chuck Hagel vs the ‘New’ Foreign Policy Establishment

Featured-Chuck-Hagel

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 25 February 2013 & 01 March 2013)

Author’s note: On 24 November 2014, Chuck Hagel resigned as Secretary of Defense. The circumstances of his retreat from public office were contentious; Obama’s claims that Hagel had determined that it was “appropriate time for him to complete his service” was greeted with derision by most Beltway observers. Most reporting suggested that Hagel’s apparent decision was driven by his failure to penetrate Obama’s inner circle, his frustration with being micro-managed by Obama and his aides, and for finding himself repeatedly “out of step” with the White House on many issues. The irony of this situation is that by the end of his brief tenure, Hagel had earned the affection of those whom had opposed his confirmation (as detailed below), particularly Israel and pro-Israel forces in the US. Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yalon praised the outgoing Secretary as a “true friend of Israel” and Abraham Foxman, National Director of the US-based Anti-Defamation League likewise lauded Hagel’s “energetic stewardship of America’s commitment to Israel’s security.” It would seem that Hagel had demonstrated fealty to the wrong master…

President Obama’s decision to replace his outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with former Senator Charles (Chuck) Hagel has rapidly proved to be one of his most difficult and controversial Cabinet-level appointments. At least since Obama’s attempt to nominate US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, as the next Secretary of State ended in tears – and the elevation of Senator John Kerry, the Skull and Bonesman Democrat presidential candidate of 2004, into that feted position. Senator Hagel’s primary sin, in the eyes of his Republican interrogators in the Senate, and his detractors amongst the neo-conservative punditocracy, was that this prospective US Defense Secretary was insufficiently pro-Israel.

Ahead of his confirmation hearings in January this year, for example, Hagel was repeatedly accused by neo-con gadfly, William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, of having “anti-Israel, pro-appeasement-of-Iran bona fides” (Dec 24, 2012); “dangerous views on Iran” and an “unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews” (Jan. 4, 2013). Kristol also attacked Hagel for making the apparently “vulgar and disgusting charge” that the US invasion of Iraq was a “war for oil” (Jan. 5, 2013). Heaven forbid! In the same august publication (Jan. 7, 2013), former Bush Administration official Elliott Abrams, a presidentially pardoned felon, casually implied that Hagel was anti-Semitic because of his allegedly “hostile” attitude towards the Jewish community of Nebraska in 1989 over the closing of a USO facility in Israel.

(more…)

More

The ‘Israel Lobby’ Controversy: Elite Factionalism or Elite Conspiracy Theory?

Featured-Israel-Lobby

by Will Banyan © 2008

Author’s Note: This is an extended and slightly revised version of an article which originally appeared in PARANOIA (issue 44) Spring 2007.

The publication in March 2006 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, as a working paper for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and as an article in the London Review of Books, aroused much comment in the American media and academia—most condemnatory. The authors, academics John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt from Harvard University, have had their work widely dismissed as being both conspiratorial and anti-Semitic.

“[T]his paper is anti-Semitic” declared Professor Eliot Cohen from Johns Hopkins University, in the Washington Post (April 5, 2006); nor was it “research in any serious sense,” claimed Marty Peretz in The New Republic, but “the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds.” According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, the authors shared with white supremacist David Duke “the same interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests” (Dershowitz, p.41). Even Stephen Zunes, a left-wing critic of U.S. support for Israel, implied that in subscribing to an “exaggerated claim of Jewish clout,” Mearsheimer and Walt were “flirting with anti-Semitism” (Zunes 2006b, p.15).

At the same time, there were some observers who were clearly overjoyed at the appearance of The Israel Lobby as it seemed to confirm their belief that the U.S. is, in fact, ruled by a “Zionist Occupation Government,” or some other sinister Jewish cabal. David Duke, for example, praised it for having “told the truth about the proverbial gorilla in the room: the Zionist lobby and its enormous political and media power” (Duke 2006). The Israel Lobby, claimed a commentator for Rense.com, left “absolutely no doubt that Israel not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy and our political parties, but our media as well” (Lang 2006).

(more…)

More

The Professor’s Progress

Featured-Ferguson-Rothschild

Part 1: The Rothschild Network and the Rise of Niall Ferguson

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 11 November 2014

Within days of the tragic events of 9/11 Niall Ferguson, then a Professor of Political and Financial History at Oxford, wrote in The Independent (Sep. 13, 2001) about his hope that the terrorist attack would change the “American psyche” and end the “illusion of separateness” in which “Americans subconsciously feel themselves to be in a planet of their own.” Though sceptical that US President George W. Bush would “draw the right conclusions for US foreign and defence policy”, Ferguson nevertheless advised that it would be “wrong” to pursue the terrorists through the courts, instead,

this is the moment – and it will not last long – when the US can and should take decisive military action against those rogue regimes which have for too long harboured and financed terrorism. Top of the hit list must be Saddam Hussein, closely followed by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. I should be sorry if Colonel Gaddafi were to escape unscathed. Whether or not one or all of them gave their backing to this particular attack does not especially matter. They are dangerous – not least to the people of the countries they despotically rule [emphasis added].

Some twelve years on and much of Ferguson’s “hit list” has been achieved: Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi have not only been violently deposed – they are dead; the Taliban have also been expelled from power, though their leader, Mullah Omar, remains at large.

(more…)

More

Check Your Sources, Gentlemen! (Part 1)

The Problematic Brzezinski “Money Quotes”…
By Will Banyan
Copyright © 20 December 2008

In the rush to condemn President-elect Barack H. Obama as yet another tool of the New World Order conspirators, many analysts have been having great sport exploring the views of one of Obama’s higher profile advisers, Trilateral Commission co-founder and former National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As evidence of Brzezinski’s inclinations towards totalitarian world government many of these earnest analysts have presented what they are claim are quotes from Brzezinski’s most notorious work, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970), the book which launched the trilateral concept and ultimately the Trilateral Commission. The problem is that a number of these quotes do not appear to have come from Brzezinski’s book; at least two are fabrications, while another is a misleading compilation of quotes that have been reordered and stripped of their actual context.

Our first example is in a recent article by the current President of the John Birch Society, John F. McManus, “Behind the Obama Agenda”, which appeared in The New American (Nov. 26, 2008). Describing Brzezinski as “arguably President-elect Obama’s most important adviser”, McManus informs us about Brzezinski’s pedigree:

The inspiration for [David] Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission had been Brzezinski’s 1970 book, Between Two Ages, in which the Polish immigrant argued that “national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.”

(more…)

More

Two Friendly Queries for Dr John Coleman

Featured-Alleged-Committee-300

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 26 April & 3 May 2008

Author’s note: Two open letters to Dr John Coleman, the allegedly former MI6 agent and originator of the “Committee of 300” conspiracy theory, that were published on the now defunct Martin Frost website in 2008. At issue were two claims made by Dr Coleman to have been the first to have revealed to the public, the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Club of Rome, but in each case the mainstream media had clearly reported on the existence of these bodies first. Nevertheless, Dr Coleman never responded to my queries, nor has he tried to correct his demonstrably false claims.

[26 April 2008]

Dear Dr Coleman

Dr Coleman (incidentally, where did you get your PhD and what was it for?), I write to you as a humble novice in the areas of intelligence, but as you may have noticed I like to get to the bottom of things and don’t believe everything I’m told.

So it is in that spirit that I note that in your speech from 1994, helpfully put on YouTube that you are quick to establish your credentials versus those of others (presumably journalists) who dare to write on matters involving intelligence organizations.  Such people, you state [starting at 7:20], “really have no experience whatsoever” on intelligence matters. As an example of your own experience and reliability on these sensitive issues, you describe your apparent scoop in your book on Mind Control, Metaphysic, Extremely Low Frequency and Weather Modification apparently on July the 8th, 1986:

(more…)

More

Research Note: The Irrelevant Reptilians

Featured-Icke-Reptilians

By Will Banyan – Copyright © 18 May 2008

Up until the release of The Biggest Secret in 1998, it seemed doubtful that David Icke could top his performance from 1991 when he attracted widespread ridicule for apparently declaring himself the “Godhead”, as part of his “spiritual” transformation. Yet, with The Biggest Secret, Icke not only offered a complex conspiracy theory on how and why Princess Diana died, but he offered a new overarching explanation for why life is so awful on planet Earth: it was the fault of “shape-shifting reptilians” from the “lower-fourth dimension.”

It was a remarkable revelation, one that not only succeeded in attracting the ire of his fellow conspiracists; but also provided fodder for journalists, which they feast on to this day, much to Icke’s obvious irritation. Although, as a reporter for the Daily Echo (April 7, 2008) recently discovered, Icke still believes that he will be vindicated by history:

(more…)

More

Correction Please! – John Birch Society President Misinforms Readers…

Featured-JBS-PNAC

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 20 December 2008

In his recent article, “Behind the Obama Agenda”,  (The New American, Nov. 26, 2008), the current President of the John Birch Society, John F. McManus, made the following astounding revelation about the US vice president elect, Joe Biden:

In April 1992, Senator Joe Biden — now our vice president-elect — penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “How I Learned to Love the New World Order.” Senator Biden was miffed that the Journal had cast him as a “neo-isolationist” because he had objected to the foreign-policy strategy of then-President George Bush (Senior), a strategy which Biden characterized as “America as ‘Globocop.'” Sen. Biden wanted to make clear that far from being an “isolationist,” he is a solid internationalist who subscribes to the doctrine of “collective security” under the United Nations Charter. He argued that “the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador.”

Biden called for “an honest debate over America’s proper role in the new world order.” Unfortunately, there never has been any honest debate over just what America’s political elites mean (Senator Biden included) when they use the term “new world order.” Nor did the senator explain his assumption that there is a “proper role” in this “new world order” for an America that would still be recognizable as a sovereign, independent republic and still be operating under our system of limited, constitutional government.

It’s important to remind ourselves of the context of those 1992 remarks. Biden, a Democrat, was responding to the pronouncements and policies of President George Bush, a Republican, about this “new world order,” a phrase with which most Americans were totally unfamiliar prior to September 11, 1990.

On that day, President George Bush delivered his televised “New World Order” speech on the Iraq situation to a joint session of Congress, several months before launching the U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. “Out of these troubled times,” said the president, “our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge.” Immediately following President Bush’s address to Congress and the nation, Congressman Richard Gephardt, the House Majority Leader, gave the Democrats’ official response on the Gulf crisis: “From the summit at Helsinki [on the Iraq-Kuwait conflict] … we could see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order” – that is, to the reining in of rogue states and global policing of nations.

The problem with this fascinating piece of background about Biden is that McManus has got his facts wrong and has therefore misinformed readers of The New American. It is true that Senator Joe Biden penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (Apr. 23, 1992) that took issue with his characterisation as a “neo-isolationist” by an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (Mar. 18, 1992). But McManus provides a highly inaccurate explanation as to why Biden was “miffed” with the Journal; in short his explanation for the “context of those 1992 remarks” is demonstrably wrong.

First, McManus claims that Biden’s offending criticism – “America as ‘Globocop’” – was in response to then President George H.W. Bush’s “new world order” pronouncements of 1990 and 1991. This is an outright falsehood. The real target of Biden’s “Globocop” comment was a draft version of the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance 1994-1999 (hereafter DPG), copies of which had been leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post in early 1992.

(more…)

More

Much Ado About Nothing? – Bilderberg 2014

Featured-Bilderberg-2014

By Will Banyan
Copyright © 23 July 2014

Compared to the public spectacle of the 2013 Bilderberg Meeting, held last year in Watford, Hertsfordshire, where the Bilderberg Fringe Festival attracted thousands of protestors, this year’s event held in Copenhagen from 29 May to 1 June, was a low-key affair. According to mainstream media reports, no more than a “few dozen protesters” had assembled outside Copenhagen’s JW Marriott Hotel, rendering redundant the 3000 police officers on stand-by just in case the anti-Bilderberg protesters turned violent. One of the anti-Bilderberg activists camped out in Copenhagen, Mark Anderson from the American Free Press (AFP), concurred with this assessment of the low turn-out:

Protesters this year—while dealing with a free-speech zone that lacked the soft grass, tents and other comforts evident last year—numbered perhaps 75 on Day 1 of Bilderberg. But with May 30 having been a national holiday, the numbers swelled to about 200 on that day but tapered off a little on May 31 and June 1 (AFP June 01, 2014).

There were but a handful of arrests, but otherwise the disgruntled gathered outside the fences erected especially for the occasion were quite peaceable. As for the Bilderberg Meeting itself, despite the absence of US officials, the elite turn-out at this year’s event was still impressive giving those barred entry good reason wonder what policy innovations will emerge from these confidential consultations.

Now, some two months on, and with a veritable cornucopia of articles and associated commentary in the mainstream and alternative media to consider, the time is now surely right to ask: what did we learn from this year’s Bilderberg meeting? I would suggest there were five important lessons from the 2014 Bilderberg Meeting.

(more…)

More

Obama’s Bilderberg No-Show

Featured-Clintons-Bilderberg

Why Are There No Obama Administration Officials in Copenhagen?

By Will Banyan (Copyright © 31 May 2014)

The relationship between President Obama and the Bilderberg Meetings has been the subject of sporadic speculation over the years. One hoary yarn, which receives an occasional airing, is that back in June 2008 Obama and Hilary Clinton, then both rivals for the Democrat presidential nomination had secretly attended that year’s Bilderberg Meeting, then underway at Chantilly in Virginia. There has been no actual confirmation that either of them did attend Bilderberg, but the suspicion – given the initial caginess about their whereabouts – has been sufficient for many to tar Obama as a Bilderberg puppet. The most recent reminder was on Alex Jones Infowars website, which posted excerpts from its Obama Deception video to remind us how Bilderberg “hand-picked Obama for the 2008 presidential election after a series of private meetings in Chantilly, Virginia.”

But missing from Infowars handy little reminder of an as yet unproven allegation – provided on the eve the meeting currently underway in Copenhagen, Denmark – was another more salient and indisputable fact: for the second year running no officials from the Obama Administration were attending Bilderberg. The official list of participants for this year’s Bilderberg Meeting, currently being held in Copenhagen, Denmark, includes 34 Americans. Many of them are former officials, but not one of them is a serving official in the Obama Administration. The nearest and only contender is US Air Force General Philip Breedlove, except that he is a career military officer and not a political appointee, and that he is participating in his current position as Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military commander of NATO, and technically represents NATO rather than the US, hence his identification by Bilderberg as an “INT” or international participant.

(more…)

More