Search This Blog

Thursday, 30 June 2011

In Defence of Western Free Speech by Lars Hedegaard

In Defence of Free Speech by Lars Hedegaard

(Lars Hedegaard’s Address to a Meeting of Die Freiheit in Kiel, June 11, 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the opportunity to address this important gathering.

To be absolutely frank, I have to admit that I was in grave doubt as to whether I ought to accept your courteous invitation to speak.

As you know, I am the President of the Danish and International Free Press Societies. Both organisations are entirely and exclusively devoted to the protection of free speech. Apart from that, we have no political or religious agenda.

Every member of our organisation is perfectly welcome to say anything he likes and to argue any point he wants to make as long as he does not say or do anything in contravention of free speech. But as an organisation we stick to one issue only: the defence of free speech where ever and by whom ever it is threatened.

So I am not here to heap praise on your party, Die Freiheit, or on your political programme.

I wish you well as I would wish any democratic and freedom-loving (freiheitlich) political party well – in Germany, in Denmark, all over the world.

It may well be argued – and I am prepared to accept this argument – that the struggle for freedom of expression is a political struggle. No doubt the most important political struggle of our time. But once we have agreed on this point, we in The Free Press Society welcome anyone in our midst.

Whether people are socialists, liberals, conservatives, for or against the war in Afghanistan, for or against the European Union, higher or lower taxes, immigration or whatever is of no concern to us.

We have among our members people of many political and religious persuasions – Social Democrats, liberals and conservatives, adherents and opponents of the welfare state etc. We have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and atheists. We get along famously because we have one thing in common: freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is the absolute prerequisite for any other freedom. Without it there can be no democracy, no personal liberty, no rule of law, no equality before the law, no equality between the sexes. In fact no social or scientific progress.

Unfortunately, a growing number of people in our Western societies – and particularly in our governments, in our universities, in the press and among church leaders – think that free speech has become a burden. That it is an affront to the sort of decent and well behaved society they prefer. They think that free speech exists and is encoded in our free and democratic constitutions in order that people may say nice things to each other. In particular, people are not supposed to criticise so-called ethnic minorities, by which they invariably mean Muslim minorities.

According to our ruling elites, any criticism of Islam or of unfettered immigration or of the growing trend in our Western countries towards parallel societies should be seen as racism.

Not only are dissidents called every name in the book and evicted from polite company. Their careers are ruined. They are fired from their jobs. They receive threats. They are beaten up and sometimes killed.

Anyone who thinks that political murders belong in our fascist or communist past should ponder the fate of the two brave Dutchmen Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, who were cut down by political fanatics.

And they should remember what recently happened to the Danish artist Kurt Westergaard and his Swedish colleague Lars Vilks. Fortunately they are still alive but only because they are protected by the security police.

And what crime have Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks committed? They have drawn some pictures!

Think about that! What do you think would have happened if forty years ago, some daring soul had suggested that Islam’s implantation in the West would result in this state of affairs? He would have been ridiculed. People would have said that he was ready for the insane asylum. And if he was a politician, his career would have been cut short. That was precisely what happened to the British Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell when he had warned against the consequences of mass immigration.

And today – as it is becoming clear for all to see unless they shut their eyes – that orthodox Islam is incompatible with free speech, new methods are being employed in order to shut up anyone who will not toe the line.

We have come to a point where the upholders of the official state ideology of multiculturalism and cultural and moral relativism can no longer defend their position in free and open discourse. They have run out of rational arguments as more and more Germans, Dutchmen, Danes, Britons, Italians etc. realise that all cultures are not equal and that some religions and political ideologies are better than others.

So they mobilise the judicial system in order to indict and punish dissidents for what they call “hate speech”.

That is why we have seen criminal trials like the ones against my friends Geert Wilders in Holland and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria and myself in Denmark.

Geert, Elisabeth and I haven’t threatened anyone. We have not incited violence against anyone. We are neither anti-Semites nor racists.

We have simply insisted on our right to criticise a totalitarian ideology that threatens to obliterate everything that Europe and the West have achieved over the past 350 years.

Let me remind you that free speech is not an institution intended to ensure that people speak nicely. Quite the contrary. Freedom of expression exists in order to protect those who make statements that people abhor. Statements that are shocking, outrageous, unheard of and – yes – plain blasphemous.

Whenever I get the chance, I take the liberty of slightly rephrasing something that the incomparable English author George Orwell once remarked: Free speech is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear!

If you are looking for an easy-to-remember definition of freedom of expression, there you have it!

Anyone who takes the trouble to study the history of Western societies, will notice that any new thought, any novel scientific hypothesis or insight, any new idea that has brought our Western civilisation forward has invariably been condemned as outrageous, evil, contrary to common sense and moral decency if not outright blasphemous.

Scientific progress and advancement in human understanding cannot take place outside a climate of free speech. This means that people must have an unlimited right to advance any crazy idea they please. They must be permitted to offend, ridicule and blaspheme.

It is characteristic of every known totalitarian system – in the modern world primarily varieties of Fascism, Communism and Islam – that it will not permit people to make mistakes or deviate from a truth they consider god-given.

The pioneers of the European Scientific Revolution did not evade their share of persecution. In 1616 – 73 years after his death – the Catholic church condemned Copernicus’ heliocentric world picture as heretical. In 1633 the church basically crushed Mediterranean science by forcing Galileo to retract his contention that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Not that it made any difference in the real world – except that the Catholic Church drove serious science out of Italy and the Mediterranean lands and thereby handed the scientific and soon after the economic, political and philosophical lead to countries in Northern and Western Europe.

What distinguishes Europe – and later European societies across the seas – from the Islamic World is the fact that religious orthodoxy and religious stupidity could not survive the onslaught of free thought and free expression.

Let me emphasize that this entire development could not have taken place without critics who insisted on their right to free speech and more precisely without the hard-won freedom to criticize religion, including the right to express opinions that someone would find blasphemous. Let us recall that every major step of social progress – the abolition of royal absolutism and the prerogatives of the nobility and the religious hierarchy, the freeing of the peasants, voting rights for workers, equality for women, the abolition of slavery and apartheid, prohibition against beating servants and children etc. – has invariably been opposed by reactionaries and holy men as offensive to the god-given order. So there is no progress in human society without a relentless struggle against the very concept of blasphemy.

A few days ago, at a church gathering – the so-called Kirchentag – in Dresden, German President Christian Wulff repeated his earlier statement that Islam is a part of Germany and others at the conference said that more should be done to make Muslims feel welcome in Germany.

President Wulff might have enlightened his Christian audience that if Islam is to be a part of Germany, freedom of expression cannot be a part of it. If a political ideology such as Islam, according to which any criticism of the prophet or the Koran is punishable by death, is to be a part of Germany, then obviously free speech will have no place this brave new land.

Your President might have said that Muslims can become a part of Germany to the extent that they distance themselves from the insane political ideology that has crippled every society where it has taken hold over the past 1400 years.

But that was not what he said.

I am not mentioning President Wulff’s statement in order to single out your President or Germany for blame. I mention it because I am sure that you have all noticed what President Wullf said and wondered what it might mean.

We hear the same sentiment repeated by governments and political and church leaders all over the Western world: We have to make room for Islam in Europe, they say. Islam is an enrichment of our culture.

Strangely enough we never hear Muslim leaders either in the West or in the Islamic countries say that more should be done to make Christians, Jews and people of other faiths or without religious faith feel more welcome in the Muslim world.

We never hear governments or religious or political leaders in the Dar al-Islam (The House of Islam) demand that non-Muslims should have the right to assemble without fear, that they should have the right to build churches or synagogues. That they should be permitted to freely express their religious beliefs in public without fear of physical attacks or discrimination. In other words, that they should enjoy freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Instead we hear of endless and very often vicious and violent persecution of non-Muslims all over the Islamic world. In Algeria, Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan. From Indonesia in the East to Nigeria in the West.

Soon the last Christians of Iraq will have been driven out. That is after our troops have liberated the country. Some liberation! In Egypt – which is supposed to have carried out a democratic revolution – the 8-10 per cent of the population that still clings to Egypt’s old Christian religion are still being killed, Christian girls are still being kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and married off to Muslim men, and their families never see them again.

I think that your President and other Western leaders ought to have pondered this before making statements intended to give their citizens a bad conscience because by and large, Muslims are poorly integrated in Western societies.

We live at a time when free speech is under the heaviest attack we have experienced since the Nazis tried to impose their absolutist rule two generations ago.

At a time when we should be exchanging views and information about the real threats to our civilization and whole way of life, Western countries and international organizations are busy trying to shut down free discourse. Hate speech and blasphemy laws are being brushed off or reintroduced as a means to regulate and discipline what may be said.

It seems to me that what is politically correct ought be determined by the electorate when it has had the opportunity to listen to all arguments and every relevant piece of information.

But we are going about it the other way around. First our governments tell us what is politically correct and then they decide what may be said without fear of ostracism or criminal prosecution.

It is about time that we return to the roots of our Judeo-Christian civilization and to the founding fathers of free speech.

Let me quote from a pamphlet published by the Englishman John Milton in 1644. The language may be a bit dated, but the ideas are as fresh and relevant as when they were first penned:

“ Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”

“Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”

“[Truth] needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious.”

Milton goes on:

“If we think to regulate printing, thereby to rectify manners, we must regulate all recreations and pastimes, all that is delightful to man. No music must be heard, no song be set or sung, but what is grave and Doric. There must be licensing of dancers, that no gesture, motion, or deportment be taught our youth, but what by their allowance shall be thought honest.”

That was John Milton in 1644 at the time of the English Revolution.

How ironic, how sad, how despicable that 367 years later, we should again be discussing the need to license opinions, to regulate and rectify manners and indeed to place upon ourselves “this iron yoke of outward conformity” – to quote John Milton once again.

For that is precisely what we do when we introduce laws on hate speech and blasphemy, when the state outlaws certain opinions and put people in jail for voicing them.

Where does all this end? As Milton pointed out, there is no end to it.

Next they will be regulating the internet, they will be scouring e-mails for wrong opinions.

They will invade the private sphere and listen in to what people say in their homes or places of work.

For make no mistake. If you regulate what may be said in public, you’ will simply drive the frank exchange of opinions underground. So the logical outcome will be a police state with millions of snooping stasi informers.

We have already seen such cases in Europe.

It is high time that we the people put a stop to this. A society that regulates speech is a society that is unable to solve its problems – let alone identify them.

And such a society is doomed.

This is not the kind of world we want to leave to our children and grandchildren.

We must do away with speech rules and political correctness.

We must repeal all hate speech and blasphemy laws.

We in the International Free Press Society will commit all our efforts and resources to achieving this objective.


On Conservative Home today John Moss, a Conservative Candidate in the City & East constituency for next year’s London Assembly election, wrote about Tower Hamlets Council’s decision not to scrap their newspaper ‘East End Life’, in defiance of the DCLG’s new ‘Code of Conduct’. He said “one London council is holding out against common sense and continuing to produce a weekly newspaper, delivered free to 87,000 homes in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets… and the cost of this to Tower Hamlets taxpayers? A cool £1.5 million a year.”

Lutfur Rahman's 'Truth'
Tower Hamlets’ ‘East End Life’ is a taxpayer-funded propaganda ‘pravda’ newspaper which will now become weekly, be redesigned, and have a website, despite the ‘Code of Conduct’ calling for such newspapers to be scrapped. Takki Sulaiman, the Director of Communications at Tower Hamlets who receives a hefty salary of £100,000 per year, conducted the review of the newspaper’s future, which makes up the bulk of his portfolio, and decided against abolition. The consultation process involved a grand total of 624 people – out of the 87,000 households which receive the newspaper – who decided to respond. With this 0.7% self-selected response rate Takki Sulaiman announced he had 51% of local people’s support.
The Executive Mayor Lutfur Rahman declared a £200,000 cut to the council’s budget. However, the report on scrapping the newspaper claimed that abolition would cost £2.1 million due to contracting costs and therefore it would be more efficient to keep it going. But the council did not give any figures for the long term savings that would be made by getting rid of ‘East End Life’. Mr Rahman is well acquainted with the culture of public waste, having been backed in the Mayoral race against the official Labour candidate by Ken Livingstone, who spent £3 million a year on his own propaganda rag ‘The Londoner’ (and reviving ‘The Londoner’ is one of the few solid pledges Mr Livingstone has made so far).
Tower Hamlets Council are resisting the cuts being made by DCLG and have refused to act in line with the new ‘Code of Conduct’. Their excuse is that they’re one of the most deprived areas in London and any serious reductions in public expenditure can only do them significant harm. However, this claim is blatantly false when one considers the fact that they have the fourth highest spending powerof any UK council. In 2011-12 they will spend £1,889.64 per head with a population of 234,765. That’s a total of £443,621,334.6. Tower Hamlets Council have taxpayers’ money pouring out of their ears yet instead of using those resources to help the most deprived people in the borough, they are wasting £1.5 million a year on a newspaper which competes with real journalism.
Between December 2010 and March 2011 the council spent £154,431.16 on publishing and distributing the newspaper. This consisted of £128,013.02 for Trinity Mirror Printing Watford Ltd and £26,418.14 for The Distribution Company, which are both based in Tower Hamlets. It is time for accountability and efficiency to replace cronyism and profligate spending in local government. Tower Hamlets need to accept that East End Life is an unacceptable waste of taxpayers’ money and a gross distortion of a fair debate.

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

European Court of Human Rights Making a Whore out of Justice

Making a whore out of Justice

The panel of seven judges at the European Court of Human Rights ruled two Somali criminals could not be sent backViolence fears: UK appeals by the Somalis who claimed they would face the risk of harm if sent back to Mogadishu were rejected. However, the court overturned that ruling.

Undesirable' and 'dangerous' immigrants who have committed serious crimes in Britain cannot be deported if they face 'ill-treatment' at home because it is against their human rights.
European judges ruled today that regardless of how bad their crimes are, the convicts can never be sent back.
Today in the landmark decision, two Somalis - Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi - won their appeal against deportation.

There are now fears that up to 200 more criminals could be allowed to stay by declaring they will be tortured if sent back to their country of origin.
Strasbourg judges ruled that the two Somalis could not be sent back to Mogadishu - despite serious convictions.
Both Sufi and Elmi have convictions for a number of serious offences.

In the case of Elmi, 42, it is robbery and supplying class A drugs cocaine and heroin and in that of Sufi, 24, it is burglary and threats to kill.
The European Court of Human Rights also awarded Sufi and Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention centres, £12,500 and £6,700 respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case.
Sufi, 24, claimed asylum in the UK in 2003 on the grounds that he belonged to a minority clan persecuted by Somali militia. His account was rejected as not credible and asylum was refused.
Elmi, 42, arrived in the UK in 1988 and was granted leave to stay as a refugee in 1989, renewed indefinitely in 1993.
Their UK appeals that they risked being ill-treated or killed if returned to Mogadishu were rejected.
The European Court of Human Rights blocked their deportation pending a hearing of their appeals to the Strasbourg court.
Today the seven-judge court ruled unanimously that deporting them would breach the Human Rights Convention Article 3 which bans 'inhuman or degrading treatment'.
The ruling said: 'The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute, irrespective of the victims' conduct.
'Consequently, the applicants' behavior, however undesirable or dangerous, could not be taken into account.'
The judges said no one disputed that, towards the end of 2008, Mogadishu was not a safe place to live for the majority of its citizens. The situation had deteriorated since then.
The ruling cited the UK's own Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which acknowledged the dangers, while saying it was possible that individuals with connections to powerful people in Mogadishu might be able to live there safely.
Anyone else being returned would face a real risk of persecution or serious harm, although those whose home area was in any part of southern and central Somalia might be able to go back in safety and without undue hardship.
Human Rights Watch described the situation in Mogadishu as 'one of the world's worst human rights catastrophes'.
The judges concluded that the general level of violence in Mogadishu 'was of sufficient intensity to pose a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 to anyone in the capital'.
The judgment described the case as the 'lead case' against the UK, with 214 similar cases pending before the same court.

It's Still a Pig with Lipstick : Yasmin Qureshi MP Bolton a Town of Shame

It's Still a Pig in Lipstick: Yasmin Qureshi MP Bolton a Town Of Shame !

Britain's powerlessness to control who has the right to be in this country was glaringly exposed last night by two extraordinary cases.
In the first, an anti-Semitic preacher of hate whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering Britain was able to stroll in through Heathrow.
Last night, Raed Salah was giving a lecture organised by Islamist radicals to a large crowd in Leicester, and today he was due to speak at Westminster at the invitation of Left-wing Labour MPs. One of which is the MP for Bolton South East   

Yasmin Qureshi, Labour's first Muslim woman MP. Now this Muslim will of course say in public that she loves this country with all it's diversity and multiculturalism , but her actions speak more than any public sophism or false arguments for you labour readers.
For the fact that she is quite willing to share a platform with a vile Radical such as Raed Salah who's anti Semitic quotes would make Hitler blush. for example in February this year he accused
the "Jewish people of using children's blood to bake bread". and also as well him having contacts with the Iranian secret services, and also raising millions of pounds for the terror group hamas.  
And the worse thing it is to be in the Houses of Parliament , the so called Mother of parliaments and a so called paragon of democracy, but on the other hand you only have to remember the case of Geert Wilders when he wanted to present his film Fitna that was critical of islam to parliamentarians on how he was not even allowed into the country.another fine sense of the lack of freedom of speech for the rational, or should I say rashernal. And the platform freely given to the preachers of islamic hate by their labour allies.

It appears to the Horwich Nationalists that if you are willing to invite some one and then share a platform that is specifically design to appeal to a islamic crowd then you must of course share the views and wish to promote the views of those of whom you have invited. To me this proves what all European Nationalists have been saying all along about islam and those who practise this pseudo faith, including those token ones that these traitors in the Labour party and their Con/Dem associates like to recruit to their ranks as safe moslems. Is that once a moslem always a moslem and nothing else, and that they want nothing more than to impose on us all the horrific system of islam on us all.  And like we say in Lancashire you can dress it up as much as you like but it is a PIG IN LIPSTICK! pretending to be what it is not!

The Smashing of the Cross – Islam’s War Against Christians

Nick Griffin braves the Turkish occupation zone of Northern Cyprus to bring you the pictures the 'mainstream' press won't let you see.
Map of Cyprus with Turkish-occupied zone shown in dark red
From Manchester to Northern Cyprus, Muslim occupation means ethnic cleansing and a relentless war against Christianity. Crossing into occupied Northern Cyprus to expose the truth about this barbarism isn't without risk: last month, three Polish MEPs were arrested for doing just that.
But, guided by refugees now living in exile, that's exactly what Nick and Jackie Griffin did at the end of March, while on a short holiday break before the rigours of the campaign for the May elections. After crossing the heavily patrolled border, they visited and photographed a number of ancient churches desecrated and looted by the Turkish invaders.
These exclusive photos give a glimpse of the cultural and ethnic cleansing that takes place everywhere Islam takes over a once Christian country. They should serve as a warning to us all as immigration and high birthrates lead to an explosion of the Muslim population in Britain.
Smashed Greek Cypriot grave in Akanthou: Smashed Greek Cypriot grave in AkanthouSmashed Greek Cypriot grave in the northern coastal village of Akanthou

Many churches are now in complete ruinMany churches are now in complete ruin
In almost every looted church, the altar has been vandalised. On this desecrated altar the spray-painted Greek says “Christ Has Risen”. Pathetic defiance or brutal mockery? No one knows, but the red paint suggests vandalism by Turks in the colour of theirIn almost every looted church, the altar has been vandalised. On this desecrated altar the spray-painted Greek says “Christ Has Risen”. Pathetic defiance or brutal mockery? No one knows, but the red paint suggests vandalism by Turks in the colour of their national flag

The desecrated cemetery at Akanthou. As in every Christian graveyard in the North, every monument has been smashed in an orgy of Islamist hateThe desecrated cemetery at Akanthou. As in every Christian graveyard in the North, every monument has been smashed in an orgy of Islamist hate

This church in the east of the occupied zone was once decorated with stunning icons and frescoes illustrating religious themes. All have been looted by Turks and sold to collectors abroadThis church in the east of the occupied zone was once decorated with stunning icons and frescoes illustrating religious themes. All have been looted by Turks and sold to collectors abroad

All over the occupied zone, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike are appalled at the huge Wahhabi mosques being built and staffed with Saudi moneyAll over the occupied zone, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike are appalled at the huge Wahhabi mosques being built and staffed with Saudi money

Nick Griffin with the two Greek Cypriot refugees who acted as guides in the tour of the Turkish-occupied zone. Their identities have been concealed to protect them from possible harassment or prosecution by the Turkish occupation forces if they cross the Nick Griffin with the two Greek Cypriot refugees who acted as guides in the tour of the Turkish-occupied zone. Their identities have been concealed to protect them from possible harassment or prosecution by the Turkish occupation forces if they cross the border in future

Even the faces of the dead have been scratched outEven the faces of the dead have been scratched out

What you can do:
- Spread the word. Tell your friends – boycott Northern Cyprus and Turkey. Now Egypt and Tunisia aren't safe, if you want the sun, holiday in the (Greek) Republic of Cyprus or Bulgaria. (Better still, help the British economy, and take a holiday here. Though don't blame us if it rains!)
- Download a couple of these photos. Send them to your local paper together with a letter saying you were shocked to come across such destruction during a holiday there, and that you won't be going to Turkish-occupied Cyprus again.

*A version of this story was originally featured in the April edition of The Voice of Freedom. To read stories like this before anyone else, subscribe to The Voice of Freedom today:
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Anger at Labour Party Members Support for Paedophile

Labour25 +8 Timothy Edmeades

Anger & Sparks fly in Basildon Crown Court
at Gerard Rice the Labour Party Paedophilic supporting Mayor & Councillor of a Serial Child  Rapist and Labour Party activist and case  working & organiser … Timothy Edmeades.
A lousy 33 months jail for Labour Party activist and case working assistant
to Labour party Lord Mayor and Councillor Gerard Rice sends the Court into
uproar. Screams and shouts of anger were hurled at the local Labour Party
Councillor & Lord Mayor Gerard Rice of the Thurrock Councill, after he openly
praised his Paedophile sex beast monster case worker assistant in a Basildon
Court room in front of the 3 Child victims parents.
Labour Party Councillor and Lord Mayor Gerard Rice’s Paedophile ‘friend’
Labour Party activist and case worker/events organiser Timothy Edmeades
was a teaching assistant and boy scout leader. (Another Labour
party paedophile who likes the boy scouts )

Here we go again… Labour Party Paedophiles after jobs with the schools,
and Harriet harman
( Paedophile Information Exchange ) with her hands on
the infant school sex education programme for 5 yr olds….

Labour Party activist Timothy Edmeades was Sexually abusing and grooming
young boys in Thurrock. Labour Party Councillor and Lord Mayor Gerard Rice
Gave good references of this Paedophile and when evil paedophile Timothy
Edmeades was eventualy caught, Labour Party’s Gerard Rice was there to give
him a full reference.
The Headmaster at the School where Timothy Edmeades had been
appointed to be a teaching assistant was instantly sacked. If Timothy Edmeades
had not had a reference to teach near children, then 3 childrens lives and the lives
of their families would not be devastated today, thanks to Labour Councillor and
Mayor Gerard Rice.
Timothy Edmeades was caught when Two years after the assaults, the boy then
10 years old bravely stood up and called ‘Childline’ and within hours, police
were around to arrest Labour Party activist Timothy Edmeades.

How ’Natural’ it is for paedophiles to be attracted
to the Paedophile Labour Party.

Labour Party Councillor Gerard Rice should have been sacked when standing
up for the evil paedophile Timothy Edmeades in Basildon Crown Court but the
Labour Party would never sack a Paedophile protector. Labour Party
Paedophile protector Gerard Rice stood up in a packed court room filled with
parents and family members of the 3 abused children and said ‘ Mr Edmeades
worked for me in a bed store called Bensons for 4 years’ He was trustworthy,
diligent and totaly reliable.’ He also added that Timothy Edmeades had helped
the Labour Party by helping him as Labour Party Lord Mayor and dealt with
many of the Labour Party Constituents, and helped organise Labour
Party Functions. The Labour Party had a new activist for dealing
with case work, he was Paedophile Labour activist Timothy
After Labour Party Councillor Gerard Rice heard of Labour Paedophile activist
Timothy Edmeades conviction, Labour Councillor Gerard Rice gave an
interview to the newspapers while he was ‘outside’ the country, and in that
interview, he buried Timothy Edmeades, trying to cover himself by saying
that he didn’t know what Timothy Edmeades had been arrested for.
The families and parents threatened Labour Party Gerard Rice with the
Authority’s standard commission, and two parents made complaints to the
Council itself.
Labour Party case worker and events organiser activist Timothy Edmeades
has been sentenced to 33 months in prison for the sexual abuse of 3 boys
and severe child abuse images on his computer with children as young
as 4 years old. Parents were telling the jury of the hell caused by this Labour
Party activist paedophile Timothy Edmeades.

One child ( age 10yrs) said to his father.. ‘I don’t want to live anymore.’
The childs father just keeps ‘breaking down.’

Another lousy sentence for a crime that
should have been a life term, and Guess
who will give Labour Party activist
Timothy Edmeades a new identity ?

Check if any Labour Party Members
of any ‘rank’ are teachers or on the
school governors board or leaders
of your local scout group.

British National : RWB Radio Tonight The World at 8 – Sex trafficking raids, flash flood alert, general strike in Greece

Tonight on the British National Party internet radio station

The World at 8 – Sex trafficking raids, flash flood alert, general strike in Greece

By James North –
On tonight's show: Nine people were arrested in sex trafficking raids by the UK Border Agency on Thursday last week in one of the biggest operations of its kind ever undertaken in the UK. Officers from eight forces carried out simultaneous raids on 13 different addresses in the south and east of England.
A flash flood alert has been issued for the south-east of England as heavy downpours and thunderstorms are due to end the UK's short-lived heat wave. The briefly violent weather may also reach London, but Met Office warnings were reduced overnight after initially including the Home Counties, East Anglia and parts of the Midlands.
A burglar stabbed to death during a raid may have been trying to target a bingo jackpot winner but broke into the wrong house. Masked intruder John Bennell, 27, died from the wounds to the chest that he received after he and three others entered the house in Salford, Greater Manchester. Homeowner Peter Flanagan, 59, was arrested on suspicion of murder but has been freed pending further inquiries.
In European news, a 48-hour general strike has begun in Greece today, as the Greek parliament discusses the new 28 billion austerity package. A final vote on the plan is expected tomorrow. Eurozone sources have revealed that EU officials have been working for weeks on a ‘plan B’ to avoid a Greek default if the austerity package is rejected, but no details are given on what it would involve.
While the EU pressures Greece to take austerity measures and curb the damage to the eurozone, other nations like Turkey are increasingly sceptical about whether they should join the union. Especially since the country is not particularly welcome.
In world news, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a warrant for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and a handful of associates. This isn’t the first time the ICC has come after figureheads.
Tune in at at 8 p.m. to hear tonight’s broadcast.
If you missed yesterday’s show, it's still available and can be heard on the player below:

The World at 8
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Geert Wilders In Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam"

Geert Wilders: "In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam"

Geert Wilders on his acquittal:

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech
Wall Street Journal  24 June 2011 (hat tip Ruthfully yours)
In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech
I was tried for a thought crime despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years.
The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said.
My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, "Fitna."
I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately "insulted" and "incited discrimination and hatred" against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."
I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.
My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party's views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.
That's why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society," the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable."
The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.
The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.
Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday's decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.
The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.
Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year and a half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists-and replaced by First Amendment clauses.
Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.
Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom.

Monday, 27 June 2011

Bolton Muslim Paedophile Gangs (Liverpool British National Party in Bolton)

Liverpool British National Party Links

Muslim Paedophile Gangs (Liverpool BNP in Bolton)

June, 2011
by Liverpool BNP
This week, the Liverpool branch of the BNP, took 2 cars full of Activists to Bolton for a demonstration to raise awareness about the widespread problem our country has with Muslim paedophile grooming and rape gangs,  that prey on white girls. Yes, MUSLIM GANGS ARE TARGETING WHITE GIRLS AND RAPING THEM! I will say it exactly as it is. I cannot be prosecuted for stating that because it is true. To the lefties (and the authorities)that read this I invite you to try. I challenge you to try to prosecute me on any charge you like.
With this subject disgusting so many people, we could have taken more Activists with us but when we arrived in Bolton there was, as expected, a good turnout from BNP members across the country.
We started by leafleting the town centre, were after 5 minutes there was the usual attempts to disrupt our activity by an aggressive woman Labour council worker, accompanied by 2 equally arrogant C.P.O.s (plastic coppers).
As any follower of this site will be aware, we know our rights and so upon informing them of this, and establishing that the C.P.O.’s have no authority whatsoever, we went about our business of informing the people of Bolton that they should be on their guard as Muslim paedophile gangs are operating in their area.
Why would the council not want the public to be aware that their children may be in danger from paedophiles? Because apparently, Labour are all for paedophiles, support paedophiles, many of them ARE in fact paedophiles and the Labour leadership has actually tried to LEGALISE PAEDOPHILIA! See ( Again, I welcome Labour to try and take legal action against me. They won’t. They know this all to be true. This explains why the Labour Council worker attempted to hinder us exposing paedophiles.
After a while leafleting, we headed for the courts were 8 ASIAN MUSLIM MEN were appearing on several charges including child rape and soliciting child prostitution- they get the young girls hooked on drugs and then rent them out for sex to other ASIAN MUSLIM MEN.
On several occasions, the filthy perverts appeared in the windows of the court building, jeering and laughing at us, making gestures with their hands, V for victory signs as they know that there is a very good chance that they will walk free as so often happens with Muslim paedophile gangs.
Well that is exactly why we are raising awareness to this case, and the many others like it. We intend to put pressure on the Police, the Government and the courts so that they act, and act firmly.
These animals can not be allowed to evade justice.
after our days effort, we retired to the home of Dorothy and Andy Sayers (who work very hard running the Bolton BNP branch) for refreshments.
Thank you to Dot and Andy for making us all very welcome and looking after us.
What came of no surprise at all was that the following day the Bolton News, the local rag (Bolton’s Echo), wrote a story about our demo. It included comments from “local” people. We witnessed the reporter talking to several local Bolton people with local accents who said they were very happy with us being there and it was a good thing that we were doing (any right thinking person would surely agree, and most did). He was then seen talking to a communist council worker (yes, another one), a black woman and an Asian in full Muslim dress.
Needless to say, the newspaper printed only the negative comments from these so called “locals” and not one from the many supportive genuine local Bolton people they spoke to.
It appears that Bolton council support paedophiles (well it is a Labour council so it will), and so too apparently does the Bolton News.
The TV report was also unnecessarily hostile towards us saying “BNP incite racial tension”.
Well I say shame on them! If there has been any racial tension created then it was by the ASIAN MUSLIM MEN who raped the young white girls, got them addicted to drugs and passed them around each other, taking turns to rape them, not us! Should we stay silent so that parents do not know that they need to look out for their children? Like the papers and TV have been for years? NO.
That is why it is happening all aver Britain because of their silence, parents and children have been unaware of the dangers which has led to hundreds more of these cases. We will not allow it to be swept under the carpet! It is only due to us raising awareness that any arrests have been made in any of these cases because the police were refusing to arrest the perverts because they were MUSLIMS! So the police are to blame for any racial tensions as well as the Muslim paedophiles because of their in-action and refusal to arrest them out of cowardice.
We are raising awareness to get justice for these kids, and so that other kids and parents are aware of the activities of these scumbags and the dangers that they pose!
But no matter how good the deed we do is, the press will always manage to put a negative slant on it, or they won’t report it. It is in the rules of the National Union Of Journalists (NUJ), an organisation that all mainstream journalists must be in. They have built a website out-lining how their members must report on the BNP. Take a look:
So, If a man seen a vicious dog mauling a toddler, intervened, beating off the savage animal and saved the child’s life, then the reporter would write an article: “LOCAL HERO SAVES TODDLER FROM DEVIL DOG”
But if the reporter found out that the hero happened to be a BNP member, then he would change the article and the headline would read:”Racist BNP Man Violently Bludgeons Family Pet To Death.”
So it would seem that we cannot win. BUT WE DID WIN! The newspaper and TV reported that a gang of Muslim men appeared in court for raping children, the people of Bolton will now be on their guard, thus preventing more children from suffering the same plight and that, was our victory.

Globalisation and Our Value System

Globalisation and Our Value System

By Joan
People come here to live from all over the world, pushing our population up from about 54 millions in 1997 when Labour came to power to about 61 millions today. This number is projected to rise to 70 million by 2020.
The previous government denied the figures, said that the increase would not happen and, even if it did, we would cope because “we are a civilized country”. The present government makes lots of the right noises about protecting our borders, but in actual fact has done nothing since it took office. Being “civilized” has little to do with the matter.
In the real world where the rest of us live, people have to compete for space. The transport system runs at full-to-spill-over capacity at the best of times. When you get in your car the roads are clogged with other traffic. When you stop there is nowhere to park. You can pay a lot of money to get on a train and then have to stand for the whole journey. When there is a bit of snow, or fog or heavy rain, or even heat, transport comes to a complete standstill.
After a week or two without rain we are threatened with water rationing as the system cannot cope with the number of people who now use it. Sewage, built for the 30 million or so people alive in Victorian times, strains to cope with double the numbers today.
Housing is under similar pressure. It is in very short supply. As a result house prices have rocketed beyond the reach of ordinary young working couples. Council housing goes to those in most need – often to immigrants with as many as 12 children and perhaps even several wives. Thousands of pounds per month goes to foreign landlords who let their expensive, central London houses out to foreign nationals at our expense. This is British tax payers hard-earned money going straight out of the country into foreign pockets.
As in housing, so in education: 250,000 students have not found a university place this year. The cost of increasing numbers wanting to study has meant the end of free places and horrendously expensive tuition fees for our own young people. While government funding is cut back, universities give places to profitable foreign students who pay more tuition fees. They can afford to do so because they come here on scholarships funded with the foreign aid we send them.
The health service operates the same way, except that nobody pays. Foreigners are supposed to be billed, but the bills are rarely, if ever, chased up. You donate a body organ to a hospital and find that they have sold it to someone from overseas. The reasons are the same as in education. Hospitals strapped for cash owing to increasing demand make money that way. My own local surgery in a West Country town is experiencing 1,500 new registrations a month at the moment. This means that 750 extra people enter our country each day.
Everybody talks about these problems. Nobody mentions the cause – overpopulation caused by uncontrolled immigration. There are too many of us on this small island. Not just too many of us, but too many who have nothing in common with each other. Look around you in our major cities. Do people live in communal harmony, or in enclosed groups? Do they integrate freely or is there little mixing and little feeling of having much in common? How much mixing and integration goes on? Immigrants often come and go. Understandably, new comers have little loyalty towards us. They are here for their own personal gain. What do they contribute to our communities, or sense of social cohesion? From what I observe, outside of food and restaurants, it is relatively little. Many never even learn to speak the language fluently.
Quite naturally, immigrants come to get something out of us. What they put back in is incidental. If they have a violent temperament or extreme religious views, they take pleasure in robbing our system of welfare benefits and living off us. As gratitude is an extremely difficult emotion to live with they often resent us as they do so.
What do they feel about taking welfare money off the British taxpayer? “It is Allah’s money”, they say. Terrorists-in- training see overburdening the welfare state as one of the ways to bring down the country. After that it will be all the easier to establish a Sharia state. They may be a minority, but they are very influential in setting attitudes and trends.
Many immigrants do not stay permanently. They move on when we no longer serve their purpose, or when they think they can do better somewhere else. Any contribution they make to our economy is merely a side effect of what they get out of us. Many have no loyalty or obligation to us. Millions of pounds are send abroad every day to boost the economies of emerging countries, which will then compete with our own on our money.
Many Bangladeshi people I spoke to in Crawley. West Sussex, recently told me that they were going to Canada as soon as they had the money, work experience and language skills to do so. They use our country to hone those skills while receiving welfare benefits, tax relief, education and health services. Child allowances are paid even if the children do not live in this country. Immigrants also qualify for old age pensions after they leave, depleting our economy and boosting theirs.
We ask nothing of the people who come to live here, not even loyalty. In their investigations into the “underpants bomber” on the plane to Chicago on Christmas Day a few years ago, the Americans publicly stated that British multiculturalism breeds terrorists. The Metropolitan police have said that every terrorist plot, anywhere in the world, has had strong links with London. Look in any newspaper and you will find reports of court cases involving would-be terrorists. There is a new one about every week.
Poor countries suffer immeasurably from the loss of skilled people who come here.
An article in The Maltese Times last November said that until very recently over 75% of newly qualified doctors trained in Malta left to live in Britain. They have now altered their system to stop that – and quite right too. Nepal desperately needs to retain the Gurkhas, their families and their money. Nepal is dirt poor. It needs every bit of help those Gurkhas can give.
You can’t blame anybody for following their own self-interests and moving to where they are best off, but a mix of vastly dissimilar people destroys any sense of community. It robs the country the emigrants leave and it disturbs the countries they move to.
A plentiful supply of cheap immigrant labour suppresses wages for our own workers. British people sit at home on benefits while foreigners do the work they ought to be doing. This robs the British of pride and self-respect. It destroys their morale. It saps the vitality of the nation.
If you don’t believe what I say, ask a man on benefits what he does. He will never confess to sitting at home doing nothing. That is too shameful to him. He will mention a job he used to do and follow it up with how he can’t find work like that now. He knows he is living on taxpayers’ handouts and in his heart he resents it. He is unable to hold is head up high and maintain his self respect, but in many cases he is better off financially staying at home than going to work for low wages. It is a degrading situation to which we thoughtlessly condemn millions of our own people.
This lack of pride and dignity, quite rightly, generates anger and resentment – amongst young men in particular. The government gives the women and children more if they live on their own than if they live with a low earning spouse or partner. Men are degraded and made outcasts by the very system they are paying to support! In the absence of a strong, permanent father, is it any wonder that some rebellious boys form gangs to replace the male bonding, belonging and purpose they have missed out on?
This is the downside to deliberate government policy that nobody will speak about. It is a taboo subject, but the resentment against it simmers. It sometimes shows itself in drunkenness, anti social or criminal gangs or even murders. Pent up resentment with no outlet is a dangerous feeling.
Government, however, does not really believe in community, in mutual support, self-help and nationhood. It believes in growth, profits and globalization. It is globalization, however, which is destroying the glue that holds our value system and our society together. Apart from being a source for tax revenues, the government overlooks the average man or woman. It has its sights set on its place in the world at large.
In an article in The Sunday Times some time ago, Dominic Lawson said that the British government wants to “elevate British foreign policy above the constraints of mere national interest.” It believes that “the objective of our foreign policy should be to advance the entire planet towards a state of grace and enlightenment roughly similar to that existing in Islington or Hampstead.”
The British government has a long standing obsession with being the world leader. In his evidence to the Chilcot Enquiry into the Iraq War, our former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said that Tony Blair consistently failed to pursue British interests in his dealings with George Bush. “New Labour believed that in a globalized world, foreign policy could no longer be about anything other than global issues and that Britain should be a leader in promoting global policies”.
Can you imagine Iran, India, America, China or Russia putting British interests before their own? Of course not, so our globalized stance is suicidal to our present economic well being and our future prospects.
With its misguided policies of pushing what it sees as “global issues”, the government ignores British interests. Global harmony is a myth. A belief in it only works if everybody thinks the same way (which they don’t), or if a country has the power to make everybody act as though they think the same way. Britain no longer has this power.
Sadly for Britain, the balance of power has shifted. American power is waning. The BRIC countries ( Brazil, Russia, India and China) are the places where future global policies will be decided. Look at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009. Who decided what the future of global emissions should be? Was it Britain, or was it China, India Russia and America whose viewpoints won out? The major world powers will not be lectured on what their future should be by a country that is now very much in the second rank.
Government policy is no longer about anything other than global issues. They firmly believe that there is no such thing as a national interest and that Britain should be a leader in promoting global policies whether or not it is in this country’s interests to do so. This stance is suicidal to our present economic well being and our future prospects.
Globalisation is not working for British interests on any level. Ten years ago we had the world’s 4th largest economy. We currently lie in 7th place and will be outside the top 10 inside 10 years.
It is tragic to see us sliding downhill, especially when it would be so easy to do things better.
British workers could be given priority for jobs. Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand already operate this policy. It could be against the law for profitable British firms to be deliberately wound down, broken up and sold off in pieces to foreigners. It could be made illegal for pension funds to be robbed by foreign companies.
Take the car industry as an example. English car and van firms go out of business because vehicles can be made cheaper elsewhere. Cheaper for whom? Certainly not cheaper for the taxpayer who has to pay the unemployment benefits of the workers thrown out of a job.
Instead of looking at short term profits, why can’t we build for the future? Why can’t all public services (police, ambulances, government transport departments and so on) be required to drive vehicles made in Britain? That one step alone would have saved our motor industry.
In the 1990s, Devon County Council bought ambulances in America because they were cheaper than those built at home. They then found that the huge vehicles, built for straight American highways, would not negotiate the tight corners in Devon country lanes. They quickly sold them off at a big loss. If short term profit is allowed to be the be all it will very shortly end all. Buying abroad should always be considered second best to supporting our own products. An anything goes attitude will smash the economy and our way of life. The new world leaders do not and will not include us.
In this globalized and free-for-all society, people are told that they can be anything they want and live anyway they want. It is this lack of standards and concern for others that has led to the bankers’ greed. They had the power to do whatever they wanted – and look at the results. They nearly brought down the whole system. As they are still at it, they might yet do so.
We lose more than we gain from globalisation and this struggle for a place among the dominant countries of the world. Why can’t we just accept who we are and what we are?
Let’s look at ourselves honestly, without delusions of grandeur, and rediscover our core values. What about cultivating some pride, fellowship, self-help and community responsibility? Does contentment lie in rushing about trying to earn enough to pay for the next house make-over or desirable gadget, or does it lie in a contented and vibrant communities, security and a sense of belonging?
These are old fashioned values that are rarely spoken about now. Perhaps they are even mostly forgotten. If that is true, what a lot we have lost. We can no longer compete with the biggest and the best, so let’s stop importing people to improve our profitability and grow the economy. Let’s look, instead, at what we already have and the good that we want to preserve. Let’s take pride in our traditional national values. There’s a lot to be proud of.

Sunday, 26 June 2011

The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group and the March of Tyranny

Foreword By Horwich Nationalists
This is an article that any of you Marxist or so called left wing Liberals who visit my blog must read for years your so called tolerate agenda and ideas, have not been designed for the good of mankind,as you have believed them to be. But they are wholly for the benefit of a few multi national foundations and those who head them, who's philosophy is based entirely on the occultist practices of a few ancient secret societies. These groups see you as no more than a useful idiot, in promoting their agenda. and the rest of Humankind as merely useless eaters of no real value!
In effect their aim is not only the surrender of national sovereignty, but also of the personal and religious Christian sovereignty of the individual also by the promotion of cultural systems such as political correctness which is designed to completely shut down criticism of their agenda, through individuals being unable to form judgments on any subject that this elite groups declares taboo . And also the mass introduction of isalm into the west a so called spiritual doctrine which completely surrenders the rights of spiritual sovereignty of the individual to differentiate between the individual choice between good and evil, with it's central doctrine of predestination and subjection of the individual to the islamic grouping. 
And also the promotion on the political front of socialism a doctrine of spawned of envy and that creates mass dependence on the state by the individuals within that state for not only finance and health care but in the long term the setting of the moral equivalency of the individuals within the state. For example the rights to take the lives of those are unborn, were next the right to take the lives of those who are no longer to contribute to the common whole. Do not say far fetched for who 30 years ago would have believed that two Homosexuals would have been allowed to marry one anther, and that if you say that is wrong, well see what i mean!
So please open your minds and seek the truth, the worst thing that could happen to you is that you find it, and then boy you will have to do something about it if you love freedom! in that case I will see you in person someday. 
To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.[1] 
- Denis Healey, 30-year member of the Steering  Committee of the Bilderberg Group
The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group

by Andrew Gavin Marshall at global research

The Bilderberg Group, formed in 1954, was founded in the Netherlands as a secretive meeting held once a year, drawing roughly 130 of the political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult each other privately and confidentially.”[2] Regular participants include the CEOs or Chairman of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller, major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the world.[3] The Bilderberg Group acts as a “secretive global think-tank,” with an original intent to “to link governments and economies in Europe and North America amid the Cold War.”[4]

In the early 1950s, top European elites worked with selected American elites to form the Bilderberg Group in an effort to bring together the most influential people from both sides of the Atlantic to advance the cause of ‘Atlanticism’ and ‘globalism.’ The list of attendees were the usual suspects: top politicians, international businessmen, bankers, leaders of think tanks and foundations, top academics and university leaders, diplomats, media moguls, military officials, and Bilderberg also included several heads of state, monarchs, as well as senior intelligence officials, including top officials of the CIA, which was the main financier for the first meeting in 1954.[5]

The European founders of the Bilderberg Group included Joseph Retinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard had, incidentally, been a member of the Nazi Party until 1934, three years prior to his marrying the Dutch Queen Juliana, and had also worked for the German industrial giant, I.G. Farben, the maker of Zyklon B, the gas used in concentration camps.[6] On the American side, those who were most prominent in the formation of the Bilderberg Group were David Rockefeller, Dean Rusk (a top official with the Council on Foreign Relations who was then the head of the Rockefeller Foundation), Joseph Johnson (another Council leader who was head of the Carnegie Endowment), and John J. McCloy (a top Council leader who became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1953 and was also Chairman of the Board of the Ford Foundation).[7]

The fact that the major American foundations – Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford – were so pivotal in the origins of the Bilderberg Group is not a mere coincidence. The foundations have, since their founding at the beginning of the 20th century, been the central institutions in constructing consensus among elites, and creating consent to power. They are, in short, the engines of social engineering: both for elite circles specifically, and society as a whole, more generally. As Professor of Education Robert F. Arnove wrote in his book Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

Foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as “cooling-out” agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids – a system which... has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.[8]

These foundations had been central in promoting the ideology of ‘globalism’ that laid the groundwork for organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group to exist. The Rockefeller Foundation, in particular, supported several organizations that promoted a ‘liberal internationalist’ philosophy, the aim of which:

was to support a foreign policy within a new world order that was to feature the United States as the leading power – a programme defined by the Rockefeller Foundation as ‘disinterested’, ‘objective’ and even ‘non-political’... The construction of a new internationalist consensus required the conscious, targeted funding of individuals and organizations who questioned and undermined the supporters of the ‘old order’ while simultaneously promoting the ‘new’.[9]

The major foundations funded and created not only policy-oriented institutes such as think tanks, but they were also pivotal in the organization and construction of universities and education itself, in particular, the study of ‘international relations.’[10] The influence of foundations over education and universities and thus, ‘knowledge’ itself, is unparalleled. As noted in the book, Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:

The power of the foundation is not that of dictating what will be studied. Its power consists in defining professional and intellectual parameters, in determining who will receive support to study what subjects in what settings. And the foundation’s power resides in suggesting certain types of activities it favors and is willing to support. As [political theorist and economist Harold] Laski noted, “the foundations do not control, simply because, in the direct and simple sense of the word, there is no need for them to do so. They have only to indicate the immediate direction of their minds for the whole university world to discover that it always meant to gravitate to that angle of the intellectual compass.”[11]

The major philanthropic foundations created by America’s ‘robber baron’ industrialists and bankers were established not to benefit mankind, as was their stated purpose, but to benefit the bankers and industrialist elites in order to engage in social engineering. Through banks, these powerful families controlled the global economy; through think tanks, they manage the political and foreign policy establishments; and through foundations, they engineer society itself according to their own designs and interests. Through these foundations, elites have come to shape the processes, ideas and institutions of education, thus ensuring their continued hegemony over society through the production and control of knowledge. The educational institutions train future elites for government, economics, sciences, and other professional environments, as well as producing the academics that make up the principle component of think tanks, such as the Bilderberg Group.

Foundations effectively “blur boundaries” between the public and private sectors, while simultaneously effecting the separation of such areas in the study of social sciences. This boundary erosion between public and private spheres “adds feudal elements to our purported democracy, yet it has not been resisted, protested, or even noted much by political elites or social scientists.”[12] Zbigniew Brzezinski, foreign policy strategist, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg member and co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, wrote that the blurring of boundaries “serves United States world dominance”:

As the imitation of American ways gradually pervades the world, it creates a more congenial setting for the exercise of the indirect and seemingly consensual American hegemony. And as in the case of the domestic American system, that hegemony involves a complex structure of interlocking institutions and procedures, designed to generate consensus and obscure asymmetries in power and influence.[13]

In 1915, a Congressional investigation into the power of philanthropic foundations took place, named the Walsh Commission, which warned that, “the power of wealth could overwhelm democratic culture and politics.”[14] The Final Report of the Walsh Commission “suggested that foundations would be more likely to pursue their own ideology in society than social objectivity.”[15] In this context, we can come to understand the evolution of the Bilderberg Group as an international think tank aimed at constructing consensus and entrenching ideology among the elite.

At their first meeting, Bilderbergers covered the following broad areas, which remained focal points of discussion for successive meetings: Communism and the Soviet Union; Dependent areas and peoples overseas; Economic policies and problems; and European integration and the European Defense Community.[16]

Nearly every single American participant in the Bilderberg meetings was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Among the notable American members of the Bilderberg Group in its early years were David Rockefeller, Dean Rusk, John J. McCloy, George McGhee, George Ball, Walt Whitman Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, Arthur Dean, and Paul Nitze. As Political Scientist Stephen Gill wrote, “Prominent in the American section were the network of Rockefeller interests.”[17]

Certainly, while Rothschild interests have remained in the Bilderberg Group, as evidenced by Edmond de Rothschild having been a member of the Steering Committee, and Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman of Rothschild Europe being a current Steering Committee member,[18] the Rockefeller interests seem to be most dominant. Not only is David Rockefeller sitting as the single individual of the Member Advisory Group of the Steering Committee, but close Rockefeller confidantes have long served on the Steering Committee and been affiliated with the organization, such as: Sharon Percy Rockefeller; George Ball, a long-time leader in the Council on Foreign Relations, who was Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; Henry Kissinger, long-time Rockefeller aide and American imperial strategist; Zbigniew Brzezinski, who co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller; Joseph E. Johnson, former U.S. State Department official and President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; John J. McCloy, former Chairman the Council on Foreign Relations (superceded by David Rockefeller), former Assistant Secretary of War, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (where he was superceded by David Rockefeller), former Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, Chairman of the Ford Foundation, and President of the World Bank; and James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

One current Steering Committee member, who is representative of not only a continuation of Rockefeller interests, but also of the continuing influence and role of the major foundations is Jessica T. Matthews. She is President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who had served on the National Security Council under Zbigniew Brzezinski, was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (at which David Rockefeller remains as Honorary Chairman), is a member of the Trilateral Commission, is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and has served on the boards of the Brookings Institution, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

Bilderberg and the European Union

Joseph Retinger, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, was also one of the original architects of the European Common Market and a leading intellectual champion of European integration. In 1946, he told the Royal Institute of International Affairs (the British counterpart and sister organization of the Council on Foreign Relations), that Europe needed to create a federal union and for European countries to “relinquish part of their sovereignty.” Retinger was a founder of the European Movement (EM), a lobbying organization dedicated to creating a federal Europe. Retinger secured financial support for the European Movement from powerful US financial interests such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefellers.[19] Important to note is that following World War II, the CFR’s main finances came from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation and most especially, the Rockefeller Foundation.[20]

Apart from Retinger, the founder of the Bilderberg Group and the European Movement, another ideological founder of European integration was Jean Monnet, who founded the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUE), an organization dedicated to promoting European integration, and he was also the major promoter and first president of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Common Market.[21]

Declassified documents (released in 2001) showed that “the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”[22] The documents revealed that, “America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully-fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.” Further, “Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then,” and “the vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA's first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years.” Interestingly, “the leaders of the European Movement - Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak - were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.”[23]
The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951, and signed by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Newly released documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting show that a main topic of discussion was “European Unity,” and that “the discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference.” Further, “A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.” Interestingly, “a United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis upon ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”[24] Thus, at the 1955 Bilderberg Group meeting, they set as a primary agenda, the creation of a European common market.[25]
In 1957, two years later, the Treaty of Rome was signed, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the European Community. Over the decades, various other treaties were signed, and more countries joined the European Community. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro. The European Monetary Institute was created in 1994, the European Central Bank was founded in 1998, and the Euro was launched in 1999. Etienne Davignon, Chairman of the Bilderberg Group and former EU Commissioner, revealed in March of 2009 that the Euro was debated and planned at Bilderberg conferences.[26]

The European Constitution (renamed the Lisbon Treaty) was a move towards creating a European superstate, creating an EU foreign minister, and with it, coordinated foreign policy, with the EU taking over the seat of Britain on the UN Security Council, representing all EU member states, forcing the nations to “actively and unreservedly” follow an EU foreign policy; set out the framework to create an EU defence policy, as an appendage to or separate from NATO; the creation of a European Justice system, with the EU defining “minimum standards in defining offences and setting sentences,” and creates common asylum and immigration policy; and it would also hand over to the EU the power to “ensure co-ordination of economic and employment policies”; and EU law would supercede all law of the member states, thus making the member nations relative to mere provinces within a centralized federal government system.[27]

The Constitution was largely written up by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former President of the French Republic from 1974 to 1981. Giscard d’Estaing also happens to be a member of the Bidlerberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and is also a close friend of Henry Kissinger, having co-authored papers with him.

The Treaty, passed in 2009, created the position of President of the European Council, who represents the EU on the world stage and leads the Council, which determines the political direction of the EU. The first President of the European Council is Herman Van Rompuy, former Prime Minister of Belgium. On November 12, 2009, a small Bilderberg meeting took place, hosted by Viscount Etienne Davignon (Chairman of the Bilderberg Group), and including “international policymakers and industrialists,” among them, Henry Kissinger. Herman Von Rompuy “attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles.”[28] Following his selection as President, Van Rompuy gave a speech in which he stated, “We are going through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival; a period of anxiety, uncertainty, and lack of confidence. Yet, these problems can be overcome by a joint effort in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”[29]

As indicated from leaks of the recent 2011 Bilderberg meeting in Switzerland, the euro-zone is in a major crisis, and Bilderberg members are struggling to keep the house of glass from shattering to pieces. One major subject discussed at this year’s meeting, according to Bilderberg investigative journalist, Daniel Estulin (who reportedly has inside sources in the meetings who leak information, which has proved quite accurate in the past), the Bilderberg meeting discussed the situation of Greece, which is likely to only get worse, with another bailout on the horizon, continuing social unrest, and a possible abandonment of the euro. The problems of Greece, Ireland and the wider global economy as a whole were featured in this year’s discussions.[30] Representatives from Greece this year included George Papaconstantinou, the Greek Minister of Finance, among several bankers and businessmen.[31]
Among the EU power players attending this years meeting was the first President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, who was appointed as President following an invitation to a private Bilderberg meeting in November of 2009, at which he gave a speech advocating for EU-wide taxes, allowing the EU to not rely exclusively upon its member nations, but have its “own resources.”[32] Van Rompuy, who previously stated that, “2009 is also the first year of global governance,” is no surprise guest at Bilderberg. Other key EU officials who attended this year’s meeting were Joaquín Almunia, a Vice President of the European Commission; Frans van Daele, Chief of Staff to European Council President Van Rompuy; Neelie Kroes, a Vice President of the European Commission; and of course, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank.[33]

As with each meeting, there is the official list of participants, and then there are those participants who attend, but whose names are not listed in any official release. At this year’s meeting, some reports indicate that attendees whose names were not listed included NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, which is not surprising considering that the NATO Secretary-General has generally been present at every meeting; Jose Luis Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister; Angela Merkel, German Chancellor; Bill Gates, Co-Chairman of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former Microsoft CEO; and Robert Gates, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense.[34] The Guardian also reported that these “unofficial guests” were spotted at the conference or had their attendance ‘leaked’.[35] Angela Merkel has reportedly attended meetings in the past, which would make her current attendance less than surprising.[36]

At the recent meeting, EU officials were discussing the need for the EU to undertake a “massive power grab” in the face of the massive economic crisis facing Europe and indeed the world. Without such a power grab, the euro and indeed the Union itself would likely collapse; a scenario anathema to everything the Bilderberg group has tried to achieve in its 57-year history. The aim, put simply, would be to have the EU police itself and the nations of the Union, with the ability to punish nations for not following the rules, and as one Bilderberger reportedly stated at the meeting, “What we are heading towards a form of real economic government.”[37] Now while this statement cannot be independently verified, there is much documentation within the public record that several of the European attendees at the meeting could have easily made such a statement.

Prior to the meeting, European Central Bank President, Jean-Claude Trichet, “said governments should consider setting up a finance ministry for the 17-nation currency region as the bloc struggles to contain a region-wide sovereign debt crisis.” Trichet asked: “Would it be too bold, in the economic field, with a single market, a single currency and a single central bank, to envisage a ministry of finance of the union?” Further in line with this thought, and with the ideas laid out in the Bilderberg meeting in favour of a ‘power grab’, Trichet said he supports “giving the European Union powers to veto the budget measures of countries that go ‘harmfully astray,’ though that would require a change to EU Treaties.” Such a finance ministry would, according to Trichet, “exert direct responsibilities in at least three domains”:

They would include "first, the surveillance of both fiscal policies and competitiveness policies" and "direct responsibilities" for countries in fiscal distress, he said. It would also carry out "all the typical responsibilities of the executive branches as regards the union's integrated financial sector, so as to accompany the full integration of financial services, and third, the representation of the union confederation in international financial institutions."[38]

Last year, Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme endorsed such an idea of a ‘European Economic Government’ when he stated:

The idea of strengthened economic government has been put on the table and will make progress. In the end, the European Debt Agency or something like it will become a reality. I’m convinced of this. It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism. I myself am a federalist. But more integration and deeper integration are simply logical consequences of having a single currency.[39]

This is of course, not surprising, considering that Leterme’s predecessor is Herman van Rompuy, the current Bilderberg participant and EU President, a strong-headed advocate of an ‘economic government’ and ‘global governance.’ The plans for an ‘economic government’ require the strong commitment of both France and Germany, which may explain Merkel’s reported appearance at Bilderberg. In March of 2010, the German and French governments released a draft outline that would “strengthen financial policy coordination in the EU.” The plan, seen by German publication Der Spiegel, “calls for increased monitoring of individual member states' competitiveness so that action can be taken early on should problems emerge.” Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker stated in response to the plan, “We need a European economic government in the sense of strengthened coordination of economic policy within the euro zone.”[40] In December of 2010, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble stated that, “In 10 years we will have a structure that corresponds much stronger to what one describes as political union.”[41]

As reported by the German press in early 2011, Germany and France were split on several aspects of such an ‘economic government.’ However, as Merkel stated, “We have obviously been discussing the issue of an economic government for a long time,” and that, “What we are currently envisioning goes yet another step in this direction.” Yet, the differences between the two approaches are mainly as follows:

France would prefer to see the European Council, which comprises the heads of state and government of the EU's member states, turned into a kind of economic government. Since only euro-zone member countries would be involved initially, French Finance Minister [and past Bilderberg participant] Christine Lagarde has dubbed the project "16 plus."

The Germans are focused on completely different things. Their preference would be to see the current rescue fund replaced by the so-called European Stability Mechanism in 2013. According to this arrangement, in return for any help, cash-strapped countries would have to subject themselves to a strict cost-cutting regimen.[42]

Mario Draghi is the current President of the Bank of Italy, as well as a board member of the Bank for International Settlements – the BIS (the central bank to the world’s central banks). In an interview posted on the website of the BIS in March of 2010, Mario Draghi stated that in response to the Greek crisis, “In the euro area we need a stronger economic governance providing for more coordinated structural reforms and more discipline.”[43] Mario Draghi also attended the 2009 conference of the Bilderberg Group.[44] Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mario Draghi has been backed by the euro-area finance ministers to be the successor to Jean-Claude Trichet at the European Central Bank, who is due to step down in October of 2011.[45]

Certainly, the objective of a ‘European economic government’ will continue throughout the coming years, especially as the economic crisis continues. As Dominique Strauss-Kahn, outgoing Managing Director of the IMF and long-time Bilderberg participant stated, “crisis is an opportunity.”[46] Bilderberg, while not omnipotent by any means, will do all in its ability to prevent the collapse of the euro or the ending of the European Union. Bilderberg has, after all, from its very beginning, made ‘European integration’ one of its central objectives. In an official biography of Bilderberg-founder and long-time Chairman Prince Bernhard, the Bilderberg Group was credited as “the birthplace of the European Community.”[47]

Regime Change at the IMF?

Christine Lagarde, the French Finance Minister who has been pivotal in the process towards drafting and proposing a ‘European economic government’, is also considered the front-runner for the job of Managing Director of the IMF. The Managing Director of the IMF is always in attendance at Bilderberg meetings, except for this year, considering outgoing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn is facing sexual assault charges in New York; yet, the top job is usually set aside for those who have been invited to at least one meeting of the Bilderberg Group. While the race has yet to finish, perhaps it is noteworthy that Christine Lagarde attended a Bilderberg meeting in 2009.[48] Could this make her the supreme choice, or is there a surprise in the near future?

A Place for China in the New World Order?

Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin’s report of inside sources in this year’s meeting indicated a rather extensive discussion on the role of China, which is hardly surprising, considering this has been a central topic of discussion in meetings for a number of years. China emerged in discussions on Pakistan, as China has become increasingly Pakistan’s closest economic and strategic ally, a trend that is continuing as America continues to spread the Afghan war into neighbouring Pakistan. China is also a major player in Africa, threatening the West’s stranglehold over the continent, in particular through the World Bank and IMF. Most importantly, however, and not unrelated to its role in Pakistan and Africa, China has become the greatest economic competitor for the United States in the world, and as the IMF even admitted recently, its economy is expected to surpass that of the United States by 2016. Bilderberg paid attention to this issue not simply as a financial-economic consideration, but as a massive geopolitical transition in the world: “the biggest story of our time.”[49]

What made the discussion on China at this year’s meeting unique was that it actually included two attendees from China for the first time ever. The two guests were Huang Yiping, a prominent economics professor at Peking University (China’s Harvard), and Fu Ying, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs.[50] This is especially unusual and telling of the importance of the discussion at hand, considering that Bilderberg is exclusively a European and North American (Atlantic) organization, and in the past, when Bilderberg memebers David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested Japan be allowed to join in 1972, the European rejected the proposition, and instead the Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 to integrate the elites of Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The Trilateral Commission eventually expanded the Japanese section of the group into a ‘Pacific Asian Group’ in 2000 to include not only Japan, but South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

In 2009 the G20 was endowed with the task of ‘managing’ the global economic crisis – to include the ‘emerging’ economic giants, notably China and India – and as Bilderberg member Jean-Claude Trichet stated, this marked “the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance.”[51] That same year the newly-appointed European Union President Herman van Rompuy declared to be “the first year of global governance.” No surprise then, that also in 2009, China and India were invited as official members of the Trilateral Commission.[52] This indicates a growing role for India and especially China in global affairs, and participation in Bilderberg meetings emphasizes the aim to not alienate China from the established institutions, ideologies and systems of global power, but to more fully integrate China within that system. The aim of the global elite, perhaps best represented by Bilderberg, is not to allow for the collapse of the American empire and the rise of a new one; rather, it is to manage the collapse of American hegemony into an entirely new system of global governance. This ‘big idea’ is not possible without the participation of China, and thus, as Bilderberg has long been saturated with the ideology of ‘global governance,’ it cannot be seen as too surprising to see China invited. Perhaps the surprise should be that it simply took this long.

Is Bilderberg Building a Global Government?

Jon Ronson wrote an article for the Guardian paper in which he managed to interview key members of the Bilderberg Group for an exposé on the organization, attempting to dismantle the “conspiracy theories” surrounding the secrecy of the meetings. However, through his interviews, important information regarding the social importance of the group continued to emerge. Ronson attempted to contact David Rockefeller, but only managed to reach his press secretary who told Ronson that the “conspiracy theories” about Rockefeller and “global think-tanks such as Bilderberg in general” left David Rockefeller “thoroughly fed up.” According to his press secretary, “Mr. Rockefeller's conclusion was that this was a battle between rational and irrational thought. Rational people favoured globalisation. Irrational people preferred nationalism.”[53]

While dismissing “conspiracy theories” that Bilderberg “runs the world,” Ronson did explain that the Bilderberg members he interviewed admitted, “that international affairs had, from time to time, been influenced by these sessions.” As Denis Healey, a 30-year member of the Steering Committee, himself pointedly explained:

To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing... Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy.[54]

Will Hutton, the former Editor of the Observer, who had been invited to Bilderberg meetings in the past, once famously referred to the group as “the high priests of globalization.”[55] Hutton has said that “people take part in these networks in order to influence the way the world works,” and to create, as he put it, “the international common sense” of policy. The Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Viscount Etienne Davignon, stated that, “I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists. I simply think it's people who have influence interested to speak to other people who have influence.”[56]

G. William Domhoff is a professor of Psychology and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and has written about the Bilderberg Group. In an interview, he discounted the notion that the study of such groups is relegated to the realm of conspiracy theory, and instead explained that he studies “how elites strive to develop consensus, which is through such publicly observable organizations as corporate boards and the policy-planning network, which can be studied in detail, and which are reported on in the media in at least a halfway accurate manner.”[57]

Bilderbergers have long been advocates of global governance and ‘global government,’ and ‘crisis’ is always an excellent means through which to advance their agendas. Just as the Greek crisis has stepped up calls for the formation of a ‘European economic government,’ an idea which has been sought out for much longer than Greece has been in crisis, so too is the global economic crisis an excuse to advance the cause of ‘global economic governance.’ Outgoing Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, stated in May of 2010 that, “crisis is an opportunity,” and he called for “a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features,” and that the “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort.” However, he stated, “I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration.”[58] Unless, of course, the world continues to descend into economic and financial ruin, as any astute economic observer would likely warn is taking place.

Following the April 2009 G20 summit, “plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency.” Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body.”[59] The Washington Post reported that the IMF is poised to transform “into a veritable United Nations for the global economy”:

It would have vastly expanded authority to act as a global banker to governments rich and poor. And with more flexibility to effectively print its own money, it would have the ability to inject liquidity into global markets in a way once limited to major central banks, including the U.S. Federal Reserve... the IMF is all but certain to take a central role in managing the world economy. As a result, Washington is poised to become the power center for global financial policy, much as the United Nations has long made New York the world center for diplomacy.[60]

While the IMF is pushed to the forefront of the global currency agenda, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) remains as the true authority in terms of ‘global governance’ overall. As the IMF’s magazine, Finance and Development, stated in 2009, “the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), established in 1930, is the central and the oldest focal point for coordination of global governance arrangements.”[61] Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank (ECB) and long-time Bilderberg participant, gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in April of 2010 in which he explained that, “the significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today is illustrated by three examples”:

First, the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or government. Second, the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the BIS as the prime group for the governance of central bank cooperation. And third, the extension of Financial Stability Board membership to include all the systemic emerging market economies.[62]

In concluding his speech, Trichet emphasized that, “global governance is of the essence to improve decisively the resilience of the global financial system.”[63] The following month, Trichet spoke at the Bank of Korea, where he said, “central bank cooperation is part of a more general trend that is reshaping global governance, and which has been spurred by the global financial crisis,” and that, “it is therefore not surprising that the crisis has led to even better recognition of their increased economic importance and need for full integration into global governance.” Once again, Trichet identified the BIS and its “various fora” – such as the Global Economy Meeting and the Financial Stability Board – as the “main channel” for central bank cooperation.[64]

For more on ‘Global Government’ and the global economic crisis, see: Andrew Gavin Marshall, “Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government, Global Research, 26 October 2010.  
Rockefeller’s Dream

David Rockefeller celebrated his 96th birthday during last weekend’s Bilderberg meeting, and is one of if not the only remaining original founders of the group in 1954. If the Bilderberg Group represents the “high priests of globalization,” then David Rockefeller is the ‘Pope’.

James Wolfensohn represents the importance of the Rockefellers to not only America, but to the whole process of globalization. James D. Wolfensohn, an Australian national, was President of the World Bank from 1995-2005, and has since founded and leads his private firm, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC. He has also been a long-time Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group, and has served as an Honorary Trustee of the Brookings Institution, a major American think tank, as well as a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Wolfensohn’s father, Hyman, was employed by James Armand de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking dynasty, after whom James was named. His father taught him how to “cultivate mentors, friends and contacts of influence.”[65] Wolfensohn rose quickly through the financial world, and as his father had lived in service to the Rothschild’s – the dominant family of the 19th century – James Wolfensohn lived in service to the Rockefellers, arguably the dominant family of the 20th century. On the event of David Rockefeller’s 90th birthday, James Wolfensohn, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, stated:

[T]he person who had perhaps the greatest influence on my life professionally in this country, and I’m very happy to say personally there afterwards, is David Rockefeller, who first met me at the Harvard Business School in 1957 or ‘58... [At the beginning of the 20th century] as we looked at the world, a family, the Rockefeller family, decided that the issues were not just national for the United States, were not just related to the rich countries. And where, extraordinarily and amazingly, David’s grandfather set up the Rockefeller Foundation, the purpose of which was to take a global view.

... So the Rockefeller family, in this last 100 years, has contributed in a way that is quite extraordinary to the development in that period and has given ample focus to the issues of development with which I have been associated. In fact, it’s fair to say that there has been no other single family influence greater than the Rockefeller’s in the whole issue of globalization and in the whole issue of addressing the questions which, in some ways, are still before us today. And for that David, we’re deeply grateful to you and for your own contribution in carrying these forward in the way that you did.[66]

David Rockefeller has been even less humble (but perhaps more honest) in his assertion of his family’s and his own personal role in shaping the world. In his 2002 book, Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.[67]

As if this admission was not quite enough, at a 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group, David Rockefeller was quoted as saying:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.[68]

So, happy 96th birthday, Mr. David Rockefeller! But I am sorry to say (or perhaps not so sorry) that while the mainstream media have “respected their promises of discretion,” the new media – the alternative media – have not. As you said yourself, “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years,” it seems that the “lights of publicity” are now descending upon your “plan for the world,” making it all the more difficult to come to pass. Indeed, “the world is more sophisticated,” but not because the world is ‘ready’ for your plan, but because the world is getting ready to reject it. While national sovereignty certainly has problems and is hardly something I would consider ‘ideal’, the “supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers” is about the worst scenario one could imagine. So as a birthday present to you, Mr. Rockefeller, I promise (and I am sure that I am speaking for a great many more than simply myself) that I will continue to expose your “plans for the world,” so that your dream – and our nightmare – will never become a reality. The light will shine, and in due time, the people will be ready to follow its path.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century," available to order at He is currently working on a forthcoming book on 'Global Government'.


[1]        Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 3), The Guardian, 10 March 2001:
[2]        CBC, Informal forum or global conspiracy? CBC News Online: June 13, 2006:
[3]        Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-171
[4]        Glen McGregor, Secretive power brokers meeting coming to Ottawa? Ottawa Citizen: May 24, 2006:
[5]        Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), page 129.
[6]        Bruno Waterfield, Dutch Prince Bernhard 'was member of Nazi party', The Telegraph, 5 March 2010:
[7]        Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), page 52.
[8]        Robert F. Arnove, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press: Boston, 1980), page 1.
[9]        Inderjeet Parmar, “‘To Relate Knowledge and Action’: The Impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on Foreign Policy Thinking During America’s Rise to Globalism 1939-1945,” Minerva (Vol. 40, 2002), page 246.
[10]      Ibid, page 247.
[11]      Robert F. Arnove, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press, 1980), page 319.
[12]      Joan Roelofs, “Foundations and Collaboration,” Critical Sociology, Vol. 33, 2007, page 480
[13]      Ibid, page 481.
[14]      Ibid, page 483.
[15]      Erkki Berndtson, “Review Essay: Power of Foundations and the American Ideology,” Critical Sociology, Vol. 33, 2007, page 580
[16]      Joan Roelofs, Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (New York: State University of New York Press, 2003), page 52.
[17]      Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), pages 131-132.
[18]      Bilderberg Meetings, Former Steering Committee Members,; Steering Committee:
[19]      Holly Sklar, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management. (South End Press: 1980), 161-162
[20]      CFR, The First Transformation. CFR History:
[21]      William F. Jasper, Rogues' gallery of EU founders. The New American: July 12, 2004:;col1
[22]      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs. The Telegraph: June 19, 2001:
[23]      Ibid.
[24]      Bilderberg Group, GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN CONFERENCE. The Bilderberg Group: September 23-25, 1955, page 7:
[25]      Who are these Bilderbergers and what do they do? The Sunday Herald: May 30, 1999:
[26]      Andrew Rettman, 'Jury's out' on future of Europe, EU doyen says. EUobserver: March 16, 2009:
[27]      Daily Mail, EU Constitution - the main points. The Daily Mail: June 19, 2004:
[28]      Ian Traynor, Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs. The Guardian, 17 November 2009:
[29]      Herman Van Rompuy, Speech Upon Accepting the EU Presidency, BBC News, 22 November 2009:
[30]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011,, 14 June 2011:
[31]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants,, June 2011:
[32]      Bruno Waterfield, EU Presidency candidate Herman Van Rompuy calls for new taxes, The Telegraph, 16 November 2009:
[33]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants,, June 2011:
[34]      PrisonPlanet, Exclusive: Unnamed Bilderberg Attendees Revealed, Gates Violates Logan Act, Prison Planet, 11 June 2011:
[35]      Charlie Skelton, Bilderberg 2011: The opposition steps up, The Guardian, 11 June 2011:
[36]      SwissInfo, World’s Powerful Bilderberg Group Meets In St Moritz, EurasiaReview, 9 June 2011:
[37]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011,, 14 June 2011:
[38]      Bloomberg, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet calls for Euro Finance Ministry, The Economic Times, 3 June 2011:
[39]      Daniel Hannan, European economic government is inevitable, Telegraph Blogs, 17 March 2010:
[40]      Spiegel, Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam, Der Spiegel, 1 March 2011:,1518,680955,00.html
[41]      ANDREW WILLIS, Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years, EU Observer, 13 December 2010:
[42]      Peter Müller and Michael Sauga, France and Germany Split over Plans for European Economic Government, Der Spiegel, 3 January 2011:,1518,737423,00.html
[43]      Mario Draghi: “We need a European economic government” – interview in Handelsblatt, The Bank for International Settlements, March 2010:
[44]      Bilderberg Meetings, Participants 2009,, May 2009:
[45]      Ecofin: Finance Ministers Back Mario Draghi To Lead ECB, The Wall Street Journal, 16 May 2011:
[46]      Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Concluding Remarks by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, at the High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System, Zurich, 11 May 2010:
[47]      Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990), pages 131-132.
[48]      Bilderberg Meetings, Participants 2009,, May 2009:
[49]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011,, 14 June 2011:
[50]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants,, June 2011:
[51]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010:
[52]      The Trilateral Commission, About the Pacific Asian Group, May 2011:
[53]      Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 2), The Guardian, 10 March 2001:
[54]      Ibid.
[55]      Mark Oliver, The Bilderberg group, The Guardian, 4 June 2004:
[56]      BBC, Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group, BBC News, 29 September 2005:
[57]      Chip Berlet, Interview: G. William Domhoff, New Internationalist, September 2004:
[58]      Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Concluding Remarks by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, at the High-Level Conference on the International Monetary System, Zurich, 11 May 2010:
[59]      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency. The Telegraph: April 3, 2009:
[60]      Anthony Faiola, A Bigger, Bolder Role Is Imagined For the IMF, The Washington Post, 20 April 2009:
[61]      Amar Bhattacharya, A Tangled Web, Finance and Development, March 2009, Vol. 46, No. 1:
[62]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Global Governance Today, Keynote address by Mr Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, 26 April 2010:
[63]      Ibid.
[64]      Jean-Claude Trichet, Central bank cooperation after the global financial crisis, Video address by Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, at the Bank of Korea International Conference 2010, Seoul, 31 May 2010:
[65]      Michael Stutchbury, The man who inherited the Rothschild legend, The Australian, 30 October 2010:
[66]      James D. Wolfensohn, Council on Foreign Relations Special Symposium in honor of David Rockefeller’s 90th Birthday, The Council on Foreign Relations, 23 May 2005:
[67]      David Rockefeller, Memoirs (Random House, New York: 2002), pages 404 - 405.
[68]      Gordon Laxer, “Radical Transformative Nationalisms Confront the US Empire,” Current Sociology (Vol. 51, Issue 2: March 2003), page 141.

recomended reading on this subject