Thursday, June 30, 2011

Waqf Act dispute could be reason for Khurshid's Sachar antipathy - By Abantika Ghose - The Times of India

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Waqf-Act-dispute-could-be-reason-for-Khurshids-Sachar-antipathy/articleshow/9043945.cms

The Times of India


Waqf Act dispute could be reason for Khurshid's Sachar antipathy

Abantika Ghosh, TNN | Jun 30, 2011, 12.04am IST

NEW DELHI: Festering differences between the government and some sections of the Muslim community on the Sachar Committee recommendations on Waqf properties — especially the recommendation about a separate Waqf cadre — may have shaped the government's new-found disdain for the report, prompting minority affairs minister Salman Khursheed's provocative statement that Sachar recommendations are not "divine like Quran".

In a conversation with TOI, Khurshid conceded that the main point of divergence between the government and Sachar authors was the management of Waqf. "We have implemented 90% of the report but we're opposed to some recommendations like the Waqf cadre because we do not want to create a different world for the Muslim citizens of our country."

Khursheed's statement in Chennai questioning Sachar has elicited a strident reaction from economist Abusaleh Shariff, who was the secretary of the committee. In his strongly worded retort, Shariff makes no bones about his contention that Khursheed's statement is because of the heat he is facing on the Waqf issue. "Note that many ministers have told me that indeed the Sachar report is used as a bible for charting out pro-poor, pro-deprived and minority empowerment strategies," Shariff has written, scarcely mincing words in holding the Congress responsible for the "discrimination" practised against Muslims in India. He has called for an independent review of the "inclusive development reforms in India which have been undertaken post Sachar".

Shariff is offended that the minister chose to question the entire report merely based on his opposition to a small part of it. "We had said that there is no point in having senior officers with little knowledge of Muslim ways and the religion manage Waqf so there should be a separate cadre selected through a test. Government does not like the idea. But that does not give it any right to question an empirical research based report. Waqf after all is just one-twelfth of the report. What is wrong with making a suggestion?" a peeved Shariff asks.

Appointed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, the Rajinder Sachar Committee was a high-level committee for preparation of a report on the social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in India. The issue of Waqf has of late assumed greater proportions as there is proposal for amendment of the Waqf Act presently before the Rajya Sabha Select Committee and many Muslim organizations including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board have expressed their reservations on it in various forums.

Khurshid had also said in Chennai that blindly following the Sachar report may lead to short-term gains but in the long term would lead to further ghettoisation of the Muslim community. "Dr Shariff's statement gives away his own confusion. He did not speak to me before issuing it. But there is no disagreement about Sachar's emphasis on mainstreaming. I agree with 90% of the letter. What I do not agree with is his points on discrimination because there are historical and consequential reasons for it. We can sit down and talk about it."

Shariff had written: "The minister has a lot to answer as to how he will eliminate large deficit in achievement levels which Muslims have encountered during the last 60 years or so. This has occurred mostly due to discriminatory practices followed by successive government including Congress governments both at the Centre and in many states."

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

'The Hindu' Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India - By Zafarul -Islam Khan, The Milli Gazette, New Delhi, India

'The Hindu' Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India

Original_mg-qaeda-lead
 
Praveen Swami is eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India. Beware, this IB steno is back in town, so is our doubt about The Hindu’s credibility.
By Zafarul-Islam Khan, The Milli Gazette
Published Online: Jun 29, 2011
Print Issue: 1-15 July 2011
The Hindu of Chennai has largely remained a sober publication having nuanced editorial line and sensible reporting and stand on issues. It has also avoided the pornographic pit into which most other publications have fallen in Rupert Murdoch era. But during the last few years, it allowed a blot to besmirch its image by swallowing fabrications vomited by its fake ‘terrorism expert’, Praveen Swami.

This chap was a sober investigative journo until he spent some time in United States Institute of Peace in Washington, in 2004-2005 and came back fully converted to the American weltanschauung and started making his tuppence contribution to America’s Islamophobic crusade which was conveniently lapped up by Hindutva warriors at home and made state policy thanks to BJP’s rule at the Centre. A senior Hindu journo told me some three years back that Swami is tolerated by The Hindu because of his close links with Intelligence Bureau which enables him to get scoops… In other words, Swami was passing off IB manufactured stuff as serious news. Any self-respecting paper would reject to be used by security and intelligence agencies in this manner and would sack such a hack right away but for N. Ram, Swami was a valuable asset… Years ago we at MG got an offer through an intermediary from the Army in Kashmir to print “good news” supplied by them for which they would pay us Rs. 40,000 per month! A very good proposition for a struggling publication but it did not take me a minute to reject it then and there…

Praveen Swami (inset) again graces the pages of The Hindu

Many sections of society had taken umbrage at Swami’s fabrications, yet he was stubbornly retained by The Hindu and allowed liberal space, often writing two stories on same day. He saw Muslims lurking behind every terror attack in India including ones which are now proven crimes of Hindutva terrorists.

Swami was fiercely criticized for his reliance on intelligence sources about alleged “Islamic terrorism” which were largely incorrect. Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association (JITSA), a New Delhi-based organization of teachers of the Jamia Millia Islamia (a central university) harshly criticized Swami for his fictitious reporting on Batla House encounter case. In their detailed critique of Swami, JITSA said that his report on Batla House Encounter Case was wrong and the post-mortem report of the slain terrorists released by India’s premier medical institute, AIIMS, suggested that the encounter was staged. Swami had been insisting in his reports that the slain students were killed in a real encounter. Swami’s association with The Hindu Group enraged many people who undertook an offensive against Praveen Swami by initiating Face Book group called ‘Shut Up Praveen Swami’ and a series of articles exposing Swami’s stories as “fabulous”. Swami’s critique in JITSA’s “Praveen Swami’s Not So Fabulous Fables” gave a detailed account of manufacturing of evidences by Praveen Swami only to support Indian security agencies. A desperate Swami shot back by responding against all criticism in his response to the publishing websites and people which his friend Annie Zaidi published in her blog. He attacked all campaigns against himself. However, another serious response from JITSA titled “Swami And Friends” went unresponded by Swami.

Last year, perhaps on leave from The Hindu, Swami joined the London Telegraph, UK’s Islamophobic newspaper resembling our Pioneer under Chandan Mitra. But he rarely got bylines in the British paper and seems to have landed back in his The Hindu cabin though The Telegraph still shows him on its staff (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/praveenswami/) while his Twitter account showed him on 22 June as based in New Delhi (http://twitter.com/#!/praveenswami).

Al-Qaeda’s announcement of Dr Al-Zawahiri as its new chief on 16 June offered Swami his opportunity for a fresh debut in The Hindu, not with one but two reports in the same issue, both occupying the best space any journo would dream, courtesy the editor of course. The first report, which is the main news on page one (17 June), shrieks that “India could be key target of new Al-Qaeda chief” and, hold your breath, the source of this gem, mentioned in the very first paragraph of the report, is the good old “intelligence sources”. Swami then regurgitates some stale vomit about Al-Qaeda’s warnings to India [always in Kashmir’s context] and announces that the new Al-Qaeda chief will use Pakistani allies, whose enmity of India is well-known according to Swami who shows it as a result of the infighting in the terrorist organisation’s ranks. Let us be clear: the new Al-Qaeda chief himself has not made any such announcement and our own highest authorities here, both at the Centre and in J&K, have on a number of occasions reiterated that Al-Qaeda has no presence in India but that does not matter as terrorist scare-mongering sells well these days both in India and the US. Swami’s other piece is an Op Ed which is clearly an old piece which the terror warrior fished out of his computer files. It contains such jewels as the claim that Al-Zawahiri joined Muslim Brotherhood at the age of 14!

Swami, the terror-salesman, has no time to stop to read mountains of material and evidence which shows that Al-Qaeda is an American creation having no existence in the real world. He and his American tutors have no willingness to know the truth. Al-Qaeda is an idea, Mr. Swami, and the many groups you see here and there are only inspired by an idea because of the injustices of the US of A. And, Swami or no Swami, this idea has not attracted Indian Muslims in the least.
This article appeared in The Milli Gazette print issue of 1-15 July 2011 on page no. 1

Showing 18 comments

  • The US and its allies have killed a much greater number of innocent people around the the world than that of the Al-Qaeda. No doubt Al-Qaeda is the brainchild of the US. It should not forgotten that America is a big fish in the world of terrorism, while Al-qaeda is a very small fish.
    2 people liked this.
  • THE HINDU as a newspaper has to sell for survival. Islamophobia is some thing which makes any one talking about it a sane, rational and patriotic person/instituton. News paper with such investigative and thoughtfull stories about the islamic terrosim, its roots and rise in India always will result in increased readership.

    What to do? Muslims have become a source of individual (encounters) / Institutional (News papers) and personal (politicians) progress. Any boyd can use Muslims as a tool for their promotion be it a writer (Arun Shourie, Taslima nasreen, Rushdie), cops (encounter) and politicans (Advanis) etc.
    2 people liked this.
  • I am confused about what is the objective of this article. Is the author unhappy with Praveen Swami for some reasons so spewing venom against him, or making a case that "The Hindu" is no longer a good newspaper since it publishes views of Praveen Swami.  If either of this two is the case, I am not so much concerned.

    However, when author says "Al-Qaeda is an idea, Mr. Swami, and the many groups you see here and there are only inspired by an idea because of the injustices of the US of A", any Indian should have reason to feel very concerned because author seems to be justifying Al Qaeda by saying that they are doing what they are doing due to percieved injustices against them.

    Further, author seems to be very sure when he says "this idea has not attracted Indian Muslims in the least" which all of us know well is not true. Indian Muhahidin is also an idea, and they have already have enough blood of innocent people on them.

    Allah save muslims from such propogandas.
  • Mohammed Javed Farooqui 1 hour ago
    Dear Ritesh, after your post I too have one question for you. Kindly tell me what will you do if tomorrow USA attacks India (god forbid) on some pretext (just as it is doing in some countries which just happens to be muslim majority) lets say to exploit natural resources in Chattisgarh, Jharkhand etc. Will you still support the USA. I am sure the answer is a big NO. So why don't you open up your mind and look at the big picture which is that USA and its allies have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan purely for natural resources available in these countries and geopolitical reasons. The terrorism is just a pretext to attack these nation's and loot. This just imperialism similar to what England did in 18th and 19th century. We (Indians) too had to suffer so much from British imperialism. Please remember USA will only attack nations which are not subservient to it. India (under UPA and NDA) has already submitted itself to USA and I feel so sorry for that particularly if we look at past instances when Indira Gandhi had snubbed the US during 70's at the height of Indo-Bangla war. We need to independent foreign policy rather than following orders from foreign powers like USA, who themselves are in an all-round mess which also their self-created.
  • Mohammed Javed Farooqui 1 hour ago
    I am glad that I have subscribed to Milli Gazette where else will you find such insightful articles in the age when most publications including the likes of The Hindu are dishing out false articles. I am fed up with all these English dailies and weeklies and hopefully I have a better alternative in Milli Gazette. This chap Praveen Swami seems to be on IB and RAW's payroll to publish such fictional articles. Anyways our intelligence agencies have time and again faltered in their job of providing intelligence to our forces and the police on any internal and external threats. Had they done their job properly we wouldn't have had so many terrorist attacks and that too from within India by Hindutva terrorists. Our good for nothing intel agencies are masters in one art. Branding Muslim Indians as terrorists using the likes of Praveen Swami and his ilk in the media to plant false stories about local muslim involvement after every terrorist attack on the Indian soil. It's really unfortunate that a newspaper of The Hindu's stature respected by reader's for being un-biased and balanced reporting in the past can entertain jokers like Praveen Swami.
  • So true,
    Pen is mightier than sword .... corrupting the mind is more dangerous ... some will ignore the heading n come up with. Pravin swami never talks about Naxali terrrorism which is real n becoming deadly day by day.....may be it not spicy for our brothers who r busy in counting nairobi,mombassa,9-11 ignoring killings of our brothers by Naxali terrorist daily.!!

    Some will surprise over the fact that Al Qaeda is American creation....... may be they are unaware of world politics
    .
  • "The Hindu" and Islamophilic is inseparable.  Is this paid news?
  • ritesh kumar 14 hours ago
    janab zafarul-islam khan, with all respect to you, WHO do you think you are supporting? alqaeda?i mean, atleast, try to shield a bit of your unconditional islamic love, especially when it is some butchers you are speaking about. the alqaeda has no existence??????is it? and we are living on the moon, right? nairobi,mombassa,9-11, 7-7, all this was done by the spaggheti monster right?i mean, please, sir, leave this ostrich attitude of yours...........the TTP and alqaeda "inspired" groups are butchering your muslim brothers, shia sunni alike in pakistan, afghanistan, iraq , africa et.al(not to speak of their influenced people who have butchered indians, well i mention this in brackets , since we are non muslims killed and hence not much of an issue for you)...........pakistan has humanitarianly collapsed, thousands killed or maimed............and all you say is "beware of praveen swami"...............has praveen swami killed in the thousands, has praveen swami asked for attacks on muslims, has praveen swami detonated himself in a muslim majority area.........no, and you do know the answer who is doing so.............
         zafarul sahab, for one moment , remove the ego from your mind and look at the world objectively. just for once. you will know. if you are an honest and a true human being, you will definitely know.
        and one last thing:"Al-Qaeda is an American creation having no existence in the real world"
     is it? that means, logically, even laden, its alleged head till a few days back, is also an american puppet and  and a western puppet/slave/instrument used as a means to villify islam/muslims/middle east. right?????why then, AFTER HIS DEATH , WERE SO MANY PRAYER SESSIONS(NAMAZ-E-ZANAZA) HELD IN THE HONOR OF THIS WESTERN AGENT, in India and throughout the arab world?????????
           I AM WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO MY LAST QUESTION, zafarul sahab. if you have the time, please reply to my last question. here itself.
  • Respected  ritesh ji, do u have reading problems or what??? where did u find he is supporting terrorism? all he intended to say was to request to mr. swami to stop scare-mongering...being a indian muslim we understand how the instigate and make people opionated about muslims by their fake reporting...u wont understand because you are a admirer of the swami( aseemananda)
  • irfan, before accusing me of being a swami aseemanand supporter, or praveen swami and the hindu of being islamophobic, i request to please look at aljazeera for the latest attack on the intercontinental hotel in kabul by several armed gunmen/suicide bombers. and the news is from aljazeera(a channel owned by muslims/ anti-america)...and they have reported that it is the taliban which has claimed responsibility. what have the hotel guests done? or the poor hotel workers? please check out the news. and dont say you dont know. mr. irfan, and to the writer, mr zafar sahab, as i had said, islamophobia is not due to the one who reports it, islamophobia is due to the perpetrator who claims himself muslim.
  • irfan sahab, have i said he is supporting terrorism? show me where i have said so. read my first three four lines well. i have asked  mr. zafar-ul islam if he is supporting alqaeda(and he mentions alqaeda has no existence)...thus, i am questioning why is mr. zafar trying to delude himself and us all........laying the onus of blame for islamophobia at praveen swamy's door is of no use, islamophobia is not because praveen swami reports it, islamophobia, irfan sahab is because groups like alqaeda, lashkar-e-taiba murder and bomb innocents, and this is not me who is claiming this....this is something these groups themselves claim, as do arab media.......(since you will believe nothing of indian media unless ofcourse it is an assemanand, and not a kasab)................please do not show yourself as unbiased, you are ready to believe in the hindu when the hindu exposes swami assemanand, but you feel hindu is anti-islam when it exposes al-qaeda.......great going, double standards at its best......
  • You are blind Mr. Ritesh. Pls open your eyes before its too late. Know the real "World Terrorist No.1" & their Indian chamchyas who sell themselves for petty considerations. RIGHT?
  • so, this is all you had to say, sam....that i am blind. am i blind when i see scores of pakistanis dead in a bomb blast, am i blind when i see the taliban blow up schoolkids and common afghans, am i blind when i hear aljazeera and pakistani news channels themselves agree that alqaeda and tehreek e taliban pakistan are to blame for various barbaric attacks, am i blind when i see and read websites affiliated to these terrorist organisations call for killing unbelievers, am i blind when i see attack after attack on various parts of india, and every intelligence report leading to these groups...........am i blinf=d when the camera captures ajmal kasab and his group firing away at taj hotel? what do you mean, i am blinfd?
        sam, let me give you a piece of advice. it is YOU WHO NEEDS TO TAKE AWAY THE BLINDFOLD FROM YOUR EYES.YOU SHOULD LOOK OBJECTIVELY AND SEE HOW CONFLICTS ARE BEING CREATED. OTHERWISE, YES, WE WILL NOT SURVIVE, NO DOUBT, BUT THEN, THERE WILL BE NO ONE TO HEAR YOUR CRIES WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU, NO ONE TO SAVE YOU WHEN YOU WILL BE THE TARGET...........today, try however much you want, you cannot pretent to not see the PATHETIC condition of the general population in pakistan,till yesterday pakistanis were happily secure without any sorrow for the scores of indians being killed in terror attacks, and today, look at their very STATE........where is the pakistani safe today, in his home, no, in a military base, no, in a masjid ., no...in a dargah, no?????????blind love and support leads to nought but destruction, sam....know this very well.................................
  • Praveen Swamin may well be leader of Indian Mujaheddin.
  • Praveen Swami's articles are somewhat like research papers, without any frills, they contain in depth analysis of terror networks and their modus operandi.  His articles have never been anti-Islam as it is being made out here....or wait....do u guys mean Al-Queda is representative of Islam?? Go read his articles first.....
  • yeah as we had been enlightened by his earlier research papaers of mecca masjid , samjhauta express etc cases...
  • RamULASWAMY 16 hours ago
    This MILLE GAZETTE seems to be mouthpiece of AL QAEDA,SIMI,IM,ISI n LET.Even for a moment we think the reports are preposterous, why is he so offended on behalf of AL QAEDA? Its better to be prepared than to be sorry.How can a post mortem report state that whether the BATLA HOUSE encounter was real or staged?its job of arms mechanics experts.AIIMS made no such claim in any case !! BATLA HOUSE has long history.Accused of RED FORT SHOOTING were found from same house.Why newspapers like MG are allowed to run which serve dual purpose of indoctrinating and providing venomous ideological fodder to misguided or fundamental muslims.Because of groups like them,fundamentalism is taking roots in countries like india,bangladesh and indonesia.

Reactions

  • Sidp_MS 8 hours ago
      From  twitter
    Al Qaeda has not existance in real world, it only exists in Matrix: Miili Gazzette http://t.co/UYCoUth
  • harikane_ 10 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @barbarindian: RT @Dosabandit Milli Gazette hurls mud at @praveenswami - The Hindu Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India http://bit.ly/mLX9hS
  • Siiddhuu 10 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @Dosabandit Milli Gazette hurls mud at @praveenswami - The Hindu Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India http://t.co/a7xFkjA
  • barbarindian 10 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @Dosabandit Milli Gazette hurls mud at @praveenswami - The Hindu Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India http://bit.ly/mLX9hS
  • DelhiRium 12 hours ago
      From  twitter
    http://t.co/rbzUYUz An idea ? How come it coincided with exact time when Americans wanted to involve themselves in Afghan-Russia tussle?
  • Dosabandit 12 hours ago
      From  twitter
    Milli Gazette hurls mud at @praveenswami - The Hindu Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India http://bit.ly/mLX9hS
  • ashutosh_g 14 hours ago
      From  twitter
    "Swami, the terror-salesman" :D RT @praveenswami: Fascinating stuff about me | http://is.gd/AHmhQc
  • salilb 15 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @praveenswami: Fascinating stuff about me | http://is.gd/AHmhQc
  • manasshaikh 15 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @milligazette: The Hindu Eager to drag Al-Qaeda to India #media #india #terror http://fb.me/16ydIxVMz
  • manasshaikh 15 hours ago
      From  twitter
    RT @kaaashif: It seems "IB steno" Praveen Swami is indeed back in India: http://bit.ly/kPNarm MG calls him "the terror-salesman"

Monday, June 27, 2011

Khursheed says Sachar report not Quran, sparks off war of words By Seema Chisti - The Indian Express

Salman Khursheed is riding the high horse; unfortunately for him, he is riding backwards.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

------------------


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/khursheed-says-sachar-report-not-quran-sparks-off-war-of-words/809657/0

Mon, 27 Jun 2011



Khursheed says Sachar report not Quran, sparks off war of words




Minority Affairs Minister Salman Khursheed’s remarks in Chennai last week questioning the Sachar report’s recommendations and urging Muslims to think of national issues, not just their narrow interests, has set off a raging debate in the community.
Delivering a lecture, ‘Minorities of India: Issues and Challenges,’ at the Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed College for Women last Saturday, Khursheed said that the Sachar Committee Report was not the Quran which cannot be questioned. “The recommendations of Sachar Committee Report are not divine like (the) Quran; they can be wrong also and that’s why one must approach them critically,” he reportedly said.

In 2006, the PM’s High Level Committee, led by Justice (retd) Rajinder Sachar, had highlighted how Muslims trailed the rest of the country in almost all social indicators — from education to employment — and had recommended a set of reform measures. Sources said this is now being used as a benchmark by many Muslim advocacy groups and any questioning provokes a barrage of criticism.


No wonder then that the Minister’s remarks in Chennai have led Abu Saleh Shariff, economist and the high-profile Secretary of the Sachar Committee, to write an open letter to Khursheed — posted in an online discussion group, USIPI — ticking off the Congress at the Centre.

He criticizes the Minister for his comments urging Muslims to “mainstream” in an environment where they are discriminated against. He writes: “The Minister has a lot to answer as to how will he eliminate large deficit in achievement levels which Muslims have encountered during the last 60 years or so. This has occurred mostly due to discriminatory practices followed by successive governments including the Congress governments both at the Centre and the many states. Sachar recommendations are sensitive to mainstreaming and...points to the areas in which discrimination has occurred and Muslims have suffered.”

Shariff, who has been critical of the BJP and even Left-ruled states in the past, has written that “reservation” policy in India is discriminatory and keeps Muslims out of its ambit at the national level and in most states. “So are access to higher education and even primary schools. (On) public employment, the Centre is the most discriminatory. The banking sector has almost removed the Muslims from its programs.”

In something which may embarrass the government, he adds: “Pl(ease) note I am using the word discriminatory too frequently in this note but the Sachar report ...consciously avoided using this word, just to save the face of the government in power and we used some diplomacy; otherwise this report very clearly highlight the discriminatory practices. My new research is strong in highlighting how mainstreaming is not pursued by governments themselves and how public spaces are denied to minorities.

Let the Minister come out with a strategy to bring diversity in public spaces (Schools, Universities, Urban Living spaces, government employment ...) which this ministry is silent about (for the) past five years.”
Shariff endorses the Minority Ministry’s view on the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission and says that it’s an idea based on Sachar’s recommendations.

Speaking to The Indian Express from Ranchi, Khursheed said that “several Sachar recommendations were being followed.” He said the debate is about how to approach the issue of helping Muslims. He underlined that he was against looking at just Muslims as the minority and not others.

“Exclusive delivery to Muslims as against ensuring equitable share amongst all citizens,” was not something he supported, he said. “In that context, I have requested a critical appraisal to ensure these are not used for ghettoization. It’s in this context that I said, for Muslims only the Quran cannot be questioned. All other books and documents are subject to critical scrutiny.”

When contacted, Sachar said: “As a matter of judicial propriety, I don’t comment on my report but Abu Saleh Shariff was a very learned and valued member of the committee.”

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Bilderberg 2011: The Rockefeller World Order and the “High Priests of Globalization” - By Andrew Gavin Marshall

"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."

 Bilderberg 2011: The Rockefeller World Order and the “High Priests of Globalization”

-----------

THE BIG FLAW IN BILDERBERG GROUPING IS HOW IT LEAVES OUT A BIG CHUNK OF HUMANITY THAT DOES NOT IDENTIFY WITH THE WEST.

GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI



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

Bilderberg 2011: The Rockefeller World Order and the “High Priests of Globalization”






The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group

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 Globalresearch.ca. He is currently working on a forthcoming book on ’Global Government’.

Notes

[1]        Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 3), The Guardian, 10 March 2001:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1
[2]        CBC, Informal forum or global conspiracy? CBC News Online: June 13, 2006:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bilderberg-group/
[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:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ff614eb8-02cc-41a3-a42d-30642def1421&k=62840
[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:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7377402/Dutch-Prince-Bernhard-was-member-of-Nazi-party.html
[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, BilderbergMeetings.org:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/former-steering-committee-members.html; Steering Committee:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/governance.html
[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:
http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
[21]      William F. Jasper, Rogues’ gallery of EU founders. The New American: July 12, 2004:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_14_20/ai_n25093084/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
[22]      Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs. The Telegraph: June 19, 2001:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html
[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:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990530/ai_n13939252
[26]      Andrew Rettman, ‘Jury’s out’ on future of Europe, EU doyen says. EUobserver: March 16, 2009:
http://euobserver.com/9/27778
[27]      Daily Mail, EU Constitution – the main points. The Daily Mail: June 19, 2004:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-307249/EU-Constitution–main-points.html
[28]      Ian Traynor, Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of ‘shambolic’ process to fill key jobs. The Guardian, 17 November 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/top-european-job-selection-process
[29]      Herman Van Rompuy, Speech Upon Accepting the EU Presidency, BBC News, 22 November 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzm_R3YBgPg
[30]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011:
http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[31]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[32]      Bruno Waterfield, EU Presidency candidate Herman Van Rompuy calls for new taxes, The Telegraph, 16 November 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6582837/EU-Presidency-candidate-Herman-Van-Rompuy-calls-for-new-taxes.html
[33]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[34]      PrisonPlanet, Exclusive: Unnamed Bilderberg Attendees Revealed, Gates Violates Logan Act, Prison Planet, 11 June 2011:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-unnamed-bilderberg-attendees-revealed.html
[35]      Charlie Skelton, Bilderberg 2011: The opposition steps up, The Guardian, 11 June 2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jun/11/bilderberg-switzerland
[36]      SwissInfo, World’s Powerful Bilderberg Group Meets In St Moritz, EurasiaReview, 9 June 2011:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/worlds-powerful-bilderberg-group-meets-in-st-moritz-09062011/
[37]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011:
http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[38]      Bloomberg, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet calls for Euro Finance Ministry, The Economic Times, 3 June 2011:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-03/news/29617216_1_single-currency-jean-claude-trichet-budget
[39]      Daniel Hannan, European economic government is inevitable, Telegraph Blogs, 17 March 2010:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100030219/european-economic-government-is-inevitable/
[40]      Spiegel, Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam, Der Spiegel, 1 March 2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,680955,00.html
[41]      ANDREW WILLIS, Germany predicts EU ‘political union’ in 10 years, EU Observer, 13 December 2010:
http://euobserver.com/9/31485
[42]      Peter Müller and Michael Sauga, France and Germany Split over Plans for European Economic Government, Der Spiegel, 3 January 2011:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,737423,00.html
[43]      Mario Draghi: “We need a European economic government” – interview in Handelsblatt, The Bank for International Settlements, March 2010:
http://www.bis.org/review/r100325b.pdf
[44]      Bilderberg Meetings, Participants 2009, BilderbergMeetings.org, May 2009:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
[45]      Ecofin: Finance Ministers Back Mario Draghi To Lead ECB, The Wall Street Journal, 16 May 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110516-715655.html
[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, BilderbergMeetings.org, May 2009:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
[49]      Daniel Estulin, Bilderberg Report 2011, DanielEstulin.com, 14 June 2011:
http://www.danielestulin.com/2011/06/13/bilderberg-report-2011-informe-club-bilderberg-2011/
[50]      Bilderberg Meetings, Bilderberg 2011: List of Participants, BilderbergMeetings.org, June 2011:
http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html
[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:
http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf
[52]      The Trilateral Commission, About the Pacific Asian Group, May 2011:
http://www.trilateral.org/go.cfm?do=Page.View&pid=13
[53]      Jon Ronson, Who pulls the strings? (part 2), The Guardian, 10 March 2001:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract
[54]      Ibid.
[55]      Mark Oliver, The Bilderberg group, The Guardian, 4 June 2004:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jun/04/netnotes.markoliver
[56]      BBC, Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group, BBC News, 29 September 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4290944.stm
[57]      Chip Berlet, Interview: G. William Domhoff, New Internationalist, September 2004:
http://www.publiceye.org/antisemitism/nw_domhoff.html
[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:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902242.html?hpid=topnews
[61]      Amar Bhattacharya, A Tangled Web, Finance and Development, March 2009, Vol. 46, No. 1:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/03/bhattacharya.htm
[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:
http://www.bis.org/review/r100428b.pdf
[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:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-man-who-inherited-the-rothschild-legend/story-e6frg6z6-1225945329773
[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:
http://www.cfr.org/world/council-foreign-relations-special-symposium-honor-david-rockefellers-90th-birthday/p8133
[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.

People who read this article also read:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , http://www.pakalertpress.com/tag/world-war-ii/" rel="tag" target="
 
YouTube - Videos from this email