Tag Archives: Hannah Arendt

I wouldn’t start from here…

The following article is the Introduction to a book entitled Finishing The Rat Race.

All chapters are available (in sequence) by following the link above or from category link in the main menu, where you will also find a table of contents and a preface on why I started writing it.

*

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power…. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

— Franklin D. Roosevelt 1

*

Talk of revolution is very much out of vogue. Instead, we look back on the late sixties, when its prospect was the brightest in living memory, with nostalgia and wistful detachment. Certainly it is true that we pay homage to the civil rights movement and tribute to its lasting achievements, but little else remains – that sexual liberation happened to coincide with the invention of the pill was surely no coincidence!

Tragically, what started up as glorious peaceful sedition: an anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-capitalist upwelling that had genuinely threatened the existing order; finished up largely as a carnival – ultimately the dark carnival of Altamont 2 and the depravity of the Manson Family murders 3 – and with this, the path to social justice was promptly cordoned off. The revellers mostly went home, cut their hair, removed the flowers and beads to keep as mementos, and then looked ahead to another fad. All of which is unsurprising. After all, why jeopardise the comforts and security won during the heated post-war struggles in the slim hope of a resoundingly radical victory?

If history teaches anything – other than its central thread that empires rise and fall – is it not that the toppling of entrenched political regimes or even of diabolical tyrannies, whether by violent means or more peaceable ones, ends too often with the emergence of new regimes as tyrannical and entrenched as the ones they replaced? True or false (and how to decide anyway?) what matters is that the modern tendency is to believe this is the case: thus contrary to Marx’s bold forecast, the age of revolutionary upheaval appears over, or – in the West at least – perpetually stalled with political quietism established as the norm – don’t worry, I shall go on shortly to contradict myself!

Indeed, our acquired taste for conservatism has usefully served the interests of the ruling establishment throughout my adult life, a period lasting three decades in which time its creed became ever more rapacious. ‘Conservatism’ has in fact been transformed well beyond any easy recognition. Adapted in the eighties, it came to serve the demands of a rising corporatist class which, like various species of shark, is itself compelled to move restlessly forward or perish. As the Red Queen tells Alice in Through the Looking-Glass, “it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.” 4

To these ends traditional conservatism, which tries to engender forms of social stagnation, has been entirely superseded by neo-liberalism; today’s predominant, in fact unrivalled, politico-economic ideology with its overarching quasi-conservative doctrine of minimal ‘state interference’.  In practice this involves a combination of wholesale privatisation with swingeing cuts to public services and welfare. Inculcated by economics departments throughout the land, it has been implanted as a monoculture within our institutions of government, as within the plethora of foundation-funded think tanks and policy forums from whence it originally sprang (most notably The Adam Smith Institute and the Aspen Institute).

All distinguished economists, senior politicians, civil servants and mainstream journalists (the latter three more than likely indoctrinated through courses on Philosophy, Politics & Economics (PPE) at Oxford – with stress here very much placed on the ‘E’ of neo-liberal economics 5) are attuned to the belief that, in the words of its great trailblazer, Margaret Thatcher, “there is no alternative”. And luminaries of the new economics turn to historical precedents to buttress their pervasive doctrine; every kind of planned redistribution of wealth and resources (i.e., any conceivable alternative to their own ‘free market’ absolutism), irrespective of competency or goodwill, they say, has been doomed to failure.

The communist experiments of the Soviet Union and Mao’s China – examples they single out (continuing to do so long after the fall of both regimes) – did indeed result in catastrophes both at the level of production and due to lack of supply of goods. And if, indeed, the only foreseeable alternatives to neoliberalism were thoughtless reruns of a Soviet model or Maoism, this line of criticism could hardly be gainsaid; in reality, however, the vast majority of the world already subsists, living in dire poverty and likewise deprived of basic resources, although not under socialism, but in strict adherence to ‘free market’ directives extolled by the self-same experts. China, on the other hand, which remains autocratic and to a great extent a centrally planned economy, is evidently booming – but that’s for a different debate (suffice to say here, I certainly do not propose we follow their example).

In reality, neo-liberalism is an exceedingly cruel doctrine, and its staunchest proponents have often been candid about administering what they openly describe as their economic ‘shock therapy’ – although this label is generally attached when the treatment is meted out to the poorest nations. To soften its blow in other instances, a parallel ideology has arisen. The principle of so-called meritocracy provides the velvet glove when this same iron fist of laissez-faire fundamentalism is applied throughout western democracies. You get just as much as you deserve and this is best ensured by market mechanisms.

But finally, the socio-economic pendulum has moved in extremis. Today, even in the comfortable West, income and wealth inequality have grown to unprecedented levels. Our societies appear to be in the process of rupturing just as they did less than a century ago on the eve of the most destructive war in history. Meanwhile, the ‘progressives’, who long ago ditched the dog-eared pamphlets of revolutionaries, remain captivated by the spell of the more glossy portfolios of the meritocracists.

Having inveigled both political wings – becoming the new left and new right – they now hope to persuade us that ‘centrism’, founded on strict meritocratic principles, remains the single viable – since least ‘extreme’ – vision for democracy. Mostly stuck on the lower social rungs, however, we, the people are clearly restless. For the moment we moan and groan impatiently, but that moment is set to pass. Calls for fundamental social change are gaining strength and I dare to predict that we are on the brink – for better or for worse – of an altogether seismic shift.

Jordan Peterson is famously critical of ‘ideology’. He has a particular distain for Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Postmodernism, Feminism, in fact, any ism. Instead, he argues, that the individual is sovereign, ideology should be renounced, and that, quote, “If we each live properly, we will collectively flourish.” So what is ideology? And what leads Jordan Peterson (and others) to believe he is somehow above it all?

*

So how do we break free of the spells that bind us – the increasingly entangled entrapments of technology, money and work? There are really only two approaches we can take. Either we turn inwards, as an increasing number are doing, to try to rediscover who we are through methods of deep introspection. Or, confronting external reality head-on, we engage in collective acts of defiance, since our true strength lies in numbers.

There are good arguments for both approaches. The boundary between the subjective and objective is infinitely thin and I address this more fully in the chapters ahead. To repeat an old rallying slogan: the personal is the political! This cannot be said often enough.

My greatest concern is that we should not remain passive. Clear and unshakeable demands are urgent, since power concedes nothing without. But again, introspection is invaluable in this regard – for how can we better understand what we truly want without solidly comprehending who we really are? Any hope of shaping a better future nevertheless lies in collective hands and depends upon acts of solidarity.

The alternative is grim. Besides the prospect of new kinds of techno-tyranny, failure or refusal to react decisively will exacerbate the troubles that already plague us; ones forecast by Erich Fromm in the conclusion to his book The Sane Society:

In the 19th century inhumanity meant cruelty; in the 20th century it means schizoid self-alienation. The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that men may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. But given man’s nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become “Golems”; they will destroy their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life. 6

Fromm’s vision is the best outcome, not the worst. For it wrongly presumes, as many still do, that the ruling class has no agenda of its own. In fairness, he lived in a different age: a time before the significant rise of today’s postmodern, globalist (supranationalist as opposed to internationalist), corporatocratic, neo-feudal, technetronic, technocratic age – I have chosen each of these words with care, since each reveals a different facet of the grand design. Hold the thought, because I’ll come back to it.

In Europe, America and much of the rest of the Western world, the entire political system is captured by variants of what would traditionally be labelled ‘right-wing’ or even ‘extreme right’. However, this is not the old-style extremism of Hitler or Mussolini, which was built upon the foundations of bombastic nationalism, but a new brand that cleverly disguises itself as non-ideological, tolerant or even moderate – I heard political commentator Tariq Ali once refer to it as the ‘extreme centre’. This is actually the best description we have.

This new extremism chooses new methods to promote and protect its crony insiders. It says sorry but we (meaning ‘you’) just have no choice – there is no alternative! – and these other chaps are more valuable, and simply “too big to fail”, before confirming, more or less as an aside, that democracy wasn’t working in any case. Meanwhile, it also finds new justifications for engaging in aggressive foreign wars that we are told have no relationship to the old wars of conquest and exploitation. War today becomes nothing more than a matter of preemption, or if that fails to impress the grumbling populous, a means of humanitarianism. However, the new extremism finds old and very well-tested excuses when it comes to clampdowns on our individual freedoms at home, with the main one being, ironically enough, to protect us from ‘extremists’.

Were the ruling class more candid about their truer intent (and the broader agenda is gradually emerging as an open secret) then we would have heard plenty by now about the coming dawn of what ought to be straightforwardly called fascism (Trump was not an aberration, but a symptom), except that aspiring tyrants, for self-evident reasons, cannot be expected to speak too loudly about their grandest ambitions. Even so, the quickening steps on our road to serfdom are becoming harder to deny.

*

Some years ago I had been thinking up names for an envisaged progressive political movement, when, after realising that all of the traditional labels ‘people’s’, ‘popular’, ‘democratic’, ‘freedom’, ‘revolutionary’, etc were already irreparably sullied, it occurred to me that in our mimetic age something snappier might be more suitable. Something along the lines of ‘system reset’, although without the Maoist overtones! Briefly that led me to consider the familiar 3-fingered salute on every computer keyboard, Ctrl-Alt-Del: a consideration that altogether stopped me in my tracks.

In fact, picking apart the elements, Ctrl-Alt-Del already represents the three-pronged assault we are increasingly subjected to: the plutocrats using these precise three strategies to oppress and dominate. First through Ctrl by means of propaganda and censorship, with the steady encroachment of mass surveillance in all areas of our lives (the panopticon), and arguably too with the mental health crisis and widespread prescription of ‘chemical cosh’ opiates and more Soma-like SSRI antidepressants.

In a recent study by scientists at University of Chicago, it was found that rats given anti-anxiety medications were less inclined to free a companion in distress, presumably because they didn’t have the same ability to feel empathy:

Next is Alt (i.e., alteration) with rollout of GMO in agriculture and transhumanism which opens the door to many developments including the advent of designer babies by means of gene editing and the literal rewiring of human consciousness. Finally there is Del (delete) by virtue of ‘population control’ which is a shorthand euphemism for the desire to dramatically reduce human numbers.

Nick Bostrom is a philosopher with deep scientific and technical training 7, who aside from being Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University is also co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association (renamed Humanity+, Inc.) as well as an acknowledged inspiration for Elon Musk and Bill Gates. 8

Bostrom clearly stands at the forefront of methods of Ctrl and Alt being a leading proponent of total surveillance and for transhumanism, which is basically eugenics 2.0 enhanced by virtue of refined genetic manipulation and accentuated through interfacing with machines. As Bostrom’s Humanity+ announces its own intentions:

What does it mean to be human in a technologically enhanced world? Humanity+ is a 501(c)3 international nonprofit membership organization that advocates the ethical use of technology, such as artificial intelligence, to expand human capacities. In other words, we want people to be better than well. This is the goal of transhumanism.

‘Better than well’ is putting it extremely mildly. If you read past the opening statements then you quickly appreciate that the final goal is nothing short of total mastery of biology in order to achieve absolute control of human life and everything in the biosphere. Advocates of such godlike dominion over Nature should perhaps attend to the writings of Mary Shelley and Johann von Goethe. For Bostrom with his outspoken desire to install mass surveillance to save the world, I also recommend a healthy dose of Orwell.

It is almost tempting to think that the choice of Ctrl-Alt-Del was meant to be a piece of subliminal predictive programming, except that the man credited with its origins is an IBM engineer called David Bradley, who says it was not intended for use by ordinary end users but helpful for software designers. Curiously, however, as Bradley also says (see interview embedded below): “I may have invented control-alt-delete, but Bill Gates made it really famous.” 9

This section above was previously posted on October 14th 2020 as part of an extended article entitled the united colours of Bilderberg — a late review of Montreux 2019: #7 global system reset.

*

Civilisation stands on the brink. A radical transformation is coming; that is inescapable. The old patterns can no longer sustain us either materially or spiritually, and this seldom confessed truth is perfectly well understood by the ruling class who have already constructed the road ahead to an envisioned future and presented us with roadmaps.

Eager to keep as much control over everything as possible – call it ‘full spectrum dominance’ as the military arm of their military-industrial-financial complex does – they have long-since spread their tentacles into every conceivable area of politics and society more generally. This has been achieved primarily through the agency of huge foundations which indirectly support a network of think tanks, policy forums, NGOs and so forth: a stealth takeover, spreading into every nook and cranny of public life. By cloaking their real intentions under the guise of internationalism (or “globalisation”, or “global governance”) and environmentalism (or “sustainability”) since the 1970s and long before, the mainstream left is today as sold out to the same ruling powers and, in consequence, has become as unimaginative and non-progressive, as the right.

And the ruling class is the master of illusion that has slowly perfected its talent for deception and manipulation. Unlike the Wizard of Oz, who has a certain homespun wisdom, it has nothing real to offer in exchange for our deepening servitude. But the racket persists because the majority of us have become so intellectually impoverished we somehow cannot imagine any better alternative.

But finally, the system is crumbling apart altogether. One way or another, and very soon, it will have to be replaced. The ruling class, interested first and foremost in maintaining and increasing their power and privilege, already understand and acknowledge this, seeing that they must resort to some form of neo-feudalism, or creeping fascism, if you prefer (more below), which in any case they also see as “the natural order”.

The onslaught facing those of us in the West already seems a relentless one. As we enter the most important period of world history since the Second World War, this immediate fight is political, and involves us in the perennial Marxist dispute over control and allocation of material resources. By contrast, the longer-term battle assaults our humanity at the most fundamental levels since it threatens to hold autonomy over our minds and bodies; policing our thoughts and finally altering our biology down to the molecular level. This last step of transhumanism seeks the literal melding of humans to artificial technology. Bizarre, certainly, like the worst science fiction dystopia, yet this is what the billionaires are seriously into, and what they are beginning to discuss publicly at gatherings like the World Economic Forum.

The infrastructure for this coming era of tyranny has already been installed, or else is close to completion: a mass surveillance panopticon; the arming and privatisation of the police (in America this militarisation is now more starkly evident); the emergence of secret courts and draconian legislation (America’s NDAA 2012 arguably the most egregious example so far). In short, we see the emergence of a revised judicial framework that prosecutes whistleblowers for treason and charges dissenters as terrorists.

It is a shift that also coincides with our “age of austerity”, which once again is gamed to ruin the already destitute, while simultaneously it slowly undermines the middle class. The crash of 2008 was really an economic coup de grâce following four decades of more gradual decline: incomes continue to be reduced in real terms thanks to stagnant wages and zero interest on savings, neither of which can keep up with the demands of rising costs of living. But all stages of this ongoing decline – a more or less controlled collapse – are facilitated by the most sophisticated systems of mass propaganda ever devised. The internet is essentially owned by the same billionaires, as is the bulk of the corporate media. Free speech was snuffed out years ago.

Incidentally, for those who feel that ‘fascism’ is too strong a word, or too vague, and too freely bandied around by the doom-mongers who proffer nothing but “a council of despair”, there is another post (which is essentially the book’s final extra chapter) where I try to explain at greater length why we need to keep using the word, no matter how badly misappropriated and damaged it has become over time.

A brief aside: the vitally important lesson to be learned from the rise of the Nazis (as well as the other fascist governments of the twentieth century) is not that monsters are sometimes capable of holding an otherwise educated if unwitting public in their thrall, but that fascism is most vigorous when it feeds on the pain and fear of a desperately struggling population. It is when economies are ruined that fascism almost spontaneously arises, just as flies rush to a rotting corpse. As for the monsters, it may be that many of them do not appear much like monsters at all. As Hannah Arendt, who is best known for coining the phrase “the banality of evil”, wrote after she saw Adolf Eichmann testify at his trial in 1961:

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together, for it implied — as had been said at Nuremberg over and over again by the defendants and their counsels — that this new type of criminal, who is in actual fact hostis generis humani [“enemy of mankind”], commits his crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he is doing wrong. 10

Today, Hitler strikes us as an absolutely ridiculous and grotesque figure. He is the epitome of evil; the devil incarnate. His chubby pal Mussolini appears no less ranting and raving mad. The very fact I have included any reference to them in my argument already weakens it: the first person to mention Hitler being the loser in all our debates today.

Indeed, when it comes to any appraisal of Hitler and Mussolini, an extraordinarily difficult task presents itself in simply disentangling the caricatures from the men themselves. So unfortunately, we are unable to see these demagogues through the eyes of their contemporaries. We ought to be periodically reminded therefore – pinching ourselves if necessary – how throughout Europe and America both men were not only presented as respectable, but feted as great statesmen. Hitler was lauded by Time magazine and the Daily Mail; he was good friends with Henry Ford and King Edward VIII; financially supported by Prescott Bush, father of George H. W., and by the then-Governor of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. Prior to – and also during the war – fascism met with great favour amongst the highest echelons of the ruling class: aristocrats and plutocrats falling in love with fascism, because fascism is inherently plutocratic and aristocratic. 11

But fascism is not just the dirty secret of a staggeringly recent past, all mention of it as a political force now seems anachronistic. Few outside the thuggish gangs of neo-Nazis and white supremacists will openly call themselves fascist today. But tragically, fascism as a mainstream political force did not expire with the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini; it changed its name and its modus operandi, but little else.

So while any mention of fascism as a major political force seems anachronistic, and no-one outside the thuggish gangs of neo-Nazis and white supremacists openly calls themselves fascist today, it remains the dirty mainstream secret of an astonishingly recent past. Tragically, its mainstream political force did not expire, however, with the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini; it changed its name and its modus operandi, but little else.

The steady rise of this postmodern, globalist, corporatocratic, neo-feudal, technetronic, technocracy is, as I say, an open secret. Saying you don’t like my characterisation is a bit like saying you don’t like the colour of the sky! Indeed, half of these identifiers are ones coined, or at least preferred, by the world shapers themselves – the globalist plutocrats who so love technocracy. Certainly, you may raise a challenge that we are now beyond postmodernism, the irony of which ought to raise a little smile if not a full-blown chuckle, whilst it may also be admitted that ‘corporatocracy’ and ‘neo-feudal’ are pejorative terms. What is harder to ignore is the stench of decay under our peasant noses, although dutifully the pliant hoards will often hold their noses with considerable gratitude.

The majority has always behaved this way, although history was reshaped regardless and in spite of such widespread propensity for Stockholm syndrome. As Goethe wrote: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” 12

*

Addendum: A republic of the new malarkey

A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias. 13

— Oscar Wilde

*

“What is the meaning of life?” is an unintentionally hilarious question. So abstruse and rarified that it awkwardly bumps into the authentic experience of being alive before meandering off with eyes barely lifted from its own navel. It is just too damned philosophic! And yet there is a related though ineffable question that does respectfully and more intelligently seek an answer, and so at a primordial and existential level a kind of paradox confronts us daily. This paradox is indeed a source of much merriment.

But then, this question, which is hardly raised in polite company, finds a more permissible everyday enquiry: “what is the purpose of life?” A question, I think, we all ask ourselves from time to time, and one that takes its lead from the Socratic challenge: the search for self-improvement through self-examination. More confrontationally, you may have faced interrogation along the lines of: “so what are you doing with your life?” The implication here, of course, is that something purposeful needs to be done in life, whereas just drifting along without a clear purpose or goal is completely unacceptable.

In the modern world this belief is common sense. By contrast, pre-modern humans mostly live from day-to-day – as we all did until comparatively recent times – but still we forget how ‘purpose’ is not an ordinary and natural consideration, and not one that those in primitive societies would actually understand, but a later invention. Civilisation gave birth to ‘purpose’ in the abstract, and then once we had acquired aspirations of ‘purpose’, ‘meaning’ arose as a more diffuse back-projection.

And formerly, religion was the wellspring we drew upon to make determinations about our ultimate significance and so answers to questions of ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning’ were entirely contingent upon ordained beliefs about the divine and of morality. Today, with no gods to bother us, we might suppose the invitation simply to eat, drink and be merry would be sufficient enough, and yet few appear fully satisfied in following this straightforward directive; a nagging doubt persists that we may still be here for some higher purpose – or failing that that we can reinvent one anyway. Put differently, we have a tremendous longing for ‘worth’.

Unfortunately in our valiant attempt to save the world from the most egregious of religious doctrines, the cure becomes rather too clinical. In practical terms utilitarianism has stolen religion’s mantle and this numbs us in a peculiar way. With notions of ‘purpose’ and ‘worth’ necessarily adapted to fit the new paradigm, and with no better yardstick these have become equated, almost unavoidably, with notions of being socially useful in one way or another. Finally, morality, which is inherently unquantifiable, might be conveniently cut away too leaving usefulness above all else apprehended as good, virtuous and valuable. This is where utilitarianism logically leads and it is how modern society trains us to feel. What is your contribution? This is really the measure of man today.

Of course, tracing the lineage, we see utilitarianism is actually the bastard child of science – a quasi-Newtonian calculus misapplied to happiness such that all human relations can be narrowly reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. We have adopted this approach primarily because of its origins: science works! But science in turn depends upon reductionism. It maps reality, and as with every other map, does this by craftily omitting all of the detail of the actual territory; this refined attention to very specific elements is what makes all maps and scientific models useful. Utilitarianism reduces everything to usefulness.

Moreover, by successfully measuring all of creation, including each particle of our own nature, in the strict but narrow terms of what is scientifically quantifiable, we have accidentally impaired ourselves in another way. Through the high-magnification lens of science, we have learned to see trees, flowers, birds and all other creatures as cellular machines programmed and operating purely to survive and reproduce. This is a partial truth, of course, for no matter how high our magnification, science sees the world through its glass darkly, and at another level we remain keenly aware that the universe is not a wholly dead and lifeless automaton that endlessly recycles itself through ingestion and procreation. That there is more ‘meaning’ to life.

Back in the real world, the trees, the birds, the sky and the stars above that enthralled us as children, are no less wondrous if as adults we remain incurious to reflect upon their immanent mysteriousness. Indeed, not only life, but sheer existence is absolutely extraordinary and beyond all words. This we know at one level – call it ‘the unconscious’ for lack of a better term – with unflinching certainty. Importantly, and aside from death, it is the only substantial thing we can ever know for sure. The poets keep vigil to this spectacularly simple truth and are endlessly enraptured by it.

Thus the gauche and frankly silly question “what is the meaning of life?” has actually never gone away, but now hides out of bemused embarrassment in the more or less unconscious form of “what is my social function in life?” Life may be just as meaningless as it is mechanical, the acceptable view goes, but we can surely agree on the seriousness of this meaninglessness and on importance of making a worthwhile contribution. Robots in particular just need to get with the program!

When philosopher and spiritual teacher Alan Watts advises that “The meaning of life is just to be alive”, what does he mean precisely? Iain McGilchrist, who first studied literature before retraining in biology and becoming a expert is brain lateralisation, tackles this question and also considers more broadly how our pursuit of meaningful goals is related to happiness and a fulfilled life:

McGilchrist is also concerned by how meaning has been crushed through the ultra-capitalism of the West with its destructive obsession about the efficient use of ‘human resources’ and by the commensurate micro-management of the modern workplace:

*

A few years ago a friend said that, like him, I too was fed up with the old malarkey. What you want, he proposed, is “a republic of the new malarkey”! Well, since life always involves a certain amount of malarkey, then maybe this is the best we can finally hope to achieve. But then, continuing the theme, I wondered, why not aim instead for “a republic of the least malarkey”? After all, ask most people (myself included) if the world might be improved and they will generally say yes, but then ask how, and answers typically become trite and (for want of a better word) utopian. ‘Make poverty history’ is a perfect example. Remember that one? Some of us once marched under banners demanding that we ‘make poverty history’ – yes, but how? ‘Give peace a chance’, we might add – but again, getting no closer to ending the daily carnage of the forever wars.

Ask most people (again myself included) to explain the nitty-gritty of how we might make our societies better and we probably feel dumbstruck by the complexity and overwhelmed by the confusion of potential outcomes. We simply don’t quite know precisely what we want, or, better put, how to bring about the necessary changes – or at least never precisely enough to outline effective measures. Our problem, in one sense, is that positive action becomes difficult. After all, the world is a deeply and inherently puzzling place and so figuring the best course can be an inordinately difficult task.

But then ask an alternative question and you immediately receive better answers. Ask, for instance, what our society least needs and many people can instantly pull up a fairly detailed list of complaints. Pointing out stupidities, asinine rules, debilitating conventions, especially wherever our personal development is stunted or our lives are hamstrung; this comes perfectly naturally. Finding faults is just so much easier than offering details for improvements or formulating solutions. “It is very easy to criticise”, people often say, which is itself a criticism! But why? Why the eagerness to dismiss this one faculty common to all? Wouldn’t it be better to exploit it?

Which brings me to establishment of “a republic of the least malarkey”: a society constructed with the very deliberate intention of avoiding too many negatives: negatives being that much easier to put your finger on, and, crucially, to agree about. So why not make this our ambition? To set forth boldly to junk all nonsensical burdens and impositions because, aside their counterproductivity, any such transparently pointless impediments are generally as tedious as they are odious. Time is too precious to be needlessly wasted on nonsense.

*

A corresponding political movement would aim at an intelligent and humane transformation, turning away from the current drive for structuring societies on the proclaimed basis of the optimisation of efficiency and productiveness, with rigidly imposed structures that inevitably hamper the human imagination whilst infringing our most basic right: the inalienable right to be free-thinking human beings. Surely this is the most fundamental of all rights. So what of our other inalienable right, so far as practicable without infringing the freedoms and rights of others, which is to be freely-acting creatures?

All of this is a kind of ‘liberalism’, although of a very rough, unpolished form. Together with the Golden Rule, ‘liberalism’ of some kind is vital presuming we wish to live in a freer, saner and more tolerant society. Indeed, if we ever seriously decide to construct a better world for ourselves then freedom for the individual must remain the paramount concern, but so too is ensuring a nurturing and protecting society. I feel obliged therefore to add a few important caveats. As the poet and English civil war polemicist John Milton wrote:

For indeed none can love freedom heartily, but good men: the rest love not freedom, but license: which never hath more scope, or more indulgence than under tyrants. 14

The great danger of liberalism, as Milton says, is that inadvertently or otherwise, licence may be granted to tyrants, and then one man’s ‘freedom’ offers legitimacy, since it is reliant upon, another’s debasement and servitude. Sadly, this has been the primary mode of liberalism as it has existed until now, and in spite of the warnings of more thoughtful liberals who, from the outset, asserted loudly that unfettered individual liberty is entirely at odds with freedom that serves any common interest.

Elizabeth Anderson, Professor of Philosophy at University of Michigan, is the author of “Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It)” about the tyranny of the corporate workplace from non-disclosure agreements to punitive, restrictive work conditions and censorship. Here she discusses with journalist Chris Hedges how the libertarian model is cruel and why liberalism has historically defended the rights of capital above the rights of the individual:

Today’s self-proclaimed (neo-)liberal thinkers are misguided in another crucial and related way. Their emphasis on freedom of the market has dispelled one system of serfdom only to replace it with another that, although superficially different, is comparably repressive: the exaltation of the market to the rank of our new lord and master brings tyranny of more cleverly concealed designs.

What the liberal too often and rather too conveniently overlooks is that money, besides being an inherently utilitarian artifact, is a thoroughly and indivisibly social instrument too. That money is not some product of private contracts since these do not supply and protect its value, but that since society creates it to lubricate its means for production and distribution of goods and services, then society maintains, in principle at least, complete autonomy over it. Taxation, therefore, isn’t reducible to theft of private property since money isn’t strictly speaking either private or property.

Nor should money or the profit-making engines called corporations be put on a pedestal: money has no rights at all, only sentient beings can have rights, and likewise, having money ought to accord no special rights or privileges other than in enabling the procurement of stuff. This is what it does and nothing else. Money has been our terrible master, but now we must transform it into a useful servant, striving to break its links to power in every way this can be achieved.

In fact, the decline of money is already happening, and this is rather crucial to understand. Once industrial production becomes fully automated, and services follow, money will lose its primary function, which is as a token of exchange for labour. Without labour there will be no need to reward it. In order to ensure a smooth and humane transition to this future post-wage society (and the robots are coming sooner than we think), we need an honest reflection of our values: values entirely without any pound or dollar sign attached. If we are serious about our collective futures, this fundamental reevaluation of life has to happen without delay and in earnest, long before we are completely freed from treadmill of work itself.

James Suzman, author of “Work: A History of How We Spend Our Time”, here discusses how work as we know it is really a modern concept that didn’t exist until recently:

But then, final and complete individual freedom (as we often claim to desire) is only attainable once the reins that harnessed us to work have begun to slacken. Meanwhile, unbridling ourselves of the work ethic, as unavoidable as it is, is no straightforward matter, since it requires the tackling opponents on all sides. Both left and right, for contrary reasons, are mindful to keep the workers hard at it.

Indeed, all that ultimately stands between us and this gateway to an unprecedented age of freedom and abundance are two abiding obstructions. The first of these: further advances and refinements to our technology, are certain to arise whatever we decide to do; whereas, the second, that invisible but super-sticky glue which binds money to political power, can never be fully dissolved unless we act very decisively to see that it is.

This second obstacle is virtually immoveable, and yet we must finally meet it with our truly irresistible force, if only because tremendous concentrations of wealth and power are overbearingly anti-democratic. In fact they reinforce themselves entirely to the exclusion of the dispossessed, and as the tie between money and power continually tightens, so the world is made captive to a tiny privileged coterie in what are already de facto plutocracies where the lives of workers increasingly resemble those of more visibly bonded slaves – held captive by chains of debts rather than steel. So long as the economic system is not reformed, we will head unswerving to a time when the current labour resource is made totally redundant. If no action is taken, this future prospect leaves us infinitely worse off again.

Moreover, the obstacles we face are interconnected, since for so long as a few moneyed interests hold such an iron grip on political power (as is currently the case), all technological development must remain primarily directed to serve and maintain these special interests. Rather glaringly, government money is today ceaselessly pumped into the giant hands of the military-industrial complex.

Suppose instead that this enormous expenditure on the weapons industry, and thus into weapons research, was redirected to transform methods of energy production and transportation systems. Imagine then how more wonderful our lives would be had this wasteful investment in destruction already been funneled into peacetime projects. And here I mean real investment in the fullest, truest sense of time and human ingenuity, rather than simply investment of money – which is only ever a tool remember.

Full and final severance of financial and political power is extremely hard to achieve, of course, but there is a great deal that could be done to remedy the present crisis. However, to begin to move in the right direction we are compelled first to organise. This is as urgent as it is imperative. Seizing power from the one-percent must become the primary goal for all who sincerely wish to usher in a better age.

Here is Comedian Lee Camp considering the same issue in one of his “Moments of Clarity”:

*

Effing utilitarianism

If we require a more ideologically framed foundation then I also half-jokingly make the following proposal: our new approach can be futilitarianism. 15 That is, a full one-eighty degree U-turn against utilitarianism and its consequentialist basis in which ends alone purportedly justify means. Let us instead turn this inculcated foolishness entirely on its head such that, and aside from properly disconnecting moral value from mere usefulness, we remind ourselves, as Gandhi correctly asserted, that ‘means’ are also ‘ends in the making’. Thus we grant that, conversely, ‘means’ really can and do justify themselves, intrinsically, without regard to whatever the ‘ends’ may to turn out to be. 16

In other words, emphasis should be correctly placed on a person’s sincere endeavour “to do the right thing”, since this is inherently virtuous. In all ethical matters, reciprocity then becomes the touchstone again: that maxim of the Golden Rule, which holds that each should treat the other as one wishes to be treated in return. For the most ancient of all ethical rules remains the wisest and most parsimonious; and it is always better not to fix things that were never broken. 17

Futilitarianism involves an item-by-item elimination of each of our extant but inessential sociopolitical complications: an unravelling of the knots that hogtie us little by little. Beginning from the top, to first free up our financial systems, although not by so-called ‘deregulation’, since deregulation is precisely how those systems became so corrupted; but by dispelling all that is so toxic, craftily convoluted, nonsensical and plain criminal (the last ought to go without saying but evidently doesn’t!). Whilst from the bottom, the goal is to bring an end to the commercialisation of our lives on which our debt-riven (because debt-driven) economies depend: to unwind our ever-more rampant and empty consumerist culture.

In the futilitarian future, security – that most misappropriated of words – would ensure that everyone (not just the super rich) is fully protected against all conceivable forms of harm that can feasibly be eradicated, or – if eradication is not completely realisable – then greatly diminished and/or ameliorated. It will mean the individual is protected from persecution by all agents including the state itself, and will guarantee both the freedom and privacy which permit us to think and act as individuals.

From the outset, therefore, a social framework must ensure basic freedoms by acknowledging and guaranteeing not only civil liberties, but economic rights too. A living income for all and one that is eventually independent of earned salary. Such unconditional basic incomes are now under consideration, but I advocate a steady move in this direction through instituting a range of measures including extended holidays, reductions in working hours, and the lowering of the pension age. All of this should be achieved on a voluntary basis, since nobody ought to be compelled to remain idle any more than we must be compelled to work. In pursuing this goal it is also vital to maintain equivalence or preferably to increase levels of income.

Ensuring essential economic rights requires universal provision of the highest quality healthcare and optimum social entitlement. Homes and food for all. Clothing and warmth for all. Unpolluted air and clear water for all. In fact, such universal access to every necessity and much else besides is already inscribed in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) under Article 25, which reads:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 18

The overarching aim is to reconstruct every society (beginning with our own) to eliminate the ills of poverty because there is ample energy, food, and even non-essential but desirable material goods for everyone alive in the world today and much more again.

Emphatically, this does NOT require any form of imposed population controls, since prosperity automatically correlates with population stability (as proved by the steadily declining populations in the Western world), and so we should resolutely reject the scaremongering about imminent global scarcity of food or other vital resources. In fact contrary to all the neo-Malthusian prophesies of doom, just as the population of the world is peaking 19 we still have a great plenty of food to go around (lacking only the political and economic will to distribute it fairly) 20, with official UN estimates indicating that we shall continue to have such abundance both for the immediate future and far beyond. 21

Likewise, problems associated with energy production and hazards like pollution need to be tackled as a priority. To such ends, the brightest minds should be organised to find daring solutions to our energy needs – a new Manhattan Project, but this time to save lives. For technology justly configured is the essential key to humanity’s continuing betterment.

In short, the futilitarian cry is “Basta!” Enough is enough! Enough of poverty, and of curable sickness. Enough of excessive hard labour. An end to so much insanity.

The long-term vision might see an international community no longer perpetually at war, nor hypnotised and zombified by the infinitely-receding baubles of our faux-free markets nor the limiting and phoney promise of “freedom of choice”. Likewise, it marks a sharp retreat from our red in tooth and claw ‘meritocracies’, offering genuine hope (that most shamelessly abused of all words!) to millions in our own societies, who devoid of respect and finding little evidence of compassion, exist in abject desperation having long since turned their backs both on politics and society. Numbing their hardships with recourse to narcotics (criminalised by virtue of that other war against the dispossessed) or, more permissibly, since corporately profitable, they fill the emptiness with lifelong dependence upon doses of fully legally sanctioned opiates.

Besides the regular bread and circuses of TV, Hollywood and wall-to-wall professional sport, the rush of high-speed editing and ceaseless agitation offered through CGI, we also have nonstop access to more and more digital pacifiers thanks to iphones, Candy Crush, and TikTok. Driven to worship the tawdry, there was never a more distracted and narcissistic age than ours. It is self-evident however that we are hooked on painkillers because we are so deeply racked with pain. No amount of such distractions can ever satisfy us: the emptiness persists.

Lastly, and should we find a requirement for some pithy and memorable slogan, I propose recycling this one: “people before profits”. Generously acted upon, the rest follows automatically. Or, if such a slogan smacks too much of pleading, then let’s be more emphatic saying, “Power to the people!” Hackneyed, yes, but risible – why risible? “Power to the people” speaks to the heart and soul of what it should literally mean to live in any democracy. Our greatest tragedy is that the people have long since forgotten their birthright.

As playwright Harold Pinter said in the final words of his magnificent Nobel Lecture speech delivered in late 2005 when he was already dying from cancer:

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us – the dignity of man.

Go to first chapter.

*

Please note that for the purposes of ‘publishing’ here I have taken advantage of the option to incorporate hypertext links and embed videos – in order to distinguish additional commentary from the original text all newly incorporated text has been italised.

*

1 A warning to Congress that the growth of private power could lead to fascism, delivered by Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 29, 1938.

2 The Altamont Free Concert was held in northern California in December 1969. The security had been given over to a chapter of Hells Angels. It is mostly remembered for violence and a number of deaths, including the murder of Meredith Curly Hunter, Jr.

3 The Tate–LaBianca murders were a series of murders perpetrated by members of the Manson Family during August 8–10, 1969, in Los Angeles, California, under the direction of Tex Watson and Charles Manson.

4 Quote from Chapter 2 entitled “The Garden of Live Flowers” of Through the Looking-Glass (1871) by Lewis Carroll.

5 Wikipedia devotes an entire entry to “List of University of Oxford people with PPE degrees which begins:

Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Oxford University has traditionally been a degree read by those seeking a career in politics, public life (including senior positions in Her Majesty’s Civil Service) and journalism. This list does not include those notable figures, such as U.S. President Bill Clinton, who studied PPE at the university but did not complete their degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees

6 From The Sane Society, Ch. 9: Summary — Conclusion, written by Erich Fromm, published in 1955.

7 He was awarded a PhD in philosophy, but perhaps a more fitting title is ‘futurist’.

8

Bostrom, a 43-year-old Swedish-born philosopher, has lately acquired something of the status of prophet of doom among those currently doing most to shape our civilisation: the tech billionaires of Silicon Valley. His reputation rests primarily on his book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, which was a surprise New York Times bestseller last year and now arrives in paperback, trailing must-read recommendations from Bill Gates and Tesla’s Elon Musk. (In the best kind of literary review, Musk also gave Bostrom’s institute £1m to continue to pursue its inquiries.)

From an article entitled “Artificial intelligence: ‘We’re like children playing with a bomb’” written by Tim Adams, published in the Guardian on June 12, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/12/nick-bostrom-artificial-intelligence-machine

9 From an article entitled “Ctrl-Alt-Del inventor makes final reboot: David Bradley, we salute you” written by Andrew Orlowski, published in The Register on January 29, 2004. https://www.theregister.com/2004/01/29/ctrlaltdel_inventor_makes_final_reboot/

10 From the Epilogue of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the Banality of Evil written by Hannah Arendt, published in 1963.

11 The word ‘fascism’ is beginning to be usefully reclaimed. Reattached with careful deliberation and appropriateness to the situation we find unfolding today. For instance, veteran journalist and political analyst John Pilger writes:

Under the “weak” Obama, militarism has risen perhaps as never before. With not a single tank on the White House lawn, a military coup has taken place in Washington. In 2008, while his liberal devotees dried their eyes, Obama accepted the entire Pentagon of his predecessor, George Bush: its wars and war crimes. As the constitution is replaced by an emerging police state, those who destroyed Iraq with shock and awe, piled up the rubble in Afghanistan and reduced Libya to a Hobbesian nightmare, are ascendant across the US administration. Behind their beribboned facade, more former US soldiers are killing themselves than are dying on battlefields. Last year 6,500 veterans took their own lives. Put out more flags.

The historian Norman Pollack calls this “liberal fascism”: “For goose-steppers substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.” Every Tuesday the “humanitarian” Obama personally oversees a worldwide terror network of drones that “bugsplat” people, their rescuers and mourners. In the west’s comfort zones, the first black leader of the land of slavery still feels good, as if his very existence represents a social advance, regardless of his trail of blood. This obeisance to a symbol has all but destroyed the US anti-war movement – Obama’s singular achievement.

In Britain, the distractions of the fakery of image and identity politics have not quite succeeded. A stirring has begun, though people of conscience should hurry. The judges at Nuremberg were succinct: “Individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity.” The ordinary people of Syria, and countless others, and our own self-respect, deserve nothing less now.

From “The silent military coup that took over Washington” written by John Pilger, published in the Guardian on September 10, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/silent-military-coup-took-over-washington

12 In the original German: “Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.

From Book II, Ch. 5 of Die Wahlverwandtschaften (‘Elective Affinities’ or ‘Kindred by Choice’) by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, published in 1809.

13    From The Soul of Man under socialism, an essay by Oscar Wilde published in 1891.

14    From Tenure of Kings and Magistrates written by John Milton, published in 1649.

15    I recently discovered that there is already a name for the kind of social philosophy I have tried to outline here. Apparently it’s called “metanoia” and that fine with me… a rose by any other name. In any case, the term futilitarianism was originally coined as a joke by a friend. Suggested as a useful working title to encapsulate the views of our mutual friend, James, the economist, who gets a mention earlier in the book. It was a great joke – one of those jokes that causes you to laugh first and then to think more deeply afterwards. I have kept the word in mind every since simply because it fit so comfortably with my own developing thoughts about life, the universe and everything – thoughts fleshed out and committed to the pages of this book. Of course, neologisms are useful only when they happen to plug a gap, and futilitarianism serves that function. Once I had the word I wanted to know what it might mean. The joke became a matter for playful contemplation, and that contemplation became what I hope is a playful book – playful but serious – as the best jokes always are.

16    After writing this I came across a quote attributed to Aldous Huxley (from source unknown) as follows: “But the nature of the universe is such that the ends never justify the means. On the contrary, the means always determine the end.”

17    There are many formulations of the Golden Rule. A multitude of philosophical attempts to refine and more strictly formalise the basic tenet to the point of logical perfection. Kant’s concept of the “categorical imperative” is one such reformulation. But these reformulations create more confusion than they solve. There simply is no absolutely perfect way to state the Golden Rule and recast it into a solid law. The Golden Rule better understood and applied as a universal guideline. Acting in accordance with the spirit of the rule is what matters.

18    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. Eleanor Roosevelt, first chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that drafted the Declaration, stated that it “may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.”

These notes are taken from the wikipedia entry on UDHR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Declaration_of_Universal_Human_Rights

19    We have now reached what is called “peak child”, which means that although the overall population of the world will continue to grow for a few moire decades, the number of children in the world has already stopped rising. The global population is set to reach at 10 billion people, due to the “Great Fill-Up”.  World-famous statistician Professor Hans Rosling explains this using building blocks to illustrate the point [from 10 mins in]:

20

After 30 years of rapid growth in agricultural production, the world can produce enough food to provide every person with more than 2 700 Calories per day level which is normally sufficient to ensure that all have access to adequate food, provided distribution is not too unequal

From report of World Food Summit of FAO (Rome 13-17 November 1996), entitled “Food for All”. http://www.fao.org/3/x0262e/x0262e05.htm#e

21

“[However,] the slowdown [of worldwide agricultural production] has occurred not because of shortages of land or water but rather because demand for agricultural products has also slowed. This is mainly because world population growth rates have been declining since the late 1960s, and fairly high levels of food consumption per person are now being reached in many countries, beyond which further rises will be limited.” – “This study suggests that world agricultural production can grow in line with demand, provided that the necessary national and international policies to promote agriculture are put in place. Global shortages are unlikely, but serious problems already exist at national and local levels and may worsen unless focused efforts are made.” – “Agricultural production could probably meet expected demand over the period to 2030 even without major advances in modern biotechnology.”

Extracts from the Executive Summary of the FAO summary report “World agriculture: towards 2015/2030”, published in 2002. http://www.fao.org/3/y3557e/y3557e.pdf

1 Comment

Filed under « finishing the rat race », neo-liberalism

Telfs 2015: where the hollow men of Bilderberg see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

The InterAlpen Hotel is vast pyramidal complex that soars atop the pine forests close to the ski resort of Seefeld and brings to mind Hitler’s magnificent “Eagle’s Nest” (Kehlsteinhaus) retreat perched high in the mountains above Obersalzberg, approximately one hundred kilometers east along the same northern border of Austria (as the eagle flies). Gathered there above the mists for their annual “private” meeting last weekend, the attendees of the Bilderberg group came for what purpose?

InterAlpen Hotel nr Seefeld, Austria

 

Hitler’s “Eagle’s Nest”

To begin to answer this question we must straightaway acknowledge two points. Firstly, that Bilderberg is just part (presumably a key part) of an extensive network of private groups, institutes, ‘think tanks’ and other meetings that include, in descending order of secrecy, the Trilateral Commission, the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), its UK cousin the Royal Institute of International Affairs (better known as Chatham House), and the World Economic Forum in Davos. Bilderberg is the most prestigious and certainly the most “private” of all these.

Secondly, each of these Anglo-American establishment organisations is structured around its own internal hierarchy. At the head of Bilderberg, we have its Steering Committee, and so, for the newbies and the underlings turning up in Austria, the motivation is likely to be rather different than for the true movers and shakers.

To the parvenus, invitation opens the door to what is surely the world’s premier networking event. And between the frenetic bouts of lobbying, we should imagine there is time enough for altogether more obsequious displays of bowing and scraping. But what about the old guard? Do they too set aside this blank space in their busy diaries just to go and fawn over one another whilst marshalling the initiation of the latest cohort of Bilderberg fags.* For if Bilderberg is really as innocuous as its members claim, then this must be all that ever happens inside its cloistered halls.

Or put differently, we might respectfully ask: for what reasons was Bilderberg founded? What was and is its raison d’être?

* Note of clarification: ‘fag’ in this context is simply English public school-ese for a freshman.

*

There are no eyes here

Once upon a time there was no such creature as the Bilderberg club. It was rumoured to exist, but the rumours were evidently nonsensical. How could any such meeting of the world’s richest and most powerful people be kept a secret? Furthermore, since the only person who claimed proof of the group’s existence, a man by the name of Jim Tucker (self-described as a journalist) had nothing substantial to show us, he was plainly delusional. Decades spent shinning up drainpipes and clambering around the bushes of faraway five-star hotels in the forlorn hope of seeing just a glimpse of this imaginary band of furtive elites had clearly taken its toll. “Big Jim” would write reports to the effect that he had personally tracked Bilderberg down to locations all over the western world, but the serious media sensibly kept a wide berth. “Big Jim” was totally paranoid. They knew there was nothing to see.

Then in 2001, along came oddball human interest reporter Jon Ronson. He had heard about Jim Tucker and fancied going along on one of his legendary wild goose chases. A trail that soon led them to a remote hotel in Portugal where bewitched by Tucker’s stories, Ronson fell under his spell and began seeing the scurrying politicians and plutocrats for himself: a figure very like Peter Mandelson peering out of the tinted windows of a coach, and there were major league corporate bosses too, as well as billionaires such as the wrathlike David Rockefeller, all sneaking through the hotel gates in the backseats of limousines and taxi cabs. Sheer madness.

The tale of Ronson’s adventure in Portugal featured as the fifth and final part of the Channel 4 documentary series The Secret Rulers of the World. The fantasy of the late Jim Tucker, vindicated as strange fact, with Ronson finally shifting the focus to ask what really does go on at the clandestine gatherings of Bilderberg? He called upon a couple of attendees to speak on Bilderberg’s behalf, one being former Labour bigwig Denis Healey, but apparently there was nothing worth speaking about. Schmoozing. High security schmoozing. Nothing more.

Jon Ronson was later interviewed by Neil Davenport, a freelance TV and film critic:

‘What I’m trying to say with these programmes’, says Ronson, ‘is that the crazy people are on to something, but what they’re on to is very different to what they imagined it to be’.

However Ronson is much too quick in leaping to his own conclusions, and especially when he explains to Davenport that:

‘They [conspiracy theorists] believe that businessmen or judges should be making decisions, as they’re not corrupt. But by taking power away from politicians, they want to take power away from the electorate too.’ 1

I wonder who he imagines he is speaking for. For Bilderberg is what it is. A private meeting place for a clique of corporate privateers (including convicted felons) evidently intent upon “taking power away from the electorate” (as Ronson puts it) and into the crooked hands of political lackeys. The elected politicians who do go there, go to swap notes, and most certainly not to dictate policy:

It is very easy to write off the Bilderberg Group, which met in utter secrecy in Watford a week ago, as just a private get-together of high-powered colleagues from across the Western world which regularly meets to exchange views. That was the view peddled by Ken Clarke amid much buffoonery and mockery in the Commons. It is equally easy, as the BBC did the day before, to get a ranter of dubious credibility [viz. Alex Jones] to go over the top in portraying Bilderberg as a secretive worldwide conspiracy. Neither of these presentations stand up to any serious scrutiny, but establishing the realities is difficult partly because of the secrecy in which the whole operation is shrouded. But there are some significant leads.

So wrote Labour MP Michael Meacher after the group came to England in 2013. Meacher was the single British Member of Parliament bold enough to make a speech to the thousands who went to protest. I was there and videoed his speech (posted on youtube and embedded in an earlier post).

In the same article, Meacher delves a little deeper, starting with the group’s extremely unsavoury post-war origins:

Bilderberg was founded in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. He was a Nazi party member from 1933-37 who resigned one day after his controversial marriage to the future Queen of the Netherlands. In 1934 he was the subject of a report by a US Congress committee which identified him as an SS officer attached to the Nazi government’s principal industrial ally, IG Farben. The minutes of the first Bilderberg meeting declared their aim as “to evolve an international order which would look beyond the present day crisis. When the time is ripe our present concepts of world affairs should be extended to the whole world”. 2

Click here to read Michael Meacher’s full article “The Bilderberg smell still lingers”.

This stated aim, “to evolve an international order”, sounds oddly like the rather more paranoid sounding claim: that Bilderberg is out to construct a “new world order”. But the very term “new world order”, which has been used by such luminaries as George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Henry Kissinger, adds a lot more heat than light. For what do they mean by it? And coming back to Bilderberg (where all five of the aforementioned have attended) how could such an ambitious goal be realisable given that its membership, although highly exclusive, is constantly evolving? Isn’t it only Bond villains who dream of such world domination…

Yet members of Bilderberg rarely deny, at least, when cornered on the subject, that they are striving in part for the formation of a fully-functioning world government. It is most urgent, they say, if we are ever to bring about peace and prosperity, adding that these can only be achieved through effective ‘global governance’ and ‘internationalism’. But this is deceptive, of course – deliberately so – since aside from being composed of warmongers of the first degree (and I shall list further attendees as we proceed), the globalists who head Bilderberg are clearly not very serious when it comes to fostering good relations between all nations. Rather, they would prefer that the nation state wither away altogether, to be replaced by supranational bodies.

More honestly stated Bilderberg (headed by a mix of international financiers, corporate bosses and, perhaps more surprisingly, a number of European monarchs) alongside its affiliated Anglo-American institutions and bodies (mentioned above) are primarily intent to expand their already well-established corporate empire. They prefer to do this by a steady process of transformation rather than forcing an abrupt revolution; taking baby steps as they set about reforming international relations and recreating a world without borders, hence “global”. The latest moves include the introduction of TPP and TTIP – “free trade agreements” that will further dismantle national sovereignty.

So if you were to sum up their admitted goal in just three words then ‘globalist corporate hegemony’ fits perfectly. Alternatively, you might sum up the organisation with these three instead: organised crime syndicate. Frankly, if they didn’t own half the world already, including the major media outlets, don’t you think they would be behind bars by now?

Jim Tucker’s exposure of Bilderberg took tenacity and great courage. Not only did his investigations put him in immediate danger, but penetrating Bilderberg meant trusting his instincts and believing his own eyes. It is easy to mock “Big Jim”, as Ronson does gently throughout the documentary, and right to question his judgment in other ways (for instance, his dewy-eyed weakness for Margaret Thatcher). Nevertheless, Tucker was also a trailblazer.

*

This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech

(apologies to T.S. Eliot) 3

Although the group cloaks itself in secrecy, it does have a spokesman who, not surprisingly, asked not to be named. He said Bilderberg operates in private to foster meaningful debate on the big issues of the day.

“While we understand and generally welcome the general interest in the conference, we simply cannot provide the levels of access or transparency that certain individuals or groups would like to see,” the spokesman said in an email. “To encourage the highest level of openness and dialogue among the participants, and to keep the private character of the meetings, all participants respect the Chatham House Rule.” 4

This comes from an article published in the Washington Times on the eve of the meeting [Thurs 11th].

It came as a surprise to many, myself included, that a group which had feigned its own nonexistence until about a decade ago, now employs a spokesman, albeit an entirely anonymous one. More surprising again, is his/her claim that the Bilderberg group “welcome the general interest in the conference”, especially since this was not what the handful of reporters on the ground had been saying. But then, if Bilderberg was suddenly so open to outside interest why is there any “news blackout” (as the story’s own headline puts it) at all? In fact, why didn’t the Washington Times dispatch some of its own reporters directly to Austria? Charlie Skelton, who was there on the ground and reporting for the Guardian (although not the front page of course), supplies part of the answer:

The clock has struck midnight. The dream is over. Back at the G7 summit, barely a day and 20 miles from here, I was treated like a prince. I was one of the chosen 3,000 journalists who were primped, pampered, fed and burped, given free T-shirts, gallons of goulash, buckets of booze, and all the cheesy footage of world leaders we could swallow. We lay back on our branded beanbags and were tickled silly by the gentle fist of the G7 PR machine. But not any more. The beanbag has burst.

Taken from his second report of his annual “Bilderblog”.

That was Wednesday [June 10th] and the latest crop of the hundred and more attendees hadn’t even arrived at this year’s luxury venue in the Alps. Skelton was one of just a tiny handful of journalists (the mainstream media’s sole reporter), but security was already firmly locked down, and about to tighten:

“Step out of the vehicle and show me your identification!” A group of Austrian police officers took up position round my car. I pulled on the handbrake and opened the door. I swear to God one young officer shifted his hand to the butt of his sidearm, like I was about to rush them. All 12 of them. All armed. Maybe if there had only been 10 I might have taken them down using a slingshot improvised from my shoelaces, but not 12. I might be crazy but I’m not nuts. 5

Some 2,000 Austrian police including “Cobra” special forces had been drafted to guard the hotel and surrounding woods. There to patrol exclusion zones that extended quite literally miles, with military helicopters circling overhead, as well as the Bilderberg’s own anti-aircraft radar system. 6 Checkpoints into the neighbouring village of Telfs sent a stark message to both public and press alike to keep away:

Charlie Skelton compared the manner in which these very same security services, so courteous at G7 (to the press, at least – G7 was locked down to exclude public protests), were suddenly acting in a far more provocative manner. And later that night, his personal experience of police harassment was to intensify considerably:

I had three Austrian policemen in my hotel room last night. They stood there all grim faced with their fluorescent bibs, torches and sidearms. It was like the worst ever fancy dress party. I offered them a pilsner. They declined. They were too busy checking my ID that had been carefully checked 10 minutes prior at a police checkpoint. And carefully checked two minutes prior to that, at another police checkpoint.

This was his report from Thursday [June 11th]. The conference still yet to begin, but police and security services going out of their way to be as unaccommodating to journalists as possible. Once again, Skelton draws comparison to what he had experienced at the G7 only days earlier:

In my trouser pocket I found a “Medienhandbuch” from the G7, which I was given in my goodie bag when I was accredited there. By the light of a police searchlight, which was trained on me like I was trying to escape Stalag 17, I read out passages to my guards to pass the time. “Experienced staff from the Federal Government will be happy to help you with your work …” An officer interrupted. “Your address please.” It was on my driving licence in his hand. This was getting silly. 7

Silly, yes, but Skelton knows very well why he had become such a centre of attention. This was not the first time he found himself on the wrong side of the Bilderberg cordons:

The thing is, I never really came here to “cover” Bilderberg. I just thought it would be funny to hang out at the cordon and wear T-shirts saying things like “NOBILIZATION!”. It’s really very peculiar to look back at my first report and watch myself pretending to dodge spooks on dark streets. Ha ha ha. And now? I’ve hidden twice in the same stairwell in Athens to try to shake off the men following me. I have a favourite bolthole in Athens city centre. That’s how much my life has changed.

I’ve grappled with men in a Metro station; I’ve screamed for help in Omonoia Square; I’ve shouted “You’re lying to me!” at detectives in an Athens police station; I’ve grabbed a man riding off on a motorbike and begged him – almost in tears – to “leave me alone”; I’ve been yelled at, arrested, followed, searched, shoved, maligned, intimidated, doubted and lied to. So many lies.

This was Skelton’s personal initiation to Bilderberg when the group met near Athens in May 2009. The way he was treated freaked him out big time, just as it had freaked out Jon Ronson when he was chased by security during the Portuguese meeting in Sintra of 1999.

As Skelton concluded in the same Guardian article:

I’ve told the truth about what has happened to me this week. I wonder if the various British politicians who have attended Bilderberg 2009 could bring themselves to tell the truth about how they spent their time. I wonder if someone better than me, a better reporter, a more powerful voice, a politician even, could ask them. Anyone?

My dispatches on the 2009 conference, if they mean anything at all, represent nothing more acutely than the absence of thorough mainstream reporting. I am pretty much the opposite of what’s needed. I am a joke. These dispatches are a travesty. A travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. A disgrace to the good name of journalism. I should be ashamed. 8

Click here to read Charlie Skelton’s full article.

And as he pointed out in his first report for this year’s “Bilderblog”, entitled “Forget the G7 summit – Bilderberg is where the big guns go”:

Bilderberg 2015 has an extremely high-powered participant list, featuring a large number of senior politicians and public figures. With participants this powerful, and an agenda containing this many hot topics, the Telfs policy conference is sure to be covered in depth by the world’s press. And by “sure to be”, I mean probably won’t be. For reasons that, as ever, escape me. 9

A comment beneath his article reads:

“For reasons that, as ever, escape me.”

“Reason, as ever, escapes me.” There you go, Charlie. Fixed it for you.

A second added:

Oh, there you are…. Every year, like clock work, to spread your move along- nothing to see here- cheer….

Anticipation for what you might add to the discussion is ever hopeful!

But the reasons don’t escape Skelton. He knows the score too and these comments are unfair. Skelton is as much humourist as journalist (very much like Jon Ronson in this regard), and his understated, laconic delivery presumably helps persuade his vacillating editor that it’s safe to send him back to the Bilderberg frontline. Skelton knows – since we all know – that the reason the press coverage is scant (to say the least) is not because the press is disinterested, but because they are hugely compromised.

For every mainstream outlet has close, whether direct or indirect, associations with Bilderberg. For instance, the Guardian’s former editor Alan Rusbridger, who is still on the board of the Scott Trust which owns the Guardian and the Observer, is a former governor of the Ditchley Foundation , whose current governors also include (to offer a flavour) Lord Aldington, former Chairman of Deutsche Bank London, Robert Conway, Senior Director of Goldman Sachs International, Constanze Stelzenmüller senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, both former diplomat and former Director of the Ditchley Foundation, as well as, John Sawers, ex-Chief of MI6. In short, Ditchley is a mini-Bilderberg group. Indeed, membership crosses over between the groups: so, for instance, John Sawers was at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen as well as this year’s meeting in Telfs-Buchen.

Others on this year’s official list (which is reliably incomplete) included Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist; Martin Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator at The Financial Times; John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief of Bloomberg LP; Merete Eldrup, CEO of TV 2 Danmark A/S (a publicly owned Danish television station), and perhaps more surprisingly, Rona Fairhead, Chairman of the BBC Trust. The media are, as always, exceedingly well represented. Because, if you wish to silence the press, you need to involve them.

Charlie Skelton’s final “Bilderblog” report of 2015 expands on the same theme. Apparently it wasn’t just the press keeping schtum about events in Austria:

Weaving down the alp came the Bilderbus, taking delegates on a whistlestop tour of the Tyrol. Buzzing along above it, at a crazy height, was its helicopter escort. I swear I could have bounced a euro off the roof of the coach and into the blades. If I’d wanted to have been dropped by an NSA sniper.

In the coach below it must have been like being in a washing machine. No wonder the delegates on board looked grumpy. Sitting up front, Jessica T Mathews had a face like thunder. Although maybe the cause of her headache wasn’t the helicopter, but rather the howling contradiction of being on the steering committee of the world’s most secretive policy summit and also on the advisory council of Transparency International USA.

Also on the bus was James Wolfensohn. A fellow member of TI-USA’s advisory council, Wolfensohn was the joint winner of their 2014 “integrity award”, an honour he shared with that other famous transparency campaigner, and the world’s fourth-biggest arms company, Raytheon. Previous winners of the integrity award include (and I kid you not) Coca-Cola, General Electric and the then secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton. The great email deleter herself. I think someone should tell TI-USA what “transparency” means. There may have been a mix-up somewhere down the line.

When it comes to transparency, this year’s Bilderberg summit fails in every way imaginable. Three prime ministers, two foreign ministers, one president, no press conference. No public oversight. Just a bunch of senior policymakers locked away for three days with some incredibly powerful corporate lobbyists, discussing subjects intimately related to public policy. Subjects such as “globalisation” and “current economic issues”, which in practical terms mean the giant trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Click here to read more from Charlie Skelton’s excellent “Bilderblog”

Where once there was a deadening silence over Bilderberg, at least there is a little more coverage across the European media these days. But now that Bilderberg officially exists, they would prefer us to simply yawn-yawn about the jaw-jaw. Nothing to hear here.

*

Rats’ feet over broken glass

The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together, for it implied — as had been said at Nuremberg over and over again by the defendants and their counsels — that this new type of criminal, who is in actual fact hostis generis humani [“enemy of mankind”], commits his crimes under circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he is doing wrong. 10

So wrote Hannah Arendt after she had watched Adolf Eichmann testify during his trial in Jerusalem in 1961. What shocked her most of all was how this evil and powerful man (relatively speaking) could be so dull, so mediocre, and so absolutely unrepentant. Arendt was searching for a philosophical explanation for this, but is there one? Or even a psychological account?

Arendt perhaps is better known for coining the phrase “the banality of evil”, which she repeats on a number of occasions throughout her works, although she never precisely defines what she means by it. One approximate definition she did give goes along the lines that ‘the banality of evil wasn’t the presence of something, but its absence – something you expected to be there, but just isn’t’ 11

Today we might talk about the sociopath and the psychopath (Arendt does not speculate much in this regard), which is another subject journalist Jon Ronson went on to explore in his more recent study, The Psychopath Test.

Ever the gentle persuader, in a few hundred pages, Ronson conveys the opinion that psychopathy is under-diagnosed even more frequently than it is over-diagnosed, being very nearly as difficult to identify, as it is impossible to treat (according to current wisdom). He also points to how psychopaths and sociopaths tend to see themselves as respectable and normal, and importantly, how they possess character traits enabling them to become highly successful:

It wasn’t only Bob [Hare – author of the Psychopathy Checklist] who believed that a disproportionate number of psychopaths can be found in high places. In the days after Essi Viding had first mentioned the theory to me I spoke to scores of psychologists who all said exactly the same. One was Martha Stout from the Harvard Medical School and author of The Sociopath Next Door. (You may be wondering what the difference is between a psychopath and a sociopath, and the answer is, there really isn’t one. Psychologists and psychiatrists around the world tend to use the terms interchangeably.) They are everywhere, she said. They are in the crowded restaurant where you have your lunch. They are in your open-plan office. […]

‘Sociopaths love power. They love winning. If you take loving kindness out of the human brain there’s not much left except the will to win.’

‘Which means you’ll find a preponderance of them at the top of the tree?’ I said.

‘Yes,’ she said, ‘The higher you go up the ladder the greater the number of sociopaths you’ll find there.’ 12

Henry Kissinger was attending this year’s Bilderberg confab just as he attends nearly every Bilderberg meeting. He has been an insider since its inception and there are few, if any, Bilderberg insiders more powerful or sociopathic than Kissinger. This superstar of Bilderberg holds the accolade for being both a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and the single greatest war criminal alive. So did those sharing a glass of wine with him at the InterAlpen Hotel stop to ask about his involvement in the overthrow of elected governments across Latin America, about the death squads and the torture rooms, or about the napalm raining down on the children of Indochina? We can only guess.

As Martha Stout explained to Ronson, those with psychopathic leaning tend to doubt that such a thing as conscience really exists in any case, or alternatively, believe that the rest of us are too restrained by it, and should instead be more relaxed in their morals like they are. A big reason, of course, why being psychopathic helps one to get ahead.

*

Aside from the official list of participants (always incomplete, but indicative nonetheless) there are a few other clues posted on the Bilderberg official website (up since 2010) that offer a glimpse of what might laughingly be described as this year’s ‘agenda’:

Back in the 1950s, when Bernhard sent out the invitations, it was to discuss “a number of problems facing western civilization”. These days, the Bilderberg Group prefers to call them “megatrends”. The megatrends on this year’s agenda include: “What next for Europe?”, “Ukraine”, “Intelligence sharing” and “Does privacy exist?”

That comes from another Charlie Skelton report but on last year’s 60th anniversary meeting in Copenhagen, when Bilderberg first officially posted its ‘agenda’. As Skelton points out:

That’s an exquisite irony: the world’s most secretive conference discussing whether privacy exists. Certainly for some it does. It’s not just birthday bunting that’s gone up in Copenhagen: there’s also a double ring of three-metre (10ft) high security fencing. The hotel is teeming with security: lithe gentlemen in loose slacks and dark glasses, trying not to kill the birthday vibe. Or anyone else. 13

This year’s “megatrends” had become fifteen “key topics for discussion”. 14 Bullet points again, no details. So we are left to interpret as we might do the silently drifting spots on a radar screen. Or, after dark, upon hearing the clink of empty bottles and the unseen rustle of rummaging about the dustbin…

That ‘Greece’ floats high amongst the fifteen items hardly comes as a surprise. Nor was it surprising to learn that no actual representatives of the Greek government were invited to attend the meeting. Syriza were never any part of the Bilderberg set.

According to the list, discussion also ventured into matters concerning the ‘United Kingdom’ and ‘European Strategy’. While other “key topics for discussion” dealt with the ‘Middle East’, ‘Iran’, ‘Russia’, ‘Terrorism’, ‘Chemical Weapons Threats’ and ‘NATO’. So what can we make of these bullet points, aside from discerning the contempt which Bilderberg holds for the general public, teasing us by withholding all but this shopping list of its secret dealings, whilst making a pretence of greater openness.

Well, the consensus at Bilderberg – shared by both top globalist elites and their flunkeys alike (you only get an invite if you fit one of these categories) – consists in two main parts: a zealotry for neo-liberal economics and a partial taste (at the very least) for neo-conservative foreign policy. Of course, neo-liberalism was normalised long ago, and very much thanks to ex-Bilderberger Margaret Thatcher. For is there any self-respecting politician or media hack who is not a devout neo-liberalist these days? By contrast, neo-conservatism lost what little allure it ever held once Bush and Blair had wrung out the last drops of post-9/11 sympathy to legitimise their retaliatory slaughter of farmers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But after Bush and Blair left office, rather than signalling an end to the bloodletting, the foreign adventuring continued unabated, initially by means of Obama’s expansion into drone warfare, and subsequently with Nato’s “kinetic action” which brought “shock and awe” first to Libya, and then thanks to covert support for our Islamist proxies, spread the ensuing chaos to Syria and into Iraq (yet again). These endless wars are now sanctioned by a new breed of ‘humanitarian bombers’ though they were mostly instigated by such avowed neo-cons as Richard Perle and David Petraeus (the convicted felon whose role was so central to the fall of Libya), both of whom were back at Bilderberg this year.

It is according to such ideologies that ordinary people are either crushed by the market’s ‘invisible hand’, or else, in more distant places, flayed by the neo-imperialist sword of “intervention”. Neo-liberalism translating into ceaseless cuts to public services and the never-ending sell-off of national assets, yet always set against the need for additional tax monies to be redirected to fund drone strikes and bombing raids against the insurgents/terrorists/despotic regimes – a single airstrike costing as much as £1 million.

Returning more specifically to consider Bilderberg’s list of fifteen items under discussion, and Greece is perhaps their most urgent priority: Syriza’s resoluteness causing a tremendous headache for the bankers and their political cronies (who make up the bigger half of every Bilderberg conference). For though Syriza refuses to sever its financial ties with Europe (for perfectly sound economic reasons), it equally refuses to submit to further punishment in the form of continuing “austerity”. Worst of all, it is gaining in popularity.

As a number establishment figures have candidly announced, it is of paramount importance that the Greeks are seen to lose in their fight against “austerity”. For a reversal would possibly trigger a domino effect: an extraordinary political realignment with the rise of genuine ‘pro-democracy’ parties across the Mediterranean. Greece is therefore a powder keg for the powers-that-be, and so ‘Grexit’, although destabilising the broader European project, appears to have become a preferred option for those who see repayment of debts as sacrosanct. What comes next for Greece, if they do not fall into line? Wasn’t this the real question behind the Bilderberg bullet point…?

Meanwhile, the ‘United Kingdom’ now presents a problem of a related but diametrically opposite kind. The danger that one of Europe’s largest economies (on paper at least) might soon vote to exit the European Union is hardly a step forward in any grander visions of globalisation. So ‘Brexit’, as it is already being called, is unlikely to be viewed so favourably as ‘Grexit’.

Otherwise, given the familiar Bilderberg mix of delegates, liberally spiced with neo-cons and military top brass, compounded by such a stack of the old enemies piled up on that list of “key topics for discussion”, oughtn’t we to presume a further push for war? Since no-one at Bilderberg is telling, we are, as always, left to conjecture (or else to think nothing more about any of it).

‘It is a frightening and huge thought,’ I [Jon Ronson] said, ‘that the ninety-nine per cent of us wandering around down here are having our lives pushed and pulled around by that psychopathic fraction up there.’

‘It is a large thought,’ she [Martha Stout] said. ‘It is a thought people don’t have very often. Because we’re raised to believe that deep down everyone has conscience.’ 15

Click here to read the full press release on the Bilderberg official website.

*

Oddly, this year’s official list of attendees was also reprinted by the Daily Mail in an article entitled “Revealed: Guestlist for secretive Bilderberg includes Osborne, Balls, BBC Trust chief, spies, bankers and royalty”. A headline which rather succinctly encapsulates who really runs the show – with Ed Balls serving the coffee apparently:

Those on the guest list this week include the heads of banking and financial giants including Deutsche Bank, Santander, AXA Group, JP Morgan, HSBC, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs.

Senior figures from Royal Dutch Shell, BP, AXA Group, Google, Airbus, Fiat Chrysler, LinkedIn, Siemens and Ryanair are also expected.[…]

Senior figures from around the world include Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the President of Austria Heinz Fischer, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel and ministers from Sweden, the US, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Jim Messina, a former Obama adviser who worked on David Cameron’s election winning campaign in Britain, is also on the list. [further thoughts at the end]

Guests also include Thomas Ahrenkiel, director of the Danish Intelligence Service, former European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Nato General Secretary Jens Stolberg. [all emphasis added]

But still The Mail can’t resist the worn-out distraction about “conspiracy theorists”, adding:

Conspiracy theorists believe this is where leaders plot world domination. 16

As one of the comments posted beneath read:

There is no conspiring going on here. Just folks getting together to discuss how best to run the world for their own benefit. 17

You can read earlier reports about the previous four Bilderberg meetings in St Moritz 2011, Chantilly 2012, Watford 2013 (where I personally joined the protests) and Copenhagen 2014 by clicking on the Bilderberg tag below.

*

Additional: ‘US elections’

American political adviser Jim Messina is getting credit for leading conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron to an overwhelming, if surprising victory, but he said Friday that once he comes back to the United States, he’s Hillary Clinton “all the time.”

“I’m coming home tomorrow and it’s whatever it will take to get Hillary [elected],” Messina said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

Click here to read more at newsmax.com

Bilderberg has a long history of inviting future Prime Ministers and Presidents to its conference. Thatcher in 1975 and Clinton in 1991 are the two best known examples, but there are many others. Before being elected as Canadian Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau (1968), Paul Martin (1996), Jean Chrétien (also 1996) and current PM Stephen Harper (2003) had all attended Bilderberg meetings, as did US President Gerald Ford (1964, 1966) and British PMs Tony Blair (1993) and Gordon Brown (1991).

This time around we have instead an election advisor, Jim Messina, who helped the Tories to victory in last month’s General Election and is suddenly linked to one of the forerunners in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton. Added to which we know that the last item of Bilderberg’s stated fifteen “key topics for discussion” was ‘US Elections’. Not that Hillary is new to Bilderberg…

But we should keep in mind that Bilderberg is a cross-party event, so why put all of its eggs into one party political basket? If Hillary is the preferred choice for Democratic nomination (as it appears), then who might they choose for the red corner?

In his first major international appearance since signaling his readiness to run for office, the former governor of Florida acknowledged that some might question the setting of his speech. “One possible question which might be asked is: why is an American politician who might run for president in Berlin, Germany? And not in places like Berlin, New Hampshire, or Berlin, Iowa?

“The short answer is, this journey has other purposes.

That is taken from a Guardian report on Jeb Bush’s recent visit to Germany and his appearance in Berlin shortly after the G7 summit. It continues (a little further on):

His address to business leaders was the highlight of a visit which included discussions with politicians and policy makers. The trip was organised by a Bush family friend, former World Bank chief Robert Zoellick, who was also involved in reunification negotiations as the elder Bush’s White House adviser. 18

Two days later, his friend Robert Zoellick, now of Goldman Sachs, was at the meeting in Telfs. Zoellick holds a seat on the Bilderberg steering committee. Rumour has it that Jeb may have quietly followed him up there.

Another regular Bilderberg attendee in Telfs was Peter Thiel. Thiel, a venture capitalist and hedge fund manager, was a co-founder of PayPal and is also a major investor in Facebook. During the 2008 US Presidential elections, Thiel had endorsed Ron Paul, and then again during the 2012 elections, Thiel and the other PayPal co-founders, Luke Nosek and Scott Banister, “put their support behind the Endorse Liberty Super PAC” to elect Ron Paul. 19

Since then, Peter Thiel has switched his allegiance to Ron Paul’s son Rand:

In his Playbook newsletter Sunday, Politico’s Mike Allen reported Paul, who is considering a presidential bid in 2016, “had private sit-downs with the investor Peter Thiel and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg” while at the conference. Allen described Paul’s presence at the confab as “another sign of how far he has come since his insurgent victory as a Tea Party torch-bearer.” 20

Rand Paul, who back on April 7th announced he was running for President, is mistaken by many, especially libertarians, as a political outsider, when in fact he has been and continues to be openly backed by Peter Thiel who sits alongside José Barroso, Jean-Claude Trichet, Richard Perle, Robert Zoellick, and others, also on the Bilderberg steering committee 21.

*

Update: before, during and after Telfs 2015

On the eve of the meeting, Luke Rudkowski spoke with veteran Bilderberg reporter Mark Anderson – a very informative and insightful discussion:

 

Luke Rudkowski covers the high security at Telfs (including scrambled jets) and the street protests:

 

On the way home, Marie-Josée and Henry Kravis were confronted by Press for Truth reporter, Dan Dicks, at Innsbruck airport security checks.

 

Henry Kravis, the co-founder of private equity firm KKR (or Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.), is one of the wealthiest people on earth. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and has been a political sponsor of both George Bush Sr. and John McCain. His wife Marie-Josée serves on the international advisory board of the Federal Reserve.

In May 2013, Henry Kravis, a member of the Steering Committee, had appointed David Petraeus as Chairman of KKR Global Institute saying, “I have long known and respected General Petraeus”:

 

Meanwhile, also spotted in Innsbruck was James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank, an honorary trustee of the Brookings Institute, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who supposedly wasn’t there at all!

 

Finally, here are Dan Dicks, Luke Rudkowski and Jeff Berwick comparing the treatment they received at G7 with that at Bilderberg:

*

1 From a review of “The Secret Rulers of the World” written by Neil Davenport, published in Spiked magazine on May 4, 2001. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11666#.VXxysFKKWUk

2 From an article entitled “The Bilderberg smell still lingers” written by Michael Meacher, published on June 19, 2013. http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/06/the-bilderberg-smell-still-lingers/ 

3 Stolen lines misappropriated from T.S.Eliot’s The  Hollow Men (as are the headings for each section)

4 From an article entitled “Bilderberg Group meets amid conspiracy theories, heavy security, news blackout” written by Dave Boyer, published in the Washington Times on June 11, 2015. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/bilderberg-group-meets-amid-heavy-security-news-bl/?page=all#pagebreak

5 From an article entitled “At the G7, we journalists were pampered – at Bilderberg we’re harassed by police” written by Charlie Skelton, published in the Guardian on June 10, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/at-g7-we-journalists-pampered-bilderberg-we-harassed-by-police

6

Some 2,100 extra police will be on duty over the coming days, with protesters planning to stage a demonstration on Saturday, and the only road leading to the hotel is blocked.

And for good measure, the Kronen-Zeitung tabloid cited the military as saying a “special low-altitude radar is in position and Kiowa helicopters armed with machine guns are carrying out patrols”.

From an article entitled “Never mind the G7 or Davos, it’s Bilderberg time” written by Simon Sturdee, published in Business Insider on June 11, 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-never-mind-the-g7-or-davos-its-bilderberg-time-2015-6?IR=T

7 From an article entitled “Bilderberg 2015: where criminals mingle with ministers” written by Charlie Skelton, published in the Guardian on June 11, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/continual-police-checks-ruining-bilderberg-party

8 From an article entitled “Our man at Bilderberg: Fear my pen” written by Charlie Skelton, published in the Guardian on May 18, 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/18/bilderberg-charlie-skelton-dispatch

9 From an article entitled “Forget the G7 summit – Bilderberg is where the big guns go” written by Charlie Skelton, published in the Guardian on June 8, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/bilderberg-summit-forget-the-g7

10 From the Epilogue of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the Banality of Evil written by Hannah Arendt, published in 1963.

11 Taken from an interview given by Errol Morris, director of the documentary “The Unknown Known” about Donald Rumsfeld, in which he discusses what was satisfying about making the film. Morris says he has always been fascinated by one of Hannah Arendt’s definitions of the phrase “The Banality of Evil,” even before her article “Eichmann in Jerusalem”:

She said that the banality of evil wasn’t the presence of something. It’s the absence of something. Something that you would expect to be there, but just isn’t. And maybe, that’s what this film is about.

12 Taken from The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry,Ch4,  pp117–9, by Jon Ronson, published by Picador, 2011.

13 From an article entitled “Bilderberg at 60: inside the world’s most secretive conference” written by Charlie Skelton, published by the Guardian on May 29, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/29/bilderberg-60-inside-worlds-most-secretive-conference

14 Key topics listed in the official press release include:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Cybersecurity
  • Chemical Weapons Threats
  • Current Economic Issue
  • European Strategy
  • Globalisation
  • Greece
  • Iran
  • Middle East
  • NATO
  • Russia
  • Terrorism
  • United Kingdom
  • USA
  • US Elections

15 Taken from The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry,Ch4,  pp117–9, by Jon Ronson, published by Picador, 2011.

16 From an article entitled “Revealed: Guestlist for secretive Bilderberg includes Osborne, Balls, BBC Trust chief, spies, bankers and royalty” written by Matt Chorley, published in the Daily Mail on June 8, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3115748/Guestlist-secretive-Bilderberg-Conference.html#comments

17 Another, very much in the spirit of the late, great Bill Hicks, reads:

“I figured this out. They are having these secret meetings because they planning to bestow us with a wonderful surprise. They don’t want us to know what it is or the surprise shall [be] ruined.”

This one is Plainer again (refreshingly so):

“It makes the Mafia look honest.”

18 From an article entitled “Jeb Bush in Berlin: remember my dad’s role in cold war, not my brother’s in Iraq” written by Kate Connolly, published in the Guardian on June 9, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/jeb-bush-berlin-germany-foreign-policy-iraq

19

Endorse Liberty founders have so far reported spending about $3.3 million promoting [Ron] Paul by setting up two YouTube channels, constantly buying ads from Google and Facebook and StumbleUpon and building up a presence on the Web.

From an article entitled “PayPal co-founders fund pro-Paul Super PAC” written by Alina Selyukh, published in Reuters on January 31, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-usa-campaign-spending-paul-idUSTRE80U1OF20120131

20 From an article entitled “Rand Paul Had Sitdowns With Mark Zuckerberg And Peter Thiel” written by Hunter Walker, published in Business Insider on July 14, 2014. http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-had-sitdowns-with-mark-zuckerberg-and-peter-thiel-2014-7?IR=T

21

Full list of current Bilderberg steering committee members from official website:

Henri de Castries Chairman and CEO, AXA Group

DEU Achleitner, Paul Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG
GBR Agius, Marcus Non-Executive Chairman, PA Consulting Group
USA Altman, Roger C. Executive Chairman, Evercore
FIN Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
PRT Barroso, José M. Durão Former President of the European Commission
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
ITA Bernabè, Franco Chairman, FB Group SRL
NOR Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA
CAN Clark, W. Edmund Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group
DEU Enders, Thomas CEO, Airbus Group
DNK Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Public Economics, Leiden University
USA Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard
USA Johnson, James A. Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners
USA Karp, Alex CEO, Palantir Technologies
GBR Kerr, John Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute
CHE Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
BEL Leysen, Thomas Chairman, KBC Group
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
ITA Monti, Mario Senator-for-life; President, Bocconi University
USA Mundie, Craig J. Senior Advisor to the CEO, Microsoft Corporation
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
CAN Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
AUT Scholten, Rudolf CEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Thiel Capital
INT Trichet, Jean-Claude Honorary Governor, Banque de France; Former President, European Central Bank
GRC Tsoukalis, Loukas President, ELIAMEP
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Zoellick, Robert B. Chairman, Board of International Advisors, The Goldman Sachs Group

Leave a comment

Filed under analysis & opinion, Austria, Charlie Skelton