Bilderberg-kirja

on Daniel Estulin. Googlesta saat lisätietoja kirjasta ja sen kirjoittajasta.

Laitoin tänne aiemmin sen ihmettelevän otsikon miksi kirjan julkaisu peruutettiin. Kirjoitin myös kirjan kustantajalle ja yhdelle jakelijalle (nettikirjakaupalle) miksi julkaisu peruutettiin. Kirjakauppa vastasi että ilmeisesti kirja ei ollut muka tarpeeksi kysytty. Julkaisija ei vaivautunut vastaamaan.

Opuksen julkaisu peruutettiin myös Portugalissa. Hämärää touhua, mutta tavallaan ymmärrettävää. Kirjassa ilmeisesti liian tulenarkaa juttua vallanpitäjistä.

Lähetin myös sähköpostia kustantajalle sekä yhdelle jakelijalle, tuolloin kun ensimmäinen keskustelu täällä avattiin - odotan yhä vastausta.

Kyseistä kirjaa odotin syksystä lähtien. Olisi ollut mielenkiintoista lukea nimenomaan se Skandinaviaa koskeva kappale.

Kävin kysymässä kirjastosta tuota kyseistä kirjaa. Kirjasto täti kertoi että sitä on odotetty jo puoli vuotta ja jostain syystä sitä ei ole saatu painoon ja levitykseen.

Kuka laittaa kapuloita painokoneen rattaisiin?

7. Conspiracy Theories And Conspiracies
The role of elite management groups such as the Trilateral Commission
and Bilderberg Group is one of the strands in the wonderful,
wacky, world of contemporary conspiracy theory worth taking seriously;
and it is now almost exclusively the territory of the radical right.
This was not always the case. When Jimmy Carter, hitherto an obscure
southern governor, appeared as a front runner in the race for the 1976
US presidency, sections of the American left became interested in the
role of the Trilateral Commission of which he had been a member.
This brief flurry of interest led to the 1980 book Trilateralism, still the
best single volume on the elite management group. 1 Bill Clinton was
also another obscure southern governor until being adopted by the Trilateral
Commission. Is this a coincidence? No, it is not. For the Democratic
Party has a recurring problem when it comes to finding a
plausible presidential candidate: the coalition of groups which elects a
Democrat president includes the so-called Dixiecrats, white Democrats
in the southern states. To get their votes and the votes of the black
Americans of the northern cities is a neat trick: hence the recurring
appeal of televisual, southern Democratic governors - good old boys to
the corporate leaders of America thinking of the presidency. One of
the roles of the Trilateral Commission in the United States - like the
Bilderberg Group in Europe - is to assess politicians and promote those
deemed acceptable by the corporate managers.
There is another conspiracy strand or tradition and in a very general
sense this is the territory of the Anglo-American left. Loosely, this distinction
could be put like this. The right is interested in conspiracies it
perceives are undermining some kind of natural or desired order, plotting
against the will of the people, the constitution, the national interest,
etc. - what we might call conspiracies against the state. The
Communist conspiracy theory, the Jewish banker theory and the current
crop of New World Order, one world, elite dominance theories are
examples of this. The liberal left, on the other hand, is chiefly interested
in conspiracies committed by the state. From where I am on the
left side of the fence, quite why these two areas are so distinct is
unclear to me: an interest in the elite management groups (right) should
fit comfortably with an interest in the big scandals - say Iran-Contra
(left). In practice, however, the right?s desire to preserve - or conserve 85

the existing order, no matter how critical they also may be of it, generally
precludes them acknowledging the crimes and conspiracies of that
order; and the left is unwilling to engage with a subject matter which
has been ?contaminated? by interest from the right. And vice versa.
This was vividly illustrated recently by the almost complete lack of
interest shown by the American left in the massacre of the Branch
Davidians at Waco, Texas, by federal forces. 2 Equally, that section of
the American right which is so preoccupied with the elite management
groups and the threat posed to their conception of America by the socalled
New World Order, has shown no interest in the assassinations of
the Kennedys and King, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc., except to rubbish
those trying to uncover the truth.
The liberal left strand of interest in conspiracies by the state begins
with the Kennedy assassination in 1963 and the killings of Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968; and from there runs seamlessly
through the Vietnam War, into Watergate and thence into all the
related revelations of CIA and FBI operations which followed Watergate.
3 If you started now and devoted yourself full-time to getting up to
speed on the literature on the JFK killing alone it would take a year,
maybe more. Let us go back, briefly, to 1963 and see if we can get a
sense of why these assassinations of almost 40 years ago are not only
relevant but seminal.
In 1963 there was virtually no investigative journalism; large
chunks of the US mass media had been co-opted by the CIA in the propaganda
war with the Soviet Union. 4 There was little autonomous
American left and much of what there was, we now know, was wholly
or partly being run by the FBI. 5 The conspiracy theory writer, Robert
Anton Wilson, recently described his own experiences of this: ?In the
1960s in Chicago, I was involved in the anti-war movement. Congressional
investigators later revealed that there were over 5000 government
agents assigned to infiltrate peace groups in Chicago alone
working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), some for the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and some for Army Intelligence.
From 1968 on, the FBI was following a programme code-named
COINTELPRO. The purpose of COINTELPRO was to make sure the
anti-war movement knew it was infiltrated, in order to spread suspicion,
distrust and paranoia among individuals and groups who might
otherwise have co-operated harmoniously. Working in the peace

movement in those days was, accordingly, like living in an Eric
Ambler novel. In any given week I would be warned perhaps three
times that somebody I trusted was really a government agent and, of
course, somebody who was accused one day might very well be around
to accuse somebody else the next day. Over 20 years later, I still don?t
know who was a government agent and who was not.? 6
There was, in fact, little critical community of any kind in the USA
in 1963. Those who went through the motions of sitting on the Warren
Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination assumed that
they would produce a report which no one would read and the whole
thing would then be put to bed. Since the whole thing was, if not a charade
then a less-than-serious attempt to get at the truth, the evidence
haphazardly accumulated by the Commission?s team of lawyers was
thrown together higgledy-piggledy in the Warren Commission?s
famous 26 volumes of evidence, with no sense, no organisation and no
index worth speaking of. It just never occurred to those in charge that
anyone would bother to look. One of the Commission members,
former CIA chief Allen Dulles, famously said of the Report that it
would only be read by a few professors. He was wrong. A number of
ordinary US citizens who felt the official version of the assassination
was dodgy, to say the least, bought one of the 1000 copies of the evidence
which the government had printed and then began poring over it.
One woman indexed the 26 volumes. Almost immediately the shoddy
nature of the investigation was revealed.
The Warren Commission and its team of lawyers were not tasked to
investigate the shooting of JFK but to provide the evidence that
Oswald, the ?lone nut,? had done it. We now know that one of the chief
preoccupations of those in charge in the White House at the time was
preventing the assassination being used by anti-Communist pressure
groups within the US - the anti-Castro Cubans, notably - to trigger
another invasion of Cuba by US forces. Within 24 hours of the shooting,
the Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, had decided that the
whole thing better be shut down. In the collective Washington memory,
the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 still loomed large. In that climate,
who really shot Kennedy was never an issue. As far as we can
judge from the memoirs of those around at the time, nobody seems to
have cared greatly. The identity of Kennedy?s killer was of little conse87

quence when measured against the danger of another nuclear showdown
with the Soviet Union.
The federal government?s major investigative body, the FBI, was
happy that there was to be no serious investigation because they were
in danger of being exposed as grossly incompetent. If it was shown that
Oswald, qua Communist, had done the deed for political reasons, they
had failed to prevent a Communist shooting the president. And Oswald
had been a very public Communist. He had been on TV as a Communist,
was corresponding with the Communist Party of the USA, the
American Socialist Workers Party, and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
- all of which were penetrated by the FBI. He had also defected to
the Soviet Union and redefected; he was known to the FBI office in
Dallas. In the Cold War years in the United States, in the southern
United States, Lee Harvey Oswald was about as public a Communist
as you could imagine. For the FBI to be exposed as not having prevented
him, of all people, from shooting the president would have been
a bureaucratic disaster. And there was the danger that Oswald would be
revealed as an FBI informant, for which there is some evidence. So the
?lone nut? verdict suited the politicians, who did not want trouble with
the Soviet Union; it suited the FBI; and it suited the other American
agencies, including the CIA, with whom Oswald had been involved in
his curious career.
In the big assassinations of the 1960s, the Kennedys and King, the
conspiracy hinged on presenting the forces of law and order with a
ready-made solution. Oswald was framed, but framed so crudely it is
pretty obvious he was meant to be a dead assassin. What they had
against him would never have stood up in court; and had he appeared
in court he would have talked of his various intelligence roles.
In the killing of Martin Luther King the police were again involved.
The patsy, James Earl Ray, was run round America, told to buy a rifle,
and finally installed in a boarding house near the site of the shooting.
The local police detailed to guard King were pulled off and King was
shot. The rest was easy because the local police found a rifle and other
bits and pieces with James Earl Ray?s name on them, conveniently left
near the scene of the crime. Voilà! case closed: everybody in Memphis
law enforcement was happy; everybody, that is, except a black cop
guarding King, who had been called away just before the shooting.
James Earl Ray, threatened with the death penalty if he was tried and

convicted, accepted a plea bargain, and confessed to something he
hadn?t done. So there was no trial: the evidence against Ray was not
tested. Again, as with the JFK murder, there was no serious investigation
by the authorities. 7
With the Robert Kennedy murder it was more sophisticated - the
patsy assassin did actually shoot at Kennedy in front of dozens of witnesses.
Yet the American political and judicial system?s refusal to take
on board the RFK assassination is even more perverse than in the case
of his brother. The autopsy evidence is absolutely clear that Robert
Kennedy was shot at point-blank range behind his ear: his skin had
power burns indicating a firing distance of no more than a couple of
inches. But Sirhan, all eyewitnesses agree, was in front of him and
never got close enough to inflict that wound. The obvious other candidate
is a man called Thane Cesar who was working as a temporary
security guard and was standing right behind Kennedy when he was
shot. Robert Kennedy whirled round and tried to grab Cesar when he
was shot. Some of the pictures of Kennedy dying on the floor in the
hotel kitchen, show Cesar?s bow tie on the floor next to him: Kennedy
ripped it off. Cesar denies he did it and passed a lie-detector test on the
question - if that means anything. 8
The official verdicts remain that Oswald, Ray and Sirhan did the
deeds, though the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations
hedged their bets a little and concluded that John Kennedy was probably
killed by a conspiracy. Having spent at least a decade in bed with
the CIA, the major American media needed little persuading to accept
the US government?s ?lone assassin? verdict in JFK?s case; and the
other two seemed clear-cut: Ray confessed and Sirhan was seen firing
at RFK.
All three assassinations hinged on local police forces either co-operating
with the murders or not doing their jobs properly. All three relied
on the major media and the political system not to ask questions. It is
one of the striking political facts of post-World War 2 American history
that the Democratic Party lost its two most charismatic figures and
never generated much of a head of steam for a decent inquiry. Had it
not been for the handful of sceptics back in the 60s poring over the
Warren Commission evidence, the whole thing would have slipped
into history just as Allen Dulles predicted.

The group of JFK assassination researchers in the 1960s chipped
away at the Warren Commission, dismantling the report section by section.
More importantly, in so doing they embarked on a long process of
self-education about the nature of US politics and post-World War 2
history; and this, in turn, brought to the public?s attention the role of
agencies like the CIA which had hitherto been largely secret. By the
time what became known as Watergate began to break in 1973, the
majority of the American electorate had ceased to believe the Warren
Commission and many were prepared to believe that the American
government was capable of almost anything. (Thousands of dead
American soldiers returning from Vietnam helped.)
The Kennedy assassination was the lens through which I, along with
many other people, first began to study American politics. For the
Kennedy assassination said: here is a society and a political system in
which the president is shot in broad daylight and the body politic - his
professional colleagues - did not feel able to look for the truth. No
doubt part of that reluctance was engendered by the ideological and
military competition with the Soviet Union (what did it say about the
world?s greatest democracy, the land of the brave, etc., that JFK got his
head blown off on the street?) And no doubt the significance of this
factor in the minds of those in Washington who created the ?lone assassin?
myth was underestimated at the time by the first wave of JFK
researchers. However the central point remains: 22 November 1963
was the moment when the collective post-World War 2 innocence of
the American Dream ended and conspiracy research began. 9 And that
is why, despite the fact that we are approaching the 40th anniversary of
the event, the shots of 22 November 1963 are still ringing in the ears of
American history.
Conspiracies are real and by no means necessarily the product of a
paranoid imagination. If this essay has a single message, this is it. But
as the Kennedy assassination showed, there is not just one big overarching
conspiracy; there are many smaller conspiracies - some of
them competing, interlocking, overlapping. Lee Harvey Oswald had
documented connections to the FBI and the CIA and his activities have
led to serious research into whole areas of covert operations by both
agencies about which the US public and political system was almost
entirely ignorant in 1963: for example, the FBI?s COINTELPRO operations
against the American left. Oswald?s one-man branch of the Fair

Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans is obviously and certainly but
not yet provably - a part of the COINTELPRO operations against
the national pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Jack Ruby was
an FBI informant in the early 1950s and was the pay-off man between
organised crime and the Dallas Police. Had there been a half-serious
investigation of Kennedy?s shooting in 1963/ 4, Oswald and Ruby
alone would have led into the CIA?s then still officially secret war
against Cuba run out of Miami, the anti-Castro alliance formed
between the CIA and the Mafia, not to mention the FBI?s COINTELPRO
operations. When Ruby shot Oswald all these organisations had
reasons to cover up the truth about their connections to them. There
was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy but there were many conspiracies
after his death to suppress the truth and mislead the investigations
which had nothing to do with the initial assassination conspiracy. It
took many years for the JFK assassination research buffs to see past the
idea that by researching the cover-up they would follow the trail back
to the conspirators. There were too many cover-ups and too many
trails. The cui bono? (who benefits?) question told us nothing in the
Oswald murder case: everybody benefited from Oswald?s death.
Near the beginning of this chapter I tried to draw a distinction
between conspiracy theories on the right and conspiracy research on
the left. I suggested - loosely - that the liberal left was interested in
conspiracies by the state and that the conservative right was interested
in conspiracies against the state. The distinction is still meaningful but
the categories are less neat and tidy than they seemed in, say, 1975.
There are people out there now who are neither right nor left but who
are - or appear to be - simply conspiracy theorists. For example, is the
research into the Oklahoma bombing - an alleged state conspiracy coming
from the right or the left? It appears to be coming from that
section of the American right which believes that the overweening
power of the federal authorities is the real culprit. (It is worth remembering
that the culprit/ patsy, Timothy McVeigh, was a supporter of the
militias.) But where on the political spectrum is Ian Goddard, for
example, who has been pushing hardest to get a decent investigation of
the shooting-down of the plane TWA 800 off New York? Is he on the
right or the left? 10 I do not know; and, more interestingly, I cannot tell
from reading his work. Take another example, Steamshovel, which
began somewhere on the anarchist left as a magazine then set up a

website, in January announced its new, improved website, with the slogan
?all conspiracy, no theory.? And where would you place Jonathan
Vanakin, author of Conspiracies, Cover-Ups And Crimes (New York:
Dell, 1992), perhaps the best single volume guide to this field?
There is talk of a left-right fusion in this field, of an ideologically
neutral conspiracy theory mindset - of a conspiracy-theory culture.
This strikes me as implausible. While there may be subjects which
both left and right might find of relevance - the obvious example being
the role of the elite management groups like the Bilderbergers or Trilateralists
- in the end, given the enormous amount of possible material,
individual choice of subject will entail some kind of ideological orientation.
In so far as there is anything resembling a conspiracy-theory
culture or mindset, it is essentially an anarchist or libertarian viewpoint
which says that since all states are corrupt, all states will contain - or
will be - conspiracies against their citizens.
Political conspiracy is so routine, as a concept ?conspiracy? would
be of little interest were it not for the refusal of our chattering classes to
acknowledge its legitimacy. On the other hand, the political usefulness
of ?conspiracy theorist? and ?conspiracy theory? to our ruling elite
should not to be underestimated. That people interested in what the
elite is doing can be dismissed as anoraks, conspiracy theorists and the
British journalists? favourite - ?people with an agenda,? is very useful
to our rulers. 11 The process of being thus marginalised is described
by Robert Parry. Working as a journalist for Associated Press in the
1980s, he began uncovering what became known as Iran-Contra and
was rubbished by colleagues and political opponents in the Reagan
administration as a ?conspiracy theorist.? 12
The importance of conspiracies, not conspiracy theories, is political.
The conspiracies we should be looking at most closely are those run by
the state - in this benighted, secretive, country we might say the conspiracies
which are the state - or by the supranational bodies such as
the European Union and the transnational corporations and their fronts.
The UFO-alien-conspiracy-abduction frenzy is perhaps the most fascinating
puzzle this essay has surveyed; but the British-American Project
contains four members of the current British Cabinet. 13 Despite the
campaigns generated by the revelations of Peter Wright, Colin Wallace

and Cathy Massiter in the late 1980s, the secret organisations of the
British state remain unchallenged, unaccountable to the politicians and
the electorate, their budgets still intact. I strongly suspect that the powers-that-be
would be very happy if people like me concentrated on
alien abductions rather than the parapolitical connections of the Blair
faction in the Labour Party. (The mega conspiracy baloney - from Jewish
bankers to shape-shifting reptiles in the White House - is simply
background noise, a distraction; and it has sometimes occurred to me
to wonder if some of it isn?t being generated by state agencies precisely
to distract us.)

Ramsay, Robin. Conspiracy Theories.