Incrementalism key to Bilderberg’s long-term agenda.
By Jurriaan Maessen
June 5, 2013
Some commenters in mainstream media are trying to downplay Bilderberg’s historical significance by suggesting the annual confabulation is a mostly reactionary body, contemplating current events but never steering them.
Studying the few reports that have managed to slip past the censors in the course of the previous decades, we can see that both the European Union and the European single currency have been nurtured and guided by the far-reaching hands of Bilderberg. For example, in the leaked transcript from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting (chaired by prince Bernhard of the Netherlands) participants speak of the “pressing need to bring the German people, together with the other peoples of Europe, into a common market”, and the desire is expressed to “arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of integration, beginning with a common European market.”
In March of 2009 viscount Etienne Davignon- former Bilderberg chairman and current participant, bragged to the EUobserver online newspaper that the creation of the Euro was helped by the Bilderberg Group in the 1990’s:
“A meeting in June in Europe of the Bilderberg Group- an informal club of leading politicians, businessmen and thinkers chaired by Mr. Davignon- could also ‘improve understanding’ on future action, in the same way it helped create the Euro in the 1990s, he said.”
We now know of course that the process toward a single European currency, as well as single European “voice” has been in the making much longer than that- and has been a process developed largely under cover of secret meetings. Back in 1970, the same Etienne Davignon published a report in which the ministers of Foreign Affairs of six European nations pledged to further the European agenda through mostly informal gatherings. Furthermore, the report- to which the ministers of Foreign Affairs of all major European nations pledged allegiance- admits that the further integration of nations must follow a gradual, incremental path in carefully pre-planned “successive stages”.
The report, named after the viscount himself, was published in the bulletin of the European Communities in November of 1970 and details how the European power-elite has planned European integration, not by chance- or as wishful thinking on the part of the political and economic elite, but rather through carefully calculated “successive stages and the gradual development of the method and instruments best calculated to allow a common political course of acti on”, so states the Davignon Report. Here is the quote in full:
“(…) implementation of the common policies being introduced or already in force requires corresponding developments in the specifically political sphere, so as to bring nearer the day when Europe can speak with one voice. Hence the importance of Europe being built by successive stages and the gradual development of the method and instruments best calculated to allow a common political course of action.”
The ministers involved also stated that this common political course can be best achieved by setting an example in foreign policy before it can spread to a common economic calling:
“(…) foreign policy concertation should be the object of the first practical endeavors to demonstrate to all that Europe has a political vocation. The Ministers are, in fact, convinced that progress here would be calculated to promote the development of the Communities and give Europeans a keener awareness of their common responsibility.”
Furthermore, the report stresses that not so much through formal, but rather informal meetings should this incremental push be coordinated to completion. Although the Report attempts to project the illusion of democratic oversight by stating that “Public opinion and its spokesmen must be associated with the construction of the political union”, the Report goes on to say that the “Ministers and the members of the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament will hold six monthly meetings to discuss questions which are the subject of consultations in the framework of foreign policy cooperation. These meetings will be informal, to ensure that the parliamentarians and Ministers can express their views freely.”
This description of informal meetings as a way to unwind elected officials into expressing themselves without the usual reserve is the exact same given by the Bilderberg group from the moment of its creation in 1954, namely that the “private nature” of the meetings allows for the participants to disregard “the conventions of office”.
Informal and private means the members may deliberate outside the reach of journalists, allowing them to share thoughts without some irritating news person running around recording their exchanges. In an attempt to downplay Bilderberg’s importance in setting policy, Davignon told the BBC in 2005: “It is unavoidable and it doesn’t matter. There will always be people who believe in conspiracies but things happen in a much more incoherent fashion.”
Well, not so according to the Davignon commission which he chaired back in the early 1970s, and the subsequent Davignon report which he co-wrote. In the report, Davignon and his co-conspirators outline that all these informal meetings are anything but “incoherent”.
We now know of course that the process toward a single European currency, as well as single European “voice” has been in the making much longer than that. According to a scholarly 1995 paper there was indeed a common and thought-out strategy at the root of the European Union, describing Davignon’s work on utilising “transnational networks and expertise to launch the drive for a technological research programme for the EC”:
“The actions of the Commissioner for Industry in the Thorn Commission, Etienne Davignon, were a precursor of the strategies followed by the Delors Commissions. Delors presented the single market programme as a response to a changing international situation which had reduced the competitiveness of the European economy, and so posed problems for European governments.”
On September 7, 1992, two term President of the European Commission Jacques Delors gave a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs titled The European Community and the New World Order. Invoking the famous New World Order-speech of George H.W. Bush in 1991, Delors took its meaning one step further, speaking of “world government”, “transferring sovereignty” and a “worldwide single market”.
The speech is especially interesting when we take into account that Delors took part in the Bilderberg meeting just four months earlier, held in Evian-les-Bains, France: the same conference in which Henry Kissinger delivered his famous speech concerning people and their willingness to relinquish their individual rights “for the guarantee of their wellbeing granted to them by their world government.”
Starting off by saluting the audience which he addressed, Jacques Delors bowed and stated: “I would not presume to offer such an illustrious audience as this the last word on the new world order of which President Bush spoke in September 1990 when the Gulf Crisis was building up.”
“The interdependence of the world’s nations seems somehow inevitable”, the European Commission chairman continued, “though it must evolve in an orderly fashion; the reality is there, but we have not yet grasped it fully enough to devise the principles and rules of the new international game.”
As the speech by Jacques Delors progressed, it appears he became increasingly bold in his statements to his audience, allowing himself to be swept away by his own “eloquence”:
“Today many economists speak of the transition to a new stage- a quantum leap to a worldwide single market. There is plenty of evidence of this; the international credit card in the consumer’s wallet is particularly symbolic.”, Delors notes in his speech for the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Using the excuse of “promoting democracy”, he advocates the destruction of national sovereignty of nation states as a remedy:
“International apathy about human rights violations will not be able to hide behind pretext of immutable, inviolable national sovereignty much longer.”
Jacques Delors has proven himself to be sort of a prophet- as the borders are eroding worldwide while the central banks are consolidating power. After he elaborates further on the fact that globalization is often counteracted by grass roots movements, attempting to preserve national sovereignty, Delors throws up his arms and sighs:
“I would add- and I will not go into detail- that economic integration, unless it is backed by a strong political will, will not in itself produce stronger international institutions or help create world government. This is why, although the need for a new world order is self-evident, our era is one of trial and error or, as the harsher critics among us would have it, of impotence, inability to take on world challenges.”
The President of the European Commission talking openly about world government. He also admits that economic integration, such as developed in the decade after, is not sufficient when this overarching goal is to be achieved. Again: this is exactly what Etienne Dávignon was saying when he spoke of the successive stages by means of which further European integration should be secured. Speaking on the role of the European Commission in the creation of the new world order, Delors mentions the plans of the Anglo-American establishment for a North-American Union:
“Our trading partners are gradually being won over to the idea that regional integration has a dynamic impact on all, and the European model is an inspiration for others- witness the recent agreements concluded by the United States, Canada and Mexico.”
Indeed, the merger of the three nations into one North-American community ranked and ranks very high on Bilderberg’s list of objectives.
“I believe”, the European Commissioner stated, “it is not too presumptuous to claim that it (the European Community) still has something revolutionary about it, that it is something of a “laboratory” for the management of interdependence.”
However, he complains, “(…) giving birth to institutions to which sovereignty is to be transferred and which are to be given power manage cooperation and settle disputes is a slow and arduous process.” Delors goes on to emphasize: “The contribution that the Community as such can make to the new world order can, to use an image of the plant world, be considered something of a hybrid, what is produced by crossing a world power with an international organisation.”
In closure, Delors expresses his ultimate belief and that of his fellow conspirators: “The conclusion, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, is that the Community’s contribution to a new world order is, like the Community itself, something original: a method which will serve as a reference, a body whose presence will be felt.”
One of Delors’ main “accomplishments” was writing the so-called Delors Report: a document in which he outlined how a European economic and monetary union could be established as quickly and effectively as possible. Submitted in 1989, the Delors Report envisions three stages along which the road to world government will be reached. It comes as no surprise that the most important factor within this process is the complete and total “independence” of the European central bank.
The first stage would be accomplished with the completion of a single European market. The second stage would consist primarily of the merging of the different central banks into one giant European central bank like an octopus spreading its tentacles across the continent. The third and final stage Delors proposes would see the establishment of a single European currency.
The main thread of his report is: total monetary independence should be transferred from the elected politicians to the unelected network of central banks throughout the European continent. In addition, this “independence” must over time be widened with the help of a single currency. Of course, today we know that the report was anything but an idle document written by a transnational daydreamer. It was a policy blueprint for the elite rather, outlined in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. As the cascading events unfolding in the “eurozone” in the last few years point out, the proposed “stages” are coming to pass with staggering accuracy.
Before and since all hell broke loose in the financial markets, European political heads of state have called for more power to be transferred to the European Central Bank to buy up bonds and inject additional financial life into the corpse that is Europe. In a speech delivered in 2000, member of the executive board of the ECB, Sirkka Hämäläinen referred to a prediction made by Bilderberg regular Paul Volcker:
“(…) He might be right, and we might one day have a single world currency. Maybe European integration, in the same way as any other regional integration, could be seen as a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world. If and when this world will see the light of day is impossible to say. However, what I can say is that this vision seems as impossible now to most of us as a European monetary union seemed 50 years ago, when the process of European integration started.”
The prophecy by Paul Volcker the speaker is referring to, went something along the following lines: “if we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense.” But, as it turns out, 50 years ago the process she talks about was far from impossible to imagine. In fact, as the Bilderberg memos of 1955 reveal, plans for a fully integrated European central government were well beyond the stage of geopolitical daydreaming. On another occasion, Hämäläinen repeated her wish for a global economic integration:
“As a longer-term vision, one should see European integration as a step towards improving global co-operation and securing peaceful and balanced development in the whole world.”
Global government, in other words, must replace the sovereignty of the nation state of old. In this context the word “peaceful” translates to the absence of war- for once potentials rivals are eliminated, there is no longer conflict. A consolidation of power, in other words, by the central banks of the world. In addition, it is- again- admitted that regional integration is just a steppingstone towards global integration with Central Banks calling out the shots. A former ECB executive and Bilderberg participant, Jurgen Stark, at the international conference of central bankers and economic educators in 2006, pressed the point that only an independent central bank should be given the instruments of setting interest rates, maintaining price stability and overseeing the economy as a whole:
“Central Bank independence is nowadays enshrined in many central bank laws and statutes around the world. In order to ensure that this achievement also prevails in the future, broad public awareness of the benefits of central bank independence is essential. Fostering and preserving such awareness requires, in particular, that the independence of a central bank, once granted, is respected by the government in question and not undermined by political interference.”
Both the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have claimed that political oversight and transparency will be somehow disastrous for their operations and, subsequently, the world economy. The rationale behind all these outrageous preconditions can be summed up with the words of Jean-Claude Trichet in 2005, the former president of the ECB and Bilderberg steering committee member:
“We Europeans know that we can deliver structural reforms: we have done that efficiently in the past. The new state of the world is only adding new reasons to proceed in a direction which has been the European strategy since the late ‘50s, and has contributed, over almost half a century, to productivity progress, prosperity and jobs.” In a prepared speech, condensed in spoken form at the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York on April 26th 2010, Trichet outlines the chosen path toward “the significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today”:
“Overall, the system is moving decisively towards genuine global governance that is much more inclusive, encompassing key emerging economies as well as industrialized countries.”
Aside from the fact he accurately paraphrases the key-ingredients of Agenda 21, Trichet mentions three distinct arms of “global governance” as envisioned by the central banks:
“The significant transformation of global governance that we are engineering today is illustrated by three examples. First, the emergence of the G20 as the prime group for global economic governance at the level of ministers, governors and heads of state or government. Second, the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the BIS as the prime group for the governance of central bank cooperation. And third, the extension of Financial Stability Board membership to include all the systemic emerging market economies.”
Trichet’s definition of Global Governance? Just so you know who exactly the money-changers are who are now screaming for one world government at the top of their lungs, here it is:
“There are numerous definitions of global governance. In the economic and financial sphere I will propose that global governance comprehends not only the constellation of supranational institutions – including the international financial institutions – but also the informal groupings that have progressively emerged at the global level. Those informal forums (G7, G10, G20, etc.) are key in improving global coordination in all the areas where decision making processes remain national – whether in helping to work out agreed prudential standards and codes or to facilitate where appropriate, the coordination of economic macro-policies.”
Notice the importance of these “informal” gatherings in the minds of the regular attendees, described by Trichet as “key in improving global coordination”.
From these statements and writings a clear picture emerges. The plans for further economic, political, and military integration, pre-scripted for many-a-decade, is designed to expand from regional to global in successive, pre-scripted stages, following a meticulous consensus presided over by the world’s aristocratic elites as well as big economic and political players. Prime Bilderberg kingpins have, as we seen, described this incremental process in detail, lauding the unchecked meetings through which this process is fine-tuned. Contrary to what many mainstream media figureheads will make you believe, Bilderberg is one of these key informal gatherings.