Bilderberg 2007 Final Report, part 1

The sun has set on Bilderberg 2007. After a sumptuous lunch on this warm and sunny June 3, most Bilderbergers will return to their countries of choice freshly armed with precise instructions from the Steering Committee on how to proceed in covertly expanding the powers of One World Government. Amongst this year’s luminaries in attendance were Henry Kissinger; Henry Kravis of KKR; Marie Josee Kravis of Hudson Institute; Vernon Jordan; Etienne Davignon, Bilderberger President; Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, daughter of one of the founders, Prince Bernhard and the Queen and King of Spain.

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how is it that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects on the go such as Rockefeller and every Royal House in Europe can perennially attend Bilderberger meetings knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a World Fascist – One World Empire?

How could it be orchestrated? The idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure organised for the following purposes: (1) Place the political power into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries. (2) Establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition. (3) Establish an absolute control of prices of all goods and raw materials. [Bilderbergers make it possible through their iron grip control of the World Bank, IMF and the World Trade Organization] (4) Create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action.

Not private but secret

Although participants emphatically attest they attend the Club’s annual meeting as private citizens and not in their official government capacity, that affirmation is dubious—particularly when you compare the Chatham House Rule to the Logan Act in the United States, where it is absolutely illegal for elected officials to meet in private with influential business executives to debate and design public policy.

Bilderberg meetings follow a traditional protocol founded in 1919 in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference held at Versailles for the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) based in Chatham House in London. While the name Chatham House is commonly used to refer to the Institute itself, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy.

According to RIIA procedures, “when a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.”

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon.

Among those who have attended Bilderberg Club meetings over the years and flaunted the Logan Act have been: Allen Dulles (CIA); Sen. William J. Fulbright (from Arkansas, a Rhodes Scholar); Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under Truman); Nelson Rockefeller and Laurence Rockefeller; Gerald Ford (former President); Henry J. Heinz II (Chairman of the H. J. Heinz Co.); Thomas L. Hughes (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robert S. McNamara (Kennedy’s Secretary of Defence and former President of the World Bank); William P. Bundy (former President of the Ford Foundation, and editor of the Council on Foreign Relations’s Foreign Affairs journal); John J. McCloy (former President of the Chase Manhattan Bank); George F. Kennan (former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union); Paul H. Nitze (representative of Schroeder Bank—Nitze played a very prominent role in matters of Arms Control agreements, which have always been under the direction of the RIIA); Robert O. Anderson (Chairman of Atlantic-Richfield Co. and head of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies); John D. Rockefeller IV (Governor of West Virginia, now U.S. Senator); Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State under Carter); Eugene Black (former President of the World Bank); Joseph Johnson (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Henry Ford III (head of the Ford Motor Co.); Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and later superintendent of the West Point Academy); Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter, founder of the Trilateral Commission); Gen. Alexander Haig (once European NATO Commander, former assistant to Kissinger, and was later Secretary of State under Reagan); James Rockefeller (Chairman, First National City Bank).

Bilderberg 2007 conclusions

Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of Bilderberger 2007 conclusions.

Robert Zoellick and the World Bank nomination

The US delegation is standing unanimously behind Robert Zoellick´s candidacy as the next President of the World Bank. Zoellick is a 53 year old Wall Street executive, former administration official and a free-market fundamentalist. During the meeting he pledged “to work to restore confidence in the bank.”

“We need to put our differences aside and focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank’s best days are still to come,” Zoellick said.

The chances of Zoellick not being approved for the chair of World Bank Presidency are slim to none. The final decision is to be made by the end of June by the bank’s 24-member board of directors.

The United States and Europe have a tacit agreement between them that the bank’s president should always be a US national while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, is headed by a European.

Nevertheless, according to our sources at the conference, European Bilderbergers are not at all pleased with continuing the status quo, in which the US nominates a single candidate after informal consultations with bank members.

The nomination also appears to short-circuit burgeoning calls for reform of this selection process at the bank, one of the cornerstones of the global financial architecture as designed by the victors of World War II.

One Belgian Bilderberger proposed “a merit-based selection process, without regard to nationality,” something which will obviously be discarded by the inept Bush administration. What is rather quite remarkable is that on several occasions European Bilderbergers have openly rejected the current model saying “the nomination reeks of double standards,” especially because both the US and the World Bank preach accountability and transparency to developing countries, the main clients of the bank.

But with IMF under the control of a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato, European central bank, a Frenchman, Jean Claude Trichet, it was a difficult undertaking to imagine that the USA would give up control of the World Bank. Only the US Federal Reserve would remain in the hands of the Americans.

“Replacing one Bush appointee with another will not resolve the fundamental governance problems of the World Bank,” said one Scandinavian. “Member governments should reject a back-door deal that leaves the bank’s governance structure intact, and should press for an open, merit-based selection process,” he said.

Zoellick’s name also raised eyebrows among development groups for his close ties to the US establishment and corporate interests.

One of the attendees, I have not had the confirmation as to who this individual is, asked Zoellick how he was planning to patch up relationships with third and forth world nations when he is best remembered during his tenure as the USTR, for arm-twisting poor nations’ governments to adhere to US-imposed intellectual-property laws that make medicines, for example, unaffordable to the developing world?

Zoellick has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medication for millions of people.

However, what has really riled up both the US and European delegates is the fact that World Bank´s dirty linen is being washed in public, thanks in great part to Paul Wolfowitz´s ineptness which incidentally he has blamed on the press.

What is IMF and the World Bank?

It is widely, but mistakenly, believed that the purpose of the World Bank [controlled by the U.S. Federal Reserve] and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [of which the U.S. is the principal donor and the only nation with the veto power] is to “encourage development and relieve poverty in the third world, but in practice these organizations have added to the impoverishment and destitution of millions” through the loans scheme called “Structural Adjustment Programmes” (SAPs) that have succeeded in adding to the country´s burden of debt and stagnation.

The obvious result of the SAPs from the World Bank and the IMF is that the money lent to the destitute nations were used to make immediate interest payments to western banking institutions, something that both Jim Tucker and I have been saying for years. Furthermore, by ordering Third World economies to focus on production for export purposes, the World Bank and the IMF channelled $178 billion of the Third World financial resources between 1984 and 1990 into servicing dollar-denominated foreign debt.

These programs are being implemented in over 70 Third World and Eastern European countries from Nigeria to Jamaica, from Hungury to Ethiopia, Lesotho, Kenia, Ghana, Uganda subjected to 566 IMF and World Bank stabilization and SAPs with devastating results. SAPs involve the liberalization of African economies which means that foreign companies are encouraged to take over designated sectors of the economy.

The World Bank’s own study titled, “Adjustment Lending: An Evaluation of Ten Years of Experience” (1988) has demonstrated that the SAPs undertaken by 15 Sub-Saharan African countries failed utterly in every measurable criteria.

Despite global adjustment, “thirty-six of Africa’s 47 countries, according to the bank´s secret study, have been subjected to structural adjustment by the Fund and Bank, yet the total external debt of the continent is now 110 percent of its gross national product.”

Additionally, African states, unable to compete with Western multinationals, have been forced to withdraw from the health sector as part of free market economy. This has put African children at the mercy of unscrupulous international organizations and pharmaceutical transnational corporations, who are thus at liberty to use them as guinea pigs for testing various drugs and vaccines. As a case in point, in January 2001, the U.S.-based pharmaceutical TNC Pfizer used an experimental drug on 50,000 children suffering from meningitis in Kano, Nigeria without official authorization. As a result of the epidemic, 15,000 people died while many others became deaf and blind.

Relations with Russian

Another issue of great concern to both American and European Bilderbergers is Russia’s current muscle flexing on the issue of energy. The TNK-BP license, BP´s Russian venture, is just one of the many signs causing anger amongst the globalist elite. After years of economic stagnation, said one American Bilderberger, “Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).” Bilderberg 2007 served as a consensus building to decide on a common policy and strategy to deal with Russia’s resurgence.

In particular, Bilderberg is not at all happy with Russia’s current strategy of actively dismantling what remains “of the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will,” in the words of one Bilderberger, that arose in the post-Soviet period and that was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity.

That was in the beginning of the 1990s. The early stages of the Yeltsin reign.

With the wholesale looting of Russia in the 1990s through shock therapy and the loans-for shares scheme, engineered by the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, such as Sachs, Andrei Schliefer, David Lipton, and Jonathan Hay, the country was brought into the dawn of the XXI century capitalist economy. As a result, Russia eventually toppled into anarchy, its population rendered desperate; its ability to support a world-class military establishment smashed which then made it as inevitable that colonial behaviour would occur. Isn´t that something? That is exactly what George Ball was proposing during Bilderberg 1968 meeting in Canada. I will get back to Ball in a minute.

Incidentally, the term «shock therapy» refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls, combined with the withdrawal of state subsidies, and immediate trade liberalization within a country, all the necessary ingredients for impoverishment of the society, in this case, Russian.

In Zbigniew Brzezinski´s 1997 The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, “Russia” and “vital energy reserves”, as it turns out, is mentioned more frequently than any other country or subject in the book. Brzezinski is Carter´s former National Security Adviser, founder of the Trilateral Commission, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Club and a close associate of both David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. He is the proverbial insider’s insider.

Global U.S. and thus Bilderberg hegemony passes through complete control of Russia’s vital energy reserves in Central Asia. As long as Russia remained strong, it remained a threat – a potential block to the complete imposition of Bilderberg-led economic and military will.

Bilderberg energy imperatives and geopolitical control, once again, are coming to play a key role in the lives of hundreds of millions of unsuspecting people.

Brzezinski spelled out the compelling energy issue driving American policy: “A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world´s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world´s central continent. About 75 percent of the world´s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world´s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprise and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world´s GNP and about three-fourth of the world’s known energy resources.”

The history of mankind has always shown that controlling the heart of Eurasia was the key to controlling the entire globe. Azerbaijan, containing the riches of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia, is a case in point. From the U.S. perspective, the independence of the Central Asian states can be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control.

To the Bilderbergers, energy imperatives are the end game.

The energy theme appears again later in Brzezinski´s book, written four years before 9-11: “The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the US Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy.”

Clearly, to Bilderberg, Russia was the beginning of the end game.

During a presentation titled Internationalization of Business to the April 26-28, 1968, Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, George Ball provides a far more truthful and insightful glimpse into the Club’s economic orientation. Ball, who was the Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, a Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Club as well as a Senior Managing Director for Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc., defined what the new Bilderberger policy of globalization was going to be, and how it would shape the Club’s policy.

Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on the concept of a world company, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was the archaic political structure of the nation state.”

In other words, Ball is calling for a return to the old colonialism system but this time built on the concept of a world company. “To be productive,” Ball said, “we must begin our inquiry by explicitly recognizing the lack of phasing between development of the world company – a concept responding to modern needs – and the continued existence of an archaic political structure of nation states, mostly small or of only medium size, which is evolving only at glacier pace in response to new world requirements of scope and scale.”

Pierre Beaudry in Synarchy Movement of Empire concludes, “For Ball, the very structure of the nation state, and the idea of the commonwealth, or of a general welfare of a people, represented the main obstacle against any attempt of freely looting the planet, especially the weak and poor nations of the world, and represented the most important impediment to the creation of a neo-colonial world empire. The priority of the world company is obviously based on international free trade without restraint; that is, trade measured by the British standards of profit of buying cheap and selling dear. The problem is that national governments have priorities, which are different than and contrary to those of a looting company.”

On page 39 of a Bilderberg transcript from the 1968 meeting at Mont Tremblant, Ball self-assuredly stated the following: “Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?”

In other words, Mssr. Rockefeller and Davignon, what Mr. Ball would like to know is how does one establish a Halliburton type of world company, which would greatly surpass, in authority, any government on the Planet? Isn’t that what World Company, run by the ruling class stands for?

Not according to Bilderberg president and Belgian multi millionaire, Etienne Davignon. During his 2005 BBC interview Mr. Davignon said: “I don’t think a global ruling class exists. Business influences society, and politics influences society—that’s purely common sense. It’s not that business contests the right of democratically elected leaders to lead.”

Is that so, Mr. Davignon?

Current parliamentary democracy works on the basis of an ‘elected’ Head of State, a parliament, which can be dumped, any time you decide to orchestrate a crisis and a third branch of government in charge of its financial system, called, an ‘independent central banking system.’

In the United States, this ‘independent’ banking system is known as the Federal Reserve, a privately owned Bank interlocked with the Bilderbergers. In Europe, the independent banking system is run through the European Central Bank, whose monetary policies are put together by the leading members of the Bilderberger elite such as Jean Claude Trichet.

In Britain, this independent system is run by the Bank of England, whose members are also full time members of the Bilderberger inner circle. The independent central banking system controls the emission of currency; controls national credit and interest rates; and, any time the government displeases it, it uses its power to orchestrate the overthrow of the government. Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister, was overthrown because she opposed the wilful hand over of British sovereignty to the European Super State designed by the Bilderbergers.

This is what Kuhn Loeb and Lehman Brothers have been building worldwide, by ways of merger and acquisitions, from the 1960s until today. In the past decades, the entire deregulation policy of U.S. industries and banking was precisely set up in response to this blueprint scenario for creating giant corporations for a new empire whose intention is nothing short of perpetual war.

Could the eventual dismemberment and weakening of Russia to the point it could not oppose U.S. military operations that have now successfully secured control of the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia been part of a multi-decade plan for global domination?

Most credible senior analysts definitely believe so. In a 1997 symposium held in Bonn, Dr. Sergei Glazyev, chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation explained how this colonial behaviour would occur: This colonization, masked as reforms, destroyed the basic institutions of Russian society along the following basic lines: (1) “Destruction of the financial system of the state, by means of an endless build-up of the state debt pyramid, shrinking of the tax base, deepening of the non-payments crisis, and disorganization of the monetary system. (2) Destruction of the scientific and technological potential of the country, achieved by means of a many-fold reduction in state financing of science, the collapse of technological cooperation and scientific production integration, in the course of mass privatization, and the refusal of the government to have any scientific and technical, industrial, or structural policy at all.” (3) Sale of controlling blocs of shares in the leading and most valuable Russian firms, in industry, electric power, and telecommunications, to foreign companies. (4) Transfer of the right to exploit the most valuable Russian raw materials deposits, to transnational corporations. (5) Establishment of foreign control over the Russian stock exchange. (6) Establishment of direct foreign control over the shaping of Russian domestic and foreign economic policy.”

The Bilderberg conclusions are striking in its candidness: “The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China, or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy.” Something must be done and urgently in order to cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage. The US-Russia strategically deteriorating relations are one victim of this geopolitical struggle for energy supremacy.

One Finnish delegate expressed an opinion that “no US-Russia military confrontation is likely no matter how tense things should get” is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more aggressive Russia. Dr. Henry Kissinger added that “aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy has forced “axis of evil” states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunize themselves against US military strikes.”

Richard Perle pointed out that in response to aggressive US tactics across the globe, Russia has undertaken asymmetric steps to undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighbourhoods and into those of their partners and allies. When one American Bilderberger tried to object, European delegate brought up China’s recent response to US intentions to weaponize space – a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of destruction of its satellite. The example produced snickering in the room, much to the chagrin of the Americans.


Another subject under discussion dealt with Afghanistan. It was commonly agreed by the attendees that the US-led NATO alliance and mission is in a state of quagmire and “that the situation in the country is getting worse.”

The problem can be defined, in the words of one British Bilderberger as “one of the unreal expectations.” He went on to explain that the duopoly of clamouring for democratic reform while simultaneously propping up Pashtun warlords without delivering serious progress, “has managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans.”

Bilderbergers, however, aren’t the only ones left scratching their heads as to how Western governments and their carefully chosen Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars in development assistance with little to show for it.

The price of treason

Catastrophe is good for business, always has been. Without suffering, there would be no humanitarian assistance. And without humanitarian assistance, there would be no room for undercover intelligence network operations as a part of western imperatives of geopolitical control.

The worse it looks the better it sells. While the American people were getting their daily diet of ubiquitous images of repression and suffering, burka clad bodies of Afghani women glossy propaganda campaign was being sureptiously launched on the pages of magazines and newspapers or beamed into every living room in America. The New York Times and The New Yorker were greasing the gears of the misery machine by urging the U.S. government, the United Nations and anyone who would listen to “do something” amid the jewellery advertisement. Terror and horror, like expensive jewellery became commodities. But taking a picture of sick and dying and depraved Afghanis is quite simple, a concentration of misery and backwardness that [is] indeed shocking. You just need to be there. It is all around you. Was something done?

Today, Afghanistan and its African cousins of Sudan and Ethiopia and Eritrea and Congo and Rwanda and the rest of the blessed with western humanitarian help nations are all basket cases going to hell in a bucket with a snowball’s chance in hell in getting out alive. How is it possible that a humanitarian mission of such scale and magnitude could have failed so miserably, Bilderbergers seem to be asking?

Is it a case of good-intentioned exercise going bad due to corruption, greed and lack of oversight? Or it is the merciless dismemberment of yet another foreign land, culture and people exercised stealthily through humanitarian aid agencies tied to the larger apparatus of the government? Furthermore, the U.S. government support for known Afghani drug warlord adds another vital clue to the puzzle.

The amount of profit generated annually by the drug trade, according to the United Nations, is somewhere around $700 billion in tax free cash flow per year. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is too much money to hide in a sock. You need a lot of experience and expertise to move that kind of funds stealthily. Does anyone doubt that Afghanistan is about drugs? Does anyone doubt that the CIA is involved?

For example, the CIA financed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1977, and trained Mujaheedin in preparation for the campaign of collusion between Washington and right wing Islam: The Afghan War. The roots to the Afghan conflict can be traced to al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, the centre of Muslim Brotherhood’s activity. Airline hijacker Mohammed Atta was ID´d as a Muslim Brother shortly after the September 11 attacks in several western publications, such as the Washington Post´s September 22, 2001 edition, the Observer´s September 23, 2001 article and a lengthy piece in Newsweek from December 31, 2001. Other Muslim Brothers involved were Khalid Shaik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden´s right hand man, an Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri is also a life-long member of the Brotherhood.

Robert Dreyfuss, in an extremely important book, Devil´s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam explained it thus: “They returned to Afghanistan and formed a branch of the Brothers, the Islamic Society. Later, these same `professors,´ as they were known, would form the backbone of the afghan mujaheedin who waged a U.S. backed decade-long war against the Soviet occupation. The three leading “professors” were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.” Sayyaf and Hekmatyar, two big time Pashtun drug traffickers and CIA assets were backed by the Pakistani Intelligence and funded with Saudi money as well as Pakistan’s own “branch” of the Brotherhood.

There is yet another link between the Brotherhood and the super secret Bilderberg Club. In the early 1980s, Bilderberger Michael Ledeen of the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Bilderberger Richard Perle used Hekmatyar as a poster boy of anti Soviet resistance at the time when Hekmatyar was actively working with Hezb-i-Islami (HIA) terrorists to undermine America’s influence in Afghanistan.

Does anyone reading this doubt that it is hardly a coincidence?

First came the “humanitarian relief” through non-government organization (NGO). In short order that was followed by the U.S. military that came to the rescue out of the goodness of their heart for “purely humanitarian objectives.” Once on the ground it became an exercise in “nation-building.” In the end it morphed into the hunt for a terrorist dictator.

During an animated discussion at Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey, one Italian asked if “the U.S. led NATO forces had the will to stay the course?”

When the US military led the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the commanding general, Tommy Franks, stated that “it was not his intention to get embroiled in a Soviet-style long-term engagement.” Now, however, American Bilderberg representatives are pressuring its NATO allies to provide larger troop contributions to the cause.

Kissinger insisted that “the will” is lacking and so “we must now begin to acknowledge our limits.”

“The choices facing us are very difficult,” reflected one European Royal full-heartedly agreeing with Kissinger-made assessment on the lack of commitment and will. NATO representative at the conference categorically stated that the West had neither the political intelligence nor the understanding to fight a protracted decade long counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan.¬icias=ver&id=345&idioma=en

End Part 1 Bilderberg 2007 report