Tim Worstall has published a post mocking 'Tinfoil Hats'.
Tim is a nice guy, and I consider him a friend; he once offered me an unsolicited act of kindness, which he'd never discuss and for which I remain very grateful. But such posts strike me as rather silly, and as a friend I hope he doesn't mind my saying that it seems like a rather illiberal posture from someone who considers himself to be a classic English liberal. The closed-mindedness of the braying mules who never fail to comment on such posts, popping up like bad pennies and as tenacious as nits, is just tedious.
'Londonistan' is a deeply flawed book, but Melanie Phillips does produce one very profound insight about why the culture of Londonistan, a state of mind as much as a place, was allowed to develop. Classic English liberals seem to have an ingrained tendency to spastically reject that which they cannot automatically explain; the idea that groups of influential people might meet in secret to do anything other than drink tea and watch the 4.30 at Wincanton is alien to them. They cannot fathom it. They are so nice that they cannot get their heads around the idea that others might not be as nice as them; the old quangocrat is a classic of the breed.
It is this psychological straitjacket (good loony allusion that - mental, huh?) that prevents them from even engaging in discussion about things they do not understand, and makes them want to shy away from wanting to try.
Tim links to a blog run by a man called Peter Risdon; read him a couple of times, didn't seem to have anything interesting or insightful to say, at least not to me. He quotes a chap named Mohammed Naseem as saying,
"...there were "4 organisations running the world" – the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, McKenzie and Co Public Relations, and Common Purpose."
Ha ha - let's all have a good laugh at the Muslim tinfoiled turban having a good mouthfart about the Bilderberg Group.
If Tim or any of the commentors on his post actually want to find about the Trilateral Commission, they can go to its website.
Until reading that post, I had never even heard of McKenzie & Co. Tim and Peter had better be careful; some folk might think they're spreading conspiracy theories.
If they want to find about Common Purpose, they can read about it extensively at the blog of the notorious and slavering conspiracy theorist and, er, very widely read UK political blogger James Higham, another blogger this blogger considers a friend. Maybe the Russkies got to him during all those years in Moscow!
For fans of real red meat conspiracy theory, you know, the hard stuff, the under the counter stuff you need contacts to get, here's my favourite - the Jesuits were responsible for 9/11.
However, I stand foursquare with Dr. Naseem of the Birmingham Central Mosque in our mutual suspicion of The Bilderberg Group; a suspicion which might just earn me an arch, pseudo-withering put down from Oliver Kamm, as if I give a monkey's.
On April 15 2006 I lodged a request under the Freedom of Information Act concerning whatever relationship Ed Balls might have had with Bilderberg when he was a member of the Civil Service in 2002 and 2003. I received a reply saying they didn't hold any such info. I then e-mailed the bug-eyed bootleg butty banner himself, and received the shortest of shrift.
Imagine my surprise on later finding a report in the 'Telegraph' claiming that he charged his expenses for attending Bilderberg 2006 to the taxpayer. They'll be running out of tinfoil in Canary Wharf in no time; just don't tell the leader writers on 'The Times'.
The piece is illustrative of the British media's relationship with Bilderberg; it's not the skulking in corners of those who have no mandate to skulk with each other that gets to them. Possible political perversion of the Civil Service? Who cares about that - Ed is obviously exceptional.
No, what gets them hot and bothered is the merest possibility of petty chiselling. It's what Lawrence Peter called taking care of the molehills in the hope that the mountains will take care of themselves.
But these tinfoil hatters who believe that the Queen is a 12 foot tall lizard (the province of the disturbed more in need of compassion than disdain) and that George H. W. Bush eats babies in Bohemian Grove get everywhere. They even get into Hansard.
There's the notorious conspiracy theorist John Bercow - yes, that John Bercow - who on July 4 2000 asked the following question in The House of Commons - of the Prime Minister -
"To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers attended the session of the Bilderberg Conference in Sintra entitled, How Durable is the Current Rosy Complexion of European Politics; and what (a) written and (b) oral report of the Bilderberg Conference was submitted to him. "
Tony Blair replied,
"So far as I am aware, no Minister attended this conference. "
Indeed - if what's been said of Ed Balls is true, within a couple of years civil servants were attending. Who need ministers when you can have real policymakers at the table?
Then there's an anonymous MP called Gill, who once lodged the following written question to Tony Blair -
"To ask the Prime Minister which members of his Government have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group."
On 30th March 1998, they received the following written reply -
"The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 March 1998]: None"
Which of course means that reports that Gordon Brown attended Bilderberg 1991 and that Blair himself attended Bilderberg 1993 must be false, because Tony's a Catholic now and doesn't tell lies.
But of course, there's always the sticky matter of the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner of Standards made against Kenneth Clarke concerning the circumstances under which he did attend Bilderberg 1993.
Readers are invited to peruse the terms of Paragraph 5 -
" 5. Mr Clarke subsequently explained that he and Mr Blair considered that they were attending the conference as representatives of the Government and the Opposition respectively, and stated that `I was quite confident that I was at the time meeting the rules applying to Ministers, and it did not occur to me that the new rules concerning registration could apply to this visit'.
This cuts right to the core of my interest in Bilderberg - it is a private, non-governmental organisation to which the UK is not bound by any law, treaty or protocol; so why have Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition been sending 'representatives' to it?
Pace William Goldman, who are these guys?
Readers are then invited to peruse the terms of Paragraph 7 -
" 7. As Mr Clarke correctly pointed out, neither he nor Mr Blair registered their attendance at the conference on their return. Mr Blair did so two years later in 1995, following a complaint to the former Select Committee that he had failed to register that visit, together with an earlier visit to Washington as a member of an All-Party Group. The Committee in their Report acknowledged that certain aspects of the Rules had been the subject of widespread misapprehension and recommended that no further action should be taken in respect of the complaints made against Mr Blair. "
On 30 March 1998, Tony Blair told a Member of Parliament that no member of his government had attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group when it was already a matter of parliamentary
record that he had attended one himself. Perhaps he had forgotten.
The Bilderberg Group can sit around planning to take over the world, implant us all with computer chips and makes us don tutus and dance the can-can round the maypole for all I care - what I don't like is the secrecy. Will Hutton, a sometime Bilderberger, calls its members 'the high priests of globalisation'; but of course we're right of centre bloggers, and Will Hutton has nothing to say to us. The European Union is supposed to be another of its concoctions - if you don't like what the EU stands for, why mock those who try to find out more about those who might have midwifed it? I did not write 'Pining For The Cold War' out of any kind of nostalgia for 'Mutually Assured Destriction', but because absolutely nobody ever seems to make the connection between the end of a situation which helped to keep those like the Bilderbergers might be in check and the creation of the European Union. One followed hard on the heels of the other, in the face of enormous opposition. The question nobody has never been able to answer for me is why. So one is entitled to speculate. The creation of the European Union must have been a plan hatched during the Cold War, and its founders were desperate to make it come alive as soon they were free to do so. Who were these people? What were their motives?
It is the complete silence one encounters when trying to find answers to such questions which leads one into areas others mock as 'conspiracy theory'.
The blame for the veil of silence which is drawn over Bilderberg must be placed at the door of the media. David Rockefeller was reported to have said at Bilderberg 1991 that,
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
If that's true, then the classic English liberals can kiss their beloved England goodbye; and those who talk of 'tinfoil hats' might hopefully feel rather foolish.