Comments on: Why the Bilderberg Group is still relevant . . .

By: A Reader

A Reader — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:24:56 +0000

Sorry Robin, I was referring to “Bilderberger” rather than saying anything about the “Group” epithet. I think nomenclature matters in politics more than most areas of life because of the ease one can be written off as a kook by using a slightly incorrect name for something. For me “Bilderberger” always seems to come up on conspiracist sites. I know you consider yourself a writer in that area but I’ve always admired your ability to be just that bit more credible than the others.

I wasn’t aware of Eringer until now, so thanks for that.

By: Robin Ramsay

Robin Ramsay — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:24:45 +0000

Does the nomenclature we use matter that much? Maybe a little. Perhaps the use of ‘group’ implies a permanance which is in appropriate.
On Bilderberg, there is a little snippet in Robert Eringer’s new book Ruse, about his games working with/for the FBI trying to entice a US defector out of Russia. I always wondered who wrote the piece in the UK about Bilderberg for the long defunct UK magazine Verdict circa 1980, which was the first significant piece about the – I almost wrote ‘group – organisation. Well, in Ruse a short biographical section tell us that it was Eringer. We might have guessed. After all, it was Eringer who wrote the little book The Global Manipulators in 1980 which introduced the UK to Bilderberg and Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope. A hat tip to Eringer for that!

By: A Reader

A Reader — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:59:51 +0000

Thank the Lord for a blogger/journo who doesn’t use the incorrect name “Bilderberger Group”, which makes me shudder every time I see it.

I hope this blog continues, regardless of the paucity of comments!

By: Robin Ramsay

Robin Ramsay — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:34:33 +0000

Yes, Smith’s presence on the Bilderberg steering committee means we have to rethink Smith. Incidentally, I was told this Smith-Bilderberg link by Bilderberg’s then secretary. Bilderberg is only a secret in some countries. They maintain an office and staff in Holland. The presence of people like Smith and Brown and Blair at Bilderberg meetings used to be politically sensitive in places like the UK, where it used to verboten for Labour politicians to be pally with capitalists, and the US where the nativist right-wing is suspicious of all encounters with ‘the elite’.
There is also a connection with Glasgow University which is interesting. Smith’s chum from Glasgow Uni days was Baroness ‘Meta’ Ramsay, now a Labour spokesperson in the House of Lords, who had been a senior MI6 officer. Smith’s widow, also a Glasgow University student, was reported to have been on the board of a company formed by ex MI6 people, Hackluyt. During the Lockerbie inquiry a former MI6 officer, Professor Andrew Fulton, then at Glasgow University, was discovered briefing the media.
Why Glasgow? If I had to guess it would be this: during the Cold War MI6 decided that for its dealings with the countries of Scandinavia it might be better not to use the English public schoolboys it generally recruited and so it started looking north of the border.

By: Nick Blackstock

Nick Blackstock — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:05:19 +0000

Over the years comment about the Bilderberg Group and its general ‘raison d’etre’ keep cropping up in a variety of publications, but never with much a detail about the actual membership.

Your points about the connection of Clinton and Brown to this organisation and particularly the fact that John Smith was on the steering commitee are therefore very interesting.

In the light of this we may well have to adjust our thinking about the ‘lost leader’.

Thanks

Nick