The Anglo-American Elite, Part 2: The Bilderbergers
Although the American people have never been informed by the public media that the Bilderberg Group is the successor organization to the Anglo-American Establishment, more than a few have surmised that it is because only the Group has the wherewithal (the experienced personnel, the agenda, and the resources) to manage such an undertaking.
Pursuant to the ambitious vision of the Milner group that the Establishment should develop a worldwide base with universal appeal, i.e., an enterprise without borders, they likely decided that the very name ‘Anglo-American’ implied both geographic and ethnic constraints. Consequently, that name was dropped and the distinguished members became known simply as the “Bilderbergers” or the Bilderberg Group, i.e., by the name of the hotel in which the organization happened to hold its first general meeting. However, no known or acknowledged official linkage has as yet been established between the old Anglo-American Establishment and today’s Bilderbergers, other than the fact that both groups of ambitious industrialists and bankers were and remain in the same business, namely to advance the cause of globalism, and increase world trade and wealth to the profit of its members.
The Bilderberg Group consists of three core organizations, each with its own area of responsibility: the Bilderbergers with their main focus of interest on NATO and Europe; the Trilateralists who work with representatives from the East Asian states; and the Council on Foreign Relations which is part of the State Department. Other important outside groups like the Carnegie Endowment for Peace also cooperate when called upon. Membership overlaps in each of the core organizations with individuals freely transferring from one to the other or as a member in two or three of the components simultaneously. Some members may also move in and out of US Government offices almost at will. Read more
The Anglo-American Elite, Part 1: Professors Carroll Quigley and Revilo Oliver on the Evolution of the Anglo-American Establishment
The aftermath of the Great War and its offspring, World War II, left only the capitalist Anglo-American Establishment in competition with the communist USSR for the grand prize — worldwide economic and financial hegemony.
Owing to its rapid expansion, extensive domain, longevity, and success, the Anglo-American Establishment does now indeed appear capable of establishing a “New World Order,” a worldwide hegemony based on its economic, military and financial superiority. It achieved this by first conforming to the hard-right, nationalistic business and social practices of the 19th century (imperialism, colonialism, greed, etc.) and then in the 20th century, after all the other European countries including the Communists had lost their empires, the Anglo-Americans filled the void by establishing their current left-of-center worldwide dominance.
When in the late 19th century the United States entered into this special relationship with the Crown, leadership in Britain was gradually being transferred from her native aristocracy to a new elite, the Milner Group, consisting of visionaries of a new world power based solely on economic and financial wealth rather than on traditional British military, industrial, and diplomatic skills. Lord Milner, although not himself Jewish, was an early Zionist on good terms with the Rothschilds. The partnership with America, a nation composed of immigrants from many countries, compelled this transition from the original exclusive English nationalistic and racial base to its current main object, namely, economic and financial gain on a broader international base. Read more
Why I Write
Deep within the glorious maze of lost time that the archives of Counter Currents represents, I recently found the tag, “Why We Write.” The essays under this umbrella, some of which originally appeared in The Occidental Quarterly, are a treat in no small part because they show a personal and human side to many authors who normally eschew touching on the personal for the sake of anonymity. It is also a lovely topic for the authors themselves, as it allows a certain egotistical indulgence that all self-described writers covet, openly or not. And with that being admitted, I will tackle the question myself.
The first thing I ever had published was a mere letter-of-the-day on Vdare — and a crummy one at that. I was absolutely elated when it happened, and even sent the link to my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents. In my eyes, I had struck back. It was the first fortnight of my freshman year in college and I had learned that we were not even called “freshman” because the word lacked gender-neutrality. My roommate was an insufferable “bisexual” Jew who boasted of having met President Obama and been active in the Occupy Wall Street movement (not a contradiction in his eyes; regardless, I suspect both were lies).
The sob story goes on and on, so I will cut to the chase. I decided the best way to strike back was to write. It was a way of telling myself that these people had no control over me, that even if it was pointless to argue in class, I could do better than just fuming in silence. So I kept writing, and I kept annoying editors, and I kept getting curt rejection letters. But by that summer vacation I got paid for something I wrote for the first time. By the end of that summer I had been paid multiple times, and was beginning to think quite highly of myself. I was a writer against time, a man among the ruins, etc. Liberals could tell me I was a stupid redneck, but I could just think to myself, “Oh yeah? How many articles have you been paid to write? I’m a regular right-wing Hunter S. Thompson.” It was immensely satisfying, and even my vaguely liberal, but mostly apolitical parents were impressed that I had found a way to turn time spent on my MacBook into money. Read more
Joe Biden and the Ghost of Shylock
Napoleon once famously remarked that “in politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” In few cases does this seem more apt than in that of Vice-President Joe Biden, perennial lapdog to the ADL’s Abraham Foxman. Biden has recently added to last year’s faux pas by recently committing the egregious sin of using the word “Shylocks” to describe mortgage lenders. The slip came in a speech to the Legal Services Corporation, which provides lawyers to Americans who could not afford them otherwise. In his remarks, the Vice-President described the experience of his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who was deployed for one year in Iraq:
People would come to him and talk about what was happening to them at home in terms of foreclosures, in terms of bad loans that were being — I mean, these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.
This accurate and innocuous remark drew a rebuke from the all-seeing, all-knowing, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Abraham Foxman, who will presumably continue to stalk the verbally careless right up until his retirement on July 20 2015. A rankled Foxman told Yahoo News that “Shylock represents the medieval stereotype about Jews and remains an offensive characterization to this day. The Vice President should have been more careful. … When someone as friendly to the Jewish community and open and tolerant an individual as is Vice President Joe Biden, uses the term ‘Shylocked’ to describe unscrupulous moneylenders dealing with service men and women, we see once again how deeply embedded this stereotype about Jews is in society.” Read more
Benjamin Ginsberg on Jewish hypocrisy and double standards
Tablet interview: “Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’”
[Tablet] One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”
[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.
Say what? Displaced anti-Semitism would be if these Whites used Jewish hypocrisy as an excuse from some deep irrational hatred of Jews. But isn’t hypocrisy always seen as a negative? The White Protestants who are on trial here assume a principled morality. They assume that if inclusiveness is a moral imperative in the U.S. as our intellectual elites constantly tell us, it must be a moral imperative everywhere. But many of the same people who advocate inclusiveness in the U.S. advocate oppression in Israel. And there’s resentment by many Whites because as a result of the moral imperative of inclusiveness in the U.S., they are losing the country. So, yes, there is probably a “secret corner” of their brains where they would like to reassert themselves and boot out or oppress the interlopers. But that has to remain secret on pain of job loss and social opprobrium. Because they no longer command the moral and political high ground, they don’t dare say that. Read more
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
