Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta

Quote :

Peter Mandelson argued in 1998 that the age of pure representative democracy was ending and that representative institutions needed to be supplemented by the machinery of direct democracy: the referendum, the initiative and the like.

Quote :

Reform of state institutions
A reconsideration of representative democracy is implicit in this reform of British political institutions. The dominant group within the Labour Party who witnessed the manner in which representative democracy was undermined by unrepresentative elites is convinced of the strengths of a wider, more direct democracy. Peter Mandelson in a speech in Germany in 1998 said "It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming slowly to an end. We entered the 20th century with a society of elites, with a very distinct class structure. In those days it seemed natural to delegate important decisions to members of the land-owning elite, the industrial elite or the educated elite. When Labour emerged as the party that represented the industrial working class, it developed its own elite of trade union bureaucrats, city bosses and socialist intellectuals. But that age has passed away. Today people want to be more involved. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the internet to referendums. Tony Blair's government has already held two referendums and three more are at some stage in prospect. Not to mention more citizens' movements, more action from pressure groups. This requires a different style of politics and we are trying to respond to these changes."

Mandelson has used the expression in different contexts - the one above in which you would imagine that he was calling for direct, voter democracy and in others where he has said that things like think tanks and focus groups are a better/alternative form of democracy. Outrageous!

Mandelson dismisses calls for referendum on Treaty:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562499/Mandelson-dismisses-EU-referendum-calls.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/12/eu.politics

From a review of a book about him:

Quote :

Covertly, he thinks that in modern societies business and governments should rule unimpeded. How they should rule hardly concerns him. His instruments for excluding the chaos of public opinion were two - Europe and PR. He was the leading advocate of both in the Cabinet, and thoughts of a Lib-Lab alliance dominating the politics of the next century were never far away. The idea of a virtually single-party state cemented into the promultinational, anti-democratic context of EMU established Mandelson as a man of vision with the Guardian. In an electoral context, Mandelson dressed up an election in 1997 that Labour could hardly have lost as a New Dawn. He did so by marrying 'ambition' with 'compassion', 'Thatcher' with `Roy Jenkins', with some plagiarism of Michael Howard, and for `ordinary people' an oddly impractical wish list of pledges drawn up by another Hampstead intellectual: the whole package to be sold as `modernisation', which was an empty box into which any scrap could be flung.. There was a huge cloudy poetry about all this, little though it had to do with government.

Full article (its very interesting btw):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_/ai_n8830508

Mandelson is the most patrician politician the UK has seen for a long time - more so than any other bar Thatcher

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta

Quote :

Peter Mandelson argued in 1998 that the age of pure representative democracy was ending and that representative institutions needed to be supplemented by the machinery of direct democracy: the referendum, the initiative and the like.

Quote :

Reform of state institutions
A reconsideration of representative democracy is implicit in this reform of British political institutions. The dominant group within the Labour Party who witnessed the manner in which representative democracy was undermined by unrepresentative elites is convinced of the strengths of a wider, more direct democracy. Peter Mandelson in a speech in Germany in 1998 said "It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming slowly to an end. We entered the 20th century with a society of elites, with a very distinct class structure. In those days it seemed natural to delegate important decisions to members of the land-owning elite, the industrial elite or the educated elite. When Labour emerged as the party that represented the industrial working class, it developed its own elite of trade union bureaucrats, city bosses and socialist intellectuals. But that age has passed away. Today people want to be more involved. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the internet to referendums. Tony Blair's government has already held two referendums and three more are at some stage in prospect. Not to mention more citizens' movements, more action from pressure groups. This requires a different style of politics and we are trying to respond to these changes."

So Aragon's 'democracy is an idea that has had its day' is actually 'It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end' with the follow-on comment that more direct democracy is needed...

That's an extraordinary piece of partial quotation. Completely reverses the sense.

Here's a very interesting document by Mandelson on the EU and globalisation. It's Mandelson at his machiavellian best. He presents the silkiest of arguments for what is in effect an EU third way. In the passage below notice how talks about how governments need to devovle decision making downwards (that sounds democratic) - but its downwards to businessess and out to other unelected bodies. Opponents of the Treaties are depicted as extreme far lefters and righters (and they certainly include those groups). He stakes out the sensible people as middle grounders caught in cross fire. In fact it was as much ordinary FF and FG farmers, small business people and others right across the spectrum who rejected Lisbon. He is treading extremely cautiously around the idea of greater centralisation and the loss of local sovereignty and autonomy - and dressing it up as a quest for social justice. The guy really is an evil genius:

Quote :

The politics of globalisation are the politics of change. Managing that
change will be harder in the global age than in the past for the simple
reason that the causes of change are often global in themselves. The
nation state remains the single most important source of identity for most
people in Europe, and the essential unit of our political organisation. It
is what we understand and feel comfortable with. Reports of its passing
are premature, to put it mildly. When our jobs are under threat or our
heating bills double, we look fi rst to national governments for answers.
However, national governments alone can no longer provide these
answers. Immigration, energy supply, the environment or terrorism may
seem local or national in their immediate effects, but they usually have
much wider causes.
That is why successful modern governments are changing the way
they govern. They control less and to enable more. They are devolving
power: down to local decision-making; out to business and NGOs; and up
to international institutions. This does not mean that globalisation spells
the decline of national government. It means that governments must fi nd
new ways of providing the essential goods on which their legitimacy
depends – opportunity, security, participation and social justice. The
nation state, acting alone and hoarding its sovereignty, is not necessarily
the most effective vehicle for the management of all problems.
Accepting that we need to think more clearly about these
different levels of political action is the crucial intellectual step into the
politics of the global age. For us as Europeans, the EU is central to that.
The EU gives us a capacity for continental-scale action in a world of
continental-sized partners that will help secure our interests in the global
age. Without it, the pressures of change will drive us back into competing
14
nationalisms at home and weaken us abroad. But across Europe, reactions
against globalisation are undermining the very instrument – the European
Union – that is our best hope for managing globalisation. The hyperglobalists
argue that the EU is a regional anachronism in a globalised
world. Defensive nationalists see it as the end of national sovereignty – at
least their idea of it. For the protectionists, it is the thin end of the liberal
economic wedge. All reject it.
It was those most at risk from Europe’s transition to a knowledge
and service economy – predominantly older people and manual workers
– who voted no in the Constitutional Treaty referenda. Their anxieties
are being exploited by parties of the Far Left and the Far Right. In many
countries these parties are doing well, as the recent Dutch elections
showed. Nor is Britain, which generally believes it is adapting well
to globalisation, insulated from this trend – even if its fi rst past the
post system makes it diffi cult for extreme parties to move beyond the
fringes.
However, the real danger today is that mainstream parties of
the Centre Left and Centre Right give ground to the political fringe in
the mistaken belief that protectionist gestures are necessary to limit the
appeal of the extremes, when in reality they often magnify it. This too
easily leads to economic nationalism which weakens Europe as a whole.
What is urgently needed today is convincing leadership and a convincing
case for how we best advance our interests and values in the global age.
Leadership explains the opportunities of change, and responds to fear
and uncertainty. It does this not by promising to pull up the drawbridge,
but by equipping people to keep ahead of the curve. Leadership responds
to people’s need for identity and a sense of solidarity in a way that is
open and inclusive; and leadership that places the EU at the centre of the
argument about how we advance European interests and values in the
world.

At heart this is an argument for a superstate:

Quote :

However, the context and challenges today are different: they
are global, complex, interwoven and rapidly evolving. A secure and
prosperous continent will remain the basis of the EU’s strength. Yet the
key purpose of the EU in the twenty-fi rst century is to provide Europeans
and European governments with a level of organisation and action to
defend their interests and values at the global level.
How can Europeans infl uence humanity’s response to global
challenges other than as part of the European Union? Will European
countries, even the largest, be more effective in engaging with powers
like China, India, Russia or the United States acting alone, or as members
of the EU? Are we more likely to promote our trade and economic
interests with the United States or China negotiating as a market of 500
million, or as separate markets of fi ve or even 50 million? Is Britain, for
example, infl uential around the world simply because of its colonial past,
its military capabilities and its relationship with the United States, or
16
because it is also a central member of the European Union and has that
collective weight behind it?
The answers are obvious. The only way for European nations to
defend their interests in the global age is by using the EU to leverage the
common interests and values it represents. To believe that, we must have
confi dence in the fundamental political bargain at the heart of the EU:
that Europeans are stronger tackling the challenges we face when we
work together; that by giving our fellow Europeans some infl uence over
our decisions, we gain infl uence over theirs; and that this is worth doing
because our interests and values are so intertwined that the compromises

which are a necessary part of any form of political integration are worth

Full text: http://www.delmex.ec.europa.eu/en/pdf/eu_in_the_global_age.pdf

So by "pure representative democracy" Mandelson means systems of democracy where one is always relying on your elected representative to vote/decide/choose on your behalf. Mandelson is in fact saying that we need more direct demoracy with more direct votes by the individual.

Aragon, you might want to edit the misquote in your earlier post.

Ibis:

Quote :

"So Aragon's 'democracy is an idea that has had its day' is actually 'It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end' with the follow-on comment that more direct democracy is needed...

That's an extraordinary piece of partial quotation. Completely reverses the sense."

I have aksed you not to address me again on these threads.

You have misrepresented what I have said - once again - and as usual ignored all of the surrounding information and commentary to suit your purpose. I object strenuously to your trolling behaviour. Please do NOT refer to me or address me again on this website.

Aragon wrote:

....Tatooed on my brain are the words of the arch EU supporter and Bilderberger Peter Mandelson: 'democracy is an idea that has had its day'. That's what it's all about. ....

In fairness, he was saying that "pure representative democracy" was the problem and calling for more direct power for the people thrugh referenda and so forth. It is an easy point to get confused on, especially if heard on the radio or something, but it is a bit misleading as you have quoted it. I note you quote it correctly further on.

Aragon wrote:

Ibis:

Quote :

"So Aragon's 'democracy is an idea that has had its day' is actually 'It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end' with the follow-on comment that more direct democracy is needed...

That's an extraordinary piece of partial quotation. Completely reverses the sense."

I have aksed you not to address me again on these threads.

You have misrepresented what I have said - once again - and as usual ignored all of the surrounding information and commentary to suit your purpose. I object strenuously to your trolling behaviour. Please do NOT refer to me or address me again on this website.

I'm afraid that's really not a reasonable request. Also, I don't think I've misrepresented you here in any way.

"I don't favour a referendum because I don't think the treaty warrants it nor do I beleive further movement towards referendums fits with parliamentary democracy"

Peter Mandelson, July 23, 2007

This man speaks with a forked tongue. When he says pure democracy may be ending it's because he wants it to and is doing all he can to make it so.

Aragon wrote:

"I don't favour a referendum because I don't think the treaty warrants it nor do I beleive further movement towards referendums fits with parliamentary democracy"

Peter Mandelson, July 23, 2007

This man speaks with a forked tongue. When he says pure democracy may be ending it's because he wants it to and is doing all he can to make it so.

It seems to me that you have chosen a frame, and are doing your best to fit Mandelson within it. It's true that Mandelson is a patrician, but that doesn't make him automatically opposed to democracy. It would seem to me that his various comments support a view of him as sympathetic to direct democracy, but not within the present UK parliamentary system - which is, lest we forget, also a democratic system.

As it happens, referendums are incompatible with parliamentary democracy, which is the reason that the Dutch chose not to run a referendum on Lisbon. It works for us because we have a written constitution, and referendums are the mechanism for modifying the constitution - the UK has no written constitution, so referendums are in conflict with parliamentary supremacy.

I think Mandelson does have a different view of how democracy works/should work than the text book view. What is unusual though is not his opinion, but that as someone involved in parliamentary democracy, he expresses it so frankly:

Quote :

When our jobs are under threat or our heating bills double, we look fi rst to national governments for answers.
However, national governments alone can no longer provide these
answers. Immigration, energy supply, the environment or terrorism may
seem local or national in their immediate effects, but they usually have
much wider causes.

That is why successful modern governments are changing the way
they govern. They control less and to enable more. They are devolving
power: down to local decision-making; out to business and NGOs; and up
to international institutions. This does not mean that globalisation spells
the decline of national government. It means that governments must fi nd
new ways of providing the essential goods on which their legitimacy
depends – opportunity, security, participation and social justice. The
nation state, acting alone and hoarding its sovereignty, is not necessarily
the most effective vehicle for the management of all problems.

The reality is that parliamentary democracy is heavily contaminated by the interests and influence of various lobbies and even by powerful individuals. That is not usually admitted. It is also the case that business interests, and the EU are significant influences on matters once considered the domain of national parliaments.

I think the above paragraph by Mandelson shows that Aragon is right in her assessment of him as someone who views the dilution of democracy, particularly at nation state level, as inevitable and acceptable.

The Bilderberg thing is something else: preoccupation with that one amongst many elite clubs tends to go with adherence to a fundamentally anti-semitic and irrational "NWO" world view that seems to me to offer an ideological breeding ground for the extreme right. Perhaps Aragon does not intend to support those theories?

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

[url=http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=[/url]]

Right, so you completely misquoted and misrepresented him. There should be a rule against that, I'll start a thread about one when I have more time.

[quote="evercloserunion"]

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=[/quote]
Right, so you completely misquoted and misrepresented him. There should be a rule against that, I'll start a thread about one when I have more time.

I take exception to that post. I have NOT misquoted Mandelson - he is an arch twister of words to suit his purpose. You are not following what I'm saying or indeed the copious information I have given to support and PROVE it too. He goes on to talk about wonderful things like referenda and so forth but he has slipped the idea in there - democracy is coming to an end and we need to think of alternatives, such as a European superstate to service the new world order club of which he is a paid up member - as a Bilderberger and business representative. Look at what he has to say subsequently about referendums? That's my point.

I have never until today come across anyone who interpreted that remark of Mandelson's in the way it has been by pro Lisbon here. From John Pilger to Boris Johnson, nobody who read and heard that comment in its context took as anything other than the Mandelsonian slipperiness that it is. He was mooting an idea to help create the ground for EU centralisation while describing it as its exact opposite.

Kate P wrote:

On the topic, there shouldn't be an either -or decision to be made in terms of the general public and the big fishes re Lisbon.
The reason why there was - and will be - no knocking on doors about Lisbon is because the vast majority of those who were knocking on dooors don't actually know what the treaty involves. They only know what their particular party wants - and I'll exclude Edo from that immediately but he is the exception rather than the rule.

I disagree. Canvassers have no problem knocking on doors when they don't know what the issues are. Most of them are happy to admit they are not braniac swots and will refer any questions to the TD/Councillor.

I think a bigger reason was FF canvassers did not fancy knocking on doors and being asked by FF voters what was going on with Celia getting help to buy a house with FF money. In fact, I'd say they wanted to ask that question themselves. It put a sour taste in their mouths at a time when the economy was faltering. Whether they can lift themselves for the next time remains to be seen. I sincerely doubt they would be inclined to go knocking on doors in the next few months following on from when the jobless figure rockets after Christmas. There will be blood everywhere soon - I am hearing grim tales.

Wikipedia - Representative Democracy

There is a difference between "pure representative democracy" and "pure democracy".

There is a fear in europe of being dominated by the new powers(India, CHina, Brazil) the way we dominated the 3rd world countries, before or even today.
We and the US are rapidly loosing global influence. It is probably deserved, but none of will want to live with the consequences - believe me.

I'll agree with Mandelson in that in working together we have a better chance of ensuring we maintain our relatively prosperous position in the world. But the problem is that the power class, who are in charge, in Dublin, London, Brussels, and Paris etc. are not being transparent about their ambitions. You may think that Mandelson is being frank in the above paragraphs, but when he speaks of governments controlling less and enabling or devolving more he can mean a thousand things. Basically I think power should be devolved at various levels but it must (and this is important) be absolutely accountable and transparent.

For example it is said that the council of ministers is democratic, in that it is a college of elected representatives with one from each country. However its deliberations are kept secret. Also the members of teh council are not directly mandated. The reasons for using national premiers instead of real madated delegates and conducting the meetings in secrecy are probably practical, but efficacy or efficiency always lead to abuse.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Kate P wrote:

On the topic, there shouldn't be an either -or decision to be made in terms of the general public and the big fishes re Lisbon.
The reason why there was - and will be - no knocking on doors about Lisbon is because the vast majority of those who were knocking on dooors don't actually know what the treaty involves. They only know what their particular party wants - and I'll exclude Edo from that immediately but he is the exception rather than the rule.

I disagree. Canvassers have no problem knocking on doors when they don't know what the issues are. Most of them are happy to admit they are not braniac swots and will refer any questions to the TD/Councillor.

I think a bigger reason was FF canvassers did not fancy knocking on doors and being asked by FF voters what was going on with Celia getting help to buy a house with FF money. In fact, I'd say they wanted to ask that question themselves. It put a sour taste in their mouths at a time when the economy was faltering. Whether they can lift themselves for the next time remains to be seen. I sincerely doubt they would be inclined to go knocking on doors in the next few months following on from when the jobless figure rockets after Christmas. There will be blood everywhere soon - I am hearing grim tales.

I agree very much with this. The problem is, the less contact face to face, the more politicians are remote and liable to serious mistakes.

Aragon wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=

Right, so you completely misquoted and misrepresented him. There should be a rule against that, I'll start a thread about one when I have more time.

I take exception to that post. I have NOT misquoted Mandelson - he is an arch twister of words to suit his purpose. You are not following what I'm saying or indeed the copious information I have given to support and PROVE it too. He goes on to talk about wonderful things like referenda and so forth but he has slipped the idea in there - democracy is coming to an end and we need to think of alternatives, such as a European superstate to service the new world order club of which he is a paid up member - as a Bilderberger and business representative. Look at what he has to say subsequently about referendums? That's my point.

I have never until today come across anyone who interpreted that remark of Mandelson's in the way it has been by pro Lisbon here. From John Pilger to Boris Johnson, nobody who read and heard that comment in its context took as anything other than the Mandelsonian slipperiness that it is. He was mooting an idea to help create the ground for EU centralisation while describing it as its exact opposite.

If you look back at the quotes and links you provided Aragon, there are two different lines coming from Mandelson. In 1998 (the first link) he was saying that parliamentary democracy needed to be supplemented by direct democracy, e.g. referenda and activism. I take it you would agree with that. This was from the Mandelson who was material in shaping New Labour in a populist style: for this job he needed insight into public priorities and focus groups were all the rage.

In the 2007 piece, he is in a different time and place: the EU. From that stand point, he sees National Government as of diminished importance. The man is a professional politician, and a cat with nine or more lives.

On the NWO stuff, I am shocked that you give it any credence. Hans Christian Andersen spins a much better story.

[quote="Aragon"]

evercloserunion wrote:

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=[/quote]
Right, so you completely misquoted and misrepresented him. There should be a rule against that, I'll start a thread about one when I have more time.

I take exception to that post. I have NOT misquoted Mandelson - he is an arch twister of words to suit his purpose. You are not following what I'm saying or indeed the copious information I have given to support and PROVE it too. He goes on to talk about wonderful things like referenda and so forth but he has slipped the idea in there - democracy is coming to an end and we need to think of alternatives, such as a European superstate to service the new world order club of which he is a paid up member - as a Bilderberger and business representative. Look at what he has to say subsequently about referendums? That's my point.

I have never until today come across anyone who interpreted that remark of Mandelson's in the way it has been by pro Lisbon here. From John Pilger to Boris Johnson, nobody who read and heard that comment in its context took as anything other than the Mandelsonian slipperiness that it is. He was mooting an idea to help create the ground for EU centralisation while describing it as its exact opposite.

That is absolute rubbish. First of all, you posted words in quotation marks and attributed them to him. He never said those words. You try to defend yourself by boring us to death with excerpts, which I have read, and none of which come close to proving that mandelson thinks democracy's day is over.

cactus flower wrote:

Aragon wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Aragon wrote:

A selection of Google references to it at this link:

"It may that the era of pure representative democracy is coming to an end'

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=mandelson+pure+representative+democracy&meta=

Right, so you completely misquoted and misrepresented him. There should be a rule against that, I'll start a thread about one when I have more time.

I take exception to that post. I have NOT misquoted Mandelson - he is an arch twister of words to suit his purpose. You are not following what I'm saying or indeed the copious information I have given to support and PROVE it too. He goes on to talk about wonderful things like referenda and so forth but he has slipped the idea in there - democracy is coming to an end and we need to think of alternatives, such as a European superstate to service the new world order club of which he is a paid up member - as a Bilderberger and business representative. Look at what he has to say subsequently about referendums? That's my point.

I have never until today come across anyone who interpreted that remark of Mandelson's in the way it has been by pro Lisbon here. From John Pilger to Boris Johnson, nobody who read and heard that comment in its context took as anything other than the Mandelsonian slipperiness that it is. He was mooting an idea to help create the ground for EU centralisation while describing it as its exact opposite.

If you look back at the quotes and links you provided Aragon, there are two different lines coming from Mandelson. In 1998 (the first link) he was saying that parliamentary democracy needed to be supplemented by direct democracy, e.g. referenda and activism. I take it you would agree with that. This was from the Mandelson who was material in shaping New Labour in a populist style: for this job he needed insight into public priorities and focus groups were all the rage.

In the 2007 piece, he is in a different time and place: the EU. From that stand point, he sees National Government as of diminished importance. The man is a professional politician, and a cat with nine or more lives.

On the NWO stuff, I am shocked that you give it any credence. Hans Christian Andersen spins a much better story.

Hans Chrisitian Andersen, Brown, Bush, Bilderbergers all in the same boat then...

NWO:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=gordon+brown+new+world+order&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=george+bush+new+world+order&meta=

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=bilderberg+new+world+order&meta=

Yes Aragon, but what exactly do you mean by a New World Order? and what do you mean by a "Bilderberger"?

cactus flower wrote:

Yes Aragon, but what exactly do you mean by a New World Order? and what do you mean by a "Bilderberger"?

CF I'm taking new world order to mean what all these people have defined it as variously - Mandelson for instance has talked about the need to construct 'the architecture' for a truly global financial and political administration (linked to above). The EU is all a part of that project. The wars in the middle east are part of it too - as is the sabre rattling about South America and the utter bullshit being talked about the Chavez/Venezuelan faux threat - as is Project for the New American Century. An MEP I know met a delegation of Chinese government officials in Europe recently and they talked about the negotiations currently going on around constructing the third major world bloc in Asia and the Far East. They told the person quite openly that they were closely studying the EU model because the US federal system was too democratic and therefore too troublesome. They were mightily impressed with what the EU had been able to get away with!!! They actually said that, imagine!!

Peter Mandelson is a member of the Bilderberg group. He attended it this year (as he has previously) before being offered his new post by Brown - (as did George Osborne - which must be some part of the reason they were so chummy aboard that yacht this summer). Hilary Clinton is a Bilderberger and she too is in as Secretary of State in the Obama administration despite a hostile relationship with Obama. If you dont believe Bilderberg is real - there is a very funny piece written by Jon Ronson in the Guardian in 2001. He used to do a hilarious column series on quacks and conspiracy theorists but got the fright of his life when he took on the Bilderberg issue and discovered it to be true. Along the way, he discovered that Denis Healey, the former Labour Party Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of Bilderberg too and Ronson interviewed him to ask why he was involved and if he didnt think Bilderberg was undemocratic etc. Healey ended up telling him to 'fuck off'. But before he did that he said something like 'that's just not the way the world works' or something.

In fact, I've hunted out the exact quote for you below - but do read the whole article at the link - it's pricelessly funny but very chilling at the same time. Ronson wrote other articles about Bilderberg afterwards and I think was rather sorry he ever found out about it at the time - but he published the whole story in the Guardian (NB this conversation with Healey took place March 2001 - before 9/11):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/features.weekend

Quote :

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy."
"Does going help your career?" I asked.
"Oh yes," he said. Then he added, "Your new understanding of the world will certainly help your career."
"Which sounds like a conspiracy," I said.
"Crap!" said Denis Healey. "Idiocy! Crap! I've never heard such crap! That isn't a conspiracy! That is the world. It is the way things are done. And quite rightly so."
He added, "But I will tell you this. If extremists and leaders of militant groups believe that Bilderberg is out to do them down, then they're right. We are. We are against Islamic fundamentalism, for instance, because it's against democracy."
"Isn't Bilderberg's secrecy against democracy, too?" I asked.
"We aren't secret," he snapped. "We're private. Nobody is going to speak freely if they're going to be quoted by ambitious and prurient journalists like you who think it'll help your career to attack something that you have no knowledge of." I noticed a collection of photo albums on his mantelpiece. Denis Healey has always been a keen amateur photographer, so I asked him if he'd ever taken any pictures inside Bilderberg. "Oh yes," he said. "Lots and lots of photographs." I eyed the albums. Actually seeing the pictures, seeing the set-up, the faces, the mood - that would be something.
"Could I have a look at them?" I asked him. Lord Healey looked down at his lap. He thought about my request. He looked up again. "No," he said. "Fuck off."

Aragon wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Yes Aragon, but what exactly do you mean by a New World Order? and what do you mean by a "Bilderberger"?

CF I'm taking new world order to mean what all these people have defined it as variously - Mandelson for instance has talked about the need to construct 'the architecture' for a truly global financial and political administration (linked to above). The EU is all a part of that project. The wars in the middle east are part of it too - as is the sabre rattling about South America and the utter bullshit being talked about the Chavez/Venezuelan faux threat - as is Project for the New American Century. An MEP I know met a delegation of Chinese government officials in Europe recently and they talked about the negotiations currently going on around constructing the third major world bloc in Asia and the Far East. They told the person quite openly that they were closely studying the EU model because the US federal system was too democratic and therefore too troublesome. They were mightily impressed with what the EU had been able to get away with!!! They actually said that, imagine!!

Peter Mandelson is a member of the Bilderberg group. He attended it this year (as he has previously) before being offered his new post by Brown - (as did George Osborne - which must be some part of the reason they were so chummy aboard that yacht this summer). Hilary Clinton is a Bilderberger and she too is in as Secretary of State in the Obama administration despite a hostile relationship with Obama. If you dont believe Bilderberg is real - there is a very funny piece written by Jon Ronson in the Guardian in 2001. He used to do a hilarious column series on quacks and conspiracy theorists but got the fright of his life when he took on the Bilderberg issue and discovered it to be true. Along the way, he discovered that Denis Healey, the former Labour Party Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of Bilderberg too and Ronson interviewed him to ask why he was involved and if he didnt think Bilderberg was undemocratic etc. Healey ended up telling him to 'fuck off'. But before he did that he said something like 'that's just not the way the world works' or something.

In fact, I've hunted out the exact quote for you below - but do read the whole article at the link - it's pricelessly funny but very chilling at the same time. Ronson wrote other articles about Bilderberg afterwards and I think was rather sorry he ever found out about it at the time - but he published the whole story in the Guardian (NB this conversation with Healey took place March 2001 - before 9/11):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/features.weekend

Quote :

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy."
"Does going help your career?" I asked.
"Oh yes," he said. Then he added, "Your new understanding of the world will certainly help your career."
"Which sounds like a conspiracy," I said.
"Crap!" said Denis Healey. "Idiocy! Crap! I've never heard such crap! That isn't a conspiracy! That is the world. It is the way things are done. And quite rightly so."
He added, "But I will tell you this. If extremists and leaders of militant groups believe that Bilderberg is out to do them down, then they're right. We are. We are against Islamic fundamentalism, for instance, because it's against democracy."
"Isn't Bilderberg's secrecy against democracy, too?" I asked.
"We aren't secret," he snapped. "We're private. Nobody is going to speak freely if they're going to be quoted by ambitious and prurient journalists like you who think it'll help your career to attack something that you have no knowledge of." I noticed a collection of photo albums on his mantelpiece. Denis Healey has always been a keen amateur photographer, so I asked him if he'd ever taken any pictures inside Bilderberg. "Oh yes," he said. "Lots and lots of photographs." I eyed the albums. Actually seeing the pictures, seeing the set-up, the faces, the mood - that would be something.
"Could I have a look at them?" I asked him. Lord Healey looked down at his lap. He thought about my request. He looked up again. "No," he said. "Fuck off."

The problem with these groups are that they are inevitable, given that we have the same old people in charge. Look at the Clintons and Bushes in the US. They're friggin brand names!

If we are a democracy then we not only should have a plurality of ideas but a plurality of leaders.

Read anything on the Club de Madrid ?

There are all kinds of rich mens and politicians clubs.

All this fixation of them just obscures the fact that we live in an economic system in which there is a powerful class who own the vast proportion of capital, and the rest of us who work for our basic living, home and pension, and to make money for them.

Creating bogey men and focusing on bogey organisations to my mind explains nothing.

cactus flower wrote:

Read anything on the Club de Madrid ?

There are all kinds of rich mens and politicians clubs.

All this fixation of them just obscures the fact that we live in an economic system in which there is a powerful class who own the vast proportion of capital, and the rest of us who work for our basic living, home and pension, and to make money for them.

Creating bogey men and focusing on bogey organisations to my mind explains nothing.

Yup. There is a half truth about the global conspiracy theories in that it is natural for the super wealthy and teh super-powerful to meet up and carve up the world. Murdoch, Soros and Cliiniton dont need to agree on everything to agree on somethings. One of those things is keeping their positions.

Having extraordinary power as the afore-mentioned have, is however anti-republican. It is my belief that republicanism, which is not interested necessarily in how much wealth a citizen has, should ensure that all citziens are equal in terms of power and power to influence. That is why republicanism goes so well with democracy - and better still with direct democracy. As some american president said, a republic is an empire not of people, but of laws and we are all the same under the law. I know for a fact that in Europe and Ireland this is not the case. There is one law for the poor and there is a lighter law for the rich and powerful.