One of the misconceptions of both Marxism and Capitalism is the belief that Capitalism and Capital are divided into warring factions that only come together to battle in the "marketplace". As Mike Peters explains:
"I believe that one of the key assumptions often made by structural Marxists, namely that the capitalist class is always divided into competing fractions which have no mechanisms for co-ordination other than the state, is not empirically sustainable. Part of this misconception, it could be said, derives from an over-literal understanding of the concept of the 'market' as constituting the only social relation amongst different fractions of capital. At least as far as the very large, and above all, the international (or as we would say in today's jargon, the ‘global’) corporations are concerned, this is definitely not the case: very sophisticated organs do exist whereby these capitalist interests can and do hammer out common lines of strategy. Bilderberg is one of these mechanisms." (Source)
In other words, Peters believes that a corporate conspiracy is behind the Bilderburg Group. International corporations are the true enemies of the Middle Class. Not just in America, but across the globe. I believe that Globalism is embraced by multi-nationals for numerous reasons:
1. Cheapest possible manufacturing costs through the wage slavery of so called second and third world countries.
2. Corrupt and easily bribed/controlled political leadership that applies its laws to protect the multi-nationals and harass/destroy their local competition.
3. Control of the politicians also means control over a nation's military, which can then be used to help the multi-national acquire natural resources (like oil and gold) through military conquest.
4. Control over the intelligence agencies, which can be used to create propaganda, undermine political leaders and assassinate others that are targeted enemies of the multinational corporation.
5. Destruction of Patriotism and concepts of national sovereignty so that both the country that produces the cheaper goods, and the country that purchases the cheaper goods can be exploited in a manner that increases profits for the multi-national.
6. Promotion of illegal immigration as an alternative to more expensive labor in the targeted country for those goods and services that must be produced locally.
7. End of protective tariffs that create barriers for the mult-national corporations to dump their cheap, foreign goods, onto the targeted country's soil.
Peters goes on to explain:
"As the second world war drew to a close, the capitalist class in Western Europe was under severe threat from an upsurge of working class radicalism, the management of which required a strategy more sophisticated than conventional repression, and the first steps were taken, by political panes of both left and right, to develop 'corporatist' programmes based on a kind of national protectionism (Socialism).
By contrast, in the USA, the war had brought to dominance an internationally-oriented capitalist class who saw very clearly that their interests lay in a thorough 'liberalisation' of the world market, abolition of tariffs etc.. Only the false wisdom of hindsight could make the eventual Atlantic Alliance system that emerged by 1950 seem preordained by 'objective' historical forces. Indeed, so used have we become to hearing phrases like 'American imperialism' and witnessing US interventions throughout the world that we can forget just how difficult it was for this internationally oriented fraction of the American capitalist class to impose its agenda upon the US state: the deep-rooted tendency of American political culture has always been what Europeans call Isolationist' and it took extensive political work to drag the Americans into these foreign entanglements."
In other words, the United States needed to be taken from its Patriotic position as an isolationist with both tarrifs and strong Labor Unions, into a whole New World Order.
Enter the Unilever Executives that helped create the Bilderberger Group:
"The initiative for the first convocation came from Joseph Retinger, in conjunction with Paul Rijkens, President of Unilever. Retinger has already been introduced; and the significance of Unilever needs to be examined briefly. Unilever is one of the largest and most powerful multinational corporations in the world and one of the top European capitalist companies. In the 1950's the advisory directors of Unilever were as follows (and I'm drawing attention to the links with the Rotterdam Bank and Philips, the electrical firm):
· H.M. Hirschfield: also on the board of Philips and Rotterdam Bank and with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs during the war, and after it Commissioner for the Marshall Plan in the Netherlands;
· K.P. Van der Mandel, also on the board of Rotterdam Bank;
· Paul Rijkens: also on the board of Rotterdam Bank;
· H.L. Wolterson: also chair of Philips and on the board of Heldring and Pearson (linked with the Rotterdam Bank);
· P S.F Otten: also President of Philips (and married to a member of the Philips family)." (Ibid)
"...One of the unusual features of Unilever is its bi-national structure (Stokman et al, 1985): it is a jointly-owned AngloDutch company, with a 50/r0 structure and a unitary board. This was a very useful device during the war, when operations could be shifted easily from the Netherlands to the UK. Philips had a similar arrangement under a Dutch law called the Corvo Law, whereby in an emergency it could divide itself into two parts, which it did when the Germans invaded: one with its HQ in Germany and the other American. Both these parts got large military contracts during the war, playing a role on both sides (Aaronovitch 1961, pp. 110-11). Unilever's financial advisers are the US investment bank Lazard Freres, which handles the private financial affairs of many of the world's wealthy families, including the Agnellis of Fiat. (See Koenig, 1990, Reich. 1983, Business Week June 18 1984).
Unilever's chief adviser on international affairs was David Mitrany, whose book, A Working Peace Svstem, published in 1943, secured him this post. (He also worked for Chatham House). it was Mitrany who coined the term 'functionalism' to refer to the strategy of supra-national integration through a series of sectoral processes of internationalisation, designed to set in motion an autonomous logic, making inevitable further integration and ultimately making national states obsolete (Groom and Taylor p. 125 ff.). In the post-war period there were three basic models for European union: alongside the 'functionalists' (in this sense), were the 'inter-governmentalists' (e.g. Spaak) and the 'federalists' (e.g. Monnet himself). In the 1960s the functionalists used the slogan 'Atlantic Partnership' as the framework for the integration or synchronisation of US and European interests." (Ibid)
More in Next Article: Buy Silver Bullion/Coins Before Prices escalate! Email email@example.com
Important! Starting Monday, June 13, 2007, the Paul Drockton Radio Program will Start at 2 PM Pacific, 3 Mountain, 4 Central, 5 Eastern and run for two full hours on Renseradio.com (Click on the Windows Media Player to listen)