Watch out for Imitations! – Conspiracy Archive

Paperwork Alleging Bilderberg Interference in Spanish Politics within the Seventies are Doubtless Fabrications

By Will Banyan (Copyright © July 2023)

Among the numerous exploits attributed to the devious machinations of the Bilderberg Group, which not too long ago held its 69th meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, is that it had a hand in cultivating and in the end establishing then Prince Juan Carlos of Borbon as head of state to exchange Spanish dictator Normal Franco properly earlier than the latter’s loss of life in 1975. Supporting these allegations are two paperwork: the primary is allegedly from a Bilderberg Group assembly in 1968, discussing the findings of a working group on Franco’s alternative (hereafter the “BWG Report”); and the second is presupposed to be a memorandum signed by Henry Kissinger in 1973 in his function as Richard Nixon’s Nationwide Safety Advisor, directing {that a} research be undertaken into the impression of Franco’s loss of life on US pursuits and, extra considerably, the finished research ought to be shared with the Bilderberg Steering Committee (hereafter, the “Kissinger Memorandum”. Copies of 1 or each of those paperwork are to be discovered within the 2011 ebook El Precio Del Trono (The Value of the Throne) by Spanish investigative journalist Pilar Urbano; the 2015 ebook Los planes del club Bilderberg para España (The Bilderberg Group’s Plans for Spain) by Spanish journalist Cristina Martín Jiménez; and within the Spanish version of Self-importance Honest (May 30, 2012).¹

It my competition that each of those paperwork are fabrications. Not solely is the windfall of those paperwork unknown, however they fail to adapt with the conventions of both Bilderberg assembly reviews or memoranda produced by the Nationwide Safety Council (NSC) throughout the Nixon Administration. Furthermore, the content material of each paperwork battle with different identified info concerning the Bilderberg Conferences on the time. For these causes, detailed under, each paperwork ought to be handled as fabrications by anybody searching for to grasp the Bilderberg Group’s political affect.

Doc 1: The 1968 “Bilderberg Working Group” Report

The primary doc, reproduced under (Determine 1), is described by Self-importance Honest as an “unique doc from the [Bilderberg] Membership” which describes how a “working group created advert hoc insisted on Franco that Prince Juan Carlos be his successor.” Urbano quotes extensively from the BWG Report back to help her account of Bilderberg’s seventeenth assembly, which was held in Mount Tremblant in Canada over 26-28 April, 1968, the place:

One of many objects on the agenda was entitled “Prospects of Choosing Juan Carlos of Borbon as successor to Generalissimo Francisco Franco.”

Earlier than the assembly, two dossiers ready by an advert hoc working group led by the previous Undersecretary of State, George W. Ball, had been distributed as background and fundamental materials to debate this subject, who, when presenting them to the attendees, acknowledged: “There’s a pretty widespread settlement in having Juan Carlos de Borbon to imagine the place because the nation’s successor on the head of his nation on the time of Generalissimo’s loss of life.”

“On this spirit, the Working Group proposed that it’s harassed upon Francisco Franco that the long run Prince not solely is completely educated to take up the excessive mission to which he may be known as but additionally possesses the qualities essential to turn out to be the long run king.”

That advice–with the sturdy help of those that subscribed to it–removed from being an empty want, was going to translate very quickly right into a political reality. What the Bilderbergers expressed was that the Prince was already had the approval of all these highly effective metagroups [pp.325-326]

In an endnote, Urbano describes the BWG Report as follows:

Unique doc in English of the Bilderberg Membership relating to this topic, as acknowledged on the seventeenth assembly, held in Mount Tremblant, Canada, from April 26 to twenty-eight, 1968. On the folio seems, following the typescript, a mass of black ink: some later censor crossed out varied strains associated exactly to the dialogue about the way forward for Spain (p.880).

The BWG Report can also be cited repeatedly by Cristina Martín Jiménez, additionally a prolific chronicler of Bilderberg, in quite a few books and articles. This contains her 2017 doctoral thesis on the Bilderberg Group in a desk itemizing the non-public conclave’s “major milestones” (see Determine 2). Jiménez additionally refers to it in an annex of “Official paperwork of the Bilderberg conferences and personal recordsdata”, labelling it as “Bilderberg apoya a Juan Carlos como futuro Rey en 1968 [Bilderberg supports Juan Carlos as future King in 1968]” (p.22, Anexo 11).

In an article in El Mundo (May 16, 2017), Martin Jimenez quoted repeatedly from the BWG Report back to help a narrative of Bilderberg-instigated perfidy and interference in Spain’s transition from Franco’s dictatorship in direction of a brand new type of authorities:

Early within the morning of April 26, 1968 , town of Mont Tremblant, within the province of Quebec (former French colony), Canada, started to obtain its first company. In complete, 76 members from the Authorities and politics, the college, journalism, diplomacy, business, justice, banking, the military, espionage, in addition to foundations and worldwide organizations from Western Europe and the US to have a good time the 73rd Bilderberg assembly .

The membership met within the ‘darkish’ to debate the upcoming way forward for Spain and not using a single Spaniard being current within the room. The marked absence couldn’t stop these manipulators from powerfully influencing the future of every one among us.

On the given second, the time got here for the controversy on the way forward for Spain beneath the heading ‘The chances of choosing Juan Carlos de Borbón as successor to Generalissimo Francisco Franco’ . Then, as mirrored within the official minutes, the moderator expressed the next:

“The substance of the controversy relies on two working paperwork – each ready by the Particular Working Group chaired by former Below Secretary of State George Ball – distributed earlier than the assembly. These paperwork, and the overall observations of their writer previous to the assembly are summarized under.

The previous US Undersecretary of State started by mentioning that there’s a pretty widespread settlement for Juan Carlos de Borbón to imagine workplace as successor of the Nation on the time of the Generalissimo’s loss of life . The Working Group proposes to insist to Franco that the long run prince will not be solely completely certified to imagine the excessive mission, however that he additionally possesses the required qualities to turn out to be the long run king.”

The arduous core of Bilderberg and the particular Working Group made their intentions identified to the remainder of the members in order that all of them labored to persuade Franco that Juan Carlos was the perfect amongst all of the candidates.

On nearer examination the BWG Report seems to be two excerpts from the convention report for the 1968 assembly. The primary half is presumably from the introduction, whereas the second half, under the road, is supposedly from web page 23 of the report. However this pastiche, with its crude but dramatic redactions, is revealed as an apparent faux as soon as it’s in comparison with the precise report for the 1968 assembly, copies of which may be present in quite a few areas together with: the Shepard Stone papers on the library at Darmouth Faculty; a French-language version on the web site of the Rome-based Institute of International Affairs; and on the Public Intelligence website, which has collected a considerable number of Bilderberg documents from various institutions.

We would observe that the windfall of the BWG Report utilized by Urbano is much less clear. Urbano doesn’t cite a supply, and nor does Martin Jimenez, however on the Vanity Fair web site, Daniel Estulin, writer of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2005) is recognized as holding the copyright for this “unique doc”:

Maybe Mr Estulin can make clear the origins of the BWG Report.² However, as soon as we examine the authenticated 1968 Bilderberg assembly report with this supposedly “unique doc”, there are a number of indicators of fabrication.

First, there’s a downside with the safety markings, highlighted under, which seem on the high of the web page from this alleged Bilderberg doc:

However these markings solely seem on the entrance cowl of the Bilderberg assembly reviews:

Second, there are important issues within the 4 paragraphs of the BWG Report, highlighted under, that make up the Introduction:

The principal downside is the phrases and content material are considerably totally different to that within the verified assembly report for the 1968 Bilderberg assembly. As may be seen under on this excerpt from web page 9 of that doc:

Key variations embody:

• The BWG Report refers back to the assembly having been “held in Mont Tremblant”, whilethe precise report describes it as “the Lodge at Mont Tremblant”;
• the BWG Report claims there have been 76 members, while the genuine report offers a determine of 87;
• the small print concerning the members are additionally introduced totally different order with variations within the wording;
• the BWG Report refers to “no reporters being admitted”, in comparison with “the press not being admitted” within the unique; and
• within the last line, the place Prince Bernhard refers to Bilderberg’s “guidelines of process” will not be included within the introduction to the 1968 report, however seems later, on web page 13, with Prince Bernhard opening the assembly.

The explanation for these discrepancies is as a result of the introduction to the BWG Report has been copied virtually verbatim from the Introduction to the report for the 1973 Bilderberg meeting, however with just a few adjustments, resembling the placement, dates, the (incorrect) variety of members, and the primary merchandise of the agenda. In any other case, the paragraphs highlighted under from web page 9 of the 1973 report precisely match the wording used within the BWG Report:

That is, in itself, clear proof that this “unique doc” is a faux, a conclusion that’s repeatedly validated when the second a part of the BWG Report is scrutinized:

First, this excerpt mentions the writer of a Bilderberg paper within the textual content. This by no means occurred in Bilderberg assembly reviews at the moment. In actual fact, not one of the presenters are recognized in Bilderberg assembly reviews till the 1981 Burgenstock Conference:

In any other case for the 1968 report, as with all different Bilderberg assembly reviews throughout that and subsequent decade this was the usual format the place solely the nationality of the participant was recognized. This clearly was in step with the Chatham Home Guidelines of not figuring out audio system, and as an alternative anonymising them as on this case from the 1968 report with one speaker recognized solely because the “German participant”:

So, to call George Ball as a presenter in 1968 was fully at odds with the conventions of the time for making ready Bilderberg assembly reviews.

Second, this is web page 23 from the convention report for the 1968 Bilderberg assembly:

Third, and at last, Spain will not be listed as a person subject in any Bilderberg assembly report between 1968 and 1975. In actual fact, there may be no point out of Spain within the reviews for the 1968, 1970, 1971, 1973 and 1974 Bilderberg conferences; Spain is talked about solely twice within the 1969 report (pp. 15 & 45); as soon as within the 1972 report (p.69), and as soon as once more within the 1975 report (p.74). All mentions of Spain are fleeting. In abstract, there isn’t any proof that any sustained dialogue about Spain after Franco occurred at any Bilderberg assembly throughout the interval in query. For all these causes the BWG Report ought to be thought-about a blatant fabrication.

Doc 2: The 1973 Kissinger Memorandum

The second doc is purportedly a minute or memorandum signed by Henry Kissinger on February 11, 1973 (see Determine ) informing the Departments of State, Protection and the CIA that President Nixon had directed them to organize a paper on the “impression of Normal…Franco’s loss of life on U.S. safety and abroad pursuits.” The research is to “stay up for a minimum of till the 12 months 1982”, and will “embody evaluation of Prince Juan Carlos of Borbon’s future function as King.” A very powerful element, although, by way of supporting allegations of Bilderberg interference, is the final sentence which insists the research ought to be made out there to the “Bilderberg Steering Committee by April, 14, 1973.”

This alleged memorandum from Kissinger seems to be sole supply for Urbano’s account, which claims that on the April 1973 Bilderberg assembly held in Saltsjobaden in Sweden, George Ball introduced a paper on “Spain After Franco” that mentioned “Spain’s fascinating opening to democracy and the long run function of Juan Carlos.” This report got here from the “eggheads of the Nationwide Safety Council [who] had been making ready it since February by order of President Nixon to be evaluated on the Bilderberg assembly” (p.458). Within the paperwork in the back of the ebook, Urbano gives the next commentary:

In February 1973, President Nixon ordered a research on the impression that the loss of life of Franco and the foreseeable political adjustments may have on United States pursuits when Juan Carlos was king. Likewise, he ordered a cautious monitoring of the Prince “till a minimum of 1982”. On this doc, issued by Kissinger from the Division of State, official reviews from the Nationwide Safety Council, the CIA, the Treasury and Protection had been to be collected and despatched to the Bilderberg Steering Committee. Yet another proof of their overlapping politics.

Self-importance Honest presents the memorandum as proof of Henry Kissinger’s “curiosity…in monitoring Prince Juan Carlos based mostly on North American pursuits after the loss of life of Franco.”

Determine 3: The Kissinger Memorandum (Self-importance Honest)

However, just like the BWG Report, there are glorious causes to query its authenticity. The obvious downside is its windfall: it’s supposedly a US Authorities doc, however Urbano offers no supply or archive from the place this doc got here from. Whereas Self-importance Honest merely cites Daniel Estulin as its supply, who once more seems to be claiming copyright over what is meant to be a US Authorities doc:

This doc, with its NSC letterhead and Kissinger’s signature, seems to be a Nationwide Safety Research Memoranda or NSSM because it instructs varied businesses to begin a research. In accordance with the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum the NSSMs had been:

formal directives issued by the President or the Assistant to the President for Nationwide Safety Affairs (Henry A. Kissinger) that fee research of specific points referring to U.S. nationwide safety and overseas coverage.

Typically the memos instruct recipient businesses to handle or to reply particular questions. The Nationwide Safety Council and the Administration would then talk about these research throughout the determination making course of. 

With its wording directing the “preparation of a paper”, the doc actually seems to be an NSSM, however there a number of indicators this doc is a faux.

First, the Nixon Administration produced precisely 206 NSSMS virtually of which have been declassified³ and may be discovered on the Nixon Library website. This doc, which is dated February 11, 1973, will not be on the web site. In actual fact, there have been no NSSMs issued about Spain throughout that month:

Second, one other essential element is that every NSSM from the Nixon Administration has a quantity as may be seen right here:

However this doc is, for some purpose, and not using a quantity:

Third, being paperwork produced by the NSC, every NSSM additionally has a safety classification:

A characteristic that’s, but once more, unusually lacking from this doc, which is extraordinary because the three NSSMs that had been about Spain – NSSM 46 (April 21, 1969), NSSM 179 (April 9, 1973), and NSSM 193 (February 15, 1974) – had been all categorized “SECRET”:

Fourth, there are a number of different formatting points. The type font on the letterhead doesn’t match that of the real NSSMs; the paragraphs are all indented, whereas there isn’t any paragraph indention in unique NSSMs; and the dotted line throughout the highest can also be at odds with the looks of the opposite NSSMs.

Fifth, the memorandum mentions that to assist put together the paper that President Nixon had “directed the creation of an Advert Hoc Working Group chaired by the previous Undersecretary of State…” It’s odd, if not inexplicable, that this “former Undersecretary of State” will not be named on this supposedly official doc. Odd as a result of there have been a minimum of 5 different former Undersecretaries of State, aside from George Ball, alive on the time who may have assumed this function. It’s the kind of mistake a fabricator would possibly make, after having recognized Ball because the lead of the working group within the BWG Report. And but, there isn’t any proof the George Ball or some other former Undersecretary of State led a working group for Bilderberg or the US Authorities throughout the Nixon Administration about Spain after Franco.

Lastly, the doc is dated “February 11, 1973”, which moreover being a Sunday was additionally the date that Kissinger happed to be Hanoi for peace talks to finish the Vietnam Warfare. Kissinger was in Hanoi from 10 through to 13 February.

This naturally raises the query of how and when did Kissinger signal it? If he someway signed it earlier than he left for North Vietnam, why not on or simply earlier than the date he departed? That the doc is faux explains this discrepancy.

In abstract, this “unique doc” can also be a moderately crude faux. To make certain it duplicates some components of the shape and content material of a NSSM, but additionally misses many different essential particulars that expose it as a fabrication. It’s also noteworthy that neither Urbano nor Martin Jimenez have been in a position to corroborate by means of different extra dependable archival sources that Ball was tasked by the Nixon Administration to steer a research on Spain’s post-Franco future. The power of the Bilderberg Group conferences to affect transatlantic politics is to not be underestimated. However the processes are extra delicate than may be supposed, nonetheless this has not stopped many conspiracist researchers from believing the worst and both misinterpreting Bilderberg meeting reports, or on this case, being taken in by forgeries. As present by the evaluation above, each the BWG Report and the Kissinger Memorandum usually tend to be fakes than not. Researchers searching for proof of elite malfeasance, and notably of Bilderberg sub rosa affect, are greatest suggested to keep away from them. If there’s a lesson on this it’s the similar one I’ve raisedpreviously: to keep away from each embarrassment and deceptive readers, test your sources women and gents!