London Guardian 
June 11, 2010
The word “Bilderberg” attracts mud like lazy thought processes attract idiots. For decades now, one mention of “Bilderberg” has been enough to brand you a nut. An ultra-left/right/whoknowswhat-wing paranoid nut with some kind of existential dysmorphia and a coathanger wrapped round your head so you can pick up drivetime radio on Neptune.
These days, it’s changed. These days, if you don’t know what Bilderberg is, you look out of touch. If you chuckle it off, and say it’s just an over-70s golf weekend, you sound ill-informed. If you think it’s a “conspiracy” you need to flick back a few pages in the dictionary. The word you’re looking for is “conference”.
A four-day conference held in secret, with a €10m security budget, run by David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and the Queen of the Netherlands. Nothing weird about that. Nothing to see here. Move along. What undoubtedly was weird about Bilderberg 2010 is that Kissinger chose to hold it in Spain. He’s not exactly on Spain’s Christmas card list.
“If he was here now, if Henry Kissinger was here, I was arrest him, and it would be” – and here the police officer noosed his fingers around his throat, and delivered the universal sound of a wrung neck – “it would be kkkkkrrrchkk”.
The policeman didn’t seem to see the absurdity of the situation. He was a Spanish policeman who’d just spent four days standing outside a Spanish hotel, protecting a man wanted for questioning in Spain about war crimes. People were getting arrested for trying to take photographs of someone who should have been getting arrested. Some comfort: at least we got the photos. (Well done Quierosaber, it was worth the dehydration cramps).
It’s an odd thing. George Osborne goes four times in a row to Kissinger’s long and lavish conference, no one raises an eyebrow. But if he so much as popped his head into Broadmoor for Peter Sutcliffe’s birthday party, there’d be an outcry. I don’t get it.
Another thing I don’t get: the consensus that Bilderberg is supposed to form and its relationship to all our welfares. But that discussion is for another time – perhaps sooner rather than later. For now, it’s just incredible that we can talk about Bilderberg at all: we can start addressing its agenda (as published on its website). We can examine its role in the formation of public policy.
These are questions for serious people: the spectrum of political debate must expand to fit the facts. Morons will still twirp out their “tin hat” halfwitticisms, but they sound oddly dated.