This article was banned by the Financial Times editor back in the seventies. C. Gordon Tether lost his job at the FT because he refused to bow to self-censorship and editorial pressure. It shows just how fraudulent the concept of a 'free press' can be in the West as well as being fitting memory to his integrity. 03May76 - Banned Financial Times 'Lombard' column - The Prince and the Bilderbergers -- Introduction - by C. Gordon TetherOn the afternoon of 20th July last, a letter from the Editor of the Financial Times, Mr M. H. Fisher, arrived on my desk. It was to inform me that he was no longer prepared to publish my copy in the Lombard column, which from that moment would be written by other writers on his staff.
This marked a new turn in the struggle, in which I had been engaged for some three years, to preserve the independence of the internationally renowned column I had created and had written daily without interruption, holidays apart, for more than twenty years.Beyond a sentence inserted at the foot of the column a few days later saying that I had ceased to write it, no explanation was offered for my sudden departure and no indication given that it was not my wish nor my intention to desert the column.The attack on my independence had taken several forms, of which the most conspicuous was the total suppression of columns on an ever-increasing scale.In all nearly fifty articles suffered this fate, about half of this number during the six months before I was finally exiled on 20th July 1976.Al these banned articles are now being published for two reasons. In the first place, many of those who were not acquainted with the background may have been puzzled by the Financial Times'' treatment of my column, or may have gained a false impression of what was involved. They will now be able to see for themselves what they were being denied the opportunity of reading.Secondly, their publication can make a useful contribution to the important debate on Press freedom now taking place with special regard to the writer''s duty - as expressed in the NUJ''s code of conduct - ''to defend the principle of freedom of the Press in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism''.The Editor of the Financial Times wrote to me on 8th July 1974, ''...like any other journalist on this paper you are subject to the directives of the Editor who alone decides what appears or does not appear in the Financial Times.'' My experience will demonstrate what one interpretation of this proposition can mean for a writer who has devoted the whole of his working life to the creation of a responsible column that has made a not inconsiderable contribution to the national and international debate.-- C Gordon Tether, February 15th 1977Article 30 in ''The banned articles of C. Gordon Tether''This censored Financial Times'' ''Lombard'' Column was written 3rd May 1976 Published in Verdict - November 1976The Prince and the BilderbergersWhatever the conclusions reached by the committee which the Dutch Government has very sensibly set up to inquire into the charge that Prince Bernhard was a recipient of Lockheed largess, one thing is certain.It is that the affair will breathe new life into that long-smoldering controversy over the role that the Bilderberg group and its clandestine get-togethers play in world economics and business affairs. For the prince took a large part in the formation of this organisation, its first meeting having been held under his chairmanship in 1954. And, as the president, he has been the master of ceremonies at its annual conferences ever since.A pamphlet published by an organisation calling itself the ''American Friends of Bilderberg'' says that the group owes its origin to the fact that, in the early 1950''s a number of people on both sides of the Atlantic were seeking a means of bringing together leading citizens - in and out of government - for informal discussions on problems facing the Atlantic community. ''It was felt'' it goes on, ''that such meetings would create a better understanding of the forces and trends affecting Western nations, and, in particular, would help to clear up differences and misunderstandings that might weaken the West.''Nothing much wrong with that, you might say. Are there not, indeed, many other organisations that concern themselves with the same good cause? And this being so, why should the activities of the Bilderberg group be singled out for special attention - and largely hostile attention at that?Two ReasonsThere seems to be two main reasons for this. One is that the ''Bilderbergers'' have always insisted upon clothing their comings and goings in the closest secrecy. Until a few years back, this was carried to such lengths that their annual conclave went entirely unmarked in the world''s Press. In the more recent past, the veil has been raised to the extent of letting it be known that the meetings were taking place. But the total ban on the reporting of what went on has remained in force.This acute concern with privacy is usually justified on the grounds - as the American Friends of Bilderberg put it - that ''the gatherings have to be closed and off the record in order to assure freedom of speech and opinion.'' But there has been an inevitable tendency for conspiratologists to argue that only those with something to hide could consistently behave in such clandestine fashion.The other main reason why the Bilderberg set-up has come to be a favourite target for the finger of suspicion is to be found in the nature of its ''cast-list''. There are no members of Bilderberg as such. ''Each year'' - and again I quote - ''an invitation list is compiled by Prince Bernhard in consultation with an informal international steering committee.'' Yet invariably included in the 80 to 100 participants are representatives of many of the world''s largestcapitalist empires - men wielding immense power in the fields of economics and business. And many of these attend all the meetings , along with a number of ''regulars'' operating in other parts of the corridors of power - one of them being Mr. Healy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.EvidenceIt is this close identification with the megaton-weights of the international business community that has encouraged the growth of the idea that Bilderbergism is the arm of a movement whose main aim is to create - ''a world fit for multinationals to live in'' - which may indeed even see itself as spear-heading the establishment of World Government by such interests. And it is because of this that prince Bernhard's involvement in the Lockheed affair must be expected to give new impetus to the Bilderberg controversy.It naturally has to be accepted that the Prince did not take bribes from Lockheed unless and until the investigating body has proved otherwise. But this does not alter the fact that there is a strong suggestion in what has emerged so far that he was involved in some degree in the ''wheeling and dealing'' processes which have evidently played an extremely important part in the international fight for aircraft business.There is no difficulty in seeing that this does not prove anything so far as the Bilderberg group is concerned. But it would hardly be surprising if the fact that light of this kind has been thrown on the activities of its top man was not seized upon as supporting evidence by those who maintain that Bilderbergism is an unseen force of great significance in world affairs that we aught to know a lot more about. I should add that official accounts I have seen of Bilderberg meetings issued on a ''personal and strictly confidential'' basis do not contain anything that would not rank as standard fare at any international conference whose purpose was ''to clear up differences and misunderstandings that might weaken the West.''But any conspiratologist who has the Bilderbergers in his sights will quickly make the point that the real meat of their discussions - the alleged global conspiracy work - will find no place in such documentation and then proceed to ask why it is that, if there is so little to hide, so much effort is devoted to hiding it?
http://www.bilderberg.org/bilder.htm#banned
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=117&contentid=516