Published on Diena.lv
The linguistic and stylistic aspects of the so‑called Rīdzene conversations have already been evaluated multiple times, so let us turn our attention to the broader context of this text.
As is well known, the Rīdzene conversations were published around the Midsummer period this year, thereby pointing quite precisely to a symbolic date — the publication coincided with the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Grand Lodge of England, a landmark moment in the history of European political culture. On St. John the Baptist’s Day, June 24, 1717, four London Masonic lodges established a joint governing body that became the most influential Masonic organization, even though Masonic lodges — as well as other more or less closed associations, orders, and fraternities — had existed long before.
In the 18th and also the 19th century, the Freemasons had a relatively significant influence on politico‑economic decision‑making in Western Europe, with the British holding the dominant position. Masons in Germany and France looked to “guiding instructions” from Great Britain, which played a directing role in many historical turning points — for example, in Prussia’s war with France in 1870–71.
After this war — at the beginning of the Second Reich — German lodges became “national,” issuing a brazen challenge to British dominance. Yet, other changes were unfolding as well. The economy and trade had already become transnational, spanning not only different countries but entire continents, which created the need for instruments through which the economic groups and clans of that era could influence decision‑making across borders.
Cecil John Rhodes — a South Africa–based diamond‑mine magnate and politician born in Great Britain — at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries established a foundation bearing his name, which began awarding scholarships to talented students from the countries of the British Empire, the United States, and Germany for studies at the University of Oxford. The purpose of the foundation and its scholarships was to strengthen the global dominance of the Anglo‑Saxon elite. For a long period in the early 20th century, the structures created by Cecil Rhodes were led by Alfred Milner, who simultaneously held senior positions in the British government and took part in shaping decisions about the world order after the First World War.
Alongside the Germans, the British faced another emerging challenge — the United States. Freemasons had been involved in the founding of the US, and the country was rapidly growing in influence, preparing to become a dominant power that could not be countered. The British elite understood that, for this reason, forces needed to be united, while at the same time establishing sustainable influence within the US leadership — also through the activities of such foundations. The list of Rhodes Scholars, from the still‑active Rhodes Foundation, includes several four‑star US generals and Defense Department leaders, a CIA director, multiple senators and members of Congress, the CEO of CNN, President Clinton, as well as his campaign manager and personal attorney, along with numerous advisers to American presidents and secretaries of state.
In the 20th century, several other associations emerged — the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the society Le Siècle (including its offshoots and variants), among others. For many, these organizations are associated with conspiracy theories. This is likely unfounded. To advance the interests of global corporations and, above all, transnational financial capital, decision‑making instruments were needed — and still are. The preservation of dominant power and business interests drives the shaping of key national decisions. It is logical that the members of these associations include members of parliament, politicians, leaders of global corporations, major media outlets, and policy research centers. These organizations serve as forums where the actual power elite coordinates its views and actions on central global issues, which the participants then implement “each in their own sphere,” including enabling the media to explain the agreed‑upon position to the broader public in an accessible way. After the Bilderberg Group meeting in early June, its member Henry Kissinger travels to Moscow to meet President Putin — and this is yet another of their regular meetings.
In the West, the actual power and authority of political parties, governments, and even the elected President of the United States has been declining — this conclusion was drawn by Samuel Huntington and other authors of the study The Crisis of Democracy in the early 1970s (commissioned by the Trilateral Commission). In their view, the vulnerability of democratic governance in the US stems not from internal or external threats, but from democracy’s own internal dynamics, whose development, therefore, should be kept within certain limits. The study thus serves both as an analytical description of the Western political system of the 1960s–70s and as an intellectual foundation for the operational model of the Trilateral Commission.
It seems that the central question within these closed associations is power — specifically, the preservation of Western (that is, the dominant economic clans’) global supremacy.
If the protagonists of the Rīdzene conversations, with barely a dozen years of experience in political “engineering,” appear to more or less — seemingly — “manage” the appointment and use of certain officials or journalists, then closed associations with centuries‑deep expertise and rigorous personnel selection should be capable of steering global processes. When looking at these processes in everyday life, it is not always easy to connect individual events into a single chain.
The list of students taught by Zbigniew Brzezinski — director of the Trilateral Commission and professor at Columbia University — once included a young Barack Obama, then a little‑known aspiring politician. Some thirty years later, Brzezinski publicly and warmly recommended supporting him in the presidential election. One might say that the Commission “appointed” a president, or perhaps it was simply an audaciously unfortunate coincidence. The boundary between real decision‑making and conspiracy‑minded interpretation is easy to cross.
Perhaps there is a grain of truth in every joke — even when US Secretary of State Kissinger (who is also a member of the Bilderberg Group) described one of his operating principles to the Turkish minister in March 1975: “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.”
The “mechanics” of power are not immediately easy to discern; one needs the endurance of Sisyphus to carry such research through to victory. The path from the viewpoint of a closed association to legally binding decisions of a parliament or government is far from transparent, even though many of the intellectual leaders of these associations have not concealed their views (perhaps unlike the primary beneficiaries).
Fortunately, in Latvia and elsewhere, alongside these “conspirators” there are always active and honest people who expose blatant violations of the law and of the interests of the majority. For example, on the website Desmogblog one can read how energy companies in the United States are currently, in effect, taking over state power by installing leaders of energy‑regulating institutions at the highest levels in pursuit of their narrow interests. Nancy MacLean is not the only outspoken researcher — the United States also has its own “Rīdzene conversations,” and they too must be confronted.
Why is it necessary to recall these few well‑known pages of history? When marking major anniversaries and commemorations, we tend to identify with the Western world primarily through its bright chapters, without pretending not to see its darker ones as well.
* – The author has no employment, legal, or financial ties to any of the parties involved in the conversations or their publication. The purpose of this article is to examine the event within a broader historical context and to express respect for steadfast civic responsibility.
