Routine research into an obscure honorary position within the Bilderberg Group revealed a far-less-discussed grouping — the UK-based Ditchley Foundation — which, from an American perspective, radiated like a rather new outfit at first, but somewhat surprisingly is actually only a tad younger than Bilderberg.
This UK Column writer, a follower of the Bilderbergers’ machinations since 2010, also found that, while Ditchley’s ideological kinship with Bilderberg resembles the Trilateral Commission’s relationship with Bilderberg — as if the Trilaterals and Ditchley are its younger philosophical siblings — Ditchley has its own distinct flavour and is seen as a 'magnificent crucible of ideas'.
That’s how the then UK Ambassador to the US, Lord Peter Mandelson, upon delivering the keynote speech at Ditchley’s Annual Lecture in September 2025, described Ditchley, which was founded by the well-regarded philanthropist Sir David Wills (1917-1999), a devoutly Christian descendant of Imperial Tobacco’s founding family. He established the parent Ditchley Foundation in the UK in 1958, whereas Bilderberg was founded in 1954.
It’s an open question whether Mr Wills, given the accounts of his warm personality and solid values, would have wanted Ditchley to largely become a geopolitical think tank that focuses a lot on war.
That above-noted honorary Bilderberg position, by the way, was 'American secretary general', which Bilderberg’s hopelessly opaque media department — upon finally answering an email from this writer — said has been abolished. The position had been occupied over several years, but only by six people. Georgetown University diplomacy professor Casimir Yost was the last person to fill it.
But Mr Yost evidently is not resting on his globalist laurels, as he is one of 32 directors of Ditchley’s American affiliate, formed in 1964. (A Canadian branch was founded in 1981).
This US linkage fits into a longtime, defining theme of the Ditchley Foundation: to improve Anglo-American relations — the very topic which Lord Mandelson largely focused on at that Annual Lecture — which is especially relevant since mid-2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence from the British Monarchy.
Mandelson stated at that lecture: "[O]nce Britain had recognised America’s independence, our two nations gradually discovered we had more in common than in dispute—notwithstanding the temporary setback of the War of 1812".
And while Mandelson didn’t happen to state at the lecture that a Bank of England-style central bank was set up in the US in the War of 1812’s aftermath to inaugurate perhaps humankind’s most implacable enemy — a debt-based money system — he did add the following item, which turned out to be true as the baton of world empire eventually passed from British to American hands: "At the Treaty of Paris celebrations in 1783 a French guest predicted that the thirteen American states would form the world’s greatest empire".
A Closer Look at the Network
Let’s look more closely at how Ditchley fits into the scheme of things in the world governance realm:
While Bilderberg is the most secretive of the groups named here, and is notorious for publishing a last-minute, ridiculously general, and often-vague list of 12-plus topics — and a presumably accurate list of about 140 attendees for its annual meeting — the Trilaterals and Ditchley are comparatively more open about the details of their topics.
But, given the almost total lack of media coverage about the Trilaterals and Ditchley — which, ironically, is even less than what’s afforded to the more secretive Bilderberg Meetings — these three organisations nevertheless constitute a semi-visible but rarely discussed network of influence that churns away while most eyes and media cameras are on Prime Ministers, Parliaments, the US President, Congress, etc. And although these organisations are not formally or legally connected, they don’t have to be, since they share a particular ideological orientation.
Ditchley Is the Busiest
In additional to its Annual Lecture, Ditchley holds the most frequent conferences, usually 10-12 per year with just one topic per gathering, with reasonably open publicity on the details of each meeting, but largely after the fact.
Yet, the names of Ditchley’s conference attendees, if they are revealed at all, are often less known than the details of their discussions. As for the Trilaterals, each year they hold their main global meeting and three regional meetings. A general list of its North American, European, and Asian members is published, but the exact people attending these meetings is not disclosed, although the topics with some sundry details are eventually made available.
Although these organisations produce some useful research papers and organize informative conferences, they are lavishly funded to keep the world’s ‘ships of state’ on a globalist course.
Ditchley’s UK funding sources include the initial and sustained long-term core funding from the Wills family, as well as complimentary funds from the American and Canadian Ditchley affiliates, as well as fundraising ‘development campaigns’, individual donations and investments, and revenue from Ditchley Park’s commercial activities.
Some of the foundations that financially help support Ditchley seem innocent enough.
To name two, the Cyrus Tang Foundation, which centres on addressing issues in China, seeks solutions to major problems in education, healthcare, and community development; while the Sugar Land, Texas-based John H and Marjorie N Glasgow Foundation focuses on education, “international communication programs”, and “fighting poverty”.
A larger Ditchley donor, the Chicago-based John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, which is well-known for its longtime support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the US (PBS; roughly the equivalent of the BBC), plunked down $500,000 to Ditchley in 2024.
MacArthur is perhaps the most ‘globalist’ of Ditchley’s funders, as it gives the usual nod to "climate change”, while supporting the restoration and revitalization of “local news” in pursuit of what MacArthur defines as a “free press”, among other typical neoliberal, world governance-based pursuits.
MacArthur, via its website, declares: "Among the many challenges facing American democracy, there is one inextricably connected [to various problems]: the steady disappearance of local news … A local news renaissance is in sight if we can help accelerate the transformation".
“Local news,” in this context, assuredly means the same stale narrative about climate change and other pet issues brought down to the local level.
Indeed, MacArthur, like Ditchley, places great emphasis on preventing the legacy media cartel’s narrative from crumbling, in order to protect the seemingly sacrosanct monetary, informational, and political status quo that gives the current world’s ruling power structure the leverage it needs to try and maintain its hegemony over an increasingly well-informed population that gets its news more and more from genuine alternative sources.
Built-in Media Malpractice
This is where things get quite revealing, as Ditchley’s structural fabric is a tight weave of various think tank linkages and journalistic conflicts of interest. Thus, all the noble chatter about ridding the world of disinformation and establishing local news outlets that will somehow challenge the usual strongholds of the world’s power structure fails to hold up to scrutiny.
Consider the above-mentioned Mr Yost, for instance; he’s the former director of the Strategic Futures Group, a forecasting arm of the US National Intelligence Council. He serves on Ditchley’s American affiliate alongside the German Marshall Fund’s US President Heather Conley. He also works with the Council on Foreign Relations’ Senior Vice President (and Director of Studies) Dr. Shannon K. O’Neil, and with the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Dr. Kori Schake.
That is a bevy of both neoliberal (e.g. the CFR) and neoconservative (e.g. AEI) interests.
Another American Ditchley director, David Sanger, who’s a Trilateral Commission member and White House and National Security correspondent for The New York Times, is not the only media figure neck-deep in this plutocratic power clique, thereby abandoning the very meaning of speaking truth to power.
Steven Erlanger, the Times’ chief correspondent in Europe, has ascended even higher up this power ladder, joining the exclusive 41-member Ditchley Governor’s Panel — alongside former UK MI6 spy chief Sir John Sawers, a member of the Bilderberg Association ‘charity’, member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee and, of course, a regular Bilderberg conference attendee, including in 2025 in Stockholm.
The Ditchley Governor’s Panel is overseen by Ditchley’s Council of Management. The Council’s members are trustees of the main UK-based Ditchley Foundation. So, it’s particularly improper that BBC reporter James Landale is among the 11 members on this even more exclusive Council. Those members, notably, serve four-year terms.
Will the UK’s Military Conscription Return?
Of particular interest as 2025 sunsets is the published outcome of Ditchley’s ‘Defending Europe: How to Fund and Organise European Defence and Prepare Our Societies’ meeting that ran on 7-9 November at the group’s sprawling home base, the posh Ditchley Park mansion and grounds in rural Oxfordshire; there, UK military conscription was contemplated.
That topic emerged during a discussion that centred on what amounts to propagandising the people of Europe into maintaining a mentality of war — indeed, a readiness for it. That mindset seeds the defence industry, the funding of which, the Ditchley members concurred, won’t be sustainable unless the people of greater Europe can be convinced that dangerous foes are a clear and present danger — at all times.
Ditchley’s concise summary of the November meeting cited various matters, including an assumed need for greater industrial output due to an anticipated sharp downturn in US military assistance and coordination with Europe, combined with the spectre of nonstop current and future threats to Europe.
For one thing, the Ditchley attendees at that November gathering stated afterwards in their summary:
It is imperative that Europe not only increases its defence spending but also ensures these funds are allocated sensibly and invested in 'the right stuff' that meets current as well as future threats. Defining these essential military capabilities to enhance European security is paramount. Furthermore, Europe must significantly boost its defence industrial capacity to meet rising demand and reduce critical external dependencies [on the US, for example].
The summary went on to say:
This necessitates a concerted effort to enhance cooperation, transitioning from fragmented national efforts to cohesive multi-national initiatives, particularly in overcoming persistent procurement fragmentation. How can procurement processes move from a peace to a wartime mindset? How can the surge in investment enhance military readiness, accelerate technological advancement, and improve interoperability across European armed forces?
In addition:
How can political unity within the EU and NATO be managed to ensure and enhance its collective strength?
A “Defence Dividend” also was cited, on the basis of defence spending being defined as an investment that could boost production and generate jobs. But the crux of the matter is to solidify the idea that militarism is apparently Europe’s main, if not sole, road to prosperity:
Increased defence spending should not be viewed solely as a cost, but as a strategic investment capable of contributing to broader economic growth, prosperity, and security, representing a genuine 'defence dividend'. Defence research and development which has often led to breakthroughs with wider civilian use can be strategically leveraged to drive innovation across various sectors. Investing in defence should also drive workforce development …
Getting closer to the main point of the November meeting, Ditchley’s summary lamented that Europeans must accept possible, or even probable, austerity measures and be persuaded to believe in the military threats they are told about. And they mustn’t lose their assumed ‘willingness to fight’, regardless of what enemy is cited:
How do we explain higher defence spending to voters, especially if it requires cuts to welfare, health, or education spending, or increasing taxes? Maintaining broad public support under such circumstances requires clear, consistent communication about the imperative of security.
Furthermore:
In Germany and other European countries, populist leaders, both on the far-right and left, have exploited the public’s desire for peace, advocating disarmament and concessions to Russia which leaves large numbers of citizens sceptical of an imminent military threat. A much-quoted Gallup study from last year showed that the willingness to fight has decreased across the EU.
Drum roll, please:
While some European countries never abolished conscription, others are currently considering reintroducing some form of military service and exploring boosting their reserves. How can military service and careers within the broader defence ecosystem be made more attractive to a new generation, ensuring a robust and willing workforce for future security needs?
The November programme’s report also noted that European countries are looking to Finland and Sweden’s “total-defence approaches to broader societal resilience” as a model to possibly follow.
Parliament’s Position
Okay, but what does the UK Parliament currently say about conscription?
A visit to Parliament’s website reveals that:
Conscription has only operated for two periods in the 20th century, between 1916 and 1920, and 1939 and 1960, respectively (the last serviceman was discharged in May 1963). National service continued after the Second World War with a requirement for eligible men to serve for up to two years in the UK and around the world.
Parliament’s site adds:
Successive governments have, since the 1960s, ruled out reintroducing national service for the armed forces. However, the covid-19 pandemic and the changing security situation in Europe in the last decade has prompted discussions about the need to improve civilian resilience in the face of emergencies up to and including a state of war. Many European countries have long had some form of compulsory national service in the armed forces, and several have begun reintroducing mandatory military service to better prepare their populations for defence.
To get a flavour of Ditchley’s other conferences in recent times, the group’s post-conference reports, going back to late 2024, were based on the following topics:
- 5-7 December 2024: ‘The Role of the Fourth Estate and Democracies: How Should the News and Information Ecosystem Evolve to Develop Resilience and Meet Audience Needs in a Turbulent Political, Economic and Technological Landscape?’
- 30 January-1 February 2025: ‘Great British Growth: How Do We Take the UK’s Economy Forward in a Period of Geopolitical Competition?’
Ditchley also held an early April 2025 conference on ‘Geopolitics and Business in the Age of Trump’, and a latter-February 2025 conference on ‘Artificial Intelligence and National Security’. The group’s other 2025 conferences included ‘Indo-Pacific Strategies’ in late September, and ‘Energy Security and Climate Action’ in mid-October.
But the main 2025 Ditchley Conference took place on 12-14 June, coordinated, probably coincidentally, with Bilderberg’s 2025 Conference in Stockholm that ran from 12-15 June. While Bilderberg covered 11 topics, Ditchley, as is typically the case, focused on a single topic: ‘Renewing Democracy: How to Strengthen Democratic Resilience and Outcompete Authoritarianism in Europe?’
Notably, another ‘Role of the Fourth Estate’ gathering will take place on 4-6 December 2025. At the time of this writing, in November 2025, Ditchley’s 2026 conference schedule had not yet been released.
Broadly speaking, the reports stemming from these past meetings indicate a solemn effort to rescue the ‘fourth estate’ (i.e. the legacy media) and stem the growth of alternative ‘disinformation’ sources, while ramming home, especially in terms of reviving the British economy, the common globalist narrative about ‘climate change’ with no apparent consideration that this worldview could be flawed, as it’s assumed that strict climate change regulations and economic growth are basically compatible.
All told, Ditchley’s very existence with such minimal publicity for so many years, which is ironic, given its relative openness, shows that the world governance network that has rigged our economic, informational, and political system is even more complex than assumed, and that Bilderberg, while it receives the lion’s share of perennial attention from alternative media and, somewhat reluctantly, from the legacy media, has by no means monopolised nurturing and nudging the one-world policies that inexorably proceed, no matter who’s in elected office.
Main image: Jonathan Billinger / Ditchley / CC BY-SA 2.0
