I didn't say he made the assertion.Originally Posted by lee h oswald
However the tenor of the attacks on Bilderberg is that it is secret - which tells me that the posters stating that think i should not be secret - hence it is an attack on the privacy of the people who choose to not make it public.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
So MP's are not entitled to privacy....right....gotcha.....
Could you provide a link to where their private lives have to be public?
Or alternatively since this accountability is through parliament, perhaps you should ask your representative to get some answers for yuo??
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
To Mick,
How about you try and answer some questions for a change.
You're the debunker, why ask me? Is there nothing to debunk in what I wrote and cited in my previous 2 posts?
My position is and has been crystal clear from the start, as can be read from post #17, and from these statements I cited above, with the added note that it starts off with the understatement of the year (highlighted), here:
"Richardson: - Lamenting the fact that groups such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission have been overlooked by academia, he writes: “When one considers the elite composition of such groups, and the fact that they are credited in some quarters with considerable influence this is an astounding scholarly omission. Such an omission is almost certainly the product of a broader reluctance on the part of social scientists to engage in research related to elite groups or dominant classes.”
Leslie Sklair, whom he quotes, is in total agreement: It is somewhat surprising to discover that of all the social classes, however defined and categorised, the group that has attracted the least serious research is the class at the very top of the pile. Terms like elite, ruling class, and capitalist class have been out of favour in the social sciences for some time and the idea of a global ruling class appears, frankly, ridiculous to many capable scholars (56)."
I agree with that, and think this is "bad news" - do I think it's illegal? - who cares about the law anymore? You? - Of course this forces one to take a critical look at every type of transnational ruling body, because of the degree of unaccountability. Add to that the rampant corruption, talking UN here, and the "undemocraticness" slaps you not only in the face, it penetrates you up your rear.
Bilderberg is just taking it even further step after step.
Former Kissinger Associates insider, David Rothkopf, wrote a book titled:
Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making
Get it? The LAW doesn't apply to them, since they make the law, literally, it's their (attendees') profession, and can break it pretty much at will, by changing and manipulating it, rewriting it, Mick, like the World Bank, IMF, EU, UN. Their is no higher authority structure than those in the material world. They're at the apex. It's those very rule-makers and breakers that compose their attendee lists.
Bilderberg just combines them all nicely, added by Corporate and Media Superclass buddies, ever heard of the "revolving door"? Goldman Sachs <--> Government
Poster child of corporate-government merger, fascism in the words of Mussolini, and yes, bad news. Bilderberg gives it a frightening face and reminds us with their armed security gorillas what domination is all about.
There is no Myth here, mick, although I would hope there was. There's no, "we're just reaching different conclusions" here.
So what was your ill-spelled "apology" referring to? I really didn't get that one.
Never mind, I gave you something to ponder about, read up on, and with that material delivered I pass on the baton to the next person "spending" their time on debunking the Bilderberg Debunked Myth.
Last edited by TruthmyCamus; June 3rd, 2012 at 07:53 PM.
Mikey, news flash for yuo(!) - privacy is a thing of the past; it doesn't exist anymore. Not for ordinary citizens in the EU or US.
As I said in my previous post, I pass on the baton, so best of luck.
Because you are not asking questions. What's the question?
I was apologizing because I could not tell what your question was.
I think the key thing with the Bilderbergers is the degree to which the things you suggest are taking place. Nobody would deny that there would be SOME impact on word affairs for a bunch of very well connected and powerful people getting together to discuss matters. The real issues is: how much? Do the Bilderbergers simply fret and try to encourage things to move in certain directions? Do they speak with one voice, or is their opinion as fragmented as their composition. Do they actually make decisions? Do they decided to trigger certain events?
Or, more simply. If the Bilderber meetings did not take place, how would the world be any different?
"The real issues is: how much?" Impact you mean? That's not the real issue, as can be read from my previous posts. Does it matter if they have way too much impact, or way way way way too much?
Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making
By their very titles and functions they ARE the decision makers, and they do so beyond parliamentary oversight; they're in a league of their own, and can't be checked, not by the ordinary citizen, whom these high "elected" IMF and World Bank officials and members of national governments should SERVE... By the people, for the people, remember?
Now please read again the material I provided and this time try and pick up some stuff by yourself. No more questions, just arrive at a few conclusions or hypotheses by yourself. Answer your own questions. Two of them were possibly useful, one was more apt for a weekend conference... Hey!
Gotta leave you now, as I said, I pass on the baton, the essence as to the degree of their influence and unaccountability has been sufficiently laid out, some material has been brought to the table, some possible conclusions, and that's it for me.
Of course I may jump in at a later time, when eg Lee or you or someone else has made this thread/"discussion" interesting again.
Truthmycamus-
WHat evidence do you have to support your Belief that policy is "decided" at a Bilderberg meeting?
DO you have anything more than fear of the "elite"?
What proof do you have other then observational that the sun warms you when you walk outside, proof that did not come from a source that is outside your control?
Because you inevitably will reply with "What does that have to do with the Bilderberg Meeting?"... Its making a point about what can be derived from observation alone. In the end unless you yourself have proven something ( i.e. slapping yourself in the head causes you physical pain but does not cause anyone else the same physical pain) then you must rely on trusted sources that are beyound your control or on your own observations. Truth derived from observation has occasionally lead to scientific theory which in turn became accepted proof. Just because there’s no witnessed video of the Bilderberg meeting attendees saying "we are gathering to enact public policy that may or may or may not run counter to the desires of the people whom the politicians represent" does not guarantee that this is not going on any more then a video of the Bilderberg meeting attendees saying it does guarantee that is what is going on at the annual meeting.
Are you familiar with the saying "If it looks walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it acts like a duck that alone does not mean it’s a duck but is instead a conspiracy theory cooked up by tinfoil hat extremist that want to blame the ducks for all that is wrong in the world"? NO? That’s because it’s not real and is just as foolish as saying that an annual gathering of the world’s elite with elected representatives from around the globe, including from the United States, gathering in secret (closed door meeting) is nothing but a business meeting of which nothing can come from it that would impact the rest of us in a way that by-passes established laws.
Lastly I'd like to point out that since the Bilderberg meeting has finally started getting mainstream public exposure, more everyday people are starting to question this gathering and asking what’s going on. In other words more people are looking at this secret closed door meeting and saying that something’s wrong then are saying "The debunkers are right, there’s nothing to see here so I should just move along now".
TruthmyCamus (June 4th, 2012)
Mick,
There are far too many replies from you to try and reply to each so let me summarize my replies here.
1) Google Links proving Media Has Mentioned Bilderberg – I should have been clearer on this point (even though I thought I was) and so I will take responsibility for that. To be clear, the mainstream media consisting of but not limited to the 3 main networks and their prime time news broadcasts along with the major newspaper of any major city in the US, have avoided reporting about the Bilderberg meeting detailing facts such as the importance of the attendees as well as who they are and that every time the Bilderberg’s get together the leaked details of what they discuss (via supposed conspiracy theorists sources) just coincidentally come to pass such as the decision on who will become the presidential nominee for one or both of the two main political parties as happened in 2008 when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both just happened to disappear for 24+ hours at the same time the 2008 Bilderberg meeting was going on and the media who were following both were not with either nominee because the media had been whisked away by plane by persons working for both campaigns.
Debunkers would have us believe that the mysterious disappearance of both Democratic candidates at the time of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting without any media reporters in tow was just coincidental.
Yes there are reporting’s in news that mention the Name Bilderberg and even the meeting but they are always in passing or out of context and under no circumstances such as the one with Obama and Clinton during the 2008 campaign will you find the majors in news media reporting Bilderberg involvement unless it’s to associate as conspiracy theory what it is the group is gathering for every year.
Ask anyone on the street who is not associated with some “debunking” group and who is not associated with any group labeled as “conspiracy theorists” if they have heard of the Bilderberg Group/Meeting and if they have you can bet a major majority are going to tell you that the group does not exists, that it’s just a conspiracy theory and that’s because that is the idea that the media has pushed to the public for a very long time.
2) “Logan Act Violations? Prove It” You can find the Logan act for yourself. It clearly states that serving (that’s mean while they are in office and not just during business hours and or the business week) government persons involved in public policy decision making may attend a private meeting, a meeting that is closed to the public. Rick Perry attended a few years back and has admitted to this fact. Other government representatives both from the US as well as abroad have been caught on film/video at these Bilderberg gatherings many times.
The bottom line with the Logan Act and the Bilderberg meeting is that there is just cause for the public to demand that the meeting either be open to the public or that the meeting be restricted to persons not associated with any role in government. When powerful people meet in secret (behind closed doors) and include in their meeting those persons who are in portions of power in our government, it’s never innocent and only a fool would believe it is. Is that a guarantee that they are engaging in something illegal? Of course not. However we can’t take that chance especially when we all know just how corrupt our government is not to mention how corrupt the corporate world is. In the early years of our Country a corporation had to get approval (a charter) from the government to come in and setup shop. They had to prove that the corporation would provide a benefit to the community and not be a drain on the people. It didn’t take long for the very powerful (these same elites who run Bilderberg) top buy enough corrupt politicians to get rid of the charter requirements so that corporations could do as they please.
As far as questionable information sources like Alex Jones goes, its not just Alex Jones who is trying to draw attention to the Bilderberg meeting, he’s just the most recognized by the rest of the media and that’s not by accident. Alex is a very colorful personality who at times will put his mouth into gear without taking his brain out of park and if you try to point it out to him he goes of on one of his temper tantrums and claims that you must think he doesn’t do enough for the rest of us. Alex Jones goal is good even if his methods are sometimes excessive and in some cases outright ridiculous. That however does not mean he’s wrong. The debunkers and main stream media like to finger point Alex Jones because they know he’s given enough tem enough material to use against him when there’s a need to label as conspiracy theory anything that the corporate elite do not want the public to take notice of let alone give any serious thought too.
Charlie Primero (July 8th, 2012),TruthmyCamus (June 4th, 2012)
Actually...I didn't ask for "proof"...just evidence...anything other than pure speculation and fear.
As for ducks...the fact is there are meetings like this all time- many of these same people meet at the World Economic Forum in Davos every year...there they discuss and network...no policy is "decided"...matters are merely discussed and debated. Bilderberg quacks very much like the WEF.
Moreover, the Bilderberg meeting is NOT SECRET- its never been "secret"- private-yes, secret, no. This is an important distinction to the psychology of interpretation- call it "secret" and the fear based bias skews toward nefarious intent.
The vast majority of the participants are from N. America and Europe not "around the globe"- and I cannot find one "elected" official from the US attending in the last 3yrs.
Indeed, most of the participants are one-time participants - I guess they get their marching orders and sent off to enact "policy".
Really? Have you read the Logan Act? It applies to ANY US CITIZEN- not just elected officials. It prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. It says nothing about elected officials attending private meetings whilst serving.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
How do you explain your misinterpretation?
Yes I have read it and yes it does apply to all citizens. I was singling out those person in power in government as they can actually do something about public policy without first seeking out a position in government. If the act applies to everyone then it certainly would include elected officials and those unelected persons directly employed in government in power of positions. If you want to make a big deal out of misquoting that I'll accept it because it means you are testifying to the fact that those in attendance at Bilderberg are in violation of said act.Really? Have you read the Logan Act? It applies to ANY US CITIZEN- not just elected officials. It prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. It says nothing about elected officials attending private meetings whilst serving.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
How do you explain your misinterpretation?
Thanks for the support
I wouldn't call it marching orders and no its NOT like Davos. Every time Davos occurs its mentioned on CNN, ABC, CBS and every other media outlet and no one and I mean no one associates Davos with "Conspiracy Theory.
That said, former NATO Secretary General Willy Claus did provide a very interesting comment on the topic of the Bilderberg meeting when he said in an interview “..at Bilderberg each participant is given a report and they are "considered to use this report in setting their policies in the environments in which they affect". Then again we can just label that as conspiracy theory and via the magic of debunking we change reality and remove all trace the event, right?
Debunk that spin master.
Debunkisodes- Famous Debunked Quotes/Events Across Time (S01E01) “Dwight Says What”
WHAT: The Military-Industrial Complex Speech by Dwight D Eisenhower,
WHEN: 1961.
THE THEORY: Conspiracy Theorists claim that That as part of his speech Dwight D Eisenhower said “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
THE REALITY: Eisenhower never said such a thing. Dwight was as we all should be a worshipper of the corporate world; owing his existence to the generosity of the few corporate executives who keep the world turning through their generosity of jobs. Without these titans of industry all of mankind would certainly die away within a matter of hours.
THE PROOF: “The logic is the proof. No president would be foolish enough to make such an unfriendly comment about any corporate power let alone the military-industrial complex; after all those guys do make the weapons. Seriously though this quote is as silly as the claim that man-kind could exists without the corporation. If we had no corporations then where would we get food? Its not like it just grows on trees. These mindless conspiracy theorists are unenlightened barbarians and that’s my professional opinion as a government certified debunker. Nuff said.” ~ Ivan Sol Dout; famous debunker.
Another popular Conspiracy Theory put to rest. Next week we’ll tackle that way-out there conspiracy theory that Gold and Silver have real value but paper with pretty green images from the government is not. And in 2 weeks we’ll take a look at the preposterous notion that US Federal Reserve is really a privately owned bank and not a branch of the government. Imagine that! Even though it says “FEDERAL” in the name its supposedly not part of government.
And in just 3 weeks our season finale “Debunkisode” where we tackle the most ridiculous conspiracy theory to date, that Texas congressman Ron Paul several years in advance of the Baking bailout of 2008 supposedly warned of the coming real estate/mortgage bubble. As if anyone could have known in advance that the derivatives market, the practice of slicing and dicing bad mortgages and then re-packaging them as AAA Investments would come turn out to be a bad bet. Where do these crazy conspiracy theorists get this stuff?
Actually....no. It is not that you are "misquoting" the act, it is that you are MISINTERPRETING it entirely- I am testifying to the fact that you failed to comprehend the act which you hold up in such righteous defense- you said:
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean may NOT attend a private meeting...
...and yet the Logan Act says no such thing...It clearly states it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
It says NOTHING about attending a private meeting.
That people attend a private meeting is not in violation of the Logan Act.
Try again.
As for Davos- you said if it "quacks like a duck"....the some of same people attend Davos as well as Bilderberg, some of the same topics are discussed....the only reason CNN et al cover Davos is that it is a) larger- and thus including a larger number of noteworthy people and even various celebrities (ie; Bono) and B) they have access to the discussions.
That the Bilderberg meeting is not on your evening news does that mean that it is a meeting of a "secret" cabal making policy decisions.
As for your quote from Willy CLAES- really? SO....Each participant gets an Executive Summary of the discussion had which they are free to "consider" as a reference in their future endeavors. That is a pretty standard for any current events forum like this. How is the report from Bilderberg any different than the summary of discussions and the myriad other reports from Davos?
Face it, there is NO evidence whatsoever that the Bilderberg meeting is anything more than what it purports to be. It is simply the fact that you don't hear about it on your TV and the fact that you fear what you do know that leads you to your conspiratorial Beliefs.
A very poor analogy - you can "observe" the heat from the sun with a thermometer, and other people can also experience the heat from the sun.
This suffers from the same error - others can slap themselves on the head and experience their own pain, and by comparing notes you can establish that almost everyone who dose so has the same reaction.In the end unless you yourself have proven something ( i.e. slapping yourself in the head causes you physical pain but does not cause anyone else the same physical pain) then you must rely on trusted sources that are beyound your control or on your own observations.
to equate this to Bilderberg's privacy meaning that it is super secret and decisions are made would require that you have a lot of observational evidence and personal experience of private meetings where decisions are made about how to rule the world. Is that what you do at all or many of your private meetings????
that requires a little more than merely observation.Truth derived from observation has occasionally lead to scientific theory which in turn became accepted proof.
That is known as argument from ignorance - "you can't prove it isn't true"Just because there’s no witnessed video of the Bilderberg meeting attendees saying "we are gathering to enact public policy that may or may or may not run counter to the desires of the people whom the politicians represent" does not guarantee that this is not going on any more then a video of the Bilderberg meeting attendees saying it does guarantee that is what is going on at the annual meeting.
There are millions of "secret (closed door)" business meetings all around the world every day - from my observation attending a small number of them, NONE of them have ever been about by-passing established laws at all. nonetheless I know that some meetings do discuss such subjects. so this may be such a meeting - but I am not so easy to convince that it IS such a meeting based upon nothing more than privacy/secrecy.Are you familiar with the saying "If it looks walks like a duck and it talks like a duck and it acts like a duck that alone does not mean it’s a duck but is instead a conspiracy theory cooked up by tinfoil hat extremist that want to blame the ducks for all that is wrong in the world"? NO? That’s because it’s not real and is just as foolish as saying that an annual gathering of the world’s elite with elected representatives from around the globe, including from the United States, gathering in secret (closed door meeting) is nothing but a business meeting of which nothing can come from it that would impact the rest of us in a way that by-passes established laws.
People asking questions is not proof of anything other than the private nature of the meetings.Lastly I'd like to point out that since the Bilderberg meeting has finally started getting mainstream public exposure, more everyday people are starting to question this gathering and asking what’s going on. In other words more people are looking at this secret closed door meeting and saying that something’s wrong then are saying "The debunkers are right, there’s nothing to see here so I should just move along now".
However if you are really interested the minutes of several of them are available courtesy of wikileaks - go stoke the fires of conspiracy!
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Mike,
1) Sun analogy - No it’s not a poor analogy, it’s an over simplistic analogy that was used to make a point that clearly you missed. Your example of using a thermometer and referencing other people backups up my point that you have to rely on trusted sources. Yes the thermometer is a trusted source. How so? Did you invent it? If you did then you have my deepest apologies. You are trusting the instrument to do as advertised and while that may sound silly it’s still accurate. You can use the thermometer to measure the temperature but that alone does not measure whether it is the sun that warms you, only how warm it is around you and even then you are relying on others (the inventor of the thermometer) .
2) Head Slapping – This was even more over the top and still you missed it. No not everyone you slap upside the head will feel pain. I personally have been slapped (and hard) and slept right thru feeling nothing after a college night out. In addition to that persons who are unconscious due to a number of reasons may or may not feel said pain. No this does not suffer from anything. Your mistake here was your presumption that all others experiences (when being slapped) would be identical to yours. Don’t feel alone though, you’re in good company with that presumptuous type of thinking as that’s the way most people think these days. It’s this exact kind of group-think mentality that’s convinced a nation of otherwise intelligent people to not question their environment.
There are still a few people left alive who lived thru the great depression and most are still not trusting of banks or paper money and that’s because they experienced firsthand what it’s like to have worthless paper. I am of course assuming this and openly admit as much but I bet you believe precious metals are a bad investment and that the US Dollar will always be accepted and valued more than some metal trinkets.
The thermometer is a trusted source because it has, for many years, proven to be a relaiable indicator of temperature.
If you only trust things that you invent tehn I feel sorry for you!! lol
Yes you are right that someone passed out for any reason may well not notice gettign slapped on the head - a specific case that you did not bother including in your initial offering, which could not actually be the situation in your specific case (hard to slap yourself if you are passed out!) and a grand example of shifting the goalposts.
My parents were alivein hte great depression and have no trouble at all with paper money. My grandparentsall passed away in teh 1990's, they had no trouble with it either. In fact the only people I know of who do have trouble with it are the occasional looney conspiracy nut like you. I am not in the USA - US$'s are not legal tender here and I do not accept them for anythign at all....except when I visit the USA, or as gifts for my kids from their america-based aunt and uncle.
the worth of gold just as much as people are prepared to trade it for - just like everything else including paper money. In and of itself it is just as worthless as paper - indeed paper is possibly moer valuable because at least you could write messages on it or wipe your arse with it - gold doesnt' even have those uses. I believe good investments aer those that will make good returns - whethe that be by capital appreciation or profit generation - gold has appreciated considerably in $ terms over hte last few years so looks liek ti was a good investment at least then. I do not know enough about the future market to make predictions about where it will go from now, but if I did I wold have no problem acting on that knowledge - whatever it was - despite gold being intrinsically worthless.
If I thought civilisation was going to collapse tomorrow I would invest in food and low-tech farming technology, not gold, and if you offered me gold for food after "the fall" you might end up starving.
Other than that - I'm sure you will feel free to rant away some more for our entertainment
Last edited by MikeC; June 25th, 2012 at 07:14 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
The **"corporate / fascism" Mussolini quote is apocryphal, if you can supply a link to a source showing he made this quote (often used by conspiracy theorists) I would be interested in taking a look.
(**"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power")
It's also worth noting that where Mussolini does use the word 'corporatism' - or 'corporativism' (Italian: 'corporativismo') he's not referring to commercial corporations as we'd understand them today (Shell Oil, McDonald's, Apple . . etc) but to vertical syndicalist corporatism based on things like unions and guilds (see Wikipedia link).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Last edited by Lee Wilson; June 30th, 2012 at 06:38 AM.
What is gold backed up by ? From what I can tell gold's 'real value' is much the same as promissory note's 'real value' - that is: they are stores of wealth backed only by good faith, this argument that gold has 'real value' while fiat currency is essentially worthless always seems spurious to me.
Last edited by Lee Wilson; June 30th, 2012 at 11:29 AM.
The Great Depression was around 1920 to 1930 (with slight variations around the world) . . .
So someone who lived through those years with firsthand experience of money would at least need to be of a working age for some of that period, let's guess they were something like 18 by 1928 - that gives them at least a couple of years of working through the Great Depression.
So, that would make these people around 102 years old.
Can you supply evidence of these very very elderly people and their distrust of paper money ? One or two examples would be enough, just to get an idea of this group as a whole.
Probably just a typo, but the great depression occurred from 1930 to almost 1940.
Whoops! Yes, I meant 1930 to 1940 (I was quantizing 1929 to 1939) . . . . so even someone who was still only 18 in the final couple of years will be 90 now.Probably just a typo, but the great depression occurred from 1930 to almost 1940.
Probably just a typo, but the great depression occurred from 1930 to almost 1940.
Whoops! Sorry, yes I meant to say 1930 to 1940 . . . . so if someone was even as young as 18 in 1938 and lived through only a couple of years of the The Great Depression they would be 92 now.
There's been some unclearness and disagreement on the "effect" of the annual meetings on political, public, media, and finance (inter)national matters, and a comprehensive analysis is provided in the following excerpts from a research paper by Mike Peters:
The Bilderberg Group and the project of European Unification
"The possible significance of this group may be gleaned from the status of its participants: the membership comprises those individuals who would, on most definitions, be regarded as members of the 'ruling class' in Western Europe and North America-In particular, the conferences brought together important figures in most of the largest international corporations with leading politicians and prominent intellectuals (in both academia and journalism).
Moreover, virtually all the European institutions we take for granted today, or treat as if they 'emerged' as a matter of course, from the ECSC, EEC and Euratom down to the present European Union, were conceived, designed and brought into existence through the agency of the people involved in Bilderberg.
"Bilderberg from the beginning has been administered by a small core group, constituted since 1956 as a steering committee, consisting of a permanent chair, a US chair, European and North American secretaries and a treasurer. Invitations are 'only sent to important and generally respected people who through their special knowledge or experience, their personal contacts and their influence in national and international circles can further the aims set by Bilderberg.' (Retinger, cited in Sklar p. 168)
"The Bilderberg discussions are organised on the principle of reaching consensus rather than through formal resolutions and voting. Such is the influence and standing of the active members that, if consensus for action is arrived at, one might expect this to be carried out and the resulting decision to be implemented in the West as a whole. But the exact position of the group, and that of other such groups, is only discernible by a close scrutiny of the specific careers and connections of the individual participants. Here, one has to say that social theorists seem convinced of the irrelevance of this kind of information, which would be called 'prosopographic' (i.e. data pertaining to concrete individuals, which companies they represent, their family connections etc.). This is somewhat contradictory, of course,
because in their every-day roles, social theorists are just as interested in this kind of information as anyone else, and display a keen sense of its political relevance when it comes to conducting their own careers: but it has it nonetheless become almost a matter of principle to denounce use of this kind of data in social science itself. This tendency seems to come from a reification of the concept of 'roles' (as if these were real rather than constructs) and possibly from a functionalist assumption that social systems are subject to laws; with concrete human actors having no significance in shaping outcomes.
"The status of the group and its meetings is ostensibly 'private'. Gill names it simply 'a private international relations council', but nothing could be more misleading than this name private, unless in its sense of ‘secret’. When political leaders gather together with a view to arriving at consensus, in conjunction with leaders of industry and finance and press magnates and leading journalists, then this is not the same kind of thing as an assembly of ordinary private citizens.
The vocabulary of pluralist political science ('lobbies', 'non-governmental organisations' etc.) systematically distorts the actual power relations at work in these different kinds of associations.
It is even questionable whether Bilderberg meetings are really 'private' in the legal sense of non-governmental. Robert Eringer, for example, having received an official reply that 'government officials attend in a personal and not an official capacity', found that in fact officials had attended Bilderberg conferences at government expense and in their official capacity. The British Foreign Office responded to his queries by saying 'we can find no trace of the Bilderberg Group in any of our reference works on international organisations', while he later learnt that the Foreign Office had paid for British members to attend Bilderberg conferences.
Silence of the Academics
"When first asked for a title for this paper, I briefly entertained the idea of using the above sub-heading, (paraphrasing a recent film-title), and I do believe it is important to ask why certain topics rather than others are deemed worthy of investigation. The material presented here is certainly 'dated' and therefore unfashionable, but similar information about the present could be investigated. It is surprising and somewhat depressing that such investigations no longer seem to be being carried out in universities today. (6) Academics often represent themselves somewhat flatteringly as 'critical' intellectuals, independent from or even determinedly opposed to the established systems of power in society, willing to face personal or professional risks in the pursuit of truth. Maybe they are more like lambs."
- - - -
Apologies for the parts displayed in large fontsize, and it has no meaning to emphasize in relation to the smaller font.
Of course, a research paper like this serves only as a launchpad and incentive for further acadamic and social studies, as it barely scratches the surface of the various spheres of influence of those participating in these meetings and the companies, countries, agencies they represent and direct. -- sadly though, this is lacking, for a number of obvious, and a few less "obvious" reasons. Both have been touched upon though in above cited material.
Last edited by TruthmyCamus; July 1st, 2012 at 03:25 AM.
An interesting "appeal to authority" in the guise of a "research" paper - albeit a paper whose substance pertaining specifically to the Bilderberg group itself is comprised mostly of speculation and "appearances"
Be that as it may, given that the opinion piece was written in 2001, the term "comprehensive" is not applicable due to the wealth of information that has come to light about Bilderberg since.
Judging from the reports and attendee lists from Bilderberg itself, it is clear that consensus is rare and the vast majority of attendees are one-time only guests:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Bilderberg_group
In addition- for those who claim the Bilderberg group is outside the purview of mainstream media- here is an article (radio) by none other than the BBC itself:
http://wikileaks.org/w/images/5/5d/B...rberg-2003.mp3
and the Asian Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html
Last edited by SR1419; July 1st, 2012 at 11:16 AM.
I would also add Bilderberg Meetings | The official website to the list of links. For a "secret" organization, they have some good information posted for everybody to see. They include dates and locations of meetings going back to the 50s and attendee lists.
That is an outright lie, as the mostly historical information is properly and generously referenced from authentic sources.An interesting "appeal to authority" in the guise of a "research" paper - albeit a paper whose substance pertaining specifically to the Bilderberg group itself is comprised mostly of speculation and "appearances"
This is mainly incoherent reasoning and insufficient understanding of language since a paper written in 2001 can only be comprehensive about information surfaced prior to that date. Early history, background and historical relevance. Obviously pertaining to the "project of European Unification." Furthermore the "wealth of information" you mention is unquantified, and on top of that mostly if not completely irrelevant, due to the Euro Project's crown achievement of one Euro currency as issued in 2001. Ironic, that.Be that as it may, given that the opinion piece was written in 2001, the term "comprehensive" is not applicable due to the wealth of information that has come to light about Bilderberg since.
Same mistake again. Bilderberg WAS outside the purview of MSM, by its own requirements of its guests FROM MSM. To an extent it still IS, but it may vary in different regions/countries.In addition- for those who claim the Bilderberg group is outside the purview of mainstream media- here is an article (radio) by none other than the BBC itself:
So, instead of debunking the contents of the paper, you distort the context, distort the way I presented it, which in turn I have to debunk.
One time attendies and the percentage of it? I'd focus on the Steering and Advisory Committee and the organizations and branches of business, Public Office, Finance, Media and Industry, that are CONSISTENTLY in attendance, as represented by the CEO or representative in function at the time, naturally changing over time. If you closely examine the attendees and their antecedents over time, the consistency in choosing the attendees is striking.
Personal note regarding the nature and quality of your debunking/debating: it's gradeschool level, appears prefabbed, extremely biased and unsubsantiated wrt facts and data that can be traced, weighed, and evaluated.
I do not participate further in ineffective discourse of that nature. So - up your play, and give me a comprehensive analysis of the Bilderberg attendees of the past 20 years, their functions, their roles, create useful categories, trace their further evolving movements over time, the works, and then let us see if we can find agreement regarding the power of the organization, and on how to go about assessing it.
Create a time-table, a graph.
Last edited by TruthmyCamus; July 1st, 2012 at 11:44 PM.
Peters:
"It is ironic that while the initial research which discovered the existence of the Bilderberg network and explored its ramifications within the power structure of Atlantic capitalism came entirely from Marxist and left-inclined scholars in the USA, the whole subject has now been virtually taken over by the US far right as the centre piece of its own bizarre world-view. These writers of the far right (Antony Sutton, Lyndon La Rouche, Spool and the Liberty Lobby etc.) have added virtually nothing to our understanding or knowledge of the phenomenon, and accordingly, are not referenced in the bibliography below. They have, however, contaminated the topic with their confusion. Since around the mid-1980s, the American Left has dropped the whole issue like a hot potato. For a singular exception see Brandt 1993, which is essentially a response to Berlet, 1992."
Why oh why would that be?
Of course Bilderberg is on dry Euroland now, and the Estulins and Jones's of this world can write all the fiction-mixed-with-fact books all they want, it won't give a damn anymore, it even helps Bilderberg, as proper scholarly investigation will be driven to remain at the fringes, where Kees van der Pijl, Fennema and others deserve much more attention.
No- its not a "lie"- This is mainly incoherent reasoning and insufficient understanding of language on your part. He does attribute facts to sources, provide footnotes that are (mostly) referenced in his bibliography...but had you read for comprehension instead of knee-jerking to accusation you would have discerned my words more carefully...to wit I said "substance pertaining specifically to the Bilderberg group itself is comprised mostly of speculation"
...and indeed it is.
For example- he says: "Many of those invited...have little idea there is a formally constituted group at all, let alone with its own grand agenda" - no sourcing of that comment- claiming to know the minds and understanding of "many of those invited" and assigning a "grand agenda". Nothing but pure speculation.
Another- He says "the exact position of the group...is only discernible by close scrutiny of specific careers and connections of those individual participants". Given the well established diversity of opinion within participants- this is again nothing but speculation.
Alas, no. I understand perfectly well what comprehensive means. Perhaps you should have qualified your statement- suggesting that the paper was "comprehensive" when it was written- 12yrs ago- and then admitted due to the a wealth of information uncovered since, it is perhaps a bit dated and erroneous in some of its speculation.
Please explain how actual reports generated from the meetings themselves, in the time frame pertinent to the discussion, are "irrelevant". They do shed a lot of information on the idea of an integrated Europe and show that consensus was not always achieved, nor was policy set. Holly Sklar, one Peters' sources, in her book "Trilateralism" - says pointedly " in the late 50s there were serious disagreements amongst speakers"- Moreover, Jozef Retinger- the founder of the Bilderberg group, clearly states in his memoirs "Bilderberg does not make policy. Its aim is to reduce differences of opinion and resolve conflicting trends and to further understanding..."
Another of Peters' sources Van der Pijl states: "Bilderberg served, at best, as an environment for developing ideas...secrecy was necessary for the articulation of differences rather than for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge."
That bilateral, off the record private discussions at Bilderberg helped shaped ideas of participants and they in turn influenced public policy is certain...but not necessarily any more than meetings of other international forums. That the meetings are perceived as "secret" leads to - as Klar puts it "conspiratorial fantasy".
That officers of the organization attend their meetings consistently seems like a normal and logical occurrence. Indeed, it is the "flexible selection of participants" that Retiger suggested as one of the reasons for its continued relevancy. As one of the founders of the idea of European Union, Retiger realized that the idea was increasingly unlikely in the short term (circa 1960s) and quite possibly was never going to happen militarily. He hoped that by attracting new members that new understanding amongst its European contingent could be fostered.
Sorry- I do not fear the Bilderberg group...so, I will not do your homework for you.
Last edited by SR1419; July 2nd, 2012 at 01:27 PM.
Others have done some homework, so below is some of that.
I assume the thesis or central issue is clear to you; one of Bilderberg Group's aims is to influence national and/or international policy matters. Let's leave in the middle size or scope, since our knowledge is too limited.
Is this important, and ought the public, as well as Academia, know about it? Many say yes, we ought to know. Why? Because Public Policy is discussed and influenced through attendance of highest level public officials. By the nature of their positions. Private matters like their scorecards at the local Golf Club are not agenda items.
This isn't about fear it seems, it's about proportionality and accountability in a democratically organized "western" society. We have laws in place in order to manage these fundamental principles like freedom of speech, and freedom of information. If lacking then de facto you live in a non-free state, and the democracy as well as national sovereignty, may be in danger, may be eroded. Does history tell us that we must be watchful, perhaps even fearful and thus become vigilant if we see those principles under threat? Oh yes.
Do people disagree on whether Bilderberg constitutes a threat? Oh yes.
Is it relevant to what extent and by whom this "threat" is perceived? Oh yes, the goyim responds in clear voice, because we happen to be "citizens."
Do citizens demand transparency from the by election installed representatives when their view is obstructed, i.e., an annual gathering of 100+ (elected officials included) representatives of most influential organizations, corporations and agencies for decades has been/is clouded in secrecy and hush and surrounded by police type security and invasive behavior? Oh yes.
Do I fear? I won't fear if I know that if I go to the bathroom at night with the lights out I if necessary can light a match, or a flashlight, to see where I am going, what's on my path, to make sure I do not trip and break my arm or bruise my head.
So here's some links, documents and research:
This Chart Shows The Bilderberg Group's Connection To Everything In The World Ashley Lutz|Jun. 12, 2012, 9:33 PM
The Bilderberg Group is 120-140 powerful people who meet each year to discuss policy. The meetings are closed to the public.
This graph we found on Facebook shows the members' connections to a ton of corporations, charities, policy groups and media. Everyone from Eric Schmidt to George Soros is a member. There are tons of conspiracy theories about the group, including that they control the world economy.
We took the findings with a grain of salt--after all, it's easy to trace an individual to a corporation and the graph doesn't specify what influence the member wielded.
But perhaps it's a compelling argument for why the meetings should be public.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-the-bilderberg-groups-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6#ixzz1zcsMOVYq
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-the-bilderberg-groups-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6
DATA DUMP Bilderberg 1966
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-bilderberg-1966-data-dump-the-war-on-nationalism-exposed/
You are entitled to your belief- as biased as it may be. The founder of Bilderberg- Jozef Retinger- disagrees with you: "Bilderberg does not make policy. Its aim is to reduce differences of opinion and resolve conflicting trends and to further understanding..."
Perhaps- but when these folks go back to their day jobs and attempt to affect policy...their views are known. Discussing topics with peers and colleagues doesn't mean they have unlimited power to enact their beliefs. Simply fearing them because you are not privy to their discussions is not a sound basis for rational judgement.
Indeed, we also have fundamental principles and laws regarding privacy. Should we be privy to all of your private conversations as well? The vast Majority of attendees are private citizens. Is it rational and just to suggest that simply because you fear and distrust someone in a position of power that all of their policy discussions should be public? The privacy of the discussion is to encourage candor and disagreement. As Van der Pijl states: "Bilderberg served, at best, as an environment for developing ideas...secrecy was necessary for the articulation of differences rather than for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge."
I do not think using Info Wars as a source is helping the case against "conspiratorial fantasy" . If you actually READ the documents from the BG it hardly strikes fear into one's heart knowing that they would like to "reduce red tape" and "increase private investment" and make a "clear delineation between private and public sectors" ...hardly the stuff of World domination.
Whilst I have not attended a Bilderberg meeting...I, too, could have a line drawn from my name to several of those on your chart. Why do you fear the fact that people who are engaged in the world and are active and prominent in their fields get invited to a private forum regarding issues of the day?
Again, policy is NOT made at a Bilderberg meeting. Attendees are not given marching orders to go forth and conquer...as the founder says- its for "reduce(ing) differences of opinion and resolve conflicting trends and to further understanding..."
You say its not about fear- but it is- you lament the lack of "transparency" and "accountability" because you fear that the fate of the World is being decided behind closed doors- all the while missing the fact that attendees do not live in a bubble- they go back to their day jobs and are held accountable by their constituents.
Last edited by SR1419; July 4th, 2012 at 07:16 PM.
Lee Wilson (July 4th, 2012)
You've managed, with one exception perhaps, to misquote, misinterpret, distort, exaggerate, underestimate just about everything I said, you have accused the messenger, and selectively the message, to support your view that all is hunky dory with big corpo and big government, gathered at BG, and you may do so, but it is purely fiction, which is commonly known. Kissinger, Shell, the IMF, are predatory organizations, and those feature prominently on Bilderberg's attendee list and steering committee. They do not fear me, they anger me. You're pretty much out of touch with reality regarding power dynamics.
Is this a basis for further discussion? I assume not.
Your finale, case in point:
Unintelligibility, distortion, exaggeration and naiveté of this magnitude is rarely encountered. You're right though if you imply that constituents get what they deserve, and that that is not BG's fault. But they do seize the opportunity to cratically penetrate the Demos from, and up, the rear.You say its not about fear- but it is- you lament the lack of "transparency" and "accountability" because you fear that the fate of the World is being decided behind closed doors- all the while missing the fact that attendees do not live in a bubble- they go back to their day jobs and are held accountable by their constituents.
Say hi to the ghost of Retinger if you get the chance, and to Heinz K., and Bea, all upright model citizens, especially Richard Perle and his PNAC buddies are a fine group of men.
Aren't they?
Last edited by TruthmyCamus; July 5th, 2012 at 12:15 AM.
I agree with Lho!
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
You have manged avoid any substantive rebuttal in favor of ad hominem attack
Interesting that.
...and telling.
I never said, all is "hunky-dory" with "big corpo" and "big goverment"....but they do not need to meet at Bilderberg to be corrupt. Bilderberg is not some codifying or institutionalizing of their corrupt practices.
..and you are correct. I highly doubt the IMF, Shell and the Kissinger "organization" fear you.
That chart appears to be deliberately misleading. Trying to make it seem like the Bilderbergers have a finger in every pie, yet the vast majority are one-time attendees. Even such supposed bastions of the NWO like Microsoft (Melinda Gates) and JP Morgan only have one line
http://metabunk.org/files/bilderberg.jpeg
You could get the same diagram from the TED talks, or the Oscars.
Indeed. They include such known bastions of power and corruption as The Boy Scouts, Outward Bound, MOMA, The NY Opera and Augusta Golf club (yes, i realize Augusta is very exclusive- but Truthy said golf scores were off the table). Although, I am surprised they did not include the Free Mason's.
As I mentioned, you could draw lines from my name to a number of orgs, companies and people on that list for various reasons or another.
I will wait patiently for my Bilderberg invite in the mail.
Again you are lost at sea. I informed you of the distortions enclosed in your reaction to my reply. That's not creating a workable launching pad to discuss the things I clearly described i wanted to discuss. Not Bilderberg badness or madness, just simply the reports that have come out sofar, and approach it with normal healthy investigative sense.You have manged avoid any substantive rebuttal in favor of ad hominem attack
I attack your modus operandi - not you as a person - I know only the SRnumber that shows up here ... be sure to revise that in your thought processes and future interactions.
Best of luck.
No- you merely suggested there were distortions but did not attempt to elucidate. It seems it is you who is drowning in ambiguity. You have never once directly addressed any of my comments, instead you bob and weave with rhetorical histrionics.
Actually, that is incoherent reasoning and insufficient understanding of language on your part...calling me unintelligible and naive- is, in fact, an attack on my person...
No worries, the relative merit of your criticism is rendered null due to the lack of substance in your "argument".
Good luck with that.
Last edited by SR1419; July 5th, 2012 at 12:30 PM.
I just knew it ! I knew they were in on it too.
I was also surprised to see Juventas F.C in there too, I knew a football team was involved in 9/11 but I just couldn't put my finger on which one.
Last edited by Lee Wilson; July 8th, 2012 at 07:16 AM.
How many times do you think a person needs to attend before a historian should consider whether or not their Bilderburg association was of significance?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks