“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[The Legendary Shark]

I think that's just down to the way different groups behave - film stars, pop moguls etc are usually, by nature, attention seekers and self publicists. They can't fart without tweeting about it, as would all the dozens of associates and acquaintances in their orbit. Finance ministers, chief executives, and their employees, are much better at maintaining confidentiality. The group offer no press access and issues no press relases; security is tight, so I just think it's a case of them being better and more inclined to keep secerets than others. The press won't write about it if they've got nothing to report!

I'm not sure that nobody would be interested in what a group of the most influential people on Earth would be talking about or planning. I'd certainly be more interested in learning what's said at a Bilderberg meeting than at an Oscars ceremony - and I suspect many people would agree with me on that. Of course, many more people would be completely disinterested, preferring celebrity gossip and Nuts Journalism. I'm sure that the kind of people who watch The Daily Politics or Newsnight would be interested whereas those who orgasm for Britain's Got the X-Factor on Ice would be less intrigued. (Oops, I think I went a bit stereotypical there - sorry!)

Furthermore, what happened to investigative journalism? Why isn't some intrepid reporter pretending to be a waiter to get the inside scoop? I can't believe that nothing of note ever happens at these meetings - even Nuts Journalism would be interested in a drunken Bilderberger (let's say Angela Merkel (picking a name from the Wiki list at random)) if she even looked like she'd had one over the eight. (Remember, for example, the fun the media had when Cherie Blair answered the door looking like she'd just got out of bed?) If these meetings are just a high class piss-up and nothing more, any Sunday newspaper worth its ink would kill to get a journalist in there. But... nothing. Not a peep. Sorry, but to me it just doesn't add up.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Bilderbergers are any less attenion-seeking narcissists than those in the arts - how many politicians shun the media, for example? Unless, of course, they're up to no good...

The fact is that strategies and policies that affect all of us come out of these meetings, so I think that we are entitled to know what goes on in there. This is also my biggest beef against the EU (which I think is a fantastic idea, in principle) - we don't get to find out what happens behind closed doors but are expected to accept without question any legislation that emerges from behind those closed doors.

To paraphrase the last real PotUS, secrecy is anathema to freedom.

(Add - and I'm with Peter, I too have a certain amount of respect for Thatcher for going against Bilderberg. Not enough to forgive her for everything, mind, but a modicum.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty

That's an ... interesting... interpretation. Do you have any ecvidence to back up this remarkable claim? (and I don't just mean repeats of the claim elsewhere)

Of course, as Bilderberg keeps no records, there's no evidence. A quick Google, however, does reveal the claim repeated in several mainstream places. Here are just two:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6283373.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/features.weekend

[TordelBack]

That Jon Ronson article is a great read!  Umberto Eco would be proud.

Is it wrong of me to not be surprised that powerful people from around the capitalist world would want to meet in private and have a chinwag about global developments and areas of mutual interest?  It seems like a Parents Association coffee morning or a Chamber of Commerce lunch writ large (vile though both those events are).  Meeting your peers, coming up with ideas and consensuses (horrid word!), possible collaborations and opportunities - that's how school runs are arranged.  It is, as Denis Healey puts it, how the world works.  The capability of these folks for evil deeds is only marginally enhanced beyond its base levels - and there may even be some potential for a reduction in (to quote Darth Vader) 'destructive conflict'.

I'd be more surprised and concerned if the great and the not-so-good didn't have the same kind of meetings as local businessmen and marrow-growers, and even more surprised if they didn't want to keep the media firmly away.  Who hasn't been at a meeting or conference when a journalist showed up, and watched all the speakers clam up and the banter from the floor just drift away?  

Sometimes being free to speak without fear of (mis)quotation is the only way to get ideas out there.  And it's by the deeds of these folks that their constituents should judge them, not their chummy bar talk.

[Peter Wolf]

Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty

That's an ... interesting... interpretation. Do you have any ecvidence to back up this remarkable claim? (and I don't just mean repeats of the claim elsewhere)

Its a shame that i cant recall her exact words about signing over sovereignty which she said was unforgivable and unnacceptable and to find them will take some backtracking.

Its a well known fact that Thatcher had become anti EU once she realised what was going on and was replaced by gray John Major who was either pro EU or simply someone who just did what he was told.Its common knowledge that Thatcher was anti EU and that Bilderberg call the shots and if they want someone out of public office then out they go and Thatcher was distraught even though she kinew it was coming and she felt she was betrayed by her own party which she was to an extent.

I dont have any absolute proof of this other than her own words as she has talked about in interviews after being kicked out of office and she is still talking about opting out of the EU .

Very recent article :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105481/Time-ditch-EU-says-Thatcher.html

Sometimes being free to speak without fear of (mis)quotation is the only way to get ideas out there.  And it's by the deeds of these folks that their constituents should judge them, not their chummy bar talk.

That is exactly what is going to happen and what does happen and i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg that is in your best interests.

In the meantime everyone can chuckle amongst themselves and trivialise it all and think its all lighthearted chummy bar talk and laugh at the wacky "conspiracy theorists" and  in any case its not all chummy bar talk as when they are in meetings they are outlining policy that affects your life and everyone elses life so  its all a very very serious business.

People can discuss what they like in private but when it involves govt policy its everyones business.

Nothing to hide - nothing to fear.

[TordelBack]

That is exactly what is going to happen and what does happen and i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg that is in your best interests.

Well there I'd agree, these folks are talking about what's in their best interests, and I imagine only very occasionally what they think is in our best interests, in so far as they understand or care about such things.

People can discuss what they like in private but when it involves govt policy its everyones business.

Government policy is proposed and implemented by governments - that's the stuff we need to watch, and influence.  Does it matter if the inspiration of that policy came from a Bilderberg meeting, Das Kapital or the back pages of Woman's Own?  Does it matter where an agreement or an idea came from if it's a bad one, or even a good one?

I'm not sure that I agree that the proceedings of what is essentially a talking shop should be public - as long as the governments that take these discussions and agreements on board are themselves transparent and accountable.  It's at that level, and that failure, that I'd address my concerns.  Private discussions will occur between peers, that is inevitable, and not necessarily inherently evil. By the contrary definition, everything from residents' associations to sports clubs are sinister conspiracies of silence and consent (hmmmm....).

As to banks and corporations, well they are pretty much universally an evil (apart from Lucasfilm, obviously) - attending Bilderberg meetings doesn't change things one way or another.

[Richmond Clements]

i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg

And I think you're right.

[Peter Wolf]

I should say that the argument isnt just that they are having meetings in private as its inevitable that they do or that they are discussing future policy in private as again this happens all the time but its the nature of those that are having the meeting and the nature of their policy and their agenda that is THE problem.

You could then argue that this core of individuals have too much influence and power and then argue the pros and cons of too much power and influence in the hands of too few over so many.

Bilderberg is just one high profile meeting like a conflab but there are lots and lots and lots of other private meetings between these individuals and its easy to fixate on Bilderberg.

Its important to understand that Bilderberg are to an extent subordinates within the power structure.The tier 1 personel[the Bosses] attend as well like David Rockefeller[one of the Godfathers] and queen Beatrix etc and also Tier 2 personel like Henry Kissinger [top advisor] and the head of the FEDRES - Bernanke and then Tier 3 like David Cameron/Gordon Brown who are usually elected PMs and top level minsters along with top CEOs of large corporations and members of infuential think tanks and that type of thing.

Think of the power structure as being exactly the same as the power structure within a large corporation where you have the CEOs and then the board and then you have the different levels of management as its all a heirachy.

The average Bilderberg attendee/delegate is mid level management like David Cameron who then forwards the agenda to the lower level ministers in govt as its all a top down system of control.

If a mid level manager within a large corporation refuses to go along with company policy and the directions of their boss they are fired so the same thing applies in politics and in Bilderberg.Some attend only once while others become regulars but i dont know exactly what the reasons or criteria of this is.

Thatcher attended Bilderberg in 1975 apparently and its very common for junior ministers to be chosen by Bilderberg[Tier 4] to go onto greater things and every recent elected PM had previously attended Bilderberg so once again this is very similar to how large corporations or any large company fills its positions with promotions within its employees.

Its a part of a power structure that is top level but to say Bilderberg themselves are the secret rulers of the world is erroneous to a large extent as Bilderberg themselves are controlled by the likes of Rockefeller and the private central banking families.

Its another world that most are unaware of.

[Dandontdare]

Its common knowledge that Thatcher was anti EU and that Bilderberg call the shots and if they want someone out of public office then out they go and Thatcher was distraught even though she kinew it was coming and she felt she was betrayed by her own party which she was to an extent.

So how exactly did the Bildeburgers get all the individuals in the Conservative party to vote her out of office?

As I've said many times, don't confuse consensus with conspiracy. Claiming that these shadowy groups are secretly ruling the world, rather than powerful rich cunts generally behaving the same way, is all very dramatic but it's just a sideshow.

[JOE SOAP]

So who controls the Rockefellers Peter?

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't believe that any single group rules the world, that's just mad. Nobody can control everything. I tend to look at more like the Mafia. There are several Mafia families exerting influence to get their own way. Some of these families work together, some don't - but they're all just out for themselves.

You don't need to control the whole Conservative Party to get rid of one conservative (even if she is Prime Minister). You only need to bribe/threaten/blackmail/kill key people - like the Mafia do. If the Mafia were to move into your town, they wouldn't have to control everyone to be in charge, would they?

[Peter Wolf]

I am not confusing anything and from what i recall [which admittedly isnt very much right now] there were other factors involved in the ejection of Thatcher from office resulting in a vote of no confidence in Thatcher but i dont know exactly what went on behind the scenes.

It is very often consensus and conspiracy.

There was a consensus within the Conservatives particularly other Bilderbergers within the Conservatives that they were not happy with Thatchers position on Europe and as i have already pointed out its all a top down organisation and there are many different ways that MPs can be brought into line to vote a certain way on certain issues either behind the scenes and also with Whips.Memos get sent out to influential and powerful memebers of the party and the consensus is generated from there.




We could presume that there was a majority of Conservatives at that point who were pro EU and pro Bilderberg and other prominent Conservatives like Geoffrey Howe previously resigned over her anti EU/Eurozone position for example so there clearly was a pro EU consensus within the Conservatives and it was Bilderberg who promoted the idea of EU membership so the influence of Bilderberg is exercised through consensus as well as coercion.Its a mindset as much as anything else which makes it easy to have a consensus.

Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg" and then stated that she didnt fit in with their mindset and couldnt get on with them.This was mentioned in passing but there has never been a full interview with Thatcher about this but it would be interesting to talk to her about this before her health deteriorites even more.

It would be interesting to read the Thatcher memoirs to get more insight into this .

So who controls the Rockefellers Peter?

The Rockefellers control the Rockefellers and they work in cooperation with the private banking cartel.

Rockefellers are involved in the scientific/social engineering side of things and matters that are not financial while the private banking cartel take care of the cash side of things.

[TordelBack]

Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg"

This quote appears in the Ronson article linked to above - and it's from a whispered aside to Jim Tucker, who isn't painted as the most reliable witness by the piece in question.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the substance were true.

[Peter Wolf]

Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg"

This quote appears in the Ronson article linked to above - and it's from a whispered aside to Jim Tucker, who isn't painted as the most reliable witness by the piece in question.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the substance were true.

That quote does seem to be all there is available online but i have red more quotes from Thatcher regarding this but i cant find them anywhere online for want of trying.

Anyway i respect and appreciate the fact that you show an interest in this topic and the other stuff i waffle on about and understand it rather than ridiculing it but that comes with intelligence which you are not lacking in to say the least.

David Rockefeller arrived at Bilderberg today as expected.......

[TordelBack]

Peter, I really don't mean to shite on your ideas or attempt to come off as a superior know-it-all (although reading back I plainly do) - this is very interesting stuff, and a lot of the more solid material that you and and TLS have brought up I hadn't really been aware of.  I'm grateful for the chance to think about these things.

When I'm being cynical about some of the claims, it's because I genuinely want to know what's behind them - I have no problem believing that strings are being pulled in the interests of a self-appointed elite (having watched my own country literally destroyed by exactly this process), I'd just like to see the verifiable facts and most importantly the hows, that is to say the point at which citizens might be able to have their say.  A list of the putative illuminati that includes Dennis Healey and Queen Beatrix alongside the perennial Rockefellers might prick my interest mightily, but I need to see how this translates into actions to believe that this isn't just one more golf club membership committee.

[Peter Wolf]

Peter, I really don't mean to shite on your ideas or attempt to come off as a superior know-it-all (although reading back I plainly do) - this is very interesting stuff, and a lot of the more solid material that you and and TLS have brought up I hadn't really been aware of.  I'm grateful for the chance to think about these things.

When I'm being cynical about some of the claims, it's because I genuinely want to know what's behind them - I have no problem believing that strings are being pulled in the interests of a self-appointed elite (having watched my own country literally destroyed by exactly this process), I'd just like to see the verifiable facts and most importantly the hows, that is to say the point at which citizens might be able to have their say.  A list of the putative illuminati that includes Dennis Healey and Queen Beatrix alongside the perennial Rockefellers might prick my interest mightily, but I need to see how this translates into actions to believe that this isn't just one more golf club membership committee.

There is no point at present or in the future when citizens will have any say whatsoever in the policies that are outlined and implemented by Bilderberg and above.

Forget about that as its autocratic.

Welcome to the post democratic era where we just pay for it through taxes.

For example the military intervention in Libya.No discussion and no debate in parliament in the UK nor in the US as the decision was made without any on behalf of the UN/Bilderberg which assumes authority over the political system in any country.Military intervention in Libya was authorised under the remit of the UN but the policy arose out of Bilderberg etc so saying that the UN authorised it rather than bilderberg is a moot point.

No discussion and no debate and no referendum [direct democracy] about joining the EU which is part of the Bilderberg agenda as it was simply rubber stamped.No discussion and no debate about bank bailouts and even if there was it was superficial.

an elected govt does have a certain amount of say regarding small time domestic issues but any policy concerning broader international issues is subject to the agenda of Bilderberg.

Thinking back 10 years to the invasion of Iraq which was also part of the Bilderberg agenda there was a certain amount of debate in parliament regarding wether to go ahead with it but anyone in the know knew it was a forgone conclusion.The govt presented its faked dossiers etc to create the pretext for it but that was 10 years ago or more and things have moved on from that as you witnessed with the dictat that the UK/NATO would intervene in Libya and the decision was made very quickly as it was in the US.

The US military is now active in Yemen and again there was no discussion as they just go ahead with it without discussion and Syria and the Lebanon will be next and that is partly what will be discussed this weekend at their private meeting.

Will things improve in the next year regarding the economy and military intervention etc ?

I dont think so

I dont think so as they will get worse for you and i and everyone else as its their world and we just live in it.



This is what you call global governance so get used to it as there will be a lot more of it to come and we the people will need to understand this situation and confront it head on.

[There are leaked Bilderberg documents available if i can find them]