Maybe where and whence they are long time career leaders and shakers of the world, whether currently in office or not?
Bilderberg in the news ?
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Maybe where and whence they are long time career leaders and shakers of the world, whether currently in office or not?
Looking at wikipedia's list of attendees, is it really a
bunch of mostly unremarkable politicians and businessmen,
...?
.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why should we care?
There's never been any evidence the attendees are noteworthy outside of their public roles.
Considering their potential influence, its conceivable they could cause/steer policy based upon their secret proceedings.
While American attendees may not technically be violating the Logan Act since they are not attending Bilderberg while in office, they certainly could violate the spirit of it because many of them are the types that influence policy decisions whether in office not. Perhaps the term career power brokers describes that.
Put differently, if there actually were some kind ofshadow government or preliminary secret globalization planning, it might look, sound, and behave like something similar to the Bilderberg Group.
Speculation of course, which may be part of why some like the Brit MPs worry re the lack of transparency.
Brit MPs would know very well how power brokers in private can operate, as would many in govt.
While American attendees may not technically be violating the Logan Act since they are not attending Bilderberg while in office, they certainly could violate the spirit of it because many of them are the types that influence policy decisions whether in office not. Perhaps the term career power brokers describes that.
Put differently, if there actually were some kind ofshadow government or preliminary secret globalization planning, it might look, sound, and behave like something similar to the Bilderberg Group.
Speculation of course, which may be part of why some like the Brit MPs worry re the lack of transparency.
Brit MPs would know very well how power brokers in private can operate, as would many in govt.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Lot's of speculation and paranoia but, no meat.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Or if they were just invited to a yearly party based on their corporate or government status, they might not want that to be generally known.
You aren't an expert on what powerful people want or do.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
How? By going back to their respective governments or boards of directors and proposing courses of action that, in the former case, become part of the governmental record or, in the latter case, become part of the board meeting minutes.
Hogwash. Shadow government means you don't know it exists or what it does. That's what "shadow" means. If there's a domain name with a plethora of information on what the group is and does, then it's not shadow government. "Fostering international dialogue" is the most mealy-mouthed motive you can imagine. It's like taking your work group to Disneyland and calling it a "team building exercise." You really just wanted to go to Disneyland on the company dime.
Why should we consider you an expert on what British MPs know. Are you a British MP?
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Are they incapable of netmeetings and conference calls in your world?
So what?
Should I follow Stephen Hawking around too, on the off chance that a nugget of physics falls out of his head?
I know these folks have a certain amount of celebrity, but do you really think they need a secret meeting to talk with each other? I'd guess more deals are born, both for the good of mankind and for the fattening of wallets, on classy golf courses than at once a year conferences of any sort.
Two things to consider:
1) This is 2015, anyone who wants to talk to anyone else, anywhere in the world, can easily do so.
2) People are still people, even high-power people. They are vain, they want to be seen, they want to show off in front of their peers, they want recognition and they want to feel important.
Thanks, word choice is important. Keeps us on our toes.
By Brit MPs I suggest anyone in govt positions (like congress members) They know how influence is peddled. Such as those Brit MPs expressing concern re secrecy.
True. History is certainly more expert than I. It implies powerful people tend to consolidate power. Some of them at least.
Not wholly unreasonable speculation, what with global powerbrokers and leaders meeting in secret and all. For what, about 60 yrs now?
It seems reasonable to presume the Bilderberg meetings played a role in the formation of the EEU and the EU, for example. Wouldn't global leaders and powerbrokers discuss world shaping events, brainstorm policy points, and promote their preferences afterwards at their respective jobs and meetings, whether they are officially in office or not?
Answer: They might have a policy barring such talk. Doubtful, though IMO.
Isnt that simply what these people do as a general rule?
Of course speculation is all one has. The proceedings are secret.
Speculation is allowed here, right? I've seen members speculate lotsa times.
We have world powerbrokers meeting in secret for decades, what do you guys think they are doing in those meetings?
By Brit MPs I suggest anyone in govt positions (like congress members) They know how influence is peddled. Such as those Brit MPs expressing concern re secrecy.
True. History is certainly more expert than I. It implies powerful people tend to consolidate power. Some of them at least.
Not wholly unreasonable speculation, what with global powerbrokers and leaders meeting in secret and all. For what, about 60 yrs now?
It seems reasonable to presume the Bilderberg meetings played a role in the formation of the EEU and the EU, for example. Wouldn't global leaders and powerbrokers discuss world shaping events, brainstorm policy points, and promote their preferences afterwards at their respective jobs and meetings, whether they are officially in office or not?
Answer: They might have a policy barring such talk. Doubtful, though IMO.
Isnt that simply what these people do as a general rule?
Of course speculation is all one has. The proceedings are secret.
Speculation is allowed here, right? I've seen members speculate lotsa times.
We have world powerbrokers meeting in secret for decades, what do you guys think they are doing in those meetings?
Last edited:
So the group grew anyway? He died in 04.
If its worth mentioning... "Prince Bernhard was a member of the "Reiter-SS", a mounted unit of the SS and joined the Nazi party."
-Wikipedia
Should anyone care to speculate what they do, this may help:
Here supposedly is a Bilderberg agenda from Wikipedia:
from same wiki page:
Delegates (alphabetical)
For the first time, a list of expected delegates was published by the Bilderberg Group.
I didnt read the whole list of delegates but I did notice Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc. (not that it means anything)
Here supposedly is a Bilderberg agenda from Wikipedia:
from same wiki page:
Delegates (alphabetical)
For the first time, a list of expected delegates was published by the Bilderberg Group.
I didnt read the whole list of delegates but I did notice Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman, Google Inc. (not that it means anything)
By Jove, I think he's got it!
Yes, of course. Understood.
I should think the claim would be more like Bilderberg is a place where some from a more secret group might attend, maybe to gather or sow info, or recruit...whatever.
If its OK to speculate, draw a profile...If I were a shadow govt, that might be something I'd do. I might even create such organizations which look and sound harmless otherwise.
-Just trying to think how I'd speculate a shadow govt might think.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I think the purpose is to turn themselves into zombies by extended Death By PowerPoint.
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
Or as the Chinese used to call it, death by a thousand slides.
But please do not use the disparaging Z-word on these forums. The correct term is people living with PDS (Partially Deceased Syndrome). The BBC had an excellent docudrama about them, In the Flesh
FromBelgiumWithLove
Unregistered
A very silly article indeed, which serves as a good example of why Wikipedia isn't to be taken seriously as a source. The author thinks that in 1911, when Bernhard was born, his father was "the reigning Prince of Lippe", and that "he and his brother could only succeed to the Lippian throne if the entire reigning House became extinct." It's not even very good comedy (at least I take it "succeed to the Lippian throne" was meant as a laugh line. Unless they really think Germany in 1911 was some kind of Game of Thrones fantasy land.) Just about the best part of the article are the concluding words, quoted from a Dutch biographer: that Bernhard was "a creature of his own myths".
What is reasonable about that presumption? The formation of what ultimately became the European Union, and the political thinking behind it, aren't shrouded in any mystery. It was the result of a highly public effort, openly discussed and advocated for decades, of creating an economic and political union so close that it would put a stop to European wars forever. That effort even predated WW2, and continued during it. In particular, it was meant to forever end the madness of the French/German rivalry. The treaties that created it were very publicly signed, by democratically elected governments, and available for anyone to read. If Prince Bernhard hadn't had this idea for a little mutual admiration society, where attendees go to bask in the glory of thinking of themselves as being very, very important indeed, you think none of that would have happened?
Staying at expensive hotels at someone else's expense, eating expensive food and drinking expensive booze, while for part of that time saying exactly the same things to each other they've also been saying in speeches, in interviews, in op-ed pieces, in books, etc. etc. (After all, they have to pretend to themselves that there's a serious reason for all of them to be there, other than massaging their own egos.) And I can't help but laugh at the idea of all that POWER!!! being BROKERED!!! by people like "Danish Minister of Finance", "Premier of Saskatchewan Province", "Anchorwoman, La 7 TV", "Turkish MP", "Member of the House of Lords", or "CEO, Heineken". (I suppose that last one has the power to change Heineken's liquid to make it taste like beer, but he has obviously chosen not to exercise it.)
The whole notion of a "shadow government" is absurd in itself. By definition, government involves doing things that other people experience. Even if you plan something in secret, once you put it in practice, it ceases being a secret. You can plan a war in secret, but once the shooting starts, you can't hide it anymore. If there is a "shadow government" whose actions nobody knows about, that means it's not doing any governing, and thus ipso facto not a government at all.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So the Bilderbergers aren't the secret organization. They're just a gateway to the real secret organization. The great thing about that line of reasoning is that it's reusable every time the organization under scrutiny shows absolutely no evidence of being nefarious. Welcome to the infinitely deep rabbit hole.
Well no, here's what you're doing. You've got a Bilderberger jigsaw puzzle piece and a Shadow Government puzzle piece and you're going through the whole combination of tabs and holes to see what might possibly fit, without seeing that one piece is autumn leaves and the other is sky.
You are certainly free to set up yours the way you want. But if I were setting up a shadow government, it wouldn't have a web site.