Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Certainly a dampener on demand.
Bilderberg in the news ?
- Thread starter Bubba
- Start date
Certainly a dampener on demand.
Sound much the same as reporting on city council meetings to me. Bilderberg is probably about as effective as the typical posturing local city council in changing things too.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Is it any surprise that folks who are well off or influential don't want others seeing their remarks on the listed subjects, when they might get taken in a bad light, especially if cherry picked or taken out of context? Some do indeed enjoy their privacy, I believe.
Last edited:
Dissolution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,306
That's not surprising at all and I'm pretty sure that I didn't suggest that it was.
When current politicians attend such meetings and won't discuss them, that's something else entirely.
I'm still operating under the assumption that they work for the electorate.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Yes, they do. Hence the ever popular "fact finding mission", to help get info to support their electorate in some way. Are all discussions on such missions made public record?
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
Yep I find it amusing that SG believers think that such an organization could just be set up and NOT have infights - that goes against all human experience.
Actually there are SG's - all the millions of people who in one way or another have influence on members of government - this goes from family members, friends, supporters, thinkers, writers, religious figures, TV shows, the list is endless.
I shall always find it amusing when a SG believer thinks there is only one....
Actually there are SG's - all the millions of people who in one way or another have influence on members of government - this goes from family members, friends, supporters, thinkers, writers, religious figures, TV shows, the list is endless.
I shall always find it amusing when a SG believer thinks there is only one....
Dissolution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,306
I'm pretty sure that I didn't suggest that they were.
When a large number of powerful people meet up and politicians are among that group, I don't think that it's out of the question to expect them to disclose what was discussed, though.
I don't understand why this is even vaguely controversial, to be honest.
Arguments defending or rationalizing Bilderberg's not publicizing the content of their meetings for 60+ years are all well and good.
However defending that is not the same as defending Bilderberg's virtually hiding the very existence of the meetings for 5+ decades.
Sorry, but essentially hiding their existence from voters and everyone else well, it just reeks a little, as some here seem to agree or allow.
They could have issued statements about their meetings and explained why the meetings are private. (before the whistleblowing period)...why not?
Early in the whistleblowing period there was footage of Bilderbergers hiding their faces from activists' cameras when arriving at locations.
Why would they hide their faces and essentially hide the very existence of their meetings for decades by not publicizing a word? And how again is it that the major media never questioned or reported, other than fluff, before whistleblowing began?
.
However defending that is not the same as defending Bilderberg's virtually hiding the very existence of the meetings for 5+ decades.
Sorry, but essentially hiding their existence from voters and everyone else well, it just reeks a little, as some here seem to agree or allow.
They could have issued statements about their meetings and explained why the meetings are private. (before the whistleblowing period)...why not?
Early in the whistleblowing period there was footage of Bilderbergers hiding their faces from activists' cameras when arriving at locations.
Why would they hide their faces and essentially hide the very existence of their meetings for decades by not publicizing a word? And how again is it that the major media never questioned or reported, other than fluff, before whistleblowing began?
.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You're really not going to stop until you get to accuse the Bilderbergers of something, are you?
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,214
BazBear
Possible Suspect
I had a joke about trans fats and fat trannies and tolerence and...
Then I decided to delete it, and just confess to my warped sense of humor, and to ask you all for forgiveness.
Goodness no, I'd never do that.
This guy does it better.....
the rest of it:
Over the years, a smattering of documents have been leaked, discovered or otherwise obtained giving glimpses into the meeting and its discussions. The documents cited by the BBC in the Club Class documentary were later leaked online and made available for download, detailing how the 1955 edition of the conference stressed the need “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of [European] integration, beginning with a common European market.”
Last year the hand-written notes of Senator Fred R. Harris from the 1966 Bilderberg meeting were likewise released online, which included notes on suggestions for the reorganization of NATO and even the single line, “Nationalism is dangerous.”
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 4: You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.
the rest of it:
Over the years, a smattering of documents have been leaked, discovered or otherwise obtained giving glimpses into the meeting and its discussions. The documents cited by the BBC in the Club Class documentary were later leaked online and made available for download, detailing how the 1955 edition of the conference stressed the need “To arrive in the shortest possible time at the highest degree of [European] integration, beginning with a common European market.”
Last year the hand-written notes of Senator Fred R. Harris from the 1966 Bilderberg meeting were likewise released online, which included notes on suggestions for the reorganization of NATO and even the single line, “Nationalism is dangerous.”
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 4: You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Define "better" in this context. You clearly quoted extensively from a source you chose not to reveal. Why?
You're kidding, You're actually interested in the source? Sorry, it's James Corbett, if you noticed his name at the bottom of the excerpt in the spoiler. I think he is a relatively credible guy.
Oh, wait you're interested in jumping on lack of link, or you're interested in the source?
I figured nobody here would want to see his page so I didnt even bother linking:
https://www.corbettreport.com/bilderberg-exposed-leaks-whistleblowers-and-secrets/
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
It's impossible to tell how bogus that quote is, because it is unsourced.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, a guy who relies extensively on Alex Jones for his information is a credible guy. Tell us what exercise you went through to assess his credibility.
I'm interested in why, in this thread, you quote a bunch of stuff without telling us where you got it. This thread seems to be little more than you dredging up stuff from the far corners of the internet.
Every year in late spring the conspiracy theorists on the net spasm over Bilderbergers. The same nonsense over shadow government and "media blackouts." Tell me why this year is different. Tell me why your spasm is different.
Hey, I said Corbett is relatively credible. Besides, with Bilderbergs its secretive so speculation rules. Note how many media moguls are on their published roster and the bootlegged rosters.
What if the Rockefeller quote is authentic? It would be polar opposite of what Bilderberg and its supporters say.
Why even bother looking if you're so sure the kooky wackadoos are all wet? " *** "
Maybe some of you guys might have an eensy little doubt? I dont know. The whole secretive world leaders thing is simply way over the top. It is the pre-whistle blowing period where the claims of blackout/virtual blackout pointed to.
Yes, they are less secretive now. But still mostly secretive. I doubt they would have put a website up and told their media moguls to print something if it were not for the crowds, cameras and bullhorns. It still smells a little fishy, the secrecy.
Where do most people get their news? Is that where the scant Bilderberg reports have appeared? Or are those Bilderberg pieces only seen in some other type of media, which has markedly decreased in readership?
Huh? Like what?
Not really. I checked. (Still your participation is appreciated.)
My posts 19 & 33 mentioned wiki as source (never mind wiki reputation)
Post 7 was the Rocky quote. I didnt bother sourcing it. Its everywhere. I figured y'all've seen it more than y'all would like anyhow. Dont tell me you never saw it before.
My other posts were, I think, only my ranting and raving. You dont wanna know that source.
Must you always be so strict Jay? Sheesh.
See " *** " , above.
Consistency. Why need different? Stereotyping moi?
I didnt even notice it is Bilderberg season. The Google thread reminded me of the Bilders
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. The forum rules require that I assume your posts are sincere until you say otherwise. That doesn't stop me from being largely tongue-in-cheek the past page or so. As has been said by others, your copypasta from the web is getting old. But yes, I have to assume you're serious. Going page after page and then finally admitting that you're ranting and raving? I promise it's not your critics who look foolish after such an exercise.
There you go again. Taking me literally when I'm joking. I dont take your tongue-in-cheek remarks literally. Explaining my views is not ranting and raving IMO. It was a joke.
Copypasta? Just a cotton pickin minute there pard,
I put the copypasta Dodd transcript in the spoiler as a favor, to save you going to the google results link I also put in the same post.
I'm still waiting for your profile of a hypothetical shadow government operation, btw.
Why bother with this anyway? I mean if you believe there is nothing to it?
Are you 100% sure about Bilderberg?
I recall in the 'google protecting our freedoms' thread you said something like ...'we may wonder if they are doing it'... Sorry, that's probably not even close. What was that you said? ...about web censorship in places like China? I think you indicated we could not rule it out in freer societies. So, anything similar re Bilderberg?
Last edited: