"Why Does The Mainstream Media Ignore The Bilderberg Group?" (Article)

[dafydd]

Present your evidence of this claim?

I cite YouTube.

 

[dafydd]

It's not, and they can be. My point is we don't know that, and it's wrong to brand people as Conspiracy Theorists for looking at an obviously sketchy situation and wanting to know more. The "nothing to see here" mentality of some posters here is the whole driving force keeping this dumb thread going.

I refuse to be cowed into saying the BG meeting is a boring snooze-fest.

Why obviously? It's not obvious to me. Please explain.

 

[Dazed]

"I just don't see it as necessarily more probable than any other hypothesis, including those that are strictly benign."

I believe it is, based on human nature, and reasons I've stated already: Humans are motivated by wealth and power, there's a historical precedent of rich and powerful seeking more wealth and power, historical precedent for subversion of democracy where possible.

I am curious, do you think the occupy movement is a silly, unreasonable charade? Debunk the occupy movement, so I know who I'm dealing with here.

 

[dafydd]

sigh, cause now I have to do my Bilderberg conspiracy research on my own, instead of having a hardline CT present it in a neat little package for me.

Does that mean that you have not done any research yet? Or if you have, could you please present any evidence that you have discovered. (YouTube videos made by CT believers are not evidence.)

 

[Dazed]

Why obviously? It's not obvious to me. Please explain.

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...chine-gun-security-perimeter-marriott-139361/

"machine gun perimeter" and "obviously sketchy" are synonymous when it comes to secret meetings of the world elite. That's just my own confirmation bias though.

 

[dafydd]

"I just don't see it as necessarily more probable than any other hypothesis, including those that are strictly benign."

I believe it is, based on human nature, and reasons I've stated already: Humans are motivated by wealth and power, there's a historical precedent of rich and powerful seeking more wealth and power, historical precedent for subversion of democracy where possible.

I am curious, do you think the occupy movement is a silly, unreasonable charade? Debunk the occupy movement, so I know who I'm dealing with here.

I was in The Hague a couple of months ago, visiting the Escher museum, and I saw the occupy The Hague camp. A handful of tents and a handful of people. The occupy Antwerp action hasn't got much support either. I have no idea what the goals of the occupy movement are.

 

[Dazed]

Does that mean that you have not done any research yet? Or if you have, could you please present any evidence that you have discovered. (YouTube videos made by CT believers are not evidence.)

Still havent watched the video eh?

Here let me do your homework for you:
It's a CNN camera recording a plane full of news reporters being held captive and flown to Chicago after being tricked into thinking the presidential candidates would be on the plane, but they were really attending the bilderberg meeting, and the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to incapacitate and deceive all the news reporters so the candidates could attend the bilderberg meetings unmolested by national scrutiny.

 

[dafydd]

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...chine-gun-security-perimeter-marriott-139361/

"machine gun perimeter" and "obviously sketchy" are synonymous when it comes to secret meetings of the world elite. That's just my own confirmation bias though.

That link does not work.

 

[dafydd]

Still havent watched the video eh?

Here let me do your homework for you:
It's a CNN camera recording a plane full of news reporters being held captive and flown to Chicago after being tricked into thinking the presidential candidates would be on the plane, but they were really attending the bilderberg meeting, and the whole thing was an elaborate ruse to incapacitate and deceive all the news reporters so the candidates could attend the bilderberg meetings unmolested by national scrutiny.

The link has vanished. Can you give the names of some of these reporters so I can check their blogs? Who held them captive? Why would the Bilderbergers do that when their meeting was not a secret? The video sounds like a fake to me. In which year did this take place? I bet there were others reporters covering the meeting.

 

[Childlike Empress]

 

[dafydd]

A fairly innocuous interview. I didn't see the armed guards holding them captive. The CT comments were hilarious, thank you.

 

[Dazed]

A fairly innocuous interview. I didn't see the armed guards holding them captive. The CT comments were hilarious, thank you.

... Why would it require armed guards to keep them on an airplane which is currently in flight? Which they had been duped into boarding under false pretenses...?

 

[theprestige]

If my distrust of the BG's good intentions is paranoid, then I'm obviously paranoid.

Who's claiming that the BG's have good intentions?

 

[theprestige]

It's not, and they can be. My point is we don't know that, and it's wrong to brand people as Conspiracy Theorists for looking at an obviously sketchy situation and wanting to know more.

What does "obviously sketchy" mean to you?

What evidence have you seen, that make the sketchiness of this situation obvious?

Would you be willing to discuss that evidence here, in this thread?

Conversely, since you keep insisting that you don't have any evidence and you aren't making any claims, would you be willing to stop making claims such as "obviously sketch situation"?

I refuse to be cowed into saying the BG meeting is a boring snooze-fest.

But you don't actually have any evidence that it's actually an interesting hootenanny, right?

 

[Boot2TheHead]

I, for one, would like to thank Dazed for his valiant efforts. I almost spent on a Simpsons episode time that would be much more valuably invested worrying about the possibility that the Bilderberg Group probably could spawn a conspiracy maybe. Whew. Really dodged a bullet here.

 

[Dazed]

I, for one, would like to thank Dazed for his valiant efforts. I almost spent on a Simpsons episode time that would be much more valuably invested worrying about the possibility that the Bilderberg Group probably could spawn a conspiracy maybe. Whew. Really dodged a bullet here.

It's a good thing the thought police were out in force to defend the world's elite citizens from those who might speak ill of them on the internet.

 

[gabeygoat]

Their evil plan is to put the chief of the NSA and the CEO of google in the same room and let whatever happens, happen.

If you were to watch the video and explain why the obvious deception is not something to be concerned about, or is somehow acceptable, then we would have something to discuss.

It always baffles me, and sometimes makes me giggle, when people site youtube videos as evidence of any conspiracy. A.) If there were some all-powerful Bilderberg Elite controlling the world, they could have those videos taken down, especially when, B.) youtube is owned by none other than...Google! (who is supposed to be conspiring with the evil elite?)

 

[Inside Mob]

The simple statement that "mainstream media ignores The Bilderberg group" gets two things wrong. The only part that is not wrong is "The Bilderberg group".

'Mainstream media' is used as an accusatory way that to most is a hazy concept that has no face or personality and it is therefore easy to universally assign some attribute to it. The term is misleading and makes an unreasonable generalization. I have several groups of friends. One group has strong conspiratorial sentiments about everything except the paranormal or UFOs. One group of friends are the 'mainstream media'. Some of those I've met myself and a lot of them through my girlfriend who is a reporter. I actually know at least a dozen people who write for the two most influential newspapers here, I know people from the tabloids and I know people who do TV news, private and state owned. Those are, surprise surprise, not faceless. They drink, they talk and complain. Like any of us. Those people are not getting coordinated control commands, there is absolutely no evidence of centrally planned reporting/non-reporting of The Bilderberg or any other issue.

The conspiratorial group of friends, not surprisingly, is able to use the term mainstream media at will. They have absolutely no interface to the people doing the 'mainstream media' thing. It is an abstract, faceless concept and easy to attribute with universal properties. I'm in the middle hitting my head with a rock at the face of such idiocy. Well to be honest maybe it is not idiocy but unawareness because of circumstances. And I guess it is like that for the most people who use the term. (this is anecdotal I realize it)

Mainstream media probably is a real and applicable term in some information/communication theory but the way that it is mostly used is detrimental to any argument that one is trying to make. Saying it means two things: (1) you are making a hasty generalization and (2) you have not understood that there are *individuals* involved. But more importantly you would have to prove this 'mainstream media' thing before you use it as a premise. If you do not do this you are wrong even before we get to your actual argument.

The 'ignoring' part is wrong also. Ignoring it relative to what? What other conferences or meetings are being 'ignored'? Almost ALL federal government, local government, UN, WHO, any think tank etcetcetc... meetings are being 'ignored'. 'Ignoring it' is applicable to so many other instances that it is practically useless accusation. Also the Bilderberg meeting WAS in the news here. I think it was the second headline on the most watched TV news here. Also it was in ALL the papers that I read. The finance minister was claiming in an interview that she was going as a private person. The hubhub was that the state was paying for it. I don't know about you but to me 'the mainstream media' is doing an awfully bad job at ignoring it.

I have categorically addressed how the claim is wrong from the get go. The article itself succeeds to go deeper in the category of wrong. If someone disagrees with any of my reasoning or anecdotes please do so.

What is funny that 'ignoring' and 'mainstream media' claims are very common themes in conspiratorial thinking and are some of the major reasons for misguided view of the world.

 

[Dazed]

The simple statement that "mainstream media ignores The Bilderberg group" gets two things wrong. The only part that is not wrong is "The Bilderberg group".

'Mainstream media' is used as an accusatory way that to most is a hazy concept that has no face or personality and it is therefore easy to universally assign some attribute to it. The term is misleading and makes an unreasonable generalization. I have several groups of friends. One group has strong conspiratorial sentiments about everything except the paranormal or UFOs. One group of friends are the 'mainstream media'. Some of those I've met myself and a lot of them through my girlfriend who is a reporter. I actually know at least a dozen people who write for the two most influential newspapers here, I know people from the tabloids and I know people who do TV news, private and state owned. Those are, surprise surprise, not faceless. They drink, they talk and complain. Like any of us. Those people are not getting coordinated control commands, there is absolutely no evidence of centrally planned reporting/non-reporting of The Bilderberg or any other issue.

The conspiratorial group of friends, not surprisingly, is able to use the term mainstream media at will. They have absolutely no interface to the people doing the 'mainstream media' thing. It is an abstract, faceless concept and easy to attribute with universal properties. I'm in the middle hitting my head with a rock at the face of such idiocy. Well to be honest maybe it is not idiocy but unawareness because of circumstances. And I guess it is like that for the most people who use the term. (this is anecdotal I realize it)

Mainstream media probably is a real and applicable term in some information/communication theory but the way that it is mostly used is detrimental to any argument that one is trying to make. Saying it means two things: (1) you are making a hasty generalization and (2) you have not understood that there are *individuals* involved. But more importantly you would have to prove this 'mainstream media' thing before you use it as a premise. If you do not do this you are wrong even before we get to your actual argument.

The 'ignoring' part is wrong also. Ignoring it relative to what? What other conferences or meetings are being 'ignored'? Almost ALL federal government, local government, UN, WHO, any think tank etcetcetc... meetings are being 'ignored'. 'Ignoring it' is applicable to so many other instances that it is practically useless accusation. Also the Bilderberg meeting WAS in the news here. I think it was the second headline on the most watched TV news here. Also it was in ALL the papers that I read. The finance minister was claiming in an interview that she was going as a private person. The hubhub was that the state was paying for it. I don't know about you but to me 'the mainstream media' is doing an awfully bad job at ignoring it.

I have categorically addressed how the claim is wrong from the get go. The article itself succeeds to go deeper in the category of wrong. If someone disagrees with any of my reasoning or anecdotes please do so.

What is funny that 'ignoring' and 'mainstream media' claims are very common themes in conspiratorial thinking and are some of the major reasons for misguided view of the world.

These are good points. It's funny how far off topic a thread can go when you get caught up in flaming an individual in an effort to gain approval from your perceived peers.

 

[dafydd]

These are good points. It's funny how far off topic a thread can go when you get caught up in flaming an individual in an effort to gain approval from your perceived peers.

They are very good points. Perhaps the Bilderbergs are not so flagitious after all.