• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

dafydd said:
Wow, layer upon layer of secrecy. We are well into this thread and so far all the Bilderbergers have been accused of is meeting.
Click to expand...

And shopping at Walmart.

Although I suspect that they don't on average, shop at Walmart.
 
One of the links I posted in reply #263 doesn't work for some reason.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8357310&postcount=263

The Google link I posted only leads to the basic Google search page. I had googled "Michel Chossudovsky Bilderberg" and posted the link.

Here's the link again.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=....,cf.osb&fp=55f1dbe328002a08&biw=1024&bih=582

I don't know what's going on here but, if people want to see what I really wanted to post, they'd better just google "Michel Chossudovsky Bilderberg".

Michel Chossudovsky is a respected anti-establishment pundit....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....or&authorFirst=Michel&authorName=Chossudovsky

...so any Bilderberg article with his name in it will probably be objective (as opposed to disinfo).
 
FatFreddy88 said:
One of the links I posted in reply #263 doesn't work for some reason.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8357310&postcount=263

The Google link I posted only leads to the basic Google search page. I had googled "Michel Chossudovsky Bilderberg" and posted the link.

Here's the link again.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=....,cf.osb&fp=55f1dbe328002a08&biw=1024&bih=582

I don't know what's going on here but, if people want to see what I really wanted to post, they'd better just google "Michel Chossudovsky Bilderberg".

Michel Chossudovsky is a respected anti-establishment pundit....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....or&authorFirst=Michel&authorName=Chossudovsky

...so any Bilderberg article with his name in it will probably be objective (as opposed to disinfo).
Click to expand...
Is Micheal receiving treatment for his psychiatric problem? He's a supporter of North Korea, you'd have to be quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic to do that.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28342

Can you tell me in your own words which of the Bildeberger's evil plans have come to fruition?
 
Last edited:
Is Micheal receiving treatment for his psychiatric problem? He's a supporter of North Korea, you'd have to be quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic to do that.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28342
Click to expand...
You seem to be basing your opinions on the official US government version of things. The alternative press gives a totally different version of history. Of course, I wasn't there to see what really happened but I don't see any reason to simply rule out what the alternative press says as the US government is famous for lying. Start reading here at the ninth paragraph.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Petras_James/Imperial_War_Pretexts.html

Here's an alternative version of why we fought in World War 1.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159

Tell us what you think.

Can you tell me in your own words which of the Bildeberger's evil plans have come to fruition?
Click to expand...
As I said in my earlier post, I'm not in a position to know exactly what's been happening as I wasn't there watching it happen. I just think the version that we read in the alternative press should be viewed objectively. Click on the second link in post #286 to see the alternative press version.


If he is writing from an anti-establishment viewpoint, he is not going to be objective. What you mean is "he writes things I agree with".
Click to expand...
He bases all of his analyses on the idea that the US is the "Bad guys" in the world which is correct. People who play down the Bilderberg group are usually people who base all of their opinions on the idea that the US supports freedom and democracy in the world.

I think this calls for an objectivity test. Do you people think the US is the good guys in the world? I'd especially like to hear from Jay Windley. Here's some alternative info on the subject.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0JCJ4pIFEw
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You seem to be basing your opinions on the official US government version of things. The alternative press gives a totally different version of history. Of course, I wasn't there to see what really happened but I don't see any reason to simply rule out what the alternative press says as the US government is famous for lying. Start reading here at the ninth paragraph.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Petras_James/Imperial_War_Pretexts.html

Here's an alternative version of why we fought in World War 1.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159

Tell us what you think.


As I said in my earlier post, I'm not in a position to know exactly what's been happening as I wasn't there watching it happen. I just think the version that we read in the alternative press should be viewed objectively. Click on the second link in post #286 to see the alternative press version.



He bases all of his analyses on the idea that the US is the "Bad guys" in the world which is correct. People who play down the Bilderberg group are usually people who base all of their opinions on the idea that the US supports freedom and democracy in the world.

I think this calls for an objectivity test. Do you people think the US is the good guys in the world? I'd especially like to hear from Jay Windley. Here's some alternative info on the subject.

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0JCJ4pIFEw
Click to expand...

Enough said.
 
gabeygoat said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

Welcome to debate with FatFreddy88, as he is known now. Also by DaveC, Cosmored, and a dozen other sock puppets across the internet.

He proposes some irrelevant straw-man question as a loyalty test, and if you don't submit to it and answer the way he wants you to, he dismisses you as a "paid government shill" and ignores the merits of anything you say. Don't waste your time on him.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Do you think assuming that they are up to no good is a reasonable assumption?
Click to expand...

No. It's an affirmative hypothesis, and therefore must carry the burden of proof. If you assume they're plotting against you, and require proof that they aren't, then the best you'll ever be able to hope for -- no matter how much information you might be able to gather -- is to show that they aren't plotting against you in any way you can detect.

Please research what it means to "beg the question."

The complete absence of any affirmative proof that the Bilderbergers have planned and executed any nefarious scheme at any point in their history is, of course, not proof that they are benign. But it is a complete dearth of proof for the affirmative case. That does mean something. The doomsayers cannot bear their burden of proof, so we don't accept their conclusion. Handwaving an excuse for why it should be accepted by default does not portray you as rational.
 
JayUtah said:
Orphia Nay said:
Do you think assuming that they are up to no good is a reasonable assumption?
Click to expand...
No. It's an affirmative hypothesis, and therefore must carry the burden of proof. If you assume they're plotting against you, and require proof that they aren't, then the best you'll ever be able to hope for -- no matter how much information you might be able to gather -- is to show that they aren't plotting against you in any way you can detect.

Please research what it means to "beg the question."

The complete absence of any affirmative proof that the Bilderbergers have planned and executed any nefarious scheme at any point in their history is, of course, not proof that they are benign. But it is a complete dearth of proof for the affirmative case. That does mean something. The doomsayers cannot bear their burden of proof, so we don't accept their conclusion. Handwaving an excuse for why it should be accepted by default does not portray you as rational.
Click to expand...

Er, Jay, I don't think you meant to reply to me. I quite agree that claims of a nefarious Bilderberg group need to be backed up by evidence. That was to be my next point, although it won't be needed because Dazed said 'no' to my question.
 
Link spamming is a well established and traditional argumentation method of grand conspiracy believers. I don't think I have encountered an attempt at counterargument that suggested that people should google some dude and then read up on it. You know that the next step in argumentation is basically saying "Learn some history, boy!"
 
garethdjb said:
Chossudovsky appears to share the conviction of Watson, Jones, Tucker etc. that an attack on Iran is imminent. And has been every year since 2006.
Click to expand...

S'alright - apparently the contingency plans drawn up by military planners in 1921 (Canada) and in 1930 (US) are signs that both countries are prepared to wage war against each other at an instant's notice.

And that the presence of LOs of both countries in each other's HQs is a sign that Canada has become a satrapy of the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom