Bilderberg in the news ?

Bubba · Apr 11, 2015

JayUtah said:
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.

Dang, I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious. I thought it only made sense that a shadow govt would have front organization(s). Otherwise, how could it remain in the shadows and still be effective at puppeteering?

You are certainly free to set up yours the way you want

.

Thank you Jay. I appreciate your granting me latitude in setting up my shadow government. I trust that you already knew it is reciprocal.

As a matter of fact, I'd be most interested to hear/see the profile you would draw of how your top notch shadow government would interface with visible governments and other major global organizations. I'd welcome profiling ideas from anyone.

But if I were setting up a shadow government, it wouldn't have a web site.

That a hypothetical shadow govt wouldn't have a website is essentially what I had pointed out, in the post you are replying to to.

Including an interface with visible govt in a profile of a successful hypothetical shadow govt seems like sound reasoning to me. I should think reason also suggests the best shadow govts would have operatives in the visible govt who are part of the shadow group. Wouldn't you do it that way?

Bubba · Apr 12, 2015

JayUtah said:

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.

Only the dimmest most amateur shadow government setter upper would have a shadow government website. Upon seeing your site, some might say "Hey wait a minute, there isnt supposed to be a shadow government !!" Then you might get in trouble for setting up a shadow government. So of course you wouldn't have a website.

Chances are however, you'd want one or more nice looking fronts where some of your guys could appear to be legit while doing what shadow government guys do in order to govern from the shadows....?

Actually you might finally decide to create an official Bilderberg website (rather late in internet years btw) in order to look respectable, (only after your luminaries were seen on youtube for a few years, and accused of being part of a shadow government).

Merely routine damage control. really, and you are such a crack shadow government setter upper that your experts probably saw it coming years before, and had your official website ready for launching. You'd even post a meeting agenda or two so everyone sees you are transparent good guys.

I should think thats what any shadow government worth its salt would be ready to do if one of its fronts had its cover blown.

Isn't that just common sense, in a crack shadow government outfit, or in its hypothetical profile?

Hans · Apr 12, 2015

JayUtah said:
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.

Howdy Jay

The best thing about this reasoning is that one of most complex governments on the planet can be run from the 'shadows' by persons who do so on a part time basis, with no administrative support while the real government takes of nearly 7% of working population.......and they have no dissents within their organization.

p0lka · Apr 12, 2015

Dissolution said:
Isn't there a lack of coverage because it's not happening until June?

I have to agree with KDLarsen about the way it looks, though.
Even British MPs have suggested that the lack of transparency is harmful.
It's conspiracy theory fuel.

I agree.

anyway, I do not understand why people, in a democratic society, accept any of their voted for members of parliament having secret meetings with other powerful people who aren't part of any government without explaining to the voters why.

LSSBB · Apr 12, 2015

p0lka said:
I agree.

anyway, I do not understand why people, in a democratic society, accept any of their voted for members of parliament having secret meetings with other powerful people who aren't part of any government without explaining to the voters why.

How would you know if they just picked up a phone, or Skyped with these supposed nefarious elements? When you vote for a representative, do you expect to have full knowledge of their every action in a day? Or, do you instead put systems in place to recall them, or just not vote for them, when they betray the public trust?

Bubba · Apr 12, 2015

Hans said:
Howdy Jay

The best thing about this reasoning is that one of most complex governments on the planet can be run from the 'shadows' by persons who do so on a part time basis, with no administrative support while the real government takes of nearly 7% of working population.......and they have no dissents within their organization.

Straw much?
How about instead consider how it could work.
Why would it require any number near the 7%, who are mostly employees doing their jobs as instructed? It would happen at the top layers, in my model. Are you implying all 7% would have to be in on it?

Did Bilderbergers Kissinger or Rockefeller or Bernanke tell you they have no administrative support? And they also told you they "have no dissents within" ?

Exactly what administrative support would be needed in your model?

Considering how it could be done (profiling, means, motive) may be too much to ask, sorry.

Its merely an intellectual exercise. Kinda like brainstorming, or maybe like how pentagon types engage in war gaming.

I think detectives and prosecutors also do something similar when investigating a crime which required involvement of two or more people, as in conspiracy.

Bubba · Apr 12, 2015

Originally Posted by p0lka
I agree.

anyway, I do not understand why people, in a democratic society, accept any of their voted for members of parliament having secret meetings with other powerful people who aren't part of any government without explaining to the voters why.

Most of 'the people' dont even know about the secret meetings of Bilderberg due to the virtual media blackout by mainstream media, which is where most people get their info. Many people as well are conditioned to dismiss it if the words "conspiracy theory" are associated with it. (Lucky for conspirators).

LSSBB said:
How would you know if they just picked up a phone, or Skyped with these supposed nefarious elements? When you vote for a representative, do you expect to have full knowledge of their every action in a day? Or, do you instead put systems in place to recall them, or just not vote for them, when they betray the public trust?

While not untrue, somehow itseems a little like dodging the issue. Maybe there is term for it. Perhaps strawman is not exactly it, but it reminds me of a strawman.

Maybe strawman fits, on second thought.

LSSBB · Apr 12, 2015

Bubba said:
While not untrue, somehow itseems a little like dodging the issue. Maybe there is term for it. Perhaps strawman is not exactly it, but it reminds me of a strawman.

Maybe strawman fits, on second thought.

In what way? If you don't want people meeting, how do you propose to stop it in the modern age? That is, if you even have any evidence that anything comes of them meeting, which you don't. As it stands right now, what you have is:

1. Various people meet, many are powerful and influential.
2. ???????
3. World domination!
4. Something bad will happen, somewhere, somehow.

Looks like you are the one with the strawman.

JayUtah · Apr 12, 2015

Bubba said:
Most of 'the people' dont even know about the secret meetings of Bilderberg...

Source?

...due to the virtual media blackout by mainstream media...

...who used to report on them until it got too boring.

...which is where most people get their info.

Standard conspiracy rhetoric. "The mainstream media ignore X. I talk about X. Therefore I am better informed than everyone else." *yawn*

Many people as well are conditioned to dismiss it if the words "conspiracy theory" are associated with it. (Lucky for conspirators).

Just as many people are conditioned to jump on anything characterized as "secret" as both important and nefarious.

Hans · Apr 12, 2015

Bubba said:
Straw much?
How about instead consider how it could work.
Why would it require any number near the 7%, who are mostly employees doing their jobs as instructed? It would happen at the top layers, in my model. Are you implying all 7% would have to be in on it?

Did Bilderbergers Kissinger or Rockefeller or Bernanke tell you they have no administrative support? And they also told you they "have no dissents within" ?

Exactly what administrative support would be needed in your model?

Considering how it could be done (profiling, means, motive) may be too much to ask, sorry.

Its merely an intellectual exercise. Kinda like brainstorming, or maybe like how pentagon types engage in war gaming.

I think detectives and prosecutors also do something similar when investigating a crime which required involvement of two or more people, as in conspiracy.

A shadow government would need the same type of support that a real one does - as does any complex organization. They would also need to monitor the real government to ensure that it was doing what it wanted.

Well what would those in the SG who don't like it do about it?

So the support staff for Rockefeller mirrors the US government? Plus there isn't any evidence that they ARE the SG

Okay tell us how this shadow government operates - example tell us how the SG (Shadow government) would do the following.

How would the SG know that there is no other SG?

------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine if you would that you want to set up a secret management for say, a MacDonald's - figure out how you would do that and you will quickly start to see the problems in doing so.

Lets look at that - the easiest way from the CT point of view is to have 'control' over the manager - just call him up and tell him what to do --- right?

Buzz buzz

MacDonald's manager here, Jim Smith

SG: we want you to use shredded cardboard instead of lettuce

Ah excuse me? Who is this?

I'm telling you what to do.

I can see that but who are you?

............

The first problem: the guys you are controlling have to know who you are.......actually that is the second problem the first problem is to put together a SG where everyone agrees on a course of action....

Bubba · Apr 12, 2015

by JayUtah

Source?

Old fashioned common sense, for one. Most people rely on 'reputable' media and 'reputable' media simply hasn't told them about Bilderberg...not until relatively recently, if that.

Another:
Being curious, years ago I would ask people, mostly strangers, if they heard of it. Or I'd just go fishing, dropping 'bilderberg' into conversations. In that urban area full of college people and business people, very few (essentially no one) had heard of it. It was just showing up online back then, maybe 2 years or less. Not a peep from major media, except decades earlier, in a few fluffy pieces.

Just as many people are conditioned to jump on anything characterized as "secret" as both important and nefarious.

Thats funny Jay, Sometimes yes, fools rush in, however, world leaders meeting in secret for 60 odd years, and big media not reporting it, is not just "anything" characterized as "secret".

...who used to report on them until it got too boring.

Who did? When? Which networks/papers were reporting on Bilderberg, after the fifties/sixties fluff pieces, and into the early whistleblowing period?
Hint: Little or none in that period. Hence the claims.

....Not reporting back when word first got out, which is the period that matters in context. I mentioned I did a search a while back, and the only results (other than whistleblowers) were a couple fluff pieces in the fifties/sixties and nada since, but that was a few years ago.

I'm not saying it hasnt changed. I am saying that when some were first crying 'media blackout' (meaning little or no reporting/virtual blackout) it was true. IIRC, Daniel Estulin and Jim Marrs were the earliest. There was no 'reputable' media reporting for decades. Even the fluff pieces dried up some time in the sixties, (in my search results) and there were only handful of those under my search.

Besides, how can you say it is boring anyway? If you look at the meeting agenda they released, it features important global issues, not boring , nor 'whatever pops into their heads', ie they are important topics at big meetings of world leader types that global media should be reporting. At the very least some media would be criticizng, and demanding the Bilderberg group do more. I just dont buy the 'bored media' thing. Its a long stretch.

Here, I will re post that agenda just for you...I can tell (psych powers, of course) that you secretly want to see it again, Jay. Just kidding, dont get huffy now.

By the way, I hope you are right and that I am mistaken.

(wikipedia)
A list of key topics for discussion at the 2013 Bilderberg conference was published on the Bilderberg website shortly before the meeting.
Topics for discussion included:

"Can the U.S. and Europe grow faster and create jobs?"
"Jobs, entitlement and debt"
"How big data is changing almost everything"
"Nationalism and populism"
"U.S. foreign policy"
"Africa’s challenges"
"Cyber warfare and the proliferation of asymmetric threats"
"Major trends in medical research"
"Online education: promise and impacts"
"Politics of the European Union"
"Developments in the Middle East"

For those believing and rationalizing why media (is bored by/has no interest) is innocent in not reporting on world leaders in industry, economics, petro, agriculture, medicine, banking, govt, etc etc, ...sorry I dont buy it. I know of a nice bridge you may wish to purchase.

Have another peek at the delegate roster. My spidy senses told me you wanted to see it again...

FromBelgiumWithLove · Apr 12, 2015

Hans said:
Buzz buzz

MacDonald's manager here, Jim Smith

SG: we want you to use shredded cardboard instead of lettuce

Ah excuse me? Who is this?

I'm telling you what to do.

I can see that but who are you?

SG: I am the Premier of Saskatchewan! And I also once met a woman who is a newsreader on a French TV station, the Finance Minister of Denmark, and some members of the Turkish parliament. You'd better do what I tell you pronto!

Jim: WTF is a... "premier", did you say? And what is this sasquatchistan thing, or whatever the hell you just said?

The first problem: the guys you are controlling have to know who you are.......actually that is the second problem the first problem is to put together a SG where everyone agrees on a course of action....

Given that on the rare occasions conspiracy theorists obsessed with a worldwide secret government try to work together, they always end up having huge and very public fights within a very short period of time, one would think they'd understand that last problem. (The hilarious goings-on around David Icke's failed The People's Voice online TV channel are a good example.) They can't even so much as have discussions on web forums without inevitably descending into mutal accusations of treachery to the cause, or involvement with the conspiracy. The secret government, however, is supposed to be able to run absolutely everything without ever having a disagreement, and without any non-involved people even noticing who's really running the show. Maybe it's a lizard thing.

Bubba · Apr 12, 2015

Hans said:
A shadow government would need the same type of support that a real one does - as does any complex organization. They would also need to monitor the real government to ensure that it was doing what it wanted.

Well what would those in the SG who don't like it do about it?

So the support staff for Rockefeller mirrors the US government? Plus there isn't any evidence that they ARE the SG

Okay tell us how this shadow government operates - example tell us how the SG (Shadow government) would do the following.

How would the SG know that there is no other SG?

------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine if you would that you want to set up a secret management for say, a MacDonald's - figure out how you would do that and you will quickly start to see the problems in doing so.

Lets look at that - the easiest way from the CT point of view is to have 'control' over the manager - just call him up and tell him what to do --- right?

Buzz buzz

MacDonald's manager here, Jim Smith

SG: we want you to use shredded cardboard instead of lettuce

Ah excuse me? Who is this?

I'm telling you what to do.

I can see that but who are you?

............

The first problem: the guys you are controlling have to know who you are.......actually that is the second problem the first problem is to put together a SG where everyone agrees on a course of action....

My apologies Hans.

I should have clarified 'not literally' an entire govt in shadow. As I understand, and in the hypothetical model, only a sufficient number in management are needed. All the rest just continue doing as told whether they like it or not, or quit their nice govt jobs.

Maybe shadow govt isn't the most accurate descriptor to begin with. What sounds more accurate than S G ? I dont know. Puppet Show?

And who says they'd need to agree on a course of action, other than generally? Factions and fights may well be part of it.

...and I doubt it would be anything like the MacDonalds scenario. Instead, the manager would already know generally what to do...without being told by a stranger on the phone.

So the support staff for Rockefeller mirrors the US government? Plus there isn't any evidence that they ARE the SG

I doubt anyone thinks it would be like that either. Covert rogue elements of existing govt structures and related corporate structures come to mind. So does "military industrial complex", along with lotsa money. Also ruthless determination would be required. Threats would be eliminated.

Sideroxylon · Apr 12, 2015

Bubba said:
So what, big deal, everybody knows that. Its a serious question nonetheless.

Why isn't the more reporting on Bilderberg?

Because it doesn't sell clicks or newspapers to the masses. You might get a few clicks from the niche market of conspiracy theorists.

tsig · Apr 12, 2015

FromBelgiumWithLove said:
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

They are just having an extended NDE.

tsig · Apr 12, 2015

Bubba said:
Only the dimmest most amateur shadow government setter upper would have a shadow government website. Upon seeing your site, some might say "Hey wait a minute, there isnt supposed to be a shadow government !!" Then you might get in trouble for setting up a shadow government. So of course you wouldn't have a website.

Chances are however, you'd want one or more nice looking fronts where some of your guys could appear to be legit while doing what shadow government guys do in order to govern from the shadows....?

Actually you might finally decide to create an official Bilderberg website (rather late in internet years btw) in order to look respectable, (only after your luminaries were seen on youtube for a few years, and accused of being part of a shadow government).

Merely routine damage control. really, and you are such a crack shadow government setter upper that your experts probably saw it coming years before, and had your official website ready for launching. You'd even post a meeting agenda or two so everyone sees you are transparent good guys.

I should think thats what any shadow government worth its salt would be ready to do if one of its fronts had its cover blown.

Isn't that just common sense, in a crack shadow government outfit, or in its hypothetical profile?

Why do shadows need a government?

Dissolution · Apr 12, 2015

Obviously I don't agree with Bubba's conspiracy about shadow governments and the Illuminati or whatever it is being claimed, but some of the arguments against his points seem to be well wide of the mark, too.

The suggestion that people shouldn't be interested in a meeting between powerful figures in banking, energy, technology, information, media, defence, education and politics is bizarre.
That a number of those figures are employed by their various states and refuse to disclose what was discussed seems completely unreasonable, at best.

Could these people discuss all of this without anyone finding out? Probably.
They're not, though. They don't have to.

I'm sure that most of what's discussed is completely above board and probably for the good of all involved, but it looks terrible.
That's why there's conspiracies about it from both ends of the political spectrum.
Failing to provide any information allows people to make up any old crap to fill the gaps.

Sideroxylon · Apr 12, 2015

Dissolution said:
Obviously I don't agree with Bubba's conspiracy about shadow governments and the Illuminati or whatever it is being claimed, but some of the arguments against his points seem to be well wide of the mark, too.

The suggestion that people shouldn't be interested in a meeting between powerful figures in banking, energy, technology, information, media, defence, education and politics is bizarre.
That a number of those figures are employed by their various states and refuse to disclose what was discussed seems completely unreasonable, at best.

Could these people discuss all of this without anyone finding out? Probably.
They're not, though. They don't have to.

I'm sure that most of what's discussed is completely above board and probably for the good of all involved, but it looks terrible.
That's why there's conspiracies about it from both ends of the political spectrum.
Failing to provide any information allows people to make up any old crap to fill the gaps.

My claim was not shouldn't be but aren't. Could we say that this is supported by the observation that media organisations not offering many stories on the subject is due to demand? If this is not the primary motivator, what is?

Dissolution · Apr 12, 2015

Sideroxylon said:
My claim was not shouldn't be but aren't. Could we say that this is supported by the observation that media organisations not offering many stories on the subject is due to demand? If this is not the primary motivator, what is?

Lack of information? What can they report?
There's very little of substance to put in any story, barring those attending.
Anything that I've seen in the media about these meeting has been a virtual non-story, quoting conspiracy theories and wild speculation.

Childlike Empress · Apr 12, 2015

The Bilderberg website is younger than this thread I once started about the group.

Bilderberg in the news ?

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Illuminator

Devilish Dictionarian

Banned

Banned

Devilish Dictionarian

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Banned

Unregistered

Banned

Featherless biped

a carbon based life-form

a carbon based life-form

Master Poster

Featherless biped

Master Poster

Banned