Bilderberg in the news ?

carlitos said:
The Bilderbers do serve one valuable purpose. Annually, they remind us that Alex Jones is an asshat and that he's not embarrassed to pander / lie / gimmick stuff that gives his fans what they want so they continue funding his paranoia media empire. See: Bullhorning Bilderberger for more.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as I mentioned in another Bubba thread, the business model of the alternative media is to convince their readers that they're more truthful and accurate by suggesting the chorus of other media are controlled by powerful interests. It's persuasive enough on its face, but the reality is that alternative media tend to adopt tabloid tactics in order to make the premise of the model seem true. That is, they cannot simply report on the ordinary newsworthy items; they must amplify the newsworthiness or apparent shock value of other items, some of which may have a nugget of factual basis but are spun to be more sinister or important that they are.

Here, the begged questions are that (a) any time rich and powerful people get together, it ought to be newsworthy; and (b) privacy is always nefarious. Based on those questionable presumptions, alternative media can propose that there's a "media blackout" and that they alone have exclusive access to the hidden truths that the mainstream media can't or won't report. That's their stock-in-trade. It's no less commercial than BBC or The New York Times. They peddle to the expectations of the conspiratorial crowd.
 
Hans said:
One explanation I've seen of the CT'ers need of a conspiracy to be 'in charge' is that the reality, tens of millions of conflicting ideologies, parties, and people is confusing and scary while one group is comforting, like a child thinking their parents are in charge.
Click to expand...

That's too easy, as well as fairly insulting I think. You are also failing to account for any emergent properties out of those tens of millions of conflicting interests. For example corporate bias in the law (in the sense of bias towards fundamental corporate interests) can arise through many corporations individually lobbying for any such law such that the net result adds up to a lot of influence, even though each, without working with any other, is just looking out for itself with its own small part of lobbying. However a conspiracy theorist will personify that effect as if there would be really corporate and state masters conspiring together.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, as I mentioned in another Bubba thread, the business model of the alternative media is to convince their readers that they're more truthful and accurate by suggesting the chorus of other media are controlled by powerful interests.
Click to expand...

On what do you base this? Specifically, what definition of "alternative media" do you employ? I'm mostly asking for the last part of your statement, given that in my experience they rather suggest that the corporate media is biased in specific ways. The fraction which actually claims the corporate media to be "controlled by powerful interests", especially if that is supposed to mean "an actual person controlling it" rather than "a systemic bias for a certain interest", seems rather small.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, as I mentioned in another Bubba thread, the business model of the alternative media is to convince their readers that they're more truthful and accurate by suggesting the chorus of other media are controlled by powerful interests. It's persuasive enough on its face, but the reality is that alternative media tend to adopt tabloid tactics in order to make the premise of the model seem true. That is, they cannot simply report on the ordinary newsworthy items; they must amplify the newsworthiness or apparent shock value of other items, some of which may have a nugget of factual basis but are spun to be more sinister or important that they are.

Here, the begged questions are that (a) any time rich and powerful people get together, it ought to be newsworthy; and (b) privacy is always nefarious. Based on those questionable presumptions, alternative media can propose that there's a "media blackout" and that they alone have exclusive access to the hidden truths that the mainstream media can't or won't report. That's their stock-in-trade. It's no less commercial than BBC or The New York Times. They peddle to the expectations of the conspiratorial crowd.
Click to expand...

I wonder which alternative media is not owned, influenced, supported or controlled by anyone.....
 
Bubba said:
Good question. If those 150 were in charge, I suppose they'd perform the same or worse than any govt organization of similar size. However in the model, they are not in charge. I thought it was understood that per the claims, those 150 are more like bureaucrats. In the model, the most powerful presumably don't even need to attend.

The whole thing ought to run as smoothly and faction-free as any human run outfit of comparable size, (to respond to your earlier question.)
Click to expand...

I have to conclude from this you have never worked in government, or have talked at any length to people who do, nor indeed in any non-governmental organisation of any size and therefore, unavoidably, bureaucratic. You have the idea that a few people at the top (and in your fictional scenario, or as you call it, "model", a few people hidden behind the scenes) can just promulgate some general orders, and then the rest of the organisation will smoothly, efficiently, and without ever questioning where the hell these unexplained edicts from up on high came from, transform this into practical, everyday rules of operation for the employees who are doing the actual day-to-day interacting with the general population. It doesn't work that way. Even in quite small organisations, with fairly few hierarchical layers, implementing pretty simple, uncontroversial decisions in practice takes an awful lot of work, negotiation, resolving internal turf wars and hierarchical disputes, etc., and often results in things being put into practice that don't ressemble what the people who thought it up had in mind. Adding in a hypthetical parallel secret "shadow" bunch of people to it all would only make things more complicated, not simpler.

To me it just makes sense that changes like EU and predecessor EEU would at least in part originate in groups like Bb, with members returning to parliaments and golf courses to implement the plans.
Click to expand...

It just makes sense to someone who hasn't got a clue as to how and why the EU and its several predecessor organisations came about, the general history of European integration, and how all this stuff was very publicly debated for decades. There was never such a thing as the "EEU", BTW. And you do realize parliaments are elected, don't you, and have to be reelected regularly? The idea that any of that history of European integration requires a shadowy cabal holding annual meetings where they decide what policies will be imposed next on an unsuspecting populace is bizarre, to put it very politely.

How's this for an alternative conspiracy theory:

  • The BLEU, consisting of Belgium and Luxemburg, was formed in 1921. Belgium even imposed its own currency on Luxemburg.
  • The Benelux, consisting of the BLEU plus the Netherlands was formed in 1944 (treaty signed in 1944, in effect 1948). Note how Belgium comes first in the name of the organisation.
  • The European Coal and Steel Community, consisting of the Benelux, plus France, West Germany and Italy was formed in 1951. Belgium came first in the list of member states on the treaty. This is one of the three European Communities that would eventually merge to become the European Union.
  • The Bilderberg group held its first meeting in 1954, in the Netherlands, and its name contains all the letters of the word "België", which is what Belgium is called in Dutch.
  • A mere three years later, two more treaties negotiated in Brussels (but deceitfully referred to as the "Treaty of Rome"), form the European Economic Community and Euratom, the other two components of the future EU. An iconic building called the Atomium was already under construction in Brussels before Euratom was formed, and opened in 1958.

Do you not see the pattern here? Clearly, the creation of the Bilderberg group was merely one next step along the way in Belgium's carefully staged long-term secret planning, as it skillfully manages to ensnare ever more European countries into its secret empire. Surely nobody can think it a coincidence that most of the EU's central institutions are in Brussels, and that Belgium is still always listed first in official EU documents? The fact that no foreigners speak Belgian helps us in keeping our hidden agenda so hidden (in fact, we've managed to keep the existence of the entire language hidden).
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
I refuse! Now I shall embark on my never ending quest to find a Belgian-English dictionary, and BREAK THEIR CODE!

But wait, wait if they publish fake dictionaries, just to throw me off!

Must go back and consult Foucault's Pendulum for guidance...
Click to expand...

Good, they're now off on a wild goose chase involving Foucault's Pendulum. That will keep them from taking a closer look at the Voynich Manuscript (why did we ever allow that one to leak, anyway?).

ETA: Drat! Sorry everyone, that was meant as group email for my colleagues.
 
Last edited:
FromBelgiumWithLove said:
Good, they're now off on a wild goose chase involving Foucault's Pendulum. That will keep them from taking a closer look at the Voynich Manuscript (why did we ever allow that one to leak, anyway?).

ETA: Drat! Sorry everyone, that was meant as group email for my colleagues.
Click to expand...

Not to worry all it talks about is how to make a salad.
 
Hans said:
Not to worry all it talks about is how to make a salad.
Click to expand...

No, there is considerable attention paid to the construction of hot tubs, and the enjoyment thereof by women.

ETA:

Here is from the User Manual section:

578px-Voynich_manuscript_bathtub2_example_78r_cropped.jpg
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
No, there is considerable attention paid to the construction of hot tubs, and the enjoyment thereof by women.

ETA:

Here is from the User Manual section:

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Voynich_manuscript_bathtub2_example_78r_cropped.jpg/578px-Voynich_manuscript_bathtub2_example_78r_cropped.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


That isn't a hot tub - those poor women are being reduced to fertilizer by the green ooze.
 
Hans said:
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....
Click to expand...

Now, suppose you've spent a couple years planting your puppet in the Mcdonalds management. He has a sudden heart attack and dies. They hire a new guy through the normal process. He's not on board with your plan for world domination through Big Macs. What do you do then? Ok, Ok, I know, the standard CT answer is to "disappear him". But really, every such action you take increases your exposure. You really can't carry on in this way for decades, or even centuries as some claim without being caught.
 
Bubba said:
Yes 'media blackout' is over the top. "Virtual media blackout" has been used also.
...
Considering who they are and what they do, How could one imagine them not 'talking shop' and bearing the fruit of the annual conclave back to work with them?
.
Click to expand...
I find it's actually quite easy to do so. Try it some time.
 
mgardner said:
Now, suppose you've spent a couple years planting your puppet in the Mcdonalds management. He has a sudden heart attack and dies. They hire a new guy through the normal process. He's not on board with your plan for world domination through Big Macs. What do you do then? Ok, Ok, I know, the standard CT answer is to "disappear him". But really, every such action you take increases your exposure. You really can't carry on in this way for decades, or even centuries as some claim without being caught.
Click to expand...

It goes back to the old conundrum: a secret society needs to be secret but to have any actual power it must be known. Now they can operate for some time but time is their enemy as people die, are replaced once the organization become to large to be known to all members it fails.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom