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

[JayUtah]

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.

Still trying to play the victim, I see.

 

[dafydd]

... 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...?

Your post has vanished into the limbo of AAH, but you said ''held under guard''. Are you now retracting that statement?

 

[JayUtah]

I believe it is, based on human nature...

And you are the final, infallible interpreter of human nature? No, begging the question again. Others have reminded you of other aspects of human nature that play into your line of reasoning, but you have considered only greedy, evil motives. I don't agree with your blanket condemnation of successful people, therefore I don't hold your conclusion based on that condemnation.

...and reasons I've stated already: Humans are motivated by wealth and power

Are they motivated only by such things? In your world, the wealthy are cast as comically one-dimensional characters. Yes, we are all motivated by such things. But they act alongside other motives to determine our behavior.

...there's a historical precedent of rich and powerful seeking more wealth and power, historical precedent for subversion of democracy where possible.

There's a history of the rich and powerful doing many things, including what you say. You pay attention only to that and try to ignore or redefine mitigating facts, such as the Gates Foundation.

None of that necessarily bears on the Bilderbergers. Which is to say, just because behavior is exhibited or suspected elsewhere doesn't mean it happens in all cases or in one specific case for which no evidence exists. Your line of reasoning seems to be that the Bilderbergers must be nefarious because of the nature of who composes the group. However, you have a warped understanding of those people, and your case hinges on the premise that anything these people do must be evilly motivated. It's an elaborately begged question.

To tie this back to the thread title, you have to consider that the media gives the Bilderbergers less attention than you believe is warranted because they do not see its participants in as one-dimensional a fashion as you do.

Every three months or so, I have a "Pie Day" with some of my colleagues. The Pie is a popular pizza chain in the Salt Lake valley, and my colleagues comprise the CEOs, chief engineers, and chief scientists of some of the technology companies in our area, reaching into aerospace, defense, communications, security, infrastructure, and law enforcement. I myself am the director of engineering for one such company.

What do we discuss? Yes, we discuss the state of technology. We discuss business strategies. But mostly we discuss mundane things and reminisce about the good old days when we were all working as rank-and-file engineers and technologists struggling to meet deadlines and complaining about management. We are of a generation, and we have shared our talents and trials. And because of that association, great things have happened such as Boeing's latest airliner taking flight, or talented and creative people being able to tell a story about a lonely little robot on a barren Earth. These things benefit everyone.

At some point I talk to the CEO friend (Steve Wozniak sits on his board) about his yearly contribution to a theater I work at. Live theater has always been one of my pleasurable pursuits. In our youth, I would score comp tickets for him and his family, which he was otherwise unable to bring due to cost. His kids are grown now, and in college. But he repays that kindness with a generous grant. He can afford it now. Is he trying to compensate for being despised? No, of course not. It's a genuine gift, made on the basis of a longstanding kindness. He wins, because it's a tax deduction. The theater wins because theaters always need money.

We "Utah Bilderbergers" ("Pie-ers?") are not colluding about how to defraud the disenfranchised. We are not planning world domination, although we certainly would like to see continued success for ourselves and those customers and employees who depend on us. We're mostly talking about ordinary stuff, although now we talk about stocks we own, whereas in our youth we talked about the hare-brained schemes we were going to implement when we had enough money to buy stock. At the end of the meal (the pizza we enjoyed as college grad students) we fight over who picks up the check and go our separate ways. That is human nature.

You need to get over the myth that whenever two rich guys are talking, they're talking about how to screw you over.

I am curious, do you think the occupy movement is a silly, unreasonable charade?

Why do you ask? I can see a tangential connection between the Occupy movement's core values and the claims you're making, but I'm not going to follow you on a tangent unless you intend to bring it back to the points you've offered.

Debunk the occupy movement, so I know who I'm dealing with here.

Sorry, I don't do litmus tests. If you'd like to elaborate on the relevance of the Occupy movement to your claims about the Bilderbergers, then perhaps I'll discuss it with you. And please stop trying to dismiss me based on a categorical argument. I'm simply a guy questioning your claims. If you can't deal with that, then why are you here?

 

[sackett]

But, I mean, listen, you guys!

Think about it: a bunch of high muckety-mucks called THE BILDERBERG GROUP! Could they sound any more sinister than that?

And think how it reads for Childless Umpire! Die Gruppe Bilderberg! They gotta be at least a Browshirt flying column!

Or evil-plotting Jews or something. Rockefellers? Teabloggers? The possibilities are endless!

(Der Gruppe? Das Gruppe? Aw hell, I never studied the language, how should I know?)

 

[JayUtah]

I never said there must be something nefarious going on.

In a post of yours that I've quoted now several times, you said there is a "high possibility" that they are conspiring. I've asked you to tell me what supports that "high possibility" estimate, and you've said only that it's "human nature" to do so. In developing that line of reasoning, you say that they are probably doing it because that's what rich people do. In other words, you continue to beg the question over and over again.

In another of your posts you insinuate that the most likely reason for tight security is that the Bilderbergers don't want people knowing of their nefarious schemes. How is this not an argument from silence?

In all cases of ambiguity you leap for the most alarmist explanation and ridicule anyone who raises other possibilities or asks you for evidence.

I said its unreasonable for you to mock and denigrate those who are trying to establish if there is.

I am questioning the means by which you're establishing it. I think it's irrational, and I believe that pointing this out is not a personal attack. Your investigation seems to be based largely on appeals to your interpretation of "human nature," which seems to be already a done deal in your mind. Human nature isn't going to change based on your further investigation, so if that's the basis for your belief then investigation is irrelevant. And you mentioned that the video you want everyone to watch requires "further analysis," but you won't go into any details about that. You're putting a pseudo-intellectual veneer on what is turning out to be an emotional conclusion you've drawn.

You seem to want to play the victim for what you believe, when in fact no one really appears to care what you believe so much as why you believe it. In discussing your "why" I've formed the opinion that you simply resent successful people and that you can see them only as evil money-grubbers. On that basis you conclude that anything they do behind closed doors is most likely aimed at defrauding the poor or subverting democracy. It's an argument from silence no matter how you dress it up. And this goes back to my very first post to you on the subject. Perhaps you'd like to address that again without waving your hands about Godwin's law.

 

[dafydd]

Humans are motivated by wealth and power

I'm not. I don't know anyone who is. We don't all live in a Hollywood movie script.

 

[dafydd]

In another of your posts you insinuate that the most likely reason for tight security is that the Bilderbergers don't want people knowing of their nefarious schemes.

Has he ever considered that the tight security is to keep out the CT nutcases? I wouldn't want any of them near me.

 

[JayUtah]

Has he ever considered that the tight security is to keep out the CT nutcases? I wouldn't want any of them near me.

This reminds me of the sentiment at NASA regarding UFOs. The folks there are painfully aware that UFO nuts pick through everything NASA says or does, looking for "evidence" for their claims that NASA secretly knows the truth about alien visitation. And many times they act accordingly, taking care to phrase things so as not to convey the wrong impression and generate a huge public-affairs nightmare. But then again sometimes they just don't want to have to walk on eggshells for the sake of the paranoid, and they work behind closed doors -- so they can finally get things done.

After a while, paranoia becomes self-fulfilling. People are hiding things from the paranoiacs, if only so they can avoid the burden of allaying paranoia.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

Because, as we all know, these people spend a lot of time worrying what's being said about them on the Internet.

 

[dafydd]

Because, as we all know, these people spend a lot of time worrying what's being said about them on the Internet.

Badmouthing people on the internet could bring society crashing down around our ears.

 

[Childlike Empress]

'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.

Actually, the term "mainstream media" is quite common and relatively well defined. Personally I don't use the term but instead prefer the almost synonymous "corporate media". Which means media which is either directly owned by big corporations or finances itself with advertisements of big corporations.

The 'ignoring' part is wrong also. Ignoring it relative to what?

To roughly comparable meetings like Davos or the Munich Security Conference, who pale in comparison to the potency of the Bilderberg attendees.

The finance minister was claiming in an interview that she was going as a private person.

Now we know you are either from Ireland, Poland or Finland.

 

[dafydd]

Actually, the term "mainstream media" is quite common and relatively well defined. Personally I don't use the term but instead prefer the almost synonymous "corporate media". Which means media which is either directly owned by big corporations or finances itself with advertisements of big corporations.




To roughly comparable meetings like Davos or the Munich Security Conference, who pale in comparison to the potency of the Bilderberg attendees.




Now we know you are either from Ireland, Poland or Finland.

Have you uncovered any evil plans carried out by the Bilderbergs yet? Or are they only still accused of meeting?

 

[jaydeehess]

Evidence for your claim?

I stand corrected on the first claim that you would not readdress the issue.

On the second point, the evidence is in your own postings in which you display a contempt for, and view as probably having nefarious intent, anyone with wealth and power regardless of any evidence to suggest that contempt is misplaced concerning specific individuals.

Bill Gates being the prime example in these pages.

 

[dafydd]

I stand corrected on the first claim that you would not readdress the issue.

On the second point, the evidence is in your own postings in which you display a contempt for, and view as probably having nefarious intent, anyone with wealth and power regardless of any evidence to suggest that contempt is misplaced concerning specific individuals.

Bill Gates being the prime example in these pages.

Jealousy, the green-eyed monster that doth mock the meat it feeds on.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm not. I don't know anyone who is. We don't all live in a Hollywood movie script.

I certainly know I don't want power. I was told to go for the managers job after he got a promotion. I said to the person suggesting it that I most certainly did not want it. I believe that I would have done a decent job of it but would have been miserable. I cringe at the prospect of endless meetings, of dealing with accountants and gov't bureacrats, and budgetary considerations. I'd rather actually get stuff done, with my hands and technical training.

Sure the job would have, had I gone for it and been chosen for it, given me a 40% pay bump but that's not worth having a Blackberry surgically attached to my head.

 

[jaydeehess]

deleted

 

[dafydd]

I certainly know I don't want power. I was told to go for the managers job after he got a promotion. I said to the person suggesting it that I most certainly did not want it. I believe that I would have done a decent job of it but would have been miserable. I cringe at the prospect of endless meetings, of dealing with accountants and gov't bureacrats, and budgetary considerations. I'd rather actually get stuff done, with my hands and technical training.

Sure the job would have, had I gone for it and been chosen for it, given me a 40% pay bump but that's not worth having a Blackberry surgically attached to my head.

But you missed your chance to get to the top and make evil plans!!

 

[JayUtah]

I cringe at the prospect of endless meetings, of dealing with accountants and gov't bureacrats, and budgetary considerations. I'd rather actually get stuff done, with my hands and technical training.

That's why I'm the chief engineer. I have far more power than any of the managers. I actually know how the stuff works, and I get to do the fun stuff while everyone else is in meetings. As for money, I have enough. Don't need to constantly get more.

 

[Dcdrac]

That's why I'm the chief engineer. I have far more power than any of the managers. I actually know how the stuff works, and I get to do the fun stuff while everyone else is in meetings. As for money, I have enough. Don't need to constantly get more.

I am an IT engineer, and never want to be management

Rahter make things work than yabber about making things work

 

[jaydeehess]

But you missed your chance to get to the top and make evil plans!!

I am the head tech here( there's only two of us - lol)
At 50+ I would have precious little time to go for a position at head offic where the blood sacrifice alter is anyway