Why would this secret organisation doing super-duper tip top secret work meet face to face anyway in a age when conferance calling is the norm? I mean run the risk of having their secret ceremonies breached or spied upon?

The Bilderburg groups is an informal get together, a simposium, for movers, shakers and people of real influence. If I was an EU commisioner for instance, I would want to know those who are in positions of influence and what they think - it would only make sense. Its part of a thing called joined up thinking. To achieve this the Bilderburg groups seem to be a great idea.

Of course the concept of such a venture would be entirely alien to those for whom basic political thinking is a bridge to far and hence rely on conspiracy theories to explain absolutly everything.

I doubt if most people think the Bilderbergs et al are meeting up to discuss how they can make life, for us plebs, any better. As Adam Smith said

However it takes a giant leap to think that the Council on Foreign Relations had a Korean airline fly into Soviet airspace, in order to have a passenger on board killed, and that the Ayatollah was acting in their interests when he overthrew the Shah.

__________________
"I put down the welter of corruption in Irish politics to Burke's escape from retribution after that exposure in 1974. It gave everybody in the game a licence to steal."

- Joe MacAnthony

Well the former incident is a remarkable coincidence as even the most sober of analysts have conceded (see Perloff's The Shadows of Power) and the latter incident is fairly well documented. But you are right, my mistake here was to include anything at all that cannot be verified. In fact I probably approached this whole topic in the wrong way, expecting the impossible from people. I've since learned that far more experienced people, such as award-winning journalist, Daniel Estulin, approach this in a different way, building the picture slowly, not asking too much of people. (But the fact that a dull blade would avail of the opportunity to feel sharp and superior for once by refusing to accept- whatever one thinks of it-the existence of the Bohemian Grove in the face of full evidence and even though the attendee leaders themselves have admitted it- Bill Clinton even made a joke about it- and in spite of photographs released of ceremonies over the decades; in other words, something that is fully in the public sphere and easily verifiable, tends to dampen my hopes considerably).


If anyone actually seriously investigates the subject, looks beyond the deliberate disinformation, smokescreens and propaganda from mainstream elite-owned organs, it becomes obvious. Though still difficult to believe. Estulin himself wrote, "I have seen professional, award-winning investigative journalists so shell-shocked that they were unable to fathom the truth of what they had just witnessed." Realisation tends to have that kind of effect.

__________________
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You forget I was standing in your shoes ThacOman up to relatively recently. As someone well familiar with academic research, speculation does not interest me. Some of the people you refer to actually post, and have posted, material that is only superficially similar to my own posts. Let them speculate all they wish but all they are doing is driving people further away rather than educating them.

I already said that much happens that has nothing to do with the internationalists. I've also said previously that some experts- and I mean experts- who have actually looked into this have interpreted it as a shared ideology rather than a conspiracy- a desire for a global order. After all it has been unfolding over decades rather than years.

In answer to your previous question, the man who was asked to found and head the Bildeberger Group, Prince Bernhard, wrote: "Here comes our greatest difficulty. For the governments of the free nations are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out. It is difficult to reeducate the people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supranational body." (Webster)

The Bildebergers meet once or twice a year usually in remote but plush locations. Attendance is by invitation only and attendees are hand selected from the world's elite: politicians, business leaders, bankers, industrialists, media barons (who never report on the proceedings) etc. In more than fifty years of meetings no ordinary press have ever attended, no statements have been released, no findings published. Although G8 meetings and the like are analysed and dissected to the last in the press, for decades there has been a total media blackout on the Bildeberger meetings. There is a huge crossover between membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bildeberger attendees. The Bildebergers' incredible secrecy has inspired the novels of Robert Ludlum and others.

They book a hotel for the duration of the conference, usually ranging from three to four days, with the whole building being cleared out of all other guests. The local intelligence agency is deeply involved in the preparations, debugging the hotel etc. The host country is responsible for providing security although the Bildebergers also bring their own, and frequently also bring their own catering staff, cleaners, waiters, telephone operators, secretaries.

From a Scottish observer: "Police in combat blacks with sniffer dogs search every delivery vehicle, inside and outside, top and bottom, and then escort it... Armed officers haunt the surrounding woods... men with secret service earphones guard the entrances. Anyone approaching the hotel that did not have a stake in controlling the planet is turned back" (Jim McBeth, The Scotsman, May 15, 1998).

Why the incredible secrecy if the Bildeberger Group is only a think-tank? Why are no findings published? Why the vow of silence? Perhaps because it is not in fact a think-tank. It's "... a clique of the richest, economically and politically most powerful and influential men in the Western world, who meet secretly to plan events that later appear just to happen." (The Times of London, 1977)

Will Hutton, a one-off attendee, reported in The Observer that the consensus achieved in the Bildeberger meetings "is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide." (February 1, 1998)

But, even if you leave aside, or choose to refuse to believe in the stated long-term goals, forming policy in this way makes a mockery of the democratic process. It is also illegal in many countries. In America the Logan Act prohibits absolutely elected officials to meet in private with business leaders to discuss policy. Why does the world’s media not scream about this as they do about much smaller issues?

Possibly in a calculated bid to counter negative publicity, some prominent attendees have more recently admitted that the conferences are more than just discussions. Jack Sheinkman, chairman of the board of Amalgamated Bank, who has attended 10 Bilderberg annual meetings, admitted, "The idea of a common European currency was discussed several years back before it became policy. We had a discussion about the U.S. establishing formal relations with China before Nixon actually did it."

Previously, Giovanni Agnelli, the now deceased head of Fiat and a former Bildeberger leader, testified that one original purpose of the Bildeberger Group was the regionalisation of Europe. "European integration is our goal and where the politicians have failed we industrialists hope to succeed." The former US ambassador to West Germany stated, "the Treaty of Rome which brought the Common Market into being was nurtured at the Bildeberger meetings." (Smith, Newswatch Magazine, March-April, 1984).

Prominent early members included Monnet's close collaborator, former Belgium Prime Minister, Paul-Henry Spaak and Giscard d'Estaing. All important architects of the EU integration. Monnet himself was a fervent internationalist, first secretary general of the League of Nations; he departed in frustration at the inability of it to function (govern) due to the national veto. Goldman Sachs head, Peter Sutherland, is a Bildeberger steering committee member. He gave the keynote address at a Bildeberger meeting a few years back on the subject of a "Global Summit" and the necessity for dissolving national sovereignties. On these shores he diplomatically calls it "pooling."

Europhile Garret Fitzgerald also used to attend Bildeberger attendee and AIB chairman Dermot Gleeson is a current attendee. John Bruton and Michael McDowell have also attended. That is, these prominent public figures- whose views on Lisbon and the presently structured EU are well known- are members of an ultra-secretive organisation of dubious aims and methods.

__________________
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people." -- Abraham Lincoln


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The idea of some form of 'world government' has been around for a long time.
It is implicit in some Greek and Roman philosophers who promoted the notion of government by an an enlightened rational elite. Plato, for one, did not disguise his contempt for so-called 'democracies', in which the people supposedly determine key decisions, but are actually devoid of the necessary knowledge and understanding, and are, consequently, wide open to manipulation by all manner of political hucksters.

In the modern period, the idea gained momentum in the aftermath of European colonial expansion. In the 17th century, thinkers like Hugo Grotius advocated the need for some form on 'international law', in order to, among other things, protect the rights of the weak nations against stronger ones.

In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant wrote a short manifesto called 'Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch', in which he proposes the need for "a Federation of Free States". According to Kant: "there must be a league of a particular kind, which can be called a league of peace (foedus pacificum), and which would be distinguished from a treaty of peace (pactum pacis) by the fact that the latter terminates only one war, while the former seeks to make an end of all wars forever. This league does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it".

Kant's idea generated much interest throughout the 19th century. Marx and Engels, for example, believed in the need for world revolution, but they pointed out that communist globalism was merely a mirror image of the capitalist logic of global monopoly.

Kant's 'Perpetual Peace' was one of the main inspirations underlying the League of Nations, founded after World War I. The formation of its replacement, the UNO, was agreed by the Allied Powers at a meeting in Teheran in 1943.

So, the notion of 'world government' has a very long history. The role of the Bilderberg Group (or any similar group, of which there are many) in promoting this idea is relatively minor. Observing long-standing cultural, economic and technological trends, it is difficult to see how a gradual move towards some form of global government could not be regarded as inevitable. The only real debate concerns the form.

Ariz. police say they are prepared as War College warns military must prep for unrest; IMF warns of economic riots

Ariz. police say they are prepared as War College warns military must prep for unrest; IMF warns of economic riots - Phoenix Business Journal:

I'm just curious Almanac, what changed your mind?

Some 11,000 US troops to work during inauguration

WASHINGTON — More than 11,000 U.S. troops will provide air defenses and medical and other support in case of a terrorist attack during the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration, the U.S. commander in charge of domestic defense said Wednesday.
Newsvine - Some 11,000 US troops to work during inauguration

Almanac, thankyou for the run down on Bilderburg, but your conclusions and those of others are only possible when one single interpretation is taken into account. That in turn infers that a conclusion is already in place that examination of the Bilderburg group is used to support - therefore the conclusion is flawed if the Bilderburg group is key to the evidance supporting a conlusion that already exists.

As you say, Bilderburg has been around for 50 years. And it has been 50 years since there was any conflict between Western nations. I would not give Bilderburg group credit for that record, but they may have made a major contribution to inter-nation understanding. The EU, which is frankly a miracle given what proceeded it, has progressed as inter-reliance and understanding of that interconnectivity has grown, helped in part by groups like Bilderburg.

The concept of elevating European politics to the level of a greater good, rather than relying on base nationalism is not a right wing or world government concept. Indeed the quest to lay aside nationalism is a key demand of most enlightened liberals - not secret cabals. It does not involve the surrender of sovereignty or abolition of individual cultures, traditions or core freedoms.

The things you seem to worry about are under threat, but not from centerist groups like Biderburg, but the far right and far left, whose members are entirely absent from the Bilderburg group.

There are many villians about, really dangerous ones. Far left and far right would be popularist groups willing to stir up race hate and nationalism for their own ends. But their sins cannot be attributed to the likes of the Bilderburg group. I would add that most people who harp on about the Bilderburg group do so to keep themsevles at a very safe distance from the real threats to our freedom, and I suspect a few do so to draw attention away their own agenda.

ThacOman you haven't addressed the substantive issues Almanac has put to you in this thread and you are doing the same thing you are accusing him/her of i.e. using evidence to support your conclusions. You clearly haven't looked into the Bilderbergs and the research done by Daniel Estulin and Bill Tucker who have been exposing this group for years now, yet you assume the Bilderbergs have been influential in creating freedom.

On the one hand you talk about the end of nationalism as being something enlightening and on the other you talk of no loss of cultures, traditions and core freedoms. You also equate nationalism with extremism.

It could also be argued that the biggest obstacle to a world government is the nation state and the the cultural, historical and traditional ties to the state. Every imperialist empire recognised that in order to maintain control over their colonies they had to cut off the people from their roots. This is what happened to Ireland under British rule (apologies to people from NI)

One of the tactics of the nwo is 'bait and switch' which has been used for centuries now. They bait you in with wonderful propositions and then reel you in once you've taken the bait. This is how religion operates, they talk about a loving god and peace on earth but then switch to hell and damnation. At a fundamental level we all share this planet and recognise that we are all humans and share the same problems etc, but if you take their bait then you no longer share your cultural ties and so won't defend them when they introduce their agenda. This is what is happening in Europe with regionalisation, a deliberate attempt to cut people off from their nation and switch their allegiance to the EU. But the EU is not Europe, it is a separate entity run by the elites and for their agenda. It is also the blueprint for the other unions around the world leading to their one world government. Which is already in place through the UN, World Bank, IMF, WHO, WTO, ICC, WWF etc

There are really only two conclusions that can be drawn, either everything is happening by design or is evolving by chance/circumstances. You believe the latter and others believe the former. Both conclusions use evidence to support their case, however I and millions of others used to believe the latter but now believe the former because we have researched what other people have exposed and see the agenda unfolding.

If you decide to try the conclusion that everything is happening by design for a couple of months and suspend your conclusions then you can argue that it's all conspiracy theories, otherwise you are just stuck in the conclusions you already have.

Almanac has repeatedly told you that he used to dismiss this argument but you haven't listened to him.

Regards
Lthse