2008 Bilderberg Attendees ~ Treasonous Felons ALL!

[Nathan Hale]

The arrogance of the elites can never be under estimated. Do tell why is it despite vehemous opposition from their constituents plastered all across the media as occuring that congress voted in the bankster bailout program? Oh yeah, because the easiest way to demoralize opposition is by shoving it in one's face their powerlessness...

You're drawing quite a conclusion there.

There really is no need to hide anymore because they hide in plain sight by using the term "conspiracy theory" to discredit anyone who disparages their programs.

Not really. Many people fight for smaller government without being termed conspiracy theorists. The only person called conspiracy theorists are people who develop hypotheses about those in power and supposed secretive arrangements between them - which, by definition, makes the person in question a conspiracy theorist.

We have reached a new plateau where there is no problem is using the term new world order or Bilderberg meeting because they have discredited the oppositon by calling them kooks and by and large the public buys into this description. No one wants to be a kook or conspiracy theorist so a large number of people will defend their goal of supreme authority sheerly by not questioning their motives.

Perhaps if people who theorized about the NWO or the Bilderberg meetings actually provided verifiable evidence of malicious intent or conspiracy, this would be different.

Considering the fact that the participants have kept it secretive for years just recently coming forward with the meetings existence and still not discussing their agenda leaves us with nothing but speculative conjecture to draw upon.

Well I'm sorry, but speculative conjecture is not enough. You need more data if you want to develop a credible theory.

Why do you suppose they kept it a secret meeting for so long?

I don't know. But the problem with your position is that YOU DONT KNOW EITHER. The difference between us is that while I acknowledge that I require more information, you are willing to go ahead with a lack of information.

Why don't you explain the Rockefeller quote which goes on to state" The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

I don't challenge the claim that Rockefeller is an internationalist.

Since we are on the subject of quotes let's try a few more:After signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson later admitted, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country....(America is) no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

And he's right. Too much power was placed in the hands of the fed. But that says nothing about any of the conspiracies you're talking about.

James Warburg, a CFR member and son of CFR founder Paul Warburg testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950, defiantly telling the Senators that: "We shall have world government, whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."

What does this tell you? I mean, technically, as worded it's not even a statement of Warburg's own desire - simply a matter of divining the likely future. Though, even if it were Warburg's opinion, what does that say? Only that the individual James Warburg believes in global governance. He was, after all, a contemporary of FDR.

John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York (1918-1925):
"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which is like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.
--1922

Hylan was speaking of the federal reserve in this quote, and it's true.

William Fulbright, U.S. Senator:
"The case for government by elites is irrefutable. "
--1963

So he's an oligarch. Quite a few people are.

Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator:
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.

...they will rule the future."
--1964

This is nice opinion, but once again it's opinion. Where's the beef?

Henry Kissinger:
"Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful!

This would especially be true if they were told that they were a outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence.

It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil.

The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government."
--1991

What does this quote tell you?

Strobe Talbott, Fmr. U.S. Deputy Sec. of State:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
--1992

Decent theory, considering the rise of genuine extra-national organizations and the threat to the Westphalian model presented by fourth generation military elements (such as drug gangs undermining the government in northern Mexico). But, as with all of the quotes you've listed, nothing shows conspiracy by elites to subjugate national sovereignty - at best you show the desire of a few people to do so.

Pretty prophetic if you consider when these quotes come from and how the future is panning out. If these aren't sufficient for you I will get more.

Not really prophetic. I guess I just take these quotes in a different context than you.

Once one has control of all aspects of society and a greater number of the governed in agreement then there is no harm in coming forth with certain aspects to control those who question the nefarious nature of their agenda through a sense of powerlessness to change or challenge those in control. This is the point we have reached.

Perhaps. But you have yet to show this.

Now moving on to your view of the Trans Texas corridor, you are factually incorrect and the website is still available for you to view including the interstate and international trade corridors that will work in cooperation with The Trans-Texas portion of this national superhighway.Per the Texas DOT site"The Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor is a proposed divided highway corridor stretching from Laredo through West Texas to Denver, Colorado. Designated as a High Priority Corridor by Congress in 1998, the Ports-to-Plains corridor will facilitate the efficient transportation of goods and services from Mexico, through West Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and ultimately on into Canada and the Pacific Northwest.

Together, the communities along the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor are becoming the gateway to trade throughout the nation and with Mexico and Canada."

How does this make what I said factually incorrect? I said two things: That the trans-texas corridor was voted down, and that it wasn't evidence of an NAU. Was I wrong about it being voted down? That must be my point of factual inaccuracy as you're not showing the existance of an NAU here.

Then there is the North American SuperCorridor Coalition from their website:"NASCO is a tri-national, non-profit, trade and transportation coalition working to make international and domestic trade more efficient and secure along the existing network of transportation systems (including highways, rail, inland ports and deep-water ports) running north-south through the central U.S., Canada and Mexico.

A non-profit incorporated group, NASCO was initially founded in 1994 as the I-35 Corridor Coalition and incorporated as NASCO in 1996. It is overseen by a Board of Directors representing its dues-paying members from the public and private sector.

From almost immediately after the Jan. 1, 1994 entry into effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), NASCO has sought and backed Corridor-related initiatives to enhance border security, cargo safety and operational efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. NAFTA’s reduction of import tariffs and trade barriers in North America powerfully stimulated trade that strengthened the economies of its partner nations and greatly increased cargo freight movement within the NASCO Corridor."

But this tells us nothing that connects NAFTA or NASCO to some diabolical NAU plot.

In my neck of the woods now, NAFTA has been the destruction of American industry and thus our sovereignty as we are beholden to foreign nations due to trade imbalances.

While that may be the case, it's premature to take that reality and ascribe meaning to it that you cannot factually show.

Most of these think tanks that are operated by CFR members and Bilderberg attendees operate on the premise of free trade and social justice but in effect are protective of monopolies of the largest corporations at the expense of the general laborer. The push is against individualism for the benefit of the greater good of society when in truth only the smallest minority of elites are thriving while the rest of society are being thrown under the bus. This is done across the board from every spectrum including but not limited to farming, textile industries, automotives, health products and everything inbetween.

Lots of speculation here...but once again, where is the evidence of concerted effort between elites to effect this situattion. Where's the conspiracy?

As for a NAU Vincente Fox admitted its existence as a long range plan in an infamous youtube with Larry King "King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

Fox answered in the affirmative, admitting he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere – and that part of the plan was to institute a regional currency from Canada to the tip of South America."

Sure a common currency was proposed - it is often proposed in trade talks, but you need more than that to show that it is policy or destined to become policy. The "Amero" was never a serious threat, though Fox was biased in favor of seeing such a reality as he stood only to benefit by the FTAA and a common currency (at the time).

 

[Nathan Hale]

Normally I ignore posts by ignoramuses like yourself who pontificate an elementary school level version of how the world works while chiding others who know better, but this post just plain pissed me off.

You are certainly sure of yourself. Perhaps that's the problem.

Unfortunately your "evidence" didn't quote when I hit reply, but suffice it to say there was very little attribution, except in cases such as ABC's supposedly calling Ron a "libertarian" (which I don't see a problem with), and there was much misinformation, such as the supposed claim that Paul only got 10 media mentions when there were single days he got more than that (money bombs, the blimp, etc).

It would be easy to fill pages with the facts. Ron's popularity growth, rally crowd size growth, campaign contributions growth, straw poll wins, debate wins, internet popularity growth, etc., etc., DWARFED all other Republican candidates combined,

Popularity growth - Paul's growth hardly dwarfed the growth in popularity of Mike Huckabee, and yet, as Paul more popular (rising in the polls from 1-2% to 6-7% he got more coverage as a result).

rally crowd growth - Rally crowds are not evidence of real national traction, only core supporter dedication. There was no denying Paul had strong core support - the question was whether or not he could attract moderates. The media wants ratings, and they report what gets ratings. That's why they rely on polling rather than the size of rally crowds.

Contributions - here Paul was among the best, and he got some great coverage for it.

Straw poll wins - Once again, it's not worth trying to gauge primary voter popularity by this, because straw polls could be affected by core support enthusiasm.

Debate wins - well, obviously there is no quantifiable way to calculate this.

Internet popularity growth - once again, Paul got lots of great coverage on this.

yet he remained at the bottom of the media coverage list throughout the campaign, across all media sources (facts that are easily enough verified by real sources. I recommend those like yourself, who dream up their own reality to wallow in, should spend some time researching).

I did my research, and I was there for the entire primary season watching with an unbiased eye.

Apparently, you know jack shit about 'the history of Presidential politics'. Next time you post drivel-as-fact, include the disclaimer that the drivel is in your BS opinion only.

Your anger exposes your desperation.

 

[ihsv]

I don't challenge the claim that Rockefeller is an internationalist.

Rockefeller was an original U.S. founding member, is a life member, and a member of the Steering Committee for the Bildeberg Group. He has attended all of its meetings from 1954 up to the present.

You don't "challenge the claim that Rockefeller is an internationalist", yet you can't seem to "connect the dots" and figure out that an organization that he helped establish, funds, and is currently a "steering committee" member of; an organization that is made up of internationals, from all influential sectors (government, academia, media, business, etc.,), has as its "nefarious" goal the destruction of our national sovereignty and the subversion of our Constitution and way of life so as to create true global governance? For this is what must occur if true global governance and an international order is to take shape.

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller (His Memoirs, pg. 405, published October 28, 2003)
​

Quit regurgitating the media fed attitude concerning "conspiracy theories", and recognize the signs all around you.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I "figure" because human nature being what human nature is, prone to greed and corruption, an unaccountable organization of government, business and finance working together in secret is repulsive to honesty and the very concept of a free and open society. I have no "faith" in human nature when exposed to such temptations.

So you're assuming. Sort of a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. I sympathize, but I could never operate that way. If I want to prove a point, I wait until I can prove it.

The existence of a quote doesn't equate to the existence of "transcripts of the meeting". And since the transcripts and minutes of these meetings are not available to the public, the "secrecy" charge stands.

I never refuted the secrecy charge - and it's not a charge. Secrecy is the right of a private organization. I suggested that a transcript must exist because people recite that quote as though it is point of fact, and yet it is always circularly sourced.

Government + Corporations + Media + Academia + Central Bankers + Secrecy = bad news

You say it as though it's science. But it isn't.

"Scientific method?" We're talking about human activity here, not some physics experiment. Human beings are capable of rational thought, but ironically often choose to think and behave irrationally. But there are certain things that humans do very well and very predictably, not the least of which is to succumb to corruption, greed, avarice, and innumerable other vices that serve the desires and interests of the individual(s) concerned.

My use of the scientific method analogy wasn't an attempt to codify human behavior, but rather to walk you through the steps necessary to form a theory. Obviously, you have a hypothesis about Bilderberg. But you have no evidence other than your suppositions about humanity, on which to draw. Now, if you ever want your hypothesis to amount to anything, you need to turn it into a theory - i.e., you need to challenge it by learning the facts of the matter (an equivalent to scientific testing). So what are the facts? If there is such a huge cause for concern about Bilderberg, where's the subversion of it? Where is the more than armchair effort of its critics?

You may believe in the "innate goodness" of human nature, but the "scientific" and historical evidence rails against that concept, particularly when money, power and influence are tossed into the equation.

You're assuming things about it. All I ask is that we make a case based in fact before we accuse.

Individual exceptions do exist, but they are rare.

Really? On what authority do you make this claim?

Nonsense. Either you're willfully blind or you didn't click (or read) the link I provided.

Well, neither of the above is true. Not sure where that leaves you.

The link provided lists the (known) names of the worlds most powerful and influential people, from business, finance, academics, government, media, international organizations such as Nato, the United Nations, the European Union, etc.

First off, this is by far a concise list of the power elites in the world, though that is not to say the list is devoid of powerful people. But once again, where's the beef? Where's the evidence of conspiracy?

These people are powerful, on a universal scale, with the ability to wage war or institute peace, influence and shape public opinion or overthrow governments. They have the ability to manipulate and create money and wealth. They can shape global markets and impoverish whole nations, direct shortages or abundance in everything from commodities to credit. They as a whole are accountable to no one. They wield some of the most awesome and destructive forces man has ever devised, whether it be nuclear weapons or fiat currency. Whole armies and the collective wealth of nations are at their disposal to assert their will.

Lots of exaggeration, assumption, and debatable misstatement ("accountable to no one") in the above paragraph, and, once again, it doesn't show us conspiracy. Does Bilderberg provide a forum for these people to direct the globe? Perhaps. But I won't place faith in that claim barring some evidence that this is actually occurring. And, unfortunately, this hypothesis will never amount to anything unless you find something more definite than conjecture.

I'm also going to let you in on a secret. A secret so profound, and so earth shattering, that if it ever got out there, and if people would actually put it to good use, there would be revolutions and universal chaos. A secret that has been kept so hidden that few people even suspect it's existence, and fewer still are privy to it:

People lie.

People in governments lie. Corporate CEOs lie. Journalists lie. Financiers lie. Joe the plumber lies.

If you haven't figured that out, then you're hopeless.

Lovely rhetoric, but we're all well aware of the fact that people lie. The problem with people lying is that you don't always (or even often) know when people are lying. It's not something you can count on, run with, or take to the bank.

Take a moment to reflect on the corruption of just our government. Take a moment to meditate on the corruption and profiteering of corporate, financial and media tycoons. Realize the power and influence that these men wield. Realize further that these men gather together in secret in order to work together to achieve secret goals.

You still haven't shown that they gather in secret to further these goals. Bilderberg is attended by many elites, but it's far from being attended by all the elites, or even a cross section of all the elites.

Perhaps you believe their interest lies in ending world hunger, or making markets fair, or relieving poverty, or promoting peace. Perhaps you hold they are working toward some noble and selfless goal. If so, your faith in human nature represents the height of naivety.

I have no idea what goes on at Bilderberg. This may surprise you, as you assume a lot about me that simply isn't true, but I'm just as critical as you are about centralization of power. In fact, the only difference between us on this issue is that I admit I don't know, and you assume to know because you've developed a variety of other assumptions that supposedly all fit together.

Go back to watching the television.

I hate to inconvenience your mischaracterization, but I don't really watch television.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Ron Paul was completely maligned and ridiculed by MSM. Then blacked out by the MSM once he was noted for collecting alll that money. Have you forgotten how he was "disappeared"?

Please, elaborate on your theory, as I recall seeing him in the news until the point where the race was pretty much a matter of McCain and Romney.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Rockefeller was an original U.S. founding member, is a life member, and a member of the Steering Committee for the Bildeberg Group. He has attended all of its meetings from 1954 up to the present.

So?

You don't "challenge the claim that Rockefeller is an internationalist", yet you can't seem to "connect the dots" and figure out that an organization that he helped establish, funds, and is currently a "steering committee" member of; an organization that is made up of internationals, from all influential sectors (government, academia, media, business, etc.,), has as its "nefarious" goal the destruction of our national sovereignty and the subversion of our Constitution and way of life so as to create true global governance? For this is what must occur if true global governance and an international order is to take shape.

Yes. I don't see the necessary connection between Rockefeller's internationalism and Bilderberg schenanigans, regardless of his prominence in the organization. My local Chamber of Commerce is chaired by a socialist. Some other members are also socialists. Does that make it a socialistic enterrprise? Of course not. Sure, it's a possibility, but I see no evidence to substantiate it and thus no reason to make the assumption.

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." -David Rockefeller (His Memoirs, pg. 405, published October 28, 2003)
​

This quote says nothing but that Rockefeller is an internationalist. I've already addressed it in this thread.

Quit regurgitating the media fed attitude concerning "conspiracy theories", and recognize the signs all around you.

My attitude is logically fed, not media fed.

 

[Nathan Hale]

To all those about to reply - I'm done for the night. I'll be back tomorrow night.

 

[ihsv]

So?

So? You sound like a two-year old.

Yes. I don't see the necessary connection between Rockefeller's internationalism and Bilderberg schenanigans, regardless of his prominence in the organization. My local Chamber of Commerce is chaired by a socialist. Some other members are also socialists. Does that make it a socialistic enterrprise? Of course not. Sure, it's a possibility, but I see no evidence to substantiate it and thus no reason to make the assumption.

We're dealing with the FOUNDER of an organization, not the charman of a pre-existing organization.

Rockefeller is an internationalist. I've already addressed it in this thread.

Failure to see the continuity between an organization and the founder of that same organization highlights your peculiar brand of "logic" and "scientific method".

My attitude is logically fed, not media fed.

Baseless statement lacking substance and factual reference.

 

[slacker921]

Normally I ignore posts by ignoramuses like yourself who pontificate an elementary school level version of how the world works while chiding others who know better, but this post just plain pissed me off.

Quote:
Back in 1983, 50 different corporations controlled the majority of the news media. Today that number has dwindled down to 5: Time Warner, Disney, Ruppert Murdoch’s News Corp, Bertelsmann, and Viacom. These companies make up an oligopoly worth billions. In 2006, Time Warner doubled its profit and netted $6.6 billion.
Quote:
It raises obviously one of the fundamental questions: is press coverage a self-fulfilling prophecy? Can a candidate who doesn’t get press coverage win votes, or do you need the exposure, the oxygen of attention? Last week, the week before Super Tuesday, the coverage that ended Feb. 3, Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in zero percent of the stories that we analyzed, 600 stories across 48 different news outlets.
Quote:
Republican Ron Paul is another interesting example from the low-visibility category. He appeared only 10 times over the six-week period, even though he raised extraordinary amounts of cash, which is typically a strong predictor of media attention. More significantly, Paul performed well, despite being banned from a Fox News debate in New Hampshire (Boston Globe, 12/29/07) and neglected by the press. He finished 6 percentage points ahead of Rudy Giuliani--and only 3 behind McCain--in the Iowa caucuses, came out ahead of Fred Thompson in the New Hampshire primary and finished second--behind Romney--in the Nevada caucuses.

So what did the networks deign to tell their audiences about Paul? Not much, really. ABC reported that he was a "libertarian," without explaining what that might entail (12/30/07); that women at a famous Nevada brothel were "pimping for Paul" (1/19/08); that he was "battling it out for second" in Nevada (1/19/08); and that his supporters helped propel Mike Huckabee to victory in West Virginia (2/5/08).

It would be easy to fill pages with the facts. Ron's popularity growth, rally crowd size growth, campaign contributions growth, straw poll wins, debate wins, internet popularity growth, etc., etc., DWARFED all other Republican candidates combined, yet he remained at the bottom of the media coverage list throughout the campaign, across all media sources (facts that are easily enough verified by real sources. I recommend those like yourself, who dream up their own reality to wallow in, should spend some time researching).

Apparently, you know jack shit about 'the history of Presidential politics'. Next time you post drivel-as-fact, include the disclaimer that the drivel is in your BS opinion only.

Bosso

Amen brother. And more can be seen in this video

btw.. Bilderberg is a conspiracy against the people of the US and if Mark Sanford attended then he will get ZERO support from me.

 

[Carole]

How do you figure? It sounds to me like you're taking an awful lot on faith, which isn't always wise when your faith leads you on an accusatory crusade. You might want to find out something for sure before you start railing against it, I find that helps.



Apparently, from the numerous Rockefeller quotes in this thread, there are transcripts of the meeting. You might find your answers there.



This makes for a great hypothesis. But in the scientific method, hypothesis is a long way from theory. In between the two terms is a lot of testing. Perhaps you take your hypothesis and dig a little bit deeper.



But the dots aren't numbered. Right now they could shape a thousand iterations.

On October 2005 the US created its 4th bankruptcy against the infamous IMF (International Monetary Fund), aka World Bank. This time they included all of the states plus “We The People”, that’s why you cannot go into bankruptcy any more because you already are in one. Your only option is Chapter 13, and this option does not discharge the debt. You still owe the same amount of “money” but now you only make one payment to a “trustee” and your credit report shows “bankruptcy”. Chapter 11 and the other chapters do not exist anymore. What a deal!
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/...rawman-chart-of-who-owns-the-federal-reserve/

 

[nbhadja]

Nathan Hale, Ron Paul himself acknowledges that they are trying to make a new world order.

It is not a conspiracy.

 

[ihsv]

So you're assuming. Sort of a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. I sympathize, but I could never operate that way. If I want to prove a point, I wait until I can prove it.

Prove that human nature is not prone to greed and corruption and I'll cede your argument.

There is no need for me to prove that an unaccountable organization of government, business and finance working together in secret is repulsive to honesty and the very concept of a free and open society.

I never refuted the secrecy charge - and it's not a charge. Secrecy is the right of a private organization. I suggested that a transcript must exist because people recite that quote as though it is point of fact, and yet it is always circularly sourced.

Secrecy may indeed be the right of a private organization. It is not, however, the right of our government to keep secrets from the governed. Show me in the Constitution where government has a right to keep secrets from us, and I'll cede your argument.

You say it as though it's science. But it isn't.

And you say it isn't science. I reject your statement as pure conjecture and lacking authority.

My use of the scientific method analogy wasn't an attempt to codify human behavior, but rather to walk you through the steps necessary to form a theory. Obviously, you have a hypothesis about Bilderberg. But you have no evidence other than your suppositions about humanity, on which to draw. Now, if you ever want your hypothesis to amount to anything, you need to turn it into a theory - i.e., you need to challenge it by learning the facts of the matter (an equivalent to scientific testing). So what are the facts? If there is such a huge cause for concern about Bilderberg, where's the subversion of it? Where is the more than armchair effort of its critics?

Thank you very much for your effort to "walk me through the steps", but I do not hold you to be in any way my superior or an authority on this or any other issues

You're assuming things about it. All I ask is that we make a case based in fact before we accuse.

You're accusing me of assuming. The historical evidence against the "innate goodness of man" concept, particularly when money, power and influence are tossed into the equation, is overwhelming. Read the historical account of every governmental institution from the dawn of recorded history till the present. The facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you disagree that money, power and influence corrupts in most recorded instances? If so, prove it.

Really? On what authority do you make this claim?

Good grief! Ron Paul is an exception.

Well, neither of the above is true. Not sure where that leaves you.

Really? Please provide evidence that you clicked the link and read the document, and that you're not willfully blind.

First off, this is by far a concise list of the power elites in the world, though that is not to say the list is devoid of powerful people. But once again, where's the beef? Where's the evidence of conspiracy?

Are you really that dense? A conspiracy is nothing more than two or more individuals, usually in secret, working together to achieve a common goal.

Lots of exaggeration, assumption, and debatable misstatement ("accountable to no one") in the above paragraph, and, once again, it doesn't show us conspiracy. Does Bilderberg provide a forum for these people to direct the globe? Perhaps. But I won't place faith in that claim barring some evidence that this is actually occurring. And, unfortunately, this hypothesis will never amount to anything unless you find something more definite than conjecture.

You're too dismissive in your reply to the paragraph in question. I see that as a tendency in your posts. Pick an issue or a statement in the paragraph and address it directly, rather than just waving your hand in an effort to make it disappear.

Lovely rhetoric, but we're all well aware of the fact that people lie. The problem with people lying is that you don't always (or even often) know when people are lying. It's not something you can count on, run with, or take to the bank.

Yawn.

You still haven't shown that they gather in secret to further these goals. Bilderberg is attended by many elites, but it's far from being attended by all the elites, or even a cross section of all the elites.

An organization is created in order to further the goals of its founders.

And you appear to be making the supposition that all the elites, or even a cross section of them, must attend the meeting in order for the organization to further the goals of globalization.

I have no idea what goes on at Bilderberg. This may surprise you, as you assume a lot about me that simply isn't true, but I'm just as critical as you are about centralization of power. In fact, the only difference between us on this issue is that I admit I don't know, and you assume to know because you've developed a variety of other assumptions that supposedly all fit together.

You assume a lot about me that simply isn't true.

You say you are critical about centralization of power. Are you critical of it because of what it might serve, or are you only critical of it if that centralized power admits in public that it has "nefarious" goals?

I hate to inconvenience your mischaracterization, but I don't really watch television.

Prove it. Unless you produce tangible, scientific evidence, I reject your claim.

 

[Carole]

Has anyone else noted how there is no asian, african, s. american, australian or middle eastern representation amongst the group of Bilderburg attendees? It seems to be nearly all North American and European. What's that all about?

I have been under the impression that some of these nations are opposed to the globalists.

Saddam refused to denominate in dollars (oil). He had to go as he wanted Euros.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1115-31.htm

The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.



The mid-east for example, seems to have been invaded due to their opposition. Hussein, for one, refused to accept the dollar as backing for oil currency.

Chavez:

third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'International Seminar on the Future of Energy', a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that 'OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers'5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.

Iran's Ahmadinejad says oil price artificial
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia7Cxi9zWcXOvdZqba07L7YyR4lw

He opened his own oil bourse and denominated in Euros. (Remember those cables that were sabotaged last year right around the time Ahmadinejad was set to open his oil bourse?)

Rogoff: It's No Time for Oil Currency Hypocrisy from the US
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/06/rogoff-its-no-t.html


China and Japan:

http://bushstole04.com/peakoil/beating_around_the_bush.htm

From the Third World Traveler website, Sohan Sharma, Sue Tracy and Surinder Kumar wrote,

"Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars."

Here's the Neocons worst nightmare:

China has more than $800 billion reserved in a giant stack of basically green, ink-smeared paper. When Iran starts selling its oil in euros, why wouldn't China just go ahead and convert that stack of paper to euros and use real money to buy oil instead? In January 2002, Canada unloaded nearly 20% of its gold stocks in exchange for euros, thereby bringing its euro holdings to the equivalent of about US$14 billion. That's about 42 percent of the total US$33 billion in foreign deposits and securities held by the government. Just 2 years previous, euros accounted for the equivalent of about US$7 billion of Canada's reserves, only 23 percent of the total. The gold sale reduced Canada's U.S. dollar share to 55 percent from 75 percent. Under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is brokering barter deals for trading oil with 12 Latin American countries thereby cutting out the USA cut. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered the report of the "International Seminar on the Future of Energy." One of its key recommendations was that "OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers." That would be the end of dollar hegemony over OPEC oil transactions.

India:
Asian countries:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/investing/article.jsp?content=20051226_73302_73302

Another strong factor in the supply-demand pattern for oil is the burgeoning needs of China. With an economy growing by 8% to 9% a year, a population of 1.3 billion and a flourishing car industry, China's need for oil will continue unabated. Recent Chinese attempts and successes to take over foreign oil companies indicate that the awakening giant is oil hungry. That reality will maintain upward pressure on oil prices for some time. The same also applies to other fast-developing Asian economies, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and another oil-hungry giant yet to come, India.

The Petrodollar

Since 1975, the United States has officially benefited from the global use of petrodollars, owing to the fact that oil-importing countries must pay for oil in dollars. Oil exporters invest the dollars received in large amounts of U.S. securities in order to avoid currency fluctuation risks. Oil importers also have to buy dollars and U.S. treasuries in huge amounts to be able to pay their oil bills. This global demand for dollars has helped the United States not only to keep its currency strong, but also to allow American consumers to import goods for less than would otherwise be possible. Moreover, it has allowed each U.S. administration to borrow massively abroad to sustain larger and larger trade deficits. This situation has kept U.S. inflation down but has created a fiscal Leviathan. The current "dollar arrangement," however, is eroding with the growing power of the euro in international finance.

Africa:

China, Africa, and Oil
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

I just keep reading and trying to put things together, but it is so complicated. I guess the important simple thing to keep in mind that the strings are being pulled by the IMF and World Bank globalists.

 

[Bossobass]

Unfortunately your "evidence" didn't quote when I hit reply, but suffice it to say there was very little attribution, except in cases such as ABC's supposedly calling Ron a "libertarian" (which I don't see a problem with), and there was much misinformation, such as the supposed claim that Paul only got 10 media mentions when there were single days he got more than that (money bombs, the blimp, etc).

I posted the dumbo chart to direct the info to your level. Apparently, it was still over your head. I'll try again to help you out here, assuming you really are this thick and not engaging in child's play...

It reads: "Total Mentions On NIGHTLY NETWORK NEWS"

I know you were glued to the idiot tube scanning for mentions of the blimp at 2:00 AM, becoming satisfied that Ron Paul was being covered by the media, but to post this as a refutation of the actual statistics shows where you come from.

rally crowd growth - Rally crowds are not evidence of real national traction, only core supporter dedication. There was no denying Paul had strong core support - the question was whether or not he could attract moderates. The media wants ratings, and they report what gets ratings. That's why they rely on polling rather than the size of rally crowds

.

Yeah, attract moderates, that's what it was.

Contributions - here Paul was among the best, and he got some great coverage for it.

Yup, set a record and break that same record in 30 days. Historic news. 'Covered' by whom? Show me the total reporting on this subject by all media.

Straw poll wins - Once again, it's not worth trying to gauge primary voter popularity by this, because straw polls could be affected by core support enthusiasm.

Debate wins - well, obviously there is no quantifiable way to calculate this.

Internet popularity growth - once again, Paul got lots of great coverage on this.

I expect this sort of horse shit from the average blind mouse, but it stuns me to think anyone could know the facts and still present them as you do...without an agenda.

Did someone not elect you coolest Meetup member, or what? C'mon man, you can confess. We won't laugh too hard, I promise.

I did my research, and I was there for the entire primary season watching with an unbiased eye.

Well, then, if you were actually there the whole time watching with an unbiased eye, that's different. Why didn't you say so in the first place? That changes everything.

Your anger exposes your desperation.

Don't mistake disgust for desperation. No one could possibly become desperate over anything you say. Maybe that's your problem.

Bosso

 

[ihsv]

I get it! Nathan Hale is pulling our legs! He can't be serious. This is all a big joke.

If not, then he gives new meaning to "dense underbrush".

 

[Bossobass]

Hey Carole,

Great stuff in all of your posts in this thread. I appreciate it.

Bosso

 

[Bossobass]

Amen brother. And more can be seen in this video

btw.. Bilderberg is a conspiracy against the people of the US and if Mark Sanford attended then he will get ZERO support from me.

Thanks for the YT link. I hadn't seen that one before. I appreciate the heads up, my friend.

Bosso

 

[Jodi's mom]

The book was his autobiography (I think). The newsman who was fired was on MSNBC-Tucker Carlson

Thank you, Bro. Butch!!

 

[Jodi's mom]

I don't consider that source credible. For one it's a bluntly partisan site, which calls into question its credibility to look at the issue from an unbiased perspective. And second, the article is sourced to a lone text - "Whos Who of the Elite" by Robert Gaylon Ross. It took me one minute of web work to discover that the book is self-published by Ross, who is a total conspiracy nut and "alternative physicist".

I can't decide whether you want the truth or not. I.e., do you just look for any author that satisfies your need not to believe? If that's the case, you would reject anyone simply on the grounds that you have decided it's a conspiracy theory.

I'm sick of it because I see it so often, but always presented by means of questionable secondhand sources.

What is a firsthand source? the first time David uttered the words? Come on!

I've already tried a lot of seaching on my own, and so far I'm unable to source that quote beyond the usual suspects. But I did click through on your link, and I wasn't surprised to find rense.com at the top of the list.

I have to doubt you on this one. There is so much information on the internet alone that to not find it, one has to not want to find it!

I'd like to know, if it's not too much of a bother. Actually, if you have the book and don't mind looking into it, I'd like to know where the author of the book sources the quote.

Well, you're in luck simply because I need to find the book, again. After many years of wondering what book it was in, I recently found it, then put it away and don't remember where. I've decided to do some serious book gathering and organizing just so it doesn't happen, again. Not because you're asking, but because I need the information where I can find it at my fingertips. Besides, who's to say you won't say you don't find the author of this book credible? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

You're just one doubter in a sea of millions of believers. You won't be missed as many consider those of your type to be "time-wasters". I seriously doubt your sincerity to find the truth as it's as plain as the nose on your face.

 

[Natalie]

Bilderberg bitches... in the chat!! woo!