The Economist: Powerful “Globocrat” Elites Are Running Things, It’s Not A Conspiracy
Options
bootsy_jenkins
Members Posts: 502 ✭✭✭✭
http://www.economist.com/node/17928993
“YOU can do nothing against a conspiracy theory,” sighs Etienne Davignon. He sits in a lofty office with a stupendous view over Brussels, puffing his pipe. He is an aristocrat, a former vice-president of the European Commission and a man who has sat on several corporate boards, but that is not why some people consider him too powerful. He presides over the Bilderberg group, an evil conspiracy bent on world ? . At least, that is what numerous websites allege; also that it has ties to al-Qaeda, is hiding the cure for cancer and wishes to merge the United States with Mexico.
In reality, Bilderberg is an annual conference for a few dozen of the world’s most influential people. Last year Bill Gates and Larry Summers hobnobbed with the chairman of Deutsche Bank, the boss of Shell, the head of the World Food Programme and the prime minister of Spain. One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. (Full disclosure: the editor of The Economist sometimes attends.)
Because the meetings are off the record, they are catnip to conspiracy theorists. But the attraction for participants is obvious. They can speak candidly, says Mr Davignon, without worrying how their words might play in tomorrow’s headlines. So they find out what other influential people really think. Big ideas are debated frankly. Mr Davignon credits the meetings for helping to lay the groundwork for creating the euro. He recalls strong disagreement over Iraq: some participants favoured the invasion in 2003, some opposed it and some wanted it done differently. Last year the debate was about Europe’s fiscal problems, and whether the euro would survive.
The world is a complicated place, with oceans of new information sloshing around. To run a multinational organisation, it helps if you have a rough idea of what is going on. It also helps to be on first-name terms with other globocrats. So the cosmopolitan elite—international financiers, bureaucrats, charity bosses and thinkers—constantly meet and talk. They flock to elite gatherings such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, the Trilateral Commission and the Boao meeting in China. They form clubs. Ethnic Indian entrepreneurs around the world join TiE (The Indus Enterprise). Movers and shakers in New York and Washington join the Council on Foreign Relations, where they can listen to the president of Turkey one week and the chief executive of Intel the next. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms tycoon, hosts an annual gathering of Latin American billionaires who cultivate each other while ostensibly discussing regional poverty.
Davos is perhaps the glitziest of these globocratic gatherings. Hundreds of big wheels descend on the Swiss ski resort each year. The lectures are interesting, but the big draw is the chance to talk to other powerful people in the corridors. Such chats sometimes yield results. In 1988 the prime ministers of Turkey and Greece met at Davos and signed a declaration that may have averted a war. In 1994 Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, and Yasser Arafat struck a deal over Gaza and Jericho. In 2003 Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, had an informal meeting in his hotel suite with the president of Iran, a country with which Britain had no diplomatic ties. But Davos is hardly a secretive institution: it is crawling with journalists. The other globocratic shindigs are opening up, too. Even Bilderberg has recently started publishing lists of participants on its website.
Some American organisations, such as foreign-policy think-tanks, are also well placed to exert global influence. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, has established itself as one of the most globally trusted talking-shops, with offices in Beijing, Beirut, Brussels and Moscow, as well as Washington—though it has yet to fulfil the vision of its founder, Andrew Carnegie, who wanted it to abolish war. The key to wielding influence, says Jessica Mathews, Carnegie’s president, is “very simple. You hire the best people.”
In countries where think-tanks are subservient to the state, such as China and Russia, foreign outfits such as Carnegie enjoy a reputation for independence. If they can back this up with useful knowledge, they can sway policy. For example, Carnegie scholars advised the authors of Russia’s post-Soviet constitution. And when relations between American and Russia grew frosty under President George W. Bush, Carnegie’s Moscow office helped keep a line of communication open between the two governments.
Such meetings are “an important part of the story of the superclass”, says Mr Rothkopf, the author of the eponymous book. What they offer is access to “some of the world’s most sequestered and elusive leaders”. As such, they are one of “the informal mechanisms of [global] power”.
Some globocrats think the importance of forums like Davos is overstated. Howard Stringer, the boss of Sony, is the kind of person you would expect to relish such gatherings. Welsh by birth, American by citizenship, he took over Japan’s most admired company in 2005, when it was in serious trouble, and turned it around in the face of immense cultural obstacles. He says he has enjoyed trips to Davos in the past but will not attend this year. He can learn more, he says, by listening to his 167,000 employees.
On the face of it there seems much to be said for the world’s shakers and movers meeting and talking frequently. Yet for all their tireless information-swapping, globocrats were caught napping by the financial crisis. Their networks of contacts did throw up a few warnings, but not enough to prompt timely action.
The limits of jaw-jaw
Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund manager who made his first fortune betting that Enron was overvalued, warned the G8 finance ministers in April 2007 that banks and insurance firms were heading for trouble. He made another fortune when bank shares crashed, but is still furious that his warnings were politely ignored. He thinks it an outrage that several senior regulators from that period are still in positions of power. And he accuses some bankers of “a wholesale looting of the system” by paying themselves bonuses based on what they must have known were phantom profits. He thinks they should be prosecuted.
Globocrats failed to avert the crisis, but they rallied once it struck. Rich-country governments acted in concert to prop up banks with taxpayers’ money. In America the response was led by a well-connected trio: Hank Paulson, George Bush junior’s treasury secretary and a former boss of Goldman Sachs; Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and a former boss of the New York Federal Reserve, as well as a veteran of the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations and Kissinger Associates; and Ben Bernanke, of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and the Bush White House, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve. The bail-outs were unpopular everywhere, but may have prevented the world’s banking system from imploding.
Governments are now trying to craft rules to prevent a recurrence. Lots of people have offered advice. Among the weightier contributions was a report from the Group of Thirty (G30), an informal collection of past and present central-bank governors. The Volcker Report, advocating a central clearing mechanism for derivatives trading and curbs on proprietary trading by banks, helped shape America’s Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill. The G30 is influential because it consists of people with experience of putting policies into practice, says Stuart Mackintosh, its director. So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action, he adds.
“YOU can do nothing against a conspiracy theory,” sighs Etienne Davignon. He sits in a lofty office with a stupendous view over Brussels, puffing his pipe. He is an aristocrat, a former vice-president of the European Commission and a man who has sat on several corporate boards, but that is not why some people consider him too powerful. He presides over the Bilderberg group, an evil conspiracy bent on world ? . At least, that is what numerous websites allege; also that it has ties to al-Qaeda, is hiding the cure for cancer and wishes to merge the United States with Mexico.
In reality, Bilderberg is an annual conference for a few dozen of the world’s most influential people. Last year Bill Gates and Larry Summers hobnobbed with the chairman of Deutsche Bank, the boss of Shell, the head of the World Food Programme and the prime minister of Spain. One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. (Full disclosure: the editor of The Economist sometimes attends.)
Because the meetings are off the record, they are catnip to conspiracy theorists. But the attraction for participants is obvious. They can speak candidly, says Mr Davignon, without worrying how their words might play in tomorrow’s headlines. So they find out what other influential people really think. Big ideas are debated frankly. Mr Davignon credits the meetings for helping to lay the groundwork for creating the euro. He recalls strong disagreement over Iraq: some participants favoured the invasion in 2003, some opposed it and some wanted it done differently. Last year the debate was about Europe’s fiscal problems, and whether the euro would survive.
The world is a complicated place, with oceans of new information sloshing around. To run a multinational organisation, it helps if you have a rough idea of what is going on. It also helps to be on first-name terms with other globocrats. So the cosmopolitan elite—international financiers, bureaucrats, charity bosses and thinkers—constantly meet and talk. They flock to elite gatherings such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, the Trilateral Commission and the Boao meeting in China. They form clubs. Ethnic Indian entrepreneurs around the world join TiE (The Indus Enterprise). Movers and shakers in New York and Washington join the Council on Foreign Relations, where they can listen to the president of Turkey one week and the chief executive of Intel the next. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms tycoon, hosts an annual gathering of Latin American billionaires who cultivate each other while ostensibly discussing regional poverty.
Davos is perhaps the glitziest of these globocratic gatherings. Hundreds of big wheels descend on the Swiss ski resort each year. The lectures are interesting, but the big draw is the chance to talk to other powerful people in the corridors. Such chats sometimes yield results. In 1988 the prime ministers of Turkey and Greece met at Davos and signed a declaration that may have averted a war. In 1994 Shimon Peres, then Israel’s foreign minister, and Yasser Arafat struck a deal over Gaza and Jericho. In 2003 Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, had an informal meeting in his hotel suite with the president of Iran, a country with which Britain had no diplomatic ties. But Davos is hardly a secretive institution: it is crawling with journalists. The other globocratic shindigs are opening up, too. Even Bilderberg has recently started publishing lists of participants on its website.
Some American organisations, such as foreign-policy think-tanks, are also well placed to exert global influence. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, has established itself as one of the most globally trusted talking-shops, with offices in Beijing, Beirut, Brussels and Moscow, as well as Washington—though it has yet to fulfil the vision of its founder, Andrew Carnegie, who wanted it to abolish war. The key to wielding influence, says Jessica Mathews, Carnegie’s president, is “very simple. You hire the best people.”
In countries where think-tanks are subservient to the state, such as China and Russia, foreign outfits such as Carnegie enjoy a reputation for independence. If they can back this up with useful knowledge, they can sway policy. For example, Carnegie scholars advised the authors of Russia’s post-Soviet constitution. And when relations between American and Russia grew frosty under President George W. Bush, Carnegie’s Moscow office helped keep a line of communication open between the two governments.
Such meetings are “an important part of the story of the superclass”, says Mr Rothkopf, the author of the eponymous book. What they offer is access to “some of the world’s most sequestered and elusive leaders”. As such, they are one of “the informal mechanisms of [global] power”.
Some globocrats think the importance of forums like Davos is overstated. Howard Stringer, the boss of Sony, is the kind of person you would expect to relish such gatherings. Welsh by birth, American by citizenship, he took over Japan’s most admired company in 2005, when it was in serious trouble, and turned it around in the face of immense cultural obstacles. He says he has enjoyed trips to Davos in the past but will not attend this year. He can learn more, he says, by listening to his 167,000 employees.
On the face of it there seems much to be said for the world’s shakers and movers meeting and talking frequently. Yet for all their tireless information-swapping, globocrats were caught napping by the financial crisis. Their networks of contacts did throw up a few warnings, but not enough to prompt timely action.
The limits of jaw-jaw
Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund manager who made his first fortune betting that Enron was overvalued, warned the G8 finance ministers in April 2007 that banks and insurance firms were heading for trouble. He made another fortune when bank shares crashed, but is still furious that his warnings were politely ignored. He thinks it an outrage that several senior regulators from that period are still in positions of power. And he accuses some bankers of “a wholesale looting of the system” by paying themselves bonuses based on what they must have known were phantom profits. He thinks they should be prosecuted.
Globocrats failed to avert the crisis, but they rallied once it struck. Rich-country governments acted in concert to prop up banks with taxpayers’ money. In America the response was led by a well-connected trio: Hank Paulson, George Bush junior’s treasury secretary and a former boss of Goldman Sachs; Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and a former boss of the New York Federal Reserve, as well as a veteran of the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations and Kissinger Associates; and Ben Bernanke, of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and the Bush White House, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve. The bail-outs were unpopular everywhere, but may have prevented the world’s banking system from imploding.
Governments are now trying to craft rules to prevent a recurrence. Lots of people have offered advice. Among the weightier contributions was a report from the Group of Thirty (G30), an informal collection of past and present central-bank governors. The Volcker Report, advocating a central clearing mechanism for derivatives trading and curbs on proprietary trading by banks, helped shape America’s Dodd-Frank financial-reform bill. The G30 is influential because it consists of people with experience of putting policies into practice, says Stuart Mackintosh, its director. So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action, he adds.
Comments
-
Of course Conspiracy skeptics aren't bombarding this thread. They cant read more then 2 paragraphs and they are to busy making wrestling jokes
-
Most black people don't read.
But I do.
Most of this stuff I already knew, just not in that detail. The fact that "globapheliacs" are hosting these meetings about your life without your attenndannce is room for concern. But who cares? You're too busy with your iPhone downloading music. -
What is there to say...?...
And btw this explains why conspiracy theories are misguided, it doesn't validate the nonsense conspiracy theories that people on this site promote. -
So you think ONLY Black people don't read?
This is a mostly black forum. If it were anything else, more people would disect every sentence.
But they don't. Instead they say "I ain't gonna read all that ? ." -
CrownChakra wrote: »Of course Conspiracy skeptics aren't bombarding this thread. They cant read more then 2 paragraphs and they are to busy making wrestling jokes
Or because threads are supposed to have substantive opinions.
Or because the thread title actually says that it's NOT a conspiracy.
You really are stupid. -
There is something seriously wrong with you guys and Im going to show you why.Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
Imma have to break it down for you slow wits so listen up and pay attention including above poster who is not worth mentioning.“YOU can do nothing against a conspiracy theory,” sighs Etienne Davignon. He sits in a lofty office with a stupendous view over Brussels, puffing his pipe. He is an aristocrat, a former vice-president of the European Commission and a man who has sat on several corporate boards, but that is not why some people consider him too powerful. He presides over the Bilderberg group,
So they are asking a Bilderberg group member wether or not these meetings are dangerous or not. And you guys believed him when he said its not a conspiracy. Because someone in a conspiracy is going to publicly admit that there is a conspiracy going on. But of course I have no proof but lets move on anyways.In reality, Bilderberg is an annual conference for a few dozen of the world’s most influential people..............One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. (Full disclosure: the editor of The Economist sometimes attends.)/QUOTE]
Nothing new there. The only people who have vast amounts of advantages in the corporate and political world meeting together. So now we have the editor and the guy we who is being interviwed both part of the Bilderberg group. Wow if only this article was some third blog that had no connections to the group at all.Mr Davignon credits the meetings for helping to lay the groundwork for creating the euro. He recalls strong disagreement over Iraq: some participants favoured the invasion in 2003, some opposed it and some wanted it done differently. Last year the debate was about Europe’s fiscal problems, and whether the euro would survive
So they helped create a NEW currency, and now its not working? Well I guess they possibly couldn't see that the Euro wouldn't work if it wasn't a conspiracy. But this sounds familiar.....Jared Lee Loughner wrote:If your able to create one new currency, then you are able to create a second new currency
Nawwwww, that sounds crazy! That guy IS CRAZY! But anyways...So the cosmopolitan elite—international financiers, bureaucrats, charity bosses and thinkers—constantly meet and talk. They flock to elite gatherings such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, the Trilateral Commission and the Boao meeting in China. They form clubs. Ethnic Indian entrepreneurs around the world join TiE (The Indus Enterprise). Movers and shakers in New York and Washington join the Council on Foreign Relations, where they can listen to the president of Turkey one week and the chief executive of Intel the next. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim, a Mexican telecoms tycoon, hosts an annual gathering of Latin American billionaires who cultivate each other while ostensibly discussing regional poverty.
So you have multiple people meeting in secret in multiple clubs, groups, meetings. Conspiracy skeptics have always said that these groups never work together. But these guys love to get together because OBVIOUSLY one think tank is not enough.But Davos is hardly a secretive institution: it is crawling with journalists. The other globocratic shindigs are opening up, too. Even Bilderberg has recently started publishing lists of participants on its website.
Wow Bilderberg started putting participants after 56 years of meetings! I guess that so many people have been noticing Influential people getting together deciding, I mean discussing in secret that putting a list of who attends, after 56 years, would stop people from asking questions.The key to wielding influence, says Jessica Mathews, Carnegie’s president, is “very simple. You hire the best people.”
So one of their goals is to gain even more influence. You can never have to much influence to do no harm whatsoever.Such meetings are “an important part of the story of the superclass”, says Mr Rothkopf, the author of the eponymous book. What they offer is access to “some of the world’s most sequestered and elusive leaders”. As such, they are one of “the informal mechanisms of [global] power”.
So being secretive people is one part of global power. I guess they dont want us to know what they are doing. But ofcourse its nothing harmless. I mean the mob still doesn't admit to La Costra Nostra.Yet for all their tireless information-swapping, globocrats were caught napping by the financial crisis.Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund manager who made his first fortune betting that Enron was overvalued, warned the G8 finance ministers in April 2007 that banks and insurance firms were heading for trouble. He made another fortune when bank shares crashed, but is still furious that his warnings were politely ignored. He thinks it an outrage that several senior regulators from that period are still in positions of power. And he accuses some bankers of “a wholesale looting of the system” by paying themselves bonuses based on what they must have known were phantom profits. He thinks they should be prosecuted.
So this guy warns everyone what will happen but they let it happen anyway. No conspiracy there, they just politely ignored the fact that they were causing a financial crisis while the same people who created the crisis are still in charge and while this guy is so shocked that this is going on he made money when it happened aswell. Right.....Globocrats failed to avert the crisis, but they rallied once it struck. Rich-country governments acted in concert to prop up banks with taxpayers’ money. In America the response was led by a well-connected trio: Hank Paulson, George Bush junior’s treasury secretary and a former boss of Goldman Sachs; Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and a former boss of the New York Federal Reserve, as well as a veteran of the IMF, the Council on Foreign Relations and Kissinger Associates; and Ben Bernanke, of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Princeton and the Bush White House, who is now chairman of the Federal Reserve. The bail-outs were unpopular everywhere, but may have prevented the world’s banking system from imploding.
So they let the economy fail. What do they do? Give tax payer money to the same banks that created the problem. The same banks that Conspiracy theorists have been pointing at the whole time. And all these guys are working together in unison. So they "predict" the crisis. No one does anything. Crisis comes and now they are so concerneed with fixing it. They fix it by handing more money over to the bankers who caused the problem. All this with your money. Ok.
Anyone notice how there isnt a name for who wrote the article? I guess someone anonymous wrote it, but there is nothing wrong with that! Thats journalism at its best. Completely credible because any real journalist woldnt ? on a article without a name.
And Im the stupid one..... -
It seems like the replies to the article on their website is the best part of the article. All of you were to busy jerking off to the article title to read themI love the way this is couched.Your publication has mentioned these meetings only 5 times in the last 10 years.The reason you are writing now like this is because there is so much information out there and the time is right to set the record "straight".
The way you suggest that Bill Gates meets a few bankers and the chairman of Shell, oh and the PM of Spain as well is misleading.Perhaps the public should see the full list from years past of who attended and when.This is global elitism at its worst.If you are a politician in a democracy you should stand by your word whether you are talking to us proles or the elite.
With regards to media, the media owners attend Bilderberg on a regular basis Murdoch, Kathleen Graham, Conrad Black have all been over the years.Why? We can't ever know this but the truth is emerging now and this is why these types of articles appear to nullify the head of steam being built up outside of the ivory towers inhabited by the elite.When politicians attend as they do then this is NOT democracy.Accountability is necessary for a proper democracy not a sham.Surely politicians have a DUTY to reveal to the electorate their honest opinions and to justify them to the public if they are controversial. Reporters also have a moral duty to reveal to the public what the leaders of our institutions are planning so we can make the same informed decisions that these elite are able to make.Thanks so much for admitting that. Now let's see some people get arrested. It is illegal under the Logan Act for U.S. government officials to meet behind closed doors with leaders of foreign countries. And that's NOT a conspiracy theory.This so-called "special report" by an anonymous author who seems to be enjoying the privilege of having access to his royal whatever Mr. Davignon, is a perfect example of disingenuous and lazy journalism at best, or a classic carefully gauged hit-piece at worst. Starting with the condescending use of the word conspiracy with the word theory, which seems to be the establishment's weapon of choice to discredit any investigative journalism or legitimate fact based info that gets leaked, or even the official publications and white papers of these untouchable, above-the-law groups like Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission etc. which clearly state their missions, activities and goals.
As the previous comments on this page state, it is certainly not a "theory" that these meetings are attended by elected government officials who are banned from meeting with other countries' elected officials, let alone kings and queens and chat "candidly", off the record, behind closed doors, under absolute secrecy, with the protection of armies of secret service, with absolutely zero accountability to the peoples or governments who elected them and who presumably pay their salaries.
Reality is not faith, but knowledge based! There are obviously many who are inclined to believe in the fantastical speculations. Some believe Bilderbergers are hiding the cure for cancer, some believe they are shape-shifting lizard creatures from outer space. And, disingenuous journalists like the one here make sure they pepper their articles with this kind of nonsense to nullify any legitimate argument or concern about why these "most influential" people whose loyalties are extremely questionable, who actually get their influence from the people and their wealth they represent, who somehow have the right to meet secretly, decide on issues secretly and act on these decisions, and influence the lives (and deaths) of billions of people around the globe. "So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action...."
The dumb-masses, the bottom-feeders, the cannon fodder of the past are not so dumb anymore.... If you are a serious publication as you claim to be, you will have to write a "Very, very, very special report" about these meetings which have dire repercussions, and not this giddy report that is less respectable than a gossip column about some charity event attended by celebrities.I agree with the writer of this article that the fact that the world's power brokers meet behind closed doors in off-the-record talks each year at Bilderberg and other "elite" conferences is not a conspiracy theory, but an openly-admitted fact (even if that openly-admitted fact was once derided as a "conspiracy theory").
Fundamentally, this is not about conspiracy but about ideology. On one side are the 6,000 or so members of what ex-Kissinger Group Director David Rothkopf self-aggrandizingly termed the "Superclass," with their ability to form cross-border alliances and intrigues behind closed doors (protected by security and intelligence forces paid for by the taxpayers, of course) in order to further the aims of what Georgetown professor and Clinton mentor Carroll Quigley identified as the Anglo-American Establishment. On the other side is the vast mass of humanity who in no way benefit from the trillions of dollars being pumped into private banks through the privately-owned central banks which the citizenry cannot even audit, let alone control.
There is an international system of control that has nothing to do with "left" or "right", "Republican" or "Democrat", "Tory" or "Whig" or any other meaningless distinctions that serve to keep the masses distracted from the unified behind-the-scenes effort to consolidate ever more power and wealth in ever fewer hands. And for some reason anyone who actually dares to speak out against this ideology is denigrated and attacked with spurious strawman arguments by the press, including the Economist (which, to be fair, has finally admitted that its editor is a frequent Bilderberg attendee who has been listening to these closed-door discussions for years under a strict promise never to report on them).
The question to the Economist is this: Is there any possible way in which a system of private meetings by the world's most powerful people could work against the interests of the people? And do you see any possible reason why the public should ever be allowed to know what decisions their "leaders" are making at such conferences?The comments are better than the article. I remember when there was flat out denial that Bilderberg even existed. The proverbial cat is out the bag and no amount of damage control can put the cat back in.Frankly, The Economist's position on economic disparity disgusts me.
In a nutshell: like murder, unfairness is innately disgusting to the human mind. For instance, children, at a young age, recognize and react it. Recognition of it is effectively hard-wired into the psyche.
Like with murder, society requires justifications for it. Some are warranted (for example, self-defense, or a "just" war for; or hard work for material inequality). Most are not.
Because high levels of economic inequality are unfair, and because of the large number of lives affected by this issue, it is one of the most pernicious evils faced by humanity. It affects billions of lives.
Rather than advocating the solution that has reliably worked in the past without affecting prosperity (witness the US from the 40s through 60s with a highest income tax bracket of 90%), the Economist proposes ineffective solutions, or (as with their proposal for a flat tax a couple years a go) anti-solutions. The situation is unacceptable, and I have repeatedly considered cancelling my subscription to this periodical because of their position.So where's your mea culpa? Just once I would like to see you and your despicable, globalist, parasitic brethren and the rest of the media come clean and apologize to people like me who accurately and completely called out you scumbags going back to the late 90s. Instead of owning up to your non-sovereign, transnationalist, feudalistic ideology, you exsanguinating little quislings reacted with lies, omissions, ridicule and attacks on anyone with the courage and discernment to raise awareness of your treasonous agenda.
To say that I hate you people is a colossal understatement. Everything that I do is in direct defiance of your control grid and I WILL NEVER YIELD! I don't take my orders from Brussels, acknowledge or recognize your political marionettes, or in any way acquiesce to your tyranny. I hoard and store food, fuel, metals, NON-GMO seeds, ammunition, and reject with enthusiasm your poisonous vaccines. I drive huge fuel-hungry vehicles, burn wood, and maintain a huge green lawn. I don't use your credit, patronize your banksters, or buy your cheap, lead-based Chinese ? !
Resistance IS victory! You will NEVER win even if you prevail. There is a special place in hell for every one of you globalists and the sooner you all get there the better.
The answer to 1984 is 1776! -
The rest of the replies to the article. This just shows the amount of intelligence on the ICUmm... makes you wonder how nothing has changed and nothing will change. Power in the hands of a few, the old boys network, who decide for and on-behalf of others. And then we preach democracy. Who knows maybe real democracy - which transcends ideology - exists only on Mars and Venus.
Who knows, maybe we should ask NASA!Is it not amazing, the world of free press, to first actively participate in "covering up" the simple existence of this Bilderberg Group, then to turn around and announce it's agenda, plans and the verification it does in fact exists, after 60 years of smearing people into believing it did not.
How many lives destroyed, reputations ruined, based on a simple lie, compounded by main stream media including the Economist, actively taking part in this apparent voluntary censorship of free and independent media.
I would say, you should first of all be ashamed of your selves calling your own staff journalists, and secondly, don't be surprised when they start dragging you guys off to Gitco to further censor whatever reality the financial powers wish to portray in the future.
Now ask your selves this; "Does the Economist and other main stream media believe it has any credibility left, or do you understand now why alternative media is experiencing such a massive upswing?"This reminds of the articles that claim that although there is a world government being set up through the financial system, anyone who claims there is a world government or New World Order is a crazy conspiracy theorist. It is worth noting that The Economist and every other establishment publication claimed the Bilderberg Group did not even exist until a few short years ago. Now the propaganda has shifted to, "it exists but the richest and most powerful people meeting together has nothing to do with what actually happens in the world and even if it did, they are all wonderful humanitarians so the little people have nothing to fret about."
The claim that the global financial crisis caught the globocrats "napping" is absolutely ludicrous. Anyone listening to alternative media knew the financial crisis was coming, and the alternative media was getting that information from sources at Bilderberg and from other establishment think tanks publicly available material. Is it just a coincidence that the richest 1% have vastly increased their wealth through the "crisis?" I don't think so. -
shootemwon wrote: »Or because threads are supposed to have substantive opinions.
Or because the thread title actually says that it's NOT a conspiracy.
You really are stupid.
You see thats my whole point. Conspiracy theorists for years have been saying what these guys have been doing and it wasn't till recently that they started admitting that they have been working together in secret. This has always been a conspiracy theory until they said what they were doing wasn't a conspiracy. If you have the brain power to keep up with me, global elites meeting together to discuss how they are going to impose there ideas on society without any interference from government, because government is part of the equation is not a conspiracy theroy anymore. Its fact. So what were the conspiracy theorists who claimed what they were doing when this was still a conspiracy? Crazy? delusional? Out of touch with reality?
Right, you ? gump -
^^^^ Of what's true in the above post, none is secret and it is certainly true that rich and powerful people around the world coordinate sometimes and usually the beneficiaries are rich people and multinational corporations. And you can read all about it in political economy literature and business journals and newspapers (like the Economist).
But that said conspiracy theorists have a tendency to take a grain of truth and extrapolate from it a lot of ? . -
^^^^The Blue Pill is helluva drug
-
CrownChakra wrote: »^^^^The Blue Pill is helluva drug
Very substantive point. -
Good read.
-
did anybody learn anything new from that article? i didnt.
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »^^^^ Of what's true in the above post, none is secret and it is certainly true that rich and powerful people around the world coordinate sometimes and usually the beneficiaries are rich people and multinational corporations. And you can read all about it in political economy literature and business journals and newspapers (like the Economist).
But that said conspiracy theorists have a tendency to take a grain of truth and extrapolate from it a lot of ? .
exactly.............. -
Well this is the last point im going to make because it seems like Skeptics will never see the big picture no matter how much information is RIGHT IN FRONT of them.
Now its established that global elite are getting together making decisions and acting on those decisions that affects the lives of ORDINARY people. Your tax dollars being used by the global Elite without your knowledge. If that doesnt raise any flags for anyone, these guys are obviously directly involved with creating or swaying public policy. They have been created with creating a new currency, which is already headed down the drain. These guys are making GLOBAL decisions but of course you guys knew all this already (right after conspiracy theorists told you though that is)
But you know what the worst part about all of this? 80-90% of these people are not ELECTED DEMOCRATICALLY to be making any of these decisions. Unelected officials using tax payers money, creating or swaying public policy and helping create a new currency. Nobody asked these guys to make decisions for us, they decided themselves to do all these things for us. If that doesn't alarm anyone then what will? By the time they create policy that you dont agree with it will be to late because we let them operate for years in secret while all you guys have said they are doing nothing wrong. The government has to be open and transparent during there meetings. What d o you call a group of people making decisions behind closed doors that affect millions of people without any public or legislative scrutiny? A shadow government. But of course you guys knew this already. So I have one question for you skeptics.
What gives the rich and most powerful people the right to create decisions for us IN SECRET when we haven't voted for them, WITHOUT any public scrutiny that we give our democratically elected government on a daily basis?
I dont give a ? about your answers because my abs are tight from all the laughing Ive done already. -
Conspiracy theorists, thruth seekers, and MULTIBILLIONAIRES IN SECRET SOCIETIES are all alike.
1. They all are very few.
2. They all know something that most people don't.
3. And the averagge person wouldn't believe the truth.
That blue pill is a hellova drug. -
lol there is no conspiracy ppl were warning about the housing bubble in 2003
on CNBC new they had constant arguements,they tried to do something about it in congress
but george bush said FU it was all out in the PUBLIC,if you turn on the news ppl saw the
crisis coming some ppl disagreed.
as far as the currency thing goes,china has stated publicly
that it wants a new reserve currency, its not a conspiracy its a diagreement
in public among worldleaders. -
I never can understand why some post the entire article with the link, and MORE than likely the line below means nothing to those who infringe. IMO if they posted just the link most would just ignore the article......BTW who - in - the - ? wants to read all that ? about what most already know anyway. Infringe-rs and hot-linkers us
You are still here talking that crazy ignorant ? huh Heyslick? I posted the entire article because I wanted too. If you don't like it don't read it and don't post a reply.
Also, I provided only the article without my opinion because it is not about me it is about the facts. There they are for all to read. That is the problem with today's talking heads that you see in today's media. It's become too opinionated. These opinions interfere with the reader or the viewer. I choose to watch and see what conclusions the person reading the article comes to without my help.
As a few have noted, even with the evidence presented right before you there are still those that are in denial. If you want to go along with life as a blind serf, so be it. But don't attack those that are sounding the alarm to alert others. -
then answer is obvious, ? them all. dead men dont make decisions
-
Ok! you sniveling *alarmist
* alarmist defined
one who spreads alarming rumors,exaggerated reports of danger,etc.
Rumors? WOW that is some serious denial right there. Oh Heyslick, you poor diluted fool. Still slinking around vying for attention. Much like a neglected child you don't care if the attention is negative or positive. Well little one, you have gotten a minute amount of attention from The Boots. That should brighten your day huh? -
CrownChakra wrote: »^^^^The Blue Pill is helluva drug
i been saying for the longest, theres paid trolls on here for the purpose of derailing anything that really and truly stimulates out-the-box thought. the rest of the scoffers are just followers. they think they slick but take a close look at what these types of posters espouse, object to and the lengths they go to for the sake of making it seem crazy to not think everything "JUST FINE". -
i been saying for the longest, theres paid trolls on here for the purpose of derailing anything that really and truly stimulates out-the-box thought. the rest of the scoffers are just followers. they think they slick but take a close look at what these types of posters espouse, object to and the lengths they go to for the sake of making it seem crazy to not think everything "JUST FINE".
^^^blind follower post -
They've been running america, ever since 1913 and believe me even though I Wasn't born yet, it was not a good year.
-
tupacfan35 wrote: »They've been running america, ever since 1913 and believe me even though I Wasn't born yet, it was not a good year.
autistic ? post^^^
