Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Left-Field

The 2012 Bilderberg Conference

86 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Good videos, acidhead. Thanks for posting them. I watched them all.

As much I am against the Bilderberg Group, at least I have an idea of what their doing and why. It's totally wrong, but I'm knowledgeable enough to understand how these people see things and what their agendas are.

What puzzles me though, is that others could watch each and everyone of those videos and still give a response like this.

Again, you assertion was that the Bilderberg meeting isn't mentioned in the MSM and I have shown that it is. Any other interpretation of my comments is simply your inference.

I'm curious, what do YOU think is happening at this meeting?

Edited by Rafterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Again, you assertion was that the Bilderberg meeting isn't mentioned in the MSM and I have shown that it is. Any other interpretation of my comments is simply your inference.

My assertion is that it isn't discussed in the mainstream media, and it isn't. You've proven this yourself even though you fail to realize it.

I'm curious, what do YOU think is happening at this meeting?

Among other things discussions about how they plan to put their agendas into action over the upcoming year (or years) and plans to implement a New World Order and one world currency.

You may want to be careful before laughing at the New World Order part - it's actually listed as one of the things they discuss on their "official" website.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, let's see, the HuffPo piece links a FoxNews video so that's a mainstream outlet. So who else is there, the Guardian, Pravda,and the Daily Mail - all mainstream outlets.

I love how ABC, NBC, CBS, USAToday, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC along with numerous newspapers make no mention of it and yet you act like the mainstream media is covering this event. Others are smart enough to know that they don't and when they read these posts they notice it as well.

And again, even those that "mention" Bilderberg don't "cover" it. There is a big difference.

As to reporting on it, why is that important to you? It's a private meeting that doesn't allow outside press - just like tens of thousands of other meetings that will be going on around the world today.

Well you know what, if the Nickelodeon company wants to discuss their programming I don't really care. If Walmart wants to discuss a new product to be placed in their store, I don't care. If Coca-Cola wants to hold a meeting discussing a new flavor their making - again, I don't care. Their private businesses that don't have much impact on my life.

When some of the most elite leaders and businessmen, etc from around the world get together in private to discuss things like a New World Order and then refuse to answer questions posed to them about it, it sends up a red flag. So does the fact that people who attend the meeting claim they didn't and others pretend they've never even heard of the Bilderberg Group. Others attend the conference in secrecy - like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did in 2008.

It isn't right. It isn't how government is supposed to be run - especially in America.

If you can't understand the difference between why a meeting such as Bilderberg is noteworthy and why what goes on in a supermarket meeting isn't than you shouldn't even bother with this conversation.

BTW, you know they have a website right which list agendas, discussions sessions, governance, and all participants.

Yes, I do. And guess what, I linked to it in my opening post. :w00t:

Now let me guess - you think that website tells you everything about what goes on at these Bilderberg conferences, right? Well, if that's the case, why can't the media cover the event and why won't anyone who attends the meeting discuss it when asked about it?

You really don't understand why that is suspicous? You don't understand why it's wrong for governments to hide such information from the public?

The most unsecret secret group in the world apparently.

Guess what - I guarantee you the large majority of the population of America isn't aware of the Bilderberg Group. And that's in a day and age where the internet has made it so much easier for people to become aware of such things.

I'll refer you to Brian Dunning's Skeptoid episode on the Bilderbergs: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4225

It's quite interesting and not grounded in the paranoia that is so prevalent in these discussions.

And I'll direct you to the videos acidhead posted. They are far more telling about Bilderberg and the secrecy around it.

If this article you link me to is as "informative" as the Bohemian Grove article you posted was (after which posting you bailed on the discussion) I think I'll pass this time as it doesn't tell you much of anything and you only ignore the information presented that stands in contrast to the article you feel comfortable believing in.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't these guys own dozens of hotels and what not? Why do they need to rent a place?

And I think I'm with 747400 on this one. They've been holding meetings on one world currency and the NWO for years now, and what do they have to show for it? Nothing. Clearly these conferences are very unproductive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly these conferences are very unproductive.

The Bilderberg members would obviously disagree. And again, the New World Order isn't made up, they list it on their own site as one of the things they discuss.

It's odd how people once laughed off the idea of a New World Order even being a thought any members of the "elite" held, yet now it is slipping into public discussion with people acting like it is still nothing. Strange....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that the reason for the secrecy is so that the participants can freely share ideas without fear of being ridiculed OR having their corporate interests damaged. Anonymity is not always about hiding some nefarious purpose.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bilderberg members would obviously disagree. And again, the New World Order isn't made up, they list it on their own site as one of the things they discuss.

It's odd how people once laughed off the idea of a New World Order even being a thought any members of the "elite" held, yet now it is slipping into public discussion with people acting like it is still nothing. Strange....

If I was running the conference I'd just stick it in for a laugh, freak the conspiracy groups out. Most likely it's talking about how the world has changed, not how they're going to change it themselves. Why would they come up with a session on how they're going to enslave everyone and then release it to the public?

The NWO is nothing but a buzz word these days. It gets waved around so often in various conspiracy theories that it's lost what little impact it has. There's no one world government, the "elites" haven't enslaved everyone, and there's been no plan to kill off billions of people. By and large the NWO concept is made up. It's just theories and what might bes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm guessing that the reason for the secrecy is so that the participants can freely share ideas without fear of being ridiculed OR having their corporate interests damaged.

When they are world leaders discussing how to take "care" of the world and it's problems then people have every right to know their thoughts and plans to handle these things. And if that results in people ridiculing them, the people they are suppose to serve and do what's best for, then they have no right to complain.

Anonymity is not always about hiding some nefarious purpose.

No one here has stated that it always is. When world leaders and very influential people meet like this to conspire on ways of running the world, however, it is highly suspicious, wrong, and quite possibly nefarious.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If I was running the conference I'd just stick it in for a laugh, freak the conspiracy groups out.

Pff... that is so ridiculous. It's not even believable, so I'll simply leave it at that.

The NWO is nothing but a buzz word these days. It gets waved around so often in various conspiracy theories that it's lost what little impact it has.

Claiming it is nothing more than a "buzz word" only proves my point about how strange it is that people don't even take notice anymore. They accept it. It's called being conditioned.

There's no one world government, the "elites" haven't enslaved everyone, and there's been no plan to kill off billions of people. By and large the NWO concept is made up. It's just theories and what might bes.

You aren't even making sense. To state the NWO is made up is a lie. These "elites" discuss it and work on making it happen. They all ready control far more than the majority of people are aware of and capable of understanding.

Your comments regarding it are proof of this.

Also, how would you know they aren't discussing plans to kill off large numbers of people?

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If this article you link me to is as "informative" as the Bohemian Grove article you posted was (after which posting you bailed on the discussion) I think I'll pass this time as it doesn't tell you much of anything and you only ignore the information presented that stands in contrast to the article you feel comfortable believing in.

Why yes, I'll stick with sourced information rather than speculation and conspiratorial nonsense.

As to the Bohemian Grove thread, yes, I gave up on it because of people like you. No matter what I post, you will discount it because it doesn't fit with your world view. You'd much rather believe the likes of Alex Jones rather than do your own research on these topics. And frankly, your ilk seem to just present things like "they burn a child in effigy" (which they don't by the way) as proof of their involvement in world-ranging conspiracies. If someone would post a video of Henry Kissinger or someone similar saying "hey fellas, let's turn to our next agenda item - taking over the world and enslaving all of humanity" I'd jump over to your side immediately. Instead you guys start talking about Freemasons, some European prince who did 500 years ago, or post photos of Hipsters wearing belt buckles (see my thread on the Rothschilds).

As to the New World Order, I find no mention of it being discussed on their website - notice you didn't link or source that claim by the way. If you look at the past two meetings, here were the topics:

9-12 June 2011 St. Moritz, Switzerland

  • The Middle East: What Does Democracy Mean?
  • Emerging Economies: Roles and Responsibilities
  • Economic and National Security in a Digital Age
  • Technological Innovation in Western Economies: Stagnation or Promise?
  • The Appetite for Reform: Can Governments Deliver?
  • Switzerland: Can It Remain Successful in the Future?
  • European Union's Challenges
  • A Sustainable Euro: Implications for European Economies
  • China's Domestic Challenges
  • China's Regional and Global Challenges
  • Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power
  • Current Conflict Areas
  • Demographic Stresses

3-6 June 2010 Sitges, Spain

  • Current Events: North Korea, Iran and Non-Proliferation
  • Global Cooling: Implications of Slow Economic Growth
  • The Growing Influence of Cyber Technology
  • Is Financial Reform Progressing?
  • US and European Fiscal and Financial Challenges
  • The European Union and the Crisis of the Euro
  • Promises of Medical Science
  • Energy's Promises and Challenges
  • Security in a Proliferated World
  • Social Networking: From the Obama Campaign to the Iranian Revolution
  • Europe-US: A New Approach
  • Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Region
  • Can We Feed the World?

Frankly, these all seem like very reasonable discussions to be having and I'm glad someone is having them. I suppose no one should be talking about these things in your world?

And one thing I've always wondered about the New World Order proponents - I find it odd that none of these groups ever seem to include the Chinese and the Indians. How does one propose to control the world without including those two groups?

And let me just leave this little Alex Jones tidbit from Bilderberg 2011 here:

http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-approved-perry-set-to-become-presidential-frontrunner/

Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012.

Man, that's one powerful group right there.....

Edited by Rafterman
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let me just leave this little Alex Jones tidbit from Bilderberg 2011 here:

http://www.infowars....al-frontrunner/

Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012.

Man, that's one powerful group right there.....

Sounds like rather than wanting Ron Paul out of the way, they should've started with Romney..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As to the New World Order, I find no mention of it being discussed on their website - notice you didn't link or source that claim by the way. If you look at the past two meetings, here were the topics:

I don't have time right now to address everything, but here is my link about Bilderberg acknowledging they discuss the New World Order. And it is from their official site.

Click here and then click on "Conferences." When you do it will bring you to this page (which again, is their "official" site). It lists the following:

14-17 May 2009 Vouliagmeni, Greece

  • Governments and Markets
  • After the G-20: Role of Institutions
  • Protectionism: How Serious
  • Cyberterrorism: Policy and Strategy
  • Sustainability: Post Kyoto Challenges
  • Iraq: Role and Responsibilities in the Region
  • Pakistan and Afghanistan
  • A New Order: US and the World
  • Lessons from a Crisis
  • Challenge to Market Economies and Democracies
  • New Imperialisms: Russia - China
  • Current Affairs: How does Industry see the Future

5-8 June 2008 Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A.

  • Cyber-terrorism
  • A Nuclear-Free World
  • Managing Financial Turbulence
  • US Foreign Policy Without Change
  • How Serious Are the Threats on Our Economies
  • Islam in Europe
  • Africa
  • Afghanistan, Challenge for the West
  • Iran-Pakistan
  • A Look at the Future
  • The Mounting Threat of Protectionism
  • Russia
  • After Bush: The Future of US-EU Relations
  • Current Affairs: US Elections

31 May-3 June 2007 Istanbul, Turkey

  • The New World Order: Uni-Polar or Non-Polar?
  • Turkey and its Neighbours
  • Europe and the US: Common and Conflicting Interests
  • The Mood of the US
  • Democracy and Populism
  • Democracy in the Middle East
  • Turkey's Long-Term Development in Comparative Perspective
  • Leadership Changes in Key European Countries [France-UK]
  • Information Technology: Globalising or Tribalising Force?
  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  • The US: Cutting Issues in State-Federal Relations
  • Climate Change
  • Current Affairs: Capital Markets: Risks and Opportunities of Private Equity and Hedge Funds

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that A New Order: US and the World (in red) might just refer to the U.S.'s place in the world and the current threats existing therein, and might not necessarily have to mean some Fiendish plot to kill 80% of the world's population and herd everyone into FEMA Camps? That 'The New World Order' (in red or otherwise) might be a way of referring to the various power blocs and potential threats in the world?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

747: While it very well could be non-nefarious, have you considered that people simply have a right to know what their politicians are discussing in regards to their country?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

747: While it very well could be non-nefarious, have you considered that people simply have a right to know what their politicians are discussing in regards to their country?

Letting the cogitations of the great & good in conference be public knowledge might have some implications for national Security, might it not? I mean, it's one thing to say that you're discussing (say) the current status of north Korea's nucular program, but it might not be very sensible to tell everyone all the details that you've been discussing about it, and how you got that information. If you're discussing something like A New Order: US and the World , it migth involve discussion about all sorts of strategic plans and possible alliances and what your opinions really are about some of your current allies, which you mightn't want to make Public knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letting the cogitations of the great & good in conference be public knowledge might have some implications for national Security, might it not?

Seeing as the people involved in these discussions are not just politicians but corporate leaders, and people from countries abroad are all invited, I feel that the excuse of "national security" is just that --- an excuse.

it migth involve discussion about all sorts of strategic plans and possible alliances and what your opinions really are about some of your current allies, which you mightn't want to make Public knowledge.

Why wouldn't you want to make it public knowledge? For fear that the public disagrees with you and causes issues? That is very much the reason why the public has a right to know. Politicians are supposed to represent the people. If their opinions and what they say are contrary to what the people want, the people have a right to replace them. To make public statements in alignment with the people they represent while acting in contradiction to them behind closed doors is exactly the corruptness that the people must stop.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why yes, I'll stick with sourced information rather than speculation and conspiratorial nonsense.

There are many forms of sourced information. You simply refuse to acknowledge the sourced information that doesn't lend itself to your established thoughts on things.

As to the Bohemian Grove thread, yes, I gave up on it because of people like you. No matter what I post, you will discount it because it doesn't fit with your world view. You'd much rather believe the likes of Alex Jones rather than do your own research on these topics.

First off, I don't follow Alex Jones. I actually do my own research. Simply because Alex Jones may believe some of the same things I do does not translate into me following him.

Secondly, I do not discount reports that do not hold the same views I do. I will read them, and I will comment on them. The thing is, simply because one person may have been in the Grove and didn't witness anything bizarre or illegal occur within their presence doesn't mean odd rituals and sacrifices don't occur.

Lastly, "people like me" is a label that can easily be applied to "people like you." It serves no purpose other than to place a label on me and lump me in with groups that you don't care for as opposed to realizing I am my own person with my own established thoughts about things.

And frankly, your ilk seem to just present things like "they burn a child in effigy" (which they don't by the way) as proof of their involvement in world-ranging conspiracies. If someone would post a video of Henry Kissinger or someone similar saying "hey fellas, let's turn to our next agenda item - taking over the world and enslaving all of humanity" I'd jump over to your side immediately. Instead you guys start talking about Freemasons, some European prince who did 500 years ago, or post photos of Hipsters wearing belt buckles (see my thread on the Rothschilds).

No, that is very innacurate. I haven't done things like that at all, but again, you lump me in with a group you don't care for as a means of discrediting beliefs I have reached on my own.

You ask for video that flies in the face of your thoughts about things like Bohemian Grove and I replied with this. You paid no mind to it. That's fine, but by not doing so it only shows that you won't bother with legitimate information presented to you that goes against what you believe.

And if you don't believe what is presented within that post, then I have to wonder how it is you believe the person that describes what he experienced there managed to accurately describe the area within Bohemian Grove at a time when he was only 20-22 years old and during an age in which the internet did not exist (meaning he couldn't have learned about Bohemian Grove by simply sitting in front of a computer).

As for other things you mentioned, I do believe there is video and other documentation of people like David Rockefeller and Ted Turner stating their beliefs about needing to depopulate the world, establishing a New World Order, and things of that nature.

As to the New World Order, I find no mention of it being discussed on their website - notice you didn't link or source that claim by the way. If you look at the past two meetings, here were the topics:

In this post I provide the source from the Bilderberg Group's "official" website which shows they admit to discussing a New World Order at their conferences (I realize the post was made after your above statement).

Frankly, these all seem like very reasonable discussions to be having and I'm glad someone is having them. I suppose no one should be talking about these things in your world?

To the contrary, I have no issue with them discussing anything. The issue I have is that they do so in private without allowing any coverage of the meeting or answering questions posed to them about what was discussed at the conference EVER.

I don't know of other countries established laws and beliefs, but I know that in America our leaders are to operate in the open and in the best public interest of it's people. What they are doing by attending the Bilderberg meeting goes 100% against that. It is flat-out wrong. That isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a fact given what America's laws are.

Discussing these subjects in private with some of the most powerful and influential people in the world is an act of conspiring. Which again, isn't simply an opinion. It is a fact.

And one thing I've always wondered about the New World Order proponents - I find it odd that none of these groups ever seem to include the Chinese and the Indians. How does one propose to control the world without including those two groups?

That would be a pretty darn good question to ask members and attendees of the Bildergroup Conference, wouldn't it? Trouble is, they wouldn't answer the question to anyone that isn't considered "worthy" of being part of their discussions. That in itself is a major issue with things surrounding the Bilderberg Group.

If influential people like Ron Paul, Neil Young, Eddie Vedder, Alex Jones, David Icke, Julian Assange and another one hundred plus from all around the globe gathered at a yearly meeting, let alone doing it even once, to discuss these same issues and their thoughts about what needs to be changed within the government and how all people can be best served without allowing any coverage to take place of this event they would be scrutinized like crazy and quite possibly be declared terrorists.

Why is it, however, that when the people who partake in Bilderberg do the same thing it should be allowed to be done?

And let me just leave this little Alex Jones tidbit from Bilderberg 2011 here:

Bilderberg-Approved Perry Set To Become Frontrunner

Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012.

Man, that's one powerful group right there.

That means very little when presented by itself. It would be like me grabbing one headline that is shown to be true about Bilderberg and declaring it alone proves everything else I may believe about what takes place there.

Furthermore, it doesn't address the biggest issue that I, and I believe others, have with Bilderberg. It isn't that they gather and discuss these issues. It is that they do so in private without allowing any coverage of the steps they feel need to be taken in order to take care of the issues they discuss.

That is the very act of conspiring. They use their positions and abilities to manipulate and influence what takes place around the world. What they do is undeniably wrong and goes against the very essence of how American politicians are supposed to operate having been elected by the people to best serve the people.

Edited by Angel Left Wing
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the contrary, I have no issue with them discussing anything. The issue I have is that they do so in private without allowing any coverage of the meeting or answering questions posed to them about what was discussed at the conference EVER.

I don't know of other countries established laws and beliefs, but I know that in America our leaders are to operate in the open and in the best public interest of it's people. What they are doing by attending the Bilderberg meeting goes 100% against that. It is flat-out wrong. That isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a fact given what America's laws are.

Do you really think that the Politicians disclose everything that they've talked about? And would that be a very sensible thing to do if they did? Do you really imagine that they'd disclose every single matter concerned with security or intelligence matters that they'd discussed? I'm pretty sure I could guarantee that they don't disclose publicly 90% of what they discuss. In fact, probably, by releasing their agenda, the Beiderbeck lot are rather more open that most Governments on their own are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that the Politicians disclose everything that they've talked about? And would that be a very sensible thing to do if they did? Do you really imagine that they'd disclose every single matter concerned with security or intelligence matters that they'd discussed? I'm pretty sure I could guarantee that they don't disclose publicly 90% of what they discuss. In fact, probably, by releasing their agenda, the Beiderbeck lot are rather more open that most Governments on their own are.

Agreed. Those who do evil, do so in darkness, that the light wont expose what they have done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you really think that the Politicians disclose everything that they've talked about? And would that be a very sensible thing to do if they did? Do you really imagine that they'd disclose every single matter concerned with security or intelligence matters that they'd discussed? I'm pretty sure I could guarantee that they don't disclose publicly 90% of what they discuss. In fact, probably, by releasing their agenda, the Beiderbeck lot are rather more open that most Governments on their own are.

Releasing an agenda is a long way from releasing what they discuss. What I'm interested in isn't the conversations per say but what is done after those conversations and the conference wrap up.

I read a quote in the Washington post where someone said "Ive seen 4 billionaires today...... those are the kingmakers". The members of the Bilderberg group rule the world. Some through election, some through vocation, most through birth or deals with the devil (LOL) regardless of means these men rule our world. To think these powerful men meet together without designing national and corporate policy is pure naivety.If you've ever spent time around truly driven businessmen you know they don't do anything that isn't aimed at earning that almighty dollar.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

747: While it very well could be non-nefarious, have you considered that people simply have a right to know what their politicians are discussing in regards to their country?

Politicians meet in closed sessions all of the time - why so much focus on this one meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Releasing an agenda is a long way from releasing what they discuss. What I'm interested in isn't the conversations per say but what is done after those conversations and the conference wrap up.

I read a quote in the Washington post where someone said "Ive seen 4 billionaires today...... those are the kingmakers". The members of the Bilderberg group rule the world. Some through election, some through vocation, most through birth or deals with the devil (LOL) regardless of means these men rule our world. To think these powerful men meet together without designing national and corporate policy is pure naivety.If you've ever spent time around truly driven businessmen you know they don't do anything that isn't aimed at earning that almighty dollar.

Sorry, you could not have read that quote in the Washington Post because the Bilderberg Conference isn't mentioned in the mainstream media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time right now to address everything, but here is my link about Bilderberg acknowledging they discuss the New World Order. And it is from their official site.

Click here and then click on "Conferences." When you do it will bring you to this page (which again, is their "official" site). It lists the following:

14-17 May 2009 Vouliagmeni, Greece

  • Governments and Markets
  • After the G-20: Role of Institutions
  • Protectionism: How Serious
  • Cyberterrorism: Policy and Strategy
  • Sustainability: Post Kyoto Challenges
  • Iraq: Role and Responsibilities in the Region
  • Pakistan and Afghanistan
  • A New Order: US and the World
  • Lessons from a Crisis
  • Challenge to Market Economies and Democracies
  • New Imperialisms: Russia - China
  • Current Affairs: How does Industry see the Future

5-8 June 2008 Chantilly, Virginia, U.S.A.

  • Cyber-terrorism
  • A Nuclear-Free World
  • Managing Financial Turbulence
  • US Foreign Policy Without Change
  • How Serious Are the Threats on Our Economies
  • Islam in Europe
  • Africa
  • Afghanistan, Challenge for the West
  • Iran-Pakistan
  • A Look at the Future
  • The Mounting Threat of Protectionism
  • Russia
  • After Bush: The Future of US-EU Relations
  • Current Affairs: US Elections

31 May-3 June 2007 Istanbul, Turkey

  • The New World Order: Uni-Polar or Non-Polar?
  • Turkey and its Neighbours
  • Europe and the US: Common and Conflicting Interests
  • The Mood of the US
  • Democracy and Populism
  • Democracy in the Middle East
  • Turkey's Long-Term Development in Comparative Perspective
  • Leadership Changes in Key European Countries [France-UK]
  • Information Technology: Globalising or Tribalising Force?
  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  • The US: Cutting Issues in State-Federal Relations
  • Climate Change
  • Current Affairs: Capital Markets: Risks and Opportunities of Private Equity and Hedge Funds

Do you have any evidence that these references to a new world order are in any way similar to what is generally meant when you and others talk about a New World Order?

Because in my mind, there is a new world order and much of the turmoil of the past 20 years has been the world trying to figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There are many forms of sourced information. You simply refuse to acknowledge the sourced information that doesn't lend itself to your established thoughts on things.

First off, I don't follow Alex Jones. I actually do my own research. Simply because Alex Jones may believe some of the same things I do does not translate into me following him.

Secondly, I do not discount reports that do not hold the same views I do. I will read them, and I will comment on them. The thing is, simply because one person may have been in the Grove and didn't witness anything bizarre or illegal occur within their presence doesn't mean odd rituals and sacrifices don't occur.

Lastly, "people like me" is a label that can easily be applied to "people like you." It serves no purpose other than to place a label on me and lump me in with groups that you don't care for as opposed to realizing I am my own person with my own established thoughts about things.

No, that is very innacurate. I haven't done things like that at all, but again, you lump me in with a group you don't care for as a means of discrediting beliefs I have reached on my own.

You ask for video that flies in the face of your thoughts about things like Bohemian Grove and I replied with this. You paid no mind to it. That's fine, but by not doing so it only shows that you won't bother with legitimate information presented to you that goes against what you believe.

And if you don't believe what is presented within that post, then I have to wonder how it is you believe the person that describes what he experienced there managed to accurately describe the area within Bohemian Grove at a time when he was only 20-22 years old and during an age in which the internet did not exist (meaning he couldn't have learned about Bohemian Grove by simply sitting in front of a computer).

As for other things you mentioned, I do believe there is video and other documentation of people like David Rockefeller and Ted Turner stating their beliefs about needing to depopulate the world, establishing a New World Order, and things of that nature.

In this post I provide the source from the Bilderberg Group's "official" website which shows they admit to discussing a New World Order at their conferences (I realize the post was made after your above statement).

To the contrary, I have no issue with them discussing anything. The issue I have is that they do so in private without allowing any coverage of the meeting or answering questions posed to them about what was discussed at the conference EVER.

I don't know of other countries established laws and beliefs, but I know that in America our leaders are to operate in the open and in the best public interest of it's people. What they are doing by attending the Bilderberg meeting goes 100% against that. It is flat-out wrong. That isn't even a matter of opinion. It's a fact given what America's laws are.

Discussing these subjects in private with some of the most powerful and influential people in the world is an act of conspiring. Which again, isn't simply an opinion. It is a fact.

That would be a pretty darn good question to ask members and attendees of the Bildergroup Conference, wouldn't it? Trouble is, they wouldn't answer the question to anyone that isn't considered "worthy" of being part of their discussions. That in itself is a major issue with things surrounding the Bilderberg Group.

If influential people like Ron Paul, Neil Young, Eddie Vedder, Alex Jones, David Icke, Julian Assange and another one hundred plus from all around the globe gathered at a yearly meeting, let alone doing it even once, to discuss these same issues and their thoughts about what needs to be changed within the government and how all people can be best served without allowing any coverage to take place of this event they would be scrutinized like crazy and quite possibly be declared terrorists.

Why is it, however, that when the people who partake in Bilderberg do the same thing it should be allowed to be done?

That means very little when presented by itself. It would be like me grabbing one headline that is shown to be true about Bilderberg and declaring it alone proves everything else I may believe about what takes place there.

Furthermore, it doesn't address the biggest issue that I, and I believe others, have with Bilderberg. It isn't that they gather and discuss these issues. It is that they do so in private without allowing any coverage of the steps they feel need to be taken in order to take care of the issues they discuss.

That is the very act of conspiring. They use their positions and abilities to manipulate and influence what takes place around the world. What they do is undeniably wrong and goes against the very essence of how American politicians are supposed to operate having been elected by the people to best serve the people.

No, there isn't any sourced information. There is simply speculation and conjecture. That's all it is.

And no, I do not believe that the likes of Jimmy Buffet, David Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger gang bang little boys.

And if Ron Paul, Neil Young, Eddie Vedder, Alex Jones, David Icke, and Julian Assange showed up at a conference, I'd definitely want to be there for nothing else but the comedic value. Maybe Assange could secretly tape Eddie and Neil singing about reptilians with Icke.

By the way, since you're so convinced about the Bohemian Grove gang bangers, how do you feel about Assange's sex charges?

Has Ron Paul ever participated in any secret meetings? Do you get agitated about them?

BTW, lots of stories in the mainstream media this weekend about Bilderberg.

Edited by Rafterman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.