The Bilderberg Conspiracy - why the illuminati and freemasons are irrelevent
73The term Bilderberg has become synonymous with conspiracy and New World Order, though it is largely unheard of beyond the circles of conspiracy theorists. The group is an assortment of bankers, politicians, media moguls, and royalty who meet once a year to discuss global events. The details truly are that vague, there is no complete list of conference attendees and rumors abound regarding the identity of the participants. Wikipedia identifies Donald Rumsfeld, and Peter Sutherland (former EU Commissioner and Chairman of Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum) as active Bilderberg Group members. Bill Clinton is rumored to have participated in the most recent conference - and apparently a Drexel University student’s question of his participation earned him a visit from the secret service.
Membership seems to be revolving - some are life members, while some country representatives rotate each year. The group’s size is approximately 130 members at each annual meeting.
What do they discuss: New World Order? How to keep the black man down? Interaction with extra-terrestrial life? Despite the presence of media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch and journalists such as Peter Jennings and Bill Moyers, the media never reports the content of discussions.
Rumored to have attended:
Notable US Political attendees have included:
Former Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford
Former Vice Presidents Dan Quayle, Walter Mondale and Nelson Rockerfeller
Former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Henry Kissinger
Former (and current) President(s) of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McNamara, and Robert Zoellick
Current United States Senators:
Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Jay Rockerfeller, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck Hagel,and Dianne Feinstein
Former United States Senators:
John Edwards, George J Mitchell, and Adlai Stevenson III
Other:
Former Democratic Party Chairman: Terry McAuliffe
Former Republican Party Chairman: Ken Mehlman
US political participants have included a diverse cross-section of hundreds of former Senators, Congressmen, Treasury Secretaries, National Security Advisers, Governors and Ambassadors; most participated in only 1 conference.
Also represented are some notable corporate leaders and private citizens:
Lord Conrad Black - Chairman of Hollinger International (recently sentenced to 6 yrs in prison)
Louis V. Gerstner - Former Chairman of IBM; Current Chairman of the Carlyle Group
Eric Schmidt - Chairman and CEO of GOOGLE
Josef Ackermann - CEO of Deutsche Bank
Dwayne Andreas - Chairman and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland
Rupert Murdoch - Chairman and CEO of News Corp.
Lloyd Blankfein - CEO of Goldman Sachs
Melinda Gates - Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Media:
Bill Moyers - Journalist, Public Broadcasting Service
Peter Jennings - Journalist, ABC News
Charlie Rose - Journalist, Public Broadcasting Service
Martin Wolf - Journalist, Financial Times
Paul Gigot - Editor, Wall Street Journal
I like the diversity of ideology of the US participants, and looking at the full list, it seems a majority of the group represents the US. If this group is attempting to take over the world, and I’m satisfied that US interests are being represented.
Anytime the influential and powerful collude it seems to draw ire and suspicion from the general public. Conspiracy theories are often dismissed citing lack of evidence and this absence of evidence is often construed as evidence of absence . A belief in conspiracy is entirely reasonable given the common definition: two or more people colluding in secret. Our government indicts people on conspiracy related charges daily; the Mafia does exist in some form, and groups of politicians often make back-room deals to pass and/or block legislation and shape policy.
Does this implicate the Bilderberg Group as propagators of a New World Order? The pragmatic answer is of course not. Despite the secrecy surrounding Bilderberg membership it is rational to assume that their members have some degree of diversity of ideology, ethnicity, and nationality. The individuals’ identity and personal concentration of power make it unlikely that full collusion is even possible. This does not exclude the possibility that some members of the group may collude, but individuals are especially wary of relinquishing sovereignty, lowering the likelihood of a cohesive “New World Order”. The mainstream media does not report on the conference to facilitate openness of discussion; a more plausible scenario than other nefarious theories, meaning its more likely that they meet to discuss global trends and that the individual members discuss adaptation strategies with their national, political, and industrial counterparts - considerably less cohesive than a massive New World Order conspiracy.
I often wonder why conspiracy theories feed our fear and paranoia; it seems counter-intuitive. On a psychological level it seems that there are diametrically opposing views as to how an individual responds to a conspiracy theory, and their subsequent endorsement or rejection of the theory.
1.) The conspiracy psychologically satisfies your perception of the world. The world is complex, and global events often cause confusion, especially when accurate and objective information is unavailable. You either believe that rationality and order is the natural state, or we exist chaos. Indulgence in the conspiracy can be calming - the assurance that somebody, somewhere, has a plan (much like a belief in God). Proponents of conspiracy theories that fall within this paradigm generally believe the conspiring agents are acting (or believe they are acting) with benevolent intentions. Opponents of the conspiracy theories in this paradigm reject the theory wholesale - they do not dispute the conspiracy is occurring, but rather refuse to acknowledge specific events as evidence of the conspiracy or the intention of the conspirators. Either they believe the natural state of affairs is order and rationality - and thus forces exist to check conspiracies or they find insufficient evidence to acknowledge an active conspiracy. Similarly, if they believe that chaos is the natural state, the conspiracy becomes impotent, unable to exercise control.
2.) The conspiracy satisfies your personality. The belief in the conspiracy correlates to the individuals’ perception of free-will. Belief in the conspiracy may translate to the perception that the conspiracy impedes an individual’s free will, potentially serving as an external cause for events outside of the subject’s control, or an indemnification of the individual that justifies their passive acceptance of the situation. Rejection of the theory is then either an exercise in free will or the individual’s belief of the absence of free will.
The real question is: Where’s the beef? Humans are social beings, collusion and conspiring are inherent to our nature. The fear, anxiety and sensational nature of conspiracy theories seem to be product of psychological tension rather than conspiratorial policy.
Conclusion:
1.) Extreme Pessimism: Assume the agents of conspiracy act only in their own self-interest; then it is only a matter of time before other forces check their progress. This is not to say the conspiring agents actions won’t directly effect our lives, they most certainly will, but their self-serving policy will be diametrically opposed to other interests, and it would seem natural that both sides live and die by the organic ebb and flow of power and influence.
2.) Extreme Optimism: Assume the conspiring agents are acting with benevolent intention. Again, their actions will certainly affect our lives, perhaps even negatively. Once again, their policy will be diametrically opposed to other interests, and similar to the nefarious agents, their power will wane according to the fluid nature of power.
For some fun reading on the nature of power - check out this Wikipedia article on Michel Foucault.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Solid article. Many people don't know about the Bilderberg. This year's meeting should be quite interesting seeing as though many nations are electing their leaders (mainly U.S. and Russia)
i do appreciate the general imfo in the article, but the benign nature of this organisation,"as you portray it" is still in question! If it's so harmless, why all the denials and secrecy? As you say, these are politicians, corperate and media moguls along with bankers and royaty from around the world. these are "all" public and civil servants. we have the right to know! After all, if the public has the right to invade brittany spears and paris hiltons lives, we most certainly have the right to know what our "so called ELECTED OFFICIALS" are up to! conspiracy nut or not!
but thanks again for that one sided bias news story! It's not like we don't get enough of that!
fearless101
I suppose I could take a more pessimistic chance regarding the intentions of the group. Why the secrecy and denials? I think you're analysis answers the question perfectly. These are some of the most powerful people in the world. Powerful people go to great length to prevent transparency because a clear understanding of their power would completely dilute that power; a more ambitious person would no doubt exploit the former's now obvious weakness.
Perhaps you're upset at the secrecy because you would like to hold power over the powerful yourself? If you can accept this premise, then you should ask yourself... if you were in a position to be invited to the Bilderberg Conference, would you believe that you would participate to serve as a benevolent protector of the people or would you seek to exploit for your own personal gain? Chances are you would believe that you would use your position to help people... If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions, would it not be fair to do the same for current participants? Of course, not everyone has benevolent intentions, and it is not uncommon for people to hold diametrically opposing views and be steadfast in their belief of righteousness.
So what will transparency reveal but a quagmire of incoherent arguments and more questions?I am not defending their lack of transparency, merely trying to explain their actions in a Socratic method. I agree, we have a right to know what our politicians are up to. They serve the people and should be made accountable for all of their actions. Unfortunately this is rarely the case as our political system is laced with polarizing hacks who wantonly engage in stalemate tactics. I think we should focus more on the lack of transparency in our own political system before we begin to critique the lack of transparency outside of the system.
Perhaps Britney and Paris would be less popular if the American people would focus more on the corrupt and immoral antics of politicians and celebrity. Maybe it's just a drawback of capitalism; celebrity gossip is far more profitable and less risky than exposing politicians.
There is little doubt in my mind that the battle between good and evil is cyclical. The good intentions of the benevolent will slowly erode systemic corruption. Power is not inherently good or evil, but rather good and evil are exercised by the conscience of powerful people. As the influence of the good intentioned wane, so rises the power of the corrupt, and the cycle begins anew.
I would love to debate this further. The premise of your argument is correct. The benign nature of the organization is still in question. I merely advocate that we can never know everything about the Bilderberg group because their super-structures of power will always prevent absolute transparency in the interest of self-preservation. Without that absolute knowledge, we cannot judge absolutely. This is not a religious argument about "god" being the only one who can judge, rather that the logic of the argument demands that your view is merely optimistic or pessimistic, and such a perspective can never be absolutely proven right.
Regards,
It's a gross violation of the Logan Act for U.S. representatives to meet in secret with representatives of other nations because of the inherent threat it poses to U.S. national sovereignty and security. "Perhaps you're upset at the secrecy because you would like to hold power over the powerful yourself?" (from the comment above.) Perhaps this is the very principle upon which the Constitution of the United States was founded? By, for, and of the people, as opposed to the elite? This is a very well-written article and there are a lot of truly pertinent contemplations being offered within it. It takes a position, but I wouldn't necessarily call it 'one-sided.' Instead, it takes in a range of opposing considerations and makes a decision, which is always a good thing. I don't necessarily agree, but then, that's what it's all about isn't it? Listen, check out this hub and see if you wouldn't want to take on one of the suggested questions in an article of your own. I'd like to hear what you have to say: http://hubpages.com/hub/TheChangeonTrialProject
Request link: http://hubpages.com/request/10300/best
With names like Peter Jennings, Charlie Rose, Colin Powell, and Melinda Gates - the names of people I actually trust and who have demonstrated a commitment to truth or good will - it's hard to see the big Bilderberg meeting as nefarious.
The boundaries of power and statehood in the world have always been in flux. It should not come as a surprise that they continue to be. I love being an American but I desire a future where people identify themselves as Earthlings. The paradigm of warring nation-states is one that I hope comes to an end.
While we bicker and complain and dread what the global elite are planning for us, we should insert ourselves into the discussion and be asking what we want the future to look like, not fighting the inevitable. Dare I say the "new world order" is an idea that has existed since the beginning of civil society.
Q. Why does someone keep a secret?
A. Because they have something to hide...
LOL... Andy, as already established by some of the previous comments, not everything hidden is sinister.
I am also in favour of a single world government for the betterment of humanity. If I was president, I wouldn't be able to anounce this to the world, because the fact of the matter is: most people aren't ready to give up their ideals of national sovereignty.
My fellow countrymen view me as a traitor, and with suspicion when I argue my ideals of a united earth.
As much as I hate to admit it, the only way we can overcome peoples perceptions regarding this is through Nazi-style brainwashing (yes - the media). This is why I beleive presidents around the world already talk of a new world order, to allow the public to become accustomed to the idea.
Not all propaganda is bad. For example, 100 years ago, the common perception amongst westerners was that they were superior to other races. I know because I was brought up in apartheid South Africa. Only through the massaging in of the idea that we’re all created equal in the eyes of God has this truth been established. I have witnessed this paradigm shift myself. Amazingly it only took about 10 years for white people to become accustomed to this new way of thinking. It happened through the media by demonizing racism, and exposing people to images of multi-cultural relationships.
This same concept must be applied to the world if people are ever to accept that they are no better than their neighbours across the border. They need to be shown through the media that the only way to combat the problems facing humanity is through unity. That united we can far more effectively strive for a better future for all.
I apologise for going off-topic and having a political rant, but I have established a good reason for the secrecy within the Bilderburg group.
So ... will Barack Obama be invited?
Steve likes nazi styled popaganda
Steve does not think people are capable of thinking by themselves.
Steve loves club bilderberg
LOL
Im sure that Club bilderberg loves Steve
The real issue, which Mr Johnson, for whatever reason, does not address in his article, is not why the participants at these meetings wish to keep the details secret, but rather why the media also draws a veil over the whole Bilderberg business. This is the same media that is so keen to wag the finger at politicians over relative trivia such as expenses claims. So why so little curiosity about secret meetings of the world's elite?
Moin Ansari says:
2 years ago
Liked your article. There are a couple of exhaustive and detialed articles on my site about the asassination of Benazir Bhutto. Let me read yours, and I will give you my feedback
Moin
http://www.rupeenews.com