Questions asked in European Parliament about Bilderberg secrecy …
Euro MP - “is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 0Dr96s34r0
Why a meeting attended by the most powerful people on the planet has received no mainstream media coverage for more than 50 years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … A5jNylGgds
By the way, the next Bilderberg Meeting is (apparently) to be held on June 6-9 2013 at the Grove Hotel Watford, UK. As usual before the event, the location and the list of attendees is kept secret. .Good questions. Are they asked to insinuate there is something nefarious about the group or as an honest request for information? If the former, I might suggest that providing the answers would do a LOT more to support the (currently) unfounded insinuations and accusations than a question proclaiming their ignorance of the group.
The location you give (Grove Hotel Watford, UK) is kept secret? Do you have inside information you choose to spread in violation of a trust or did you just make a lie out of your own statement?This is a Euro MP, writing to the mainstream media for them to explain why they do not cover such an event. He stands up in the European Parliament and announces his concerns about Bilderberg secrecy to the world. To me, that is significant.
I got the location of this years meeting off a so called "conspiracy theory" website, so obviously it can't be correct. Perhaps you can tell me where the meeting is being held and who is attending?Odd - I would not equate a request for information as to why an event was not covered to the yes/no question “is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?”
Truly, it sounds more as if the MP is not asking a question at all, but trying to make an insinuation while convincing the reader it is actually a question. Not unusual in the spin of conspiracy theorists, though.So now you're saying that a Euro MP is a conspiracy theorist too, simply because he does not fall into line like all of the other bought and paid for politicians. Really!
. . .and you still have not provided the location of the honest, open and transparent Bilderberg Meeting this year, and an attendee list . . . without recourse to a "Conspiracy website" or a "conspiracy theorist Euro MP", neither of which could possibly be credible in your eyes. Perhaps CNN or the BBC can tell you?Well, I don't know about that...
I'll answer the question of "“is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?”: No.
Does it sound like that also also answers the question of why the media doesn't report on the group? Just "No" as a good reason? Or "Yes" if you would prefer that?
No, I'm saying that in taking the question out of context and claiming that the MP is asking for an explanation of why the media doesn't report you are giving the words of the MP a totally different meaning from what was being asked.
Either that or the MP really is simply trying to give the impression of asking a question while implanting the insinuation that the group is out for world domination.
Do you see the difference in the questions? Can you detect that one is answer by either "yes" or "no" while the other requires at least a paragraph? The two are NOT equivalent questions even though you claim they are.
As far as me providing a location of the upcoming meeting - I haven't the faintest. Nor do I care - I find no reason for the public to be given that information and if they don't want people to know there is absolutely no responsibility to give it. Whether they have a reason or not or whether the reason is valid in your eyes, they have no responsibility to make their private meetings public. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you won't be invited; you thus have no need to know and if I DID know I would have no reason to tell you.The MP in question says he has written to the mainstream media asking them if they intend to cover this meeting of global significance, and if not, why not.
He clearly does not consider that it is or should be a "private meeting" given that elected and unelected representatives of governments attend, who have public responsibilities.
As for “is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?”: No you say? Sorry, this is a yes, and is the stated objective of Rockerfeller in his famous quote, already listed several times in the post, repeated in part here to jog your memory
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
Did you see the words "plan for the world", "world government" and "supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite" . . .??
As for the location of this years meeting, the issue is not whether you care about it, or whether I am invited, the issue is that, as you well know, that other meetings of this magnitude given the sort of people who attend, are publicised well in advance, and receive global media coverage (Davos, G20 summits), the fact that this meeting does not receive media coverage, is starting to raise eyebrows and questions amongst even, Euro MPs.So the MP did NOT ask the media "“is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?”. He instead ask if they intended to cover the next meeting. Why did you report that he asked the first question?
The answer to the question is irrelevant; sorry if I didn't make that clear. What was relevant was that it was a yes/no answer being required, not a paragraph of text.
Do you really believe that our President makes a media notification before he picks up the phone to another world leader? That every conversation between leaders is announced before it happens? Or even that every person meeting him on a foreign visit will be publicized before it happens?
Hard to believe that anyone today thinks that either there are no back room meetings going on between the powerful in the world OR that every one is (or should be) published worldwide before hand let alone that every topic to be discussed is published.
Why aren't you demanding that before the CEO of WalMart (bigger than many countries) meets with the CFO that all media is notified and expected to report that there will be a meeting? They might, after all, be plotting world domination, and there is already ample evidence that WalMart dominates the economical niche they occupy in most of the countries they have entrenched themselves in. Real evidence, available in their reports as well as government records and statistics, not made up innuendoes.
Considering the high-profile leaders and other people who attend those meetings, it's obvious that citizens have the right to know what goes on there.
So if you become famous, everyone suddenly has the right to spy on you 24/7? America, ladies and gentlemen!
Actually, I read a book about this once, written by some Orwell fellow. Its title was a year, or some other series of numbers. Strangely, it was mistakenly placed in the fiction section...,,,,,,,,,,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfgfH1ro6vs
Pardon me if I said just famous people in general.
What I meant was people who are running for positions in American politics, and especially for positions as high as the Presidency.
Politicians are suposed to be public servants, not secretive self-servants. Yep, American citizens have the right to know. We are not just on a want-to-know basis; we're on the need-to-know basis when it comes to our politicians.Not to mention the journalists that are presumably attending these secretive meetings and then choosing not to inform the public. Truth, honesty and even Democracy itself, depend greatly upon unconcealed information. Journalists attending secretive meetings with elected officials and powerful people and then not disclosing information is unethical and the people asking or requiring them to not to disclose information is unethical.
How about just not inviting journalists? Is that ethical or must anyone declared "powerful" live with the paparazzi dogging their heels at every turn?
A couple of examples from my time on the board of directors running a large Home Owners Association:
While employee costs were open to association members, individual wages were not. Were we wrong to keep private what individual employees earned? We felt it better to set wages by the quality of work being done by the employee rather than by a set wage per job - were we wrong to keep private how we felt an employee was doing or his/her performance reports and recommendations from their superior?
The association had legal trouble with a company tearing up our private roads, and most meetings where legal ramifications of the companies activities were discussed were closed. Should we have made public the information of what we intended to do, what we might or might not be able to sue for or what we might claim as damage? Whether we intended to sue or would try working with the company before filing a lawsuit? Should we have invited the association newsletter "journalist" to attend meetings with the association attorney and publicize what he had to say?We are specifically talking about public officials and invited high profile members of news media.
If someone wants to be a "private individual" dont expect a check from the American People by running for, or being in office, and you can do whatever you like " as long as you are not breaking the law".
If someone does not want to ethically report information- dont be a journalist.
Thats pretty simple to understand aint it?No it's not. I was an elected public official; did I count in having to live in a fishbowl? Corporate CEO's and such are part of the Bilderbergs; does having a high paying job count? I gather (perhaps wrongly) that simply being very rich might get you into the Bilderbergs, or maybe being a dictator - do they count?
Then, if it's only public officials (forget that simple corporate employees are there, too) how high? Only Presidents or does everyone from the school board members up have to live in that fish bowl? Who decides?
If a journalist comes across names and false identities of US spies in Russia are they bound to report it, knowing it will cost those spies their lives? We allow journalists on the front lines of wars, are they duty bound to report all military plans they are aware of? Including long range strategies?
No, I don't find it simple at all.Are you actually suggesting that you being a board member of a Home Owners Association is analogous to a United States Elected Official?
Are you actually suggesting that high profile news media members are not reporting on the meetings because its the same as divulging military plans during wartime or identities of spies?
Well there really no way of knowing these amazing suggestions of yours really is there?
If not for the internet and conspiracy theorists, you wouldn't even know about the Bilderberg Group. That would be the simplest thing, wouldnt it? You not knowing any more than you do?No, I didn't suggest that being a HOA board member was the same as a US elected official (although that's exactly what it is) - you did when you said public officials have to live in a fishbowl.
No, I didn't suggest military plans are the same as reporting on private meetings - you did when you say journalists are duty bound to report everything they know.
As far as no one knowing about the Bilderberg Group without the conspiracy theorists,
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/112814#post2405475
Seems it has been pretty common knowledge since it's inception. I didn't know personally, but then I'm not fond of the tabloids, "reporting" on the lives of the rich and famous, either.So you would like to characterize United States elected officials attending secretive meetings where there are also high profile news media that are not reporting on the meetings as an innocent " night out on the town" of famous people; where "paparazzi should not be allowed to get photos and autographs"? Thats yet another caricature than a characterization, I guess.
Meanwhile even Parliament members from EU are publicly s p e l l i n g it out for those that cannot figure it out. Or is it more accurate that some embrace the dishonesty, untruthfulness, and unethical practices? And come up with outlandish, irrational, excuses of why their lack of knowledge of what is going on is somehow an acceptable rebuttal? A Secret News Media and Secret Senators all on Foreign Soil attending secret meetings. Duh, I dont know whats going on in them meetings, but somehow on some planet somewhere there oughta be a fantastical explanation that suspends all rationality and Ima sell it to someone? lol
I feel so sorry for them that anyone would throw them in a fishbowl when they want to be secret public officials and secret journalists that dont practice journalism.??? I haven't the faintest what you refer to, except to say that suspicions of nefarious activity of the rich and powerful is insufficient reason to declare guilt. Other than that you've lost me entirely.
Parliament members are spelling it out, are they? Your link showing that, please?
Again, you've lost me entirely with your ramblings. Unless you're claiming that because you don't know every smidgeon of what goes on at those meanings plainly proves them to be dishonest, untruthful and unethical? Is that it?
Parliament members are spelling it out, are they? Your link showing that, please?
Did you not even read the OP?
Questions asked in European Parliament about Bilderberg secrecy …
IT's the actual TITLE and it HAS links.
You say I am rambling ? It wasnt me that went on a Homeowners association and Spies tangent. Although amusing.
Yes, journalists deliberately not reporting information while attending secret closed meetings that include elected officials is unethical.Maybe so they (news media) could not be called UNETHICAL - which is exactly, unquestionably the thing it is- for rational, honest people, that is; maybe instead of calling them journalists or news media , we could instead refer to them as "people that like to go to secret meetings with elected people from a Sovereign Country Democracy type - party thingy with no paparazzi allowed". Then we would not have worry about the problematic ethics stuff. What do you think?
Guess we could do that, yes. Or maybe we could conclude that journalists, reporting the news, have a job PLUS a private life that need not be reported to be considered ethical. Or that not every current event is actually news; there have to be at least 50 new conspiracy theories produced each day, but that doesn't make them news. Or that those journalists whose job is digging for dirt has no responsibility to report every clod they find; to do so would require even the readers interested in what they have to say spend 24 hours per day reading. Even reporters must prioritize what they publish; the more important or interesting the more likely to be seen in the media.
So basically its just a group of the most powerful people in the world, including elected officials that also has invited people from the news and media corporations that hang out each year, under tight taxpayer funded security in cases, where people are followed, arrested for taking photos, their reservations they had at the hotels in advance are canceled ? And its just a private little party and no news in that? If my tax money has to pay for any of it I would like to see or know what is going on. Why should I have to pay for their " meetings of no news significance" ? If its not news worthy and costs me money why is it secret?
In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, said: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing
Did you vote for a single community throughout the world ?
How did you vote?It might interest you, it doesn't me, much. Whether you know who is there, where or when it is or even the topics proposed for discussion you will never hear what was said. I guarantee that with reporters there or not the real discussion is going to be behind closed doors, between just a handful of people.
One world government? I guess I would have to vote "No" at this point, but would hope that at sometime in the far future mankind will have grown enough and become tolerant enough of each other to still have differences but be able to cooperate and get along under one government. Certainly in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren a forlorn hope.Its amusing that you actually contemplated getting a vote. You would vote no? They would probably laugh too. You are not even allowed in their secret party you gotta pay for. You are not even allowed a news story of the events and what happened or what is said there.
But you think you get to vote on unwittingly betraying your Countries Sovereignty pell-mell? There is no vote for that - if you are AN AMERICAN.
Ethics
Society of Professional Journalists
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless...
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
—Avoid conflicts of interest
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Yeah, I read it. Turns out that the MP actually asked the media why it wasn't reported instead of (to quote the OP) “is the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group to bring about undemocratic World Government?” she claimed was asked.
The OP also claims there has been zero publicity for decades; turns out that all meetings, attendees and agenda was disclosed every year. Not particularly trust inspiring....
The book 1984 was fiction based upon what George Orwell, as a well informed insider, knew was planned for the future . . . and much of it is already here. You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, and cry "conspiracy loonies" from the rooftops, but even the most comotose and resolutely blind must be aware of the relentless advance of what he forecast, such as,
- 24/7 surveillance, everywhere, even in your own home
- censorship of information including Internet and curtailement of Free speech
- Ever widening gap between a priviliged Elite and a working class; destruction of the middle class
- Ever more intrusive government control over the minutest details of peoples lives
- Constant propaganda and misinformation from the mainstream media
- A population kept in constant fear, fighting perpetual wars
the book 1984? . . . sounds a bit like the USA today doesn't it?
But then, this is all just coincidence, coincidence, and more coincidence . . .Boy, I have to go with you on most of these, especially "Ever more intrusive government control over the minutest details of peoples lives". When government begins investigating private clubs and demanding to know when and where they will meet, who will be there and what the topic of discussion is, that's definitely over the line!
"Constant propaganda and misinformation from the mainstream media" Is also very true - you can't trust hardly anything you read from the media any more. Even worse, though, is the mass of misinformation, unfounded insinuations and outright lies posted on the internet.
"A population kept in constant fear, fighting perpetual wars " might be the worst of all. With all the lies people gather from the net and believe, it really does produce constant fear of what will happen and gives rise to a constant war to demand that only true, verifiable facts are presented to a gullible public.
I don't know that Orwell was a particularly informed "insider" though - these things have always been the goal of the rich and powerful as well as anyone with an axe to grind.
It's not a matter of being famous. These people are hugely responsible for the way our world is, and they're in there talking world policy with no oversight whatsoever?
So wait now private individuals can't assemble with a right to privacy and without oversight?
That is called tyranny.Maybe cowards that sneak around in back rooms like cockroaches, yet claim to be elected by the people or claim to be journalists is how its done in your country?
They have the right. We also have the right to question why they're doing it.
And they have the right not to answer which is precisely what they have done.
Apparently not. Ethically speaking, the rights of the nosy seem to overide any right to privacy. The paparazzi is a good example, but so is this thread.
Just step back a minute.
Hundreds of political leaders and banking and corporate heads are convening with strict security, talking world policy, and the question is not: 'what on Earth are they talking about in there?' but 'why on Earth do people care?'
My goodness we're in trouble.I don't think it's so much 'why on Earth do people care?' (although there is some of that) but "what on Earth gives the right to eavesdrop?".
Because you are afraid does NOT give you the right to invade another's privacy.They are not private individuals- they are elected public officials and supposedly journalists meeting about foreign and domestic policy in secret.
Is that too difficult to figure out?Secret? What secret? Every meeting they have is published.
What you're asking for is a transcript of any and all discussion - not going to happen. Even if (and that's a big IF) such discussion is how to take over the world you still don't have the right to that transcript - in the unrealistic case that that IS what the discussion is about it is obviously not a part of their public duties, but their private life.
A private life that all politicians have regardless of your desire that it not be so. Plus, of course, you seem to be forgetting that many of then are NOT public officials, but merely businessmen and women.I agree, Elected Public Officials discussing taking over the world is definitely not part of any public duty I am aware of. If that is the case, Its just plain treasonous. Journalists taking part in it and unethically not reporting on "whatever is going on", while making pacts with others involved to remain silent, reeks of collusion and conspiracy. This activity, by its very definition is conspiracy.
I like how yall support deceit, deception and unethical behavior. Especially when you try to characterize it as- hey they just on a private vacation.You mean unethical behavior like snooping on private conversations? Or do you mean deceit as in not publishing complete transcripts rather than the more common definition of lying?
You are obviously of the opinion that every word from every public official, plus every word of anyone speaking to them, must be completely public.
I disagree.Ya know, the taxpayer has to pay the salaries of these Public Elected Officials, to go to secret meetings with journalists, that they collude with, having a secret understanding not to actually report on what is going on. The Taxpayer PAYS their wages.
Not reporting, is the direct opposite of what a journalist is ethically bound, along with being free from association and the obvious perception of conflict of interest, while deliberately and purposely refusing to inform the public.
The taxpayer, not only has to pay these Public Elected Officials, they also have to pay for the security, in cases. Why should the taxpayer pay for the collusion of Elected Officials, journalists and rich and powerful foreigners?
Concepts like Democracy, Truth, Honesty and Justice, require an informed Public, when it directly involves their elected officials.
I plan on telling my descendants how disreputable people actually supported deception in publicly elected representatives, who colluded with journalists and rich and powerful foreigners in the subversion of our Democracy. They will go down in history as cowards, by word of mouth, at the very least. What an embarrassing testament for their own descendants to have to inherit. That their parents or grandparents did not support what is forthright.That would funny if not so sad. Are you really insinuating that any government employee must live in a goldfish bowl so that you can watch them 24/7? And what about me - for years I made my living helping to build schools; schools paid for by government. Indirectly, govt. paid my salary, too.
Deception? Which one of those nasty Bilderbergs has lied to you, specifically about their secret Bilderberg business? None you say? No deception connected with secret Bilderberg business?
7 July 2013 . .
Member of UK Parliament Michael Meacher, spells it out and asks to remove the veil of Bilderberg secrecy. . .
He calls Bilderberg “The most important gathering of the most powerful people in Western Capitalism” . . .and that “What they decide will clearly have an impact on Government Policy” . . . It should be open and transparent like the Davos annual conference . . . I cant get to within half a mile of the actual conference. We are all kept out, and that cannot be right"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … Am-l4kE1Zw
Member of European Parliament Gerard Batten, voices concerns . . .
Quote¨“Are we supposed to believe that 140 of the most powerful, richest, influential people in the world give up their time, fly across the world to come here, and it doesn’t have a significance? I don’t believe that this is just a talking shop. These people don’t have time to waste. They will only do it if there is a real reason for doing it”
“Conspiracy theory? The biggest conspiracy is that the media haven’t spoken about this for 59 years, and allowed it to go on without any reporting. That is about to change now.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … Bfrf-qqE3w
Related Discussions
- 36
Who will attend the secret Bilderberg meeting this year? Do you know?
by sannyasinman 11 years ago
Why is it so secret? The very existence of the Bilderberg Group was denied for over 50 years . . . The meeting will take place this year (June 6 – 9, 2013) at the Grove Hotel, Watford, in the UK, but the list of over 100 attendees is shrouded in utter secrecy . . .why?SOME REGULARS . .. ...
- 21
Bilderberg group- world domination
by wtf-piz 14 years ago
look this group up or watch Tru TV conspiracy theory-secret society. Then say WTF. All the elite around the world that control the :media,gov,medicine, food and water are killing us. no denial whether a conspiracy or simple truth....ask yourselves: is our water safe, is our food...
- 10
The Bildenburg Group
by Grace Marguerite Williams 12 years ago
The Bilderburg Group(sorry for the abovementioned typo) ,a group of elite businesspersons and politicians want to control access of socioeconomic wealth, natural resources, and other means of wealth. This group also wants life extension but only for the elites. It is their...
- 7
Never heard of the Bilderberg group?
by sannyasinman 11 years ago
http://www.globalresearch.ca/june-6-9-b … an/5335324
- 8
There's no question that conspiracies exist to create a One World Government. Th
by Ima Freeman 13 years ago
There's no question that conspiracies exist to create a One World Government. The question is,..."why do most people want to be blind to the fact.?" Do people like being led like sheep? I think so.
- 24
Is the New World Order Actually the United States of America?
by cfin 10 years ago
Was the United States of America set up to be "The New World Order" with all of the relevant symbols enshrined in it's scared doctrines and even it's money.Europe, the old world. The USA, the New World. One created the other in a whirl of smoke, through cannon fire, famine, immigration...