jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (43 posts)

Questions asked in European Parliament about Bilderberg secrecy …

  1. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    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. .

    1. wilderness profile image99
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. wilderness profile image99
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. sannyasinman profile image60
            sannyasinmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. sannyasinman profile image60
                sannyasinmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image95
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        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...

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          ,,,,,,,,,,


          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.

          1. PhoenixV profile image81
            PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. PhoenixV profile image81
                PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image81
                    PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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?

        2. sannyasinman profile image60
          sannyasinmanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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 . . .

          1. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            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.

        3. innersmiff profile image75
          innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            So wait now private individuals can't assemble with a right to privacy and without oversight?

            That is called tyranny.

            1. PhoenixV profile image81
              PhoenixVposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              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?

            2. innersmiff profile image75
              innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              They have the right. We also have the right to question why they're doing it.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                And they have the right not to answer which is precisely what they have done.

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                2. innersmiff profile image75
                  innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image99
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

  2. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 4 years ago

    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

 
working