Skip to main content

paranoid theory of the week :: is the bilderberg group plotting world domination this weekend?

the bilderberg group is actually the eye of sauron
you may not know it, but a lot of people think that your future, your freedom and your whole world were up for discussion and probably for sale this weekend at the annual powwow of the world's richest and most sinister. because this weekend was the meeting of the bilderberg group in tyrol austria.

founded by a polish catholic political advisor in the wake of world war ii, the original intent of the group was to foster closer ties between europe and the united states in the arenas of politics and business. jozef retinger approached his good friend prince bernhard of the netherlands about getting some of their most important friends together for a little chit-chat on how they, as the leaders of civilization, could make the world a better, more cooperative, less complicated place. the group met for the first time at the bilderberg hotel in the netherlands in 1954 and since then, they have eclipsed the masons as the most suspected group of white people in the entire world.

critics from the left and right wing descend with ferocity on the group, citing its powerful membership, near-total secrecy and the fact that their agendas- which are made public- read like a to-do list of people aspiring to world domination. here's what's on the agenda this weekend.

but are the bilderbergers really evil incarnate, or are their meetings just an excuse for wealthy, powerful people to bill one more luxury retreat at a five-star resort to their employees' pension plans?

given the amount of information floating around on the group, there's no way to tell for certain, but today we'll be scratching the surface...

the theory ::

the bilderberg group is conspiring to impose a single world government, reducing the vast majority of humans to slavery.

the origin ::

as you might imagine, a highly secretive group made up of world leaders in government, industry and media has made people a little uncomfortable since its inception. among its earliest critics to put her concerns in print was arch-conservative activist phyllis schlafly, who claimed in 1964 that the republican party- of which she was a member- was being controlled by a globalist cartel including the bilderbergers with the aim of bringing about world communism. and it's pretty much been game on since then.

the believers ::

there's a continuum of suspicion that ranges from those who wonder what the group really wants to those who think they're behind everything à la stone-cutters.



public figures who've voiced at least some suspicion about the bilderberg's activities include: former minnesota governor and wrestler jesse ventura, activist and possible leader of a political cult in his own right lyndon larouche, internet journalist and conpiracy theorist extraordinaire alex jones [i feel a little silly even including his name without adding a perfunctory "duh"] and retired cuban leader fidel castro.

there are a few journalists who have made exposing the bilderberg group their life's work, most notably lithuanian- canadian david estulin and american james "big jim" tucker.

the bad guys ::

the bilderberg group, meaning those who attend the conference and their most trusted associates.

or who you're not allowed to know about at all
the evidence ::

there are so many theories about the bilderberg group related to specific incidents that i couldn't possibly cover them. for that matter, i can't adequately cover arguments related to the theory at hand: that the bilderberg's activities are tied to a larger move towards a "one world government" and police state. so this is a very sketchy outline of some of the evidence that's most often cited with regards to the general aims of the organisation.

the problem with accusing a secret group of anything is that there are a lot of secrets. details of the agenda [see link above] are made public, as is a list of attendees, conveniently annotated with their positions, so you can see exactly how big these people are. what's never published is an account of proceedings or a more detailed agenda that might clarify the direction of discussion.

the purpose of this strict privacy, according to the bilderberg group itself, is to allow people to express frank, direct opinions and to share information without the fear of it being reported outside the conference room. [i sincerely hope that they're planning a conference in las vegas.] there is some merit to that on its surface, in that it allows people to cut through the constraints of imposed propriety and scream "you're being a dick" at george w. bush. ok, maybe not that. the point is that we've all cringed at the bleached language people are forced to use when discussing international business, finance and politics. that sort of deliberately vague speech is one of the reasons why people don't trust politicians in the first place. so being able to have a meeting where you can just say what's on your mind would make things move a little faster, since people won't have to decode what the hell you're talking about, right?

well, sure. as long as that was the only reason why things were off the record. but this is a meeting of the world's most powerful people convening to discuss matters that will affect the rest of us for decades and we're not allowed to know anything but the general subjects. a lot of the people there are directly on the public payroll, or benefit from national policies that use public funds, or hold public funds in trust in ways proscribed by policies determined at meetings like this one. we're all happy to let people embrace the right to free speech, but the exclusion of the public on its own is an issue worthy of concern.

then of course, there's the fact that a number of the people at these meetings are convicted criminals. again, this is a matter that's not disputed by anyone. specifically, these felons have been convicted of offenses that have arisen as a result of their proximity to government officials, industry, and banks. sounds a little like inviting a child molester to attend camp counselor training, but i suppose there's no way to be sure. of course, there's no way to be sure because meetings are held in absolute secrecy.

this year's meeting will feature a discussion of "greece", which i'm assuming will not simply be a power point of attendees' vacations on santorini over the years. while the actual government of greece [who aren't represented] are trying to negotiate their way through a maze of imposed austerity, loan repayment and financing for their country's future, the heads of the world's largest banks, the european governments with whom these issues are being negotiated,n and a small number of conservative greeks who don't support the government to begin with will be discussing their perspective on what will be happening. and neither the greek government nor the greek people has any right to know what that discussion entails.

you get my point: even if you can't connect the bilderberg web to anything other than itself, there's a problem.

however, in order to prove a conspiracy, you need to prove there's a plan and while there are lots of flies buzzing around, the putrid body of evidence remains elusive. there have been those who have claimed that they were present at bilderberg meetings but "defected" in the name of spreading truth and warning the people, but they aren't necessarily the most reliable. the evidence of a far-reaching plot is circumstantial in the extreme.

but that doesn't mean that there aren't a few reference points. those scamps at wikileaks, who at least vet their materials, even if they can't fully verify them, have published a handful of documents that look persuasive enough. is there a smoking gun within? i have a spring cold that's left me coughing for days and unable to sleep through the night, so i can't swear that i've done a thorough examination, but i'd say that based on what i have seen, there isn't. but why would there be? if you have a massive conspiracy to overtake the world, when you meet with your co-conspirators, you don't have to keep talking about the action plan out loud.

what is clear [if you accept the authenticity of the documents] is that even though politicians are there "in an unofficial capacity", they're discussing a lot of things that they deal with on the job. if i'm having dinner with friends and something in the conversation sparks a good idea for my work, i can assure that i never refuse to use that idea because it was conceived on my own time.

i could not help but grab a screenshot from the meeting report of the aachen 1980 conference [available on wikileaks]. this isn't tied to the conspiracy per se, just a touch of bitter irony to liven things up:

and the luxemburger was never heard from again...

again, even the fact that these meetings are taking place with no public access or any transparency [although the head of transparency international is there, which is a lot less comforting than it should be] could be a problem. but even more seriously, the purpose of these meetings is to further relations and to create a harmonious environment for international business, finance and politics. but harmonious for whom?

the group in attendance is overwhelmingly wealthy, privileged, white, male and western. whose interests could they possibly represent. you could argue that their intentions are humanitarian- retinger hoped that his organisation would be an enlightened group of philosopher kings- but can people whose way of life depends on certain inequalities being maintained or extended truly represent the views of the disenfranchised? the answer is no, they can't. all the imagination and good intentions in the world wouldn't accomplish that and to pretend otherwise is a waste of time at best. if you want to help people, the people you're trying to help need seats at the table.

so the bilderberg group are essentially there making sure that things run better for their interests. businesses and bankers have unfettered, unrecorded access to the most powerful governments in the world, while everyone sits around and tries to sort out how to fix the world's problems. 

the idea that there is a plan in place to establish a single world government assumes that there would be some advantage to be gained from doing so. in fact, no one wants to be tasked with the problems of the whole world, which is large and disparate and difficult to control. that's best offloaded to locals. plus, of course, it has the advantage of keeping people divided. unified populations are dangerously hostile to governments when they sense they're being exploited. when people are able to get together on political issues, revolutionary shit happens. for those represented at the bilderberg group, advantage is gained by allowing capital to move freely around the world and for industry and finance to operate with minimal restrictions, outside the jurisdiction of governments. likewise, it's important to keep up demand in different markets for new and existing products, which is why it should be disconcerting that there are a large number of arms manufacturers present.

conspiracy theorists are squinting too hard as they try to see the forest: the trees are right there.

the likelihood :: 1/10 or 10/10

huh? well, the idea that the bilderberg group are working to achieve a single world government is almost inarguably false. i'll hold out just a shred of possibility that there is some larger purpose, but i'd be shocked if they were either that consistent or that organised.

on the other hand, the idea that the group is conspiring to further their own interests, that they are lobbying governments to implement a plan of action that would benefit them, that they seek to serve as an elite that informs national policy from a discreet distance, without becoming mired in specific national details... well that's so out in the open that i'd hardly call it a conspiracy. how obvious is it?

"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."
- dennis healey, former british chancellor of the exchequer and minister of defense, founding member of the bilderberg group

yeah, they say it themselves. the question is: do you trust that this group has the world's best interests at heart, based on the past record of the organisations they represent, even if they won't let you know what they're planning? 

p.s. :: i found the image at the top from multiple sources, so i'm not sure where it originates. the fun part is that it's huge, so go ahead and click to see how big the conspiracy gets.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …