The fabled Bilderberg group has long fascinated right-wing conspiracy cranks. According to Wikipedia, the group (so named because their first meeting, back in 1954, was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg in the Netherlands) entered conspiracy lore by way of Phyllis Schlafly, the mentor of Ann Coulter. Wikipedia quotes Chip Berlet, who avers that Schlafly suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberg group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.There it is, the key article of faith in the ultra-rightist's catechism: All the big capitalists are secret bolshies.
That assertion is, to say the least, counter-intuitive. Yet fringe wackos have pushed that line since the 1920s. They did not stop pushing it after the fall of the USSR. I feel sure that they will continue to push it for the next hundred years, despite the utter lack of evidence.
(Wackos, please don't bother writing in. I know what you are dying to say before you say it. I used to have a whole shelf full of books by Sutton, Skousen, Schlafly and the rest of that slap-happy troupe. Those books brimmed with what those writers were pleased to call "evidence" for the Secret Bolshie theory. It was all about as convincing as a grass toupee.)
And yet...
The Bilderberg group, unlike the amorphous New World Order and the dreaded Illuminati, is real. They really do operate in secret and they really do have a membership list filled with important figures. Thus, the group poses a problem for responsible journalists: How does one discuss the organization without offering a platform to the nutjobs?
(Holly Sklar ran into a similar problem when she wrote about the Trilateral Commission.)
Naked Capitalism, a site that I've visited often, a site not usually considered fringe-friendly, recently published a piece on Bilderberg. The accusations are quite startling and quite large -- rather too large, frankly, for me to accept at face value:
According to Daniel Estulin, author of the book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, elitists are divided on whether to quickly sink economy and replace it with new world order, or set in motion a long, agonizing depression:
According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”Yeah, well, I was predicting a housing crash back in 2005. I did not possess prophetic powers or inside info. I just didn't think that housing prices could keep rising faster than wages, and I understood that bubbles have a bad habit of bursting.
The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.
Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create “massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” according to a Canada Free Press report.
According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.
What to make of all this? Well, the report traces back to one Danny Estulin, whose Wikipedia bio is, to say the least, odd. He describes himself:"I’m a Russian ex-patriot who was kicked out of the Soviet Union in 1980. My father was a dissident who fought for freedom of speech who was jailed, tortured by the KGB. Suffered two political deaths. When these people got tired of us they threw us out. We moved to Canada and 12 years ago I came to Spain. My grandfather was a colonel in the KGB and the counter-intelligence in the 1950s, so I am privileged somewhat to get a lot of the information from secret service which are our best sources of information. Not only the KGB people but the MI6 people, the CIA because most of the people who work for the secret service as you probably know are patriots and they love their country and they’re doing it for the good of the nation and they’re the first ones absolutely terrified of the plans of the Bilderbergers".Obviously, this guy is not your normal journalist.
On the other hand, the ideological descendants of Phyllis Schlafly would never accept a "heroic KGB versus evil Bilderbergers" framework. Danny Estulin, on first glance, seems to defy the usual categories.
Alas, the closer I look at the guy, the less persuasive he seems. Here he is talking to Alex Jones, famed for exposing conspiracies involving giant owl statues and Aleister Crowley and god-knows-what-else. I'm always entertained by Alex's jackass self-confidence, even though he has never learned the difference between Shinola and that which is not Shinola.
Estulin says that he moved from Canada to Madrid, Spain "for his safety," although I've yet to understand what makes Otto Skorzeny's old stomping grounds safer than, say, Vancouver Island. He also says that he worked with Jim Tucker, who wrote for an anti-Semitic rag called The Spotlight. (I mean anti-Semitic in the real sense, not in the modern "anyone-who-criticizes-Israel-must-hate-Jews" sense.) Many of his statements have a high loopiness factor. One example:
I mean again this is all part of the globalist plan for the new world order because slavery is free and freedom costs a lot of money and it’s not free.Somehow, Estulin has managed to toss three of the fringe right's most beloved catch-phrases ("globalist," "New World Order" "Freedom is not free") into one nonsensical sentence. That takes talent.
Danny here claims that "elitists" want to assassinate Ron Paul. The info, we are told, comes from "the inner core within the inner core." I find it hard to believe that the corporate elites feel threatened by Paul, a Libertarian who, like all other Libertarians, wants to give corporations complete freedom to do whatever they like. I also cannot easily believe that the three or four guys who secretly rule the world give Danny Estulin the gist of their schemes.
I could go on, but the point is made. We have good reason to feel suspicious.
How do we know that Danny's claims are not concoctions? Since Bilderberg meets in secret, anyone can ascribe any goal or any statement to the "inner core within the inner core." Suppose I were to claim that the Bilderberg "inner core" arranged the marriage of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie: Could you prove me wrong?
If Estulin doesn't provide evidence that solid sourcing backs his assertions, then Naked Capitalism should consider maintaining higher standards.
(Note: Even if you know the song, you should watch this clip all the way through. Anyone know German...?)
25 comments:
luv the german version - thanks, joseph.
emmag
Huh? Are you suggesting the Bildebergs DIDN'T arrange the marriage of Pitt and Jolie?
Oh man...What a bummer! Here I thought it was their master plan to adopt all third world children into their private army!
The credit card companies couldn't be wronger in everything they do these days, so it would not surprise me if there was an ulterior motive motivating their wrongness.
Daily-Protest.com
When I was a kid I didn't understand why communism was "unamerican"
Then I found out that it was an article of faith among the far-right that anyone who communism or socialism must be taking their orders direct from Moscow.
IOW - You can't be a loyal American AND a commie.
Of course these are some of the people who thought JFK would be taking orders from the Pope.
Oops - I saw my typo a split nanosecond after I hit "publish"
That should have been "anyone who advocated communism or socialism"
Oh, bless you...have you been lurking? Now I can post this for the freaks who have been taking over another site!!!!
An Above Top Secret Forum Member asked:
“Was the 911 ritual the creation of a star gate?”
One claiming to be a member of a social memory complex known as Lucifer replied:
“No, it was a Ritual Human Sacrifice. That, and the obvious catalyst for the so called "War on Terror".”
Consider the possibility that we too, are on a need to know bases.
http://www.isgp.eu/index.html
(BIG site, well researched, tons of references)
http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/circle_of_power.html
Short page—5 or 6 pgs printed in WORD—
Just a random short article.
Anything by David Guyatt is worthwhile.
Point being: it’s not all bullshit.
For those who prefer TV or whatever,
Have a nice day.
You've probably read it already, but if not, Jon Ronson's book Them:adventures with Extremists features some of your favorite characters like Tucker and Jones. Ronson is a feature writer and not unfunny. His book, The Men Who Stare at Goats is being made into a film. It is hard to imagine it working but Clooney looks hilarious in some production stills.
As for Brangelina, people keep getting the story wrong. Bilderburg didn't arrange their marriage it arranged their introduction at a posh hotel. I know someone who knows someone who was there. I wish I was in Cannes this week.
Missed it, the Stonecutters. Had a chuckle at this 'controversial' link:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D01E4D91E3FE73BBC4C53DFB566838D669FDE
Life in Hell indeed.
I can't believe you wrote about this either. That means you're no better than the bloggers you like to trash publicly for writing about other "conspiracies." Sheesh, your instincts to leave Bilderberg off topic were probably best.
First, it is far from clear that however fabulously wealthy they may be, that inherited seat monarchs are capitalists.
Second, those who are legitimately characterized as among the largest capitalists are, in general, of an anti-capitalist leaning, in that the largest capitalists try for and desperately desire a monopolistic position in their markets. (Cf: Adam Smith's writings on the subject in his seminal 'Wealth of Nations' (1776), and the history of Standard Oil and all the hundreds of 'trusts' in the late 19th/early 20th century).
And, in fact, the world's largest capitalists have a long history of supporting enemies of capitalism and the US (possibly for reasons of creating business for their holdings of military-complex industries; cf: Occidental Petroleum, Wall Street's support for the Nazis, the Ford Kama River plant, Lenin's train trip with supplied gold bullion, etc., etc.).
Despite holding strong power over the government, Wall Street forces conspired to actually depose the elected government and install themselves in its place, using the former US Marine Commandant Brig. Gen. Smedley Butler as a proxy.
There is nothing especially paranoid about suspecting the world's largest plutocrats of malfeasance when they regularly meet in complete secrecy. There is no innocent alternate explanation other than that they are attempting to exercise policy control ex parte, out of sight of democratic processes.
As for whether the person claiming privileged inside information is getting accurate information or not, who knows? However, over time, we can see if his calls pan out. It is entirely possible that various world intel organizations of the sort he claims access to may electronically penetrate such meetings, and if so, he may well have access to otherwise secret proceedings.
XI
XI -
First, it is far from clear that however fabulously wealthy they may be, that inherited seat monarchs are capitalists. Unregulated captialism leads inevitably to a small number of the very wealthy having absolute power over a large number of the very poor, so it only stand to reason this would be the case.
Second, those who are legitimately characterized as among the largest capitalists are, in general, of an anti-capitalist leaning, in that the largest capitalists try for and desperately desire a monopolistic position in their markets. This proves the opposite of your claim: unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies. either obvious ones (one large company which kills all potential rivals) or inobvious ones (all big companies in a given industry meet in secret and decide who gets what).
And, in fact, the world's largest capitalists have a long history of supporting enemies of capitalism and the US Unbridled capitalists prefer totalitarian societies, as the extreme order makes it easier to do business - it reduces the number of variables and so makes it easier to test strategies, accurately predict outcomes, etc.
There is no innocent alternate explanation other than that they are attempting to exercise policy control ex parte, out of sight of democratic processes. Except that they maybe they just want to hang out with people who understand where they are coming from, and don't want to be bothered by those who don't, just as we all do from time to time.
There is nothing especially paranoid about suspecting the world's largest plutocrats of malfeasance when they regularly meet in complete secrecy. I would agree with this, except that for a while now, they have been meeting at a Ramada Inn. Some world conspiracy, that is. :)
Sergei Rostov
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6283373.ece
And Geithner is there, too.
Bilderbergers are meeting now in Greece. google for link
Well, in fact the B's were meeting for a while at a Ramada Inn.
It occurs to me, though, that it's not really meeting in "complete secrecy" if everyone knows the where...and the who.
(And if your purpose really is to influence things behind the scenes, everyone knowing who your members are makes that significantly more difficult, to say the least. :))
And Bill Clinton is a member too. Bill Clinton: proven to be squeaky-clean by a Special Prosecutor, working to end poverty, AIDS, global warming, childhood obesity...I mean, how evil-conspirator-like can you get? :)
Oh well, there are more cranks out there than on every old-time car ever made. :)
Sergei Rostov
Monarchies long predate capitalism, and were quite successful under feudalism, mercantilism, imperial colonialism, and etc. Of course, those monarchies that still survive today adapted to capitalism, adding to their already fabulous wealth under the now extant capitalist societal arrangements just as they did under the former economic societal arrangements.
The notion that these convocations, now some 55 years in a row and counting, are convened as a social club of royal peers is refreshingly naive.
As has been explicitly stated by some of the Bilderburger attendees (Kissinger, for one), democracy is a key obstacle and irritant for these elites, and they strive to lessen such constraints.
So, if as President Kennedy remarked, secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings are inimical to American ideals, and we know of such a group whose members aver they wish to lessen democracy and any restrictions to their plans by democratic actions of the people, it is fair to consider that group unAmerican and anti-American. Not a laughable social gathering of bumbling wealthy elites, but a clear and present danger.
XI
XI -
Of course, those monarchies that still survive today adapted to capitalism, adding to their already fabulous wealth under the now extant capitalist societal arrangements just as they did under the former economic societal arrangements. And as I said, unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to having a small number of the wealthy, and a large number of the very poor - the same socio-economic structure those monarchies had before captialism.
As has been explicitly stated by some of the Bilderburger attendees (Kissinger, for one), democracy is a key obstacle and irritant for these elites, and they strive to lessen such constraints.
So, if as President Kennedy remarked, secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings are inimical to American ideals, and we know of such a group whose members aver they wish to lessen democracy and any restrictions to their plans by democratic actions of the people, This argument - some of the members of a group say all the members of a given group believe a certain thing, therefore they all must - is a form of the "straw man argument" and not at all persuasive.
The notion that these convocations, now some 55 years in a row and counting, are convened as a social club of royal peers is refreshingly naive. Which says nothing one way or another as regards its veracity, especially given that you lack any evidence to disprove it. (And besides, you said there was no "innocent" explanation, and I proved you wrong by giving you one...which you as much as admitted by calling it "naive")
Sergei Rostov
Oh, and as a consequence of what I mentioned before - that we know who is in the B's and where they meet (I should also add, in advance), and that they meet in various unsecurable locations such as hotels - even low-end Ramada Inns - by now there would be some sort of notarized transcript of one (or several) of their meetings (made by a conspiracist, conspiracist sympathizer, or someone just wanting to make a buck), and we would be able to compare what was said therein with the subsequent actions of said members and show a significant correlation, if there were anything to the claims. (Still waiting....)
Sergei Rostov
I confess I once belonged to an organization which met in secrecy. No one was ever present at a meeting who was not invited (there were were not even any waitstaff allowed). The group had a loyalty oath which is reiterated at every meeting. It was all white, all male in membership; it contained many who were in the local business community. It had many subgroups worldwide which coordinated their activities at the local, state, and national levels. The subgroups of this group still meet, in secrecy, and have been doing so every week for over ninety years. Its nefarious purpose?
The singing of barbershop harmony. Dun-dun-DUNNNNNN!
(Now you know the truth.)
Sergei Rostov
I've enjoyed our talking past each other, Sergei!
I guess I should have been more explicit to say there was no non-risible innocent explanation, lest we now must entertain the additional possibility that they are trading tips on domestic help.
As you may know, it is a rarity when the next president to be 'elected' hasn't just been an invitee to this group well before the election (and often, before the primary process is completed).
After a number of such synchronicities, the chances of it continuing to happen by random luck of the draw must surely be judged lower and lower, to a vanishing point, as I see it.
Are you a coincidence theorist?
XI
People who think the B's are some sort of evil conspiracy can't answer the following questions:
Why is it easy to find out who all the members are? That only makes it more difficult for them to carry out their evil plans.
Why is is easy to find out where they meet, and in advance? That only makes it easier to find out who's in the B's - see above - and to get a transcript of the meetings (see below)).
Why do they meet in unsecurable semi-public locations, instead of in secret? That makes it pretty easy to get a transcript of the meetings, which would reveal all their evil plans.
Why would some of their members say that other of their members want to do away with democracy? That unnecessarily creates more suspicion and would make their evil plans more difficult.
Why do they meet in person at all? Meeting by encrypted conference call would keep people from eavsdropping on their evil plans, and would enable frequent updates.
So that dispenses with the "evil-conspiracy" hypothesis.
So what is it? Here's another explanation which fits all the facts: It's a poker club Think about it. All the members don't simply have money they can throw around - they are all skilled dealmakers, skilled negotiators, and expert at reading others while concealing their own facts and motives - just the kind of people it would be a challenge to play poker with. And why is it secret? Because then it would become an annual media sensation and the MSM would make a big deal out of who the losers are, which would negatively impact the ability of said individuals to function in their various positions (which is not fair, considering all they want to do is match their skill against others and have a little fun). It explains why no transcripts are available of their meetings even though such would be easy to obtain (it would be silly: days and days of "I call", "I raise" , etc.), why they aren't meeting in securable locations (no point: individuals who care enough to tape them - i.e. conspiracists -aren't interested in such mundane gossip-fodder such as who's the better poker player) and why they have to meet in person (self-explanatory for anyone who's ever played).
Sergei Rostov
What constitutes "risible" and "naive" varies with the individual; they are not only value judgements, but - in the absence of a real response - attempts to intimidate/ridicule/insult one into silence. For these reasons they are not part of a true debate. They do not bother me, however: as they are not arguments, your using them means I do not have to think up counterarguments.
English is not my native language (much less American English with the expressions particular to it). I am effectively countering all your arguments and assertions while you are not doing so with mine (even when you do address them). Is that what is meant by "talking past each other?"
(I ask because the "each other" part of it makes that seem unlikely.)
Sergei Rostov
Guys, don't argue.
My point in posting was simple: I think Bilderberg is important. However, I do not think that the world's fate is decided at Bilderberg meetings. I would like to come up with some way to discuss those meetings without creating an opening for the really nutty conspiracy guys. I also do not want to be classified AS one of those guys.
The same problem affects discussions of all sorts of other topics. 9/11, for example. The Trilateral Commission. (Just as Holly Sklar.) The CFR. Hell, maybe even flying saucers.
Joe, in answer to that question, I guess you could say the larger context of my comments was this: , dispense with preconceived notions, look at all hypotheses objectively, look at the known facts, apply logic and common sense. Also, it's essential you seek expert help when necessary, and ask your smart friends to double-check your reasoning. Do all that, and you leave out the nuts without yourself being classified as one.
(Note: You've pretty much done this already with some of your 9/11 stuff.)
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment