Bilderberg 2012 - Conspiracy theorists please please please just GO AWAY

[Lars77]

This was originally intended for the video thread that was hidden. I have some thoughts on the Bilderberg group, or rather the internet people who talk about them.

There are so many problematic things with the Bilderberg meetings. The secrecy (no main stream media reports, no statements), the people involved, it obviously must be extremely important to make all those people take time to attend.

So what's with the conspiracy stuff? New world order? Do you really think they are trying to take over the world? Put us all in concentration camps or something? Guess what, they already run the world, so there's no need.


That the Bilderberg meetings started in Europe after world war two is no coincidence. After being ravaged by two world wars, Europe needed to look for ways to make itself more interconnected, because you are very unlikely to go to war against your business partners. The cost is too high. The idea of the French-German steel Union that eventually grew into the EU was probably born there. Not only did it create an interdependence between Germany and France, it also eased a lot of the tensions around the important Alsance-Lorraine mining region that France and Germany has fought over.

Today, what they most likely do is have informal discussions on issues to further globalization, because i think that is their goal. They believe that the more interconnected the world is, the better it is (and more profitable). Since the 80s globalization means forcing/making more people and countries around the world accept neoliberalism as the hegemonic social/economic ideology, like it has been in the US for quite some time.

That is what i oppose. I oppose the spread of neoliberalism and predatory capitalism under the false flag of "democracy".

And i really, really wish that main stream media would talk about this, so that morons like Alex Jones and RT (who frequently broadcast stupid conspiracy theories) would not be able to hijack this story, because that ruins the possibility of asking serious questions. I am sure the Bilderbergs loves the fact that the conspiracy nutters are creating all this fuzz.

To be fair to RT, their initial report was not that bad. But i worry that its going to get worse, as their target audience seem to be the conspiratorial internet crowd who love to go hunting for selective info that will support their own nutty theories (overlooking anything else).

[jberryhill]

1. Would you rather these folks not be able to communicate informally?

[Lars77]

4. ? What folks, and communicate what to who?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

31. Yes. nt

[jberryhill]

32. So....

The world would be a better place if influential people didn't speak with one another.

Is that correct?

The notion that a group of this size is of one mind on just about anything, can only be believed by people who've never worked with a group of any size at all.

But I'm fascinated by this idea that it is harmful for people to exchange ideas and opinions.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

35. They have a right to speak, but not under a cloak...

When that many rich and powerful people get together to discuss the direction of politics and business, whose actions resulting from those discussions and agreements will have a large effect on the bottom 99%, there should be transparency... if not voluntary, then involuntary.

[socialist_n_TN]

74. Agreed Comrade...........

These guys influence everything and actually control ALMOST everything. With this much power wielded, there should be transparency.

[randome]

2. 'Capitalism' is not the enemy. Unfortunately, human nature is the enemy.

That's why it's so difficult to be rid of it. Capitalism is the path of least resistance by virtue of the fact that no other model has been able to spread itself across the globe and 'catch on'.

[Lars77]

3. I never said capitalism is the enemy. I said predatory capitalism and neoliberalism.

In fact, a system that gives huge rewards for bad behavior is a far cry from what Adam Smith had in mind. He even warned that for it to work properly, the leading people needed to be of "high moral fiber".

[randome]

7. I just don't see much difference between 'capitalism' and 'neoliberalism'.

To me they are one and the same. And capitalism, by its very nature, is predatory. That's why we need government regulation to keep it in check.

[Lars77]

12. Well they aren't to me. I think we basically agree.

I am a Scandinavian social democrat (or democratic socialist as it is called in the US).

Even Scandinavian societies are capitalist. We have large private sectors but like another poster here pointed out too, it needs to be controlled.

Paul Krugman explained it in his debate with Ron Paul on Bloomberg (even if Paul talked over him with the hosts blessing most of the time).


To me capitalism is a basic economic system of which there are many tweaks and variants.

[randome]

13. Capitalism is often chaotic. We need controlled chaos, often a hard nut to crack.

Smaller countries, I think, do better with that. Maybe Scandinavia does better? You would know more about that.

Not sure what 'controlled chaos' for Capitalism would be called but our current system is lacking a lot on the 'control' side.

[Lars77]

16. I think it can be implemented in larges countries too,

but of course a smaller country is more transparent and in a sense easier to run. Although Norway is the size of Germany with only 5 million people and mountains all over the place, so we have a different set of challenges.


Germany might be a good model for the US. They probably have a denser population but it does have many similar characteristics. Bill Maher made an interesting point here the other day. If it wasn't for the super majority (60+) rule, the US would have a public option in the health care plan, and a carbon tax system for example.

I think the first thing that needs to happen in the US is a reform of government, and in particular congress as it has mechanisms like the super majority and the filibuster that helps conservative efforts to stop change from happening.

[randome]

17. Far, far too much gridlock here, I agree.

Majority rule would make it easier for Conservatives, too, but by the same token, their values and ideas would more easily be seen for what they are.

As it is now, they can safely obstruct and make outrageous proposals knowing full well they will never see the light of day.

[crunch60]

59. Unfettered Capitalism - Chris Hedges & Michael Moore

snip;

If the capitalist system were to become even less regulated it would just increase how fast our world is consumed. Capitalism has hijacked our government, This government we have today is completely dominated by corporate interests and money. Corporations are the problem.

[hifiguy]

6. The neo-liberal model of "capitalism" is very much the

enemy of 99% of the people on this planet. If you can't see that. . .

[ManyShadesOf]

9. both these posters

are arguing against what they agree with. semantics.

[Zalatix]

8. What is the difference between Capitalism and sociopathy?

I feel the problem is Capitalism. It magnifies the worst in human nature.

[randome]

10. I agree that capitalism (and its subsets) magnify the worst in human nature.

That's why we need regulations to keep it in check. But that's also why no other system has gained ascendency. It's our nature.

[ManyShadesOf]

11. whose nature?

"In fact, a system that gives huge rewards for bad behavior is a far cry from what Adam Smith had in mind. He even warned that for it to work properly, the leading people needed to be of "high moral fiber". "

[randome]

15. I see it more in terms of 'natural selection'.

Capitalism is not just an American export any more than the discovery of fire was spread by one person teaching it across the world.

If it currently holds ascendency throughout the world, then I consider it an expression of human nature.

It's in our nature to go as far as we can, push the envelope. Capitalism is an easy out for that impulse. We can certainly do better.

[ManyShadesOf]

23. yes

"better" is capitalism that is regulated and not "predatory"

[HiPointDem]

77. What kind of capitalism is it that's not predatory?

[ManyShadesOf]

78. good question

you could argue it's not possible or you could argue that its what was intended at certain times, different forms. The current version is insane and homicidal, back to Robber Baronn times.

"In fact, a system that gives huge rewards for bad behavior is a far cry from what Adam Smith had in mind. He even warned that for it to work properly, the leading people needed to be of "high moral fiber". "

[HiPointDem]

38. yeah, it just "catches on". nevermind the 500 years of war, invasion, torture, colonializm, police

occupation, etc. needed to assist it in "catching on".

[GeorgeGist]

73. Sounds like a virus

[Odin2005]

79. That's typical capitalist BS nonsense.

Capitalism is NOT the same thing as a market economy and it's connection with the greedy tendencies of our species in only incidental. Capitalism is an economic system that emerged in the 1500s and 1600s as the principle of the joint stock company started to slowly replace the guild system. it is NOT based on "human nature".

[ManyShadesOf]

5. is it possible

that the tentacles of the globalization octopus and its tactics/effects have a reach large enough to include your lucid point and their "nutty" ones?

seems most folks these days are aware of how "cluttered" and disinforming mass media is. at the receiving end, the beast can look pretty "nutty."

[Lars77]

14. I agree that the line between conspiracy theorist and rationality can seem blurred.

Even Alex Jones might make a fair point about it from time to time.

But i just find it problematic that these people also come out with all these nutty things like they are nazis or they want to create a global government etc. It creates noise and fuzz that is not needed.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. They do want to create a global government. They've clearly stated it for decades.

One world bank, one world government, the end of nations, that is the goal. So what's the "nutty" conspiracy?

[Lars77]

21. Who stated this? The bilderberg group does not issue statements.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. But many members have, over and over for decades. n/t

[Lars77]

42. That they want to create one global government? Come on i have to call BS on that.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. FFS. Look for yourself, this is no secret, there are accounts and quotes since the 70's that I know

of and I'm sure that someone with an actual interest can dig up even more. What I don't understand is your insistence that that this couldn't possibly be. What planet do you live on?

Edit: here's a start for you, who popularized the term "useless eaters"?

[Lars77]

61. Kissinger is credited with it, not entirerly sure he actually said it.

So tell me, who said they want to create a global government?

Since you know so more than me, why don't you enlighten me using some credible sources?

[ManyShadesOf]

22. and if Dems had tried to

"Guess what, they already run the world, so there's no need."

That isn't global government?

[Lars77]

24. In a way, but it's not global totalitarianism.

[ManyShadesOf]

25. how would you define or recognize that?

militarily? or...

[Lars77]

26. Seems to me like some people actually think we will all be subjected to some global facist state

Surveillance, military etc.

Some of the conspiracy theories are about concentration camps for people who oppose etc.

That's a load of shit if you ask me.

[ManyShadesOf]

27. in some ways we already are

aren't we?

dunno about camps but the crowd control setup for more active street protests are in place. & we've seen what's happened in Canada - cops busting students in the head with clubs while they protest legislation that would take away their right to protest. we've seen peaceful Occupy protesters shot in the head with tear gas canisters, sprayed directly in the face with pepper spray.

have you seen the question I think Thom Hartmann raised about whether people thought our times were more Orwellian or Huxley? why not let people be cozy with their servitude and surveillance? they're more compliant that way and don't think of it as "totalitarian"

and you know fascism is defined by business running government. what more do you need?

I don't know much about Jones or his claims. I can see how some stuff may sound far fetched. Ya never know.

[Lars77]

28. I agree that we are probably less free today than 15 years ago, when you see police tactics,

and surveillance. Canada is a prime example.

But that does not mean that there is a secret, centralized global powerbase giving orders to stop these people from protesting.

In the 60s the national guard shot and killed students at Kent State, but nobody was speculating that this was ordered by some super secret global government.

What i mean is that conspiracy people tend to draw lines and connect dots that does not fit together and doesen't need to be connected.

It's problematic enough as it is.

[HiPointDem]

39. All politics = conspiracy. Schoolgirls conspire against their peers & but the rich & powerful

don't?

[Lars77]

44. But conspire how? One thing is sticking some dollar bills in your pockets,

totalitarian world government is something else.

[HiPointDem]

45. They conspire to structure the world in the shape of their own desire, in large ways and small.

Sticking dollars in people's pockets and world government are two aspects of the same movement, which is the aggregation of more & more power to a privileged class.

[woo me with science]

64. Well said. I cannot fathom that people find this difficult to understand.

The smearing of those who pay attention to the Bilderbergers as all crazy conspiracy theorists is absolutely ludicrous. How absurd to claim that concerns about consolidating power are fantastical or ridiculous or somehow in the realm of science fiction. Of course power brokers and corporate interests seek to gain and consolidate more power, even global power. It is what they do. It is in their job description.

Growing and consolidating power/profit is why corporations buy each other out and merge. It is why we have mission creep in the Middle East. It is why there are always new free trade agreements. And it is no accident that the power brokers' proposed "solutions" to the European debt crisis all involve nations' ceding more of their independence to corporate oversight and control.

That is what corporate interests and moneymakers do, always. They try to expand their reach and grow their power and profit and influence. This is true from the smallest company trying to outsell its competitor, to the ones who own much of our world, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone. I do think the wilder aspects of the conspiracy theories you hear (e.g., Lizard alien Illuminati overlords) are very convenient for the rich, because they are used to smear and dismiss legitimate attempts to keep tabs on what the .001 percent are doing.

Of course we should watch what the Bilderbergers do. It is the height of arrogance (and either manipulation or naivete) to suggest that we shouldn't. There is no need to invoke images of salivating cartoon overlords or to venture into the realm of the fantastical at all. When such a tiny group of people controls such a massive share of the world's wealth and resources and power, and when they meet to discuss issues that will most certainly affect all of us, we should damned well be there trying to listen.

[Lars77]

81. I wonder if you actually read the first post.

I never said we should leave the Bilderbergers alone. I said the crackpots screaming bullshit about nazis and global totalitarian government are drowning out any rational spotlight on these bastards.

[woo me with science]

82. I did read it, and I actually recced the OP.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 06:36 AM - Edit history (2)

I recommended your OP because you nailed a pet peeve of mine: the dismissal of legitimate concerns about the Bilderbergers because of the persistence of crazy conspiracy theories.

But I take issue with where you are drawing the line at "nutty" in this subthread. There's a lot of nutty out there, for sure. There are tales of reptilian Illuminati bloodlines from outer space, and Illuminati conspiracies to torture small children in order to create mind control sex robots for the government, and astrology and New Age-based conspiracies. That is the far nutty end of the scale.

But you don't have to leap to visions of an evil overlord wearing a black cape and stroking a cat to raise concerns about the potential for global power, and the development of authoritarian governmental structures to protect that global power.

We are watching many different types of moves toward global power by the financial elite right now; just read the newspaper. Look at what is happening in Europe to pressure nations to cede their independence as a solution to debt. Look at the movement of corporations into new nations, the opening of trade, and the changes in wages and working conditions. Look at the global move toward austerity for the masses, and the emergence of surveillance states and crackdowns on those who oppose these moves, both overseas and on our own continent.

This is not 100 years ago when the thought of gaining worldwide power was utterly the stuff of science fiction. Corporations now *can* have worldwide scope and global financial, if not yet political, power. But they are buying governments now, and we are seeing a melding of financial and political power that should make us all very nervous. We are seeing bids to unify Europe under the thumb of the bankers there. Actually, there have already been some trial balloon proposals for unifying the Americas. And the persistent wars we are seeing bankrupt governments, devastate regions, and open new entire areas of the globe to corporate rebuilding, restructuring, and dominance.

If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say here, I apologize. But I think the language you used in this subthread could be used to do exactly what you decry in your excellent OP: dismiss people who have very legitimate concerns about where the continued, steady consolidation of power by this elite group may ultimately lead.

[Lars77]

86. Sorry, i thought you mere replied to the OP :)

I think i should have spent more time outlining why i feel the Bilderbergers are problematic anyways, but in a way i also feel like it's really obvious.

I think there are two types of people in the world. Those who fear too much government power, and those who fear too much corporate power. To believe that a state can curb both of these powers and still function is utopian in my opinion, because providing services and doing functions is power and someone has to do it. This is why you have turf wars between government agencies. Whoever gets to do something gains more power, influence, competence and money to spend. And that's where people like Ron Paul go wrong, they think government power is evil and corporate power is good.

I fear corporate power more. Because as long as government agencies are doing things, they can at least be held somewhat restrained and accountable in a democratic society, because they are forced to take into consideration what people think.
Corporations were supposed to have to do that as well, or they would be punished by consumers. But since they can literally get away with mass murder, armed with an army of PR operatives and lawyers, it is obvious that they do not need to take any humane considerations anymore.

With regards to the Bilderbergers, i regard them as "the high priests of globalization". I genuinely believe that they were very influential in the establishment of the French-German steel union that became the EU. It's goal was to make war between France and Germany impossible due to interdependentness. However as its members grew more and more powerful, so did their hunger for more power. But their basic idea has been the same. Interconnect the world and everyone will prosper. This is the grand idea of Globalization. However, when coupled with predatory capitalism where poor countries are forced to privatize their utilities and natural resources in order to get loans for example, it's a monster. And i think this is what they are doing, they are carving up the world more amongst themselves. Globalization has become a new and cheaper form of imperialism where the third world can now be plundered without using warships and establishing colonies.

So why would they want to establish some kind of huge world government? I would argue that it's even against the core value of the Bilderbergers themselves. I see them more as some kind of league of the 1% of capitalist democracies spreading economic liberalism, thinking that they are the driving force behind the infinitely expanding pie that we all are supposed to get a piece of. But the beauty of it is that even if it doesn't work, its ok for them, because they are making shitloads of money anyways.

There is no occultism or devil worshiping or fascism or a hankering for some global totalitarian state. The real deal is way more scary.

[HiPointDem]

87. How did the world bank & imf come into being, and why are they dictating terms to the world?

how did wto harmonization rules come into being, & why are they being used to dictate terms to the world?

why did europe, south america & the middle east all experience a wave of false flag terror in the 70s, blamed on the left but perpetrated by the right? with a bit of the same in the us as well?

there are lots of funny things like that.

[Lars77]

88. You tell me.

What false flag terror are you talking about?

Please don't tell me you think Baader-Meinhof was a false flag operation?

[HiPointDem]

92. no, you tell me, because you're the one asserting no global conspracies/coordination.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2012, 12:56 PM - Edit history (3)

and no, i wasn't particularly thinking of baader-meinhof, but its succesor org raf has some of the same issues.

The book essentially focuses on the so called "third generation" of the "RAF". The authors makeout fundamental differences in the behaviour and the political background of this last generation as compared with its predecessors. While the "first generation", the so called Baader-Meinhof-group, was to some extent rooted in the radical German protest movement of the 60ies, already the "second generation" operating in the late 70ies and early 80ies rapidly became politically isolated. As for the "third generation", they are quite generally viewed as professional provocateurs by the German left as a whole...

The authors note a further difference between the various generations of the "RAF". From its very beginning, the "first generation" (Baader-Meinhof) was thoroughly infiltrated by undercover agents, its members permanently observed, hunted and tracked. A massive wave of arrests launched just three weeks after the first bomb attack of the group put an end to its activity. The self-taught "guerilla-fighters" had no chance even against the comparatively modest legal and police apparatus of the 6oies and early 70ies.

The same is true with regard to the "second generation", with one troubling difference however. Two of its leading figures, Christian Klar and Adelheid Schultz, twice miraculously escaped arrest (1977, 1978) in spite of uninterrupted close observation by intelligence. A frustrated Horst Herold, then head of the BKA (Federal office of criminal investigation) later made the following cryptical but noteworthy comment: "In this case one has allowed - and this with the participation of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Minister Baum -to withhold from the police the terrorists Klar and Schulz, whom the Verfassungsschutz [the FRG's internal secret service] of Hamburg had clearly tracked (...)After that, the secret service and the politicians make business with such things... all this is just intolerable."

Christian Klar was finally arrested in 1982. The event marked the end of the "second generation". Most of the remaining members of the group gave up terrorist activities and found sanctuary in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), where they returned to normal civilian life until their arrest in 1990, after the downfall of the Honecker-regime. Only a small group of seven alleged members of the "second generation" seemed to have literally vanished from the ground. None of them was ever seen or heard of again.

1985 marked the beginning of a new macabre wave of particularly spectacular and cold-blooded murders and bomb attacks against some of the most high ranking and best protected personalities of the country, among whom Ernst Zimmermann, head of the German armement corporation MTU (1985), Karl Heinz Beckurts (member of the board of Siemens (1986), Alfred Herrhausen, speaker of the board of Deutsche Bank (1989) and Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, chief of the "Treuhand-Anstalt", the public trust-company in charge of privatisation, respectively liquidation of the former East German public sector(1991).

The common characteristic of all these murders: They are carried out by professionals who often appear to have detailed insider knowledge not only of the localities and the victims' habits, but also of the loopholes in the security disposals.

As the authors' thorough investigations and detailed reconstructions, in particular of the Herrhausen and Rohwedder cases, show, they prepare their deeds with uncanny sureness, sometimes during months, and right under the nose of some of Europe's best equipped and trained anti-terrorist forces (the German MEK and SEK policeunits). They almost demonstratively leave traces on the places of their crimes - letters of confession with the "RAF"'s insignia, star and mp,a fieldglass, neatly assembled cartridge cases, detonators -, but thesetraces neither ever lead to a perpetrator, nor do they establish the authenticity of the messages of confession apparently linking the "RAF" to the crimes....
In spite of years of terrorist hunt carried out by an ever more sophisticated security apparatus, nothing is known about the true authors of the attacks of the last decade and, as the magazine of the Germany's largest workers union, IG Metall, puts it: "Nobody has publicly raised the question, if really all traces are being investigated or perhaps only the obviously wrong ones, if we are really dealing with a totally unknown "RAF"-generation or perhaps rather with a quite known one, made up of international intelligence circles, if actually Zimmermann, Beckurts, Herrhausen and Rohwedder did not have ennemies outside the left, for instance inside the system of big money at home and abroad."

To investigate these "other traces" is precisely what the authors undertake in large parts of their book. Their findings are contained in interesting chapters on the policies and methods of secret services as the CIA, stunning cases of collusion between "anti-terror" units, secret services on the one hand, and the "RAF's" brother groups, the Red Brigades in Italy and the "movement of the 17thNovember" in Greece, counter-insurgency operations and secret combat structures as the NATO's "Gladio"...

Read more: http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/03/historic-false-flag-terror-in-germany.html#ixzz1x7wv93Yb

[Lars77]

93. Interesting.

It's not evidence of course, but it's somewhat plausible that the third generation RAF might have been someone else than they pretended to be.

But you previously said "they" have said they want to form a global goverment. Do you have any credible sources for that?

[HiPointDem]

97. um, where did i say that, exactly? i asked you where the imf etc. came from -- why haven't

you answered the question?

[Lars77]

100. Sorry that was Egalitarian Thug.

The IMF came out of the Bretton Woods agreement.

I havent answered the question, because right now im in a polish hotel room enjoying the Euro 2012. The question can be answered by looking up on google or wikipedia within 2 seconds, so don´t pretend like im dodging it.

Lets cut right to the chase. What do you know that i don´t? What´s with the IMF? Are you saying that were actually created by the bilderbergs, whose first conference was four years after Bretton Woods?

[HiPointDem]

102. i'm saying that imf, etc are supranational organizations run by private individuals outside

democratic control.

[Chan790]

83. But is it a unitary global grand conspiracy?

Because that really is what some of the conspiracy theorists believe...that there is one (not two or several or competing) singular global fascist grand conspiracy fomented and manipulated by the few and that nations, governments, etc. are illusory. That there is one unified secret government of the few oppressing the many. That current events are wholly a stage-play put on for our distraction.

I don't believe that. I think it sounds like some sort of schizoid delusion.

[HiPointDem]

85. where there's global empire, there's global conspiracy. the precise details no one can claim to

know except the players.

[Robb]

18. After WWII many of the same players sought standardized education.

International schools, common degrees, shared experiences. Someone in your class from every country, every culture, at an impressionable age -- and boarded, away from parents' prejudices.

More difficult to go to war with a country when your dearest friend in the world growing up was from there.

[Lars77]

19. That's one of the ideas of the Fulbright association.

[HiPointDem]

40. Those things enforce class solidarity, which makes it easier for the upper to conspire against

the masses, not harder.

Most middle-class or lower-class individuals aren't going off to swiss boarding schools. The arenas for class solidarity of the 99% have been ruthlessly suppressed.

[Robb]

41. Only if you completely ignore the idea and reduce it to "Swiss boarding schools."

[HiPointDem]

43. you're the one who talked about international education & boarding. besides which, the little

people don't make wars, & the incidence of war has, if anything, increased since this supposedly brilliant idea was born. we're in the midst of world war right now.

[Robb]

46. We have universal, standardized and international education now?

Well heck, I'm sorry. I'll go pick up a newspaper.

[HiPointDem]

49. no one said we did. but here's what you said:

International schools, common degrees, shared experiences. Someone in your class from every country, every culture, at an impressionable age -- and boarded, away from parents' prejudices. More difficult to go to war with a country when your dearest friend in the world growing up was from there.


As the average person doesn't belong to the war-making class & doesn't attend international or boarding schools, you'll forgive me if I reacted by saying that international boarding schools and the like reinforce and expand class power and make it easier for the 1% to conspire against the 99%.

[Robb]

50. No.

[HiPointDem]

51. whatever. but that's what you said.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

29. Very well said. nt

[JoethePleb]

30. Alex Jones led the way

Surrounded by the world's largest arms manufacturers, Austin's own Alex Jones led hundreds of protesters over the weekend at this years Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/12352/the-first-rule-of-bilderberg-is

[RZM]

33. Alex Jones is a moron n/t

[HiPointDem]

36. Jones = right winger, disinformationist, well poisoner.

[Mc Mike]

69. His Rolling Stone profile covered his many Bircher connections. NT.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

37. Don't let the absurd theories overtake the discussion of what is still suspicious...

This many rich and powerful people don't congregate for milk and cookies.

What they discuss will influence business and political decisions that will more than likely affect the 99% in adverse ways.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. You know what the problem with this is?

ALEC was a full conspiracy until recently, only talked about by Alex Jones.

[Robb]

52. And the Nazis were right about tobacco and prenatal weight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. WHOOSH!!!!!

They were also right about hypothermia, and their research is used by modern medical centers to treat victims of it.

[Robb]

54. Whoosh indeed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yup, you missed it by a mile, or two, or actually a couple light years.

or more.

[RZM]

56. I took a gander at what has been written about ALEC on infowars

The first reference I could find was from 2009 (that is indeed before everybody else started covering it), but it was a small part of a larger article filled with nonsense about mandatory vaccine programs.

The first reference I could find where ALEC was front and center was from August 2011, which is around the same time that everybody else started reporting on it as well.

So unless I'm missing some other stories, I don't think Jones scooped anybody here. ALEC was briefly mentioned in another conspiracy woo story a couple years ago and that's about it (the 2009 story originated at Global Research, which Skinner has lovingly referred to as 'conspiracy crap').

I could be wrong, but that's what I found doing a cursory search.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. What most people miss is that in all his nuttery

and trust me, there is a lot... Alex Jones at times starts talking up stories that nobody else will touch since they do sound OUT THERE.

Like any good blind squirrel Alex Jones finds a nut from time to time... he did with ALEC, for example.

As to the Bilderbergers, and a few others, they are much older than Alex Jones... alas the group is real and it has a real agenda. But since it has become the fodder of Conspiracy nuts (not just in the US, which suits them just fine thank you very much), the media will not touch them, and not just in the US of A.

There is more... some of this conspiracy fodder actually works for governments and shadowy organizations... see UFO's some of them are not just very real, but your friendly US or Russian government could even tell you what they were, but would have to kill you. Why UFOs became so big and were never quite discouraged.

Like myths, conspiracy theories at times have a grain of truth in them...

And Infowars, is a nice place, for the most part, if you are writing FICTION. But I never truly fully discount them... blind squirrels and nuts. But when reading anything there, take a huge grain of salt with you.

[Mc Mike]

70. Birchers like LaRouche and Jones

take legitimate stories that are already being reported on and warp them, insert disinfo and craziness into them. Hijack the discussion and become the face of that discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Exactly

[Mc Mike]

95. His orgs often get in the way of on-line research for credible verifying links.

What a drag.

[Texas-Limerick]

111. Alex Jones Alex Jones Alex Jones

We got a thing going on
We both know it's wrong
But it's much too strong
To let it go now

[zappaman]

104. So you listen to Alex Jones

Well, that explains a lot...

[HiPointDem]

67. there were people reporting on alec before 2009, & doing a better job than alex jones.

e.g.

NPR was talking about it in 2010.

http://www.npr.org/2010/10/29/130891396/shaping-state-laws-with-little-scrutiny

Think progress was talking about it in 2009.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/12/05/72376/bcbs-alec-health/?mobile=nc

so were bloggers.

http://www.northdecoder.com/Latest/living-next-door-to-alec.html

academics:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/nonprofits_in_social_conflict.html

education people:

http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2009/02/alec-repeats-mistakes-new-report-card

regular newspapers were talking about it in 2008:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29464279.html

The Progressive:

http://progressive.org/pocan0308.html

civil liberties people too:

http://www.supportdaniel.org/files/Ecoterrorism_critical_analysis.pdf

there are lots more.


and here's reagan receiving an award from them way back in the reagan years:

[Mc Mike]

71. Thanks. + 1 to all, but Domhoff.

I took his power structure research Soc. course at UCSC in '88. He actually pitched it to the students as a way they could find out who is in charge, in order to suck up to them and join the power structure.

Thanks for the work you did in compiling the extensive list of links.

[HiPointDem]

76. Really? Was he serious? How was the class?

[Mc Mike]

94. He was serious.

Half of UCSC's Soc. Dept was excellent (Millman, O'Connor, Archer, Frye), and the other half was right-wingers masquerading as Bay Area '60's activists (Domhoff, Traugott, Childs, Szasz).

You do better power structure research postings yourself, Hi. I'd advise prospective students not to waste their cash for D's credits, though it is > 20 years since my experience with him.

[HiPointDem]

96. wow, i always thought domhoff was a warhorse of the field. szasz was always a libertarian/winger

type though, & i don't think he ever pretended to be a man of the left...activist, yeah, maybe, but not of the left...

[Mc Mike]

98. Of course, the word of one anonymous individual isn't worth much.

(Reminds me of our Motown discussion.) I never taped D's lectures. Only offering a caveat, an assertion I can't prove. So my grain of salt advice could be taken with a grain of salt.

Szasz marketed himself as a progressive activist when seeking to advise me on Political Sociology thesis material. I still have a pub from him on the corporate industrial - org crime connection in illegal toxic waste disposal, with paid-off gov oversight officials looking the other way. At least we agree he isn't progressive, but everyone isn't on the same page as us:

http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/08/szasz.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Szasz


The whole U. marketed itself as progressive up 'til the end of the '80's, it functioned as a 'hippy holdover' activist ghetto for the UC system (more than UCB, which was a lot bigger and more diverse, with a nastier crowd-control police force). But the grisly ultra-right underbelly of the institution was provided by Regents appointed by Govs Raygun and Deukmejian. The swinish G. Lease's hit-piece (S.C. Sentinel) on HisCon alum H. P. Newton, immediately after his murder in Oakland, was a good case in point.

By '90 the U had a 'United Colors of Benetton' - looking marketing campaign for prospective new students, they bull dozed elfland, they built Nat Sci #umpteen. It was interesting watching Fusari inveigh against student trail bike riders for the erosion harm they were causing on-campus, while 6 inches of topsoil was washing down into the parking lot of her new Environmental Studies digs at the brand new college 8 site. All three of the night proctors at the old 8 dorm-space in Porter were Birchers, one of whom had a metal arm prosthesis due to a bottle-bomb experiment he had misperformed when younger. Grisly underbelly.

Profs from the E.S. Dept could also be divvied up into good (Pepper, Cooley, Curry, O'Connor) vs misrepresentational (Lease, Farrell, Letourneax, Fusari). I never gave Gliessman's AgroEcology a shot, but the sustainable Ag co-op was good.

Some stellar profs of that time were the Smiths for His Con, King for of World Religion, Rotkin for Mass Media and Comm., Aptheker for Women's Studies, Collett at the Arboretum, half of the Soc. Dept, half of the E.S. Dept. Sluggo's surly hippy staffers were a riot. I'll still spare a coin for the seal statue's nose below nat sci 1.

[HiPointDem]

99. ah. i see the problem, i was thinking of thomas szasz, never heard of andrew. thanks for

the background.

[Mc Mike]

101. I vaguely remember hearing the name Thomas Szasz

I have no real knowledge of his work, but see he did some work in conjunction with L. Ron Hubbard's outfit.

[HiPointDem]

66. wrong.

NPR was talking about it in 2010.

http://www.npr.org/2010/10/29/130891396/shaping-state-laws-with-little-scrutiny

Think progress was talking about it in 2009.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/12/05/72376/bcbs-alec-health/?mobile=nc

so were bloggers.

http://www.northdecoder.com/Latest/living-next-door-to-alec.html

regular newspapers were talking about it in 2008:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29464279.html

there are lots more.

[zappaman]

105. You have done your research.

I'm sure the poster who got it wrong will be acknowledging her errors shortly...

[HiPointDem]

109. that poster put me on ignore the first time i tried to correct a post of hers. so probably not.

[zappaman]

110. I know

I was being sarcastic.

[zappaman]

103. Bullshit.

WHOOSH!

[whatchamacallit]

58. The movers and shakers deciding what gets moved and who gets shook

[LiberalFighter]

60. I heard that the Bilderberg members

have orgies and worship Satan and sacrifice young boys and girls

[Lars77]

62. I thought that was Bohemian Grove :)

[Octafish]

107. Clarence Thomas went at least one year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1283869&mesg_id=1330605

[Octafish]

63. When secret government imports cocaine and the big banks launder the proceeds...

...who can be shocked anymore?

It's got something to do with real property.

[Earth_First]

65. How is it that this hasn't been ushered away to Creative Speculation?

Not to mention this is a TOS violation by calling out a locked thread...

[Kaleva]

68. Can you cite the specific TOS rule that prohibits that?

[socialist_n_TN]

75. I agree. Why should ANYBODY be suspicious of a group........

of the wealthiest and most powerful people on the planet who've been meeting in secret for decades now trying to co-ordinate and carry out an agenda that also secret. What in the WORLD could be suspicious about that???

In case everybody missed it:

[Lars77]

80. Try reading my first post.

I keep getting the sense that if you write more than five sentences on DU nobody reads it and just responds to whatever they think you've written.

[socialist_n_TN]

90. I DID read your first post.............

And my critique still stands. You asked some good questions that were never answered and then discounted the OBVIOUS explanation. That there IS a conspiracy of the .001% to rule the world.

If it were just a gab fest, the innocuous spitballing of ideas, WHY WOULD THESE PEOPLE BOTHER???? The answer is they wouldn't. They would have underlings do this. They wouldn't bother to block out an entire weekend. Another question to ponder. How much money are these people's collective time worth for 48 hours? Billions? Same question. Why bother if it's an innocent gab fest?

Personally? I think that the Bilderbergers LOVE the more outlandish conspiracy theories because it provides cover for their REAL conspiracy. But, yeah. I think there's a conspiracy going on. The one the capitalists have ALWAYS have. Neo-feudalism and how to get there.

[MrMickeysMom]

84. Why care about what Alex Jones and RT include in their media?

Personally, I don't fear the name, "truthers" or "conspiracy"... These things actually aren't hidden very well, so half of them are not conspiracies anyway.

Trilateral Commission (Jimmy Carter), Bilderbergers, Council on Foreign Relations are more or less secret societies, just like the Moose Lodge or Masons are.

Personally, if a lot of people with an enormous power structure and a lot of money meet, I'd wonder and probe for the same reasons I'd wonder why the World Bank has copped an attitude that they can wage financial warfare.

Maybe you should consider a little more as to why MSM has not run more on the World Bank, or Bilderbergs.

[Prometheus Bound]

89. "They already run the world". This is conspiracy nonsense.

As far as I can tell there is not a single person from China or Japan, the second and third largest economies in the world, and no one from India, Brazil, Indonesia or Australia. From Germany there is one Green Party politician and four company heads. From the UK there's a 3 minor politicians, a banker, a BP guy, a Shell guy, 2 reporters, and 2 magazine guys.

How you get from this to "They already run the world" is a bit much.

Conspiracy nutter.

[zappaman]

106. Correct.

http://bilderberg.weebly.com/debunking.html