Sunday, 3 June 2012

Bilderberg Meeting

You would have been hard pressed to find any mention of the Bilderberg Meeting in any British press this weekend with the Guardian USA perhaps being the honourable exception. The European press on the other hand are not so reticent with  and Russia Today reporting on the meeting in Chantilly, North Carolina.

But first of all why should we want to know about the Bilderberg Meeting and what do they do?

The Official Bilderberg website claims that:
Bilderberg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on common problems of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.
Pretty harmless stuff you would think, a bit like a G8 summit except that this is held in secret, no minutes are published and the great majority of the participants are unelected but are powerful individuals in their own right. The Bilderberg website claims that one of the biggest benefits is, "the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely"

The Wikipedia description of Bilderberg would suggest it is somewhat more surreptitious than what the official website suggests:
The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 120 to 140 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence.About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public.

...concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting Atlanticism – better understanding between the cultures of the United States and Western Europe to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues.
The UK's political delegates at this year's meeting lists the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP (Steering Committee),Nick Boles MP (Cameron's inner circle!), Baron Kerr of Kinlochard and of course Peter Mandelson. Amongst others, the US's National Security Agency was well represented together with some famous faces from the US's inglorious recent past, Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger.

What is perhaps most disconcerting from an open and transparent government perspective was the presence of high profile individuals from what could kindly be described as the centre right 'establishment' press in the form of the Economist, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. As well as the movers and shakers from those news sources there were two Rapporteurs from the Economist, and we can only speculate as to what subject they will be commissioned to research for the group.

The Vigiliant Citizen has done an excellent piece highlighting the Economist's unbalanced, undemocratic  article on the Bilderberg Group and the accusation that any one who questions their methods as being 'conspiracy theorists.'

The last word to the Vigilant Citizen:
To desire open, public debates between democratically elected officials is simply crazy. Either you accept undemocratic proceedings or you’re crazy. Are you crazy? Because if you have any concerns or opinions regarding what is happening, they are surely not rational. They are crazy-conspiracy-theorist-ramblings. That’s the underlying message of the article. I love those kinds of articles.
Thank you Bilderberg-owned The Economist.


Anonymous said...

Are you REALLY basing your political opinions on Wikipedia?

Check out this link which explains why Wikipedia is about as reliable a source of information as the Daily Mail:

Plaid Gwersyllt said...

Sooner trust Wikipedia than the Daily Mail! Are you saying the information on Bilderberg is wrong?

Early Bird said...

Not necessarily, however as ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, some level of cynicism has to be applied to any content which appears there.

I was at an Internet Safety seminar recently where the speaker said that the best thing about the internet was that anyone can be published and have a voice.
When asked what the worst thing about the internet is, he answered "that anyone can be published and have a voice".

When you don't know the source of the information, you can't know that it's reliable.