It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The trilateral comission looks like a who's who of the international elite.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I recently emailed them and requested a list and now I'm convinced of some sort of conspiracy.

People in our very own nation are meeting with the international elite (the rest of Europe and the other world) without even telling us. It seems with their list that they have some sort of agenda. I am highly suspicious of this group.

They have a lot of academic elites from here in the United States. Plus they have a lot of foreign ministries as well.


www.filefactory.com...

That is an uploaded version of the list I received.

The President of the world bank is a member there, David Rockefeller is a member there, John D Rockefeller is also a member there.

I hope this gives credence to the conspiracy.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
S&F my man... I found this, kinda 'close to home' if you know what Im saying !


Grete Faremo was there, an Norwegian Politician ..

Now, what are these people doing ? And is the Trilateral Insignia involved here? or is there any connections ?

[edit on 3-4-2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I'm more surprised about how all of these politicians are able to meet without the media touching upon it.

At least the media talks some about the bilderburg group.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
yes i've done extensive research on the TC/CFR/Bilderberg

they are a big big part in the NWO, one of the main driving forces i would say

i've emailed them questions that they never seem able to answer, such as how this can be legal, and why they don't put there objectives out to the public..

no answers of course



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Yes indeed, and how you got the list just by asking ! ? Any side comments on the Emai reply ?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No. No side comments.

I sent an email to them and they sent the list in the attachment.

I'm sure that their organization is illegal in some way or another.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Trilateral commission membership list:

members
For full membership list you can e-mail any regional office

Annual Meeting in Tokyo on April 25-26.

Reports from annual meetings of the commission prior to 2002 are available free to download from their site. Later ones are available for purchase.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Because, some of the media belongs to this group. Of course they don't write anything about it.
aysekaly



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm more surprised about how all of these politicians are able to meet without the media touching upon it.

At least the media talks some about the bilderburg group.


Because, some of the media belongs to this group. Of course they don't touch to each other.
aysekaly



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Between the Bilderbergs, and CFR, and TC all the media is owned

they basically own everything... banks, government,media,pharmacudical Etc



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
What is it you want to know about them? The membership list is freely available, and they publish their reports.
Read some of these:

Trilateral publications



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Osmoses
 


I know they publish their report. You have to look at this from a conspiracy standpoint. There are a lot of rumors of the trilateral commission that they're a secret meeting place for the elite. I think the fact that a lot of elite in the list meet there proves to some extent the validity of the assumption that we have.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


How is it secret? They publish their reports, the dates and times of their meetings are freely available as is their membership list. It's surely not suspicious that some of the members turn up for a meeting of the group that they're members of is it?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Osmoses
 


Well, for one David Rockefeller is a lifetime trustee there, and they also have a representative from the Rotschild bank of Europe there as a member too, and the President of the world bank. If they really are only a discussion group why do they have so many international elites? So what if it's a public group... don't we despise of the elites meeting so secretively in our country here in America? That's the opposite of what we stand for.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Again, they can hardly be said to meet in secret any more than the US cabinet meets in secret. They have so many 'international elites' because that is the membership they target, they are an internationalist organisation. Their membership includes representatives of other 'foreign' banks as well, not just Rothschild.
You may not agree with them but I don't quite see how this emphasis on alleged 'secrecy' helps your argument. Just state your case for isolationism (I apologise here if 'isolationism' is the wrong term, as a Briton this term evokes a historical US stance which seems to be the opposite of globalisation. I mean no offence if this term carries negative connotations).



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Osmoses
 


I don't like people like you. People like you try to make it seem like people who are against globalization are for isolationism. When that is not the case. We know that our cabinet members meet in private. It's that they're meeting with foreign elites without telling us. It's a violation of the Logan act.


The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

In the late 1790s, a French trade embargo and jailing of U.S. seamen created animosity and unstable conditions between the United States and France. Logan sailedith negotiations between the United States and foreign governments in the f to France in the hope of presenting options to its government to improve relations with the United States and quell the growing anti-French sentiment in the United States. France responded by lifting the embargo and releasing the captives. Logan's return to the United States was marked by Republican praise and Federalist scorn. To prevent U.S. citizens from interfering wuture, the Adams administration


law.jrank.org...

Now, I highly doubt they get the approval from the US Government every time to meet with foreign officials, then, unless the government is in on it.

I'm not an isolationist. I'm just not a globalist. No one government can be truly altruistic. When you've got elites meeting in one place with elites from other countries vested interests are playing a part and then you have a problem with elitism.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Well, I did try and qualify my use of 'isolationism' and meant no offence by it. Individuals attending these meetings do not represent their governments.
And once again, they are not meeting in secret, their meetings are scheduled and the locations are made public.
I see you are against 'globalisation' so how would you prefer to see the US dealing with foreign countries, politically a or economically. Again, I apologise if I'm causing offence, i'm just curious what the opposite view is in your country.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Osmoses
 


I'm not against globalization. Did you read what I just said? It's not your opposing view that is offending me but how you label me as an isolationist. I already posted why it's wrong. It's a violation of the logan act. They cannot meet without approval and they do it on their own in violation of that. The fact is that a lot of elites are meeting there and that's a problem. The ideology of globalization works fine on paper but when you have these satanic elites doing it-- is that what you want? Would you want the elites being charge of the globalization? I'm in the United states... and I am offended by you thinking that I have an opposite view. You have offended me with your rude display of manners for thinking I have backwards views. Maybe you should read opposing views of globalization before you dismiss me as an isolationist.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


And I did apologise if I was using the wrong term. 'Isolationist' doesnt carry the same connotations here, it is merely a term used for a historic US policy of not getting entangled in foreign affairs. Anyway, we dont seem to be getting anywhere here, good talking to you.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join