It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why do bilderberg skeptics downplay its significance?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I just finished reading a book called The Bilderburg Conspiracy and I just would like to point out some inconsistencies of the claims of the bilderburg skeptics. Bilderburg was founded by Joseph Retinger ( and the group's original purpose was to create a united Europe and Russia.

Origin and purpose
The original Bilderberg conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. The meeting was initiated by several people, including Joseph Retinger, 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 understanding between the cultures of United States of America and Western Europe.[4] bilderburg+in+the+cold+war&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

From its onset the bilderburg's agenda doesn't seem bad. They want a united Europe and to have cultural understanding between Europe and the USA and other countries like Russia. That's fine.

The bilderburg group was behind the European union. Skeptics freely admit that one of the bilderburg's aim is a United world without boarders. It would be false to say that the bilderburg group doesn't have an influence in world affairs. They created Europe as we know it today.

The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951, and signed by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Newly released documents from the 1955 Bilderberg meeting show that a main topic of discussion was “European Unity,” and that “The discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference.” Further, “A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency, and indicated that in his view this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.” Interestingly, “A United States participant confirmed that the United States had not weakened in its enthusiastic support for the idea of integration, although there was considerable diffidence in America as to how this enthusiasm should be manifested. Another United States participant urged his European friends to go ahead with the unification of Europe with less emphasis upon ideological considerations and, above all, to be practical and work fast.”[9] Thus, at the 1955 Bilderberg Group meeting, they set as a primary agenda, the creation of a European common market.[10]

In 1957, two years later, the Treaty of Rome was signed, which created the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the European Community. Over the decades, various other treaties were signed, and more countries joined the European Community. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which created the European Union and led to the creation of the Euro. The European Monetary Institute was created in 1994, the European Central Bank was founded in 1998, and the Euro was launched in 1999. Etienne Davignon, Chairman of the Bilderberg Group and former EU Commissioner, revealed in March of 2009 that the Euro was debated and planned at Bilderberg conferences.[11] This was an example of regionalism, of integrating an entire region of the world, a whole continent, into a large supranational structure. This was one of the primary functions of the Bilderberg Group, which would also come to play a major part in other international issues.

David Rockefeller created a network of industry leaders and union leaders and government officials (correct me if I'm wrong)-- the trilateral commission based on the bilderburg group. I believe he wished to bring Japan to the bilderburg conference but they were denied entry to the group at the time so he created the group. The trilateral commission was only supposed to meet 3 years. It was successful. So they met more.

A 1976 article in Foreign Affairs explained that, “Trilateralism as a linguistic expression—and the Trilateral Commission—arose in the early 1970s from the reaction of the more Atlanticist part of the American foreign policy community to the belligerent and defensive unilateralism that characterized the foreign economic policy of the Nixon Administration.”[25] The Commission’s major concerns were to preserve for the “industrialized societies,” in other words, seek mutual gain for the Trilateral nations, and to construct “a common approach to the needs and demands of the poorer nations.” However, this should be read as, “constructing a common approach to [dealing with] poorer nations.” As well as this, the Commission would undertake “the coordination of defense policies and of policies toward such highly politicized issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and aerial hijacking, and such highly politicized geographic areas as the Middle East or Southern Africa.”[26]

Skeptics freely admit that many people in Presidential cabinets may be members of both the trilateral commission and the bilderburg group. They are willing to admit that with the case of Jimmy Carter (from the same source) that he had many members of the trilateral commission on his team. Bilderburg members are given a copy of the list with people's addresses and they're able to contact them in the future if they ever need to. If we were to concede to the skeptics that the bilderburg group might not be a place to meet and decide world decisions and it is as they say that it's just a group of meetings then if I were a bilderburg attendee I would certainly want them to help with a business-- just look at the list ( Bilderburg attendees can and have in the past contacted each other outside of the bilderburg group to decide more on world affairs.

Now-- what would you do if you had access to so much information about foreign policy issues and you worked with the government and your name was recognized and you went to these meetings? You would create a consulting firm. That's exactly what Henry Kissinger did ( He's had clients such as Union Carbide, Coca-Cola, American Express, ITT Lockheed, Arco, UNOCAL and HSBC. Scowcroft-- was appointed to President Bush's foreign intelligence advisory board ( He was a longtime associate of Kissinger. He is also a bilderberger. Lawrence Eagleburner was an American statesmen who served under George H W Bush ( Henry Kissinger's firm also serves many other countries.


Henry Kissinger’s firm, Kissinger Associates, is a secretive consulting company that is rumored to have many major nations, including some that are our enemies, as clients. Publicly, the propaganda regarding his firm states that it facilitates deals that enhance our financial relationships with other countries. The true purpose is always to further the foreign policy ambitions of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Shadow Government. I believe this firm is the tool used to dictate our true foreign policy. Many of the movers and shakers in the world today obtain approval of Kissinger associates before making any major foreign policy or trade decisions. The client list is so secretive, that recently Mr. Kissinger resigned as chairman of the 9/11 investigation rather than divulge the names of his clients.

Aside from that the council on foreign relations is known to have many bilderberg members. Its skeptics admit this tool. So wouldn't the fact that bilderburg members are parts of many different policy groups-- regardless if they choose candidates for different elections or not-- mean that there's basically an exclusive club of elite members and elite politicians that the rest of the world isn't invited to? Even if the bilderberg members do not decide policy in the bilderberg group-- the group serves its purpose by allowing the global elite to meet up with each other and then meet in sub-groups like the different council on foreign relations or different trilateral commissions, and then they decide the policy there. It's an aristocracy of elites essentially.

As for bilderbergers helping one another out outside of the bilderberg conference... let me present you with the case of Conrad Black.

Columnist George Will and "National Review" founder William F. Buckley have both written favorably about media mogul Conrad Black, without disclosing that they received payments from Black's company, Hollinger International. "The New York Times" says each was paid about $25,000 a year to speak at an annual conference. Buckley's take came to $200,000. But neither man seems embarrassed by the failure to level with readers. Said Will, "my business is my business. Got it?"
What they don't tell you is that William Buckley and George Will here are both bilderbergers. His partner-- Richard Perle was a bilderberger ( A look at his inner circle in his former Hollinger international will show one that he had connections with the world elite, and, that he met them at bilderberg.

Plus bilderberg reporters (ones in the alternative media) who report on the bilderberg are continuously right. Reporters like Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker (I'll continue next post).

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Frankidealist35]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:30 PM
Reporters like Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker have frequently been right about decisions, or, discussions at the bilderberg group (

Even if this is not some place where they make all the decisions it certainly is a cabal of global elites. And we've already seen that it certainly does influence relations on the lower level of politics and with governmental affairs. The bilderberg group has decided certain policy. They decided that after the Kosovo a number of the bilderbergers (while it was not anonymous) decided that it was the first post-national war ( and that national sovereignty would not be much of a concern in the future and that people would like their help. They have talked about getting rid of sovereignty for a new system of internationalism. David Rockefeller is a defender of such system. They want people to be less attached to their nation and more to the global community. That's a fine goal and all... but I'd rather have individual countries than a global state.

You could only have a world without boarders if you had an anarchistic world or if you had a world government. I would rather have an anarchistic world than a world government. Bilderberg skeptics keep saying over and over again that the bilderberg group isn't for a world government yet at the same time they want people to lose their sense of nationalism. I don't like nationalism personally but I don't like their alternative.

So. I ask why do bilderberg skeptics keep on denying that this group has any influence, and, then with their research they give us all the answers and they give credence to a conspiracy? I don't necessarily think that the bilderberg club is where all the events are decided. But it is certainly where all the elites get together and individual nations may certainly be influenced by discussions on policy while at the bilderberg conference. Bilderberg skeptics however just say that it's just a meeting place... and despite the fact that they're for more central planning fake free trade agreements like NAFTA... they think that they're just a bunch of pro-free market advocates (when they're not) and that they don't see anything sinister in their policy goals. The bilderberg skeptics in fact fail to overlook many of the real criticisms (not talking about immigration) about their policies... and yet while they defend these globalist's policies... they then go around and act like they do nothing and it has no real significance.

I would really like to know why they're so inconsistent. They say that they have no power yet they then go on to say that the people of the bilderberg conferences are really powerful media, business and union and government elites and that they have connections with each other... and they make it seem like an even worse conspiracy. Why is this so?

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:57 PM
I would like to know while at the same time why bilderberg skeptics deny such a conspiracy exists. Then they go on to paint the picture involving an even bigger conspiracy revolving around the trilateral commission, the council on foreign relations, and other hidden groups. Would anyone like to tell me why they're so inconsistent? They say they don't control the world... but then they point out evidence to something of a wider conspiracy (or something of a very strange coincidence).

new topics

log in