Obama’s Bilderberg No-Show

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. The Obama administration may be more loyal to the Trilateral Commission. I haven’t looked at any lists lately but do seem to remember Patrick Wood pointing out that his team and advisors was rife with Trilats, beginning with Brzezinski’s initial support.

  2. With the algorithmic growth of the internet and the increasing public scrutiny of the conference, I believe it is just as feasible that this administration’s policies and current plans are already known and represented by proxy. It’s also possible they are just waiting on marching orders.

  3. Ross says:

    I don’t want to come off too knee-jerk but this article has the ring of “PrObama” Apologetics. I’ve heard a number of “conspiracy writers” over the years suggest that Obama’s populism is sincere and that he’s just a well meaning victim of the dirty realpolitik of Washing DC but I highly doubt this myself. While it’s true that Alex Jones goes off half-cocked on minimal info all the time, the fact that Obama and Hillary met at Bilderberg back in 2008 doesn’t seem like much of a stretch and his Business International connections suggest that he’s every bit the “company man.” Between banker bailouts and Wall Street donations, he hardly seems an enemy of the ultra-rich. Besides, it’s not like Bilderberg is only attended by the business and financial elite, plenty of political, academic and media figures attend too.

    Perhaps the administration is distancing itself from Bilderberg because they know it brings bad PR, especially with the youth vote they so frequently court. After all, conspiracy media is becoming more mainstream everyday. Or perhaps, as it becomes more visible, Bilderberg is losing its relevance as one of the top, secretive policy forums.

  4. Will Banyan says:

    Indeed, I agree these are valid reasons. Nothing would be more unheplful in terms of the looming congressional elections for Drudge or some other GOP friendly site to note how many of Obama’s officials were in Copenhagen. I merely offered three plausible reasons why there were none. The last one is contentious, but should not be seen as pro-Obama, whatever ideals he professed to have were compromised once he joined the Democrat machine. Obama is the architect of his own destiny but in regards to his relations with the ultra-rich, whom he has has done little policy-wise to actually irritate it is his disinterest in kow-towing seems to be a source of some angst from the brittle egos of the one per-cent. I merely speculated that not turning up to Bilderberg was another manifestation of that.

    As for the visibility of Bilderberg, that is an interesting phenomenon to consider. The very first meeting in 1954 was reported, albeit briefly in the London Times and the New York Times, but media attention has been sporadic ever since. In short, while the fact the meetings have occurred has been reported with remarkable frequency, in-depth reporting is only a recent phenomenon with rather uninspiring results. The internet has increased visibility of Bilderberg, but I have to say much of the internet commentary seems to have made few advances on the first conspiratorial interpretations put out by Westbrook Pegler in 1957 and by Phylis Schlafly in 1964.

    But the ultimately, for some reason that remains unasked of Obama Administration officials and the Bilderberg press office, for two years running no Administration officials have attended Bilderberg. I don’t see the usual suspects, the American Free Press, the John Birch Society, David Icke, Alex Jones or others one may care to mention bothering to ask why and what does it really mean about Bilderberg’s impact at the political level. Might it be so small as to justify not participating?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *