Alpine Follies – Bilderberg 2015 (Part 1)

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. brad says:

    I wonder what a Bilderburger taste like ? I bet it’s free range with no GMAO’s or gluten in the buns. I guess I could order the power elite combo thru the drive thru.

  2. Will B says:

    And you think your car would be let through that drive thru?

  3. brad says:

    No, Will. I don’t. I just wonder if they eat the same impure food as we do ? I know it’s a no brainer but I’m curious anyway. The food, the big pharma and the cosmetics they produce, how much of it do they consume ?
    Well I wonder if I went thru the drive thru in Rolls Royce and queried them about Grey Poupon if I could get a Bilderburger combo ?

  4. Will B says:

    It is an excellent question, actually, do they consume what they produce, or are they smart enough not to sully their bodies with what has made them rich?

  5. Will Banyan says:

    I should take this opportunity to note that Mustafa Koc, mentioned above as a frequent Bilderberg participant and an individual of some standing, died on 21 Jan 2016 of a heart attack during his morning exercises. The 26th richest person in Turkey, a major defence contractor and a sometimes antagonist of Turkish President Erdogan, Koc’s passing has been noted not only in the Turkish press, but also in Europe and the US.

  6. Mark Anderson of American Free Press here. The difference between Bilderberg and EVERY OTHER ELITE MEETING (not just G-7) is the secrecy, not so much the security question. And the sheer size of security isn’t definitive. The author takes at face value the claims of officials that anti-capitalists anarchists and other “hooligans” might rain on Bilderberg’s parade—and that’s supposedly why alternative journalists, such as myself, were harassed at the Telfs, Austria 2015 Bilderberg meeting. I was thrown out simply for entering the InterAlpen Hotel after Bilderberg had come and gone. Just because Bilderberg doesn’t INVITE journalists doesn’t mean that journalists should 1) ignore Bilderberg and 2) expect to be mistreated so harshly simply because they want to proactively cover a meeting where Bilderberg’s invited “journalists,” some of whom serve on the American Friends of Bilderberg and the Bilderberg Association (UK), collaborate with the rich and powerful and abandon the principle of putting the public interest first. Bilderberg is pretty much unique in that they bring select members of the big-box press INTO THE FOLD, whereas at the G-7, reporters go there to report, not collaborate. Much more could be said about this rather dry and myopic article—I like the helpful pie charts and graphs—but it misses the point that Bilderberg stems from well-heeled private interests in collaboration with government, whereas G-7 type meetings are stock governmental gatherings. Therein lies the problem with Bilderberg—elected and appointed government officials (along with bankers, finance ministers, oil barons, certain royalty, heads of top industries, politicians seeking advancements) all meet under one roof with a pathetic highly general agenda released (which is a relatively new thing). With G-7 you pretty know what you’re getting. With Bilderberg, all sorts of new deals and agendas can be generally laid out (planned agenda items and side deals) and the details worked out via the CFR, Brookings, Chatham House and other think tanks that do the heavy intellectual lifting. The writer also falls for Bilderberg semantics: “No report is written” (but that doesn’t prove that a video record isn’t kept). Moreover, NOT writing a report, though that’s unlikely, is actually a problem.If a Congress or Parliament met with no record kept, that body wold be considered undemocratic and possibly tyrannical. “Furthermore, no resolutions are PROPOSED no votes are TAKEN, and no policy statements are ISSUED.” (To believe these meetings avoid consensus altogether is asinine. Policy positions can be arrived at to a sufficient degree while avoiding specific PROPOSALS; and policy STATEMENTS can be created without being ISSUED. An ultra-private group is not going to ISSUE policy statements by its very nature; but, again, they can arrive at a certain degree of policy direction without formal issuance. And then the Chatham House rule basically says, don’t talk about it to anyone but you can use the ideas without attribution to anyone at the Bilderberg Meeting (meaning Bilderberg ideas can be floated and implemented without disclosing Bilderberg as the source.). Your article is interesting but rather deadpan and ultimately dismissive of alternative media. You might as well stick with the Prestige Press that collaborates with Bilderberg and just read Bilderberg press releases. That should do you just fine.

    • Paragraphs work in the wordpress comment section the same as any other textarea on the net, unless you meant it that way.

    • Will.B says:

      You didn’t understand my article did you? Most of the points you made were made in my article and others on this topic. Please read it again, especially the last section on Retinger’s Illuminati.

  7. And don’t forget that the American Friends of Bilderberg and the Bilderberg Association, which raise money and work with the Steering Committee(s) to determine meeting dates and locations, compile the guest list etc, define themselves as “charities” for purposes of domestic tax filings. Imagine that, fostering trans-Atlantic foreign policy, military stances, energy and communications networking, devising strategies against populism (they’ll call it assessing) are CHARITY!! (lol)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.