Bilderberg Myths: “Fake News” from Infowars and Friends

You may also like...

24 Responses

  1. The personal papers of participants that were bequeathed to various universities also dispels the myth that Bilderberg has traditionally been denied by its members along with their cohorts in the media. Bilderberg probably hate this aspect more than anything because it includes much that they would like to remain private. They have an official policy of secrecy – as far as their internal documents are concerned – for 50 years. Thomas Gijswijt is the source of this assertion if I remember correctly.

  2. Kevin Bernat Jr says:

    Respectfully, I agree that many of the reporters mentioned in your article have a strong tendency to exaggerate, but the fact still stands that media coverage of the Bilderberg Group has been minimalized. What is discussed at these meetings is never thoroughly reported by the media, journalists, historians, investigative reporters, etc. Unfortunately, most of what we have is the reports of the “conspiracy theorists.” I would rather have read an article from your attendance at one of these meetings and provide us all evidence what the nature of the “Bilderberg Group” truly is. That is what reporting used to be. It’s non-productive critiquing those who are at least trying to wake people up out of their digital comas; even if their tactics are flawed and not 100% accurate. Our human responsibility is to discern truth from error whether seen, read, or heard. (Which requires effort, but no one wants to exercise that these days). It would be inspiring to learn that the Bilderberg Group were meeting to repent and intercede in prayer for the sin of the nations. The media has a tendency to not report things that glorify Jesus either!

    • Will B. says:


      The point you make has been made by a few others in separate correspondence and it would be valid if, but only if the critique of the media coverage of Bilderberg had been along the specific lines you employed. But the fact is the targets of my criticism did not even attempt to make that distinction. Instead Owen Shroyer, Lionel Nation, Kit Daniels and Bradley Brewer all utilised unambiguous language that the mainstream media had actively suppressed or rather “denied” the existence of Bilderberg for decades. Shroyer even accused the New York Times of having ignored Bilderberg’s existence for its first fifty meetings. The utterances of Shroyer et al represent an evolution of the criticisms of the mainstream media promoted by their alt-media predecessors, Gary Allen, Jim Tucker etc, which exaggerated the mainstream’s media lack of coverage. But instead of arguing there has been “very little” media coverage, they now boldly claim until now there had been “none.” And that’s demonstrably wrong and in my view extremely misleading.

      I can understand why they did it. It’s a sensational hook for people who are unaware of Bilderberg to be told the reason you probably haven’t heard about it is because the mainstream media has “denied” its existence for decades. But it’s not true.

      A more detailed assessment of mainstream media coverage is in the works. Unfortunately it is limited to the English-speaking press, thus missing out on a lot of European coverage of Bilderberg when it was on the Continent. Nevertheless it sustains an argument I have made previously – most notably in my earlier review of Mark Dice’s book – that mainstream media coverage was for a time more than most anti-Bilderberg activists realise, particularly from the 1950s through to the 1970s, but then trailed off again until it began to increase in the 2000s. The real problem remains the actual depth of that coverage beyond merely recycling Bilderberg’s press releases which have, over time, got much shorter, and just writing amusing pieces about weird beliefs of the anti-Bilderberg conspiracists.

      I would contend that (with the recent important exception of Charlie Skelton’s musings and attempts to penetrate the veil) some of the best and by that I mean the most inquisitive mainstream media reporting about the Bilderberg Group happened in the 1970s. The 1977 meeting in Torquay, UK, for example, the first meeting after the 1976 meeting was cancelled because of the Lockheed scandal that led to Prince Bernhard’s resignation generated a lot of media coverage. I have collected 33 media reports on that meeting including 16 in total from the following British newspapers: The Times/Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, The Observer and The Guardian. The reporting including some apparent scoops on what Kissinger was going to say at the meeting. But that was a high point. After there was a steep decline. That’s something we need to understand.

      To properly assess media coverage of Bilderberg we don’t need misleading and plainly wrong blanket denunciations of the mainstream media for supposedly denying its existence for decades – that’s more like an Infowars commercial than a fact. We need to examine why the coverage went from serious to inconsequential to derisory.

      Will Banyan

      • Kevin says:

        Will, thanks for responding. I agree with much of what you said. I still believe the Bilderberg Group is still disproportionately uncovered by the media or any other outlet. Even the fact that you stated the high point of coverage were cited articles from 40 years and more validates that statement.

        The position I’m holding is Infowars is bringing attention to the Bilderberg Group. Even though this includes erroneous data. Which should be addressed.(You should send it to Kit Daniels as a teachable opportunity)
        Mainstream media is not reporting it. The question is why.
        Should we attack them for trying to bring light onto that which is hidden? It needs to be exposed so we can determine if it poses a threat or not. Another question to be asked is, what is Infowars agenda?
        Are they “fake news?” Which is understood to indicate willful deception to implement a desired doctrine. They made a big mistake, but I don’t think they have evil motives toward their audience.

        I served my country and I’m fed up with what is going on, especially that which is in secret; and decisions being made by unworthy men who were to coward to honor it with their own blood!

        It’s unfortunate that these young reporters today do not really have a good example of what true journalism and investigative reporting is truly about – responsibility & accountability. I don’t want opinion, just tell me the facts and I’ll formulate my own. (The same problem with sportscasters – the Flyers lost, I don’t care about how that makes you feel).

        Maybe you should apply as an editor for Alex Jones’ crew and improve the quality of what they report. Lol.
        They sure could use it.

        Remember there is only one Truth that we can rely on and that is Jesus Christ!

  3. Wordsworth says:

    How will you prove the existence of the Illuminati or the ruling elite ? What all will you present as the evidence ? Where will you start and what are the list of documents and books you would like to show ?
    Write a full article if possible on this.

    • Will B says:

      The Illuminati! Terry Melanson has written extensively on this issue. This website is his and you can find plenty of material here or in his book.

      • Wordsworth says:

        I am not talking about the Order of the Illuminati that was founded in 1776.
        I am talking about this hidden rulers often called international bankers. Like Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

        • Will B says:

          I wrote a six part series on “Rockefeller Internationalism” for Nexus magazine about 14 years ago. I wrote an article on the Rothschild and the invasion of Iraq for Lobster magazine in 2012.

          • Wordsworth says:

            So do you think that would be enough to prove to average man, the existence of the ruling elite ? Nothing more is required. ?

  4. Will B. says:

    In answer to your question Wordsworth, it depends on what is the “average man’s” threshold for believing. Some are more than satisfied with a half-hour rant from Alex Jones or nine hours with David Icke. Some will settle for a few issues of The New American, but others might have much higher standards in terms of what they will regard as strong evidence to back what are in essence extraordinary claims, or, at the very least, claims that are not considered credible by “serious” commentators. I write with those in latter category in mind, not as an elaborate act of bias confirmation, but rather as an intellectual exercise to see where the truth or something approaching it might reside.

    I have been working on a lengthier treatment of the NWO, but progress is slow. Too slow. Perhaps in the new year…

    • Wordsworth says:

      Please List all the documents you will present as proof. I mean you cant sayto people go read this magazine or watch this video. People will argue back and say go watch alien videos etc. There must be arguments and documents to back your claim ?
      What are those arguments and documents ? One argument I have is Bilderberg group, how elite gathers each year, next argument is media ownership by 5 corporations. For documents I have texts like PNAC papers and Proffessor Carrol Quigley tragedy and hope book. I hope you understood my question now. What will you list as documents of proof and argue as evidence of the existence of the elite. Add to the above.

      • Will B. says:

        Let me answer it this way: if you are dealing with people with a conspiratorial mindset their standards for evidence in favor of their preferred theory will actually be very low, moreover their beliefs will be unfalsifiable, i.e. they won’t accept any evidence that disproves their theory, there will always be a careful excuse as to why their belief remains “true.”

        In answer to your specific questions, to prove the existence of the Bilderberg Group one need only look at the media reports and websites, to go deeper into what it actually does, there are a number of recent academic studies drawing Bilderberg records and those of past participants. And, as per my methodology, we can began to determine how Bilderberg shapes in and influences public debates by studying the participants at each meeting, who the speakers were and whether their message was reflected in the statements of some of the participants.

        Media ownership is harder. You would have to start with the financial press and then keep digging back through the various owners to see if indeed there are just five corporations behind them all.

        As for the existence of the elite, there are a numerous sources one can start out with, such as the Fortune/Forbes/Bloomberg lists of the world’s richest. Then branch out into looking at who is funding, leading and advising the various think-tanks and foundations the plutocrats use to influence policy debates. Also there are in most of the democracies government agencies that list political donors. Basically a big part of tracking this is being disciplined enough to keep following the threads to find the larger tapestry that the MSM is often reluctant to point out. Such things are hidden in plain sight.

  5. Obie says:

    The Bilderbergers are just a smokescreen for the real villains: the Jews. It is the Jews who control world finance, the mainstream media, and American foreign policy.

  6. Some will settle for a few issues of The New American, but others might have much higher standards in terms of what they will regard as strong evidence to back what are in essence extraordinary claims, or, at the very least, claims that are not considered credible by “serious” commentators. The personal papers of participants that were bequeathed to various universities also dispels the myth that Bilderberg has traditionally been denied by its members along with their cohorts in the media. Bilderberg probably hate this aspect more than anything because it includes much that they would like to remain private.

  7. Will Banyan, again, sports graphs and internet stats (quantitative stuff) but avoids substance. He misses the point that early Bilderberg news coverage (which Liberty Lobby fully acknowledged in the 1950s) sounded simply like a repeat of Bilderberg press releases. Then as time went on, and mainstream coverage of Bilderberg waxed and waned, the coverage became largely hit pieces against people protesting Bilderberg’s makeup and secrecy — secrecy being the operative word. Banyan spins a subtle yarn here. He makes some salient points. The key omission, though, is that he downplays the fact the Bilderberg has had journalists/editors/publishers as Steering Committee members and/or as regular or semi-regular attendees who are IN THE BILDERBERG FOLD!!!! Whatever superficial reports might have been made over the decades by mainstream press, the general public STILL DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT BILDERBERG AS ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A HOUSEHOLD NAME. It remains as a secretive world-planning and networking gahtering where WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO KNOW what takes place (and cannot be sure the “official” meeting agenda released to the public and press is real or complete)—despite tax-supported officials who attend and yet claim they can and should separate their official capacity from what goes on at the Bilderberg Meetings. Like my colleague Jim Tucker used to say, if this was a clandestine gathering of sports figures or entertainers, the press would pump it much more beyond the staid and stale “reports” that Banyan cites. Care for a debate, Mr. Banyan? Mark Anderson, American Free Press (Correction please. AFP was not founded by Liberty Lobby; the Lobby and the Spotlight newspaper were dissolved before AFP was formed).

    • Anyone familiar with Bilderberg has read/watched being repeated over and over again that the msm simply did not even acknowledge the Bilderberg’s existence, let alone report on it. Years ago I found a user name and password for access to all the old newspapers and decided to check out the claim myself. The alt info blanket statements simply did not hold up. While the reporting was nowhere near even adequate, exaggerating that they didn’t even report on it nor mention their existence at all serves no purpose except to willingly propagating disinfo.

      I find Banyan overview of the early msm “coverage” valuable. Precision of details matters if you’re going to discuss the org realistically.

      • You’re joking, right? Liberty Lobby would write letters to newspaper editors who either would barely budge (occasionally, they’d publish a deadpan blurb) or they would decline to cover it, or profess they had never heard of Bilderberg. “Nowhere near adequate” is exactly right. If you go to a Bilderberg Meeting, the mainstream press IS NOT EVER THERE, UNLESS THEY”RE INSIDE THE MEETING TO PARTICIPATE BUT NOT REPORT. (A shortlived exception was Spain 2010) What is not to understand here? This Banyan comes across as a containment-op to trivialize and discredit alt-media who do sometimes overstate things, but that’s easy to do in a virtual info. vacuum. The occasional mainstream reports, as I said and I know because I’ve worked the beat, are too tame and timid to convey the real substance of the Bilderberg Meetings in the first place. So occasional milquetoast scribblings (increasingly about bashing protestors and alt-media anyway) in the MSM don’t mean DICK. Who are you trying to kid here? The makeup of the Bilderberg roster is the who’s who of usurious banking, big pharma, big-box tech companies that are controlling the narrative and censoring people and getting into military tech matters. (Google’s Schmidt, Alex Karp, etc etc). I know all the techniques (projection, conflation etc) so I will be observing your dismissive nonsense closely. I know how the Rockefeller and Morgan and related interests have operated over the years and Bilderberg is but one network of several that has sought to nuture the creation of blocs of countries and subdue them economically and politically.

        • The main thrust of this article is criticism and correction of the exaggerations by infowars and a few others. I can read.

          I know who you are, and who your are affiliated with. I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve been researching and writing about conspiracies for close to 20 years. Having had to pick through the sludge of Bavarian Illuminati myths to get at the core facts was a lesson well learned. And I appreciate those who similarly seek after precision and clear evidence.

        • Will.B says:

          Mr Anderson, I thoroughly enjoy how you seem to misunderstand and thus misrepresent the argument of my article. The focus is on a specific claim voiced by a number of alt-right commentators that there was no coverage of Bilderberg not some, not a little, not an article here and there, but none until recently.

          I merely demonstrated by reviewing the actual record that this specific claim wasn’t true. I was not engaging in a detailed analysis of the quality of mainstream media reporting on Bilderberg, but merely making the point that claims MSM reporting on the Bilderberg Group was non-existent until recently were not only wrong but were an unnecessary exaggeration given that it could so easily be disproved. If the individuals listed in my article had merely argued that mainstream reporting was not very good, that would have warranted an in-depth analysis of Bilderberg media reports to provide more historical context on that matter and also the opportunity to comment more directly on the complex relationship between the MSM and Bilderberg. A relationship you seem to misunderstand.

          Nevertheless, ahead of this year’s meeting, I shall analyse the media angle in anticipation of your no doubt serious and well-considered critique.

  8. You’re right, the Illuminati stuff, by definition, is quite ambiguous and can lead down various rabbit holes, that’s undeniable and that’s why I stick with various key think tanks and the related world planners and “conceptualizers” (e.g., Bilderberg) who leave a paper trail of agendas, 990 forms, studies, white papers, etc. where you can get a clear handle on the fundamental agenda. I don’t mean to huff and puff but Tucker and I, and Willis Carto, really studied this stuff hard. When media blackouts are referred to, there are exaggerations to be sure, at times, but even when the occasional watered down or mis-focused MSM piece comes out, it’s inconsequential. For one thing, Bilderberg doesn’t ever make the evening national news on TV (the reports you’ve cited were all print pieces). Absent television coverage of some magnitude, there is still basically a near-blackout of Bilderberg, not total, but close. (RT started out doing a little decent coverage, but then it seemed to cave, and in 2014 when I went to Denmark, RT, oddly, ran segments that ridiculed and lampooned those who take Bilderberg sufficiently seriously).

    • Will.B says:

      Mr Anderson your criticisms of my articles about Bilderberg would seem less obviously ill-informed if you had actually bothered to peruse this site in more detail and read all that I had written on the topic. It might avoid unnecessary backtracking about whether or not a “media blackout” is an exaggeration or not. You might even find some of it to your liking.

Leave a Reply

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