LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksgreatest place to hide in plain sight ...and why should the wealthy pick and choose are future they are not elected
greatest place to hide in plain sight ...and why should the wealthy pick and choose are future they are not elected
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
Alex Jones is, of course, highly eccentric and very loud and angry (and arguably, everyone should be very angry these days), and frankly, the show should have known that before inviting him on, and if they didn't want his boisterous manner on their show they shouldn't have invited him in the first place. But I was appalled by the snide comments and gestures by the presenter and the journalist, there's no place for those kinds of personal attacks and outright rudeness on national TV.
Originally Posted by Agent
While it's not secret now, it used to get almost no mainstream media attention, and it's still not getting big headlines in national news. But it is secretive, there's massive amounts of security, and you can't get anywhere near it. There's no information on what is discussed or what happens there.
It's at a time of a lobbying scandal, and not long after the expenses scandal. I have absolutely no trust in most politicians for these and other reasons, so it does concern me that there is a secretive meeting of the world's most powerful people. There's no evidence of corruption at bilderberg, but if there is corruption, there wouldn't be any evidence because of the secretive nature.
On topic, I'd agree Alex Jones is just a loud ranting loon. And I'd agree on that last sentence/bet. If people in power could agree on anything then there would be many fewer problems in the world.
So the amount of power centralised in the hands of a small number doers concern you, but a secretive meeting of the world's most powerful people doesn't?If I was worried about a real conspiracy, it'd be the amount of power centralised in the hands of a small number of people, like Rupert Murdoch.
There's massive security because of who is attending, that being the PM, several other leading politicians, Labour too (like Ed Balls et. al.), business leaders, billionaires and so on. If there were not substantial security, the place would get over-run by any nut-job out to prove a point.
With attendees like that, the presence of security cannot be taken as evidence of any nefarious doings.
Erm, yes there is. The basic agenda was published. The problem is, people either don't believe or trust it. Short of cameras filming the whole proceedings, what will dispel the conspiracy theories? They could publish full minutes, an entire transcript, even, and the nuts would just say it was fake, and not what was really discussed. But given that some conspiracy nuts also allege media involvement in the conspiracy, even if cameras did film the whole thing, the nuts would just say it was all the acceptable face and that the 'real' meetings were held in a backroom, somewhere.
Nor do I. I think there is far more cause for concern about what gets stitched up behind closed doors in Whitehall, or the Whitehouse, or boardrooms the world over, or party political headquarters, etc., than a Bilderberg meeting. For instance, after the last election, a tidy little agreement was made between two political parties, not even the largest two, that resulted in a change of government, to a government NOBODY had voted for, yet were we allowed to know what was agreed? I don't mean the brief statement that was the so-called coalition agreement, but the nuts and bolts of who agreed to what, under what conditions, and what the quid pro quo was? NO, we don't, yet those meetings determined the government of this country for the following 5 years, and the agenda set by government. But I don't hear a furore about that little cabal, or remember hordes of protesters camped outside, not least because the location of the meetings were, for a while at least, kept secret.
So do we hear a clamour to have cameras at every meeting of ministers over the green power agenda, or a meeting between Chinese and American Presidents, or Number 10 cabinet meetings, or briefings from the civil service to ministers, and so on? No, because we just accept that that's how it's done, always has been and always will be.
So, lack of evidence is evidence?
And it's hardly secret, with protesters and the media camped on the doorstep for the duration.
Do we have full details of an IBM board meeting, or do we even question that we don't? Or, a meeting between MS, Google, Yahoo, etc? Do we, and would we, even know if such a meeting took place? No, we don't, and wouldn't.
Where is there ANY actual evidence that this meeting is exactly what it says it is, a talking shop, a kind of conference for invited attendees? Where is there ANY evidence that anything is even agreed, let alone that it has had an effect on the future of the country, or world? All there is, it seems to me, is innuendo and allegation that, because we aren't invited to see inside, it has to be a conspiracy. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but we simply do not know.
And, if it's a private meeting, what gives us the right to be there? From time to time, HEXUS staff and some of the mods/admins get together and have a chat. It might be about forthcoming plans, it might be about how to implement something, it might be a good excuse for a pie and a pint. The last one I attended was four of us having a pint and a sandwich in a local pub, but we didn't invite the whole membership, partly because the pub wasn't big enough, and partly because it was a private meeting. We didn't minute it, either, didn't discuss it afterwards, and for the record, the ideas that were considered didn't, for a variety of reasons, ever happen, and won't. As a private meeting, nobody other than those invited had a right to attend. Now, billionaires and captains of world industry we ain't, but there's nothing to say that they can't have private meeting either.
I didn't say that. What said was that I see nothing beyond conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated allegations and a bunch of people, some of whom are clearly raving loons, getting a lot of self-serving publicity over it.
Where is there anything in law that says any meeting between "powerful" people has to be public? How powerful do you have to be before you can't attend a private conference? And do you really think, if there were anything to the conspiracy theory, that ANYTHING the protesters and loons like Jones do would make a blind bit of difference? At the very best, it would drive any such nefarious meeting underground.
Even if it does "concern" me, where is there any evidence at all of anything sinister occurring, or is it just that because we can't all be a fly on the wall, it much be sinister?
This is the nature of conspiracy theory, a huge edifice woven out of one or two facts (the meeting takes place, and it's behind closed doors) and a huge notional edifice is built out of it with no actual evidence.
And the actual evidence that they are doing that is ....?
Now yes , but not before the internet - or 10 or 20 yrs ago
Religions , political parties , cults , business etc etcAlso, if this is a 'secret government', when has a group of several hundred people ever managed to agree on anything , including what time to serve the morning coffee?
After all if they didnt , they wouldnt exist , would they ?
Right because even if they had we would of heard about it , right ? ( esp back in the 50 /60s etc with no internet )As for "ignored for decades", Bilderberg claim for years they issued press releases, but nobody took any notice, so they stopped bothering.
Just look at what happens to the only legit examples of people from inside trying to expose any one aka whistleblowers
Here try this
And explain to me what threat this posed to government intelligence other than exposing their policies for the farce they are.
And heres another
Note Obama never said zero about it till his hand was forced, and in both examples ( esp previous ) the whistleblower is criminalised and threatened.
I doubt even 1% of the population knows everyone or their history and role on that list so of course its irrelevant , and what person 50 yrs would go to the hassle to find out ( even if they could gain access to that information )
With the internet obviously things have changed and forced them to expose or tolerate more things because more people aware of it , you just have to see Obamas admission of GCHQ to see that .
So what do you think their doing , catching up old times and having few games of pool ?
What all the furure really amounts to is that it's a group of influential people having a conference and they won't let the media in, so the "press" can't report on what's being said, and they draw an inference from that that it must be somehow nefarious.
Even if they own all those newspapers or media like Murdoch ?Well, here's an alternative inference you can draw .... people won't speak freely if they know it will be reported, or in all likelihood, misreported, on the front page of the next day's papers.
We all saw what happened when we attempted to catch him red handed ,didnt we ?
Last edited by melon; 10-06-2013 at 01:05 PM.
Thats what hit me too , not so much Jones but the jibbing,it made Piers Morgans efforts look almost noble in comparison given he was in the lions den , and at least he never resorted to name calling like Neil did in all his glory ..
What's your point? We may have not heard about it because it was suppressed, or we may have not heard about it because, short of conspiracy theory, it was boring as he'll and not a story. You cannot, in the absence of evidence, assert that the absence of evidence is evidence. Or rather, you can, but it's just conspiracy theory, not evidence of anything more than a meeting.
You really need the threat that exposing vast numbers of secret diplomatic communications poses?
Okay. It risks exposing intelligence sources, and getting them arrested or killed. And maybe next time they have something to report, it doesn't get reported and another 9/11 occurs. It exposes private opinions formed of diplomats and government officials, judgement calls, on which strategy for how to handle them are based, and it causes tensions between those governments, and makes diplomacy that much harder if senior diplomatic staff cannot be open and frank with their bosses at home for fear of it ending up in the media.
Anyone with a brain knows that diplomats of ALL countries provide feedback to their home governments, and that their opposite numbers are doing the same, but it seriously damages those relations to have private opinions and judgements published.
If Mannning had evidence of serious wrong-doing and exposed that, and only that, I'd support him. But what he did, as a private, was illegally access a vast amount of classified material and publish it. As a serving member of the armed forces, he has substituted his judgement for that of every superior officer, and the civilian elected officials they report to, and decided he's right, they're wrong. He is, in my view, a traitor, and deserves anything and everything he gets.
As for Prism and Edward Snowden, I'm reserving judgement on that until what's going on becomes a bit clearer. But there are two main issues in my mind. First, is what has been going on legal or not, and my sense is that it probably was, and second, if legal, are the people's of respective countries going to be happy about what governments have been, pretty quietly, doing behind their backs. As I understand it, Snowden is a very different case from Manning. Snowden has released what is being done, not the contents of millions of emails, etc, a very large number of them highly classified. And the result will be that people now know what is being done, to them, in their name, behind their backs. Subject to what comes out, and especially if it's illegal or not, he may be genuinely what a whistleblower is supposed to be, but he may well have also broken some fairly heavyweight laws in doing it.
And none of that has a thing to do with Bilderberg.
I don't know. For all I know, they're doing exactly what they say they are, which is talking about the state of world affairs.
I don't know, and nor do you. Nor do any of the protesters. The difference is, because I don't know, I don't assume it must be some giant conspiracy to control the planet.
Nor any place for such a "boisterous" individual to rant and shout down the other party being interviewed, and the presenter, after being asked several times to let someone else get a word in edgeways.
As for not inviting him on, I'm inclined to agree but that gives him the option to claim his views aren't being heard, that the media are ignoring him. So, he's invited on, given a chance to present his evidence in a rational way, instead of which he, well, we saw what he did. And, in my opinion, Neil had every justification for saying what he said about Jones.
That isn't a justification, it's an excuse. Expressing a belief in top-tier underhandedness doesn't make you crazy, or a legitimate target of ad hominems in any situation. Nobody goes calling melon a lunatic here. Why would it be acceptable on publicly funded television? Frankly it's disgraceful, and Neil should be fired.
And yet.....
So instead you assume what its not instead ..
I don't know, and nor do you. Nor do any of the protesters. The difference is, because I don't know, I don't assume it must be some giant conspiracy to control the planet.
Oh but we do know ,
We know how dirty governments and those associated can play through implanting dictators they use and many other things like secretly obtained phone records ( what obama admin did ), so why should secret meetings be any different ? ( and yes they are secret , as no one knows anything about them , as you pointed out - or the outcome )
If a government is prepared to snoop on any one and use any tactic it likes while being law unto itself , then I think its very important that those who are involved are made accounted for by their actions ( yes even if it means committing what "others "see as treason " or breaching protocol - thats what whistleblowing is for. You cant expect the accused who have already betrayed the laws ( and the public ) they falsely portray to uphold to exactly co-operate now can you ?
If you cant see that , and danger of where it leads then bend over , because it doesnt matter any more whether you support them or not , they will F u just the same.
No, I do not. I said, we don't know. And ALL that means is we don't know. I'm not the one claiming that it is this or that.
You, on the other hand, are asserting it's some global conspiracy. Fine. Where's the evidence? And I mean evidence, not a whole load of random assertions or tenuous inferences from other completely different things, like Manning or the Prism stories. All we know is a bunch of rich and powerful people hold a meeting for a couple of days, and they do it periodically. Beyond that, it's supposition. It might be right, it might not. But there's no actual evidence that they make decisions on anything, let alone the impact of those decisions.
I am emphatically not assuming it's all benign. I'm merely saying there's no evidence to the contrary.
Yes, we know that governments, including our own, get up to dirty tricks. Yes, we know the US has done some disgraceful things (Iran Contra and the Bay of Pigs come to mind immediately. And yes, they've backed dictators, even though that is often merely the nasty implications of real-politik, but let's face it, we might prefer that some countries are run by nice people, but they aren't, and many of these nasty games were because the old Soviet Union was playing equally nasty games.
None of that proves anything about Bilderberg.
Just because a government has been up to dirty tricks before, or arguably in other areas, is NOT evidence that they are in this case.
Suppose you see a burglar in court, and suppose he's committed, admitted and been convicted of 50 other burglaries, and is now accused of burgling you. Do you know the extent to which those 50 other proven burglaries are evidence of guilt of burgling you? If not, I can tell you. Absolutely none at all. Not one iota. If you want a conviction of a specific burglary, you need evidence of guilt of that specific burglary, not just a propensity to burgle, not just to grab the nearest recidivist burglary, bang him an handcuffs and haul him before a court because, M'lud, he's done it before so he must be guilty this time.
Are governments capable of dirty tricks? Sure. That is not any form of evidence that Bilderberg is one.
Melon doesn't rant and rave, on here, though. We might not always agree, arguably might not often agree, but we do have a reasonably polite argument. Jones was anything but polite, or considerate of the opinion of others, or their right to express it. He didn't want a debate or an exchange of views, he wanted a rant.
It's not just what he said. It's the ranting way he said it, screaming and shouting to drown others out. Good on Neil.
Even when, most of the time, I don't agree with Melon, it's always good to have a different perspectives. We cross swords, as it were, fairly regularly. That, you can take as cast-iron evidence on my part of respect. If I thought melon was a ranting nut-job like Jones, I wouldn't waste my time arguing/discussing.
Now Now Saracen , you also said the references I made to those two WB's had nothing to do with Bilderberg ,while also claiming the above ,you cant have it both ways so you obviously just contradicted yourself by making that claim .No, I do not. I said, we don't know. And ALL that means is we don't know. I'm not the one claiming that it is this or that.
You even did it twice..
Not only did you say you didnt know while claiming Bilderberg wasnt involved , you also claimed you knew none of the protesters knew either ( Basically the whole CT movement ) or those more in between Like Snowden who actually worked in the CIA.As for Prism and Edward Snowden, I'm reserving judgement on that until what's going on becomes a bit clearer. But there are two main issues in my mind. First, is what has been going on legal or not, and my sense is that it probably was, and second, if legal, are the people's of respective countries going to be happy about what governments have been, pretty quietly, doing behind their backs. As I understand it, Snowden is a very different case from Manning. Snowden has released what is being done, not the contents of millions of emails, etc, a very large number of them highly classified. And the result will be that people now know what is being done, to them, in their name, behind their backs. Subject to what comes out, and especially if it's illegal or not, he may be genuinely what a whistleblower is supposed to be, but he may well have also broken some fairly heavyweight laws in doing it.
And none of that has a thing to do with Bilderberg.
I don't know. For all I know, they're doing exactly what they say they are, which is talking about the state of world affairs.
I don't know, and nor do you. Nor do any of the protesters. The difference is, because I don't know, I don't assume it must be some giant conspiracy to control the planet.
Oh I dont know , how about the biggest government in the world secretly spying on its own citizens after its figurehead promised not too, just to get into office.
You, on the other hand, are asserting it's some global conspiracy.Fine. Where's the evidence?
Thats pretty damming isnt it , how can you trust any one who clearly lies for his own self interests after that , esp when he gets together with other world leaders and powerful people ?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote