?

 http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

IF you post a list of names:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

John Micklethwait - Editor-in-chief, The Economist

Rachman Gideon - Chief foreign affairs commentator, The Financial Times

..... (ignore this ONE, not journalist) Peter Voser, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell

Martin H. Wolf - Chief economics commentator, The Financial Times

The only reporters who were allowed access into the meeting;

Vendeline Von Bredow - Business correspondent, The Economist

Adrian D. Wooldridge - Foreign correspondent, The economist

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WHY should we take you seriously? Perhaps you have some specialized meaning you attach to the term "reporter"? Who do YOU think makes the final decisions about what appears in the story?

I count five journalists, not two, within six names of the list

Bredow and Wooldridge were the only assigned reporters. They were specifically chosen by a deliberative body.

I'm sorry but the whole Bilderburg thing here is looking to be exactly what the participants have always claimed it is. A group of politicians and business people looking to increase growth and their corporate profits. The sort of conferences that take place all over the world every week the only difference being that these are very powerful people and top politicians (coincidently the same group more or less who attend Davos each year).

The theory that this is something sinister seems to be undermined by the fact they publicise the location. the participants and invite journalists to it.

"I count five journalists, not two, within six names of the list"

Excellent - so it shouldn't take you long to find us some reports on the conference by these reporters. After all you have their names, publications and the date and venue of the conference.

Unless of course they weren't there to report on the meeting, but were in fact participants.

but oh wait:

" One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. "
 http://www.economist.com/node/17928993

So, if they're not there to report on the event, then they're there as particpants. It certainly does little to disprove the concern that Mainstream media is part and parcel of the elite and pushing the agenda of the elite.

I guess it would be an idea for someone to see if those invited start pushing some similar angles after the conference.

" One or two journalists are invited each year, on condition that they abstain from writing about it. "

Which is far from unusual in business conferences so once again no proof that this entire event is nothing more than the people involved claim it is.

Mind you I don't have a DVD to see or a website to drive traffic too for advertising revenue so perhaps I don't have the same motivation to ensure lots of gullible people will believe it is something it isn't.

Yes, it's just what they say it is. Nothing to look at there obviously.

"The theory that this is something sinister seems to be undermined by the fact they publicise the location. the participants and invite journalists to it."

Then why not open the meeting and minutes for inspection? What gets discussed here is not for public consumption, but is attended by those with a mandate handed to them by the people. There is a very obvious contradiction here.


"I'm sorry but the whole Bilderburg thing here is looking to be exactly what the participants have always claimed it is. A group of politicians and business people looking to increase growth and their corporate profits. The sort of conferences that take place all over the world every week the only difference being that these are very powerful people and top politicians (coincidently the same group more or less who attend Davos each year)."

You started out by saying you were sorry. It all went downhill from there!

You have, like the rest of us, little to no idea what has been discussed in previous meetings. Over the years, topics would undoubtedly have included Iraq, Afghanistan as well as Central America, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Germany, France along with a whole host of other "random" events.

But don't worry, when the agenda has been completed they will be able to write their history down for you to fawn over and admire. Just don't pay too much attention to the dead...for that will number in the millions. Although I am quite sure as the years go by, even that will be crafted to "make sense".

The process Bilderberg is involved with is difficult for mere mortals to understand. Observe the following.

Cynicism (original meaning)

"a Greek philosophy of the 4th century B.C. advocating the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control and individual freedom, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath the dignity of man. — Cynic, n. — Cynical, adj."

Cynicism (modern meaning)

"the holding or expressing of opinions that reveal disbelief and sometimes disdain for commonly held human values and virtues. Also called cynism. See also philosophy. — cynic, n. — cynical, adj."

In the future, the meaning of mass murder, Genocide and Holocaust will change. Bilderberg is fundamentally concerned with managing that change. Bilderberg is using the politics of dependency on material wealth to do it. Business under the logical paradigm of Capitalism is the science used by Bilderberg to bring about its agenda. And you have voluntarily fallen in love with it, as they knew you would.

Its nice to believe that everything is a bed of roses...but who wants to sleep in a bed of thorns?

"Which is far from unusual in business conferences so once again no proof that this entire event is nothing more than the people involved claim it is."

Why would you invite journalists to a business meeting...only to demand they write nothing of what is heard? Are you trying to protect your privacy as a business, or are you trying to defame the role of the journalist in the public eye?