5 ms·
From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ “The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues.
by 23B1 3y ago
From the official website https://bilderbergmeetings.org/ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/
“The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues. The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions”
Sounds explicitly secretive to me.
- JohnFen 3y agoAbsolutely, but that alone doesn't mean much.
- mrtksn 3y agoTo me it sounds like a format worth considering in other places too. Thanks to the partial secrecy rules, they don't have to parrot populist talking points to receive good press. If you think about it, the internet used to be like that at some time in the past when the pseudonyms were the default and the content wasn't ranked by popularity or points.
- 23B1 3y agoI’m merely pointing out that ‘secretive’ is an accurate headline.
- dredmorbius 3y agoChatham House Rule, as others have pointed out, is based on this specific principle: Under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to a meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed to reveal who made any particular comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion. The rule is a system for holding debates and discussion panels on controversial topics, named after the London headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where the rule originated in June 1927. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule> The rule itself: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Bilderberg apparently follow the CHR: Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker (known as the Chatham House Rule). <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_meeting> (Also mentioned in TFA.) Consider that it's possible, as has been rumoured, that people and organisations discuss topics on fora such as Hacker News under pseudonyms.
- nabla9 3y agoOn the contrary. Chatham House Rule is a great way to discuss potentially sensitive issues so that what is discussed can be shared.
- 23B1 3y agoYou’re operating on the assumption that business and political leaders can and do operate in the best interests of the people they serve. But that has clearly not been the case for a very long time, if ever.
- nabla9 3y agoThey don't have common interests with each other either. Stacey Abrams, Peter Thiel, Anne Applebaum, and Demis Hassabis have very little in common. "Common man" has no singular interest either.
- 23B1 3y agoWho says the attendees need to have common interests… in order to support or lend credibility to an agenda?
- dredmorbius 3y agoThe interests of the wealthy in part diverge (where they compete with one another most directly) and in part converge (preservation of wealth, issues in managing wealth and power, most directly). I agree in part with your observation, but that metric does in fact swing both ways.
- tptacek 3y agoI am on like 4 different Slacks that explicitly have the "Chatham House Rule", and have attended numerous professional events that have opened with a recitation of the "Chatham House Rule". I would go so far as to say that the Chatham House Rule is a general norm of private (as opposed to public) discussions; it's usually the expectation. Moreover: the Chatham House Rule is a relaxation of the secrecy expectations of private conversations. The Rule explicitly allows you to relate things you learn in the meeting to other people; it simply demands that you not attribute those statements. This is far less restrictive than every business negotiation, which all operate under boilerplate NDA terms. There might well be some other reason why the Bilderberg Meeting is problematic, but operating under the Chatham House Rule is not one of them. One way to get an appreciation for this stuff is to join a public commission of some sort. Here in Illinois, all public bodies operate under Open Meetings Act rules, which are so onerous that, after being involved for a very short time, you can immediately see why extragovernmental bodies like chambers of commerce and economic development corporations are so popular.
- beached_whale 3y agoI think ISO meetings are like this too.