5 ms·

One Bilderberger sells paper to another Bilderberger. > He is also a member of the Bilderberg Group and attended the Swiss 2011 Bilderberg conference in St. Mo

by ferdo 13y ago

One Bilderberger sells paper to another Bilderberger. > He is also a member of the Bilderberg Group and attended the Swiss 2011 Bilderberg conference in St. Moritz, Switzerland. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Recognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#Recognition > He is also an invitee of the Bilderberg Group and attended conference meetings in Greece 2009,[4] and Spain 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_E._Graham#Other_roles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_E._Graham#Other_roles

pc86 13y ago
What has that got to do with anything?
- kmfrk 13y ago
  The Bilderberg Group is regarded by some as a conspiracy theory wherein a group of people gather to decide how to rule the world. You know, like the Hellfire Club's Inner Circle. The Guardian constantly make a big fuss over it. (It's really just a lot of influential people meeting annually(?) in private to have some insightful discussions.)
  - caycep 13y ago
    Then again, Larry Lessig got invited this year and reported that it was in fact like any other boring conference. Unless they got to him. Run Larry Run!
    - stevewillows 13y ago
      Ref: http://www.lessig.org/2013/06/on-bilderberg/ http://www.lessig.org/2013/06/on-bilderberg/
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    (It's really just a lot of influential people meeting annually(?) in private to have some insightful discussions.) Which ultimately means that the conspiracy theory is correct, except that reality sounds less flashy. After all, a democratic society has all sorts of proper channels to have such discussions in. Meeting in such an invite-only club that is not part of the official checks and balances is somewhat problematic, because it leads to decisions being pushed through that did not emerge from democratic processes.
    - saalweachter 13y ago
      Well, that assumes that plans are made and deals struck which carry weight the next day. If they actually just spend the entire time gossiping and making catty comments to each other it's way less interesting.
      - nhaehnle 13y ago
        I'm not so sure about that. Gossiping and commenting also has the potential to form shared opinions and values within the group that attends the meeting, not to mention a certain group-think. There is a possibility that these values diverge from what would result from public discourse. I would hypothesize that the mere fact of being invited to a traditionally secret club tends to make people more selfish, arrogant, and prone to abuse their power. I don't know this for a fact, but other results of psychological studies that I have heard of make it seem very plausible. This is especially important with politicians. Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people. If we take psychological studies that point to a "fake it until you become it"-effect seriously, we should demand of politicians to also behave and carry themselves like servants. The Bilderberger group is a venue (admittedly, one of many) where politicians can become detached from their duties. So like I said, it's less flashy than a Hollywood-movie conspiracy, but important nonetheless.
    - konklone 13y ago
      Conversation at events is a proper channel. It's not like one day you cross a threshold of influential-ness where it's unethical for you to share ideas with others who have crossed that threshold. We may not trust the people in this world who tend to gain that level of influence, but I wouldn't describe the general idea of influential people talking, even in a group setting, as problematic.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      "[O]fficial checks and balances" are for governments, not groups of private individuals. They don't have the power of the state behind them.
      - 13y ago
  - _pius 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
- ferdo 13y ago
  Read a history of them and decide for yourself. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bilderberg http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bilderberg
  - VMG 13y ago
    quote > Skeptics argue that members can spend their private time hatching plans to control world politics and economics, ensuring the wealthy and powerful maintain their powerful grip on an enslaved population that keeps the machinery running Sounds bogus. The plans are already hatched as documented in the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they obviously rather spend the time drinking the blood of blue-eyed christian children.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Besides, we all know that the élite meet up over VTC when no one suspects they are subverting the world, and leave their boring chit-chat for their "semi-public" appearances for the paranoid to fret over. That way they can let the truth of their conference (when it does leak) work to their advantage, while none are the wiser about the underlying conspiracies! ;)
VMG 13y ago
They've probably also both been at TED
gohrt 13y ago
Who are the most powerful or wealthy people in the world who are NOT Bildebergers?
runn1ng 13y ago
And comments like that is exactly why I am considering stopping reading HN comments alltogether. Thanks!
- ferdo 13y ago
  NP!
ewoodrich 13y ago
I've never felt much need for downvote privileges before, but I cannot believe that parent comment and the resulting thread are still positive. At best this is substance-less noise with respect to the article, and at worst, an attempt to troll users into a heated, pointless, debate.

by ferdo 13y ago

pc86 13y ago

What has that got to do with anything?

kmfrk 13y ago
The Bilderberg Group is regarded by some as a conspiracy theory wherein a group of people gather to decide how to rule the world. You know, like the Hellfire Club's Inner Circle. The Guardian constantly make a big fuss over it. (It's really just a lot of influential people meeting annually(?) in private to have some insightful discussions.)
- caycep 13y ago
  Then again, Larry Lessig got invited this year and reported that it was in fact like any other boring conference. Unless they got to him. Run Larry Run!
  - stevewillows 13y ago
    Ref: http://www.lessig.org/2013/06/on-bilderberg/ http://www.lessig.org/2013/06/on-bilderberg/
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  (It's really just a lot of influential people meeting annually(?) in private to have some insightful discussions.) Which ultimately means that the conspiracy theory is correct, except that reality sounds less flashy. After all, a democratic society has all sorts of proper channels to have such discussions in. Meeting in such an invite-only club that is not part of the official checks and balances is somewhat problematic, because it leads to decisions being pushed through that did not emerge from democratic processes.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    Well, that assumes that plans are made and deals struck which carry weight the next day. If they actually just spend the entire time gossiping and making catty comments to each other it's way less interesting.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. Gossiping and commenting also has the potential to form shared opinions and values within the group that attends the meeting, not to mention a certain group-think. There is a possibility that these values diverge from what would result from public discourse. I would hypothesize that the mere fact of being invited to a traditionally secret club tends to make people more selfish, arrogant, and prone to abuse their power. I don't know this for a fact, but other results of psychological studies that I have heard of make it seem very plausible. This is especially important with politicians. Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people. If we take psychological studies that point to a "fake it until you become it"-effect seriously, we should demand of politicians to also behave and carry themselves like servants. The Bilderberger group is a venue (admittedly, one of many) where politicians can become detached from their duties. So like I said, it's less flashy than a Hollywood-movie conspiracy, but important nonetheless.
  - konklone 13y ago
    Conversation at events is a proper channel. It's not like one day you cross a threshold of influential-ness where it's unethical for you to share ideas with others who have crossed that threshold. We may not trust the people in this world who tend to gain that level of influence, but I wouldn't describe the general idea of influential people talking, even in a group setting, as problematic.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    "[O]fficial checks and balances" are for governments, not groups of private individuals. They don't have the power of the state behind them.
    - 13y ago
- _pius 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
ferdo 13y ago
Read a history of them and decide for yourself. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bilderberg http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bilderberg
- VMG 13y ago
  quote > Skeptics argue that members can spend their private time hatching plans to control world politics and economics, ensuring the wealthy and powerful maintain their powerful grip on an enslaved population that keeps the machinery running Sounds bogus. The plans are already hatched as documented in the the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they obviously rather spend the time drinking the blood of blue-eyed christian children.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Besides, we all know that the élite meet up over VTC when no one suspects they are subverting the world, and leave their boring chit-chat for their "semi-public" appearances for the paranoid to fret over. That way they can let the truth of their conference (when it does leak) work to their advantage, while none are the wiser about the underlying conspiracies! ;)

VMG 13y ago

They've probably also both been at TED

gohrt 13y ago

Who are the most powerful or wealthy people in the world who are NOT Bildebergers?

runn1ng 13y ago

And comments like that is exactly why I am considering stopping reading HN comments alltogether. Thanks!

ferdo 13y ago
NP!

ewoodrich 13y ago

I've never felt much need for downvote privileges before, but I cannot believe that parent comment and the resulting thread are still positive. At best this is substance-less noise with respect to the article, and at worst, an attempt to troll users into a heated, pointless, debate.