This year’s annual Bilderberg conference is set to meet in Watford, UK. Global elite power brokers from the world of politics, finance, business and media will once again meet to discuss their agenda for the coming years and, much like the secretive Bohemian Grove gathering, many are more than a little concerned as to what exactly these powerful public figures discuss behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes and ears of the public.
Unless, of course, you’re a mainstream journalist, in which case the upcoming protests focusing around the event are met with scorn and derision.
Writing in The Independent, James Cusick exemplifies the media’s reaction to these protests with a typical display of unwarranted hyperbole and mockery in his article “Watch Out Watford: Here Comes the Secretive Bilderberg Group“:
Whether it’s the shape-shifting group of reptilian descendants from the constellation Draco who control humanity, or the shadowy cabal of powerful financiers and politicians who covertly run all governments, conspiracy theorists are once again preparing for their annual jamboree of protest against those who really rule the world, this year in the highly secretive destination of… Watford.
As I observed in response to the recent New York Times article, “Why Do Rational People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?“, the immediate reference to “shape-shifting reptiles” is a classic example of mainstream hit-pieces when it comes to anything “conspiracy-related” – never mind that, as anyone who has studied the origins and actions of the Bilderberg Group knows, they conform completely to the classical definition of a conspiracy. When The Independent’s Cusick does acknowledge this, he paints the secretiveness in somewhat quainter terms: “Due to a tradition that stretches back to 1954 and the first conference held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek in the Netherlands, nothing that is discussed or agreed at a Bilderberg meeting is reported. Until recently even the names of those who were invited was kept secret.”
Secrecy is reduced to the infinitely less troublesome notion of “tradition”.
The piece goes on to misrepresent the historic ties between the group and the media, stating that things are set to change thanks to a “new generation of Bilderbergers, who are apparently uncomfortable with the total exclusion of the media.” If Cusick had bothered to do his research he would be well aware that high level members of the mainstream media have frequently attended the events: editor-in-chief for the Observer Will Hutton, ABC News Washington chief correspondent George Stephanopolous and many other senior media figures have attended the conferences over the year.
Additional research might have saved Cusick further embarrassment for writing the following: “Putting a global elite all in one place, and banning any media from attending or reporting what has been said, has led to a vast industry of wild conspiracy which suggests Bilderberg is a ‘world government meeting in the shadows’.” The fact is, many of the visitors are openly committed globalists, not least regular attendee David Rockefeller. Rockefeller, who has described himself as a “proud internationalist”, made it clear in his memoirs his views on the need for a world government:
For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
Cusick ultimately falls back on the standard ploy for coverage of the Bilderbergers – since the media can no longer simply ignore the event as they once did, they reduce it to something verging on meaningless; a laid-back weekend gathering where the rich and powerful play golf and have a natter over lunch. As one UK politician told him, “It really is not that exciting, in fact it’s a bit run of the mill.” It’s a bit like asking a Mafia don what he discusses with his capos and taking the response, “not much at all really – certainly not crime” at face value.
Fortunately, thanks to true investigative journalists such as the late Jim Tucker and Daniel Estulin, many are now aware of the wider – indeed, more sinister – implications of the group and their motives. With rare exception (for example, Charlie Skelton’s coverage of previous Bilderberg meetings for The Guardian) the mainstream media, whose vested interests ultimately conform to the corporate/political attendees, will do everything it can to avoid reporting the truth. Instead we’re peddled articles which manages to deride “conspiracy theorists” while absurdly admitting they are completely correct about the secretive nature of the group.
If the comments at the end of The Independent’s article are anything to go by, the ploy is no longer working.