Bilderberg Group

buddyonair

What is the intention of the BG?

Do they plan really all those bad things Alex Jones is talking about or are they just meeting to have coffee with the same kind once a year?

The Volt

Alex Jones is on to something IMO. I dont think its on as big a scale as he'd like to believe but he's trying to sell dvds at the end of the day

buddyonair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

nyarlothothep

I dunno much about them but a journalist was admitted to one meeting and said it wasn't as sinister as its made out to be, basically academic discussions on global policy, political relations and the like.

However I doubt thats the truth as anyone reporting information on something which is basically closed off to the public is probably going to be put up to saying that nothing is wrong.

For me the bilderberg group represents everything that is unjust with the political systems we and most other people live under. We shouldn't live under them at all, we should be participants in them. Who gave them the power to dictate to people how their world is influenced? I don't buy this respect the alpha ape law of the jungle crap.

Ultimately Im of the opinion that their power is unjustified and for that reason I think they are conducting policy meetings which will preserve the interests of multinationals in conjunction with political status quos. Political elites and the interests of big business are essentially intertwined in America for example, so its not truly for the people, for the benefit of the human race.

Kama

What could be wrong with senior businessmen and world leaders meeting in pleasant environs to discuss the issues of the day?

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.

Adam Smith

nhughes100

Somewhere pleasant like the Bohemian Grove??

Kama

Haha whats wrong with a little frat party unwinding from the stress that goes with being a no-doubt-benevolent global elite? Gotta unwind somehow...

Kama

Haha whats wrong with a little frat party unwinding from the stress that goes with being a no-doubt-benevolent global elite? Gotta unwind somehow...Pee on a tree, worship some idols, let your pants down...

buddyonair

"issues of the day"?

what could be issues of the day of those people?

Can you help me out Kama?

nhughes100

Check out inforwars.com I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but that stuff on the bohemian grove in simply bizarre.

buddyonair

very bizarre!!!!

Diogenes

buddyonair wrote: »

"issues of the day"?

what could be issues of the day of those people?

Can you help me out Kama?

When I began hearing about the Bilderberg Group - about the notion that a tiny band of insidious and clandestine powermongers meet in a secret room from which they rule the world - I was sceptical. But I kept hearing about them, and I finally decided to try to settle the matter once and for all. Which is why I visited Big Jim Tucker. Within anti-Bilderberg circles, Big Jim is considered a pioneer, a trailblazer, risking his life to attempt to locate the geographical whereabouts of the secret room.

"They exist all right," said Big Jim, "and they're not playing pinochle in there." Big Jim Tucker has spent 30 years documenting the facts. He's been after them since the 70s when he first got the hunch that they existed. He abandoned a good career in sports journalism on a big city paper. It has been cat and mouse ever since, he said. Good against evil.

"Those sick luminaries are always on the move," said Jim. "They never come together in the same place twice, so as to evade detection. They only meet once a year, for a long weekend in May or June."

They have been ruling the world in secret since 1954, Jim said, when a man called Joseph Retinger, whose name rarely appears in the history books, decided to create them. One of many mysteries is how Retinger - a Polish immigrant employed as secretary to the novelist Joseph Conrad - had the wherewithal and the contacts to organise such a mighty endeavour. Their first meeting took place in the Bilderberg Hotel, Holland, which is why the secret rulers of the world go by the name of the Bilderberg Group. Big Jim said that I happened to have caught him at a very good time. He was ready to take things further, to turn up the heat and cause some trouble.

"So you've actually managed to obtain the address of the next Bilderberg meeting?" I asked Jim.

"Yes, sir," he said.

"You know exactly where it is?" I asked.

"Yes, I do," he said.

Big Jim said he fully intended to thwart their security and barge in unannounced to catch them red-handed going about their covert wickedness. I was welcome to tag along, he said, "Just so long as you don't step on twigs or fall off walls while we're on the prowl.

I am writing to you urgently to warn you about material being circulated about a 'Bilderberg Conference' due to take place in June in Portugal. The Washington-based journal Spotlight is quoted as a source of information on the Bilderberg Conference. Spotlight is published by the fascist Liberty Lobby. The purpose of the material appears to be to make people imagine there is a sinister Jewish conspiracy that is trying to dominate the world. You may find much information on Spotlight by contacting any major anti-fascist organization.

Against fascism and against capitalism, Lisa Taylor (International Solidarity with Workers in Russia).

"What do you think about that?" said Fred.

There was a long silence.

"Well," I said. "I should tell you that the other night Jim told me it was a shame that Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist."

"Did he?" said Fred, clearly startled.

"But I can't really think of anything else Jim said that might be construed as . . . oh, he did say that with the amount of pills they make him take for his plumbing, anyone would think he was . . ."

"We're getting all our information from neo-Nazis?" interrupted Fred. "We're publishing a newspaper all over Portugal and our sources are neo-Nazis?"

"You might be," I said. "But that doesn't mean . . ." I paused.

Fred looked out at the pool. Children were splashing around. It was a lovely day. He put his head in his hands.

"What," he said, "have we got ourselves into?"

In my attempts to find out whether the world really was being secretly ruled from inside the Caesar Park golfing resort that June weekend, I later contacted dozens of Bilderberg members. And, of course, nobody returned my calls. Nobody even wrote back to decline my request and thank me for my letter, and these are people whose people always write back and decline requests - Peter Mandelson's office, for instance - which is why I began to envisage these silences as startled ones.

I did manage to speak to David Rockefeller's press secretary, who told me that Mr Rockefeller was thoroughly fed up with being called a 12ft lizard, a secret ruler of the world, a keeper of black helicopters that spy on anti-Bilderberg dissenters, and so on.

The Rockefeller office seemed to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the conspiracy theories. They troubled Mr Rockefeller (his press man said). They made him wonder why some people are so scared and suspicious of him, in particular, and global think-tanks such as Bilderberg in general. Mr Rockefeller's conclusion was that this was a battle between rational and irrational thought. Rational people favoured globalisation. Irrational people preferred nationalism. I asked him why he thought no Bilderberg member had returned my calls or answered my letters. "Well," he shrugged, "I suppose it's because they might want to be invited back."

then, one Tuesday morning, the phone rang. It was the instantly recognisable voice of a Bilderberg founder member, for 30 years one of their inner circle, their steering committee, a Bilderberg agenda setter, a head-hunter - a secret ruler of the world himself, should you choose to believe the assorted militants I had spent the past five years with. It was Denis Healey.

"How can I help you?" he said.

"Well," I said, "would you tell me what happens inside Bilderberg meetings?"

"Okay," he said, cheerfully.

There was a silence.

"Why?" I said. "Nobody else will."

"Because you asked me," he said. Then he added, "I'm an old fart. Come on over."

Once Lord Healey had agreed to talk to me - and I had circulated this information far and wide - other Bilderberg members became amenable, too (albeit on the condition of anonymity). These interviews enabled me to piece together the backstage mechanics of this most secret society.

So this is how it works. A tiny, shoe-string central office in Holland decides each year which country will host the next meeting. Each country has two steering committee members. (The British ones have included Lord Carrington, Denis Healey, Andrew Knight, the one-time editor of The Economist magazine, and Martin Taylor, the ex-CEO of Barclays Bank.)

They say that each country dreads their turn coming around, for they have to raise enough money to book an entire five-star hotel for four days (plus meals and transport and vast security - every packet of peas is opened and scrutinised, and so on). They call up Bilderberg-friendly global corporations, such as Xerox or Heinz or Fiat or Barclays or Nokia, which donate the hundreds of thousands of pounds needed. They do not accept unsolicited donations from non-Bilderberg corporations.

Nobody can buy their way into a Bilderberg meeting, although many corporations have tried. Then they decide who to invite - who seems to be a "Bilderberg person". The notion of a Bilderberg person hasn't changed since the earliest days, back in 1954, when the group was created by Denis Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (a former SS officer while he was a student - ironic that a former Nazi, albeit a low-ranking and half-hearted one, would help give birth to an organisation that so many would consider to be evidence of a Jewish conspiracy).

"First off," said a steering committee member to me, "the invited guests must sing for their supper. They can't just sit there like church mice. They are there to speak. I remember when I invited Margaret Thatcher back in '75. She wasn't worldly. Well, she sat there for the first two days and didn't say a thing. People started grumbling. A senator came up to me on the Friday night, Senator Mathias of Maryland. He said, 'This lady you invited, she hasn't said a word. You really ought to say something to her.' So I had a quiet word with her at dinner. She was embarrassed. Well, she obviously thought about it overnight, because the next day she suddenly stood up and launched into a three-minute Thatcher special. I can't remember the topic, but you can imagine. The room was stunned. Here's something for your conspiracy theorists. As a result of that speech, David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger and the other Americans fell in love with her. They brought her over to America, took her around in limousines, and introduced her to everyone.

"I remember when Clinton came in '91," he added. "Vernon Jordan invited him along. He used it as a one-stop-shop. He went around glad-handing everyone. Nobody thought they were meeting the next president." (Of course, Jim Tucker would contend that they all knew they were meeting the next president - for they huddled together that weekend and decided he would be the next president.) At times, I become nostalgic for when I knew nothing. There are so few mysteries left, and here I am, I presume, relegating Bilderberg to the dingy world of the known. The invited guests are not allowed to bring their wives, girlfriends or - on rarer occasions - their husbands or boyfriends. Their security officers cannot attend the conference and must have dinner in a separate hall. The guests are expressly asked not to give interviews to journalists. Rooms, refreshments, wine and cocktails before dinner are paid for by Bilderberg. Telephone, room service and laundry bills are paid for by the participants. There are two morning sessions and two afternoon sessions, except on the Saturday, when the sessions take place only in the evening so that the Bilderbergers can play golf. The seating plan is in alphabetical order. It is reversed each year. One year Umberto Agnelli, the chairman of Fiat, will sit at the front. The next year, Norbert Zimmermann, chairman of Berndorf, the Austrian cutlery and metalware manufacturer, will take his place. While furiously denying that they secretly ruled the world, my Bilderberg interviewees did admit to me that international affairs had, from time to time, been influenced by these sessions.

I asked for examples, and I was given one: "During the Falklands war, the British government's request for international sanctions against Argentina fell on stony ground. But at a Bilderberg meeting in, I think, Denmark, David Owen stood up and gave the most fiery speech in favour of imposing them. Well, the speech changed a lot of minds. I'm sure that various foreign ministers went back to their respective countries and told their leaders what David Owen had said. And you know what? Sanctions were imposed."

The man who told me this story added,

"I hope that gives you a flavour of what really does go on in Bilderberg meetings."

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1

So there you have it buddy, those people spreading stories about bilderberg are generally fascists and neo nazis.

I'd suggest you read Jon Ronson's book, he goes in and walks into bohemian grove and attends the opening ceremony, talks to bilderberg members and generally debunks idiotic conspiracy theories.

Kama

I've read Ronson, he writes a good book. Not a fan of argument-by-Nazi btw, just so's you know. Saying anti-Bilderbergers are Nazis has exactly the same info content as saying Jon Ronson is a Jew. Its utterly irrelevant to any of the actual issues, pretty cheap tbh.

"Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy."

This illustrates part of why I think conspiracy theory misses the point, with its shiny lizards and so forth. A small number of people with high levels of power meet to 'co-ordinate' the world, and encourage a 'sensible global policy', a Power Elite Superclass. They utilise invitation-only partys to vet new members, and then use their social network and existing power base to give a little boost to the careers of the ones who 'fit in', and will work for similar policy goals.

A commitment to transnationalism on global elite lines, and the end of sovereignty feared by (not just the) Nazis are the same thing, viewed differently. The difference is one side has agenda-setting, voice, ideological power, and the other side are characterised as 'raving nuts'. I'm not denying the existence of nuts (OMG he's a Nut Denier!), I'm pointing out a collossal power asymmetry. Which is part of the problem.

Politics should involve people who aren't politicians; politics shouldn't be just about bankers and industrialists meeting behind closed doors, espcecially if they have the power to enforce their 'sensible' global policy in a manner which short-circuits democracy, in terms of transparency, oversight, or the capacity to choose policy.

'Conspiracy against the public' and All That.

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

I've read Ronson, he writes a good book. Not a fan of argument-by-Nazi btw, just so's you know. Saying anti-Bilderbergers are Nazis has exactly the same info content as saying Jon Ronson is a Jew. Its utterly irrelevant to any of the actual issues, pretty cheap tbh.

No its not. Time and time again conspiracy theorists can be tracked by to Neo Nazis, holocaust deniers, and fascists.

Jon Ronson's jewish heritage is irrelevant. Someone's politics and political agenda is however very relevant.

Politics should involve people who aren't politicians; politics shouldn't be just about bankers and industrialists meeting behind closed doors, espcecially if they have the power to enforce their 'sensible' global policy in a manner which short-circuits democracy, in terms of transparency, oversight, or the capacity to choose policy.

'Conspiracy against the public' and All That.

And how pray tell do you think this political revolution should take place?

buddyonair

I am not saying that I am against global peace. If we need one government to achieve this, I am in, as long as the intentions are good all the way and after they achieved this goal.

I have nothing against the internal structure of the BG, how they invite and support new, young upcoming leader bla bla bla...

But still I am looking for prove that those members of BG actually do something beneficial to all of us. If their intentions are good why is it secret? Why is it that only CT know of them?
Are they fighting hunger? child labour in 3rd world countries? the development of 3rd world countries? ...

I don't know this author so I am asking for a benefit of a doubt.

But the way it is described in Diogenes Quotes it sounds like happy people and nice folks. So there is nothing to worry about!:rolleyes:

Kama

For me the bilderberg group represents everything that is unjust with the political systems we and most other people live under. We shouldn't live under them at all, we should be participants in them. Who gave them the power to dictate to people how their world is influenced?

Ultimately Im of the opinion that their power is unjustified and for that reason I think they are conducting policy meetings which will preserve the interests of multinationals in conjunction with political status quos. Political elites and the interests of big business are essentially intertwined in America for example, so its not truly for the people, for the benefit of the human race.

This is essentially it as far as I'm concerned. I'm comparatively uninterested in the Satanic side, I think thats mainly sensationalsim for good 'ol honest book/cd sales. But the concentration of power outside of a democratic remit is a concern unaddressed by saying 'thats just a conspiracy theory'.

From Everything2

"Crisis of democracy" is the label given by the ruling classes of the United States, Western Europe and Japan to what most rational individuals would term "meaningful democracy".


The crisis of democracy was first publicly outlined in a book-length report entitled (conveniently) The Crisis of Democracy written by Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki in 1975. The title of the original, commisioned report was Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. The "problem" thus illuminated is how an "excess of democracy" can negatively impact the rightful government of industrialized societies by and for the wealthy.


According to the report, a crisis of democracy can occur when the populace becomes too well-informed about the true goals and motivations of its rulers and begins to demand that those in power shift their focus from self-aggrandizement to providing for the people's common needs.

The very phrase 'governability of democracies' speaks volumes; if you conceive the social world in any theory which assumes an element of antagonism in social relations, having a small class of the highly powerful who 'know better' what is 'sensible' can be viewed as a attempt at tyranny.

buddyonair

Kama wrote: »

This is essentially it as far as I'm concerned. I'm comparatively uninterested in the Satanic side, I think thats mainly sensationalsim for good 'ol honest book/cd sales. But the concentration of power outside of a democratic remit is a concern unaddressed by saying 'thats just a conspiracy theory'.

Me too! Me too! :cool:

Kama

No its not. Time and time again conspiracy theorists can be tracked by to Neo Nazis, holocaust deniers, and fascists.

Still argument by association. Perhaps you've been reading too much conspiracy theory, it happens a lot in the worse end of it, along with confirmation bias, and predicate thinking. CT occurs more in marginal and transgressive groups, and less in core-integrated ones, in a standard deviance theory approach. Therefore unsurprisingly you will find conspiracy theory in a variety of odd fringe groups, especially low power ones. What is viewable inside as a fellowship and association, from the outside can be viewed as a conspiracy; this is my basic point, its a perspective thing.

(I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool....I associate for the common good, you conspire for selfish interest, they overthrow the world for Cthulu!)

I read voluminous quantities of conspiracy theory and elite theory and still somehow manage not to be anti-semitic or fascist, and on the issue of the Holocaust I'm down with 3rd Generation Holocaust Studies along with Zygmunt Bauman. Robert Anton Wilson (praise Bob!) was none of the above, and still managed to be the greatest mind in conspiracy theory for several decades.

I'm interested in the reactions to conspiracy theory, especially when someone claims it 'can't happen'. I'm also *very* interested in the logics and rhetorics of paranoia, and cognitive biases. Other than that I tend to read CT as expressions of fantasy and fear, and read that narrative to see what it suggests about our societies. That and because the Orbital Mind-Control Lasers make me do it!

And how pray tell do you think this political revolution should take place?

With transparency and democratic consent, or not at all. Pretty basic on that point. Political revolutions without those are called coups, whether they are by military goons or men in suits drinking fine wines. I'm personally against that sort of thing.

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Still argument by association. Perhaps you've been reading too much conspiracy theory, it happens a lot in the worse end of it, along with confirmation bias, and predicate thinking.

I disagree. If you look at the history of conspiracy theories (and not the made up chronology of RAW) you'll see that most conspiracy theories are focused on minorities. With 911/global elites conspiracy theories, it's easy to trace these back to the kind of people who would be peddling "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" theories 100 to 90 years ago. And we know how this conspiracy theory infulenced a young Austrian corporal back in the 1920s.

Many of people peddling conspiracy theories today hold the exact same political philosophy of the Nazis. Perhaps you should spend a little less time on a post modern self referential analysis of theories, and examine how history is repeating itself.

CT occurs more in marginal and transgressive groups, and less in core-integrated ones, in a standard deviance theory approach. Therefore unsurprisingly you will find conspiracy theory in a variety of odd fringe groups, especially low power ones. What is viewable inside as a fellowship and association, from the outside can be viewed as a conspiracy; this is my basic point, its a perspective thing.

And on this we will agree. In my youth I was active in the radical left of Irish politics (not SF) they took it as an article of faith that the powers that be were trying to infiltrate their groups. After all

A) British intelligence services had made some shoddy attempts to infiltrate groups like CND

such "infiltration" forms a self validation.The "the state's spying us, ergo we must be doing something to threaten them" mentality. A sort of ego ****.

(I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool....I associate for the common good, you conspire for selfish interest, they overthrow the world for Cthulu!)

I read voluminous quantities of conspiracy theory and elite theory and still somehow manage not to be anti-semitic or fascist, and on the issue of the Holocaust I'm down with 3rd Generation Holocaust Studies along with Zygmunt Bauman. Robert Anton Wilson (praise Bob!)

Look Kama if you can go four days of posting without mention Robert Anton Wilson I will donate 40 euros to the Santa Strike Force (boards christmas fund for childrens charities) Christ, you seem to think you're the only person who's read his work (I have a copy of prometheus rising on my book shelf)
Wilson's work was a satire on conspiracy theories based on his time answering readers letters on playboy.

I'm interested in the reactions to conspiracy theory, especially when someone claims it 'can't happen'. I'm also *very* interested in the logics and rhetorics of paranoia, and cognitive biases. Other than that I tend to read CT as expressions of fantasy and fear, and read that narrative to see what it suggests about our societies. That and because the Orbital Mind-Control Lasers make me do it!

Jesus mate would you lay off the post modern literary theory and read a book on economics.

With transparency and democratic consent, or not at all.

Wow are you, like, a political spin doctor? "With transparency and democratic consent"? I asked you, how this political revolution should take place, you've offered a four word glib platitude. Pray tell are you David Cameron? When you say transparency, do you suggest that every government official should list ever meeting with everyone? How pray tell do think that will work? Who will track this? How will this democratic consent occur? Should every government decision be referred to referendum?

Pretty basic on that point. Political revolutions without those are called coups, whether they are by military goons or men in suits drinking fine wines. I'm personally against that sort of thing.

Well yes, it's very easy to be against that sort of thing, it's a bit harder to come up with a working alternative.

I've spent time in a room full of anarchists trying to come to consensus, I'd rather herd a pack of cats that relive that experience.

Kama

Um Diogenes...I'll lay off mentioning *A Certain Someone I Like* if you lay off the Nazi references, would that be an acceptable deal? Or a bet? See who breaks first, sort of thing? 40 euro each to the SSF? I'd be game.

Anyway...sorry if I pissed you off, don't quite get why the vitriol tbh.

Wow are you, like, a political spin doctor? "With transparency and democratic consent"? I asked you, how this political revolution should take place, you've offered a four word glib platitude.

To be rhetorical: so you would prefer one based on secretive negotiation which bypasses democracy? Not being entirely glib here, that is effectively how I look at stuff like Bilderberg. Yes, thats easier in organizational terms, more 'efficient'. It also appears to provide a partial truth to what 'the crazies' say.

Pray tell are you David Cameron? When you say transparency, do you suggest that every government official should list ever meeting with everyone?

Frankly, yes. We live in a society in which surveillance through technologcal means is already advanced. If there are cameras in the street, I wouldn't mind them in the parliaments too; plenty of crooked types in both. This doesn't mean it has to be Big Brother popularity (time delays on release/limitations on access) but an exact record of the behaviour of our public figures could save us a lot of money on tribunal costs alone!

Since we already live in the age of the 'end of privacy', I don't think extending that upward is that bad an idea. As is endlessly repeated, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Plus it would deter corruption by its presence. Good idea that, cheers Diogenes, I'll put it in a campaign platform soon!

How will this democratic consent occur? Should every government decision be referred to referendum?

I don't think so; the demand isn't there for it. But to take large social decisions without democratic input or even a chance to say 'yes' or 'no' once in a while sounds a bit extreme too. Apparently this makes me a 'democratic fundamentalist'?

Well yes, it's very easy to be against that sort of thing, it's a bit harder to come up with a working alternative.

So...because collective decision-making is messy and its an effort to make decisions, we shouldn't try? And coups are ok? Am I reading this wrong? Fair point on the 'working alternative' though; not convinced that not having one means you should acquiesce, don't think that follows. But I agree, its much harder to make constructive, practical proposals than it is to soapbox, grandstand, or criticise. With you 100% on that.

I've spent time in a room full of anarchists trying to come to consensus, I'd rather herd a pack of cats that relive that experience.

Price of freedom is an eternal meeting; but I prefer cats to sheep, having some small experience of both.

So...we on for this bet? Ah nm, I'll just do my side of it, and we won't make it competitive

meglome

Diogenes wrote: »

I've spent time in a room full of anarchists trying to come to consensus, I'd rather herd a pack of cats that relive that experience.

You know this is one of the main problems I have with this Bilderberg Group. I've had many discussions, with many different people or all sorts of backgrounds over the years. And one of the most difficult things to do in these discussions was to reach a consensus, especially if it was a contentious topic. Now I'm expected to believe these powerful people/people who love power are going to be able to reach this consensus over matters big enough to effect the whole world? Or they are going to kowtow and be told what to do?

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Kama good posts.

Diogeness, are you -in the same way that 'Pastor' fred Phelps rails against 'fags' although he clearly is one- a closet Neo Nazi or something, I'm just trying to understand your fascination with outing anyone who purports something different to your very narrow world view as an evil NeoNazi Holocaist denier.

really go on admit it, you really dont like Jews and cant wait for the day you get to polish yer jackboots and march on Poland

What a profoundly offensive post and deeply poor insight, reported.

nyarlothothep

Diogenes wrote: »

Well yes, it's very easy to be against that sort of thing, it's a bit harder to come up with a working alternative.

I've spent time in a room full of anarchists trying to come to consensus, I'd rather herd a pack of cats that relive that experience.

The problem is that the capitalist/rule of elites system we have isn't the best, in fact its quite destructive to human concerns. Unjustified power structures are responsible for much of the worlds grief. Imo theres no need to come up with a working alternative, in terms of designing one or developing a complex system of rules etc. Its much better just to grow a new system instead by chipping away at unjustified power structures, by continually holding them to account and bringing their reality to the awareness of the public.

buddyonair

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem is that the capitalist/rule of elites system we have isn't the best, in fact its quite destructive to human concerns. Unjustified power structures are responsible for much of the worlds grief. Imo theres no need to come up with a working alternative, in terms of designing one or developing a complex system of rules etc. Its much better just to grow a new system instead by chipping away at unjustified power structures, by continually holding them to account and bringing their reality to the awareness of the public.

An interestinng point you got here.

Do you think they will adapt to a working alternative? So far it is been working out for them quite well, isn't?

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Um Diogenes...I'll lay off mentioning *A Certain Someone I Like* if you lay off the Nazi references, would that be an acceptable deal? Or a bet? See who breaks first, sort of thing? 40 euro each to the SSF? I'd be game.

To be rhetorical: so you would prefer one based on secretive negotiation which bypasses democracy? Not being entirely glib here, that is effectively how I look at stuff like Bilderberg. Yes, thats easier in organizational terms, more 'efficient'. It also appears to provide a partial truth to what 'the crazies' say.

I think if you spent your time pandering to the crazies you'd get nothing much done and they'd still not be satisfied.

Frankly, yes. We live in a society in which surveillance through technologcal means is already advanced. If there are cameras in the street, I wouldn't mind them in the parliaments too

There is. Parliamentary sessions in the UK and Dail sessions in Ireland are regularly televised. There are four C-Span channels in the US covering government meeting, senate sessions.

The problem is, you can put cameras on all our politicians the difficultly is in making people care all of them.

; plenty of crooked types in both. This doesn't mean it has to be Big Brother popularity (time delays on release/limitations on access) but an exact record of the behaviour of our public figures could save us a lot of money on tribunal costs alone!

See now you are simply talking about making politicians more accountable, and making politics more transparent. Something I doubt anyone would argue against. I certainly wouldn't.

Since we already live in the age of the 'end of privacy', I don't think extending that upward is that bad an idea. As is endlessly repeated, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Plus it would deter corruption by its presence. Good idea that, cheers Diogenes, I'll put it in a campaign platform soon!

Good luck with that. Regrettably the electorate in Ireland seem happy to perpetually re elected a shower of corrupt chancers.

And who are


I don't think so; the demand isn't there for it. But to take large social decisions without democratic input or even a chance to say 'yes' or 'no' once in a while sounds a bit extreme too. Apparently this makes me a 'democratic fundamentalist'?



So...because collective decision-making is messy and its an effort to make decisions, we shouldn't try? And coups are ok? Am I reading this wrong? Fair point on the 'working alternative' though; not convinced that not having one means you should acquiesce, don't think that follows. But I agree, its much harder to make constructive, practical proposals than it is to soapbox, grandstand, or criticise. With you 100% on that.



Price of freedom is an eternal meeting; but I prefer cats to sheep, having some small experience of both.

So...we on for this bet? Ah nm, I'll just do my side of it, and we won't make it competitive

No of course coups aren't okay. However what was it Churchill said about democracy. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Kama if you come up with a practical alternative I'll listen.

nyarlothothep

buddyonair wrote: »

An interestinng point you got here.

Do you think they will adapt to a working alternative? So far it is been working out for them quite well, isn't?

Yes, they will either adapt or be guillotined. Revolution! ahem, I mean evolution.

Kama

Hey again.

Firstly, thanks for the change in tone. Its appreciated, and (hopefully) means I'll be less glib and PoMo in response.

Secondly, though couched as a joke, I'm quite serious on the monitoring public servants. I don't think a public servant has the same rights to privacy as a private citizen, given the capacity for corrupt action evidenced by our country alone. GPS tag em, and full surveillance in the interests of transparency. Its a bit Panipticon, but I see no reason why surveillance should be imposed on the powerless, yet not the powerful. Full transparency in this sense would obviously be heavily resisted, but it would be technically feasible way in which confidence in the actions of public figures could be partially assured. 'Corrupt chancers' would be at least partially screened out; we accept surveillance in a myriad of jobs, I see no reason to make an exception.

As to the crazies, I'm not on about pandering to them; I was trying to make the point that developments that exceed democratic rein, such as Bilderberg, partially justify paranoid positions. I'm talking about *not* feeding them justification; Bilderberg etc does the opposite. Its a lot harder to refute, or even not accept, paranoid premises about world governments and so forth when things quite like what they are saying are happening. Yes, a paranoid over-amplifies perceptions of control, but equally they have a selective advantage at times in identifying them.

I'm glad we agree that coups, regardless of the faction making them, aren't on; I regard reconstruction of the world-system by a small elite as essentially a coup. Perhaps they have good intentions; perhaps they have heavily ideological agendas that the public doesn't agree with; perhaps they are sociopaths. But regrdless of motivation, the action itself seems undemocratic. The Churchill quote seems misplaced, since the Bilderberg phenomena does not seem to be what I would regard as a democracy, in any recognizable form. Churchill's quote often gets taken as meaning 'our current government type' rather than democracy, which makes for a very limiting and inherently conservative view on the scope of democratic possibility

Kama if you come up with a practical alternative I'll listen.

Well thats the 6,600,000,000-person question. I doubt I can answer it to your satisfaction, or mine, so neither of us will be happy at the end of this post.

Firstly, I reject the idea that not having a unified alternate plan means going along with the elite one. But I'm not a fan of bit(hing from the sideline either, its actually what annoys me about postmodernism as a social development. Irony, at best, destroys its object; but it tends not to create.

For a solution, we'd need to identify the problem; to me, thats represented by things ranging from the Bilderberg through the WTO to the European Commission; legislation without representation, in context of the retrenchment of the State. Whatever its faults, it had the advantage of being a site of democratic agonism, and a tool to serve and deliver goods to its citizens. Many of these functions have been 'outsourced', the span of choice narrowed and converged, and unsurprisingly politics becomes increasingly meaningless, in my view.

So in a way, I agree with the Bilderberg agenda, and disagree with teh (Godwins Law Here). We need a world government, we need a global demos, but the current forms aren't adequate, again I agree with 'Them'. But similarly to nyarlothothep, rather than imposing this from the top, in an auto-coup, this needs to be built from the ground up, as an open conspiracy; co-inspire...to breathe together. We agree there's a 'democratic deficit', nationally, supranationally, globally; how can it be filled? If its not filled, politics abhors a vacuum, and something else fills it, vide Bilderberg, the WTO, the GWOT, the Superclass, whatever...

I don't have an 'answer' (the idea of having 'an answer' then making other people agree seems counterproductive) but I do have models. In EU terms, subsidiarity; decisions should be taken at the lowest practical level. 'Open source' democracy attempts, like in the Transition Towns movement would be another. In the American experience, the citizens initiative, and the National Initiative for Democracy. In education, the Democratic Schools. On an economic level, Georgism and relocalization. On the global level, the Global Peace and Justice movement and Altermondialism in the face of a global war and a constant holocaust.

Now, thats a tall, vague and fuzzy order to fix basically a fu(ked world; and its just mine, so its hellah partial. Its not a 'practical solution', and its not a platform we can all climb aboard, but its things I think would be a direction worth moving in. Given the choice between falling in line with a globally exploitative system that is heavily dependent on war and manipulation as a bystander, or making some attempt to try and build something better, I don't really see a choice. I'm not up to the task; I don't think anyone is.

But the alternative is not leaving the house because of how terrible the world is, and how controlled we all are, and how we can't create anything different because everything is under control, and collapsing in a fatalist loop; we can't change anything because we don't try, we don't try because we can't; a conspiracy of impotence, and we're all colluding. I'm *far* more scared of this than I am of aliens, 2012, the Skull and Bones, Dick Cheney, and finding chemtrails in my lungs and Morgellons squeezing out through my armpits; CT for me is an amusing distraction from the *really* scary stuff, which is much more mundane and human, and sells less books.

The hope is, you look at people utterly convinced of their powerlessness and running scared, and you might just laugh and realise we are freer than we believe possible. Right, idealist /rant off. I'll go back to the tin-foil stuff now...

Frankie Lee

I'd just like to say I agree with everything Kama says.

Kama

W00t! If we can get 5 people then its officially a Cabal!

We can have meetings! I'll make cake!

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Hey again.

Firstly, thanks for the change in tone. Its appreciated, and (hopefully) means I'll be less glib and PoMo in response.

Secondly, though couched as a joke, I'm quite serious on the monitoring public servants. I don't think a public servant has the same rights to privacy as a private citizen, given the capacity for corrupt action evidenced by our country alone. GPS tag em, and full surveillance in the interests of transparency. Its a bit Panipticon, but I see no reason why surveillance should be imposed on the powerless, yet not the powerful. Full transparency in this sense would obviously be heavily resisted, but it would be technically feasible way in which confidence in the actions of public figures could be partially assured. 'Corrupt chancers' would be at least partially screened out; we accept surveillance in a myriad of jobs, I see no reason to make an exception.

But I'm sorry it is not an exception. Every TD, MEP and UK MP has to make a full and frank disclosure of his/her expenses and donations. Even civil servants. The front page of the Guardian on Saturday had a expose of detailing how the drugs industry pay for doctors to go to conferences, gained through the FoI act. The information is there. We do expect a higher standard from our public servants than the rest of us. Whether we get it or not is another thing. But consider this, McDowell's holiday home in Letrim. Can you think of another planning application that made front page news?

As to your GPS tracking and surveillance idea. Look we have enough trouble enticing people to join the civil service as it is. Would you take a job if meant you would be subjected to constant surveillance? Your every move tracked? Would you ever feel comfortable? Would you worry if you were called into work to explain why (for example) you were in the same room as a child sex offender, (as it happens it was Saturday night, you were at a pub, and never spoke to the man, but the GPS systems on both your trackers put you within five feet of each other?)

There's the privacy issue. How many politicians have been hounded out of a job by a sex scandal? Does this politicians sexuality, or actions have any effect on his job? If he/she is having an affair is it the business of the electorate? Or only the politician/ his signifcant other/ and whomever they are with? And how often do the press/the people give a damn. Did the Leowinsky affair matter to anyone next Hilary and Bill? Now consider what your suggestion of constant surveillance could do to a decent hardworking man or woman.

As to the crazies, I'm not on about pandering to them; I was trying to make the point that developments that exceed democratic rein, such as Bilderberg, partially justify paranoid positions. I'm talking about *not* feeding them justification; Bilderberg etc does the opposite. Its a lot harder to refute, or even not accept, paranoid premises about world governments and so forth when things quite like what they are saying are happening. Yes, a paranoid over-amplifies perceptions of control, but equally they have a selective advantage at times in identifying them.

Look, I have friends who are members of small businesswomen associations, they meet, they socialise, they trade contacts, County Councillors and MPs often attend. What you are talking about his economies of scale, a social event where decisions of made, just the scale is different. Should both be banned. Both this and bilderberg meeting are essentially the same things. Whats the difference?

Furthermore, how do you identify when we need to start GPS and constant surveillance someone? Every TD? MEP? Ever civil servant? How do we monitor these people? You'll need an even larger bureaucracy to monitor out own bureaucracy. I count among my friends doctors, civil servants, members of the DDP. Honestly Kama you're basically suggesting that the film "Brazil" as an ideal, or that we should all go ahead and get wall screens, alla 1984.

Honestly if you want freedom, you need to accept a degree of corruption, and a degree of corruption will go unpunished. No system is perfect.

I'm glad we agree that coups, regardless of the faction making them, aren't on; I regard reconstruction of the world-system by a small elite as essentially a coup. Perhaps they have good intentions; perhaps they have heavily ideological agendas that the public doesn't agree with; perhaps they are sociopaths. But regrdless of motivation, the action itself seems undemocratic. The Churchill quote seems misplaced, since the Bilderberg phenomena does not seem to be what I would regard as a democracy, in any recognizable form. Churchill's quote often gets taken as meaning 'our current government type' rather than democracy, which makes for a very limiting and inherently conservative view on the scope of democratic possibility

So what you are suggesting is that a quiet informal meeting of politicians and businesspeople should be forbidden.

Well thats the 6,600,000,000-person question. I doubt I can answer it to your satisfaction, or mine, so neither of us will be happy at the end of this post.

Firstly, I reject the idea that not having a unified alternate plan means going along with the elite one. But I'm not a fan of bit(hing from the sideline either, its actually what annoys me about postmodernism as a social development. Irony, at best, destroys its object; but it tends not to create.

For someone who is annoyed by postmodernism, you seem quite attached to it as concept, this isn't an insult, or barb, just an observation.

For a solution, we'd need to identify the problem; to me, thats represented by things ranging from the Bilderberg through the WTO to the European Commission; legislation without representation, in context of the retrenchment of the State. Whatever its faults, it had the advantage of being a site of democratic agonism, and a tool to serve and deliver goods to its citizens. Many of these functions have been 'outsourced', the span of choice narrowed and converged, and unsurprisingly politics becomes increasingly meaningless, in my view.

So in a way, I agree with the Bilderberg agenda, and disagree with teh (Godwins Law Here). We need a world government, we need a global demos, but the current forms aren't adequate, again I agree with 'Them'. But similarly to nyarlothothep, rather than imposing this from the top, in an auto-coup, this needs to be built from the ground up, as an open conspiracy; co-inspire...to breathe together. We agree there's a 'democratic deficit', nationally, supranationally, globally; how can it be filled? If its not filled, politics abhors a vacuum, and something else fills it, vide Bilderberg, the WTO, the GWOT, the Superclass, whatever...

I've snipped all your examples, because I'm sorry they all are small localised groups. Trying to achieve that consensus among people beyond a few thousand becomes remarkably more complex. The sheer diversity and complexity of international trade. Consider this the school you give as an example. Suppose they needed new computers? Now suppose the computers were built using the self same "democratic principles" the school is built under. The plastics are made in China. The motherboard in Taiwan. The LCD in India, the OS in America, the hardrive in Limerick. And now imagine there's no one overall guiding organising planning from one company. Feck me these things are badly designed when completed by one company with overall control.

Do you really think such a system would work designing a car? Planning global trade? Pharmaceutical research?

Secondly and again I'm sorry Kama, you're a salmon swimming against the tide. People aren't interested in politics. Getting people to take an active part in such a simple thing like voting is hard enough. Getting people to look beyond their own needs. For example, many people will happily pay a few extra pennies for fair trade coffee, because they know/think/feel the cash will go to a good cause, but if you were to suggest to that they people should go without cheap clothes, cheap consumer goods, cheap food, it's a little harder.

But the alternative is not leaving the house because of how terrible the world is, and how controlled we all are, and how we can't create anything different because everything is under control, and collapsing in a fatalist loop; we can't change anything because we don't try, we don't try because we can't; a conspiracy of impotence, and we're all colluding. I'm *far* more scared of this than I am of aliens, 2012, the Skull and Bones, Dick Cheney, and finding chemtrails in my lungs and Morgellons squeezing out through my armpits; CT for me is an amusing distraction from the *really* scary stuff, which is much more mundane and human, and sells less books.

The hope is, you look at people utterly convinced of their powerlessness and running scared, and you might just laugh and realise we are freer than we believe possible. Right, idealist /rant off. I'll go back to the tin-foil stuff now...

Well exactly, my issue is with CTers is that the issues are so much more complex and I try and suggest that people look at the idiotic theories with a degree of scepticism and then begin to examine the real problems, rather than holographic planes, controlled demolition of WTC and the sinister Bilderberg group.

Kama

Thanks for the measured response. As said, I wouldn't be able to give you a pragmatic solution to our collective problems, wish I could. I agree the surveillance concept is totalitarian, and has severe privacy implications, and then scale/span/intensity issues. But its a direction which we are moving in, both technologically and socially, anyway, so the costs both in implementation and privacy are steadily shrinking. Tracking through data-mining from multiple traces are already moving towards this; we already all carry mobiles being the cheap example.

So what you are suggesting is that a quiet informal meeting of politicians and businesspeople should be forbidden.

If the results of the decisions that those quiet businesspeople make cause crowds of the local village, excluded from the decision-making process, to gather outside protesting, I'd definitely think about making them open meetings...

For someone who is annoyed by postmodernism, you seem quite attached to it as concept, this isn't an insult, or barb, just an observation.

And you seem quite allergic to it. Also an observation. Like any tool, it has uses and problems. But is has a certain affinity with CT, for better or worse. You can be attached to something and annoyed by it, I get that a lot.


On Salmon and Solutions:

I hope I'm swimming against the stream; if you don't like where you are being carried, its that or apathy. Not swimming hard enough yet, but hey...

Yes all the examples were localised, they were models or examples of things people have been doing or are developing. If they were 'done' already, it wouldn't be necessary. Some of them, like Transition Towns, have exceptional growth rates as social movements, and are leveraging social awareness into change, and most have (relative) ease of implementation. I'm not pushing for some kind of immediate autarky on some kind of commune, hand-building steampunk PDA's from potatoskins; a lot of the localist argument is that the world-system is highly vulnerable to systemic shocks, of which the current fave is liquid fuels and energy, though food and water supply are also key.

The objective is not to instantly replace everything with a shiny new world designed by Kama and Friends, but that when shocks come, you have greater resilience to them. Our current system appears highly vulnerable, and has very few failsafes, because redundancy is often uneconomic, especially if the risk is priced low: as subprime seemed to show, risk in derivatives was consistently underpriced. Especially if you assume, even as hedged bet, a Peak Oil scenario, there are similar risks on the more mundane material economic level. Relocalization can reduce the impact of those risks.

As said, I can't see any 'solutions' yet; I look for things which appear hopeful as trends; its a partial antidote to my innate pessimism.

Do you really think such a system would work designing a car?

I don't know, so I'll cede the point. I'd need to know more on collaborative democratic design, but I believe there are movements towards this coming from open source design principles. But I haven't seen any hard enough examples to try and argue it.

Planning global trade?

Yes, I would much prefer if global trade was more democratically based, I don't think I'm alone in that. Negotiating strategies like Green Room lockouts at the WTO are almost exactly what I mean by untransparent and exclusionary legislation without representation. It might be efficient, but its not right.

Pharmaceutical research?

I think pharmaceutical research would work a lot better without current patent law, with freer sharing of research information, with a marginal effect on incentive. Transparency isn't democracy, but...

Secondly and again I'm sorry Kama, you're a salmon swimming against the tide.

I'll take that as a compliment, even if it saddens you; and unlike streams, tides flow back again. If the tide was going that way to begin with, I wouldn't be qq'ing so much and pointing out small wavelets turning back against the general trend.

A question though: do you disagree primarily in principle, or on pragmatic grounds?

look at the idiotic theories with a degree of scepticism and then begin to examine the real problems, rather than holographic planes, controlled demolition of WTC and the sinister Bilderberg group.

Exactly. Now, I've said what my 'conspiracy' is, both in terms of what I think is going wrong, and what I blame, and what scares me. I'm curious if you could tell me what yours are? What are the 'real problems'?

(Besides loony CT heads and PoMo longwinded fools such as myself )

And thanks again for your developed and thought-provoking response.