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.)
(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.
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.
They don't have the power of the state behind them.
No, they have the power of many states behind them, both through corruption and plain economic stranglehold.
In any case, who do you think participates in the Bilderberg group?
The 2009 meeting participants in Greece included: Greek prime minister Kostas Karamanlis; Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen; Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt; U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg; U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner; World Bank president Robert Zoellick; President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso; Queen Sofia of Spain; and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands.
Not that I give much credence to the conspiracy theories.
(From the Bio)
Frank Albo is a PhD student under the supervision of David Watkin and James Stevens Curl. His doctoral research focuses on the influence of Freemasonry in the Nineteenth Century British Gothic Revival. His publications explore Masonic interactions and networks in British and French architecture and garden design, including recent work on the architect Charles Robert Cockerell for Le Monde Maçonnique à l'époque des Lumières (2012). He is presently a Wingate and Canada Council Award scholar at Peterhouse.
Ask him about bilderberg sometime, if you have an hour and a half to listen.
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.
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.)