Where the influential people meet and talk

I love the way this is couched.Your publication has mentioned these meetings only 5 times in the last 10 years.The reason you are writing now like this is because there is so much information out there and the time is right to set the record "straight".
The way you suggest that Bill Gates meets a few bankers and the chairman of Shell, oh and the PM of Spain as well is misleading.Perhaps the public should see the full list from years past of who attended and when.This is global elitism at its worst.If you are a politician in a democracy you should stand by your word whether you are talking to us proles or the elite.
With regards to media, the media owners attend Bilderberg on a regular basis Murdoch, Kathleen Graham, Conrad Black have all been over the years.Why? We can't ever know this but the truth is emerging now and this is why these types of articles appear to nullify the head of steam being built up outside of the ivory towers inhabited by the elite.When politicians attend as they do then this is NOT democracy.Accountability is necessary for a proper democracy not a sham.Surely politicians have a DUTY to reveal to the electorate their honest opinions and to justify them to the public if they are controversial. Reporters also have a moral duty to reveal to the public what the leaders of our institutions are planning so we can make the same informed decisions that these elite are able to make.

Thanks so much for admitting that. Now let's see some people get arrested. It is illegal under the Logan Act for U.S. government officials to meet behind closed doors with leaders of foreign countries. And that's NOT a conspiracy theory.

This so-called "special report" by an anonymous author who seems to be enjoying the privilege of having access to his royal whatever Mr. Davignon, is a perfect example of disingenuous and lazy journalism at best, or a classic carefully gauged hit-piece at worst. Starting with the condescending use of the word conspiracy with the word theory, which seems to be the establishment's weapon of choice to discredit any investigative journalism or legitimate fact based info that gets leaked, or even the official publications and white papers of these untouchable, above-the-law groups like Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission etc. which clearly state their missions, activities and goals.

As the previous comments on this page state, it is certainly not a "theory" that these meetings are attended by elected government officials who are banned from meeting with other countries' elected officials, let alone kings and queens and chat "candidly", off the record, behind closed doors, under absolute secrecy, with the protection of armies of secret service, with absolutely zero accountability to the peoples or governments who elected them and who presumably pay their salaries.

Reality is not faith, but knowledge based! There are obviously many who are inclined to believe in the fantastical speculations. Some believe Bilderbergers are hiding the cure for cancer, some believe they are shape-shifting lizard creatures from outer space. And, disingenuous journalists like the one here make sure they pepper their articles with this kind of nonsense to nullify any legitimate argument or concern about why these "most influential" people whose loyalties are extremely questionable, who actually get their influence from the people and their wealth they represent, who somehow have the right to meet secretly, decide on issues secretly and act on these decisions, and influence the lives (and deaths) of billions of people around the globe. "So when it makes recommendations, they can be turned into action...."

The dumb-masses, the bottom-feeders, the cannon fodder of the past are not so dumb anymore.... If you are a serious publication as you claim to be, you will have to write a "Very, very, very special report" about these meetings which have dire repercussions, and not this giddy report that is less respectable than a gossip column about some charity event attended by celebrities.

I agree with the writer of this article that the fact that the world's power brokers meet behind closed doors in off-the-record talks each year at Bilderberg and other "elite" conferences is not a conspiracy theory, but an openly-admitted fact (even if that openly-admitted fact was once derided as a "conspiracy theory").

Fundamentally, this is not about conspiracy but about ideology. On one side are the 6,000 or so members of what ex-Kissinger Group Director David Rothkopf self-aggrandizingly termed the "Superclass," with their ability to form cross-border alliances and intrigues behind closed doors (protected by security and intelligence forces paid for by the taxpayers, of course) in order to further the aims of what Georgetown professor and Clinton mentor Carroll Quigley identified as the Anglo-American Establishment. On the other side is the vast mass of humanity who in no way benefit from the trillions of dollars being pumped into private banks through the privately-owned central banks which the citizenry cannot even audit, let alone control.

There is an international system of control that has nothing to do with "left" or "right", "Republican" or "Democrat", "Tory" or "Whig" or any other meaningless distinctions that serve to keep the masses distracted from the unified behind-the-scenes effort to consolidate ever more power and wealth in ever fewer hands. And for some reason anyone who actually dares to speak out against this ideology is denigrated and attacked with spurious strawman arguments by the press, including the Economist (which, to be fair, has finally admitted that its editor is a frequent Bilderberg attendee who has been listening to these closed-door discussions for years under a strict promise never to report on them).

The question to the Economist is this: Is there any possible way in which a system of private meetings by the world's most powerful people could work against the interests of the people? And do you see any possible reason why the public should ever be allowed to know what decisions their "leaders" are making at such conferences?

The comments are better than the article. I remember when there was flat out denial that Bilderberg even existed. The proverbial cat is out the bag and no amount of damage control can put the cat back in.

So where's your mea culpa? Just once I would like to see you and your despicable, globalist, parasitic brethren and the rest of the media come clean and apologize to people like me who accurately and completely called out you scumbags going back to the late 90s. Instead of owning up to your non-sovereign, transnationalist, feudalistic ideology, you exsanguinating little quislings reacted with lies, omissions, ridicule and attacks on anyone with the courage and discernment to raise awareness of your treasonous agenda.

To say that I hate you people is a colossal understatement. Everything that I do is in direct defiance of your control grid and I WILL NEVER YIELD! I don't take my orders from Brussels, acknowledge or recognize your political marionettes, or in any way acquiesce to your tyranny. I hoard and store food, fuel, metals, NON-GMO seeds, ammunition, and reject with enthusiasm your poisonous vaccines. I drive huge fuel-hungry vehicles, burn wood, and maintain a huge green lawn. I don't use your credit, patronize your banksters, or buy your cheap, lead-based Chinese crap!

Resistance IS victory! You will NEVER win even if you prevail. There is a special place in hell for every one of you globalists and the sooner you all get there the better.

The answer to 1984 is 1776!

V

Umm... makes you wonder how nothing has changed and nothing will change. Power in the hands of a few, the old boys network, who decide for and on-behalf of others. And then we preach democracy. Who knows maybe real democracy - which transcends ideology - exists only on Mars and Venus.
Who knows, maybe we should ask NASA!

Is it not amazing, the world of free press, to first actively participate in "covering up" the simple existence of this Bilderberg Group, then to turn around and announce it's agenda, plans and the verification it does in fact exists, after 60 years of smearing people into believing it did not.

How many lives destroyed, reputations ruined, based on a simple lie, compounded by main stream media including the Economist, actively taking part in this apparent voluntary censorship of free and independent media.

I would say, you should first of all be ashamed of your selves calling your own staff journalists, and secondly, don't be surprised when they start dragging you guys off to Gitco to further censor whatever reality the financial powers wish to portray in the future.

Now ask your selves this; "Does the Economist and other main stream media believe it has any credibility left, or do you understand now why alternative media is experiencing such a massive upswing?"

In support of waycoolsnoopy, Alex Jones, Infowars(DOT)com and other people with their heads and hearts in the right places...

The answer to 1984 is 1776

VVV VVV
VVV VVV
VVV VVV
VVV VVV
VVV VVV
VVVVVV

This reminds of the articles that claim that although there is a world government being set up through the financial system, anyone who claims there is a world government or New World Order is a crazy conspiracy theorist. It is worth noting that The Economist and every other establishment publication claimed the Bilderberg Group did not even exist until a few short years ago. Now the propaganda has shifted to, "it exists but the richest and most powerful people meeting together has nothing to do with what actually happens in the world and even if it did, they are all wonderful humanitarians so the little people have nothing to fret about."
The claim that the global financial crisis caught the globocrats "napping" is absolutely ludicrous. Anyone listening to alternative media knew the financial crisis was coming, and the alternative media was getting that information from sources at Bilderberg and from other establishment think tanks publicly available material. Is it just a coincidence that the richest 1% have vastly increased their wealth through the "crisis?" I don't think so.

By the way, the elite should be prepared to see a lot of these posted everywhere, including their "water coolers," pretty soon.

V V V V V V

Yeah,so I suppose the Economist will all together drop the lousy act that they are an objective news organization and get on with admitting they are propagandists. I for one am truly sickened by the monthly hit pieces published regarding Thailand and the Economist's undying support for globalist shoe-shiner Thaksin Shinwatra.

I'm tired of people holding up the Economist as if its some sort reputable source. When its damage control at best for the "Globalcrat's" agenda, and a shameless promoter of their cause. I guess your valiant editor wouldn't get invited back to anymore plutocratic confabs if he wasn't good at shining shoes at least as well as Thailand's Thaksin Shinwatra?

Danphillips. You seem to be confusing privacy with secrecy, minister with sinister, co-option with corruption...

And I don't get your point... Are you saying "let them run the world without accountability, there is nothing wrong with that" or something to that effect???

Hilarious article.

The author obviously doesn't really understand exactly what he wrote. For example: "Because the meetings are off the record, they are catnip to conspiracy theorists. But the attraction for participants is obvious. They can speak candidly, says Mr Davignon, without worrying how their words might play in tomorrow’s headlines. So they find out what other influential people really think. Big ideas are debated frankly."

So, what he's saying effectively, is that all these people from wherever they come, do NOT speak candidly or frankly except in fora like this one.

The article seems to be a nothing article full of blah. I found the comments much more informative and interesting.

NWO filth. You think that by stating the painfuly obvious that you can hide in the open? You think we didnt know the Economist was a NWO lackey mouthpeice before your admission? Oh, sure all these billionare pluto-globocrats are secretly meeting for the benefit of us "small people", right. What kind of sheep believes these fairy tales? All you want is brain-dead and manipulated consumer monkeys. You should just come out and say that as well. We know its true. Vermin.

I used to read "The Economist" religiously. I would wait every week for the online version on Thursday nights because I couldn't wait for the printed magazine to arrive.

To realize that articles written in the Economist, is a complete lie was shocking. The Economist Group is controlled by Evelyn Robert de Rothschild. This is not hidden information.

So now you have the sick joke that the Economist claims that we are ruled by a cabal of rich plutocrats but if you believe it then you are crazy.

This past week in the US has been an orgy of praise by the mainstream media for the Chinese Communist model. Literal, actual worship of President Hu. Red communist flags hanging from every lamp-post in Washington, DC. At the White House, Lang Lang played the famous battle hymn of China during the Korean War which includes lyrics about killing Americans like jackals. The Chinese people were told to tune in for the live TV feed of Lang Lang humiliating the Americans in the White House. China works for the New World Order. The US saved China from the Japanese in WWII, and then stopped giving arms to Chiang Kai-shek and put Mao into power in 1949. This is declassified by the Pentagon.

This would not be so bad if the US did not have traitors running the Pentagon, both political Parties, and the largest American corporations. How many times has Obama bowed down to foreign leaders? He's bowed down to President Hu, the Saudi King, the Emperor of Japan, and the Queen of England. Clinton gave China the MRV (Multiple Re-entry Vehicle) nuclear missile technology in the 90's. Ron Brown threatened to tell the truth about Clinton's sell-out and they shot him in the head. Every piece of technology that the US sells to Israel is then sold to China as well. The Germans sent up spy satellites, pretending that they were designed to measure "Global Warming". WTC Building 7 falling without a plane hitting it. Will the Economist post any stories on any of these facts?

Alex Jones and Infowars is so much better than the Economist.

-V for Victory

Very interesting to know that those influential people decide if and when USA attacks a country in Asia,South America,Africa or elsewhere.
What else can they decide,like elimination of foreign leaders and emperors ?

DID BILDERBERG GROUP LET KILL HAILE SELASSIE ? ?

http://www.cyberethiopia.com/warka4/viewtopic.php?t=42636&start=0

Democracy is dead. Policy is no longer entrusted to a political body elected by the people based on the power to choose but decided by a self-serving, self agrandizing and self-regulated power formed of wealth and power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus do we regularly change our democratically elected representatives to prevent the cancer setting in. But these bloated globocrats have long wallowed in the murk and mire of self-appointed power with no safe removal and are thus rotten to the core.

Distended, porcine embodiments of opulence and arrogance they consider themselves new Olympians and we their idiotic subjects. Their interests are not our interests. The world they occupy is not the world we inhabit. The elite, by very definition, are incapable of representing the status quo. Thus do the people of the world find themselves gradually enslaved, starved, murdered and degraded.

But all people are not idiots. There are still free minds and free thinkers, untainted by the hypnotic machinery of the globalist empire. Know this, globalists and willing servants of those who purport to introduce a new order to the world, we see past your arena games, your flashy distractions and your attempts to divide us into minor tribes. We see past your false propaganda and we're taking down names.

We are the resistance. We are legion. We are Anonymous.

In the coming months, listen to us roar.

You might want to think twice before ever using anything written in the Economist as the basis for any business or financial decision ever again.

They openly admit the editor is hobnobbing with the "Globocratic" elite of the planet. Do you honestly think they're going to put "journalistic integrity" ahead of doing a favor or propelling the agenda of these king-rats?

If you spent a day or two ever independently researching news, finance, or economics, you'd realize there's none-to-be-found as far as journalistic integrity, honesty, or even fact is concerned within the pages of the Economist.

I really hope the 2008 crash, and how loyal shoe-shiners like the Economist kept it covered up until it was far too late for the average investor spurs people to research things for themselves, seek information from the alternative media, or begin reporting and writing honestly and for the betterment of mankind themselves.

Peace.