The list of names has got fuck all to do with Alex Jones. Maybe you could address the content and not shoot the messenger. No wonder people are so sensitive when the same incredibly stupid arguments get put forward so often.
"AJ's a retard" doesn't detract from any of the information or what potential discussions these people have. And to everyone who sees nothing wrong and points out that there is no proof of any type of conspiratorial discussions happening at these meetings, consider this. Pick nearly any of these people from the list (especially someone like Kissinger/Perle/Alexander etc) and tell me why you think they will be talking about nice fluffy things? It makes perfectly logical sense that when two or more pieces of shit get together with track records of being so and discuss things, it's likely they aren't talking about democracy.
Agreed, Jones is full of shit. If you asked the man how to bake a cake, he'd tell you the first ingredient is beef. I immediately step back with disbelief when he's involved.
it just gets back to the root of how you do research and provide info. some want an original source (me). Others want an editorial that tells them not what, but what to think (people who watch fox news, cnn, and read infowars).
And then there are people who see that reality is so much more complicated than that. The lack of an original source does not prove anything. Editorials that sell narratives aren't completely useless either - it's worth noting who it is that wants to sell you a story, and what that story is.
He's right on most stuff, he comes of as conservative if you're coming out of the left wing of the fake as hell right vs left manufactured political theater up kept by billionaires sponging government welfare to prop up their fake media empires.
Check his sources. I used to be a huge fan, loved his documentaries, listened to the radio show, etc, but I noticed over time, he's lost it. I think 'they' got to him. Quite a few of the articles on his page are outright fake, his sources are usually shoddy at best, and his methods are loony. He just comes off as insane and he lacks credence. Like most disinformation agents, it's lies with sprinkles of truth.
He's certainly on the money on vaccinations and fluoride, that's for certain along with those damned FEMA camps, or what Obama calls "indefinite detention centers".
Couldn't believe I found a FEMA camp video from Rachael Maddow on Rockefeller MSNBC.
I also think he's right about Assange and Snowden too, in terms of limited hangout theory as they're CIA frontrunners to prime the public for the massive surveillance state, the first helped to destabilize sovereign middle eastern nations.
Alex Jones isn't the only independent media journalists saying this either,
I think he turned around 2006. Just too much of what he says isn't based in fact. Certainly, he was spot on several times, but I listened to his radio show too many times hearing him trying to predict the next 9/11 with no results at all. He's a sensationalist. I'm thankful that he opened the veil for me, but I think today, he's pulling a whole new veil in front of the people that trust him. Who's to say that he himself isn't an agent to soften us up either? And reporting geopolitical corruption isn't exactly difficult; in the world today, it's harder to find a story about a sincere politician that isn't shoveling money in his pockets under the table.
I only started listening to him recently and he certainly does a lot of prophetizing, sometimes his over reaction is laughable but the base of his arguments is unfortunately true.
So is he priming us for the new world order? Coming out of the fake right vs left paradox only two to three months ago and finding Alex only this May of 2014, he's still very insulated from the mainstream public as a racist Libertarian gun loving nutjob, not a lot of mainstreamers are into the "conspiracies" of the truth movement, however there's a lot of potential as people are becoming increasing resentful and intrusting of the governing establishment.
I'm personally finding a lot of new stuff from Alex's perspective, however after seeing this aptly named "Snowjob", I too would prefer to keep a multitude of sources then to stick to a messiah of sorts, as the sheep are doing with sold out Greenwald and Chomsky.
It's certainly not a bad thing to be skeptical, I can understand your criticisms of Alex Jones.
I think you're right ton Alex Jones, I starting digging and found some good blogs discussing the issue of Jones. Mostly what I found was that he's Zionist shill using fear mongering to control and bottle conspirators and free thinkers alike.
Makes me also wonder about the stuff he's peddling, nascent iodine, etc, if its all garbage as well.
Part of the reason the downvotes are coming is because Alex Jones is in the title. More and more ppl are questioning his motives and who is behind infowars.
Hmm if i was part of the government and i know most people in the usa believes in one or more conspiracy's i would feed them so much they couldn't see what was real and what wasn't . And i then lead them to where i want them. I think they are trying to prepare us for the coming age. Plus go and talk to some old people about the way people used to be and you will find out that most people didn't care about human life at all and seen the world end a very different way. Trust me things are getting better even with all the crazy in the world today.
It could be they were hoping for a different source to get a better score therefore being seen by more people and keeping people from going to info wars.
The nature of the people that visit this sub is to be suspicious. If there is someone out there that makes a name for themself, speaking of conspiracies and things of that nature, the audience they would have is the exact same people that would believe that they have ulterior motives. It's basically the people that ask questions of the government eating their own .
Jesus idk how many more times I can say this, nobody can pick up on sarcasm on reddit! Sarcasm is expressed in tone of voice and facial expression, which are not included in the written (or typed) word.
Edit: Funny joke I guess. Can we figure some way to denote sarcasm on reddit?
I've seen a lot of evidence that points toward ties between Infowars and Ted Turner. Yes, Jones puts out some good information I will not deny that, but any legitimate controlled opposition outlet HAS to deliver some goods to the viewers; otherwise they will lose the audience. I was a big Alex Jones fan for years, but his work on the Turner owned (and total BS show IMO) truTv's "Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory" along with his appearance in 2 motion pictures make me apprehensive.
Turner's business partner the now deceased Boris Berezovsky was involved in starting up anti-government media outlets in Russia in the 90's, some of these actually inspired armed insurrections resulting in deaths. Sometimes Jones likes to encourage people here in the US to maybe do something similar.
this is pretty much the exact thing that was done in Russia .... he talks about russian nukes being in the air and telling everyone to evacuate cities ASAP etc etc
that's clearly a wierd thing he's done, with the y2k russian nuke thing. truly disappointing.
But it was about 15 years ago and listening to the man everyday for the past three years, I can see for myself he's clearly not a false prophet.
He never ever mentions knights of Malta, which is a huge red flag.
Knights of Malta are extremely influential and almost always destructive. Silvio Berlusconi, George H.W Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Precott Bush, Tony Blair, Michael Chertoff, Rudy Giuliani, J. Edgar Hoover, Rupert Murdock, Amschel Mayer von Rothschild, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner.
Makes you wonder why he(a christian) won't report on conspiracies regarding knights of malta(a christian corp). He's also very soft on Jesuits and their reach.
I've heard callers question him about the Jesuits and the KoM several times on-air and he quickly diverts the conversation, or ends the call. However, I wouldn't discount all information he puts out just because he's reluctant to discuss either group. The Ted Turner information above is of more concern to me, particularly Turner's deceased partner's activities in starting anti-government media agencies.
One thing I hate about conspiracy theories in general is that so many of the loudest community members can't be bothered to take spelling seriously. If you can't even write the name of what you're talking about, no one is going to take you seriously.
I noticed a fairly strange name in that list - Kasim Reed is the mayor of Atlanta, GA. Why in the world is he in attendance for this? If you live in/around Atlanta you are probably aware that there is quite a buzz in the air with new things being built basically everywhere constantly (two new sports stadiums coming up by 2017). Seeing his name here makes me really contemplate what the future plans for Atlanta could be. Thoughts?
Right, but the title makes it sound like InfoWars got it.
On a side note, I would assume that the REASON it keeps getting deleted is because multiple people are posting it, seeing as the top 2 threads right now in /r/conspiracy are about the exact same thing.
To further my point, on the InfoWars site where this is posted: "Below see Paul Joseph Watson’s latest article revealing this year’s agenda from inside sources"
I recognize few of the names, offices or companies. Why do these unelected assholes have power over us? Also, I suspect many of them are just the representatives of wealthy monsters. We're not supposed to recognize their names but we would recognize their owners.
Is there any demonstrable evidence that these Bilderberg meetings amount to anything? It's not illegal to get together and discuss politics, governments, companies, policy etc. I get that it is frightening that all of these powerhouses all meet in one place, but what is the problem? What are we fearing these meetings for?
You think they're discussing the latest Rangers game and this weekend's weather?
These are the people deciding what life will be like for millions (billions?) of the rest of us. Many are "elected" officials and they come from countries all over the world. You don't see a problem with them meeting in secret and not disclosing any details about what was discussed/planned there?
You think they're discussing the latest Rangers game and this weekend's weather?
I have absolutely no clue what they are discussing. That is why I asked. Do you know? I am sure it would be very interesting.
These are the people deciding what life will be like for millions (billions?) of the rest of us.
Evidence of this?
Many are "elected" officials and they come from countries all over the world.
So? While fishy, it is not illegal.
You don't see a problem with them meeting in secret and not disclosing any details about what was discussed/planned there?
When a detailed list is released that tells us who is going and where its going to be then I wouldn't really consider these meetings secret. Private as fuck? Yes. But I wouldn't call them a secret. But yeah, I do kinda wish I knew what they talked about and that is why I asked if there was evidence demonstrating that we should actually care about these meetings.
Type some of those names in Google dude, my dude. This is very simple stuff. You can start with Henry Kissinger.
But I wouldn't call them a secret.
Does the public have any idea what goes on in the meetings? Nope. If asked, will any Bilderbergers answer questions about what goes on in the meetings? Nope.
Seems pretty secret to me.
that is why I asked if there was evidence demonstrating that we should actually care about these meetings.
I'll ask you again to look at the list of names and do some research on who these people are and the things they've done over the last 50+ years. These are globalists and powerful people in all industries and from all around the world. If you don't see why we should care about these meetings and what goes on in them then I really don't know what else to tell you.
Alright I swear to Moloch im not shilling here, but I had a professor in college who went to bilderberg a couple years back. We asked her about it during lecture one day and she said its basically a time for leaders to talk shop without the media getting all up in their faces. She said the reason for the secrecy is to encourage frank discussions.
She was a researcher on neuroethics and went with the goal of getting other leaders to think more realistically about so called "study drugs"
These conferences and think tanks work the same way as secret societies and religions. There is a hierarchy and as you advance, you gain additional knowledge. Bilderberg and bohemian grove (which you are referencing with your moloch joke) are both organized in this fashion. There are many discussion groups and speakers are invited to take part in the outer circle discussions to provide insights on their specialties. In this years conference, there are two chinese banking ministers invited. They clearly aren't going to be privy to the real occidentalist discussions that the meeting is based around.
You know there very well may be just innocent talks, think tank strategy discussions attempting to solve the ills of the world. However, it is the side bars with powerful leaders and corporate business men, this is where info and directions are passed, this is where real decisions are made....main group is a cover, oh and I'm sure many things are done prior to this meeting, i.e. ok lets meet and discuss or convince at the meeting....
I hate to be THAT guy, but will you please share the name of your professor who claims to have attended? I'd be very curious how she received an invite while nut-peddling away as a college professor...
Sounds like his prof went in more of an 'advisory' capacity. I would imagine they invite all sorts of experts in their field, but that they see only the outer circle of meetings that go on. Publicly reported meetings & seminars would lend the whole thing legitimacy, but the real Bilderberg stuff would go on behind closed doors that the researchers & other experts never even know exists.
The nature of the people that visit this sub is to be suspicious. If there is someone out there that makes a name for themself, speaking of conspiracies and things of that nature, the audience they would have is the exact same people that would believe that they have ulterior motives. It's basically the people that ask questions of the government eating their own .
I've heard callers question him about the Jesuits and the KoM several times on-air and he quickly diverts the conversation, or ends the call. However, I wouldn't discount all information he puts out just because he's reluctant to discuss either group. The Ted Turner information above is of more concern to me, particularly Turner's deceased partner's activities in starting anti-government media agencies.
102 comments
38 SameShit2piles 2014-05-27
Zenof gets the credit for the link, please look for it. I did not post that as to not arise instant downvotes.
49 Zenof 2014-05-27
Thanks for your help :3
edit: removed link, apparently they are monitoring and bombarding and votes are vanishing.
Click on my name > submitted > and it will be the first link
16 spaceman77 2014-05-27
My god all you quality reddit posters should have a separate site or subreddit where there is no voting.
Just posting of stories that we can see and enjoy.
7 bonehowler45 2014-05-27
no down voting? I like this idea.
1 _one_word_answers_ 2014-05-27
Pictures of kittens get enough upvotes to crowd out any post here.
1 Ketomaa 2014-05-27
But then bots would win as well voting up shills :/
-22 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
8 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
-6 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
23 Conspiracy_Account 2014-05-27
The list of names has got fuck all to do with Alex Jones. Maybe you could address the content and not shoot the messenger. No wonder people are so sensitive when the same incredibly stupid arguments get put forward so often.
"AJ's a retard" doesn't detract from any of the information or what potential discussions these people have. And to everyone who sees nothing wrong and points out that there is no proof of any type of conspiratorial discussions happening at these meetings, consider this. Pick nearly any of these people from the list (especially someone like Kissinger/Perle/Alexander etc) and tell me why you think they will be talking about nice fluffy things? It makes perfectly logical sense that when two or more pieces of shit get together with track records of being so and discuss things, it's likely they aren't talking about democracy.
6 Zenof 2014-05-27
thank you
3 Conspiracy_Account 2014-05-27
No problem and thanks for your post. I completely forgot the Bilderberg annual meeting was coming up!
-15 foxyramirez 2014-05-27
Agreed, Jones is full of shit. If you asked the man how to bake a cake, he'd tell you the first ingredient is beef. I immediately step back with disbelief when he's involved.
2 BananaPeelSlippers 2014-05-27
it just gets back to the root of how you do research and provide info. some want an original source (me). Others want an editorial that tells them not what, but what to think (people who watch fox news, cnn, and read infowars).
1 qthagun 2014-05-27
And then there are people who see that reality is so much more complicated than that. The lack of an original source does not prove anything. Editorials that sell narratives aren't completely useless either - it's worth noting who it is that wants to sell you a story, and what that story is.
2 BananaPeelSlippers 2014-05-27
Sure, give me an editorial, just not from infowars.
1 qthagun 2014-05-27
Personally, I'd like to see everything. The more informed my worldview, the better.
1 BananaPeelSlippers 2014-05-27
Don't see why you would continue to peruse something known to be disinfo, but if thats part of your repertoire, go for it.
3 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-05-27
"Know your enemy". And besides, Infowars still has sprinkles of truth that can be gleaned from many of its articles - like this one, for instance.
2 Yakatonker 2014-05-27
He's right on most stuff, he comes of as conservative if you're coming out of the left wing of the fake as hell right vs left manufactured political theater up kept by billionaires sponging government welfare to prop up their fake media empires.
1 foxyramirez 2014-05-27
Check his sources. I used to be a huge fan, loved his documentaries, listened to the radio show, etc, but I noticed over time, he's lost it. I think 'they' got to him. Quite a few of the articles on his page are outright fake, his sources are usually shoddy at best, and his methods are loony. He just comes off as insane and he lacks credence. Like most disinformation agents, it's lies with sprinkles of truth.
1 Yakatonker 2014-05-27
He's certainly on the money on vaccinations and fluoride, that's for certain along with those damned FEMA camps, or what Obama calls "indefinite detention centers".
Couldn't believe I found a FEMA camp video from Rachael Maddow on Rockefeller MSNBC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mPZlysCAm0
I also think he's right about Assange and Snowden too, in terms of limited hangout theory as they're CIA frontrunners to prime the public for the massive surveillance state, the first helped to destabilize sovereign middle eastern nations.
Alex Jones isn't the only independent media journalists saying this either,
Porkins Policy Radio, geo politics
http://porkinspolicyreview.wordpress.com/category/porkins-policy-radio/
James Corbett, reports on everything from corruption to geo politics
http://www.corbettreport.com/
Sibel Edmonds, reports on a whole host of topics
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/
2 foxyramirez 2014-05-27
I think he turned around 2006. Just too much of what he says isn't based in fact. Certainly, he was spot on several times, but I listened to his radio show too many times hearing him trying to predict the next 9/11 with no results at all. He's a sensationalist. I'm thankful that he opened the veil for me, but I think today, he's pulling a whole new veil in front of the people that trust him. Who's to say that he himself isn't an agent to soften us up either? And reporting geopolitical corruption isn't exactly difficult; in the world today, it's harder to find a story about a sincere politician that isn't shoveling money in his pockets under the table.
1 Yakatonker 2014-05-27
I only started listening to him recently and he certainly does a lot of prophetizing, sometimes his over reaction is laughable but the base of his arguments is unfortunately true.
So is he priming us for the new world order? Coming out of the fake right vs left paradox only two to three months ago and finding Alex only this May of 2014, he's still very insulated from the mainstream public as a racist Libertarian gun loving nutjob, not a lot of mainstreamers are into the "conspiracies" of the truth movement, however there's a lot of potential as people are becoming increasing resentful and intrusting of the governing establishment.
I'm personally finding a lot of new stuff from Alex's perspective, however after seeing this aptly named "Snowjob", I too would prefer to keep a multitude of sources then to stick to a messiah of sorts, as the sheep are doing with sold out Greenwald and Chomsky.
It's certainly not a bad thing to be skeptical, I can understand your criticisms of Alex Jones.
1 Yakatonker 2014-05-27
http://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/
Jones may be a Zionist, I'm keeping an eye out for criticisms, if you have any links, not just to zionism I'd like to see them.
1 Yakatonker 2014-05-27
I think you're right ton Alex Jones, I starting digging and found some good blogs discussing the issue of Jones. Mostly what I found was that he's Zionist shill using fear mongering to control and bottle conspirators and free thinkers alike.
Makes me also wonder about the stuff he's peddling, nascent iodine, etc, if its all garbage as well.
36 bandy0154 2014-05-27
Part of the reason the downvotes are coming is because Alex Jones is in the title. More and more ppl are questioning his motives and who is behind infowars.
13 oblivioustoobvious 2014-05-27
Attack the message not the messenger.
I figured people here were smart enough to know this.
9 bandy0154 2014-05-27
Well it is decent information, and I didn't downvote you. If Jones is suspect however, you also need to think about why they put out this info.
9 oblivioustoobvious 2014-05-27
Also always be aware that the establishment will seek to discredit outspoken people such as Alex Jones.
9 bandy0154 2014-05-27
Also a valid point.
3 bonehowler45 2014-05-27
Hmm if i was part of the government and i know most people in the usa believes in one or more conspiracy's i would feed them so much they couldn't see what was real and what wasn't . And i then lead them to where i want them. I think they are trying to prepare us for the coming age. Plus go and talk to some old people about the way people used to be and you will find out that most people didn't care about human life at all and seen the world end a very different way. Trust me things are getting better even with all the crazy in the world today.
-1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
-8 oblivioustoobvious 2014-05-27
Cool opinion bro.
1 whatsinthesocks 2014-05-27
It could be they were hoping for a different source to get a better score therefore being seen by more people and keeping people from going to info wars.
3 magic3383 2014-05-27
The nature of the people that visit this sub is to be suspicious. If there is someone out there that makes a name for themself, speaking of conspiracies and things of that nature, the audience they would have is the exact same people that would believe that they have ulterior motives. It's basically the people that ask questions of the government eating their own .
2 bandy0154 2014-05-27
I won't deny that.
1 Purpledrank 2014-05-27
WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?
1 bandy0154 2014-05-27
lol that's really funny. I must work for the federal govt, that's why i'm speaking out against alex jones. Get a grip.
1 Purpledrank 2014-05-27
chillax bro I was just making a joke. If you can't accept that then I don't know what to do for you.
1 bandy0154 2014-05-27
Jesus idk how many more times I can say this, nobody can pick up on sarcasm on reddit! Sarcasm is expressed in tone of voice and facial expression, which are not included in the written (or typed) word.
Edit: Funny joke I guess. Can we figure some way to denote sarcasm on reddit?
0 SameShit2piles 2014-05-27
good point.
-3 [deleted] 2014-05-27
you judge a tree by the fruits it bears, so aside from a couple rotten apples - what beef to have with the man?
10 bandy0154 2014-05-27
I've seen a lot of evidence that points toward ties between Infowars and Ted Turner. Yes, Jones puts out some good information I will not deny that, but any legitimate controlled opposition outlet HAS to deliver some goods to the viewers; otherwise they will lose the audience. I was a big Alex Jones fan for years, but his work on the Turner owned (and total BS show IMO) truTv's "Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory" along with his appearance in 2 motion pictures make me apprehensive.
Turner's business partner the now deceased Boris Berezovsky was involved in starting up anti-government media outlets in Russia in the 90's, some of these actually inspired armed insurrections resulting in deaths. Sometimes Jones likes to encourage people here in the US to maybe do something similar.
2 [deleted] 2014-05-27
would like to see that evidence if you can post it.
1 FreedomIntensifies 2014-05-27
this is pretty much the exact thing that was done in Russia .... he talks about russian nukes being in the air and telling everyone to evacuate cities ASAP etc etc
2 [deleted] 2014-05-27
that's clearly a wierd thing he's done, with the y2k russian nuke thing. truly disappointing. But it was about 15 years ago and listening to the man everyday for the past three years, I can see for myself he's clearly not a false prophet.
0 bandy0154 2014-05-27
I'll try and get on that, I am at work at the moment but I'll try to get something together a little later this evening.
1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
thanks
6 Strensh 2014-05-27
He never ever mentions knights of Malta, which is a huge red flag.
Knights of Malta are extremely influential and almost always destructive. Silvio Berlusconi, George H.W Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Precott Bush, Tony Blair, Michael Chertoff, Rudy Giuliani, J. Edgar Hoover, Rupert Murdock, Amschel Mayer von Rothschild, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner.
Makes you wonder why he(a christian) won't report on conspiracies regarding knights of malta(a christian corp). He's also very soft on Jesuits and their reach.
4 NewAmericanMan 2014-05-27
I've heard callers question him about the Jesuits and the KoM several times on-air and he quickly diverts the conversation, or ends the call. However, I wouldn't discount all information he puts out just because he's reluctant to discuss either group. The Ted Turner information above is of more concern to me, particularly Turner's deceased partner's activities in starting anti-government media agencies.
1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
He lambasts those guys religiously. He is not a fan of any of those globalists.
1 fiendzone 2014-05-27
His number one reporter Kurt Nimmo is a one-worlder shill.
0 [deleted] 2014-05-27
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
really? easy to say but some kinda proof or a link would be nice
0 steve0suprem0 2014-05-27
Source?
0 dvrzero 2014-05-27
Google agent Jones, CIA.
Fucking duh
18 BookwormSkates 2014-05-27
One thing I hate about conspiracy theories in general is that so many of the loudest community members can't be bothered to take spelling seriously. If you can't even write the name of what you're talking about, no one is going to take you seriously.
Bilderberg group.
1 2akurate 2014-05-27
Are you suggesting it's a trend? Maybe I just don't notice it but I think you are inflating the issue.
1 ImASharkImAShark 2014-05-27
Spelling does turn people off, although that is still a fallacy.
16 binjinpurj 2014-05-27
Thank you very much for this.
I noticed a fairly strange name in that list - Kasim Reed is the mayor of Atlanta, GA. Why in the world is he in attendance for this? If you live in/around Atlanta you are probably aware that there is quite a buzz in the air with new things being built basically everywhere constantly (two new sports stadiums coming up by 2017). Seeing his name here makes me really contemplate what the future plans for Atlanta could be. Thoughts?
10 [deleted] 2014-05-27
agenda 21 local/international sustainability initiatives, perhaps?
5 ApocaholicsAnonymous 2014-05-27
I believe he plans on running for higher office. Hes been positioning himself lately and just recently announced hes getting married.
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-05-27
Hmm... interesting observation.
2 Contrary_mma_hipster 2014-05-27
Well, I saw this posted recently:
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/26b08x/crisis_actors_needed_in_atlanta_for_military_mock/
But more likely he just has big boy aspirations for higher office.
-4 [deleted] 2014-05-27
agenda 21 local/international sustainability initiatives, perhaps?
7 thetripleb 2014-05-27
Info Wars didn't release it. Bilderberg themselves did. Info Wars just copied and pasted the thing.
JOURNALISM!
3 Billy_Bob_BoJangles 2014-05-27
They get a full list after the meeting and post it every year.
5 thetripleb 2014-05-27
Right, but the title makes it sound like InfoWars got it.
On a side note, I would assume that the REASON it keeps getting deleted is because multiple people are posting it, seeing as the top 2 threads right now in /r/conspiracy are about the exact same thing.
3 thetripleb 2014-05-27
To further my point, on the InfoWars site where this is posted: "Below see Paul Joseph Watson’s latest article revealing this year’s agenda from inside sources"
His inside source is... the same website. http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/press-release.html
4 TylerDurdenJunior 2014-05-27
You do know that info wars didn't release anything right?
it is a public available list of this years members. http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html
info wars is the epiphany of stupidity. Maybe that is why it was downvoted
3 isaidputontheglasses 2014-05-27
990 downvotes? No.. it's definitely not suspicious....
2 Kuleaid 2014-05-27
Some interesting names on that list. Will take me awhile to look them all up.
2 alllie 2014-05-27
I recognize few of the names, offices or companies. Why do these unelected assholes have power over us? Also, I suspect many of them are just the representatives of wealthy monsters. We're not supposed to recognize their names but we would recognize their owners.
2 crazylegs99 2014-05-27
Where is the link or link to the post?
1 watersign 2014-05-27
Alex Jones is a Stratfor/CIA double agent. Dudes a shill'
1 PrivilegeCheckmate 2014-05-27
Does anyone have the link to the list of
legitimate targetsBuilderbergers?1 HansJSolomente 2014-05-27
Am I late to the party or something? The post with the list had more votes than this one does. I don't get what happened here...
1 somthingisaid 2014-05-27
half a dozen posts vanished from this thread when i refreshed it...
1 MaplePancake 2014-05-27
If he is disinfo remember the imminent Greenwald story it could be out there to help muddy the water and distract.
1 JohnReggae 2014-05-27
Build-a-Bear?
1 foxyramirez 2014-05-27
I'll do some research, I remember seeing a post on this sub a few months back citing a bunch of evidence against him.
0 moresmarterthanyou 2014-05-27
can i get a link to the post or list that was released?
0 FuarkMyLuck 2014-05-27
Well alex Jones is not a positive force in thr critical thinking movement anymore if he ever was. ...
Definitely should be alarmed with his cia family connections and jewish family connections
0 gizadog 2014-05-27
Daddy is that you?
2 [deleted] 2014-05-27
LOL
0 wildfire2k5 2014-05-27
Is there any demonstrable evidence that these Bilderberg meetings amount to anything? It's not illegal to get together and discuss politics, governments, companies, policy etc. I get that it is frightening that all of these powerhouses all meet in one place, but what is the problem? What are we fearing these meetings for?
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-05-27
You think they're discussing the latest Rangers game and this weekend's weather?
These are the people deciding what life will be like for millions (billions?) of the rest of us. Many are "elected" officials and they come from countries all over the world. You don't see a problem with them meeting in secret and not disclosing any details about what was discussed/planned there?
1 wildfire2k5 2014-05-27
I have absolutely no clue what they are discussing. That is why I asked. Do you know? I am sure it would be very interesting.
Evidence of this?
So? While fishy, it is not illegal.
When a detailed list is released that tells us who is going and where its going to be then I wouldn't really consider these meetings secret. Private as fuck? Yes. But I wouldn't call them a secret. But yeah, I do kinda wish I knew what they talked about and that is why I asked if there was evidence demonstrating that we should actually care about these meetings.
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2014-05-27
Type some of those names in Google dude, my dude. This is very simple stuff. You can start with Henry Kissinger.
Does the public have any idea what goes on in the meetings? Nope. If asked, will any Bilderbergers answer questions about what goes on in the meetings? Nope.
Seems pretty secret to me.
I'll ask you again to look at the list of names and do some research on who these people are and the things they've done over the last 50+ years. These are globalists and powerful people in all industries and from all around the world. If you don't see why we should care about these meetings and what goes on in them then I really don't know what else to tell you.
It should be self explanatory.
-1 D3M4R5 2014-05-27
Alex Jones is one of those people who gives "conspiracy theorists" a bad name.
0 [deleted] 2014-05-27
Could not agree more.
-2 happinessmachine 2014-05-27
Alright I swear to Moloch im not shilling here, but I had a professor in college who went to bilderberg a couple years back. We asked her about it during lecture one day and she said its basically a time for leaders to talk shop without the media getting all up in their faces. She said the reason for the secrecy is to encourage frank discussions.
She was a researcher on neuroethics and went with the goal of getting other leaders to think more realistically about so called "study drugs"
5 know_comment 2014-05-27
These conferences and think tanks work the same way as secret societies and religions. There is a hierarchy and as you advance, you gain additional knowledge. Bilderberg and bohemian grove (which you are referencing with your moloch joke) are both organized in this fashion. There are many discussion groups and speakers are invited to take part in the outer circle discussions to provide insights on their specialties. In this years conference, there are two chinese banking ministers invited. They clearly aren't going to be privy to the real occidentalist discussions that the meeting is based around.
2 kskmsg12345 2014-05-27
You know there very well may be just innocent talks, think tank strategy discussions attempting to solve the ills of the world. However, it is the side bars with powerful leaders and corporate business men, this is where info and directions are passed, this is where real decisions are made....main group is a cover, oh and I'm sure many things are done prior to this meeting, i.e. ok lets meet and discuss or convince at the meeting....
-2 SolipsisticEgoKing 2014-05-27
I hate to be THAT guy, but will you please share the name of your professor who claims to have attended? I'd be very curious how she received an invite while nut-peddling away as a college professor...
1 aethelberga 2014-05-27
Sounds like his prof went in more of an 'advisory' capacity. I would imagine they invite all sorts of experts in their field, but that they see only the outer circle of meetings that go on. Publicly reported meetings & seminars would lend the whole thing legitimacy, but the real Bilderberg stuff would go on behind closed doors that the researchers & other experts never even know exists.
1 twsmith 2014-05-27
But you know about them because ...
1 aethelberga 2014-05-27
We know about the members. We don't know what they talk about.
1 twsmith 2014-05-27
If you google "neuroethics bilderberg" it will tell you that her name is Martha Farah.
-5 BananaPeelSlippers 2014-05-27
This should be downvoted because infowars is a shit website. I linked directly to the bilderberg website-it didn't get any traction.
-6 brownestrabbit 2014-05-27
How did they get this list?
5 RawbHaze 2014-05-27
Copied and pasted from Bilderberg's website. It's not some secret.
0 SameShit2piles 2014-05-27
good point.
-3 [deleted] 2014-05-27
you judge a tree by the fruits it bears, so aside from a couple rotten apples - what beef to have with the man?
3 magic3383 2014-05-27
The nature of the people that visit this sub is to be suspicious. If there is someone out there that makes a name for themself, speaking of conspiracies and things of that nature, the audience they would have is the exact same people that would believe that they have ulterior motives. It's basically the people that ask questions of the government eating their own .
13 oblivioustoobvious 2014-05-27
Attack the message not the messenger.
I figured people here were smart enough to know this.
4 NewAmericanMan 2014-05-27
I've heard callers question him about the Jesuits and the KoM several times on-air and he quickly diverts the conversation, or ends the call. However, I wouldn't discount all information he puts out just because he's reluctant to discuss either group. The Ted Turner information above is of more concern to me, particularly Turner's deceased partner's activities in starting anti-government media agencies.
3 Billy_Bob_BoJangles 2014-05-27
They get a full list after the meeting and post it every year.
1 Purpledrank 2014-05-27
WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?
0 dvrzero 2014-05-27
Google agent Jones, CIA.
Fucking duh
0 [deleted] 2014-05-27
Could not agree more.
1 [deleted] 2014-05-27
He lambasts those guys religiously. He is not a fan of any of those globalists.