The Bilderberg
"Blackout"The press corps' noncoverage of that weekend conference in Chantilly, Va.
Posted Monday, June 9, 2008, at 8:32 PM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponOf course, Bilderberg critics don't want to read mentions in the press. They want to see confirmation of their theories that the group operates in a sinister, behind-the-scenes fashion to exploit the powerless and throttle liberty.
How, exactly, are reporters supposed to do that when the critics rarely provide falsifiable evidence of Bilderberg malevolence? Would a shadow government, should it exist, really convene annually at a hotel to hash out the world's fate? Would it really issue a press release about its latest meeting? Would it routinely assume the security risks of inviting new blood in? (Couldn't the notorious Bilderberger Conrad Black negotiate his way out of prison by exposing the group? Or is Bilderberg so powerful that it controls the federal prison system, too?) It largely limits its attendees to North Americans and Europeans. Are the Japanese, Indians, Chinese, Brazilians, Australians, South Koreans, and Singaporean so timid that they stand aside and let the Bilderbergers have their way with the world without making a peep?
That's not to say the critics' inquiries never produce anything of value. I enjoy reading the documentary material they dig up and can only encourage them to dig deeper. Just last month, Barack Obama tapped a prominent Bilderberger, James A. Johnson, to vet possible vice presidential candidates. Johnson provided similar veep vetting for the Democratic Party in 2004—which, as noted above, resulted in the selection of a Bilderberg attendee. The AP also reports that Johnson helped Walter Mondale pick a veep nominee in 1984.
Who is Jim Johnson? He's the former head of Fannie Mae, a power on Wall Street, and a regular Bilderberg attendee. As recently as 2006, Johnson has been the treasurer of the nonprofit American Friends of Bilderberg Inc., according to the group's Form 990 on file at Guidestar.org. According to the fractured jargon of the filing, American Friends of Bilderberg is in the business of "Organizing & sponsoring conferences which study & discuss significant problems of the Western Alliance. Collaborating on the Bilderberg meetings held in Europe & North America." The group spent $112,533 in 2006.
Still, the fact that an active Democratic supporter has performed return duty as a veep vetter stops several stations short of arriving at a shadow government. It does, however, indicate that Johnson's political influence may be underscrutinized by the press and that his career is deserving of extra study and attention. A May 24 Wall Street Journal story, "Power Broker Helps Obama Search for Running Mate," does just that. Although it makes no mention of Johnson's Bilderberg connection, it drops a gentle dig that associates Johnson's Fannie Mae service with the home-loan crisis.
Without a doubt, Bilderberg ends up stimulating speculations that it's a nefarious organization. In an earlier generation, some theorists regarded the Council on Foreign Relations as a similar shadow government for its furtive ways. But as the CFR opened up in recent decades, holding many sessions on the record, it has become as threatening as the World Economic Forum at Davos.
Maybe there's a lesson in there for the Bilderbergers. Letting the press in for a closer look at what goes on would go a long way to reduce the shouting while preserving the group's right to think out loud. Or maybe all the heavy security and skulking about is a deliberate marketing ploy by Bilderberg to differentiate its yacht cruise from the ocean voyage that is Davos.
*******
I expect mail. Lots of mail. Maybe enough to break my inbox. Send to . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co. Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For e-mail notification of errors in this specific column, type the word Bilderberg in the subject head of an e-mail message and send it to .
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Remarks from the Fray:
Our society is claimed to be in some sense a democracy. If the people who have attained power in same can sit around and cook up our future for us every year, and our news media doesn't even mention each year that they're doing it, then that suggests rather strongly what we actually live in -- an oligarchy. Apparently editors know this, and humbly refrain from bothering their betters.
Just a yearly mention of the fact of this meeting, together with a list of the attendees, would remind us that something's going on in those rarefied realms that we the people perhaps should know about. Just such a mention, alone, might also give us the ability to infer other interesting information, like who the masters have lined up to rule us next. The fact of reporters' being hustled away by security would also have enlightening implications.
And finally, don't you suppose that our once-marvelously inquisitive reporters could occasionally go further and even find out what was actually discussed there? Wouldn't you like to know? Don't most of us know enough history to be aware that when the rulers have total secrecy in which to confer they are more likely to make decisions that the plebs wouldn't like? My goodness! Forewarned we might even be able to organize politically and defeat some of those dispositions.
But, apparently appropriately in this writer's view, editors are happy not to run the risk of fomenting any such dangerous knowledge or disruptions. I expect nothing less. Ever since we started to see special boxes being constructed in our stadia for the nobles, I've known that the old nonsense about democracy has been dying, and the new reality has been a secret open to the people if they want to see it, and they don't. Best to just trust the masters.
--dianasatyr
(To reply, click here.)
The Bilderberger group is what it is-a bunch of wealthy people who are from the western world who want to remain wealthy and remain in positions of power secured by wealth rather than politics. Rich people have done this for centuries and have long understood the benefits of networking among their own.
The so called "shadow government" is a bit of a stretch. I doubt highly that these men gather together to seal the fate of Mulder and Skully as many people would indicate. The value of their meetings has much more to do with the day to day networking they will do later by phone, email, and most importantly money. These people are beyond personal wealth. They are looking ahead 50 or more years to see about where to invest and plan-and in that way, this is about Wall Street and about global plans to spend money-who and on what.
For example, if Kissinger is telling Rockefeller that he thinks there will be a war in the middle east in five years, Rockefeller makes sure the factories he has are positioned to make tanks and planes-he has engineers designing them for desert combat and he has plans of who in the US government would be directing the spending which of course goes to his factories. It is of course a bet of sorts-Rockefeller cannot guarantee that war and the profits to follow can he?
They are about money and it all ties them together really. The Bilderbergers are not really interested in culture or personalities or religions unless they play a role in the fortunes of the club members-so their influence remains largely on the investment world and the corporate world.
To have a reporter there makes sense-especially to tell us who is in the club. But I wouldn't expect a report on the crystal ball reading which goes on there. This is a gathering of people who can and do influence world events-of people who play the game from 50,000 feet above it all. But it is also internally competitive and in many ways is like Survivor: Wall Street-let the backstabbing begin!
--The Real RML
(To reply, click here.)
The question is pretty simple: what do 120 or so very wealthy and powerful people do all day? Pursue the expansion and retention of their wealth and power, of course. Duh.
So what happens when 120 billionaires, media moguls, bankers, industrialists, spooks, and politicians and civil servants met in private, and what do they talk about in their secret conversations when they meet in private?
Golf? Sure. But exclusively golf? Hardly.
So, it's not a conspiracy then? So what is it? Why, it is merely 120 very powerful people discussing their mutual interests and how to promote them. In secret. You know, so they can be frank. In case one of them wants to say something, you know, frankly.
Oh. I feel better knowing it is not a conspiracy.
It can hardly be called democratic though, now can it? Quite the contrary, in fact. Anti-democratic in fact. Secret exclusive access to politicians and civil servants, away from the, um, rest of the republic.
It's just an opportunity for the wealthy and powerful elite to get together and compare frank thoughts on wealth and power, in, you know, secrecy. Away from the unfrank eyes and ears of the unpowerful unwashed. Or their pesky media.
Oh. That's all? I feel much better now.
--Sarvis
(To reply, click here.)
Seriously, based on the comments for this article, you'd think that the second your net worth tops $1B or you are inaugurated into public office, you suddenly cede your soul to Satan and become this megalomaniacal, money hungry, power grabbing, dictatorial autocrat.
Isn't it possible that people who've been fortunate enough to build up a huge pile of assets (or even, yes, inherit them) might still have a conscience? And isn't it possible that people who've entered into public office have done so with the intention of enriching their own communities and those around the world? And isn't it indeed likely that people in these positions might every now and then enjoy chatting with and bouncing ideas off of their peers?
Why is it the assumption that having money or power automatically breeds an insatiable desire for more of both? Not every CEO is Monty Burns, nor is every world leader Kim Jong-il.
--finkyboy
(To reply, click here.)
(6/10)