Thread: David Ick confronts George Osborne

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Correct.

Ah, that was a typo. Well spotted. I did, of course, mean that I would not vote for politicians that attend the BG meetings.

Fair enough but despite admitting this, you say there is not too much to be concerned about. Now I'm confused....

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

I do think it's extremely unsavoury, but not that it should be illegal.

Well the American constitution obviously saw a need to make it illegal, hence the Logan Act.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Again, your logic is warped. Who says that this policy can't be discussed in the public view?
I suspect what you mean is "What reason should there be for policy to be discussed with individuals from other governments/nations that is public & media discussion of is prohibited?"

Yes I do agree with your latter statement.
However what I believe you are missing is the fact that a shadow policy is discussed but it is implemented for a totally different set of reasons at home.

For example, global warming has been pushed to introduce global taxation and carbon rationing in the interests of the elite, but it is sold to the people as saving the earth.

The Iraq war was sold on the basis of WMD's when the real reason was oil and no-bid defence contracts. (Though I'm not saying Iraq was necessarily a Bilderberg policy)

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Why not the secrecy?

For the reasons I've already given ?
I'm suprised you say that given you say you would not vote for any politician meeting at such an event in secret.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

It's very important that you understand that wealthy and influential people attend these meetings but they absolutely are not representatives of any particular government. They are just influential individuals attending a meeting.

Wealthy and influential people attend these meetings.
Representatives of any particular government DO attend these meeting too.

Even if it is only shadow government members who attend(I doubt that very much but I'm not 100% sure) then they are still MP's and vote on legislation in the HoC, so it does have a direct influence.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Now of course a lot of people suspect, and probably rightly, that these people discuss politics and current affairs in these meetings and it's likely that strong opinions within the group affect government ministers and shadow ministers that attend.

However the attendance of the meeting isn't the problem, allowing the meeting to unduly affect your actions in your job is.

What would be the reason for attending and discussing politics if the purpose was not to formulate domestic policy ?
Did you read the articles I posted that pointed to the increase in oil prices as a consequence of the Bilderberg meeting ?

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

There are many reasons to distrust Blair. That he attended Bilderberg is not high on the list.

I think that our legislators are slaves to their careers and not servants of the people, and that the government is often very severely impaired by it's tendency to cater to specialist interest groups. However it is not Bilderberg that particularly worries me.

But if you examine policies discussed at Bilderberg, you will see many of them have been implemented at home by Blair. e.g. Global warming, the war on terror etc.

Is that just a complete co-incidence ?
yes I know you're thinking "that's not proof of conspiracy" and you're right, but when you consider that events like 9/11 have been scinetifically disproven, then only the incredibly naive wouldn't have some reservations about such a co-incidence, and especially when all European governments are adopting similar oppressive policies as part of the EU federal state.

And does the fact that Blair attended Bilderberg before becoming PM not concern you ?

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

So what's the answer?
Prevent elected officials from ever attending any private meetings whatsoever?

At the very least allow the media(who ironically serve them) to attend and ask questions concerning what they're discussing.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Allusions to a new world order certainly have been made by our prime minister and various other high profile international politicians. If they really were up to such murky nefariousness do you really think they'd draw attention to it by saying "New world order"?

Fair enough point in theory but when you consider these quotes are rare and TV and media rarely cover them does not make it much of an issue to Joe Public. They rarely refer to a "New World Order" whereas we always here of "climate change", "war on terror" etc.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Gordon Brown was talking about a marked change in international politics and a shift in the powers of the world - China and India are industrializing and growing.

Well that's your interpretation.
Whilst he does refer to globalization, it is a fact that globalization and one world government is one of the main agendas of the New World Order.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Don't conflate privacy with secrecy.

Forgive me - does conflate mean confuse ?
If so, then I am confused. Of course everyone has meetings in private, but not in secret.
So don't quite get your point here.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Because the media cannot get any reliable sources and don't want to open themselves up to libel and because the stories are not particularly newsworthy even if they decided to publish them.

I think you've missed the point. The question is not why the media should seek to report on the specific details of the secret meetings but why the media are prohibited from attending in the first place.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

You are alleging a global conspiracy. It's up to you to provide evidence, to prove your case.

If you read my posts you will see I have provided a wealth of evidence to prove the case of global conspiracy in relation to a huge number of important issues.
If you may not have read what I have posted in relation to other issues does not mean I have not presented it.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Conspiracies do occur, yes, but you are one of the people who see them everywhere - in places where none exist.

What conspiracies are you referring to specifically ? Bilderberg ? Hardly a conspiracy when you consider it's existence is no longer secret, but furthermore the articles I posted show specifically that certain events like higher oil prices were about to occur (and they did.). That adds creedence to my argument. Whilst it doesn't necessarily prove it in isolation, if you were to look at the thousands of other facts that concern other issues, you would have a much better understanding of how everything ties in with policy that is made, why and how. I urge you to do so urgently.

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

Take a scientific approach. Assume that no conspiracy exists (assume good faith) - which is usually the case. If you notice odd things, don't leap to the conclusion that it must be a conspiracy. Research it and try to discount the evidence. Look at it carefully. If you can't find a more logical or reasonable explanation then you must conclude that it is indeed a conspiracy.

Ok what about the fact that declassified U.S government documents prove that the "gulf of tonkin" incident(where the Israeli's fired on the USS Liberty) was a staged false flag attack used as the pretext for the start of the Vietnam war ?

Bush's 'Gulf Of Tonkin' Underlines Criminal Desperation For War

"Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.

Operation Northwoods, Pearl Harbor and the attack on the USS Liberty are other historical examples where the same method of staged provocation was either considered or directly used in an attempt to start a conflict."

When dealing (for example) with 9/11, I have only dealt with scientific facts from scientists like Steven E Jones that have proven that the official story and version of events is untrue. Fact.

But you probably don't realize a lot of these so called "conspiracies" have already been admitted !

I think you have pre-judged "conspiracy theorists" as people that do not wish to deal with science or facts, when in reality the exact opposite is true, and ironically it is the mainstream media who is incapable of dealing with the scientific facts.

If they were able to disprove these provable facts, there would be no need to label people presenting specific evidence as "conspiracy theorists".

Are you one of these "open minded" people that refuses to examine the evidence that realates to "conspiracy theories" ?
If so, that is hardly a "scientific approach" or open minded.