Edwards and Bilderberg

OK, I struggled a bit about which forum to post this on, but in the end decided that it fit best under Politics & Scandals...

When this year's Bilderberg conference happened a few weeks ago, I noticed that John Edwards was on the attendee list, but that Vilsack and Gephardt were not, nor was John Kerry. At the time, I thought to myself, "Well, that seals it. Edwards will be the VP pick because he's attending for Kerry, and he'll report back to him." Now, after this little thought popped into my pea-sized brain, I did feel a bit silly, and dismissed myself as over-analyzing something. After all, lots of people attend Bilderberg, from all sides of the political spectrum.


Then, while perusing a few news sites on Thursday, I came across this little gem:

Bilderberg 'performance' key to Edwards VP pick
www.worldnetdaily.com...


Given that there's a sense that the Bilderbergers seem to have an NWO philosophy, I must say that Edwards attendance and performance gives me the creeps.

According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings in the past, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.

That we're headed to a New World Order in the fashion of a One World Government is a given. Maybe not tommorrow, but the thought of someone on Star Trek ranting about state's rights is laughable.

I'm thrilled to read this report:

Mr. Edwards spoke so well in a debate on American politics with the Republican Ralph Reed that participants broke Bilderberg rules to clap before the end of the session.

The very idea that Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, attends the Bilderburg think tank to press HIS form of the NWO agenda is disturbing. But we all know it's true. The radical right have their own form of NWO; the radical left has theirs...and I thank God for a moderate like Edwards to be so well received in perhaps the most important global forum on the planet.

No international experience? Indeed.

RANT...LOL - you're right. Ralph Reed's version of NWO is creepier than John Edwards'.

But that doesn't make Mr. Edwards' particiaption any less scary. In fact, the idea that he has credentials with these people makes him even more dangerous. Do we want a VP (and probably a president) that will march lock-step with a majority of those pursuing the NWO agenda?

Maybe it is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to slow it down.

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba
Maybe it is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to slow it down.

Okay, that's a common position. I understand that. And I don't know anything about your politics so drawing from my favorite non-political NWO analogy...

We all know what the bad NWO would entail...a Big Brother government, Religious Persecution and Corporate slave masters.

BUT what if you (we) could have everything NWO visionary Gene Roddenberry proposed in Star Trek? Or the GOOD NWO? Aside from the Federation of Planets part ...no disease, no starvation, no war...a rigidly moral utopian society based on the models of Scientific and Artisitic exploration?

So what slows us down from getting there? Nationalism, Capitalism and Religion would be the big ones would they not?

So the Bilderbergs emphasizing a globalist agenda promoting the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive seems like something Kirk would approve of to me.

And in all things we should ask...


Slow it down? I say ramming speed!

My politics are ever in a state of evolution.

I used to think that organizations like the United Nations would better the world, but over the years I've come to believe otherwise. I too love Star Trek, and the sentiment is great, but one just can't brush aside reality. I have two favorite cliches that sum up my reasons for opposing any move towards a world government, at least at this point in history:

1 - Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2 - The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What I'm fairly sure of is that when a large central governement is planned (socialism), the only way to truely implement its principles is through the use of force. Stalin murdered over a million people to try to implement his planned utopian society. Maybe that's what it will take to get everyone on the same page, but personally I'd rather live in a world where we disagree peacefully.

So how do we get from A (today) to B (Star Trek Socialism) peacefully? One might argue that any system of governement will work if the entire population buys into the concept. (note that I doubt this is true with socialism due to the laws of economics, but for the sake of argument...) Maybe humanity will undergo some kind of awakening and embrace the kind of ideals you've outlined. I'm just too cynical to believe that it will happen in my lifetime, and thus I fall back to the above cliches and all they imply - that while those who aspouse socialism talk a nice game, they'll have to kill a lot of people to get there, a fact they tend to ignore.

Originally posted by HoonieSkoba
I'm just too cynical to believe that it will happen in my lifetime, and thus I fall back to the above cliches and all they imply - that while those who aspouse socialism talk a nice game, they'll have to kill a lot of people to get there, a fact they tend to ignore.

All too true. But I wouldn't say the Roddenberry mythos ignored the peril and harsh realities at all. In fact, it wasn't until the Earth was nearly destroyed in WWIII that the remaining peoples rebuilt with one common goal. And even that didn't happen overnight. There are many allusions to the tumultuous times of harsh Fascism between the apocolypse and the Federation too.

So it's just a nice mental excecise for discussion more than anything. And I sincerely believe that's what the Bilderbergs do. Sit around and act important and talk about things without prying eyes. It's like a private debating society. In the modern world (unfortunately) you can't even discuss something like socialism or WWIII hypothetically without being branded a subversive lunatic.

Can you imagine the speeches and debates going public? I bet they're great. But not made for 30 second sound bytes.

Now if they KNOW something, like the Vatican has angels in chains in the basement or every President since Eisenhower has been an Alien...then sure...they worry me. But it's too hard for me to admit someone like Bill Gate's wife knows something I don't. Have you read the list? It's like B list people at best. I think it's more like the wannabe NWO.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by RANT]

I'm enjoying this thread, RANT; thanks for making a newbie feel welcome...

It is a strange list of names, isn't it? All very powerful people, to be sure, and while they may be the 'B list,' many of them are in bed with the 'A list' people. It seems to regularly attract rising political stars, as well as past political lumenaries, but never the people in charge. Maybe the media wouldn't give the 'A list' people a pass.

I sincerely hope you're right that discussion is all they do. I can't help but be worried about global organizations of powerful people for reasons previously outlined. The idea of an unelected, unaccountable world body just smacks of tyranny.

BTW, have you read Jon Ronson's book "Them" about his attempt to sneak into the Bilderberg conference (and other strange adventures)? Good stuff...