It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Washington D.C. - George Crews McGhee from Waco, Texas was born the son of a banker, he later became a Rhodes Scholar, a successful oilman, and a U.S. Ambassador, among other titles that he held. He passed away in 2005, and left his detailed personal archives to Georgetown University in Washington D.C.
In the archives are boxes of folders containing many thousands of documents, now available to the public in the Special Collections Reading Room on the fifth floor of the Joseph Mark Lauinger Memorial Library. The “George McGhee Papers” have yet to be added to the website, but will be soon. Here is a brief overview of some of the documents available, from Digital Georgetown: “George C. McGhee Papers Papers of the former U.S. ambassador to Turkey (1951-1953) and West Germany (1963-1968) include files relating to both ambassadorships, as well as materials documenting McGhee’s role in a number of important official and informal posts, among which are the Combined Raw Materials Board (during World War II), the Bilderberg Group, the Draper Committee, the Business Council for International Development, and the Committee for Economic Development. Ambassador McGhee’s substantial library of books on Turkey and the Ottoman Empire is described separately under European History. Gift of Ambassador McGhee 1942-1976 * 101.50 linear feet” Other documents included in the archives (but not listed above) include papers from the following: - The Club of Rome - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - The United Nations - U.S. State Department A copy of his book is also available, titled: - International Community: A Goal for a New World Order Below are over 100 photographs taken on June 17, 2013. They include photographs from the first Bilderberg conference, invitations, correspondence, opinions, participants lists, bar menu’s, receipts, notes, and more. Numerous years are covered in these photographs, but thousands of pages of documents still remain un-photographed on location. This site will act as a resource for journalists, writers and researchers interested in various topics covered in this release, as well as an outlet for the general population to view what this author is now calling, “Proof of the Bilderberg Conspiracy”. In the documents below is some of the most crucial evidence against claims of Bilderberg members that the organization is simply a place to have discussions, and that agreements are not made, policies not influenced, and opinions not brought together in order to create a global system of governance. These documents prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group has been illegally planning the future of the world, without the input of the public. Whether their “undertaking” (In their words.) be well-intentioned or not, the group can now be proven to have been attempting to steer planetary affairs, from behind closed doors, with no serious media scrutiny, from 1954 to 2013, and beyond. This author hopes that the disclosure of these documents will help lead to an open forum, where the people of the world may bring into discussion – and hopefully the courts – the actions the Bilderberg Group has been taking in the government and private sectors, that may be found to have led to the death of millions of people over the previous decades, due to their foreign policy objectives.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Nice find
How long before there's a mysterious fire that destroys the evidence?
Originally posted by haven123
Proof of the Bilderberg Conspiracy –
Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by Sankari
It's rather they have 'big thoughts'' about the people and what they want (supporting or putting sanctions on country's) and think is important which shows they don't care about the people wishes.
They care that they can continue their way and it explains how out of touch the rulling political party's are with the people where they have these powerfull institutions like the UN, world bank, EU and so on which are in direct control of those in power, where the people have zero control or a say/vote.
I think..
Originally posted by Sankari
Where is the evidence that they don't care about the people's wishes?
Originally posted by woogleuk
Originally posted by Sankari
Where is the evidence that they don't care about the people's wishes?
Take a good look around you, at people thoughts on the internet, at the unemployment, poor wages, poor standard of living that is everywhere....except for the rich.
Originally posted by Sankari
reply to post by haven123
Documents from the 50s, 60s & 70s. Real up to date stuff, I see!
Nothing even remotely controversial here. No surprise at all.
Originally posted by CallYourBluff
Originally posted by Sankari
reply to post by haven123
Documents from the 50s, 60s & 70s. Real up to date stuff, I see!
Nothing even remotely controversial here. No surprise at all.
Still haven't sorted that attitude problem I see.
Originally posted by Nevertheless
Originally posted by woogleuk
Originally posted by Sankari
Where is the evidence that they don't care about the people's wishes?
Take a good look around you, at people thoughts on the internet, at the unemployment, poor wages, poor standard of living that is everywhere....except for the rich.
First of all, someone caring about people's wishes doesn't mean one is responsible - or even able to - do anything about them.
Originally posted by Plugin
So for example nobody in the US (the people) wants that the US is helping/arming the rebels/terrorist but they do nevertheless.
The government does mostly stuff the people don't want and they feel they can't do anything about it, only voting and even when another party is in place (by votes), nothing changes.
Except more angry and critical people and they don't like that but even so it doesn't matter much since somehow they can get away with it with ease.edit on 18-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nevertheless
Originally posted by Plugin
So for example nobody in the US (the people) wants that the US is helping/arming the rebels/terrorist but they do nevertheless.
I was talking about a private group who has no responsibilities regardless of what they do or do not wish or believe in.
The government does mostly stuff the people don't want and they feel they can't do anything about it, only voting and even when another party is in place (by votes), nothing changes.
Quite a bit changes. When it comes to the U.S, there was happiness on one part, and outrage on other when the last change in power occurred, be it job politics, school politics, taxes, health-care or guns.
But if you think that there is not enough difference, then you should obviously vote for someone else. If you wish to care for democracy, that is.
Except more angry and critical people and they don't like that but even so it doesn't matter much since somehow they can get away with it with ease.edit on 18-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
No they can't. Just vote for someone else. Or start your own party.
..., in accordance with the rules of Bilderberg, all forms of publication and contact with the press with regard to the Bilderberg Meetings by individual participants, should be strictly avoided.
Originally posted by Plugin
Ok vote someone else or I do and see what happens? what did changed? Nothing!
If you think we have control with voting
You go voting if you live in the US on another party (not democrat of republic party). That party will never get enough votes so it's pointless
and basicly everyone think so
Originally posted by NeverthelessAs I said earlier, quite a lot changed in a very short period of time. Change takes time, especially if everyone in parliament are doing everything to sabotage for each other. If the people who vote are concerned about this, they will make sure it won't happen the next time. If not, well, it's their choice.
This is your problem.
If you vote for another party than the two big ones, the two big ones will, percent-wise, get less votes year by year until a critical point has been reached. They either change or get overrun by someone else.
If everyone thinks so, but still vote for someone they do not like - it is well deserved, is it not?
You cannot blame a specific party or parties for the stupidity of the masses.
And, if "everyone think so", you can post "the cutest kittens ever"-video on YouTube that you hijack in the middle and tell exactly that "Hey Guys! Give me a sec! Everyone thinks that the Reps and Dems suck. Let's all vote for X and have a revolution!". Then you post it on your facebook and twitter, and the latest internet-craze is a fact.
Money spent: $0.
If this doesn't work, then obviously "everyone think so" is a lie, or the politics of "X" simply does not bring in enough votes either.
You live in a democracy, do something.
In other countries, people are forced to use weapons and are getting killed trying to get rid of dictators.
Your excuse is that you're lazy and blame it on the government, when you were the one who got them voted..