“You can run, but you can’t hide,” a clever and fitting title for my articles, at least in my opinion. Now that I’ve revealed a little more about myself and what I do as a journalist in my inaugural article, I’m going to delve into a topic that is almost unheard of for a reporter, writer or journalist to broach. The reason I opened with the title of this column is that for the most part, I always find a way to access the elites and ask them questions that the mainstream media refuses to ask. Well, the subject at hand is the exception to the rule.
A “conspiracy theory” is a proposition that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, at least that’s the definition from Merriam-Webster. Over the years this term has been used by the media and talking heads from every side as a way to shut down a debate.
Whenever a controversial topic arises, this is the most widely used term by the gatekeepers in an attempt to marginalize the person bringing the subject to light. They’ll say he’s on the fringe of society, as if that’s somehow a bad thing, that questioning things outside the parameters of the prefabricated box they built for your mind is crazy. Even dare to talk about a subject they don’t originally raise and you’re vilified as a “nut job.” You’ll be labeled un-American and unpatriotic if you don’t just sit there and listen to the people that have proven themselves compulsive liars. The talking heads like to add suffixes to words to change the meaning and obscure the context, even employing such innocuous letters as “e” and “r.” But append those two letters to the end of a word and instantly a label is created. By this disingenuous scheme they’ve managed to morph a fine word like “truth” into a stereotype, conjuring up “truther.”
This is intended to cause people to dismiss you as a “crazy conspiracy nut job,” rather than saying, “Wait, isn’t searching for the truth a good thing?” Now, I’m not making this up or being overly dramatic; no, just about every major “news” personality has employed these tactics. If you don’t believe me just look up your favorite personality on the internet and see if they stand the test.
You may be asking yourself, where is Tony going with this? Trust me, there is always a method to my madness. I opened with the title of this column, “You can run, but you can’t hide,” then did the best I could in a limited amount of space to explain how the media works and how they manage to keep so many people so ignorant on so many important issues.
Here’s the transition: ask yourself, have I ever heard of the Bilderberg Group? Some of you may indeed have heard over the last few years, maybe eight years, at most, but I’m willing to bet that most of you have not. I pride myself on gaining access to the elite and asking the hard questions, but this is one shell that has yet to be cracked. Like I said at the beginning, they are the exception to the rule, and yes, some elites can and do, in fact, hide.
Now, a subject like this is very difficult to explain since one can’t just go on the internet, or to any source for that matter, and locate a definitive answer. One must utilize what few facts are available and combine them with logic and common sense to try to compose the whole picture. This is explained by who and what we are dealing with when it comes to this subject.
The Bilderberg Group, as it is now named even by attendees themselves, began as a secret meeting. And not just any secret meeting, but one so secret that it didn’t even possess a name. The original conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in the Netherlands, May 29–31, 1954. Since the assembly was so secretive as to defy naming, over the years the few who did know about it simply referred to it by its only aspect that could associate them all together: the hotel where they first met. Thus, the Bilderberg Group was “born.”
I know the argument can be made and occasionally is made that the low-key confab is just a group of 120 to 150 of the world’s most powerful people meeting behind closed doors for a couple of days to talk and that it’s, “not that big a deal.” Perhaps that is the case — I personally cannot confirm or deny that — I can only go by what I know, and what I do know is that many political pundits, the ones on major networks and radio shows offering their “professional” advice on politics, have been confronted and asked about this group. The odd thing is that until TIME magazine did a story on this group in 2009, none of the pundits seemed to know anything about it.
Certainly, there will be people who will not like this next line, but if I’m going to be fair and objective, I must tell you the truth. Glenn Beck is on record saying that this meeting “is not important.” Michael Savage used to make similar statements, but now he mentions the assembly a couple of times a week and asserts that they run the world. Even Sean Hannity, when asked about the Bilderberg Group, replied, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.” And when Dennis Miller was asked for his thoughts concerning this secretive club, he abruptly cut the call and made some corny joke about hamburgers. Alan Colmes called it a “crazy conspiracy theory,” echoing local radio personality Steve Corbett when he said on air that “people aren’t interested in dull conspiracies like the Bilderberg Group.”
In recent years, though, they have all changed their tune, as most populists do. You won’t hear them talking about the importance of the gathering, but they will now at least admit that it does, in fact, take place. We in the alternative media have been trying to notify the public for years now, so one has to question why all the apparent changes of heart. Is it because the Bilderberg Group has been pulled into the mainstream kicking and screaming? Not to the point where the legacy media will give real news coverage of it, just where that corporate mouthpiece is compelled to stop trying to deny it exists. Is it because the group now has an “official” webpage containing what is claimed to be an attendee list? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but they’re questions which merit answers.
The summer of 2012 found Yours Truly in Chantilly, Virginia, at the West Fields Marriott for five full days covering this year’s “meeting.” I can tell you I witnessed dozens of black Lincolns and SUV’s, most with tinted windows, and I documented vehicle after vehicle entering the “secure zone.” The hotel was completely inaccessible for the entire event, from hours before the first car arrived until hours after the final one left. A special metal fence was erected covering at least three sides of the building with a black cover to obscure everything behind it.
Those of us who had descended on the site were able to confirm that many of the world power elite were in attendance, but there were so many identified that I feel citing only a few would detract from the significance of just how many undeniably influential people were actually present. Pictures and lists of attendees can be found online very easily. The real story, however, is that if individuals from government, banking, diplomacy, big business, big pharma and yes, big media, are all gathered together and seemingly consulting with one another, where are the journalists?
Merely asserting that the gathering is occurring does not constitute “journalism.” Risking arrest by leaning over police tape to snap pictures of the vehicles speeding in so the occupants can be identified? This is journalism. And don’t forget about the Logan Act of 1799, which expressly forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. After all, is it crazy to think that powerful men meet in secret to talk about the future of the planet, in one way or another?
You see, to me, it’s crazy to think they don’t. Just look at their track record: the creation of the Euro, the European Union, Nafta—pretty much all the leaks that have emerged from the illicit confab over the years have proceeded from conspiracy theory to historical fact.
I’ll conclude on this note: when two celebrities get together it’s a story, but when Prince William came to America it was all over the “news” for a week, as was the death of Michael Jackson. So, no fewer than 130 of the most powerful people in the world interact for four days behind closed doors on U.S. soil and no significant coverage of this event by the mainstream media is to be found? That, to me, is the story itself.