Skip to main content

Legitimacy and Polity: The Bilderberg Group

Welcome to the world's most high-profile low-profile global management social club! This prestigious and controversial conglomerate of investors and policy makers convenes in a different city every year. Attendance is invitation only, and the guest-list is a who's who of international (and multinational) executives from every sociological center. The annual guest list includes heads of state and/or their representatives, C.E.O.s, bankers and finance ministers, former generals and intelligence operatives, Ivy-League professors, top-tier media and news officials, economists...literally the global community's thin, golden, flaky upper-crust. As such, it is a Grand Council Assembly of polity, law, education, and economy (and one assumes at least a plurality of these attendants are in some way religious). But ironically, the single public face of this sprawling web of consolidated elitism is a minimalist website, , which features no imagery or branding at all and very few words. Add to this absence of transparency the fact that the meetings and guest lists are announced only a few days in advance, journalists and reporters are not invited, and the governments of the host countries provide full security for this event, and the absurd claim that the organization itself and the meetings they conduct do not produce policies, and its easy to see how this has become one of the most controversial groups in human history.

In spite of the fervor it induces among the foil-capped talking heads, the organization really does maintain an incredibly low public profile. However, it has left an enormous media footprint. If you are unfamiliar, here are some biographical notes lifted directly from their site:

The group was founded in 1954 as "an annual forum for informal discussions, designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America."

Abiding by the Chatham House Rule, "participants to use the information received... but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the participants may be revealed."

The site claims that the group possesses "no detailed agenda," and conducts "no resolutions, no votes, and no policy statements."

Last June, the "64th" meeting occurred in Dresden, with "130 participants" from "twenty countries" discussing topics ranging from global and national politics to technology, energy, and economy.

They're real alright. and this time, the U.S. accounted for twenty nine participants, nearly a quarter of the total body (yes, I counted). Compare that number to France's eight, Great Britain's Six, and Spain's three. Among the American presence, were names like Evercore and Honeywell, which "middle class" consumers would recognize. But also present were reps from NBC, Harvard, the CIA, the US Army, ant the European Supreme Command. Senator Lindsey Graham attended, and someone from the Kissinger Association (since the old man can no longer come himself...) Others include Bloomberg, Alphabet, the Wall street Journal, and Peter Thiel. The international organizations present were, notably, the International Monetary Fund, the European Parliament, and the World Economic Forum. Among the more publicly oriented firms, Shell, BP, Exxon, and Alcoa (lightweight steel). A company called Titan Cement gets the honorable mention. (Word is, they bury the unruly journalists Jimmy Hoffa style.)

For this much concentrated clout, however, the group's front is as thin and un-alluring as a hyphen. The main page has four major heading: Home, Background, Meetings and FAQ. Of the four, the first two present about three hundred (vaguely redundant) words altogether. The meeting list is sufficiently enumerated, but the only substantive info comes from the FAQ section. Here, we learn that "convention costs are paid by members of the Steering Committee," (which itself only features thirty-two names) and that invitees are proposed by said members to the Chairman. Attendants pay their own travel and lodging. And in spite of the conspicuous absence of any poor or middle class people whatsoever, the organization asserts that these arrangements are intended to promote "maximum diversity in background, views, generations, and gender." Beyond this, the site itself offers very little substantive information at all. There are no other mission statements, no press council, no archives, and no other clues whatsoever about what really goes on at these meetings.

But before we get all Eyes Wide Shut about these folks, it may help to consider some external opinions and observations, albeit from widely divergent sources. From The Independent in the UK, we learn that "the area around the meeting is put into complete lock-down," and "national governments of host countries cooperate fully and provide public protection." (The Independent, 2015) Mother Jones quotes Rand Paul, when asked by an interviewer if he had heard of them, as saying "only what I've heard from Alex Jones." (Mother Jones, 2015) And this is kind of the problem. From here on out, the source train seems to degenerate into alarm-ism and popular intrigue from non-academic sources. In the same article, Mother Jones describes Alex Jones as claiming "that Bilderberg is a key part of a global plot to create a scientific dictatorship that will terminate the useless eaters."(Ibid)Whoa! Another devotee to this field is Tony Gosling, who apparently runs,which is a diffuse dump-style thread which alleges connections to "Neo-nazis," "censorship" and suppression of journalists, affiliations with "Drug-Money," and "Zionism." (Bilderberg) SourceWatch links the group to such American icons (to some audiences) as Daniel Ellsberg, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, and Henry Kissinger, and attributes the birth of the European Union to a meeting of this group in 1955. (Source Watch) Russia Today presents a list of known supporters of Hillary Clinton which includes David Cote, Eric Schmidt, and James Johnson. (Russia Today, 2016) Conversely, they mention only one supporter of Donald Drumpf: Peter Thiel.

So how do we classify this group? They are regulators who do not regulate. Chiefs who issue no decrees. Educators who do no informing. They're probably mostly religious (or believe me, the religious groups would have noticed by now) but they wield no kind of symbolic or coercive power. Something in the conspiracist's heart seems to assume some kind of underlying pattern of hidden kinship, as though global domination had been handed down from father to son (see the Schmidts and Altman's) since the Cold War began. One thing is for sure, the members themselves wield enormous power and influence, whether they do so in service of a secretive elitist organization or not. The group's website informs us that they used to issue public press releases, but as early as the late nineties, people just stopped showing up. It's funny how boring raw power can be to those who will never have it. Perhaps there is a sense of impotence involved, and a tendency toward skepticism concerning a topic that about which so many others are quick to hyperbolize and speculate. Some, like Mr. "useless eaters" Jones, for instance, have responded with a deep seated sense of social ownership, and their outrage bordering-on-paranoia reflects a much deeper trend away from the sense of legitimacy many of these related businesses and social institutions used to possess in the public eye. Also, even though the number seems small, 130 is just enough complexity to invalidate most knee-jerk criticisms of the general quality of the group's composition. It's hard to seriously suggest that all of the members and attendees are hell bent on global domination, but it is also very difficult to reconcile the essential premise behind the group's opacity: they claim that secrecy is the key to open dialogue, which turns the concept of a free press on its head, and also suggests that wherever careers and public constituencies are concerned, professionals are better off holding their tongues.

Such a position doesn't inspire confidence about how the world's best and brightest perceive the future.

Works Cited

_____ "Bilderberg,"SourceWatch, 24 June, 2016).

_____ "Bilderberg Meetings: the Official Website," (accessed 24 June, 2016).

Corn, David. "Rand Paul: the most interesting conspiracy theorist in Washington,"Mother Jones, 20 October, 2014, (accessed 24 June, 2016).

Gosling, Tony. "Bilderberg,"Bilderberg, (accessed 24 June, 2016).

_____ "Meet the Clinton Insiders who attended Bilderberg this weekend,"Russia Today,12 June, 2016, (accessed 24 June 2016).

Stone, John. "4 things we know about the secretive Bilderberg group,"The Independent,9 June 2015, (accessed 24 June, 2016).

Image Source:

Popular posts from this blog

Review: The Black Side of Shreveport, by Willie Burton

Burton, Willie. The Black Side of Shreveport. Shreveport : Southern University of Louisiana, 1983, 159. Reviewed by Steven Harkness. With the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln set a race of people free from the indignity of slavery. With the Union victory over the Confederate states, the government promised reform via Reconstruction. With the contentious election of Rutherford B. Hayes though, the political will to carry those reforms forward in earnest fell subordinate to the need for compromise and continuity. Within a generation, the cause of the black citizen passed from pipe dream to political controversy to conflagration to compromise to catharsis. The white man would not help, and would not keep his promises, and could not be counted on for meaningful change. All truth existed on a continuum, and this truth was more true in the south than in the north, more true in the cotton belt than in many other southern areas, and perhaps nowhere at all more true th

Modernization and the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire is famous for its size, scope, and influence upon the histories of nearly every major European country. Why then, did the concurrent attempts at modernization seem to fail for Turks, where the Egyptians succeeded? In short, the Turks, who wielded so much power and authority, failed to solidify their gains. One argument, and a strong one, is that they bit off more than they can chew. Another argument, equally compelling, is that they were simply beaten into bankruptcy. And yet another argument contends that reforms failed for Ottomans because of an insurmountable surge of internal resistance, from basically every direction.

Cyber Bully: the Self-Perpetuating Cycle

The internet has evolved into a cradle-to-grave platform for social abuse. From the exploitation of small children by sexual deviants, to the pervasive bullying of students, to the radicalization and recruitment of young adults, to the global networks of hate groups and terrorist organizations which receive them, the digital age has failed to achieve the utopian ideals of enlightenment, social justice, and civility. Bullies, of all ages, races, and creeds, flock to the web to find easy targets to victimize, and to locate organizations of like-minded individuals to lend legitimacy and validity to their toxic worldviews. The net also provides them anonymity, and the tools to protect their identities from their victims, from the communities where they live, and from law enforcement agencies who would hold them accountable. And for many groups, the internet offers opportunities to finance those malevolent agendas. What all of these hate groups and bullies have in common is the desi