SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

The Bilderberg Group on Wikileaks

by Brian Dunning, Oct 07 2010

A semi-anonymous poster on the web site, Jo from MO, has added a valuable link to my episode a couple weeks ago on The Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is an annual meeting of influential people from government, business, and economics from the United States and Western Europe, who gather unofficially to discuss issues facing the West. Consequently, conspiracy theorists default to their usual belief that any such gathering is planning Global Domination and is actually the secret world government.

Not that this new information will do anything to change those beliefs, but it's interesting for the rest of us. As you may know, WikiLeaks is an anonymously held web site that publishes classified documents, to the chagrin of governments and secret-holders everywhere. The Bilderberg Group does take minutes of their meetings, but as they are the private property of the Group, they are never made public. Somehow, somebody got ahold of the minutes from some of their earlier meetings and posted them.

Here are the URLs:


If you have the courage to read through them, you'll notice two things. First, names are omitted. The Bilderberg Group never records the identities of speakers, as a way to encourage uninhibited discussion. This is in accordance with a policy called the Chatham House Rule. The lists of each meeting's attendees is, however, publicly released by the Bilderberg Group and they're all available on their web site.

Second, you'll note that they're not very interesting. A lot of world politics stuff is discussed, and just as the Group states, they do not make any decisions or issue any orders.

Yet if you ask a conspiracy theorist if there's anything that could change their mind regarding their belief that the Bilderbergers are the secret world government, they'll probably say no (the definition of a closed mind). Those few who might answer yes would probably tell you that reading the actual minutes of a Bilderberg meeting could change their mind. Well, here's your chance. Let us know.

It's too bad I wasn't aware of this resource when I wrote the episode, it would have been a great addition. Oh well.

44 Responses to “The Bilderberg Group on Wikileaks”

  1. Tom says:

    Clearly Dunning has been compromised by the Trilateral Commission. Everybody knows they act at the behest of the Bilderbergers. Undoubtedly a truckload of gold was quietly delivered to a numbered account in Switzerland. Was it worth it, Brian???

  2. John says:

    Innocuous meeting of influential people having a little chat about world affairs over cigars and brandy?

    ..or evil nepotists deciding on a self-serving future of the world?

    Methinks the truth is somewhere between those two very naive extremes.

  3. Lone Wolf says:

    Sorry about the stupid question but I never learned to read. Where in those do they talk about the secret plans to cause an economic collapse that would lead to riots in order to declare martin law and force everybody to convert to athisatanislam or kill them in an attempt to kill God? :P

  4. Max says:

    Prison Planet has already covered this:
    “Leaked documents from the 1955 Bilderberg Group conference held in Germany discuss the agenda to create a European Union and a single EU currency, decades before they were introduced, disproving once again debunkers who claim that Bilderberg has no influence over world events.”

    • itzac says:

      No one says Bilderberg meetings don’t influence world events. If they didn’t they would be a giant waste of everyone’s time.

      However, if they constituted some conspiracy, it wouldn’t have taken 44 years to establish the euro. Also, the treaty that planted the seeds for the European Union was signed the year before this nefarious plot of yours was hatched.

    • Alex says:

      Gah! Prison Planet!

      I didn’t think it was a secret conspiracy to create the Euro and the EU, I mean.. didn’t the public actually get to vote on that one?

    • Beelzebud says:

      Prison Planet! LOL

    • Jim says:

      I’ll point out first that whoever is quoted above isn’t even attempting to be subtle with their strawman. But here’s a pat on the back for Alex Jones and his fellow nutcases anyway, you guys sure proved those imaginary debunkers wrong. As for those of us with heads unlodged from our rectums, I think we can safely agree that it would be surprising only if such an assembly of business and political elites had never discussed salient international relations issues.

  5. Edwin Boddlestock says:

    >Second, you’ll note that they’re not very interesting.
    Say what? Have you even read these documents? There is plenty of very interesting historical material there; that you think this stuff is boring or unimportant is a character flaw on your part, I’m afraid.
    Additionally, for the non-conspiracy Bilderberg critics, these minutes won’t do much good, precisely because names are omitted. One of the main reasons the Bilderberg meetings (rightfully) attract criticism is because they create the impression that important figures in our government are in bed with heads of big corporations. But because names are omitted, it would be very hard to see if any lobbying is going on or not. Further, it is clear from the writing style that we’re dealing with a rather sparse summary. On the one hand that’s a blessing, since these events take time and one wouldn’t fancy sifting through an unedited account; on the other hand it means not all goings on have been recorded.
    Reading these documents, if genuine, makes it clear that what was going on at the Bilderberg conferences was not mere socio-political commentary, but that a lot of statements made seem to foreshadow later historical events. This shouldn’t surprise us, but it does make it extremely regrettable that there’s no way to figure out who said what, both from a political perspective (think governmental transparency) as well as from a historical perspective.
    Not very interesting. For shame, Brian.

  6. It is always fun to go out and debunk the Birchers and skinheads but anxiety over economic globalization isn’t going away any time soon and there really aren’t any easy answers. And I’m sad to report to my brethren and sisteren on the right that the way sweatshops got closed down here in the West was though: unionization, child-labor laws and environmental protection …

  7. steelsheen11b says:

    Prison Planet provides a needed public service. First it bottles up all the weirdo manic conspiratrds in one place. Secondly Prison Planet siphons off what little disposable income the manics have by getting them buy all of Alex Jones useless crap. He is the Kevin Trudeau for nutters instead of the profoundly misguided.

  8. Jacques Baguette says:

    The real conspiracy crowd are more like hard-core skeptics. For example, consider this angle: Wikileaks, Prison Planet, and a lot of the cartoony “conspiracy nuts” — are controlled opposition, whose job it is to spread fear, disinformation, and hype red herrings (like the Bilderberg Group) and limited hang-outs.

    • tmac57 says:

      Reminds me of this scene from ‘Little Big Man':

    • Beelzebud says:

      I don’t think it’s fair to lump wikileaks in with prison planet. Wikileaks isn’t a conspiracy theory website, like prison planet is. They simply post leaked documents.

      • Max says:

        Wikileaks also features paranoid and inaccurate reporting on the leaked documents. For example, how all scientists who accept research funding from intelligence agencies “do not earn our respect as scholars or as human beings.”

      • Jacques Baguette says:

        They also hype the documents, vouch for their authenticity, and engage in bombastic PR.

  9. Chris Howard says:

    Of course groups like this want to influence public policy, they have a vested interest in doing so, but so do labor unions, minorities, ruling classes, and middle-class America. we all have a vested interest in public policy. A Grand Conspiracy Theory violates Ockham’s Razor, in other words it isn’t necessary to ascribe a conspiracy theory to the Bilderberg Group, The G8, etc, et al, ad Neauseum.

    Social Conflict happens, out of the conflict between ideas, and competition for resources between various social classes. These classes have varied, or completely different, attitudes, values and beliefs, further they often times conflict with each others interest. In other words, ruling classes often times have competing interests, that would preclude any Grand Conspiracy Theory.

    So even if the Bilderberg Group were trying to “rule the world” by influencing policy, big deal, we all try to do that, in our own way, again, no conspiracy necessary.

    • John Greg says:

      Chris Howard said:

      So even if the Bilderberg Group were trying to “rule the world” by influencing policy, big deal, we all try to do that, in our own way, again, no conspiracy necessary.

      No. That is simply false.

      1. No, we do not all try to rule the world. Some people are not so centric. Very many people try very hard to just quietly fit in and abide by the general cultural/social mores, laws, rules, etc.

      2. The difference between John Greg trying to influence policy and rule the world, and someone like Bill Gates, or any other one of the handful of extraordinarily wealthy people trying to influence policy and rule the world is so massive as to be almost unmeasureble. If Bill Gates et al want to influence changes in government policy they can do so with far more ease and success, comparitively speaking, than us proles. If John Greg, whose net worth does not even register anywhere, wants to influence changes in government policy there is virtually no chance in hell of that happening. Voting in any one of our broken democracies notwithstanding.

      A handful of the world’s wealthiest power brokers getting together to discuss and potentially plan global political influence is in no way whatsoever comparable to labor unions, minorities, and middle-class America for the simple fact the the power wielded by the world’s wealhtiest power brokers outclasses, outbuys, out-controls, and out-infuences anything that those lesser groups could ever even dream of delivering. Thinking or arguing otherwise is just naive. And if much of that discussion and planning is done in secret, with no record of culpability, and no body political or otherwise to answer to, then it is indeed something of a conspiracy.

  10. Max says:

    Jon Ronson filmed a documentary about his attempt to infiltrate a Bilderberg Group meeting in 1999 with conspiracy theorist Big Jim Tucker.

    At the end, he says he obtained the minutes of that meeting, and showed them to Jim.
    “It was no smoking gun. No plots, no intrigue. It could’ve been the minutes of any left-leaning globalist think tank. It was a disappointment. In the end for Jim, the exclusion of anything embarassing was proof of the conspiracy.”

  11. Troythulu says:

    After looking at the papers you linked to, I think that it must be really boring to run a sooper sekrit world government™ with the items discussed at these meetings. Considering that most of these people are or have already been in power, I’m curious: Why would world leaders need or want to take over a world they already lead? Curiouser and curiouser. Oh, and my own evil conspiratorial paymasters have just informed me that my check has been deposited to my account, since I’ve been a good little disinformation agent. Good post, Brian.

    • John Greg says:

      Why would world leaders need or want to take over a world they already lead?

      For a variety of reasons, but certainly in the case of “previous” world leaders, corporate leaders, and what we might call sub-leaders (as in a provincial premier versus a federal prime minster), to maintain a seat at the head table; to keep their hand in; to always be a major and active player in the game.

      (Should there in fact be a “game” being played.)

      Why do extremely wealthy people, you know multi-billionaires, continue working so hard to make yet more money?

      Curiouser and curiouser.

      It’s just human behaviour, no?

  12. GoneWithTheWind says:

    I do think Assange is not simply “reporting the facts” and letting the people decide. He appears to be on a crusade and intends harm. He is exposing names of people who gave information or collected information in the war on terror. People will be killed as a result of this and he may even enable those who pull off the next big terrorist attack. I am hoping to wake up one morning and hear that he was killed or committed suicide or died accidently. I think that could save a lot of lives. I don’t think Assange is one of the “good guys”.

    • aptic says:

      What names?

      Wikileaks offered the US government the opportunity to censor sensitive names but the US gov refused the offer.

      A recent Australian govenrment review of the latest Wikileaks War Docs release found no compromises of Australian personel had been made.

  13. Jay says:

    does skeptics stand for closeminded idiots? I’m sorry, generalizing does no good and surely I dont mean this on everyone’s behalf but some of the stuff said here just sounds so ridiculous.

    Wikileaks is a conspiracy site because it’s related to the issues that are considered conspiracy. Wikileaks is same as prison planet because it uses PR for its advantage and may I add it hasn’t really grasped the full potential of it, rather been a passive being happily receiving the attention it has received without seriously taking advantage of it.

    If a person is truly powerful, why would he want to be known to the people? Obviously Bilderberg is a playground for lesser minds, public faces. The issues covered are usually mere shadows of what’s really going on. It plays important role in making people attending it feel important and needed. This consequently boosts their loyalty for the men behind scenes.

    It doesn’t require much to figure out that the system we live in is rigged and corrupted. Money has a gravitational pull, the more money, the more it pulls particles towards it. Rich keep getting richer while poor get more poor. Laws are made to lessen our rights
    while protection for corporations and big shots is increased. Whenever something big “leaks out” to the public, people responsible get off the hook as if nothing happened after the dust has settled.

    Finally, it’s funny to see how some people on this site attack the messenger, rather than what he is saying. It’s like pentagon saying “you guys MIGHT have blood on your hands” while the actual issue goes unnoticed.

    I’m sorry if this is upsetting to any of you, it’s just my style of bringing things up and any constructive feedback is welcome however I’m not a regular so I can’t promise I remember to check for any replies, thank you.

  14. Feodalherren says:

    I find it rather peculiar that industrial giants, heads of state and basically the leaders of the world can meet together with the media and the people hear nothing of it.
    No matter what they plan, that is scary for anyone who values free speech. Not that anyone with half a brain cell trusts mass media any more but you have to realise that controlling the media is controlling the sheep, the mindless drones who make up the bulk of the voters.

    I don’t trust the bilderberg group for a second, the reason is easy. It’s members are ass-holes, the result can only be shit since last I checked that’s what comes out of an anus.

    I can’t believe that people trust these asses enough to just let the meetings go on, did they ever earn our trust? Why must it be done in secret? If they discuss matters that concern the western world it is we, the westerners, who are to decide what to do about these matters, not a bunch of over paid fat fucks.

    Free speech, open government, power to the people!
    I am not a puppet of theirs.

    Wikileaks is the best thing that happened to free speech since the internet.

  15. Matt. says:

    I kinda wonder if the people saying theres no Bilderberg conspiracy know what a conspiracy is….

    Here’s a few definitions:

    any concurrence in action;
    combination in bringing about a given result

    Seems to fit the bill to me

  16. D says:

    Anyone having working links to the docs?

  17. Chris says:

    I think the most interesting things about the Bilderberg Meetings is the fact that none of the people who attend the meetings are elected politicians yet they set the Western Agenda and determine how to respond to global events.

    Furthermore, the news outlets of the Western countries have agreed to make sure they reporting is similar on events and don’t criticize member governments too much. The Bilderberg meetings ensure that this happens.

    Another important goal and outcome of the Bilderberg Meetings is to ensure they each Western government acts to benefit the team. Within that team each country fulfills a role, which has been outlined and predetermined at meetings like the Bilderbergers. And that’s what many people don’t realize.

    Most people think each country is sovereign and acts according to it’s own interests. When in fact, a government of one country may act to help another (or the team) even if it’s a political blunder because they have all decided, through the bilderberg meetings, to behave accordingly.

    • Adrian says:

      “I think the most interesting things about the Bilderberg Meetings is the fact that none of the people who attend the meetings are elected politicians…”

      Looking at you seem to be completely wrong on that. In 2010 alone there were quite a few elected politicians attending, starting with the Prime Minister of Spain.

  18. Chris says:

    “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”

    John F. Kennedy

    This is a speach he gave less than a year before his death. I’m no nut but the more I look into this the more I realise he was opposing the Bilderberg Group and every president since has not.

    His chief aid John McCloy and about 20 others around him where connected to the BBG.

    See list here

    My hunch is that’s why his brother and son where also killed.

  19. Bob Marshall says:

    I have an opinion as to why JFK was murdered. He was going to do away with The Federal Reserve. this is not a goverment agency yet they control our money. can you believe while the stock and housing market was crashing in the US they were loaning two trillion dollars to Iceland. Side note. They managed to lose nine trillion dollars. Just have no idea where it went.

  20. Ellen K says:

    While I don’t think there’s direct manipulation involved, the revelation that the notes represent your average left leaning group of people makes me wonder what they said prior to the 2008 elections. Is or was Soros a member? If so did he pull some favors to get money to flood out of the market in the summer of 2008 to lay out an economic path to the presidency for Obama? These things I would like to know. Given the Americans in attendance and their prevailing political views, I think there may be some serious push and shove being used to influence elections. If that was the case then, what is being planned now for 2012?

  21. Skeptical says:

    Does anyone find it odd that the minutes are word documents with modern fonts, lousy formatting and are made available in pdf (except for the 1958). It means that someone took the time to retype the minutes. And why would someone do such a thing when a scan is quicker and so much more powerfull?
    Did he run out of ink on his grandfathers remington?

  22. Troy says:

    Long before these were published conspiracy advocates have stated that wikileaks is a tool of the cia. That would definitely negate the dry nature of the bilderberg minutes.

    To Skeptical:
    The 1958 pdf may lend some credibility to their authenticity–to the time period at least. Examining the type, you’ll notice that each letter is equal distance to the next when measured center to center. this is a tale-tale sign of a typewriter or printing press. Word processors adjust the distance between letters. Also, each letter is unique when examining the edges of the letters under magnification. This happens when ink strikes the paper from a typewriter or press. Capillary action within the paper pulls ink out from the edges in random directions. The letters are pixilated as if generated by a computer, but that could be the scanning software. I’m sure software could be written to mimic these effects but, if so, you’d think they would have used it on all of the documents.

  23. dan balfour says:

    And now Goldman Sach leads three countries in the EU with economic crippling austerity measures in place to make certain the International Bankers of the World don’t lose their asses in this world economy the bright Bilderberg Attendees envisioned..

  24. Parson Brown says:

    wow these minutes are boring..but i dont think that discredits any conspiracy theories about the group…first off these guys meet for 3 days a year right? should be more minutes taken in that time period then we have here. Second look at the list of attendees; real powerful folk…you dont get to the top where these guys are at, without having the common sense to skip a boring, talk with no action meeting like the ones desribed in these minutes…but yet they all show up for some reason…

  25. Joe says:

    Skeptical/ dan balfour
    They were no made with Microsoft Words. They are the real deal. Plus answer on qustion how come 1973 ones that came from a Conspericy Website follow the same as the ones from wikileaks. Face it the Bilderberg Group is just a simple policy decussion group.
    Parson Brown
    These documents are meant to just breaf summeries for the pretisapents personal record. PLus why would they miss the “boring, talk with no action meeting”; when that is the whole point of the meeting.

  26. Misty says:

    There is a very thoughtful comment above that suggests said theorists are of a controlled group to balance opposition. This is indicative of grouping, classifying, or bunching people together. As a very inquisitive student of social sciences, I have to say that the BBG is simply one of these groups. Are they able to group all others? Probably not, for they were probably not in complete control of their heritage. Heritage has a quite a bit to do with “class”. My early interest in political punk rock taught me that we were viewed to be in a “class war”. Maybe the wealthy (for this seems to be the common thread that bonds these people together within the BBG) AND those of a lower socioeconomic status BOTH view the human race to be in a class war. There is a LOT to be said for breeding, evolution, bloodlines, population control, and what creation has done, is doing, and will do with this thing we call a brain. Freedom to move about the cabin freely, unless your brain is washed, and your a puppet on strings.