Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Annual Meeting of the Elite



The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, Bilderberg meetings or Bilderberg Club is an annual private conference of 120 to 150 people of the European and North American political elite, experts from industry, finance, academia, and the media, established in 1954.

A rose by any other name….

It seems the tradition has far deeper roots.  What we have come to understand about the meetings of the elite today – such as meetings of the Bilderberg Group – cannot be distinguished from similar gatherings held over 1000 years ago….


The royal assembly was the truest manifestation of the kingdom, since it instilled the nobles with the sense that they were members of a community of the realm with the king at their head.

This assembly included nobles from all corners of Louis’ kingdom.  Depending on his favor with his father, Louis the Pious, and his own military reach, Louis’ kingdom at times included Bavaria, Alemannia, Franconia, Thuringia, and Saxony.

There were ethnic components to the eastern provinces, since their inhabitants spoke different Germanic dialects and had their own written law codes and distinctive social and legal customs.

Each region had its own unique cultural characteristics; this mattered little to the nobles who lorded over the people.  The nobles from these provinces considered themselves as separate from those they ruled, shedding their cultural connections to the uniqueness of their homes; they were members of a different community – not Saxon, not Bavarian:

By the ninth century, most of the leading families of the eastern regna considered themselves Franks, either because they were Frankish transplants to the east or because their ancestors had married into Frankish families.

The nobles were more connected to the culture of the western realm – supposedly more sophisticated, more civil.  The nobles were more connected to each other than to their homeland.

This noble connection across regions and the noble separation from those over whom they ruled came most forcefully to a head in what is known as the Stellinga rebellion.  The Saxon peasants – taking advantage of Louis’ distractions of empire, rebelled against their lords. 

The primary cause was religious: while the peasants wished to continue in their traditional worship, their lords embraced Christianity.  Louis’ grandfather Charlemagne had ordered the conversion to Christianity under penalty of death:

While the Saxon nobles embraced Christianity quite willingly, the frilingi and lazzi associated the new religion with Frankish oppression.

In addition to the desire to cling to their traditional faith, the peasants feared this acceptance of Christianity would lead to a further loss of numerous other civil features of their culture – including their role in the governance of the tribe. 

The peasants held a governing role – prominent considering their station – in the annual council at Marklo, on the Weser River.  At this council they confirmed their laws, pronounced judgment on outstanding cases, and made decisions about war.  They participated in all of these discussions and decisions, alongside the nobility.

This annual council was also a religious event, including prayers to their gods to offer wisdom in their decisions; therefore Christianity was seen as a threat to the peasants’ role in governance.

In any case, in the end Louis crushed the Saxon peasant rebellion.

Returning to the gathering of the elite, Louis would announce the date of the assembly in advance.  He would specify the royal officials that were to attend – talk about wanting to get into the “in” crowd” and remaining politically correct; you really had to stay in Louis’ favor.  It was the great social and political event of the year.

The king, queen and royal family would wear their most resplendent royal attire; the palace would be decorated with the best tapestries and ornaments, conveying the king’s wealth.  The assembly was extremely costly…

… [requiring] the king to provide housing, food, drink, entertainment, and probably gifts for hundreds of attending nobles and dignitaries.

But this was not merely a lavish house party.

At the assembly, the king and his nobles reaffirmed their social ties and shared aristocratic culture: they exchanged gifts, hunted, attended Mass, formed marriage alliances, and the like.

So much for the social; what about the political?

The king and magnates discussed all pressing issues confronting the kingdom: treaties, alliances, military campaigns, local politics, aristocratic conflicts, and the like.  The king distributed patronage to his supporters, admonished public officials to carry out their duties, received foreign ambassadors and tribute, and planned future treaties and military campaigns.

The royal assembly also functioned as the highest court of law in the kingdom.

No peasants allowed….

Conclusion

Can you distinguish this annual gathering from what we have come to believe of events like Bilderberg and the actors that make up today’s global elite?  I cannot.

Except that we don’t call them kings and nobles anymore.  That’s it, I guess.

5 comments:

  1. Mark Twain wrote a great book called "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," in which a 19th-century American travels back to the time of medieval monarchy. At one point the narrator says, "A privileged class, an aristocracy, is but a band of slaveholders under another name. One needs but to hear an aristocrat speak of the classes that are below him to recognize the very air and tone of the actual slaveholder. They are the result of the same cause in both cases: the possessor's old and inbred custom of regarding himself as a superior being."

    When I read that it makes me think of our dear Hillary, who of course has been a Bilderberg attendee.

    Nothing new under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I LOVE HISTORY WRITE MORE IT TAKES MY MIND OFF THE REALITY OF THIS CABAL WE ARE LIVING IN NWO .ONE THAT IS NOT RUN BY ANT SO CALLED CHRISTIAN KINGS.THEY ARE THE PAWNS AGENTS STOOGES FOR THE FINANCIAL CRIMINALS WHO BOUGHT THEM BY LENDING MONEY TO THEM.SOUND FAMILIAR??ONLY NOW ITS A GIFT TO THEM FOR THEIR SERVICES .HELLO CONGRESS ADM .PENTAGON .ALL AGENCIES CIA FBI AND SOME I DON T EVEN KNOW OF.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess for me the difference would be the scope of influence. Louis's royal assembly was rather local in nature, compared to the worldwide scope of the Bilderbergs and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This makes me wonder how much of culture (family and regional) is scarcity related. If you are not constrained by your regional scarcity-related issues, you would certainly be more likely to relate to other post-scarcity people rather than your neighbors who are "struggling".

    It's not hard to take the leap that post-scarcity individuals through luck, graft and/or talent begin to think of themselves as chosen rulers, much as John D Rockefeller is purported to have believed that much of his success was divinely inspired (see Titan by Chernow) and thus made him chosen to do God's will on Earth.

    Goes to show how humans can't shake the fallacy of pharaonic complexes of old. Or, for that matter, the preference for perceiving the Wizard instead of the man behind the curtain...

    ReplyDelete