‘We Will Watch You’: Bilderberg Website Hacked

| |

hacker

Hackers have taken down the website of the Bilderberg Club, replacing the shadowy organization’s page with a warning that the Atlanticist elites have a year to work for the benefit of humanity or their assets will be hacked next.

“Dear Bilderberg members, from now on, each one of you have 1 year (365 days) to truly work in favor of humans and not your private interests,” the hackers, who identified themselves as the “HackBack movement and Anonymous,” said in a message posted at bilderbergmeetings.org.

“Otherwise, we will find you and we will hack you,” they threatened the “Wealthy Elitico-Political 1 percent.”

“Mind the current situation: We control your expensive connected cars, we control your connected house security devices, we control your daughter’s laptop, we control your wife’s mobile. We tape your secret meetings, we read your emails, we control your favorite escort girl’s smartwatch, we are inside your beloved banks and we are reading your assets. You won’t be safe anywhere near electricity anymore,” the hackers said.

5866ba97c361880e5b8b45b9

The Bilderberg Club is a group of European and American leaders from the fields of politics, industry, finance, media and academia who have met annually since 1954. Their meetings are notoriously closed to the public and blacked out to press coverage.

The most recent Bilderberg conference, the group’s 64th, was held in Dresden, Germany in June 2016.

A cryptic note at the end of the hackers’ statement praises Phineas Fisher as the “greatest human alive.” Fisher is a self-described hacktivist who claimed responsibility for hacking the British-German surveillance company Gamma International in 2014 and cracking the Hacking Team in 2015. He also took credit for taking more than 300,000 emails and documents from Turkey’s ruling AKP party in June 2016; the documents were subsequently published by WikiLeaks.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by RT.com of RT.com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • fgt4urights

  • Renee Ciccioni

    I all I have to say is yes yes yes.

  • Gary Von Neida

    THE SLEEPING GIANT (regular working Americans that believe in GOD & Vote) has been awaken from the deep sleep that has allowed the Dems & R.I.N.O.’s full reign. The attacks on the 1st and Second Amendments as well as the INVASION by undocumented and un-vetted are about to cease.
    GOD, please, direct and protect America’s New Leader: Donald J. Trump.

    • Paulinemmyers

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !st335c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !st335c:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash625DirectKingGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!st335c:….,…….

      • Arrow

        fuck Google

    • jimmy joe

      Rino’s??? Here’s a secret, THEY ARE ALL THE SAME, PERIOD!! Democans/republicrats, = SAME THING, 2 sides of the same coin!!! Get it??

      • Gary Von Neida

        Not everyone in THE SWAMP is a Monster or slime thing although there are many. Some People actually go into political life to do good by PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC.

        • tnetcenter

          When 92.8 % of the voters in D.C. vote for HiLIARy it’s safe to say that DC IS THE SWAMP!!! AND THEY ARE ALL MONSTERS!!!

          • ThomasJK

            Have you ever wondered how a truly wonderful country such as the U.S.A could have a federal government that has evolved into such a miserably failed institution?

            It’s certainly the snakes and alligators that inhabit the swamp that are a problem but the dominant problem is the millions upon millions of leeches (and leaches) whose mission is to suck the life out of this wonderful country.

          • Steve Rusk

            The leeches are fewer than you think and they are well positioned at the top.

          • tnetcenter

            The LEECHES don’t help, but the SOURCE of the problem is ALL LIEBERAL!!

          • Gary Von Neida

            In at least One of the areas where Hillary won more voters (as much as 30+ % more) than were registered VOTED.
            D.C. is a “very rich” swamp—They had the unmitigated gall to investigate becoming a State—–la-la land for sure.

        • Steve Rusk

          PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC?

          A “Republic” is also known as Totalitarian Democracy, we have two political parties designed to screw the citizen from both ends of the system. Not something that great.

          The “Constitution” is subject to judicial review, what the Supreme Court gives it can also take away or render meaningless. It’ just window dressing to help maintain the illusion, interpretation is at the discretion of those in power. It means what ever they want it to mean, whenever they need it to.

          Those who go into political life are protecting the Victors in this society from their victims. The denizens of the “Swamp” have always done this job with great enthusiasm.

      • tnetcenter

        They are ALL LIEBERALS!

        • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

          And Libbiots.

      • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

        EVERYONE on Krapitol Hell is nothing more than a HINO (Human in…) you know the rest.

  • Razedbywolvs

    I look at that and laugh, it’s a ridiculous thing to do to tell some one your coming after them.
    But for some reason it will work on the Bilderberg’s. They are a highly paranoid people.

    • Eudoxia

      They have not evolved much out of being nothing more than scared little children. What do scared little children who have lacked proper emotional binding and loving care do when something they want is threatened – throw tantrums. The more we see the tantrums the more we see the fear of the desperate. Those dark souls that did not evolve past their emotionally dependent states of somewhere between the ages of 4 – 7. At some point they moved no further. They might have high IQs, they might have been taught by the best schools, however, when it comes to character, character matters and they are of very poor character. This has become obvious – look at the last temper tantrum Obama threw.

  • whydowanttoknow

    So, the bilderberg can work against humanity for 50+ years, now you give them 1 more year to find religion and work for humanity. Genius. Pfft.

    • Smarty

      I agree. A month (max) would have been plenty of time…..

      • Arcanek

        End the foreign aggressions immediately, and expose the central banks. Don’t give them a choice. Then, start outing them, at the top, one by one, until they pick up the pace. This message is too vague. An action plan is required.

        • Gary Von Neida

          Repeal the CHARTER for the federal reserve in rememberance of J.F.K. who fought Them and was slaughtered for His Executive Order in June of 1963.

          • Arcanek

            The root of the system is the BIS. Getting rid of the federal reserve will only cause the US to be attacked by the international banksters. Got to root them all out.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Ah you’re one of those “audit the Fed” dimwits, who isn’t aware that the Fed is regularly audited.

          • Arcanek

            You’re one of those illiterate knuckle draggers who can’t process sentences with more than three words. Where did I say anything about auditing the fed?

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL believing that nonsense goes hand in hand with the rest of the discredited nonsense you post, pardon me. I guess there is one moronic thing you don’t believe, good for you

          • jimmy joe

            Says who, mass main stream media?? HAHAHAHAHAH. Boy, you will believe anything the govt tells you, don’t you?? What a fool!!! Where is your proof they get audited??? Or do we just have to go by your word, like msm??? HAHAHAHAHA

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I guess excessive punctuation along with really unhinged language is totally a valid replacement for actually being informed or correct about what is being discussed- at least that’s your posting philosophy?

          • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

            Hey, you qualify for the “Proper Job Club”, dooood! You really ARE a CL Rudeshit. But, we know you just “do it for fun”, DONTCHA, Damage Controll??

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You’re totally the most edgy kid squatting in the vacant building, am I right?

          • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

            Hardly, Davidson. FuckOFF.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL somebody mad

          • Arcanek

            What’s with ‘edgy’? I know your vocabulary is severely limited, but that’s seriously sissy boy talk.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            That’s what useless douchebags who latch onto idiotic extremist positions due to some combination of a lack of critical thinking skills and wanting to be a part of the outside looking in- basically you’re just Brian Griffin from Family Guy

          • Arcanek

            No, imbecile. I don’t watch TV like you do. Especially not cartoons. You don’t have any right to criticize anybody for lack of critical thinking skills. Anybody that doesn’t worship your gods frightens you. How sad for you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL sorry you don’t get popular references. I’m afraid I don’t hang out in Infowars or Breitbart or Stormfront so I don’t know of any references you’d get

          • Arcanek

            Once again, more shit being spewed by you. I don’t hang out at infowars or breitbart or stormfront. Just more generalizing on your part, since you have no facts. Maybe if you could figure out how to turn the television off, you’d have a functioning mind. you sure didn’t learn anything in school.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, holds onto ignorant and misinformed opinions like a duck…

          • Arcanek

            So, you’re a duck, then. What a silly child you are. Can’t logically rebut anything I’ve written, so you just lie and try to associate me with some stormfront boogeyman that has you pissing yourself.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            If you’re going to chide me on logic, you need to stop confusing the proposal of the Constitution with its ratification

          • Arcanek

            I never did. You’re going to have to stop confusing your self. Start by learning some English and formal logic.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You’ve been arguing that the Constitution became the law of the land right at the time it was first proposed at the Convention, and not when the last State ratified it nearly a decade later

          • Arcanek

            No, I haven’t quote me. And, you’re wrong, anyway, idiot. The constitution was in effect, after meeting its self staed requirements in 1789, not a decade later.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            No, it wasn’t ratified until 1796- you’re still discussing the interim period where it was still being amended and redrafted

          • Arcanek

            No, you’ve got it wrong. It went into effect in 1789. not all states had ratified it, but that was not a requirement.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            And the convention happened in 1787, even if I agree to your heavily qualified definition as to when the Constitution became the law of the full land

          • Arcanek

            More BS from you. Where did I ever state the convention didn’t happen in 1787.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You keep contradicting yourself- you said the Convention itself created the new government, not the partial ratification in 1789
            “the convention at Philadelphia created a new government, overthrowing the old government. The Philadelphia convention was never authorized by the Congress of the confederation. that, asshole, is treason.””-you
            HOW MANY TIMES MUST I COPYPASTA THAT?

          • Arcanek

            No, I didn’t. you misunderstood . Try again. slowly.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            The Convention didn’t create a thing- it merely proposed what would later be ratified as the US Constitution

            See this is where you don’t understand the difference between a proposed idea and an implemented one

          • Arcanek

            Imbecile. Treason starts with a plan. Damn, you are one stupid fuck.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL yeah and making the proposal Congress authorized you to ISN’T TREASON

            Boo hoo a state was invited to the party but was too cool to come

          • Arcanek

            Why are you accusing me of crying when you go meltdown and lose control of the caps lock, bitch? Congress did not authorize, stupid.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            They called the Convention- again a few holdouts doesn’t change this

            Nothing was ratified at the Convention- until it was ratified the Constitution was just a piece of paper with no power

          • Arcanek

            Why do you go off the tracks so easily. trouble focusing? Get a grip.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Nothing you just posted is a response to what I just posted- I think I’m flying over your head here.

            I’ll ask you this- if your interpretation of what is “treason” isn’t historical revisionism, then why did no one with the authority to do so at the time seriously lay such charges?

          • Arcanek

            So, you go off topic, but expect me to answer your straw men, red herrings and deflections? No.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Actually I was trying to get this back on topic, and you just want to namecall instead. Namecalling would be fine, if you could stay on topic.

            And again, detail the magical thinking by which the Convention supplanted the then-present government when a vote hadn’t even been cast

          • Arcanek

            No, you’re just trying to continue your deflection.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Or you’re just too lazy to form an argument to support your poorly considered douchposting

          • Arcanek

            Or, you’re just way too stupid to try explaining anything to.

          • Arcanek

            I supported it, idiot. Right from the start. You refused to even check it out. You’re the one who is too lazy. And too stupid.

          • Arcanek

            “You’ve been arguing that the Constitution became the law of the land
            right at the time it was first proposed at the Convention, and not when
            the last State ratified it nearly a decade later”

            No, I didn’t prove it. Quote me.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            “the convention at Philadelphia created a new government, overthrowing the old government. The Philadelphia convention was never authorized by the Congress of the confederation. that, asshole, is treason.””-you

          • Arcanek

            Yes, but that has nothing to do with what you asserted as being my position. There was an existing US government, a confederation. It was displaced by a body that had no authority to do so. Get over it.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO THIS

          • Arcanek

            All caps, now. Shouting doesn’t make it true. Looks like you’ve lost it.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Nah, but the veracity of my sources does make it true

          • Arcanek

            If it had any veracity.

            Officially,
            it was being convened to discuss alterations to the then constitution
            of the United States of America: the Articles of Confederation. Some
            state legislatures had authorized their representatives to attend the
            meeting only on this basis, explicitly prohibiting them from
            considering a new constitution.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Yeah nothing you posted there refutes anything I quoted or argued- and again, states electing not to send reps originally doesn’t invalidate the process, and they DID later on ratify the Constitution AFTER those Amendments we keep referring to were added, meaning YOU DON’T HAVE AN ACTUAL POINT IN CALLING ANYTHING TREASON

          • Arcanek

            No, it doesn’t. You don’t understand truth and validity.

          • Arcanek

            You haven’t discredited anything I’ve posted, and you now admit you’re making delusional comments, since you’re just spewing alphabet soup. And don’t berate morons. They are orders of magnitude more intelligent than you.

          • CCblogging

            The poster is a libtard and all libtards are delusional.

          • jimmy joe

            Now who is stupid??? Show your face next time!!

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            “Show your face?” Hey Dimwit, this is the internet

          • jimmy joe

            They do not answer to ANYONE, they even said that themselves with NO rebuttal from the honest guys in the govt!!! Again, where is your PROOF they even got audited, let alone, it happening regularly?? FOOLS!!!

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Wow, you didn’t understand the convo- Arcanek agreed people who doubt the Fed gets audited are imbeciles, and he took exception to being lumped in with idiots such as yourself.

            Keep trying to spin your issues with the Bilderbergs wouldn’t exist if their last names were “Anderson”

          • Arcanek

            You illiterate imbecile. My post didn’t say anything about auditing the fed, in the first place. You brought it up as a red herring, because you start foaming at the mouth any time somebody mentions the fed.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            And I congratulated you on not maintaining one ignoramus opinion among the many other ignoramus opinions you do maintain. Keep up, after making a minimal attempt to read. Thanks!

          • Arcanek

            All you do is talk trash. No information. you can’t even comprehend what little you read, and you assume way too much. Try learning how to read, imbecile. You haven’t gotten a single thing right in any of your responses to me.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You don’t get to chide people for their trash talking while your posts are filled with name calling and insults as well

          • Arcanek

            You started it, asshole. Fake accusations and ad hominem, straw men and red herring. then, when you get back what you start, you cry foul. Apparently, fuckwits like you think they are entitled to ridicule others, but that nobody should be allowed to ridicule them in return.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL no I’m giving you a taste of your own medicine whiner

          • Arcanek

            No, you’re just spewing trash. Apparently, anyone who points out that you resort to straw man and red herrings, instead of logic is a whiner. get a grip.

          • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

            It’s the illenial/libbiot/trendie modus operandi, Arc. Deflect, deflect, deflect….and NEVER deny OR admit ANYTHING. Hey, it works for Congress…….

          • CCblogging

            Red shirt is all about ignorance and BS

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Look at your own posting history

          • CCblogging

            I don’t have to look at any of my posts to know they are intelligent and show perception. Like I said, you are ignorant and a BS artist. You really come across as unredeemable and stupid.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You called the entire Federal Reserve system- one with many appointees voted on by the President in a process voted into law by Congress- “criminals”. You can criticize the concept of the Fed all you like but really, you are posting dimwit hysteria

          • Arcanek

            Because you say so? You’re the one posting the stupidity. Try learning some formal logic, and then try studying history. You have an 8th grade education, at best, from the nonsense you post.

          • Arcanek

            Why is yours hidden, when you do this? You’ve got your profile hidden because you don’t want others to see how you don’t back up a single idiotic outburst from you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            whine whine whine whine

          • Arcanek

            As usual, you have nothing. You can’t defend a single bit of the idiocy you blather.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I’ve been dismantling your Articles of Confederation woo pretty well

          • Arcanek

            No, you haven’t. you’re just spewing shit again. Only a complete fuckwit like you congratulates themselves like this. what a weak mind you have. You haven’t made any counterpoints.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            … except completely destroying your “the US Constitution is treason” ignorance

          • Arcanek

            you’ve done no such thing. all you’ve done is reveal your ignorance of history.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Nah, I know that the US Constitution wasn’t fully ratified until 1790 and not one Convention without going through the process of ratification as laid out by the Articles, a fact I keep mentioning and you don’t respond to

          • Arcanek

            Apparently, you have no idea of what the ratification process consists of. The process was not in accordance with the Articles of Confederation. You are clearly wrong. The Philadelphia Convention was not authorized by the Congress of the confederation, which is the first requirement.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            lol and yet it was accepted by all member states- yeah you don’t know what a government is, you’re just obsessed with documents

            Aspergers or merely autistic? What’s your diagnosis?

          • Arcanek

            “Aspergers or merely autistic? What’s your diagnosis?”

            Neither one. My diagnosis is that you’re just a delusional imbecile.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL you get really hostile when someone calls you out and/or correctly guesses you’re off the NT scale there Rainman

          • Arcanek

            Hostile? Seriously, bitch? You must live in a gated community. Wow, are you touchy. Of course, the caps lock meltdowns are a pretty good indicator.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            … my point made by your post

          • Arcanek

            If your point was that you don’t understand your own language, you’ve proven that beyond any doubt.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            As calling people “bitch” isn’t hostile, right

          • Arcanek

            If that’s your idea of hostile (who said anything about ‘hostile’, snowflake), then you’ve led a seriously sheltered life.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Sorry, I don’t hang out with gangster rappers and outlaw bikers who consider “bitch” to not be an insult

          • Arcanek

            You said hostile. now, it’s ‘insult’. Just like everything else, you can’t keep the story straight. And, you were supposed to learn in kindergarten that ‘names can never hurt you’. Too bad you couldn’t even handle kindergarten. You needed a social promotion, snowflake. How sad for you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL again you think “bitch” ever shows you aren’t getting worked up about the convo? And you are admitting all you are doing is flaming me and not even trying to discuss the topic at hand? Cool that you’re admitting to your complete trolling here

          • Arcanek

            You’re way to sensitive, snowflake. Only a total loser makes comments like ‘you are admitting…’. You have to understand truth and validity. You don’t even have a kindergarten education.

          • Arcanek

            “LOL again you think “bitch” ever shows you aren’t getting worked up
            about the convo?”

            If you think that’s getting worked up, you’re just too ‘edgy’, snowflake. And take a look at yourself, clown. What does your use of ‘douchbag’ say about how much you just got your face melted?

            “And you are admitting all you are doing is flaming me and not even trying to discuss the topic at hand?”

            Playing the victim. How ‘edgy’. You started the flame war, not me. I made a comment, and posted a link to back it up. You started in with the ‘conspiracy theory’ website nonsense and didn’t even bother to look at the site. You were the one who didn’t want to discuss the topic,

            “Cool that you’re admitting to your complete trolling here”

            More fatuous nonsense. You’re grasping at straw, here. What a huge ego for such a small mind.

            “Anyhow, enjoy wasting your Friday night as well as your life being a douchebag on the internet who is just too edgy to ever be a productive or valuable member of society who people care about”

            I didn’t waste my time waiting for you to spew more idiocy. And, once again, you have nothing but a false characterization as a weak attempt at an ad hominem response. I doubt that you contribute anything of value to anyone. You seem like a worthless government employee.

          • CCblogging

            The Fed is never audited by anyone but their fellow criminals. Try again.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Uh huh if you say so

            LOL circular logic at its finest

          • CCblogging

            You are a real BS artist. That slant doesn’t work with the informed.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL I’ll bet you’re really “informed”, so tell us more about the lizard men in control of everything

          • CCblogging

            You are showing your ignorance again. I have come to expect that from a dim bed wetter like you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL you’re the one who believes in inane conspiracy theories and you’re calling others “bed wetter”?

          • CCblogging

            Yes, you are a dim bed wetter and a no fact BSer

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL You called the Fed “criminal”- you don’t know anything about anything

            Again it’s fine to dis on the idea of the Fed but you’re just a troll

          • CCblogging

            “dis” You just gave yourself away. You are a product of affirmative action and your street gutter talk proves it.. Just another pampered ignorant libtard. Your mission for that George Soros’ org that you write for is to disrupt and hinder true discussion on grave issues. I am through with you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I see, you’re a straight up Stormfronter

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL which is why you’ve not been able to respond to me factually, you just insult me. Again you ignore that Congress passed the law that created the Fed

          • Arcanek

            what conspiracy theories are you referring to? At least you understood that he called you a bed wetter. You are completely off the tracks with the conspiracy theory hallucination of yours, however.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL I’m still laughing at those troll links you opened with

          • Arcanek

            You’re lying. There weren’t any pictures, so you couldn’t be laughing. This is just a stupid attempt to divert from the fact that you can’t argue against the author’s position. Even a moron could do better than this.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            whine whine whine whine

            Sorry I’m not a part of your echo chamber circle jerk

          • Arcanek

            More childish deflection from you. And don’t judge others by yourself. I’ve never been involved in any circle jerk, jackwad.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            *yawn*

          • Arcanek

            Still can’t back up a single bit of the idiocy you’ve spewed.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            HELLO I HAVE BEEN

            You still haven’t- calling the US Constitution “treason”, especially with the flimsy argument you put forth, is the height of trolling.

            No, you don’t get to redefine words to make cases you don’t like them- just make the case for why you don’t like the present structure of this present Constitutional government, it’s really that simple trollio

          • Arcanek

            “HELLO I HAVE BEEN”

            Looks like you went right off the tracks, here. Lost your train of thought before you could even complete a simple sentence. And, judging from the all caps, it must be one of those ‘ragequits’ you’ve been blathering about.

            “You still haven’t- calling the US Constitution “treason”, especially with the flimsy argument you put forth, is the height of trolling.”

            Only to a bootlicking, slovenly troll like you, who represents the bottom feeders of trolling.

            “No, you don’t get to redefine words to make cases you don’t like them-”

            It’s the fundamental concepts that you are unaware of. You don’t understand formal logic, so you don’t understand your own language. I haven’t redefined anything. You don’t know the difference between truth and validity.

            “just make the case for why you don’t like the present structure of this present Constitutional government, it’s really that simple trollio”

            No, idiot. Even if it were that simple, it would still be over your head. You were programmed, and you can’t see it. You were schooled, not educated.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            So much rancor and so little actually said… lol you still think proposing a Constitution automatically makes it a government lol

          • Arcanek

            What do you mean by still? When did I ever suggest that? Oh, that’s right, you just make shit up, because you can’t control yourself, let alone back up anything you say.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            So you’re admitting your use of the word “treason” as well as understanding of when the US Constitution became the active framework for government was incorrect before? And that you never had a real point? Cool

          • Arcanek

            No, it’s still correct. You still don’t get it. you argue like a 5 year old. Probably wet you pants, too.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Still waiting on anyone who isn’t some totally awesome anarchist bro dude to agree that working through the political process to restructure a government is “treason”

          • Arcanek

            I’m still waiting for you to show some indication you understand Englsh.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Congress called for the Convention

          • Arcanek

            Officially,
            it was being convened to discuss alterations to the then constitution
            of the United States of America: the Articles of Confederation. Some
            state legislatures had authorized their representatives to attend the
            meeting only on this basis, explicitly prohibiting them from
            considering a new constitution.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Which is how/why the Bill of Rights came into being, partially- and don’t forget, those states elected not to send representatives, they waived their right to be heard.

          • Arcanek

            You’ve got it wrong, as usual. You’re just one seriously programmed slave. How mindless.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I’ve never posted a macro on Disqus in my life

            Why argue against a waste of time?

          • Arcanek

            You’re just replying randomly, anyway. Not that you are capable of anything else, since you don’t even understand your own language.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Nah that’s you.

          • Arcanek

            Well, at least you’re getting up to 1st grade insults now.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I’m sad you continue to merely be a kindergartener then- what about the creation of the Bill of Rights?

          • Arcanek

            I’ve already explained that to you, you stupid asshole. The states insisted on them. Madison penned them, in order to save the constitution. The convention voted unanimously against the inclusion, 10-0.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Funny you don’t seem to understand that eventually the Bill of Rights was voted into the Constitution… which wasn’t the framework of our government until it was ratified, not when it was first proposed.

            LOL you chiding me on logic lol

          • Arcanek

            Idiot. The Bill of Rights was added as a condition of ratification. And once again, more straw man idiocy from you. I never made any claims about the draft constitution regarding its adoption. You just make things up to try to appear to not be confused.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You don’t seem to understand- the inclusion of the Bill of Rights doesn’t refute my point, but it refutes yours. The Constitution was just a proposal and not law until the ratification process was complete, and the addition of Amendments was both part of that negotiation… as well as final drafting of the Constitution (until it became active and allowed for the Amendment process which eventually became what we have today).

            Keep up

          • Arcanek

            You don’t understand, you idiot. I never claimed what you say I claimed. Quote me.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You claimed the that Convention itself engaged in treason
            “What ‘Colonies’ are you referring to? The Articles of Confederation were ratified by the constituent states. As for treason, idiot, the convention at Philadelphia created a new government, overthrowing the old government. The Philadelphia convention was never authorized by the Congress of the confederation. that, asshole, is treason.”

            Being authorized through the Congress wasn’t needed WHEN ALL STATES AGREED TO THIS PROCESS

          • Arcanek

            Officially,
            it was being convened to discuss alterations to the then constitution
            of the United States of America: the Articles of Confederation. Some
            state legislatures had authorized their representatives to attend the
            meeting only on this basis, explicitly prohibiting them from
            considering a new constitution.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Which is how/why the Bill of Rights came into being, partially- and don’t forget, those states elected not to send representatives, they waived their right to be heard. Sound familiar Mr. Too Cool to Vote?

            Don’t you know a goddamn thing about American history?

          • Arcanek

            No, that has nothing to do with how the bill of rights was amended to the constitution. Only one state did not send anyone, child. Does that sound familiar, ms. too stupid to make her own decisions, and needs to be told what to do?

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Nothing you posted there refutes anything I quoted or argued- and again, states electing not to send reps originally doesn’t invalidate the process, and they DID later on ratify the Constitution AFTER those Amendments we keep referring to were added, meaning YOU DON’T HAVE AN ACTUAL POINT IN CALLING ANYTHING TREASON

          • Arcanek

            You don’t know a thing about history. Elbridge Gerry put forth the motion for the inclusion of the Bill of rights during the convention. it was seconded by Edmund Randolph. It was voted down 10-0.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            … and it was added in later on

            And again nothing there refutes me

          • Arcanek

            But, you were wrong, and it was not pertinent to the issue.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            No, I never said the Bill of Rights was added at the Convention, and I never stated the Constitution was fully ratified in 1789, but in 1796. I don’t consider the partial ratification in 1789 the time that the Constitution became the law of the land or even was fully drafted- again, I’m saying that was in 1796

          • Arcanek

            Then, you’ve invalidated your own argument, because the conditions were actually codified, as far as ratification.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Uh huh and if the way the US Constitution was ratified violated those… then why did all the holdout states eventually negotiate and get their say before they’d ratify it?

            You keep bringing up how a few states didn’t participate actively at the Convention and that somehow invalidates the work done then, but you ignore that their say was indeed included in later versions of the Constitution, and indeed that was the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

          • Arcanek

            So, if the sellout government is all in agreement, then it’s all good, for you? And, you’re wrong abut the bill of rights. Try doing some serious research. Wikipedia is not a good source.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL calling people you disagree with “sellouts” totally is the hallmark of someone who is mature and not putting forth an effort to be edgy yup

            In other words, you have no explanation, you’re mad that society doesn’t play by your rules

          • Arcanek

            Try learning some comprehension, here. You are just shooting in the dark. good thing all you’ve got is blanks.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Maybe you could try stepping outside of your echo chambers where tassels on the flag in a courtroom somehow invalidate the proceedings

          • Arcanek

            You’re the flag worshiper, imbecile. And your echo chamber is your empty skull, now that you’ve spewed all the shit from it.

          • Arcanek

            Another straw man. How boring. where did I ever mention anything like this? Apparently reality is somewhere you’ve never been.

          • Arcanek

            Yes, it does, but you’d have to understand English and logic. not that it had anything to do with the reason you are trolling me.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Well explain it then Professor Can’t Be Bothered to Argue a Point

          • Arcanek

            I’m not about to start explaining English to you. you’ll have to take care of that yourself, snowflake. You might be used to being spoon fed, but it’s time for you to grow up.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Laziness confirmed

          • Arcanek

            Yes, you certainly have confirmed your laziness. you didn’t bother to learn to think foryourself. you got schooled because it was easier than educating yourself.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Funny you won’t say when you feel the Constitution became the basis of government. Also funny, you won’t detail the magical thinking by which you feel the Convention instantly formed a new government prior to any of the states voting on it too

          • Arcanek

            Still can’t let go of the straw men and red herrings, can you, snowflake? Learn some formal logic, and then try again.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Actually, your definition of treason is the false premise being discussed in this conversation, nothing else really.

          • Arcanek

            No, you’ve responded with dic=version, deflection, red herrings and straw men. Get a grip.

          • Arcanek

            It’s not a false premise. You just can’t grasp reality.

          • Arcanek

            Another straw man. why do you feel such a need to look like such a slovenly slave? Instead of rebutting, all you do is try to deflect. You’re stupid enough to work for the government.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL you’re totally edgy man lol

          • Arcanek

            Still can’t answer anything?

          • Arcanek

            That’s not circular logic, imbecile.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You’re right, I was being a bit kind by calling it logic of any sort

          • Arcanek

            You know nothing of formal logic. You have yet to present any position that is not fllacious.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Considering your positions are based on ignorance and terrible understandings of the law, you really haven’t argued for anything yourself

          • Arcanek

            If my replies are based on ignorance, then why are you entirely unable to respond to any of them, you imbecile? you haven’t even shown that you understand your own language. all you do is deflect.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I just completely refuted your false, ignorant history on the ratification of the US Constitution, and referred implicitly to the addition of the Bill of Rights that made it possible

          • Arcanek

            No, you refuted nothing. You just said it was wrong, but that only shows you know nothing about the subject.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            I’ve displayed a far greater understanding of the formation US government than you have- again how does adopting the Constitution as per the procedures in the Articles when all thirteen Colonies ratified it? You seem to think documents matter more than people and practical governance

          • Arcanek

            “I’ve displayed a far greater understanding of the formation US
            government than you have-”

            No, you haven’t. You still refer to the United States as colonies during the Philadelphia convention. You don’t get it at all.

            ” again how does adopting the Constitution as
            per the procedures in the Articles”

            That’s not what happened. I already explained this to you. You are mistaken.

            “when all thirteen Colonies ratified
            it?”

            There were no colonies involved. If they were, then this would have been an act of treason against the king, so, either way, you’re wrong.

            ” You seem to think documents matter more than people and practical
            governance”

            The documents are the definition. you seem to think that you can just make things up to suit your ignorance. try this tactic in a court of law. You’ll fail.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            LOL you still don’t understand the difference between a proposed constitution and a ratified Constitution

          • Arcanek

            More BS from you to deflect. Try sticking to the pertinent issues.instead of ignorantly attempting to duck out like this. More babbling from you.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Proposing a restructuring of government by way of a newly proposed Constitution and getting all the states to agree to it A. doesn’t make it the new Constitution before ratification and B. isn’t treason. Trying to knock down the government through force or subversion of public institutions etc. is

          • Arcanek

            You missed the point once again, and you’re fabricating a position to justify it. try again.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            “Still waiting on anyone who isn’t some totally awesome anarchist bro dude to agree that working through the political process to restructure a government is “treason”-you

            Domestically, the Articles of Confederation was failing to bring unity to the diverse sentiments and interests of the various states. Although the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed between Great Britain and the U.S., and named each of the American states, various individual states proceeded blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[13] Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreign authorities, raised armies, and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the Articles.

            During Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, Congress could provide no money to support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise funds from Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[15] During the next Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. Connecticut paid nothing and “positively refused” to pay U.S. assessments for two years.[16] A rumor had it that a “seditious party” of New York legislators had opened a conversation with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be openly funding Creek Indian raids on white settlers in Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah (then-capital of Georgia) had been fortified, and the state of Georgia was under martial law.[17]

            Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted. If a state’s delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.[18] The Articles Congress had “virtually ceased trying to govern”.[19] The vision of a “respectable nation” among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Rufus King. Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.[20]

            On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government.[21] Unlike earlier attempts, the convention was not meant for new laws or piecemeal alterations, but for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. The convention was not limited to commerce; rather, it was intended to “render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.” The proposal might take effect when approved by Congress and the states.[22]”- wikipedia, which reminds me of a minor point of fact you’ve been lying about- Congress did approve of the conventions

          • Arcanek

            Officially,
            it was being convened to discuss alterations to the then constitution
            of the United States of America: the Articles of Confederation. Some
            state legislatures had authorized their representatives to attend the
            meeting only on this basis, explicitly prohibiting them from
            considering a new constitution.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            Which is how/why the Bill of Rights came into being, partially- and don’t forget, those states elected not to send representatives, they waived their right to be heard. Sound familiar Mr. Too Cool to Vote?
            Don’t you know a goddamn thing about American history?

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            What’s pertinent is you’re a douchebag with nothing of value to say, and you’re ignorant to boot

          • Arcanek

            And you were pissing your self about me calling you names. Can’t take it? You don’t dish it out very well, either.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            If you’re at least trying to argue a point, I’m fine with overlooking that. At this point though you’re just posting because someone is annoying you, you don’t have a point anymore

          • Arcanek

            All of your straw men and all of your red herrings do not invalidate my point, and neither does your deflection.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            You stated originally that the Convention created a new government directly- need me to quote you yet again?

          • Arcanek

            Give it another try, and see if you get closer this time. Now, you’re trying to slither out this semantically. What a slug.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            “As for treason, idiot, the convention at Philadelphia created a new government, overthrowing the old government. The Philadelphia convention was never authorized by the Congress of the confederation. that, asshole, is treason.” you

            So, what was it? The Constitution became active in the states who ratified it in 1789 or two years prior, in 1787- as your quote implies?

          • Arcanek

            Try focusing. You’re getting boring. you argue like a five year old. Go back, read my comments from the start, and try again.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            BTW I noticed you ragequit the internet after I pointed out that you ignored the entire process by which the first ten Amendments came into being… and that every Colony did ratify the US Constitution by the process laid out in the Articles of Confederation.

          • Arcanek

            No, you mean you are patting your self on the back, thinking i was upset by your moronic spewing. your lack of history knowledge is appalling. If you want to know how the first ten amendments came into being, you’ll need to educate yourself. First of all, there were no colonies that ratified the constitution, you imbecile. With the Declaration of Independence, the former colonies broke away from England. With the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, the United States of America was formed. the last state ratified the Articles of confederation in 1781. The convention in Philadelphia did not occur until 6 years later. There were no colonies at the time of the convention. 70 attendees were supposed to take part, but only 55 showed up. Rhode Island didn’t even send anyone, since they saw it as a ploy to get rid of ststes’ rights. Of the 55 who did attend, thirteen left, in protest, including 2 from New York, who wrote letters of warning to the governor about the proceedings. The last issue voted upon was the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. The motion was put forward by Elbridge Gerry, and seconded by Edmund Randolph. The proposed rights were basically taken from the work of George Mason, who had written the enumerated rights in the constitution of the commonwealth of Virginia. The motion was defeated unanimously. 10-0. Gerry, Randolph and Mason refused to sign the constitution without the Bill of Rights. Only 39 of the 70 intended representatives signed the document. Thirteen attendees left because of the treasonous proceedings. When the content of the constitution was revealed, the Anti Federalists brought the issue of rights into the public, and the states all proposed amendments as condition for ratification. North Carolina alone, proposed 74 amendments. 120 different amendments were proposed by the states, in total. In order to save the constitution, Madison condensed them down to 10. And there were no colonies to follow the proscribed method of the articles of confederation. The initiative was to be at the behest of congress, which never occurred.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            lol ragequit rant confirmed

            And yup, we’re back to “surrender our buttholes to our Russian overlords as the US was never a legit country to begin with”- what a patriot you are!

            I’m curious, what nation are you loyal to? It’s not the US, you’re making rather treasonous arguments yourself. You even acknowledge the process by which the Constitution was ratified after I pointed it out, which directly contradicts your assertion that the Constitution became the law of the land directly after the Convention without one vote on it.

            Again this is only treason if you don’t believe the US is a valid country. If you do not believe the US is a valid country, you are against its existence by definition- and THAT is an actually accepted definition of treason

          • Arcanek

            “lol ragequit rant confirmed”

            More fantasy. You obviously have no idea what rage is. Still using the kindergarten definition, since that’s as far as you ever got.

            “And yup, we’re back to “surrender our buttholes to our Russian overlords as the US was never a legit country to begin with”- what a patriot you are!”

            How did you eve get this hallucination? You brought up the Russians. Why are you so afraid of them?

            “I’m curious, what nation are you loyal to?”

            You’re stupid. I’m not loyal to any nation. Why should I be? Nation states are just another divide and conquer ploy. I know I’ll have an endless task trying to straighten out the fallacies you’ll spew regarding this position, but knock your self out. It’s funny seeing how stupid you are.

            “It’s not the US, you’re making rather treasonous arguments yourself.”

            Treason requires a belief in the legitimacy of government. Yet another concept beyond your intellect. They are supposed to play by their own rules.

            “You even acknowledge the process by which the Constitution was ratified after I pointed it out,”

            No, asshole, I was already aware of the process. I’ve posted many times about the conjobstitution in the past. You’ve viewed my profile. If you had bothered to read the link I posted, you wouldn’t be making such stupid statements.

            “which directly contradicts your assertion that the Constitution became the law of the land directly after the Convention without one vote on it.”

            Another complete lie. I never made any such statement, you stupid cunt. You’re not even a good liar.

            “Detailing the process by which consensus among the Colonies was achieved doesn’t negate that that consensus was achieved.”

            There were no ‘colonies’ involved. They were independent states, joined together in a confederation.

            “Again this is only treason if you don’t believe the US is a valid country-”

            No, idiot. You’ve got it wrong. Treason requires one to accept the legitimacy. The issue is validity.

            “the Colonies still sent Representatives etc. to DC to hammer out laws,”

            Are you really this stupid? First, they ceased existence with the Declaration of Independence. Second, there was no District of Columbia before the constitution. One of the reasons for the capitol district was because of the backlash against the government for reneging on its duties, which caused the Congress of the confederation to flee Philadelphia for New Jersey.

            “this wasn’t anentirely new entity, but a reorganized one.”

            It was entirely new. Read Madison’s Federalist Papers contributions. He is credited as the author of the constitution, and he was quite clear that the constitution created a new government, the likesof which had never previously existed. this is not debatable. You’re just plain wrong.

            “If you do not believe the US is a valid country, you are against its existence by definition- andTHAT is an actually accepted definition of treason”

            By your own idiocy, then, you have just admitted that the constitution was an act of treason. The attendees of the convention all believed in the authority of the Confederation. You don’t understand game theory, and you’ve been gamed. That’s why you don’t understand the concept of treason, and have it all backwards. Get a clue, imbecile.

          • Craigslist Redshirt1

            lol more ragequit ranting that ignores you don’t understand the difference between something being proposed and something being implemented

            I’m guessing you never worked in IT or other project management? Or anything that isn’t trolling the internet with ignorant and poorly considered arguments?

          • Gary Von Neida

            The federal reserve is not part of the United States Government, it is a Centralized (International) Banking CABAL. n 1913 when Washington D.C. had been, for the most part, vacated for the Holidays the damned thing was chartered.We were warned almost One Hundred Years before not to allow Foreign control of Our Currency–J.F.K. figured it out and gave Treasury back the power to print OUR MONEY—it cost Him His life.Three Day’s after He was slaughtered His Executive order was overturned and the fed resumed it’s thievery.

          • Arcanek

            You posted this to the wrong person. I never questioned any of that.

        • elbustaroyjetspeekerson

          NOW we’re TALKIN! YEEEAAH!!

    • CCblogging

      Less than a week would suit me.

  • Smarty

    When I read the last sentence of the first ppg, I mistakenly read: “Their ASSES will be hacked next”. I think I’d rather see that happen instead. I’ll supply the hatchets….

  • SP_88

    What’s with all the capiTol lettErs sCattered throuGhout the meSsage? Is it sOme soRt of suPer secrEt coDe? Or iS tHeir cAps lOck broKen?

  • Sonokar

    If this is real, then all the Bilderberg group needs to do is offer Anonymous a billion dollars to STFU to continue with the NWO work of taking over the world.

    • Arcanek

      Provided that anonymous was stupid enough to trust them. If they could find them to bribe them, they can find them to snuff them.

  • Chen Young

    What a pointless hack. How about you get at their bank accounts, buy a bunch of bitcoins, and distribute them to bitcoin wallets. Do something that actually counts.
    You think they care about a website being down? As if that’s going to impede their plans even 1 bit?

    All this does is alert them that there is a threat against them and allows them time to prepare counter measures. You don’t fight a dragon by pricking off 1 scale.

    • Oren Player

      Actually, it places a giant target on the back of the hacker or hackers. The Bilderberg group has sufficient networks to find the hacker and do away with him.. If you are going to hack into the international banking mafia network, make sure you hit it hard the first time since you may be running for your life from then on.

      • Arcanek

        Apparently, Benjamin Fulford never got any traction. They should have released everything they have. That would inform as many people as possible, and the hacking floodgates would open. It would also put the other side in damage control mode.

  • Arcanek

    Probably part of their algorithm to ensure anonymity. Randomly changing case from point to point means that the messages checksums would vary, making it difficult to track, as the incoming and outgoing messages would not match, even though the content was identical for its intended purpose. Probably every byte of the message gets changed after every relay.

  • Faction_Paradox

    This group has a ‘higher authority’ on its side. So high it touches the stars themselves. ; )

  • GRAMPA

    Grampa says listen!

  • Freebird Chile

    It sounds great, but if that is true, then I want to see one of their planning meetings
    on tape…
    To help the creditibility alone the way

  • Meltonmark

    I do so hope this is true…!

  • marlene

    Gotta love Anonymous!

  • herb greenely

    hack the Council on Foreign Relations!!

  • lll%

    Knock’m dead john, the exposure will be a gift.

  • Pamela

    Thank God that He assigned a group of men and/or women that can figure out cyber tech and prevent Satan from taking over the air waves and our freedoms! Praise the Lord Yahushua!

  • CCblogging

    Hackers, hurt the elitist bast**ds and hurt them as much as possible!

  • barbarakelly

    I LOVE THIS -WAY TO GO GROUP—–HACK THE BUGGERS AND LET THEM KNOW WE ARE WATCHING. NO MORE ARE THEY GOING TO RUN OUR LIVES. THEY ARE FINISHED. THEY NEED TO GO CRAWL BACK IN THEIR HOLES. WE KNOW WHAT IS COMING OUR WAY. WE AREN’T STUPID TREADING US LIKE IDIOTS.!!!!

  • geneiup

    What is new with pizzagate child sacrifices to satan !

  • Larry

    Hooray for these Hackers !!!!!! HOORAY !!!!!