How to interpret this evidence?

[Horatius]

It's irrelevant until a consensus is established on whether or not they do desire a world-government. Or what conclusion would you draw based on the evidence I've presented.

The bolded word is the problem here. You're taking the comments of one guy (Ronson) about what he thinks some members of the Bildeberg group believe, and ascribing them to the entire group at large. There's nothing to suggest that a one-world government is an outcome desired by the group as an official policy, or by any large number of the members of the group as individuals.

Have you never been a member of a group in which a few members believed something contrary to what the others believed?

 

[Rikeln]

The bolded word is the problem here. You're taking the comments of one guy (Ronson) about what he thinks some members of the Bildeberg group believe, and ascribing them to the entire group at large. There's nothing to suggest that a one-world government is an outcome desired by the group as an official policy, or by any large number of the members of the group as individuals.

Have you never been a member of a group in which a few members believed something contrary to what the others believed?

This was already addressed several posts ago. If we are to go specifically from what Ronson and Healey have said then this is not the minority view within the Bilderberg Group as you have implied.

 

[Fourbrick]

This is the only group one I could support.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080924215324AAbHIP6

 

[Horatius]

This was already addressed several posts ago. If we are to go specifically from what Ronson and Healey have said then this is not the minority view within the Bilderberg Group as you have implied.

And you're reading too much into his comments if you insist that they prove this is the majority viewpoint. At about 1:20, Ronson says, "I do think that by and large, many members of the Bilberberg Group actually see themselves in much the same way as the Conspiracy Theorists see them".


"Many" does not mean "most", and it's still not an official stance of the group - even if we accept Ronson's analysis as being completely correct. How many of them has he interviewed in order to arrive at this assessment? We've been given no information on that. As such, it's only his informed speculation, and as such, not of great value in determining what the majority of the group actually believe.

 

[DGM]

I can post an exact description of both "orders" from a credible source that attends Bilderberg but that would distract from the point of the thread. Did you give your interpretation yet? Let's discuss your interpretation and then I"ll PM it to you.

I don't think the "evidence" means a whole hell of a lot. If they're in favor of a "world government" who cares? I don't buy into the premise that a few influential people could change or cause wholesale change in world politics.

I'd still like to know what you think is the current "world order" (not someone else's Utube video, your explanation)

 

[Rikeln]

I don't think the "evidence" means a whole hell of a lot. If they're in favor of a "world government" who cares?

But that isn't the question. The question is not "If the Bilderberg Group is in favor of a world-government does it matter?". The question is "Is the Bilderberg Group comprised of globalists who desire a world-government?" The evidence does mean a lot for that question.

I don't buy into the premise that a few influential people could change or cause wholesale change in world politics.

That's not my premise. My question was not "Will the Bilderberg Group be influential enough to establish a world-government?"

I'd still like to know what you think is the current "world order" (not someone else's Utube video, your explanation)

Again, I'll be happy to post information about this once the original purpose of the thread has been fulfilled.

 

[Rikeln]

And you're reading too much into his comments if you insist that they prove this is the majority viewpoint. At about 1:20, Ronson says, "I do think that by and large, many members of the Bilberberg Group actually see themselves in much the same way as the Conspiracy Theorists see them".

"Many" does not mean "most",

Except we aren't specifically interested in finding out how many of the Bilderberg members see themselves as the conspiracists see them, which according to Ronson is as a "shadowy cabal out to, if not rule the world then influence world events". If many of the Bilderberg members see themselves that way that's fine. Not exactly relevant to our discussion.

We're debating your interpretation and trying to find out if most or all of the Bilderberg members favor world-government. When Bilderberg founder Denis Healey described "a Bilderberg person" to want world-government that is a strong clue. He's obviously speaking for all of them in this case. Although for some the quote from Healey is too weak to say for certain what he means. So we have the video. Ronson says "they" are globalists twice. He also says the Bilderberg Group is, by and large, into world-government/NWO. This should mean at least "most".

Either way there is no room left for your interpretation that it is the minority viewpoint within the group.

and it's still not an official stance of the group - even if we accept Ronson's analysis as being completely correct. How many of them has he interviewed in order to arrive at this assessment? We've been given no information on that. As such, it's only his informed speculation, and as such, not of great value in determining what the majority of the group actually believe.

According to Ronson he's interviewed one of the founding members, Denis Healey, and several other members. I also have seen him interview the President of the Steering Committee or the Steering Committee Chancellor or some such title. If this is not enough for him to determine what the Bilderberg Group is about in your opinion then I suppose we'll have to live with that. Obviously CNN felt otherwise when they invited him on their show to give information about the Bilderberg Group. My friend who has also conducted research on them and came to the conclusion that they are not globalists and don't want world-government interviewed zero of them, so I like Ronson's position better.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Does this lend credence to your suggestion. It's described as Ronson's favorite review of Them.

http://www.jonronson.com/them_fave.html

I think your "friend" is closer to Ronson's POV than you are.

 

[Horatius]

When Bilderberg founder Denis Healey described "a Bilderberg person" to want world-government that is a strong clue. He's obviously speaking for all of them in this case. Although for some the quote from Healey is too weak to say for certain what he means.

You mean this quote?

To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.

Where he clearly states that striving for a one-world government is an exaggeration? You choose to assume that by desiring a "community throughout the world" that he secretly, really means One World Government, rather than, you know, a community. People talking, getting to know one another, working to solve or avoid problems before they become an issue for national governments - who have a demonstrated tendency to solve problems with wars, rather than discussion.

He also says the Bilderberg Group is, by and large, into world-government/NWO. This should mean at least "most".

No, he says that many members "by and large" see themselves as the CTists see them. You've applied that phrase to the membership, rather than the members, which I think is what he really meant. Again, you interpret his words so as to confirm the belief you already have.

Thus, the only estimate we have for the proportion of members who (John Ronson thinks) believe this is "many". Were Mr. Ronson to think that "most" of them believe this, I'm confident he would have said that.

Either way there is no room left for your interpretation that it is the minority viewpoint within the group.

Well, as you can see, this is yet another erroneous conclusion.

 

[Rikeln]

Does this lend credence to your suggestion. It's described as Ronson's favorite review of Them.

http://www.jonronson.com/them_fave.html

I think your "friend" is closer to Ronson's POV than you are.

Read it. I don't see how it strengthens or weakens either of our positions. I have never claimed that a world-government or the Bilderberg Group is evil or made up of space lizards. Or that Jews secretly run the world.

That was never the topic of debate. The topic was to interpret Ronson's interview with Healey and his interview on CNN and determine whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government. My friend says this is not the case and that a globalist, which Ronson calls the Bilderbergers two times, is just a member of an organization with international membership. Upon reading Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski's words about globalists and nationalists this is clearly, clearly not the case.

My friend also says that Ronson did not mean to say "world-government" and he was correcting himself when he added "one-world community". To me it is obvious that these are terrible, almost laughable errors on his part but I want to make sure. So far no one has repeated his interpretation but one or two have repeated mine. The rest of the thread so far has been largely irrelevant to the OP. We still haven't really arrived at a consensus.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Look, you obviously just want desperately to believe in the Bildburg/NWO equation, so go ahead and do so. But stop trying to drag Jon along with you. His FAVORITE review of the book pretty much says there's no conspiracy other than a bunch of people wanting to be liked and enjoying their little private tree house aspect.

Have you actually read the whole book, by the way? I read it as Hunter Thompson goes to Europe.

 

[Travis]

Read it. I don't see how it strengthens or weakens either of our positions. I have never claimed that a world-government or the Bilderberg Group is evil or made up of space lizards. Or that Jews secretly run the world.

That was never the topic of debate. The topic was to interpret Ronson's interview with Healey and his interview on CNN and determine whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government. My friend says this is not the case and that a globalist, which Ronson calls the Bilderbergers two times, is just a member of an organization with international membership. Upon reading Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski's words about globalists and nationalists this is clearly, clearly not the case.

My friend also says that Ronson did not mean to say "world-government" and he was correcting himself when he added "one-world community". To me it is obvious that these are terrible, almost laughable errors on his part but I want to make sure. So far no one has repeated his interpretation but one or two have repeated mine. The rest of the thread so far has been largely irrelevant to the OP. We still haven't really arrived at a consensus.

And we never will. If I pull out individual interviews with members of the US Congress could we determine, based on nothing but them, that the entirety of the US Congress desires peace or war? Prosperity or austerity?

See the problem there?

 

[Rikeln]

You mean this quote?

Yes

Where he clearly states that striving for a one-world government is an exaggeration?

Yes and I believe him. Striving is likely too strong a word. He wouldn't say there were striving for a world-government. Perhaps they are trying to bring it about only using a moderate level of exertion.

Believe me you aren't the first OWG/NWO skeptic to jizz yourself over the word "exaggeration" and completely ignore "but not wholly unfair" in that quote lol.

You choose to assume that by desiring a "community throughout the world" that he secretly, really means One World Government, rather than, you know, a community. People talking, getting to know one another, working to solve or avoid problems before they become an issue for national governments - who have a demonstrated tendency to solve problems with wars, rather than discussion.

No I recognize the ambiguity of his statement. That's why I also added the video. No one that already doesn't want to admit Bilderberg's OWG/NWO aspirations will let that quote fasten them to that conclusion. The video makes things much more interesting.

No, he says that many members "by and large" see themselves as the CTists see them.

I think you might be unaware that he uses the phrase "by and large" more than once in the video. Keep watching...

You've applied that phrase to the membership, rather than the members, which I think is what he really meant.

Again, keep watching, I think you didn't notice the other time he says "by and large" which is the one I'm referring to.

Again, you interpret his words so as to confirm the belief you already have.

Finding out which side is truly doing this is the ultimate aim of this thread. My friend demonstrated some extreme cases of this. And he considers himself a serious researcher. It was pretty embarassing.

His belief before he began researching the Bilderberg Group was already that they could not possibly be interested in a world-government or New World Order because that is a "conspiracy" and conspiracies can't be true. So seeing him process information that should have easily confirmed that Bilderberg does want those things was very interesting to witness. He can interpret it any way that allows him to deny that they want a world-government. Even so far as to say that Ronson accidentally said "world-government" in the interview and didn't mean to. Fascinating...

Thus, the only estimate we have for the proportion of members who (John Ronson thinks) believe this is "many". Were Mr. Ronson to think that "most" of them believe this, I'm confident he would have said that.

You took this way too far. He says "by and large" in reference to OWG/NWO, watch all of the video please.

Well, as you can see, this is yet another erroneous conclusion.

No it isn't, you are viewing the wrong portion of the video.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Read it. I don't see how it strengthens or weakens either of our positions. I have never claimed that a world-government or the Bilderberg Group is evil or made up of space lizards. Or that Jews secretly run the world.

That was never the topic of debate. The topic was to interpret Ronson's interview with Healey and his interview on CNN and determine whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government. My friend says this is not the case and that a globalist, which Ronson calls the Bilderbergers two times, is just a member of an organization with international membership. Upon reading Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski's words about globalists and nationalists this is clearly, clearly not the case.

My friend also says that Ronson did not mean to say "world-government" and he was correcting himself when he added "one-world community". To me it is obvious that these are terrible, almost laughable errors on his part but I want to make sure. So far no one has repeated his interpretation but one or two have repeated mine. The rest of the thread so far has been largely irrelevant to the OP. We still haven't really arrived at a consensus.

WE don't have to arrive at a consensus. YOU seem to need to. You've cherry-picked a quote from an interview in Them, and you don't want to consider the entirety of the work, learned opinions of it, or Ronson's own views of the book and its intentions. You want to pick out snippets of evidence and discuss just those.

No. I won't play. This is a common tactic of monomania. "Stick to my topic, dammit! Did Lincoln actually eat a custard pie, or not? Nothing else is important until we answer that!" Sorry, but you have to show the relevance of the custard pie to the entire question. And YOU need to show why these shippets of quote-mining are more important than all the rest of the body of his work on the topic.

So, like I said. Go believe in your scary Bilderburg conspiracy. I'll play by my own rules when it comes to judging evidence, though, and they're a lot closer to the norm than the isolated cherry-picking you seem to want to force us into.

 

[Rikeln]

Look, you obviously just want desperately to believe in the Bildburg/NWO equation, so go ahead and do so. But stop trying to drag Jon along with you. His FAVORITE review of the book pretty much says there's no conspiracy other than a bunch of people wanting to be liked and enjoying their little private tree house aspect.

If I was interested in finding out if there was a conspiracy that might be useful. I'm not though. I agree with Ronson that whether or not you view it as a conspiracy depends on your political outlook and if you consider yourself a Nationalist.

I want to know what is the proper interpretation of Jon Ronson's interview and Healey's quote? Is Bilderberg comprised of globalists who desire world-government? Why or why not? My friend has researched them and says they do not and they aren't globalists, at least not Brzezinski's globalists. But he hasn't interviewed any Bilderberg members and Ronson has.

Have you actually read the whole book, by the way? I read it as Hunter Thompson goes to Europe.

No I haven't read it. Just an article Ronson wrote about interviewing Bilderberg founder Healey and viewed the CNN interview.

 

[Horatius]

I think you might be unaware the he uses the phrase "by and large" more than once in the video. Keep watching...

The second instance is even weaker. It's still just Ronson's belief about what the group is about, and still doesn't address the proportion of the group that does believe that.

You'll also note that, just after that, when the interviewer says "They see themselves as a global government", Ronson disagrees with that assessment, doesn't he? He's clear that they use influence to encourage people they agree with - which is exactly what politics is all about.

 

[Rikeln]

And we never will. If I pull out individual interviews with members of the US Congress could we determine, based on nothing but them, that the entirety of the US Congress desires peace or war? Prosperity or austerity?

See the problem there?

You're saying that Ronson did not interview enough Bilderberg members or founders to get an overall feel for the nature/goals of the group? That may be.

However, Ronson is in a far superior position as a researcher who has interviewed a number of members including a founder compared to my friend who researched them and came to the opposite conclusion of Ronson but interviewed no members whatsoever.

We should at the least be able to arrive at a consensus of how to interpret Ronson's interview. My friend's interpretation or mine?

Did Ronson mistakenly say "world-government" and correct himself by saying "one-world community" and then add "New World Order"

Or did he purposefully say "world-government", and "One-world community" and "New World Order"?

Which definition of "globalist" seems most correct?

My friend's: International membership

Or mine (Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski's)

 

[Rikeln]

WE don't have to arrive at a consensus. YOU seem to need to. You've cherry-picked a quote from an interview in Them, and you don't want to consider the entirety of the work, learned opinions of it, or Ronson's own views of the book and its intentions. You want to pick out snippets of evidence and discuss just those.

Yes, I picked out ones that specifically referenced Bilderberg's position on world-government/NWO. I also provided Jon Ronson's entire CNN interview about the Bilderberg Group. The whole thing is interesting for this discussion.

You'll get no argument from me that people like Icke are way out there and not worth listening to. It's a shame that he represents conspiracists to many people, or a delight if you're a conspiracy skeptic I suppose.

No. I won't play. This is a common tactic of monomania. "Stick to my topic, dammit! Did Lincoln actually eat a custard pie, or not? Nothing else is important until we answer that!" Sorry, but you have to show the relevance of the custard pie to the entire question. And YOU need to show why these shippets of quote-mining are more important than all the rest of the body of his work on the topic.

Please tell me then, why is it important to discuss different ways the Bilderberg Group may go about bringing about a world-government before establishing that they would like to do so? Why should we discuss whether or not a world-government will be a good thing before determining if a powerful, influential group would like to bring one about? Both of these discussions have started in the thread already but they are premature in my opinion.

First we need to establish that they would like to bring about a world-government/NWO and that they are globalists. Listening to Ronson it seems clear that this is the case but I want to know how his words can be interpreted otherwise.

So, like I said. Go believe in your scary Bilderburg conspiracy. I'll play by my own rules when it comes to judging evidence, though, and they're a lot closer to the norm than the isolated cherry-picking you seem to want to force us into.

So you have no interpretation of Ronson's interview or Healey's quote one way or the other then? That's of no use to either me or my friend. One may wonder why you've been posting in the thread up until now.

 

[Rikeln]

The second instance is even weaker. It's still just Ronson's belief about what the group is about, and still doesn't address the proportion of the group that does believe that.

He says they're into world-government "by and large". Large means a lot, I know that. Sounds significant.

You'll also note that, just after that, when the interviewer says "They see themselves as a global government", Ronson disagrees with that assessment, doesn't he?

And rightly so. Bilderberg isn't a government, they want to bring about a world-government.

He's clear that they use influence to encourage people they agree with - which is exactly what politics is all about.

Um....right

 

[Foolmewunz]

You're really not grasping this thing, are you?

WE do not need to establish THAT they wish for a world government because WE do not necessarily believe that they do. YOU seem to. So YOU need to show us the interpretation that will sell this kettle of fish. I will state unequivocally that I do NOT believe that the Bilderburg group wants to set up a NWO/Global Dictatorship/World Government.

I also do not have the notes from the Mellons' family picnics at Latrobe. Am I supposed to assume that because I don't and because the Mellons don't invite in the tabloid press or Daniel Hopsicker that they are obviously plotting to overthrow the government of Pennsylvania and install Anton Scalia as the Czar of the Kingdom of Pennsylvania?




ME? I read the book. I read the ENTIRE interview with Healey. Frankly, Healey sounds a little pissed off at him during the interview (eff you would kinda give that away), but that's the sort of side effect you get if you practice gonzo journalism. The rich and powerful are used to being fawned on. But, then again, there's no guarantee that the interview is not being reported very subjectively.

The fact is that Jon controlled the pen. He could've put anything he wanted in that section's conclusion, in subequent articles, or in interviews. He seems quite capable of writing a declarative sentence. Why do we have to get clues like a deconstructivist class on WB Yeats? Why wouldn't he have just written or said, "And I have discovered that the Bilderberg Group have plans to take over the world and create a single government headed by the third cousin four times removed of Moishe Rothschild."

He didn't say this. So we're to parse his sentences and come to a conclusion as to what he meant? This is just patently absurd.

If you haven't read the book and cannot see that through the entirety of the section on Bilderburg, Ronson's much more interested in the mindset of the conspiracy lovers and even his own mindset in doing the investigation, then you have no reason to assume that a snippet of that interview (the entirety of which can be found on the web, I'm pretty certain) is more important than the whole interview.

The funniest aspect of the Bilderburg section (in a very funny book on several different types of conspiradroids) is when they realize that they started off on their big adventure to hunt down the secret cabal based on leads provided by a notorious anti-Jewish group and publication. Their reaction at the time is sort of "eh, what the hell, in for a penny, in for a pound". And I think he even quotes his partner or himself saying something to the effect, "Hey, just because our source material is a hate monger, that doesn't rule out that they really are a secret group out to take over the world."