How to interpret this evidence?

Here's another IMF article on Global Governance that discusses the need for a "controversial" "governance mechanism at the apex of the global system". They say the outlines of it can be sketched now. So that should give all of you that claimed it would never happen in your lifetimes something to think about.

Um, so what? How about instead of cherry-picking ambiguous terms/phrases and making implicit insinuations, you actually tell us what you believe this means? And why you believe that the IMF is in a position to get whatever it (supposedly) wants?

If you’re trying to argue that this tiny quote is evidence of a plan to institute some kind of world government, then you have to bring a little bit more to the table than just your hopes and dreams. I mean honestly, the things you people will believe from the smallest pieces of “evidence” is rather astonishing.
 
Um, so what? How about instead of cherry-picking ambiguous terms/phrases and making implicit insinuations, you actually tell us what you believe this means? And why you believe that the IMF is in a position to get whatever it (supposedly) wants?

If you’re trying to argue that this tiny quote is evidence of a plan to institute some kind of world government, then you have to bring a little bit more to the table than just your hopes and dreams. I mean honestly, the things you people will believe from the smallest pieces of “evidence” is rather astonishing.


Is this your first post in the thread? The past 6 IMF Directors attended the most influential and powerful group ever assembled, the Bilderberg Group, and according to Jon Ronson they are globalists interested in establishing a world-government/New World Order.

Check out the beginning of the thread.
 
OK, I'll bite. How exactly did you "imagine" this thread going?

hehe, well I figured people would give their interpretations of the evidence like I asked. Not the first time I've done this thread although it's the first time on this forum, but in other iterations it went like I asked. Just people offering different possible interpretations.

This thread turned out more to be a disturbing experiment showing to what extent people can skew evidence if bias is involved. And to what length people will go to in order to defend something they must see as benign, even if they have to lie and fool themselves to do it.

-Globalist-centrists
-"I don't think the evidence means much"
-"I don't think the Bilderberg Group is influential enough to pull off OWG"
-"Why is an NWO or world-government bad?"
-Ronson says the Globalists are Nationalists
-Ronson says the conspiracists misinterpret world-government as NWO
-Evil plots
-"It's a good idea for people to meet"
-Overthrow governments
-It's the minority view within the group
-"By and large they see themselves as the conspiracists see them"
-Global Dictatorship
-Rothschild King of the world-government
-"It doesn't matter if they favor OWG/NWO"
-"An NWO isn't possible"
-"There's nothing going on here"


All of these are the erroneous arguments, apologetic statements, or off-topic posts irrelevant to the real discussion in just a six-page thread.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll bite. How exactly did you "imagine" this thread going?


btw here's the description of both "Orders" which you requested earlier in the thread.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2007/glb/bl030607.pdf

Slide 12 - Moving towards a New Global Order

Old Order

Sovereignty
Nation-State
Non-intervention
National Interest
Assertiveness
Power Politics
• Alliances
• Fixed Coalitions
• Predominance
• Hard Power
Single Model of Anglo-Saxon
Capitalism

New Order

Reciprocity
Global Society
Inter-penetration
Common Interest
Respect
New Multilateralism
• Negotiation
• Shifting Coalitions
• Bargaining
• Soft Power
Diverse Models of Market
Economy[/QUOTE]
 
All of these are the erroneous arguments, apologetic statements, or off-topic posts irrelevant to the real discussion in just a six-page thread.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

You just didn't like the answers you received.
 
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

You just didn't like the answers you received.

I liked one or two that addressed the question in the OP. The majority of them didn't however. They just made this thread another chapter in a broader discussion about the Bilderberg Group.
 
I liked one or two that addressed the question in the OP. The majority of them didn't however. They just made this thread another chapter in a broader discussion about the Bilderberg Group.

So there have been responses addressing your nebulous point. Excellent. Now what? Would you care to tell us what you think, or do you prefer to sit there going "No, that's not what I'm talking about, why won't anyone discuss my secret topic?"
 
In the thread or to the "Orders" post? It sounds like you guys are waiting with baited breath for me to make some wild claims about space lizards or something. Not gonna happen.

No, but if you could please make any claim at all, that might be interesting. Is your topic a secret? Please affirmatively state ... anything at all.
 
No, I do. We aren't very good friends but we are in a debate on how to interpret this evidence. The usefulness or significance of the Bilderberg Group is up for debate but at a later time. Right now I'm interested in their aspirations for world-government.

They're just harmless conspirators who want to rule the world.
 
Remember the time when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama snuck off to meet the Bilderbergers in Virginia two years ago to get instructions on what they should do if either one was elected President? Robert Gibbs kidnapped the Washington press corp and put them all on a plane to nowhere and then never explained where Obama was.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66442

No conspiracy here.
 
Remember the time when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama snuck off to meet the Bilderbergers in Virginia two years ago to get instructions on what they should do if either one was elected President? Robert Gibbs kidnapped the Washington press corp and put them all on a plane to nowhere and then never explained where Obama was.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66442

No conspiracy here.
WND!?! <large pack of laughing dogs goes here> Carry on.
 
A friend and I are in a debate about how to interpret the following evidence concerning an organization called the Bilderberg Group. The evidence in question is from a researcher named Jon Ronson who interviewed Bilderberg founding member Denis Healey and other Bilderberg members. Ronson is something of a conspiracy skeptic himself and was researching them for a book he is writing. My friend and I are interested to see how you will interpret this evidence as he and I have different interpretations. One of us thinks the Bilderberg Group is a globalist organization that desires a world-government and one of us does not.

First a quote from an interview Jon Ronson did with Bilderberg founder Denis Healey:






And now Jon Ronson himself giving an interview on CNN about the Bilderberg Group.

CNN on the Bilderberg Group

Jon Ronson refers to the Bilderberg members as "globalists" so for those of you who aren't familiar with the term this is how Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski uses the word:




I'm sure everyone knows what a Nationalist is, here's the definition of "cosmopolitan"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmopolitan




What conclusion would you draw about the Bilderberg Group from this information?

OMG! The dirty bastards want world peace. Clearly they are evil.
 
Remember the time when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama snuck off to meet the Bilderbergers in Virginia two years ago to get instructions on what they should do if either one was elected President? Robert Gibbs kidnapped the Washington press corp and put them all on a plane to nowhere and then never explained where Obama was.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66442

No conspiracy here.

Then flew the plane into the towers after passing thru a time warp.
 
So there have been responses addressing your nebulous point. Excellent. Now what? Would you care to tell us what you think, or do you prefer to sit there going "No, that's not what I'm talking about, why won't anyone discuss my secret topic?"

Well, that's it. That was the point of the thread. I don't have any secret topic.
 
No, but if you could please make any claim at all, that might be interesting. Is your topic a secret? Please affirmatively state ... anything at all.

I don't have any claims to make. Just a "how do you interpret this evidence" thread as advertised.
 
This article is timely.

Jon Ronson, an investigative journalist whose books include The Men Who Stare At Goats and Them: Adventures with Extremists, spent a hilarious week with Tucker in 1999 in Portugal attempting to infiltrate a Bilderberg meeting. Tucker, who called a friend in the States every day to announce that he hadn’t been assassinated yet, led Ronson to an English expat journalist, also hot on the trail, who declared: “Maybe my head’s gone, but the Book of Revelation speaks of a one-world order, one financial order, a one-world religion. There’ll be a sense of disorder, of children not respecting their parents, and then a very powerful group will form. So it does all fit together.”

The reality, Ronson discovered, was a little less apocalyptic. After he’d returned home, Healey invited him round for a chat. “Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended,” he told him. “The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.”

Other members of the group spoke to Ronson on condition of anonymity, furiously denying that they secretly ruled the world. In 2005 Viscount Davignon, a former European Commssioner, gave his interview to the BBC, pointing out that it was entirely natural for people of influence to speak to like-minded people. When George Osborne, now the Chancellor, went last year he registered it in the parliamentary register of members’ interests.
 

Back
Top Bottom