How to interpret this evidence?

[Rikeln]

You apparently aren't reading the responses or don't like what they say.

Again: All this shows is that powerful people occasionally have meetings. The character of those people is that they are for interconnecting economies.

Nothing is going on here.

No, I've read all the responses. You are right that I don't like what they say because they aren't addressing the question in the OP. I already know that Bilderberg meets annually and consistently has very powerful people in attendance. What I want to know now is how can Ronson's interview with Healey and his interview on CNN be interpreted and what does it say about the Bilderberg Group and their desire for a world-government/New World Order?

My friend also researched the Bilderberg Group and concluded that they are not globalists and do not want a world-government and based on Ronson's research I don't think he is correct. And Ronson actually interviewed a Bilderberg founder and other Bilderberg members.

 

[MG1962]

Again, irrelevant to the thread. We first have to determine for certain that they do indeed want a world-government/new world order. My friend insists that this evidence is very inconclusive in that regard.

Your original quote does not support that. The word community is used not government. Organisations like the World Trade Organisation is a community of nations designed to aid international trade, and to minimise any disputes that breakout between those nations

The World Health Organisation is a community of nations with a desire to improve health conditions around the world, to help with compiling information about disease outbreaks and sharing that information with member nations

 

[Dave Rogers]

Again, irrelevant to the thread. We first have to determine for certain that they do indeed want a world-government/new world order. My friend insists that this evidence is very inconclusive in that regard.

Well, he has a point. Healey's quote is that the charge is "exaggerated, but not wholly unfair", not that it's a perfectly accurate statement of their intentions. That seems entirely consistent with the view of the group being that the different nations of the world, although not united under a single government, should nevertheless work together more closely, and perhaps that structures should be put in place to enable this. It's a more nuanced view than the simple black-and-white, national autonomy vs. dictatorial world government dichotomy that seems to be the limit of discernment of the average conspiracy theorist; but then, the interactions of the real world frequently are nuanced and subtle, and it's the conspiracy theorists who want to reduce them to the simple black-and-white thinking that leads to the belief in an evil secret cabal that already controls the world but wants to control it even more because they simply aren't being evil enough yet.

Dave

 

[Rikeln]

Nit (and cherry) picking.

What Ronson says in the video is that they are "powerful centrists, industrialists and politicians" (00:50 mark) and that they see themselves as "wise, globalist, centrists" (1:50 mark), and later "nationalists" who espouse notions of "world government" and a "world community" which the conspiratoids construe as a New World Order.

Actually, no, I think you're mistaken again. He says that the anti-Bilderberg conspiracists see themselves as Nationalists who don't like the idea of a world-government. This makes perfect sense if you read Bilderberg attendee Brzezinski's words about how the Globalists and Nationalists will be at odds.

He also never says the conspiracists construe a world-government/world-community as a New World Order. He says that Bilderberg is into all three.

(The interviewer corrects the contention that they meet in "secret" when in fact they actually meet in "private," i.e., no minutes are taken in the closed door meetings.)

The complete Ron Jonson documentary on the Bilderberg Group can be seen on You Tube, btw.

 

[Rikeln]

Your original quote does not support that. The word community is used not government. Organisations like the World Trade Organisation is a community of nations designed to aid international trade, and to minimise any disputes that breakout between those nations

Watch the video as well. The word "government" is used.

And we're not just talking about the WTO, or the WHO, or the UN, or the IMF. These organizations are not a world-government. We can delve into that further at a later time though.

The World Health Organisation is a community of nations with a desire to improve health conditions around the world, to help with compiling information about disease outbreaks and sharing that information with member nations

 

[Rikeln]

Well, he has a point. Healey's quote is that the charge is "exaggerated, but not wholly unfair", not that it's a perfectly accurate statement of their intentions. That seems entirely consistent with the view of the group being that the different nations of the world, although not united under a single government, should nevertheless work together more closely, and perhaps that structures should be put in place to enable this.

Please view the video as well. My friend includes the video as "inconclusive" as well, which I think is ridiculous.

It's a more nuanced view than the simple black-and-white, national autonomy vs. dictatorial world government dichotomy that seems to be the limit of discernment of the average conspiracy theorist; but then, the interactions of the real world frequently are nuanced and subtle, and it's the conspiracy theorists who want to reduce them to the simple black-and-white thinking that leads to the belief in an evil secret cabal that already controls the world but wants to control it even more because they simply aren't being evil enough yet.

Dave

Again, all of that is completely unnecessary for this discussion. I myself don't believe that a world-government would necessarily be dictatorial. I have a very good idea what kind of New World Order Bilderberg has in mind. And it doesn't say anything about feudal rule. We can get into that later though if you wish. First we need to establish a consensus about the information I've presented and what it says about the Bilderberg Group.

 

[Rikeln]

Well, one way that it could be interpreted is that the members of the Bilderberg groups are, on the whole, believers in an interconnected global economy, and that they feel that a single world government would be a good thing to have. It could even be interpreted that they are interested in campaigning, through perfectly legitimate channels, to bring this about by consensus.

It could also be interpreted as meaning that they are a secret conspiracy to overthrow all the governments of the world and impose their rule by force, but if so they're doing a pretty crappy job of staying secret, aren't they?

Dave

Thanks for at least offering some different interpretations. Although you did take it one step too far. We need to first establish that Bilderberg desires a world-government before speculating on how they intend to bring it about.

If I may say so I think both interpretations are off. I don't think the 2nd is true at all. That's ridiculous. The first is not exactly accurate imo either. Imo they seek to bring it about through influence. Through gathering influential people in the world and using their influence to shift the current world order in that direction.

It wouldn't really be a consensus by their current method. Or maybe it would be a consensus among those with great influence in the world like royalty, CEOs, central bank Presidents, high-level politicians etc.

 

[Rikeln]

I don't think Jon Ronson's posted here for a while, but you could always try sending him a PM to see if he'll clarify his views on the group.

He posts here? Wow, that would be great. I specifically need his definition of the word "globalist" when he said it. Or at least does he mean that the Bilderberg Group is a "globalist" organization because it has international membership?

Also I need to know if when at the end of the video when he said that the Bilderberg Group is into a world-government, and one-world community, and New World Order did he mean to say world-government and New World Order or did he misspeak and correct himself when he said one-world community. That is my friend's argument.

 

[LightinDarkness]

No, I've read all the responses. You are right that I don't like what they say because they aren't addressing the question in the OP. I already know that Bilderberg meets annually and consistently has very powerful people in attendance. What I want to know now is how can Ronson's interview with Healey and his interview on CNN be interpreted and what does it say about the Bilderberg Group and their desire for a world-government/New World Order?

My friend also researched the Bilderberg Group and concluded that they are not globalists and do not want a world-government and based on Ronson's research I don't think he is correct. And Ronson actually interviewed a Bilderberg founder and other Bilderberg members.

This has already been answered. You don't like the answers. Around and around we go.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Again, all of that is completely unnecessary for this discussion.

I would argue that it is. As long as you're making statements like

I have a very good idea what kind of New World Order Bilderberg has in mind

then you're not asking for information, you're proselytising. And a classic tactic of the conspiracy theorist, it seems, is to say:

First we need to establish a consensus about the information I've presented and what it says about the Bilderberg Group.

Which is tantamount to a demand that we agree with the central tenets of a conspiracy theory before discussing whether the theory is true. If you're not prepared even to enter into the discussion until your opponent has pre-emptively declared you the winner, then I doubt anybody here will want to play.

Dave

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm setting my alarm for Thursday. If the OP gets around to his point before then, somebody shake me. Figuring we've got to cover more than ten years since Jon gathered his material, four days ought to about do it.

I hate these clever threads where the grand dot connectors try to draw us into discussions so they can spring their brilliant traps and show how we've all missed the obvious.

 

[Travis]

I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that in the long term, a one-world government is a bad idea.

Heck, I'm still waiting to hear why a North American Union would be a bad idea.

 

[Rikeln]

This has already been answered. You don't like the answers. Around and around we go.

It has? I hope you understand. I'm asking specifically for interpretations from the evidence I've presented, the video and quote, on whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

If you do think so from the evidence, why?

If you do not think so from the evidence, why not?

I have addressed 1 or 2 people who thought that it didn't and pointed out their mistakes. Let's continue...

 

[Rikeln]

I would argue that it is. As long as you're making statements like


then you're not asking for information, you're proselytising. And a classic tactic of the conspiracy theorist, it seems, is to say:

I do have an idea what Bilderberg has in mind but I don't want to sidetrack the point of my thread. Once we establish a consensus on how to interpret the information I've already posted I'll be happy to post other information.

Which is tantamount to a demand that we agree with the central tenets of a conspiracy theory before discussing whether the theory is true. If you're not prepared even to enter into the discussion until your opponent has pre-emptively declared you the winner, then I doubt anybody here will want to play.

Dave

Not necessarily. The consensus could be that the Bilderberg Group does not desire a world-government/New World Order. In that case there would be no need to continue with the discussions about how they intend to bring about a world-government or whether or not it will be a good thing. Several people are doing this in the thread already. 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.

 

[Rikeln]

I'm setting my alarm for Thursday. If the OP gets around to his point before then, somebody shake me. Figuring we've got to cover more than ten years since Jon gathered his material, four days ought to about do it.

I hate these clever threads where the grand dot connectors try to draw us into discussions so they can spring their brilliant traps and show how we've all missed the obvious.

I'm not trying to fool or trap anyone here. I clearly stated my goal in the OP. Once we establish a consensus on how this evidence can or should be interpreted I'll leave unless you want to discuss it further.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm asking specifically for interpretations from the evidence I've presented, the video and quote, on whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

If you do think so from the evidence, why?

If you do not think so from the evidence, why not?

One point that you might consider, quite independently of the evidence, is that the Bilderberg group is quite definitely not a collection of automata committed to a single homogeneous set of opinions and desires. Each individual member has a personal set of beliefs and values, and I suspect that these encompass a wide range of concepts of what would constitute a suitable model for world governance. In that respect, even the expressed views of a member of the group should be taken with some skepticism, as they are clearly the views of that individual rather than necessarily the consensus view within the group; at best, they might constitute no more than that member's perception of the consensus.

Dave

 

[Rikeln]

Heck, I'm still waiting to hear why a North American Union would be a bad idea.

Again, that is a discussion for a later time. It's certainly a debate that should take place though.

 

[DGM]

Imo they seek to bring it about through influence. Through gathering influential people in the world and using their influence to shift the current world order in that direction.

I'd like to know why you picked this particular wording. What exactly is "the current world order" (In your opinion)?

 

[Rikeln]

One point that you might consider, quite independently of the evidence, is that the Bilderberg group is quite definitely not a collection of automata committed to a single homogeneous set of opinions and desires. Each individual member has a personal set of beliefs and values, and I suspect that these encompass a wide range of concepts of what would constitute a suitable model for world governance. In that respect, even the expressed views of a member of the group should be taken with some skepticism, as they are clearly the views of that individual rather than necessarily the consensus view within the group; at best, they might constitute no more than that member's perception of the consensus.

Dave

Yes, that is something that should be considered. The video gives us some clues. Ronson interviewed more than one Bilderberg member including a founder and concluded that "they" are globalists. In the quote Healey was describing specifically a "Bilderberg person".

About world-government/NWO Ronson said that Bilderberg is into it "by and large", which I assume in British English is an expression which means "mostly".

 

[Rikeln]

I'd like to know why you picked this particular wording. What exactly is "the current world order" (In your opinion)?

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.