Beginners and Lurkers Please Note
This is classic misdirection. You need to go back to the original post to realize that "the video" is the brief (and it is brief!) talking head interview with Jon. It is "complete".
So that's complete, and according to Rikeln, it's apparently important that it's complete. Complete seems to be significant to this part of the argument. Why? Because it limits the discussion.
The discussion
is limited. How do we interpret this evidence? What does it support? That's it. If you guys want to discuss all of these other world-government discussions with me then we can do it in another thread or once a consensus has been established on the proper interpretation of this evidence.
It appears so far that some of you are afflicted with the same bias that forces you to draw clearly incorrect conclusions about the evidence as well. Nowhere in the interview does Ronson say that anti-Bilderberg conspiracists misconstrue the Bilderberg's OWG aspirations as a NWO. He says they are into a NWO
and OWG. He doesn't call them globalist-centrists like someone else claimed. He refers to them again as globalists
and centrists separately at other points in the video interview. He doesn't refer to the Bilderberg members as Nationalists like someone else claimed, he says the anti-Bilderberg conspiracists see themselves as Nationalists. This makes perfect sense if you read Brzezinski's words about the opposing forces of Nationalists and Globalists.
Some of you do the same as my friend. Your interpretations of this evidence are wildly out of sync with reality. I had this same discussion with a different friend who interpreted Healey's quote about Bilderberg members as follows:
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.
That when Healey says "To say we were striving for one-world government is exaggerated (untrue), but not wholly unfair (he can understand why conspiracy theorists might think that because they have secret meetings). WTF??!!
And the friend I made this thread for interprets the part of the video that Ronson says the Bilderberg Group is into world-government/NWO that Ronson didn't mean to say that and was correcting himself when he said it was a one-world community. And that a "globalist" is a member of an international organization. And this man takes himself seriously. I mean how can you get it so wrong in so many different ways? None of your misinterpretations even match each others lol.
I understand that being a conspiracy skeptic you can't admit that a powerful, influential group of elites who meets annually could have anything to do with globalists or world-government/NWO but maybe that means that you need to approach the subject a different way. It certainly seems to be true so you have to start from reality and work from there. Otherwise you just aren't being consistent when you tout your logic/evidence based approach to things like my friend does. Obviously there are other factors in play.
Yet, please note that "As for the quote(,) Healey is describing...." Is incomplete. That would be NOT COMPLETE. It is a part of a larger interview, in a yet larger chapter in a yet larger book.
But that's not important enough to go and dig up and read and see the entire context of the snipped lines and/or the slant of the chapter or approach of the book.
Why? Because, in context, you would be able to see that this is the lowest form of cherry-picking. This is not a sincere discussion. It is an attempt to limit the discussion to only the points which the OP thinks will automatically support his interpretation.
The telling point for me is that you haven't read the book, Rikeln, and you have no desire to do so. Ergo, you're not interested in actually understanding it, but in limiting the discussion to making your points by censoring other material. As DGM pointed out and as I stated earlier..... No thanks. We don't wanna play that way. We want to discuss the whole thing.
Ok, I can post the article it comes from, here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1
I didn't before because you guys need as little wiggle-room as possible if you're going to admit it. It's clear even from reading this thread that if you don't want to admit something you're going to take clear evidence and misinterpret it like crazy until it doesn't make any sense or support anything. And then when I point out your errors you'll just dissapear or pretend I didn't post anything. Preservation of your world-view takes precedence, not interpreting evidence properly.
