How to interpret this evidence?

[Rikeln]

Well I'm afraid that's how you're coming across.

Yeah, seems that way. I think that's just because you guys are so used to approaching this subject in one manner because it's a conspiracy forum on a skeptic site.

 

[Sledge]

Nope. It's because people who won't say what their view is always turn out to be conspiracy theorists, but they want other people to post the conspiracy first so they don't look stupid.

 

[carlitos]

quoted for truth

Nope. It's because people who won't say what their view is always turn out to be conspiracy theorists, but they want other people to post the conspiracy first so they don't look stupid.

Rikeln, this is axiomatic. Please prove us wrong.

 

[Rikeln]

Nope. It's because people who won't say what their view is always turn out to be conspiracy theorists, but they want other people to post the conspiracy first so they don't look stupid.

I think it's pretty clear from reading through the thread that out of me and my friend I was the one who thought the evidence pointed to the conclusion that Bilderberg is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

I was attempting to avoid any bias in the interpretations of the evidence but that failed anyhow.

 

[jonronson]

Hi there

Someone from this thread emailed me a few questions about it and I emailed my answers but they haven't posted them here. With that person's permission I'll do so?

best

Jon

 

[Sledge]

I think it's pretty clear from reading through the thread <snip>

Let me stop you there. I've got no dog in this race, but what seems clear to me from reading the thread is that people have answered your questions, but you keep insisting they haven't. This is pretty typical behaviour for a conspiracy theorist. If you want this thread to go somewhere, you need to explain why you don't think people's answers are relevant, and post a bit more than "This guy says this, what do you think?"

 

[Rikeln]

Hi there

Someone from this thread emailed me a few questions about it and I emailed my answers but they haven't posted them here. With that person's permission I'll do so?

best

Jon

Sure, why not. I'll do it.

My email:

Hi Jon,

I was hoping you could clarify some things in your video interview on CNN about the Bilderberg Group.

I have two questions.

I notice you refer to the Bilderberg Group members twice as "globalists". I'm arguing with someone who insists that you mean that a "globalist" is a member of an international organization. So since the Bilderberg Group has members from different nations it is a "globalist" organization. Is that how you meant it? Or if not how were you using the word? Was it like Zbigniew Brzezinski's description of a globalist as synonymous with "internationalist" and "cosmopolitan" and opposing the "Nationalist"?

Ok my official second question is about when you said the Bilderberg Group is into world-government. The guy I'm arguing with says that you did not mean to say that and you were correcting yourself when you said "one-world community". Did you speak in error or did you mean it?

Also if you don't mind can you tell me what gave you the idea that the Bilderberg Group is into a world-government or New World Order? I know you interviewed several members including Denis Healey. Was it his quote about world-government?

Thanks for any clarification you can offer

[name removed]

And here's his response:

Hi [name removed]

I'll try and answer, but briefly as I'm rushing out. Sorry. No, I certainly don't mean "international organisation" when I say globalist. I take globalist to mean something ideological - someone who believes in a global community, someone who eschews nationalistic ideology. Someone who feels power shouldn't necessarily be solely in the hands of politicians. So I use "globalist" in the same way that someone like Naomi Klein may use the term, although I'm not as fervently against the concept as she is. Although it is clearly a flawed concept. Yes, Brzezinski's description seems to match my take on the word.

When I said "world government" I was - i recall - alluding to the use of the term by conspiracy theorists. So I was essentially saying that this is what the conspiracy theorists believe - they believe in 'world government' - but the Bilderbergers would use the term differently, they'd say "one world community" but there are similarities between the phrases, although one is clearly more loaded than the other.

I quote Denis Healy pretty fully in the book.

If you're going to publish this email, I'd appreciate you do so in full.

Very best and I hope this helps

Jon

 

[Horatius]

Hi there

Someone from this thread emailed me a few questions about it and I emailed my answers but they haven't posted them here. With that person's permission I'll do so?

best

Jon

The e-mail has been posted, but if you were so inclined, I'm sure we'd all be interested if you were willing to expand on your comments.

Thanks!

 

[Rikeln]

Let me stop you there. I've got no dog in this race, but what seems clear to me from reading the thread is that people have answered your questions, but you keep insisting they haven't. This is pretty typical behaviour for a conspiracy theorist. If you want this thread to go somewhere, you need to explain why you don't think people's answers are relevant, and post a bit more than "This guy says this, what do you think?"

I explained perfectly, in my opinion, why each answer was irrelevant. What is the point of discussing how, why, or if it is feasible or possible for the Bilderberg Group to bring about a world-government before reaching a consensus on the evidence I put forth to show that they want to do it?

 

[Rikeln]

The e-mail has been posted, but if you were so inclined, I'm sure we'd all be interested if you were willing to expand on your comments.

Thanks!

Yes, that would be great. It looks like I was wrong when I thought you were saying that Bilderberg was into a world-government. You were saying that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it a world-government but that the Bilderbergers use different terms such as One-World Community and New World Order. But there are similarities between them.

Are the Nationalists wrong to call it a world-government? Or are they wrong to narrow it down to that description alone because Bilderberg has something broader in mind which may or may not include a world-government but will have many other attributes as well?

 

[Sledge]

I explained perfectly, in my opinion, why each answer was irrelevant. What is the point of discussing how, why, or if it is feasible or possible for the Bilderberg Group to bring about a world-government before reaching a consensus on the evidence I put forth to show that they want to do it?

We have reached a consensus on the evidence you put forth. It is insufficient to discuss how, why or if it is possible for the Bilderberg Group to bring about a world-government. This kind of thing is exactly why people think you're a conspiracy nut: even when directly asked what you think, you evade. Classic conspiracy nut behaviour.

 

[Rikeln]

We have reached a consensus on the evidence you put forth. It is insufficient to discuss how, why or if it is possible for the Bilderberg Group to bring about a world-government. This kind of thing is exactly why people think you're a conspiracy nut: even when directly asked what you think, you evade. Classic conspiracy nut behaviour.

Actually that's not true at all. I didn't pick those different Bilderberg discussions randomly. They've all happened in this thread and they were irrelevant for the reason I pointed out.

And what does being a "conspiracy nut" have to do with evading questions? I said right up higher on this page which of the two interpretations I held. And it's been clear in the thread for a while now.

 

[varwoche]

jonronson, do I understand correctly that you're the guy who wrote Them, Adventures with Extremists? I enjoyed it cover to cover.

 

[jonronson]

The e-mail has been posted, but if you were so inclined, I'm sure we'd all be interested if you were willing to expand on your comments.

Thanks!

Hi. I'm a bit reluctant to do this, because once you spend years getting it just the way you want it in a book, briskly paraphrasing in a thread can only make it worse...

 

[jonronson]

jonronson, do I understand correctly that you're the guy who wrote Them, Adventures with Extremists? I enjoyed it cover to cover.

Thank you!

 

[Travis]

Ah, it looks like Rikeln is mad we won't play by his insane rules.

 

[Sledge]

Actually that's not true at all. I didn't pick those different Bilderberg discussions randomly. They've all happened in this thread and they were irrelevant for the reason I pointed out.

I don't see how this is a response to what I said. The evidence you've presented is insufficient to draw conclusions on the question you've asked.

And what does being a "conspiracy nut" have to do with evading questions? I said right up higher on this page which of the two interpretations I held. And it's been clear in the thread for a while now.

If you'd actually read what I post instead of responding to a couple of words, you'd create a better impression.

 

[Harpo]

Then it does look like the people meeting in secret trying to establish one is a conspiracy.

They actually meet in PRIVATE not in SECRET - they're two different words with two different meanings in this context.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Ah, it looks like Rikeln is mad we won't play by his insane rules.

What I don't get is why sometimes the conspiracy nuts won't just come out and say it on here and openly admit what they believe. Its true this is not an environment that nurtures conspiracy thinking - because conspiracy theorists are almost always wrong and use neither logic nor reasoned analysis to come to their conclusions. And yet, if they wanted to just get "I agree!" and "yes, the NWO is coming and you are 100% right!" they wouldn't be posting here and would go over to some other forum like ATS or the Icke forum.

We've gone through 5 pages now of the OP setting up this story to hide his belief that the Bilderbergs are up to a globalist plot of some sort, and hes still at it. It really gets kind of boring.

 

[tsig]

I think it's pretty clear from reading through the thread that out of me and my friend I was the one who thought the evidence pointed to the conclusion that Bilderberg is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

I was attempting to avoid any bias in the interpretations of the evidence but that failed anyhow.

Because you showed bias.