How to interpret this evidence?

[theprestige]

I'm starting to think the Bilderberg Group gets discussed a lot on this forum. Go figure. Let me be clear. I don't want to debate the usefulness of the group based on other information besides what is presented in the OP. I'd like to get some different possible interpretations on Jon Ronson's research. He says that they are globalists who desire a world-government and New World Order. Is this true? Why or why not? What different ways can this be interpreted?

I think my interpretation is sufficiently supported by the evidence presented in the OP. I don't think Jon Ronson's claim is supported by the evidence presented in the OP.

Now what?

 

[Rikeln]

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.

Do you or don't you? If you don't how do you explain what Ronson said in the video interview? I want to see if your interpretation matches my friend's. Do you think Ronson misspoke when he said "world-government" like my friend does? What about when he said they want a "New World Order"?

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.

No one said anything about a "Global Dictatorship". As far as defining a New World Order we can do that a bit later with some other information I have. So you do not believe they want a world-government? How do you explain what Ronson said about them then?

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?

No one said anything about overthrowing any governments.

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. Who 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."

What??!!! You guys crack me up. Am I right to get the impression that you equate admittance that Bilderberg desires a world-government/NWO with complete confirmation of every related conspiracy theory on the subject? Surely there must be some middle ground. Just because the Bilderberg Group desires to bring about a world-government/NWO doesn't mean necessarily that it will be dictatorial or even bad. But why can't we acknowledge the reality of the situation and explore what it really entails? Why is it off-limits? Why can't anyone allow themselves to say it?

He didn't say this.

It's a very good thing he didn't. No one would take his work seriously.

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.

It's important for my purposes. I'm aware of the general aim of the book.

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."

I agree. It's funny.

 

[Rikeln]

I think my interpretation is sufficiently supported by the evidence presented in the OP. I don't think Jon Ronson's claim is supported by the evidence presented in the OP.

Now what?

You think Jon Ronson's descriptions of the group are not backed by sufficient evidence? Why not? How many members should he interview, how many founders?

 

[Foolmewunz]

You're isolating on one comment in an interview with Jon and one line of a lengthier interview reported in a quite lengthy passage of a book.

Do you not see that this is rather foolish? Again, it's like picking out a quote from, say, Howard Fast, where he says something remotely nice about Joe McCarthy, and asking us to determine from that just how much Howard Fast admired McCarthy and the things he stood for.

You're harping on those cherry picked lines and arguing that it means that Jon is using your particular meaning of globalist. If you're saying that Jon said that they are lower case g globalists, fine... we agree. You seem to be going for an upper case G Globalist, though. And on that we do not concur.

The constant hair-splitting and insisting on just discussing those few lines is a bit monomaniacal. Are you actually looking to discuss the underlying issue, or are you just getting in your licks for a debating society. Debates, as we all know, can be won or lost on the cleverness of the rhetoric and on the presentation. We kinda/sorta don't debate like that around here.

Ergo, whatever it is you're trying to prove, why not just state the case for it. We've asked, and you've said several times that we can't discuss that until we decide on the custard cream pie. If that's the discussion, you've lost my interest. I don't disagree that he said the things he said. I merely disagree with your interpretation of them.

 

[Rikeln]

You're isolating on one comment in an interview with Jon and one line of a lengthier interview reported in a quite lengthy passage of a book.

Do you not see that this is rather foolish? Again, it's like picking out a quote from, say, Howard Fast, where he says something remotely nice about Joe McCarthy, and asking us to determine from that just how much Howard Fast admired McCarthy and the things he stood for.

Healey was specifically describing a Bilderberg person. Ronson repeats the same information Healey gave in his interview.

You're harping on those cherry picked lines and arguing that it means that Jon is using your particular meaning of globalist. If you're saying that Jon said that they are lower case g globalists, fine... we agree. You seem to be going for an upper case G Globalist, though. And on that we do not concur.

On to the definition of globalist. Ok. He calls them "globalists" twice. What do you think he meant by that? And please no globalist-centrist nonsense.

The constant hair-splitting and insisting on just discussing those few lines is a bit monomaniacal. Are you actually looking to discuss the underlying issue, or are you just getting in your licks for a debating society.

What is the underlying issue in your opinion? As I've stated numerous times I'm attempting to establish a consensus on how to properly interpret this evidence. I want to establish what it says and what it does not say about the Bilderberg Group and their aspirations for world-government/NWO.

Debates, as we all know, can be won or lost on the cleverness of the rhetoric and on the presentation. We kinda/sorta don't debate like that around here.

Ergo, whatever it is you're trying to prove, why not just state the case for it. We've asked, and you've said several times that we can't discuss that until we decide on the custard cream pie. If that's the discussion, you've lost my interest.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I am trying to see how other skeptics interpret this evidence. My friend considers himself a serious researcher who follows evidence and logic wherever it may lead but in the case of the Bilderberg Group it appears that he refuses to accept what I consider to be clear evidence. I want to know if his interpretations are correct in the minds of other skeptics. In my opinion they are clearly wrong, and not only wrong but obviously absurd. He doesn't see it though.

I don't disagree that he said the things he said. I merely disagree with your interpretation of them.

Ok, so what is your interpretation? Since you disagree with my interpretation, that they are globalists who desire world-government, am I to assume that you take the opposite view? Do you agree with my friend's interpretation that Ronson made a mistake when he said "world-government" and did not mean to say it? Or that the word "globalist" means "international membership"?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Pssst! I. Do. Not. Care. What. He. Meant.

I enjoyed his book for the street theatre aspect. Jon is not my only source of information and is not the world's greatest authority on Bilderburg.

You're the one hinging all the importance on it. We've had threads on Bilderburg several times in the past, along with The Illuminati, along with the NWO, the great Amero conspiracy, etc... There are multiple sources of information available. Hell, there's even more information from Jon, and you haven't read it.

Why would I solely rely on the word of Jon Ronson, and particularly rely on only the selective quotes you've made.

I'm not arguing with you about the whether the group exists. They do. And I'm not arguing with you about whether they represent what you hope they do. They don't. I'm just trying to point out to you the folly of homing this entire discussion in on a couple of quotes from Jon Ronson.

Here - entertain yourself.

http://www.bilderberg.org/

You're not concerned about the company you keep?

 

[Rikeln]

Pssst! I. Do. Not. Care. What. He. Meant.

I enjoyed his book for the street theatre aspect. Jon is not my only source of information and is not the world's greatest authority on Bilderburg.

You're the one hinging all the importance on it. We've had threads on Bilderburg several times in the past, along with The Illuminati, along with the NWO, the great Amero conspiracy, etc... There are multiple sources of information available. Hell, there's even more information from Jon, and you haven't read it.

Why would I solely rely on the word of Jon Ronson, and particularly rely on only the selective quotes you've made.

Because he's a researcher who has interviewed multiple Bilderberg members including a founder. I'd be very interested to hear what he has to say about the group. He gives an interview on them and describes "what it really is" for those curious about them and I posted the video of it.

I'm not arguing with you about the whether the group exists. They do. And I'm not arguing with you about whether they represent what you hope they do. They don't.

What do I hope they represent? A shadowy cabal out to influence world events? That's not my interest. I've made that clear haven't I? I don't need to say it again do I?

I'm just trying to point out to you the folly of homing this entire discussion in on a couple of quotes from Jon Ronson.

You're not concerned about the company you keep?

The discussion is about the Healey quote and his interview on Bilderberg. It's about whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government/NWO.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I believe there are certain members of the Group that believe in more centralized world government if for no other reason that it would make some economic considerations easier, enabling them to make more money.

I also believe there are members of the Group that don't feel as strongly in that regard.

Now, as to whether or not the members of the Bilderberg Group are actively involved in breaking down national sovereignty to make a homogenous one-world state within our lifetime, I would hope you know the answer to that already.

 

[Brainster]

I would say that a large number of people who lived through World War II felt that a world government was the answer to the cycles of warfare that consumed huge resources in the early decades of the last century. Hence utopian schemes like the UN were put into place.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I think old feelings of ethnic/religious pride and nationalism make it pretty much unattainable for the forseeable future.

 

[carlitos]

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.

As noted above by Foolmewunz, this is a bit monomaniacal. You are quibbling about a quote about "New World Order," and you won't even say how you see the current "world order?" Huh?

I'm sorry if it offends you, but this pedantry / quote-mining exercise is no better than the 9/11 truther guys arguing for 8 years about welds vs. bolts on the 98th floor of the WTC tower, when they refuse to commit whether hijackers flew planes into buildings. Just make your point already. Sheesh.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.




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

Well, it DOES NOT matter whether they favour it or not. Given the present situation of political and religious differences that prevail in the world it is folly to believe that a One World Gov't could ever be established in any foreseeable future.

This relegates such a premise to the far future, beyond the time when the largest population base alive today will have died off, say 75 to 100 years hence. This puts it squarely in the realm of speculation at best and more akin to fiction.

Hell, in the USA the mere suggestion of a tri-lateral trade agreement between The USA, Canada, and Mexico puts some people into hysterics. How then would the population of the USA feel about joining China, or India in a shared gov't structure? Its laughable to believe that this could be accomplished now. It would have been just as ridiculous 50, 100 years ago.

 

[Rikeln]

As noted above by Foolmewunz, this is a bit monomaniacal. You are quibbling about a quote about "New World Order," and you won't even say how you see the current "world order?" Huh?

I'm sorry if it offends you, but this pedantry / quote-mining exercise is no better than the 9/11 truther guys arguing for 8 years about welds vs. bolts on the 98th floor of the WTC tower, when they refuse to commit whether hijackers flew planes into buildings. Just make your point already. Sheesh.

Quote and interview with Ronson who researched the Bilderberg Group and interviewed members and a founder. Watch the video too.

And as I said I'll be happy to post information related to a different discussion once we know how to interpret the information for this discussion.

 

[Rikeln]

Well, it DOES NOT matter whether they favour it or not. Given the present situation of political and religious differences that prevail in the world it is folly to believe that a One World Gov't could ever be established in any foreseeable future.

It's up to anyone to decide whether or not it matters and other information will be involved in making that decision. It's a different discussion. Whether it matters or not to you right now is completely irrelevant. What does matter in this discussion is determing from the evidence presented whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

This relegates such a premise to the far future, beyond the time when the largest population base alive today will have died off, say 75 to 100 years hence. This puts it squarely in the realm of speculation at best and more akin to fiction.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Before you can decide how far off this development is you have to know more than the information presented in the OP. In fact, contrary to your claim here the current outlines of it can plainly be sketched right now

Hell, in the USA the mere suggestion of a tri-lateral trade agreement between The USA, Canada, and Mexico puts some people into hysterics. How then would the population of the USA feel about joining China, or India in a shared gov't structure? Its laughable to believe that this could be accomplished now. It would have been just as ridiculous 50, 100 years ago.

Again completely unrelated to the discussion. No one is asking how long it may take for a group, if it were so inclined, to bring about a world-government.

 

[Lensman]

Aw Yeah, Build-A-Burgers!

I'm kinda glad (& so is my keyboard) that I had already swallowed my sip of Coke before reading that.

 

[DGM]

And as I said I'll be happy to post information related to a different discussion once we know how to interpret the information for this discussion.

We have already given our opinion. You might have noticed that none of us want to base an opinion on one source like you want us to. Why do you think that might be? Why would you want us to? Why would you want to?

 

[carlitos]

QFT

We have already given our opinion. You might have noticed that none of us want to base an opinion on one source like you want us to. Why do you think that might be? Why would you want us to? Why would you want to?

Seconded. Discuss your context-free detail with someone else. Not interested.

 

[Horatius]

What does matter in this discussion is determing from the evidence presented whether or not the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire world-government.

And has it occurred to you that the "evidence" presented isn't sufficient to determine this with any certainty? We have a vaguely expressed opinion of one guy, based on a few interviews with a few members. And on that, you demand certainty on what the majority of members of Bilderberg do or do not believe?

 

[Rikeln]

We have already given our opinion. You might have noticed that none of us want to base an opinion on one source like you want us to. Why do you think that might be? Why would you want us to? Why would you want to?

Could it be because the source says something you don't like? Denis Healey also talks about "a Bilderberg person" and he's a founder. So that's two sources which includes the most trustworthy source you could possibly want.

 

[Rikeln]

Seconded. Discuss your context-free detail with someone else. Not interested.

The video is completely in context. The entire interview is presented. As for the quote Healey is describing "a Bilderberg person". Doesn't need any more context in my opinion.