How to interpret this evidence?

[Horatius]

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...

I suppose I can understand that. Here's another question though: Is "Them" available as an e-book anywhere? I was looking around last week, and couldn't seem to find it. If it is, you'd have a sale right here...

 

[jonronson]

I wish! But no. Only The Men Who Stare At Goats and a collection I did. It's annoying.

Sorry to not engage any further. When I asked I usually say that the Bilderbergers see themselves in a not wholly different way to the way the conspiracy theorists see them, but that's a bit of a trite answer. I think the real answer is that self-selecting elites obvious exist for a reason, but it's nonsense to say they hold secret power over the world.

The Bilderberg Group was set up - I suspect - for idealistic reasons. The West had just thwarted Hitler and thought politics should be in the hands of business, not ideological politicians. We see that corporations misuse power though, and so I suspect the idealistic roots of Bilderberg probably get a bit warped.

 

[Rikeln]

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.

Because you said that there is a consensus that the evidence I've put forth is insufficient to discuss the different discussions I listed. Not only was that not the intention of my evidence but all the discussions did occur in the thread anyway.

The original question was to decide which argument the evidence supported. Perhaps I should have included 'neither' as an option.

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

I read what you posted. It made absolutely no sense.

 

[Rikeln]

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.

Because if people who pride themselves on seeing through BS and who also hold a great bias against anything labeled "conspiracy" material can admit something is true that's better than the Icke forum or ATS.

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.

I'm really not trying to hide anything. Why do you guys keep saying that? What do you think I'm hiding? I've identified myself multiple times now as the person who held the globalist/OWG interpretation.

According to Ronson mine was not exactly correct. Although there is still the possibility that the Bilderbergers do include a world-government as part of their overall plan for a One-World Community/NWO. If not then the Nationalists are way off and have no real reason to distrust the Bilderberg Group. Other than for just being globalists. Even according to Brzezinski Globalists and Nationalists are at odds.

And I wouldn't say they are up to a globalists plot per se. It depends on what you think of their New World Order. As soon as they reveal what it is in detail we can decide if it's a "plot" or not.

 

[Sledge]

Because you said that there is a consensus that the evidence I've put forth is insufficient to discuss the different discussions I listed. Not only was that not the intention of my evidence but all the discussions did occur in the thread anyway.

The original question was to decide which argument the evidence supported. Perhaps I should have included 'neither' as an option.

I read what you posted. It made absolutely no sense.

And now we're into CT nut territory. Reject any opposing point of view and insist other people aren't making sense. Tell me, does your tinfoil hat chafe?

 

[Rikeln]

And now we're into CT nut territory. Reject any opposing point of view and insist other people aren't making sense. Tell me, does your tinfoil hat chafe?

But your argument doesn't make sense. It consists of misrepresenting my argument and then throwing out some cliche conspiracy nut insults. Your original argument didn't make any sense, read my last post.

 

[Sledge]

Posting "it doesn't make sense" isn't a detailed rebuttal of what someone said.

 

[Rikeln]

Posting "it doesn't make sense" isn't a detailed rebuttal of what someone said.

Ok, more detailed

Your first argument: You won't admit your view because you're a conspiracy theorist

My rebuttal: My view had already been made clear

Your second argument: You need to explain why people's answer aren't relevant

My rebuttal: I have already explained why the answers weren't relevant. They were attempting to discuss different things about how the Bilderberg Group may go about establishing a world-government or if they had enough influence to do it before reaching a consensus or whether or not they would actually like to bring about a world-government. They were premature discussions. There is no reason to discuss if the Bilderberg Group has enough influence to pull off a world-government if they don't want to do it. That's an irrelevant discussion.

Your rebuttal: A consensus has already been reached that none of those discussions need to take place. Conspiracy nut insults...

My rebuttal: All of those discussions have already taken place. My evidence and original question wasn't about any of those discussions. It was about how to interpret the video and quote and which argument it supported, mine or my friend's.

Your rebuttal: Your rebuttal doesn't address my argument. The evidence you presented is insufficient to draw conclusions about the question you've asked.

My rebuttal: Repeat of last rebuttal

Your rebuttal: Conspiracy nut insults

 

[theprestige]

Rikeln, the consensus of the participants in this thread is that "[t]he evidence you presented is insufficient to draw conclusions about the question you've asked". Hence all the side-tracks. We've exhausted your topic, so we're inventing our own.

There's no need to for you to rebut this consensus. On the other hand, more evidence might help. Do you have more evidence?

Alternatively, are you convinced that the evidence you've presented so far is sufficient to answer the question you've asked? If so, what is your answer to the question, and how do you believe your answer is supported by the evidence you've presented?

 

[Rikeln]

Rikeln, the consensus of the participants in this thread is that "[t]he evidence you presented is insufficient to draw conclusions about the question you've asked". Hence all the side-tracks. We've exhausted your topic, so we're inventing our own.

There's no need to for you to rebut this consensus. On the other hand, more evidence might help. Do you have more evidence?

Alternatively, are you convinced that the evidence you've presented so far is sufficient to answer the question you've asked? If so, what is your answer to the question, and how do you believe your answer is supported by the evidence you've presented?

So the consensus was that the evidence supported neither my friend's argument nor mine? Weird. Anyway the point of the thread is cleary reached since Ronson himself was willing to clarify exactly what he meant.

 

[theprestige]

So the consensus was that the evidence supported neither my friend's argument nor mine? Weird.

Why would you find that weird? There are lots of questions in life that are undecided by the available evidence.

Why do you think there are so many unidentified flying objects on record?

Anyway the point of the thread is cleary reached since Ronson himself was willing to clarify exactly what he meant.

Unfortunately Ronson's clarification is both absurd and entirely unsupported by (indeed, entirely unrelated to) the evidence you presented:

When I asked I usually say that the Bilderbergers see themselves in a not wholly different way to the way the conspiracy theorists see them, but that's a bit of a trite answer. I think the real answer is that self-selecting elites obvious exist for a reason, but it's nonsense to say they hold secret power over the world.

The Bilderberg Group was set up - I suspect - for idealistic reasons. The West had just thwarted Hitler and thought politics should be in the hands of business, not ideological politicians. We see that corporations misuse power though, and so I suspect the idealistic roots of Bilderberg probably get a bit warped.

 

[Horatius]

Unfortunately Ronson's clarification is both absurd and entirely unsupported by (indeed, entirely unrelated to) the evidence you presented:

I think the point of his clarification is what we've been saying all along: trying to determine the "truth" about a large group like this based on a few comments in a brief TV interview is a mug's game. You can't sum up weeks, months or years of research in a few lines. Hence the "trite" comment; it sounds good on TV, but is a massive simplification.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Acttually, Rikeln, he didn't clarify EXACTLY what he meant. He clearly said that summarizing things in this sort of environment is sort of fruitless after you, as a writer, have put in years to try to get it just right.

I'm quite sure he hadn't read the tiny details, but I'd say that's a pretty good slam on the fact that you're doing just what he doesn't want to do: encapsulating that whole section of the book by just cherry-picking a part of one interview and then some comments in a brief CNN appearance.

Why don't you just get the book and read it. My interpretation of Jon's statement is that the truth isn't "out there", it's "in there", .... with "there" being the book.

And Jon - thanks for dropping in. I'm not like an unabashed greasy fanboy, but a fan, nevertheless. It's a fine book, and aside from the part where I wanted to cry, I laughed a lot more than I have over many an attempt at outright comedy.

 

[theprestige]

I think the point of his clarification is what we've been saying all along: trying to determine the "truth" about a large group like this based on a few comments in a brief TV interview is a mug's game. You can't sum up weeks, months or years of research in a few lines. Hence the "trite" comment; it sounds good on TV, but is a massive simplification.

That's a good point, but I can't get over the massively, obviously begged questions in this bit here:

The Bilderberg Group was set up - I suspect - for idealistic reasons. The West had just thwarted Hitler and thought politics should be in the hands of business, not ideological politicians. We see that corporations misuse power though, and so I suspect the idealistic roots of Bilderberg probably get a bit warped.

It seems like a bit of a leap to claim all that--even to suspect all that--without some pretty strong evidence.

 

[Rikeln]

Why would you find that weird? There are lots of questions in life that are undecided by the available evidence.

Because you should at least be able to decide which argument was more supported by the evidence. I mean it wasn't all four Bilderberg founder saying uner oath that they desire world-government but it looked pretty close before Ronson clarified.

And no one came up with Ronson's actual meaning either which would have been cool. Everyone was too busy discussing how Bilderberg is going to establish a world-government and whether or not it would be dictatorial.

Unfortunately Ronson's clarification is both absurd and entirely unsupported by (indeed, entirely unrelated to) the evidence you presented:

What? What do you mean by this? His video interview? He was just clarifying exactly what he was trying to say. It makes sense if you watch the video. Maybe you didn't notice his original email response that I posted a few pages back.

 

[Rikeln]

Acttually, Rikeln, he didn't clarify EXACTLY what he meant. He clearly said that summarizing things in this sort of environment is sort of fruitless after you, as a writer, have put in years to try to get it just right.

None of you guys appear to be taking the email response into consideration. He did clarify what exactly he was trying to say about the Nationalists, the Globalists and world-government, NWO, one-world community.

 

[Foolmewunz]

None of you guys appear to be taking the email response into consideration. He did clarify what exactly he was trying to say about the Nationalists, the Globalists and world-government, NWO, one-world community.

I believe that we're going to have the same problems with his email as we did with your cherry-picking. e.g. you're going to try to make it fit into what you were arguing. You're certainly going to have to do some major quote-mining and trimming to make this support the original argument you were having with your friend.

No, you weren't "both right". You were wrong. He is not reporting on a shadowy organization out to control the world, but reporting on a shadowy group of wingnuts who see conspiracies everywhere. That little raging clue is sort of in the title and brief description of the book.

Sidebar: A tribute to the JREF Forums....
I love the comment that this didn't go the way all the other such attempts have gone. It seems that in other forums or sites, the OP is able to just put the cheese out and the mice come running.
Here? Several of us know the guy's work, and wouldn't allow quoting out of context, so the OP had to re-set the rule over and over, and still no one would play with the marked deck.
A couple of us remembered that Jon had posted here before, and suggested how to get to the source and get his direct views.
The OP did so, much to his/her credit.
Rather than devolving into a Is Not!/Is Too! debate, you get the question settled. That's pretty good, team.

Rikeln, you may continue to believe in your own views of the group, as that's your privilege. But if you're honest, you'll quote sources that actually believe what you believe rather than cherry-picking someone who doesn't. This has shades of "New Pearl Harbor" all over it.

 

[Rikeln]

I believe that we're going to have the same problems with his email as we did with your cherry-picking. e.g. you're going to try to make it fit into what you were arguing. You're certainly going to have to do some major quote-mining and trimming to make this support the original argument you were having with your friend.

What makes you think I need to do anything with it? He said what he was trying to say. There is no room for any interpretation left. That was why I brought it here so you guys could come up with alternative explanations to mine but no one really bothered. And no one came up with Ronson's real interpretation anyway.

If Ronson really meant that the Bilderberg Group was into world-government I'm sure he'd have no problem saying it outright. But that's not exactly what he said.

No, you weren't "both right". You were wrong. He is not reporting on a shadowy organization out to control the world, but reporting on a shadowy group of wingnuts who see conspiracies everywhere. That little raging clue is sort of in the title and brief description of the book.

Where did I say we were both right? It's already clear that my interpretation was wrong. Ronson says exactly what he meant. I never claimed that he was reporting on a "shadowy organization out to control the world". I didn't make a claim at all in my initial post. My interpretation of the evidence was that Ronson's interview identified the Bilderberg Group as desiring a world-government. According to Ronson that is not exactly what he was saying. The Bilderberg Group wants something they call a One-World Community/New World Order and the Nationalists refer to it as a world-government. I'd like to know if they're wrong for calling it a world-government but Ronson doesn't want to add anything further on that part.

Sidebar: A tribute to the JREF Forums....
I love the comment that this didn't go the way all the other such attempts have gone. It seems that in other forums or sites, the OP is able to just put the cheese out and the mice come running.
Here? Several of us know the guy's work, and wouldn't allow quoting out of context, so the OP had to re-set the rule over and over, and still no one would play with the marked deck.
A couple of us remembered that Jon had posted here before, and suggested how to get to the source and get his direct views.
The OP did so, much to his/her credit.
Rather than devolving into a Is Not!/Is Too! debate, you get the question settled. That's pretty good, team.

You take this thread as a credit to this forum? I'm utterly flabbergasted. I mean you guys certainly resisted buying into a "conspiracy" admirably but your arguments sucked hardcore. You're obstinate but the logic gets lost along the way.

Rikeln, you may continue to believe in your own views of the group, as that's your privilege. But if you're honest, you'll quote sources that actually believe what you believe rather than cherry-picking someone who doesn't. This has shades of "New Pearl Harbor" all over it.

What do you mean by this? Because Ronson makes fun of conspiracy theorists he could never be saying that the Bilderberg Group desires a world-government? Even if it were true? That's kind of insulting to him in my opinion. Are you "claiming" Ronson as your source because he phrases things in a way that are kind to your beliefs? Why should beliefs affect how one interprets evidence? The truth is the truth no matter what side you fancy yourself to be on. And why would I want to use sources who just say random things about Bilderberg without any research or evidence to back it up?

If any one of you had noticed the real meaning of Ronson's words you might have some sort of case here but none of you did. Without Ronson's clarification it seems pretty straightforward that he's saying the Bilderberg Group desires a world-government.

[The Nationalists] think the idea of a world-government, which is what Bilderberg is into by and large

Just sounds like he's saying they are into world-government. No one here picked up on the slight difference which completely changes what he was saying. That's a strike against the forum not a plus of some kind. You just collectively refused to buy the "conspiracy" but you didn't know why. That's funny and kind of sad, not deserving of credit of any sort.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Where did I say we were both right?

Cute. You edited post 144 two hours after I read it, I believe. It originally said, "So, we were both right." Now it says you weren't quite so wrong.

 

[Sledge]

Demanding judgements be made on insufficient evidence? I'm calling CT nut. Like the expression says, "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands."