How to interpret this evidence?

[Sledge]

See, this is why people think you're a CT nut, and why I know you're a CT nut: you don't respond to what I say but what you wish I'd said. Do you honestly think no one else has tried these tired tactics before? What kind of idiots are you used to debating who wouldn't notice you constructing endless strawmen out of their comments? Good grief, you are TERRIBLE at this.

Now, why were you so determined to force people into a conclusion based on insufficient evidence?

 

[Longfellow]

Ssdd

It's almost as if we've seen this cunning ploy before.

I know the feeling. I'm getting that déjà vu feeling all over again.

 

[Rikeln]

See, this is why people think you're a CT nut, and why I know you're a CT nut: you don't respond to what I say but what you wish I'd said. Do you honestly think no one else has tried these tired tactics before? What kind of idiots are you used to debating who wouldn't notice you constructing endless strawmen out of their comments? Good grief, you are TERRIBLE at this.

Now, why were you so determined to force people into a conclusion based on insufficient evidence?

I wasn't. I've repeated this many times. You didn't have to really buy the conclusion that Bilderberg wanted world-government. All you had to do was say that Ronson appears to think that they do. Or that Ronson appears to think they want something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. Or that Ronson said that Bilderberg wants something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order but we can't really be sure what that means exactly without reading his book too.

In the video Ronson is clearly trying to tell us something about the Bilderberg Group. I wanted to know what he was trying to tell us. That's it.

 

[Sledge]

I wasn't. I've repeated this many times. You didn't have to really buy the conclusion that Bilderberg wanted world-government. All you had to do was say that Ronson appears to think that they do. Or that Ronson appears to think they want something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. Or that Ronson said that Bilderberg wants something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order but we can't really be sure what that means exactly without reading his book too.

In the video Ronson is clearly trying to tell us something about the Bilderberg Group. I wanted to know what he was trying to tell us. That's it.

Ah, I see. We were free to say whatever we wanted as long as we were forming a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. Now why would you want people to do that?

 

[Rikeln]

Ah, I see. We were free to say whatever we wanted as long as we were forming a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. Now why would you want people to do that?

You didn't have to form a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. Like I said Ronson is clearly trying to tell us something about the Bilderberg Group in the video. I wanted to know what that was. What he was trying to say was that the Bilderberg Group wants something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. That part he has repeated and I posted it in this thread. So obviously the video is sufficient evidence to determine that Ronson believes based on his research and interviews that the Bilderbergers want something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order.

 

[Sledge]

Please stop lying. Now, I appreciate that's a strong statement, so let's back it up. You claim you weren't asking people to form a conclusion on insufficient evidence. Let's see what you were asking.

What conclusion would you draw about the Bilderberg Group from this information?

You later follow this statement with:

I don't want to debate the usefulness of the group based on other information besides what is presented in the OP.

So you are very much interested in getting conclusions based only on the snippets you've presented. Many people have pointed out that this is insufficient information on which to base a conclusion. So, there you are asking people to form a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. This leaves the question, why are you so determined to get a conclusion from insufficient evidence?

 

[Rikeln]

Please stop lying. Now, I appreciate that's a strong statement, so let's back it up. You claim you weren't asking people to form a conclusion on insufficient evidence. Let's see what you were asking.

What conclusion would you draw about the Bilderberg Group from this information?

Yes, exactly. What conclusion would you draw about Bilderberg from this evidence? That was my question. The proper conclusion, which we've established the evidence I presented is sufficient for, is that Jon Ronson was trying to say that the Bilderbergers want something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. He said it in the video and he repeats it here:

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

This was the proper conclusion and the purpose of the creation of the thread. The purpose I was trying to keep you guys focused on while you were running off on tangents about how it's a good idea for powerful people to talk to each other and all sorts of other irrelevant nonsense.

You later follow this statement with:

I don't want to debate the usefulness of the group based on other information besides what is presented in the OP.

Yes, again, I wanted to determine what Jon Ronson was saying and how it could be interpreted. We've done that and the proper interpretation has been made clear. No thanks to any of you except for perhaps the person who suggested I contact Jon Ronson directly.

So you are very much interested in getting conclusions based only on the snippets you've presented.

Yes, of course I am. I want to know what information can be obtained from listening to Jon Ronson. What is he saying? I've said it a thousand times now. Ronson himself has clarified that in the video he was saying that Bilderberg wants something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. He has repeated himself to me which I posted here in the thread so obviously it is sufficient evidence to determine that Jon Ronson was trying to say that he believes the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order.

Many people have pointed out that this is insufficient information on which to base a conclusion. So, there you are asking people to form a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. This leaves the question, why are you so determined to get a conclusion from insufficient evidence?

But they would be wrong. It isn't insufficient evidence. Ronson himself has confirmed that he was saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order.

 

[Sledge]

So you keep saying. Funny how everyone else decided it was insufficient evidence. I'm getting the impression that you're often on your own with your opinions.

 

[Rikeln]

So you keep saying. Funny how everyone else decided it was insufficient evidence. I'm getting the impression that you're often on your own with your opinions.

Well they were wrong weren't they. I wanted to know what Ronson was saying. That's exactly what I said in the thread title, in the OP, and ever since then. And obviously the video was sufficient evidence to determine that Ronson believes based on his research about the Bilderberg Group and interviews with them that they desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. He said it in the video and repeated it via email. He was saying something about the Bilderberg Group and the video was sufficient evidence to figure out what it was. I asked you in this forum to help me determine what it was but you could not because you'd rather discuss all sorts of other stuff about Bilderberg despite my repeated requests to stay focused on the topic at hand.

 

[Sledge]

Well they were wrong weren't they.

No, they weren't. Key to skepticism is examining all the evidence before drawing a conclusion. That you consistently refuse to acknowledge this puts you firmly in the CT camp.

 

[Rikeln]

No, they weren't. Key to skepticism is examining all the evidence before drawing a conclusion. That you consistently refuse to acknowledge this puts you firmly in the CT camp.

Yes, they were. I didn't ask everyone to examine any and all available evidence pertaining to the Bilderberg Group and then tell me what conclusion you draw about them. I asked you to look at what Jon Ronson is saying about the Bilderberg Group and tell me what it means. What is Jon Ronson saying about the Bilderberg Group? He was saying something specific about the Bilderberg Group and the video was enough evidence to figure out what it was.

Jon Ronson is saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. Now, if you don't think Ronson's research is complete then you should not believe what he says about the Bilderbergers or take it with a grain of salt. You could choose to do further research about the Bilderbergers' desire for this One-World Community/New World Order so you can see all the available evidence. You don't have to agree with Ronson's conclusion about Bilderberg. But, again, the point of the thread was to determine what Ronson was saying.

 

[Sledge]

You asked people to look at a couple of pieces of evidence and draw a conclusion. Everyone responded that there wasn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. Whether or not looking at all the evidence would produce the same conclusion as looking at what you provided does not change the fact that what you provided was insufficient. The only way to know if the little evidence you provided was sufficient to form a conclusion on is to look at all the evidence.

If the point of the thread was to determine what Ronson was saying, why were you so adamant that people not look at all of what he was saying?

 

[Rikeln]

You asked people to look at a couple of pieces of evidence and draw a conclusion. Everyone responded that there wasn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion.

Everyone did not respond that way. That's an exaggeration. And those that did were wrong. I wanted to know how the evidence I presented could be interpreted. What was being said? Jon Ronson has clarified what he was trying to say. He was saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. Now, if you don't think his research is satisfactory or if he did not interview enough founders/members or draw the proper conclusions about them in his report then simply disregard his opinion. But it is important to establish exactly what he is saying. And we've done that.

Whether or not looking at all the evidence would produce the same conclusion as looking at what you provided does not change the fact that what you provided was insufficient.

It wasn't insufficient. It was perfectly sufficient to determine that Jon Ronson believes based on his research and interviews that Bilderberg desires something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. If you disagree with his conclusion then do your own research and interview Bilderberg members and founders yourself and report what you find. And then people can argue over what you are trying to say.

The only way to know if the little evidence you provided was sufficient to form a conclusion on is to look at all the evidence.

No it wasn't. All we had to do was listen to what Ronson was saying. If you watch the video again and listen to him it can be concluded that he was saying that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it world-government but the Bilderbergers call it a OWC/NWO. Any of you could have done this but you chose not to.

If the point of the thread was to determine what Ronson was saying, why were you so adamant that people not look at all of what he was saying?

They could read his book and tell me what it says in it which I think some did. But I still want to know what Ronson is saying in the video I posted. And we've figured that out. He's saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order.

 

[Sledge]

The sky is blue.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Everyone did not respond that way. That's an exaggeration. And those that did were wrong. I wanted to know how the evidence I presented could be interpreted. What was being said? Jon Ronson has clarified what he was trying to say. He was saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. Now, if you don't think his research is satisfactory or if he did not interview enough founders/members or draw the proper conclusions about them in his report then simply disregard his opinion. But it is important to establish exactly what he is saying. And we've done that.

Wow, I suppose this explains why you have the opinions you do, when you can create or falsify just about anything in order to justify your naïve opinions. At no stage did Ronson say that the Bilderbergers wanted a “new world order”. I mean christ its here plain as day

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.

So, not only did the quote not refer to the NWO, it also made it quite obvious that community is different from government.

Your reading comprehension needs serious work.

 

[Rikeln]

Wow, I suppose this explains why you have the opinions you do, when you can create or falsify just about anything in order to justify your naïve opinions. At no stage did Ronson say that the Bilderbergers wanted a “new world order”.

Yes, he did. In his email Ronson was clarifying his statements in the video. If you consider his clarification when listening to his statements in the video it's clear that he was saying that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order but that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call a world-government. So this was his real intention and the true meaning of what he was saying. He does not want to add anything further but I'd like to know if he thinks the Nationalists/Conspiracists are wrong to call it a world-government. I asked him this a number of pages back.

Try listening again, starts at 2:08

So, not only did the quote not refer to the NWO,

Yes it did, see above.

it also made it quite obvious that community is different from government.

It's obvious that a One-World Community/New World Order is what the Bilderbergers call it and that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it a world-government. Ronson says there are "similarities" between the phrases. How similar and in what way is something that has not been answered. At least not in his correspondence in the thread or via email.

Your reading comprehension needs serious work.

My reading comprehension is fine. Your reading comprehension appears to need some work though. Or perhaps your general ability to follow a sequence of events and determine what they mean.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have no hope of this actually working, but let's try....

Rikeln, you keep insisting that we need to follow your original instructions to see what you're getting at. I can agree at the "what you're getting at" part, but, as Sledge points out, there's not really enough conclusive evidence in that little clip and the snippet from the larger interview from his book, to know just what he means, this side of actual context.

This is akin to taking comments from a Jay Leno interview in which, IIRC, he said, "And what kind of idiot would spend millions of dollars on cars?" If you see the interview (years ago on E!) or read the text, it's all pretty clear.

But then along come Foolmewunz and Sledge. Foolmewunz has seen Jay's Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous bit where he takes people on a tour of the custom-made garage he has for all his vintage and classic and curio cars. And FMW has seen him ooohing and aaahing on other shows dedicated to cars, cars, cars, and more cars. In short, FMW knows that the guy is a car nut and that his statement was meant to be self-effacing.

Then Sledge, who has better things to do with his time than watching E! and other pop celebrity shows, comments that without knowing the context and the body of the guy's other comments on the subject, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY FOR CERTAIN BASED ON ONE SHORT CLIP/QUOTE.

So, on the one hand, you have "expert" (for lack of a better term) opinion, and the other you have "man-in-the-street/innocent bystander" opinion. Both come up with the same result.

You, though, keep insisting that we take those inconclusive comments at face value. Just as, as I mentioned earlier, taking Wilson's comments on The Fed, snipped out of a larger statement, and made to stand on their own.

It really does smack of Conspiracy Theorist Debating 101.

 

[Rikeln]

I have no hope of this actually working, but let's try....

Rikeln, you keep insisting that we need to follow your original instructions to see what you're getting at. I can agree at the "what you're getting at" part, but, as Sledge points out, there's not really enough conclusive evidence in that little clip and the snippet from the larger interview from his book, to know just what he means, this side of actual context.

Perhaps not. We're left with the statement from Ronson that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. What that means exactly is up for further discussion or research. The purpose of this thread has been fulfilled though since I just wanted to know the proper interpretation of the information I presented.

This is akin to taking comments from a Jay Leno interview in which, IIRC, he said, "And what kind of idiot would spend millions of dollars on cars?" If you see the interview (years ago on E!) or read the text, it's all pretty clear.

But then along come Foolmewunz and Sledge. Foolmewunz has seen Jay's Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous bit where he takes people on a tour of the custom-made garage he has for all his vintage and classic and curio cars. And FMW has seen him ooohing and aaahing on other shows dedicated to cars, cars, cars, and more cars. In short, FMW knows that the guy is a car nut and that his statement was meant to be self-effacing.

Then Sledge, who has better things to do with his time than watching E! and other pop celebrity shows, comments that without knowing the context and the body of the guy's other comments on the subject, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY FOR CERTAIN BASED ON ONE SHORT CLIP/QUOTE.

So, on the one hand, you have "expert" (for lack of a better term) opinion, and the other you have "man-in-the-street/innocent bystander" opinion. Both come up with the same result.

You, though, keep insisting that we take those inconclusive comments at face value. Just as, as I mentioned earlier, taking Wilson's comments on The Fed, snipped out of a larger statement, and made to stand on their own.

It really does smack of Conspiracy Theorist Debating 101.

If you really think it's that far out of context and the meaning of what Ronson was saying is that distorted then we'll just have to have a strong difference of opinion. It's pretty clear that at the very least Ronson has concluded and believes based on his research and interviews that the Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. And that the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it a world-government. There's plenty of unanswered questions but the crux of what Ronson was trying to convey is pretty simple. It's not distorted or completely misleading like the out-of-context quote in your analogy.

Combined with the quote I included it makes more sense actually. Healey rephrased as a "single community" as well. They do want this world community/New World Order. Healey just hesitates to call it a world-government. That's what the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it. Maybe Healey was saying it's not wholly unfair to call it that just like how Ronson was saying that there are "similarities" between the phrases.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It is EXACTLY distorted like the out of context quote in my analogy.

You keep appending "New World Order" to his statement, for instance. He does NOT say that. And you keep quoting only the one section from Healey when I've pointed out several times that the entire section give you a much different read.

This is both quote mining and cherry picking. (Do you have dual union cards? Follower of both Joe Hill and Caesar Chavez?)

You are hanging on these few words and only these few words to prove your point. I mean the author comes in and tells you that you're misinterpreting it, and you still go back to, "Oh, yeah, but in what he said on CNN, he was pretty clearly saying otherwise."

This really all reminds me of the great scene in Annie Hall(I think it was Annie Hall) when a big mouth in line to see a movie was spouting off on Marshall McLuhan's work, and Woody tells him he knows nothing of McLuhan, only to have the guy cut him down by telling him he's a media professor. IN our discussion (minus the expertise, which you're admittedly not claiming) that would be the end of the argument - - PWND! But in Annie Hall (and in this thread) Woody tells him that he just happens to have Marshall McLuhan right over here, and McLuhan comes on and tells the guy that he knows nothing and he's astonished that he ever got a position teaching media.
(Jon just doesn't have Woody Allen writing his routines!)

 

[Rikeln]

It is EXACTLY distorted like the out of context quote in my analogy.

Like I said, strong difference of opinion. I think your analogy might as well be describing something else entirely because it has nothing to do with this conversation.

Ronson would have to have been sarcastic or something. By telling the CNN anchor that Bilderberg desires something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order he would have had to actually mean that they do not want something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order. It would have to mean the exact opposite of what the video makes it sound like he means. And obviously that was not the case or he would have said so in his email.

You keep appending "New World Order" to his statement, for instance. He does NOT say that.

Ronson says it. He says the Bilderbergers describe it as a One-World Community/New World Order. Someone else said that he didn't but they were wrong.

And you keep quoting only the one section from Healey when I've pointed out several times that the entire section give you a much different read.

This is both quote mining and cherry picking. (Do you have dual union cards? Follower of both Joe Hill and Caesar Chavez?)

You are hanging on these few words and only these few words to prove your point. I mean the author comes in and tells you that you're misinterpreting it, and you still go back to, "Oh, yeah, but in what he said on CNN, he was pretty clearly saying otherwise."

I've only repeated his clarified statement. He clarified what he meant in the video and that is what I've repeated many times now. The Bilderbergers desire something they refer to as a One-World Community/New World Order and the Nationalists/Conspiracists call it a world-government.

This really all reminds me of the great scene in Annie Hall(I think it was Annie Hall) when a big mouth in line to see a movie was spouting off on Marshall McLuhan's work, and Woody tells him he knows nothing of McLuhan, only to have the guy cut him down by telling him he's a media professor. IN our discussion (minus the expertise, which you're admittedly not claiming) that would be the end of the argument - - PWND! But in Annie Hall (and in this thread) Woody tells him that he just happens to have Marshall McLuhan right over here, and McLuhan comes on and tells the guy that he knows nothing and he's astonished that he ever got a position teaching media.
(Jon just doesn't have Woody Allen writing his routines!)

I have no idea what this means.