How to interpret this evidence?

[Rikeln]

A friend and I are in a debate about how to interpret the following evidence concerning an organization called the Bilderberg Group. The evidence in question is from a researcher named Jon Ronson who interviewed Bilderberg founding member Denis Healey and other Bilderberg members. Ronson is something of a conspiracy skeptic himself and was researching them for a book he is writing. My friend and I are interested to see how you will interpret this evidence as he and I have different interpretations. One of us thinks the Bilderberg Group is a globalist organization that desires a world-government and one of us does not.

First a quote from an interview Jon Ronson did with Bilderberg founder Denis Healey:

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.

And now Jon Ronson himself giving an interview on CNN about the Bilderberg Group.

CNN on the Bilderberg Group

Jon Ronson refers to the Bilderberg members as "globalists" so for those of you who aren't familiar with the term this is how Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski uses the word:

Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook. The creation of the global information grid, facilitating almost continuous intellectual interaction and the pooling of knowledge, will further enhance the present trend toward international professional elites and toward the emergence of a common scientific language (in effect, the functional equivalent of Latin). This, however, could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activiated masses, whose "nativism" - exploited by more nationalist political leaders - could work against the "cosmopolitan" elites.

I'm sure everyone knows what a Nationalist is, here's the definition of "cosmopolitan"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cosmopolitan

free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world.

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

 

[marplots]

Conclusion seems like too strong a word. As a person who is naive (as far as the Bilderbergs go) I don't find enough here to really come to any solid opinion. You've got some pretty general and 'feel good' language about bridging barriers to trade and such like. I think you'd find the same general tone in any group that saw problems arising from parochialism.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

I would conclude that you don't have a friend and think that the Bilderberg Group belongs up on the gallows for reasons that have to do with tin hats and mercury fillings.

 

[theprestige]

I would conclude that the members of this group are human beings with a lot of power and influence, and who like most human beings would like to do the right thing but don't want to get too far outside their comfort zone. They like to talk to each other because it's highly likely nobody else would really understand their interests or concerns.

What do you and your friend conclude from this evidence?

 

[fromdownunder]

If your freind is worried about Globalism, perhaps he should start investigating McDonalds.

Norm

 

[bynmdsue]

If your freind is worried about Globalism, perhaps he should start investigating McDonalds.

Aw Yeah, Build-A-Burgers!

 

[Walter Ego]

Jon Ronson refers to the Bilderberg members as "globalists"...

Actually, in the video Ronson says the Bilderbergers see themselves as globalists-centrists." So you've cherry picked your quote and hoped we wouldn't notice. That's not a good way to convince anyone of anything.

In politics, centrism is the ideal or the practice of promoting moderate policies which lie between different political extremes. Most commonly, this is visualized as part of the one-dimensional political spectrum of left-right politics, with centrism landing in the middle between left-wing politics and right-wing politics. The phrase is often associated with the political philosophy realpolitik, which favours practical considerations more than ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

 

[LightinDarkness]

The question is framed such that the quotes are "evidence" of something...but they are not. I do not understand why conspiracy theorists are absolutely hysterical over Bilderberg members and anything termed "globalist".

Globalism has brought us such horrible, evil things as innovation in medicine that has lengthened the lives of many. Globalism have brought us the horrible, terrible GM foods that conspiracy theorists go nuts over that provide healthy, cheap food for the starving. Yes, globalism causes problems - but its not all so terrible.

The bilderbergs is nothing more than a meeting of powerful people - powerful people have meetings all the time. The breathless, foaming at the mouth hatred CTers have of the group has done nothing but given them more attention. Do they have power? As a group, no. We've seen it time and time again - they had an entire session about how to stop the Greek debt crises before it occurred, and they failed. Its a meeting between individually powerful people, but the group as a whole can do nothing.

This delusion of a war between the "global elites" and "the rest of us" is conspiracy mythology born of rabid populism. There will always be people with more power than you or me, and some of them will be able to have an influence on world events. But there is no evidence to suggest that groups of these people plot to do evil things to me or you. The dichotomy itself is false - everyone does not fit into the "global elite" versus "everyone else" framework. Those in power are not out to kill us all as conspiracy theorists have fear mongered about for years. Indeed, those with power NEED everyone to continue to make more money and have more power.

Only conspiracy theorists could spend so much time having delusions of evil plots and cabals over a group like this.

 

[Rikeln]

I would conclude that you don't have a friend and think that the Bilderberg Group belongs up on the gallows for reasons that have to do with tin hats and mercury fillings.

No, I do. We aren't very good friends but we are in a debate on how to interpret this evidence. The usefulness or significance of the Bilderberg Group is up for debate but at a later time. Right now I'm interested in their aspirations for world-government.

 

[Rikeln]

I would conclude that the members of this group are human beings with a lot of power and influence, and who like most human beings would like to do the right thing but don't want to get too far outside their comfort zone. They like to talk to each other because it's highly likely nobody else would really understand their interests or concerns.

What do you and your friend conclude from this evidence?

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?

 

[Rikeln]

Actually, in the video Ronson says the Bilderbergers see themselves as globalists-centrists." So you've cherry picked your quote and hoped we wouldn't notice. That's not a good way to convince anyone of anything.

No, I think you're mistaken. If you'll notice in the beginning of the interview he also uses the word "centrist" but this time instead of using it after "globalist" he uses it before "industrialist". So to be consistent we would have to say that he is also describing the Bilderberg members as centrist-industrialists. Does that make sense? I don't think it does. He was describing them in a series of words, and used "centrist" as a stand-alone description and not as an adjective for "globalist".

Good job though. This is what I am interested in. Let's explore the different possible interpretations of what he's said if we are to avoid the obvious one. My friend also refused to accept Brzezinski's definition of "globalist" and insisted that the word "globalist" means that the organization has international membership. Which of course I think is pretty silly.

 

[Rikeln]

The question is framed such that the quotes are "evidence" of something...but they are not. I do not understand why conspiracy theorists are absolutely hysterical over Bilderberg members and anything termed "globalist".

Globalism has brought us such horrible, evil things as innovation in medicine that has lengthened the lives of many. Globalism have brought us the horrible, terrible GM foods that conspiracy theorists go nuts over that provide healthy, cheap food for the starving. Yes, globalism causes problems - but its not all so terrible.

The bilderbergs is nothing more than a meeting of powerful people - powerful people have meetings all the time. The breathless, foaming at the mouth hatred CTers have of the group has done nothing but given them more attention. Do they have power? As a group, no. We've seen it time and time again - they had an entire session about how to stop the Greek debt crises before it occurred, and they failed. Its a meeting between individually powerful people, but the group as a whole can do nothing.

This delusion of a war between the "global elites" and "the rest of us" is conspiracy mythology born of rabid populism. There will always be people with more power than you or me, and some of them will be able to have an influence on world events. But there is no evidence to suggest that groups of these people plot to do evil things to me or you. The dichotomy itself is false - everyone does not fit into the "global elite" versus "everyone else" framework. Those in power are not out to kill us all as conspiracy theorists have fear mongered about for years. Indeed, those with power NEED everyone to continue to make more money and have more power.

Only conspiracy theorists could spend so much time having delusions of evil plots and cabals over a group like this.

No one is claiming they do evil things. I haven't even claimed there's a conspiracy. I guess I should have expected this mindset being that this is a conspiracy forum on a skeptic site but I want you guys to interpret evidence. Skeptics are experts at interpreting evidence right? What does Jon Ronson's research say about the Bilderberg Group?

 

[Travis]

Maybe I'm naive but I think it's probably a good idea for the powerful to meet and exchange ideas. It sure beats sending out armies to settle all differences.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

Well, one way that it could be interpreted is that the members of the Bilderberg groups are, on the whole, believers in an interconnected global economy, and that they feel that a single world government would be a good thing to have. It could even be interpreted that they are interested in campaigning, through perfectly legitimate channels, to bring this about by consensus.

It could also be interpreted as meaning that they are a secret conspiracy to overthrow all the governments of the world and impose their rule by force, but if so they're doing a pretty crappy job of staying secret, aren't they?

Dave

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that in the long term, a one-world government is a bad idea.

 

[LightinDarkness]

No one is claiming they do evil things. I haven't even claimed there's a conspiracy. I guess I should have expected this mindset being that this is a conspiracy forum on a skeptic site but I want you guys to interpret evidence. Skeptics are experts at interpreting evidence right? What does Jon Ronson's research say about the Bilderberg Group?

You apparently aren't reading the responses or don't like what they say.

Again: All this shows is that powerful people occasionally have meetings. The character of those people is that they are for interconnecting economies.

Nothing is going on here.

 

[Mashuna]

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 don't think Jon Ronson's posted here for a while, but you could always try sending him a PM to see if he'll clarify his views on the group.

 

[Walter Ego]

No, I think you're mistaken. If you'll notice in the beginning of the interview he also uses the word "centrist" but this time instead of using it after "globalist" he uses it before "industrialist". So to be consistent we would have to say that he is also describing the Bilderberg members as centrist-industrialists. Does that make sense? I don't think it does. He was describing them in a series of words, and used "centrist" as a stand-alone description and not as an adjective for "globalist".

Nit (and cherry) picking.

What Ronson says in the video is that they are "powerful centrists, industrialists and politicians" (00:50 mark) and that they see themselves as "wise, globalist, centrists" (1:50 mark), and later "nationalists" who espouse notions of "world government" and a "world community" which the conspiratoids construe as a New World Order.

(The interviewer corrects the contention that they meet in "secret" when in fact they actually meet in "private," i.e., no minutes are taken in the closed door meetings.)

The complete Ron Jonson documentary on the Bilderberg Group can be seen on You Tube, btw.

 

[Rikeln]

Maybe I'm naive but I think it's probably a good idea for the powerful to meet and exchange ideas. It sure beats sending out armies to settle all differences.

Again, no one is saying one way or the other that it is not a good idea or that it is. All I want to know is how can Jon Ronson's research be interpreted. Is he right when he says that Bilderberg members are globalists who desire world-government? Why or why not?

 

[Rikeln]

I'm still waiting for someone to convince me that in the long term, a one-world government is a bad idea.

Again, irrelevant to the thread. We first have to determine for certain that they do indeed want a world-government/new world order. My friend insists that this evidence is very inconclusive in that regard.