Proper interpretation of this evidence?

[Shinigami]

I'm in a debate with a friend about 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. This is what Ronson and Healey have to say. My friend and I are interested to know how you will interpret this evidence as he and I have different interpretations. One of us thinks the Bilderberg Group is comprised of globalists who desire a world-government and one of us does not.

Here is the evidence:

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1

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?

[Croydon Bob]

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

I'm afraid that I can't draw conclusions from that evidence alone, as I've read Ronson's books, seen his TV shows, been to his Skeptic in the Pub talks. I'm also familiar with the opinions of Icke and other conspiracy nuts on the Bilderbergers.

Broadly: I think that the Bilderberg Group exists, is not very nice, plots to control the world. BUT they are only human and don't actually control the world, they just have more power between them than is healthy.

[Pebble]

On the basis of the evidence presented we have a couple of anecdotes and some vague insights attributed to either Denis Healy or anonomous sources which suggest that this is a club of aging internationalists who like to keep abreast of world developments, which they may or may not be able to influence.