The global elite: a (hopefully) sober discussion

[Dillinger4]

Of those examples, my estimations: (Where Ive said "possible" people may chose to think "nonsense" and are invited to say why)

Mass biometric databased populations: Fact. NIR, Real ID - both very likely to be extended beyond original populations in US and UK. Schools now have permission to fingerprint kids. Nice.

Cashless society? Possible. Not likely in near future. Certainly could be seen as being pushed through some advertising

Microchipped populations? Ditto, though technology is more available than many would like to think. again, being presented as "trendy" in some circles.

Sterilisation through vaccination? Possible.

Poisoning populations through industrial flouridide in water? fact, though it is not called "poisoning" obviously.

CIA bringing crack to LA? Fact as I understand it.

Assinations and coups like Kennedy or the attempt in Venezuala? Fact.

People can add their own. One difficulty is that because some "conspiracy theories" are bunk, some people assume them all to be. I think that is naive personally.

See, I agree with step A, and I do find what is true there to be pretty worrying.

But its when you try and move that onto step B, that what you are saying all falls apart. There is no way for you to bring all that together.

What I don't understand is, why you have to think its all part of the same parcel.

Why do you have to make these problems more complicated than they already are? They just don't need to be.

You can theorize forever about who or what is behind it, or whatever. Why are you not actively fighting it?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

See, I agree with step A, and I do find what is true there to be pretty worrying.

But its when you try and move that onto step B, that what you are saying all falls apart. There is no way for you to bring all that together.

What I don't understand is, why you have to think its all part of the same parcel.

Why do you have to make these problems more complicated than they already are? They just don't need to be.

You can theorize forever about who or what is behind it, or whatever. Why are you not actively fighting it?

I dont have to summise B too much in that elite cliques are known to exist and will direct many of these things. Im trying to figure out the extent of it and realise that much of it may come down to conjecture. But Im sure we are all capable of learning something along the way, at least I hope so.

What on earth makes you suppose I am not actively fighting some of this stuff is beyond me. One reason I like and respect this site so much is that there appears to be a much lower "armchair" quotiant than any other comparable site, and personally my activism goes some degree beyond armchair too.

 

[Dillinger4]

I just feel there is no call to speculate on something that tends to be entirely fact free.

I feel quite strongly about many of the issues you highlight, but say THEY (in a complete generalized form), did exist.

What use would it be speculating about it on the internet? What will you learn?

It doesn't matter a huge amount one way or the other. Some of these are happening, one way or the other.

 

[fela fan]

Taffboy, have you heard of genre analysis?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I just feel there is no call to speculate on something that tends to be entirely fact free.

I feel quite strongly about many of the issues you highlight, but say THEY (in a complete generalized form), did exist.

What use would it be speculating about it on the internet? What will you learn?

It doesn't matter a huge amount one way or the other. Some of these are happening, one way or the other.

These are reasonable points. I think the aim is to get a better handle on what they are planning and some of how they strategise, so as to know better how to counter them.

btw I tend to refer to "them" as the loose elite who obviously exist and "Them" as the pupported narrow elite who some deny exist.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Taffboy, have you heard of genre analysis?

Well I obviously know what "genre" means and what "analysis" means and have heard the two put together. What are you thinking of in this context?

 

[editor]

Well I obviously know what "genre" means and what "analysis" means and have heard the two put together. What are you thinking of in this context?

Here: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/intgenre4.html

 

[ymu]

Yes I do. So let me put it another way if you dont want that person or those sites mentioned here.

If you disagree vehemently with a person or groups general political position does it make everything they say untrue / bonkers? Go with my UKIP analogy if you like or whatever.

Alternative A: rich powerful people brought up by rich powerful parents mingling with rich powerful people and the occasional ambitious self-made type, all doing everything they can to stay rich and powerful.

Alternative B: childhood induction into a secret society which goes about putting its rich but otherwise powerless members into important positions in order that they can make shitty decisions to screw the world over in a far more evil manner than any normal group of rich powerful people would.



How in hell do you need to postulate a real live actual "shhh don't tell the plebs" conspiracy, handed down from generation to generation yet revealed by noone, when rich people behave like that anyway?

Oh yeah, I forgot the "proof" - shed loads of rich powerful Jews. Those people whose ancestors were discriminated against for centuries and only allowed to work in money-lending and the media. Yeah, no reason at all why history might dictate that many Jews became powerful with the advent of the industrial revolution and capitalism; it's a good thing we have plenty of bone-heads around to point out that these people are clearly conspiring against us and should be got rid of.

Fridgemagnet said it all. This juvenile wank-fantasy material just makes the sane critics of the amoral status quo sound like nutters by association when they talk about the serious problems that need to be dealt with.

Grow-up a little? (edited for mistaken identity; the rest still stands)

 

[EddyBlack]

Some questions on the future ‘globalised’ planet Earth/ NWO

1. ‘Globalisation’ both politically and economically will lead ultimately to what end?

2. Who would benefit from that end?

3. Who are the true drivers and most influential elements in the move towards political and economical globalization?

 

[Crispy]

The thing is with these 'world order' conspiracies is that they require pretty much everyone to be in on it.Given the nature of greed, suspicion and plain old random madness, the idea that the most greedy, suspicious and mad people in the world could get together, put down their differences and try and carry out some coordinated plan is ridiculous.

 

[EddyBlack]

I don't think so. The Iraq lies for example. A conspiracy that encompassed both the American and British govts.
The IMF and World Banks subjugation of Argentina and Indonesia whilst posing as benefactors.

A mixture of elitism, capitalist ideology and loads of firendly bootlickers in poweful places.

 

[ymu]

Some questions on the future ‘globalised’ planet Earth/ NWO

1. ‘Globalisation’ both politically and economically will lead ultimately to what end?

2. Who would benefit from that end?

3. Who are the true drivers and most influential elements in the move towards political and economical globalization?

1) Capitalism on a global scale; toffs in the West, upper m/c in SE Asia, m/c in Asia, w/c in south america and parts of Asia, underclass in Africa.

2) The West (but at a cost of ever-increasing int'l terrorism in the face of ever-increasing asymmetry of power).

3) The IMF and the economists who still believe in Reaganomics (the economic theory that can only explain unemployment as laziness, so presumably depressions happens when the feckless worker sleeps through the alarm a lot). There was an economic counter-revolution at the IMF in the early Reagan years and the Sanes have not yet been able to reign in the Crazies. Current beneficiaries, rich corporate types who now get to sell rainwater to the people it dripped off.


Ref for (3): Joseph Stiglitz, former chief of the World Bank, right-winger and keen globalisationist; Globalisation and it's Discontents (the whole book says this over and over)

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Grow-up a little? Maybe also stop bandying about the Israeli=Nazi jibe quite so easily, until you learn to qualify and apply that term appropriately; it'd do no wonders for your credibility. But in the main, just grow-up.

What is the point of discussing stuff with people as wildly imaginative as you?

Not once on this thread have I mentioned "Israelis", "nazis", "jews" or "bankers". In fact I rarely mention Israel or jews on any thread anywhere. Dont intend to either. Is it a regular habit of yours to make up that someone said something they didnt, then slag them off for it?

 

[camouflage]

Well that's the thing, the whole matter seems to be either truisms or nonsense. It's hardly novel that people in similar economic situations get together to organise with relation to their own interests, or that some people hold ridiculous levels of personal influence over governments regardless of stated principles of government, or that social networks like schools and families are related to political matters, or that states like to conduct surveillance... none of the instances are unique by any means. They bear exposing and illustrating, but not the painting of them as some sort of amazing new phenomenon. Every vaguely sensible adult knows about these basic ideas. Blimey, you'll be telling me next that rich people get better treatment in the courts!

What's on top of that is paranoid fluff about 666 barcodes and black helicopters and the Queen running the drugs trade with the help of the Jews, utterly poisoned with all sorts of fantasy and prejudice, discrediting anything useful.

Using terms like "the New World Order" just adds to the fantasy element and tries to make out that this is all some sort of aberration - whereas it's actually just what has always happened. In fact I'd say that it was intrinsically reactionary, in that it implies that if we could just get rid of these few conspirators, we could just return to how things were before and everything would be fine - it's always been broken, it's always worked like that, it wasn't right before, you were just not alive or too young to appreciate it if you thought otherwise.

This post is foreigner approved.

 

[ymu]

What is the point of discussing stuff with people as wildly imaginative as you?

Not once on this thread have I mentioned "Israelis", "nazis", "jews" or "bankers". In fact I rarely mention Israel or jews on any thread anywhere. Dont intend to either. Is it a regular habit of yours to make up that someone said something they didnt, then slag them off for it?

Fuck! I'm soo sorry, I got you confused with someone who does just that. Styles similar - sorry.

I retract and I'll edit my post.

 

[ymu]

Doesn't alter the rest though. It's teenage fantasy "politics".

And yep, the NWO stuff is inextricably linked with anti-semitic conspiracy archives. Sorry if you missed that bit - but it's there if you read deeper, it always is.

 

[8den]

I'm sorry but Kennedy was killed by Oswald, a lone nut, fluoridation isn't a plot, and they aren't trying to sterilize you with vaccinations.

Any more crazy?

 

[Meltingpot]

If you have two sources for something, one being a complete idiot and the other a respectable worker in the field, which one is more likely to be convincing?

If you have one source for something, and they're a lunatic, who would believe you?

You're assuming that there's an objective standard for determining lunacy, which there isn't. OK, I agree that probably 99 times out of 100 you should listen to the respectable worker in the field instead of the "lunatic", but don't forget that Churchill was considered crazy in the 30's for banging on about the Nazi threat.

There was a British foreign secretary once who famously said something about the First World War like "the wise people all said one thing, and the damn fools said another, and the damn fools were right".

 

[Brainaddict]

The last 2 candidates for US presidents were members of a very small secret society that Bush refused to talk about in hustings. What are the actual statistical chances of that in a population of over 1/4 billion?

I heard that two recent presidents were from the same family, and one of the upcoming presidential candidates may also be from the family of a previous president

 

[ymu]

I heard that two recent presidents were from the same family, and one of the upcoming presidential candidates may also be from the family of a previous president

Are you trying to tell me privelege is hereditary?!!!

 

[EddyBlack]

The Elite Yale types would have a much greater likelihood of being presidential candidate than say the other 99.99%.

A bit weird though that they where in the same cladestine brotherhood, and gave the same evasive answer when asked about it. Basically. 'its a secret so I'm not going to tell you about it *chuckle*'. It ain't right.

 

[Brainaddict]

Are you trying to tell me privelege is hereditary?!!!

Increasingly what bothers me about conspiracy theories is that they distract from what is right out in the open.

Oooh, they're all members of a secret society so it's not really a meritocratic democracy at all!!!

seems to get people more interested than:

Oooh, they're all fucking related - look! they've got the same last names! - so it's not really a meritocratic democracy at all!!!

Maybe it's the detective work people enjoy. I mean, Bush being related to Bush is pretty easy to work out.

 

[8den]

The Elite Yale types would have a much greater likelihood of being presidential candidate than say the other 99.99%.

A bit weird though that they where in the same cladestine brotherhood, and gave the same evasive answer when asked about it. Basically. 'its a secret so I'm not going to tell you about it *chuckle*'. It ain't right.

If you actually read Ronson's account of "Them" where he not so much as snuck, as brazenly walked into the Bohemian grove cremation of care ceremony (while Alex Jones hung around in the foliage shooting dodgy video and claiming it was a satanic ritual) Is a frat boy type atmosphere, and a harmless piss up.

 

[nosos]

Maybe it's the detective work people enjoy. I mean, Bush being related to Bush is pretty easy to work out.

Unambigious narratives will tend to flourish in a complex, confusing and scary world.

 

[ymu]

Unambigious narratives will tend to flourish in a complex, confusing and scary world.

Shed loads of anthropological research to support that; mostly looking at religiosity and war/hardship/turmoil, IIRC.

 

[EddyBlack]

If you actually read Ronson's account of "Them" where he not so much as snuck, as brazenly walked into the Bohemian grove cremation of care ceremony (while Alex Jones hung around in the foliage shooting dodgy video and claiming it was a satanic ritual) Is a frat boy type atmosphere, and a harmless piss up.

Yeah Ronson did a good job showing that to be a load of rubbish.

This was a reference to the Yale secret society called 'Skull and Bones' to which both John Kerry and George Bush where members. There are only about 800 living members.

“I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things,” says Rosenbaum. “We're supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation.”

Pretty much sums my view on it.

News article

Bush and Kerry

 

[Barking_Mad]

Its not that I disagree. The man is a proven liar.

True, but then Cheney is a proven liar, but it doesn't mean he occasionally says something which is true. I've no problem with the idea that Alex Jones speaks a lot of waffle, but what i personally am always careful to do is not to assume everything is a lie/waffle as occasionally you might miss something that might just be right - regardless of who says it.

I don't know enough of his stuff inside out to point to what might be right, but what puzzles me is this instant dismissal by some people over anything he says. Im also puzzled when some people dismiss the idea of 'people with money and power getting together to form a strategy of some sort, as being 'no big deal'. True its not, but this summarial dismissal seems to undercut all the possible effects that they have and reduce it down to the ordinary.

Re: the NWO or however you chose to phrase the 'idea' - I am fascinated by how far their ideas and methods reach. How much is pure 'accident' and how much is 'design'. I guess much of what they do comes down to how much you trust world learders and the groups they are part of.

How benevolent are they? Are difficult decisions made 'for the greater good'? Or are they part of a more nefarious plan which might include certain documented acitivities? People lucky enough to be born in the west have a level of living which although in my opinion is spiritually moribund, is without doubt in certain areas a testament to many of the things that are amazing about humanity. On the other hand the treatment of other sections of our fellow human beings is downright disgraceful and racist. Im not sure where the cross over regarding defining their actions lies.

Still, like many a journo is told "follow the money".

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It is ordinary. It's how things have worked for millennia. Pretending that associations of powerful people where they don't tell you what they're talking about is some weird new phenomenon is fantasy; it's the sort of thing people like to believe so they don't have to accept that actually, the whole way things are set up is broken like that. "Oh, it's the Illuminati, if we just get rid of them we can go back to the good old-fashioned days where everything was out in the open!" It's the "a few bad apples" line, that all of the problems in the world are down to evil individuals (or groups of evil individuals) rather than a system which actively produces those problems, and which impersonally raises some people inside it and lowers other, without any individual or group of individuals ever consciously deciding it.

 

[8den]

Yeah Ronson did a good job showing that to be a load of rubbish.

This was a reference to the Yale secret society called 'Skull and Bones' to which both John Kerry and George Bush where members. There are only about 800 living members.

“I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things,” says Rosenbaum. “We're supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation.”

Pretty much sums my view on it.

News article

Bush and Kerry

Social networking is pretty much typical on any level of society. People are suspicious of organisations that meet up and exclude others. It's a clique. What taffy is doing is imply tenious sinister motives to them based on scant or non existant evidence.

 

[fela fan]

Well I obviously know what "genre" means and what "analysis" means and have heard the two put together. What are you thinking of in this context?

It probably needs its own discussion. In the teaching of writing one can do genre analysis. Such an action reveals certain kinds of language being used and being organised in certain kinds of ways according to the text type. Eg, you could recognise a romance novel against a sun newspaper report against an encyclopedia entry, and so on. By analysing each genre, the writing student is better able to learn how to write in good English.

In general we have to write according to the genre of text. You can see how language is to an extent restricted to the writer.

Now, i've only heard of this being applied to written language. But if one were to do a similar analysis over spoken language i feel similar findings would occur. To now suddenly leap a few steps forward, i think that people in society are not as free as they think they are, and that we shape our language according to our work situation (and during play time too, but to a less extent).

I find it difficult to visualise an inner cabal of people deliberately plotting how to run the world to their benefit, but i do find it credible to believe that those who find themselves with immense power find a certain lexicon of language that they must fit in with. And i think that language dictates behaviour.

I tried to keep it short!