First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
The Illuminati
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/10/11 , edited 11/10/11

Cuddlebuns wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

So, you mean that these conspiracies and these inane shows are just part of a Right-wing campaign to distract the plebians with bread and circus, while the world spirals downward and goes deeper into the abyss, until, alas, it sinks to Tophet. Although you mention you don't think any specific group of people did this, your post is blatantly full of conservative caricature, such as being concern with 'Satanic Symbols' and thinking President Obama is Old Nick in guise, along with many other examples that would be superfluous to mention. The damnation is in the subtext, I admit, but the damnation still is there, and you are railing against a practice that you, yourself, are practising.


That's a pretty huge assumption to make based on one comment I made. I simply referenced right-wing rhetoric because that is personally what I encounter the most often when discussing such topics, so it was the first thing to come to mind. I honestly don't know of any conspiracy theories that are blatantly left-wing, nor do I know of any conspiracy theorists who are liberal. My focus on examples that apply to conservatives is due to my ignorance of examples from any other group on the political spectrum, not my disdain for right-wing ideology (although I do hold that, it wasn't on my mind while I was making that post).

I don't believe any group of people of any political affiliation ever got together and decided "Let's make up some fake conspiracies, spread them through the media in a not-so-subtle way, and let everyone worry about those while we destroy the world right behind their backs." What I do believe is that some people or some groups of people realized "The masses are distracted by Snooki shaking her ass on TV and all the weird, pointless symbols printed on U.S currency. They won't notice if we screw them over behind the scenes, so let's make a profit off of them while they're preoccupied with that." I believe they're opportunists, not manipulators.

If you read too far in between the lines, you end up distorting the big picture.


longfenglim wrote:

Wait...you are talking about Bankers and captains of industry? Now that is just rubbish, if they can influence the system, influence it alot, but they cannot control it, because the government is barely able to function on its own. Now, consider this, we have laws regulating businesses, if business own the government, we would have done away with those laws, like minimum wage, the right to assemble and strike, all that, but, we don't. The politicians aren't pawns, as you make them out to be, they are the shakers and movers, and usually, they are incompetant shakers and movers.


Texas Governor Rick Perry became rich by doing huge favors for corporations that donated to him. He's definitely not the only one, but he's the only one I can find a recent news article on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/opinion/gov-rick-perrys-cash-machine.html

More examples and explanations of companies receiving favors (mainly deregulation and tax breaks) from politicians for campaign donations:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhyPoliticiansAreWorthBuying.aspx

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics

http://www.skeptically.org/parwho/id14.html

http://lpa.igc.org/lpv31/lp04.htm

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2279

Note how few of these are in any large mainstream media outlets, whom also donate large amounts of money to politicians.

If you'd been paying attention to U.S politics for the past 15-20 years, you'd know that there is a strong movement to dissolve unions and labor laws, and certain industries (namely the financial sector and oil/energy industries in the U.S) have been greatly deregulated over the past couple of decades. There are people in the U.S pushing to get rid of things like the right to assemble and minimum wage, along with safety regulations and child labor laws, and although they are a minority, they aren't all that small and they are still growing.

It's arguable whether all of this is actual control or just strong influence, but is there any real difference between the two?


You're Partisan, you don't care to see the radical and insane element of your party, but I assume you are wise enough to see the mostly Liberal Conspiracy- like the 9-11 humbug, or the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, the Liberal version of the Right's Vast Left-Wing conspiracy, the idea that bankers and financiers are controlling the world, and if not the bankers, the Oiliers, that the Carlye Group is acting as the éminence grise behind our Mid-East policy...it is all humbug and idiocy. But, if we were to include liberal insanity to the mix, then the world becomes less Manichaen, it becomes less the fight between the Rational Left, and the Irrational Right, and more the Irrational Left and the equally Irrational Right. Either you are ignorant of a large strain of insanity on the left, visible everywhere, or you know it, but want to implicit the Right wing into your 'non-conspiracy'. You said that there are some oppertunist- no political affiliation, despite the repeated uses of Right Wing Caricatures- who have decided "The masses are distracted by Snooki shaking her ass on TV and all the weird, pointless symbols printed on U.S currency. They won't notice if we screw them over behind the scenes, so let's make a profit off of them while they're preoccupied with that", but, that, itself, is a conspiracy of people who are both trying to make money off inanity, to provide the Plebians with Bread and Circus, and to distract them from the world spiralling downwards. Can't simple profit be the motivation behind creating inane shows? Can't the public's indelicate taste account for the rubbish on television? No matter, you have tried to implicit the Right in this conspiracy to provide bread and circus while they rape and rob the public.

Then, you mention how Politicians offer favours to the monied who provided them with the funds to keep themselves in office. There is, of course, no denying that- why did Obama use our MONEY to prop up the banks if it were not so? But, there is a difference between control and influencing- the Gay lobby is influencing certain politicians, and their PAC offer sums to politicians who they think will be most favourable to them, or who they hope make well disposed towards the LGBT community by their money, not to the degree of big business, I know, but still considerable enough to mention. No one, except maybe a conspiracy theorist, would postulate that, because of this, they are secretly running the nation and passing draconian laws to convert sweet, all American Children into homosexuals. There are other PACs, offering campaign funds in hopes of influencing politicians- they are influencing, not controlling. While the influence of the Finaciers, Créanciers, Banquiers, &c. are strong, so too is the Israeli Lobby, and neither are in control. You may want it to be so, you may one a single group to blame, but they are not the movers or the shakers, they are the ones who ask the politicians to move one way or shake the other, as the other PACs. You may also question the idea of having a PAC spending most of its time bribing Politicians, but that is a whole other topic altogether, and, if you think that there is no place for these Lobbys in our government, bribing our Politicians, I heartily agree. In addition, while such ideas as the restoration of Laissez Faire Capitalism and reforming the Pinkertons have gain currency amongst some, it is highly unlikely that they will gain enough support to implement their maddness, because, while they may finance the politicians, we are the one who sent them in and drive them out, and, if they atagonise their constituents, we can well decide it is far better to choose from a third party, and send the politicians to the jobs centre.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/11/11

longfenglim wrote:
You're Partisan, you don't care to see the radical and insane element of your party, but I assume you are wise enough to see the mostly Liberal Conspiracy- like the 9-11 humbug, or the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, the Liberal version of the Right's Vast Left-Wing conspiracy, the idea that bankers and financiers are controlling the world, and if not the bankers, the Oiliers, that the Carlye Group is acting as the éminence grise behind our Mid-East policy...it is all humbug and idiocy.


Again, you're making huge assumptions. I've never heard of any of those sorts of conspiracies, other than the 9-11 ones, and the people who I encounter who believe in those types of theories are all conservatives. Not saying that there aren't any liberals who believe them, I'm sure there are, it's just that I've never personally encountered any among all the conspiracy nuts I've ever talked to. I am openly partisan and biased, I'm one of the damn dirty hippie socialist atheist libs that some people believe are going to destroy the world (or at least America). I don't pretend to be fair and balanced while putting my own spin on things, like many others do. I'm either a moderate conservative, moderate liberal, or a far-left radical communist terrorist, depending on who you talk to.

As for banks, the oil industry, military contractors, etc controlling the world, that's not totally inaccurate. It is blatantly obvious that certain sectors of the world economy control an insanely large amount of money that circulates through it. If we go by the old notion that money is power, then these sectors do have a significant amount of control over world affairs. But if you naively believe that money has no influence outside of the economic realm, then at the very least you must realize that these sectors do control the world economy.

Just as with any economy at any level (national, state, local, etc) there will be certain markets that dominate those economies, due to factors like supply and demand and the availability of resources. This is simple economics, and I really hope your own biases don't prevent you from acknowledging that.


But, if we were to include liberal insanity to the mix, then the world becomes less Manichaen, it becomes less the fight between the Rational Left, and the Irrational Right, and more the Irrational Left and the equally Irrational Right. Either you are ignorant of a large strain of insanity on the left, visible everywhere, or you know it, but want to implicit the Right wing into your 'non-conspiracy'. You said that there are some oppertunist- no political affiliation, despite the repeated uses of Right Wing Caricatures- who have decided "The masses are distracted by Snooki shaking her ass on TV and all the weird, pointless symbols printed on U.S currency. They won't notice if we screw them over behind the scenes, so let's make a profit off of them while they're preoccupied with that", but, that, itself, is a conspiracy of people who are both trying to make money off inanity, to provide the Plebians with Bread and Circus, and to distract them from the world spiralling downwards. Can't simple profit be the motivation behind creating inane shows? Can't the public's indelicate taste account for the rubbish on television? No matter, you have tried to implicit the Right in this conspiracy to provide bread and circus while they rape and rob the public.


More assumptions. I do acknowledge that there are extreme members of my own ideology as well. There's extreme sections of any and every school of thought, I'm not so biased that I refuse to see that.

You're also quote mining and ignoring the point I made surrounding that quote. I don't believe a bunch of conservatives got together and decided to make stupid TV shows to distract people so they could screw them over. What I explained was that there are people putting on a "circus" solely for profit, regardless of their political affiliations, because that's what people want to see and are willing to pay for. There are also other people, independent of those who are putting on the "circus," who have noticed that the masses are distracted and apathetic, so they decided to make a profit off of that as well. I make fun of the right-wing because I am biased against them and it's easiest for me to mock them, but I do know there's people of any and every political affiliation engaging in this.

It seems to me that you're thinking in false dichotomies, assuming that there is a right vs left war going on despite the fact that there are many political affiliations that fall outside of that two-dimensional spectrum, including my own. There is no single struggle between right and left or rational and irrational that will determine the fate of the world. Those struggles are occurring, but they aren't really anything to be worried about in my opinion. You seem to be projecting this attitude on to me as well, which is why you keep jumping to these inaccurate conclusions. For the record, I don't see the world in a black and white, good vs bad, one group vs another context that you appear to see. I believe the world is much more complicated than that. So please stop projecting this attitude on to me. Along with the numerous presumptions, it just reinforces my bias even further.


Then, you mention how Politicians offer favours to the monied who provided them with the funds to keep themselves in office. There is, of course, no denying that- why did Obama use our MONEY to prop up the banks if it were not so? But, there is a difference between control and influencing- the Gay lobby is influencing certain politicians, and their PAC offer sums to politicians who they think will be most favourable to them, or who they hope make well disposed towards the LGBT community by their money, not to the degree of big business, I know, but still considerable enough to mention. No one, except maybe a conspiracy theorist, would postulate that, because of this, they are secretly running the nation and passing draconian laws to convert sweet, all American Children into homosexuals. There are other PACs, offering campaign funds in hopes of influencing politicians- they are influencing, not controlling. While the influence of the Finaciers, Créanciers, Banquiers, &c. are strong, so too is the Israeli Lobby, and neither are in control. You may want it to be so, you may one a single group to blame, but they are not the movers or the shakers, they are the ones who ask the politicians to move one way or shake the other, as the other PACs. You may also question the idea of having a PAC spending most of its time bribing Politicians, but that is a whole other topic altogether, and, if you think that there is no place for these Lobbys in our government, bribing our Politicians, I heartily agree. In addition, while such ideas as the restoration of Laissez Faire Capitalism and reforming the Pinkertons have gain currency amongst some, it is highly unlikely that they will gain enough support to implement their maddness, because, while they may finance the politicians, we are the one who sent them in and drive them out, and, if they atagonise their constituents, we can well decide it is far better to choose from a third party, and send the politicians to the jobs centre.


You didn't really explain what the difference between influence and control is. The means are different, but the end results are the same. If I kidnap someone and force them to do my homework, that's control. If I offer them a lot of money in exchange for doing my homework and they do it, that's influence. The end result is the same, I get someone to do my homework for me. Lobbies and PACs may not be holding a gun to politicians' heads and making them do what they want, but when you offer a human being who loves money a bunch of money in exchange for a service or a favor, it's highly likely you'll get them to do what you want them to do. Influencing someone/thing is typically less ethically reprehensible than forcing it, but they both yield the same result.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/11/11 , edited 11/11/11



I am not here to debate you politics, only to say that you are maligning the Right, and impliciting them into some sort of conspiracy to feed the prole while they screw the world. You are free to your politics, as I am free to mine. As for the idea that there are these group of overrich men who rule the world behind the shadow of the government by secretly controlling the economy- that is laughable. They can influence the political systems, to various degrees world-wide, but, to say that it isn't inaccurate to describe their influence as 'controlling', that is complete rubbish. They are a significant factor when considering foriegn policy, but not the sole factor, and certainly not the one creating it. It may be naive to think that they aren't a factor, but it is outright insanity to think they are the controlling factor. They exert a powerful influence, one which may be worrisome, but they do not control.

Second, have you have never heard of any of those, despite the 'Carlye Group' thing appearing on Mr Moore's 'documentary' or the Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy, uttered by the former First Lady, Mrs Clinton, during her tenure as the wife of President Clinton? Surely you jest. But, never mind that, Liberals are just as capable of stupidity as the Conservative- anyone who is partisan must first give up sense and cull reason so as to fit themselves into party lines.

Also, I have not mined the quote and then put it out of context, you specifically said that there are oppertunistic vultures who wanted to make a money off the inane rubbish we usually get.


What I do believe is that some people or some groups of people realized "The masses are distracted by Snooki shaking her ass on TV and all the weird, pointless symbols printed on U.S currency. They won't notice if we screw them over behind the scenes, so let's make a profit off of them while they're preoccupied with that." I believe they're opportunists, not manipulators


Notice how you said there is a group of people who realised that they can provide inane television programmes to preoccupy them and make a heafty sum, while also screwing the public over behind their back. Also not, that it is in one quote, impliciting these non-partisan Right wing caricatures with both distracting us and screwing us over, taking advantage of an age dedicated completely to the cult of the vacuous. Not exactly two seperate groups of people you claim to mean, even if you do take it in context. Maybe Right-Wing Caricatures are the only thing you know- but to include them because you are partisan, when you could very well make your point without it, is to implicit them into this theory of a grand secret scheme to exploit the age in such a fashion- a conspiracy theory if you will- should be faulted for what it is, hypocrisy.

Finally, you claim that offering sums of money for a favour, ie a form of influencing known as 'bribing', is indistinguishable from making a man do something by gunpoint. Now, there is a difference- one you have the choice of rejecting the money, as the politicians do, and the other, you have to do it if you don't want to die. Influencing is trying to presaude someone to do something, either with words or with money- either is fine- and so, the other party has power of rejection. Control, there is no power of rejection, that is the difference. Obama may have recieved a 'donation' from the LGBT PAC, but he has the choice of forgetting all about the favour and taking the money, or rejecting the money altogether. It is absurd to say that because a politician recieved money from so and so, he should take it and do all in his power to advance so and so's position with his own influence in government. I do not make assumptions beyond what you have provided, and you have provided conspiracy theories regarding the overrich and the conservatives.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/30/11

Phyzjob wrote:

Just a bunch of women who learned how to pee standing up.


How is this relevent?
Posted 1/10/12
I think if "The Illuminati" did exist, we wouldn't know about it.
Posted 1/10/12

_SupaDupa_ wrote:

I think if "The Illuminati" did exist, we wouldn't know about it.


An American one dollar bill is decorated with their symbols, and the Statue of Liberty holds a torch representing illumination (enlightenment). They have existed for a long time, and made their presence known without, of course, divulging the details of how their system operates.
Posted 1/10/12

DeusExMachine wrote:


_SupaDupa_ wrote:

I think if "The Illuminati" did exist, we wouldn't know about it.


An American one dollar bill is decorated with their symbols, and the Statue of Liberty holds a torch representing illumination (enlightenment). They have existed for a long time, and made their presence known without, of course, divulging the details of how their system operates.


I'm aware of the various symbols that they have and have read up on what they supposedly mean.
*Still doesn't believe*

Lemme know when they start some type of revolution, until then I will not believe or care.

For those interested hearing more about "The Illuminati" look up Leo Zagami. If nothing else, he's entertaining.
Posted 1/10/12

_SupaDupa_ wrote:


DeusExMachine wrote:


_SupaDupa_ wrote:

I think if "The Illuminati" did exist, we wouldn't know about it.


An American one dollar bill is decorated with their symbols, and the Statue of Liberty holds a torch representing illumination (enlightenment). They have existed for a long time, and made their presence known without, of course, divulging the details of how their system operates.


I'm aware of the various symbols that they have and have read up on what they supposedly mean.
*Still doesn't believe*

Lemme know when they start some type of revolution, until then I will not believe or care.

For those interested hearing more about "The Illuminati" look up Leo Zagami. If nothing else, he's entertaining.


Personally, I doubt The Illuminati would start a revolution, since they already seem to control a lot of what goes on in the world today. Not just them, but other secret organizations, such as the Skull and Bones and the Trilateral Commission. A few of the United States' politicians are thought to be members of the Skull and Bones, too.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/11/12
The illuminati is the predecessor of the CIA!
Posted 1/11/12

alupihan45 wrote:

The illuminati is the predecessor of the CIA!


That's a catchy idea, but the CIA gathers intelligence, whereas The Illuminati already "has it."
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/13/12

DeusExMachine wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:

The illuminati is the predecessor of the CIA!


That's a catchy idea, but the CIA gathers intelligence, whereas The Illuminati already "has it."


that what the CIA wants us to think- that they are just gathering intelligence

(just playing here...or am i?)
91 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/12
I know about them but just warning you"Dont believe everything you see or hear."People now and days deceive and back stab.
1767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / In my mind
Offline
Posted 1/21/12
Most likely at least something like the Illuminati existed or still exists, but the have no influence at all.
1275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Toronto,Canada
Offline
Posted 7/13/12
all facts point that its real
4370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/23/12
a childish joke.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.