Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
If they do exist what is the motivation to oppose them anyhow?
Good question. This is something I have thought about a lot.
First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that "they" (global elitists) do exist but you are free to come to your own conclusions. As far as "what is the motivation to oppose them" goes I think that's a great question. Here's my thoughts:
Since so much of their power comes from the cooperation of common folk like us, then, presumably if more people...
1) become aware of their agenda
AND
2) regain their independence (I think it is interesting that we are discussing this topic before, during and after July 4th)
AND
3) refuse to cooperate
...then we can undermine their agenda.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
The question is, will history record us as the generation of "good men who did nothing" or "the good men who did something"?
I treat my animals and my family well.
That's good, but it is possible to extend our compassion beyond our family and pets.
You can't fix samsara.
We are making kamma throughout our lives, we are making it right now as we discuss this issue. The question is what kind of kamma are we making? While it may or may not be possible to stop the global elitists at this stage in human history (personally I am an optimist and believe that it is not too late yet) I think that it is good kamma to do what I can to spread awareness about their agenda because many people are not aware, or deny, that such a "monolithic ruthless conspiracy" even exists.
Ultimately, in my opinion, getting off the wheel of Samsara is the highest goal. However, there is no guarantee that I will achieve that goal in this lifetime. If rebirth is true and if it operates according to the law of kamma then, next lifetime, I will inherit whatever kamma I make in this lifetime. If I oppose (through non-violent means) what I believe to be an evil agenda then I will fall heir to that kamma.
lol there are way more engineers that will say 9/11 was as it was said than not. It boggles the mind that ppl believe that they crashed planes just to detonate bombs. Its beyond logic.
If they do exist what is the motivation to oppose them anyhow?
Good question. This is something I have thought about a lot.
First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that "they" (global elitists) do exist but you are free to come to your own conclusions.
In case you or anyone else on this forum may be doubting whether or not there are global elitists with plans to create a one world government (aka "New World Order"), here's a quote from one of the conspirators himself boasting about it:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
"freedom" a noun, nominalization of the verb "to free" and as such missing the relevant syntactical framework consisting of the specifications "to free [a specific thing, person, being or group thereof] _from_ [some specific constraints]".
in effect "Freedom" is a semantically void term, empty. each person fills in the extra meaning in a lightning fast (usually) unconscious mental motion from a personal value system ... usually with something they like or want. interesting thing to observe if you are quick enough inside.
used in hypnotic trance induction for this very reason .. it doesn't really say anything. also in political rhetoric, interesting .. hmmm ... sounds a bit like the ol' "what we are talking about here is Opportunity" ... hmmm .. easily redefined as needed ... hmmm ... doesn't sound very reliable to me.
this is a buddhist forum, we can save in semantics; freedom from suffering.
... i'm not really sure what you mean. what is suffering? and, what is freed?
further, from the context in which it is being used in the thread, if one did not know that this ("freedom from suffering") was an assumed meaning ... well, maybe i am particularly dense but _i_ didn't get that interpretation until you defined it - this thread does not have the tone of a discussion of spiritual liberation, it has a pretty standard political usage of the concept of "freedom". my point (in case you are assuming i don't have one) is that discussions around things like "freedom" tend to become unresolvable disputes that produce little if any real results (other than disturbing emotions) - in large part because of the undefined term. moreover, these undefined terms are an unstable basis on which to build political consensus of any enduring kind.
this is to say, humans have been misled by political rhetoricians for millenia by believing A. that there is any such thing as freedom and B. that it can be attained if we do as they suggest - which usually means to go to some place, make a big mess, take a bunch of stuff and give it to them.
to then say that our freedom has been taken away ... i think this is repeating the same mistake and was pointing this out in a very oblique way.
sheesh this is starting to sound like an Alex Jones rant.
Here are some more David Rockfeller quotes for you to chew on. So as you said, here is a quote from the "conspirator" himself.
"I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world."
"There have been people—ever since I've had any kind of position in the world—who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crack pots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible."
hmmm, not sure what "it" refers to but the ahimsa part is promising .. seems to me though that wars for _anything_ do not promote ahimsa - at least at first thought and i acknowledge a preference for that approach. but, sun tsu might disagree with me and i am not sure how i might respond to that .. he might say something about freedom to wage war.
politics is a physical concern, i am not being nitpicky or facetious - i actually think it is important for people that are interested in political change to refine the use of both language and ideology. i have watched decades of loose and unexamined ideology produce mostly political schisms and little else while organized international fascism basically took over the world (almost). i ought not be dissappointed .. but i think that well intentioned people can be more effective than has been the case in the past 50 years and if we don't, erm, (pardon me) get our sh*t together and stop getting caught up in unworkable notions like freedom and individualism it will be _very_ hard to organize real political change. groups have rules - they must in order work together effectively; ideas like "freedom" and "i should be allowed to do what i want if it feels good" don't help much and moreover, they deny the basic constraints of living in a physical world. this i would call unexamined delusion.
in short - ahimsa does not equal freedom. i am all for ahimsa .. not so sure about this freedom stuff.
it refers to "freedom from suffering"... since it is political, it will have the form of ahimsa.
actually, that's the whole constitution (ahimsa) of a small country I co-founded. we are just 4* humans that agree on that. oh, and ahimsa includes the environment!
if you want, you can see it this way: freedom to do as anyone wants, as long as it respects ahimsa.
this has being proposed under other forms, don't know why it has not being simplified in this way... that's actually a whole political ideology.
Dont get me wrong, I am not criticising money-centric USA. The whole world is chasing money. It makes the world go round. It also destroys the planet. Reasons not to move to USA: too many guns, expensive medicine and healthcare, expensive tertiary education, huge millitary expenditure, powerful business lobby, possibility of President Sarah Palin.
USA is still the richest country in the world. To many people esp those from poor countries, making money is their top priority. As a country USA is huge compared to countries like Singapore or Finland or UK, ranked amongst the best places to live in the world. USA is able to absorb many immigrants and maybe more tolerant towards new immigrants.
Having lived in a third world country (well, actually a "rapidly industrializing nation"), there's just as much a focus on money in Thailand as there is the U.S. Perhaps the only two differences is that the average Thai needs it for survival, and they will be as subtle as necessary to get it by whatever nonviolent means.
Does anyone ever wonder why we elect an ordinary man as the president, then we let him make all the important decisions? In the past, we had Nixon who was mentally ill, W. Bush who was mentally challenged, Clinton who was sexually uninhibited and Reagan who was sleepy. Just to name a few.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2011
@jll What kind of extraordinary man do you think should be president? Who is an extraordinary man? And why is he not running for election?
people want an ordinary man, someone with whom they think they can identify. And every single one of the above, is someone with whom we can identify...
Nixon was mentally ill... (source for statement please... what reference can you supply? I'm not American, so I'm curious). Fact: one in 4 people has a mental issue, at one point or another.
Bush was mentally challenged. This is a patronising statement, and would suggest that the mentally-challenged of the USA who supported him, got him into office. They could identify with him. Clinton Sexually uninhibited? Nothing to do with his ability to be president. he's still an extremely popular guy, and his wife is high-power. In fact, of the three above, I would say he's your 'extraordinary guy'. I would say a high proportion of the male population is sexually uninhibited. it's just not broadcast all over the press and papers. (For that matter, women seem just as uninhibited.... he didn't have sex with a man, did he? And it was also more than one woman....) Regan was a very nice person, with a wonderfully gentle character who achieved much. It was then discovered he was suffering from Alzheimer's. (Are you confusing him with Nixon?) By this time, he had retired.
I think you need to do more research and be a bit less deprecating about matters. You obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your post. As a non-American, I can see why an American would be very insulted by your non-American ignorance on the subject.....
Does anyone ever wonder why we elect an ordinary man as the president, then we let him make all the important decisions? In the past, we had Nixon who was mentally ill, W. Bush who was mentally challenged, Clinton who was sexually uninhibited and Reagan who was sleepy. Just to name a few.
First off, I'm a Democrat. But, you are overstating. Nixon was not "mentally ill", Bush was not "mentally challenged" (although I believe he was the worst President during my 61 years; intellectually pretty average), Clinton was sexually uninhibited (you got me on that one), and Reagan was sleepy (?...wow, what a sin to be less energetic at his age).
@GuyC Sadam husein was a national leader. I am not talking about national politics. I am talking on 'hits' on billionaires such as Rockefellers. Are you suggesting that the elite have a peaceful form of government? All other forms of government in history have had warfare. Why not hits? Or are you saying the conspiracy is none other than the national leaders? Why not hits on the billionaires? Why hasn't steve jobs and bill gates been 'hit'?
Firstly, Nixon's mental illness was well-documented. The point is why should we place such a huge responsibility and burden on a man who is just as fallible as anyone else.
@jll What kind of extraordinary man do you think should be president? Who is an extraordinary man? And why is he not running for election?
people want an ordinary man, someone with whom they think they can identify. And every single one of the above, is someone with whom we can identify...
Nixon was mentally ill... (source for statement please... what reference can you supply? I'm not American, so I'm curious). Fact: one in 4 people has a mental issue, at one point or another.
Bush was mentally challenged. This is a patronising statement, and would suggest that the mentally-challenged of the USA who supported him, got him into office. They could identify with him. Clinton Sexually uninhibited? Nothing to do with his ability to be president. he's still an extremely popular guy, and his wife is high-power. In fact, of the three above, I would say he's your 'extraordinary guy'. I would say a high proportion of the male population is sexually uninhibited. it's just not broadcast all over the press and papers. (For that matter, women seem just as uninhibited.... he didn't have sex with a man, did he? And it was also more than one woman....) Regan was a very nice person, with a wonderfully gentle character who achieved much. It was then discovered he was suffering from Alzheimer's. (Are you confusing him with Nixon?) By this time, he had retired.
I think you need to do more research and be a bit less deprecating about matters. You obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your post. As a non-American, I can see why an American would be very insulted by your non-American ignorance on the subject.....
"...but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. " Sure sounds like Obama's Czars and rampant governement to me. Lets count the unelected government departments that run our country instead of those elected to do so
EPA
FDA
Federal Reserve
USDA
HUD
Department of Education
FTC
Homeland Security
TSA
the list goes on and on. The world turns and nothing ever changes, just changes names.
Richard Nixon being mentally ill is not well documented at all. All I could find is references that he drank heavily during the Watergate scandal. That seems pretty normal if you ask me. The way mental illness is characterized today, most people suffer from it.
Nobody is perfect and I dont expect anyone to be perfect and its one reason why presidents have term limits and they dont have supreme power at all. Thats the whole idea of checks and balances.
"...but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. " Sure sounds like Obama's Czars and rampant governement to me. Lets count the unelected government departments that run our country instead of those elected to do so
EPA
FDA
Federal Reserve
...
I am glad you mentioned the "Federal Reserve". Despite the name, it is neither "federal", nor does it have any "reserves". The Federal Reserve is not a government department, it is privately owned. The Federal Reserve controls the government, not the other way around.
As far as Obama goes, you are right, it does sound like Obama's government. Why? Because Woodrow Wilson wasn't talking about a "Republican" vs "Democrat" issue - both parties are in the same boat - both are controlled. American citizens may have the right to "elect" their politicians - but - they don't have the right to "select" their politicians. Politicians are selected and groomed at a young age, they are hand-picked by the elite to further their agenda. It is really quite clever. When things go wrong everyone points the finger at Obama or Bush or whoever else is on stage at the time. Hardly anyone looks behind the curtain to see who the puppet masters are.
...
Homeland Security
TSA
the list goes on and on. The world turns and nothing ever changes, just changes names.
You are right, the more we change, the more we stay the same. In some cases, even the names stay the same. Here is where "homeland security" was originally used in political propaganda:
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
- Adolf Hitler
"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.
The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To 'learn' history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events."
- Adolf Hitler
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists [insert "Terrorists" here] are seeking to destroy our country. Russia [insert "Al Qaeda" here] is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! danger from within and without. we need law [insert "Patriot Act" or "Anti-Terror Act" or any other unconstitutional law here] and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
- Adolf Hitler
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
Firstly, Nixon's mental illness was well-documented. The point is why should we place such a huge responsibility and burden on a man who is just as fallible as anyone else.
Nixon's own psychiatrist wrote that, ""He didn't have a serious psychiatric diagnosis," Hutschnecker told Summers. "Nixon wasn't psychotic. He had no pathology. But he did have a good portion of neurotic symptoms."
If you're going to condemn someone because they're neurotic, we're all in trouble...including you.
May I recommend "altered statesman" on Discovery channel.
Richard Nixon being mentally ill is not well documented at all. All I could find is references that he drank heavily during the Watergate scandal. That seems pretty normal if you ask me. The way mental illness is characterized today, most people suffer from it.
Nobody is perfect and I dont expect anyone to be perfect and its one reason why presidents have term limits and they dont have supreme power at all. Thats the whole idea of checks and balances.
Comments
Could you give some examples of billionaires who were assinated. And mass killings of people like the St. Valentine's massacre for example?
First of all, there is no doubt in my mind that "they" (global elitists) do exist but you are free to come to your own conclusions. As far as "what is the motivation to oppose them" goes I think that's a great question. Here's my thoughts:
Since so much of their power comes from the cooperation of common folk like us, then, presumably if more people...
1) become aware of their agenda
AND
2) regain their independence (I think it is interesting that we are discussing this topic before, during and after July 4th)
AND
3) refuse to cooperate
...then we can undermine their agenda.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
The question is, will history record us as the generation of "good men who did nothing" or "the good men who did something"? That's good, but it is possible to extend our compassion beyond our family and pets. We are making kamma throughout our lives, we are making it right now as we discuss this issue. The question is what kind of kamma are we making? While it may or may not be possible to stop the global elitists at this stage in human history (personally I am an optimist and believe that it is not too late yet) I think that it is good kamma to do what I can to spread awareness about their agenda because many people are not aware, or deny, that such a "monolithic ruthless conspiracy" even exists.
Ultimately, in my opinion, getting off the wheel of Samsara is the highest goal. However, there is no guarantee that I will achieve that goal in this lifetime. If rebirth is true and if it operates according to the law of kamma then, next lifetime, I will inherit whatever kamma I make in this lifetime. If I oppose (through non-violent means) what I believe to be an evil agenda then I will fall heir to that kamma.
Metta,
Guy
Which is true! And it requires that you fight your OWN government to keep it that way!
those that promote any type of government are promoting the cowardly surrender of personal freedom.
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
- John D Rockefeller
Metta,
Guy
in effect "Freedom" is a semantically void term, empty. each person fills in the extra meaning in a lightning fast (usually) unconscious mental motion from a personal value system ... usually with something they like or want. interesting thing to observe if you are quick enough inside.
used in hypnotic trance induction for this very reason .. it doesn't really say anything. also in political rhetoric, interesting .. hmmm ... sounds a bit like the ol' "what we are talking about here is Opportunity" ... hmmm .. easily redefined as needed ... hmmm ... doesn't sound very reliable to me.
nevermind ..
indeed,
same family, from memory: "I don't care who makes the laws, just give me the power to create/print money".
@kaci
this is a buddhist forum, we can save in semantics; freedom from suffering.
further, from the context in which it is being used in the thread, if one did not know that this ("freedom from suffering") was an assumed meaning ... well, maybe i am particularly dense but _i_ didn't get that interpretation until you defined it - this thread does not have the tone of a discussion of spiritual liberation, it has a pretty standard political usage of the concept of "freedom". my point (in case you are assuming i don't have one) is that discussions around things like "freedom" tend to become unresolvable disputes that produce little if any real results (other than disturbing emotions) - in large part because of the undefined term. moreover, these undefined terms are an unstable basis on which to build political consensus of any enduring kind.
this is to say, humans have been misled by political rhetoricians for millenia by believing A. that there is any such thing as freedom and B. that it can be attained if we do as they suggest - which usually means to go to some place, make a big mess, take a bunch of stuff and give it to them.
to then say that our freedom has been taken away ... i think this is repeating the same mistake and was pointing this out in a very oblique way.
Here are some more David Rockfeller quotes for you to chew on. So as you said, here is a quote from the "conspirator" himself.
"I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world."
"There have been people—ever since I've had any kind of position in the world—who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crack pots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible."
in political terms, it will be a promotion for ahimsa.
wars for oil, are not.
politics is a physical concern, i am not being nitpicky or facetious - i actually think it is important for people that are interested in political change to refine the use of both language and ideology. i have watched decades of loose and unexamined ideology produce mostly political schisms and little else while organized international fascism basically took over the world (almost). i ought not be dissappointed .. but i think that well intentioned people can be more effective than has been the case in the past 50 years and if we don't, erm, (pardon me) get our sh*t together and stop getting caught up in unworkable notions like freedom and individualism it will be _very_ hard to organize real political change. groups have rules - they must in order work together effectively; ideas like "freedom" and "i should be allowed to do what i want if it feels good" don't help much and moreover, they deny the basic constraints of living in a physical world. this i would call unexamined delusion.
in short - ahimsa does not equal freedom. i am all for ahimsa .. not so sure about this freedom stuff.
it refers to "freedom from suffering"... since it is political, it will have the form of ahimsa.
actually, that's the whole constitution (ahimsa) of a small country I co-founded. we are just 4* humans that agree on that. oh, and ahimsa includes the environment!
if you want, you can see it this way:
freedom to do as anyone wants, as long as it respects ahimsa.
this has being proposed under other forms, don't know why it has not being simplified in this way... that's actually a whole political ideology.
*active
What kind of extraordinary man do you think should be president?
Who is an extraordinary man?
And why is he not running for election?
people want an ordinary man, someone with whom they think they can identify.
And every single one of the above, is someone with whom we can identify...
Nixon was mentally ill... (source for statement please... what reference can you supply? I'm not American, so I'm curious).
Fact: one in 4 people has a mental issue, at one point or another.
Bush was mentally challenged.
This is a patronising statement, and would suggest that the mentally-challenged of the USA who supported him, got him into office. They could identify with him.
Clinton Sexually uninhibited?
Nothing to do with his ability to be president. he's still an extremely popular guy, and his wife is high-power.
In fact, of the three above, I would say he's your 'extraordinary guy'.
I would say a high proportion of the male population is sexually uninhibited. it's just not broadcast all over the press and papers.
(For that matter, women seem just as uninhibited.... he didn't have sex with a man, did he? And it was also more than one woman....)
Regan was a very nice person, with a wonderfully gentle character who achieved much. It was then discovered he was suffering from Alzheimer's. (Are you confusing him with Nixon?)
By this time, he had retired.
I think you need to do more research and be a bit less deprecating about matters. You obviously didn't put a lot of thought into your post.
As a non-American, I can see why an American would be very insulted by your non-American ignorance on the subject.....
The point is why should we place such a huge responsibility and burden on a man who is just as fallible as anyone else.
EPA
FDA
Federal Reserve
USDA
HUD
Department of Education
FTC
Homeland Security
TSA
the list goes on and on. The world turns and nothing ever changes, just changes names.
Nobody is perfect and I dont expect anyone to be perfect and its one reason why presidents have term limits and they dont have supreme power at all. Thats the whole idea of checks and balances.
As far as Obama goes, you are right, it does sound like Obama's government. Why? Because Woodrow Wilson wasn't talking about a "Republican" vs "Democrat" issue - both parties are in the same boat - both are controlled. American citizens may have the right to "elect" their politicians - but - they don't have the right to "select" their politicians. Politicians are selected and groomed at a young age, they are hand-picked by the elite to further their agenda. It is really quite clever. When things go wrong everyone points the finger at Obama or Bush or whoever else is on stage at the time. Hardly anyone looks behind the curtain to see who the puppet masters are. You are right, the more we change, the more we stay the same. In some cases, even the names stay the same. Here is where "homeland security" was originally used in political propaganda:
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."
- Adolf Hitler
"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.
The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To 'learn' history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events."
- Adolf Hitler
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists [insert "Terrorists" here] are seeking to destroy our country. Russia [insert "Al Qaeda" here] is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! danger from within and without. we need law [insert "Patriot Act" or "Anti-Terror Act" or any other unconstitutional law here] and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
- Adolf Hitler
Metta,
Guy
- Benjamin Franklin
If you're going to condemn someone because they're neurotic, we're all in trouble...including you.