View Single Post
Old 04-29-2008, 11:24 PM   #7 (permalink)
TTEscrima
Premiere Member
 
TTEscrima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: planet Earth
Posts: 605
TTEscrima is a jewel in the roughTTEscrima is a jewel in the roughTTEscrima is a jewel in the roughTTEscrima is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
I'm sorry to say it, guys, but that's pure bunk. There are, of course, shreds of truth, but they are blown so completely out of proportion and framed so inaccurately as to be fairly laughable. You have to be objective when looking at stuff like this. That's not to say cynical or skeptical, because those start from conclusions, too. The real questions you have to ask are:
If it contains components that are true, it can't be pure bunk.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
  • Who really stands to gain?
  • The rich.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
  • Who really stands to lose?
  • Everyone who isn't rich

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
  • What would it take for this to actually happen?
  • War, famine, economic problems/ rising food and fuel cost destroying peoples savings, out of control crime and a forced dependence on the Government for survival.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
  • Are those measures really the kinds of things that can stay hidden?
  • When information comes to light, what elements of credibility does it have?
  • When weighed against precedent and inductive reason, can the conclusions shown be considered likely or probable?
  • And more importantly, can all this be accomplished by a cohesive team that can keep secrets of great magnitude without leaking anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer View Post
Conspiracies rarely work, because people can't shut up. If you doubt this, we can do an experiment right here. I'll start a rumor via PM. I'll only send it to 10 people, and they'll be people I have historically been able to rely on. We'll talk about the rumor once or twice a week, and see how long it takes before someone gets wise. Now, we're already handicapping this, because people know about it and anyone I write to has an interest in proving they can keep a secret. But we're leveling the field by sparking some curiosity. So we'll be able to see how many incorrect assumptions are made by the curious. And if you're not into it here, do it in your own life. Get a rumor going. Tell one person something juicy, and swear them to secrecy. Then let a little "leak" happen to someone else. Don't tell them the whole story; just get them interested. Watch the radical assumptions they start to make. Then, the coup de grace. "Leak" another snippet, but this time, make it totally false. Make it detailed, believable, and incorporate the elements of the small leak from before, only lead people to a much different, more sinister conclusion. Lay it all out there, and just watch it take off. If you give it a couple weeks, people will believe the false story more readily than the truth. If you want to test that, tell them the truth. Tell them it was all an experiment and you made the whole thing up. Some of them won't even believe that.

Propaganda 101.
The chief argument against a government conspiracy of any kind is "how could they keep something like that secret?" If you've ever read Deep Politics and The Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott he summed it up rather well.

"To the stock objection that it would be virtually impossible to assemble a murder conspiracy without leakage, the response is that an existing conspiratorial network or system of networks, already in place and capable of murder, would have much less difficulty in maintaining the discipline of secrecy."



The rest of this thread speaks directly to the problem addressed by Andrzej Lobaczewski in his book, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.

In this seminal work on how evil rises to the top in any society and culture, and how it develops ramified networks of manipulation and control, the problem is addressed in terms of pathological deviance. In any society, there is a small percentage of deviant individuals who seek power over others. In a society, set up as the American society is, based on the previously described capitalistic ideology of John Calvin, what quickly develops is a "dog eat dog" world, and the fact is that deviant dogs always do better than normal ones. Lobaczewski writes:

"The actions of this phenomenon affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every village, small town, factory, business, or farm. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country, creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

A normal person deprived of privilege or high position will go about finding and performing some work which will earn him a living; but pathocrats never possessed any solid practical talent, and the time frame of their rule eliminates any residual possibilities of adapting to the demands of normal work. If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people that can be shocking in its depravity.

In general, this new class is in the position to purge its leaders should their behavior jeopardize the existence of such a system. This could occur particularly if the leadership wished to go too far in compromising with the society of normal people, since their qualifications make them essential for production. The latter is more a direct threat to the lower echelons of the pathocratic elite than to the leaders.

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".

We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions? What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation? The overwhelming majority of the country's population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the pathological genes. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power. This is a nightmare vision to the psychopaths.

Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity. Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it. [...]

The ideology must, of course, furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality. "

Reading is FUNdamental. Anyone who hasn't read The Creature from Jekyll Island by G.Edward Griffin or the essay by Martha Rose Crow, M.S. The Nine Stages of American Autogenocide is really missing out, most private forums and debate groups won't let you post if you don't have working knowledge of the info contained in these text.
TTEscrima is offline   Reply With Quote