[evilgenius]

I think it is very easy not to notice people who think like we do who fund overarching activities within society. We should always be asking ourselves if we are right, or still right. Huge marketing campaigns that make us feel good about our ideas and attitudes work against that. That said, the biggest looming threat out there is probably that of human consensus over such things that our increased connectivity seems to be bringing about. It only starts with how we don't fix broken things anymore, an economic aspect of said consensus, then it becomes how we curse those who don't think like us. Nationalism is on the rise. Populism is again popular. That's a dangerous trend in the hands of a runaway social media experiment that puts so much power into the hands of what is essentially Aristotle's mob. There is a reason that many ancients opposed democracy. They thought it always devolved into mob rule.

[Ibon]

That's a dangerous trend in the hands of a runaway social media experiment that puts so much power into the hands of what is essentially Aristotle's mob. There is a reason that many ancients opposed democracy. They thought it always devolved into mob rule.

Yep, when we had limited media outlets in the past quality and facts generally rose to the top. Of course not 100% free of bias, but truth filtered through. It is always good to have a selection process that filters quality. It works in ecology and it works in good civic management.

Today shit dominates, lies dominate, and the herding effect around the misinformation is actually a security risk. We can see that with President Trump, how he discredits US diplomats and our security apparatus and feeds lies and tweets into digital media and his followers blindly adore him. Adore him because they celebrate his anarchy. And how he undermines due process.

I would not despair. I said it already two years ago, populists and demagogues have a short shelf life, they inevitably implode because their strategy is to deconstruct and stoke anger and rage..... at the end he stands alone with his idiot base.

I can see a martyr on the horizon forming. Maybe a new religion. Maybe his base thinks Trump is Jesus?

[Cog]

The intelligence agencies discredited themselves by becoming involved in a coup to overthrow a duly elected president. Does this board have selective amnesia or simply choose to forget we endured a two year investigation over Russian collusion which never happened?

[Newfie]

Cog,

It’s not just this board. It’s the entire country, or too much of it that is in involved with politics.

It has always been so. It’s not a partisan thing, both sides do it.

[evilgenius]

Another danger to democracy is the distinct lack of forgiveness evident in society today. People have lost track of what the concept of justice is, and replaced it with revenge. Justice isn't about how much we can make a perpetrator suffer for what they've done. It's about whether those who've been wronged can be made whole. To be made whole is much more about returning to normalcy than about gaining the upper hand or otherwise deriving a huge settlement. Those things can be a part of it, but only when some structural change is necessary in order for those who have been wronged to obtain normalcy.

[Newfie]

Evil,

And THAT is really a big deal. We have become very revengeful, if we were not already. Was not always so. In Philadelphia exists an abandoned prison. It was designed by the Quakers to assist folks in contemplating their sins and coming back into the folks. Dewpite their best intentions the prison worked much as massive solitary confinement, the Quakers didn’t understand human social interaction very well. The point is their intentions were good, the execution pretty horrible.

[Ibon]

Evil,

And THAT is really a big deal. We have become very revengeful, if we were not already. Was not always so. .

Do the vast majority set the current vengeful trend or are they socialized to do so by media, politicians, and even religious institutions and in some cases corporate culture?

The Quakers represented an attempt by an organization outside the mainstream to choose a path of integration.

I expect in these troubled polarized and tribal times that a hunger slowly grows for consensus and unity. The pendulum always swings.

Obama attempted this with the audacity of hope which mobilized voters in an un precedented way. Trump equally impassioned voters with the exact opposite message.

Somehow though nothing ever gains traction for the little guy in terms of reform.

Will the little guy remain passive and uninformed
or is there a Robin Hood movement incubating in the collective?

[evilgenius]

I suppose the problem with obsession over vengeance reveals something going on that is also a problem, the state of representational democracy vs. outright democracy. Representational democracy is a good invention, which keeps the mob at bay, and saves the concept of democracy from itself. Right now, there is a real problem with accepting representational democracy in both the US and the UK.

In both places people who feel that now is the time for their point of view, because they consider themselves to be in the majority, are attempting to obtain power. In neither place are the concerns of those considered to be in the minority much of a concern to those who feel their ascendancy. In fact, it is becoming a problem that those minorities, or factions of them, are becoming demonized.

In the US, this is further complicated by what types of groups form the majority consensus. When the religious right entered politics about the time of the Reagan era, they brought with them a certain intolerance. This intolerance blended well with the bias against the "card carrying liberals" who, fictionally, made up the left. Just as well, on campuses across Western thought, there was a bias against capitalism which hasn't been necessarily resolved very well up until now. That sort of thinking survives very well within a tenured environment, but doesn't hold up very well in the real world.

The terrible problem with that, and the resultant exaltation felt over the reality of that sort of failure by the vengeful majority, is that other ideas put forward in schools of business which might very well do society some good are also painted with the same brush. I'm thinking about certain ideas concerning management, and the role of employment in the leading countries of a globalized economy.

Right now, both of the aforementioned countries are backtracking on that, and upon the implicit promises they have made to the rest of the world. Amidst all the wrangling within those societies, they failed to see a majority of their populations rise to the technical standards that globalism demanded of them. Trapped in a vengeful state, the process worked its way out much like the abortion debate has worked out in America. Nobody has gotten the resources they need for effective change. A strict adherence to the concerns of the loudest group stifles the alternatives to abortion, and it also stifles the socioeconomic and educational level of the working populations as it pertains to their success. They became not only not competitive, but anti-competitive, especially in the UK, in many cases. They are, therefore, backtracking, and saying that those arrangements are no longer in their best interests. Really, they are only not in the best interests of an intolerant majority.

[Zarquon]

...
Then on January 5, 2002, Bush reiterated this same lie: “Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida ... and my Chief of Staff —well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane...”

In his speech to the nation that evening, Bush said: “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans.” Duh…don’t think so, Dubya.

Where and how was Bush able to watch the first plane hit on TV? Makes one scratch their head, doesn't it?

The topic might be a little stale by now (the quote is from '16), but I always wondered why - if 9/11 was indeed a sort-of inside job - so many people thought Bush himself would have been in on it. I mean, if I were to organize a little something to help some friends fly some planes into some buildings, Bush would have been at the top of my list of people *not* to involve:

1. Unless he was a great actor, he was a dumbwit who could barely speak in coherent sentences. I know that can be a valuable asset in politics, but... c'mon. You don't want him to scribble something potentially embarrassing on the inside of a White House toilet stall one day, just to piss off Cheney.
2. If he gets cold feet at the last moment, he might be one of the few people who could perhaps, theoretically, stop you, or at least make your life more difficult.
3. Unless you think you need a written permit from the president to blow up the towers, he brings nothing to the table.

[Zarquon]

Interesting thread. For some reason I never noticed this sub-forum... Anyway:

Frequently in these threads folks use "them" or "they" or "TPTB" or some other device (I'll simply call them all "them") to point to some group that they hold responsible for a particular problem. This always confuses me and I have developed a profound dislike for the practice. None-the-less other folks use it often enough that it deserves attention and clarification. If we can't agree on what a word or phrase, if we have no common definition, then it is meaningless.
....
Reading this strengthened my opinion that "them" is a vague and undefined reference to some group who are responsible for some problem. "Them" is poorly defined, nebulous. It works because it takes on a different meaning in each individual, the only commonality being the agreement that there is some group, out of reach, who is responsible. By using a vague word it evokes an emotional response...
...
It however has the advantage of being non specific so the reader can fill in what ever group he imagines, and them have closure and agreement with the author.

I think maybe "TPTB" can be a very useful expression. Let's find a positive example...

The American Yachting Association, together with a bunch of shipwrights, hires a lobbyist to get rod of pleasure boat taxation. The lobbyist gives a couple of kind campaign contributions to legislators and hires a law firm to write the legislation (much smoother if the pols don't have to do it themselves). It gets tacked on to the next farming bill ("To support farmers in the heartland, certain classes of seagoing vessels that could, in theory, transport grain or livestock to overseas markets shall no longer be burdened by..."). It gets passed and Trump signs it.

Now you and your wife decide to light a few candles on the boat altar for the good people who made it happen. But who is that, specifically? The entire Congress? The lawyers and lobbyists you've never heard of? The industry who paid for it but didn't advertise the fact? The think-tank critters who wrote the supporting opinion pieces in the NYT? Trump? You don't know how it all happened. You only know the outcome, and that it is good.

That's where "TPTB" comes in handy. You and She-who-must-be-obeyed* can simply include "All of the above" in your prayers.

* Another example of being more specific through fuzziness. Carries a lot more information than "wife".

[onlooker]

The 13 families who secretly rule the world

https://www.disclose.tv/the-13-illumina ... rld-313144

[Newfie]

Zarquon,

Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing?

[Zarquon]

Zarquon,

Not sure if you are agreeing or arguing?

Arguing.

OTOH I'm not sure any more. I'm arguing that "TPTB" is useful to describe powers that you can't describe more accurately, but are sure have influenced an event. That pretty much makes "TPTB" the King James Bible version of "The Deep State". And that's a term that goes on *my* nerves. LOL indeed.

[Newfie]

OK, I can see the utility of that definition. And that seems to likely fit with this definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_powers_that_be

OTOH I believe that the colloquial definition used on this thread was more in line with outlookers post. A small group of people that fuel the world or a major fraction thereof.

Good discussion.

[Zarquon]

Unfortunately just like any other humans some of the "super elites" will see an advantage for themselves/family in massive wars so long as those wars don't actually topple civilization. Remember nearly all of the elite/super elite group consider themselves international "Controllers of Earth", their wealth is widely spread and if say California breaks away from the USA and becomes an independent nation they can profit from that, especially if the break away is relatively peaceful. On the other hand if the USA Balkanizes as many elites have predicted over the last century then that means they will have new centers of manipulation coming into existence in the new 2-12 regional capitals and for the younger generation of elites moving into control of those new centers is the Great Game where they prove how good they are at manipulation.

IOW while some of the elites will want to keep the status quo others seek to overturn it for personal advantage. About the only thing they collectively fear is a world wide depopulating event that erases their power. No desire for global nuclear war, a manufactured virus that kills 90% of humans or anything else like that as the risk of losing their positions is far too high in those scenarios. What point being a trillionaire if you can't spend it because there is nobody and nothing to spend it on?

You can always invest some of it in a zombie-proof Kiwi bunker.

https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billi ... pocalypse/

...According to the Daily Mail, in the first ten months of 2016, foreigners, mostly Americans and Australians, purchased nearly 1,400 square miles of land in New Zealand, representing more than a fourfold increase over the previous year.
...
There was a dramatic surge in the number of Americans who registered to acquire property in New Zealand following the election of Donald Trump as president. Local agents said that most of the estimated 13,000 Americans seeking to purchase property in New Zealand did not intend to live in the country but they acquired property because they believed the country could provide refuge if there is political or social upheaval in the U.S. following the general election.

[onlooker]

Bankers control the world
"The monopoly of money origination is the central power. In the hands of the USA public, that power is legislated as the USA Treasury and Central Bank. In the hands of Racketeers it makes them the absolute "masters" over an enslaved public. That power is absolute, allowing the control of everything else as a matter of exchange.

Under our current tyranny private banks originate money for nothing, launder it as debt to them with interest due them, occurring immediately upon origination. Corporations may also originate stock for nothing, used as payment for debts, which is also exchanged. It is the same tyranny now as it was before 1775.

These "money powers" are guilty of counterfeiting but they have bribed those whose job it is to stop them, namely Congress.

Only the "money powers" can rule with absolute power over everything and everyone. The USA revolution was fought to gain control of the "money powers". The Public had to be taught that the origination of money was absolute power, the difference between Freedom and Slavery.

Even the money printed in South Carolina for the revolution had printed on it: "All Servitude is Wretched". Most of the colonies in rebellion had printed on their currencies "To Counterfeit is Death". These examples of currency paid to the Continental Army and militias show what the revolution was really about.

The point of the revolution had been made crystal clear because the giants of print media were also the printers of our revolutionary money.

"H/t Arthur Stockwell
By presenting the protest as being against the problem of unequal taxation, "The Guardian" guards the real tyranny which cannot be solved with equal taxation. Just do the math.

Banks originate 96% of the money supply for nothing, a profit margin of infinity. Any rate of taxation on infinity is infinitesimal. Banks launder that money as debt upon its origination. It is all loaned into being to whomever bankers choose. Infinite profit plus whatever interest bankers choose.

So debt is entirely built into the fraud, which is used by the bankers as a control, absolute control, over all commerce, media, politics and law. That power is immune to any tax and equalized tax cannot occur.

So the Bank cartel presents a problem and solution which only strengthens the position of the bankers. The only people in any position to expose the real fraud, the crime of stealing the entire money supply, must be heard over monopolized commerce, media, politics and law.

They'd have to be rich. So by raising taxes on the rich, or equalizing taxes to lower the spending power of the rich, banks are protected from the only voices which can afford to be heard.

Monopolized media protects the position of absolute tyranny by promoting the only thing that could possibly strengthen it. Taxation."

[Zarquon]

I’m still not convinced that TOTB exist in any cohesive manner. Surely there are folks with more digital wealth than others but can that really be put into use? I do believe that these influential folks have a lot in common and that can sway the way things go, but I don’t think there is some secret cabal.

I don't think so either, because there is very little secret about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o ... _Relations

and a dozen others like it. The more membership cards you collect, the more important you are. You do the social networking for your boss, that's all.

[evilgenius]

You know, it very well could be that this is what you reap when you don't sow toward your educational future. Meaning, that the workforce of the future does not reside in large enough numbers in neither the US, nor the UK. Unlike the Germans, those two fall down when it comes to producing modern workers at a pace great enough to make their cost cheap. People think it makes sense to concentrate so much upon immigration, for one thing, but the impetus for that by and large has come from an expanding knowledge of an underclass that is developing because of the difference in income inequality. Too many people are trapped in the same work market as those who immigrate to the US, for any reason. Their stress in merely being recognized, and played up to the hilt.

And it is student loan debt load which is a fulcrum upon which the economy stabilizes itself. When that amount is so onerous that one may not earn it back without some luck, then fewer people will go to college. It's just that there are so many years built into that reaction, that it can be left to fester for a while. It's also got to do with the relationship between the individual and economies of scale which have previously been deemed unimaginable. For that reason, no one seems to take the threat of a too distressed underclass no longer being powerful enough to drive the economy via consumer spending. The greater that relationship becomes so imbalanced such that a single individual at the top of an organization influences more than just their employees, but their customers as well, then the more likely that it give power to any other influences at work within the economy with which its adherents see enough similarity of purpose. What was not thinkable before, becomes thinkable.

[Pops]

You know people are hard up to go through the sign up routine here to get a few links in.

The biggest dot for impending systemic collapse ever!

[Plantagenet]

The biggest power a person can have is the power to start a nuclear war and destroy the planet.

And, for some reason, Ds in Congress want to take the nuclear button away from Joe Biden.

democrats-biden-give-up-sole-nuclear-capabilities

I'm a little bit surprised by this.....you'd think Joe Biden's fellow Ds would support Joe Biden and back his authority as president....

But no.....the Ds want Joe to give up the ultimate power a President has...


Leftie Ds don't trust Joe Biden with control of the US nuclear arsenal....

Cheers!