|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Molly, I am still waiting for someone to come out with the book I don't actually have to read. I should just be able to buy it and absorb it all.
So could you please just summarize them for us (the first two, anyway)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| But not so angry that I lose hold of my senses and declare Obama, Clinton and the Bushes to be one and the same. |
Being that I am one of those who has "lost hold of his senses," do me and others a favor and please delineate the significant differences.
I'm all eyes. |
What I'm protesting is the claim that Wallstreet's power is so omnipresent and all-permeating that it renders the President impotent. Wallstreet handpicks the next Commander in Chief, and/or it's power is such that it makes no difference who this Commander in Chief is. The president as mere figurehead, or puppet. This is what I have understood visitorq to be saying, and if I remember correctly bacasper, you hold similar opinions.
Think of the reaction of the Bush administration to the terror attacks of 9/11. If Wallstreet or the Trilateral commission was where the real power rested, we can then assume that the reaction from any administration, whether Bush the Elder, Clinton or now Obama, would have been exactly the same as Bush the Younger's. Sober Obama would have recklessly invaded Iraq? Clinton, notoriously cautious when it came to foreign affairs (a defining characteristic of his Presidency was an almost stubborn focus on the domestic), would have placidly acquiesced to the dictats of the puppeteers and stormed into Baghdad? I guess this isn't the best example to give, as it's merely my opinion. But I seriously doubt Presidents Obama or Clinton would have reacted as George W. Bush did.
That being said, I suspect we hold views on this topic that are closer than may first appear. I just think you take it a bit too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| But not so angry that I lose hold of my senses and declare Obama, Clinton and the Bushes to be one and the same. |
Being that I am one of those who has "lost hold of his senses," do me and others a favor and please delineate the significant differences.
I'm all eyes. |
What I'm protesting is the claim that Wallstreet's power is so omnipresent and all-permeating that it renders the President impotent. Wallstreet handpicks the next Commander in Chief, and/or it's power is such that it makes no difference who this Commander in Chief is. The president as mere figurehead, or puppet. This is what I have understood visitorq to be saying, and if I remember correctly bacasper, you hold similar opinions. |
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. What you're protesting against, is pretty much the exact reality of how things are. Obama is the best possible example of somebody coming out of left field, being groomed and handed the position on a silver platter. Obamamania was the most contrived phenonmenon in recent history, just pure in-your-face media hype duping the public into believing what they so desperately want to believe. Obama would never, ever have become president without the full support of the establishment. He knows it, and is paying back his dues by appointing Wallstreet crooks into every government post and selling us down the river (handing trillions over to the banks, and empowering the Fed even further). It's frighteningly predictable, and yet people are still blind to it.
| Quote: |
| Think of the reaction of the Bush administration to the terror attacks of 9/11. If Wallstreet or the Trilateral commission was where the real power rested, we can then assume that the reaction from any administration, whether Bush the Elder, Clinton or now Obama, would have been exactly the same as Bush the Younger's. Sober Obama would have recklessly invaded Iraq? Clinton, notoriously cautious when it came to foreign affairs (a defining characteristic of his Presidency was an almost stubborn focus on the domestic), would have placidly acquiesced to the dictats of the puppeteers and stormed into Baghdad? I guess this isn't the best example to give, as it's merely my opinion. But I seriously doubt Presidents Obama or Clinton would have reacted as George W. Bush did. |
Actually, you do make a very valid point here. There are certainly factions in the elite who take different approaches (the Bush wing of the mafia, and the Rockefeller Repulicans tend to be more war-bent). I think much of this has to do with public perception hower. The false left-right wing paradigm is very useful to the elite, as it allows the 'war mongering' Republicans to do their damage, then the more 'sober' Democrats get their turn when people get sick of it, and the public is led to believe the parties are acting independently (and even in opposition to each other).
However, you'll recall that when the patriot act was passed, and Iraq was invaded, the democrats basically supported everything. They'd ostensibly criticise each other on camera, then collectively turn around and enact the policies that most of the public has never been in favor of! This is because the ideas are thought up by the various behind-the-scene think tanks we've been discussing. The president himself does not come up with policy, he merely signs it into action (basically a figurehead). This is why Obama is not going to withdraw from Iraq, and is continuing most of the policies enacted under Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| But not so angry that I lose hold of my senses and declare Obama, Clinton and the Bushes to be one and the same. |
Being that I am one of those who has "lost hold of his senses," do me and others a favor and please delineate the significant differences.
I'm all eyes. |
What I'm protesting is the claim that Wallstreet's power is so omnipresent and all-permeating that it renders the President impotent. Wallstreet handpicks the next Commander in Chief, and/or it's power is such that it makes no difference who this Commander in Chief is. The president as mere figurehead, or puppet. This is what I have understood visitorq to be saying, and if I remember correctly bacasper, you hold similar opinions.
Think of the reaction of the Bush administration to the terror attacks of 9/11. If Wallstreet or the Trilateral commission was where the real power rested, we can then assume that the reaction from any administration, whether Bush the Elder, Clinton or now Obama, would have been exactly the same as Bush the Younger's. Sober Obama would have recklessly invaded Iraq? Clinton, notoriously cautious when it came to foreign affairs (a defining characteristic of his Presidency was an almost stubborn focus on the domestic), would have placidly acquiesced to the dictats of the puppeteers and stormed into Baghdad? I guess this isn't the best example to give, as it's merely my opinion. But I seriously doubt Presidents Obama or Clinton would have reacted as George W. Bush did. |
"Sober" Obama?
Let's go back to the collapse of the Soviet Union when we were supposed to reap a "peace dividend." What did the rulers do? Well, under Clinton there was a greater expenditure for arms than under Reagan!
In 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said, "It is very clear that Afghanistan is only a small piece of the US campaign that could last more than a lifetime." This ideology has been a barrage articulated not only by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., it is also the litany coming from the Democratic party, e.g. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
BO said on Sept. 4, 2007: "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama.
This is a crisis of capitalism addicted to permanent war, a facade of public relations types bought and paid for, a millionaires' club that fronts for a concentrated structure of power. If we do not grasp this, or provide a strategy for struggle based upon the essential recognition of the nature of our society, we will but perpetuate its rule, and prevent ourselves from reaching out to our own constituency.
This is a shell game, or one of "good cop, bad cop," if you will. It is designed to lure us into picking and choosing among those who have in mind the same old story.
Have you seen The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski? In this 1997 book, he lays out how it will be necessary for us to go into central Asia. Do you mean to say they knew then that in 2001 Bush II would be president? Of course not - because it didn't matter.
Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq' some eleven months before 9/11 and foretold the fact that the 'War on Terror' would be a hoax wherein soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existent enemies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
Molly, I am still waiting for someone to come out with the book I don't actually have to read. I should just be able to buy it and absorb it all.
So could you please just summarize them for us (the first two, anyway)? |
Sure. The first is an article describing Chomsky as the Left's "gatekeeper," a person who is worshiped in leftist circles and how his agenda is "calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists." Also, the article states that he uses "his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite" and they give examples of the crimes he tries to pass off as nothing: the Fed Reserve; famous assassinations; terrorist attacks; MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip;genetically engineered viruses, biological agents, and radiation effects; sex slave rings; brainwashing agenda was pushed by the pharma cartel; population control; world gov; propaganda; etc.
The second is a very controversial book that exposes what people call "conspiracies" to be truths, citing primary and secondary sources. 'You also get insight into the Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Bilderberger group and who instigated their founding and who controls them, the Rockefellers, the so called "philanthropic" foundations controlled by the global elites, the European banking syndicate, the making of puppet Presidents and other political figures, the fermenting of scam wars and lots more.' Pretty interesting read, and some pretty scary things in there if you take the time to think about it.
The third link is just educational material that can be helpful when you are in a sticky situation:
"Thou pribbling scurvy-valiant malt-worm!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Thanks, Molly.
While I generally agree with a lot of what Chomsky espouses, I have noticed that he does cherrypick his issues. But is he consciously disinforming, or is it merely the result of his cherrypicking? I suppose it may not matter all that much.
As for the second, I am glad I don't have to read it because I knew that already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MollyBloom wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
Molly, I am still waiting for someone to come out with the book I don't actually have to read. I should just be able to buy it and absorb it all.
So could you please just summarize them for us (the first two, anyway)? |
Sure. The first is an article describing Chomsky as the Left's "gatekeeper," a person who is worshiped in leftist circles and how his agenda is "calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists." Also, the article states that he uses "his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite" and they give examples of the crimes he tries to pass off as nothing: the Fed Reserve; famous assassinations; terrorist attacks; MK ULTRA/Project Paperclip;genetically engineered viruses, biological agents, and radiation effects; sex slave rings; brainwashing agenda was pushed by the pharma cartel; population control; world gov; propaganda; etc.
The second is a very controversial book that exposes what people call "conspiracies" to be truths, citing primary and secondary sources. 'You also get insight into the Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Bilderberger group and who instigated their founding and who controls them, the Rockefellers, the so called "philanthropic" foundations controlled by the global elites, the European banking syndicate, the making of puppet Presidents and other political figures, the fermenting of scam wars and lots more.' Pretty interesting read, and some pretty scary things in there if you take the time to think about it.
The third link is just educational material that can be helpful when you are in a sticky situation:
"Thou pribbling scurvy-valiant malt-worm!" |
Good links. I also noticed that Chomsky never mentions the Federal Reserve System (banking cartel) as the most central problem, from which most other problems stem. In fact, he never mentions it all. Either he is a complete buffoon (unlikely), or definitely covering it up. Very disappointing either way. I've also seen interviews of him brushing aside valid concerns about the CFR and Bilderberg that are common knowledge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Visitorq wrote:
| Quote: |
| Until recently I had no clue about these elite groups, and I could hardly be called a conspiracy theorist. Quite the opposite, I'm quite skeptical about these things. However, I spent a lot of time researching it on my own, and I've come to realise that it's undeniably true. I seriously challenge you to do the same, I'm sure you will have the same experience. |
I'm on vacation now, and this is a topic which interests me, so I will take you up on this challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
Visitorq wrote:
| Quote: |
| Until recently I had no clue about these elite groups, and I could hardly be called a conspiracy theorist. Quite the opposite, I'm quite skeptical about these things. However, I spent a lot of time researching it on my own, and I've come to realise that it's undeniably true. I seriously challenge you to do the same, I'm sure you will have the same experience. |
I'm on vacation now, and this is a topic which interests me, so I will take you up on this challenge. |
Glad to hear it  and please feel free to disagree with me on anything (I don't have all the answers myself, still learning as I go). But I'm sure your views will expand and change if you look this stuff up, and that can only be a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Visitor:
While doing research on Chomsky and the Trilateral Commission, I came accross this link.
http://tinyurl.com/2pu7ee
This is a link to the Commission's own website, and contains the text of a book they put out in 1975, published by NYU Press, two years after the group was founded. This would seem to belie the notion that the Commission has long been striving to keep itself secret from the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Visitor:
While doing research on Chomsky and the Trilateral Commission, I came accross this link.
http://tinyurl.com/2pu7ee
This is a link to the Commission's own website, and contains the text of a book they put out in 1975, published by NYU Press, two years after the group was founded. This would seem to belie the notion that the Commission has long been striving to keep itself secret from the public. |
Interesting link, important authors. However, it is totally beside the point. I never said these groups are a secret (I'm sure they'd like to be, but it's simply impossible), just that their meetings are. By that I mean the actual agenda discussed behind closed doors, formulating policy which directly affects our lives, and which is done entirely without public or media scrutiny.
Whatever it is that they talk about, you can bet it doesn't get printed objectively in any publications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey...are any of you going to the meet-up on Sat? It would be interesting to discuss these things over alcohol so we can sob in each other's arms, sing the US National Anthem Casablanca-style, and what-have-you. The thread's started by me in the off-topic forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for this being slightly off-topic, and it really should be reserved for another thread, but I never understood the modern conspiracy theory about the freemasons.
Yes, things happened with them in the past, and since many powerful people are also masons, so I can see why people would associate the two.
However, now, it's funny when people think they are sacrificing virgins on the sacred alter. And, like visitorq said about "secret societies," the masons aren't even that secret! I have family members that are 3rd degree masons, and seriously, it's a bunch of old guys at the lodge gossiping about other members and getting in fights with Shriners about where to put the bouncy-bouncy for the kid's festival.
Actually, after I get married I am thinking about maybe joining the Order of the Eastern Star. But I don't know. I would be the youngest there by far, being 29, and I don't know if I would enjoy the meetings, and I don't know what the philanthropy would be. A family member of mine is 70, and the older guys at his lodge call him "sonny!"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
However, now, it's funny when people think they are sacrificing virgins on the sacred alter. And, like visitorq said about "secret societies," the masons aren't even that secret! I have family members that are 3rd degree masons, and seriously, it's a bunch of old guys at the lodge gossiping about other members and getting in fights with Shriners about where to put the bouncy-bouncy for the kid's festival.
|
In many Catholic countries, Masonry is still associated with liberalism, anti-clericalism, and to a lesser extent, especially in South America, Marxism. Augusto Sandino and Salvador Allende, for example, were both Freemansons. And under the anti-clerical PRI in Mexico, the president was usually a Mason as well.
Nothing all that sinister about this, really. An ascendant bourgeoisie is going to try to promote its values within the wider society one way or another, whether or not they all join up with the Lodge or not. This sort of relates, albeit on a smaller scale, to the point I've been trying to make about the Trilateral Commission.
Visitorq:
You did seem to be implying that the Trilateralists have been striving from the get-go to keep their very existence a secret. My point was that, if this were the case, it would seem odd that they would publish a book, under their own name, with a major academic house, a mere two years after their founding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
