|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| 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...I just think you take it a bit too far. |
You are objecting to this simplistic axiom:
| Karl Marx wrote: |
| ...the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. |
And I join you in this; it is the far left's dogma, no more no less.
But the far left, what remains of it in any case, has dominated knowledge-production -- that is, publishing and education, especially in universities and in the pop media -- for decades now. You are swimming against the current and will meet little more than self-righteous resistance, rejection, ridicule, etc., etc., etc.
-- all by brainwashed people, of course. But they still hold a certain influence. Which way do people tend to go on this messageboard, for example? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| 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. |
There's nothing whatsoever 'bourgeois' about it... we are talking about the true elite, especially the bankers who run the Fed and control the entire money supply. You're not even on the level unless you're a multi-billionaire or at the very highest levels of government/industry/academia (in other words, among those who gets invited to Bilderberg meetings etc.). The number of people who control our economy and have real power is very limited; probably so limited that they know each other personally.
| Quote: |
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. |
Nah, I think you're confused here... I merely mentioned the trilateral commission in a string of other top level think tanks (you're the one who latched onto it specifically)... Anyway, regardless I stand by what I said. It's impossible for these groups to be kept a true secret, but their existence and true influence is still very much concealed from the public.
What part of this don't you understand exactly? Do you think it's perfectly harmless for the people we democratically elect (and who are supposed to represent our interests) to meet in secret with people like David Rockefeller, behind closed doors, with the cameras turned off and no media coverage, to discuss their own agenda? Even if it's a rhetorical question for you, I can pretty well guarantee that if the rest of the public had the slightest inkling that these things go, there would be popular outrage.
The very fact that the common public has no idea about these groups (most people have no idea even who David Rockefeller is, or if they do, think of him as some kind of harmless old philanthropist uninvolved in gov't affairs) is proof that their existence is concealed. Same goes for the concealment of what the Federal Reserve truly is. The media does this deliberately; which is why they need to be exposed in other ways. This is why the internet is so useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There's nothing whatsoever 'bourgeois' about it. |
That was not a reference to the people who attend the Trilateral meetings. I was referring to the bourgeoisie in Cathloic countries like Spain and Mexico, as opposed to aristocratic or clerical power-holders.
| Quote: |
| What part of this don't you understand exactly? Do you think it's perfectly harmless for the people we democratically elect (and who are supposed to represent our interests) to meet in secret with people like David Rockefeller, behind closed doors, with the cameras turned off and no media coverage, to discuss their own agenda? |
It may be harmful, yes. But my point is that it's the sort of thing that's going to occur, one way or another, in any political system, with or without the existence of these organizations which you reference. Prior to the founding of these groups, I'm pretty sure that global elites found some way to have private conversations with one another.
You seem to think that the main culprit in our problems is the international banking system. If the Trilaterals, Bilderbergers etc were all abolished, how exactly would that change the banking system? I can see how abolishing the Federal Reserve would make a difference, not so much the other groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There's nothing whatsoever 'bourgeois' about it. |
That was not a reference to the people who attend the Trilateral meetings. I was referring to the bourgeoisie in Cathloic countries like Spain and Mexico, as opposed to aristocratic or clerical power-holders. |
Gotcha. (Just re-read that part, my error).
| Quote: |
| It may be harmful, yes. But my point is that it's the sort of thing that's going to occur, one way or another, in any political system, with or without the existence of these organizations which you reference. Prior to the founding of these groups, I'm pretty sure that global elites found some way to have private conversations with one another. |
You may be right; corruption is probably inevitable. However, the most important thing is to at least know your enemy. At present, most people have no idea whatsoever; they are excruciatingly ignorant of even the most basic problems we face (I myself woke up to the reality only recently). Most people have no idea about basic economics or where money comes from. Most people think the Fed is a government institution, and that banks actually lend out real money etc.
| Quote: |
| You seem to think that the main culprit in our problems is the international banking system. If the Trilaterals, Bilderbergers etc were all abolished, how exactly would that change the banking system? I can see how abolishing the Federal Reserve would make a difference, not so much the other groups. |
Ok, let me clarify then: you are right that the Federal Reserve System, and international banking in general (as it's been practiced basically since the time of the Rothschilds in Europe) is the root of all our problems. The elite groups meeting in secret is a secondary problem, but it's every bit as serious precisely because it is the bankers who are pulling all the strings. Moreover it provides them with the cover they so desperately need to continue their criminal machinations. If only people knew about it! There's no way it would continue to be tolerated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Karl Marx wrote:
...the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
|
Gopher:
I don't think I would lump Marx in with the conspiracy-theorists of today. Remember, he was writing at a time when the vote, within his lifetime, voting rights in England were still tied to property ownership or rent...
| Quote: |
Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
Between 1885-1918 moves were made by the suffragette movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement. See also The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918.
Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
|
Under these circumstances, I don't think it's conspiracy-mongering to say that the State represented the interests of the bourgeoisie, moreso than that of the unpropertied labourers.
What the None Dare Call It Conspiracy crowd argue is something is quite different. They say that's it's a small collection of think-tanks that are the linchpin holding the whole system together. (And if that's not what they're arguing, I have to wonder why they spend so much time talking about these think tanks.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
What the None Dare Call It Conspiracy crowd argue is something is quite different. They say that's it's a small collection of think-tanks that are the linchpin holding the whole system together. (And if that's not what they're arguing, I have to wonder why they spend so much time talking about these think tanks. |
And you disagree? On what basis?
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Visitor:
I think we might be pretty close to agreeing on this, since I do acknowledge that the Trilateral etc probably reflect the opinions and agendas of the ruling classes, and you, in your last post, acknowledge that their influence is "secondary".
| Quote: |
Most people have no idea about basic economics or where money comes from. Most people think the Fed is a government institution, and that banks actually lend out real money etc.
|
Yeah, I know little about economics or banking myself, so I can't say I agree or disagree with you, but I'm certainly prepared to acknowledge that you could very well be right. Especially if we throw in the caveat that the think tanks, while perhaps symptomatic, are not the root cause of the problem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And you disagree? On what basis? |
We cross-posted. See my last post before this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Visitor:
I think we might be pretty close to agreeing on this, since I do acknowledge that the Trilateral etc probably reflect the opinions and agendas of the ruling classes, and you, in your last post, acknowledge that their influence is "secondary".
| Quote: |
Most people have no idea about basic economics or where money comes from. Most people think the Fed is a government institution, and that banks actually lend out real money etc.
|
Yeah, I know little about economics or banking myself, so I can't say I agree or disagree with you, but I'm certainly prepared to acknowledge that you could very well be right. Especially if we throw in the caveat that the think tanks, while perhaps symptomatic, are not the root cause of the problem |
I think it's more chicken/egg. If you got rid of either half, the whole structure would probably collapse. The easiest, most straighforward solution however is to simply abolish the Fed and take back control of our money supply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think it's more chicken/egg. If you got rid of either half, the whole structure would probably collapse. The easiest, most straighforward solution however is to simply abolish the Fed and take back control of our money supply. |
Yeah, chicken/egg. I personally would assume that, even with monetary reform, the global elites would still have things that they want to discuss in private, among themselves. So the high-level think-tanks would probably continue to exist in one way or another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think it's more chicken/egg. If you got rid of either half, the whole structure would probably collapse. The easiest, most straighforward solution however is to simply abolish the Fed and take back control of our money supply. |
Yeah, chicken/egg. I personally would assume that, even with monetary reform, the global elites would still have things that they want to discuss in private, among themselves. So the high-level think-tanks would probably continue to exist in one way or another. |
The thing is, I wouldn't even mind so much, as long as they played by the 'rules' (I guess simply obeying the law would be a start). If we had a real, stable, interest-free money supply, and a genuinely free economy which reacted only to laws of supply and demand (as opposed to inflationary/deflationary manipulations by banks), then I would be mostly content.
I have no problem with wealthy people who have earned their wealth fairly (as this nearly always empower others along the way), but the Fed is nothing more than your good old-fashioned "American scam" (to paraphrase GE Griffin), based on outright, blatant fraud. Nothing could possibly be as corrupt as this institution is; it is literally the biggest criminal enterprise of all time, has ruined our country, and it needs to be crushed as quickly as possible. Things will never be perfect, but killing the Fed would be the best thing we could possibly do, especially given the current raping of our economy going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I don't think I would lump Marx in with the conspiracy-theorists of today. Remember, he was writing at a time when the vote, within his lifetime, voting rights in England were still tied to property ownership or rent... |
But surely you recognize that today's and even yesterday's Marxists -- not to mention Marx himself -- did not view Marxism in its own historical context but rather ahistorically and timeless.
I think you have gone in a direction that does not correspond with actual practice, On the Other Hand.
In any case, I more or less take your point. But, again, surely your recognize the overlap between, say, the Marxists and the military-industrial-complex conspiracy-theorists, including but not limited to N. Chomsky and others in the so-called New Left. Just substitute "the bourgeouise" with "the military-industrial complex" in any given work. And surely you recognize Lenin's contributions to their thinking: if you recall his Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, you will see how he uses conspiracy-theory thinking to criminalize and sensationalize capital and international banking to outrage, mobilize, and energize the masses in support of his movement.
This same pattern has repeated itself through many copycat writers since Marx and Lenin, On the Other Hand. And, again, I take your point that these do not represent exact matches, at least not in every case. But, come on, man... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
In any case, I more or less take your point. But, again, surely your recognize the overlap between, say, the Marxists and the military-industrial-complex conspiracy-theorists, including but not limited to N. Chomsky and others in the so-called New Left. Just substitute "the bourgeouise" with "the military-industrial complex" in any given work. And surely you recognize Lenin's contributions to their thinking: if you recall his Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, you will see how he uses conspiracy-theory thinking to criminalize and sensationalize capital and international banking to outrage, mobilize, and energize the masses in support of his movement.
|
And what is your point here? Are you saying that it is not these captains of capital and international banksters who are calling the shots, or "conspiring?" That it is the voters and their freely elected representatives who wield all the power?
Come on man... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
In any case, I more or less take your point. But, again, surely your recognize the overlap between, say, the Marxists and the military-industrial-complex conspiracy-theorists, including but not limited to N. Chomsky and others in the so-called New Left. Just substitute "the bourgeouise" with "the military-industrial complex" in any given work. And surely you recognize Lenin's contributions to their thinking: if you recall his Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, you will see how he uses conspiracy-theory thinking to criminalize and sensationalize capital and international banking to outrage, mobilize, and energize the masses in support of his movement.
|
And what is your point here? Are you saying that it is not these captains of capital and international banksters who are calling the shots, or "conspiring?" That it is the voters and their freely elected representatives who wield all the power?
Come on man... |
Fractional reserve central banking is not real capitalism anyway. The Fed calls what it's doing "capitalism", but it's just outright fraud. Capital is supposed to accumulate and represent real value in the form of products and services (whether gold, or other assets). In the global ponzi scheme the Fed has running now, nothing could be further from the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boring and predictable.
People who resort to puerile name-calling, "banksters," etc., and who present no evidence but rather a neverending string of senstational allegations, criminalizing capitalism via alleged redutionist and simplistic "global ponzi schemes," etc., show that they have nothing to tell us at all except a crudely-restated Marxist-Leninist dogma, as I ref, above.
I rest my case, On the Other Hand.
Where is there any original thought or analysis here, On the Other Hand? Where is there anything at all that I cannot get by rereading Marx and Lenin? |
|
| 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
