Secret Societies?

[someguy]

ITs a slipperry slope to do that. Imagine what would have to happen and continue the results.
If you say secret societies must be declared than you invade peoples privacy.
If you say that secret societies can exist than you limit free speech.
I'm sure one of you will come up with a better way or why I'm wrong so this will get intresting.
btw If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?

 

[Ender]

Also...

When I do think of a solution to the secret society mess and how it effects government policy, I think of insider trading rules.

First of all, conflicts of interest are not allowed (or at least, not supposed to be allowed) in regards to securities, so why should we allow them in government? Dick Cheney still gets 200K a year from haliburton, plus he is a substantial stock holder. Sorry, but if you are an elected official, these conflicts should not be allowed. That would be a start.

Also, we aren't technically allowed to use private information to get an edge in the stock market, especially if we are an officer or insider of a company. Hell, we aren't even supposed to act on insider advice (ex. Martha Stewart). So, why do we allow the social elite to gather together to discuss public policy and make plans secretly, to then go through with the plans right under the nose of the public?

If we could put laws in place that would prevent these conflicts of interests, and these secret policy discussions by decision makers, I think we would see a better run government. And, we wouldn't have to worry about "secret societies;" if the conflict of interest is prevented then these societies are reduced to the faternal "boys clubs" that they profess to be today.

Just a thought.

Exactly, like the husband's company of Sen Feinstien getting a $160 million contract in Iraq, Or Terry Macauliffe getting the inside scoop on Worldcom to receive $18 million in profits, Or Sen Boxer making over $200,000 in Enron profits, or Hillary turning a $10,000 investment into a million thru insider trading...I hear ya!..nods.

 

[Cruentus]

Exactly, like the husband's company of Sen Feinstien getting a $160 million contract in Iraq, Or Terry Macauliffe getting the inside scoop on Worldcom to receive $18 million in profits, Or Sen Boxer making over $200,000 in Enron profits, or Hillary turning a $10,000 investment into a million thru insider trading...I hear ya!..nods.

Exactly...this isn't a bi-partisen issue. Both Dems. and rep. are guilty to varying degrees.

 

[Cruentus]

ITs a slipperry slope to do that. Imagine what would have to happen and continue the results.
If you say secret societies must be declared than you invade peoples privacy.
If you say that secret societies can exist than you limit free speech.
I'm sure one of you will come up with a better way or why I'm wrong so this will get intresting.
btw If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?

Slippery slope...yes and no.

I am not saying that you should take away people's freedom of speech or freedom to be in secret societies.

But I will say (because I work with securities) that as an investment banker, all of my activities, business or otherwise must be disclosed to my company, and records must be kept for the NASD. Certian conflicts aren't allowed; like I can't sell insurance and be affiliated with a funeral home, for example. And, insiders for companies are not allowed to join investment groups where they talk about insider information. In fact, spreading insider information is not allowed.

So, the arguement that your limiting free speech or limiting the right for people to gather falls short for securities. If I don't like the regulations, I don't have to be an investment banker. If someone doesn't like the insider trading rules, then they don't have to invest in individual stocks. The free speech or freedom to gather arguement falls short with Securites regulation fairly quickly.

Similarly, I think the conflict of interest should be removed from policy makers in government. If people want to be in the executive or legislative braches, they should have to move their investments (without penelty) to T-Bills, Muni-Bonds, and Spiders (Indexes) only, eliminating that conflict. They shouldn't be allowed to have policy talks in secret meetings with senior officers of large companies, in the same way that insiders can't exchange or spread "insider information."

These are just some examples, and I don't have all the answers. But, I'd like to see an active effort to remove the conflicts of interest from Washington, starting with solid campaign finance reform.

Ah, but what do I know?

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm....

I have to admit that Paul has some pretty good ideas there. In my opinion.

Of course, I'm far from an expert on the subject so I may just be blabbing out of complete ignorance.

 

[Cruentus]

Hrmmmm....

I have to admit that Paul has some pretty good ideas there. In my opinion.

Of course, I'm far from an expert on the subject so I may just be blabbing out of complete ignorance.

Thanks you sir!

:boing2:

 

[someguy]

Yes well um hmm err yeah I'll give you that.
But what about my other point If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?
I hope that part makes sense.

 

[Cruentus]

Yes well um hmm err yeah I'll give you that.
But what about my other point If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?
I hope that part makes sense.

It helps to break down the structure of power, but just by doing that alone, I don't think it takes away their power.

It would make the fact that these individuals are getting together in private public information, but we still would not be privy to know the backscratching, business deals, stategic planning, and public policy making that is decided behind those closed doors.

Disclosures of these kinds of conflicts of interest would be a start, but I don't believe it would be a finish.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

I have a Coast to Coast program that talks about the Bohemian Grove and about Skull and Bones. I want to post it, but have no idea how to attach sound files. Can anyone help?

 

[Cruentus]

I have a Coast to Coast program that talks about the Bohemian Grove and about Skull and Bones. I want to post it, but have no idea how to attach sound files. Can anyone help?

Ask in the technical support forum. They should help you better then I could! :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay, lots of stuff on my mind regarding this stuff...

First of all, I have a TSD student who is working on his Doctorate in the Philosophy of Science. At this moment he is writing a book on secret societies and their influence on the government. I am one of the readers for this book, providing some scientific insight because of my training as a scientist.

With that being said, Paul, I think that you have some great ideas, but they don't take into account the possible scope of these things. Allow me to tell a personal story...Please take my word - the following is abridged, but is described to the best of my ability at this time.

I went to a Dennis Kucinich rally recently. I was very impressed with his positions and was throwing my support behind him as much as I could. The rally was interesting. All sorts of really left people turned out. Rep. Kucinich starts talking about world peace and a One World Government where human rights are valued above all else and there was a sort of religious ecstactic energy flowing through the room. People were crying, holding their hands in praying positions, and swaying with the cadence of Kucinich's speech. It was an "interesting" experience.

Then we got to the question and answer part...

Many questions went by and some really agreeable answers were delivered. Then one man had the gall to ask the question, "Aren't you afraid man? I mean Paul Wellstone was assassinated for saying the same things that you are saying?" Rep Kucinich responed by pulling out a dollar bill. He turned it over and pointed at the pyramid and the "all seeing eye" floating above. He told us that, "...the pyramid represents the earth and all of the suffering we feel is at the base of the pyramid. Together we build the pyramid toward the apex. You do your part and I do mine. The eye at the top of the pyramid represents the ideals that we wish to reach. If you trust in the Eye you will have no fear of Death. If you break that trust..." Kucinich pauses to shake his head and then takes another question.

Anyone that is familiar with secret societies and the occult can see the parellels. This ties into the Bohemian Grove stuff and the Skull and Bones...more on that later.

What do you think of my experience?

upnorthkyosa

 

[heretic888]

Honestly??

I think Joseph Campbell gave a more lucid and accurate interpretation of the symbolism on the dollar bill than Kucinich did. Which, really, isn't all that surprising.

More on that laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

With that being said, Paul, I think that you have some great ideas, but they don't take into account the possible scope of these things.

Correct me if I have interpreted your wrongly, but I think that you are meaning to say that the scope of secret societies, and some of the issues that we are discussing, could be much bigger then I think.

My response to that is that you may be right, or you may be totally wrong, and that is the problem. As of right now, we do not know the scope of how merged together business and government leadership is, or how much the public is actually being manipulated by the leadership, or what the agenda is, or if there is even one focused agenda. All we can do is theorize because a lot of public policy is decided behind the eyes of the public. The reality is, there may not be any manipulation or "foul play" at all (although, this would be very hard for me to believe), or we may be completely controlled by an illumanti without even knowing it (also, very hard for me believe). I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but even that can't be known for sure.

And, WHY don't we know these things for sure? We don't know them for sure because we continue to allow conflicts of interest to occur between government and corporate entities, and we continue to let public policy to be decided in "secret". The whole point of it being secret is that we are not able to know for sure. Then, it is very easy to manipulate the public into believing that if you ask any questions "outside of the box" then you must be a "liberal" or a "conspiricy nut" or a "militia man" or whatever negative label that can be doled out to prevent the majority from wanting to think outside of the dialectic at all.

So, I don't know the scope of these things for sure, even though I have theories. A first step that I would like to see, though, is that the public policy making be actually put out in "the public" where it belongs, so we can find out.

Now, my personal feelings so far (and I am learning more and more every day) is that I don't follow what most of the "conspiricy nuts" are saying. Most people who write publications and discuss these issues seem to believe that there is a grand scheme that has been going on, and that we are all being manipulated to achieve the goal of total control by the grand schemers. Some believe that its marxism gone wild, others believe that it is secret societies that are in control, some believe that its the republican agenda, others the "liberal" agenda, and the list goes on. I don't believe that there is a "grand scheme" at all.

The reason that I don't believe in a "grand scheme" is because I think that the idea is too complicated when you try to apply it; and especially if you try to apply it over many generations. I think conspiricy theorists are way off base with this one. What I do believe is that people are ultimatily selfish, unless they adhere to a higher moral authority of some kind to not be selfish. Because people are selfish, they are going to do what is within their best interest 1st, and what is best for everybody else second. Most people, including business people and policy makers try to have their cake and eat it too. For example, maybe they make that decision in congress that helps the insurance companies that they get $$ and campaign support in different forms from, for example, with a logic that will justify that it will help the people in the long run (even when it is clear to others who aren't attatched to that interest that the decision will hurt people in the long run). Or, they make comprimises, making a decision to go against the good of the people because they don't want to risk bad PR from a large entity, with the logic that at least they will be around to fight another day, and do other things for the good of the people. It is a constant securing of their own self-interest first.

So, when people are interested in securing their self-interest first, then they are going to do a lot of back scratching to get their, follwing the reciprocity rule of business. They are going to knowingly make bad decisions, justifying that it is for "a greater good." They are going to join clubs, and network among influential people like themselves to secure their own interests. They are going to plan and scheme policy that will help them and their interest first. This is the selfish behavior that I believe most people exhibit.

What goes hand and hand with this selfish behavior is handling the guilt that ultimitally comes with it. This is where the need to justify their behavior comes in. This justification comes through moral philosephies, religious ideas, and even cultic behavior in cases we have mentioned. Ideas like, "People ultimatily can't make the best decisions from themselves," stems through this justifying process. I think that these secret societies come to play as a means to justify elitism and selfishness. And, I think that this behavior has been going on in one form or another for hundreds of years.

Now, the end result may be something that looks like a "grand scheme," but I don't think that it is that organized. Certian results, such as the fascist democracy that we live in now, are a product of this elitism. The constant merging of companies creating unfair competition is a product of these special interests merging together as well. And, if we allow unilateral, elite control to continue, then there may be other results that are even worse then a fascist democracy.

To prevent minority control of the majority (minority not being a race but a class), our constitution was "fixed" by our forefathers. Our government is supposed to prevent a dictatorship or the rule by a small ruling class by ensuring that we retain certain rights. The dynamics have changed so much since our original constitiution, that we now have a major dillema that we have never had before. That delima is we are endanger of being ruled by a fascist dictatorship WITHIN THE VERY RULES THAT WE HAVE CREATED.

On Kusinich: I have liked some of the things that Kusinich has said in the past, but your account of him preaching of a NWO is very frightening to me. A NWO where we are all ruled by one government is NOT a good thing at all. We seem to be moving in that direction with the U.S. being a unilateral power, but I hope we never see that "vision." The reason a NWO is not a good thing is because it won't be the case where everyone is ruled by one big happy democracy like Kusinich is expressing. Part of what allows us to be free is the fact that if I don't like the U.S., I can go somewhere else. If the U.S. (or any country) try's to oppress a group of people, then other countries can step in and say "no you don't". This is supposed to work in theory, but hasn't since we became a unilateral power. One world government means "totalitarian rule." One world government means that the rights of an individual can be compromised if it is for the good of the "state" (in which case, this would be "the world".) In the case of a true world government, you could see all the breakdowns of individual freedoms, and there would be nothng to stop us from being ruled by a small ruling class through military force.

I would never vote for anyone who wants an NWO. Also, the Dollar analogy seems to freighteningly fit in with "secret society" philosophy. Very strange.

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Honestly??

I think Joseph Campbell gave a more lucid and accurate interpretation of the symbolism on the dollar bill than Kucinich did. Which, really, isn't all that surprising.

More on that laterz.

Although strange, Kusinich's analogy sounds like an off the cuff, kind of stupid analogy used to impress a very emotional crowd (political rallies of any kind are supported though emotionally based thinking, not logically based thinking). I wouldn't put to much stock into it myself. The WTO thing is much more frieghtening! :anic:

 

[someguy]

So why would a secret society allow there power structure to be damaged by allowing a law to be passed? My main point is if a law can be passed then those societies aren't really all of that powerfull.

 

[Cruentus]

Since my ignorant use of the term yesterday, I have done a bit of reading on the Hegelian Dialectic.

The first thing that became very evident to me is that most people don't understand what the Hegelian Dialectic really is. The reason is because Hegel is not an easy read, not is his dialectic easy for even most educated people to understand. This became very evident to me right off the bat.

The common interpretation I have heard is 2 sides playing against each other, masking a true "conclusion" or result. This is not exactly what it is. I have also seen people describe it as 2 opposing sides producing an illogical conclusion, which is not really what hegels philosephy is either. So there are many common mistakes made that unless you actually read Hegel, you really risk looking like a dummazz (as I did yesterday, and even today because I haven't fully finished reading up on this yet).

So far here is my basic understanding of Hegel (again, very basic; I am not done reading yet.)

Hegel proposes that you have a Thesis and an antithesis, or two opposing ideas that are true. The comprimise between the 2 ideas creates a sythesis. A systhesis can be considered a "new thesis" that can then be opposed by another antithesis to create another sythesis. This goes on and on until you reach an "Ultimate Sythesis" or a conclusion that is the highest solution.

If my diagram turns out, then it looks like this:

Thesis------>Antithesis
Sythesis------------>Antithesis
Sythesis----------->Antithesis
Sythesis------------->Antithesis
(Ultimate)Sythesis

I can see how this theory fits in with marxism. Marx basically took this theory to another level when he applied it to marxist theories, with the ultimate "Sythesis" being communism. I have read Marx before, and I can see how this fits together.

Now, I have major problems with the Hegelian Philosephy (at least in how it is applied in marxism and in other places) in that it doesn't fit in with the laws of logic. And, when it does, it does not always lead to this proposed "higher" conclusion.

For one, it is difficult to determine whether or not the "Thesis" or "Antithesis" is "true" or not, which makes it difficult to determine whether the Sythesis is true. Also, just because something is "true" that doesn't mean that it is the "best" response, nor is there any evidence that it will always lead to a "best" response. And that is the problem with Hegel's philosphy; it is not just dealing with logical "truths" but it has merged logic with the idea of a "higher result." What truely is a "higher result," at least by human standards, is going to be a matter of opinion.

So, what happends when we look at Hegel's Dialectic is a misapplication of the Dialectic, and it seems, a misapplication by even Hegel himself. So the result you get is completely false logic.

First off, a true Antithesis has to be the opposite of the thesis, which often makes one or the other false. According to the truth table If the Antithesis is false when the Thesis is true, then the Sythesis will be false.

Example:

Thesis: We were attacked by terrorists. (True)
Antithesis: We were not attacked by terrorists (False)
Sythesis: We were attacked by terrorists because we were not attacked by terrorists. (Not only false, but doesn't make any friggin sense)

So, what we often find in this application is not a true Antithesis in that it is not an opposite of the thesis. We usually find a reaction or conclusion to from a thesis, which leads to a sythesis that may or may not be logically true.

Ex:

Thesis: We were attacked by terrorists. (True)
Antithesis: We do not want to be attacked by terrorists again (True, but not a true antithesis or "opposite")
Sythesis: So, we have declared war on terror. (May sound good, but doesn't logically fit in at all. "Terror" is not the same as "terrorists." A "War on Terror" logically may not prevent another terrorist attack any more then (not that I'd suggest it) sitting on our hands and hoping that terrorism never occurs again. For two, a war on terror is a war on an idea. Fighting an idea will not ensure that terrorists, who are people and not ideas, will ever attack us again. So what this gives the authors of this arguement the licesnse to do is assign ANY person, place, or thing, to the idea of "terror". "Terror" could mean Afganistan, Saddam Huessien, or the Democratic or republican party).

So, what I am finding is that Hegel's theory seems to give a license to create illogical conclusions for the purpose of fullfilling an agenda.

This is my laymens opinion so far. I'm not done reading yet.
:uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

The previous readings of the basic Hegel (which is about where I am) are fundamentally correct. However, there's a basic and absolute difference between Hegel's dialectic and Marx's: it has to do with the difference between idealism (Hegel) and materialism (Marx).

It's a question of what one takes for Real. In Hegel, what's finally real is the "world-spirit," that unfolds itself through history; in Marx, what's real is human action, which as it goes on creates a series of "dialectical," struggles that lead to new syntheses, which lead to new antitheses, just as was previous described.

Marx's work is frequently criticized by leftists with any brains (yes, Virginia, we lefties think about what we're doing) for his idealism, oddly enough: especially after people like Althusser came along, there's an extended critique of what's sometimes identified as the "Stalinist," or, "utopian," streak in Marxist theory.

Basically, the problem is this: Marx, discussing the period 1844-1848, positions himself outside history in order to critique it. Why's this a problem? because it postulates the same sort of, "perfect," access to the truth about history that Hegel claimed. And, it presupposes that the critic is not subject to the same blindnesses (see Paul deMan on, "blindness and insight," read a little about him, and then you'll have some DECENT intellectual ammo to use against leftist criticism if you want it--then read about Althusser's life, and you can start hauling out the big guns) as thosepoor benighted, class-bolund souls in history.

What that seems to lead to, intellectually speaking--and unfortunately, polticially speaking--is a remarkable and dangerous arrogance. I've heard some of these guys (Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield--more ammo; I support the right to bear decent intellectual arms, rather than this worthless, "you really hate America," claptrap) say that, baasically, intellectuals can just lie to working-class people for their own good. Stalin--and Pol Pot--both proceeded from a fairly-correct analysis of history (like the Unabomber's) to start slaughtering and starving people in the name of historical truth.

It also seems to be a guy's position, an assumed and patriarchal position of superiority which helps to explain why so many Marxists try to avoid discussing people like Emma Goldman.

Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."

Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.

By the way, all this stuff about critics--it's claptrap, TR at his intellectual worst. Funny how everybody cites that, and nobody wanna mention TR's a) founding the national park system and pushing for conservation; b) hatred of Big Money and capitalist trusts.

 

[Cruentus]

Good insight, Robert.

Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."

I think I agree with you there. I believe that secret societies are only a product of an elitist mentality, which is a product of "capitalism." Secret Societies aren't the cause.

But, out of curiousity, what is your exact belief on the role of secret societies (other then your foot :uhyeah: )?

Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.

I agree with you there; at least I believe that the particular "capitalism" that we have created (where "healthy competition" has been eliminated) is an enemy to our concept of a free american society.

I don't believe, however, that "communism" is the answer either. (which, if you have a problem with capitalism, these days, your automaticaly assumed to be communist. )

I think that the answer lies somewhere outside of either box.

Nice post.

 

[heretic888]

Basically, the problem is this: Marx, discussing the period 1844-1848, positions himself outside history in order to critique it. Why's this a problem? because it postulates the same sort of, "perfect," access to the truth about history that Hegel claimed. And, it presupposes that the critic is not subject to the same blindnesses

Ah, but the reverse could also be claimed.

Many "postmodernists" and "deconstructionists" claim that history is nothing but interpretation --- but apparently their view on history being nothing but interpretation is somehow seen to be a timeless "fact". A very intriguing position.

Its bascially a contradictory position: the truth is there is no truth. Then, we may appropriately ask, but isn't that claim itself a truth??

Very, very slippery slope. IMO.

 

[Makalakumu]

Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."

Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.

Money is like energy and energy tends to pool in static system. At lower levels capitolism encourages a dynamic flow of wealth. At higher levels, it pretty much stays the same. And as new resources are found, the pile is taken by those who have the strength to take it. The nature of capitolism is like evolution. Those who reach the top must ascribe the philosophy "do what thou wilt" people with those pesky morals are usually outcompeted by those who will do anything for money. (deontological moral theory I think) There is also that darn fact that many of these super powerful are blood relatives - which leads again to the concept of secret societies (Kerry and Bush are cousins by the way - Kerry also was the one to induct Bush into Skull and Bones...)

So, with that being said, the concept of these people fitting into secret societies is not so far fetched. With capitolism and the flow of energy pooling at the top, bloodline organizations are entirely possible. All I have to say to end this post is that some of these families have been aquiring wealth for a thousand years. How is this possible unless there is some overarching system?