What I would like to entreat everybody to think about is just how much effect these groups can have on world events. Cruentus would have us believe that they have very little effect and that most events are entirely random in nature. I happen to think that events are more "directed" then that. It only makes sense if you really understand what kind of influence the uber-elite wield. Especially on countries that do not have strong democracies!
And then I think that one needs to consider the influence that private central banks can have within a country and on other countries. There is a reason why our Republic fought a central bank and why our Founding Fathers thought that these central banks were one of the biggest threats to sovereignty and freedom that existed.
I can't tell you how this all adds up, but I can tell you that it only makes sense that it is more then the attribution of world events to mostly random happenings.
Notice I said "chaotic trends" rather then entirely random. There is a difference, my friend.
Whether you agree with his political stance or not, the classic "Manufactured Consent" by Chomsky makes a very valid point, in that nothing happens without the consent of the people. This is why PR is such a big business nowadays; special interests need to "manufacture" the consent of the public to accomplish goals. This is less so in societies that aren't democratic.
There are models for how this works, but in a nutshell, consent of the populus is what is required to get things done. What occurs or does not occur is a direct function of what the public allows.
Conspiracies that describe an endgame of a global elite enslaving the masses overlook this principle. That would never fully happen. And even if all members of the "global elite" wanted this to occur, they know that it never would. People will consent (read: give in) for awhile and up to a certain point, but ultimatily they will revolt and overthrow tyrannical ruling classes.
Furthermore, it is quite evident that the "Global Elite" are in conflict over what should or should not occur anyhow. Amongst each other, they disagree on policies ranging from the Iraq war to healthcare. It is evident by their actions and conflicts that they work for their own interests, whatever they may be, and not that of an elite ruling cabal.
Not to mention these people may have influence, but only to a certain degree. How much influence they actually have is greatly overestimated by conspiracy theorists. Example: The CEO of GM, Richard Wagoner, is very influential to GM, but he is not the entire company. He may be able to set some things in motion, but he couldn't, say, conspire with Tillerson from ExxonMobile at a Bohemian Grove party to supress fuel cell technology without involving the entire Board of Directors from GM, and many Engineers, project managers, and executives. Someone would blow the whistle. Wagoner may be a large wheel in the GM machine, but there are many other cogs in that machine that would have to consent and remain silent to a conspiracy as well. As we know from history, that never happens. And this is only isolating 2 companies; if we involve all car companies and all energy companies (which would be required to actually accomplish something like supression of efficient fuel cell technology) then the conspiracy gets bigger and bigger. It gets too big to comprehend, or even reasonably consider.
I think that people greatly overestimate the "power" that these people wield. They can definatly set some things in motion, but they cannot simply conspire to do whatever they want because there are too many moving parts.
It requires many people to get things done, for better or for worse. This is why you have "chaotic trends," but there is no consistent direction with an endgame that is occurring, or that could possibly be directed by a small group of elite rulers. Thank god, life simply does not work that way.
.
