crossing the borderline to conspiracy

[nemesiss]

i just saw this interview of the young turks, with Russ Baker.
it started out with a good question that some here must have had "how is it possible someone like George W. Bush able to become president?", its a question that i sometimes wonder since on the internet you do not find many smart things he did, but quite alot of not so smart things to put it nicely.

but then Russ Baker started to talk about invisible goverment elites... and my skeptic senses started to light up.
so what are you opinions?

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me--g1z8-Zo

 

[ImprobableJoe]

i just saw this interview of the young turks, with Russ Baker.
it started out with a good question that some here must have had "how is it possible someone like George W. Bush able to become president?", its a question that i sometimes wonder since on the internet you do not find many smart things he did, but quite alot of not so smart things to put it nicely.

but then Russ Baker started to talk about invisible goverment elites... and my skeptic senses started to light up.
so what are you opinions?

I'm with you on that... there's something about Baker's comments and his phrasing and his general attitude that makes me think that he's crossed the line into conspiracy nut country.

There's a general truth to the idea that people from rich families have an easier time in life, have more access to power, and tend to share some connections with one another due to their status as members of those families. It is a leap to go from that general truth to claims that they are gathering together and pulling all the strings for nefarious purposes. It would be more honest and useful to address the sort of entrenched power that exists in government that simply involves the cozy relationships between rich business folk, rich media players, and the entrenched bureaucracy that runs Washington D.C. Of course, that's not "sexy" and if you criticize the media they won't have you on to plug your book.

 

[Niocan]

It is a leap to go from that general truth to claims that they are gathering together and pulling all the strings for nefarious purposes.

It wouldn't be a leap at all if you understood the implications of business's and institutions. They have the same interests: Survive and prosper, why is it *so* far fetched that they'd be able to realize this and turn it all into a monopoly of them vs the people. It gives them control, power, and more money; It's rather simple, and if we look at how many parent companies there are at the top (Not many at all) we can see a general trend of centralizing control.

This breaks most peoples general views of the whole game, and because of that there's an impregnated stance of not changing within most of us.

If it makes sense within your system, it's true, but if it passes just outside your perspective it's viewed as crazy and destabilizing... Think about it.

 

[xman]

It would be more honest and useful to address the sort of entrenched power that exists in government that simply involves the cozy relationships between rich business folk, rich media players, and the entrenched bureaucracy that runs Washington D.C.

That's the 'shadowy elite' right there. Anti-democratic forces ARE at work. Can you say Bilderberg? Exactly how nefarious and anti-democratic they are is what's up for debate.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's the 'shadowy elite' right there. Anti-democratic forces ARE at work. Can you say Bilderberg? Exactly how nefarious and anti-democratic they are is what's up for debate.

Yeah, Bilderberg and the Illuminati and the reptilians. :facepalm:

 

[xman]

That's the 'shadowy elite' right there. Anti-democratic forces ARE at work. Can you say Bilderberg? Exactly how nefarious and anti-democratic they are is what's up for debate.

Yeah, Bilderberg and the Illuminati and the reptilians. :facepalm:

You should be aware that the illuminati don't exist any longer and the reptilians never did.

 

[Finger]

That's just what they want you to think!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You should be aware that the illuminati don't exist any longer and the reptilians never did.

And Bilderberg is nothing worth mentioning either. At least the reptilian stuff is interesting in a silly sort of way.

 

[xman]

Money talks s'all I'm sayin'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Money talks s'all I'm sayin'.

Well no shit. :facepalm:

Again, there's a difference between saying that money and connections get you what you want, and claiming that there's an active conspiracy going on.

Here's an example: A friend of mine owns his own building company. He does pools, decks, some landscaping, other stuff like that. He's been in the business for decades, and started his own company a couple of years ago. He's also a biker, and seems to know every Harley-Davidson rider in a 200 mile radius.

Now, say that I decide to open my own building company. Odds are that I'm going to lose out on a lot of bids in the area to my friend, especially if the client rides a Harley. Does that mean that my friend and the bikers and the people needing work are all conspiring against me to keep me from working? Of course not! My buddy just has better connections than I do, and an established reputation.

The same is true on a larger scale: rich people know other rich people, and will tend to do business with the people they know. It isn't any more sinister than the fact that all other things being equal bikers will choose to do business with other bikers, the guys at the Elks Lodge ask around at the Lodge if they need something done for them before checking the Yellow Pages, and so on.

 

[PsycoDad]

Again, there's a difference between saying that money and connections get you what you want, and claiming that there's an active conspiracy going on.

So the picture is blurred until afterwards when you CAN differentiate wheter it was deliberate cooperation or just coincidence.
So could it be possible that the Illuminati which seemed to have existed at least are brought up to raise background noise if you will?

....if they need something done for them before checking the Yellow Pages...

Where is your threshold when you would label frequent behaviour patterns as CT?

And before any quetions arise, yes i,´m leaning towards paranoia pattern recognition. :mrgreen:

I think there,´s enough evidence that points to the existence of a military industrial complex in the US and the Bilderbergers aren,´t just tea sipping aristocrats either. But let,´s stick with Eisenhower,´s warning, shall we?

 

[PsycoDad]

If all you're saying is "we should watch out for monopolies" or "there needs to be more oversight of the financial markets" then we're in agreement. If you're looking at a secret meeting and saying "geez, maybe there's inside deals going on that aren't in my best interest, or the interest of most working-class folks" that's OK too. That's reasonable, based on evidence and past experience.

I knew your name wasn,´t new...
So forget it.