Gun Control Anyone?

[jmdpet]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

What about something like the Bilderbergers? I don't have a firm opinion on that, one way or the other. I know very little about them.

But some things really make me scratch my head.

Like the way the Euro was set up.

Just looking at it you could predict it was going to precipitate a debt crisis, the "solution" for which is fiscal and tax consolidation all over europe, essentially making the national governments merely symbolic. Don't the Bilderbergers want a global government, and isn't europe the obvious place to start?

Are you ascribing more common goals and cloak-and-dagger to this group than they deserve? I don't know the first thing about them but they post their meeting agenda and participants online. That's not to say things are discussed that we don't hear about. But, even so, the CEO of LinkedIn, Peggy Noonan, Peter Thiel, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman and Richard Perle (to name a few) are in on the conspiracy too?

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

[bart]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Are you ascribing more common goals and cloak-and-dagger to this group than they deserve?
...

I do.

Is it not ok to have that opinion, regardless of how many facts I may or may not have?

[jmdpet]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

I do.

Is it not ok to have that opinion, regardless of how many facts I may or may not have?

It's perfectly OK. I'm skeptical, but it was a sincere question. I'll admit it's a seductive idea —a cabal of powerful people who control things behind the scenes— but I'm genuinely curious how it could possibly work with such a large membership that changes over time and appears to run the gamut in ideology (and has a public web site).

[bart]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

It's perfectly OK. I'm skeptical, but it was a sincere question. I'll admit it's a seductive idea —a cabal of powerful people who control things behind the scenes— but I'm genuinely curious how it could possibly work with such a large membership that changes over time and appears to run the gamut in ideology (and has a public web site).

You partly said it yourself - powerful people. Almost literally by definition, they control much of their own areas and also have effects far beyond their own businesses.

As far as having a public web site, you said it yourself again - "that's not to say things are discussed that we don't hear about.".

Perhaps another review of that "unconscious conspiracy" link in the light of apparently different ideologies might help too.

Much of it is not even behind the scenes, all one has to do is look. It's much like those who think the Fed is very secretive, until they actually look at things like the FRED database or the huge amounts of papers and whatnot on their site - it's mostly public. But where it gets more than dicey is interpreting their public (frequently partial truths and misdirection) statements and finding out what they *really* mean and what they're *really* trying to do. And then there's the majority who really do think that the Fed is part of the government, where they're actually owned by the banks themselves. I call that an unconscious conspiracy at best, partly because it is hidden for most and partly because their long term effects are not exactly 100% wonderful - and there are many other factors too.

As far as a large membership being a problem for an ongoing "conspiracy", consider the area of the LIBOR scandal and how long it persisted. Also consider how long the Manhattan Project was secret, and I'm sure you can think of many others, like Galen vs. Harvey centuries ago.

And then we have the Rothschild family for example that has endured and become more and more wealthy over many centuries, much of it occurring behind the scenes like during the Nazi regime. They're Bilderbergers.

The older concept of smoke filled rooms and plotting (like Tammany Hall) is just not what happens these days - it's much more in the "kinder, gentler, refined" modes than in the days of Tammany control etc.


But as far as the rest of the conspiracy and power/control areas, I choose at this time not to describe any more details or name names, etc. Much of it is available via search engines, although there's also a lot out there which is pure crap and not factual and even from real paranoid types.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I'm not a big conspiracy theory fan.

But I tend to believe in aligned interests.

Take feminism.

I think most folks with any common sense would agree that women should have equal rights to men.

But has feminism always been about feminism?

Or has it possibly been hijacked by interests that piggyback on or run parallel to feminism?

The business community has used feminist or hijacked feminist themes to market to women.

Why? Because a higher % of women in the work force results in > discretionary family income and a new consumer segment to exploit.

The government has used feminist or hijacked feminist momentum to mask it's own fiscal/monetary failures.

What has been the greatest social change since the rise of feminism?

I would posit(anecdotally) that the biggest social change of the last 40 years is Mom(typically Mom, as Mom was the stay at home parent 99% of the time when a family could afford it) now works 2 full time jobs, instead of just 1.

2 parents working has provided a bigger house and more junk, at the cost of most 2 parent households moving from 2 fulltime jobs to 3.

Feminism, or more correctly feminism hijacked by aligned interests, has probably resulted in a far greater benefit to government and business than it has to women and families.

Let's run through it:

Governments win by deflecting poor fiscal/monetary policy to feminism/freedom helping to excuse the growing need for more families to HAVE to have both parents working. Feminism masks/excuses the "choice" of Moms having to work. Anyone who attacks this fact is antifeminist......a built in defense mechanism.

Business wins from the opportunity of expanded markets(2 incomes means possibility of bigger houses and more stuff in them, as well as new markets(income earning female consumer segment).

Families lose through outsourcing the raising of their children because of a new minimum standard of 3 full time jobs for a 2 parent household in exchange for a slightly bigger house with more stuff in it.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste." could also be stated as "Exploit every aligned opportunity."

"Global warming" has the same potential.

Governments can deflect poor fiscal/monetary policy and hide new taxation and a decline in quality of live/standard of living by blaming evil consumers for consuming everything.

Business can create entire new markets for acceptable consumption as well as clip the ticket on carbon credits.

Families lose because of the built in defense mechanism of if they question it, then they must hate the planet....so they suck it up and go along and get fleeced again.

Please don't get me wrong....I don't oppose feminism, nor sustainable economic living/development.

What I oppose is what I perceive......feminism and global warming being exploited as themes/platforms for aligned interests.

There is no conspiracy in my opinion.....just mutual motivation for exploitation.

Win for government, Win for business, and unassailable Loss for the public.

I think of it like an elegant Machiavellian nuclear pile....the fissile material being greed(money/power).

You just need a theme to exploit and a critical mass of Machiavellium in close proximity.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Bart, where's your hat today?
I am uncertain about the Bilderbergers. But there is also tri lateral commisssion, council on foreign relations, etc. And those are just the ones we do hear about.

the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy;

Daniels, for example may attend meetings, but would not necessarily be privy to the inner circle, if that exists.

Europeans were hardly begging for the Euro. And when it creates a mess of problems, the only viable solution is a loss of national sovereignty.

[bart]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Bart, where's your hat today?

I sent them out for dry cleaning and buffing. Have to take it off sometimes too, rather than lose all my hair. ;-)

I am uncertain about the Bilderbergers. But there is also tri lateral commisssion, council on foreign relations, etc. And those are just the ones we do hear about.

I had to fill a big hat order from the Group of 300 too, the open web and the grey aliens etc. are scaring them. ;-)

Daniels, for example may attend meetings, but would not necessarily be privy to the inner circle, if that exists.

Bingo - there are very few white badges at Davos...

Europeans were hardly begging for the Euro. And when it creates a mess of problems, the only viable solution is a loss of national sovereignty.

I'm both just tired and also a bit circumspect these days on going into gory details, like I used to... and before so much of it is actually on the web in so many places.

Some will never believe in conspiracies, some don't have the time to dedicate to research, some are astro-turfers and some realize (correctly) that the die is pretty much cast and it doesn't matter much who "they" are, etc.


The story of the Euro is a good example of how things worked out, in the sense of a one world agenda and more.


And for my next tinfoil "hat trick":

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller at the Bilderberg Meeting in June 1991 in Baden, Germany, as quoted in the 1991 issue of the Hilaire duBerrier Report

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
-- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002


"We are on the verge of a Global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
-- David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council on September 23, 1994


"The Trilateralist Commission is international ...(and)...is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: Political - Monetary - Intellectual - and Ecclesiastical."
-- Barry Goldwater , U.S. Senator AZ, "With No Apologies"

[flintlock]

Re: 6-guns in the Capital building ?

I just sold off a few of mine at 2.5x what I paid for them. The guy who bought an AK from me said he was buying several for his kids. Why? If he wants to pay $800 for a WASR that's his business, but I find it a little silly. Now let him find ammo for it. I'm convinced the prices will cool off eventually and return to the norm.

I was talking to a customer of mine the other day who owns a lot of firearms, including some fully auto types. He said he had heard a rumor the government was buying up a lot of the ammo. Could this be Obama's way of getting around congress? I tend to doubt it, but does make some sense. Ranges around here are out of ammo, I can't find any at reasonable prices either. Even .22 LR is hard to find!

[flintlock]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I think the conspiracy theories in this country are out of control. That said, I feel very confident that powerful people use that power in any way they can to manipulate people and institutions in any way they see fit. Think about it from their perspective. If you are sitting on top of the world, you might very well sit around thinking a lot about who and how that power might be taken away from you. Its only natural. Its also natural that the powerful would seek out allies with a common interest in maintaining the status quo. At this point in time, I fear that the anti-gun crowd might just possibly be seen as "Useful Idiots" by the entrenched power base. A sit down meeting behind closed doors is not always required. Sometimes its just two factions appreciating a common interest and letting things fall into place naturally.

[reggie]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

Now you have me intrigued. Who are you referring to? Illuminati, Bildenberg Group, that sort of thing?

One doesn't have to wear tin foil to understand credible research on mind control. Start with the Church Committee reports from the 1970's.

I think the conspiracy theories in this country are out of control. That said, I feel very confident that powerful people use that power in any way they can to manipulate people and institutions in any way they see fit. Think about it from their perspective. If you are sitting on top of the world, you might very well sit around thinking a lot about who and how that power might be taken away from you. Its only natural. Its also natural that the powerful would seek out allies with a common interest in maintaining the status quo. At this point in time, I fear that the anti-gun crowd might just possibly be seen as "Useful Idiots" by the entrenched power base. A sit down meeting behind closed doors is not always required. Sometimes its just two factions appreciating a common interest and letting things fall into place naturally.

It's unfortunate that the organized conspiracy media has done so much to discredit any meanginful discussion of subjects such as mind control research, making it taboo territory.

[BadJuju]

Re: Gun Control Anyone?

I think the conspiracy theories in this country are out of control. That said, I feel very confident that powerful people use that power in any way they can to manipulate people and institutions in any way they see fit. Think about it from their perspective. If you are sitting on top of the world, you might very well sit around thinking a lot about who and how that power might be taken away from you. Its only natural. Its also natural that the powerful would seek out allies with a common interest in maintaining the status quo. At this point in time, I fear that the anti-gun crowd might just possibly be seen as "Useful Idiots" by the entrenched power base. A sit down meeting behind closed doors is not always required. Sometimes its just two factions appreciating a common interest and letting things fall into place naturally.

I think this is a good way to look at it. That is not to say there aren't conspiracies, but I think people let things get out of hand with thinking everything is a conspiracy.

[reggie]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

And for my next tinfoil "hat trick"

Well, that's precisely what good "Conspiracy" media is designed to do, namely, discredit itself to such an extent that no "credible" person would dare address the nominated issues for fear of being negatively labelled. Any serious study into propaganda techniques would reveal that this is an extremely effective form of censorship, at least for any socioeconomic group that's powerful enough to be relevant (let the rif-raf discuss what they want because they're irrelevant). Hence, "Conspiracy Theories" are out of control today because control via propaganda techniques is at an all time high in the US. Unfortunately, there is endless credible material publicly available, in academia, via think tanks, gov't databases, etc. that address the underlying issues. But the boundaries of "authorized and acceptible" information are so well managed that discussion outside these are met with non-response, misunderstanding or attack given the highly develped frames in the public's neural networks. Marcuse does a good job explaining this dynamic in his thesis, "One Dimensional Man"

[c1ue]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Yes, we're sooo much closer to one world government. The UN is just right up there in terms of credibility. /sarc

But has feminism always been about feminism?

Or has it possibly been hijacked by interests that piggyback on or run parallel to feminism?

The business community has used feminist or hijacked feminist themes to market to women.

Why? Because a higher % of women in the work force results in > discretionary family income and a new consumer segment to exploit.

The government has used feminist or hijacked feminist momentum to mask it's own fiscal/monetary failures.

What has been the greatest social change since the rise of feminism?

I would posit(anecdotally) that the biggest social change of the last 40 years is Mom(typically Mom, as Mom was the stay at home parent 99% of the time when a family could afford it) now works 2 full time jobs, instead of just 1.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. For one thing, feminism roared and got women the vote literally more than a half century before Gloria Steinem and what not.

Equally the 2 parent working household - many including our new Senator for Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren - see these arising in response to wage stagnation and asset price inflation rather than the other way around.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Yes, we're sooo much closer to one world government. The UN is just right up there in terms of credibility. /sarc



I think you're putting the cart before the horse. For one thing, feminism roared and got women the vote literally more than a half century before Gloria Steinem and what not.

Equally the 2 parent working household - many including our new Senator for Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren - see these arising in response to wage stagnation and asset price inflation rather than the other way around.

Feminism in the form of women's suffrage/right to vote is often classified as first wave feminism.

I'm more concerned about the hijacking of 2nd wave feminism that started in the 60's, which among other things, focused on family/workplace inequities.

Whether 2nd wave feminism was a cause or an effect of poor fiscal/monetary policy that impacted on Joe 6 pack is irrelevant......aspects of it were/are still vulnerable to being hijacked for less than altruistic reasons.

[shiny!]

Re: Who's pulling strings? Billderbergers?

Well, that's precisely what good "Conspiracy" media is designed to do, namely, discredit itself to such an extent that no "credible" person would dare address the nominated issues for fear of being negatively labelled. Any serious study into propaganda techniques would reveal that this is an extremely effective form of censorship, at least for any socioeconomic group that's powerful enough to be relevant (let the rif-raf discuss what they want because they're irrelevant). Hence, "Conspiracy Theories" are out of control today because control via propaganda techniques is at an all time high in the US. Unfortunately, there is endless credible material publicly available, in academia, via think tanks, gov't databases, etc. that address the underlying issues. But the boundaries of "authorized and acceptible" information are so well managed that discussion outside these are met with non-response, misunderstanding or attack given the highly develped frames in the public's neural networks. Marcuse does a good job explaining this dynamic in his thesis, "One Dimensional Man"

+1,000,000