It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who needs Conspiracies, when we create our own "Fnords"?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I would like to begin my little diatribe with the following quote:

"This was one step beyond Pavlov, I realized. The first conditioned reflex
was to experience the panic reaction (the activation syndrome, it's technically called) whenever encountering the word ``fnord.'' The second conditioned reflex was to black out what happened, including the word itself, and just to feel a general low-grade emergency without knowing why. And the third step, of course, was to attribute this anxiety to the news stories, which were bad enough in themselves anyway.
" - from The Golden Apple by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson.

And now, a brief parable.

I have, for some time now, been attempting to write a conspiracy novel. One that would hopefully come close to the scope and quality of Mr. Shea and Mr. Wilson's brilliant triliogy, without recycling any of their material or ideas. I have been attempting to write this novel for close to ten years now. Each time I begin, I immerse myself into the conspiracy culture, to better know the minds of those who see no evil, and those who see evil everywhere. And each time, after a few months, I must stop, drop the project, and go back to writing something else. Given a year or so, I then start the project up again, wondering why I stopped in the first place. This pattern has continued since I was twenty, without ever quite knowing why.

And then I found ATS...

Please, do not misunderstand me, for I mean no insult to anyone here. I do, however wish to point out that every day I come on here, I wonder how some of the users here make it through the day. I do not mean that in a cruel way, but rather, a sort of morbid fascination. The majority of the posts I find on here fall under the category of Seeing Evil Everywhere.

Almost every post I see speaks of some terrible evil, buried so deep within our everyday lives that all we can do is wait for the inevitable destruction of our lives, souls, loved ones, religions, or even the planet itself. Our fate is hanging in the balance, every single day, be it from some secret society, aliens, a new world order, puppeteers, or some metaphysical force. And while I realize that this is the whole point of a forum dedicated to Conspiracies, I wonder how anyone can survive in such a maelstrom of complete horror, day after day, night after night--much less, sleep.

I suppose what I'm saying is this: I eventually figured out the reason for the pattern with failing to finish my conspiracy novel. It's the self-created FNORDS.

When one immerses themselves into the conspiracy culture, it's all too easy to get sucked in, and begin to believe that every single moment brings Earth closer to Hell, World Domination, or Oblivion. It's so easy for one to start thinking that they have found the vital connection, the one that has been overlooked by everyone else. We want that connection to exist so badly, that evidence, for or against, becomes twisted in that direction. Soon the actual evidence runs out, and so new evidence must be invented out of new material, such as news reports and science journals. Every news report from police brutality to a new political scandal becomes evidence of one's connection.

With such a fresh source of unconsciously fabricated evidence, the paranoia sets in. Suddenly it's not a matter of proving the Conspiracy, it's a matter of trying to warn others of the danger. But they won't believe! Which can only mean they have been brainwashed, are unenlightened, or are working for the Conspiracy itself. The original connection ceases to even be remembered at this point, it's everywhere. The only thing that remains is The Conspiracy, and everywhere one looks, there is the Conspiracy staring them in the face.

It becomes a megalithic entity, one that can never be overturned, because it exists everywhere, and too few really believes it is happening. But of course it's happening, because it's everywhere! It's like trying to rid oneself of one's shadow; there's simply no escape at this point. What started as a supposition of connecting Point A to Point B has become the single greatest source of terror and stress that one could ever face. The self-created FNORDS eventually lead the conspiracy theorist into either a burnt out or neurotic state.

Thankfully there is a way around this and it has nothing to do with religion, or political affiliation, or medication. Gathering Facts and Witholding Judgement and the Willingness to Admit One Was Wrong, will all contribute heavily towards keeping one's sanity.

Every day I read posts by people (who admittedly will most likely not read this), who state their own conspiracy theory as if it were indisputable fact, and back it up with little more than opinion, circumstantial evidence, or heresay. If one dares to point out inconsistancies in the theory, or worse yet, disagree, the theorist will usually erupt into a bile-filled rebuttal citing more insults than contentions of evidence. These people are stuck in the cycle mentioned above, and are in need of help.

I'm not really sure what I'm asking for in this. Those that have the problem will have stopped reading already, if they ever read the post. Those that agree will likely say there is nothing that can be done. I suppose what I am asking then, is that the reader lead by example, using good solid facts to support their theories. I ask that the reader not be married to their theories, and be willing to consider that, more likely than not, it's a dead end (as have been 99% of the theories about any subject to date). I ask that the reader not confuse the words "evidence" with "proof" and "fact" with "theory." For those that we encounter who cannot make these distinctions, my suggestion would be patience and repetition of these truths.




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Okay, for example: There are 200 people on a small island in the Indian ocean. There are 4 leaders who want more power, so they secret set off a fire bomb in one of the "kingdoms". These people are told by these leaders and their "Temple leaders" that it was "their fault for not obeying the authotrities." and the leaders tell them to make sure other people from land B on the outside follow customs as they take over more and more farm/peasent land, mean while they also tell them it was land B on the island that did it. So therefor the populace would become scared and superstitous anyway right?
Is that how the Activaction Syndrome works?
Is that how the goverments and the NWO are using the 9/11, Madrid, and embassies attacks?
Just curious, hey what do you think about us starting a Newsletter for both members and non-members who may not have enough time to read us on the net?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
proposal and stuff, b/c as soon as I move out, I wanna become one of the best uber-female novelists ever!

But I just write on here and on a parody fanfic I have on my hard drive for fun. And if you want your book to get off the ground, I can U2U and get some ideas, all you have to do is put me in the acknowleadgements in your book. I read lots, lots, lots, of books(too many to count and too many for my grandmother to stand).
1. Write down a "Broad Brain Storm" for any possible ideas, related or not to it.
2. Think more outside the box than The Da Vinchi Code or anything Danielle Steel or Jon Land has written.
3. Think about how Edgar Allen Poe and Mark Twain wrote:
Poe: Put 2 ideas together that had nothing in common to scare people.
Twain: Parodied, what he knew to make a point.
They can give you ideas.
4. Interview ATS members, and take notes on their thought process and print U2U's and E-mails that say they approved.
5. Make sure you credit everyone invovled.
Now if I was a novelist..................................



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BSB2005
Is that how the goverments and the NWO are using the 9/11, Madrid, and embassies attacks?


I don't know. I wish to God I knew, but I honestly just don't know.

Part of me, the part that always sees the Fnords, screams "YES!" and every time I hear another speech by Bush, or another act of Congress, I cringe. Every speech is another tirade by a tyrant bent on World Domination. Every act is another nail in the coffin on our civil liberties. Every day Bush is allowed to wipe his arse with the Constitution and the Geneva Convention is another day we come closer to a New World Order.

The other part, the calm rational part, says "No." It acknowledges that my side lost the election because they couldn't be bothered to vote, or refused to think that their vote counted. It wonders that maybe, as a whole, America deserves all this stuff because the average citizen has become so brain-dead by the TV culture and religion that they bloody well deserve whatever tyrant they allowed in office. It says that, while I'm bitter, resentful, and hating what's happening to my country, and the views of other countries towards us, it's only four more years in the grand scheme of things, and by the next election, there will be a whole new slew of worries for me to be concerned about, and that this process will continue for the rest of my life, so there's no need to stress too much about it.

Which side is right? Who knows? My paranoid side says the first. My instincts say the second.


Originally posted by BSB2005
Just curious, hey what do you think about us starting a Newsletter for both members and non-members who may not have enough time to read us on the net?


I dunno. Truth be told, I'm a bit disgruntled, truth be told. While I love it here, and have a great time, I'm rather disappointed about the fact that posts like "Nordic Reptilian Vampires are from Atlantis" get page after page of posts, while genuine real-world conspiracies like that crap the Republican Party tried to pull about the ethics committee get only the barest glance and almost no posts. Sometimes I think most people here would rather fantasize than face what are real and immediate threats to our liberties. I just can't see investing that much time into a newsletter that reads more like an issue of the Weekly World News. If there was an interest in real events that we could actually do something about, my attitude might change.


Originally posted by BSB2005
proposal and stuff, b/c as soon as I move out, I wanna become one of the best uber-female novelists ever!



Here's a tip I picked up once from a novelist who took the time to answer some questions of mine. It was basically this: "Don't write as a male, a female, a black, white, christian, or jew. People read fiction to be entertained, not lectured. Your story should appeal to every gender, every race, every religion. Everyone should be able to pick up the book and find someone to identify with. Anything less is just mental masturbation."


Originally posted by BSB2005
But I just write on here and on a parody fanfic I have on my hard drive for fun. And if you want your book to get off the ground, I can U2U and get some ideas,
all you have to do is put me in the acknowleadgements in your book.


While I'd be more than happy to discuss anything related to writing in general (not that I'm an expert or anything), another novelist warned, with all his might, that one should never read, much less accept, ideas for a book. Such things lead to very messy situations, and the work can never be considered the author's own. He said that he's even had to throw out novels that were half-finished, because someone would catch him on the street and say "Hey, I've got this great idea for a book" before he could tell them not to tell him, and the idea would be just similar enough to what he was writing, that he had to scrap the whole work, according to his lawyers. Unless an aspiring author is going to be a ghost writer, co-authoring, or doing a book "based on the events at...", they should never, under any circumstances, write a novel using someone else's ideas. However, the offer is very kind, and as I said, I'd be happy to discuss writing itself via U2U.


Originally posted by BSB2005
I read lots, lots, lots, of books(too many to count and too many for my grandmother to stand).


Good! Good! Every writer should read as much as they write, to hone their style, and get examples of works that made it through the publisher's gauntlet. I personally can't go more than about 24 hours without reading, or I start to feel like my brain is decaying into TV-cultured mush.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Which side is right? Who knows? My paranoid side says the first. My instincts say the second.



The next time you see a dollar, ask it its' politacal affiliation?or its' religious affiliation?

Interesting that the whole nation is divided along these lines(for the most part) and most will fight to the death for their beliefs. Much like Conspiracy Theorists.




BTW, I'm currently reading the Shea/Wilson trilogy and find it a good read. I wish you luck in your writing endeavours.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The next time you see a dollar, ask it its' politacal affiliation?or its' religious affiliation?


I'm not quite certain I grasp your meaning. Are you saying that 9/11 and the war in Iraq was all about money, or was the statement more Zen than that?

If it was that 9/11 and Iraq were about money, I'm sorry, but I still can't buy this angle. I could buy the NWO angle a lot sooner, and for the most part the rational side of me says the NWO is bollocks. The war in Iraq isn't about money. It's too costly, the press generated is too bad, and the resentment is too great. It's driving the economy into the ground, and the only one's profiting at the moment are the DoD contractors.

And I seriously doubt the DoD contractors had anything to do with 9/11. If I am to assume that much, without proof, I might as well just throw in the towel right now, and never trust anyone again. Additionally, the defense contractors would have been equally happy had we sent the war to Afghanistan, where it belonged, or North Korea.

So, no, there has to be alterior motives other than money. Money is fun to blame, and makes for a real easy non-thinker of a response to "Why", but the truth is almost definitely far more complex.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Interesting that the whole nation is divided along these lines(for the most part) and most will fight to the death for their beliefs. Much like Conspiracy Theorists.

(blinks and looks around). I'm not sure where these people are fighting to the death. I don't remember any violent outbreaks between the blue and red states, or voters at the polls, or anyone getting killed over their vote.

Come to that, I don't recall any conspiracy theorists getting killed for their beliefs, although I suppose the only way that would happen is if they were correct, and if that was the case, we'd probably never hear that they were killed.

But still... suppose there are a lot of them out there, willing to fight to the death for their beliefs. What about those who feel that way, who can't even be bothered to vote, because of either laziness, apathy, or some twisted sense that their vote doesn't matter?


Originally posted by MemoryShock
BTW, I'm currently reading the Shea/Wilson trilogy and find it a good read. I wish you luck in your writing endeavours.


Thank you. I hope it does turn out okay. I've been reading a lot of Neil Gaiman, myself.



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
I'm not quite certain I grasp your meaning. Are you saying that 9/11 and the war in Iraq was all about money, or was the statement more Zen than that?


No. I wasn't specifing any one event. If you take a look at 9/11, you'll see that it, in part, instigated the war in Iraq. I'm afraid I was attempting a zen answer, due to the time of night, however, I can attempt an in-depth conversation at this point. Money has no affiliation rather than money. likewise, the party and religious affiliations are intended to divide the population. People are given their opinions(religion) and then given a forum to manifest their preferences upon other people(politics). This goes on and you may find that someone is convinced and "defects", but the core of each is something that will not be swayed one way or the other. What does this have to do with money? There is a more powerful resource, and that is the " human resource." Money controls the human resource and is itself a piece of the puzzle. One begets the other, if you can see on that scale.


d buy the NWO angle a lot sooner, and for the most part the rational side of me says the NWO is bollocks. The war in Iraq isn't about money. It's too costly, the press generated is too bad, and the resentment is too great. It's driving the economy into the ground, and the only one's profiting at the moment are the DoD contractors.


Think long-term. The press is bad; that translates into increased anxiety, emotion, which in turn will affect the domestic agenda. Remains to be seen how. The economy lives to be driven into the ground; if we're experiencing a negative economic impact, someone else is having the flip side. You can't have zero without one.


eriously doubt the DoD contractors had anything to do with 9/11. If I am to assume that much, without proof, I might as well just throw in the towel right now, and never trust anyone again. Additionally, the defense contractors would have been equally happy had we sent the war to Afghanistan, where it belonged, or North Korea.


I'm not stating that DoD contractors is behind 9/11. But how long have they been planning a/for war? War is Peace and the chess game is the attitudes of the populations. The DoD definetely don't have a final say, but our there to capitalize. Besides, I wouldn't trust anyone with money period.


there has to be alterior motives other than money. Money is fun to blame, and makes for a real easy non-thinker of a response to "Why", but the truth is almost definitely far more complex.


Money is the problem. The only way to control the "game" is money. The truth involves a highly complex series of machinations, with motives being obscured or played against at times but, again, think long-term. If you have a lot of money to begin with you canafford to play with it, especially if the reward is influence over other people. The alterior motive is exactly that, influence over other human beings. What gets a persons attention? Money. Comfort. It all boils down to money. I can pseudo-intellectualize all day and only a few people are going to hear what I have to say because I lack the funds to make it available on a large scale.


and looks around). I'm not sure where these people are fighting to the death. I don't remember any violent outbreaks between the blue and red states, or voters at the polls, or anyone getting killed over their vote.

Come to that, I don't recall any conspiracy theorists getting killed for their beliefs, although I suppose the only way that would happen is if they were correct, and if that was the case, we'd probably never hear that they were killed.


You took it to literally. Many people will not easily give up their beliefs. You know that. As to the lazy and apathetic........they still to some extent play into the economics of society. If you were on the side that had money and power, these are your favorites because they never stand up for themselves, yet have an impact anyway, i.e. money for necessities, social impact by concentrating effort and attention into irrelevancies. The lack of impact in itself is an impact because nothing gets done, their intellects and personalities have stagnated. No conspiracy? When a popular television show is handing out cash prizes based on your knowledge of popular trivia, I see an encouraging of the masses to ingest more inconsequential popular culture. Many people I interact with personally can't tell me what a "theme" is. The lack of critical thinking is glaring and I'm not so sure that is an accident.




[edit on 26-1-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 26-1-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by thelibra
...genuine real-world conspiracies like that crap the Republican Party tried to pull about the ethics committee...


Are you referring to the recent Tom DeLay indictment rules change?

If so, that's a good example of how "conspiracy rumors" get spread. It was an internal Republican Party rules change, not a House Ethics Committee change. It was done pretty much in the open so there is no "conspiracy" involved.

Yes, it was a bad decision, but the political parties are free to run themselves as they see fit.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
You raise some interesting points, and unfortunately I only have a few minutes with which to compose a response, but here goes:


Originally posted by MemoryShock
The economy lives to be driven into the ground; if we're experiencing a negative economic impact, someone else is having the flip side. You can't have zero without one.


Yes, but there are a lot of rich becoming poor as well. So if the Rich are losing, the government is losing, and, as usual, the common man is losing, then the money is going... ...overseas I guess. And to defense contractors, of course.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
I'm not stating that DoD contractors is behind 9/11. But how long have they been planning a/for war? War is Peace and the chess game is the attitudes of the populations. The DoD definetely don't have a final say, but our there to capitalize.


But isn't that their job? My job is to solve computer problems for other companies. I don't go around emailing viruses and corrupting file systems to keep myself employed though. Sometimes bad things just happen from a huge series of connected events, without an actual conspiracy being involved.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
Besides, I wouldn't trust anyone with money period.


I would. For instance, I'd trust Bill Gates to run a software company a lot more than I'd trust, Joe, at the local coffee shop. I'd trust Donald Trump to run a real estate company a lot more than the chick at IHOP. And so on. Rich people are not evil just because they are rich. It just means that, for most of them, they are very shrewd with their money and have the discipline to budget and invest wisely.

Not that there's not evil rich people, but still. Not all (or even most) rich people are evil.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
Money is the problem. The only way to control the "game" is money.


How is this a problem? That's like saying the limitations on moves for each piece is the problem in chess. Or that the dice are the problem in a board game. Money is an agreed-upon standard, by which to judge the value of a good or a service, so that I don't have to figure out how to trade my tech support for a burger, or my novel for a car. That's ALL that money is. It's not some evil artifact from another world, or a mark of satan. It's just money. No more evil than a hammer.

Both money and a hammer can be used to invoke or evoke harm, but that doesn't make either of them inherently bad.

Gotta go... more later.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
thelibra i think you are one of the wisest most intelligable people whom visit this website

i look forward to reading Any Post by you, because its always interesting, it always compells me to use my brain, and i always learn some really great stuff from it

great post and wonderful speculation

keep up the good work thelibra
look forward to seeing more intelligent posts by you

thers about 5 or 6 of you guys that i always love hearing your ideas, gazrok too especially hes hilarious


***votes for thelibra on side panel thingy***



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
You're calling me out on my use of generalities. I appreciate this conversation, as I agree with the above poster in that I respect many things you have said in this forum......I'll try to keep my end above water.....


Originally posted by thelibra

Yes, but there are a lot of rich becoming poor as well. So if the Rich are losing, the government is losing, and, as usual, the common man is losing, then the money is going... ...overseas I guess. And to defense contractors, of course.



The rich losing doesn't necassarily mean the government is losing. Especially in todays increasingly corporate world, you have the institution of corporate laws drawn up by the government. Many of these laws are provoked or dissuaded by corporate influence(lobbyists). Now a days, it is tough to see where the government ends and private business begins. The last two candidates were billionaires. Point being, is that, IMO, government is there to compliment the private sector. The government is more concerned with the organization of the population, the attitudes of the people as they live their lives. The government is also concerned with the interaction of its people, not specifically, but generally, by the enforcement of an accepted morals and ethics code. This allows are judicial/criminal system to directly influence the people. The only way money comes into play here is, for the most part, operating cost. As to where the money goes.......it goes everywhere. That is what it does. Rich people losing means other rich people gain. The government, as long as it maintains operating cost, doesn't lose because it's not there to make money. It's there to operate and make functionable millions and millions of lives. The common man will always lose, or as I like to think, will always find another distraction.



Originally posted by thelibra
But isn't that their job? My job is to solve computer problems for other companies. I don't go around emailing viruses and corrupting file systems to keep myself employed though.


Just to provide an example, there are hackers who make a nice living compromising a particular system, illustrating the problems to the business in question, and offering solutions. All under the guise of security/prevention.



Originally posted by thelibra
Sometimes bad things just happen from a huge series of connected events, without an actual conspiracy being involved.


IMO, being incredibly rich and having the capacity to sway governments, it would concievably be very irresponsible to not have a "conspiracy. Especially with the huge consequences that could result from todays technology. Though inclusive of some "evil" elements, who is to say the "conspiracy" isn't with the best of intentions? Sometimes bad things do happen as a result of connected events, but sometimes as well the connections were intentional.




Originally posted by thelibra
Rich people are not evil just because they are rich. Not that there's not evil rich people, but still. Not all (or even most) rich people are evil.


Touchee'


Originally posted by thelibra
How is this a problem? Money is an agreed-upon standard, by which to judge the value of a good or a service, so that I don't have to figure out how to trade my tech support for a burger, or my novel for a car. That's ALL that money is.


IMO, it's a bit more complex than that. Granted for the most part money is an agreed upon standard. But what I'm interested in is the correlation between oppurtunities allotted and the amount of money possessed. The amount of money possessed by the upper tier allows them far greater flexibility in their day to day life. They aren't as hasseled with the details a middle income family is; indeed they are still afflicted with details. The difference lies in their attentions or focus. The details they are concerned with include a broader view of society, even if it is something as mundane(mundane in conspiracy land) as a promotional event to attract as many people's attention as possible. These people are more likely to be aware of specific psychological/sociological traits than the average person. That is what makes concievable the manipulation of events. Money is more than a mechanical definition of economics; it's influence effects attitudes and personalities.

Money and Hammer can both cause harm, but with a hammer, I know who swung it. Because of the inclusive factor of money, it could be construed that anyone and everyone swung, including myself.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by MemoryShock]

[edit on 28-1-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
thelibra i think you are one of the wisest most intelligable people whom visit this website

i look forward to reading Any Post by you, because its always interesting, it always compells me to use my brain, and i always learn some really great stuff from it

great post and wonderful speculation

keep up the good work thelibra
look forward to seeing more intelligent posts by you

thers about 5 or 6 of you guys that i always love hearing your ideas, gazrok too especially hes hilarious


***votes for thelibra on side panel thingy***


Thank you very much!!!


I'm sorry it's taking me so long to respond to the messages in this thread. I really will get back to this soon, but work has been hellacious this week, and in the evenings I'm having to plan a wedding budget.

Gazrok is one of my favorites too. He's got a good combination of the humor which I lack, and the incredible knack for fact-finding that I respect.


MemoryShock - I swear I'm not ignoring you, I'm just so shagged out from all this budgeting and work that I've yet to have the time to compose a proper response (or even finish my previous post).



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

MemoryShock - I swear I'm not ignoring you, I'm just so shagged out from all this budgeting and work that I've yet to have the time to compose a proper response (or even finish my previous post).


Don't worry about it; I'm still wet behind the ears as a particapant at ATS so I have plenty to do just to learn everything and everyone. I extend my congratulations on your pending nuptial.

MemoryShock



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra

MemoryShock - I swear I'm not ignoring you, I'm just so shagged out from all this budgeting and work that I've yet to have the time to compose a proper response (or even finish my previous post).


Just going through my archive to look for threads I'd like to see revisited, or discussions that I felt didn't quite find completion............



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Thank you for reminding me about this, MemoryShock, I'd completely forgotten about my promised reply. Here it is...

Since a lot of my rebuttal is based upon the lack of discipline by the poor, I will simply refer to another thread I started about how The 5 Laws of Gold can turn even the poorest schmuck into a millionaire within their own lifetime.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Especially in todays increasingly corporate world, you have the institution of corporate laws drawn up by the government. Many of these laws are provoked or dissuaded by corporate influence(lobbyists).


Oh, I assure you this is nothing new. It actually used to be a LOT LOT worse. I recommend reading up on Tammany Hall and The Machine at some point. At least nowadays, Corporations have the decency to be sneaky about it and watchgroups and laws prevent a lot more than they allow. I agree, though, it is still heavily in favor of the Corporation, but it's actually gotten a lot better over the last century. There was a time when the corporations had the full power of the police and armed forces at their disposal, and would brazenly use it, with or without media coverage, and the President actually endorsed it publically.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Now a days, it is tough to see where the government ends and private business begins. The last two candidates were billionaires.


Well, I look at it like this: Whom would you rather be the leader of our country?

1.) John Doe, who can't even manage his own financial affairs, has never lead a large group of people, (much less an "entity" such as a business or a city), but has all these great ideas?

2.) Jane Smith, who has successfully managed a business or city to great advancements, has numerous contacts throughout the corporate and political world. Maybe her ideas aren't as appealing to you, but they do appear to be effective.

Personally, I know hundreds of people who think they could run our country better than the president (any of the presidents, as I've known these people off and on the last 29 years). And the majority of them can't even manage their own life, much less the lives of others. Sure, they've got some great sounding ideas, but will never get that chance because I wouldn't even put them in charge of my yardwork, much less my country.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Point being, is that, IMO, government is there to compliment the private sector. The government is more concerned with the organization of the population, the attitudes of the people as they live their lives. The government is also concerned with the interaction of its people, not specifically, but generally, by the enforcement of an accepted morals and ethics code. This allows are judicial/criminal system to directly influence the people.


I agree with what you say, I'm just not certain that it's a bad thing.



Originally posted by MemoryShock
The only way money comes into play here is, for the most part, operating cost. As to where the money goes.......it goes everywhere. That is what it does. Rich people losing means other rich people gain. The government, as long as it maintains operating cost, doesn't lose because it's not there to make money. It's there to operate and make functionable millions and millions of lives. The common man will always lose, or as I like to think, will always find another distraction.


(Blink)... You had me right up till that last sentance. I fail to see how the common man will always lose given your previous statements. Because of the Five Laws of Gold, if the poor wanted to be rich, they could. Since they choose not to be, then I don't see any reason for the rich or the government to have to do more than provide for their safety, infrastructure, and a relatively fair judicial system.

In my eyes, I have seen nothing that somehow entitles the "Common Man" to anything more than that. Most "commen men" I have known are petty, selfish, easily distracted, poorly read, and thriftless. This isn't to say that the rich can't be all those things as well, but that's not enough to condemn them. So as far as I'm concerned, if they lose out, it is, the majority of the time, they are the device of their own undoing.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Just to provide an example, there are hackers who make a nice living compromising a particular system, illustrating the problems to the business in question, and offering solutions. All under the guise of security/prevention.


I had to dig back a bit to find out what we were talking about at this point.

Yesss... this is true. And to be honest, it's not a "guise" if they are getting paid to do it. Just like there are "Sneakers", there are also "WOPRs" that sit around and think-tank every possible war scenario, and figure out ahead of time how to allocate the proper reasources in such a situation. Is it because they are -intending- on taking over the world? Probably not.

I would say that the more likely reason is that, in a true emergency situation, time is the single most crucial resource. If you have to decide on the fate of millions within the next five minutes, there isn't time to THEN gather a think-tank together and figure out what the death-toll projections are, the environmental impacts, the political and economic impacts, and so forth. You have to rely on previous research and projections in order to make the best educated guess at the consequences.

So yes, they plan for every possible scenario they can because, I re-iterate, it is their -job-. And most likely millions of lives have been, and will be saved in the future, because those projections are constantly updated. And maybe it doesn't always work, or things get worse. That's the case with every occupation. Sometimes (very rarely) I'll make a computer problem worse by trying to fix it, rather than actually fixing it. Failure does not make either of us the bad guy, it just means we screwed up.


Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by thelibra
Sometimes bad things just happen from a huge series of connected events, without an actual conspiracy being involved.


IMO, being incredibly rich and having the capacity to sway governments, it would concievably be very irresponsible to not have a "conspiracy.


And some do. I'm not saying there aren't conspiracies, I'm just saying that not everything is a conspiracy, nor are all conspiracies connected, nor are all the rich connected to one conspiracy, nor are all the rich a member of a conspiracy at all. Shucks, even poor people have their conspiracies.


Originally posted by MemoryShockThough inclusive of some "evil" elements, who is to say the "conspiracy" isn't with the best of intentions? Sometimes bad things do happen as a result of connected events, but sometimes as well the connections were intentional.


Sure, there can even be "good" conspiracies with "good" consequences as well. I don't deny either of these.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
The amount of money possessed by the upper tier allows them far greater flexibility in their day to day life.


Of course it does! And if we had no money, the amount of weapons would be the determining standard. Take away the weapons, it would be the amount of land one had. Take away all possessions, and even the concept of possessions, and the only remaining factor is one's physical condition.

There will -always- be -someone- better off, with more options, than the person below them. Money simply allows that disperity in the classes to be less life-affecting at the lower end. If it weren't money, but instead weapons, pacifists would starve. If it were land, the landless would starve. If it were phsyique, the weak would starve. But -almost- everyone has the ability to earn a living wage from which they can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Money is more than a mechanical definition of economics; it's influence effects attitudes and personalities.


I would agree with this. I, for one, feel a lot more confident walking into a store with a fat wallet than I do with a pocketful of lint. I also feel a lot less confident walking down a dark alley with a fat wallet than a pocketful of lint. Why? Because in both situations, people want what they don't have. My money enables me to obtain it, or alternately, allows them to obtain it.

But that doesn't make it a source of evil. It's just a vehicle.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Money and Hammer can both cause harm, but with a hammer, I know who swung it. Because of the inclusive factor of money, it could be construed that anyone and everyone swung, including myself.


On the contrary, you can blackjack someone quite easily with a hammer. As a veteran of harder times, I can quite definitely state that physical attacks, ranged or not, can be executed without the least knowledge of who or where they came from or why.

The same can be said for money, but it can also be said that money also has a higher chance of leaving a trail to follow in the form of receipts.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Since a lot of my rebuttal is based upon the lack of discipline by the poor,


I have to say this is an important factor. However, the discipline of the poor can probably be attributed to their education level. There were a couple of studies I ran across that focused on the socio-economic corrolation to educational level of society and the poor tended to be the least educated. Now that would be a given in my book, as with many I'm sure, but what you don't see in studies like that is oppurtunity.

Many of the reasons for motivation and life values are passed on by the parent to the child. If the parent was poor and not highly learned, than you have a high probablility for perpetuation. The young years are very important in development and if a child only encounters a reactionary attitude to its interactions, it's going to learn to shape it's world view in that fashion. My point is that discipline is a learned trait and many people do not encounter any way of developing this.

On a conspiracy note, Bertrand Russell said something to the effect that the chasm of difference in the education of the upper, or ruling class, and the lower classes is to be unfathomable to the lower classes to an extent that even the most over-achieving member would be unable to achieve status beyond their given parameters. Now, I believe this to be an exaggeration, to a point, but roughly it is the truth. The more I research the capabilities of the brain and the more literature I encounter regarding the current studies and understanding of the brain, the more I suspect that intelligence and speed of computation can be increased greatly with concentration. The key term here would be association. And this information isn't available to the lower classes, school is all about a vaunted view of history and literature that reinforces social standards....and memorization. There is no 'fluidity' in school, abstract thought and critical thinking, only staunch rigors and right and wrongs.

Not that it's necassarily a bad thing, but when you have an educational system that for the most part is set-up to instill a social behaviour and launch pad into a 9-5 reality, you're going to have many students completely miss the point.


Originally posted by thelibra
I will simply refer to another thread I started about how The 5 Laws of Gold can turn even the poorest schmuck into a millionaire within their own lifetime.


Unfamiliar with the 5 Laws of Gold and the link doesn't work.


Originally posted by thelibra
At least nowadays, Corporations have the decency to be sneaky about it and watchgroups and laws prevent a lot more than they allow. I agree, though, it is still heavily in favor of the Corporation, but it's actually gotten a lot better over the last century. There was a time when the corporations had the full power of the police and armed forces at their disposal, and would brazenly use it, with or without media coverage, and the President actually endorsed it publically.


Alot better for some........I am sure that blatant oppression still occurs. Also, the fact that they got a whole lot sneakier is probably the reason it can be described as better. Neuromarketing(check out soficrow's thread in ATSNN) and various other techniques as simple as more repition of the status-quo made possible by the communications technologies have resulted in a population that is firmly aware of what is expected and what isn't.


Originally posted by thelibra
Well, I look at it like this: Whom would you rather be the leader of our country?


A critical mind who doesn't have immediate interests in economy. But lacking that fairy tale, I see your point.


Originally posteed by thelibra
(Blink)........ then I don't see any reason for the rich or the government to have to do more than provide for their safety, infrastructure, and a relatively fair judicial system.


(Blink)....that was very well put, thelibra. I have never encountered such a statement and have to agree. There really is no reason to do more than that.......*walks away stunned*



Originally posted by thelibra
I would say that the more likely reason is that, in a true emergency situation, time is the single most crucial resource.


Another good point that I'm going to have to factor into manmy of my reasonings.


Originally posted by thelibra
On the contrary, you can blackjack someone quite easily with a hammer. As a veteran of harder times, I can quite definitely state that physical attacks, ranged or not, can be executed without the least knowledge of who or where they came from or why.

The same can be said for money, but it can also be said that money also has a higher chance of leaving a trail to follow in the form of receipts.


I think you took that abit too literally

But you're right in that money is just a vehicle........



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I have to say this is an important factor. However, the discipline of the poor can probably be attributed to their education level.


Agreed. Very much so. And though, past a certain age of accountability, education is up to the individual, an early-introduction to such practices can play a crucial role. As can school.

A thread with how I hope to correct the school system is www.abovetopsecret.com...'

In a nutshell, I want to revamp the school system to be modular (so no resources are outright wasted), utilize new technology (so as to be efficient), and tailor the education towards the student's desires, while turning that desire into a saleable skill. Finally, taking their experiences and applying it to real-world circumstances as opposed to just abstract fact and theory. This might help to close the gap a bit, and once I am rich and/or, I will begin a program of such schools.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
On a conspiracy note, Bertrand Russell said something to the effect that the chasm of difference in the education of the upper, or ruling class, and the lower classes is to be unfathomable to the lower classes to an extent that even the most over-achieving member would be unable to achieve status beyond their given parameters. Now, I believe this to be an exaggeration, to a point, but roughly it is the truth.


Oh, it is certainly true, but mainly because of the amount of time allotted in the human lifespan, and the power of interest over time. A rich person is more likely to have savings begun for them before they are even born, and left untouched perhaps indefinitely. Assuming an age of 21 as far as "moved out for good and 'working'" that savings will have doubled three times over by the time someone poor of really good discipline starts saving the same amount starting at age 21. That translates to 27 TIMES the amount of money. The Five Laws of Gold explains this in fuller detail.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
And this information isn't available to the lower classes, school is all about a vaunted view of history and literature that reinforces social standards....and memorization. There is no 'fluidity' in school, abstract thought and critical thinking, only staunch rigors and right and wrongs.


I definitely agree again. Check out the earlier thread about improving the school system. I'd like to hear your input on it.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Not that it's necassarily a bad thing, but when you have an educational system that for the most part is set-up to instill a social behaviour and launch pad into a 9-5 reality, you're going to have many students completely miss the point.


The problem is that the schools don't even give the student an education in 9-5 reality... they don't give them an education in -any- reality. At least a school geared towards 9-5 reality would help them get out of the gutter, but even "good" high schools don't give that much, they just produce higher grades.


Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by thelibra
I will simply refer to another thread I started about how The 5 Laws of Gold can turn even the poorest schmuck into a millionaire within their own lifetime.


Unfamiliar with the 5 Laws of Gold and the link doesn't work.


Sorry about that. Here's the direct link www.abovetopsecret.com...'

The thread covers what I have learned from George S. Clason's The Richest Man in Babylon. If you run across a copy, I cannot stress enough how much this book has changed my life for the better.

Note that in the first page or so, I made too broad of a statement at one point and had to make a corollary to correct it (namely that the people in question needed to be in a capitalistic economy in a country with roughly the same liberty level as America).


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Alot better for some........I am sure that blatant oppression still occurs. Also, the fact that they got a whole lot sneakier is probably the reason it can be described as better.


To be sure. Though a public entity can only be so sneaky before it's brought to light. So they get away with a few kickbacks and political favors now and then, it's to be expected to a degree in any form of government or corporate control, because the reason most people get to the top is through networking and alternating between back-scratching and back-stabbing. So long as it doesn't get to the point where there are blatant human rights violations, or other comparable measures of harm or bribery done, I don't usually have too much of a problem with it.

And it doesn't just happen at the top, it happens at every level. Restaurant workers routinely slip their friends and family extra food, for instance.


Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by thelibra
Well, I look at it like this: Whom would you rather be the leader of our country?


A critical mind who doesn't have immediate interests in economy. But lacking that fairy tale, I see your point.


(grins) Therein lies the rub. Though truthfully, I'd rather see someone who took -more- of an interest in the economy with an -educated- viewpoint on it. I'd probably vote Alan Greenspan for president if times were more peaceful.

I'm glad you brought all this back up. I missed having good discussions. That's not a knock against the other ATS members, but rather my month-long absence from ATS (and your good posts).



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
A thread with how I hope to correct the school system is www.abovetopsecret.com...

In a nutshell,.......


Interesting, I'll visit the thread and look further into your thoughts on this matter.....I have some opinions and theories regarding the educational sysytem myself and agree that the current incarnation of the school is inadequate.


Originally posted by thelibrathat savings will have doubled three times over by the time someone poor of really good discipline starts saving the same amount starting at age 21. That translates to 27 TIMES the amount of money.


Wow. That is a distinct difference. Also, I heard or read somewhere that the sociology sciences were the fodder of the rich, and that would seem to follow logically, just based in the fact that all that money usually goes into some form of project that invariably employs other people..... on a side note, the difference in perception a 'bigger picture' mindset as opposed to the average perception fraught with individual concerns is relevant as a large sum of money is what affords this concern. But I think this is me being repetitious.........


Originally posted by thelibra
The problem is that the schools don't even give the student an education in 9-5 reality... they don't give them an education in -any- reality. At least a school geared towards 9-5 reality would help them get out of the gutter, but even "good" high schools don't give that much, they just produce higher grades


To be sure, there is no real education being given for reality......but rather, and this is my opinion, the school system is actually preparing people for their social roles and reinforcing social behaviours. Since doing this on an individual level for every individual is fairly impossible, you have the generalized set of guidelines that encourages good grades and unimpactive social lives....unimpactive as it relates to the whole. The 9-5 reality is tis set of guidelines.......you go to work to earn money to justify the space you take up as well as to indulge in the various interests that enable the sating of the social impulses......in America, this formula has thrived and we find that many people get away with adhering to this standard without questioning it...(observation from my experience).......and indeed, I have encountered people with an inclination for curiosity, but rarely does it extend to beyond whatever passes for authority for them......I have had many frustrations in this direction.....at any rate.....it could be interesting to discuss the ramifications of a more lucid population as it would definitely have an impact on society as a whole, rather than streamlining the current system to create more efficient yes men and women...........a cynical view perhaps, and lacking the consideration of certain factors I'm sure, but that is my generalized position currently.....


Originally posted by thelibra
Sorry about that. Here's the direct link www.abovetopsecret.com...
The thread covers what I have learned from George S. Clason's The Richest Man in Babylon. If you run across a copy, I cannot stress enough how much this book has changed my life for the better.


Thanks for the link and I'll see about the book.......I'm intrigued.....


Originally posted by thelibra
because the reason most people get to the top is through networking and alternating between back-scratching and back-stabbing.


Good point and I find it relevant to note that we are a social species, in all socio-economic classes..........I'll keep that in mind.....


Originally posted by thelibra
So long as it doesn't get to the point where there are blatant human rights violations, or other comparable measures of harm or bribery done, I don't usually have too much of a problem with it.


Which leads me to one of my universal points, and that is that certain aspects of our society do engage in blatant human rights violations. Without getting too much into my reasons for such a statement, I'll cite the out-dated yet still relevant MK-Ultra project. The project used unwitting subjects for the purpose of establishing a quick and seamless way to induce a hypnotic state into unwitting subjects. That was forty years ago and I doubt all their efforts were in vain........the point being is that the mysteries of the mind are often relegated to the New Age section when in fact they are not only an important aspect of the human experience, but are used in it's many subtle intricacies for the manipulation of people who disregard the convoluted New Age philosophies.....for good reason as the expressions are usually devoid of much more than symbology.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about mind control, but it is an aspect of how are society interacts and any analysis of our evolution, or the distinction of the classes should include it. To get back to the title of this thread, I believe fnords are actually are interpretations of isolated observations of conspiracy. A variant among all people, this would explain why noone can agree on conspiracy, because we all utilize our spiritual understandings to explain our physical realities, something that popular culture encourages. I just happened to use science..........


Originally posted by thelibra
And it doesn't just happen at the top, it happens at every level. Restaurant workers routinely slip their friends and family extra food, for instance.


I appreciate your broad spectrum view point............


Originally posted by thelibra
I'd probably vote Alan Greenspan for president if times were more peaceful.


Lol.
Not that he doesn't probably enjoy more influence than the president where he's sitting right now.....


originally posted by thelibra
I'm glad you brought all this back up. I missed having good discussions. That's not a knock against the other ATS members, but rather my month-long absence from ATS (and your good posts).


Cool. I was a bit concerned that your reaction would be that of indignation at being called back to a thread that you may have decided to discard for good reason........This discussion, however, I do feel very interesting and you have brought up some excellent points that will compliment my own understandings.....in a word....thanks.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Interesting, I'll visit the thread and look further into your thoughts on this matter.....I have some opinions and theories regarding the educational sysytem myself and agree that the current incarnation of the school is inadequate.


Cool, I look forward to reading your viewpoints. Sounds like we have some similar views that education -needs- to be changed. It'd be interesting to note our differences in -how- it is to be changed.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
on a side note, the difference in perception a 'bigger picture' mindset as opposed to the average perception fraught with individual concerns is relevant as a large sum of money is what affords this concern. But I think this is me being repetitious.


Not just money, you can apply it to almost anything: land use for instance. An investment in even the crappiest land will pay off given a large enough timeline, especially if it is used right. Farmers must take a long-term approach to their fields in crop rotation, and type of crops grown.

It is said that "time is the great equalizer."

And while most people just nod when they hear this, they never really give it much thought. Remember how surprised you were at the difference that 21 years can make in terms of interest? Now imagine the difference that one lifetime makes. Or two or three lifetimes? The reasons that most rich and powerful families remain rich and powerful is because of the way they use the scant amount of time allotted to them on this Earth. If I could have the first 28 years of my life back, and know what I know now, I would break my first million in a few years. As it is, I will be a millionare before I retire. Given an extra 28 years, I would have several hundred million by the time I retire. Make that two or three generations, and my family becomes billionaires and Old Money in the same timeframe. Not because I was born rich, because I wasn't. Not because I came up with some amazing idea like pet rocks, and not because I won the lottery, but because I knew how to set money aside and never touch it, then let interest do the rest.

So the "truest" resource is neither money, nor power, nor land, it is time.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
To be sure, there is no real education being given for reality......but rather, and this is my opinion, the school system is actually preparing people for their social roles and reinforcing social behaviours.


I'm not entirely certain I agree at this juncture. I will have to give it some thought. My perception is that one's peers and parenting determine, to a much greater extent, the social role and behaviors of the person. The weaker the parenting, the more influence the peers have, and the majority of the time, the peers are going to be a bad influence, because they are children, and children's natural desire is to rebel, or at least get away with doing as little work as possible, and getting a free ride through life.

I grew up going to an elementary school so crime and poverty stricken, that one day the school had to close, because one of the students had their stomach slit open and their body hoisted up on the flag pole in the middle of the night. This child had done nothing to anyone, he just happened to be the unfortunate brother of a gang leader who crossed paths with a rival gang. The school did their best to provide a decent education. With me, they succeeded, and my social caste later became a nerd.

Later this changed to misfit, when I learned to pretend to be less interested in books, and stopped dressing in 70's Sunday school clothes, and still later my caste became a goth, and then a raver, and then finally, a legitimate businessman. Now I look something more like the dad from My Three Sons, and my jobs, for the majority of my working career, have been computer related.

The schools themselves never defined any of these rolls. There was never any encouragement from the schools for me to persue outside learning. I just did. They never had any influence on my style of dressing except to ban what they felt were "gang related" and "obscene" clothes. They never had any influence on my social behavior except insofar as breaking school rules, like fighting, etc. (and I still got in a lot of fights). As far as computers go, the only class on it in high school was a complete joke, where we learned how to make a simple little program in PASCAL, and maybe one in LOGO.

My father was the influence in terms of computers. It was his business, and he brought his business home, so by age 4 I was already using computers, and even being taken to the office sometimes to set DIP switches beneath the floor in the server rooms.

My friends were the influence on my clothing, because their opinions mattered, later the influence was that of the ladies, and what they felt was attractive.

My income was the influence on my lifestyle, as I had not yet learned to budget. If I made a lot of money, I lived high on the hog, if I made minimum wage (or less), I ate ramen and sometimes slept on the street.

So, really, all school provided was a vehicle for me to meet friends, enemies, and learn the basics of what I needed to continue my own studies elsewhere. That was only my experience though. I'm not sure how it affected my friends, I never really thought to ask.

I'll ask them and give it more thought.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
The 9-5 reality is tis set of guidelines.......you go to work to earn money to justify the space you take up as well as to indulge in the various interests that enable the sating of the social impulses......in America, this formula has thrived and we find that many people get away with adhering to this standard without questioning it.


But what makes this wrong? If it works, and the people are happy to go about their lives, ignoring the larger problems they leave others to solve, why should they not be allowed that luxury?


Originally posted by MemoryShock
I have encountered people with an inclination for curiosity, but rarely does it extend to beyond whatever passes for authority for them......I have had many frustrations in this direction.....at any rate.....it could be interesting to discuss the ramifications of a more lucid population as it would definitely have an impact on society as a whole, rather than streamlining the current system to create more efficient yes men and women.


I think of it like this:
In a democratic society, people have the right to not give a sh--. By doing so, however, they lose power. The level of power one wishes to attain is directly proportional to the amount of responsibility they are willing to shoulder.

Thus, the grunties who do the 9-5 each day, earn their wage, and spend it on distractions have chosen to leave the problems of the world to those who do not come home and watch reruns while eating Taco Bell. And they are happy with that arrangement. The economy is in a mess? Led the Federal Reserve sort it out. World at War? Let the Armed Forces sort it out. Diplomacy failing? Let the President sort it out. If the grunties don't like what is happening, they complain about it, vote for the other guy, maybe post their opinions and conspiracy ideas on a message board, and do little else.

How many people do you know see something truly horrible on the news, say "Gosh, that's horrible" and the only thing they do about it is discuss it on break the next day at work? I'm guessing most of them, if not all of them. That is the status quo. It is not something people are forced into, it is a conscious choice, made by the grunties.

Oh, if you want to know what I mean by grunties, check out the first definition on this link:
everything2.com...

Anyway, the Grunties aren't going to solve the world's problems, but someone has to.

That's where politicians and corporate CEOs come in. They aren't knights in shining armor, they're just people who decided to take responsibility for the world, and are doing it in a way that they feel is best, according to their views. For some people, best means genocide, and for some, it means philantropy. For most, it's greed.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
I believe fnords are actually are interpretations of isolated observations of conspiracy. A variant among all people, this would explain why noone can agree on conspiracy, because we all utilize our spiritual understandings to explain our physical realities, something that popular culture encourages. I just happened to use science..........


Which is probably why I enjoy speaking with you. I mainly use science, strength of evidence, and logic. But perhaps, rather than "interpretations of isolated observations of conspiracy", I'd say "...of a perceived conspiracy..." since, not all things are purposefully linked. Sometimes an event is nothing more than the sum of random events happening before it (or for the religious, it was just God's will).

But that also depends on one's view of what a conspiracy actually is. My personal view is that a conspiracy is a conscious effort to bring about a particular agenda, through obscurred means.


Originally posted by MemoryShock
Cool. I was a bit concerned that your reaction would be that of indignation at being called back to a thread that you may have decided to discard for good reason........This discussion, however, I do feel very interesting and you have brought up some excellent points that will compliment my own understandings.....in a word....thanks.


Heaven forbid I would ever have a reaction like that. I'd be interested in discussing anything about any previous thread. I'm just terribly forgetful and unobservant, which is one reason I like the "My ATS" portion of this board so much. It wasn't till you posted the reminder that I checked back... other than that, it usually takes a U2U to get my attention, cause I'm so wrapped up in other stuff... I'm enjoying this discourse quite a bit.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Not just money, you can apply it to almost anything:...[snip]

It is said that "time is the great equalizer."


Very true.........this is one of the universal axioms as it can apply to psycholgy as well.........


Originally posted by thelibra
If I could have the first 28 years of my life back, and know what I know now, I would break my first million in a few years.


I hear that........I went through your 5Laws Of Gold thread and found it very interesting.....quite simple rules of thumb that can invariably lead to success for anyone........there are exceptions I could note, but they are ultimately irrelevanty to the point you were trying to express. I believe I'll be joining you at the top..........


thelibra
I will have to give it some thought. My perception is that one's peers and parenting determine, to a much greater extent, the social role and behaviors of the person. The weaker the parenting, the more influence the peers have, and the majority of the time, the peers are going to be a bad influence, because they are children, and children's natural desire is to rebel, or at least get away with doing as little work as possible, and getting a free ride through life.


You state it right here as well as an implicit reference earlier in the thread......discipline is learned from the parents to a large extent and lacking that, the individual will turn to his/her peers. Peers are largely found in the school environment. Now, the defining of social roles can be a positive process or negative, depends largely on the circumstances of the individual, but the formative process occurs all over the school experience. One of the major personality defining points in an individuals life occurs at the end of junior high/beginning of high school......and that is puberty......these chemical reactions are going tocarry with them the associations gathered during the experience and alot of that experience, or focus, will occur in the school, where peers are being judged and percieved in a more direct fashion than before......since alot of eduacation ayt this point is caught up in memorization, the individual is being appealed to on different levels of thought......social and cognitive. This is relevant only because of the more pronounced chemical reactions and a default social reaction that isn't centered towards social interaction and curiosity will have a more difficult time with the learning process. And you find that the personal lives can be highly affected by other influences, such as the ego gratification medias and differing religious dogmas. Many careers are based in repitition(alot of the service industry is 'motor based') and there are even worse brain stimulations in a production line. No critical thought, unless extracurricular is emphasized and extracurricular is usually movies/religious groups/ and other individual interactions with static input levels.......there are exceptions, especially for the self-directed individual, but the over-whelming norm is not self-enlightenment.......usually the only interaction with the whole an individual is going to have is the voting process and consumption.............hhmmmm, I hope that isn't too much of a generalization...........


Originally posted by thelibra
But what makes this wrong? If it works, and the people are happy to go about their lives, ignoring the larger problems they leave others to solve, why should they not be allowed that luxury?


In light of this conversation, I am having a rough time in thinking anything other than, "There isn't anything wrong with this, with the caviet that individuals who want more need only to seek it and make it happen.......


Originally posted by thelibra
How many people do you know see something truly horrible on the news, say "Gosh, that's horrible" and the only thing they do about it is discuss it on break the next day at work? I'm guessing most of them, if not all of them. That is the status quo. It is not something people are forced into, it is a conscious choice, made by the grunties.


To an extent, I agree with this.....though I could probably make a case that it is not a conscious choice.......see this link....www.abovetopsecret.com....

I would also say that given the proper and an adequate amount of information, the individual can firmly take the reigns of his/her own destiny..........



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join