Originally posted by Shadowflux
I like your ideas and theories OP and it touches on something I've been thinking about after reading a lot of socialist and nihilist philosophies.
Perhaps the "Illuminati" or whatever they wish to call themselves are in fact acting in the best interest of the human species as a whole but I
don't believe they're acting in the good of the individiual.
So all these wars, suppression of democratic forces and the like are a backlash from evil humanity against the possibility of peace and prosperity for
everyone? Do you believe that?
Take, for instance, the reduction of world population to about 10% of the current population. When I truly thought about it, pondered it free
of outside thought, I realized it might be an ideal, a vertibale utopia for both man and nature.
Unless they decide to keep the 10% that are best indoctrinated to do their bidding? Isn't it more logical to presume that they are trying to get rid
of the majority who despise authoritarian rule?
Resources would be easier to come by and more effort and resources could be directed to scientific advancement.
Resources ARE easy to come by hence the overwhelming riches achieved by some in this world. The poverty and dire living situations of the majority has
everything to do with who controls the resources they used to have access to.
Health would improve, health care would be universal, economics would never fail, the list truly goes on. However, there is the small issue
of getting that 90% population reduction to happen.
Why would health improve if it has never benefited rulers to have strong uppity slaves? Why would health care be universal if they will assassinate
their own for going against their common interest?
I think this is the fundamental issue between our perception of good and evil. There is a praradox of sorts that exists due to the inherant
intangability of the term "evil". It would seem logically conclusive that one may practice "evil" as a means to attain "good". For instance,
if someone decided to commit armed robbery on multiple occasions he would be deemed a criminal yet if he took his loot and spread it among the
improverished single mothers of his neighborhood he would be branded as doing "good".
We all like the Robin hood mythology but who did he rob and who did he give to? You forgot to mention the fact that the fabulously wealthy are robbing
the completely impoverished of even their last piece of rotting food.
I think the main flaw in your argument would be the fact that "good" and "evil" are entirely subjective and not accountable to any
exterior objective deffinition.
I think it's accurate to claim that good and evil are in fact subjective terms but it's also well understood that human beings can interact and
communicate so effectively because there seems to be a very real relationship between sentience and empathy ( or in fact possibly the other way
round). This is why people can generally interact despite absence of a common language or even culture.
In other words, "evil" is just what you as a person deem to be evil based upon your own beliefs of what is "good". It is your beliefs
and your position in the world that makes you deem one thing good and one thing evil.
Which presumes that man is entirely the product of his environment and have absolutely no empathy. Since that is clearly not the case it takes a great
deal of propaganda and indoctrination to yield the type of person who may truly feel nothing for the suffering of others. There is after all a reason
why the powerful isolates themselves from the people they are exploiting; whatever humanity remain is clearly affected by observing the suffering of
When we are talking about concepts such as "The Illuminati" and "NWO" we have to keep in mind the subjective relativity of "good" and
If we propose to defend their actions...
Perhaps those that are illuminated do not believe they are doing wrong and are in fact working for the ultimate survival of humanity as a
species in a multi-planet or galactic wide future. However, to acheive this ultimate utopia certain sacrifices must be made, people have to die,
buildings must be destroyed and old concepts of thought and philosophy must be abandonned.
And that's the type of arguments all people who live under the boot of others have to make to stay sane and keep themselves from doing something
obviously dangerous like fighting back. Sure the possibility exists that these people are somehow entirely human ( but refuse to act that way) and
that they have decided that we can not be trusted with the truth you proposed but if that was the case why not arm us all to teeth and prepare the
planet for sustained multi- generational combat? As it is they seem to wish to take all our weapons from us and hand it to their functionaries which
are for the most part best equipped to suppress humanity and not to fight aliens?
Much like when a child recieves a shot from the doctor, we must do harm to the child in order to protect his or her future even if the child
itself is incapable of understanding our need to cause him pain.
It makes more sense, if you believe as i do, that there is almost no good in inoculations or vaccinations and that they are resulting in more deaths
and general health issues than they are pretending to prevent.
I think this is where the perception of the "Illuminati" as "evil" comes from. It is the fact that as children we can't see the bigger
picture, we can't understand why there must be pain and suffering even if we want that same utopia they're offering.
So i suppose i am a bit of a child then for wondering why there is so much suffering in a world where everyone could easily be fed and cared for while
still allowing for a small minority to build their various palaces? And if your idea of suffering is working ten our days in a air conditioned office
you obviously don't have to respond as you don't know anything any ways.
Take for instance the rebellous southern states during the American Civil War, they viewed the northern act of withdrawing slavery from
their economy as evil and wrong yet the northern states felt the same in reverse in regards to southern slavery.
The North were employing wage slavery ( no capitol expenditure so you can just work your lowly paid temporary employee to death and then get more)
while the South were employing physical slavery to achieve the same general ends. Since this was a war of economics the South well understood that it
would lose all the capitol it expended to buy slaves. Your argument is however mostly undermined by the fact that the war was not started to set
anyone free hence the fact that Americans were still living in a third world country thirty years later and 50 years before the term came into
Take also the Nazis, who believed they were doing good and felt it was their duty to eliminate all genetically inferior peoples yet we don't
have to look far to find an account of how evil the Nazis were.
So a few Nazi's really believed that with the majority of even Nazi's just being typical opportunist that saw which way the wind was blowing and how
to get their bread buttered. Even the seemingly 'evil' among don't generally start out that way instead being drafted into those systems by trying
to gain security for themselves and their family by pretending ( and mostly doing so) to serve those who hold power.
This fact works in the microcosm as well. Any outside force that we are powerless to stop and that we deem to be acting against our best
interest is deemed "evil" in differing degrees.
This is not so as the vast majority of human beings do not club other people to death because they do not get their way. We are social 'animals' and
we have a pretty good understanding of what we can , in economic terms, expect from our fellows. The reason we are winning the democratic struggle so
slowly is mainly because the average human being have pretty low expectations when it comes to living standards and will choose base survival over
risk and possible wealth ten times a day every day of the week.
The drug dealers on the street are "evil" but not as "evil" as the rapist who in turn is not as "evil" as the serial killer.
I wont spell out what i can see myself personally doing to the last two types but the first is mainly serving the market. If our society were not so
hopelessly torn apart and suffered the things we are people might not be so interested in opiates.