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.

 

Why the Elites hate white culture more than any other.

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


No. I have no problem with the white people who I had to study. They were pioneers in science and the arts. If you love the subject you find the colour is immaterial. Anyone upset about the white pioneers I mentioned are fools and you must not worry about them,




posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I provided a link about Charles the 1st which proves you dead wrong, and you still insist you are right, that is some heavy denial. Then you post this nonsense.


Then you clearly failed to understand anything your own source said.


No, Bell did not pioneer wireless communication. You should be embarrassed by how far you are reaching for with this nonsense.


Actually, asking for a further clarification of "wireless communication" isn't "reaching." And yes, actually, the photophone was the direct precursor of "morden" wireless technology. If you like, I could instead give credit to Thomas Edison, who patented radio five years later?

Seriously, it appears you're the one with no clue what you're talking about.



It posits that whites are specifically targeted by "the elites," does it not? Why are they targeting whites? According to your first post here,


Read the title of the thread. What part of "more than any other" don't you get? Clearly there is recognition that other cultures are hated by elites.


It still sets whites apart as a "special" target, and posits that the reason for this is because of how goddamned awesome "white culture" is compared to everyone else.


You don't post quotes to the things you claim I said, because I never said them. All you do is spin nonsense. It is old.


Congratulations, you're a liar.


Yes, other cultures experimented with steel production, but Bessemer made it happen. I am not trying to take away from other cultures, just trying to give credit where credit is due.


Actually, by belittling the steel production around the world prior to Bessemer by dismissing it as "experimentation," in effect claiming that only mass production "really counts," you in fact aretaking away from other cultures.


As far as your historical time line on the development of steel is concerned, it is not only not complete but filled with false conclusions, it is part of the racists rationalizing the people who produce this stuff put out. Various cultures experimented with steel productions without success.


it seems to me your standards for "success" is whether or not a technology was made by whites. if it was, it is "successful," if it wasn't, it's only "an experiment." I suppose when that hypothetical Indonesian guy improves on Bessemer's design., you'll claim he "stole" the idea, yes?


Bessemer didn't get lucky, he made numerous major technical breakthroughs, but far be it for you to ever recognize a white person ever succeeding at anything, except through pure luck.


Except I never said that Bessemer "got lucky" - you're lying again. I said that he improved on existing technology.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


Think about it.


Her point was that being PC is not necessarily combative against racial discrimination or prejudice, but rather it is usually a stripping of all possible language for fear of using the wrong one. This is the true semantic argument: a word can hurt in some contexts and help in others, why ignore the good in light of the bad. The word itself is neutral until we apply incorrect meaning through ignorance.


Maybe white culture is the wrong term, or maybe not. Maybe we could use the term, first world nation culture, but it gets pretty watered down. The term "white culture" might not be exactly correct, but it does have its meaning, and obviously the constant negative reactions demonstrate this.

Why else would you make this comment?


Lot of ignorance in the first two posts on this thread.

Oppression does not create culture.

Culture is not linked to race:


Just because you don't agree with the phrase, you strike out calling the whole post ignorant.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Ever heard of Tesla or Marconi?

Call me what you want, you are only making yourself look bad here.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
Lot of ignorance in the first two posts on this thread.

...Or perhaps Bulgarians, being Turkic people, speaking a Slavic Language, practicing Christianity and using the Cyrillic (Russian) Alphabet. Wow....

White culture, whatever you assume that may be, is not any more likely to fight oppression than Black culture. However, at least with Black Culture, we know we are referring to African Americans, who do share cultural and linguistic traits. If one were to apply "Black Culture" to the whole of Subsaharan Africa, then of course it would be just as farcical as "white culture" being applied to the whole of Europe, albeit rather haphazardly.


Africa is a diverse continent with more variations than white people culture. If you compared apples with apples you would have just talked about white American culture when you compared all white people to African Americans.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


If I'm reading correctly, so far we have three theories of elites here on this thread.

1. The illuminate - a deliberately constructed, sect comprised of people with ancient knowledge.

This ideal is shrouded in confusion as much as mystery. It seems to me to be our own construct, (like tribal people might create). I fear the idea of giving such people presence as it creates them and enables those that may well fit the bill.

2 & 3 Our ideas are similar but different.

My main analogy is that we are elites to aboriginals. We don't make sense and have too few moral constraints. We are elites to Muslims by the same dichotomy. Islam attracts tribal people, gives them rules and helps them catch up on the aeons of evolution / slavery / obedience they missed out on. It's not a clear analogy, but the fear being expressed is fear of change and fear of freedom to do as you please.

Similarly, an aboriginal thinks I'm white and have no soul, that I don't use my heart and don't care about my family - I can't even talk to them when they are away unless I phone them... I don't see the damage I do to my soul when I cheat myself etc. Sound familiar?

That example was the intent in my 3rd world v 1st world comparison. They have their massa, but even they look to the 1st world as a place where dreams come true.

Us middle class people are just like the aboriginal when we think about the next level. I mentioned some billionaires who are getting along just fine. Like us, it's just as possible for my friend who's heading to Tibet to have a clean soul and peace of mind. In our connection she isn't limiting me - I do that. I know that she considers he position in society as above me and I've tried to break that down for her, thinking deep down she has a bigger picture where we are equal... but I digress.

What I'm saying is that it's all relative. We don't care about our families much but migrants from poor countries do, and they benefit from that. Jews and Masons demand that you help your own kind at the expense of others - same thing but institutionalised in the culture. Christians help each other too. It creates prosperity.

We can see the elites as parasites and they are, but so are we. I must add that the most notable difference between them and me is that they don't care if they kill the host. It never affects them. I can only guess that this is caused by feeling of class superiority. They may care on many levels and be more charitable than others on occasion - especially to each other, and show class with entrenched cultural, well thoughtfulness (*there's a common term that eludes me), but what we see as sacred is just the hum of the lower classes.

They don't allow people to complain. White guilt fits in here. The person below always gets less for his / her efforts. The higher you go the more you profit. It's a way of thinking that we can all do, but the dichotomy exists because of a hierarchy and when people start complaining they / we lose ground. In this scenario I can see where white people are a threat.

Now that I've started on this tangent I want to add that most of us here judge people based on their class and generosity is a key indicator. Likewise, regardless of how wealthy someone is, if they are tight fisted and money grabbing over little things I assume that money is new to them and they don't know how to use it. If you know what things are really worth, rather than the bottom line, you'll always get more back. "A poor man can't afford cheap articles".

So, here we are behaving a little conceited and under no circumstance questioning our position in the ladder. We have an unknown enemy that we can't understand except to say they have a different mindset and a shared feeling of superiority. Our sense of superiority makes it alright to own a PC built in sweat shop. We may not be characters in a Dickens novel but we are in the pages somehow.

The elites are just the same. The only analogy I have left is one that seems obvious to me now, but struck me as odd. When I studied criminology I decided to interview street walking prostitutes. I had before been to the area to help them when I was a Christian and I just figured that selling your body for sex with no love would tangibly burn up your soul. I doesn't. There's only a social stigma and the underlying reasons you'd do that, but many of the girls I met were very pleasant and well adjusted people. Two who I met, attended my university and one was filthy rich. My assumptions were totally groundless, just like the expectations we put on the elite people's soul.

They don't have to be different to us. Knowing your position in society is a powerful force. They bind together just as well as we all do. In fact if they may well not like the archetypal "white people" (as portrayed here) because we are actually a concern and of course they'll use their clout to control what is considered good and bad - but on an arbitrary level. What's important isn't in the specifics or agenda's. We are talking about power relations and if I or you contest one of them, say in court, they'll spend $1 million to save $10 just to make a point of who's the boss.

The biggest power the elites have is through their minions and as people like to enjoy wealth vicariously they have many. The more insecure that they are, the more they show off what their wealth. Tiffany's jewellers makes billions not from having the best quality, but from being the biggest suck ups with the most recognisable brand. they'd go out of business if they cut their prices.

Those people behind the PC that inflicts white people are the elites, just like white Americans are the elites to African Americans when they create people like "TheWalkingFox" who try to beat you at your game without having a clue what it is. If the society threatens elites, it could be jealousy or even just one disgruntled elite with enough clout to destroy something we created, like a whim.

I don't know what the picture looks like at the top. I don't think there is a top to the pyramid. God (or an ever expanding universe if you like) is at top and below is "all bubble and squeak and then you die"



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
With a thread that proposes that there is an "Elite" that hates "white culture" more than any other, I guess it's not too surprising that the discussion is finally coming down to "who" those elites are.

I see that squandered has made a very nice contribution to the thread, attempting to summarize some of the general theories offered so far about these elite.

This happens to be a topic I've written about, and I have my own ideas, certainly not presented here to denigrate the ideas of anyone else. Clearly, there are excellent observations that have been made thus far, and in regards to squandered, who apparently personally knows a billionaire, well, there aren't very many of us who can make that claim.

Personally, I have had only one billionaire client, and a couple others who are half-way there to the billion mark, and I would not say that I "knew" them, that would be a big stretch. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify that I do NOT consider these people to be part of the "Elite", with the capital "E" that I generally speak of when treating of the Elite who are running the world.

Actually, a billion dollars (or pounds even) is not that much anymore, compared to those who have accumulated multigenerational wealth, and a corresponding power, that, as I've said before, makes the wealth of Bill Gates look small.

So WHO exactly are the people I speak of, who can be somehow separated from the likes of Bill Gates, at one time the wealthiest person in the world (according to Money Magazine!)?

We actually KNOW who they are! And yet, we have succumbed to their manipulations, and they are not so much in our minds, when it comes to this issue. They have succeeded in herding our minds in different, modern directions, and they surely laugh as we faun all over the nouveau riche they allow to remain in the headlines, while they go about their business, a business that has gone on, some say, for millennia.

Have I dropped enough "hints"? Can someone come in to this thread now and finally enlighten us to who our real ENEMIES are? No, perhaps few will agree with my assessment, but I am not alone in my thinking.

Again, I do not wish to put-down the many thoughtful ideas shared so far in this thread, but from my perspective, we seem to be ignoring the proverbial elephant in the living room...

JR



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


"Clearly, there are excellent observations that have been made thus far, and in regards to squandered, who apparently personally knows a billionaire, well, there aren't very many of us who can make that claim."

Maybe 50+ million, but it's all hidden. The banker maybe.. 10 million, though her dad is CEO of a major Hong Kong company, so it's hard to say. I actually know quite a lot of people in that bracket, because of my work.

me



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I've read the names, but they don't mean much to me...
Bankers mainly. Puppet masters behind the wars. Connected to the British royalty along with the Vatican. Free Masons and Jews and other sects...

The billionaire (as I described her) supposedly doesn't rate as elite, even though $1b may be correct. I've had this conversation with a friend who believes in Aliens and Illuminate. I'm not sure if I can cut her, (but she's not on your list) as she has a hand in all the highest circles, constantly rubbing shoulders with world leaders. Her money is new, but it's derived from high level investments. She swaps jobs constantly just for interests sake. I must say of all the people I've met she is the most 'above the law'. Nobody can blag like she can.

Okay, I give up. I discredited myself enough. No need to explain.

NB: of course you don't "know" the billionaires if you're in England. I new such people there too, but obviously the class regime is much more pronounced.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


My intention was not to strike out all the points you posit or the other person. Keep in mind that ignorance should not be taken as an insult unless it is self-desired.

I agree in that yes, there is a culture of which you speak. Due to poor historical perspective in this nation, many call it white culture, but as we sit here in the US, it is the intersection of American and Western Culture. In reality, we may call it capitalist culture.

I feel that the legitimate cultural, social and linguistic processes that have taken off since the beginning of the modern Western (and/or American) consumerist society have imbalances because consumerism itself has imbalances.

You cannot claim "White Pride" for being a consumerist. In fact, it's a misnomer, because it is not a strictly "white" phenomenon.

As an American of European decent, you and I see the "Black Power" and "Orgullo Latino" (as well as every other) movements as unique and, in a sort of schadenfreud-meets-stockholm-syndrome sort of way, we tend to both envy, become enamored with, and finally detest everything about those movements all at once. But as the majority of the population, over all - and especially as represented by the media - it hurts even more because we are not as bicultural as we once thought. We try to recuperate our Old World roots, whether they be Italian or Irish as in my case, or Polish or German and so on. However, we cannot recuperate something that is not present.

I for one, will have the traditional Italian Christmas Eve, because my family maintains that tradition (probably due to its saliency). There are probably another handful of traditions that mostly center around various cultural processes. Off hand, I would say that my eating habits are to an extent dictated by my Italian heritage. Other than that, I could probably go through an encyclopedia of Italian cultural traditions that occur in everyday life that I do not partake in.

Instead, those daily routines are very much American/Western/Consumerist. I don't walk to work, I drive. I don't think about coffee the same way. I don't shop for groceries the same way. I don't pay attention to the same media. I don't speak the same language! There are so many things in my day to day life, from the smallest to the most general, that simply are foreign (literally, in all respects of the word).

We feel a need for a "White Culture" movement, which I understand to mean non-White Supremacy, but rather simply Pride or (Em)Power(ment). The truth is that while as a group, people of European ancestry are overly represented in all functions of society that control the lower rungs, those same European descendants are also in and amongst the lower and working classes.

In reality, the movement you seek needs to be completely devoid of notions of "racial" or ethnic identity, because it is the movement of the above mentioned power structure of mostly European ancestry with which we must distance ourselves. The yearning we have for a pride movement is the lack of social activism to solve our problems. Our culture actually has grown to make protest a taboo, unless you have weird hair, or are a degenerate or homosexual, or have loose morals.

Why do you think the Tea Party was so popular? Not because as the left parrots (There is a Black Man in the White house and it angers the middle section of this country, or something to that effect). But it is also not because of what the Right claims, they are people fed up with the nation.

In fact, it could be categorized as all of that and then some. A (so-called) White Empowerment movement (again, not supremacy) would manifest itself naturally as the Tea Party, because it is not the racial homogeneous aspects of the movement, but rather the eerie similarity with the ruling class (perhaps why the premise of this thread may be correct after all!). The movement cannot be about race...it must intermingle with the other people who do not fit this mold ethnically or image-wise. To date, the Tea Party has been portrayed as largely filled with Status Quo:

-Typical American dress - not some hippy outfits or dredlocks.
-Organized and to date not confronted with police dispersal.
-Coopted by a major political party.

All three of those points make the Tea Party a halted protest. The Tea Party is the "white" power movement (for lack of a better term based on the conversation we are having. The Republican establishment co-opted it: Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and others...You can't have a protest movement that mimics status quo...it's not possible; it's not real reform.

The Tea Party has valid grievances when allowed to speak freely. Of course, there will be racist in the ranks, but that could be solely due to the media image given to the movement just before it was co-opted and ever since.



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by squandered
 


That's what I said:

Black Power (as a term referring to African-Americans) is legitimate, because as a group they share ancestry in the melding of different African traditions from multiple cultures and languages during the period of slavery, which in our case means the Antebellum South.

Negritude or Negrismo is the same phenomenon coming out of different contexts within the French- and Spanish-speaking Caribbean, respectively.

None of these terms would be appropriate within Sub-Saharan Africa. Black (or Negre/Negro) would be of little consequence in most parts of modern Post-Colonial Africa. Everyone is "black" so how can making an empowerment movement based on skin color be of any relevance to status quo (except perhaps back during sustained, overt colonialism by "white," European powers. Nowadays, status quo is out-sourced by European and American corporations to native despots and oligarchies.

The fight is about oppression, not skin color. The many tribes of Africa fight, because as they are all oppressed in different ways, some see others as a problem. In the end, it's still the corporate interests of American and European organizations that really cause the corruptions, but the "white" face is no longer present - just the results of "white" (a.k.a. Western, a.k.a. capitalist) rule.

EDIT: I must make it crystal clear that I do not think that any random person with "white" skin should be shamed or feel guilty. When I say "white" culture (in quotes), I mean "western" or "capitalist" or "consumerist" culture - also referred to as "Pop" culture. It's all the same thing. Coincidentally, it's face is white in the western world, but that does not mean that white people are not victims. Are Black American people not victims of black crime? Surely we cannot say all black people are criminals if black people are also victims of innercity (a.k.a. "Black") crime, correct? How can we then say that all "white" people are perpetrators of western oppression when they are also oppressed, also enslaved (no chains these days - slavery has been outsourced to banks and credit cards)?
edit on 27-1-2011 by Sphota because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I've heard of both. I was unaware that Tesla had a hand in any wireless communication innovations, though. Marconi simply took an existing technology - radio - and improved on it.

And I only called you a liar because you're claiming to have not said the things I quoted from you.


I want to make something clear to you, something you're just not getting. I have no notions that whites have never done anything. Of course they have. My dispute is with your attributing everything worthwhile in the modern world exclusively to them and dismissing everyone else's achievements as either nonexistent or inconsequential.

That and I still want a definition of "white culture."



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


To the point, modernisation is about choices and the lack of distinction is forward more toward backwardness.

So blacks in Africa have a smaller focal point, yet.. just yet.. they are the same.

NO

The white wash has removed all the innocence from every tribe and we are all the same in our aggressive pursuits of Capitalism - small c survival.

NO

Which race has the script to way lay Satan and his neurological bent?
Look how easily we (most) fall into prey.
Where are the answers if not inside you and me and darky over there?

It's always the same issue = over thinking.

The Japanese enslaved the Indonesians, Australians and maybe Americans, but they never tried to enslave the indigenous people in the same lands because they decided they were incapable of work.

It's not true. There is an innocence in all of us that makes us impenetrable. Anyone reading this must ask themselves if they can lose their hopes to serve any ideal. Like homer, like the monkey holding onto a can stopping him get free of the vending machine, we go on... and on.

We create the elites and empowerment to the masses is the decision to create the elites we want. You get the government you deserve - stop scapegoating (not you).

I'm a gun at on-line browser based war games. My secret is paranoia. I often imagine that is the worst they could do to us and I spread it all around as food for thought for our side. If the people who talk of elites as a concrete sect were a side group on a forum I'd feel empowered. I'd use some ideas, maybe. Mostly, I'd locate those who are in the game and put them under my thumb or if they are all on the sideline - ignore them.

It's not like they (masses) understand. They can.. they chose not to. It's only simple. We all live and die.

""western" or "capitalist" or "consumerist" culture"

This is not the enemy. It is it own victim of complicated dogma - none of which will stick. Wait until the next 'race' (or what have you) is dominant and reassert the same accusations there - they'll be fed by billions of like minded losers. You haven't understood. Short thinking is the trouble. Innocence is lost.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


The thing is white people made it work.

There was something in their culture that brought the best ideas to the fore - say 1% of what was there to be had. We all know how many wasted ideas died in cultures that didn't see the benefit but your use of white people belies a real problem in your thinking.

I have a tasty tangent. If one guy sees the way to jet propulsion, 20 more do at the same time. The race is on. Some of your examples are proof of that... This is factual - there were many at the same time on that one.

Me, I've been led to dreams with blueprints I still can't understand, but I was 10
To me, I've two thoughts. 1. I could help win a war but my ideas may go wasted and, 2. some other more worthy recipient gets the glory, later - as and when.

There's no point going to extremes to highlight the people who had an idea but didn't use it. Sure they are as great as the next guy, but they failed in their society and they failed. That's how history writes itself. Smarter people than you or I understand nothing else. Call them elites.. your shortfall paints you as a post-digger. Massa never brought you high. What are you fighting?

I hate PC
You can be what you what to be.
Just not on your terms.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Thank you J R for your kind words and your thoughts, which have given me a few extra things to ponder.

I'm very curious as to who you think sits at the top of the pyramid.
I look forward to your revelation.
It sounds like it could be someone who, so far, has flown under the radar.
Until you get around to posting it, I'll have a long think on who it might be.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I could go one for days about the education system we even had the house system used in English public schools. When we went into the new school year and reralised that we were going to do Shakespeare we were upset at having “Dead white authors”. Now We had an excellent teacher and Macbeth had everything - murder, madness and a hint of the supernatural which made it a hit with teenage boys! Okay some people pushed the black nationalist angle most of us did but we also had a love of the achievements that the whites had made.

The situation was very complex. We were part of the British empire. The demagogues were courted by the CIA and put into office. They were all educated outside of the country and had all the “hate white” rhetoric.

All over ATS you have heard me denouncing black demagogues like Sharpton the NOI etc. I was carefully trained as a teenager for a bush war that included crowd control and house to house fighting via national service. WTF a few years later when TSHTF the same techniques were used to quell civil unrest. Sttrange ?? Hell no the Black leadership ensured that we were trained in attacking our own people there was no foreign invader! I am not unique in this respect many from the former colonies know all about this stuff and the benefit of the Colonial education. In fact what sort of education can you have without white historical figures in science and the art????

Education and brutal honesty will inform many as to the real state of the world. Where there are contradictions these are areas that give us a deeply insight into the very nature of reality. The inheritors of the British educational system adore that system because it allowed us to integrate educationally.

Yes the maths was good and rigourously taught. In fact the basis for my future education was pure British. Don’t get me wrong when I went to Britain there was racism BUT the education allowed me to avoid some of the problems. I am not a freak. Thewreis a love hate relationship here but overall many owe their livelihoods to the British education system.

Whilst I was in the Black led country I nearly got heat stroke waiting to see the moonrock which came via the USAID library. 2 Years ago I went Cape Canaveral to see all of the spaced stuff and the actual mission control room. The same US library introduced us to American authors and the music of the a cross section of rock musicians including the Carpenters, Chicago, Steppenwolf as well as Curtis Mayfield.

I have little problem with white people because I don’t have any fear of them and also because I can honestly acknowledge what was done both good and bad.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by squandered
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I've read the names, but they don't mean much to me...
Bankers mainly. Puppet masters behind the wars. Connected to the British royalty along with the Vatican. Free Masons and Jews and other sects...

The billionaire (as I described her) supposedly doesn't rate as elite, even though $1b may be correct. I've had this conversation with a friend who believes in Aliens and Illuminate. I'm not sure if I can cut her, (but she's not on your list) as she has a hand in all the highest circles, constantly rubbing shoulders with world leaders. Her money is new, but it's derived from high level investments. She swaps jobs constantly just for interests sake. I must say of all the people I've met she is the most 'above the law'. Nobody can blag like she can.

Okay, I give up. I discredited myself enough. No need to explain.

NB: of course you don't "know" the billionaires if you're in England. I new such people there too, but obviously the class regime is much more pronounced.


Thanks squandered, yes, you understand the distinction I was trying to make.

The "Elite" with the capital "E" I usually talk about has little to do with today's growing class of "billionaires", the ones we read about in magazines, many who are "self-made", or who had humble beginnings, such as Warren Buffet, or Sam Walton, etc.

While there is no doubt that anyone, regardless of their background, who has considerable wealth also enjoys the power that goes with it, they are still not to be compared to the class you refer to in your first paragraph, "royalty", the Vatican, etc.

Of course, it's not quite as simple as finding those with revered noble titles, nor is it as simple as laying all evil at the doors of the Vatican. As far as getting into "aliens", I actually don't think it's necessary to go there. Not that such a thing is impossible, but it's just that there is enough evidence with a more mundane approach, and considering Occam's Razor, maybe the aliens can come out later.

For now, what I find very interesting is that the "real culprits" are so seldom mentioned. Just look at this thread. Here we are supposed to be concerned with a topic that suggests that an "elite" hates white culture, and consequently is now doing nasty things, such as launching a vile PC campaign, and yet, people seem mostly satisfied with vague notions, when it comes to really pin-pointing who's responsible.

I don't say this to put-down others who honestly feel that things are as simple as the wealthy, acting wealthy. That's not entirely false obviously, but it's a long way from getting to the bottom of it.

SO, I'll now lay out a bit of my opinion concerning the culprits who may be behind much of what we are complaining about in this thread.

They are exactly the people who we read about in our history books. In some ways, this "story" about ages gone-by, is a story about "them". Is it any surprise that we learn about kings and queens, and popes instead of paupers?

For the most part, we're reading "family" history, not about some vague "European" family, as in a brotherhood of related peoples. No, "European history", which increasingly became a more global history, as they more or less conquered the world, is a history of A family, as odd as putting it that way may sound to some.

Primarily through the spread of the Church in the New World through Spain, along with the transmission of the cultural values that went right along with it, and together with the sprawling British Empire, also vigorously spreading it's cultural values; what was once "European" history could now be accurately seen with deep footprints, worldwide.

"Who" is this "family"? They are the Nobles of course! Perhaps a big let-down to some, arriving at something so old, and tired, is certainly not as exciting as "reptilians", or what not. Also, if this was true, it does somewhat undermine the more progressivist paradigms that seem to almost dismiss this old element as irrelevant today, as humanity "evolves", as humanity has thrown off the yoke of old, etc.

But "what if" it was STILL, the very same people for the most part, who even today retain tremendous power? Even though they have us all so fascinated with ourselves, our "progress", our modern technology, our constant entertainments...Shouldn't we ask ourselves the obvious question: Did they really give up their vast power, as we assume? If so, why? What would have made them "choose" to step back, and allow the common man "free reign"?

I may have skipped past an important point, at least for those not very familiar with the ways of our "noble" masters. I referred to "A" family. In fact we will find that they are exactly that, with all the noble European clans very much intermarried, very much related, very much...FAMILY.

I hear the protests now: "But they have fought each other!" "The English were ENEMIES of the Spanish!" "What about the World Wars??"

Well, I'm sure I'm not about to convince the world of anything that our masters have spent so much time and resources removing from the popular mind-set.

Religionists often like to joke about the Devil's neatest trick, convincing the world that he doesn't exist.

It's something like that. Today, we certainly hear of royal frolics and foibles. Europe remains very interested in any and all things that the nobles are up to. Americans may not realize this, but some of this "romance" remains even for colonists, who still adore the British Royals, at least, with many still practically in love with the deceased Diana.

Again, "what if" this is more than just a circus show, this noble getting that one prego, the next one dumping that one, yet another photographed nude on some beach, blah, blah, blah?? Of course this is seemingly all we have to focus our attention on, but why should it be otherwise? Yes, the paparazzi may run around taking pictures, there's obviously a market for it, but have these nobles really shared with us what they're up to in their private lives? Does a photo with a topless princess make us think that they are just like we are, perhaps disarming us in the process?

I'm certainly not suggesting that they're "more" than human, they're not gods, but it's not too unreasonable, I think, to imagine that the majority of their concerns are not for public consumption. Indeed, even the nouveau riche know enough to keep their business concerns as private as possible. Of course, considering the magnitude of the crimes most are up to, this simply makes good sense. Or perhaps you just imagine that New York's Mayor Bloomberg is just a nice Jewish boy?

All of this goes "double" we might say for those who have been handed tremendous responsibility, as the baton is passed to them from the previous generation. Yes, this "multi-generational" factor is actually something to focus on, if we are to understand this issue better.

As I make distinctions between the billionaires of today, versus those of noble extraction, one of the most important issues (after we recognize the family relatedness), is the fact that these dynasties have been centuries in the making. We are not looking at Adnan Khashoggi (oh, that's right, no one remembers this "richest man in the world" anymore), we're not looking at Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.

These last two are very interesting by the way, let me take a small side excursion. Notice how both of these characters are at the forefront of magnanimously giving away their fortunes? No, they aren't about to go broke in the process, but both have been given audiences with true power-brokers, and the connections can be made. When Buffet lands in a helicopter on a Rothschild estate, and comes out a few hours later, we can probably assume he was there for more than just an orgy!

Why is it that the Rothschild clan can go back centuries, and yet nouveau riche Buffet is seemingly told to divest himself? Oh I know this is perhaps too much speculation, but I suppose it's more important to these individuals to have future generations remembering their generosity, instead of having to deal with their progeny too much, who could perhaps become "competition" to the real "lasting" powers, at some future time.

There are other historical instances and indications of a rather selfish elite that prefers, for whatever reasons, not to allow too much riff-raff into the bloodlines. Look at Napoleon. Like Alexander the Great, occasionally an unstoppable figure bursts in upon (their) history. But let's really look at Napoleon...The man who conquered his world, declared himself "emperor", had the Church even bowing before him...but only for a little while. This guy ended up on Elba, as we recall. And yet, for a relatively brief time after, his heirs retained some power, but in the long run, it certainly did not last.

So back to the multi-generational issue. I realize this is already long, but I would like to leave the reader with something to consider. "If" we were an heir to a dynastic fortune, centuries in the making, what would that "look like"? Would we simply be given a pat on the back, and a short bit of advice from mother and father to at least try not to contract a venereal disease, as we romped about with our immense fortune?

Hardly. If we were heirs to the kind of wealth and power I'm speaking of, it would quite likely come right along with everything necessary for us to RETAIN that wealth and power. We could perhaps see the advice we would receive, passed down through so many generations, as part of our family "responsibility". It would be more than just "stay our of trouble", it would be more like, "YOU are now charged with conducting yourself like a Windsor (or insert your favorite noble here). You will be watched your whole life by the commoner. You are to be an example. You must never embarrass the family..." Etc. Hopefully not too much of a stretch, and yet there would surely be more...

"The commoner is not capable of life without us." "We are charged with leading the world." "God / Destiny has chosen us to rule..."

In short, within the "family traditions" you inherit, as one of the august nobles, you might find a whole range "advice", some of which might even shock the simple world of the commoner! And yet, if such advice was not conveyed to you in an effective manner, you might fail to pass the baton to that next generation. Of course I dare not launch into the very effective ways they have developed over the centuries to impress upon their children such important things, that would be for another thread!

There is so much more to this, and I haven't even really touched on institutions such as the Vatican yet!

Probably a good place to stop, since nothing else has lasted quite as long as the Vatican, and they help make my point.

Let's forget the "billionaires" getting so much press. Who cares what "The Donald" is doing?! Let us call these perhaps the "ephemeral class" of elites (small "e"), who a century from now may very well be gone. A hundred years form now, few may know the names of Trump, and Buffet, but everyone will surely know the name of Windsor (or whatever this bunch of chameleons has renamed itself at that point...my guess, something like Chang-Windsor-Gothe, etc.)

Well, a lot more than my two cents, but take it for what it's worth...

JR



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I think that the Elite are the old money people. Such people would look down their noses at the Nouveau Riche as being vulgar. THey would also have the generational urge of maintaining themselves at the top of the pyramid. Some how for these reasons I do not think Bill Gates is one of the Elite. Such people will manipulate whole economies for personal profit by working in tandem with like minded people.

They may even be white but are actually beyond simple racial descriptions simply becasue they are operating beyond what many see as colour. That sheer level of power is almost difficult to believe. THese people simply do not shop at Saks. The simply do not need to impress.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 




All over ATS you have heard me denouncing black demagogues like Sharpton the NOI etc. I was carefully trained as a teenager for a bush war that included crowd control and house to house fighting via national service. WTF a few years later when TSHTF the same techniques were used to quell civil unrest. Sttrange ?? Hell no the Black leadership ensured that we were trained in attacking our own people there was no foreign invader! I am not unique in this respect many from the former colonies know all about this stuff and the benefit of the Colonial education. In fact what sort of education can you have without white historical figures in science and the art????


Yes, I've seen some of your thoughtful posts tiger5, and I enjoyed reading what you have posted here, since it helps paint a better picture of where you're coming from, and IMO, you're a great example to all.

I'm going to friend you because after what you have shared I feel like you are very much the kind of person we need more of in the world. We need more people who can be perhaps "tigers" (!), on fire for what is right, and yet, emotionally moderate enough to keep, not only our common sense, but common decency as well. Apparently rare traits in today's world.

JR



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I think that the Elite are the old money people. Such people would look down their noses at the Nouveau Riche as being vulgar. THey would also have the generational urge of maintaining themselves at the top of the pyramid. Some how for these reasons I do not think Bill Gates is one of the Elite. Such people will manipulate whole economies for personal profit by working in tandem with like minded people.

They may even be white but are actually beyond simple racial descriptions simply becasue they are operating beyond what many see as colour. That sheer level of power is almost difficult to believe. THese people simply do not shop at Saks. The simply do not need to impress.


YES, you absolutely nailed it. Your characterization is also spot-on, IMO. This class does indeed look down it's nose, far down at anyone without their "sacred" blue blood as perhaps something like a different "race", although the proper term would be "class", and yet we try to grasp for perhaps modern popular notions that might help convey this "divide", between us, and them.

For the white person who reads this kind of thing, and imagines it could be "no big deal", I would remind them of Diana's murder. Why was she killed? Most seem to think that she was in fact pregnant, and the "taint" of that blood within the noble woman who bore the heir to the British throne, had stepped over a line. In her circles, they understand these lines all too well. YES, they do in fact kill their own, if that line is stepped over.

This could be seen as a kind of "racism" that goes well-beyond our usual notions. Small wonder the British royals were behind-the-scenes partners with the Nazis, and completely endorsed their focus on eugenics. This should give us a glimpse into their mind-set.

Of course, the royals are ahead of the curve again, with the young prince, seemingly engaged to one with blood not quite-as-blue?? Or is there more to what we see? I would bet on it, but regardless, they are grabbing some much needed PR, since Prince Charles has seemingly not fooled anybody.

JR



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join