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.

 

What if the "elite" were attempting to do what they believed was best for everyone?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
they ARE. you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


Really. It looks like they're trying to break all but the pleasant to look at, obedient few. That's most of the eggs broken with no omelet to show for it (except that they will be in control of the few they want around as pets).
edit on 1/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Sorry, they used the term Iron law of Oligarchy in wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Re "ruling elite": some are pure evil or immoral and others are simply clinical or amoral. When they engineer society during and after the Great Collapse of Civilization they will likely go thru entire neighborhoods in bad area "zipcodes" and exterminate everyone like DDT for mosquitoes to rid society of the social parasites and criminal gang elements. While this may seem inhumane we do do it to animals and people that act like animals will get treated that way by TPTB (ruling elite under the NWO). The key tenet is that they have an end in mind and that they are ruled by "the ends justifies the means." In a more humane light look at it this way; what if you lived out in the desert (no local source of food or water) and there was an earthquake or other natural disaster and you had to evacuate under govt (fema) orders but were not allowed to take any pets with you. The family dog would die without food or water or be killed by wild aninals in the area. Would you set them free to fend for themselves and either join a pack of dogs or to die in a matter of time or would you put them down (or "asleep") as the "humane" thing to do? What is 2012 really will be TEOTWAWKI (pole shift, asteroid, cme, nuclear war, etc) and we are the pets? Perhaps they intend to put most of us down humanely (at least for the good of those who are designated to survive as resources will be limited). Think about it........



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I have a question in response to the OP's question...

Who the hell are they to decide what is in my best interest? Last time I checked I had 2 parents, and neither one of them were a government agency of any kind.

Would you do what I say, just because I think it is best for you? Of course not, I do not know you so I have no opinion. I can not determine what is in YOUR best interest.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 

Foreign policy is conducted in what is in the nation's "best interests" not what is in the best interests of the other country (see writings of Hans J. Morgantheau). The "elite" (most of whom are CFR members and well versed in such matters) will do what is in their best interests or at least the collective's best interests with them at the top of the collective pyramid. Despite a lot of them being "collectivists" politically they are wealthy capitalists economically and will pursue their own economic interest (see Adam Smith's writings on "the hidden hand").
They think of themselves as our parents, teachers, bosses and government leaders and thus have the authority to decide and dictate what everyone's "best interests" are. The best tact is to present a better (logical, moral and scientific) argument that is in their and the collective "best interest."



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 





er.. no i am saying everybody should have a say, or be in agreement before any changes are made. everybody decides whats best, with NO rulers.


I know, but like all things easier said then done. Have you seen how much people like to be in agreement when they all gather in big groups. Your premise works in theory only.




ie: not one man who decides everything, but everybody. the people are in charge not a few. but it would have to be localized to match the needs of that local area one rule does not fit all area's or is against the needs of certain area's.


And that is what we have today, localized representatives of areas, or states. And you can see how that went, and is going on today. No matter what you do people will be people, and business is business. So do whatever, it does not matter. No matter how you restructure it, eventually it will come to the same place.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by galadofwarthethird
 





And that is what we have today, localized representatives of areas, or states. And you can see how that went, and is going on today. No matter what you do people will be people, and business is business. So do whatever, it does not matter. No matter how you restructure it, eventually it will come to the same place.


no we do not, they do not represent the people, they represent their own greeds and needs, regardless i was answering how we prevent bad people from being in charge, as somebody asked earlier, not coming up with the perfect method of 'running' things.

the fact is when ever somebody has a position of power sooner or later you are going to get somebody who will abuse it. so maybe you have a better idea than me on how you prevent that?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


sounds like somebody trying to justify and promote mass genocide to me, as a 'good' thing.
i wonder if that's how hitler saw it to.

for a start you can pick any ZIP code you like, not everybody in that area is a criminal or parasite some are some are not. just like any area.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 

I dont condone it but do recognize that their goal for a utopian society wont happen with criminal gangs and people on welfare, etc. If one of the goals is population reduction (google Georgia Guidestones) then why would they eliminate productive people and leave the parasites? Hitler killed people based mostly on religion and ethnicity (majority) as well as those who were crippled and mentally ill (minority)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
if the outcome of negative social engineering is a good america where theres water and all the other things you touch on in your op; then what is best for me as viewed by myself disregarding what you claim as benefits of social control are not best for me: but are your perceptions of what is best for me in the context of others. further, if what is collectively good is not best for me then any refutations to my disorder to any social construct would negate the intent of benevolence by any clandestine elite or organized leadership.

secondly, if what is best for everyone one person can attain; leads to the problematic issue of democracy and free minds who think exactly as i have stated; within the context of a society that is not created for an individuals whims at the expense of all individuals.

and lastly; what if "grape" were attempting to "be wine"; what they believe is best for all grapes matters not to the person drinking the juice.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by lifeform11
 

I dont condone it but do recognize that their goal for a utopian society wont happen with criminal gangs and people on welfare, etc. If one of the goals is population reduction (google Georgia Guidestones) then why would they eliminate productive people and leave the parasites? Hitler killed people based mostly on religion and ethnicity (majority) as well as those who were crippled and mentally ill (minority)


utopian? so you think by killing criminals that will solve crime? by killing the unemployed it will create jobs?
productive people can become unemployed, illness and lack of work tends to do that, there are many more unemployed now than there were 2-3 years ago, many look for employment but there is not enough work to go around ALL the unemployed, and your saying they deserve to die? and killing them will solve unemployment? you think they are all parasites and do not want to work?

you do understand that the less people there are the more people will become unemployed? less goods being bought, less people to control and process etc etc.

when you talk about killing criminals are you talking about the ones in prison? because you seemed to mention ZIP codes earlier as if to criminalize an entire area for the actions of a few.

are children included in with the people you think should be killed for your own personal beliefs?



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I'd tell them what I tell anyone else who gets in my business without invitation - buzz off.

If I want somoene telling me what to do, I'll...I'll....I guess ask my wife...but you know what I mean.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 

AQuestion, I must respectfully disagree with your position on civilized manner.

At any given moment we're about 72 hours from tooth and nail, primal, primitive chaos and destruction. Take the authorities. They can barely keep a lid on the few who currently break "laws."

You may note that when a disaster occurs to a region or fair sized municipality - law and order - as well as well-behaved citizens are out the window.

I had a contractor take me to New Orleans to look at a job a couple days after the event, and it was worse than third world. This was a fairly large US city. We both entered the city with firearms in hand, with the exceptions of when passing National Guard roadblocks, and then they went between our legs.

I've seen total anarchy. I've seen villages destroyed - not for gain - but for the pure hell of it by bands of murdering bastards.

No, when things get really bad, folks don't cooperate and pull together. When the lifeboat is full, some will take the oars and beat over the head those in the water who would try to get into the boat.

The moment those in law enforcement realize that things can't be controlled, they're gone. They have their own friends and family that need them and their weapons.

We have about five billion people too many. Too many to feed, too many to house, too many to provide clean water for, too many to remain healthy.

The land won't support what we already have. Our fuel enables a handful to grow crops for many, and that's running out. One catastrophic event, and those crops won't be planted, or cultivated, or harvested.

Mass starvation. Any idea what hungry, desperate folks will do?

There are no "elite." There's just greed from both the haves and have-nots both.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
In my view, the only reason that any elites cover the angle of "helping we the people" is only used for public relations as a way to "sell it" to the masses.... Just like the after effects of 9-11..

It is unbelievably pathetic if you ask me... It is the current most shamable thing happening on the planet today, and will be their own downfall as well as ours..



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 





no we do not, they do not represent the people, they represent their own greeds and needs,

Thats all people are, they are objectives, needs, agendas, and greeds. I would say they represent the majority of humanity pretty well. What if you don't like them there are plenty of others with an agenda closer to you and your group, or way of thought.



regardless i was answering how we prevent bad people from being in charge, as somebody asked earlier, not coming up with the perfect method of 'running' things.

Why would you want to do that? Thats one of the reasons powerful positions are there for, to attract those who would be attracted to them, and even abuse such positions. I mean it could be done, but why and what for, and most likely it would be to stringent and require to much work or focus to keep track of it all. And truly the only way that you could achieve that is in your "perfects society". Which does not exist, as you are aware of.



the fact is when ever somebody has a position of power sooner or later you are going to get somebody who will abuse it. so maybe you have a better idea than me on how you prevent that?

If they abuse there position of power, then you remove them from that position, forcedly if needed. And here is an idea of the top of my head. Make all those positions of power, non existent or susceptible to "Damocles dagger" law, there was a reason that "dagger" was meant to hand over all kings and leaders, it keeps them in check and in a sort of balance. Read Aristotle or Plato or Socrates, they said a lot on this subject, and even they knew it really is impossible for large lengths of time. Humanity has a short memory.


But unfortunately that is a great majority of what humanity is, the rat race, and the corporate ladder. It's the game they most like to play, one upping each other, and getting more and more. It could be done, but why? It is what they want and deserve, besides if you remove that, what will all those who are attracted to power do? They will end up jumping out of windows again, like in the great depression. It took them a long time to learn there current trick, if you change everything they will just end up on the streets, doing what they always done. It would require to much effort, and humanity is not worth that effort. Besides it's all going as it should go. If you all don't like having people who have no clue in power, then quit looking for people to put in power over you, who have no clue. It's pretty self explanatory, its there and always happens, because its in all of humanity. You have seen this in the past/history, and in our present circumstances.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Of course the elite are attempting to do what's best for civilization. That's a given in my mind.

This is just a gargantuous picture to be seen, and you seem to be on the correct track, imo. Well ahead of most others on this site, it seems.

Greenage mentioned we need to go back to the Matriarchal social structure instead of the current Patriarchal one. That is ideal, but unreasonable for the moment. We changed from the matriarchal to the Patriarchal out of necessity. This happened after we amassed enough numbers and technology to ravage our natural resources and damage our immediate ecosystems.

This lead to the concept of lack, and ownership, and eventually to the necessity for centralized authority ... for government.

In theory, anarchy is ideal. In actuality, it would be horrid, and the naive who think the most intellectually fittest would survive are way off the mark. You would need to be brutal in the beginning, and that means we'd experience a great deal of dysgenics and loss of historical items, like some of our current tech, understandings, knowledge, etc.. It's just dumb.

In a way, the elite have done their best to satisfy our instinctual needs while curbing our aggressiveness. Just look what's allowed in the environment with all these gender bender compounds, lol.

I honestly don't think there could possibly be another way, but for our rulers to do what they truly believe is best for our species. Now, you and I may disagree with this right, probably out of ignorance to human nature, or the state of the world, but that doesn't make it evil. Evil is a concept for the unenlightened, imo.

What you see happening is more a result of our instinctual nature than anything else. It's not merely this one thing or that which seems to be off the mark, there is no mark. There is only the ever expanding dominion of humanity over each other.

Personally, I do think we'll balance out and find our way into a Matriarchal social structure, but only after the idiots are used as cannon-fodder, and the rest of these nonsensical beliefs are shown to light. I think the elite are allowing us to kill ourselves if we choose unwisely, thereby forcing subtle eugenic effects in the process. After enough consciousness is reached in our species, the veil will be seen for what it is, and the whole game will cease to exist in it's current form.

Wish it happens in 2012? You're likely going to be very disappointed. It will likely still take some time yet, and ultimately this is up to the people. Maybe a few years, a few decades, a few centuries.. Nobody knows for sure.
edit on 30-1-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


All I can say is, careful not to fool yourself.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Of course the elite are attempting to do what's best for civilization. That's a given in my mind.


Your post made me think of this scene from Serenety:



The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?

The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Sin lies in the concept of a mark itself, imo.

There is no right outside of our subjective experience.

The best we can do is more than enough, which incidentally is exactly what everyone is doing at all times.



I know the world is without sin; no belief necessary.

This only comes about when you realize everything has a purpose, and you can choose to see it in the light or dark; with reason or without.

Ultimately, we choose the reason for our existence.

Collectively, we shape this world.

The power has always been with us, we just willingly give it up.

The illusion only exists to the extent that we give away our consciousness.

As we gain consciousness, we will realize our own absurdities, and the concept of "sin" will have no place in our vocabulary.

I'm not bringing this about, and neither is the elite, we all are.

The system is but a model to speed up our evolution and keep basic order in place.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I have always had a drive to help people, and in random musings.... perhaps too indepth have I thought of what to do if I coud rule the world. Every thought and plan involves the benifit of the people I rule. As I figure after about 500k a yr im good lol. So here is the main problem, I am 100% pro-individual rights and letting people be free. Essentially my thought is a benevolent dictatorship.

The ultimate problem besides the usual good ruler gives way to a dick of a successor? Is that the more I come up with a plan that creates a "utopian existance" for a scociety leads into one issue after another of individual rights going out the window. The truth is that in a small group it works when people look to one person to be in charge, but more people means more problems. So if you fix soething for the farmer in kansas you screw something up for the computer repair guy in New York City. The same is true of our system of government, as on congressman gets money to help one group in his district as he is supposed to, and the rest of the country doesn't know why we are wasting that money.

The only way to actually fix te world is to subsribe to a biblical ideal of helping people. In which if everyone follows it we all rise minus the communist negatives, but that is obviousy not going to happen so basically we are all screwed. But as with any leader making tough choices anyone who might be in charge aside from getting "thiers" has to choose which group of people or which issues they can fix and if fixing those issues are better than fixing others since they can only have certain things work at the same time.

Now on to the semi-biblical idea that I believe is a philosophy that should but won't make the most evil of people good.

The most selfish thing in the world is to be selfless.

Obviously this needs soe explanation, whcih is that selflessness or "goodness" is a ong term strategy. See, if your selfish you win for a while but eventually someone somewhere wil get you back, or the day you need hep you may meet idol hands. However, if you go through lifein a positive manor then noone is around to want to get revenge, and at least some of the people you may have helped wil likely be there if you ever need it.

Why this is important? Think of leaders, as there have been some at least if nothing else percieved as good. these leaders don't get beheaded in revolts,uprisings and such. If they are beheaded in some sort of coup they tend to be avenged by the people. For the selfish "evil" leaders they may want to think of that, and for those inbetween or good or evil and fearing a beheading I feel truly sorry for them as even if they act with the best of intentions they may not be seen that way, or just like so many normal people in normal situations they might just fail at what they are trying to do. Unfortunatly a guy trying to make the worlld a better place may catch flak as a secret evil dictator when his idea faceplants while someone who fails to run a successful buisness, succeed at thei job etc simply moves on.

Think of being president, If whatever God type person might exisist or super intelligent alien or w/e your thing is came down and gave you a blueprint for the perfect things to do as president and by the time you finished trying to pass them into laws congress had chopped your blueprint into 3% of what it was with 97% other # you might seem like a crappy president or even as one with bad intentions. Of course we have to remeber that that same process stops the guy with horribe ideas or bad intentions from doing whatever he wants.....so basically its lose-lose.

Sorry for the ramble.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join