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.

 

Understanding the Corporate Shadow Government Made Easy

page: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating....

I understand the essence of your argument, and JPZ extremely eloquently supplied you with the necessary retort upon why, although the system that we currently use has evolved our society thus far, it is now abused by the uberwealthy at the cost of the lower and middle class.

The words "communism", "communal", "cooperative", etc... have been stigmatized to the point of being near so an impossibility to discuss as ideas, in simply an abstract or ideal sense, without emotions becoming the dominant force in said conversation.

Your entire argument can be summed up in eight words uttered by ex AG John Ashcroft as he decided, as the presiding judge, concerning one aspect of the Healthsouth debacle.
And he ruled in favor of the corporations.
What a surprise...

The statement in his decision was this:

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" -John Ashcroft

What we have in America is pretend wealth. We have multiple distractions, mainly through media interaction, that divert our attention away from the fact that our soldiers are literally RAPING WOMEN and KILLING CHILDREN, daily, in Iraq so that we can EXPLOIT the country's natural resources, while trapping this corporation's 14th Amendment citizens into a completely fake debt to the international banksters (a national debt that is half owned by the private Federal Reserve).
This a completely fake debt; however, through highly developed propaganda, generation upon generation will strive to purely maintain the interest gained upon the money loaned to our nation, by loansharks.
International bookies. The Mob disguised as a government agency I tell you!

Although Proto's usage of the words rape and plunder were metaphors (I figured you to be one to catch onto that), the banksters do use the IMF and other monetary organizations to trap smaller nations into deals that allow the corporation called the United States and its many petroleum based subsidiaries unfettered access to said country's natural resources.
JPZ summed it up quite well, it is called privatization.

And this has been happening in the states since Bush #1.
Please read executive order 12803.

Your defense of pure capitalism is misguided at best. Pure capitalism was a dream to the Romans because it allowed the perfect situation as to where successive generations could hoard and pass down massive amounts of wealth.
It did, however, develop into a problem/blessing, because it became a practice that the elite used for propagating at the expense of others.

Capitalism must be controlled, or it will become the monster that feeds the less fortunate to the more fortunate.

Eventually, none of what a person controls in "pure capitalism" is based upon merit.
This is an illusion that is no different metaphorically, than alcohol seen as a gateway drug.
Pure capitalism is a way to EVENTUALLY have markets to strip the poor and subsidies to maintain the elite's status of concentrated wealth.
Remember... This is not in theory, but real world happening. Look around.

We are witnessing this happen as we type.
edit on 2/18/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





Capitalism must be controlled, or it will become the monster that feeds the less fortunate to the more fortunate.


My friend, if I may add my understanding of the truth to this assertion, if capitalism is allowed to be capitalism - and I feel it necessary to avoid terms such as "pure capitalism" simply because it is terms such as this that facilitate the proclivity to point at corporatism and call it capitalism - then there must be certain rules and regulations from the get go.

Such a reality may appear to be a contradiction, but I agree with Ayn Rand and that there are no contradictions and if we find a contradiction it becomes necessary to check our premise.

If capitalism requires a free and unregulated market place, then how is that capitalism also requires certain rules and regulations to begin with? Capitalism is not the market, and regulating capitalism does not require regulating the market.

When licensing schemes are required in order for people to enter the market, then it is the market that is being regulated, however creating a regulation that acts to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail", i.e. anti-trust laws, is not a regulation of the market it is a regulation of a company putting capitalism at risk by threatening the aggregate market by creating a dependency upon that company.

The very nature of capitalism dictates that the buyer is not dependent upon anyone company in order to purchase a product. That buyer has a choice of many different sellers, and when the competition is massive, this implicitly tells us that the majority of these businesses are too small to affect the aggregate economy if they fail.

However, under a free and unregulated market, or an open economic system, corporations should have a chance to exist and compete. This complicates matters a bit because a corporation is more likely to grow in size than an sole proprietorship. This complication is not so bad as long as the "personhood" of a corporation is understood to be separate and distinct from the personhood of a real live human being. The corporation, by its nature, requires regulation, but just because that corporation as a "person" is being regulated does not mean it has the right to demand under the guise of equality under the law that real live people become regulated as well. When every body is regulated then we have a regulation of the market. If only the corporations are being regulated, then it is not the market that is being regulated, just corporations.

The real problem, in my estimation, is not that agencies such as the FDA, EPA, FCC, and SEC exist, nor is it a problem that corporations use their wealth to lobby politicians. The problem lies in the average persons ignorance of the law. The FDA certainly has jurisdiction over a corporation, and they certainly can find jurisdiction over a licensed business, but whether they have actual jurisdiction, or more correctly subject matter jurisdiction over a natural person who has not applied for any license to do what they do by right is questionable, even dubious, and well worth challenging.

It is absurd to acquiesce to licensing schemes that have no jurisdiction over a person. A corporation, as a "person" is subject to most jurisdictions regarding regulatory agencies. A natural born person is not necessarily so. If a natural person is not subject to regulation and a regulatory agent begs to differ, then only reasonable response to that agent is; "Oh yeah? Tell that to the tree! I am doing what I am doing by right, Mr. So back the hell off!" Of course, try that today, and Mr. Joe Governmentagent will not back the hell off, and it then becomes necessary to fight this battle in the halls of justice. Here is where it gets real sticky because too many of us have been conditioned that our battles in the halls of justice can only be fought by signing over power of attorney to an officer of the court. The reality is that competent assistance of counsel is always a good idea and most attorneys can be competent, but cannot be competent as long as they are bound by their oath and fealty as an officer of the court. This means that in order to free an attorney from this oath and fealty an individual should not sign over power of attorney, and handle all legal battles pro per, only using an attorney as competent assistance of counsel. This allows that attorney to help you in the real sense of help instead of help as betrayal.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Your assertions are quite correct and very succinct in their presentation and application regarding the current topic.

I suppose that I could be more direct when I speak of "pure capitalism"; I was referring to "laissez-faire" capitalism. No rules. Let the buyer beware.

I have heard quite a number of arguments against FDR...

-He was a banker from a banking family
-He came from elite blood dating to royalty
-He created the groundwork for a socialist state
-etc....

But he put into place a balance of regulatory functions that served the incorporated states well, and for this he was rewarded four terms in office. (that in itself is highly suspect)

Many of the monetary acts that took place on his watch helped to create the prosperous, although borderline imaginary, country that dominated the globe for some 60 years.
This all came to a screeching halt with the "election" of Bill Clinton.
The current crisis, banking debacle, what have you... can be traced to the man of the blue dress.

Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

I am not partisan btw...
They are all one party, in my humble opinion.

Now, discussing the intricacies of incorporating, corporate personhood, a corporation, et al...
This could literally take endless hours leading to the excruciating boregasm.
This is a purposeful gambit played by TPTB with the sole purpose of wearing us, meaning citizens, out of steam.
We give up and they win and that is the name of the game.
edit on 2/18/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating, I am so psyched you decided to throw your two cents in here. The following is an attempt to debate you on this issue. As feeble as mine is, thanks for joining in.


Thats not how the world works. Its how the Communist KGB claimed the world works, but thats not how it works. A corporation is a group of people working on a common goal, nothing more, nothing less. The common goal is mostly concerned with utilizing some resource. Corporations are responsible for the wealth and prosperity of the world as we see it today.


Corporations are responsible for the wealth and prosperity that we see today and we see how it legally goes to only those they want it to. Did you ever hear the term the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?


Using and Utilizing a resource has nothing to do with "rape". If you pick a fruit from a tree for your survival or enjoyment, I am not saying you are "raping" the tree.


Yeah but if I used my influence and power to get some mechanized industrial tree strippers in here I could make a lot more money then having Proto pick them one by one.


Some will always be quicker and better than others. Competition creates progress. Having to force "equality" creates stagnation.


You mean that some have the law makers and politicians in their pockets much better than others. I'm not talking about forced equality but we all know how far those corporations will go to get what they want.


Wars are mostly caused by poor and angry people, not by the well-fed. The most wars in the last century were caused by socialists.


You don't know anything about Unocal? How long were they in negotiations with the Taliban to get their pipeline built? They are supposedly out of business now but we know they just changed names and places. Anyway, I believe this is the reason that the Taliban was able to take control two years after we helped oust the Russians. Our own people made sure that the enemies of the Taliban were not a threat to them as well. Just one example and I'm sure there are others.


The world is richer than ever before in its History, thanks to Capitalist endeavor. Ultimately, Capitalism benefits all as you can see even the poor walking on pavement, using computers, having access to proper healthcare, etc.


Tell that to the guy I just saw hitchhiking with a cardboard sign telling everyone he was hungry.


Terrorism too is not caused by Business-People but by poverty and anger. The solution therefore is prosperity for the whole Planet.


Again I'll mention the Taliban that was able to maintain its control because of our own people. The poverty and anger you speak of is exactly what the people who pull the strings want.


Its a misrepresentation of the world, the usual elite-bashing found on conspiracy-sites without any constructive or intelligent focus on solutions whatsoever.


The solution is to let the honest guy who really wants to make a better life for our distant friends have at it. Let's use our foreign policy to execute the real will of the American people instead of someones agenda. Do you think anyone would have agreed to half of the stuff we learn about, years later after the fact? The Shah, Saddam, I could go on.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Forgive me for quibbling with you brother, but words are important to me, even if they are ultimately inefficient as a means of communication. Indeed, precisely because words are so inefficient as communication, I am compelled to address you qualification of laissez faire. Before I do, a bit more ruminations on the inefficiency of language: Where Aristotle suggested that if a word could be properly defined it would in effect describe the essence of that thing defined, and while this ideal is appealing, and with all due respect to Aristotle, I believe this is incorrect. As Alfred Korzybski aptly put it; "The map is not the territory, and the word is not the thing defined." This, in my opinion, succinctly addresses the problem with words. They can only, at best, give an approximation of that thing being defined. The word horse is not the animal I am referring to, it is merely a word, but we can agree that a horse is that animal. However, a horse is tangible physical being that we can see, touch, smell, and hear. Concepts that are intangible become infinitely harder to define, and therein lies the problem.

That said, let's look into this matter of "laissez faire". It is interesting to me how the term laisses faire has seemingly become synonymous with caveat emptor. Laissez faire is French and means "let do" or "let be" and it is a doctrine where private contracts are made without interference from the state. A laisses faire economy is one where people can do business without government intervention. It does not mean "let the buyer beware", that is the Latin phrase caveat emptor which is traditionally a property law doctrine.

What is interesting to me how these two phrases of different languages have become synonymous with each other is that it has somehow led people to believe that "let the buyer beware" means a market place without regulation. Even more interesting to me is that how people have seemingly come to believe that a regulated market relieves them from the very prudent caveat; "let the buyer beware". In the heavily regulated market place of today, people still die of iatrogenics, they still die of food poisoning, they still run the risk of buying a lemon for a car, they still run the risk of buying a deficient computer, and just because there is state regulation doesn't mean the buyer should not beware.

There will always be risk, for both seller and buyer, that is part of the game.

I will leave the FDR praise alone for this moment, and simply keep this post to the discussion of certain words, and their meanings.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No worries mate...

Objective reasoning is an interesting aspect to the Western application of a set of methodical protocols.
It is essentially seen as the holy grail to any application of a scientific type method to an artistic endeavor.
This is a soft science, which in layman's terms is how you seem to approach language.

However, in this Westernized practice lies problems.
At one time in the West, the individual practice of Hermeticism understood that the end result of any set of reasoning will rely upon "whomever is the master that makes the grass green".

I say this, because government, the economy, the law, essentially all of jurisprudence, and all other government individual social contracts were initially written in a common language that all understood.
That was the expressed intent.
The point to all laws were to limit the power of government and never to grant any privileges.
We were seen as having the freedom to choose as we wish by the framers of our Constitution. It was a right of birth, a gift from God.

The granting of certain abilities and actions are an aspect of contract law.

This is not how the Constitution was designed and the degradation of this original intent is the direct result of the semantic tap dance done daily by attorneys. (Actually, they are lowly glorified court clerks, for the most part)

I really enjoy reading your polysyllabic pleasure. 'Tis a practice in enigmatic loquacious understanding.
edit on 2/18/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
****@JPZ****

I want to make something very clear that I think is getting lost in the shuffle.

I completely and wholly agree with you on the idea that people who do not engage in their due diligence do not deserve any type of consumer protection; however...
what I do believe concerning the government is that they have a right to protect the people from unscrupulous business practices that are purposely deceptive.

Our current government is completely rotten to the core when it comes to matters of money.

We exist on a completely fake currency that only carries international weight because all oil must be bought and sold in dollars.
The economy and government were never intended to necessitate a Phd in order to run the nations government.

The world is infinitely more complicated, and this will naturally lead to more complicated economics and government, but we have given up knowledge for specialization.
This has given the money powers unchecked power in the states.

I don't know how to take the power back. The problem outlined in the OP is so dramatic and large that I am surely at a loss for words regarding fixing the problem.

We are shockingly finished.
edit on 2/18/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Before I address the problem of modern day priest class lawyer set and their maddening utterances of mystical incantations, I would like to speak to the issue of law. Etymologically speaking, law is derived from the Old English word "lagu" which meant "layer, measure, or stroke", or quite literally "something laid down or fixed." Thus, when Sir Issac Newton offered up the mathematical equation for gravity he was measuring its properties, and in doing so laying down what would become the fixed law of gravity.

In science, we accept law as being simple, true, universal, and absolute, but when it comes to "the laws of man" we oddly tend to separate them from the laws of nature as if they are man made inventions rather than discoveries. Newton did not make gravity, he legislated it. His legislation has been codified in the annals of science, and it is understood that gravity existed prior to Newton's legislation of it, and that he merely discovered the equation to describe it, or at the very least, describe certain properties of gravity. Yet, when we engage in discussion of the rights of people, far too many people insist on describing these laws as if they are some arbitrary and/or whimsical acts of legislation handed down to us by, and in the case of Americans; "white landed slave owner males".

I respectfully submit that unalienable rights are as much a branch of science as is gravity, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics - presumably the 1st law of thermodynamics has been repealed or amended since Einsteins theory of relativity - and can be formed into testable hypothesis, and either proven as law, or at the very least respected as theory. Where you suggest that the point to all laws is to limit government and never grant any privileges, and prima facie I agree with you, but regardless of what the point of law is, the result is limitation of government, and a disdain for privilege.

The basis for a lawful government finds it root in the individual right to self defense. This individual right to self defense is provable. It is provable because there is now plenty of scientific evidence to show that there is a biological imperative to survive. The rose has its thorn because it has a natural right to self defense. The porcupine has its needles because it has a natural right to self defense, and the skunk has its stink because it too has the natural right to self defense. No council of roses gave the individual roses the right to thorniness. No Congress of porcupines gave the individual porcupine the right to needles, and no decree by king or judge gave the skunk the right to its odious spray. They each simply have this right because it is law.

The right to self defense is simple, true, universal, and absolute. It follows then, if individuals have the right to defend themselves individually, they also have the right to come together and form a collective defense. This is the lawful basis of government, to protect the rights of the individuals who form that government. This is not just rational and logical, it is testable and from the hypothesis, predictions can be made that agree with the experimental results. I can, for example, form the hypothesis that suppressive governments invite revolt, and create experiments with control groups where each group chooses among them a leader. Let's say that for the purpose of this hypothetical experimentation, twelve groups exist and each is left alone to choose its leader. The assumption is that among these twelve groups, one or more will choose leaders who, for whatever reasons, presume their election of leadership was a grant to suppress other members of the group. The prediction is that within these groups where the leader suppresses the other members, at some point, revolt will be the outcome, and a new leader will be chosen.

I offer this as a hypothetical to show it is testable, I am assuming my predictions are correct based on the laboratory of history, where suppressive governments are met with revolt. Even in those nations where the revolt is handily squashed, i.e. Tienanmen Square, that there was revolt is understood, and that this revolt was a consequence of suppression is also understood. There is enough historical evidence to suggest that under a controlled method of experimentation the prediction that the group will revolt against suppressive leaders will repeatedly bear itself out. If it doesn't, then of course, I will have to either modify the hypothesis or reject it altogether.

Now, some might argue that such experimentation has all ready taken place and point to the Stanford Prison Experiment as one experiment, to refute my assertions here. However, the Stanford Prison Experiment is a greatly misunderstood experiment, and I believe disingenuously misinterpreted by people who advocate tyranny. First of all, Zimbardo, the psychologist who ran the experiment, ran a field experiment which made it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. On top of that, Zimbardo lost neutrality as an unbiased observer and was himself drawn into the experiment. The sadistic behavior evidenced by this experiment could not be termed sadistic behavior from "normal" subjects because the screening methods employed to choose the subjects were not sufficient enough to determine who among them were "normal" and who were not.

Further, it is arguable that the subjects in this setting were not acting organically from as an outcome of the "prison" setting, but instead were merely role playing based upon their own understandings of what they thought a prisoner or prison guard should act like. While Zimbardo claimed no instructions were given, it is clear that he did give directions to the subjects playing the guards that gave those subjects the impression they were supposed to act sadistically. Even further, researchers from another institution attempted a similar experiment and when advertising for the subjects, used two different advertisements, one with the phrase "prison life" in the ad, and another without the phrase. It was discovered that those who responded to the ad with the term "prison life" had a disposition towards abuse.

It is also worth noting that in the very beginning of this Stanford Experiment five of the subjects walked off of the experiment in protest, which for all intents and purposes would constitute a revolt. Another interesting point is that shortly after the experiment there were the real life events of Attica and San Quentin which arguably make the interpretations that people are inclined to submit to authority figures a dubious claim, and finally, there is Abu Gharaib. Zimbardo, after watching the events of Abu Gharaib felt vindicated with his own study, and was even a part of the defense attorneys team for the trial of Ivan Frederick. However, one of the things about the event of Abu Gharaib that always struck me as odd were the vast amount of pictures these "few bad apples" took of themselves torturing prisoners. There were a remarkable amount of photographs incriminating these "few bad apples", which reminded me of the of the "orgy of evidence" line from Minority Report. That Zimbardo was so insistent on comparing his study to Abu Gharaib only makes me more suspicious about this "orgy of evidence" and I can't help but suspect that that event was manufactured.

Anyway, I didn't mean to digress so much on the Stanford Experiment, I only wanted to answer to it in the event someone felt compelled to use it as refutation of my own hypothesis.

I firmly believe that law must be viewed as a scientific truth instead of the whimsical and arbitrary thing it is too often viewed as, which finally brings me to the mystical incantations of the priest class lawyer set. This complex and mysterious oooga boooga language they use is a product of law being treated as an arbitrary thing as opposed to it being treated as something that is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The sooner people come to realize that law is such, the sooner they will reject the validation of legislative acts that number in the thousands of pages written in a tautology and circumlocution of language. At least, this is what I believe.

I too enjoy reading your posts, my friend.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I am curious as to who these individuals are, primarily for two reasons.

1. To seperate them from their resources and wealth so they can't corrupt new systems with either moving forward.

2. To identify just what they do own in the way of resources and hidden wealth so it can be restored fully to the people.


You want to do what all other socialists wanted: Strip those who made the money from their wealth and re-distribute it to the people who did not make the money.


I can see where your assumptions in this statement would be primarily rooted in the societal constructs we have all been conditioned to accept through a limited and generally false understanding of them.

Interestingly enough most societal constructs are formed around such root words as socialist.

The words itself is meant to imply and conjure certain standardized assumptions in what are in essence word games meant to draw fixed conclusions as well as limit options.

You say tomato I say it's that mushy fruity vegetable that's hard to cut and gives me heartburn.

So understand a liberal application of a word meant to define something you yourself are strugling to define only accurately reflects what you imagine out to be projected versus reflected in a genuine act.

But while we are on the subject, I own a retail outlet that sells products I did not make, that are put on the shelves I did not build, that are put in bags for customers by cashiers who collected the money and finalized the sale.

While all this occured, the making of the product, the marketing of it, the display of it, and the sale of it, I was actually working on my tan.

So who actually earned the money? Me, the oligarch who 'owns' the store through contractually acquiring it through leverage, that leverage being slips of paper (money) attached to nothing of value, or did the people actually doing the physical work, and labor earn the money?

Now that's a real interesting question that the word 'socialist' isn't meant to address.

Ultimately just about every corporate enterprise is owned by one of just 2,000 people.

So under your peculiar definition, only 2,000 people on the planet are earning money, through the process of using leverage, corruption, fraud, extortion and violence, to acquire contractually everything that money can buy and obtain.

That's hardly the definition of capitilism but ultimately what it is in the viral, mutant form it has become.

Now the reason I point that out, is because applying a label, like capitilism to how the business model the Powers that Be use is in no way an accurate reflection of what they do versus the meaning of the word as most people imagine the word to mean.

Labelling tends to over simplify in a dimissive way, things that are much more complex than those simple definitions that are coined basically to lead people to praise and accept, or scorn and dismiss things based on over simplified assumptions rather than the actual details.

I can't divulge all the details of the system Proto envisions but I can say it includes things like the Swiss Bikini team and clothing optional retail outlets so one might say my system is hedonistic and not socialistic, but of course one would actually first have to care to want to know what my system would be, as opposed to slapping a label on it to create a false label designed to frighten people from wanting to find out what the actual details are.

The words games are all about the societal constructs that simply are part of the larger divide and conquer form of Hegelian government being used in systems that are often falsely labelled democratic, because it conjures up something far more politically and socially acceptable.

Some say the devil is in the details, but I don't think that's a good reason to avoid details and to be intimately familiar with first what you are trying to label with one word, things and logistics that often require tens, hundreds, thousands and sometimes millions of words.

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You want to do what all other socialists wanted: Strip those who made the money from their wealth and re-distribute it to the people who did not make the money.


I believe the socialist agenda can be more succinctly elucidated as an attempt to redistribute the wealth of those who accumulated it through inheritance, risk capital, rent, and usury and return it to those who actually manifest value through their physical and mental works by asserting that labor is ultimately more intrinsically valuable than capital, as capital itself is useless without the fertilization of labor.

Sri Oracle



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
[]of course one would actually first have to care to want to know what my system would be, as opposed to slapping a label on it to create a false label designed to frighten people from wanting to find out what the actual details are.
[]
Some say the devil is in the details, but I don't think that's a good reason to avoid details and to be intimately familiar with first what you are trying to label with one word, things and logistics that often require tens, hundreds, thousands and sometimes millions of words.


Give us the devil Proto.

Sri Oracle



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
Corporations are responsible for the wealth and prosperity that we see today and we see how it legally goes to only those they want it to. Did you ever hear the term the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?


This is not due to corporations but due to a principle some call "the law of attraction". It is the victim-mentality of the poor that keeps them in poverty. This victim-mentality is fueled by "conspiracy theories" such as the one shown in the OP. Brainwashing people with ideas of the "big bad boogyman Shadow Government" is what keeps people locked in fear and poverty in the first place.

The idea that Capitalism, Corporatism, Wealth and Business are responsible for poverty is ludicrous. The exact opposite is true.



Yeah but if I used my influence and power to get some mechanized industrial tree strippers in here I could make a lot more money then having Proto pick them one by one.


There is no scarcity of trees and no limit to the number of trees that can be planted and grown. The industrialization of trees has contributed greatly to the wealth of the world. That desk you are sitting on right now is of that tree...



You mean that some have the law makers and politicians in their pockets much better than others. I'm not talking about forced equality but we all know how far those corporations will go to get what they want.


Its impossible for a Business to succeed long-term without serving the community. Misconduct eventually comes to light. Most corporations that are very successful are not that successful because of their exploitative greed but because of the good that they give to the community.



Tell that to the guy I just saw hitchhiking with a cardboard sign telling everyone he was hungry.


Thanks to rapid progress over the last few hundred years (as compared to thousands of years before), you will cvontinue to see less and less people like that.

Some Royals a few hundred years ago couldnt even afford a bathtub to wash themselves...something each and every one of us has.



Again I'll mention the Taliban that was able to maintain its control because of our own people. The poverty and anger you speak of is exactly what the people who pull the strings want.


Most "conspiracy theories" essentially say that either America or Israel or the Vatican or whoever is preceived as rich and powerful, are the bad guys. This view of things also keeps saying that its these "PTB" forces that are responsible for upheaval and problems in various poor countries.

America is not responsible for what happens in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are responsible for their own lives. Blaming everything on the rich diverts attention from finding real solutions within the countries themselves.
edit on 20-2-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
venesuela is on our hit list of "rougue countries"...but why? because they took business away from global corporations and nationalized them. the common people of that country are living far better than under the previous dictator sponsored by america. when a country denies global corporations from running their indigenous businesses, they are put on the "bad rougue nation" list. look at cuba, a classic example, america will still not normalize relations with cuba, because it allows poor people cheaper access to needed goods and services, without the burden of providing profits for wealthy owners and corporations.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





This is not due to corporations but due to a principle some call "the law of attraction". It is the victim-mentality of the poor that keeps them in poverty. This victim-mentality is fueled by "conspiracy theories" such as the one shown in the OP. Brainwashing people with ideas of the "big bad boogyman Shadow Government" is what keeps people locked in fear and poverty in the first place.

The idea that Capitalism, Corporatism, Wealth and Business are responsible for poverty is ludicrous. The exact opposite is true.


Here is the long and short of it Sky and I want to believe you are intelligent enough to see this.

If Exxon/Mobil makes 11 Billion Dollars profit in a quarter, they take 11 Billion dollars out of the economy.

If they fail to reinvest a significant portion back into the economy (which they do fail too) then that money which acts as an engine of growth, is no longer growing anything in the way of jobs or new businesses that provide jobs.

If Bill Gates amasses a 60 Billion dollar fortune likewise that’s 60 Billion not flowing through the economy.

When you look at the actual lay of the land, most people are cash poor, and the fiscally responsible basically credit rich. That is to say because they pay their bills on time they can typically get cash on demand through borrowing, but because of interest involved, their future spending power is decreased by that amount of interest.

Meaning now for every dollar they spent today they need 1.07 to pay it back.

Now here is the rub, with only 3 Trillion dollars in actual currency in circulation, there is 14 Trillion in loans to the U.S. Government and about 11 Trillion in consumer loans to the private sector.

So two questions how did 25 Trillion get loaned out?

How does 25 Trillion get paid back when there is no corresponding amount of actual currency to pay it back?

Further when the lion share of the cash out there gets sucked up into Exxon or Microsoft rarely to ever see the light of day again, how does it get paid back?

One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist, to run simple math and employ common sense and no offence but it would seem you are doing neither.




There is no scarcity of trees and no limit to the number of trees that can be planted and grown. The industrialization of trees has contributed greatly to the wealth of the world. That desk you are sitting on right now is of that tree...


There is no scarcity of governments laying claim to large tracks of forested land either.

Nor is their any shortage of governments making sweetheart deals with huge corporations to then harvest those trees.

Nor is there any shortage of corporate hedgemony over lands that produce agricultural products or are suite for agricultural products.

Nor is there any shortage of corporate monopolies (Monsanto) trying to in essence monopolize the seed market with the help of government collusion and corruption.

End result is as always fewer and fewer private individuals can compete against the leverage that owning a huge agro corporation can create in lowering costs through bulk and monopolies so the small farmer can't compete, and or price fixing a market they monopolize so a small farmer can't compete.

One of the problems with your stereo typical assumptions is that they are assumptions, that are not based on any hard research of who owns what.

As a Mason I would think you would be more in tune with the absolute qualities of sheer math. 90% of deforested agricultural land is held in the hands of a handful of corpoations, 10% isn't.

When one studiies the acquisition trends, the pace, the mechanisms, the tactics, it becomes readily apparent that 10% is the result of a concerted effort by the corporations to dominate and monopolize the market through leverage.

Will it serve the cause of freedom and oppotunity when the entire Agro business is the pervue of 1 or 2 corporations?

Sensible people would argue it doesn't, it gives those companies too much leverage over something to valuable the food supply.

That leverage is not just over the people, but the governments, governments who know that in order to see food on the store shelves that they now have to appease these corporations demands.

What's shocking to the point of almost being criminal is the laxidaisical attitude where you would encourage people to dismiss things out of hand to enjoy a slumber of generalities and cliches based on outdated and faulty thinking simply because you imagine it serves some greater purpose.

The only problem is the only greater purpose intelligent and wise people can envision in having such monopolies is for an abusive form of control over the people.

After all you said it yourself, the poor feel victimized and with 20 million Americans looking for work for jobs that aren't there in a corporate monopoly dominated job market and landscape, perhaps many feel victimized for a real reason?

Simply put the Corporations have figured out how to get around anti-Trust monopoly laws, where in our country the dangers of monopolies were well understood a hundred years ago, when legislation was made to break up and prophibit corporate monopolies.

By using spider webs of corporations and then simply remerging and reaquiring them through unrelated but mutually owned ventures they have simply built them all back up and expanded them and yes it's a real problem, and so is the the fool that imagines because they profited some through the system, that it's a system that serves them as well as any other might, with little thought or concern to the millions and billions the system does not serve well at all.




Its impossible for a Business to succeed long-term without serving the community. Misconduct eventually comes to light. Most corporations that are very successful are not that successful because of their exploitative greed but because of the good that they give to the community.


Unbelievable that you could say this in light of the bailouts at taxpayers expense of banks and corporations deemed to big to fail.

You seem to be relying on antiquated models that take into no account what has transpired in recent times.

No the market is no longer determining the vitality and longevity of a business through good cutomer care, reasonable pricing and superior products, the lobbying process with government is, where poorly run business raping the economy, then turn around and rape the treasury because their monopolies do control so much that the distrubtion caused to the supply line would be too signifigant to now let them fail.

We have already arrived at true fascism in that regard, and as we know you are laboring under a false impression of not only what fascism is, as you want to reinvent it for purposes that serve religion and Israel, and you certainly don't seem to have a clue either when it comes to recent history and just how untrue your above statements are.




Thanks to rapid progress over the last few hundred years (as compared to thousands of years before), you will cvontinue to see less and less people like that.

Some Royals a few hundred years ago couldnt even afford a bathtub to wash themselves...something each and every one of us has.


The year is 2011 Sky and events continue to happen at a dizzying pace. Your desire to look backwards for models and trends that are no longer in use today is really just a deflection from the issue in your dismissive attempt to minimize the impact of whats occured in the last 100 years and especially the last 20.

The corporations have transfered away all the jobs, tens of millions have no hope of finding one, inflation in food and energy can't be hidden and it's leading more and more people to poverty and unhappiness.

The recent road that led to that sorry state of affairs not only displays it was purposefully done, but that Government has been made one way or another to accept it.

When a government continually fails it's citizens to instead serve a handful of corporations and banks, then yes, obviously there is a group of people behind the scenes causing that to happen. AKA the Shadow Government.




Most "conspiracy theories" essentially say that either America or Israel or the Vatican or whoever is preceived as rich and powerful, are the bad guys. This view of things also keeps saying that its these "PTB" forces that are responsible for upheaval and problems in various poor countries.


Power Pyramids and heirachies are real, whether it's in Masonry, the Government, the Girl Scouts or the World, pyramid like structures have a top and a bottom. When you get to the top of the pyramid yes little is known for certain. That doesn't stop people from attempting to uncover the paper trails, money trails, and contract trails that establish pecking orders.

You seem to want us to live in some other make believe world for some imagined benefit?

What benefit do you think there is in ignoring the organizations that plot to defraud and disenfranchise the people?

What benefit do you think there is to go about in a make believe world, imagining that such people will do the right thing in the end, when 2,000 years plus of recorded history shows they simply aren't capable?

I think it's telling of the extremely poor quality of your arguments that you feel you must attemt to disparage your opponents in debates through labels you attach to them along with preconcieved connotations.

Real life conspiracy theorists have saved people's lives from industrial polution, uncovered illegal wars (Iran Contra) and work tirelessly to make the world a safer more honest place.

How do they do that, by looking for answers outside of the cliches, the corrupt politicians and corporate media, and the entrenched religions and organizations who all benefit from maintaining and promoting the status quo, in a system that is generally murderous and depraved.




America is not responsible for what happens in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are responsible for their own lives. Blaming everything on the rich diverts attention from finding real solutions within the countries themselves.


Man this is incredible, let me drop a few brigades of highly armed and trained American Troops in your little part of Austrailia and have them set up shop, there own little government and supply lines, and there own little rules for how you have to conduct your day to day life and business in order for them to feel 'secure' while there.

They of course will have drone and air support, and satellite support and you will have your Crocodile Dundee Hat and Bowie Knife to stop them and make them leave.

Good luck with that.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Most "conspiracy theories" essentially say that either America or Israel or the Vatican or whoever is preceived as rich and powerful, are the bad guys. This view of things also keeps saying that its these "PTB" forces that are responsible for upheaval and problems in various poor countries. America is not responsible for what happens in Afghanistan. The people of Afghanistan are responsible for their own lives. Blaming everything on the rich diverts attention from finding real solutions within the countries themselves.


I'm not saying it is only America or Israel's or even the Vatican's fault. I'm saying that these corporations, wherever they are headquartered, know no nationalities or allegiances except to themselves and will do whatever it takes to secure resources so that they can dictate the price of them. They create the scarcity paradigm and dole out their treasures to whoever can pay homage to them by giving them money. The article below is very telling.

You see, the Taliban just weren't going to play ball with anyone and let the pipeline be built. They strung these corporations along and made them think that they were going to, but they didn't. All the while the US was keeping the enemies of the Taliban at bay. So what do you think needed to be done to this regime that was allowed to flourish for years and snubbed the corporations?


Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline - Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT



A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.


news.bbc.co.uk...

We can see how corporations have a lot of influence on world affairs. They have all the proper connections and know all the people that pull the strings. They do their business with impunity because of their powerful connections to high places and no one tells them no and gets away with it for long.


The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan



According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.


www.globalresearch.ca...

Quite a mess over in Afghanistan isn't it? We are led to believe that we are there because of the evil doers and Bin Laden who they portray as a terrorist mastermind and the Devil himself. Funny to think it is because a corporation wanted to supply oil to Asia and make a buck.


The people of Afghanistan had no help from us, and the Taliban took over Afghanistan and turned it into a horror story for the people of Afghanistan and a horrible threat for the people of the Western world. But the Taliban, did, as I say, did not just emerge in power. It was there because the United States policy permitted it to be or even acquiesced to it or even supported the creation of the Taliban in agreement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.



For anybody who wants to know who is to blame for 9-11 you can thank those State Department elitists who decided that the Taliban was better than King Zahir Shah and undercut every effort to bring a moderate government to Afghanistan. They are the ones, whether they were in Pakistan or whether they were in Turkmenistan or whether they were in various countries of the world where meetings were taking place, who undercut those efforts of the Taliban's enemies, or let us say those people who would just offer an alternative to the Taliban. Every time the State Department interceded.



And when I personally went to the countries around Afghanistan to try to get support for him rather than the Taliban, I was followed by a representative of the State Department at each of my meetings. At each of the meetings that I had with different political leaders in these countries, a representative of our embassy, meaning the United States State Department, was there saying Dana Rohrobacher is speaking for himself. He is not speaking for the United States of America. In other words, do not listen to Dana Rohrabacher.


Congress ional Record Google Books

Oh well, let me move on.


Thanks to rapid progress over the last few hundred years (as compared to thousands of years before), you will cvontinue to see less and less people like that. Some Royals a few hundred years ago couldnt even afford a bathtub to wash themselves...something each and every one of us has.


Those poor Royals! Who is to blame for not providing them a bathtub? Have them drawn and quartered immediately! I do agree with you on the rapid progress though.


Its impossible for a Business to succeed long-term without serving the community. Misconduct eventually comes to light. Most corporations that are very successful are not that successful because of their exploitative greed but because of the good that they give to the community.


Well I don't know. What about Enron and I believe Goldman Sachs and...Well, no one will ever get in trouble because of that exploitative greed. On the contrary, they will be rewarded with a bail out from their cronies! Oh how wonderful it is!


There is no scarcity of trees and no limit to the number of trees that can be planted and grown. The industrialization of trees has contributed greatly to the wealth of the world. That desk you are sitting on right now is of that tree...


I'm only using the tree as an example of what happens to a resource once it is secured by a large corporation. Especially over seas because there are a lot less environmental laws and such.


This is not due to corporations but due to a principle some call "the law of attraction". It is the victim-mentality of the poor that keeps them in poverty. This victim-mentality is fueled by "conspiracy theories" such as the one shown in the OP. Brainwashing people with ideas of the "big bad boogyman Shadow Government" is what keeps people locked in fear and poverty in the first place. The idea that Capitalism, Corporatism, Wealth and Business are responsible for poverty is ludicrous. The exact opposite is true.


Not all Capitalism, Corporatism, Wealth and Business's are responsible for poverty. There are some gems out there though and when looked into, provide some startling evidence of these institutions doing just that. Causing poverty.






edit on 20-2-2011 by jackflap because: Cry little sister...Thou shalt not fall...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


I just noticed that your avatar is "the awakening"... very cool.

You know, the interesting thing about corporations is that they are mandated by US Gub'ment Law to make the most possible money for their shareholders.
This is in spite of any ethical concerns that might plague a product or corporation in their process of making money.
And this includes borderline interpretations of criminal misdeeds because remember, a corporation is a "real person".
A corporation can engage in marketplace trade just like you or I, and, I can't stress this enough, it is mandated by law to make the most money for its shareholders.

-Even if it has to lay off the guy that has worked there for 25 years and has no education.
-Even if its product has the potential to harm customers.

So what if a corporation kills someone, who goes to jail.

No body.
Limited Liability Corporation
BY LAW.

The US Federal Government is a corporation.

Capitalism in the US has created an environment that rewards those who can act with no remorse or empathy, and punishes those who possess communal ideals.
Capitalism, in its current form in the states, rewards what was once termed "sociopathic" behavior.

A problem is here. We have to deal with it.
We can not keep our head buried in the sand any longer.

Cool avatar btw...


Cheers.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
There is no scarcity of trees and no limit to the number of trees that can be planted and grown. The industrialization of trees has contributed greatly to the wealth of the world. That desk you are sitting on right now is of that tree...


There is no scarcity of trees? Are you kidding me? Surely you've heard of deforestation?

The industrialization of trees is currently ELIMINATING 30,000 acres of trees per year, about 3.5 acres per hour.

...and you can claim the world is more "wealthy" because of it? Perhaps Presidents and CEO's of various paper and wood product multinationals are more wealthy because of it. Surely the world is not.

I am astounded.


For what its worth the desks most of us sit behind these days are made of particle board from young pulpwood trees primarily due to the scarcity (and resultant expense) of old growth materials to work with.

As a professional carpenter I can attest that every year I visit the lumber yard to purchase materials for my customers the number of growth rings in the wood on the shelves is less and less. Heartwood is not even a commodity any longer unless it is salvaged.

Sri Oracle



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Darn, I saw the words "easy" and "maid"....to "order"...
what was I thinkin..?

Being from a blood line familly:

There is such a thing as Luciferianism
but
The other "religions" are just bogus creations for the flock or the school or the herd....
like country music

This actual occult knowledge as opposed to the faux stuff you get with religion and politics gives them the edge.
so the secret money and the secret knowledge get together to wield the secret power over you.

Like the way Dorothy's slippers were silver in the book nobody read but ruby in the movie everybody saw...

Me, I don't fit in with that bunch of psychotic, sociopathic turds
but this stuff just happens naturally vis a vis DNA and then the secret societies refine and use the gifts...
and they network..and they stay focused...and patient
and they buy the government they want for you....

While you folks just drift...

most of you don't know what you are up against...

Darwination
edit on 20-2-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


You know...

A lot of that stuff that you wrote about, the luciferianism, occult, family blood line stuff...

I see the correlations that it has with the idea that the elite propagate.
Because in my opinion, the continual propagation of the elite, that is the only real "conspiracy" happening on the planet today.
And it happens in every town and on a large scale.

I don't know if the uber elite practice some form of occult sex magic, a la Stanley Kubrick, but...
I do know that the McMartin Preschool Trials have much more to them than meets the eye.
As does Satanic Ritual Abuse (or what they call pseudo-satanic ritual abuse) in the Psychiatric community today.

Research in to the Paul Bonacci trial and everything concerning the Omaha Child Abuse Scandal completely blows my mind.

I hate the way that the word "conspiracy" has been turned into a pejorative for those of us who seek the truth.
It is a last resort when neo-phobic traditionalists find themselves talking in verbal strange loops because they are confronted with an ugly truth that does not fit into their sphere of reality.

The cognitive dissonance must be quite uncomfortable, as it is easy to see how some might react with such fierce emotion when their traditional, time tested view of reality is put under fire.

Uncomfortable it is...



The truth, I mean, sometimes.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I'm glad you noticed the background in the avatar. That's an actual photo of when we went there. Not the UFO of course. It is quite an exhibit. I believe I read somewhere that they wanted to move it. Or they already did.

I'm not sure about all that luciferianism and occult stuff. If there is one thing I learned along the way here at ATS is that it has nothing to do with what is actually going on. I mean these guys don't go hold a ritual so that the resources keep getting extracted for them.

They just have the connections and the money. So I believe its a purposeful distraction for us to ponder.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join