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.

 

Are there any "Good" elites?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
From the quotes here,
globalistagenda.org...

There is definitely an agenda from the rich and powerful to enslave free humanity. There also definitely seems to be an "Us vs Them" attitude, and from several years of CT research I can't seem to find any "Good" elite. Even Bill Gates with his vaccine agenda seems to be in on it. It seems like whoever makes a certain amount of money joins the club. Whats a given is all of the mega rich are in on it like rockefeller, rothschild, morgan, etc etc.

Do you all know of any "good" rich guys on our side of free humanity? Or does vast quantities of money really corrupt anyone it touches?

Thanks




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Becomming rich is all about doing some buttlicking, if you dont buttlick like all the other rich people.. your richness vanish quickly.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vagabond50
 


Nope, end of story.


O wait, missed the second line Bill Gates is as evil as they come, he is a blood sucking money monger.
edit on 16-5-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I think there may be some who initially had good intentions, but then suddenly found that this went against the agenda and they quickly changed their minds in order to protect their stash.

It's the old money who are right at the top and guiding the agenda.There is no one good within those ranks. The new money are enlightened to the real agenda and plough a vast amount trying to make it possible.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vagabond50
 


Way back in the day there was one, Howard Hughes. He didn't wanna play by there rules.
I dunno of any "elite" that are good these days. Though, in my terms, I wouldn't call a single one of them elite.
There's probably some good out there but good doesn't usually mix well with money.
Peace!



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
What do you mean by "good"? Power in itself corrupts. Money itself is inherently destructive through the desire for profit and greed. There are a few societies that were suppose to protect powerful secrets, but the problem is they were found out and destroyed, and now those secrets are being used by the western elites. But there are a few organizations in asia that I would consider "good" in that they fight the western imperialist elites.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gameoverforyou
What do you mean by "good"? Power in itself corrupts. Money itself is inherently destructive through the desire for profit and greed. There are a few societies that were suppose to protect powerful secrets, but the problem is they were found out and destroyed, and now those secrets are being used by the western elites. But there are a few organizations in asia that I would consider "good" in that they fight the western imperialist elites.


So in other words, money should be abolished and no one is immune to the temptation of power?
edit on 16-5-2011 by vagabond50 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I'm sure there is a handfull but since they are not doing any major buttlicking they are not really known of.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Watch the movie The One Percent (it's available for streaming on NetFlix). I was bored and watched it a few weeks ago. It was made by Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson family fortune.

The One Percent (Wiki article)

He is an anti-elite and interviews many kids of very high wealth (top one percent), who voluntarily gave up their fortunes because they despised their wealth and how that segment of society acts.

So, to answer your question, yes, there are good elites out there!!!! I never would have thought so until I watched this eye opening documentary.





edit on 16-5-2011 by JonInMichigan because: typo



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vagabond50
From the quotes here,
globalistagenda.org...

There is definitely an agenda from the rich and powerful to enslave free humanity. There also definitely seems to be an "Us vs Them" attitude, and from several years of CT research I can't seem to find any "Good" elite. Even Bill Gates with his vaccine agenda seems to be in on it. It seems like whoever makes a certain amount of money joins the club. Whats a given is all of the mega rich are in on it like rockefeller, rothschild, morgan, etc etc.

Do you all know of any "good" rich guys on our side of free humanity? Or does vast quantities of money really corrupt anyone it touches?

Thanks


Yes.

But there are a lot more pathologically uncaring elites than the humane ones.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I challenge you that there is good and evil at ALL levels of society.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
I challenge you that there is good and evil at ALL levels of society.


Star for you!

I will not be so stubborn and ignorant to assume that 'amassing mass amounts of wealth automatically makes you a genocidal megalomaniac'. It's idiocy. I can't believe that so many people would be so discriminative and idiotic to seriously classify anybody who is successful and intelligent with their money as 'evil' automatically. Yes, there are evil entrepreneurs out there (just look at Rockefeller, or Soros), but they are not all bad.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


I agree. I'll take a hoe to the proverbial "garden" that is Star Wars and dig up the whole Vader thing. Everyone starts out innocent and good (Anakin) and they go through moments of their lives that are bad or even downright evil (Vader), but I believe that the 'good' in them never really goes away. Just like how Darth Vader found the good in himself to destroy the emporer and save his son in the end of Return of the Jedi. You can find good in anyone, you kind of just have to look for it. Even at that, sometimes you REALLY have to look for it. Moreover, I also don't think it's impossible that some people are too blind by their greed, power and overall corruption to rediscover and display the good in themselves. It's really sad...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by vagabond50
 

If you define "elite" as "bad" then the answer is in the negative.

I think that the "elite" being referred to we recognize as a special meaning of the term. These are specifically people who have been working for years to concentrate and consolidate their power and influence. This is not an operating environment that many of us would enjoy. It's too concentrated on things that most of us don't see as that worthwhile. You can only own so many castles and armed guards before it starts getting old an you wish you could just go down to the corner and have a beer with your buddies.

So "the elite" attracts to it these people who are obsessed with the "problem" of power. I don't see the "elite" as good and bad as much as I see the whole orientation as oppressive and rather insane. So how much good is going to come out of an environment like that?

Still, if there weren't some restraining forces present in that world, I think things would be even worse than they are now. So there are likely to be individuals, influences, or some piece of their own psyche that restrains them from being as despicable as some of them wish they could be.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Davian

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
I challenge you that there is good and evil at ALL levels of society.


Star for you!

I will not be so stubborn and ignorant to assume that 'amassing mass amounts of wealth automatically makes you a genocidal megalomaniac'. It's idiocy. I can't believe that so many people would be so discriminative and idiotic to seriously classify anybody who is successful and intelligent with their money as 'evil' automatically. Yes, there are evil entrepreneurs out there (just look at Rockefeller, or Soros), but they are not all bad.


no ones saying that.

All we are saying is that there is good and evil.

When your powerful/wealthy you can do more evil OR good on a massive scale.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by vagabond50
 

If you define "elite" as "bad" then the answer is in the negative.

I think that the "elite" being referred to we recognize as a special meaning of the term. These are specifically people who have been working for years to concentrate and consolidate their power and influence. This is not an operating environment that many of us would enjoy. It's too concentrated on things that most of us don't see as that worthwhile. You can only own so many castles and armed guards before it starts getting old an you wish you could just go down to the corner and have a beer with your buddies.

So "the elite" attracts to it these people who are obsessed with the "problem" of power. I don't see the "elite" as good and bad as much as I see the whole orientation as oppressive and rather insane. So how much good is going to come out of an environment like that?

Still, if there weren't some restraining forces present in that world, I think things would be even worse than they are now. So there are likely to be individuals, influences, or some piece of their own psyche that restrains them from being as despicable as some of them wish they could be.


No ones saying that.

Who is saying any group is all innocent and "good" or all evil and "corrupt".

You have good elites(the ones who care about human life) and you have the bad elites(the ones who don't care about human life).

They, like us are the same. They just have more resources and work together better for a common goal(NWO).

We have both good and evil non-elite people. But not all not elites are bad. Same thing.

edit on 18-5-2011 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by vagabond50
 


It obviously depends on how you define "good" but in general I would have to say no.

Gross inequity is obviously not good for the people on the short end of that stick, and simply assuaging your conscience with good deed, charity work, or little handouts here and there does nothing to undo the fact that you are the beneficiary of something deeply unfair, unjust, and oppressive.

And I am not making the argument that there should be total equity. People who do better should have differential success. But they should not be able to makes laws to ensure they continue to do better, and that make it difficult or impossible for others to unseat them, nor should their wealth pass down to children who did nothing to earn it.

"Being good to the little people" is also a very subtle way to aggrandize yourself. And that kind of egoism is also not "good" in the most well rounded sense.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by vagabond50
 


Gross inequity is obviously not good for the people on the short end of that stick, and simply assuaging your conscience with good deed, charity work, or little handouts here and there does nothing to undo the fact that you are the beneficiary of something deeply unfair, unjust, and oppressive.


Sounds like rhetoric that comes from someone who has never been on the upper end of that stick...and yes, I have a problem with your opinion. I known many who have worked their a$$ off to be successful. Some have even given up seeing their children grow up or being around in a loved one's last days to ensure that success. (Yes, its THEIR choice and right to do so....even if some of us would choose differently!) What an utter affront to those people who have EARNED IT to have someone like you come in and say they SHOULDN'T have it because "its not fair" to those people who haven't put in the time, blood, sweat, and tears.



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And I am not making the argument that there should be total equity. People who do better should have differential success.


So where do you draw the line and how do you consider that line not to be arbitrary? Again, see my comment above.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But they should not be able to makes laws to ensure they continue to do better, and that make it difficult or impossible for others to unseat them, nor should their wealth pass down to children who did nothing to earn it.


Okay, so I will always agree there should be less laws. Government operates better when it doesn't encumber anyone's personal freedoms. In that, I will agree with you.

However, if I have spent my life accumulating and saving the results of my effort, I should have the right to give it to WHOMEVER I want, including my children. Who are YOU to think you have the right to say what happens to MY PROPERTY when you have done nothing to accumulate your own?


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
"Being good to the little people" is also a very subtle way to aggrandize yourself. And that kind of egoism is also not "good" in the most well rounded sense.


That's a funny comment because I guarantee that the people I help are very grateful and appreciative for that help! And considering the "wealthy" contribute more to charities than everyone else combined, that's an awful lot of people that get helped whom otherwise wouldn't. Also, people allow their names to be associated with that "help" for different purposes. Some do it for recognition. Some do it because they need others to know they aren't horrible people. Personally, I do NOT associate my name or any of my companies with the philanthropic work that I do. Why? Because I don't need or want the association. I do it "just because I want to" and realize that the HELP is what matters. Not who gave it. Again though, personal choice...



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy

Sounds like rhetoric that comes from someone who has never been on the upper end of that stick...and yes, I have a problem with your opinion.


Typical. I have never been a trust fund baby but at one point I was in the upper end of the income bracket.



Originally posted by CIAGypsy
I known many who have worked their a$$ off to be successful. Some have even given up seeing their children grow up or being around in a loved one's last days to ensure that success. (Yes, its THEIR choice and right to do so....even if some of us would choose differently!) What an utter affront to those people who have EARNED IT to have someone like you come in and say they SHOULDN'T have it because "its not fair" to those people who haven't put in the time, blood, sweat, and tears.


Clearly YOU have never been on the lower end of that stick. Because if you had, you would know that there are people who work every bit as hard as those on the upper end, who also miss seeing their kids grow up, miss being there when family members die, etc., and they get next to nowhere, because the game is rigged against them. Do you have any idea how many people work more than one job? Or who take incredibly dangerous jobs putting their life and health at risk to give their family a better life? Or who work overseas and dont get to see their families at all except maybe once or twice a year so they can make some incremental move upward for their family?

Cry me a river. Its the arrogance and ignorance of the upper classes that the poor are poor because they are lazy, stupid and unmotivated. There are people like that in the lower classes. But there are plenty of trust fund babies who meet that description too.



Originally posted by CIAGypsy
So where do you draw the line and how do you consider that line not to be arbitrary? Again, see my comment above.


I dont have enough confidence in your ability to absorb information to waste my time. Read Platos Republic for how you can both reward individual merit AND ensure that the whole, society itself, is fair, just, and not rigged to serve the rich.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Okay, so I will always agree there should be less laws. Government operates better when it doesn't encumber anyone's personal freedoms. In that, I will agree with you.


Typical. Its not simply about less laws. You can only make ONE law and skew society permanently in favor of the already rich. Its not about fewer or more, its about not letting the wealthy (or the poor though that really only happens rarely) make laws that rig the game in their favor. All laws should exist to promote justice, and to ensure competition is not hindered. The rich dont want less regulation. They want the competition skewed in their favor by heavily regulating the poor and removing all hindrances to their actions. Much like is going on in America today.


Originally posted by CIAGypsy
However, if I have spent my life accumulating and saving the results of my effort, I should have the right to give it to WHOMEVER I want, including my children. Who are YOU to think you have the right to say what happens to MY PROPERTY when you have done nothing to accumulate your own?


You dont know what I have. And Warren Buffet and Carnegie are modern examples of wealthy people who felt natures ends and societies were best served by requiring ones children to make their own way. A lot of the people who spent their lives "accumulating" did so under laws and rulesets that allowed them to cheat, and take what wasnt honestly theirs. Who are you to say that that inequity should remain the case for all time?


Originally posted by CIAGypsy
That's a funny comment because I guarantee that the people I help are very grateful and appreciative for that help!


And Im sure you get off on that.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Clearly YOU have never been on the lower end of that stick. Because if you had, you would know that there are people who work every bit as hard as those on the upper end, who also miss seeing their kids grow up, miss being there when family members die, etc., and they get next to nowhere, because the game is rigged against them. Do you have any idea how many people work more than one job? Or who take incredibly dangerous jobs putting their life and health at risk to give their family a better life? Or who work overseas and dont get to see their families at all except maybe once or twice a year so they can make some incremental move upward for their family?


There are many opportunities for the poor to move their financial status. Happens every day. Just look at the internet, especially in its infancy. It created a whole new breed of wealth outside of "old wealth." However, the majority of those individuals have LOST their wealth. Not because the (imaginary) "elite" stole it from them or somehow cheated them out of it. They lost it because they didn't understand how wealth works. How to keep it and grow it. This isn't the fault of the upper class. Their families have faced the same test. They just happened to figure it out. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?




Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I dont have enough confidence in your ability to absorb information to waste my time.


Nice sidestep.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Read Platos Republic for how you can both reward individual merit AND ensure that the whole, society itself, is fair, just, and not rigged to serve the rich.


Read it. In fact, it was REQUIRED READING when I was in primary school.


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Typical. Its not simply about less laws. You can only make ONE law and skew society permanently in favor of the already rich. Its not about fewer or more, its about not letting the wealthy (or the poor though that really only happens rarely) make laws that rig the game in their favor. All laws should exist to promote justice, and to ensure competition is not hindered. The rich dont want less regulation. They want the competition skewed in their favor by heavily regulating the poor and removing all hindrances to their actions. Much like is going on in America today.


Shows what little you know about the business and finance world. I guarantee you that corporations would LOVE less regulation.... How do I know? Because I see them fight these battles with lobbyists every single day. Perhaps you should go sit in DC for 6 months to get a grip on reality....


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You dont know what I have. And Warren Buffet and Carnegie are modern examples of wealthy people who felt natures ends and societies were best served by requiring ones children to make their own way.


Their RIGHT to do so....and all very commendable. But that doesn't mean we ALL have to follow in their footsteps. In centuries past, wealthy families used to send off one of their children to serve as knights of the realm or to serve the church. It was required and expected. How would you feel if someone told you to do such a thing today? How would you feel sending your beloved child off to Afghanistan because someone else decided for you, based upon what THEY think is "fair"?


Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
A lot of the people who spent their lives "accumulating" did so under laws and rulesets that allowed them to cheat, and take what wasnt honestly theirs. Who are you to say that that inequity should remain the case for all time?


Highly presumptive to assume ANYONE has "cheated" to accumulate their wealth. Sounds like class envy to me. A bitter bottom-feeder who, instead of focusing on themselves and what they can do to advance themselves, says "I can't go ANYWHERE because the deck is stacked against me...." Thousands of others are proving you wrong every day. You have more opportunity to advance yourself TODAY than ever before in history!




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join