paul's got wright Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 you seem to be stuck in the presumption assumption trap still. it's not conducive to meaningful conversation. You seem to be stuck in a different type of trap, not meaningful to conductive conversation. did you make that up all by yourself bob? really articulate x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 have you learned the illuminati's motto yet? you still haven't replied after i caught ye with ye pants down again china. who are the illuminati that you mentioned? x The illuminati works well as a shorthand for the them which people infected by the conspiracy mindset believe are secretly and amazingly responsible for everything. Chinahand’s use of the term “illuminati” will make obvious sense for anyone who has had the frustration of trying to making sense of the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. Though today they tend to blame everything on elites, Zionists, immigrants, lizards, banksters, foreign money etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Blaming everything on elites is appropriate. Not because they are intelligently controlling everything but because they are clueless about the consequences of their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 have you learned the illuminati's motto yet? you still haven't replied after i caught ye with ye pants down again china. who are the illuminati that you mentioned? x The illuminati works well as a shorthand for the them which people infected by the conspiracy mindset believe are secretly and amazingly responsible for everything. Chinahand’s use of the term “illuminati” will make obvious sense for anyone who has had the frustration of trying to making sense of the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. Though today they tend to blame everything on elites, Zionists, immigrants, lizards, banksters, foreign money etc. thanks china x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Blaming everything on elites is appropriate. Not because they are intelligently controlling everything but because they are clueless about the consequences of their actions. an interesting perspective. but if they are clueless then what makes them elite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 thanks china x Solipsism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 An enlightened muslim ...? http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/o/o/o/o/o/o/5170.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 thanks china x Solipsism. bollocksism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I do not think this is true at all. How do you justify it? As ever you blame the Allies for all deaths and do not hold others responsible. I did not say they caused all the deaths. I do think they have caused a large proportion of the deaths either through direct action (billions of dollars of bombs) or through indirect action (destruction of infrastructure, sanctions, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Blaming everything on elites is appropriate. Not because they are intelligently controlling everything but because they are clueless about the consequences of their actions. an interesting perspective. but if they are clueless then what makes them elite? Pure happenstance. Accident of birth, in the right place at the right time, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Blaming everything on elites is appropriate. Not because they are intelligently controlling everything but because they are clueless about the consequences of their actions. an interesting perspective. but if they are clueless then what makes them elite? Pure happenstance. Accident of birth, in the right place at the right time, etc. that doesn't really fit with my understanding of the word elite, especially in this context. i know there are variations of the definition. please forgive me for meandering, but as an analogy, take ronnie osullivan who, despite his troubles, is the perfect example of an elite player. his knowledge and technical ability are second to none. his best performances are unrivaled. an accident he is not, nor are his highly honed natural abilities. but he is considered the best of the best ever. if that's by accident of birth then we are entering the spiritual context of why we are here and doing what, individually, we do. with o'sullivan it's clear that he had to make his way to the top, it's the nature of the game. so if we are talking about an "elite" group of people in so called "power", then again, that cannot be an accident of birth. but, unlike snooker, it can be attained through violent and deceptive means. it's very important to me, that i can trust someone on their merit and vice versa. i'm interested to know how the same word can be used to describe pure natural talent, intellect and dedication, as to describe vile behaviour and assumed positions of so called "power". i prefer the former to the latter, clearly. would be nice to know what you think and others of course x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 That's just usage. Skill doesn't necessarily equate to elite and the elite don't necessarily have skills. In competitive sport (or game of skill in the case of snooker), I would agree that the elite need great skill or ability. In other fields, including politics, it's not necessarily so. There are natural political leaders as there are also in business, academia and military etc. You have some that talk a good game but are actually useless. Then you have those who were born into position purely by chance. In the context of the thread, by "elite" I believe we are talking about those who we believe, rightly or wrongly, are actually running the show and have, or should have, some kind of control of policy and events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 In Woolley's context the elite mean the persons occupying positions such as the President of the USA; the Prime Minister of the UK; the Chancellor of Germany; the heads of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve; the heads of the IMF and the World Bank, the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and Citi Group; the heads of Exon, Shell and BP; the Head of the European Commission and Council of Europe, the Supreme Justices of the US, UK and European Courts; the CEOs of Google, Microsoft and Apple, the head of the WTO and the EU's Competition Directorate etc etc. These people gather at Davos and Bilderberg and make decisions about billions upon billions of dollars and the bureaucracies of trade, regulation and commerce. It doesn't have much to do with Snooker - though I suspect it is Woolley's view that these people aren't put in place by a commanding presence from behind the curtain, but from a basically random set of happenstance due to birth, education, contacts and luck, which is not unlike the arrangements of the balls in Snooker when it is played not by Mr O'Sullivan, but a troop of drunk Chimpanzees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 These people gather at Davos and Bilderberg and make decisions about billions upon billions of dollars and the bureaucracies of trade, regulation and commerce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 That's just usage. Skill doesn't necessarily equate to elite and the elite don't necessarily have skills. In competitive sport (or game of skill in the case of snooker), I would agree that the elite need great skill or ability. In other fields, including politics, it's not necessarily so. There are natural political leaders as there are also in business, academia and military etc. You have some that talk a good game but are actually useless. Then you have those who were born into position purely by chance. In the context of the thread, by "elite" I believe we are talking about those who we believe, rightly or wrongly, are actually running the show and have, or should have, some kind of control of policy and events. That's just usage. Skill doesn't necessarily equate to elite and the elite don't necessarily have skills. In competitive sport (or game of skill in the case of snooker), I would agree that the elite need great skill or ability. In other fields, including politics, it's not necessarily so. There are natural political leaders as there are also in business, academia and military etc. You have some that talk a good game but are actually useless. Then you have those who were born into position purely by chance. In the context of the thread, by "elite" I believe we are talking about those who we believe, rightly or wrongly, are actually running the show and have, or should have, some kind of control of policy and events. yes i see. thanks. some might say those types are misguided at best, deluded at worst, but certainly not elite in the truest sense of the word. opinions are great for discussion. thanks woolley x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.