You can study this for years and never really understand the why.

Perhaps that is because you, like the majority of people on this planet are good people, with good ethics. You have no interest in ruling the world, in killing, in dominating populations. You are comparing world events to your own view and own ethics.

Try these comparisons: in biology the rulers have the same ethics and motivation as a parasite - they feed of the host, eventually killing the host and themselves. In religion it is referred to as 'evil'. In psychology this mentally is called psychopath, or sociopath.

Take 9/11 as an example. Even when faced with mountains of evidence that it was an inside job, many people refuse to believe simply because they cant accept that a leader, or leadership, would kill their own people. In otherwords, "I would never do that, therefore its hard to comprehend that others would do that!".

Its natural to try to understand the question of why. But dont dwell on it too long. Ultimately its better to look for solutions, or ways that you can avoid consequences of sharing a planet with such powerful nut-cases.

Extremely salient point.

I would only add one small thing. The real big conspiracies (population control, fluoride, banking, etc) are almost never about 'the money' (which people often fall victim into believing). Sure, money comes into play - often as the medium of control - but in the end control is more important than financial gain.

As you say, whether the real driving forces are ideological, psychological, or even occult is immaterial since ultimately the only thing we should focus on is strategies to lessen their ability to control.

TL;DR: End the Fed.

Partly greed, but many of these people feel they are doing it to help society progress. Many want a one world government, not for personal gain, but to benefit the world.

You're far too generous.

It's the greed.

There are books written about it. HG Wells The Open Conspiracy is one example.

Wow that was a well written comment with an extremely good point. Mind if I borrow is for next time my friends try to argue with me that there is no real conspiracy?

Thank you, and yes of course, youre most welcome.

You can't understand because unlike those at the top of the pyramid, you are not a sociopath.

We are considered useless eaters. We are 'using up the earths resources' and getting in the way of the excessively rich. In short it wouldn't hurt their feelings a bit if most of us were dead. They figure it's worth a shot.

The sad thing is, in a lot of cases it is in fact true.

However, if we were to have anyone at the top. It should NOT be bankers etc. We need people who have education in something tangible to be leaders and not people that know how to move money around.

Those that have it all, want more for themselves and less for you. They want you to have nothing. Wars, famine and economic collapse serve their goal.

What else is there to attain in this world if not power? It is not the most important thing; it is the only important thing. With power you can get anything else you want. Most people don't really know what power is. It is simply your ability to get what you want done, even if everyone else is against you. If you gather enough control over government, and by extension the people you can do anything you want; get free money, get by laws, buy children for sex. When you do some shit that can violently piss of just about anyone it is usually not money that gets you off but the pulling of some strings.

Michael Tsarion might give you an answer. You might not believe it and you might find it plain silly but nevertheless it is an answer. Feel free to youtube his stuff.

Tsarion starts off interesting but leads that into a quasi-religious(in measures of logical leaps) fear trip...

I don't know about that because he backs up everything he says with proof. I was rewatching "Ancient Aliens - The Series" with a friend of mine, and in Episode 3, they talk about these 70 tablets that were found in ancient Sumeria (currently known as Iraq) and on these tablets is the story of the gods who came down from the sky and genetically manipulated the primitive creatures they found (homo-erectus) into modern human beings as a slave species. And just so you know, Sumeria is the first human civilization on the planet, according to main stream archeology! This may be crazy but this is not myth, this is what these ancient civilizations wrote down... It's all over the place.

We are enduring an experience similar to that of the Native Americans when the Europeans arrived. We are being taken over by a shrewd and wily invader who is not human. They want this planet for themselves and they are steadily weakening us, physically, financially, socially, so that we can be dominated and ultimately used for whatever purpose they see fit.

Many humans in powerful govt and corporate positions are doing their bidding because they've been promised that they will be spared if they sell out the rest of us. They control the media, finance, and medicine, and things look very grim for us.

We could be wiped out as decisively as the Native Americans were, when they encountered a vastly more advanced foe who wanted their land.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLgHnC6BdE

A explanation is given in this interview. It's to shave off the fat of the human race. To artificially induce natural selection for the purpose of preparing us for the real space age.

IMHO they're making as much money as they can off of the general population while killing off the weak, sick, and stupid. Quite brilliant. They'll take the money and fund the next space race.

Funny thing is. They are CREATING weak and stupid people with their propaganda.

Also the people in charge all seem to be shrewd with money. Yet lack proper skills. If the dollar collapsed today and nobody was ready for it. The producers of the economy would survive, while the bankers would quickly find their pantry empty of food and nobody to buy from with all their wealth.

I agree they are helping to create stupid people but there are reasons.

To have mouths to feed and keep the economy growing to build up the war chest of money for the big jump to space travel.

To weed out the idiots. It's a test. If you don't fall into the brainwashing trap then you are respected (for the most part) for thinking critically and taking the risk of not following the herd.

As for the bankers starving in a collapse. The bankers know when the bubbles burst before anyone else. I know some personally. They're always moving their money to the next safe place in the market before anyone else. Also, they're not stupid people. They learn very fast and are some of the most competitive people I've ever met. These people aren't pro athletes or entertainers. They're top of their class/school/social circle people. Look at what they can do with just computers and money when they work as a team. Imagine them working as a team for survival.

My philosophical view on this is that there are two possible end-points for any worldview at all. One: Man is fundamentally good. Two: Man is inherently evil.

If you believe that man is inherently good, then you believe that freedom and liberty will have a natural outcome and that mankind will evolve into something peaceful, shared, mutual and enlightened. The forefathers of the United States had this in mind when the country was founded.

In about the early 20th century, other men came to the fore. With a much dimmer view on man's capabilities and inclinations. This is simple projection. IE, if you yourself are depraved, you will see other men as depraved because you will have projected your own views onto the people around you.

These men found like-minded people in Europe and elsewhere. I don't imply that the conspiracy was born in America, but I do mean to say that the global views that modern conspiracies embrace currently wouldn't be possible without the participation of the United States. Rockefeller, Warburg, JP Morgan et. al.

So these men have a dark view of humanity. What would you do to someone you thought was evil? You'd kill them, lock them up, etc. This would be "good" from your point of view. When you understand that Hitler thought of himself as an agent of goodness in Europe, and not as an evil dictator or mass murderer, then you can easily understand what these other men see themselves as a part of: evolution.

And, in a way, they are a part of our evolution. We evolve together. They only exist with our participation. Obama sits in the White House because we let the media frighten us into submission. Not because these men have inherent power, but because we give them that power -- they have it from us.

If we were to ever take it to the streets, so to speak, we could redeem the world in a day. The other way, non violent way, is through forgiveness. What would the world be like if the Palestinian on the street forgave the nation of Israel? Or vice-versa? Could the politicians that lead them any longer fight each other? It is only through unforgiveness (ie, seeing someone as inherently evil) that any of the things that we say that we hate can take place.

What would it be like if we said to Japan, hey, sorry for firebombing your cities. And those two nukes. Sorry, I look back on it now, and I don't think we should have done that.

If Japan said to China, you know, we did a lot of things during the war that we're not proud of, and we'd like you to know, we're not going to do anything like that again to you, ever.

Wars would end overnight. But my bullet point (no pun intended) is that there are only two possible worldviews: Man is inherently good, or Man is inherently evil. Anyone who says that some men are good and some are evil have missed the point. They haven't thought it through.

Nature is inherently neither good nor bad. It's indifferent. "Goodness" and "badness" are human notions that we project onto other people's deeds from our arbitrary, subjective perspective of what constitutes an act beneficial or detrimental to ourselves or the society.

So these men have a dark view of humanity. What would you do to someone you thought was evil? You'd kill them, lock them up, etc. This would be "good" from your point of view.

No, they have a realistic view of this monkey species. What is being done is that the civilization is being invisibly steered into a its inevitable direction of evolution into global human meta-organism, which is certainly more preferable than some random unfolding of history marked by territorial wars of nations, religious brainwashing billions into cultural clashes and so on. While some of their actions indeed seem genuinely "bad", they all justifiably serve a greater purpose.

"What is being done is that the civilization is being invisibly steered into a its inevitable direction of evolution into global human meta-organism"

Not necessarily. The meta-organism you speak of certainly seems like the 'eventuality' of our current society, but it is really an 'actuality.' Even in a state of chaos and death, the meta organism is the apparent form of the society. this is because the meta organism does not define the society; the people and institutions whom compose organism define the organism. Analogously, you cannot have a cell without the fundamental components of a cell. That being said, in regard to your meta-organism, the formal constituents are the individuals that make up the nation/society; As long as certain institutions, formed by said individuals are apparent, the meta-organism exists. This means that the meta-organism is non-temporal, since those institutions are apparent all the time. And by institutions I mean the fundamental components of a nation, culture, society, and ecosystem. Man is not moving to a state of being meta-organism; Man is already in a state of meta-organism. the question therefore, is not when will the meta-organism become a reality, but rather, "what general form should the meta organism take in regards to the constructions of its institutions and individuals."

That being said, in regard to your meta-organism, the formal constituents are the individuals that make up the nation/society

Individuals don't exist. They die, pass on their genetic code, within a few generations the memory of them fades away, and everything that they have ever done to contribute to the society is deprived of their individual attribution. Their works remain though - be it an important discovery in science, a creative work of art, or the progeny they have left. Individuals don't survive - only communities do. Everything that an individual does or possibly could do must be taken from that perspective: how it benefits the evolution of global human meta-organism.

And by institutions I mean the fundamental components of a nation, culture, society, and ecosystem.

Nations, cultures, ecosystems etc. die out and are created all the time. They are ephemeral phenomena that don't play a significant role in the long-term. The only long-term constant is the species itself, and the unidirectional arrow of progress. There is one exception however - the American model of society that acts as a sponge for all of the world's cultures, and that will eventually project itself on a global scale obliterating those petty differences dividing the planet with imaginary lines on the map, imaginary identities and imaginary gods.

"what general form should the meta organism take in regards to the constructions of its institutions and individuals."

There are two possibilities: the global community evolves into Borg-like state of consciousness and effectual cooperation. Billions of monitoring devices whose output is accessible to anyone, as well as the completely open communications infrastructure and society's institutions enable everyone to observe the work of anyone else, with everyone eventually losing their individuality completely and yielding to society's demands (however they are formed). The other possibility is a single individual becoming so powerful and intelligent that the rest of the species follows his instructions like obedient serfs, leading the species into whichever direction it chooses. Mind you, this is all a distant future, most of living humans are uneducated, dumb, unaware of the primitive biological instincts governing their behavior.

there are only two possible worldviews: Man is inherently good, or Man is inherently evil

So you deny freedom of choice?

You're confusing the issue, when talking about the world view you mean Mankind. When looking at whether Man has an inherent quality you have to look at the individual and it is clear that Man does excercise freedom of choice and can flit between Good and Bad in milliseconds.

This isn't r/philosophy, but if you wanted to know where my thinking comes from, I will say that "A Course in Miracles" is where I learned it. I've studied it for three years now, and I can say that it has answered many questions.

But no, I don't have the time or the inclination for online discussions anymore. They don't work. Apologies if that's what you were hoping for.

I understand that this isn't r/philosophy. However if you make a statement then you should at least spend a little time defending it before withdrawing from the endless discussion that follows.

I took the time to respond so take the time to elaborate a little. I understand that many discussions on here never end in agreement but there is some chance of influencing thought.

Nope. I've had those discussions and they're all the same. I don't owe you anything at all.

No offense, but that whole "prove it to me" thing doesn't apply to philosophy. Because you don't realize that what you now believe required no proof for you to believe it. So the whole "Evidence or GTFO" is not a valid approach. "Convince me", "show me", "make me believe." It doesn't work that way. You have to do your own work, your own path.

I don't owe you a damn thing, respectfully.

idiot

You're welcome.

I think it goes beyond our physical realm. The earth has shakra points, just like the body. They're called lay lines, dragon paths, etc... A lot of obelisks, for example, have been placed on these specific locations by the occult with negative intentions behind them.

John Dee is an interesting character -he was the court astrologer for Queen Elizabeth I and claimed to have communicated with interdimensional beings. He was the architype for James Bond, signing his name 007 after every report sent to his Queen with his findings. He set up Universe Cities for the purpose of learning more about alchemy and geomancy with the help of Edward Kelly.

This is some heavy shit dude. I don't know how deep you wanna go. I don't even know how credible any of this stuff really is, but it creeps me the fuck out!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1594923458222660515#

[deleted]

Research has shown that silk blocks scalar waves, while tinfoil does not.

[deleted]

[deleted]