GENIUS FORUMS

Who_Rules_America?

Looking over the Cui Bono? thread, and following some of the links that hsandman provided (Wikipedia) that had to do with the idea of an 'elite' power structure that rules behind the scenes, I came across this site which seems to take a rational approach, and to avoid romanticism and paranoia, so very captivating to those of a superstitious temperment, often those with strange metaphysical and mystical leanings, and (in my opinion) those with no 'ownership interest' themselves, that is, who simply have no idea how power is weilded because they have no power. This of course opens the door to a consideration of 'ressentiment' as an additional factor to that of pseudo-religious paranoia and imagination-run-wild.

I thought the site above to be interesting because it examines power in a more objective light, in no sense minimizing it, or failing to point out the troubling nature of the fact of power and certain 'power pyramids' within society that are in themselves 'anti-deomcratic', but without resorting to distorting metaphysics, as had been my impression with some of the analysis that appeared on that thread.

Alex Jacob wrote:Who_Rules_America?

Looking over the Cui Bono? thread, and following some of the links that hsandman provided (Wikipedia) that had to do with the idea of an 'elite' power structure that rules behind the scenes, I came across this site which seems to take a rational approach, and to avoid romanticism and paranoia, so very captivating to those of a superstitious temperment, often those with strange metaphysical and mystical leanings, and (in my opinion) those with no 'ownership interest' themselves, that is, who simply have no idea how power is weilded because they have no power. This of course opens the door to a consideration of 'ressentiment' as an additional factor to that of pseudo-religious paranoia and imagination-run-wild.

I thought the site above to be interesting because it examines power in a more objective light, in no sense minimizing it, or failing to point out the troubling nature of the fact of power and certain 'power pyramids' within society that are in themselves 'anti-deomcratic', but without resorting to distorting metaphysics, as had been my impression with some of the analysis that appeared on that thread.

I have read it before. People are just jealous of shrewd people who have it all. They have no right to be upset about all the perceived injustices that are imagined and baseless. Everything is fine alex... go back to sleep. That article certainly put me to sleep. Two tumbs up and a big grin your way alex...job well done.

Edit: ps. alex I have more links. =) (Links)

If you find any of those link information presented there misleading, let me know, and I will try to verify the validity or lack of it for you.

Despite the apparent benefit to Mossad, Wall Street Jews & Christians, the CIA and part of the Bush administration that came of the false flag event known as 911, the longer term result does not look good. Power elites tend to suffer from group think, which limits their forsight to more near term advantage, which then leads to their downfall.

Nor did I mean to suggest that the above conspirators were the only power elite in the system, which we can see is global. We also have OPEC, and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2 ... lar17.html which outlines the problem they have of holding all those dollars while the value falls.

Then too, you'd think that all those rich bastards could've figured out that if they bankrupt the middle class, they'd have a problem in real estate and mortgage foreclosures. Or that the middle class, which has seen its incomes fall, would've cut back on their lifestyles rather than destroying them entirely.

There also seems to be some awareness by the boomers that the next generation is not going to be able to fund the retirement lifestyle they'd hoped for. It all adds up to a machiavellian balance of powers, each of which needs all the others to be functional in order for each to survive.

If we have a global free market, then one of the things it is free to do is panic. But if there are hidden hands manipulating the numbers, its doubtful that they will act in the best long term interests of the system rather than their own perceived near term interests.

But either way, there's no way for us here to tell who, if anyone, is running things. The published reports and numbers we do have are obviously neither complete, nor fully honest, but spun either intentionally, or as a result of blind sided denial of the true state of affairs. Whoever runs America, all we know is that its not us.

At best, all we can do is find the right lines to read between to better discern how to adapt to changes we cant stop any more than global warming. The global warming I care about is what I see going on in my own garden. I dont work there to grow all my own food, but to learn how in case I need to. I cut my own firewood, not because I cant afford to buy it, but again, to know how, and how much to cut. I likewise study and experiment with electronic communications so I have the best chance of staying informed about what those who do rule, choose to do.

Whoever they are, they hopefully understand that if they fuck up, they'll be dragged out to be shot, and that thot therefore concentrates the mind. So they may figure out how to keep the balls rolling.

daybrown:

daybrown wrote:Whoever they are, they hopefully understand that if they fuck up, they'll be dragged out to be shot

Well, I am sure they do understand it, there fore the concerted effort in disarming the citizens... (They = Group of super rich robber barons like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group)

Have you seen the Alex Jones- Endgame? (Google vid 2h19min)

I don't necessarily think I am asleep, and in my own way I have made all sorts of adjustments to sidestep 'the system' that exists, but maybe it is more that I wish to dream other dreams, and it is *not impossible* that your 'wakefulness' is also very much a sort of dreaming.

On that thread (cui bono) I wrote about what I perceive as a sort of 'cult of mystical paranoia', and I'll bet you a dollar that this cult is spreading like wildfire in the mind, and sub-mind, of millions of people who are simply not qualified or even interested in a studied, rational approach to ownership, ownership interest, and power. It is pretty obvious, to me anyway, that a reasonable state of mind is not what they are after, and that the readings from 'the lists of horror' are designed to provoke mysterious feelings about the nature of reality, and the movie has to have advanced special effects to hold their interest. The mythologies of today are supported by a vast, technological industry, giving new meaning the the Lucretian term 'vatum' to describe the association of priest and poet.

Really, I don't see how you could deny that in the popular mind (these are very popular narratives, in the Roman sense) some part of these understandings and conceptualizations are extremely mythologized, and it is a sort of grab bag and a mix'n'match with 'ideas' (paranoid 'henids' to use a favorite word 'roung these parts) that come from a variety of narratives: some print media, maybe a whole group of feeling-ideas from some popular movie (painting us all as biological entities, deluded, hooked up to material machines that suck our juices, and always in the background the idea of 'savior').

It seems to me entirely reasonable as an assertion that huge portions of entire populations exist within a very real sort of 'dream' about the nature of the reality that they inhabit. The fact is, it is very difficult to 'locate' oneself in 'reality' since in this very, very real postmodern mental and ideational landscape, no one really seems to know where they are, in fact. So many of the narratives point in the direction of, and seem to lead one to, essential uncertainty. This is post-classical modernism and I really think it is one of the strangest junctures that humanity has lived. If these are 'interesting times' they are getting interestinger and interestinger, don't you think?

Please don't get me wrong. Even if I point to psychological factors that drive narratives, or puff them up like sails, I do myself tend to view the world more cynically than the professor from Santa Cruz. But I will say that the 'local power elites' (that was where my Wikipedia investigation started, with some guy in the 50s who did a on-the-ground study to discover who were the real power holders in Atlanta) are not part of a mystical club, they are people with 'simple' and direct ownership interest in real estate and marketing systems. They don't receive messages from the space-peoples, they are not possessed like in Night of the Living Dead. I personally know (am acquainted with) at least a few people who are genuinely members of that upper 1% in the US and I have a sense how they see the world. Those I know I 'admire' at least in some ways, but I guess that is another topic. My point is that power from lesser structures flows into power of larger structures organically, natirally, and is not a mystery.

I am completely of the opinion, though, that 'we' need to come back down to Earth and to curtail speculations, and certainly the open-ended anecdote, a fave of daybrown I might say... ;-)
___________________________

[Edit: spelling correction]

jacob wrote:If these are 'interesting times' they are getting interestinger and interestinger, don't you think?

Indeed. =)

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).

Alex Jacob wrote:I don't necessarily think I am asleep, and in my own way I have made all sorts of adjustments to sidestep 'the system' that exists, but maybe it is more that I wish to dream other dreams, and it is *not impossible* that your 'wakefulness' is also very much a sort of dreaming.

Yes, it is not impossible that all wakefulness is 'very much a sort of dreaming.'

On that thread (cui bono) I wrote about what I perceive as a sort of 'cult of mystical paranoia', and I'll bet you a dollar that this cult is spreading like wildfire in the mind, and sub-mind, of millions of people who are simply not qualified or even interested in a studied, rational approach to ownership, ownership interest, and power. It is pretty obvious, to me anyway, that a reasonable state of mind is not what they are after, and that the readings from 'the lists of horror' are designed to provoke mysterious feelings about the nature of reality, and the movie has to have advanced special effects to hold their interest. The mythologies of today are supported by a vast, technological industry, giving new meaning the the Lucretian term 'vatum' to describe the association of priest and poet.

It is easy to disparage a dog's intelligence for not being able to do complex maths.

Really, I don't see how you could deny that in the popular mind (these are very popular narratives, in the Roman sense) some part of these understandings and conceptualizations are extremely mythologized, and it is a sort of grab bag and a mix'n'match with 'ideas' (paranoid 'henids' to use a favorite word 'roung these parts) that come from a variety of narratives: some print media, maybe a whole group of feeling-ideas from some popular movie (painting us all as biological entities, deluded, hooked up to material machines that suck our juices, and always in the background the idea of 'savior').

Chastisement of myths and myth-believers does not even address the question of whether or not there are actual conspiracies and control systems in place. In fact it muddies the waters.

It seems to me entirely reasonable as an assertion that huge portions of entire populations exist within a very real sort of 'dream' about the nature of the reality that they inhabit. The fact is, it is very difficult to 'locate' oneself in 'reality' since in this very, very real postmodern mental and ideational landscape, no one really seems to know where they are, in fact. So many of the narratives point in the direction of, and seem to lead one to, essential uncertainty. This is post-classical modernism and I really think it is one of the strangest junctures that humanity has lived. If these are 'interesting times' they are getting interestinger and interestinger, don't you think?

Hasn't it always been this way?

Please don't get me wrong. Even if I point to psychological factors that drive narratives, or puff them up like sails, I do myself tend to view the world more cynically than the professor from Santa Cruz. But I will say that the 'local power elites' (that was where my Wikipedia investigation started, with some guy in the 50s who did a on-the-ground study to discover who were the real power holders in Atlanta) are not part of a mystical club, they are people with 'simple' and direct ownership interest in real estate and marketing systems. They don't receive messages from the space-peoples, they are not possessed like in Night of the Living Dead. I personally know (am acquainted with) at least a few people who are genuinely members of that upper 1% in the US and I have a sense how they see the world. Those I know I 'admire' at least in some ways, but I guess that is another topic. My point is that power from lesser structures flows into power of larger structures organically, natirally, and is not a mystery.

Assertions based on your limited viewpoint. An article by a college professor? A wiki page? A sense of how a couple of billionaires think? And your idea of what is reasonable? Give me a break.

I am completely of the opinion, though, that 'we' need to come back down to Earth and to curtail speculations, and certainly the open-ended anecdote, a fave of daybrown I might say... ;-)

I agree. Let's start with ourselves.

"Chastisement of myths and myth-believers does not even address the question of whether or not there are actual conspiracies and control systems in place. In fact it muddies the waters."

But that is not exactly what I am after. If the subject interests you, talk about it. I'd like to hear what you think about it. Anyway, who is chastizing? I am not even trying to correct, it is just that these ideas interest me.

"Hasn't it always been this way?"

That doesn't seem, really, that bright of a question since it is pretty obviously yes. As a rhetorical question, what is its purpose? But what seems interesting, to me anyway, is the element of certainty that (likely) existed for some other people at other times. Post-modernism---this time we live in---it seems to me to be about any number of narratives running up against each other, blending (absurdly), and leading to a mystified state of mind.

"Assertions based on your limited viewpoint. An article by a college professor? A wiki page? A sense of how a couple of billionaires think? And your idea of what is reasonable? Give me a break."

What assertions, of this sort and in a forum such as this (outside of the exact sciences) is not the result of 'limited viewpoint'? Is any part of opinion that you offer not also 'limited' in exactly the same sense? What is the point of the observation, Carl? Why don't you talk about your own ideas, whatever they are? And I will give you no break at all.

"I agree. Let's start with ourselves."

You really are 'your father's son'. (A product of this forum). How might 'we' go about 'starting with outrselves'? Please explain. Carl, I give your post only a D+.

Agreed that were there any supernatural, alien, or whatever powers, they would have taken over long ago. Hominids operate in a machiavellian balance of forces that swings one way or the other, like a stock market. While that works, its not efficient enuf to deal with any outside force. Ergo, no outside force exists at a macro level.

But we do see, in our own lives, and that of others, the hand of Fate. De jevu. Murphy's law. Other such anomalies that convince us it is not all random. More to the point really, is not who has ruled, but who will rule. And here the macro economic force is pushing women. Whereas before, no matter who ruled, it was a struggle among alpha males. But now there's a transition to the daughters of alpha males, who inherit much of the drive from their fathers, but have no interest in acquiring harems, and blowjobs in the office just dont appeal to them.

As noticed, the changes are interesting. What will gold diggers do when men no longer have the gold? The female leader dont need status symbols or expensive luxury items to get laid. How are they going to be bribed? They dont need a mansion in the suburbs with a trophy wife at the door and mistress in the penthouse downtown. The sheer power of their position will have stud muffins line up at the door, and thats only if the frigid bitches wanna get laid anyway.

So- no matter what your vision of who rules now is ongoing fundamental change. Sometimes the new female CEO will adopt the income and lifestyle of her male predecessors for the sake of continuity in the corporate culture. But for those organizations that face severe economic difficulty, then I'd expect the whole power structure to get hammered flat, and lots of mid level male managers will actually have to go to work for a living.

I think taking the hoe out of the hand of the Mexican to send the latter back across the border while these former lard butts work in the fields would get wide spread approval.

One thing driving the conversion from male to female is computers. It usta be, that if it was a keyboard, it was for the female clerk typist recording dictation. No male manager would touch a keyboard for a long time after it was attached to a computer. And I think if we look now, we'll see that most of those who can touch type are female, and their net output, like mine, is vastly more than what the finger peckers can do.

And so the sheer volume of reports written by women fills the cyberspace of the power structures.
The voice of authority on TV usta be Huntley, Brinkley, & Cronkite. Now, most of the voices have trophy blonde heads behind the mike. One is even, albeit somewhat over the hill, running for president. Considering the way these heads think is going to be more useful.

daybrown wrote:Agreed that were there any supernatural, alien, or whatever powers, they would have taken over long ago. Hominids operate in a machiavellian balance of forces that swings one way or the other, like a stock market. While that works, its not efficient enuf to deal with any outside force. Ergo, no outside force exists at a macro level.

Your 'ergo' is faulty logic. How do you know they haven't taken over? From what I can see, they, whoever they is, have done just that.

But we do see, in our own lives, and that of others, the hand of Fate. De jevu. Murphy's law. Other such anomalies that convince us it is not all random. More to the point really, is not who has ruled, but who will rule. And here the macro economic force is pushing women. Whereas before, no matter who ruled, it was a struggle among alpha males. But now there's a transition to the daughters of alpha males, who inherit much of the drive from their fathers, but have no interest in acquiring harems, and blowjobs in the office just dont appeal to them.

You speak of macro but talk on entirely a micro level.

As noticed, the changes are interesting. What will gold diggers do when men no longer have the gold? The female leader dont need status symbols or expensive luxury items to get laid. How are they going to be bribed? They dont need a mansion in the suburbs with a trophy wife at the door and mistress in the penthouse downtown. The sheer power of their position will have stud muffins line up at the door, and thats only if the frigid bitches wanna get laid anyway.

You seem lost in your world of alpha-beta stud muffins and gold diggers. These interesting bits of history are not relevant to the big picture.

So- no matter what your vision of who rules now is ongoing fundamental change. Sometimes the new female CEO will adopt the income and lifestyle of her male predecessors for the sake of continuity in the corporate culture. But for those organizations that face severe economic difficulty, then I'd expect the whole power structure to get hammered flat, and lots of mid level male managers will actually have to go to work for a living.

You love your encyclopedic ordinary knowledge.

I think taking the hoe out of the hand of the Mexican to send the latter back across the border while these former lard butts work in the fields would get wide spread approval.

Yeah, heh, wide spread approval for the lard butts.

And so the sheer volume of reports written by women fills the cyberspace of the power structures.

So what? Men make the decisions.

The voice of authority on TV usta be Huntley, Brinkley, & Cronkite. Now, most of the voices have trophy blonde heads behind the mike. One is even, albeit somewhat over the hill, running for president. Considering the way these heads think is going to be more useful.

Who cares what the one reading the words is thinking? Care about who's policy dictates the content of the broadcast. Hint: it isn't the trophy blondes.

<Your 'ergo' is faulty logic. How do you know they haven't taken over? From what I can see, they, whoever they is, have done just that.>
Lets see if we can clarify this first Carl. If there really was a super rational, or even rational power in control, a god or any other supernatural force, would it still be this stupidly chaotic? There is no method in the madness.

daybrown wrote:<Your 'ergo' is faulty logic. How do you know they haven't taken over? From what I can see, they, whoever they is, have done just that.>
Lets see if we can clarify this first Carl. If there really was a super rational, or even rational power in control, a god or any other supernatural force, would it still be this stupidly chaotic? There is no method in the madness.

You didn't say super rational or even rational power. You said "supernatural, alien, or whatever powers," and so that is what I spoke of. As far as stupidly chaotic, yes, I see no contradiction there. There is reason to believe that that is what is wanted.

Thinking about it, I do think you have a point, or you point toward a point, and that is that what world business culture demands right now, what it recognizes it needs, and what it is setting out to create, is a culture that is more female, more docile, more 'responsible', that will take orders, that will stay the course, that will show up on time religiously, and that has no other option before it but to perform like the perfect cog in the machine. So, it sets to work to re-engineer the historical male into a sort of female man, and perhaps to make women more masculine so to take up the slack, and to place women in many positions of middle-management, all throughout the culture, to give many forums to the Oprah-type talk show, where we can all talk in endless heart-to-hearts and applaud in unison when we hit a sentimental nerve, when a 'truth' is spoken.

The other point you allude to from time to time is the pharmaceutical issue: that deviation from the new norm will be seen as mental illness and will require chemical intervention. Really, you see this often. All sorts of people who don't have the intellectual preparation to understand their condition, and yet who suffer in their condition, and react in their condition, and their treatment is medication, that calms them down, renders them servile, and yet also vacates them of the essential human spark.

In the end, is the Judeo-Christian historical project to culminate in a Huxlian 'soma'?

"Better a dram than a damn."

Watch the Interview

Thanx Alex. David Pearce has written a nice piece at http://www.huxley.net/ that deserves more time than I have now to get into. I need to get back out to the garden.

But a couple comments. in ref to Carl, a really powerful entity that was not sane would not last. Were it ever in charge of the world, the chaos we now see would have spun way out of control with the iron fist demolishing us all trying to stop it. The whole idea behind draconian control is to reduce chaos. If you permit chaos, you permit freedom. Cant have that in a tyranny.

Pearce discusses Soma; I've tried the recipe that Wasson got from Ugarit Shamen. In fact, last new moon with some Amanita Muscaria I found in the woods in October. I've also tried opium and cannabis, as Pearce's Soma link suggests was in use at Gonor & Toguluk in the early 2nd mil BC. But its Wasson's recipe that is more reliably spiritual, and not at all like the soma that Huxley writes of in The Brave New World. At least, on my world.

Pearce also goes into how convincing Virtual Reality combined with the right biochemistry mite be, but does not pause to wonder if that, in fact, is not what he, or I, or you, are experiencing right now. Pearce mentions the Vedas, which brings to mind the Bagavad Gita, in which Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are divinely created and animated forms that exist only as a challenge to the fulfillment of his Kharma. Just like the monsters in a Virtual Reality game.

Or the trolls on the Internet.

daybrown wrote: a really powerful entity that was not sane would not last. Were it ever in charge of the world, the chaos we now see would have spun way out of control with the iron fist demolishing us all trying to stop it. The whole idea behind draconian control is to reduce chaos. If you permit chaos, you permit freedom. Cant have that in a tyranny.

What we have is not real chaos, but the appearance of chaos. What we have is foment. Angst and anger. And these are great fuels, if controlled. There is combustion, not chaos -- like an engine -- violence channeled according to a program. In this way insanity becomes a system, and that's what we have today.