Notify Message
Page 1
#8720701 Nov 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM
275 Posts
I have an odd hunger for opposing views etc, so I often read the most bizarre things.

Obviously everyone slants things to better fit what they want to believe, but this still had some information I found very interesting, specifically the last 30 minutes or so. The first 30 minutes, while laying important groundwork for his claims, was littered with rather dry guesses.

If you're actually able to sit through it I would love to hear your responses.
#8732530 Nov 19, 2013 at 05:41 AM · Edited over 3 years ago
133 Posts
Interesting video. But, overall, completely disagree with the tone and content. It doesn't seem to be an objective evaluation of the past, and uses common low-level tricks like showing an image that has nothing to do with the content to let the viewer draw a conclusion without them ever saying anything to that effect - that causes me to lose confidence in the authenticity (see:

People are generally greedy - I get that - but I have a *really* hard time believing there's enough motivation for the richest of the richest to earn TRILLIONS of dollars by causing wars to be waged. For a very simple reason - what on earth are they going to do with all that money? There is no possible way they could spend it. Earning money for money's sake is pretty psycho, and if you're smart enough to earn a lot, it's unlikely that you are.

This also isn't backed up by the actions of people who are actually rich. The video alludes to bankers all over the world manipulating the world for financial gain, but the top 500 richest people in the world are mostly people from technology (and this will only be more true in the future). Bill Gates, once the richest man in the world, spends most of his fortune on Philanthrophy. Again, for a very simple reason - once you've earned beyond ~100-200 million USD, you are more worried about how you are going to spend it in your lifetime and leave a "legacy" behind - rather than how to earn even more. (Lottery winners excluded, who are usually ill-equipped to handle such a large increase in wealth in such a short span of time).

What's the point of earning all that money if you can't spend it? You can't spend more than a billion dollars on *anything* without affecting the economy itself -- so even if the bankers do want to earn all that money by manipulating world governments -- there is just absolutely no way they could do anything tangible with it. So, what's the motivation?

The only other thing is power. But if power is what you are after, a more effective strategy is to become a dictator or some such. At the very least, enter politics. Most regular people have probably never even heard of most of the people mentioned in the video. I also don't feel like our every day lives are controlled by them. If power is what they're after, they're doing a pretty poor job.

The US very much remains one of the free-est countries in the world - the very fact that people are free to mock and question politicians in a very open manner is testament to the fact (in other parts of the world, even today, your head would probably be cut off!).

tl;dr: The whole premise is on pretty shaky ground. It's pandering to the common human emotion of despising people with more power or riches than the common man.
#8793047 Dec 03, 2013 at 08:31 AM · Edited over 3 years ago
275 Posts
Well I would be more interested in our ability to disprove certain facts they mentioned rather than agreeing or disagreeing with why they claim said facts occurred.

''The only other thing is power. But if power is what you are after, a more effective strategy is to become a dictator or some such. At the very least, enter politics.''

-Being a dictator has never ever worked for anyone. A resented oppression can't last.
-''Enter politics'' was one of the methods the author claimed they were using.

Last week I had a discussion with someone about the logistics of a one world government. His main question was, ''Why would anyone try to do that?''. My answer was, whatever reasons exist for having government in the first place, are better accomplished by having only a single government. It is going to take us a very long time to arrive at that conclusion though.

Family clans became towns, became kingdoms, became countries. Countries then become both dependent on the success of each other, as well as responsible for the welfare and protection of each other. Which I think is our current location. How did the United States go from multiple sovereign groups to a mostly singular unit? Because preserving the whole was deemed more important than the desires of the individual. That is what we believe, and it is because of that belief that we will slowly drift to a more unified collection of countries.

I know it seems impossible to imagine, but look at how much the world already allows other countries to be involved in decision making. It isn't just allowed, it is expected. If there is a major decision to be made, we can't trust it to be made by the individual units, but rather by the whole for the greater good.

So, then the question is are any people trying to play a role in accelerating or stopping this process?
Page 1