Exactly Who Are The Public And Who The Elite?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So who are the 'Elite'?

Are 'we' in the west, all 'the Elite'?

It is undisputed that there are many poor among us and much hardship as well but in general, 'We in the west' consume most the wealth and resources of the world whilst the people in the third world live in poverty and at the same time produce much of goods and natural resources which we depend upon to maintain our lifestyles.

Here is one view of who the Elite are but how complex is it really?



Are you and I a members of the Elite?

In the video, the author names politicians and banksters but does it stop there? He goes on to surmise (at 8 mins) that we can actually survive and even prosper under the NWO... So is that what it is about... is the driving force simply that 'we maintain or increase our wellbeing'?
 
It depends where you draw the line, and what criteria you use.

When I refer to The Elite, I just mean people who are very rich and powerful. I'd pretty much include anyone with a net worth of over $100 Million, but there's no hard and fast rule.

That's the problem with words. They have lots of different meanings, and different people use them differently.

Who do YOU think The Elite is?
 
It depends where you draw the line, and what criteria you use.

That's the problem with words. They have lots of different meanings, and different people use them differently.

Exactly.

When I refer to The Elite, I just mean people who are very rich and powerful. I'd pretty much include anyone with a net worth of over $100 Million, but there's no hard and fast rule.

Who do YOU think The Elite is?

I suppose it must defacto be a relative term... You have given a perfectly reasonable definition. I think power has more to do with it than wealth but it does normally follow that great power brings great wealth, Ghandi, Mandela and a few others being exceptions but then do they qualify as elites?
 
An elite could define many people. Steve Jobs was an elite in the Tech industry, but beyond that he really didn't have the political power to be what we may define as elites. That of course isn't to say that it couldn't have been his if he had wanted it.
The way I see it, is that we're dealing with what is essentially a relative term that which cannot be defined in a single sentence.
 
I suppose it must defacto be a relative term... You have given a perfectly reasonable definition. I think power has more to do with it than wealth but it does normally follow that great power brings great wealth, Ghandi, Mandela and a few others being exceptions but then do they qualify as elites?

When their choices have significant and deliberate influence in matters that affect a lot of people. So when they get elected usually, or if they just become influential, or rich.
 
An elite could define many people. Steve Jobs was an elite in the Tech industry, but beyond that he really didn't have the political power to be what we may define as elites. That of course isn't to say that it couldn't have been his if he had wanted it.
The way I see it, is that we're dealing with what is essentially a relative term that which cannot be defined in a single sentence.

He'd qualify by my definition though, having a net worth of $10 Billion. He also had significant influence in matters that affected many people.

Within the conspiracy world though, "the Elite" essentially refers to what might be labeled "the Illuminati", i.e. a secret club that has the "real" power. So the newly rich like Sergei Brin (net worth $23 billion) don't get to join that club just because they have money.

I think Brin is having vastly more influence on the world than most of the people usually fingered as "the elite".
 
He'd qualify by my definition though, having a net worth of $10 Billion. He also had significant influence in matters that affected many people.

Within the conspiracy world though, "the Elite" essentially refers to what might be labeled "the Illuminati", i.e. a secret club that has the "real" power. So the newly rich like Sergei Brin (net worth $23 billion) don't get to join that club just because they have money.

I think Brin is having vastly more influence on the world than most of the people usually fingered as "the elite".

IIRC, people from google are purported to have attended this most recent Bilderberg meeting. I also recall Alex Jones stating that google was part of a CIA operation of some sort.
 
IIRC, people from google are purported to have attended this most recent Bilderberg meeting. I also recall Alex Jones stating that google was part of a CIA operation of some sort.

Well Google were 'the good guys' facilitating freedom of speech and knowledge etc but it appears they have been subverted as part of the NSA information gathering network along with the other big corporations. Talk about Matrix and Rabbit Holes... there are so many crimes perpetrated by the Corporocracy/Illuminati it is no wonder it is hard to distinguish reality from fiction.

These same forces have been at work for millenia, the Church had it down to a fine art where the people would come in periodically to report their crimes and this was filed away by the priests for use later on, now these people just use fb and blatant email and phone monitoring.
 
These same forces have been at work for millenia, the Church had it down to a fine art where the people would come in periodically to report their crimes and this was filed away by the priests for use later on, now these people just use fb and blatant email and phone monitoring.

Interesting theory. If true there must have been millions of these files. Have any ever been discovered?
 
Oxy, a priest is NOT allowed to share any part of a confession with ANYONE, including his superiors in the Church. NO ONE filed it away for later use.

That reminds me of some the stories I heard from the fundy Baptists of my youth. My church didn't believe and share them.
 
Interesting theory. If true there must have been millions of these files. Have any ever been discovered?

Lol... On form then Mick :)

I think logistics of the day meant the priests would only 'up level' or record the bigger secrets but it was 'all there' ready to be accessed at a moments notice. 'We are investigating John Smith... you take his confessionals.... tell me all about him'.

The Scientologists have it down even better... they get you to pay to be lie detected and that all gets filed away. Hubbard offered to link the FBI in on the system apparently... but they didn't want it at that time.

http://www.prbm.com/interest/mex-t-z.php

A theological and legal treatise on confessors and confession and the sacrament of penance with the emphasis on abuse of the confessional by priests. Telling a priest one's moral and legal transgressions empowers the weak or corrupt priest to then blackmail the parishioner for money or sex or other “favors.”
Content from External Source
http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/tsos/sos-02.html
... when matters of sex and perversion are introduced ... as is frequently the case, they are discussed and probed and dwelt upon sometimes for hours on end. The quality of the filth and depravity recorded in the ... files as being discussed ... almost defies description.
-- from the Australian Inquiry{1} The "Church of Scientology," as they call themselves today, no longer claims to cure people of their emotional and physical problems. Instead, they say it's people's spiritual well-being that concerns them now.
The method is still basically the same, resembling a combination of psychotherapy and the Catholic Confession -- although Scientologists today emphasize their similarities with the latter.

Content from External Source
http://commonsensecatholicism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-crisis-of-confessional.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/1411373/Priest-who-became-mayor-accused-of-confessional-box-blackmail.html


Sorry Cairenn but people lie... as has just been clearly demonstrated by the NSA
 
Oxy, your first link was about priests that abuse the confessional for their own carnal desires. To equate that to ALL the Church is like demanding that all men wear chastity harnesses, because some 'stray'.

The other one is ONE case ---NO where is there any evidence of thousands of files. You seem to have a distorted understanding of the Catholic Church
 
Well Google were 'the good guys' facilitating freedom of speech and knowledge etc but it appears they have been subverted as part of the NSA information gathering network along with the other big corporations. Talk about Matrix and Rabbit Holes... there are so many crimes perpetrated by the Corporocracy/Illuminati it is no wonder it is hard to distinguish reality from fiction.

These same forces have been at work for millenia, the Church had it down to a fine art where the people would come in periodically to report their crimes and this was filed away by the priests for use later on, now these people just use fb and blatant email and phone monitoring.


Not that hard to distinguish reality from fiction, is it?

As for priests filing confessions for later use, Oxy, you know that is simply not true. Catholic Priests are the worst in this regard, in that in general they do not share these confessions even with the Police when there is an investigation. Their religious point of view is that once confession has been made that is equivalent to atonement for the wrong doing, this being synonymous with ablution of the soul. This is in direct conflict with the law because it makes no room for due justice or indeed rehabilitation of the offender. This is a major problem and it hampers the discharge of justice. So I disagree with you, completely but respectfully.
 
Not that hard to distinguish reality from fiction, is it?

How would you definitively prove which was which or even if there is a reality at all?

As for priests filing confessions for later use, Oxy, you know that is simply not true.

I do not know that, otherwise I would not have stated it... that's not a nice accusation is it? :(

Catholic Priests are the worst in this regard, in that in general they do not share these confessions even with the Police when there is an investigation. Their religious point of view is that once confession has been made that is equivalent to atonement for the wrong doing, this being synonymous with ablution of the soul. This is in direct conflict with the law because it makes no room for due justice or indeed rehabilitation of the offender. This is a major problem and it hampers the discharge of justice. So I disagree with you, completely but respectfully.

But you are making the mistake of conflating secular law with the business of the Catholic Church... the priests report to the Church not to the police.

http://religiousmatrix.com/archive/the-confessional-or-the-all-seeing-eye-of-rome/

“Of all the machinations of evil,” said John Nekoda, “Satan never invented a scheme more devilish and effective than auricular confession.”

"I say to my Catholic friends that, notwithstanding your penitent honesty or best intentions, the confessional serves just two—and only two-purposes: to satisfy the prurient interests of the Catholic priests and more importantly, as an information "clearing-house for Rome."

The pope condemns to hell all those who reject the confessional Why? Because it is the hiding of his power! Wylie reveals the true nature of this device, called confession, "Let all who value the sweetness of a pure imagination, and the joy of a conscience undefiled, shun the confessional as they would the chamber in which the plague is shut up, or the path in which lurks the deadly scorpion." It initiates the priesthood into licentiousness, dissolution, immorality, shamelessness, and in vice. That is a fact! But, as was said before, Auricular Confession does not only open the sluice-gate of Hell, it is an information gathering device of the pope. Proof of this vast international information gathering operation is revealed in the career of Father Athanasius Kircher, who was ordained a Jesuit priest in 1628 (and of whom we shall learn more later)
Content from External Source
 
I do not know that, otherwise I would not have stated it... that's not a nice accusation is it? :(

Oxy, no intention on my part to hurt your feelings. I made no accusation, just merely stating the opposing view to your earlier allegations that priests keep confession for later use.


But you are making the mistake of conflating secular law with the business of the Catholic Church... the priests report to the Church not to the police.


Perhaps I misunderstood you. Just so we are clear, what you are saying is that the priests keep these confessions of their members for later use by the Catholic church against its own members? If that is what you are saying, some evidence of this would be nice. I do not claim expertise in Catholic church policies and procedures, but from my legal strategy work, I have serious issue with the Catholic church's protection of child molesters amongst their ranks - so if anything, the position may very well be the contrary to what you are claiming. Well, unless of course you are saying that the protection of these elements are part of keeping them perpetually in the sacks of the Catholic church's blackmail? But to what intent and purpose?
 
Oxy, no intention on my part to hurt your feelings. I made no accusation, just merely stating the opposing view to your earlier allegations that priests keep confession for later use.

I know... just playing :)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Just so we are clear, what you are saying is that the priests keep these confessions of their members for later use by the Catholic church against its own members?

No, I am saying against anyone. It was an early spying app.

If that is what you are saying, some evidence of this would be nice. I do not claim expertise in Catholic church policies and procedures, but from my legal strategy work, I have serious issue with the Catholic church's protection of child molesters amongst their ranks - so if anything, the position may very well be the contrary to what you are claiming. Well, unless of course you are saying that the protection of these elements are part of keeping them perpetually in the sacks of the Catholic church's blackmail? But to what intent and purpose?

For the furtherance of the power and wealth of the Church... as simple as that.

Surely you do not believe the governments spy on their people 'to keep the people safe', it is for the benefit of themselves and state that they spy. Even Obama, Petraeous, Wilson, Tony Benn, + loads more of them have been spied on and likely blackmailed. I don't understand why some people find it so difficult to view these people as the ruthless, murdering, lying, self serving psychopaths that they obviously are.

But sure, if you want the official answer... Pope Pious

[h=2]Roman Catholic Answer[/h]Jesus Christ instituted all seven sacraments, including the sacrament of confession. As Jesus is God and knows all things (by definition, He created each one of us), He certainly did not need confession to "spy" on people. Confession is there to help the individual sinner and it has been instituted by God
Content from External Source
The same as the NSA etc will say they are not spying on everyone. If they say they are not then they are not... simples :)
 
A bit more on this as think it interesting. These are the type of people who have run things throughout the ages. strength, brutality, subterfuge and greed are the main requisites/talents.

Early example of the American 'for profit' prison system...:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgate_Prison

The first prison at Newgate was built in 1188 on the orders of Henry II. It was significantly enlarged in 1236, and the executors of Lord Mayor Dick Whittington were granted a license to renovate the prison in 1422. The prison was destroyed in the Great Fire of London in 1666, and was rebuilt in 1672, extending into new buildings on the south side of the street.

According to medieval statute, the prison was to be managed by two annually elected Sheriffs, who in turn would sublet the administration of the prison to private "gaolers", or "Keepers", for a price. These Keepers in turn were permitted to exact payment directly from the inmates, making the position one of the most profitable in London. Inevitably, the system offered incentives for the Keepers to exhibit cruelty to the prisoners, charging them for everything from entering the gaol to having their chains both put on and taken off. Among the most notorious Keepers in the Middle Ages were the 14th-century gaolers Edmund Lorimer, who was infamous for charging inmates four times the legal limit for the removal of irons, and Hugh De Croydon, who was eventually convicted of blackmailing prisoners in his care.

Content from External Source
This is quite illuminating on the thoughts of some Elite through Christian history.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ellerbe1.htm

The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer." Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure..." The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: "nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then." And Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible's Apocrypha states, "Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die."
Content from External Source
Similar types discussions were held at various times on various sections of humanity i.e. such as to whether black people had souls or were human etc.

These are the people who you are suggesting would hold the confidentiality of 'confession' sacred.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

and

http://www.cathar.info/1209_inquisition.htm

It is difficult to find any technique of modern totalitarianism that was not pioneered by the Medieval Inquisition, right down to the good cop / bad cop routine; physical restraint; the separation of families; sexual humiliation; the use of agents provocateurs and listening tubes; false promises of leniency; and softening up new victims using psychological techniques such as leaving them for weeks, cold and hungry, isolated in cells within hearing distance of the torture chamber.

Inquisitors even charged people for the equipment used to execute members of their families - just as the very worst twenty-first century totalitarian states do

Content from External Source
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/18/169606531/the-inquisition-a-model-for-modern-interrogators

The individuals who participated in the first Inquisition 800 years ago kept detailed records of their activities. Vast archival collections at the Vatican, in France and in Spain contain accounts of torture victims' cries, descriptions of funeral pyres and even meticulous financial records about the price of torture equipment.
"[There are] expense accounts [for things] like how much did the rope cost to tie the hands of the person you burnt at the stake," says writer Cullen Murphy. "The people who were doing interrogations were meticulous."

Content from External Source
http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/spanish-inquisition3.htm
The last inquisitorial act in Spain occurred in 1834, but all of the Inquisitions continued to have a lasting impact on Catholicism, Christianity and the world as a whole.
Content from External Source
I think not.
 
Corruption or abuse of power does not define the elite IMO - anyone can do either of those if they have any power at all.

IMO "the elite" are often those who think they are elite - they partly (at least) define themselves by believing they are "different from the rest" or something similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top