This site has a nice list of quotes commonly used in conspiracy circles:
http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/conspiracy_ nuts_theories.htm
http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/conspiracy_ nuts_theories.htm
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger center has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson...
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy...
What's the context of the Wilson quote?
Why don't you look it up, and explain what the context is? What exactly is he talking about?
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=2543
What is he talking about? Isn't it already clear enough? The quote speaks for itself. He basically said that very powerful men in the United States had been in his ear about an unidentified group of people who wielded enormous influence. This unnamed group wielded so much influence, apparently, that Woodrow Wilson came away with the impression that the men who had been in his ear actually feared them to a great extent.
Who were these men afraid of and why would they feel the need to be afraid? What possible answer can you come up with that makes sense?
It's a quote OUT OF CONTEXT. Surely you understand that quotes can be taken out of context to seem like something they are not?
I'll probably write a "debunked: ..." post about this quote. But I'm really curious as to why you are so opposed to looking into the context of the quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Freedom
The quote speaks for itself.
That's just it though. There is no possible context that will make that quote any less shocking or revealing. Even if you say the context of the quote was in regard to large corporate monopolies, what kind of corporate monopoly can you think of that makes powerful people in commerce and industry afraid to speak openly, especially to politicians?
The quote only makes any sense if you consider the possibility of a different sort of monopoly, a monopoly that is more akin to a criminal Mafia.
Now take the quote in question- read in context of his entire speech it is clear what he is referring too...
To you maybe. But you also think that income tax is directly equivalent to Mafia extortion.
Let's say you are a powerful Texas oilman. You want to speak out about the monopoly of Standard Oil, as you feel they are not giving you a fair deal, but you don't. Is this because Standard Oil will send thugs to your house in the night? No. It's because Standard Oil will stop doing business with you, so it's better to keep quiet.
It's about anti-trust legislation. That's very clear from a full reading of the context in the text, and the context of the times.
Now take the quote in question- read in context of his entire speech it is clear what he is referring too...
It's not about Standard Oil, it's about corporations in general, and trusts in particular. The invisible empire is those trusts, like Standard Oil, which I used for an example, as it was the most topical.
Sure. But it's a de facto invisible empire, not some actual illuminati type thing.
Rich people tend to act in their own best interests. Hence corporations formed trusts, bankers attempt to influence banking legislation, oil companies oppose environmentalists.
It's a complaint that still holds true today. Government is still overly influenced by money. There's still essentially an "invisible empire" of the rich and powerful who exercise too much sway over elections and legislation.
Would you also agree that it would be in rich people's best interest to buy and "own" the government, as Roosevelt described it? Could our government truly be owned by these rich people?
Who do they buy it from? How exactly would it work is they "owned" the government?
Some rich people will use their power and wealth to try to influence legislation that benefits them. That's simply common sense. It does not necessarily follow that everything that happens is part of some decades old plan.
It's just thousands of different rich people reacting to whatever is the current situation in thousands of ways. From this, things emerge.
The problem is that if you assume (as you do) that there's this perfect control of all things, then you can simply assume that everything has a hidden meaning, and everything happens for a reasons, so everything looks like evidence for you.
Take Standard Oil. It was broken up because the rich and powerful people who controlled it we exerting too much influence.
But if those were the people who owned the government, then why would they allow it to be broken up?
The obvious conspiracy answer is that they wanted it broken up, as it was all part of some plan, so that Exxon-Mobile could make lots of money 90 years alter.
But if you assume everything is part of a plan, how is anything happening evidence for that plan? It's a circular argument.
To you maybe. But you also think that income tax is directly equivalent to Mafia extortion.
....but I do see each succeeding generation trade freedom for security.
Could this "invisible empire" be the same group Roosevelt referred to in his letter to Colonel House in 1933, which he called a "financial element" that "owned the Government"? Could this "invisible empire" still be in existence today, controlling the media, education system, financial system, while still "owning" the government?