Going down the rabbit hole

[SomeRandom]

What exactly do you require to be convinced that the governments of the world are evil?

Suppose they want to enslave us all.

It's been a while since I've gone down the rabbit hole (age 16-20). I have good resources, I can prove a lot of negative things about the governments and elites if I tried. They are a bunch of sociopaths who want to enslave all of humanity lol.

I left the rabbit hole because it was too taxing. Understanding how statists are just blindly trotting us all into our enslavement was emotionally draining. But I've had a long break, and it is important to be informed. So I think I'll dive back into it.

Is anyone here willing to have an open mind on this subject? If I could bring forth evidence that the elites are eugenicists, would you listen? Or would you say "That's a cOnSpIrAcY theory"? I find many statists are close minded and narrow sighted. The elites literally want to enslave all of humanity, and we are letting them.

Anywho, I'm considering trying to wake up all you sheeple. I know most of you won't listen, but is there anyone who will? I don't ask you believe me, I ask that you be open to the evidence and willing to change your view on the governments.

I mean, I don’t like politicians in general and I can agree that there is a lot of corruption that makes, say the US government for instance, far less willing to actually help those they are supposed to represent.
Here that happens to, but the amount of donation campaigns and various dubious things the US political parties uses puts us to shame by a long mile. At least from what I can gather.

I don’t know if they want us all enslaved per se. Maybe they want all our money certainly but it’s not like there aren’t countries that have extensive social safety nets that we look at with awe. Like many Nordic countries as was mentioned earlier.
I can agree that many politicians don’t have the best interests of the public in mind and just want power and money. But I don’t know if I can go as far as to say they’re all necessarily malevolent. Some are certainly but I can’t say that about every single one of the yobbos in charge, ya know?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

At the core of it, it is because they are eugenicists. I believe I can show this with time and research. I'm not saying there is a NWO as it isn't necessarily a unified effort. There are competing interests amongst the higher ups and various countries.

My first issue with this would be 'they', as if all states and politicians are a homogenous group. I have no reason to believe that is true.

My second issue would be that you suggest tearing down all governmental systems everywhere, despite their huge variance, because of this homogenous viewpoint, but offer nothing to replace it but a power vacuum, and you seem to think this vacuumous state will endure, and people will be freer, and more able to equitably live because of...

...actually I'm not sure on the 'because of'.

So I'm happy to listen, but only to a holistic and nuanced conversation. Not a monolithic monologue.

 

[Orbit]

Where interests align no conspiracy is necessary.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where interests align no conspiracy is necessary.

Yup, that's is a pretty succinct way of putting it. Very true.

 

[exchemist]

I mean, I don’t like politicians in general and I can agree that there is a lot of corruption that makes, say the US government for instance, far less willing to actually help those they are supposed to represent.
Here that happens to, but the amount of donation campaigns and various dubious things the US political parties uses puts us to shame by a long mile. At least from what I can gather.

I don’t know if they want us all enslaved per se. Maybe they want all our money certainly but it’s not like there aren’t countries that have extensive social safety nets that we look at with awe. Like many Nordic countries as was mentioned earlier.
I can agree that many politicians don’t have the best interests of the public in mind and just want power and money. But I don’t know if I can go as far as to say they’re all necessarily malevolent. Some are certainly but I can’t say that about every single one of the yobbos in charge, ya know?

Yes, I think one needs to think harder about all this before writing politicians off as a species.

Everyone I met at university who wanted to go into politics did so for reasons of idealism, not personal gain. (I met quite a number, as my university is where many UK politicians go.) This was true on the right and left equally. They all wanted to improve society, according to the ideas they believed would do that.

While I'm sure it is true that people's motives get corrupted along the way - and the cynicism of party political tactics must have a lot to answer for in doing that - I simply refuse to believe that all, or most, of our politicians have sordid motives for what they do. There's a kind of lazy cynicism abroad, encouraged by the media, that leads people to dismiss politics and politicians as all liars, out for themselves. It's stupid.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, I think one need to think harder about all this before writing politicians off as a species.

I wholeheartedly agree. I may joke around and often cynically dismiss politicians as just corrupt and greedy. But deep down, I don’t think they’re all inherently evil or all of them just want to hurt folks. I definitely think there’s an element there in politics, like I think it’s naive to think otherwise. Just my personal opinion. But I’m not at the stage where I dismiss them all. Yet.
Despite voting for who I think is the “lesser of the evils” which I’ve expressed before. But I don’t really fit into any of my country’s political parties very neatly, truth be told. I think many have good points and I disagree with at least some of the points all parties make. That’s just me though

Everyone I met at university who wanted to go into politics did so for reasons of idealism, not personal gain. (I met quite a number, as my university is where many UK politicians go.) This was true on the right and left equally. They all wanted to improve society, according to the ideas they believed would do so.

See this is why I’m saddened to see the growing divide between the left and right and this odd focus on wanting to humiliate one’s political enemy at all costs. Granted this seems more of an American phenomenon, especially in online “debate bro” circles, but it happens in other countries too. Because I don’t think either side is necessarily evil or even necessarily wholly good. Both have beliefs that they think will help their society. At least that’s what I truly want to believe. Admittedly I think I’ve become more cynical, especially after seeing the so called “grifters.” (Don’t ask, trust me. Live in ignorant bliss lol)
But I do try to give the benefit of the doubt in folks. Even politicians.
For me the two sides of the spectrum should compliment each other. And the ones in the middle should mediate and tell the others when they go too far. Sadly it doesn’t seem to happen that way and everyone seems to regard their political opponents as their enemy

While I'm sure it is true that people's motives get corrupted along the way - and the cynicism of party political tactics must have a lot to answer for in doing that - I simply refuse to believe that all, or most, of our politicians have sordid motives for what they do. There's a kind of lazy cynicism abroad, encouraged by the media, that leads people to dismiss politics and politicians as all liars, out for themselves. It's stupid.

I would agree. It’s fine to try to remain vigilant and call out politicians (either side) for their faults.
But I personally think people get so invested in their own side that they become what we call “one eyed supporters.” Meaning people unable to criticise their own “team” but more than happy to bash the opposition. Whilst I won’t begrudge that in sports circles, I think it’s a problem to do so with politics. Because you fail to keep your side honest, imo. And that leads to some unpleasant behaviours really. Inability to recognise when your party is not living up to its ideals, hypocrisy, mental gymnastics to ensure your team is always the good guys etc.
I don’t think that’s a healthy approach but I sadly see it far too often. Regardless of political alignment
Indeed that may be why I try to hate both sides. For fear of becoming one eyed. Though it admittedly seems easier to do with US politics lol. Australian politics has a bit of a blend across party lines, truth be told. That may be because issues like abortion or even healthcare is not easily divided into political camps like it seems to be in the US. Could be wrong, that’s just my impression of things

 

[Stevicus]

While I'm sure it is true that people's motives get corrupted along the way - and the cynicism of party political tactics must have a lot to answer for in doing that - I simply refuse to believe that all, or most, of our politicians have sordid motives for what they do. There's a kind of lazy cynicism abroad, encouraged by the media, that leads people to dismiss politics and politicians as all liars, out for themselves. It's stupid.

I wouldn't say it's a "lazy" cynicism, but perhaps more a learned cynicism - kind of like someone who slowly learns after getting burned numerous times by the same used car salesman. I wouldn't say it's on the people to give politicians the benefit of the doubt. It's up to the politicians to go the extra mile and do whatever it takes to regain the trust of the people. If they're not willing to do this, or if they come across as so oblivious and out of touch that they don't even know why the hoi polloi might be getting restless, then that's really on them.

If the politicians don't know their constituencies and can't really understand the needs of the people, that's really on them. It's not the fault of the common citizen that the politicians are clueless.

The elite have their own forms of lazy cynicism about common people, believing that they're stupid, deplorable, lack reasoning skills - cavalierly dismissing them at every turn. I see this tactic used a lot.

 

[exchemist]

I wouldn't say it's a "lazy" cynicism, but perhaps more a learned cynicism - kind of like someone who slowly learns after getting burned numerous times by the same used car salesman. I wouldn't say it's on the people to give politicians the benefit of the doubt. It's up to the politicians to go the extra mile and do whatever it takes to regain the trust of the people. If they're not willing to do this, or if they come across as so oblivious and out of touch that they don't even know why the hoi polloi might be getting restless, then that's really on them.

If the politicians don't know their constituencies and can't really understand the needs of the people, that's really on them. It's not the fault of the common citizen that the politicians are clueless.

The elite have their own forms of lazy cynicism about common people, believing that they're stupid, deplorable, lack reasoning skills - cavalierly dismissing them at every turn. I see this tactic used a lot.

I think the politicians used to do that. Think of Roosevelt's fireside chats. But the modern media, starting with Murdoch's drive to turn politics into entertainment - and then the internet and Twitter made it far worse of course by promoting very short and simple communications that are little more than slogans - prefers custard pie politics. So custard pie politics is what we get. Anybody trying to explain anything seriously is dismissed as dull and boring.

One or two people have fought against the trend. John Major, for instance, in the UK, was a brilliant one-to-one communicator and quite plainly sincere in what he said. What was his reputation? "Grey" "Dull" etc.

 

[Stevicus]

I think the politicians used to do that. Think of Roosevelt's fireside chats. But the modern media, starting with Murdoch's drive to turn politics into entertainment - and then the internet and Twitter made it far worse of course by promoting very short and simple communications that are little more than slogans - prefers custard pie politics. So custard pie politics is what we get. Anybody trying to explain anything seriously is dismissed as dull and boring.

One or two people have fought against the trend. John Major, for instance, in the UK, was a brilliant one-to-one communicator and quite plainly sincere in what he said. What was his reputation? "Grey" "Dull" etc.

I think they said the same thing about John Kerry. Or even Adlai Stevenson, who was dismissed as a bookish "intellectual," as if that's supposed to be a bad thing. We don't want any intellectuals in politics.

The main trouble with dismissing politicians and others as dull and boring is that a lot of people end up having only a very tentative understanding of world events and domestic issues.